New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

It is my pleasure to begin the debate in the Committee stage on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I know that there will be considerable interest from members, particularly on this side of the Chamber, in canvassing the issues raised by submitters that were not able to be discussed at length by the Justice and Electoral Committee because, as will probably be raised by members like Mr Mallard in particular, no time was made available to a great number—thousands, in fact—of submitters who asked to be heard by the select committee. Seven hundred and forty submitters requested to be heard by the committee when they put forward their submissions. Labour agreed that they should be given the option of being heard. That was voted down by other members of the select committee. So we intend to canvass fully on their behalf the issues that they raised, given that that was not an option made available to them.

A range of views on the issue of the current flag itself were brought before the Justice and Electoral Committee, but let us be absolutely clear that what we are debating today is not whether we personally prefer the current flag or whether we would like a new flag to be considered. In fact, Mr Mallard began his submission by saying, in front of the select committee, that it was his personal opinion that we should have a new flag. I personally believe that a new flag would be no bad thing. That does not mean that the process or the timing that this Government has chosen is correct. In fact, we have strongly been of the view that both the money that has gone towards this process and the process itself, in the way that the referendum is framed—and I am going to come to that in the purpose clause—is incorrect. Indeed, the timing, given the number of competing demands that we as a House have right now, again, makes it inappropriate also. So this is not about our personal preference for a flag; the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is very much about the process by which we are going about putting the issue before New Zealanders and, indeed, whether that issue should be put at all.

I want to come to the first clause that we are able to debate in this stage of the bill, and that is clause 3 in Part 1. As with any bill, that is the point at which the purpose of this bill is set out. For the many, many listeners and viewers at home, the purpose clause for this bill states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag, and to provide for a change of the New Zealand flag if electors decide New Zealand should have a new flag.” Labour’s opposition goes to the heart of this purpose clause. We have always stipulated that if the Government wants to have a referendum in two stages, it should make sure that the very first question determines whether, indeed, the second referendum is necessary. Otherwise, we are potentially putting ourselves up for, first, New Zealanders not having the ability to voice their opinions on whether we should be going down this track in the first place and, second, a potential waste of money to the tune of up to $6 million, when you take into account the act of the second referendum alone and the materials that go with it, which was the advice that we received.

I need to put this into context. The $6 million is simply for the act of the second postal referendum and the materials that go with it. This entire process has ballooned to $26 million.

💬 Dr David Clark: How much?

$26 million. Nine million dollars have already been spent, and we have not even asked anyone anything yet. And why is that? Well, members in this Chamber will know. They would have got all of the glossy brochures—$4 million was spent on the kinds of brochures and advertising that our offices have received.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How many houses could you build for that?

I had a question in the back there—a very good question—asking what we could do with the money saved. Well, if we stopped tomorrow, we could insulate 9,000 houses. The fact that the Government stipulated two postal referendums from the very beginning is absolutely to the heart of this purpose clause. It did not say “to set out a process to ask the question”; from the very beginning, the Government was very clear that it wanted two postal referendums. How clear was it? Well, so clear that when Labour members of the committee put it to officials that perhaps we should be looking at an alternative option, as set out in the regulatory impact statement, which, by restructuring, would have again saved a bit of money, we were told that we were already too far down the track of the two-ballot option—before the select committee or, indeed, Parliament had even passed this bill.

Let me be very clear: I do not for a moment challenge officials about this. I do not blame them. Personally, I do not believe that it is with any ill intent that they have progressed as they have. Why have they done so? They have had very clear instructions from the Government that it wanted this done quickly and that it had a very set idea about how it wanted it to be done. This idea was so set that when the regulatory impact statement was initially canvassing a postal ballot, a stand-alone ballot, or an online electronic ballot, it said: “A referendum is a vote by all enrolled voters on some matter.” It canvassed whether or not it would be online or held with a general election, and it stated: “We have not considered holding a ballot together with a general election due to the Prime Minister’s indication that the process should be completed before the 2017 General Election.” We had the option of saving an enormous amount of money by combining this process with the next general election, but the Prime Minister made it clear that he wanted it done and dusted by 2017. And why? Because this is a vanity project. This is a vanity project.

If this were just about putting the option of flags to the New Zealand public, we would be spending $6 million, not $26 million. We would distil it into one referendum where we asked yes or no first, or at best into two, but the first question should be: “Do you want a change—yes or no?”. And why did the Government reject that? Let us go through why.

💬 Chris Bishop: Because it’s silly—that’s why. It’s silly.

Let us go through the reasons, Mr Bishop. Let us go through the reasons that were given at the select committee. Basically, the majority of the committee—so that means National members—said: “If the majority voted to change the flag, under the petition’s proposal the second referendum would be a run-off between the current flag and the highest-ranked alternative. It sounds reasonable. The majority of us recognise that if this procedure were followed, many of those who voted against changing the flag would probably proceed to rank alternative flags,”. So if they choose not to rank alternative flags, then that is their call. That was their first objection.

The second objection was the reason stated in the commentary at the beginning of the bill: “There are a variety of reasons for this. For example, for a change of flag to occur, a majority of voters would have to vote twice for change, both in the first and second referendum; whereas those opposed to change could prevail at either referendum.” So if they prevail, then it is because that is democracy. If they say no at the first round, then that is democracy—listening to what the people say. Here is the kicker of a reason: “A further reason against the proposal is that placing a first-past-the-post vote on whether or not the flag should be changed alongside a preferential vote … would cause complexity and thus confusion for voters.” That is the real reason.

The National Government tried to claim that having two options in one ballot was too confusing for New Zealand voters. The New Zealand public are not idiots. They are not idiots. They absolutely could have coped with that option, and the Government would have saved millions by doing so. In fact, thousands of voters asked for the Government to do that. They said: “Before you show us your range of flags, ask us whether we want a new flag. Ask us whether we want a new flag.” The members on that side said: “Oh no, no, no. They can’t really consider whether they want a new one without seeing the alternative.” Fine—put them in the same ballot. Ask whether they want a new flag. Then ask: “If we were going to have a new flag, which of these would you like?”. Simple.

💬 Jono Naylor: No.

New Zealanders would have understood that. If you disagree, Mr Naylor, stand up and tell me that you think New Zealanders are too stupid to understand that process.

E te Tiamana, tēnā koe, huri noa i te Whare Pāremata me ngā mihi ki ngā mema katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Chairman, the House of Parliament, and all the members throughout.]

We come now to the preliminary provisions, clause 3, which we have heard a very slanted interpretation of a few moments ago. The words “wasteful”, “silly”, and “illogical” have occurred, and that about sums up the arguments we have heard so far. I would add “spurious” to that as well.

When we talk about doing something as important as changing the flag of this fair country—and we have had three flags already in our history. We signalled it before the last election. We were absolutely clear there would be a referendum, because this is a Government that cares about our nationhood. This is a Government that cares about how we define ourselves and how we are seen on the world stage.

So how do we go about this process? Do we go for some budget, foolish, mad, not-likely-to-succeed scenario, as outlined by the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, or do we try to do it as fairly as possible? For something that is as important as our national symbol, which is often confused with the Australian flag, we need to go to the people. We need to let the people decide what that symbol should be. It is very important that we do it by two referendums because that is the fairest way of doing it.

Preferential voting, where people can list the top four flags in order of preference, means that if, for example, somebody chooses a flag that is not everyone else’s first choice, their options will not be discounted. The second choice will also come into play. It is a fairer system—something the Opposition knows little about. When we then come to consideration about the prospect of choice—again something of an unknown for the Opposition—we look at giving people options. If you are going to ask people whether they would like a change, the first question they would ask is: what we are going to change to? So it is important to have a lengthy, well-considered process by people who are independent from Parliament to sit down and analyse it.

This week, I understand, the Flag Consideration Panel narrowed it down to about 12 flags. It will then be narrowing it down further. The response, incidentally, has been tremendous—more than 10,000 designs. More than 10,000 options have been considered. What does that tell you? What it tells me is that the children, the young people, the middle-aged people, and the old people in this country are united in wanting to have a say about it. Labour members prefer being dictatorial. That is why they are on the Opposition benches. They will remain there if they continue with this nonsense. I hope they do, because they do not deserve to be in charge of this fine country. What we are seeing through this consideration process is a level of engagement that is going to really, I think, inform us well. There is no presumption of change. The legislation will come through my ministry, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, so I have been taking a keen interest in the way that it plays out.

The referendum process will allow a very fair analysis and assessment of what people want.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: No, it won’t—not this referendum process.

I find it ironic that we hear some braying from the “Winston First Party”—oh, New Zealand First, of course. Those members are saying that they are usually in favour of referendums, but, oh, not in this case, because they did not think of it—because they want to be contrarians. That is their point of difference: negative contrariness. That about sums up that party.

When we come back to sensible, middle-ground processes where we are attempting to give New Zealanders a say, the two-part referendum, which is in clause 3 of this bill, is very, very fair. Clause 6—preferential voting I have outlined as being, I think, the fairest. But when we come to that second referendum in next March or so, it is going to be first past the post. There will be two flags to choose from. That will be the time for people who do not want a change to stand up and say “We want to stick with the one that we have.”, or “We rather like this other one.”

Personally, having just toured the battlefields of western France and Belgium in November last year, and I was there for the commemorations of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the symbol that defines New Zealand is the silver fern. It is on every New Zealander’s grave and all of the Commonwealth graves. It is the symbol that we are recognised by. So, go figure—someone like me with an enduring interest in conservation would find that a silver fern, for example, is an excellent symbol. I will be looking with an open mind at those flags that they are letting us choose from—the four of them—as to which one we would like. The Commonwealth war graves are something that many of us who are genuine patriots about this country—not the kind of people who knock it wherever possible.

I believe that this is the fairest system. I believe the Act will bind the Crown, and I think that the referendum process is excellent.

I want to speak on both clauses 3 and 4 in Part 1 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. The first one relates to the purpose. The purpose clause simply says this: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag, and to provide for a change of the New Zealand flag if electors decide New Zealand should have a new flag.” So the first point I want to make is that the purpose refers to deciding whether New Zealand should have a new flag, but, in fact, that is not the question that is actually asked in the first referendum. So why does the purpose clause say that, when the bill actually does not have that effect whatsoever? The purpose clause is a complete mis-statement for that reason alone. That should be changed if this bill is to proceed any further.

Secondly, the purpose clause presupposes that two referendums are needed for the purpose stated—to change the flag—when, in fact, by adding the current New Zealand flag as one of the options in the first referendum there would be no need for a second referendum at all. So, again, the purpose clause is a complete mis-statement that presupposes that two referendums are necessary, when actually one would be enough.

The third point I want to make about the purpose clause is that it should not refer to “electors” at all because it is not electors who are going to decide; it is voters—that is to say, people who actually participate in the referendum. It is those who actually participate in the referendum. So that is, again, an error, I think, in the purpose clause. But the most important point is, as I have just said, that it will be only participants who decide which of the preferred four options should go forward. What happens if you get, for example, below 25 percent participation by voters, as distinct from electors? Do we as a nation really want to go ahead with another referendum on the basis of participation as low as that?

I believe that the purpose is for New Zealanders as a whole, if they want a new flag, to say so. This purpose clause and these referendums will not do that. So I believe that it would be fair and proper if there was an addition to Part 1 that said that if, in fact, there is a participation rate in respect of the first referendum below 25 percent of electors, then the whole process should stop right there and proceed no further. I understand that Labour is going to say that that level should be 50 percent. If that is the case, we would support that, but we believe that if it is below 25 percent—and I think it will be—then the whole thing should stop right there.

Secondly, I want to talk about clause 4, because I think there is a real problem here. Clause 4 says that the legislation will be repealed 2 years after the date of the result of the second flag referendum is declared. If the legislation is to be repealed, then it would also repeal clause 69. That is the clause that actually amends section 5 of Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. That amendment replaces the current flag with the flag actually chosen as a result of these referendums. Therefore, it seems to me that if clause 69 is repealed as part of the repeal of the whole Act, then what is the effect of that? Does that not actually repeal clause 69(2), which amends the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act, therefore leaving New Zealand without a flag at all? If clause 69 is repealed and the provision to amend the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 is repealed too, that means the new flag is not created as a New Zealand flag. So what would happen then? I think what would happen is there would be a default provision back to the current flag.

I would like the Minister to answer that technical question because I actually think that there is a substantial error in this piece of legislation, and it needs to be answered. It looks to me like a sloppy bit of drafting that needs to be corrected. It is a very serious question—a very serious question indeed.

I want to speak to Part 1—in particular, the purpose clause of the bill. I want to start by saying I regret that the Prime Minister is yet to take a call in this debate. This is his vanity project. It is something that he is prepared to talk about all around the country, but he will not get on his hind feet and grace this Parliament with his views. I think it is a disgrace, the way the Prime Minister treats this Parliament and the way that he is not prepared to take a view and debate in this Chamber the things that are being done for him for his vanity project. I note that the Hon Nikki Kaye has now taken the chair, and I think that that is progress. Leaving it in the hands of “the Brains Trust”—Maggie Barry—who was there earlier, was somewhat of a mistake as far as the Government is concerned.

I do want to start this speech by asking the question again: why is it that the system that New Zealanders were trusted with by a National Government to change the parliamentary election system is not good enough for this? We had the explanation from Maggie Barry that New Zealanders would not understand it. Effectively, that New Zealanders are too thick—they are too thick—to understand a yes/no vote and a set of options.

💬 Hon Maggie Barry: You weren’t listening, as usual.

No, no. She said it was too confusing. That is what the member said. She said it was too confusing and New Zealanders would not understand. Well, New Zealanders understood it. They were asked to understand it by the Bolger Government and they did understand it when we shifted to MMP, but that Minister says—no, she did not say it but we know what she means—that if New Zealanders were allowed to have their say, they would say to the Prime Minister: “Get lost.” They would say “Get lost.” at the first vote if there was a yes/no vote. I think we are now at the point of about 85 percent of New Zealanders saying that this process is a waste of money and they do not want to proceed with it.

About 85 percent of New Zealanders disagree with the Prime Minister and members opposite as to whether or not this process should proceed. I say to members opposite that it is just a disgrace that they are going on with this process against the wishes of the RSA during the commemorations—during the commemorations—of the First World War. We were told by Maggie Barry, amongst others, on a number of occasions—she referred to visiting the graves on the Western Front in Europe—but what she is doing is moving away from the purpose of this bill. The provision for two postal referenda when there need be only one is something that, in my opinion and in the opinion of vast numbers of New Zealanders, is totally unnecessary.

The purpose clause might describe the bill quite well, but the purpose of the bill is wrong. First of all, there should not be one referendum; there certainly should not be a bill that proposes, necessarily, two referenda, whatever the people of New Zealand think. There are a number of reasons for that and they have been traversed a bit already. One of them is the expense. I mean, why should we have a process that spends $2,000 for every single individual who goes to a meeting? That is $2,000 each.

💬 Dr David Clark: How much?

Over $2,000 each for every single individual who attended a meeting that was set up by the National Party person who is currently responsible for wrecking TV3—currently responsible for wrecking TV3.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who’s that?

I am trying to remember the woman’s name. We will get there soon; we will get back to it. She was the one whom the group led by Jonathan Young said should not be in the group, but Cabinet overruled them. That is the next point that I want to make.

I heard my friend Jacinda Ardern talking about the officials and the fact that she did not blame the officials for the process, but I am going to be looking very carefully at the instructions that were either issued or not issued in this area. If instructions were not properly given to officials, then, in my opinion, they have been involved in unnecessary and very questionable expenditure. I want to especially refer to the Electoral Commission and the advertising that it has booked up before this legislation is passed.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What?

Advertising that it has booked up in anticipation of this legislation passing, and for which there is apparently no refund. The question I have got to ask, as we consider the purpose of this bill, is whether there has been a direction from the Government to do that, and if there has been, what the hell is the Government doing directing the Electoral Commission anyway? It does not have the right to do it. So there are some very real issues here about the role of officials in front of the passing of the legislation that we are considering the purpose for now.

As I made clear on a number of occasions, I support having a new flag; I do not support changing to a new flag at this particular time. I used to go to the Anzac ceremonies and protest, and probably for the last 35 years I have been going to commemorate, but I have had a longer association with Anzac Day than many, many members. What I do know is that soldiers who have served deserve respect and they deserve to have their views listened to and heard. I say to Chris Bishop, I say to Jono Naylor, and I say to Alfred Ngaro—who were on the select committee and denied the RSA having more than 10 minutes to put its view—that those men and women have served New Zealand. Chris Bishop can laugh all he likes at the service that they have given, but I say that you are a disgrace. You are a disgrace to cut back—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Oh, sorry, Chris Bishop is a disgrace. He knows he is a disgrace, because what he has done is not only cut back to 10 minutes the time allowable for people who have served New Zealand but come to this Chamber with a big smirk on his face, and he thinks it is funny. It is just absolutely wrong for him to take that approach, and for John Key to take the approach, that is so anti those people who have fought for New Zealand, and to be so unwilling to hear their views.

It is almost unbelievable that it takes the generation of the Viet Nam protester to defend against the National Government the rights of service people to be heard by this Parliament. I want to say that 747 people, including a significant number who have served New Zealand and who had put in a submission via an email form distributed by the RSA, were denied the right to come to the select committee—747 individuals who wanted to give their views to the select committee—

The only disgrace to this House was the contribution by Trevor Mallard just then. The official Labour Party policy is to have a referendum on the flag. It was its policy last week on its website, it was its policy at the election, and it was the policy of Andrew Little in December last year when he gave a National Business Review interview about it. Actually, as we know, Trevor Mallard and probably most of the Labour Party members here, and the actual members out in the branches—few as they are—probably favour a change of flag.

So let us be very clear about why the Labour Party is opposing this bill and, in particular, the purpose of this bill and the part we are talking about, which is clause 3 of the bill. The reason the Labour Party is opposing this, and the reason why the Labour Party is disgraceful in this Parliament tonight, is spite and jealousy. How petty—how petty—is it for the Labour Party to oppose something that, actually, is its policy, something that it agrees with, because the Prime Minister is doing it? And you could hear the hatred and the venom in Mr Mallard’s voice then. Labour members really despise and loathe the fact that it is a man whom they loathe and despise who is putting this to the people.

We could have legislated for a change of flag. We could have done what the Canadians did, which was come up with a national flag competition and just decide to pass legislation to implement a new flag. Has the Government proposed that? No. What have we done instead? We are having a national conversation and a deliberative and consultative process about it, and we are putting it to the people. We are putting it to the people, and if, in the second referendum, the people say “We actually do not want to change the flag. We are all good with the status quo.”, well, that will be what the flag remains. So we are actually having a conversation about it.

Mr Mallard talked about how the process is a waste of time and 85 percent of people are heartily opposed to the process—except in this country we do not govern by opinion poll based on one particular moment. On the logic of Mr Mallard, we would not have even bothered with the 2014 election. We would have just looked at the opinion poll on 18 September, or some other point when National was streaking ahead, and said: “No need to bother with the election. National is ahead. We have taken the opinion of the public by opinion poll at the time.” No, that is not the right way to go about it. OK, maybe people are opposed to changing the flag at the moment. But what will that opinion be when the second referendum comes around? We do not know. Do you know why we do not know? Because a lot of people are waiting to see what the design panel comes up with. Quite rightly, a lot of people say that they may well be in favour of changing the flag but have not seen a design they like yet.

But I tell you what: people are really interested in the designs. Go and have a look at the New Zealand Herald website. Go and have a look at the competition Gareth Morgan is running. Go and talk to schoolchildren about the competitions that are being run in classrooms around the country. People are really engaged with this process. Do we want some blue and red? Do we want the tino rangatiratanga flag on it? Do we want some elements of green? What sort of shape is it going to be? Should we have the silver fern or not? Should we have black or not, or is that too similar to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, etc.?

So there are lots of different questions going on about it. Maybe people did not turn up for those meetings. It is very hard to get people to go to a meeting at 7.30 in Christchurch when there are only chocolate biscuits and a cup of tea. So maybe they did not turn up, but I tell you what: people are really engaged in this process. So the question for the Labour Party is this: if we get to the second referendum process and people vote in favour of change, will it respect that outcome? At the moment, it seems like it will not.

I want to talk about the structure of the referendums, and, in particular, the point that Ms Ardern made right at the start, at the opening of the Committee stage. The Labour view is that we should insert a prefatory question into the first referendum, which is a simple “Do you want to change the flag or not?” question. OK, on the face of it that sounds like a good idea, except it is not. And that is actually one of the reasons why it was not recommended by the officials. Go and have a look at the regulatory impact statement. It was not one of the top four recommendations for the structure of the referendum, and the reason for that is that it biases the referendum in favour of the status quo. Why? Because it means people have to vote twice for change. They have to vote once for change in the first referendum, then they have got to go and do it again.

So the hurdle is too high for change. It is not a fair and neutral and objective referendum structure, and that is why the officials did not recommend it and that is why the Justice and Electoral Committee—or the majority of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to pick up Jacinda’s point—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member might have been at kindy, but that’s how we got MMP. That’s how the member got his seat—through a referendum.

And we are getting abuse from Trevor Mallard over there, except he knows that—if he has bothered to read the regulatory impact statement—it was not recommended by officials, and it was not recommended for a very good reason. It was confusing—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Because they are hacks under direction.

Oh, now, here we go. Now he is accusing the officials of being Government hacks. The neutral officials of the Ministry of Justice who are the advisers to the committee—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Neutral? Neutral? What rubbish!

Trevor, here we go again. He is running his mouth off again, abusing officials who cannot fight back—just disgraceful. He is the only disgrace in this House. It would be confusing—

I was almost loath to interrupt Mr Bishop. I was enjoying his speech. It was a good example of how a good debater can disguise obvious flaws in the logic of the proposition that is on the floor. I commend Mr Bishop for displaying that ability. I wish I had it. Unfortunately, I do not have that ability to bluster and, therefore, must rely on logic and sequence and, hopefully, a little bit of thought. So thank you for the entertainment. I do appreciate it.

Part 1 of the bill, which we are discussing, contains the purpose clause, which states: “The purpose of this Act is to make provision for 2 postal referendums to be held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag,”. On the face of it, that sounds like a reasonable, democratic process. But the way in which the process is structured presupposes that New Zealanders do want to change the flag. We heard it from Mr Bishop. He said it himself. In his view, to which he is entitled, there is some sort of public preference, some public enthusiasm, for a change of flag. He may be right, but, equally, you can run arguments to the contrary.

Where is the groundswell of public opinion that was evident before this misguided bill was tabled and before the Prime Minister started to talk up the issue in his inimitable fashion? Where was the groundswell of public support for a change that necessitated the expenditure of some $26 million or $27 million? People may wonder how on earth you could spend that much money.

Do referenda really cost that much? The answer lies to some extent in the detail and indeed in the regulatory impact statement, which identifies the fact that we do not really have a process for running referenda of this nature. We have citizens initiated referenda, which have a process, and they are fairly well-known and prescribed. We understand how to do that. But with this bill it is a case of making up the rules as you go along, and we know this because the regulatory impact statement tells us so. What has to be determined initially in terms of the regulation of referendum advertising, for example, to enable us to even run these referendums? What will be regulated? How will it be regulated? When will it be regulated? We are having to make up a whole set of rules and processes for one unique, discrete decision to be made by New Zealanders.

I would say—and I return to the point I was making—that in the way in which these referendums are structured there is a presupposition that New Zealanders want a change. That is unproven and unprovable, I think. To suggest that New Zealanders can decide whether they want to change their flag only when they see an alternative, or indeed a range of alternatives, undersells, I think, the importance of the symbol of the flag. Again, looking to the regulatory impact statement, we are told that the flag is a common and enduring symbol of unity.

The referendums on the future of the flag need to have an enduring result. This means the process needs to have a high degree of legitimacy, integrity, and public confidence. I would argue that the process to date has lacked all of that. We have seen appallingly low turnouts. There is not the groundswell of public interest. There is a great deal of public entertainment being derived. Everybody and his friend are coming out with a bright idea. My personal favourite is the little kiwi with the green laser shooting out of its eyes. People are treating this in a very jovial fashion.

💬 Hon Member: Not his eyes.

Well, it is his eyes, actually; we will not go there. People are treating this in large part as something of a joke, as an entertainment, and that devalues the whole proposition of our national flag. If there is a groundswell of support for a change, it will emerge of its own volition over time.

This has been a very forced process. The Prime Minister has led it, using his considerable charm and wit to persuade people that they should participate, but the idea of running two referendums really fails, and in the way it is structured there is a presupposition that we want a change. That is unproven.

It is interesting that the first referendum, logically enough, will be a preferential vote, and that is described in this part of the bill. The preferential voting process involves simply ranking the four choices—or however many it is—and that is a legitimate way to do it. The second vote, if we get to that point, will be a simple majority vote. Fifty percent, plus one, of however many people even bother to participate will change our flag.

Thank you for this opportunity to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the Committee stage of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have had real pleasure listening to Trevor Mallard and to my colleague Denis O’Rourke. I listened initially to Maggie Barry, who has got the sweetest voice, to be honest. If you are going to listen to rubbish, it is good to listen to it from somebody who has a great voice for radio. I have to say, however, that she has got the IQ of an ice cream cone if she thinks that New Zealanders are going to be confused by adding a New Zealand flag into the first of the referendums.

I take the point of Chris Bishop, who said that this is going to be in balance and impartial in terms of what New Zealanders are expecting when we put the New Zealand flag up into the final discussion point. But I have to read out something here from a submitter from the RSA, who actually summed it up quite nicely: “The substantial budget given to the alternative flag is intended to weigh heavily in its favour when the referendum is held. No funding has been allocated to champion the existing New Zealand flag, which therefore presents difficulties for people in making an informed and objective decision.” That to me sums it up quite nicely, Mr Bishop. All of a sudden your party and your leader are pushing this referendum through at the expense of Kiwis, and I suggest that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want this referendum. We cannot afford it. It is not the right time, and it is not the right place.

I would also like to say that New Zealand First is the only party, and has been the only party, to actively stand against this in its entirety. We do not have divisions in our ranks against this referendum that has been put in front of us. New Zealand First says it is inappropriate to have a new flag put before us.

There are two points I want to make. The first concerns the purpose clause in Part 1. I am talking about clause 3, and I will give you my take on it. An issue that everybody has raised is the vanity of the John Key Government. He is pushing for this for his own personal ingratiation, if you like, when it would be a good idea, as has been pointed out by Jacinda Ardern, to have this referendum at the 2017 election, if you really cared for it. The problem is, of course, that John Key knows, along with National, that the likelihood of you being in Government—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Sorry, Mr Chair. The likelihood of that party being in after the 2017 election is very, very minuscule. Therefore, having a referendum at the next general election is going to weigh heavily on his mind in terms of whether or not it can be put through. The second point about clause 3, the purpose clause, is the sleight of hand. The actual purpose of having the referendum is to create a fugazi—something happening over there when, in actual fact, there are bigger issues, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is coming through this week, but, my word, we are going, almost in urgency, to put through the final stages of the legislation for this referendum. The Government is creating headlines to try to take attention away from what is actually going on in this country, which is that our sovereignty is being sold off.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Now, we as a party are 100 percent—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—supportive of making sure that we have a trade agreement, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is well out of scope. The member should just concentrate on what is in front of us.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I was pushing it a little bit—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You were right.

—and I will bring right it back in. But you get my point, people. That is exactly what is going on. The point here is that we have got $26 million going into a referendum when we have got far more important issues that need to be addressed. We have got things like unaffordable housing, and we have got issues with our housing stock in this country, which is so abysmally upheld—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—and in such a state. This is coming back to the purpose, Mr Chair. That $26 million will bring in around 900 houses in terms of their upgrading. That is a far better spending of New Zealand taxpayers’ money than a referendum for a flag. That money would give around about 1,400 hip replacements. That, I would suggest, is far more important than a referendum on a flag. The polls, by the way, are saying absolutely, outstandingly that we do not want this referendum.

Many people in this country—myself included, as a young schoolboy—have watched our flag go up on our school-grounds, and we have sung our national anthem with pride. Our returned servicemen and women, as well our service people who are overseas at the moment, are standing by that national flag. I would hate to think, Mr Mark Mitchell, what you are going to do with the tattoo you have on your heart, or is it on your shoulder? I cannot remember. You will have to change it to the new flag if the referendum goes through, which we do not think for a second will actually happen. A lot of New Zealanders have tagged themselves with this very iconic flag.

I am very pleased to speak in this debate. I am very pleased to speak in this debate as the member for Auckland Central, with an electorate that is multicultural, because this debate is actually about nationhood. This is about democracy and nationhood. When we look at the purpose of this bill it is about whether the New Zealand people should have the opportunity to have a vote on nationhood and where our country is going. I absolutely believe that they should.

Our country has never had the opportunity to have the debate on what our flag is. That is correct. A lot of people do not realise that as a nation we have actually had several flags, but we have never had that opportunity to have a vote. So when we hear from the Opposition members that they do not want people to have a vote, that, actually, maybe it should be politicians who choose or maybe we should have one question, and that maybe that question should be completely biased against change, I completely disagree with them. I believe it is the right of every New Zealander to have a vote on our flag, and that is what the purpose of this bill is about.

The second question, the second issue, that has been raised is about participation. We heard from Trevor Mallard: “Oh, there’s only a few people who’ve turned up to the meetings.” Well, I want to tell you, Trevor Mallard, that we are an online country and, actually, there have been hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in this debate. This morning I went to Ngaio School and I looked up on the wall, and what did I see? I saw a whole lot of flags designed by schoolchildren. The reality is that a whole lot of people are participating in this debate. They are participating online. They are participating by putting flags up on walls. They are sending us flags from around this country.

The next issue is timing. Well, I want to say to the Labour Party that it has never been a more important time to have a debate about nationhood, given the match that you lit under race relations in this country—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—with the issues that you raised in terms of housing. We are a multicultural nation and this is a very important time—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

—to have a chat about—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

💬 Denis O’Rourke: I heard the speaker say “you”, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I told her about that. You would not have heard it, but I did. Now let us come back to the debate—some decorum, please.

Absolutely, I come back to the purpose of this referendum. It is important to have a debate about a multicultural country. I am a member of Parliament for Auckland. We are a diverse city, and, actually, for a lot of people the current flag does not represent them. It does not represent an inclusive, democratic—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I am sitting a couple of metres from the member. I cannot hear her. Can we please ask the Committee to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, look, I am the judge of that. I can hear the Minister. I asked for some decorum. I know it is testy—some of the issues—and that is fine, so long as it is a robust debate. I am asking the Minister to continue.

I come back to the purpose. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): OK, I ask the member now to just calm that down. Let us now concentrate back on the bill. Just come back to the debate on the referendum on the flag. Let us move on from there.

It is a really important point because it comes back to the purpose of this bill. This bill is about giving New Zealanders a vote on our national symbol, on the issue of nationhood, and that actually does come back to issues like being a multicultural nation. It does matter, actually, for some people that this flag does not currently represent them, and they should have the ability to have that debate.

Actually, that is what has come through from a lot of people. A number of people have said to me: “Look, it’s too close to the Australian flag.” Or they do not think that it actually represents a multicultural nation or that the Treaty of Waitangi is adequately reflected in the flag design. These are really important issues, and, actually, that is what this is about. It is about giving people a democratic vote; it is about our nationhood. It is about ensuring that people having that opportunity is not decided by politicians. That is the purpose of this bill. It is more than just a flag. It is about our national identity, and there has never been a more important time in our country, in some of the debates that have been happening. This is the ideal time to be having this debate. It is very important for an open, inclusive, democratic, and multicultural nation that we have this debate as a country.

The member Jono Naylor interjected a little bit earlier on. He was correcting Clayton Mitchell, I think, about the use of the word “referendums”. He said that no, he should be using the word “referenda”. I would just like to point out that a member who was on the select committee—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s either/or—it’s AC/DC.

Well, no, the point I am trying to make, Mr Mallard, is that the title of the bill is the “New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill”. It is a bit concerning that a National MP who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has been closely considering this legislation, giving it all the scrutiny that it deserves, did not even know what the title of the bill was. But it is a fair question. I was a bit confused myself when I saw in clause 5, the interpretation clause, that we have “ ‘referendums’ means the first flag referendum and the second flag referendum”, but it turns out that Trevor Mallard is correct: “referenda” or “referendums”—we could use either. But the title of the bill is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. For the members of Parliament who are considering the legislation—

💬 Hon Member: We are debating the purpose, not the title.

Well, “referendums” is in clause 5, the interpretation clause, in Part 1, which is what we are debating right now, and I would hope that the members who are so passionate about this legislation and who have been on the select committee hearing the submissions, scrutinising this bill closely, might even have known what words and what terminology was being used in the legislation itself.

I would like to move to clause 3, which is the purpose clause. I have some real concerns about the way clause 3 is worded. You get the impression from reading clause 3 that what this bill would introduce would be, first, a referendum for electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag, and then a referendum for electors to decide whether we should change the flag. That is certainly the way the purpose clause reads, and that is certainly what most New Zealanders want. If we are going to have a referendum, let us have the question first: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But that is not actually what the bill does, so this purpose clause is somewhat misleading. What the bill actually does is it says that we have to have two referendums before the decision on whether or not we are going to change the flag can be completed.

This could result in an absolute waste of money. All the $26 million that is being spent on this could all come to nought if, after two referendums, the people of New Zealand say: “No, actually we don’t want to change the flag.” Why not trust the people of New Zealand, in exactly the same way as we did on the question about changing the electoral system, and have the first question asking “Do you want a change?”, and then we will know whether it is worth proceeding with the rest of the referendums, with the rest of the questions, and the rest of the expenditure that comes with it. I have had a lot of feedback from people who say: “Look, I am interested in changing the flag, but it’s a ‘nice-to-have’, not a must-have.” When we are $101 billion in debt and the Government still has not achieved surplus and is not going to start paying off debt for at least another 4 or 5 years, now is not the time for “nice-to-haves” like changing the flag. Now is the time to knuckle down and focus on things like housing, jobs, and making sure people have enough to get by to put a roof over their head and food on the table for their family.

This purpose clause is extremely misleading. I think it really needs to be amended so that it actually represents what this legislation will do.

I would like to refer to clauses 6 and 7 as well. These are two clauses that have not had as much attention in the debate so far. I want to say something positive. Let us have something positive about this legislation. Positive comments have been few and far between because there is not a lot positive that you can say about this legislation. But in clause 6 the general description of the preferential voting electoral system for the decision about the four flag options I think is a good step forward. We do need to give people the opportunity to rank those flags. It would be a real shame if the flag that people were being asked to change to was one that, say, got only 30 percent support from the general population and others just happened to get slightly less than that.

I am glad that the select committee and the Government listened to what Trevor Mallard was saying and what many others were saying, which is that the first-past-the-post system was not appropriate for that decision around which of the four options that we will eventually get to from this panel, which is led by the likes of Julie Christie and others who will determine which of those four—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She doesn’t quite lead it.

She does not quite lead it?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The really good guy Burrows is leading it. She’s in charge of wasting the money.

She is in charge of wasting the money. Thank you for the clarification. We will be able to decide which of those four options we prefer, through a preferential voting system.

I am not convinced that clause 7, the inclusion of the description of the first-past-the-post electoral system for the second referendum, is entirely necessary. By definition, when you have got only two options it essentially, by default, becomes a first-past-the-post election. I think the inclusion of that description is entirely unnecessary. Even if it were technically a preferential voting system, when you have got only two options, one of them is going to win and one of them is going to lose. Possibly we have got some redundant material in here, with clause 7 and the other clauses that relate to the first-past-the-post system. As someone who was not on the select committee I would be very happy if any of the members on that committee are able to advise us on this.

Clause 8, “Application of Act to conduct outside New Zealand”, states: “This Act applies in respect of the publication of a referendum advertisement—(a) in New Zealand,”. Clause 8(b) refers to “outside New Zealand,”. There might be some really good reasons why that has been included. I would like to know what they are. But it is a little bit concerning that the bill appears, at a superficial level anyway, to allow for influence outside New Zealand on a decision about our New Zealand flag. As I say, there may be good arguments for that. I would really appreciate it if the members who have so closely scrutinised this legislation at the select committee could give the Committee an explanation as to why clause 8 is necessary.

I come back to the interpretation clause. The word “panel” means “any panel appointed by the Minister to conduct, on behalf of the New Zealand Government, a publicity campaign or other activity in relation to a referendum or referendums”. I suppose this is where a lot of the concern comes from. [Interruption] Yes, referendums, Mr Naylor. Why it is in relation to “a referendum” I am not sure, because we know there is going to be more than one referendum. But this panel is actually probably the source of a lot of the concern that people have had, such as the expense that has been outlaid on this panel, on getting expensive people to sit on the panel, and on having them travel around the countryside, spending over $2,000 per person who comes to one of their meetings, and receiving designs for the flag, which have all sorts of unusual things on them—Kiwis with laser beams, sheep with rainbows coming out of their backsides, and all sorts of things.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They’re the nicer ones.

I am told that they are the nicer ones. That is right. This panel has been the source of a lot of the concern and the conjecture out there amongst people because it just does seem like the Government has spent an awful lot of money on that panel, on a process that seems more like a publicity campaign—a public relations campaign for the Government and for the Prime Minister as part of his vanity project and his desperate attempt to have some kind of legacy that the historians will, in the future, have something to remember him by, because there is not an awful lot else that people will be able to remember Mr Key for.

There are a number of questions there, which maybe the Minister might be able to answer. I know that the Minister who is currently in the chair, the Hon Nikki Kaye, probably has not been terribly close to this process, but maybe members on the select committee might be able to make a contribution to the debate and enlighten those of us who were not sitting on the select committee closely considering the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. They might be able to enlighten us as to exactly what some of those issues that I have raised are all about and why they have been included in the legislation.

Can I just start by acknowledging and thanking the members of the New Zealand First caucus for outlining exactly what would be a really good reason to change the New Zealand flag. I note that on top of their boxes they have got the current New Zealand flag, but in case people get it mixed up with the Australian flag, they have written “New Zealand” on it. I just think that is outstanding of them. Obviously they know there is a possibility that it could get mixed up with the Australian flag. So just to make sure people do not think they are from “Australia First”, they have put New Zealand on their flags so everybody knows that it is the New Zealand flag. I think that was very good of them to be able to help reinforce the rationale and the reason why we might want to have a look at this.

It has been quite interesting hearing some of the thoughts that have been coming from across the Chamber today with regard to this referendum, particularly from the Labour members. It has been kind of hard, to a certain degree, to get a real understanding of what it is they actually want. This is what we have heard from the Labour Party members thus far: they back full consultation on the flag and having a referendum, the second thing they want to do is abandon the referendum because it is completely a waste of money, the third thing they want to do is to keep the order of the referendums but require a minimum turnout—but wait; no, they want to reverse the order of the referendums—and, finally, the fifth and last thing they did come up with recently was: “Let’s ditch the flag referendum and change the anthem.”

Well, those are the kinds of diverse views that we are getting from across the other side of the Chamber. Those members cannot seem to make up their minds as to what it is they want to do. Perhaps they could go back to their own policy—their policy in 2014, leading into the election. Under the title “The New Zealand Flag”, the Labour Party said: “We believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public.” That is actually the policy of the Labour Party. So I hear from the other side that this is just a vanity project. I think that is the term that keeps getting thrown around. I hear: “This is the Prime Minister’s vanity project. Oh, it’s just a vanity project.” Whose vanity project was it in the Labour Party when it decided to put in its policy that the time has come for a change and that the public should be involved? Whose vanity project in the Labour Party was it? Those members keep telling us that changing the flag is simply a vanity project. That is all I am hearing from them.

I will come back to the purpose. The purpose of this bill is the provision of two referendums. It seems that there are two ways you can actually say the plural of referendum. I would like to thank Mr Lees-Galloway for pointing out that I probably should have done year 13 English, and then I might have been a little bit better equipped to deal with the issue of whether it is referenda or referendums.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: No, just read the bill, Jono. Just read the bill—that’s all I’m asking.

I can read the bill. At the end of the day the idea is that we have two referendums. The first speaker in this debate was actually Jacinda Ardern, and she invited me to explain to her why it is that we need to have two referendums. She challenged me to say that it is because the people of New Zealand are not bright enough to deal with it. I am not going to say that because I have got absolute faith in the voting public of New Zealand, because in September of last year they returned this National Government for a third term. So I have got very good confidence in the voting public of New Zealand, because they have shown three times in a row exactly what sort of Government they want to have.

The reason and the rationale for having two referendums, and the reason for putting them in this order, to me, are plain and simple: there are a lot of people out there who are open to the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. I am one of them, my son is one of them, and other people I have talked to are in the same boat. But it is totally dependent—[Interruption] People on that side of the Chamber want to understand why we will have two, so I will just explain it to them very slowly and very carefully. There are a lot of people—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: A lot?

—yes—who are willing to change the flag or who are open to a change of flag, but for whom it depends on what it will be changed to. For myself, I am not prepared to engage in a yes/no vote until I know what the alternative is, and I know that there are many other people who are not prepared to vote until they know what the alternative is.

By having two referendums we allow everybody in New Zealand—the people who are dead against changing the flag, those who are definitely for changing the flag, and those who are open to it—to be able to participate fully in the process. So what we have is everybody, as I was saying, able to participate fully, whether they are dead against changing the flag, absolutely for changing the flag, or open to changing it. Those people who want to change the flag, no matter what, will get to vote in the second referendum. Those people who, no matter what, do not want to change the flag will get their say in the second referendum. Those people who are interested in what the alternatives will be will, first of all, cast their votes in the preferential vote in the first referendum. Then, when the opportunity comes, when we put a proposed new flag up against the old flag, everybody gets to have a vote.

I can only anticipate that the members opposite and those people who want to cut it down simply want to eliminate those people who have yet to make up their minds from the process. Because if you do a yes/no question up front, you have eliminated from the process those people who have yet to make up their minds based on what the alternative will be. That seems to me to be undemocratic. That would be like, you know, calling a snap election and saying that if you have not made up your mind by Friday, you will not be allowed to vote. That is pretty much what they are saying when they put forward this proposal.

It was also proposed by Mr O’Rourke beforehand that there be a minimum participation rate of 25 percent because if we get less than 25 percent of people taking part in the vote, people are not interested enough. Well, I was sitting there thinking that there are some political parties in this Parliament that have less than 25 percent of the vote. So are we going to say to those people that perhaps they should not be there either? As soon as you start getting into thresholds for voting you get into very dangerous territory. At what point is it? Why 25 percent? Why not 50 percent? Why not 5 percent? Why not 67 percent? It is a number that has been plucked out of the air. If you really wanted to say 25 percent is the measure of participation—even local government elections get 30-odd percent, so it seems bizarre that 25 percent would be the threshold.

Overall, this is a very good process. It is a process that allows everybody in New Zealand to participate. We have heard so far from members opposite about the thousands of people who participated, who sent in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee and who were against changing the flag. What we have also had is a whole lot of people who have been on to the website and had a look at it. There have been a whole lot of people who have put forward different proposals. And, yes, some of those proposals are a little bit ridiculous. Some of them are people having a bit of fun. But do you know what? It is people getting engaged in the process of Government. It is people getting engaged in deciding the future of their nation.

I can tell you that the members on this side of the Chamber are absolutely keen to see what the people of New Zealand think about this. I highlighted it yesterday as well. No New Zealanders have ever got to choose their flag before. It may well be that through this process New Zealanders will choose the existing flag, and, if they do, I say all power to them, because what has actually happened is that there has been a democratic process through which they got to choose. But guess what? If they choose to change the flag as well, it would be what the people of New Zealand have decided.

Last time I checked, New Zealand was a democratic nation. It was one that values the thoughts and views of its people, and this is a process that will do that. The purpose of this bill is very sound, the way that we are going to implement it is very sound, and I absolutely look forward to seeing just how it is that this turns out. I will be watching with interest. I cannot wait to see the four options that come up. I will be putting my ranking alongside them and then we will get to choose in March next year or thereabouts—or April; I am not quite sure exactly which. But around that time we will get to decide as a nation. I only hope that we will start to get people—even if they did not want to change the flag—getting behind New Zealand and going forward with New Zealand, because this is what this country is all about.

It has been a good process. We have heard people talking about a waste of money. Well, I say that this actually has been a great debate because we are talking about what is important in New Zealand. We have got New Zealanders talking about what is important to them. We have got New Zealanders helping to decide how the New Zealand they want is reflected in their national symbol, and I am looking forward to the outcome. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I am going to try to use as much Māori language in this speech as possible, given that it is Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I did just ask my colleague Peeni Henare how to say “vanity project” in Māori, but he said that there is no such word as “vain” in Māoridom because there is no vanity in Māoridom. I take that on board. But what there is a translation for in Māori is “no ears”, which is taringa kāhore, and that is our Government. It has not been listening. It has not been listening to the public. It has been ignoring the fact that Kiwis do not want to change the flag—70 percent of Kiwis said that they do not want to change the flag, and that Government is saying: “We’re giving them an option.” If it was really, truly interested in giving Kiwis an option, then the first question would be: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But, no, we have had Maggie Barry standing up in the Chamber and saying: “That would be just too confusing for New Zealanders. Surely, they wouldn’t understand it if we asked them first: ‘Do you want to change the flag?’ ”.

I think that Maggie Barry and the National Government underestimate New Zealanders, actually. I wonder what is going to happen, when we look at the commencement part of this bill in clause 2, where it says: “If, in the second flag referendum, the current New Zealand Flag gains a greater number of votes than the alternative flag design, then sections 69, 70, and 71 do not commence.” Does the Government not think that there are going to be a lot of New Zealanders out there saying: “Well, what was the point of spending that other $6.8 million?”. There are going to be a lot of New Zealanders saying: “OK, you have dumped the whole thing. You have now wasted not only our time but our good taxpayer dollars on two referendums when that was completely unnecessary.”

Looking at the purpose of this bill, we see that there are going to be two postal referendums held to enable electors to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag. Well, if that was the case, then, actually, the first referendum question should be: “Do you want a new flag?”—very clear. So, actually, I think the Government is going to have to revisit this purpose clause because if that really was the purpose, the first question would be: “Do you want to change the flag?”. We have seen that there has been a lack of interest from the general public in respect of this issue. No one is showing up to the meetings, and I think we have got information here that just over 700 people turned up to public meetings on the flag consideration project. That cost $208,500 for venues and a further $200,000 for the panel members’ fees for them to be there. New Zealanders are thinking: “What a waste of our money.” The average cost per person who turned up was $550 each, or $2,300 each once advertising is included.

I think that there are a lot of New Zealanders out there thinking: “Just give us the cash, rather than force us to show up for these really boring meetings about things that we are not interested in.”, or, for the majority of people, they would be showing up to say: “We don’t want this to happen.” Actually, the only way that that Prime Minister could get a good audience on this issue was to arrange to go to secondary schools, where those students had no choice but to sit there in the hall and listen to him talk about the flag. I know this because my own son texted me a few weeks ago and said: “Mum, guess who’s at our school? John Key.” I said: “What’s he there for?”, and he said: “To talk about the flag.”—to talk about the flag. A low-decile school, a room full of Māori and Pacific boys—there must be so many more important things to talk to them about, but what was he there to talk to them about? The flag. Why was he there? It was the only way he could get a guaranteed audience. The only way he could get a guaranteed audience was to show up at schools.

Members on that side of the Chamber know that this is unpopular. They have seen the New Zealand Herald poll. They would have done their own internal polling. New Zealanders are looking at them and thinking: “There are so many more serious issues to be considering, and you’re concerned about changing a flag.” As my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has said, and a few of my other colleagues in the Chamber have also said it today, it is not that we are all necessarily opposed to changing the flag; it is just that this is not the right time.

Clearly, this is not the issue of the day for New Zealanders. There is a lot more on the minds of New Zealanders, and my New Zealand First colleague pointed this out. What is on the minds of New Zealanders? Um, housing—yes? What is on the minds of New Zealanders? Um, the fact that our prisons are unsafe—yes? What is on the minds of New Zealanders? Poverty and the fact that nothing that the Government has done has done anything to lift children out of poverty. What else is on the minds of New Zealanders? The failed charter schools, and a National Government that is failing to listen.

So, before I finish this speech, I just want to use some more Te Reo Māori. I just want to say that this is one of the many mistakes that the National Government has made, so the word for that is hapamaha, which means multiple mistakes. Hapamaha—multiple mistakes. Can we say it together? Hapamaha.

I am truly delighted to take the opportunity to take a call in this Committee of the whole House as we debate this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, and speak to clauses 1 and 3. This process is an essential element of our democracy—this grand New Zealand democracy, one of only half a dozen in the world with an uninterrupted tradition stretching back more than 150 years, and for better than two-thirds of that time the current New Zealand ensign has been the symbol of that democracy. It was approved and gazetted in 1902, fully 2 years before the Australian flag, for which it is occasionally mistaken by the ignorant and the unpatriotic. In fact, interestingly enough, the current Australian flag did not become the official legal flag of Australia until 1954—1954—so if anyone is going to be changing their flag, it is going to be them.

But, actually, we are not here to talk about the flag itself. We are here to debate this bill and these two proposed referenda to which the bill pertains and the process of which they are a part, by which we as a Parliament and a nation will either vote to change the New Zealand flag or we will not. Binding referenda have been a core policy of New Zealand First since our inception 22 years ago. We are glad that, if nothing else, this Government has deigned that it will be bound by the results of these referenda. It is perhaps the only thing it has got right regarding this whole sorry process. We are being faced with the prospect of having two referenda when only one would have been entirely sufficient. We are holding them the wrong way round and we are wasting $26 million of taxpayers’ money in the process, a process for which there is no call. No one other than the Prime Minister is calling for a change to the New Zealand flag. No one wants it. Better than three-quarters of the population—and rising—are perfectly happy with the flag that we have, and everyone apart from John Key thinks that $26 million could be far better spent on any one of any number of actually worthwhile projects from a very long list of such projects, rather than on this pointless personal vanity project that the man has.

John Key wants a legacy. When the Prime Minister was asked if he could wave a magic wand and have one particular thing, he did not want to end unemployment, he did not want to clear the hospital waiting lists, and he did not want to make sure that every child in this country goes to school every morning with breakfast in their belly and lunch in their schoolbag and shoes on their feet and a raincoat if it is raining. No, he wanted to change the flag. Well, what a shallow, hollow, vacuous dream that is, but at least he has agreed that the outcome of these two pointless, wasteful, unwanted, unnecessary, unwarranted referenda will be binding on his Government. It is a small mercy because, for the most part, the Prime Minister and this Government feel that they have the right to ignore the results of referenda. Well, at least this time he will have no option. When the public tell him to go and take a running jump with his referenda and his flag change, he will have no option but to take it on the chin and slink away with his tail between his legs.

The nation will speak. It will speak in these referenda. It is speaking already. We already know what the outcome will be. We all know it, and, yet, this Government is pushing ahead anyway with this unwanted and unwarranted waste of money—this colossal waste of taxpayers’ money on this colossal, farcical vanity project, which the Prime Minister wants for his legacy. Well, it will be his legacy, but not for the reasons he would like it to be, and it can be stopped. It does not have to go any further.

The Government could pull the pin on this ridiculous bill. Even now it could choose to see reason. It could save the nation the expense of a $26 million farce that no one wants. Or any of the Government members could stop it. Any member from the Government benches could choose to make a stand—stand up for their democracy, stand up for what they believe, stand up for what their constituents are telling them, and stand up for what their own party members and supporters are telling them. In this 800th year of the anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta, which was the birth of our democracy itself, and on the 161st anniversary of uninterrupted parliamentary democracy in New Zealand, any one of the members opposite could stand up and make a stand for the flag of this country, over and above the ego of the Prime Minister. If one of them had the intestinal fortitude or the backbone to do that, this process could stop and the taxpayer could be saved $26 million.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member, but in the absence of any member of the Government taking this point of order, I think that that has long been ruled out of order. To accuse members of lacking backbone is a breach of the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point of order. I did hear what he said. I noticed that it was a general broadcast as opposed to being directed at one particular person. I would like to point out to the Committee, but particularly to this member, that everything is pretty much repetition. We have had an hour and a half on this part of the debate. No one seems to be saying anything new. So I hope that others who are going to seek to make a contribution will provide something new.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will finish succinctly, then, by simply putting the challenge to the members on the Government benches. The ball is in their court. Any one of them could stop it. I ask, have any of these members from the Government benches got the cojones to stand up and support the flag of their nation?

Do not push it.

I want to speak to the purpose clause, clause 3 of this bill, which talks about the holding of two referendums in order to determine whether we should have a change to our flag. What I want to say first of all is that I think that the purpose clause has got the sequencing right, because the purpose clause says that the referendums are held “to decide whether New Zealand should have a new flag” and then to decide for a process of change. I think the drafting of the bill is absolutely logical, because the first decision we as New Zealanders need to make is whether there is a desire to change the flag at all, and if there is, yes, we go on to find whether there is a consensus around an alternative flag. When we had the vote on MMP we did not ask people to decide—in the latest vote in the referendum last year we did not decide first of all what system we wanted to choose; we decided whether we wanted to change from MMP. It was logical, and it was rational, and it would be logical and rational for the Government to have approached this in exactly the same way.

Next, what do New Zealanders think about this issue? All of us have had feedback from our constituents, and I want to pass on, in the Committee of the whole House, the feedback that I have had. The first thing is that the flag is not a burning issue for our constituents. We do not get people turning up at our constituency offices saying: “The most important issue facing New Zealand is whether we have a new symbol for our nation.” They come to us to talk about the risk of recession, or the $7 billion that has been taken out of the economy because of the collapse of dairy. They talk about their housing problems, and they talk about the disarray of the prisons. They do not talk about the flag. So the first point I want to make here is it is not a burning issue for New Zealanders. I have also got to relay to the Committee what my constituents are saying. They are approaching it quite cynically because of the way in which this has been handled. They are saying: “We think this might be a deliberate and cynical attempt to distract us from the issues that are actually out there.” That is what I am being told.

The next thing that I am hearing from constituents is that they think the process that this Government has adopted is extravagantly expensive. New Zealanders have internalised the fact that times have been tough and there are a whole lot of pressing issues that the Government has not addressed, supposedly because the money is not there. Then they ask me: “Why are we spending $26 million on this process when what a logical thing to do would be to hold a referendum?”—because everybody agrees that any decision on the flag ought to be made by the people, not by 121 parliamentarians. They say: “Why not hold the referendum at the time of the next election?”. This is not so pressing that it must be decided in 2015 rather than 2017. They say: “Why not hold it at the time of the next election?” And I want to pose that question to the Minister in the chair, Nikki Kaye, because I want to put to the Minister that, firstly, you could have the public have its say for a fraction of the $26 million. At the time of the election you are not setting up a separate electoral process, which is incredibly expensive.

Secondly, for this referendum to have real weight, we want high participation. We want high participation in the decision, and we know that if there is a postal referendum maybe a third of New Zealanders will go out—well, they will not go out. Well, they will go out to post the ballot that comes through the mail to them. And if it is 30 percent of the population that say whether they want this design or that design, we are not getting the majority opinion of New Zealanders; we are spending $26 million and we are getting a minority view back from New Zealanders. So if you hold this referendum at the time of the next election you get full participation by New Zealanders, you get 80 percent of people having their say, and you have no cost. And what I have not heard, and what I want the Minister to address at this stage of the bill, is why the decision was made to do it in this way instead of the logical way of coinciding it with an election and getting a better turn out.

I am pleased to take a second call. I want to start by reiterating what I said before: if you consider this is about the flag, then we are actually not dealing with what is the most important issue, which is who we are, what we stand for, our nationhood, and New Zealanders having a democratic vote, which is part of the purpose of this bill.

I just want to address Phil Goff’s issue that he raised about the timing of this referendum. Actually, I think the Justice and Electoral Committee did consider this. The Electoral Commission did recommend, I think in 2011, that referendums were not held at the time of a general election. My understanding is some of the complexity and cost do not go away if they are held at that time.

But I want to cover five issues—five issues that have been covered in this debate that relate to the purpose of this bill. The first is that it costs too much. Well, actually, referendums cost a lot of money. It costs money to give people a vote. Would members opposite actually say that they are anti-referendums, because that is what it costs to hold a referendum and give people that vote? Phil Goff has just said and admitted that they actually do agree with the fact that there should be a referendum. We saw in the Labour Party policy, very clearly outlined on its website—New Zealanders can google that right now; “Labour Party policy”—that it believes we should consult on the flag. Andrew Little is on record as saying it should be by referendum.

In terms of it costing too much, well, we saw under the last Labour Government what it did with the Privy Council. It was a constitutional issue; an issue of nationhood. Labour never campaigned on it. Labour came in and bowled the thing. Actually, we disagree with you. On an issue of nationhood, it should go to a referendum.

When you come to the issue of the timing, well, I said before, I think, actually, that what this is about is it is all very well and good for Labour Party members to stand up and say “We are going to campaign on consulting on the flag.” and for its leader—well, not its then leader; it is hard to keep up with the Labour Party—to say “We believe in referendums.”, but then we come into this House, and the reason it is not good timing is, actually, the issues of a multicultural, open nation that relate to things like housing, immigration, and trade. They cut to the heart of those issues. They are the exact issues that the Labour Party does not want to be talking about right at the moment.

In terms of the process, let us come back to the purpose, and let us talk about the process. As I have said before, on an issue like this it is very important. We have never as a country, in 100 years, had the ability to have a vote on the flag. That we do actually have a vote—and, actually, it is not appropriate that politicians decide. It is appropriate that it actually goes to a vote. Secondly, in terms of process, we have heard a range of things around, you know, spending $7 million on the question of “Should we have a change?”. It is different in terms of our electoral system and the vote that happened there. People were very clear about the options before they had that opportunity to have a question. We have had thousands of flags out there. I am in and out of schools, and the whole issue of the fact that people have not participated in this is absolutely wrong.

It is absolutely wrong that people can argue in this Committee that people have not been participating in this debate. That shows very clearly that certain members of this Committee do not understand the modern world. They do not understand that there are a group of New Zealanders who would turn up to public meetings, but more and more there are an increasing number of New Zealanders, as we saw with this process—I think over 800,000 people—being involved online and looking at those flag designs.

So, from our perspective on this side of the Chamber, it is important and it is timely as a nation to consider who we are. It cuts to the very heart of trade, of housing, and of immigration. We have never had a vote as a nation on this. It is time for us to have our vote. Our side of the Chamber is going to ensure that New Zealanders get that vote. We are very confident of the process. If you are going to have a referendum, it is going to cost an amount of money, and we are going to give New Zealanders that opportunity.

It is a pleasure, actually, to be able to speak to this appalling bill, for the purpose of actually putting a couple of things on the record. I think that we need to understand what the purpose of this bill is—it is to enable two referendums. It is to enable John Key, his backbench members who want to be Ministers in the next Government, and his Ministers who want to be Ministers again to change our flag. I listened in my office to the speech by the former Mayor of Palmerston North, who is now a backbench MP in the National Government, and I am going to say that we will post that speech. When one says that they are not scared of the public’s reaction, that they are not scared of what people are saying, and that they proudly stand by what they are doing, then good. In 2017 the member will proudly stand by what he said.

So what are people saying? I have heard comments before in the House that we are an online nation and that people may not have turned up to express their views but they can give them online. Well, actually, we have some information from offline. New Zealand First actually put out a call to all New Zealanders who are against the referendum to write “Keep our flag” on the ballot paper. That way the vote will be ruled informal. If there are more informal votes than votes on the design, then there can be no credibility in the process and a second referendum cannot surely go ahead, and that, hopefully, will save us millions of dollars. When we look at what people are saying, I have got to say that on the Facebook page of the Rt Hon Winston Peters we have had 19,849 likes and 11,347 shares. The Minister is right: we are an online nation.

And what are they saying online? Well, let us go to a couple of things that people are saying online. D Berry said: “It doesn’t matter what we say, this National Government will do what they want regardless of the rest of us.” And as for the people who turned up to the meetings—you know, I have heard numbers quoted for how many people have turned up at meetings. What was it? Collectively, 130 people nationwide turned up for the select committee hearings—round that number. Well, understand this: last Friday we held a public meeting in Palmerston North. I spoke on Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We packed out the hall. We had to go and get more chairs and bring them in. So there were 120-odd people seated in the hall, in the Globe, in Palmerston North to hear me speak about Iraq—

💬 Chris Bishop: 120? Don’t exaggerate.

—and nationwide, $7 million later, Chris Berry, $7 million later how many people turned up?

💬 Chris Bishop: Who’s Chris Berry?

And the vast majority of those people turned up to tell the member, Chris Berry, that they did not want a flag change.

What else are they saying online? Online they are saying things like: “Yes, I agree. Leave the flag alone. I’m 61 and I’m proud of the one I have and I’ve known for that long. A waste of money. Spend it on the homeless.” Spend it on the homeless. What else are people saying online? “Leave the flag alone and spend the money on special needs kids, educational purposes like more hours for teacher aides.” Do you want to hear what people are saying online? Rochelle Anderson: “Keep our flag. Don’t fix what’s not broken.” So why are we fixing what is not broken? It is because it is a personal little agenda.

I hear the Minister saying that we need to understand who we are, where our place is in the world, and what we stand for. Well, it seems from all of the feedback that there is only one political party that has no idea who it is or what it stands for. We have had all the banners before—“A decent society”, “A better future”, “A brighter future”. We know what the National Party thinks it stood for in each successive election. If it has a problem understanding what it stands for and who it is now, the National Party should go back to one of those focus groups and go and do an analysis. Talk to your own people, National, because the public in New Zealand know clearly who they are. They are proud New Zealanders. And it is interesting, as we head up to 8 August, when we will commemorate the battle of Chunuk Bair, that nobody out there whom I speak to in the RSAs, nobody whom I speak to in the Defence Force, nobody whom I speak to in rural provincial New Zealand has a problem understanding who they are, where their place is in this world, and what they stand for.

No, this is what it is, and this is what people online are saying it is: it is a particular desire of the Prime Minister to leave a legacy issue, and all of his MPs are falling in behind him to give him that because they want to be Ministers in the next Government. Do you know what the irony is? On Radio Live—was it today—94 percent of people polled were against the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; against the signing. Keep this up and the members will guarantee that they are not in Government, and it will not be anybody else’s doing; it will be their own.

Tēnā koutou katoa. He mihi nui ki a koutou. There is an expression for arrogance, I believe, in Te Reo Māori: tino whakahīhī. At the risk of being tino whakahīhī, I would like to say that I have not heard of a referendum before that was instigated by a Prime Minister with no groundswell of public support, no group of people who have lobbied, developed, created, or called for it. There may have been one—I may be tino whakahīhī in saying that—but I think it is very unusual for this referendum to be imposed upon us because of one person’s idea. And when that person is the leader of the country, you have got to ask why they are doing it. One of the reasons that this is such a faltering, confused bill and a faltering, confused process is that there is no call for it. So the problem the Government has with this bill, with these referenda, is that nobody—nobody—really asked for it. And it is not as if all of us—and there I possibly differ a little from my colleague in New Zealand First. I do think we have identity issues in Aotearoa. I do think we are often quite confused about what we stand for and that it is good to look at identity. However, the question “Ko wai tātau?”—who are we—is not being asked in this referendum. That is not what we are talking about.

I have also been disturbed to hear in the debate that history started a hundred years ago, because it did not. There were flags in Aotearoa going way back—He Whakaputanga. The people of Tai Tokerau can tell you about the flag. They can tell you about the Declaration of Independence and they can tell you about the United Tribes flag, which was there to make sure that the people who were sailing the tangata whenua ships that went to Sydney to trade had a flag. We have often had different flags, but for a long time we have had this one. If we are going to change it, we have to have a genuine people’s movement calling for it, and we do not. It is pretty simple. That genuine people’s movement does not exist. But it is absolutely clear whose people’s movement exists: the movement of the Prime Minister, because he really, really does need to distract us from the economy and he really does need to distract us from a country where people are lying in doorways and begging and struggling to find homes.

Let us talk about something that Russel Norman, I think, yesterday called optics, which is: let us have something that is visual. This is very visual. Let us distract ourselves with a picture, and we can all look at it online. I am sure lots of people have looked at it, because it is fun to look at pictures. But, actually, that is not what our identity as a nation is about. Our identity as a nation is about constitutional debate. We are supposedly having a constitutional debate, but I have not heard the Prime Minister talk about it for a very long time. He is talking about a referendum. He is talking about two referendums. Have we had a referendum on the constitutional change issues? I personally am glad we have not, because I do not feel we are mature enough as a country to have a referendum on that issue. But, actually, at least it is a real issue. The status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Aotearoa is a real issue. What flag to have comes after we have resolved that issue. It is the cart—and very, very much a vanity cart—before a very, very complex horse.

If we want to have discussion about constitutional issues, we need to start with the ones that really matter—not with even a piece of cloth that means a lot to some people. I guarantee it means a lot to some people. It means more to them than to me. I am 61 years old. It does not mean much to me. It does not represent my aspirations for Aotearoa at all, but I do not support, and the Greens do not support, this farcical process and this referendum bill, because it is a waste of money and it is a vanity project that is actually not about identity. If we want to talk about national identity, bring it on, but this is not the conversation, Minister. This is not about national identity. National identity is not about what design we have. It is about who we are. It is about what is really going on in the country. It is not about the design. We have not had the conversation that you claim to be at the end of. It has not even started, and these referendums, which are a colossal waste of money already—and I do feel sorry for the very genuine people who went around the country and did the meeting consultation. I mean, how many people in this Chamber have enjoyed going to a meeting where there are hardly any people and no one wants to know? I have been to a few—

💬 Chris Bishop: You’d be well used to it, I imagine.

—and I would imagine that most of us have been to a few. But at least we are not forcing a $26 million referendum on to the citizens who do not want it. The Greens want a genuine discussion.

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.

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.

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.”

I move, That the question be now put.

Tēnā koe e te Heamana mō tō mātauranga te tohu nei tēnei mema kia tū ki te tuku atu i ōku whakaaro mō tēnei take.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, for your wisdom to give this member the call to stand and express my views on this matter.]

As a Māori speaker and it being Māori Language Week, I thought the Committee might be interested in knowing that the word “haki” is flag, but the word “hakihaki” is a festering sore, and that is actually what the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill is. That is exactly what it is and no matter what band-aid you put over it, no matter what medicine you rub on it, it is just going to keep on festering.

Members across the Chamber also mentioned polls. They were talking about public opinion and how they do not have just a knee-jerk reaction to whatever poll might come out. Well, as far as I understood it, you needed a pole to fly a flag and what is happening here is that—

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

Mr Bishop might laugh but it was actually he who said it. But you need a pole to fly that flag and what our polls are telling us—and it is not just the Labour Party polls, it is not just the New Zealand First polls; I am sure everybody in this Chamber has heard of the New Zealand Herald, which is telling us—is that there is definitely not an appetite for us to change the flag.

I am also reminded of a sense of ceremony. Mr Bishop in previous exchanges in this Chamber has always mentioned how important ceremony is and how it cannot be lost when we are looking at processes moving forward. I make particular reference to the actual ceremonial process of voting. Well, the same thing applies to this. When I think about some of the contributions this evening around the ceremony of our flag and what it means to our defence force, it has already been highlighted and I do not want to draw the point out. However, that ceremony is important to our people and certainly to the people who speak to me in my electorate.

This morning I sat on the plane returning from Tāmaki Makarau—the great electorate of Tāmaki Makarau. Last night I attended a funeral and at that funeral, in fact, we flew the New Zealand flag. Everybody rose and acknowledged it. This morning, on the plane down, I sat next to a member of the defence force and he too had a flag on his sleeve.

The importance of our flag cannot be understated. It might cause a few members in the Chamber to scratch their head but I also want to echo the words of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is not that I am against changing the flag; I will be honest with you here. In a discussion with my son, who is 19 years old, he actually said to me: “Dad, I don’t think the flag best reflects us moving forward.” And I take that point. However, I still consider myself pretty young and I got to see my grandfather raise that flag every morning, and every evening take that flag down. It means something to me. So I am a little bit torn on that.

However, what I am not torn on is the actual process. It has been stated—“referendums” or “referenda”—that the New Zealand public are not quite as smart as we think we are. Well, the Government will tell us that there is confusion. When you see our flag and the Australian flag together, people are often confused. Well, let me talk a little bit about ceremony. When the Olympic Games happen we know that the first country out is Greece. From there it goes through an alphabetical process, and Australia is far, far, far away ahead in terms of the alphabetical process than New Zealand. Secondly, overseas in the State Department building—you are talking about confusion; actually it is not that confusing. Overseas, when we went to the State Department—not last week—it was the same thing. All the flags were lined up in alphabetical order and there was certainly no confusion from the National members who were part of the delegation as well as the Labour members.

Another Māori word for us in the vocab today is “tohutohu”. “Tohutohu” is to direct and that is exactly what these referendums will do. What it will not do is allow our country the first question, which is whether we want to change the flag. What it is actually doing is it is directing us, it is channelling us, it is funnelling us—

💬 Ron Mark: Manipulating.

—and manipulating us into making a forced decision and I do not think that is fair. I think our people deserve more.

What it also does is it talks about how many young people have engaged—and my esteemed colleague here, Sue Moroney, mentioned how kids were instructed to make this a project in their schools. I am concerned that as a result—

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to follow my colleague Peeni Henare in this particular debate and say that I agree with him. The first question in clause 6 should have been “Do you want to change the flag?”. That would have saved us going on to clause 7. You see, in the Pacific community, although we agree that there is a need for us to debate and discuss the future of this country, the future does not belong to a flag or symbol. It belongs to the people first. And that discussion has not happened first.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Kia ora tātou katoa. Before the dinner break I had made mention that my colleague Peeni Henare, the member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau, had made a very strong point before this Committee as to why it is that the Government wants to have two referendums, in clause 6 and clause 7, when this matter could be resolved by asking the right question. The right question is: do New Zealanders want to change the flag? I would say, based on the polls that we have seen, that the resounding answer from many New Zealanders would be no. In fact, I understand that one particular poll run by a newspaper had 70 percent of respondents say that they did not want to change the flag.

The reason that is important is if you look at clause 6, it talks about the first referendum being conducted under a preferential voting electoral system. Therefore, the community is going to be asked to choose between one, two, three, four, maybe five, maybe six flags. Instead of just choosing one, they are asked to choose, based on this preferential vote, one, two, three, and four.

Why is it that we are spending the time to undertake this long process when it could be resolved simply by the question that my colleague asked earlier—that we ask the right question of the New Zealand public in one referendum: do New Zealanders want to change the flag? If the answer is a resounding no, then there is no need for a second referendum. That is the first point.

New Zealanders will be quite suspicious as to why we are spending $26 million over the next while, trying to determine whether we change the flag or not. I heard Minister Nikki Kaye say that this is about nationhood. Although I agree that when we talk about nationhood, symbols are important, I will tell you what this old man from the Māngere market said to me about the flag debate: E le mafai ona ai se fu’a. We cannot eat the flag. E le mafai ona totogi e le fu’a le pili o le matou moli ma le fale. A flag does not pay for my rent; it does not pay for my electricity bill. The point I make there is that the people are right. When we talk about nationhood, we talk about laying the foundations that are important going forward, building a society where everyone has some common principles and common values by which we live, and not the symbols. We do not live by the symbols. We live by the means by which this country is able to share its wealth.

I want to make another point: the flag has had symbolic importance to many who fought and died for this flag. Simply presenting other alternatives is really a disgrace on this Government because it is showing immense disrespect to those to whom this symbol means so much. It is not just Pākehā; it also includes Māori and Pacific people who fought and died. Therefore, the issue is why it is that this Government wants to prolong the process by introducing clause 6 and clause 7, two separate and distinct voting patterns, when the issue could be resolved simply by asking the question that Peeni Henare had asked earlier: do New Zealanders want to change the flag? I would say that the answer is no.

We need to begin the discussion about the future of New Zealand. We have got the flag first instead of laying the foundation for how to share the wealth of this country. That is why $26 million—

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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—

I move, That the question be now put.