New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill

Before I take a call, I would just like to point out to members that those in the Chamber and those listening at home will no doubt be able to recite, in this very wide-ranging debate around clauses 1 and 2, virtually every point that has been made so far in the course of the debate. It is also important to note that repetition is a trigger for the Chair to call the end of a person’s call. So I encourage people to be interesting and creative in their debates.

Clause 1 is, indeed, the clause I wish to speak about, because this bill’s title clearly is not appropriate, and this has not been referred to so far in the debate. It is not appropriate because it does not actually state what the bill is really about. It is not fundamentally about referendums—and that is what the title says. It is actually about replacing New Zealand’s historic and well-respected national flag. But the title does not refer to that at all. The current name reflects only the means, which are the referendums, and not the end, which is the replacement, or not, of the current flag with an alternative. And it is about the legislation that puts that into effect, because the most important part of the bill is the part that replaces the current flag with a new one, should that be the result of the two referendums. This is not reflected at all in the name of the bill, and so I am very disappointed in the name for that reason. It really should be changed.

Some name such as, for example, “New Zealand Flag (Replacement With a Gormless, Meaningless, Modern Symbol) Bill” would be a lot more relevant to this particular legislation than the name that has been given, for the reason that I gave. I have seen the long list of flags already published, and I do not think that my term “gormless, meaningless, modern symbol” is entirely out of place when you look at those possible alternative flags. That name would be totally appropriate and much better than the name that this legislation has been given. That list is a patchwork of gaudy and ugly designs, and that needs to be referred to, and reflected in, the name of this bill. None of them even slightly represents New Zealand’s heritage in any way like the current flag does. Another point—

💬 Tim Macindoe: How ridiculous.

The member opposite says: “How ridiculous.” But it is absolutely true. The current flag, this flag that I am holding, actually does represent New Zealand’s heritage, and none of the rubbish—absolute rubbish—that I saw in that gaudy list could possibly compare to it on those grounds.

Furthermore, the title is not truly representative of the actual referendum process. The name would be better as something like the “New Zealand Flag (Gerrymandered, Back To Front) Referendum Bill”, because that actually is what this bill is. It is not just the New Zealand flag referendum bill; it is a gerrymandered, back to front referendum bill, and therefore the name should say so. It is gerrymandered because of the fundamental flaw in the first referendum, which is that people wanting none of the alternatives have no way to vote in the first referendum, because the New Zealand flag is not there. So they can participate only by casting a vote with none of the options chosen—just leaving the voting paper blank and putting it back into the ballot box, or perhaps writing across it: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” That would do it, because they are now currently disenfranchised from participating in the first flag referendum.

If those people want none of the alternatives, how can they participate? They cannot. The only two ways that I know of that they could participate are by drawing a vote and then putting it back with nothing written on it, or by writing: “I want the current New Zealand flag.” on it. There is no provision in the first referendum allowing them to express their feelings. That is wrong, and that is why I say that it is gerrymandered and that that should be referred to, and reflected in, the title.

New Zealand First does call on people to do one of those two things, because they have been disenfranchised. New Zealand First says to those people who want the current flag: “Go along and vote, but don’t choose any of the alternatives if you want the current flag, or write across it ‘I want the current New Zealand flag.’ ” I think that is a perfectly valid thing for them to do, and New Zealand First says that they should feel free to do so.

Timing is everything and I suspect that if the Prime Minister had brought forward this idea at the start of his time as Prime Minister he might have carried the country with it. He could have used some of his popularity at the time to turn this into a positive experience and he could have used his influence to get the outcome that he wanted. But, of course, he was not willing to do that. He delayed 8 years and, of course, people see the somewhat cynical timing of the flag by then as being a flag of diversion—a flag of convenience to take the eye of the public off more serious issues. Of course, that coincides with a downturn in the New Zealand economy and so perhaps people are more willing to think ill of this move to change the flag than they would have, had the Prime Minister used his political skill to bring this forward at an earlier time.

I want to say why I agree at one level with the last speaker, Denis O’Rourke, in terms of the name of this bill. It is called the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, but in the first referendum there is nothing in it about the New Zealand flag. There is no option presented in the first referendum to answer the question as to whether you want the New Zealand flag to change or not, and that has been one of the main complaints that has been made by Opposition parties. It is not too complex. Most people can get their head around whether they want a change to the flag or not, and if that had been included in the first question, then the second referendum would have been stayed. If the majority did say that they wanted a change to the flag, you could proceed, but if the majority said that they did not, then you would not waste any more money on it.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Did this member support the policy he campaigned on last year?

I did. I did, but I also see this for what it is. It is something pulled out of the bottom drawer. You know, Paula Bennett’s excuses or another bit of benefit-bashing or another attempt to blame criminals for every ill that we have in society—those sorts of excuses were running thin, so the Government said: “Oh, we’ve got to pull another one out of the bottom drawer. How about we resurrect this old flag idea and bring it in.”

Of course, circumstances change. You know, Fonterra has responded to the circumstances changing in the dairy sector by making 500 people, or so, redundant and trying to cut its cloth. That is going to have flow-on effects for the Government’s books. It is now unlikely it is going to make surplus, or its surplus will be smaller, and it is time that the Government responded to the effect that that will have upon its books as well. So that is why, responding to the interjection from the whip for the National Party, I say that it is appropriate that you cut your cloth, and when things are not going as well, you should not waste $26 million on a process that, obviously, is unpopular now anyway and is not going to succeed. Secondly, even if you are going to proceed, you should do it in the most cost-effective method possible, rather than have two referenda when one would have sufficed.

The next point I would make is to ask why we are doing this through a special postal referendum. The cost of that will be higher than if it was just tacked on to another election. It does not seem to me to be an appropriate thing—to go the more costly route. As my colleague the Hon Phil Goff has already said, because postal referenda have a lower turnout than a general election, you do not get the same mandate, if you like, either for change or for retention of the status quo, if that is the way people want to go.

You have heard that the Government members at the Justice and Electoral Committee blocked an amendment proposed by the Hon Trevor Mallard to try to fix this problem with the referendum, which has no question about the current flag in the first referendum. There is a rather barren question: if we were to change, which of these flags would you like? It would have been very simple to make that better by including the option of retaining the flag in the first referendum. That is described in the minority view of the Labour Party in the select committee report, which said that there is a balance to be struck in questioning—

I want to start with the title of the bill and then I will go through to the commencement clause. But, firstly, I want to make the point that this bill should be renamed the “Tricky New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill”. The reason I say that is—and much discussion has been had about this—that the order in which the questions have been asked in the two referendums is back to front. The first question that New Zealanders should have been asked is “Do you want to change the flag?”, but, instead, the first referendum that is being done is presenting New Zealanders with a range of options when they have not even had the option to say whether or not they want to change the flag.

This referendum is back to front and it is back to front because the Government has done that deliberately. It has its own agenda. It wants to change the flag. Government members do not really care whether New Zealanders want to change the flag; they want to change the flag. So to mitigate the chances of New Zealanders in the first referendum saying they do not want to change the flag—like 70 percent of them did during a New Zealand Herald poll—the Government twisted it round, turned it upside down, and provided only the option to choose between the current New Zealand flag and an alternative in the second referendum. It is back to front and it is tricky—tricky like the National Government.

I also want to say that the other name this bill could have that would be appropriate is the “John Key’s Vanity Project Bill”. Let us be honest. This bill is not about New Zealand, it is not about progress, and it is not about being progressive. It is about John Key and the National Government wanting to have some sort of legacy when their term is over—and it will be over. And because those members have achieved nothing else for New Zealand—nothing else—they are clutching at straws and they are asking what they can do. All they can think of is forcing New Zealand to change the flag so that in 20 years’ time, if they were in the position where it worked, then they could say: “We were responsible for changing the flag. We were responsible for changing the flag.” So that is an alternative title—“John Key’s Vanity Project Bill”.

I want to talk to the commencement side of this. What we have here in clause 2(3) is: “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.” So those sections would not commence at all. What I want to point out is that because of the back to front way in which these referendums are being done, we will have wasted millions of dollars in having public meetings that people did not turn up to and in collecting designs from people and putting them out there in the first referendum because of the fact that it says here: “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.” How many millions of dollars will we have wasted at that point?

I guarantee that there will be at least twice as many people participating in that second referendum as there will be in the first. There are so many New Zealanders out there who have already indicated not only that they do not necessarily want to change the flag but also some are saying that this is not the time to change the flag. Many are saying that given the pressures that this country is under, under that National Government, given the bad job that the National Government is doing, and given the other priorities that we have as a country, why would we waste $26 million on two referendums about a flag?

💬 Hon Nicky Wagner: Because we believe in democracy.

Many New Zealanders are saying—it is about democracy, Nicky Wagner said. She said that it is about democracy. If it was really about democracy, then the Government would have got the referendum round the right way and first asked New Zealanders: “Do you want to change the flag?”. But Nicky Wagner knows, as well as we know, that this is not about democracy; this is about the National Government and John Key and their vanity project. Nicky Wagner knows that.

Let us go back to alternative titles for the bill. Let us go back to alternative titles that really suit the mood of New Zealanders and the way they are feeling about this bill. We could call this the “Money That Could Be Better Spent Elsewhere Bill”. Actually, where could we spend $26 million—some worthwhile places that $26 million could go to? Perhaps it could go to the child poverty issue that we are facing as a country, which the Government has done nothing to address. Perhaps it could go to the housing crisis that the Government—

We are a Government that does what we say and, what is more, we actually do what we say. What is extraordinary in the contributions I have heard from Labour members is that—only 9 months ago they campaigned at the election saying they wanted to change the flag. They then come to this House less than 9 months later, and I hear speeches from Stuart Nash saying that he loves the New Zealand flag and that we should never propose to change the New Zealand flag. There is a very simple message to New Zealand from this debate: you cannot trust a word that Labour says to you during the election. Its message is that whatever it says in the election it will, regardless of principle, change its position as it suits itself. It lacks integrity, it is untrustworthy, and it is duplicitous, and that has been so heavily reinforced in this debate.

There have been questions about the process by which the two referendums will determine New Zealand’s flag. It is interesting that I have gone back and checked the record and found that both the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party absolutely supported the two-referendum process around the choice of MMP. At that time those parties said that it was the right process. They said that people cannot make a choice—and I quote Winston Peters, who said: “People can’t make a choice about changing from first past the post unless they know the alternative.” My question to New Zealand First members is how can people make an intelligent choice about changing the flag without knowing the alternative?

This bill, appropriately named the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, is about National doing what it said it would do, unlike other parties, which are all over the paddock and which are duplicitous and untrustworthy, and that is why we should put this bill through this Committee stage.

It is great to be in a very engaging debate this afternoon, particularly with Mr Macindoe, who reminds me of a pit bull chewing a wasp, with his references to frustration. I look at his face and I understand the frustration that he feels, because the people back home—the vast majority of New Zealanders—feel exactly the same way about the nonsense that is going on in relation to this flag referendum.

I have a great name for the bill, and it is better than everything I have heard so far. I think it is a name that should be seriously considered; in fact, it may even be worth putting in a Supplementary Order Paper. It has got to be called the “Clayton’s Flag Referendum Bill”, because this is the flag referendum you have got when you have not got a referendum. Let us be honest: the way we are doing this is absolutely back to front. This is about not asking the people of New Zealand: “First and foremost, do you want a flag change—yes or no?”. The polls can do it. The newspapers can go out there and ask the question. We are largely hearing, from the rank and file New Zealanders, that they do not want this referendum.

What we are also hearing is that it is an absolute waste of money. This bill may be better called the “Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Flag Referendums Bill”, because that is exactly what it is. Putting $26 million into a flag referendum is an absolute waste of time, dialogue, and money, because the vast majority of New Zealanders do not want it.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Two main parties promised it at the last election.

We have got New Zealanders out there with faces like twisted sandshoes in frustration with the Government, because it will not stand up and listen to them, Mr Macindoe—and you are one of those people not listening. Anyway, he is giving a lot of this and not a lot of that.

I have to say that the amount of money that $26 million takes up would be around about 10 percent towards a better ferry system for those commuters travelling from Wellington across to Picton. Ten percent—that is a hefty deposit for a new, reliable interisland ferry transportation system, for example. What $26 million would do is upgrade around about 900 houses in our underfunded social housing stock around the country, and yet this Government says we cannot afford to do all of these things—we have got no money for it. Yet it can find $26 million, pull it out of its pocket, and throw it on the table. It is absolutely disgusting. It is a disgrace that we are allowing ourselves to get into this debate because we have got a legacy that this Government wants to leave behind, particularly what John Key wants to say he delivered for this country. We are seeing a lot of depression, and we are seeing a lot of frustration out there from people in small businesses, and it is costing New Zealanders not only in their well-being and their mental state but in their pockets as well.

This is nothing but a vanity fair. If this Government were serious about putting a referendum forward it would first and foremost ask the question: “Do you want it?”. If the answer was yes, then we could go into the whole discussion about which one of these flags the public would like to see put forward. The flags that I have seen today and the comments that I am hearing on social media and seeing in the newspaper are a disgrace. It is a debacle. With an open mind I cannot see one of those flags jumping out and me saying: “Well, being objective, that might work.” They just do not work. I would like to go back to this one, Gareth Morgan’s winning flag. That makes a little bit of sense. You have got Labour on the left, National on the right, and you have got New Zealand First in black and white coming up through the middle and separating them. That is exactly what is going to happen. The polls will show it. They are starting to tell it now. This Government is getting concerned about the movement.

Mr Macindoe, you were saying that New Zealand First has supported this in the past. We have not supported it. We have been dead against it. We have not been standing up there saying: “Let us have a referendum.” prior to now. We have been the only party standing fast on our position of leaving New Zealand’s flag as it is and not wasting taxpayers’ money. Thank you.

Before I address the matters to do with the title that I had already planned to address, I would just like to respond to both the Minister in the chair and some of the irate and frustrated interjections from the senior Government whip. First, about the matter of what exactly Labour’s policy on this is—the National Government is always quite obsessed with Labour’s policy. It never wants to talk about its own policy, but it—

💬 Tim Macindoe: Because we read it and we thought you meant it. You can’t rewrite it. It’s there—it’s there.

Calm down, Tim. Tim, chill out and I will tell you—just be cool. Certainly, Labour’s policy at the election was to have a referendum on the flag, but we did not say that we would do it when the country was $101 billion in debt. We did not say that we would prioritise it over trying to get the country back into surplus. So when New Zealanders spoke out loudly and said that this was an interesting debate but not a thing to blow $26 million on when we are deep in debt and we are not in surplus, I tell you that we would have listened to that.

💬 Jono Naylor: Read us the first line of the policy.

We would have listened, Mr Naylor. Just calm down and listen to me. We would have listened to that and we would have introduced the referendum at a time that was appropriate. The other strange thing that Nick Smith, the Minister in the chair, did was he compared this process with the MMP referendum. That is actually quite a good comparison to make, except that the Minister got it wrong when he made the comparison, because the first question in the MMP referendum was: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. And we agree that that would be the way to go—question No. 1: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That was not the point that Nick Smith, the Minister in the chair, was trying to make, but we actually agree. Yes, use a process analogous to the two-referendum process that was used for the shift from first past the post to MMP. Question No. 1: “Do you want to change?”. That would be the place to start with the referendum.

Just so that Tim Macindoe and co. can relax for a second, I would like to talk about something that I hope is not too contentious. In the bill—the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—we have this interesting thing, the word “referendums”. That word has caused a bit of consternation and quite a bit of confusion. In fact, one of the members opposite who was on the Justice and Electoral Committee actually interjected on one of the members on this side, saying that it was “referenda”, not “referendums”. I was a little bit concerned about that, because if a member was on the select committee—

💬 Tim Macindoe: The interjections say we believe that the time has come for a change and it is right for the issue to be put to the public. That’s your policy.

Tim, chill out. If a member on the select committee is scrutinising the bill closely, then he should know what the title of the bill is. If he was listening to the submissions and was actually paying attention in the select committee hearings, he should know what the title of the bill is, and the title of the bill is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I must admit that when I first saw that, I thought: “That doesn’t sound right to me. I would have thought it should be ‘referenda’.” So, just like the member opposite, I was a bit confused about that, but I have looked it up, and it turns out that, actually, there is a really legitimate reason why the title has the word “referendums” in it, not the word “referenda”. It turns out that this is all a matter of going back to the origin of the word “referendum”, which comes from Latin. My Latin pronunciation is a bit rusty, but I think it is the verb “referre”, meaning “to refer”.

💬 Scott Simpson: A good King’s education.

Yes, actually, I did do Latin in the third form at King’s College, but it was a long time ago and I cannot recall exactly how the pronunciation goes. Anyway, the first problem is that this is a verb—this is a verb, not a noun. So that is why. What has happened is that we have anglicised a Latin verb. The word “referendum” did not start to be used until relatively recently. In the old days, the word was “plebiscite”, which is also derived from Latin, based on the word “plebiscita”, which comes from the Roman-era word “plebeian”, meaning “commoner”. In fact, the Concilium Plebis—

💬 Hon Member: Is this really related?

—was the Roman Parliament. It was the house of the common people. This is to do with the derivation of the word “referendums”, which is a word that is in the title of the bill, and we are debating the title of the bill. It was only in the mid-19th century that the word “referendum”, which is a derivation of that Latin verb, came to be used, and it is because of the fact that it is a verb and not a noun—

Ā, tēnā koe e te Heamana o te Komiti o te Whare nei, tēnei te mihi atu.

[So thank you, Mr Chairperson of the Committee of the whole House, I greet you.]

I think the title of this bill ought to be the “Change the New Zealand Flag and Related Matters Bill”, and I say that because there are many related matters within this bill that have not yet been spoken about. In particular, I want to mihi out to all the millions of New Zealanders who actually carry a flag around with them every single day. I am one of them, and I bet that there are many in this Chamber who are too. This is a New Zealand driver’s licence. It has the New Zealand flag on it.

Within this bill, in clause 70, the driver’s licence is one of the related matters, and that is why I say that the title ought to represent what is actually in the bill. It is not just about referenda; it is also about related matters. One of those related matters, of course, is changing the legislation so that the flag that appears on your New Zealand driver’s licence can be changed. If the New Zealand public decides that we will change the flag, then there will be a 6-month period when you can have one or the other. My point, in speaking to the title, is that it should accurately reflect what is in the bill, and I do not think that the current title, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, is sufficient to describe the totality of what is in this bill. The bill has many other things, and that is why the “Change the New Zealand Flag and Related Matters Bill” ought to be its title.

I think also that in respect of the commencement there have been many interesting points made. My point about the commencement is that we should make it at the next general election. That is because it will be more inclusive of the wider New Zealand public, and I will tell you why. Only 65 percent of Māori in my electorate voted. That probably reflects a systemic problem within wider New Zealand. However, it is important that everyone’s view is reflected within the first referendum regardless of all of its faults, and they are many and they have been well canvassed in this debate. So I want to put my hand up to say that that is not good enough.

I reflect on another point that was made in this debate, and that is that if only 30 percent of people turn up for this vote, then I think we could do some urgent legislation, put it through the House, and cancel the final vote—cancel it altogether. If there is such a low turnout—and I suspect there will be—and if it is less than 40 percent, really—

💬 Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is the title and commencement debate, and this member has not addressed either of those at any stage of his contribution.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need any further instruction. Adrian Rurawhe.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the point around the commencement is that it ought not to be as it is drafted in this bill. It ought to commence to coincide with the next general election. That would be a lot more democratic, and if we are talking about democracy and what is right—and I have heard that word used in this Chamber in this debate by one of the members opposite. He is sitting there right now, actually, saying this is about democracy. Well, if it is about democracy, then make it available to all people at the next general election. An alternative is that maybe we could call it the “Tīnihia te Haki Bill” [“Change the Flag Bill”]. Two weeks ago we had Māori Language Week, but I am going for a month. Kia ora.

It is a pleasure to talk on the title and commencement clauses of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I take great pride in being creative sometimes, as you requested, Mr Chair, at the beginning of this debate on the name of this bill. This particular bill, with the title of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, is one that I am not going to propose any amendment to, because I believe it is appropriate. Having two referendums is the mechanism that this Government has chosen to start the process of changing the New Zealand flag. But I believe that the referendums and the way that they are being sequenced is symbolic of the way that the Government has got this whole process for the changing of our flag, the timing of it, and the cost of changing our flag absolutely and utterly wrong.

I believe that the bill is aptly named, but I do have an issue with the referendums themselves. The bill, helpfully in schedule 1, points out the options, or the questions, that the New Zealand public will have. I am holding here, from the bill itself, a copy of roughly what New Zealanders will be asked. The first question is: “If”—if—“the New Zealand flag changes, which flag would you prefer?”. New Zealanders are given four options, on which they will put their preference. So the question is: “What would you prefer if”—if—“the flag is changed?”. That is the first question that New Zealanders will be asked: if it changes, what would you prefer it to change to? Schedule 2 points to the question that we on this side of the House believe should be asked first, and that is: “What is your choice for the New Zealand flag? Would you want it to stay the same or would you like to have something different, which you have been asked for in the first referendum of the referendums that are being held here?”.

There is a lot of heat in this debate, or in these potential referendums, because it is a flag. So let us take that out and just say that we are choosing a car. If you wanted a new car or if you were being asked whether you wanted a new car, would you first ask the question “Which car would you want?”, or would you ask “Do I need a new car?”. Any logical, sane person out there would ask the first question, “Do I need a new car?”, before asking “Which car would I like?”. That is the simple stupidity of the sequence of these two referendums that are being proposed in this bill. The second question should be asked first—“Do I want a new car?”—and the first question should be asked second: “If I want a new car, which car would I prefer?”. You should be asked whether you prefer the car that you have got now—the status quo—or whether you would prefer, potentially, four other new cars that are being offered up.

In any other logical situation, that is the way you would do it, but not here in the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I think that points out for everyone at home the simple yet elegant stupidity of this piece of legislation. Not only do people not want our flag to change right now—not right now—they do not want $26 million to be spent on this. This referendum is just plain-out stupid. It is asking the second question first and the first question second. That is why this piece of legislation should not pass. If the Government really wants to have a meaningful process around changing a flag of significance to every New Zealander, let us get it right. Let us not have this mickey mouse process that people have not bought into. Only 700 people turned out to the flag referendum meetings right around the country. It has cost us millions of dollars already. The Government turned away from the select committee process over 700 people whom it blatantly, obviously did not want to hear from because they would have said the same thing that we have said too, which is we want to change the flag at some stage, but not right now.

The cost is wrong—$26 million. It is not what we need right now. The question is wrong. The timing is wrong. So if you are going to have referendums, do not ask the second question first; ask the first question first. Ask whether you want to change the flag first, and if the country says yes, then we will buy that. But at the moment the country says no.

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the title and commencement debate for the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have been thinking quite seriously about what the title of this bill should be, based on how this bill has appeared before us here in Parliament today. Actually, I would like to quote from one of the designers, a guy called Pax Zwanikken. He is a Kiwi who lives in Sydney. He contributed 25 designs, and two of his designs actually got through. So he has been shortlisted in terms of the 40 flags that have been shortlisted. What he said, which I find really interesting, is that he does not hold much hope for the flag change being supported—it does not matter what kind of flag—because, from his perspective, this has not come out of a groundswell of public desire for a new flag. So from his perspective, the title of the bill should be the “No Public Desire For a New Flag Bill”.

The reason I want to highlight that point is that if you actually go back and look over time at the call for change and whether or not the New Zealand public has wanted change, we can go back to 1973, when there was a poll. Of New Zealanders in 1973, 75 percent of them said no, they did not want to change the flag. So I acknowledge that this conversation has been around for a long time. Then, again, in 1984, 86 percent of New Zealanders said no when they were asked whether they wanted to change the flag. In 1999, 64 percent said no. In 2008, 62 percent said no. In 2011, 72 percent said no. Actually, the latest poll shows that 70 percent of New Zealanders are saying no, they do not want to change the flag. So that particular quote from Pax is actually incredibly relevant.

I think the other title that this bill could have had was actually published on 30 January 2014. It was a heading by Isaac Davison, actually. It could have been the “Keep It Or Flag It Bill”. That was his report after John Key actually announced this idea about changing New Zealand’s flag—he had this brainstorm: “Let’s change New Zealand’s flag.” So, actually, the title of this bill could be the “Keep It Or Flag It Bill” because of what the Prime Minister thought on 29 January 2014—“Let’s change the flag.” Actually, we could look at the National Party website. We could call this bill the “PM John Key Believes It’s the Right Time to Change the Flag Bill”, which is what the National Party promoted and has been promoting. This bill—let us get real—has come about because the Prime Minister had this brainstorm.

But a title that I think is really interesting—and this was actually part of the open letter that the flag review panel put out itself—is the “Open Call, No Criteria New Zealand Flag Bill”. What I find really interesting is that we got 10,292 submissions—new designs, where people decided that they would participate in this process, some of them from overseas—but what we did not do, actually, was have a set of criteria for what the flag should represent. So we talk a lot—and this bill has talked a lot—about New Zealand’s identity, but the reality is that that has not been part of the conversation at all. It was not in the criteria to make sure that our indigenous people were represented. There were no criteria to make sure that the Southern Cross was going to stay, because for us that is part of our national anthem. There was not a call to make sure that the koru was in the flag. In fact, there was not even a call to make sure that the silver fern was, even though the Prime Minister said, when he announced it on 29 January 2014, that we must ensure that the silver fern is in there.

Now, apparently, this is all part of some tourism boost and some economic boost, because we are going to be recognised globally as a country because we are going to have this amazing new flag that represents our identity. So I find it really interesting that, actually, we did not do that. The call went out far and wide, and we did not care what people submitted, we did not care who they were, and we did not care about the context of their design. We just put out this open call. So that is why I think our title could be the “Open Call, No Criteria New Zealand Flag Bill”. It now seems that those criteria are actually really important, because we have picked flags that have got a koru, we have picked flags that have got the Southern Cross, and we have picked flags that actually represent New Zealand. So when you think about it—

We have had a bit of conversation about the title, and my last contribution was on the title. I would like to move now to clause 2, the commencement. Actually, the commencement of this bill when it becomes an Act is probably one of the areas of most contention. This is all to do with the timing of the referendums.

My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard has offered an amendment that would amend clause 2(1) so that it reads: “This Act (except sections 69, 70, and 71) comes into force five years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I guess 5 years is somewhat arbitrary, because you cannot put things in a commencement clause like “when the Government can run a surplus” or “when we do not have $101 billion worth of debt” or “when we can get the cost of running these referendums down”. So I guess what Mr Mallard is attempting to do here is to project into the future and make a couple of assumptions. One, and I think it is an important one, is that we will have a Labour Government, because that leads to the second one, which is that we will actually have some decent economic management and we will have a fair chance of the Government heading back towards being in the black again and being in a position where people might see holding a referendum, or two referendums, on changing the flag as something that is more relevant and a more appropriate use of the money that is needed to run those referendums.

These things do cost money. Democracy costs money. I appreciate that the Government has proposed a democratic approach to this. We have some questions over the order of the referendums, but at least it is being done by referendum, not by fiat, and that costs money. But we really do question whether this Act should be commencing, should be coming into force, on the day after it receives the Royal assent, which is what clause 2(1) provides for, or whether it should be put off to a date in the future when the Government’s books might be in a better state, and in a state where this could be more of a priority. This is what a lot of the opposition to the Government’s process comes down to: when exactly the legislation should come into force. I do not actually think most members of the public would be too concerned about the fact that we are debating this legislation now. They might have a view that there are other, more pressing, issues to be debating in public, but the debate now is not as big a problem as holding the referendums this year and next year. So I support Trevor Mallard’s amendment to clause 2(1) because I think, arbitrary as it is, 5 years from now is probably a more appropriate point in time for us to have those referendums and the expenditure that comes with them.

There are some other aspects to the commencement clause that are certainly appropriate for this legislation, but they are somewhat unusual. There are various sections of the legislation that may or may not commence, and, of course, this relates to what the result may be of the second referendum. Obviously the first referendum has no bearing on the commencement of any of the clauses in this legislation because whatever happens there will be two referendums, with all the costs that come with that. But the second referendum does have a bearing on whether or not certain parts of this legislation do actually commence, and those parts are clauses 69, 70, and 71. Of course, those clauses would not need to commence in the event that the public voted to retain the current flag. Another interesting matter with the commencement of clauses 69, 70, and 71 is that there are two triggers for the commencement of those clauses, which is a little bit unusual in legislation as well. The first trigger—

I move, That the question be now put.

I have listened to a number of contributions in respect of clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I want to propose, perhaps, a different title that more aptly deals with the content and the fiscal issues associated with this bill. I think it is very apt to be called “The $26 Million Bill”. If you look at the document, it has got a bit of weight to it. I am not sure how much paper is going for, per pound or per kilogram, in the international price, but given the relevance of the figure $26 million, which I will explain in a moment—I know other colleagues have—I think it may well be relevant, as the bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, to call this bill “The $26 Million Flag Bill”.

That is what it has cost the taxpayer, budgeted to date—$26 million—to conduct this exercise, which opinion poll after opinion poll suggests no one wants. It has not only been opinion poll after opinion poll, but given that so very few people, some 700 people, turned out to the public meetings on the flag consideration project—these meetings cost $208,500 for venues and a further $200,000 for panel members and fees and whatnot. There must have been some very good scones and sausage rolls, or whatever, at these meetings. The average cost per person who turned up was $550 each, or $2,300 each once advertising is included. So in terms of the title, this whole exercise is estimated to have cost $26 million. In respect of this it is very apt and the Government should be upfront and call it what it is. It is a $26 million waste of time.

The New Zealand public have demonstrated through opinion polls and by their turnout—some 700-odd people—that they do not see this as a priority. I suspect there are people who have turned out to those meetings who may want to see a change. There are thousands of others who may want to see a change indeed, but those people do not view this as a priority in their lives. They view health, education, their kids’ welfare, and other things as a priority in their lives. I suspect, speaking again to clause 1, the title, that those people who did not show up to those meetings can probably think of 26 million reasons, to go along with a $26 million budget for this thing, as to how that money could be used in a better way. Or the title could perhaps be “The Prime Minister’s Legacy Project That Has Cost New Zealanders $26 Million”.

I put this to the Government. If it were serious about changing our constitutional arrangements about some of the lofty things that the Prime Minister and others have said, it may want to consider this. The Government has put the cart before the horse. Surely you would look at our true constitutional arrangements. Should we have a written constitution? Should there be a head of State who differs from the current one? Should that person be elected or appointed, or whatever? You would deal with all those heavyweight constitutional arrangements and work that through the community and bring the communities with us. And then the last thing—with no disrespect to the flag, but probably the smallest component of true constitutional reform is to change the flag, which is one of the symbols of your country. People will be for and against that, but I think that is the heavyweight process, dealing with heavyweight issues, that leads—if the Prime Minister were of a mind to look at that—to a heavyweight debate and possibly a heavyweight legacy.

But to have a bill that changes the flag, at a cost that is just incredible to most people—you know, I have been to public meetings during election campaigns. Election campaigns generally are not that popular, where you have had—and I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, has had more people turn up to many of his meetings. In fact, there may be more people in his prisons—and I suspect there are—than the 700 people who turned up to the flag meetings.

In terms of the name, it could be called “The Prime Minister’s $26 Million Legacy Project Bill”. It could be called “The $26 Million Flag Bill”. It could be called a number of things. But I think what is going to be sad in this, because I suspect it will not get through—not the bill, but the actual change, because people are just not for it—is that lost in amongst all of this bunkum and the silly process, and a process that is about the Government’s legacy, or the Prime Minister’s legacy more than anything else, we actually lose the grit and the substance of the issue, which is a debate about our constitutional arrangements—

I move that the motion, the question, be now put.

No, you have got to get it right when you move closure motions. I will call Carmel Sepuloni in a moment. The member must go back to Standing Order 136 for the specific wording that you need to use—nothing else; just focus on that.

I think that we have had some great alternative options offered today for the title of this bill. I do have some other alternative options, but I will discuss those later in my speech. I just want to talk about Part 3 of this bill in relation to the title and commencement clauses. I think that that is allowed at the Committee stage. In Part 3, what we have is two clauses that give quite wide powers to amend the process by Order in Council. These may be standard but they read as the Government being able to correct errors in the legislation without coming back to the House.

So I want to talk about that part in relation to this, because if the Government is going to have power, because of Part 3, to correct errors in the legislation without having to come back to the House, I want an answer from the Minister about what errors it is anticipating in this bill and about whether or not there are any anticipated problems or potential errors that may come out of the title or commencement provisions of the bill. In the commencement clause, for example, could there be an error in relation to, say, clause 2(2), which says: “If, in the second flag referendum, the alternative flag design gains a greater number of votes than the current New Zealand Flag, then sections 69, 70, and 71 commence on whichever of the following dates is earlier: (a) a date set by the Governor-General by Order in Council: (b) the day that is 6 months after the date on which the result of the second flag referendum is declared.”

With that in mind—and we are talking about the date here, and also we are looking at the amendment put up by my colleague Trevor Mallard, who has asked to remove “on the day” and replace it with “5 years”—does that mean that the Government could actually decide that that is an error and change the time frame without bringing the legislation back to the House? We are hoping, actually, that it will support the amendment in the Committee here today and that it will remove the wording “on the day” and replace it with the words “5 years”. That is the amendment put up by Trevor Mallard. Does that mean that if the Government does not support this amendment in the Committee, it could still do so later on, once it discovers the error of its ways, and that it has, in fact, got it wrong in terms of the time frames that it has put around implementing this bill? If the Minister could respond to that, it would be good.

In terms of what it says in Part 3 about the Government being able to correct errors without bringing the legislation back to the House, I wonder whether or not—when the Government members leave the Chamber and if this does manage to happen in terms of a change of flag and if we proceed with the resulting Act, in terms of the rest of it—the Government could then change the actual title of the bill later on without bringing it back to the House. Is that what it means in terms of Part 3 and how it applies to the title and commencement clauses of this bill? I have those questions for the Minister, and if he could respond, it would be greatly appreciated.

I move, That the question be now put.

Can I just remind members that votes are taken in silence.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to:

in subclause (2), replace “on the day” with “5 years”.