Lees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5586. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Before I address the matters to do with the title that I had already planned to address I would just like to respond to both the Minister in the chair and some of the irate and frustrated interjections from the senior Government whip. First about the matter of what exactly Labour’s policy on this is—the National Government is always quite obsessed with Labour’s policy. It never wants to talk about its own policy but it—Tim Macindoe: Because we read it and we thought you meant it. You can’t rewrite it. It’s there—it’s there.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Calm down Tim. Tim chill out and I will tell you—just be cool. Certainly Labour’s policy at the election was to have a referendum on the flag but we did not say that we would do it when the country was $101 billion in debt. We did not say that we would prioritise it over trying to get the country back into surplus. So when New Zealanders spoke out loudly and said that this was an interesting debate but not a thing to blow $26 million on when we are deep in debt and we are not in surplus I tell you that we would have listened to that.Jono Naylor: Read us the first line of the policy.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: We would have listened Mr Naylor. Just calm down and listen to me. We would have listened to that and we would have introduced the referendum at a time that was appropriate. The other strange thing that Nick Smith the Minister in the chair did was he compared this process with the MMP referendum. That is actually quite a good comparison to make except that the Minister got it wrong when he made the comparison because the first question in the MMP referendum was: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. And we agree that that would be the way to go—question No. 1: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That was not the point that Nick Smith the Minister in the chair was trying to make but we actually agree. Yes use a process analogous to the two-referendum process that was used for the shift from first past the post to MMP. Question No. 1: “Do you want to change?”. That would be the place to start with the referendum.Just so that Tim Macindoe and co. can relax for a second I would like to talk about something that I hope is not too contentious. In the bill—the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—we have this interesting thing the word “referendums”. That word has caused a bit of consternation and quite a bit of confusion. In fact one of the members opposite who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee actually interjected on one of the members on this side saying that it was “referenda” not “referendums”. I was a little bit concerned about that because if a member was on the select committee—Tim Macindoe: The interjections say we believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public. That’s your policy.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Tim chill out. If a member on the select committee is scrutinising the bill closely then he should know what the title of the bill is. If he was listening to the submissions and was actually paying attention in the select committee hearings he should know what the title of the bill is and the title of the bill is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I must admit that when I first saw that I thought: “That doesn’t sound right to me. I would have thought it should be ‘referenda’.” So just like the member opposite I was a bit confused about that but I have looked it up and it turns out that actually there is a really legitimate reason why the title has the word “referendums” in it not the word “referenda”. It turns out that this is all a matter of going back to the origin of the word “referendum” which comes from Latin. My Latin pronunciation is a bit rusty but I think it is the verb “referre” meaning “to refer”.Scott Simpson: A good King’s education.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes actually I did do Latin in the third form at King’s College but it was a long time ago and I cannot recall exactly how the pronunciation goes. Anyway the first problem is that this is a verb—this is a verb not a noun. So that is why. What has happened is that we have anglicised a Latin verb. The word “referendum” did not start to be used until relatively recently. In the old days the word was “plebiscite” which is also derived from Latin based on the word “plebiscita” which comes from the Roman-era word “plebeian” meaning “commoner”. In fact the Concilium Plebis—Hon Member: Is this really related?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —was the Roman Parliament. It was the house of the common people. This is to do with the derivation of the word “referendums” which is a word that is in the title of the bill and we are debating the title of the bill. It was only in the mid-19th century that the word “referendum” which is a derivation of that Latin verb came to be used and it is because of the fact that it is a verb and not a noun—