Moroney Sue: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5468. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour): I want to address clause 4 in Part 1 of this bill because I am perplexed about the expiry date for this folly that is called the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. And while I am mentioning the title of the bill can I say at the outset that I think “referenda” is in fact the correct way to say this. It is important because actually as we know children up and down this country in our State schooling system were forced to do projects on this to try to beef up—[Interruption] well they were—the number of website hits because they were all directed by their teacher to go and look at the website. This is the reason for the Government gloating about the number of people who went on to the website. It was children forced to do projects on this issue in their schools who were actually driving those numbers up. The reason I raise that is because I do think it is important when children have been doing this project—as I know they have been—that they are taught the correct English and I think that the plural of “referendum” is in fact “referenda” but that is not what the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill says.The expiry date under clause 4 is 2 years after the result of the second referendum is known. I would like to know what the reason for that could possibly be. Is it that the Prime Minister wants to milk this until the election date? That is the only reason I can think of about why the expiry date might be 2 years after the result is known. But even more worrying when it comes to the issues that the public have quite rightly raised about the cost of this vanity project clause 4(2) introduces the idea of having a fresh referendum. So we could in fact end up having three referenda under clause 4. It actually says that if there is a declaration by the court that the referendum is void then there is the ability under clause 4 to have yet another referendum—a third referendum—which is introduced in clause 4 of Part 1.Ron Mark: The costs are going up again.SUE MORONEY: Yes so what does that mean? That means we are probably up to about $36 million by then and this is of concern because I have families talking to me all the time about how upset they were that that Government could not even find $4 million to increase paid parental leave to 6 months for families whose children had been born prematurely had been born with disabilities or had been part of a multiple birth. That miserable Government opposite could not even find $4 million for that very good purpose for those families who desperately needed that support but it will spend $26 million—potentially $36 million—on this folly this vanity project of the Prime Minister’s to find out what it already knows. For goodness’ sake! The Government already pays David Farrar a lot of money to poll everything within an inch of its life. Why can it not actually get him to do some basic polling on this issue to find out what has been published up and down the country already?Ron Mark: He has and it’s not good.SUE MORONEY: What we know is that about 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag. They do not want to change the flag and I think Ron Mark is right. I am sure David Farrar has done some polling on this. Government members know already what the results of these referenda will be but they have decided to push ahead because they actually think that $26 million—maybe $36 million—is a fair enough amount of taxpayer money to spend on promoting John Key. That at the end of the day is what this is all about.I really do want an answer from someone from the Justice and Electoral Committee or perhaps the Minister himself about why on earth this legislation would stay in place and not expire for 2 years after the final result is known. By the way I confidently predict that the final result will be a resounding no—a resounding “No John Key we don’t want to pay for your folly. We don’t actually want you to use our children as website fodder by forcing them to do these projects on changing the flag so that they have to go to the website and get the answers for their school project off the website and therefore drive the numbers up. No John Key we didn’t want all that money spent making the panel go around New Zealand to see nobody.”