Mallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5472. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to acknowledge that since I had an earlier call in this debate there has been quite a lot said by a number of members and I do want to go back over that in rebuttal of some of the points made.I think one of the first members I want to address is Jono Naylor who spoke earlier in the debate. In his discussion he totally failed to make the case for not hearing the people who wanted an amendment to the purpose clause. A large number of people 747 people wanted an amendment to the purpose clause so that provision would be made for one referendum not two. I do want to acknowledge the point that he has made I think in points of order and by interjection. There is at least according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary—some of the modernisms have crept in and saying “referendums” is actually acceptable; although I think probably when you and I went to school Mr Deputy Chairperson it would not have been. It would have been “referenda”. But—Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman’s a lot younger than you.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I know he looks a lot younger. I am not sure that he is significantly—well maybe he is. The point that I am trying to make and that I really want to focus on in this purpose clause is whether we should have the opportunity to have one instead of two referenda. I want to say that even if it was changed I would still vote against it. But part of the deal with the Committee of whole House stage is that having accepted albeit by quite a narrow margin the principle that this bill is going through it is now our responsibility to look at the detail of the bill and whether it fulfils the overall objectives—the principles that we agreed to in the second reading—in the best possible way. The case that I am making is that it would be better for New Zealand if we had a clear approach at the beginning whereby individuals were given the choice whether or not they wanted to proceed with a second referendum as well as being clear in the way that we were with the MMP legislation.I do find it slightly ironic that the front row for the National Party on this the core of the select committee that rejected the 747 people who wanted to be heard the Justice and Electoral Committee are Alfred Ngaro Jono Naylor and Chris Bishop none of whom would have been present in the House if in fact the MMP referendum had not been shaped in the way that it was. There was a system that at the time was regarded as fair; a system that at the—[Interruption] Paul Foster-Bell points out the New Zealand First members in a way that I think is particularly interesting. They know it and they accept it. They do the job of going and listening to the people within the electorates and the people around them and where they live whereas National Party members block-voted—no absolutely on the point—to deny people who wanted the purpose clause changed and denied 747 of those people the right to attend the committee. I think that is outrageous. It is the Todd McClay approach to running a select committee. It is the sort of select committee where you have to have hearings on a bill when you do not really want to have hearings because you just want to ramrod the thing through.There are some other points and I do want to ask whether this Government is one that really enjoys churning up more paper than is necessary. Why for example as we look through the interpretation clause of this bill do we have to define “Clerk of the House”? I mean how many Clerks of the House are there in New Zealand? It says: “Clerk of the House means the Clerk of the House of Representatives”. Is that a necessary part of the legislation in order to make it work? Which House are we talking about? We are not talking about David Clark’s house are we? It is spelt differently. We are talking about the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Why is that necessary?Why do we need the definition that the “current New Zealand flag means the flag declared by section 5(1) of the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981”? We know what the current New Zealand flag is. It is fairly well indicated in this House at the moment. As it happens I spent a short period of time today in the south-east foyer of the Executive Wing on the ground floor and I saw there the New Zealand flag that was part of the World Trade Center bombing. That just sort of brought back to me that it is not only at war time but there are some other times when flags are important.I just want to work through these other definitions. The Electoral Commission—why I ask the Hon Paul Goldsmith the Minister in the chair do we have to have the Electoral Commission defined in clause 5 of the bill? It is defined as “the Electoral Commission established by section 4B of the Electoral Act 1993”. How many electoral commissions do we have in New Zealand? I just want to know why we are including stuff within this legislation that is unnecessary. I am going to be really interested in the Minister’s response to this. Some of these may be necessary—a Minister means “the Minister of the Crown”. Well the chances are that that was the case. Perhaps it was going to be the Rev. Dr David Clark in his new incarnation but not the sort of Minister that he is at the moment.Just working through this my question to the Minister in the chair is whether it is necessary to have promoters referred to in the interpretation clause. It is already in—it is already in the bill. There is an assumption here that people who are reading this legislation are just thick that they do not understand the approach that should be taken. I think it is fair to say and it was made very clear in the speech by Chris Bishop that he thought people could not understand having two questions asked on the same day: do you want a change and if so what sort? As I indicated earlier that was the approach that was taken earlier.Returning officer—do we really need with all our electoral legislation at the moment to redefine a returning officer? Do we need to define “working day”? Actually “working day” is pretty well defined in lots and lots of pieces of legislation at the beginning. Is there any chance Mr Goldsmith of telling us why it is necessary to have a different definition of “working day” in this legislation or to repeat the definition of “working day” in this legislation that is any different from the generally accepted form of what a “working day” is elsewhere in legislation?I also want to ask the Minister whether he is absolutely satisfied with the general description of the preferential voting system. Without wanting to get too much further into the legislation I want to ask whether he thinks the Government is taking too much on itself with its ability to adjust parts of this legislation by way of Order in Council. That is what—