New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill

The title of the bill in clause 1 is a matter of quite a lot of importance because it actually addresses—or should address—what the bill is about, and this one does not. The current title is bland. It is not descriptive, and it needs additional words to say what it is about because, really, this Red Peak design—and that is what this bill is about—is so much like just another corporate logo that that is actually what should be stated in the title. So after the word “Referendum” we should have “(Another Boring Corporate Logo)” as part of the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I do not know whether the member is aware but all your amendments on these clauses have been withdrawn and the one that you have just mentioned was one of those that you had an amendment on.

No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you had 13 amendments to the title. They have all been withdrawn, so I am just cautioning the member. If you were speaking to an amendment that has now been withdrawn from the Table, then I am just cautioning the member.

I agree. We have quite deliberately withdrawn those amendments and I have not said in my speech so far that I was talking about any amendment. I am just criticising—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, sure. I realise that. That is why I am saying that if you were going to refer to them, they have been withdrawn.

Thank you for that, but I did not have any intention of referring to them because they have been withdrawn. But that does not mean that this particular description for a title to the bill is satisfactory, because it is not. It does not, as I have said, actually describe what the bill is about at all. Red Peak is a flag design that looks much more like a corporate logo than it does a national flag, and all I am saying is that that should be reflected in the title.

What we in New Zealand First have already said is that this whole process is a sell-out for the New Zealand flag, so, again, that is something that I would have preferred to see in the title—a reference to selling out the New Zealand flag—because that, in fact, is what the entire process has been from beginning to end. I am supported in that by the vast majority of New Zealanders, who do not want to see a flag change and who do see this as a sell-out. So that is another point that is not covered in the description, which is the title to the bill.

But, most of all, most New Zealanders say—and we all know this; it is not a secret—that this bill is an incredible waste of taxpayers’ money. The fact is that this bill actually wastes $8 million on process that has already taken place, and never has there been such an utter and complete waste of money or, indeed, time of this House because of the introduction of this particular, unnecessary bill. That is not reflected in the title either, and it should be. There should be some words in the title to reflect that this is a waste of money, and that has not been done.

Another very important point is this. I have already made this point in my first speech, but it needs to be said again because the title of this bill does not do justice to what is going to happen as a result of this bill. As a result of this bill, what we are going to see is the New Zealand flag referendum process parodied and made fun of across the world. You can imagine what people like John Oliver in the US will make of this particular bill. We know what he has said about the process already, even before this bill got going.

So, if I were to give a title to this bill, I would call it the “New Zealand Flags Referendum (But Wait Till What John Oliver Says About It) Amendment Bill”, because if we did that, it would be the truth. The truth is that this bill will do nothing more, in fact, than show New Zealand up as a nation that cannot handle its legislative process and cannot handle a flag referendums process either. So that is a great shame.

But another point I could make is this—and I will make it—and it is that future generations—

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the title clause, which is actually the one that I would like to focus on for the purpose of this debate, because the title is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. I just want to put on record how disappointed I am that the amendment that we should have been making to the referendum but are not making is having the yes/no question about whether people want to change the flag at all. That question should be in the first referendum. We know that 43,000 people signed an online petition calling for exactly that—for a yes/no question about whether we wanted to change the flag or not to be the subject of the first referendum. That is what this amendment bill, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill, ought to have been doing if the Government was truly listening to the New Zealand public. Government members have shown that they will change their minds based on social media campaigns. I think that is going to be very interesting for the Government to contemplate in the future, because that is what it has done in this bill. It has said that it is actually amenable, if there are social media campaigns run where there are some numbers of people who express a view—that it will bend to the desire for people to have the Red Peak flag added to the referendum. But why has the Government not listened to the 43,000 people who said they wanted the first referendum to ask the question about whether the flag should be changed at all?

There is still an opportunity for all of those things to happen under this bill after it is passed, as I have pointed out in my previous contribution. I really would like to hear from the Minister on whether the Government would entertain this or not, because this would truly be a solution that I think could be supported by all parties around this Chamber—and I am particularly looking to New Zealand First. If one of the five flags that are now going to be in this referendum was the New Zealand flag—the current New Zealand flag—would that address the issues that are causing New Zealand First to vote against this legislation?

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Certainly might.

It looks like it may well do. Would that not be a nice, neat, tidy solution, because then everyone would actually get what they wanted in one referendum? If we did it in one referendum—if we got the view of the country expressed in that one referendum—we would save in the order of about $13 million to $15 million. It is not a small amount of money. We could save that money and truly find out what the will of the New Zealand public is. We could save even more money—it would cost an awful lot less—and just look at the poll results. We know that if one of those five flags was the current New Zealand flag, almost certainly 70 percent of people who participated in that referendum would tick the current New Zealand flag—done and dusted. It would probably cost us in the realm of about $10 million or $12 million for that one referendum. We could put the—[Interruption] Well, the members opposite scoff. They do not seem to have the New Zealand taxpayers’ interests in mind at all when they are considering this issue about the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. It is a really simple and elegant solution. If one of those five flags in the first referendum was to be the current New Zealand flag, we would get all of this shambles sorted in one swift, easy referendum. Would that not be honouring what all New Zealanders want—an appropriate say in whether the flag is changed or not—with the minimum amount of cost to the New Zealand taxpayer? I believe it meets the needs of everyone around Parliament.

Therefore, if we are reflective of the wishes of the New Zealand public, as we ought to be, that would satisfy the needs of the New Zealand public to have what they, quite rightly, should insist on—that is, a proper say in how this flag referendum happens; not a manipulation by the Government. Actually, I think if it did that, it might stop people being humiliated by the process of going along to events where they are going along for all the right reasons, to fund-raise for cancer research or things like that, and they would not have to have the Prime Minister lecture them about trying to get his pet project through and trying to have his vanity project mandated. People could go along to those events for the right reasons and not have to suffer being berated by the Prime Minister if they dare to disagree with his view about changing the flag.

There are a number of points that can be made about the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. I think clause 2, the commencement clause, is one around which there could be a little bit of debate—whether it is appropriate to bring the Act into force so quickly or whether, in fact, we should wait just in case the Prime Minister changes his mind again and decides that he wants yet another flag in there. But, as I think some members have argued in the House, actually he could probably do that anyway. So maybe changing the date to a set date rather than tomorrow or the next day is probably unnecessary. I think most members are aware that this bill does not do what most people think it does. What it does is it scraps the current four flags and says that the Prime Minister and Cabinet can put in any five flags that they want.

I have heard during the debate some interesting discussions on that. I have heard some bush-constitutional approaches from Gareth Hughes, in particular. I just want to say to that member that if Parliament wanted the Red Peak flag in here—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are debating just clauses 1 and 2. Earlier in the week the member speaking was very strict about keeping to items being solely around the provision in the House and I think the House should be consistent.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well, I do not think I need any guidance at the moment. What I understand is that clauses 1 and 2 are fairly wide. I have not felt that the member has been wide of the mark yet, and, of course, that decision is solely mine. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are you going to admonish the Minister for bringing up an irrelevant point of order and questioning your judgment?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Whether I do or not is over to me. I do not intend doing that at the moment and I am not going to be instructed by my fellow presiding officer. He himself sails close to the wind on many occasions. Let us just continue with the floor, which he currently has.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. As I was trying to explain before I was so rudely interrupted, this bill, in fact, leaves with the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, the timing of when to assent to it. So that is a choice that can be made in clause 2. The timing is a matter for Order in Council, and the timing of when that occurs is the advice. But, more important, there is a debate as to whether that timing should be earlier or later, just in case the Prime Minister decides to slip in another flag rather than just the ones that are there.

There is a pretty important, pretty basic point that I want to ask the Attorney-General about, and that is the use of the word “Referendums” in the title. It is a question of whether our level of English is slipping by using the word “Referendums” instead of the traditional word “Referenda”. So there is a question—

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: His own party have been using it all day.

Look, I am not going to be responsible for slipping standards amongst members of Parliament and the use of English in the Chamber. I do accept—and I think the Attorney-General will tell us—that the word “referendums” is a sort of lower level, alternative use in a number of dictionaries. It is becoming acceptable. But when we are talking about titles of bills in Parliament, there is a question about whether we should stick to the higher standards, which the Attorney-General has generally been supportive of, as far as legislation goes—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: I am.

He is. I am wondering whether we could maybe get an amendment drafted up to drop the “um” and to put in “a” instead. What that would do is it would give us a title that is something more reflective. I think, to be fair, to do that we would also have to include another subclause in the bill that changed the title of the Act that we are amending, because having a “New Zealand Flags Referenda Amendment Bill” amending the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act might in fact be a little bit inconsistent and it would be a matter of trying to get that right.

My colleagues will no doubt have a number of views as to more appropriate titles for this bill. My view is that the “Making the Process Even More Biased Bill” is something that would be appropriate, because what everyone knows is that this process is biased towards change. People have not been prepared to go with the approach that has been traditionally used for referenda in New Zealand, including the MMP referendum, with a yes/no question. The question we are now facing is whether the title should include words that incorporate recognition of that bias. To do that it could be the “John Key Vanity Biased Referendum Bill” or it could be the “Why Won’t the National Party Caucus Put Their Hands Up to Support John Key’s Biased Vanity Project Bill”—

💬 Pita Paraone: Because they don’t.

Well, they do not believe it. They do not support him. There have been members all over the place through the debate who have refused to get on their hind legs and support the Prime Minister on this, because they know that he is wrong and they know—especially the ones who live in electorates and who work in electorates and who do their doorknocking—that if they stand up and say they support John Key on this, they are going to be goneburgers at the next election. They are not silly—they are not silly. That is why they are not prepared to even debate. There is not a member on the other side who is prepared to stand up and debate on this particular clause, indicating that they think this is the proper title. They all know that I am right. They on the opposite side of the Chamber all know that this is yet another attempt to get a referendum that is failing across the line. It is weird. But the question we are facing is whether or not that should be incorporated in the title.

My view is that if this Government were honest, if it were straightforward, and if it titled things appropriately, then it would include in its title something that indicated that this was a way of unbalancing the pitch. It is a way of—I do not know whether we are still allowed to, but we used to say “queering the pitch”. Is that still an acceptable term? [Interruption] It is still an acceptable term. I never know, with PC and all of these things these days, Mr Chairman. But what we are attempting to do here is to put a bias on the playing field. The question the Committee is facing now is whether that bias is something that should be properly reflected within this title of the bill, and whether allowance should be made in clause 2, around the commencement date, for a change of mind on the part of the Prime Minister.

To be fair, there is a balanced call there—44,000 people indicated on a petition that they wanted a yes/no vote. I think 14,000 people made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and that was ignored by the Government. There were a few people based in wine bars and coffee bars and other liberal establishments who got on to Twitter. There was a decision made to make a change, and we are supporting it—anything to make this more interesting.

We are voting for the clause. But what happens if next week there is a Facebook campaign and there is a major push for another flag to go in there? Should the commencement date of this legislation be flexible enough to take on board next week’s Facebook campaign to incorporate a sixth design or to drop one of the current designs? The bill is actually flexible enough to do that; I do accept it is there. But if the Order in Council with the particular flags occurs, then after that—well, actually, probably we would not. Maybe this argument is slightly unnecessary, because the Government could just rescind its Order in Council and do another Order in Council. But then the Government could have done that for this, if it had wanted to—if it had really wanted to do it. But there is a question of timing, and especially if people wanted to bring another design into the area.

I move, That the question be now put.