Wednesday, 23 September 2015

WEDNESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

WEDNESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Australia—Delegation, Parliament

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome a delegation representing the Parliament of Australia, led by Dr Andrew Southcott MP, Chairperson of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which is present in the gallery.

Points of Order

Leave for Introduction and Progress Through All Stages—Member’s Bill in the Name of Gareth Hughes

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name to increase the number of flag options in the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015 from four to five, and for the bill to be set down for its first reading before Government Order of the Day No. 1. Also, I seek leave for the bill to progress through all stages today, including the time provided for the extended sitting on Thursday, 24 September, and for the bill to be progressed before business set down for the extended sitting.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Written Questions—Overdue Replies and Information Provided

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a ruling that you made on 10 September that in answering written questions, members should either provide a sufficiently detailed answer to enable the member to directly locate the information or provide it in the reply to the written question. Following your ruling, questions were lodged with the Minister of Education, who was, in fact, the cause of the ruling in the first place, to enable her to answer fully questions that had not already been answered. These questions have not been answered within the 6-day time frame that Standing Order 382(4) requires, and the Minister’s office has not responded to emails asking when those answers could be expected. I would not normally raise this in the House, but because it is in direct response to your ruling, I would ask for your support in getting answers to those questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I will look further into the matter and come back either directly to the member or to the House itself.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Stability

1. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to better position the economy to manage future uncertainty?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has focused on stabilising the Crown’s net debt position. This is a ratio of debt to national income at around 26 percent. Back in 2009 we said we would try to keep it under 30 percent, and we want to get it down to 20 percent by 2020. Twenty-six percent net debt is low relative to most other developed countries. It means that we are reasonably well positioned to cope with unexpected future shocks. This has been achieved through careful control of expenditure, through better control of new capital spending, and, significantly, through the very successful part-sales of the Government’s electricity generators. We remain focused on understanding the value and drivers of operating spending and through improved discipline around asset management.

Barbara Kuriger: What progress is being made in other areas to improve economic resilience?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been significant strengthening in New Zealand’s overall net debt to the rest of the world since 2008—our net external liability position. Statistics New Zealand recently reported that the gap in the country’s net international investment position—that is, the difference between our assets and our liabilities offshore—is now 62 percent of GDP, down from 85 percent in 2009, and is currently at the lowest level since 1990. This is a pretty important measure for New Zealand because it is one of the measures that credit ratings agencies use. Our external resilience, of course, is also assisted by robust institutions such as a flexible labour market and a floating exchange rate.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that under his current Budget net debt will not reduce in nominal terms until the 2018-19 fiscal year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that is a position outlined in the 2014-15 Budget. Of course, it is ironic that we get criticised by Labour Party members for that, because they opposed—deeply—the asset sales, which led to a significant reduction in our net debt position.

Barbara Kuriger: How are improved capital reserves in the New Zealand banking system supporting the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think most developed economies learnt from the global financial crisis that having a resilient banking system is pretty important to the sustainability of our households and our businesses. Banks registered in New Zealand hold more capital now than they did prior to the global financial crisis. Most banks are exceeding regulated minimum capital ratios. There has been a significant increase in bank deposits, and banks now finance more of their funding needs from New Zealanders and less of them offshore. The Reserve Bank’s stress testing of the banking system last year showed New Zealand banks are well-positioned to withstand external future shocks such as a significant drop in dairy prices.

Barbara Kuriger: How have the Government’s tax policies helped to deliver improved resilience to economic shocks?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In two ways. By focusing on a broad-based low rate tax system we have ensured we have been, despite economic downturn, able to collect sufficient tax to meet our needs and to significantly reduce our deficits. Secondly, the 2010 tax package has now been shown to have increased labour market participation, supported household savings to higher levels than they would otherwise have been, and, thirdly, that tax package has shown that people on higher incomes are now paying a higher proportion of the tax take than they were before we cut the top tax rate.

Wage Rates—Average Wage

2. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his Government has achieved “a lift in the average wage of more than $10,000 a year”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. In fact, New Zealand businesses and employers have achieved that. According to a Statistics New Zealand quarterly employment survey the average wage was $46,578 when we came into office in 2008. The latest official figures for the June quarter 2015 show that the average wage is now $57,058. That is an increase of more than $10,000, over 22 percent.

James Shaw: Does he understand that using the average income increase masks the fact that higher incomes have risen so disproportionately to lower incomes?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: By definition, averages have to account for all of the incomes across the spectrum, and then they get divided by the number of people in the labour market.

James Shaw: Does he see that this growing inequality is a problem worth addressing, given that since he came to power the income increase for the top 10 percent has been nearly four times greater than what it has been for the bottom 10 percent?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member goes and has a look at the Bryan Perry studies, he will see that there have been various different movements in terms of income inequality—for a start off, it moves around by investment income. But I would say that the Government is addressing the least well-off in society. We are the first Government in 43 years to raise benefits, and on average we spend $7.8 billion each year on income support for low-income families.

James Shaw: Given that the report by Bryan Perry, which the Prime Minister has described as “the definitive study in this area”, shows that the lower third of incomes were flat, does he still believe that the economy is working for all New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In my opinion, yes, because one of the things the economy is doing is generating new jobs—199,000 new jobs since 2011—and the fastest way to take people out of poverty and help low-income people is through employment.

James Shaw: Just so we understand, given that a third of New Zealanders have seen no gain in their incomes in real terms in the last 3 years—the period after we started recovering from the global financial crisis—does he still believe that the economy is on the right track for everyone?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do.

James Shaw: Does he keep using the average income statistics to justify a series of policies that overlook the reality for a third of New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I just use them because they are the statistics provided by Statistics New Zealand and because it was the primary question that the member asked me.

Wellington Zoo—Pandas

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why did he say that pandas are “a subject dear to my heart” and taxpayer money would be made available to get pandas for Wellington Zoo?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The proposal to bring pandas to Wellington Zoo is a council-led initiative. What I said yesterday was that the Government would consider helping with the costs but that it would not be a massive amount. It is not even known yet whether any pandas could be obtained. As the member is aware, some work was done a few years ago on the potential of bringing pandas to New Zealand because of their ability to draw visitors to the cities they are in. As Minister of Tourism, I think that they would be most welcome in Wellington.

Andrew Little: How many of the 50,000 extra unemployed people under his watch will be employed at the $10 million panda palace that will be required to house the pandas?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We now have more people in employment in New Zealand than ever before. I do not how many people would be employed, but I do remember the Labour Party scoffing about the cycleways, which is actually another initiative of relatively modest proportions that has done extremely well. What I can see from yesterday’s question time is that it is not just the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Now the Prime Minister is no longer addressing the question.

David Seymour: Will the pandas—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am talking to the Deputy Prime Minister.

David Seymour: Will the pandas have Chinese-sounding names?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there may be some prime ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, they will be called “Bing Bing”, “Xing Xing”, “Zhing Zhing”, and under a Labour Government they will never be allowed to buy a panda enclosure in Auckland.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Andrew Little. [Interruption] Order! To the right-hand side, you have had your fun. We are back to question time.

Andrew Little: Thank you Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not warn the Hon Simon Bridges again.

Andrew Little: When the Prime Minister has finished making fun of Chinese surnames and he has built his $10 million panda palace, will State house children get free entry so that they can finally get to see what a warm, safe, dry home looks like?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know what Wellington Zoo will do in terms of charging, but what I do know is that I think it would be a great initiative, actually, for youngsters to be able to come to Wellington to come to Te Papa, to come to Parliament, to go to the National War Memorial, to go to Peter Jackson’s and Richard Taylor’s workshops, and, actually, to go to the zoo to see pandas. They are very popular around the world. As Minister of Tourism, I say that that is the reason why they are hard to get—because so many countries want them.

Andrew Little: Is spending a quarter of a million dollars a year on bamboo for pandas, while schools dig deep into their operational grants to feed kids, in keeping with his commitment to “focus on what matters”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: From what I can see, spending a quarter of a million dollars on bamboo is a hell of a lot better value for money for the taxpayer than paying a quarter of a million dollars for him to be Leader of the Opposition.

Andrew Little: Does he know—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: On that occasion, it was both front benches that were interjecting. I do not want to have to warn members again.

Andrew Little: Does he know that when Adelaide Zoo got pandas, the increase in visitor numbers was temporary and costs were so high that the zoo had to be bailed out by the Government—you could say that the pandas turned out to be white elephants?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would not want to mix the animals, but I just go back to the point. It is not our initiative; it is the Wellington City Council’s initiative—if the council wants to do it. We talk to the council about a range of initiatives, including a whole bunch of things that it comes to see me about every week. As Prime Minister, I am not going to not talk to the council about the issues it cares about. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was the second bench on that occasion.

Andrew Little: Is he as excited about getting pandas now as he was in 2010, when, according to then Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast, she met with the Prime Minister, who said “How are we going with getting those cute little pandas?” and wiggled his hands in glee?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was pretty excited, and if Wellington Zoo brings them in, I would be excited. I enjoy my job. I am pretty happy about the things that I am doing for New Zealand. People do not call me “Angry John”, but they certainly call him “Angry Andrew”. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Annette King—this is your last warning.

Andrew Little: Is he aware that pandas often attack their handlers, and is he worried that making a priority of pandas while the economy stalls will come back to bite him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I make the point that this is a Government that has got the books back in order. This is a Government that has seen—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We will see who is laughing in a week or so, but anyway. This is a Government that has seen leadership. It has seen quarterly growth for 18 quarters in a row. The truth of today’s question is that “Angry Andrew” is angry because the Greens have out-manoeuvred him when it comes to Red Peak.

Canterbury Recovery—Public Sector Construction and Anchor Projects

4. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What is the estimated value of public sector construction completed and underway in Christchurch? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister going to answer?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just reading a text that is advising me that the speakers in the Chamber are not working and that some people who are attempting to listen are not able to hear it at the present time, so you might want to take that up with them.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will ask the technicians to have a look at that. Now could we have the answer to the question raised by Mr Nuk Korako.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. The value of completed projects increased in the last quarter to $213 million, up from $181 million in the March quarter. Since then, the $53 million bus interchange has also been completed. The momentum is building, as more projects move into construction. Projects now in construction total $3.3 billion. This is an increase of more than $700 million in the 6 months from December 2014. By the end of the year another $766 million worth of projects are forecast to begin construction, which clearly demonstrates that the rebuild is progressing at pace but is not yet at its peak.

Nuk Korako: What recent progress has been made on the completion of the central city anchor projects?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I mentioned, as of last month the second and final stage of Christchurch’s new bus interchange is now complete and open to the public. This is the first of the central city anchor projects to be completed. This high-quality facility is very encouraging. It is using public transport at levels not seen in the city before.

Hon Simon Bridges: Hear, hear!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We are encouraging that, which I know my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges is very, very pleased about. The state of the art building is, I think, just an example of what Christchurch can expect more of in the years ahead.

Nuk Korako: What progress has been made towards beginning construction on the Metro Sports Facility?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Cabinet has now agreed on the funding parameters that will ensure this multigenerational regional facility is built. The Government has already purchased most of the land, and proposals are now being sought from engineering and design companies. Further tenders will be released in the coming months to enable that design and construction to begin. The centre will include high-performance sports, diving facilities, a competition-standard pool, hot pools, hydro slides, and indoor courts. This will enable everyone, from learners and leisure users to elite competitors, to make use of the facility.

Dr Megan Woods: In light of Peter Townsend’s concerns that delays to publicly funded anchor projects had caused investor uncertainty, will he now guarantee completion dates, or will the Government continue, as councillor Raf Manji described it, to drive with the handbrake on in terms of the recovery, because of its election promise to return to surplus?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, look, I know that Mr Townsend has been very, very instrumental in ensuring that business interests in the city kept faith with the city, and I think his efforts have been extremely important for the economic development that is currently going on in Christchurch and the expansion of our economy there. I also know that he has been very, very engaged in the process moving forward, and I am quite sure that he would agree that some of those early concerns are no longer as relevant as they might have once been. On the second part, let us be clear that the Government has been working very closely with the Christchurch City Council toward transition, and, notwithstanding Mr Manji’s view of things, given its own cash-strapped circumstance, statements like that from the council are a little hollow.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call question no. 5, thanks to Mr Brownlee I have been informed that there is a fault in the sound system. An emergency system is now operating. It may mean for those watching TV the volume is slightly lower than normal.

Air Force—Iroquois Helicopter Tender Process

5. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): I have been in this House since 1996 and a Minister since 2008. There have been significant Government decisions during that period of time, and there have also been societal changes. I am not prepared to say anything other than that I may well have changed my view on some positions that I thought were perfectly relevant at the time.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he stand by his statement in April that he did not favour one company over another in procuring replacements for the air force fleet of C-130 Hercules; if so, will he confirm that he did not favour one bid over any others in the sale of 10 Iroquois helicopters?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Those are matters that are handled by the Ministry of Defence. They are quite remote from a Minister, and there is no opportunity for a Minister to favour one company or another. So my answer would be no.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Were the Kiwi bids summarily rejected because of a Government blunder, a miscarriage of the tender process, or a political promise to the US?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think that had the question been asked by New Zealand First’s defence spokesman, that person would know that a number of disposals of defence equipment, even years after they have been purchased, still do require sign-off from the original seller. So that process would most certainly have been entered into and does have an effect on whom you can accept a tender bid from.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Is he aware that one regional New Zealand - owned and operated company lost the opportunity to create more than a dozen jobs when its bid of nearly $5 million - plus was apparently not even considered?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said at the start, Ministers do not engage on a day-to-day basis with the tender process. If I did, that member’s party’s defence spokesman would be the first person to come here and say that I was meddling where I should not be. So the answer is no.

Fletcher Tabuteau: The tender process asks for evidence of best value for New Zealand, so how does selling the Iroquois offshore add value to New Zealand, considering that a regional New Zealand business bid would have directly added value to our regional economy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That sort of question, which was, I suppose, built around a statement that is largely formulated by New Zealand First’s regional development policy, which is all about creating something out of nothing and then expect nothing in return—I cannot answer that question, because it never ever happened. But what I would suggest is that that member goes to the New Zealand First defence spokesperson and suggests that it may be an interesting topic to put on the agenda at the next meeting of the former motor pool attendants army association.

Superannuation Fund—Government Contributions and Returns

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to capital contributions to the NZ Super Fund that “saving by borrowing is like building up your savings with your credit card, it just doesn’t make sense”; if so, what has been the average return per annum since the NZ Super Fund was created?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement, in which I also said that the fund was always predicated on having surpluses to invest—actual money to save. That is how the legislation was set up. In answer to the member’s second question, the average return per annum since the fund was set up in 2003 is 10.1 percent. Returns have varied between minus 22.9 percent and plus 25.8 percent.

Grant Robertson: How does he reconcile the first part of that answer with the 15 percent return the Superannuation Fund has made in the last year and the 10 percent per annum return the fund has made since its inception, compared with 3.3 percent—the cost of Government borrowing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The way to reconcile those statements, of course, is the concept of risk, which I know the Labour Party does not really understand. So just to illustrate the kind of risks, in 2008-09 the fund made minus 22 percent. In 2007-08 it made minus 4.9 percent. In 2011-12 it made 1.21 percent. The fact that it has made 10 percent—that is above the market rate, on average—for the first 15 years or so means it is highly likely it will make negative returns for an extended period some time, because no managed fund beats the market by much over any length of time. So we just did not want to take the risk of borrowing more—for which Labour criticises us—in order to invest in overseas shares.

Grant Robertson: Are the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation correct when they say that the Superannuation Fund is worse off by $18.2 billion, comprising $12.7 billion of unmade capital contributions and $5.5 billion of forgone earnings, as a result of the Government’s decisions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, they are wrong.

Grant Robertson: They’re correct.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They are not—they are not right. It is just that the management of the Superannuation Fund would of course love to have billions of dollars. The question I would say to the management of the Superannuation Fund is whether they would go and borrow $5 billion in order to invest on overseas equities markets that have been deliberately inflated in value by central banks around the world. No one knows what will happen to those share funds when central banks stop printing money. One of the preoccupations of world financial markets right now is the risk of the very investments that the Superannuation Fund has made.

David Seymour: If the Minister did know how to consistently borrow at 3 percent and make a return of 15 percent, would he be either very, very rich, or on the front bench of the Labour Party?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a marginal question. I will let the Minister answer the part of that question for which he has got ministerial responsibility.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whoever did it would be very, very rich, and then they would probably be entitled to join the ACT Party.

Grant Robertson: Are the guardians of the Superannuation Fund correct when they say that compared with the cost of borrowing, taxpayers are now $6.2 billion worse off than if capital contributions to the fund had been continued by his Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, they are wrong, for two reasons. One is that the calculation is completely hypothetical. Second, as the contributor of the funds, we have a different perception of risk from what they have. They would love the Government to take huge risks and give them billions of dollars. That is what you would expect them to say. We do not want to take that sort of risk. Third, they are a long-term fund, and the fact that they have beaten the averages for a few years is no indication of the risks out ahead of them. A future Minister of Finance may well be in this House defending persistent negative returns on that fund—in fact, I believe that is certain.

Grant Robertson: In light of all those answers, what does he suggest a future Government do to fund the cost of New Zealand superannuation in 2030 if, as Treasury forecasts, the fund is $36 billion smaller than it should be and there will be a 2-year delay in drawing upon the fund? What should they do: raise taxes, cut spending on health and education, or cut New Zealand superannuation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What they should do is stick with the expenditure control regime that the current National Government has in place, because if Governments do that for the next 10-15 years, they will have sufficiently large surpluses to top up the fund, get rid of all our debt, and afford national superannuation. But if the Government changes to the reckless Labour approach to expenditure, we will not be able to do any of those things.

Syria—Potential Military Deployment

7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I do. I stand by our 30 percent emissions reduction target, I stand by our commitment to 90 percent renewable energy by 2025, I stand by the hundreds of millions of dollars we have committed to climate change research and afforestation, and I stand by our health policy of treating Ebola virus victims with modern medicine rather than homeopathic remedies.

Dr Kennedy Graham: And will he also rule out direct military engagement by New Zealand in Syria, or will he be signing us up to another conflict when he goes to New York next week?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has got no intention of expanding its current mandate outside of Iraq.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Prime Minister believe that the justification of collective self-defence is viable in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, given the complex and varied situation in all of these three countries?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As the member said, it is a very complex situation.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the United Nations Security Council has not authorised armed force in Syria, will any use of such force there amount to aggression, which is prohibited in the United Nations Charter?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking me a hypothetical question on behalf of some nations that I cannot answer.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not a hypothetical question. Armed forces are being used in Syria.

Mr SPEAKER: No, to give the benefit of the doubt I am going to invite that member to repeat the question, so it is then over to the Prime Minister as to how he chooses to answer it.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the United Nations Security Council has not authorised armed force in Syria, will any use of such force there amount to aggression, which is prohibited in the United Nations Charter?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think so. If the member is referring to the air strikes that are being undertaken by the United States and others to degrade the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), I think that that is fundamentally the right thing to do—ISIL is the reason why millions of people are leaving Syria. They are people who want to return, and they can do so only when ISIL is not in the position to persecute them.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that this House resolved over a year ago that New Zealand should quickly ratify the Kampala amendment, which will make aggression a leadership crime, why has his Government not done this yet?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would need to put that question down for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Prime Minister—Flag Referendums and Support

8. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his response yesterday, when asked whether his Chief of Staff was trying to stop him talking about the flag during speeches, that “Far from that being correct, I think record numbers of people are turning up”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Jacinda Ardern: How many people who turned up to the New Zealand Gynaecological Cancer Foundation fund-raiser in Auckland last Thursday expected him to give a speech on the flag and to then be asked by him to raise their hands if they were against changing it? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have not called the Prime Minister; I am just waiting for a bit of silence.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know, but I do not know how many people who went along that evening expected to see a fashion show with people in lingerie, and the like. I do not know how many people who went along expected to pay $10,000 to come and have afternoon tea with me, to help raise $20,000 for the charity. I do not know how many people who came along that night expected to stand in a queue wanting to take photos—but all of those things happened that night.

Jacinda Ardern: When he was trying to conduct a straw poll on the flag in the middle of a cancer fund-raiser, can he confirm stating “Go on, I won’t judge you.” and then proceeded to individually berate people who put their hands up?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, that is not correct.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that he also used his speech at a cancer fund-raiser to tell the audience that those who argued against change, on the grounds that soldiers died under the flag, were “misguided”, and then proceeded to lecture the audience on New Zealand military history?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure whether I used the word “misguided”, but what I have always said is that, actually, in my opinion, people fought for the values and principles that underpin New Zealand, including human rights, women’s rights, and democracy. I also gave a very long speech about biologics, about Herceptin, and about why this Government was doing something for people with cancer, when the Labour Party completely failed to do so.

Denis O’Rourke: Can the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that Gwynn Compton, his social media adviser, who is donkey-deep in “change the flag”, is not campaigning at the taxpayers’ expense; if so, how?

Mr SPEAKER: Either of those two supplementary questions, the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no evidence that he is doing that.

Jacinda Ardern: Will he take his chief of staff’s advice and stop using events such as cancer fund-raisers, business awards, and even a student achievement ceremony to lecture people on his pet project of changing the flag?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, that is not the advice of my chief of staff, and, secondly, no, I will continue to talk about the fact that as a country, national pride and patriotism is important. And if I was the leader of the Labour Party and had a policy of changing the flag—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the week, you issued a series of instructions to both those who ask questions and those who answer them. The Prime Minister began a sentence that said “If I was the leader of the Labour Party”. He is not, he never will be, and he should have been sat down.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I—[Interruption] Order! I accept that that part might have been inaccurate in the answer given, but when I think about the tone of the question, which was “When will the Prime Minister stop lecturing etc.”, I thought that that was a question with a little bit of emotion in it, which gave a bit more of a wide berth to the Prime Minister in his ability to answer it.

Teachers—Professional Development

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made to improve teachers’ learning and development so that it lifts student achievement?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Today I was delighted to announce substantial changes to the provision of professional learning and development, to support teachers to do an even better job for students. There has been dissatisfaction with professional learning and development across the sector, confirmed by my professional learning and development advisory group through its consultation and reporting in 2014. I have listened to those concerns because I want students in every school and kura to have leaders and teachers who are actively engaged in professional development that supports and challenges them to be the best that they can be and to accelerate their students’ learning.

Dr Shane Reti: How will these changes lift student achievement?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is clear evidence that links effective professional learning and development to improved student outcomes. It is also essential that professional learning and development is delivered in a way that incentivises schools to collaborate and is targeted at schools that need the greatest help to lift student achievement. Over the next 3 years professional learning and development will be focused on a small number of national priorities in the areas of mathematics, science, reading and writing, and digital fluency, and a pilot in health and physical education. These priorities are based on student data of where the biggest challenges are, rather than on opinion. Priority will be given to schools as they grow into communities of learning because they are already working together on achievement challenges. Schools in areas with persistent underachievement—for example, in Northland—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —and Gisborne and on the East Coast—will also be prioritised.

Community Housing Providers—Charitable Status and Legislation

10. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector: Does she believe that community housing providers with programmes that include home ownership should be able to be defined as charities based on the definition of charitable purpose within the Charities Act 2005?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): The High Court has found that it is acceptable for charities to operate homeownership models under certain criteria. The Department of Internal Affairs is now working with a small number of registered charities to ensure that they meet the charitable purpose test. If necessary, the department will advise them on how to reorganise their activities to ensure that they can remain charitable.

Poto Williams: Is she aware that Community Housing Aotearoa has said that the Government’s solution “doesn’t resolve the fundamental issue”, and that charities “will need to spend more time and money navigating the new regime of tax exemption outside of the Charities Act.” instead of providing houses?

Hon JO GOODHEW: What I am aware of is that this is quite a complex situation. This Government is completely focused on assisting community housing providers. That is uppermost in our minds. For that reason, the Department of Internal Affairs is working with what is now a small number of organisations—50 organisations—to assist them in determining how to continue with their work, alongside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Poto Williams: Given that social housing by community service providers is one of the priorities of her Government, and given Paula Bennett’s comments yesterday on Television One that she is “more than happy to have another look at the legislation”, why has the Minister not started a review of “charitable purpose” under the Act?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Cabinet has already agreed to not review the definition of “charitable purpose” under the Charities Act. [Interruption] However, it may be a surprise to those opposite that each Minister has a variety of different legislation in their portfolio. Minister Bennett and I will work together to further the Government’s purpose of supporting community housing, and Minister Bennett certainly has legislation that she will be able to work on in that regard.

Poto Williams: Why does she not just work with Paula Bennett so that a charitable trust in Northland can provide homes for people who really need them?

Hon JO GOODHEW: I can assure the member that I am working with Minister Bennett, that Charities Services within the Department of Internal Affairs is working with He Korowai Trust, and that, in fact, it has been working with the trust for a very long time. We remain completely focused on furthering the work of community housing providers. We will assist them to overcome the barriers that they are facing, because that is a priority for us.

Poto Williams: Will the Minister advocate for change to the definition of “charitable purpose” as defined by the Charities Act 2005?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Had the member been listening, I have answered that already, but I will repeat for the member that Cabinet has decided that we will not be reviewing the “charitable purpose” in the Charities Act. However, that is not the end of the matter. There is currently legislation sitting on the Order Paper, if the member chooses to have a look at it, that will give other options to organisations for which their purpose is community housing, and most definitely that will remain our priority.

Cycling—Urban Cycleways Programme

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on delivering the Urban Cycleways Programme in Canterbury?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was a real pleasure recently to open in Christchurch the very first of the Government’s urban cycleways in the South Island. The new Mataī Street East section of Christchurch’s Uni-Cycle route and the Rolleston to Lincoln cycleway are now open for use. Last week the first stage of the Papanui Parallel cycleway was opened to the public. These new cycleways in Christchurch and Selwyn will make cycling a safer, more attractive transport choice for thousands of people cycling to school, to uni, and into the central business district.

Matt Doocey: What other cycleways are planned for Canterbury as part of the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Cantabrians are showing a real commitment to getting on their bikes. The Government is responding by accelerating a further nine cycleways in Canterbury, worth $66 million, as part of our Urban Cycleways Programme. Seven cycleways are set to be rolled out across Christchurch City, while two cycleways will be built linking Kaiapoi, Rangiora, and Woodend. The innovative cycleway designs will provide safer cycling routes, assisting with the recovery of the city and encouraging more active travel, as I say, to work, to schools, and to recreation.

Matt Doocey: How does the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme benefit communities?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government’s $333 million Urban Cycleways Programme is the single biggest investment in cycling in New Zealand’s history, and it will change the face of cycling in New Zealand. The programme’s goal is to make cycling a safer and more attractive transport choice. That is because cycling contributes to healthier communities, and safe and attractive cycling infrastructure can encourage people in urban areas to change their travel patterns. These benefits are why the Government committed to the Urban Cycleways Programme, and I look forward to seeing more Kiwis enjoying the benefits of the 54 cycleways as they are completed all around the country over the next 3 years.

Prisons—Serco Staffing Levels

12. MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Mahesh Bindra: Does he stand by his statement that “staffing levels are adequate” in the units at the Serco-run Auckland South Corrections Facility given that only two staff monitor 240 prisoners?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, yes, although I note that the issue of staffing levels is one factor in the review of Serco’s performance, and the Minister’s continued statements about that will be a function of the findings of that review.

Mahesh Bindra: Is he confident in Serco’s “dynamic rostering system” at Auckland South Corrections Facility given that an unescorted prisoner was assaulted by a mainstream prisoner who took advantage of the shortage of staff?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am very confident that Serco understands what is required to deliver good service at Wiri Prison. I note that it has only just got off the ground. So far, things are going very well. There are excellent rehabilitation and reform programmes in place, and I think that that member should support them as they go on that journey.

Mahesh Bindra: Is he confident in the ability of Serco to keep staff safe at Auckland South Corrections Facility when a staff member was sufficiently injured in a prison assault to be on ACC, went back to work, and is now on ACC again?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am sure the member will agree that prisons can be dangerous places, and from time to time there will be incidents involving injuries to either staff or prisoners. I further note that the number of incidents in the past 12 months is lower than in the last year of the previous Labour Government supported by New Zealand First.

Jacinda Ardern: Can he confirm that Labour raised low staff-to-prisoner ratios at Serco prisons as being a problem, with staff walking off the job in October 2013, only to have those concerns dismissed by that Government?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, I cannot, but I can confirm that this Government has done a significant amount to improve the quality of the rehabilitation outcomes for employment, for drug and alcohol, and for literacy and numeracy, and that there has been a reduction in the number of incidents in the past year compared with when that member’s Government was in office.

General Debate

General Debate

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Well, we have a Prime Minister who cannot help but make a pig’s ear of his job at the moment. Everything he touches just turns to dust. Let us start with the flag referendum, because that is a talking point for a lot of people. This was a Prime Minister who repeatedly talked up to the people of New Zealand that we must have a changed flag and it must have a silver fern on it. He assembled his great Flag Consideration Panel and put dozens of the good and the great on it. For a panel that had the job of designing a new flag, how many designers do you think were on the panel? Just how many designers do you think were on a flag redesign panel? Not a single one. Not a single one.

Then the panel went touring the country, going out to the good citizens of New Zealand, and said “Come hither all. Tell us your ideas about the flag.”, and an average of 29 people turned up to each meeting, so they were not particularly interested. Then the panel members thought they had better get a bit of advice on design, and they got someone in for a couple of hours right at the end of the process to tell them about flag design. Then the independent, objective Flag Consideration Panel put its recommendations up to the Government, and what should come out? Four choices, and what is on three of them? A silver fern, to meet the wishes of the Prime Minister of the day. And one other design, the koru, which not many people understood.

Well, what has actually happened is that the people of New Zealand do understand that they have been manipulated and cajoled and pushed into something that they just do not want. We saw that in the poll over the weekend—70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag. The absolute shambles that the whole flag consideration project is sits firmly at the feet of the Prime Minister, who will not listen and who will not learn. He does his level best, as he always does, to sort of yank it back to something that the Labour Party did in 1972, because somehow that is the reason why people have got disillusioned with his conduct and his Flag Consideration Panel.

There is something else that is going on. We are a country that is facing a large number of challenges. We have rising unemployment. There are 13,000 more unemployed now than there were this time last year. We have an economy that is rapidly slowing. Can you rapidly slow? Well, you slow down, and it gets slower. We have massive job cuts now—and would you believe—in the industry that has sustained this economy for so many years, for so many decades: agriculture and dairy. What is happening? Our biggest dairy company, Fonterra, is laying off hundreds of people—the organisation that we look to for research and development, new ideas, and innovation in dairy, laying off hundreds of people because of this Government’s failure to support it.

We have the regions doing it tough. Taranaki, my beloved home, is now in official recession. There are Aucklanders who are still trying to get into their first home and cannot, and nor can thousands of others around New Zealand. New Zealand is now suffering the lowest level of homeownership. Schools are having to dip into their operational grants to feed hungry kids because child poverty is so widespread in this country—so widespread in this country. Hospitals are booting patients out in their pyjamas because they cannot afford to keep them in their beds. This is New Zealand 2015, and that is a hospital system that has had $1.7 billion cut from it.

What is the Government’s response to all of this? What do you do when a country is not so much on the cusp but on the brink? What do you do to it? Well, you announce the next big measure. We are going to have a panda at Wellington Zoo. This is the answer: fluffy pandas for a fluffy Government, for a fluffy Prime Minister who does not know what to do when faced with bad news. That is what we have come to now.

Of course, it does not stop there. The schools are now so desperate for cash that they have set the repo man on to the parents who will not pay their voluntary contributions, and the Ministry of Education is not far behind—it has got the leather-clad ones chasing the teachers who have been the victims of a botched pay system. This is New Zealand today under this Government—after everything it has done, now the chickens are coming home to roost and it is not good. People are suffering and New Zealanders want it to come to an end. They want a New Zealand they can be proud of, with a flag they can be proud of, and with a Prime Minister who cares about them—but a Prime Minister who listens.

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): Question time yesterday was, from our point of view, a thing of beauty—probably not a joy for ever, literally, but it was certainly a very memorable question time. It was, essentially, the day that the Opposition yellow-carded itself. You can see how it would have happened. Some genius on the left—we will call her or him the “Homer Simpson of the left”—came up with this “brilliant” idea: “Let’s get all the Opposition political parties together. We’ll send them an email, but we’d better ring up Ron Mark because he might not read it properly. We’ll get all the Opposition political parties to ask the Prime Minister the same question about his 7 years of achievements.”

If you look at military strategy, when you are launching an attack, you start from the point of view that you do not attack the strongest person on the other side—a man at the top of his political game—and you do not attack on territory that is so easy to defend. If we think back to our military defeat in Gallipoli, at least the first lord of the admiralty, when he consigned so many young Australians and New Zealanders to near certain death, did not actually mean for them to land on that beachhead; he meant for them to go somewhere else. But this Opposition, careless of the history of how you attack and when you attack, chose the strongest ground of this Government and the strongest person in this Government—the Prime Minister—to launch this attack against.

And anyway—7 years—even their instincts should have told them that seven, ladies and gentlemen, is a dangerous number, OK? If we go into religion, the number 7 is God’s foundation stone. We have 7 days. If you go into the Talmud, it is a universe of seven heavens. If you are a Muslim and you go on the haj, you walk around the Kaaba seven times. And I understand that in traditional Jewish marriages—I have not had one yet but who knows—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You have had some.

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, I am just warming up, basically. The bride is meant to circle the groom seven times. I have been thinking about that. I have some reflections on that, but perhaps this is not the time or the place.

And then we have got secular religion. What number did David Beckham have at Manchester United? Number 7. And then when we come to the current secular God—well, bar a foot trip or two—Richie McCaw, what number does he have on his shirt? It is the number 7. So I would have thought that elementary reasoning and pure instinct would have said to the Opposition: don’t go there—don’t go there. Although Opposition members were screaming like jackals through every response that the Prime Minister gave, they allowed our top guy an unrivalled opportunity to explain to New Zealanders what 7 years of solid, stable Government looks like, contrasted with situations in developed countries around the world that are anything but solid and stable. He explained exactly what this Government under his leadership has been able to deliver for New Zealanders—that is, 7 years of solid achievement.

The fact that Mr Little started this ill-judged attack on the issue of employment was just incredible. Here we have a situation where in the eurozone, unemployment is at 12 percent. At 6 percent, or thereabouts, unemployment is higher than we all want it to be, but we have created 199,000 jobs since 2011. Actually, we can be sure that since that statistic was taken, it is above 200,000—200,000 new jobs—by following orthodox pro-growth policies that have encouraged businesses to invest in those jobs, to have a situation where people can see a real future for themselves. We have—is it 11 quarters, from memory—11 quarters of consecutive growth. Sorry, I might be understating the record. This has produced economic growth that is the envy of many countries in the developed world. We have a situation where people are confident in coming to New Zealand. New Zealanders are returning from Australia—we have turned that shocking position round. We have had 7 years of an outstanding Government led by an outstanding Prime Minister, and it is incredible that the Opposition served him up that wonderful opportunity yesterday.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, that was an interesting speech, and hearing “strategy” coming from the architect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—and what a failure that has been—was quite, I can only say, astonishing. I would say this to Mr Groser: pride is one of the seven deadly sins, and pride comes before a fall. Normally, pride goes hand in hand with arrogance, and that is what we are seeing truckloads of in this House and, particularly, around the flag debate.

Yesterday New Zealand First was asked whether we would give leave to allow the National-Green coalition—because that is what we are seeing play out right now; we are seeing the National Party coalescing with the Greens to put legislation on the floor of this House to change the New Zealand flag referendum so that they can get the Red Peak flag on to the ballot paper. Well, if I go back into the third reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill and look at what Mr English, the Deputy Prime Minister, was saying, he said: “Cabinet made a decision in October 2014 about the process and a budget”—a budget—“for this process.”

This is a Government that bleats on about how fiscally prudent it is, but no. Out of the blue, pulling something from behind itself, from that dark spot, it suddenly finds more money to back a Green proposal to change the whole referendum process, change the whole marketing, change the whole ball game to run another option, and that is despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying this: “The process stressed the independence of the flag consideration panel and the transparency of any decision making around it.” He also said in the third reading “Clearly we are heading out of those swirling political waters, fortunately, to the sunny uplands where New Zealand will get to decide” blah, blah, blah on the New Zealand flag.

Then, out of the blue, National introduces what? It wants to introduce a flag that is actually the trademark of an American corporate. There it is—the Red Peak flag—Peak Engineering out of the United States. And what else is it? Well, it is actually a symbol that was last seen in World War II—the Nazis had it on their sentry boxes. Give me a break. If there is one further insult that Mr Brownlee, the Minister of Defence, can serve up to the veterans of this nation, it is to offer them up a Nazi logo on a Nazi sentry box as the national flag. You have got to be kidding me.

We were asked coming into the Chamber whether New Zealand First was prepared to stand alone, to be the only party in this House to oppose, one, the referendum; two, the changing of the flag; and, three, the introduction of this Green Party - National Party Nazi flag. Well, yes, we are quite happy to be the only party to stand up in defence of the New Zealand flag, the only party that will hold this Government accountable to its process—the legislation it rammed through the House, and that it defended to the hilt in the third reading, and told the nation was transparent and sacrosanct. This has become a farce. Worse, it has become an absolute joke.

Tim Macindoe: This is what New Zealanders voted for.

RON MARK: New Zealand First, for the record, will say here today to Mr Tim what’s-his-name that we are opposed to a flag change. We are opposed to this jacked-up, shonky referendum. We are opposed to this latest attempt to hijack and make an even more ridiculous referendum, and we will be proud to stand as the only party to defend our flag. Thank you very much.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): It is great to get up and speak. It is a great time to be a National MP. What I can tell you is that when I go around New Zealand, basically, what people say to me is that they want to hear about the issues that matter. The reality is that we are a positive, successful Government with a great track record. When we compare that with the Opposition and the questions that we have had over the past couple of days, you can absolutely understand why a large majority of New Zealanders are voting for us. We have heard about pandas. We have heard about everything but the issues that matter. We have an Opposition that is focused on distractions. We have a Government that has a track record in terms of jobs, achievement, and improving health. We have an Opposition that is divided. We know why those members are divided. It is because they are more focused on the deputy leadership contest, rather than policies for New Zealand. Is it going to be Annette, is it going to be Carmel, or is it going to be Jacinda? That is what they are more focused on. They are also more focused on making sure that things do not happen—that is right.

I want to congratulate the Green Party. I want to acknowledge the Green Party. The Labour Party is more focused on stopping things than on having a positive vision for New Zealand. At least in terms of the flag, the Green Party has stepped up and said: “Let’s have a pragmatic solution to this.” I care about the flag because I actually believe that it is about national identity. It is about being a positive country that looks forward, represents all New Zealanders, and is multicultural. It is about having a vision for our country. It builds on a strong and successful economy. It builds on improving achievement in education. That is what this side of the House is focused on. Again, if you look at the past 2 days, we have had the biggest patsy session ever for the Prime Minister. The Opposition do not get it. Those members do not work together. They are completely divided. They are completely negative. They never have any policies. Basically, you compare that with a rolling maul of initiatives from this Government—whether it is the fact that we have created 199,000 jobs, whether it is the fact that finally we have got Māori and Pacific students raising their achievement in education, whether it is the fact that under-13s are now walking in and getting free GP visits, be that through ACC or free doctors visits.

Let us talk about ACC. This is a great example of the difference between a Labour Government and a National Government. We were left with a $4.8 billion hole. We have turned that round. We have taken $10 billion in assets to $31 billion in assets. Also, we are now on the cusp of passing fairer, stable, and more transparent levy systems. What that shows you is that the difference between us and them is that we have policies. We actually like each other. We carry the weight of the argument. Compare that with Opposition members, who are still fighting and still having leadership contests. In 7 years we have had five Opposition leaders. We have still got them fighting over the deputy leadership. Compare that with Government members, who back a leader and back a group of Ministers to be able to get good policy through. We have never had a greater contrast in this Parliament of a same divided Opposition versus a Government with a track record of raising achievement, creating jobs, and improving the lives of our most vulnerable. That is why, when I get around New Zealand, the picture has not changed. The reality is that New Zealanders are supporting us in large numbers because they listen and they understand the decisions that impact their lives. They want a positive vision for New Zealand, and they want a track record. We are successful. Opposition members need to step up, stop talking about pandas and pigs, and actually get on with the business that matters. Thank you.

JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Today marks the day that Ioane Teitiota is being deported to Kiribati. He is a man who sought to be classed as the world’s first climate change refugee. I understand that the merits of this particular case are debatable, and that we do not have a sufficient classification for persons who are displaced by the consequences of climate change. He has a wife and three children who, as I understand it, will be joining him in a week in Kiribati.

For those people who have been to Kiribati, they will have seen that on a fairly regular basis that island is uninhabitable because the sea levels rise and groundwater rises to the point where it is coming up through their plantations and through the bases of their houses. This is a sign of things to come. New Zealand has no plan for this. There are 179,000 people in Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu who will be the first people in the world to lose their countries and who will be displaced as a result of the consequences of climate change. Those countries are arguing that we need to limit global warning to 1.5 degrees. They are asking countries like New Zealand and Australia and others around the world to cut our emissions to a level that would limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

But in the last few decades temperatures have already risen by 1 degree, and the sea is already rising. We often think about climate change as something that is happening in the future, to other people, or to polar bears somewhere on the other side of the world. In fact it is happening now, it is happening to us, and it is happening to our Pacific neighbours. We do not have a plan to deal with it.

In New Zealand we have adopted a reduction target for our emissions of 11 percent below our 1990 levels by the year 2030. This is being classed as an inadequate response by those organisations that are scientifically tracking what it is—all the commitments that countries are making; how they would add up. Currently, if every country in the world was to behave the way that New Zealand is planning to behave, we would be on track for a 3 to 4 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years or so, and that would lead to what is referred to as catastrophic climate change. It would see huge sea level rise and it would see not just those four countries of Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Tuvalu losing all of their territory but significant reductions in the territory of other Island States, including New Zealand. So many of our people live within sight of the shore, and so much of our infrastructure is located at sea level or very close to sea level.

When the Government says that we are doing our fair share, this is actually an inaccurate statement. It would require New Zealand to look at cuts of around 40 percent below 1990 levels or more for us to have anything close to an adequate response to limiting emissions and to limiting global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees, or in that sort of zone. So when the Government says that the Government is committed to limiting emissions to ensure that global warming only increases by 2 degrees, our own behaviour is completely inconsistent with that. Our own behaviour would actually lead to a 3 to 4 degree temperature rise.

So when we say that we are committed to a 2 degree temperature rise, and then our own actions are to increase temperatures by 3 to 4 degrees, what that means is that we are relying on other countries to do the work for us. We are actually freeloading on other countries. And the problem that we have got, of course, is that there are many other countries in the world that are also planning on freeloading on the works of other people. So we cannot say, on the one hand, that our actions will be consistent with a 3 to 4 degree temperature rise, and at the same time say that we are committed to a 2 degree temperature rise, and at the same time say that we are committed to the people of the Pacific and to those small Island States. We need to commit to a 40 percent reduction target below 1990 levels by the year 2030. We need to give those islands some chance, but we also need to plan for populations in our neighbouring countries that are displaced.

What is our plan for the 179,000 people who currently live on those islands? Are we planning on making territory in New Zealand, well above water level, available to them? The Government has no plan. It has been completely inconsistent in its position, and we would argue that it needs to come straight with New Zealand and with the Pacific.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Senior Citizens): Well, it has been 1 year since National won the last election, and what a year it has been. Other colleagues have outlined some of our broader achievements, and I would like to concentrate on some of the areas that I am most familiar with in my portfolio.

But, first, I would like to commend the fact that we have 14 new faces on this side of the House. I think our backbench line-up, in terms of the new recruits, has put us in a very, very strong position. They are fantastic—14 very talented backbenchers. That is 10 more people than voted for Labour leader Andrew Little from his own caucus. What is it now? He is the fifth leader. He was all about pandas today and was all about tragic, set-up, patsy questions to the Prime Minister yesterday, which fell woefully flat.

Tim Macindoe: And he got a couple of black eyes out of it.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: He got a couple of black eyes out of it. With that and “pandamonium”, I would have to say the senior whip has been on form today, handing out lollies and puns like there is no tomorrow. It is all good. Thank you very much, Tim.

It is an important thing, I think, to look at a strong, united caucus that is united under its leader and its deputy leader. This party and this Government are in great heart. I rediscovered that for myself last week. I had the Prime Minister in my North Shore electorate, and we launched a suite of new changes for seniors. When I look at the impact that this Government has made over the last 7 years and, in particular, in the last few—I look at seniors and I can see big results. I think about the way that they were ignored successively by the Labour Government, propped up by its mates the Greens for a while there. Seniors have been very much the poor relations.

That is not happening under this Government. I commend my predecessor Jo Goodhew. Under her being the Minister for Senior Citizens, the gains that were made for the SuperGold card—from its extremely humble beginnings it has really burgeoned into something that is worth having for seniors. We see now that we have more than 8,000 businesses representing 12,500 outlets, and our seniors can go to Australia and also get benefits over there. The discounts and things of that kind are all very well, but I have focused, in the last year that I have been in this job, on ensuring that the expensive things—the ears, the eyes, the teeth, and the lawyers—have been well looked after. So we have another 750 businesses signed up.

The thing about seniors is there are myths. The idea that older people do not go on and use the internet is incorrect. Something like 61 percent of our people over 65 were on the internet last year. With an ageing population, that is going to increase, so with the Prime Minister last week we launched a suite of new initiatives: a new website called Super Seniors, specifically designed to be relevant with seniors in mind. We have a new newsletter, a Facebook, and a Twitter page as well. So we are making some real gains there in getting seniors connected with what is important and relevant to them.

When it comes to conservation, I would have to say that this year has been an excellent one for kiwis of all brands and persuasions. We had $11.2 million out of the Budget this year. Bill English, the Minister of Finance, did say to me that if those birds do not breed, he wants his money back. I am very worried about that. I have been able to say to all of our kiwi providers “Let’s make sure that these kiwi birds breed.”, and I am pleased to be able to report to our finance Minister that they have been successfully doing what nature intended. We have targeted an increase. At the moment the kiwi population is declining at about minus 2 percent. Our aim is to get that up to plus 2 percent, which means about an extra 7,000 birds, and the progress to date has been outstanding.

We make sure that we target the predators and the pests. And, yes, we do use toxins like 1080, and, apart from a group of very noisy individuals, I think that there is a growing realisation among intelligent people in New Zealand that this is something that we have to use if we want to win the war against pests. We are doing it with weeds as well. As someone with a great interest in plants, both endangered and otherwise, I am committed to ensuring that we get rid of the weeds and we get rid of them in whatever way that we can. We have also appointed a Threatened Species Ambassador whose job it is in life to ensure the promotion of our threatened species—the notion that New Zealanders all need to get together to help get behind this cause.

Those are the kinds of unifying things that this Government does very well. And, as we used to say, saving the planet starts in your own backyard, and that is something that New Zealanders embrace, as they have this National Government. I think in our first year we have made huge gains, and we will continue to make enormous progress, given the strong, united, disciplined caucus and Cabinet that we have under very strong leadership.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to just commend the earlier speaker, Maggie Barry. She had to be quite adaptive in her response to the Green Party co-leader’s contribution. One never quite knows these days if one will get a speech about child poverty or the environment, and I think that may be because they are not so sure themselves. But we have a very adept and adroit Minister who just responded, and she could have handled either scenario had she been called upon to do so.

It is sometimes difficult to tell, but this House is, ultimately, about making sound public policy. It gives me great pride to stand here today as a New Zealander in a country that leads the world when people try to measure how good our public policy is. And what do they mean by sound public policy? They mean flexible labour markets. They mean openness to foreign trade and investment. They mean robust monetary policy. They mean a low and tolerable tax regime that is simple and easy to comply with. If they were to go a little bit further, they might also talk about intergenerational fairness, and they might ask whether New Zealand superannuation is sustainable.

I have to say that the Minister for ACC this week has been shepherding through the House an excellent bill that will make ACC fair between generations, by funding ACC liability out of the activities generating those liabilities this year and every year. Would you believe that the party that was opposed to this initiative was the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand? Those members say that they believe in intergenerational fairness, but as soon as the details get a little bit complex, it all just passes them by.

I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition was right to raise the question of the pandas. I do not believe a single cent should go into bringing pandas to New Zealand. I believe that taxpayers are sick and tired of pandering to these bears. The cost of feeding them is bamboozling, and we should not have to accept that cost as taxpayers in New Zealand. None the less, the way that the Leader of the Opposition brought up the issue was the opposite of the fine contribution that we just had from the Minister of Conservation.

It has been a terrible year for the Opposition, because not so long ago they were having people sign petitions to keep our assets, and I bet they no longer want us to take that course of action. In fact, the evidence when it comes to good public policy is overwhelming. Over the last 30 years we have had over $2 trillion of privatisation in over 100 countries. There have been studies on privatisation. There have been studies on the studies, and for the benefit of the Opposition I point out that we call those metastudies. The jury is absolutely in—private and privatised entities are more productive, more efficient, have higher-paying jobs, and make better use of capital than State-owned entities. Is that not a germane point in New Zealand today, when technology is gradually making many State-owned enterprises less and less competitive? We see Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand facing a cut-throat media revolution powered by the internet. We see a very similar thing happening to New Zealand Post, and let us not even talk about the way that the fracking revolution has devalued coal across the world, with terrible effects on Solid Energy.

I put it to this House that if we want to be true custodians and promote true intergenerational fairness, one of the policies we should have is to begin divesting ourselves of the equity in these fraught commercial enterprises that are already beginning to lose money hand-over-fist. Notwithstanding that, I am very proud to stand here for the ACT Party, in the country that has adopted free markets and free minds better than almost any other society in history. Does that not make you feel great?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): There is something wrong in New Zealand politics right now. There is something wrong in New Zealand politics right now, because the Leader of the Opposition, the guy who wants to be the Prime Minister of this country, came into this House and asked the Prime Minister of New Zealand about pandas. He had no other issues to raise. He could not come up with any policies himself that he wanted to promote. There was nothing real, nothing of substance, to attack the Prime Minister on. He wanted to ask about pandas. For goodness’ sake! Does the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour Party have nothing better to talk about?

The second significant question we had from the Labour Party was from the bright, young, friendly face of the Labour Party. When she asked a question she was complaining about a speech the Prime Minister gave promoting a policy that he feels passionate about. What is wrong with the Labour Party when those are the only issues that it can come up with? Do we hear Labour members talking about jobs any more? No, we do not, because this Government has created 199,000 jobs since 2011. We are creating jobs. We have seen 11 quarters of job growth in this country, 18 quarters of economic growth in this country, and the reason why we do not hear them talking about that much anymore is that we are succeeding in providing more opportunities for New Zealanders.

Did we hear them asking about health and the fact that there are more New Zealanders getting access to elective surgery? When I go out and about in my electorate, when I go around the country like other members on this side, we do not hear people talking about scurrilous little issues that Labour members raise in question time. People talk about the fact that they want more jobs—the jobs we are delivering. They want to see more operations for seniors in this country, and we are delivering those, with 50,000 more operations in the past 6 years.

People want to hear more about education and about the fact that more young people are achieving in our education system. [Interruption] When people like Iain Lees-Galloway went to the election in 2008 they left us with an education system where one in three children were failing and were not getting National Certificate in Educational Achievement level 2. [Interruption] Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, if you want to shout out about something that is what you should have been complaining about—the one in three children who were failing. Under Anne Tolley and now under Hekia Parata more children are getting educated. More kids are coming out of our education system with qualifications, and four out of five kids are getting an education that they can be proud of.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Are they getting work? Where are the jobs?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Absolutely, they are getting work, because 200,000 new jobs have been created in the last 2 years.

Do we hear Labour members talking much about housing anymore? Do they raise housing as an issue in question time? I did not hear housing being raised in question time today. The reason why they did not raise housing in question time is that we are developing, and seeing more houses being developed, in Auckland. We are seeing more young New Zealanders getting access to housing in our country. That is another thing for us to be proud of. We have seen 84 special housing areas established in Auckland, with the potential for 40,000 new houses in Auckland in those special housing areas. We are seeing young New Zealanders getting better access through the HomeStart scheme. Those are positive things for this country.

Do we hear Labour members talking much about law and order anymore in question time? I did not hear them talking much about law and order. The reason is that crime is coming down in this country. More police officers are on the street in this country. Reoffending is dropping in this country. New Zealanders are safer in this country.

There is something wrong with the Labour Party in this country. They do not focus on the issues any more. They are always saying no to positive things that will help this country. They have a leader who enjoys the support of less than 10 percent of the MPs on their side.

They are facing a Government led by an individual like John Key, who is impressive on the world stage, who is leading this country through great economic growth, greater than that of many other countries we compare ourselves with. He is leading this country to get more jobs. He is leading a Government that is balancing the books, getting the books back in shape. We have a Government that is working. We have an Opposition that is no longer focused on the real issues, and that is what New Zealanders are seeing night after night on the 6 o’clock news.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I really love the humour that Mr Jami-Lee Ross uses when he makes his contributions to the House, as he did when he praised the Minister of Finance for his competent financial management of the books—7 years, seven deficits. Seven years, seven deficits—that is what Bill English has delivered to us. Bill English has borrowed more money than Sir Robert Muldoon. Bill English has borrowed more money than Sir Robert Muldoon. Seven Budgets, seven deficits, and Jami-Lee Ross thinks that it is something to boast about. Well, I would hang my head in shame if I were the whip of the National Party and were looking at the tragedy that Bill English has delivered for the finances of our country.

I heard the Minister for Senior Citizens, another person who is obviously prone to irony and humour in her debate. Let me tell the House about a few policy issues for senior citizens. What about increasing the level of superannuation, which was hacked back under a National Government in the 1990s? What about establishing a New Zealand superannuation fund that the Government could invest in so that older people in the future—the young ones of today—could have some security that the increased demands of superannuation will be met by saving for the future in a New Zealand superannuation fund? What about introducing income-related rents for State housing so that people who are on low incomes pay a lower level of rent and can afford to have a bit of money in their pockets instead of it all going out on the rent? What about having a rates rebate so that people on low incomes who have high rates bills and have not got very much money—every year, you get your rates bill, and you cannot get out of it; and if you are on superannuation, it is a big bill—could have a little more of that money back in their own pockets? What about the removal of asset testing for rest homes?

Those are all policies that were progressed by Labour when we were last in Government. Let us compare this against the most recent announcement by the Minister for Senior Citizens, standing alongside the Prime Minister. The Minister for Senior Citizens announced—ta-da, drum roll—the launching of a website. Wow! The launching of a website—that will give older New Zealanders financial security! That will help them with the level of superannuation! That will give the young people of today the security of knowing that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will be there in the future! Not only did that Minister launch a website but also, simultaneously, as only the Prime Minister can do, they cut home support for older New Zealanders—at the same time. It is almost like a magic trick. They can launch a website and cut home support for senior citizens at the same time. That is what older New Zealanders are facing under this Government.

Nikki Kaye, the current member for Auckland Central, said, in what sounded like a valedictory speech, how proud she was of the achievements that have been brought forward by the National Government. Not for older New Zealanders, not for young New Zealanders—in fact, not for very many people at all. If only Bill English had invested in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, as he should have done from 2009, instead of borrowing for tax cuts, which is what he actually did. He would not borrow in order to save for future New Zealanders’ security, but he did borrow for tax cuts for the highest-income New Zealanders. The highest-income New Zealanders got tax cuts in 2009, which Bill English borrowed money to pay for. That is a disgrace. If he had not done that and if he had invested in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, we would have been $18.2 billion better off. That superannuation fund would have been $18.2 billion bigger—$18.2 billion bigger—if we had had that investment over the past 7 years. Even if you take the most conservative approach of allowing for borrowing in the costs, we would still be $6.2 billion better off. That is money for future New Zealanders to have security in their quality of life, and it is money that the Minister of Finance spent instead on tax cuts for rich people.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this general debate. I am very fortunate to be part of this Government, which has been in power for the last 7 years under the strong and dynamic leadership of the Rt Hon John Key. Before I go further—the previous speaker, the Hon Ruth Dyson, mentioned that Nikki Kaye’s speech was a valedictory speech. I think I can see many faces on the Labour side that are due for a valedictory speech, and they should deliver that.

Recently I was overseas, and saw that the strong leadership of John Key was being mentioned by many overseas leaders. I had the opportunity to meet many delegations from India, Russia, Belarus, the Philippines, and Georgia. They all are very keen on joining New Zealand to have bilateral trade with us. I would like to congratulate the Hon Bill English on leading this country during the very difficult times that we had in the past 7 years. I would also like to congratulate the Hon Tim Groser, who is working hard with his team to make sure that we have got many markets for Kiwi producers so that they can have access to those markets in the long term.

During my visit to India I had the opportunity to meet the trade and commerce minister, the Hon Nirmala Sitharaman. She mentioned that she was very keen on progressing the free-trade agreement with New Zealand. I also had the opportunity to meet Mr Ashok Gajapathi Raju, who is the civil aviation minister, and he showed keen interest in having more pilot training in New Zealand, in comparison with the past.

After talking about the economy, I would like to touch on law and order, being the chair of the Law and Order Committee. It has been a busy year, if I am just talking about this last year, when this Government has worked hard to make sure that people feel safe in their houses. We introduced public protection orders, which ensure that people who are high-risk individuals who are coming out of prison—6 months before that, the court can order GPS tracking on these people. I think that was a great initiative by this Government. Extended supervision is also another area where this Government has worked in the past year, where high-risk offenders coming out of the jails can be monitored in different manners.

These are the things that we have been doing in the past 7 years, but I think that there is opportunity in this general debate for us to discuss not only what we have achieved, but also to talk about what we are going to do in the next 2 years and beyond. The next major project that the justice sector is taking on is to deal with family violence. The Minister Amy Adams, who is leading this sector, opened up a discussion document for the Care of Children Act. It closed on 18 September, but the issues that are being included in that are to make it so that the police can, in certain circumstances, be required to make mandatory arrests for the breach of protection orders. Recently we had a petition in the Law and Order Committee where this issue was raised, and when it was discussed with the Minister of Justice, she said that we are working on it.

This Government listens to the people and acts upon it. Another example of that is the Rules Reduction Taskforce. I hosted one of the meetings in South Auckland, where a large number of people came to discuss their issues, and the Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, has made a decision to reduce the red-tapeism in this Government. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take the penultimate call in this general debate and to remind New Zealand of the smoke and mirrors that is the hallmark of this National Government—7 years of smoke and mirrors. In fact, it is akin to a magic show—it is akin to a magic show. The Government is always passing swift tactical tricks past the people of New Zealand. If Parliament were Las Vegas, then John Key and Bill English would be Penn & Teller—John Key is, obviously, the big guy, Penn, and Bill English, the shorter, cunning guy, Teller. But the country is asking the hard questions, and we are not getting answers. We are not getting answers from this Government; all we do is get smoke and mirrors.

When the country is talking about daily announcements of job losses at Fonterra, AgResearch, and numerous firms up and down the country, a tanking economy, and the softening of our export markets, what do we get from this smoke-and-mirrors Government? It says: “Let’s talk about a flag—let’s talk about a flag.” There are millions of refugees and a crisis in Europe, and what do we get? They say: “Oh, I like flags with ferns.” That is what we get from this smoke-and-mirrors Government. We get Murray McCully and a flock of sheep, and Serco Sam. What do we get? Wait a minute, they say: “This is a photo of the Prime Minister and Richie.” This is what we get from this Government: smoke and mirrors. We are not getting substance; we are not getting answers to the hard questions and the hard issues that this country should be tackling—it is smoke and mirrors. This could not have been evidenced more than by the line-up that we have had today.

First of all we had Koro Tim Groser—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

RINO TIRIKATENE: Pompous Mr Groser. That was a respectful remark—that was a respectful remark. Mr Groser—pompous and pontificating about numerology and theology, and not addressing the real issues around being transparent with the country about the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Next we have Nikki Kaye. She rattles off the same speech in every general debate. Those members always try to run the decoy—try to run the decoy—Nikki Kaye and Jami-Lee Ross. “Oh, let’s run the reverse. Let’s run this decoy.” It has no effect. The country is seeing through the smoke and mirrors.

The classic one from today, though, is obviously the panda, and we have a name for the panda. It is “Cha-Ching”—that is right. This Government is more concerned about “cha-ching” for its mates than spreading that “cha-ching” round the whole of the motu. And what will it do next? Government members will say: “Oh look, here’s a picture of Cha-Ching the panda with a Richie McCaw T-shirt, waving a silver fern flag.” That is what we get from this Government: smoke and mirrors.

Who did we have next? Oh, yes, we had the Minister of Conservation. And what was she talking about? She said: “Oh, we want targeted increases for our kiwis.” Well, tell that to the poor takahē from Motutapu that were slaughtered—30 percent of the most endangered species, the takahē, was absolutely slaughtered under her watch. Absolutely shameful. Then she says that they are going to attack the weeds—they are going to attack the weeds. Well, here is an idea, maybe she could take her department and grow some bamboo for “Cha-ching”. It can go out and grow more bamboo. That is an idea for economic development. We are not getting anything of substance; we are just getting smoke and mirrors.

Then we get the rooster from the ACT Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

RINO TIRIKATENE: It was just a descriptive remark.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has been warned.

RINO TIRIKATENE: A descriptive remark about the member from Epsom—the golden boy from Epsom. I do not care to dignify those remarks, but what we are seeing is smoke and mirrors from this Government, but the people of New Zealand have had enough of the smoke. It is too much—they are coughing. They are choking from the smoke and they want to blow it away. They want to blow it away, and that is what we will be doing. We want to hear hard answers to the questions. We have the answers, and we will be powering on through. Kia ora tātou.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I think we just witnessed the late run for deputy leader of the Labour Party. I am very privileged to be one of the 14 new entrants in the class of 2014 for the National Party. This 51st Parliament is building on 6 years of fantastic work by the National Government under John Key. To be one of the new entrants into this Parliament—it is a great privilege to be here and build on that work.

It is all about a sustainable plan that is working. We have had average weekly wages go up by 15.8 percent in the last 5 years, and 3.2 percent in the last year—and when inflation has just been a miserly 0.3 percent. That is a fantastic amount of money in the pockets of average New Zealanders—far more than inflation. Their dollar goes a lot further. Job growth: as we have heard, there have been 200,000 jobs created since 2011. That is on the back and in spite of record numbers of migrants coming into New Zealand. In 2011 we saw the Prime Minister standing in the middle of Westpac Stadium, saying that we were losing a stadium full of people a year to Australia; they are now coming here. New Zealanders are voting with their feet, and that is a vote of confidence in the National Government. We have record labour-market participation at 69.3 percent—the third highest in the OECD.

We have an outward-looking economy. It is all about trade. Our opponents say that it is all about dairy. Well, really! Let us look at some facts. We have had 18 quarters straight of economic growth, as we have heard, despite low dairy prices. Dairy prices, fortunately, are starting to rise again, so things are on the way up. The medium to long term outlook for our primary sectors is fantastic. It looks like we will grow by 17 percent, reaching $41 billion over the next 4 years.

So it is all about trade, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is what I want to speak about this afternoon. It was started by Labour—let us give credit where credit is due. It is fantastic. But at the moment Labour is sitting on the fence, and I am going to challenge it to get off the fence and make a decision. Twelve Asia-Pacific countries—Australia, Japan—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection, particularly from one member—I do not mind interjection in a general debate, but when it gets to that level it creates complete disorder. That is the last warning I am giving to three particular members of the Labour Party during this general debate.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is great that I could draw a bit of life out of that side.

Twelve countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia, Japan, the US, Canada, and New Zealand, with a combined GDP of NZ$40 trillion, and 800 million people—it is about trade. It is about having a larger market, and that is through increased specialisation and greater competition. Old views of trade, where countries produce goods and sell them to other countries, have changed. They are no longer valid. Instead, goods and services are made in the world. Final products are assembled using intermediaries from different countries around the world. That is the way of the world. If we do not get involved in trade in larger markets, we will have a very poor outlook. That is demonstrated by exports to countries that we do not have free-trade agreements with—our exports have declined by 2.6 percent. In contrast, with countries that we have free-trade agreements with, our trade has increased by 10 percent.

Diversification is what is, indeed, happening in our economy. Our Government is all about providing a framework, and I really challenge people to say why they would oppose a trade deal that is so good for New Zealand. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on investor-State dispute settlements said that those risks are overstated, categorically. It is about political expediency, I suspect. It is certainly not about the good of New Zealand. So get off the fence and get in behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and let us make New Zealand a better place. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I move, That the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill will amend the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to deliver greater transparency around the ACC levy-setting process and will, in my view, deliver more stable, fairer levies over time. It will also ensure that residual levies are not over-collected. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the board of ACC and also the chief executive, Scott Pickering, for their work in terms of the performance of the scheme. For the last 7 years the Government has been working hard alongside ACC to improve the scheme’s finances and customer services after inheriting ACC’s accounts with a $4.8 billion deficit. I was very pleased to confirm that earlier this year, for the first time in history, ACC’s three levied accounts are, essentially, fully funded. This is a huge step forward for ACC and New Zealand.

This bill builds on that achievement by providing the Government with the ability to discontinue the collection of residual levies earlier than the current date of 2019. Yesterday I announced my decision to remove residual levies for all three accounts in 2016. It is my intention, in the next couple of days, to issue a Gazette notice that will cement this decision in law. My decision to remove residual levies is supported by the most recent evaluation of residual levies and liabilities. Our ability to take this step is dependent on a range of factors. Firstly, there has been a significant improvement in ACC’s claims management. Secondly, we have seen good regulatory changes, reducing the cost of claims. We have also seen changes in discount rates, and we have seen continued performance of the ACC investment portfolio.

Removing residual levies represents another significant milestone in the history of ACC. The repeal of the residual levy provisions is of great consequence for those businesses that are currently meeting their own workplace injury costs under the Accredited Employers Programme. In return for meeting these costs, these businesses pay significantly reduced levies, but they must still pay their full share of residual levies. The repeal of this levy will be a significant cost saving for these businesses. The removal will also mean that industries with the greatest injury costs pay their true share of these costs. This will complement the new health and safety legislation to help encourage much safer workplaces. This means much fairer levies for businesses in New Zealand. Removing residual levies will, overall, have a redistributive effect that will result in a decrease for businesses in some industries, particularly for those in the Accredited Employers Programme, and some will receive an increase. As we have announced, we are fortunate to be able to confirm that it is very likely that some of those businesses will not get an increase due to excellent management and the fact that we are potentially on track for significant work account reductions.

This bill will enable successive Governments to have an appropriate range of tools available to better set levies and will smooth out the effects of economic shocks over time. The bill takes the opportunity to make a number of improvements to the approach to funding ACC’s levied accounts. A series of complementary changes will improve the framework for levy setting. To begin with, the bill clearly articulates and consolidates the principles that will guide the levy-setting process. I acknowledge that there has been some debate about how those principles work together. These principles will promote levy stability and solvency and will help to ensure the lifetime costs of claims are met for any particular year. The bill also recognises that trade-offs between these principles may be required—for example, following a significant change in the economic environment. We know too well the impact of Canterbury in the cost to the scheme. Furthermore, new governance arrangements will better reflect the Government’s responsibility for levy setting. These arrangements involve transferring responsibility for the development of the funding policy that guides levy setting from ACC to the Government. This is about responsibility. The bill implements a more robust governance structure, where the Government sets the policy that ACC, as the responsible Crown agent, will implement. Ultimately, this will promote a closer match between levies that are consulted on and recommended by ACC and the Government’s decisions.

Following the select committee process, the bill also now includes a provision requiring the Minister for ACC to undertake targeted consultation on the funding policy statement. I think it will be helpful to relevant stakeholders to present and have their views taken into account at this initial stage of the process. The targeted consultation round will complement the regular comprehensive public consultation on levy rates already undertaken by ACC. ACC has indicated that potential levy reductions next year will be based on a funding target band of between 100 percent and 110 percent of liabilities over a 10-year funding horizon. This is intended to strike a very important balance between levy stability and ensuring that the ACC accounts hold sufficient funds across generations. This is consistent with the funding policy supported by Cabinet, which, as I confirmed yesterday, I intend to consult on as a long-term funding policy for the ACC scheme. To ensure there is adequate time for targeted consultation, the bill was amended in the select committee to require the first funding policy statement to be issued within 12 months after the bill comes into force, rather than 3 months.

Finally, the bill enhances the transparency of the levy-setting process by increasing the reporting requirements on ACC. This will ensure that both the Government and levy payers are informed about the downstream consequences of funding decisions. This is very important for transparency. As well as ensuring that levies are set through a robust process, the bill introduces the kind of accountability and transparency requirements that already apply to the operations of the Government’s core Budget under the Public Finance Act. The Government is working hard to uphold the financial performance of the scheme and, ultimately, to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders. This bill represents an important step towards furthering those objectives. The changes will allow us the benefits of improving the governance and transparency of the funding process and will support greater levy stability for individuals and businesses. This will help to ensure that the ACC scheme is financially sustainable so that future generations can continue to enjoy the benefits of having comprehensive no-fault accident compensation.

I want to conclude by thanking all members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, particularly the chair, Jonathan Young, who has done an excellent job, for his careful consideration with the committee on the bill. The enhancements made at the select committee—thank you to all of the members for their contribution. I also want to thank the members of the public who contributed to the development of this bill by presenting their views to the committee.

The Government has delivered significant improvements to the ACC scheme, with more than $1.5 billion in levy reductions, and more are planned in the future. The scheme is now in a position where it is, essentially, fully funded, and the changes in this bill will help to maintain the financial performance of the ACC scheme and will deliver better outcomes for some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders. The scheme’s assets have grown from $10 billion to $31 billion in the last few years. The public can be very confident that we will ensure that cover is provided for those who are in need. The passing of this bill completes significant reform in the ACC levy-setting process. The passing of this bill means that on top of the financial achievements—taking the scheme to being, essentially, fully funded, and improving the asset management—we will see much more stable, transparent, and fair levies for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): If only the last sentence that the Minister for ACC spoke was the true aim of this bill, we would be absolutely applauding it. As it happens, the Labour Party is supporting this bill, but we know that it could have been so much better. What an opportunity lost—what an opportunity lost to actually get the confidence of the New Zealand public and of all of those levy payers who have, clearly, been overcharged ACC levies for several years now under that Government. That is the confidence that needed to be reinstated through the third reading of this bill, and, sadly, the Government has not achieved that.

The Labour Party does support this bill, because for three decades—for 30 years—the Labour Party has fought for a robust, sustainable accident compensation system. Through all those years where the National Party has wanted to privatise it and dumb it down to being a private insurance model, through all of the twists and turns, it has been the Labour Party that has absolutely consistently stood up for the principle of having a sustainable, collective, socially responsible model of ACC.

Why is that? It is because it is the Labour Party that understands how vulnerable people are when they are hurt—when they have an injury or an accident—and how their life changes. Whether that accident happened in the workplace, whether it happened on a sports field, or whether it happened in their own home, it changes people’s lives. It changes people’s lives in a way where they need the support of their community more than ever. They need the support of their community more than ever when that happens, because they need the ability to be able to live their day-to-day lives. They need to be able to pay their bills on a day-to-day basis, even though they cannot work. They need to be able to be rehabilitated and to continue to participate in community life. These are the reasons why the Labour Party has fought for a robust ACC model.

Therefore, we are disappointed about how flimsy this attempt is to make ACC truly financially responsible and transparent, because if the title of the bill had been adhered to and that Government was really interested in fairer levies, as the Minister just said before she resumed her seat, it would have voted for an amendment that I put forward in the Committee stage just yesterday. That amendment was designed to ensure that the National Government could not continue to use ACC levies as a means to try to get its books back into surplus—because that is what it has done, not because I have accused it of that but because Judith Collins, when she was the Minister for ACC, admitted to it.

Todd Barclay: Ha, ha!

SUE MORONEY: Well, she did, Todd Barclay. You should read her press statement. Judith Collins, 2013—

Hon Member: She was refreshingly honest about it.

SUE MORONEY: She was transparent about it, actually. What she said was that she had rejected ACC’s recommendation for lower ACC levies because her Government needed to “get to surplus”.

Todd Barclay: Is that a quote?

SUE MORONEY: That is a quote: “get to surplus.” And because the Government could not do it by fair means, it decided to try to do it by foul means. The foul means were jacking up—every worker and every business in New Zealand—their ACC levies to higher levies than what they needed to be. My amendment would have stopped that practice, and it was very telling that the National Government, without any explanation, without any justification, stood up and voted against it. What does that tell us, Todd Barclay? It tells us it still wants the ability to actually jack up and hike up ACC levies to a higher level than is needed to pay for the outcomes of injuries and accidents—that is what it tells us. There could be no other explanation of why the Government voted against that amendment.

The other important thing about this bill and its passing—and it will pass with the Labour Party’s support—is that it absolutely proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Nick Smith and the National Government manufactured a crisis in ACC. They manufactured a funding crisis in ACC. When National took the Government benches in 2008-09 it said: “It’s broke! It can’t be fixed.” It cried: “It’s insolvent! It’s bankrupt!”, and yet here we are, just a few years later, and suddenly the Government is able to remove the residual levy 2 years earlier than what was forecast. Why is that?

Hon Members: It’s called good management.

SUE MORONEY: The reason is that there has been good management over the years. By the Government’s assertion, it believes that ACC has been bankrupt since 1999. That is its analysis. In 1999 the plan was that ACC would be fully funded by 2019. The Government asserted that because it was not fully funded in 2009—10 years early—it was somehow bankrupt, it was somehow insolvent. Either those members do not know how to count and they do not know how to do fiscal management and they do not understand it or they were misleading New Zealand. I am going to be kind to the National Party and say it was the latter, not the former. I am going to say it was the latter, that they were misleading the public, not that they cannot count. So I am being kind to the National Party on that basis, but I am often generous towards the National Party in that way.

It is good that the residual levies are coming off earlier than the projections that had been planned way back in 1999, but what that does mean is that successive Governments have managed ACC in a way where that could be achieved. That is not something that has happened in the last few years; that is something that has happened and that has been worked towards since 1999, and anyone who understands the history of ACC will know that that is a correct statement. In removing the residual levy, here is what is going to happen next: some businesses will be winners and some will be losers. The ones that will be the winners are the ones that have improved their health and safety outcomes since 1999.

Todd Barclay: That’s the intention.

SUE MORONEY: And that is a good thing—yes, that is a good thing. The ones that will be the losers are the ones whose records have worsened since that time, and that is, perhaps, also a good thing.

But we have seen the National Government have a go at this twice in recent weeks, and it has made an absolute shambles of it. In both instances I think Nikki Kaye, the current Minister, has had her hand in there. So when is it recently that we have seen the National Government try to determine risk and what that looks like? The first example we saw was when Nikki Kaye decided to change the way that ACC levies were handed out with regard to motor vehicle registration. She decided to change it so that it was now going to be on the safety rating of the car, and how did that go? Well, within the first week of it being implemented 115,000 cars had to be reclassified because she got it wrong—she got it wrong.

That is the story so far, but what I can tell the House is that that is just the tip of the iceberg, because every week a new car is being discovered, a new model that the Government has got wrong. But instead of actually refunding people and owning up to the mistake and saying it got it wrong, the Government is now saying to people: “Go away. You are going to have to use the ACC consultation process to address that.”—even though it has got it wrong. So it has got cars that are exactly the same model—exactly the same model—but that have been badged differently in different countries, Australia and New Zealand, being assessed as being more dangerous or less dangerous than each other.

It is a complete shambles. But it is the same mistake the Government made when it decided that worm farms were more dangerous than cattle farms. It is the same technique that it used with workplace health and safety. That was a shambles. The ACC motor vehicle registration has been a shambles, and I truly hope, for all the workers and employers in this country, that the same shambles is not visited on the removal of the residual levy and what that will mean for establishing the risk ratings of all of those companies.

The Labour Party is pleased to be able to support this bill. We had hoped that it would be an awful lot stronger and that it would have brought about true transparency, but this will do for now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I do call the next member, I think the Minister in charge of the bill, Nikki Kaye, was sort of slightly outside of the scope of the bill for a reasonable part of her speech; the member who followed was worse still. What I am going to rule now is that we are going to come back and we are going to talk about the bill that is before the House, not a history of the royal commission and everything that followed it.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): We would expect nothing less from you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have to say that the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill is the best thing to happen to ACC since we took over ACC from the previous Government.

What this bill does is it gives certainty to New Zealanders that there is a system of support for those who suffer accidents that is sustainable and going to be there for generations to come, and when we became the Government you could not have said that. We have seen some robust debate around this, but what we are pleased to see and say is that the strength of ACC through this legislation and the responsiveness that this legislation enables in terms of levy setting in a transparent and a clear way is going to bring such strength and solidarity. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill has been brought before the House because the Government realised that it needed to demonstrate that it was using—

Hon Maggie Barry: You’re trying to sound reasonable. You shout.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If you are heard of hearing, just be quiet and listen up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am having no trouble at the moment, so just keep going.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If the members opposite are hard of hearing—I would not pass judgment on your hearing. This bill was brought before the House because this Government has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to be transparent in the way that it sets ACC levies. Members opposite were challenging my colleague Sue Moroney about the question of whether or not the previous Minister for ACC, Judith Collins, was actually transparent and upfront about the way levies were set when she was the Minister. Just in August last year, barely a year ago—is it not a surprise that it was just over a year ago—the ACC Minister Judith Collins admitted that the reason the Government—

Hon Maggie Barry: Is this in scope?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is out of an editorial in the New Zealand Herald: “ACC minister Judith Collins has admitted the reason the Government has ignored ACC’s recommendation for bigger cuts for the third year running was, ‘because we need to get to surplus. We believe the surplus is something very important for not only the Government but also for every business that has to borrow money’.” So that is where this bill came from. It was the fact that successive Ministers in this National administration have set levies in order to prop up the surplus—or to attempt to reach surplus—

Jonathan Young: That’s not correct and you know it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Jonathan Young is challenging me on this, and again I refer to his own Minister’s quote: “because we need to get to surplus. We believe the surplus is something very important…”. That was the ACC Minister’s quote about why the levies were set at the level that they were. The members opposite cannot rewrite history. They cannot give an alternative view as to why this legislation was brought before the House. That is the reason why. It is because the editorials started rolling in and the public started to react against this notion that ACC levies should be used for propping up a surplus.

The fact is that this legislation is timely and we do support it. The only thing we lament is that it does not quite go far enough. Last night we debated—

Todd Barclay: One that got away.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry—come again? Do you care to repeat that? No, he does not care to repeat that. Funny that. Last night we debated Sue Moroney’s Supplementary Order Paper, which was around the definition of “public good” and ensuring that when the Minister was setting policy in the public interest, it related to ACC—to raising funds to provide for the treatment and compensation that people receive under ACC—and to prevention as well. This “public good” argument is what has been used previously to justify setting levies at a higher rate than what is necessary for full funding of the Accident Compensation Corporation accounts. Combined with what is already in the legislation, that would have made this a very robust bill.

We felt that the changes that were made at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that gave a little bit more latitude as to how the levies are set were necessary but created the need for this backstop that Sue Moroney proposed. If the Government members were genuine about wanting to create more transparency around the way ACC’s levies are set, they would have supported that amendment, but they did not, and that is because they want to leave the door open to being able to set levies that are higher than what is necessary to fully fund ACC.

This bill does a couple of things that are necessary now because we are coming to the end of the period of transition from pay-as-you-go funding to full funding, and no matter how much rhetoric we hear from the other side, the simple fact is that in 1999 a decision was made to shift from pay-as-you-go funding to full funding. It was always envisaged that that would take about 20 years, and we are getting close to that 20-year mark, so, yes, we need to get rid of the residual levies because many of the accounts are now fully funded. And, yes, we got to full funding a little bit earlier than 2019 because of the fact that ACC has been taking far more money than it needed to over the last few years.

So, yes, the accounts are now fully funded and ACC’s investments have rebounded from the global financial crisis. ACC’s investments are actually one of the best performing investment portfolios in New Zealand—if not the best investment portfolio in New Zealand. This only goes to demonstrate that the public sector can actually run a very good investment portfolio. I know that the National Party does not like that idea, but the public sector can run a solid investment portfolio, which is why this bill is perfectly legitimate.

We agree with this bill because it goes some of the way—but not all of the way—towards greater transparency around how ACC levies are set, but it does still leave the door open to the ACC levies being manipulated and misused by a Government that still has not been able to get the books back into surplus. The other thing it does is that it gets rids of the residual levy, and, again, that would have had to happen in 2019 if full funding had been achieved over the term that it was originally envisaged. So there is nothing magic here. There is nothing extraordinary about the way National has run ACC. If anything, one of the other reasons why it has reached full funding a couple of years earlier than was ever envisaged was that it is so much harder to get compensation now under the National Government. It is so much harder to get treatment now under the National Government. It has slashed funding on programmes to prevent injuries, so that has saved a bit of money as well.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): They say: “Please explain—please explain how the levies are calculated.” Are they too high? Are they too low? There are rorts, apparently.

This bill cuts through all of that debate. It closes down the debate, it closes down the arguments, and it closes down the accusations. This bill is about financial responsibility and transparency, increasing the transparency so there is no need to have speculation and accusation. This bill has three principles that must be followed and, of course, the reporting that must take place outlines quite clearly to the public the assumptions and the projections, increasing the accountability and understanding of the levy calculation for the benefit of all New Zealanders. So I commend this bill to the House.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe. I rise to take a call for the Greens on this, the third reading of the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill. In my speech on the first reading of this bill I said that although this bill does not go anywhere near as close to our good green vision of a fairly funded, transparent, and people-focused ACC, we will be supporting it because, as a previous speaker on this side said, it does goes part of the way.

I would like to acknowledge the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which worked very hard on this bill. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry, I am just asking Mr Williamson to settle down. I think that the emergency mikes are working in an unusual way.

DENISE ROCHE: So I would like to acknowledge the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its good work on this bill. It was fairly complicated, I found. I would also particularly like to acknowledge my colleague Kevin Hague for his work on the committee, particularly on the way he was able to get agreement for consultation to happen around some of the regulations that will accompany the bill.

As I have said, we did find this an imperfect bill, but before I go into the areas of where we would have done it differently, I would like to speak about the parts that we do support, because we do like to work constructively as much as possible. We support the intended changes to make the levy-setting process more transparent, and we note that organisations like Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions have been calling for more transparent and more effective ways of doing that. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that the Council of Trade Unions did say that it would like better and more effective consultation.

There is something else that the Council of Trade Unions said in its submission that I think we should actually acknowledge and take notice of. I would like to quote it. The council said that the “consultation process was a disrespectful waste of submitters’ time. That was not in general a reflection on the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) … The waste came at the end of the process: the Government was able to, and regularly did, override the Corporation’s recommendation. Submitters’ views counted for nothing.”

So although we applaud the changes in making the levy-setting processes more transparent and easier, and we celebrate our successful changes that we managed to get in, we strongly urge the Government to actually take the consultation process seriously because it does not matter how good or robust the consultation process is, if the Government is determined to ignore what is said there. We have seen the Government ignore that sort of consultation process before in other bills, like the Health and Safety Reform Bill.

We also support the provisions that are made to prevent the over-collection of levies. A lot of families out there are struggling, and the key findings section of the 2015 Household Incomes Report talked about how two in five families in New Zealand have at least one member of their household working full-time hours. But even a couple of hundred dollars or so a year might mean the difference between warm clothes, warm blankets, and a heater, and people getting sick over the winter because their wages are still so low, even with paid work.

That is why we advocated for the superior pay-as-you-go system. In my first reading speech I referred to Michael Littlewood, an expert from Auckland University. I quoted him. He said that the pay-as-you-go model has less volatility on investment returns, and less uncertainty than the current actuarial calculations, which falsely rely on the assumptions that this is a private insurance model and not a Government-run system. He also says that a pay-as-you-go system is more transparent and it is easier to understand.

For all those reasons we support a pay-as-you-go system. I just want to quote Mr Littlewood. He says: “A pay-as-you-go approach to levy setting should be simpler, more transparent, and less risky financially. It would also lower the investment risk for New Zealand.” It would also, I guess, make Government rorts less likely. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, in one of his speeches during the Committee of the whole House, I think, spoke about the raising of the ACC levies to cover the Government’s propensity for perpetual Budget deficits, due to its giveaways to people who already have enough. We see examples of that with the dividends from Housing New Zealand returning to the Government, rather than being reinvested to fix our leaking—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Even if the member is quoting someone when he was being irrelevant, it does not become relevant that way.

DENISE ROCHE: OK. It was a good point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is right. Good try, but keep going, please.

DENISE ROCHE: The departure from a pay-as-you-go system has shifted ACC from being a fully funded, fair public service to one that is closer to a neo-liberal, private insurance model. We have all heard horror stories about ACC, with the most egregious one being exposed by my colleague Kevin Hague in 2012, where ACC managers’ pay was linked to the number of long-term claimants they could get off the corporation’s books. That is what I mean by neo-liberal. Kevin Hague referred to the culture of creeping disentitlement and the degradation of our public services that happens when a neo-liberal model is applied to our public services. We are seeing it elsewhere—but I will stick to the point.

So what would ACC look like under a Green Government? It would be fair. It would be comprehensive, transparent, and, most of all, people-focused. We would guarantee that all people who have genuine work-related gradual process injuries, diseases, and infections, including occupational overuse injuries and chemical poisoning on the job, could obtain ACC cover. We would ensure access to specialist assessors to ensure that people can receive full entitlement.

We would revoke co-payment requirements. We would also establish an independent ACC ombudsman to improve accountability against abuses. We would support specific risk-based levies to encourage injury prevention, where that is appropriate, and that could have a remarkable impact on those industries that are at high risk. I stress high risk, like forestry and construction—all those ones.

We would support and strengthen ACC’s focus on injury prevention, including integration with broader preventative health programmes and interventions in communities, workplaces, schools, and homes. If we prevent injuries and take the public health approach, rather than waiting to be an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, we can provide better-quality services and save money in the long run.

This bill is imperfect. It is an imperfect improvement and a lost opportunity, but, having said that, it is a small baby step towards something a bit better, and we will support it.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in solid opposition to this piece of legislation. To be brutally honest, I think that this Government has got more cheek than an overweight politician’s backside. Putting lipstick on this pig and calling it somehow fiscally responsible, looking after the best interests of all New Zealanders, I think, is irresponsible.

To be brutally honest, I have been sitting here for the last 35 minutes and have been struggling. My ears have been deceiving me in hearing all of this objection towards this bill from this side of the House, and yet we are hearing a lot of support for it, with regard to the Greens and Labour. I shake my head in disbelief that we are the only party in opposition to this bill, because it does not do what the Government is saying it is going to do. I am just going to step you through that today. Government members do say one thing and they put down something completely different.

We are talking about the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill. I go back to a number of speeches that have already been made in this House over the last couple of weeks, particularly in the last 24 hours, about those two sets of words: “financial responsibility” and “transparency”. They have been heroed in the title of this bill, which, to be fair, I actually think is the best part of the bill, the title, to make it sound like this is some sort of new idea—that the Government should be fiscally responsible and transparent. In actual fact, I expect that from a Government at all times, and what we are seeing, and what we are going to continue to see, is less transparency and more muddying of the waters.

To move forward you must look behind you and find out where you have made mistakes, where you have gone wrong. You need to apologise for those mistakes, moving forward, and you need to make good on some of the issues that have caused so many problems around the country in relation to the accident compensation levies that have been overcharged. Many businesses, many people, have been overpaying these levies for such a long time, and nothing in this bill, nothing at all, suggests or says definitively that this is actually going to take place—that those levies are actually going to come down.

A transparent Government is a Government that does not hide behind the Order in Council provision. The Order in Council provision is probably one of the most insidious clauses that this Government has got the gall to put in—not just in this bill but there are but 798 other times in current legislation that the Order in Council exists. I find that absolutely abhorrent. I think the rank and file New Zealanders find it absolutely abhorrent, and I think we need to take a good hard look at the way this Government is not being transparent by using the Order in Council provision.

The Order in Council provision is a very important part. The Government is saying that those levies, the residual levies, are going to come down by 2019. It may decide by Order in Council to bring them forward. But under an Order in Council it might decide to actually extend those out. Under current charges and levies that are being charged at the moment, you can expect in New Zealand—those people back home in small businesses—between now and 2019, in 4 years, $1.475 billion to be over-collected over the next 4 years.

What about that over-collection? Where is that money going to go to? Where is the transparency to let people know that that money is going to come back to them? This is a Government that is trying to cloud the issue by trying to create a surplus moving forward to the 2017 election and taking the credit for it, using New Zealanders’ hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars to go into ACC, which should not be required.

Last night in the Committee of the whole House we raised a number of points relating to the word changes around Part 1 in the bill. This is about new section 166A(2) in clause 5: “When making recommendations in respect of regulations made under section 329 setting levies, the Minister must have regard to the following principles:”. Those are “that the levies derived for each account”—we have got “if an Account has a deficit of funds to meet the costs described” and “large changes in levies”.

You would expect with such a solid opening statement in new section 166A(2) that they would follow that through and actually consider that word “must” remaining. However, it is not remaining. The Government has changed the levies derived from each account from “must” to “should meet the lifetime cost”. New Section 166A(2)(b) also says: “if an Account has a deficit of funds to meet the costs described … or has accumulated surplus funds, that deficit or surplus should be corrected by the setting of levies”. Those are some serious changes.

We heard Mr Young stand up and justify that. I do not think that justification is anywhere near good enough. So we do have some serious concerns around the wording of this bill and, even further, around the final decisions being made about what those levies are going to look like. We have got a flow diagram that, again, I have discussed, and because this bill has been sort of rammed through just like a whiz, boing, bang, bounce game—it is very, very quick. We have rushed it through the select committee. We have had not a lot of time to consider the evidence that we have heard, and a lot of people have said themselves they have not had the time to actually bring their concerns forward and have a serious consideration of them.

But the Government’s proposed levy-setting framework starts with the Government setting funding policy targets, horizons, and transitions. ACC then calculates the levies. Public and stakeholders’ consultation—well, that sounds fantastic. Now we are talking about some engagement. So there are some positive things in this bill. Then the ACC board recommends the levies and the rates. The Minister for ACC also receives levies advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and from Treasury. Cabinet sets new ACC levies. But then it goes to the final stages of the levy-setting framework and it is all undone by simply “The Cabinet may follow ACC’s recommendations and the Cabinet may choose to get alternative rates.”

The term “Order in Council” is very worrying. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption has come out and said that a Government that uses this particular ideology in its legislation is one that is stepping down the pathway of corruption.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member has, I think, used a big proportion of his speech to talk about the Order in Council provisions of the bill. I have been searching the bill for them, and before the member starts on that again I would like him to point out where they are in the bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: With regard to the residual levies, I think you will find it is in Part 2 of the bill, in new section 336A (1)(a) and (b) in clause 7—it is right there on page 5.

So just to continue with what I have got to say here, the language is very important. I think it is very important to raise that concern because that provision is in there, and the reality is there are a number of concerns within that Order in Council section, and it is not to be taken lightly. It is very much a serious concern.

We are moving forward in the bill and we hear the nonsense that is coming out now with the Health and Safety Reform Bill—and if you will bear with me for a second, Mr Assistant Speaker; I do not want you to sit me down before I get to my point. When we talked about the Health and Safety Reform Bill, we heard the comments about what constitutes a high-risk industry, if you will. We have had the same sort of cock-up, if you like, with the announcement of what cars are going to be high risk and low risk and which ones are going to be levied against. [Interruption] It does relate to ACC levies. If the Government is talking about trying to reduce those ACC levies, then the reality is that we are seeing a higher rate for cars that are far more common and therefore more affordable and cheap. To us, this is a tax on the people who can afford it the least.

We have got cars out there that are less popular and therefore cause fewer accidents on the roads, and yet you have got a little car like a Hyundai Getz. Even with the latest information that has been put forward, the Government has not come out in support of the Hyundai Getz as being a car that should have lower rates. That is an affordable around-the-town car. It is low on emissions. It is good for the environment, it takes up less car space, and it is affordable. Yet that does not show up there—in the list of new cars that are actually designed to have those lower emissions rates.

To conclude my presentation today in opposition—in true opposition—to this bill, there is a lot that is wrong with it. The Opposition has come out and said that it is not fit for purpose; it is window dressing. So I cannot fathom how Labour and the Greens cannot actually stand up here with New Zealand First and oppose it, because that is the only sensible option. However, we do support Sue Moroney’s Supplementary Order Papers 123 and 124. I think that is the most sensible thing that I have heard discussed today in this House and with regard to this bill. We will not and cannot support this bill moving forward. Thank you for your time, Mr Assistant Speaker. I hope you have a lovely afternoon.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I have to say that that speech by Clayton Mitchell was a breach of the two wonderful old adages—first, that if you do not have anything to say, you best not say anything, and, second, that a good speech is a short one. So I am going to say that I think the Government has done a bloody good job with the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill and I support it fully. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Accident Compensation (Financial Responsibility and Transparency) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)

In Committee

Debate resumed from 9 September.

Clauses 1 to 3

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the Chairperson report progress.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Committee report progress.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), and no progress on the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill, the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill, and the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to the introduction and passing through all stages of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. No doubt, people will be aware that there was a move this afternoon by the Green Party to seek provision for this bill to be introduced and passed through all stages immediately upon the end of the general debate. That leave was denied by the House. For those who are not familiar with the process, any member of this House can deny a motion for leave for a particular parliamentary process.

I think the merits of this bill and the proposal are found in the fact that so many people have expressed the view that this particular alternative to the New Zealand flag should be included on the sheet for consideration at the first referendum and then, perhaps, at a subsequent referendum. Therefore, the Government has decided to take the opportunity for the bill to be put through the House in time for the Red Peak flag to appear on the ballot paper. It would be appropriate to take urgency and see the bill go through all of its stages today so that there can be a clear instruction to those conducting the referendum.

Urgency is something that this Government has not used a lot of in the past few years, but it is, I think, appropriate in this case because there has been such a large statement by the public, and also there is a considerable desire within the House to see this particular provision effected. Those are the reasons for us moving the urgency motion this afternoon.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister: I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I want to begin my contribution to this particular bill this afternoon by congratulating the Labour Party on getting out of sleepy hollow for the first time in 7 years and actually doing something this afternoon that looked a little bit interesting. Might I say that it is no surprise to me that when some people who would normally be calling the shots around these matters are not available, the Labour Opposition, left in the hands of the Hon Trevor Mallard, the old tusker himself, manages to pull one out of the bag and almost—almost—gets what it was after.

I return now to the bill. This is a bill introduced to the House by the Government but, significantly, it was constructed by Gareth Hughes and a team from the Green Party. They have recognised that a large number of New Zealanders would like to have the fifth option on the referendum panel that asks people to put a preference, from one to five now, for a flag, should there be a vote in favour of a change.

The Government considers that that is not an unreasonable position, but we do want to express our huge confidence in the design panel, which was put together for the consideration of the flag. That panel has been, in some places, criticised, and not least of those criticisms has been that there was no designer on the panel. Well, it was not a group of designers who put up the hundreds and hundreds of options that could have been considered; it was, largely, ordinary New Zealanders who have a patriotic view of their country and were wanting a view along those lines expressed on the flag. The panel behaved in, I think, a thoroughly professional manner and undertook a very good public consultation process. Remember, they were faced with 10,000 different flag options—10,000 different flag options expressed by various New Zealanders. So it was a challenging job for that panel to do as the law required of them and to whittle that number down to some four options.

One of the things it did was ask for public opinion about the 40 options that it thought may be of interest to New Zealanders. It is worth noting that the Red Peak came in 37th out of those 40. That being said, there has been considerable activity and, on a matter like this, you would expect New Zealanders to become a little bit passionate. So we have an option today to put another flag in the referendum.

Hon Annette King: It’s not in here.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, Opposition members are waving bits of paper around in anticipation that it may be that particular flag that is included. Perhaps they should just have a little bit of a sleep overnight and see what comes of it in the next day or so. I think accepting the way that we are moving forward and completing the aspects of the bill—that is, the first reading, the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third reading—all in one day, so that instruction can be given to the people responsible for the referendum, is the appropriate thing to do.

I want to tell the House that by doing this we will not affect the planned referendum dates, the preferential voting system does not change, and the approach to regulating the referendum advertising etc. is also unchanged. I think it will be interesting to see how New Zealanders react to this over the next couple of days.

Changing a flag should create reaction, but it should not create the sorts of descriptions that we are getting from people across the other side of the House who are actually violently opposed to this approach now, but actually went into the 2014 election saying that if they were in Government—the same position that we are in today—they would be promoting a change to the New Zealand flag. The one thing this House can be certain of, and all New Zealanders can be certain of, is that had it been in Government, Labour would have changed the flag and not one New Zealander would have had a say in that other than those members of its Government. What we are seeing over the other side is crocodile tears, the wringing of hands at the disappointment at not being able to do this, and now, after a 30-second read of the bill, all sorts of claims that it will not do what it set out to do.

Well, I think it does not happen every day that a member can come to the House and propose a bill, have that bill defeated by a leave motion, and then have the Government pick it up, particularly when that member is a member of an Opposition party. So I think it is a day that I am sure Gareth Hughes will remember for a very long time. It does indicate that when there is a good idea put forward, then the Government is not opposed to listening to that idea.

The biggest surprise to us is that the Labour Party did not think of doing something like this. The Labour Party had not the wit, it would seem, to be able to come up with something that the Green Party has done this afternoon. So what we are seeing, really, is a lot of bitterness—and we will hear it over the next few hours—from a party that has been totally snookered by a smaller party in this House, but a smaller party that is increasingly listening to the voices of New Zealanders and representing their aspirations—

Grant Robertson: It’s just politics, Gerry. That’s all it is—just politics.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —although Mr Robertson over there says “It’s just politics.”, I take him at his word, but I know that deep down inside, past the politics, he really does want to see a change to the flag and most definitely wants to see the process for it. [Interruption] Well, now we have got the contest between Mr Robertson and Ms Ardern—a contest that, apparently, is not on, because Ms Ardern is way out in front on this one—yelling across the best option they have got, Mrs King, and I think we are going to see that little scenario play out over the next couple of days as well.

This is a bill that reflects the fact that New Zealanders who have spoken have been listened to. It is a tribute to the ability of our Government to work with other parties to ensure that where there is a fair case that should be dealt with, we are prepared to move in that direction. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Well, that speech from the Leader of the House pretty much sums up the National Government’s approach to a very serious issue for the country, and that is the consideration of whether or not we change our flag. For that member, as it is for the Prime Minister, it is just a game. It is about who has got what, and it is just about manipulating and pussyfooting and carrying on as if it is all just a big game.

You see, the National Government could have done this weeks ago. The National Government could have done this weeks ago. It could have done it last week when we sought the leave of the House to introduce legislation to add another option and to give New Zealanders a choice. We will support this bill because we support giving New Zealanders a choice—a real choice. The reality about the flag referendum process so far—and the whole flag-changing process—is that it has just, under John Key, become an absolute and utter shambles. He could not manage a flag referendum process to save himself, which now, it turns out, is what he is going to have to do.

New Zealanders are disillusioned. They are beyond disappointed. They are disillusioned and frustrated and disappointed that they will not be listened to by the most senior elected politician in the country. This is the Prime Minister who goes around to every meeting he can with anywhere between two people and 200 people, and insists that they hear his case for change, demands that they raise their hands in answer to his question, and then, when they do not give him an answer he likes, he berates them. That is where this has now come to.

Let us go back to the start of this process. This has always been John Key’s pet project. He said to the people of New Zealand “We must change the flag. We must have a flag change.”, and then he said it must be black, and he said it must have a silver fern on it. When nobody liked the idea of it being black, he said: “Oh, as long as it’s got a silver fern on it.” He pumped that up and he talked it up, and he selected a Flag Consideration Panel of his own. This was a consideration panel that was tasked with coming up with a new design for a new flag. Do you think it had a designer on it? Do you think for the biggest design project for the nation—a design that is meant to reflect the nation—the Government would put a professional designer on the panel? Not one—not one, which gave the lie to the Prime Minister’s claim that this was about us forging a new identity. It was about his project, and his appalling taste in aesthetics, for another thing.

So we went off with a Flag Consideration Panel that had no design expertise. Then, when the Prime Minister was called out on it, after it had toured the country, getting an average of 29 people at its meetings, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on that exercise, it then thought: “Gee, we’d better get a designer to come in and have a look.” A designer came and had a look for 2 hours and that was it. That was the input. But it was too late by that time because everybody was dancing to the Prime Minister’s tune.

Then the Flag Consideration Panel came up with its recommendations. The Prime Minister set up a personally selected panel, having told the world at large: “We must have a flag with a silver fern on it.” The Flag Consideration Panel was told it had to come up with four options. What do three of the four options have on them, mysteriously?

Hon Ruth Dyson: A silver fern.

ANDREW LITTLE: Oh, a silver fern. How unusual. What a coincidence—just what the Prime Minister wanted, and one other. The panel overlooked some other obvious contenders. That is how shambolic it has been.

It does not stop there, of course. They had a cross-party group of this House. Only one party was not on it, but every other party was. Every other party bar National said that we ought to ask New Zealanders—not only because we are a democracy but because we as politicians respect the electorate—whether they want to change the flag or not. There was objection from one party only—the party opposite; the Government party. And even though the recommendation went to Cabinet, what did Cabinet do? It just dumped it. It pushed it aside and said it was not relevant. The Government said it was not going to give people that choice because, who knows—people might not want to change the flag. Uh, oh! That is democracy under the National Party in New Zealand today.

This has been an utter shambles. It is John Key’s utter shambles, and every attempt to try to get some responsiveness, some democracy, since has fallen on deaf ears. We tried last week. I offered to work with the Prime Minister. I said: “Let’s at least have a talk about it.” It is not good. We saw the public reaction. We know the public is terrified that they are going to get to the end of the second referendum, after we have spent $26 million, and we will still have the same flag.

We offered to work with the Government on it. John Key publicly said: “Yeah, I’ll meet with Andrew Little. We’ll have a talk about it.” I wrote to him and said: “Here are some issues. Let’s have a talk about it. No conditions—let’s have a talk about it.” Then he wrote back and said: “No, you put conditions on it. We can’t meet.” So I wrote back to him and I corrected him. I said: “No, no, Prime Minister, you seem to have got this wrong.” I said: “Let’s meet, with no conditions. Let’s at least have a talk about this because this is about public confidence in this process.” It is not about political gain. It is not like Gerry Brownlee’s speech, which was about calling out who has outmanoeuvred whom, who has got this or that point up, and who has scored a particular point.

This is far too important. National Party members might think this is all a big game. They might think it is all about their egos or the Prime Minister’s ego, but this is way more important than that. There are New Zealanders who are deeply concerned about this. There are those who do not want to change because they consider that the current flag is the flag that they identify with as they have gone into conflicts around the world. They are concerned about it, and they must be entitled to have a voice. They should not be rubbished, or talked down, or “outmanoeuvred” as the Government might have it.

We will take this opportunity to ensure that New Zealanders have more choice, but we will also take the opportunity, with the passage of this bill, to ensure that New Zealanders have a real choice. We are not going to overlook the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who are concerned that they are not being afforded the dignity of being asked the very basic question: “Do you want to change the flag?”. That is the first question New Zealanders should be asked. They should be shown some respect by the Government. They should be shown some respect by this Parliament. We will argue for it and we will put that up in the Supplementary Order Paper during the course of the debate. Then we should let New Zealanders decide. Let New Zealanders make a real choice and a real decision.

This is not about game playing. This is an important exercise that reflects the flavour of New Zealand to the world—our sense of our own identity. It may well be, if the polls are anything to go by, that most New Zealanders are thinking that this is not the time—this is not the time. If that is the sentiment of a large number of New Zealanders and if we are to go through with a referendum and give people the democratic choice, then they should be given a real choice. They should be allowed to answer that question.

Personally, I think it is time we reconsidered our flag. I am prepared to support that change, given that now a referendum is inevitable, but let New Zealanders speak. Let them have their choice. This is not the plaything of 121 politicians. It is not for them to score points and work out who might be smarter than whom. That would be an abomination for such an important issue.

As I have said, we will support this bill. We will argue it all the way though. We will argue for the rights of New Zealanders on such an important issue. It goes to their sense of identity, our identity, what we show around the world, and what we show to ourselves on our occasions of national significance. This is not a matter where anything other than the maximum choice should be given to voters, who decide and give us the responsibility to do what we do. So we will do that. We will hold our heads up high and proud that we have stuck to our principled position, which is that New Zealanders must be given a choice on this issue and must be given their voice. We will argue and take every opportunity to make sure that the ballot papers for this referendum truly reflect that.

If we get to the end of the referendum process and there is no change in the flag and this Government has seen $26 million spent, that will sit firmly at the feet of the Prime Minister and of every single member of the National Party. They have led this country on a silly, foolish folly, a merry dance, and it is an absolute and utter shambles. They cannot sort it out themselves. They are terrified of the electorate of New Zealand.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Today I introduced and tried to seek leave for a bill that would include the flag design known as Red Peak in the official referendum happening in about 6 weeks’ time. One party blocked it and did not let New Zealanders have that choice. I respect its opinion and the thousands of New Zealanders who also share its opinion, but I genuinely believe that Kiwis simply want more of a choice. So I would like to thank the Government. I welcome its decision to adopt my bill as a Government bill, the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. I would like to thank all parties for their support. It is good that we can work together.

Watching politicians over the last couple of weeks, despite the massive groundswell of public support, what we saw during the official consultation process was a handful of people engaged and joke flags uploaded. [Interruption] Yet what we saw over the course of a single week—a single week, Mr O’Rourke—were 50,000 people engaged with a single flag. The fact is that we have seen those people. They have voted with their feet, online, on the petition, and in emails to parliamentarians, and it is good that those people get a choice. If those members think those people should not get a choice, they can stand up and say it in their speeches. I am standing up today so that Kiwis get more of a choice. No matter what that party says, and no matter what the pundits, the columnists, the people on Twitter have said, it is pretty clear that Red Peak has not peaked yet. My bill, which has been adopted by the Government, is about giving Kiwis a choice in the referendum. What we saw was a phenomenal public reaction.

I would like to explain my personal relationship with Red Peak. I will admit that I was incredibly lukewarm on this particular flag at first—incredibly lukewarm. I do not think I would have picked it out of that 10,000. I think my favourite pick was probably the “Laser Kiwi”, which had garnered so much international attention and was such a symbol of the entire process and the seriousness with which the Kiwi public was taking it. But what I saw in respect of the background explanation of this particular flag design, Red Peak, were the words of the designer—the different symbolic interpretations, such as the meeting house over the mountain. What we saw was that it actually built a connection. What many New Zealanders told me is that it actually looked like a flag, unlike, maybe, some of the marketing-type associations people felt with the four official flag choices. What we saw was an incredible 50,000 people in a single week engaged. What we have seen is the public print their own flags and run them up mountains. Garage Project, one of my favourite microbreweries in the entire country, a Wellington-based company, has even made its own Red Peak brew, which I am looking forward to trying if this bill passes, and I am hopeful and optimistic that it will.

My message to the people who may not support Red Peak is that regardless of where you stand, whether you support keeping the existing flag, whether you support having a silver fern, or whether you support Red Peak or something else, this is simply about choice. It is about this House listening to the public and listening to the groundswell of support. What we do know is that a huge percentage of the population do not want to change the flag. We saw that TV3 poll with 70 percent against, and I respect that opinion. A flag is simply a bit of cloth up a pole, but it is also something a bit more than that. It is a symbolic representation on behalf of all of us, and in multicultural modern New Zealand in 2015 we need to make sure we get this right, because our existing flag is more than 100 years old.

What we know is that this referendum process is going ahead. Despite my misgivings—and I do not think that this is the most appropriate use of the Government’s time, or the most appropriate use of $26 million—the fact is that this referendum process is going ahead. That law was passed. My party voted against it; we thought that there were more important priorities. But the referendum process is going ahead, and what I wanted to make sure of was that it was not the farce that it looked like it was turning into, that it was not ignoring those tens of thousands of Kiwis who wanted a say. So, regardless of where you stand, Kiwis will get a say, and, as this law passes, they will get more of a choice, which is a good thing.

When it comes to the $26 million being expended, I think that there are more important things to be spending it on. We should be spending it on feeding every kid a healthy lunch in our schools. There are so many more things that are so much more important. The process was incredibly flawed. We saw 10,000 entries, but many of them were jokes, and a handful of people turned up to the meetings. What we saw was a process that did not truly engage or capture the interest of New Zealanders. An interesting juxtaposition, I think, is Massey University’s Design and Democracy Project Flagpost. For the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, a website was built that genuinely engaged New Zealanders. It gave New Zealanders the ability to actually comment on the flag entries. It gave New Zealanders the ability to vote on the flag entries. In 2015 in modern, digital New Zealand, I am astounded that the flag process did not allow New Zealanders to take advantage of some of these digital technologies and the ability to instantaneously provide feedback, which ultimately would have delivered a better decision than what we saw in the 4 hours of consideration from the group without a designer.

I would also like to point out that Parliament did not have to take this step of going into urgency to pass this today. I am not talking about New Zealand First blocking leave; I am talking about the Government, through Order in Council, amending some of the options, which was always a live option. What we know is that Kiwis care about the flag. They are engaging with it. Many people do not think that it is right to change it, and I am looking forward to hearing their opinions, loud and clear, through the referenda process. But why the Green Party acted today is because we wanted to break that political deadlock. We wanted to offer a constructive, positive solution, because we did not want to just be sitting around watching a political deadlock emerge when we know we could work together. This is what people at home, on Twitter, reading the newspapers, watching the telly wanted to see: they wanted to see parties working together in the common interest. What Parliament is doing tonight is simply about working together to give Kiwis more choice.

In purely practical terms the bill, essentially, does three things. We drafted it incredibly simply. I wanted a simple bill that dealt only with this single issue. I know that other parties feel incredibly strongly about other issues; I respect that. I think that there is great merit in their opinions and I am disappointed that there is not an ability to include them in this bill—because, ultimately, I was looking for a pragmatic solution so that we were not just sitting around playing politics, so that we were not just sitting around talking about it but were actually getting on and giving Kiwis choice. So this bill does three things. It adds a fifth option in clause 4. It is not prejudicing the Governor-General’s ultimate decision-making, so in clause 5 it makes this clear, but the bill has reference to Red Peak in the explanatory statement so that no one can be confused in thinking that the Governor-General could pick the “Laser Kiwi” flag if he chose. Lastly, in amending schedule 4, as set out in clause 7, the bill amends some of the mathematical formulas for the fifth option’s inclusion.

In summary, I would like to say how it is important that this Parliament can work together, that our parties can come together across party lines—and this is something that the Green Party has had as its mission ever since we entered Parliament in 1996. We have worked successfully with Labour when it was in Government. We worked successfully with the current Government through the home insulation legislation and the national cycleway. We have worked with the ACT Party. We are proud of some of the wins we have had with New Zealand First. Our place in this Parliament, literally right in the middle of this debating chamber, is to work with parties. I am proud that my party’s bill was picked up by the Government. I am proud that we could act constructively, positively—that we could maybe put politics aside for a little while so that Kiwis could have the choice that they so clearly desired. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I have to concede that I find it utterly bizarre that we find ourselves in this situation today. I just want to traverse what has happened over the past couple of weeks, because I would not want any member of the public to be left in any confusion that it was always within the power of the Prime Minister, John Key, to bring about the resolution that we are debating now. In fact, we are debating it only because the Government has finally put it forward as a bill, something that it could have done 2 weeks ago if it had chosen to do so.

Here is my first question: why did the Government not introduce this bill immediately after the post-Cabinet press conference at which the Prime Minister said that it was something they could support? Why did the Government not introduce this bill then? That is a genuine question we would like to ask. Why, then, did John Key say that he wanted cross-party agreement in order to introduce a fifth option? A cross-party agreement, but minus New Zealand First, I have to say. Apparently it was OK if one party did not agree, but it was not OK if anyone else did. And what was Labour’s response? What was Labour’s response? We said: “Fine.” We said: “Fine, give New Zealanders that extra option. There’s a groundswell pushing for it; let’s do it. But while we’re there, why don’t we also give that huge number of New Zealanders who want to be asked first if they want change that chance, too?”. In order to be constructive, we drafted a bill that would do that—both things: it would add a fifth option and it would put in a yes/no question. We tabled it in Parliament.

At that point, it would have been very easy for the Government to say: “Oh, I see there is agreement from Labour on the fifth option. We don’t agree on the yes/no question, so we won’t vote for that, but we’ll vote for the Red Peak option.” It could have done that. What did it do? It denied leave for that bill to be debated. It said no. We said: “Fine. Well, why don’t we have a meeting and sit down and constructively discuss whether we can make progress on this?”. No preconditions—we wrote it down in a letter to John Key. Let us talk about this—no preconditions. What did the Prime Minister say? No. We were so exasperated at that point by the games that the Prime Minister seemed to be playing that we wrote to him and said: “Fine, if you don’t want to change the law as we’ve suggested, and as you suggested, then why don’t you send it back to the flag consideration panel to trade an option? We’ll support you to do that.” What did he say? No. So do not tell me that Labour has not tried to be constructive in this debate. We have tried multiple times to engage the National Party and the Prime Minister on this issue, and we have been denied at every opportunity. That has been enormously frustrating. No preconditions—I want to restate that there were none whatsoever.

So let us be absolutely clear about the debate that we are having today in this House: the Prime Minister could have instigated it a week ago, but he chose not to. He never ever needed permission from any party to put this bill before the House. What better proof is there of that than the fact that the entire New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill, which set out this whole process, was passed without Labour’s support? He passed the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill in the beginning without Labour’s support, and yet, suddenly, to make an amendment to it, he then claimed that he needed us. I am not sure if John Key has suddenly forgotten, but, sadly, he does still hold a majority in this House. He could have done anything he wanted. Oddly, we actually supported him to make this change, and he still said that he was not going to do it. If anyone else out there is as confused as I am, it is for good reason, because, ultimately, you cannot explain political game-playing. Yet that is what we have seen. This has been a game.

The reason that Labour has been so disappointed in this is that, ultimately, we have been driven by one factor: to give New Zealanders a say—a proper say. Let me be absolutely clear: from the very beginning, I supported having a debate about the flag. I wanted to hear what New Zealanders thought about one of our national symbols. I wanted a debate about who we are as New Zealanders, how we wanted to display ourselves to the world, and where we were going. I would not have minded that debate being part of a much wider constitutional debate; that seemed to be a more appropriate order of things, for me. The Prime Minister did not want to do it that way—so be it—but that is what I hoped for. I also hoped that we would have a debate that was done in such a way that was fiscally prudent and that we kept in mind that in amongst this conversation, we have some very demanding challenges to address, and that includes child poverty. So let us not be silly about the way we conduct this. Yes, I had a problem with $26 million being spent on it—a big problem.

The other thing that I wanted to see in this debate was for it to be genuinely open. Now, I have a view, and my view was coloured by the idea of having change. But am I scared to ask New Zealanders the question first, of whether they want change? No, because I genuinely believe that people should have a voice and have a say regardless of what I think. Does the Prime Minister think that? Clearly not. If he genuinely believed that he could convince people that change was the right thing to do, he would not have been afraid to ask the question: “Do you want change?”. He put up the argument that you could not ask that question without putting the options forward. We agreed—in fact, we always argued that. At the first meeting of parliamentarians that he brought together on this question, we always argued that the first ballot should be laid out like this: “Do you want change: yes or no? If there were to be change, which flag options would you prefer?”. That is ballot No. 1. You get to decide whether you want change within the context of the options. Then we counted it up. If 50 percent say “No. Regardless, I don’t care what it looks like; I do not want change.”, then you do not run round 2. If enough people say yes, then round 2 runs, and it includes the top polling alternative run off against the status quo.

If, for instance, you liked one option but you were not happy with any of the others, then you would get a second say in round 2—that was what Labour advocated. It is also an option that the Ministry of Justice put forward. The Prime Minister keeps saying that he listened to the experts. The experts said that this was a valid option. In fact, almost every party in this House argued for that layout of the referendum, but it was National that said no—it was National that did not want to ask yes or no. As someone who likes the design of Red Peak, I say that I still want to ask people yes or no first. Yes, I want choice, but I want all New Zealanders to have choice. That has always been the position of the Labour Party. So when the Prime Minister said “OK, let’s open up the potential of a fifth option.”, was it unfair of us to say “Yes, let’s do it, but let’s add something else.”? I do not think so. If the Prime Minister disagreed, he could have done that. We still would have voted in favour of Red Peak being an option, which is exactly what we are doing today. What we saw instead was a game.

I am disappointed that this happened, because, ultimately, if we want a genuine debate that carries all New Zealanders, surely we should be inclusive of all of their views. The fact that we have come to this point today demonstrates to me that we have a Prime Minister who did not think about choice, but instead sat back in his office a week ago and faced the genuine reality that he might have no change in flag. He sat there and decided that at least Red Peak represented change. So he is hedging his bets. I wish it was not so cynical but I think that is exactly what has happened. I am disappointed that it has happened this way. Yes, I supported Red Peak. Labour has supported choice from the very, very beginning. We have done it, I think, in the right way by New Zealanders. We wanted everyone to have choice, and that continues to be our position today. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): You know, you have to hand it to the Green Party, which has played this amendment with a very straight bat. It has listened to public opinion, which has been running pretty red hot around Red Peak. There has been an awful lot of discussion online, and there has been discussion through all sorts of the media, and it really has set this process even more alight than it already was. So in this instance I want to congratulate the member in charge, the member who attempted to introduce this bill, which was regrettably blocked by New Zealand First but which has the support of the rest of the House. I want to say congratulations to the Green Party because it was prepared to have an open mind in this debate. It was prepared to listen to what was happening out in New Zealand about this debate, and so too has this Government. We have been prepared to listen to what the people have had to say about this flag debate, we have been prepared to support this bill, this simple little bill that previously was brought to the House by Gareth Hughes, the Green member, and we are prepared to add another option on to the referendum paper.

It seems like such a simple thing to do, and it is a simple thing to do, because what we have done is said: “Yes, OK.” Under the consideration process the panel has put up four alternatives, which is what was prescribed in the first referendums Act. What the people of New Zealand have said is: “Yeah, OK, all right. There are probably some quite good options in there, and we all have our favourites—or not.” But what the people of New Zealand have then said is “Well, actually, there is another one that we really like.”, and they have been prepared to get out there and to support that choice. So let us do it. Let us give the people of New Zealand an extra choice in the second referendum. All we really need to look at is the schedule, which has added another option. Option A, option E—who knows—it will be one of those. I think it is an elegant solution, I think it is a simple solution, and I do congratulate the Greens on bringing that to the House.

I also want to congratulate the other members of this Parliament who are supporting this initiative, because this is about what we think about ourselves as New Zealanders. What says “New Zealand” to the rest of the world? That is what we should be arguing about today. That is where the debate is at: it is about where we see ourselves as New Zealand.

Finally, in this first contribution I just want to talk about the yes/no argument that has crippled Labour so badly throughout this process. It has had this argument; it has lost this argument. It did not have the support of the House. The House has moved on. The people of New Zealand have well and truly moved on from Labour’s position. Regrettably, Labour has not, and it will show that again and again and again throughout the course of this debate. What I say to Labour, and what I say to the people of New Zealand, is, yes, you do get the yes/no option, but guess what? It is an informed choice, and that is a good thing.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Can I say that listening to Gareth Hughes’ speech actually underlined some very important components of what this referendum is about. Gareth Hughes started by saying that the flag that appealed to him most of all was the “Laser Kiwi”. I can appreciate Mr Hughes liking that flag, but as he thought about it and progressed or engaged in the process, he said that the flag that he now supports—evident by the motion that he brought to the House today—is Red Peak.

I believe that what is important in this referendum process is exactly what Gareth has shown: that there is an engagement process of New Zealanders being invited to think, to engage, to discuss, to debate, to disagree, and then to choose. The reason why I did not, and do not today, support the yes/no vote proposal is simply because it is the process of least engagement—it is the least engagement.

A yes/no vote is “Do you want to change the flag without ever considering what the opportunities or possibilities are and going through the process?”—because that is what is being purported. I think that having a choice means a choice between alternatives, and the referendum process promotes alternatives for people to consider. So many people whom I talk to say: “It will depend on what the alternative is whether I am going to choose between the present New Zealand flag or a future New Zealand flag.” I think that is important.

I also believe that this is a chance where New Zealanders can engage in this process and not just looking at an emblem of the past but consider what sort of emblem and what icons bring us together as a modern New Zealand that represents nationalities, ethnicities, and age ranges right through this country, which is considerably different from what it was 10 years ago. This is a very exciting proposal.

You know, we have been attacked left and right for having a public process that costs money. The public of New Zealand may not know that it costs $1,472 per minute to run this Parliament, and that is $2 million a day. Democracy is expensive, but what we value are the thoughts, the ideas, the imagination, the goodwill, and the engagement of New Zealanders right through this country about this process—the young and old.

Is it not amazing that schools are engaged in this process? We know that the schoolchildren do not have a chance to vote, but they do have a chance to influence their parents. So I think that that is a great thing.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I think that what we are doing right now is that we are increasing engagement, and I think in a democracy in a free country, where we value everybody’s ideas, that is a good thing.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will definitely vote against this shonky legislation. I want to talk first of all about the Electoral Commission and the requirements of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act because this bill violates that process, which is actually already under way. The commission—and the Government, I might say—has a duty to uphold it, but under this shonky Government it has no chance of doing so. Everybody else, of course, does have to obey the law, but John Key—with the tame compliance of the Greens and Labour, I am sad to say—simply overrides all that for his own convenience.

John Key and his assistants have already been in breach of the requirements of the regulatory period many times. That period began on 16 August, and soon after that the Prime Minister and his assistants began contacting the media to provide information to support flag alternatives. They have been responding to media for the same purpose, they have been arranging meetings and opportunities for the Prime Minister to promote the flag alternatives, and they have certainly been writing material for the Prime Minister to use. And yes, oh yes, they will say that it is the Prime Minister’s own words—yeah, right! His own words—only the gullible would believe that, so why has the Electoral Commission not already acted against the Prime Minister and those people? You could not imagine a worse-policed process.

This bill makes a mockery of the parliamentary system. We are passing a bill with a Government majority in one month, and then using urgency to override it in the next while the process is already in train, not because it is in the best interests of good government or in the best interests of New Zealand—nor is it a sound democratic process—but solely for the National Government’s political interests. The New Zealand Flag Referendums Act, as we know, and the process, is deeply unpopular, so this is nothing more than a backside-saving measure without peer by this Government.

This bill will throw away the $8 million already spent to date. In John Key’s view, this is “not a lot of money”, but the prudent people of New Zealand will not agree, because they expect good government with careful spending of public money, not this kind of waste. That money, as we know, could have been better spent on many things: better health services, more State houses, and so on. Not only is this process now a gross farce but John Key wants to pay the piper and play the tune. He employed a very expensive panel to choose the final four designs for the first referendum, but now he says that he knows better.

And where will it stop? Will there be another bill next week, the week after, or the week after that to add another poll-driven alternative? John Key wants to second-guess his own expert panel and add his new favourite, the so-called Red Peak. He has said much about the expertise of the Flag Consideration Panel, but now that is cast aside. He has said much about the two-referendum process being the best for Kiwis to participate in and to suggest designs, but he also now treats that with disdain. He originally said much about this being a non-political process, not dictated by politicians, but it is now utterly controlled by the Key Government, and, sadly, with the collusion of both the Greens and the Labour Party, which are going to actually vote for this bill, which I cannot understand. Labour and the Greens usually favour good government and democracy, so I think that it is a shame that they have decided to vote for this bill.

This is a completely media-driven bill. It has been carefully designed so that it will attract public attention, to take attention away from a failing economy and gross social, economic, and environmental mismanagement by one of the worst Governments in the country’s history. With this bill, the whole sorry process has become a poll-driven farce—a five-flag farce. John Key knows he is on a hiding to nothing, with the flag referendum clearly going against him. The vast majority hates the white feather of cowardice designs put up so far—some call it a silver fern, but it clearly is not—and nothing can save this referendum process now. The Red Peak has been touted by some as that saviour, but the online poll upon which it is based has absolutely no integrity. New Zealand First has already had one person who said to us, point-blank, that they have so far voted three times in that poll on the internet, and goodness knows how many people have voted goodness knows how many times. So people who call that a groundswell are deluding themselves—that, it is not.

This is the shonky way we are now expected to choose a new flag for this country. It could not be a worse process. It will become the laughing stock of the Western World and we will become new prime material for television and for the stand-up comedians, with our grinning Prime Minister being parodied far and wide. And he will deserve it, but New Zealand does not. John Key is now grasping at straws—or perhaps red peaks—to save his pet flag project and, in the process, has so compromised that process that it will now go down as his worst failure. The new flag idea has become not legacy, but legless, and is a prelude to the loss by the National Government of the 2017 election. But the Prime Minister does not care any more for his preferred logo, which was a black flag with what I think is a white feather on it. It was parodied as being far too close to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria flag by comedian John Oliver on worldwide television.

John Key has never cared about the dignity of the current flag. He does not care about its history, he does not care about its heritage, and he does not care about the fact that it truly represents the fundamental bicultural nature of Kiwi nationalism through the Union flag in one corner along with the Southern Cross on the Pacific blue of Polynesia on the other side.

The introduction of this bill will bring disgrace on this Parliament for the very bad process and very bad governance that the bill represents. One could not imagine how to actually set up a worse process than this. First of all, we criticised the original legislation because of the bad process in it. This addition to it makes it five times, 10 times, or 100 times worse because what it shows is that the process set out in the original legislation can be disregarded, and a Government with enough votes can simply add whatever flag it wants, irrespective of the judgment of the expert panel and of the hundreds of people who suggested designs and the hundreds of people who wanted their designs considered. But this Government is going to choose only one of those, with little or no justification, and add it to the current four. And that is not good enough. This process will bring shame on the most arrogant Government this nation has ever seen for the way it is behaving in the whole referendum process.

The Government is now in a blind panic over the misfiring of what is supposed to be John Key’s legacy project, and it is a Government that will stop at nothing to save its burnt bacon—a Government that is prepared to play games with New Zealand’s democracy. I think the people of New Zealand will give only one answer to all of that. That answer will be a resounding no, and it is a no that this process and this Government deeply deserve.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is interesting that this is marking 1 year since the recent election—1 year since the people have spoken and this House listened. The people have spoken that they wanted five alternatives and not four, very similar to 1 year ago when the people spoke and said they wanted this National Government. The reason they wanted this National Government is that this National Government listens to the people, and this bill, this New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill, is an example of this Government listening to the people. It is an example of this Government working collaboratively with other parties, and I commend Gareth Hughes for putting this bill forward.

This bill shows that we will put politics aside to listen to what the people want, and that is exactly what we have done. When you talk about this process—this logical process—it makes sense to first identify the alternative flag, and that is exactly the process this will take. We will identify the alternative flag—now we have five alternatives; I must say there will be many Cantabrians excited that they will have an option that is now red and black—and from the alternatives selected we can go to the next referendum and put it up head-to-head against our current flag.

What this bill does is it gives the people of New Zealand choice. This is about democracy. This is a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-lifetime chance for the people of New Zealand to choose. When I go out into my electorate of Waimakariri and I listen to my constituents there are people saying yes and there are people saying no, and that is fantastic, because what this will give them is an opportunity to get out there and vote and choose what flag best represents New Zealand.

That is why it is fantastic to see this Government working with the Green Party—the start of a blue-green movement—to think about how we can better listen to the people of New Zealand. [Interruption] You would think that that party opposite would have listened last time, when it had its second-worst electoral loss because the people did not think it had listened to them, and that is why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): This is an unusual moment for the Parliament of New Zealand. It is a rare thing for a country to consider a change of national flag, and it is rarer still for it to change course in the midst of the process by which it chose to do so. But this is what we have been forced to do. By a twist of fate we find ourselves obliged to have Parliament intervene in the process, just 8 weeks ahead of the first referendum, to increase the number of new flags the public can choose from.

How did we come to this strange situation? In initiating the debate in the first reading the Deputy Prime Minister, as Minister in charge of the process, advanced a few high-sounding phrases. He said: “it is now an appropriate time for the debate about the New Zealand flag to be resolved through a careful and considered process,”. A cross-party group would advise on the legislation and recommend a panel to choose the flags. The panel would be independent because, as he put it, “the process here is as important as the result.” The choice of flag, he said, “is not a matter for Parliament and it is not a matter for Cabinet; it is a matter for the panel.” That was on 12 March; 6 months later Parliament sees fit to intervene to add a fifth flag to the four that the panel, exercising its best judgment, had already chosen from more than 10,000 designs.

So why is Parliament intervening at this late stage? For two reasons: because it can, and because it should. Parliament can intervene because it is the sovereign body of this country. Parliament is the ultimate authority, elected by the people and from which the Government is chosen. It decided on a process for choosing the flag, and if it judges it to be sufficiently important it can alter that process, even mid-course. It can change the legislation by which the process was launched, provided the process has not terminated. There will be those who criticise Parliament if it decides to do this, but there is no one who can accurately say that the Parliament lacks the right to do so. The process we are considering today, therefore, is constitutionally proper.

So to the second question: is the process politically sound? Should Parliament be moving to amend the legislation at this late stage? In the second reading, the Minister called for a continuation of “a formal, careful, and respectful process”. Is the vision of Parliament intervening in the decision of how many flags to choose from part of a formal, careful, and consistent process, or is it informal, careless, and inconsistent? Is it impugning the integrity of the panel? In our view, Parliament should intervene. This is not to criticise the panel or any of its members, who have, in our view, done a sound job. Their integrity is not brought into question by adding a fifth flag. The fact that 4.4 million citizens have 4.4 million views on the choice of the four flags was always a given.

What has changed is that an unexpected phenomenon has occurred. Unexpectedly, a groundswell of opinion has emerged in favour of one flag, which was among the 40 but not among the final four. Over 50,000 signed a petition for Red Peak. Should Parliament heed the views of 50,000 people and alter the legislation to add Red Peak? Yes, it should. Democratic life is about choice. Democratic life is about leaders listening to and responding to the people. An unexpected phenomenon has occurred, and Parliament has a right to respond. So in circumstances as rare as this we have the rare phenomenon of the Green and National parties collaborating to respond to the will of the people. So be it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Annette King—5 minutes.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I have to say today that I am ashamed of the way that this Government and this House are going about making a change to the flag of New Zealand. This is the worst example of political posturing that I have seen in this House in many, many years. We are told that we are responding to the wants and needs of New Zealanders. What hogwash—what hogwash. New Zealanders have not said that they want to change the flag, and that is the fundamental question that should have been asked first. Do New Zealanders want to change the flag? That is where you start from in any argument. So when we are told that we are responding to what New Zealanders want, I do not believe it. When Kennedy Graham said that Parliament has been forced to intervene in the process, he is right, because the process has been an unprecedented shambles. It has been poorly thought through. It has been poll-driven fruitcakes over there thinking that they need to make changes—just like they do on everything—based not on principles or ideals but on what the polls tell them.

The polls, if they had been listening, were telling them two things, but one more strongly than the other. Yes, people wanted more choice. They wanted another option—one that arose out of the fact that they did not like the four that had been put up. So they then looked around at the 40 or so designs and said “We like that one better.”, and then a groundswell of over 50,000 people signed a petition. But what Government members have not listened to are the more than 50,000 people who have said: “We don’t want change at all. We haven’t been asked if we want change, but, actually, we don’t.” What was interesting to me was that in question time today, the Prime Minister went on about how wonderful National riding high in the TV3 poll was. He quoted the TV3 poll, did he not? But did he then quote the part of the poll that asked New Zealanders whether they wanted to change the flag? Did he believe that part of the poll? In that part, 70 percent said no, they did not—70 percent said no, they did not.

Tim Macindoe: The vote was 70-plus percent who voted for it last year.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I say to the member for Hamilton West: they did not want to change the flag. So I think that Denis O’Rourke was actually right when he said that this is a backside-saving bill. But I do not think it will, because the Prime Minister’s arrogant, high-handed way of handling this has been seen by many New Zealanders as bullying, dismissive, arrogant, and dressed up as what New Zealanders want. Well, I see it as shabby, shonky, and a shambles. We have seen U-turns, we have seen twists, we have seen deceit, and we have seen political conniving, from the panel that was set up right through to the legislation that has been brought here.

So Labour will vote for the Greens-inspired bill, but I say to the Greens that if they are listening to what New Zealanders want, they will vote for Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper, because that also says: “Ask the question whether people want to change the flag.” I say to all parties—we will not get support from the National Party members; they have already turned it down, but every other party: Peter Dunne, the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and every other party—if you really want to give New Zealanders choice, you will vote for the Supplementary Order Paper that we have put up. It is very simple. It says: “Should New Zealand keep its current flag, or should New Zealand change to another flag.” You could not get more simple than that.

So I say to members: let us give New Zealanders choice. We want choice and they want choice, but they want the choice of that question as well. If the National Party members do not want to vote for it, there are enough votes in this Parliament, with every other party, to pass this bill. Then we will be giving New Zealanders a real choice—what they are saying to us. Some of us have listened to our constituents, but I suspect that many members over there have been hoodwinked by the man who walks on water, in their eyes—their Prime Minister. If they listened to their constituents, more of them—and certainly, Mr Young, in your electorate, I bet you have not been near the RSA lately, because if you went there, they would say: “Give us the choice of whether we change it or not.” I urge members to vote for this bill and also to vote for Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Annette King, I think, knows a lot better than that because it was not that long ago that Andrew Little was standing up and seeking leave to introduce his own bill to do exactly what we are trying to do here, which is to give New Zealanders the fifth option, the Red Peak design, in which, through social media—and the media have been campaigning on it—a strong interest has been shown. We will find out just exactly how strong that interest is once New Zealanders get the opportunity to vote not too long in the future.

New Zealanders should have that opportunity to vote. For Labour members to be opposing this bill, crying crocodile tears, and saying everything is a disaster when they were trying to do something very similar not that long ago is, I think, quite deplorable. This bill, which we are debating today under urgency, is all about giving New Zealanders that opportunity to vote. We have an established process. We have a process whereby there will be a two-stage referendum. That has been debated in this Parliament and has been voted on. It has been communicated to the public for many, many months, and that is exactly what is going to happen.

In fact, having the option to vote on the flag has been debated for well over a year. The Prime Minister raised this before the election. Labour members say that we are going against the wishes of New Zealanders. Well, I point out, firstly, that that is something we will find out for sure in a few months’ time, and, secondly, that we had an election campaign. Labour members continue to stand up in this House and complain about things that we are doing as a Government when we said before the election we would be doing exactly that. Do elections not mean anything to the Opposition members anymore? Do they not care about the outcome of election campaigns? Do they not think that statements made before election campaigns should have any credibility? We do. We said that we would be doing this and that is exactly what we are doing. I have to say I am not a fan of Red Peak myself. I think it is an unusual collection of coloured triangles that I will certainly not be voting for, but if there is strong interest in it—and this has been demonstrated—then that is what New Zealanders should have an opportunity to vote on, and they will get that opportunity.

Before I sit down I want to say that the Green Party should be congratulated on playing this with a straight bat. They have done that on this occasion. We cannot say the same for all of the parties sitting on that side. Well, New Zealand First has been consistent the whole way through and the Greens have been playing this one with a straight bat. But the Labour Party is flip-flopping again. It is saying one thing, but a few weeks ago it was doing something completely different. There are parties on that side that have integrity, and I congratulate them on that. We believe that New Zealanders should have the choice and that is what we are giving them here.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): That was an interesting little speech from the junior whip from the National Party and it followed, I think, a number of speeches, some of which bordered on the sanctimonious. I think we need to look really carefully at the options that we are putting before New Zealanders. We see a Prime Minister who is prepared to move on the basis of a petition of 50,000-odd people, and a Green Party that is prepared to support him in that, to support a flag that many of my colleagues like but I actually think is rubbish. Many of us like it, but I think it is rubbish. But, apparently, National is not prepared to follow the petition of more than 50,000 or the people who submitted to the select committee. There were 14,000 people who submitted to the select committee that there should be a yes/no vote; 700 of them asked to be heard, and there was a whole pile of RSA-based separate points. The Green Party members are so much up on process, but they were not prepared in the Justice and Electoral Committee or in this House to follow the democratic process and to let New Zealanders have a yes/no vote.

I want to point out to the Green Party members that not one of their members of Parliament would be in this House—and many National Party members would not be in this House—if there had not been an MMP referendum with a yes/no vote. From memory, 85 percent of New Zealanders said that they wanted to vote for change. But what I understand is that the Green Party is going to join the National Party and John Key, who said that New Zealanders are not bright enough and could not understand, and that the process would be too complicated if they were asked yes or no. Well, that was the process that brought us MMP. It is a process that I think, generally, has worked pretty well, but unfortunately the main beneficiaries of that process are rejecting it with some sanctimonious, non-constitutional claptrap that we are hearing now.

Kennedy Graham knows full well that the Prime Minister has had all the power ever since the legislation was passed to include Red Peak if he wished to. It is a matter of an Order in Council. It is very, very simple for him to do that if he wanted to. Ever since he pretended that he wanted to have Red Peak on the ballot he has had the ability to bring a bill to this Parliament, and right through the process we have said that we will support it. What we have also said is that we will add to that—and we want to be added and we will vote for and we will debate and we will push for—the right of New Zealanders to say at the beginning of the process “No, we don’t want a change.” and thereby save $7 million. I know it is not much to Green Party members and it is not much to National Party members, but Labour Party members say that $7 million spent on food for children or houses or decent insulation for people who need it is a much better use of $7 million than a referendum that 70 percent of New Zealanders say that they do not want. I say shame on the Green Party.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou, tēnā tātou katoa. Members, when we adjourned for the dinner break we were debating the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. The Hon Trevor Mallard was speaking, and he has 6 minutes remaining to speak should he wish to avail himself of that opportunity.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Six minutes—that is so generous of you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think as I completed my speech I was making some comments about the Greens and their approach to it, and I will go back to that, but I do want to note how the Government is treating this legislation with contempt. The major promoter of the flag change did not speak once on any stage of the substantive legislation when it went through the House. He has not so far spoken on this bill, and without pushing too hard at the conventions, he has not even deigned to listen to any of the speeches in this House. I think that that is a disgrace.

We had chaos at the introduction of the bill. Gerry Brownlee, the Leader of the House, was not here to move the urgency motion. The member in charge of the bill, the Hon Bill English, was not here to make his speech. There were no notes provided for Mr Brownlee to speak, and, frankly, the National Party approach to this has been lacking.

Hon Member: Woeful.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Lacking, woeful—woeful, I think, is an understatement. I do want to go back to the Greens, from whom we had a combination of the high and mighty “We are between all of you and we can sort out the problems of the world.” from Gareth Hughes and an approach that I think might be best described as a pretty poor constitutional bush lawyer approach from Kennedy Graham. I want to ask them why they were not straight with the House. They did a deal with the National Party to not support the yes/no vote—to not support the Labour Party on it. That is the party that pretends to be transparent, that pretends to be straightforward, but its members could not stand up in the House and say: “We have made an agreement with the National Party not to support the Labour Party amendments.” We would have disagreed with them, it would have been wrong, but it would have been honest and straightforward. That is something that the Greens pride themselves on. They tell themselves that they always take that approach, but in this particular instance the principles have fallen away to the pragmatism.

I do want to specifically address the bill. I know we will get into it at the Committee stage, but I see that the member in charge of the bill is here now and he can, if he wishes, take a call. I want to ask him: why five options? Why five and not six? John Key clearly prefers the Rugby Union’s silver fern flag. Why can the Prime Minister not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the design that he believes is the appropriate design and the one that he would like to have on the ballot paper? Why do we not have six? In fact, we are going to help the Prime Minister. We are going to move an amendment during the Committee stage to have the ability, if the Government changes its mind yet again, to have six options and not five.

The next question I want to ask is: who drafted this rubbish—who drafted this rubbish? We have got an explanatory note on this bill that, frankly, if it went before anyone who looked at misleading advertising, would be found guilty of being misleading, because what it says is it puts Red Peak in, or may put Red Peak in. Well, actually, it does not. All it does is increase the number of options from five to four. The note says that the bill adds another one to the ones that came from the panel. It does not. Actually, the way the bill is drafted you could have five completely different designs coming out of the Order in Council process that this bill allows.

Clayton Mitchell: Order in Council.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: In this case, I say to the member there, there is an Order in Council process here without reverting to a previous bit of legislation. There is a difference between a ministerial statement and an Order in Council. After the member has been here for a little time he will understand the difference. He will understand.

But I do want to get back to the essential point that the Government has agreed on the basis of a petition of 40,000 to 50,000 people to have another flag go in. It had a petition and a submission process that had far more Kiwis than that who wanted to have a yes/no vote. We have the unfortunate situation of a group of members of Parliament who are only here because of a yes/no vote—I think 85 percent of New Zealanders voted at the first ballot to move towards MMP—and they are agreeing with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister said that it is too confusing for New Zealanders to make the decision as to whether they want a change. It is a pack of nonsense, and although we will support the voting on this bill we will put up lots of alternatives to make it better.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): There has been a great deal in the contribution of Hon Trevor Mallard that I would like to refute but I am going to start by saying that the process we are following here is on the basis of the best advice provided by officials who are independent of the Government. That is a very important process.

The second thing that I would like to put on record is the fact that just before and, in fact, after the dinner adjournment Mr Mallard attacked the Green Party. Well, could I simply say to the Green Party that tonight I salute you for the fact that I think you have been both constructive and pragmatic in trying to find a very sensible way forward to ensure that the vast majority of people in New Zealand can feel positive about this process—particularly Gareth Hughes, whom I know has worked hard and under some time pressure. I want to acknowledge him and thank him for that constructive approach.

Mr Mallard made the point, or rather he suggested, that 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want this option. I can only assume he did that on the basis of the poll that showed 69 percent would retain the current flag. But what he, of course, was quite disingenuously ignoring is the fact that his party and our National Party went to the election last year with a policy that we would have exactly the process that we are now having and three out of four New Zealanders voted for this process, so in fact more than 70 percent supported exactly what we are doing here. That is far more important because that is the people of New Zealand having their say in a general election.

Could I say how disappointed I was this afternoon to hear the contribution of Ron Mark in the general debate. When a member of this House suggests that the Red Peak flag is a Nazi symbol, I think he is hitting a new low. There is absolutely no one in this House, not one member, who has any Nazi sympathies whatsoever. To suggest that is an argument is so intellectually and morally bereft that, frankly, that member should not be here at all. To resort to that sort of argument shows that he really had no argument at all.

I have also been very disappointed to hear Labour and some New Zealand First members attack the integrity of the Flag Consideration Panel. When you have people of the high standing and enormous contribution to our country of Professor John Burrows, Sir Brian Lochore, Beatrice Faumuina, the former Chief of Defence Force Rhys Jones, and all the other fine New Zealanders on the very representative panel of New Zealanders who served with them, being attacked by Opposition members I think it is a very sad day indeed.

I want to thank them for the terrific service they have given to our nation across a whole range of activities but particularly in this particular exercise, which I think they have approached with diligence and integrity. They deserve to be respected and thanked, not chastised and demeaned in this House.

There are other things that I would like to say. Let me just finish tonight by pointing out that I am wearing a badge that is 113 years old. Underneath the stylised poppy that we all now know—and that, intriguingly, has the silver fern on it, which recognises that it is the silver fern on the graves of New Zealanders who have served and died in battle—I am also wearing a badge that belonged to my grandfather Charles Grierson Macindoe. He, as a very young man, went to the Boer War. It will not surprise members to hear that I never met my grandfather; he died long before I was born. But at the end of his service he was given this silver fern, and along with his Boer War medals, which I wore proudly on Anzac Day for the first time this year, this Boer War badge has a silver fern with “South Africa” written across it. It must be at least 113 years old. That is why I personally am so strongly in favour of seeing the silver fern on our flag.

But tonight we are acknowledging the fact that there is a significant number of New Zealanders who have said they want a bit more variety in the choice in the referendum process. The Greens have picked that up and worked constructively with the Government. I am delighted to support this measure, and I thank them for their good work.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 107

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It has been interesting to hear some of the strongly expressed views in the House, including some of the deranged views referred to by my colleague Tim Macindoe in his last speech.

I just want to comment briefly on how this bill has come about. We have found the Greens disruptive and ungrateful to deal with. We have found that it does not really matter what you do with them, and whether it is successful or not, the effort is ultimately greeted with personal invective and the grabbing of all the credit and attacks on the National Party. That is our experience. That is why we took seriously the one constructive thing I can think of that they have come up with in the last 5 or 6 years. Because, as difficult, disruptive, and ungrateful as they are—and, occasionally, dangerous—it turns out that they are less so than the Labour Party.

Jonathan Young: It’s the new Greens.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the Labour Party has managed to make—it is not that we have managed to make the Greens look constructive; it is that the Labour Party has managed to make the Greens look statesmanlike. Labour members have managed to make the Greens look like they care about how New Zealand is represented to the world. They have managed to make the Greens almost look like they can see something larger than this week’s political point-scoring to be rated by the twitterati, which is the world that the Labour Party is caught up in.

The leader of the Labour Party was presented by the Prime Minister, in his generous way—sometimes too generous—with an opportunity. He could have grasped it. He could have said that the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government is a bit flexible about what is on the ballot, and there is a surge of unexpected but, clearly, strong popular support for the Red Peak flag. He could have said in the interests of making sure New Zealanders have a wider range of choice, reflecting the fact that most of them paid no attention to this process until it was almost too late, that Labour would work with the Government to ensure that Red Peak goes on the ballot, but Labour did not do it. It could not do it, because Grant Robertson keeps dragging that leader down.

From the opportunity to show a larger view about the country, a bigger view above politics, which any Prime Minister has to do—the rest of us do not, but a Prime Minister occasionally has to look like his main concern is the nation, not his caucus. His main concern is how New Zealand is represented, not whether the Women’s Weekly is going to decide who is the deputy of the Labour Party.

So Mr Little listened, unfortunately—I think probably against his better nature, actually—to his advisers and decided to play politics. Why? Because in the Labour Party caucus, there are—I do not know how many of them are; there is a lot fewer than there used to be—35 votes or something, but if Trevor Mallard is against it, that decides what happens. Mr Mallard was obsessed about whether there is a yes/no vote upfront and the advisers, whose instincts are still those of student politics—that is, let us score some political point and try to keep this thing going about how the flag is all about John Key—the Labour members then all of sudden found themselves irrelevant because of all those internal forces that prevent them dealing with any issue in a sensible way, let alone something that was a bit demanding—that is the flag issue.

All I can say from our experience of dealing with a range of parties across this Parliament is you really have to mess it up to make the Greens look constructive. You really do. I mean, with New Zealand First, you do not expect anything positive. You know not to because it does not follow the same kind of logic that every other political party does, so you just put it to one side.

To make the Greens look constructive and positive, you really have to mess it up. That is what is telling about this debate, because this is meant to be the future Government, actually. It is meant to be—and I know this is not the time to debate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are probably going to stop me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well read.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: But all I want to say is that it has worked out pretty well in the practical way that New Zealand can work these things out.

I have overseen the flag consideration process.

Grant Robertson: Well, now we know why it’s been such a shambles.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am very happy. I stood at the press conference to launch it, as I did with the constitutional process. It is actually, run by the same person, Professor John Burrows.

The flag consideration process was set up to depoliticise it. That was the whole point. The whole point was to have a process that the politicians do not stand over with all their manipulations and manoeuvring. I mean, we can handle a political process well, but, clearly, the Opposition and left-wing parties cannot because they do not know how to do anything without being threatening, manipulative, and telling only half the story. So that is why we did it that way.

It is a difficult task, and I know there are people saying: “This designer has an opinion and they got it wrong this way, and that one says they got it wrong that way.” Well, you know, all of them are right, of course. Of course, the panel did not get it right in the sense that everyone is happy with what they chose, but that is what they chose, and we have followed the process. Cabinet accepted its recommendations and those four flags have gone on the ballot.

I am sure, actually, from the preponderance of the fern, that the panel—or pretty sure—must have been influenced by some expression of public opinion, and now there has been another expression of public opinion. We have had the choice of sticking with the completely independent, objective process—which at least will have the satisfaction of irritating the member for Hutt South, if nothing else—and just sticking with it. But, actually, there has been this strong expression of opinion, and the Prime Minister has indicated—and now Parliament actually—that Red Peak is going to go on the ballot.

I think this is an important point. Gradually, the public are taking this issue off Parliament, and I think that it is a very good thing. As long as it has been considered and has been part of the to and fro, the Opposition is going to insist that it is all about John Key, and so on. The fact is that Parliament has voted for a referendum. It has voted the referendum process in. There will be votes. It does not matter what Grant Robertson thinks. There will be two votes. They are going to happen. More and more of the public are starting to understand what a historic opportunity it is to make a choice.

Actually, none of us will decide, because in the referendum we get one vote each. That is it—one vote. I want to acknowledge the fact that the Greens understand that. The Labour Party does not understand, and possibly never will under the current leadership team that it has. The Greens wanted to give the public more choice, and, actually, a radically different one.

I never thought of Red Peak being a good flag. I do not think the Flag Consideration Panel did. This is how you can do it in a small country. But it is just a shame that the Labour Party remains, as it will right through this process, incurably political about it.

Who knows what would happen—how New Zealanders would vote—if there was a future Labour Government? Given Labour members’ vindictive, politicised, manipulative DNA, it is quite possible they will try to overturn the result of a process like this, whereas I know the Greens would not. I know the Greens would not.

Grant Robertson: For goodness’ sake! Grow up.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, so Labour would not overturn it? OK, so let us just get this. It is for changing the flag, but against actually having a vote to do it. It does not like any of the flags that are there because everyone is against change, but if it does change, it will not overturn it. Well, at least that is a positive result out of that contorted logic.

So I am pleased that Parliament has this opportunity. I think the public will be pleased. I want to acknowledge the unexpected role that the Greens have played and the way that it has shown up the limitations of the Labour Party.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I think if anyone watching wanted an illustration of just who it is who is playing political games with this process, they would have learnt that from the nasty, patronising, graceless speech that the Deputy Prime Minister has just given. The Green Party might choose to reflect on the tone of the speech that Mr English just gave in this House and just what it is that it has created through this position today—the bill being here today. I do not think I have heard in this House, from someone in the position of being the Deputy Prime Minister, a more graceless speech than the one that I have just heard. It was disgraceful.

As other speakers have noted, Labour is supporting the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. We are doing that because it does give more choice to people in the referendum process. The public want more choice in this process. As members of the House know, Labour attempted to introduce a piece of legislation to do exactly this—to add Red Peak into the referendum process. Along with that, as we have done consistently through this flag referendum process, we have asked for a yes/no vote to be added first. We proposed that piece of legislation; it was rejected. We have played, and attempted to play, a constructive role in this process from day one. There was a cross-party—

Tim Macindoe: Nothing your party has done is constructive.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Macindoe wants to deny this, but there was a cross-party group that, with the exception of one political party in this House, attempted to make a significant constitutional process, one that all parties in Parliament were part of. That group, with the exception of the National Party members, wanted a yes/no vote, but other parties wanted a yes/no vote first. We continue to believe that that is what will give New Zealanders the choice that they are looking for. This piece of legislation contributes to having more choice in this process, but the real choice that New Zealanders wanted—the choice that more people signed a petition for than signed for Red Peak—was to have a yes/no question, and that has been denied. It is of great disappointment to the Labour Party members that as part of striking a deal to get this legislation introduced, other parties in Parliament—and the Green Party in particular—will not support our amendment to have that yes/no vote. We find that extremely disappointing.

I want to take us back to how it is we find ourselves in urgency doing this legislation, because it has been within the power of the Government to move legislation, exactly as it has done tonight, at any point in the last few weeks. The Government commands a majority in this House. At any point it could have done that but, instead, John Key has chosen to play political games. Bear in mind it is less than a week ago that John Key said he could not possibly introduce exactly this legislation unless Labour supported him. He said that. He said there was no way it could be done—that it was impossible. That is complete nonsense and political rhetoric, but that is what John Key was saying less than a week ago. He said he could not move unless Labour supported him. There is no history of that in this process. When the original legislation went through, it did so without Labour voting for it, and without the Green Party voting for it, in fact. So some notion that Labour had to be on board with including Red Peak in the referendum is completely ridiculous.

This is the track record of the Prime Minister. Here I am, watching 3 News tonight, and there they go, replaying from The Paul Henry Show on 7 September the Prime Minister ruling out Red Peak entering the referendum. He stated: “We’re not going back to Parliament to change the law.” That is what he said. So if anyone is playing politics here tonight, it is National. The Government could have used an Order in Council to put in Red Peak—it could have done that. It chose not to do that. The Government could have come to this House with legislation exactly like this, to include a fifth flag, which apparently will become Red Peak although that is not actually what the law says. But it did not. The Government chose not to because the Prime Minister was playing political games with this issue. That is the truth of it. It has been the truth of it all the way through.

Tim Macindoe: It’s the Labour Party playing political games, and you know it.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Tim Macindoe says that we are playing political games. We have had the consistent position of a yes/no referendum, have we not, Mr Macindoe? We have had the consistent position of a yes/no referendum—yes, we have. We have had a consistent position of a yes/no referendum. The political game is that John Key now needs to rescue his referendum.

The truth is that the four flags that were chosen by the Flag Consideration Panel are not going to work. He knows that. There was a TV3 poll, and 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag. So he has now had to come up with a way of saving his referendum. To do that he is adopting Red Peak. My personal view is that Red Peak is far and away a better flag than any of the others that are in the referendum mix. Trevor Mallard disagrees with me, but Red Peak is far and away a better flag. I still think the Prime Minister is going to struggle to get it through a second referendum, but at least now there will be a half - decent-looking flag up against the New Zealand flag in the final referendum.

I want now to refer to another matter—and it is also in Labour’s amendment—and that is the question of mandate. What mandate—whether or not we will actually have a decent level of participation—is created out of the first referendum? This is a significant and important decision. In my view it is a decision that we are taking in complete isolation from the broader constitutional debate that we should be having as a country. Bill English, in his ungracious response earlier on, mentioned the fact that John Burrows had also chaired the Constitutional Advisory Panel. Well, the Government completely ignored that piece of work—it completely ignored that piece of work. If the Government were genuinely interested in having a conversation about New Zealand’s future identity, then we would be talking more broadly than just on the flag, but the flag has become the vanity project of John Key, which we now have to put up with. Well, we are proposing that there does need to be more than 50 percent of electors returning a valid vote in Part A of the first referendum. We think that is a reasonable request because that means that there will be a mandate from the public. We would rather see the yes/no vote as the easy way of dealing with that. We have got that in our amendment as well, but the Government could today accept that in order to make a significant change like this there needs to be a decent mandate.

I am very, very sad that we have ended up in the position that we have ended up in tonight. The use of urgency to do this is totally unnecessary. If the Government had stopped playing political games, accepted that it wanted to put Red Peak or a fifth option in, and simply gone about the process of doing that, it could have been done in the normal course of events in the last few weeks. It chose not to do that. It chose to make this a political game. Tonight, to have the Deputy Prime Minister stand up to move the second reading of this and spend 10 minutes deciding that he was going to make this about the Labour Party, he was going to make personal insults, and he was going to insult the party that has given him the piece of legislation that is now before the House says everything New Zealanders need to know about this National Government, its attitude, its arrogance, and how out of touch it is, and it says everything they need to know about this flag referendum process. This should be a process that New Zealanders are proud of and are proud to participate in. It is not. It is a shambles. It has been a shambles—

Jacqui Dean: Ha, ha! Awesome.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Jacqui Dean thinks it is hilarious. It is a shambles because New Zealanders have not been treated with respect. They have not been given the opportunity to actually decide whether they want to change the flag. New Zealanders feel manipulated, and it is one of the reasons why 70 percent of New Zealanders are opposing a flag change. They feel like they are being manipulated by the Prime Minister, who has got his vanity project under way.

At least this piece of legislation will give New Zealanders more choice. They should have real choice. They are not getting that from this Government.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): You have got to feel a little bit sorry for Labour, do you not? There it is, each time one of them has to get up—they have to; they do not want to—to make a 10-minute speech on this bill, all they have is to fight old battles. It is a bit like every day as usual in the House with Labour. All it has to resort to is the old battles that it has already lost time and time and time again. And here we are, yet again, in the House with Labour, yet again, fighting a battle it lost, and yet it cannot let it go. Why can it not let it go? Because it has not got anything else. So we will get more speeches in this debate tonight and we will get more speeches tomorrow morning, if that is where we go with this bill, and Labour has only the one point to make. The one point Labour wants to make is that, gee, shucks, it did not get its own way, and now it is really, really sore about it.

Well, here is the news for Labour: we have moved on, and, in step, so has the marvellous Green Party, which has played this issue with an absolutely straight bat. In the Justice and Electoral Committee, when we first put the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill through the select committee, the Greens played an absolutely straight game with us, unlike Labour, which did everything it could to stall and to muddy the waters, and it never quite knew where it stood. It was consistent on one point, it lost that point, and it will not let it go, but we have moved on. New Zealand has moved on and Parliament has moved on, and now Labour is in an invidious position.

It must have been wonderful in those members’ caucus room this afternoon: “What do we do? What do we do? We opposed the bill, but, no, no, hang on. We opposed the bill, but we’re supporting the Red Peak. So we’re opposing the bill, but we’re supporting the Red Peak”. They must have said: “Hang on, we campaigned on having a referendum. What do we do now?”, “I know, we’ll support the bill.” and “We can’t support the bill; we opposed the bill.” Who would know where Labour was on this because, quite frankly, it does not know?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this Government and the Green Party are listening to the folk out there who have a view. And guess what? This piece of legislation allows the people of New Zealand to have a say on what flag they choose to have as their new flag, or not. The public of New Zealand will get a yes/no choice, they will do it at the second referendum, and good on them. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am sorry that the member Jacqui Dean could not go for more than about 3 minutes, but it was an entertaining 3 minutes, and it was an entertaining 3 minutes that I am sure will get clipped, put on YouTube, and shared by the Facebooks of the RSAs around the country. That is the sort of brains trust approach from the National Government that we have seen throughout this legislation. It, unfortunately, let that member chair a select committee. It does not trust her to do it again on this particular bill—in fact, it does not trust anyone to take this to a select committee and hear what the public think about it.

I think it is fair to say that the process on this bill has been appalling. The Prime Minister has taken a very unusual approach. I am not going to say that the Prime Minister misled the House—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good. You know the rule.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —because the comments that he made were outside the House. What I am going to say is that he misled the public. On 6 September he said—we are talking about the addition of Red Peak. What did he say? He said: “To change that now, we literally”—I do not know why he said “literally”, but he adds a few extra words every now and then—“have to change the law. We can’t go and change that.” And what is he doing? What is he doing today? On 7 September, when asked whether he could guarantee that Red Peak would not be an option, he said: “I can, because this is the issue: there was a well set out process. The committee decided the four, sent them to the Cabinet, Cabinet had the right to overrule them, but chose not to, they accepted the recommendations … To accept any other flag—the All Blacks one with the silver fern, any other one—we would have to change the law, and we’re not going back to Parliament to change the law.” If he had said it in here, he would have been misleading the House, and it could well have been a breach of privilege.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So he’s misleading the country instead.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: But, apparently, it is all right for the Prime Minister to mislead the country.

My colleague Grant Robertson, in response, said that he thinks this is the best of the designs. I disagree with him. I think that the ones with the fern in are probably slightly better. I will take a wager with anyone that the Red Peak one ends up at No. 3. It will be the second to last one to drop out of the process. It is better than the thing that is, apparently, a koru—but it is subject to a lot of interpretation, that one.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s a pig’s tail.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The fern—I do not think we are allowed to mention pigs and Tory leaders at the moment. We are allowed to mention ponytails, but not pigs’ parts at this particular time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Getting back to the bill, my view is that the fern that is an awfully drawn fern and the koru will drop out, and the Red Peak will be the one that follows that. Frankly, it does not mean anything to a lot of New Zealanders. It is just not there.

But Labour is the party of opportunity. It is the party for New Zealanders to take a chance. There is an opportunity that is before us now. We have had a lot of discussion about the yes/no vote. As Jonathan Young knows well, every party other than the National Party that was present at the select committee supported having a yes/no vote. We were overruled, but today gives us yet another opportunity. I actually like a straight silver fern—something pretty much like the All Blacks’ silver fern. I have used that flag in Athens at the Olympics. I have held it up. I was there at the end of the triathlon when we got the quinella. I was holding that flag. It is something that means a lot to Kiwis, much more than any of the alternatives that we are currently looking at. I agree with the Prime Minister that it would be a better approach. So what the Labour Party is going to do is it is going to give the Prime Minister a chance to actually live up to what he says and get his preference on to the ballot paper.

I do not want to undermine what the Green Party is doing with its liberal Red Peak in the coffee bars and wine bars and the other places where ordinary people do not really go. There is no big demand for Red Peak in my electorate, other than from a few people in Eastbourne, I think it is fair to say. But there is a lot of demand for the silver fern, a straight silver fern, which the Prime Minister appears to be running away from.

So what the Labour Party will do during the Committee stage is put up an amendment. Seeing that we are shifting from four to five designs, we will put up another amendment, to be used only if Cabinet wants to. It could be done as a matter of late change. It will have to be done pretty soon, although my understanding is that Cabinet will have about another 2 weeks to decide. The amendment means that Cabinet can add a sixth flag design if it wants to. My challenge to the Prime Minister, when he is in Cabinet and in the Executive Council, is to do what he said he wanted to do around the country for months and months—that is, have the silver fern as the flag of New Zealand. Stand up, Prime Minister, for your principles, stand up for your beliefs, and give Kiwis, who, I believe, would much prefer to have the silver fern, the chance to put it at the top. I would put it at the top, given the choice. I think it is the best option. I would then vote against it later on because I think we should keep the current flag, especially during the commemorations of the First World War.

But if we are looking at the best alternative option, then my view is that the panel—and I want to absolutely deny what Tim Macindoe said earlier. Most of the panel are people of absolute integrity. There are a couple of people on it who are not people of integrity and who are late additions on the part of the National Party to the original group, which was recommended by a cross-party group of MPs. Whether they over-influenced the panel, I am not going to say that. But people like John Burrows, Brian Lochore, and Rod Drury are people whom I believe have an enormous amount of integrity. I have got a lot of respect for them. But they made a big mistake in not getting decent design advice, and, as a result of that, good people made an error and we have got four, and now five, flags that are, frankly, dogs. They are awful flags. They are not flags that most New Zealanders want. They have had a look at them and 70 percent of New Zealanders say that, given that field, they are not interested. They are not interested in a change.

If the Prime Minister is not prepared to get a decent flag, a decent alternative, on to the ballot paper, it is our view that New Zealanders should be given the option of saying: “No, we don’t want any of them. We’re going to save $7 million. We’re going to build some houses for people who need them. We’re going to feed some kids who are hungry. We’re going to give early childhood education to kids who are not getting it.” All of us—all of us—have priorities of getting more jobs and having better social services, which are more important than holding a second referendum when we know that most Kiwis do not want to change the flag. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It seems to be my lot to follow the former member for Hamilton West in this debate tonight. May I say how disappointed I am to hear him again attacking the integrity of some members of the Flag Consideration Panel. I stand by the comments I made before—I believe they are a very fine group of people. They are a representative cross-section of New Zealanders, and they have served our country well.

Mr Mallard and, before him, Mr Robertson have again lamented the absence of a simple yes/no vote in the referendum process, but there are two fundamental flaws in the argument that they and some others are putting forward. The first is that the construction of this two-stage referendum process is based on the very best independent advice that was made available to the Government. The Government listened to that and has acted upon it.

The second point, which I think is even more important, is that the two main parties went to the 2014 general election promising to hold a referendum on this particular issue. Three out of four New Zealanders, or slightly more than that, cast their vote in favour of one of those two main parties, so they have already had their yes/no option and now we are moving to the next stage in the process, which is to say we will give people a range of things to choose from, they can make a choice, and we will put it up against the current New Zealand flag—which I acknowledge is an attractive flag in its own right—and we will let New Zealanders decide which one they want to have. That is a very democratic and appropriate process, and it is one that I am very proud to support.

I have been particularly disappointed to hear Mr Robertson suggesting that the National Party has been playing political games over this issue. We campaigned on this. We have been up front about it for a very long period of time. We have gone to the public and we are having the discussion with the public. We are listening to the public, and we are listening to the public tonight by saying we will offer a little bit more choice than the Flag Consideration Panel has put forward. That, to my mind, is responsible and sensible government.

I have to say to Mr Robertson that the gamesmanship here is from the party that wants to change the flag and that campaigned last year to give New Zealanders the chance to change the flag, but cannot bear the fact that the flag might change while the National Party is in Government. So solely for that reason, it is opposing it. That, to my mind, is the ultimate in political cynicism and gamesmanship, and shame on the Labour Party for that.

In the first reading of this bill Mr Mallard attacked the current Prime Minister, and he has just repeated it with words to the effect that the Prime Minister should stand up for his principles and beliefs on this issue. He has attacked the Prime Minister for not having spoken in the debate on the bill. Well, is there a single New Zealander who is unaware of where the Rt Hon John Key stands on this issue? I do not think so. The Prime Minister not only outlined his views very clearly in the Address in Reply debate this year but he has answered questions from the Opposition day after day after day in this House, and has given his views very forcefully and clearly on this issue. He has attended numerous public meetings. I have been at some meetings where he has articulated his vision, and he has listened to the public. The Rt Hon John Key is leading in a very honourable and responsible way, and I am proud to support him in that. To suggest that he has in some manner kept his views to himself is absolutely ridiculous.

I want to again state that I am proud that we in the National Party are delivering on our manifesto and, in particular, for the first time in this nation’s history, we are giving the public of New Zealand the chance to have a say as to which flag they feel would best represent them. They have never had this opportunity before. If we vote for change, the new flag would be the fourth flag in the history of this nation. So it is hardly credible to suggest that somehow the current flag should be respected and kept in perpetuity, when we have already previously had three flags.

I have to say I am not a supporter of Red Peak. On that I do agree with Mr Mallard. But I recognise that there are many who have indicated that they would like more choice and that they would like to consider that option. For that reason, as I said before, I am proud that our Government is listening to those people. I want again to acknowledge Gareth Hughes in particular and the members of the Green Party. We are not always natural political bedfellows, but I think they are playing a very honourable and clearly constructive role in this process. I thank them for that. I think that the effect of the Green Party’s involvement in this particular issue tonight will be to ensure that it is more widely supported than it has been to date, and that is a good thing. I genuinely thank the Green Party for what I think is a very helpful contribution.

I am more than happy to see the fifth option go into the process, but, more important, I am more than happy to respect the democratic will of the people. If they vote to retain the current flag, so be it, but I am proud that we are giving every New Zealander a chance to have a say. I believe it is the right thing, and I am therefore very strongly in support of this bill.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I do not want to sound naive by coming to this debating chamber and bemoaning all the politics that we are hearing in the parliamentary debating chamber, but we sure are hearing an awful lot of politics. As my colleague Dr Kennedy Graham said, maybe some of it is a bit more heat than light. But politics is the problem; this is why we find ourselves in this Chamber today. I am not trying to sound sanctimonious, as the Hon Trevor Mallard alleged that I was. I am just trying to reflect the fact that it is politics that sees us here today because of the political point-scoring, the games, and the eventual political deadlock that Parliament had found itself in.

I also want to say, on the flip side, that despite this debate—and it is pretty robust; I think that it would win some points in some of the debating clubs around the country—the fact is that we are working together. There are six political parties coming together tonight to listen to the people, to include their choice, and I think that that is fantastic, because on the one hand, we can see all of the political rhetoric and hear all of the debate, and on the other hand, we can actually see some of the practical, tangible benefits of working together. I believe that this is what the public decided in one of those seminal referenda in our history—that is, when we decided to move to MMP. I would like to acknowledge the debate, acknowledge the opinions, and, most of all, acknowledge political parties working together.

Why we sought leave to table and introduce this bill today was because we wanted to break that political deadlock. We are not trying to play games. We are not trying to score points. We are not trying to get one over anyone. We do not care whose name is on the bill or what happens. What we care about is offering a constructive, pragmatic, practical solution that can get the votes in this House. As we saw at the first reading vote, an overwhelming majority supported listening to the people and supported a fifth flag being included in the referenda. In this contribution, I would like to touch on some of the criticism and respond to some of the debate, I would like to reiterate some of the Green Party’s position points, and also issue some thanks.

Let us start off with some of the debate that we have heard tonight. I would like to acknowledge Trevor Mallard, in particular, for some of the things he said. He raised a question that I think needs to be addressed. Mr Mallard said that because Red Peak was not explicitly mentioned in the clauses of the legislation, somehow we were going to get some odd option—maybe “Laser Kiwi”, which I think was maybe the second-most popular choice amongst New Zealanders. It staggers me to think that Mr Mallard has been in Parliament, I believe, for almost as long as I am old, and no doubt he has seen his own bills pass through Parliament and become Acts and he has worked in ministries.

This legislation is quite a precedent in New Zealand for this Parliament. As part of our relationship with the Governor-General—as part of our Crown relationship; the executive to the Governor-General—Parliament cannot instruct the Governor-General to do anything. That is our constitutional framework, and, actually, despite being a card-carrying republican, it would be obscene, I believe, for this Parliament, under our current conventions, to be ordering the Governor-General what to do. But that is why the protections are in the explanatory note of the bill. Obviously, the debate is in the Hansard for this House. So before this turns into some myth—if this is some sort of myth or otherwise that Labour is trying to share—the fact is that this bill is about Red Peak, and this bill implements only that.

From New Zealand First members, we have heard allegations of there being Nazi symbolism in Red Peak. I would like to address this, because what they are referring to are some of the pillboxes that were used in Germany, which used alternating coloured lines. I think this is outrageous, I think it is ridiculous, I think it is scurrilous, and I think it is despicable that they should be drawing this sort of link, particularly when we know the horrors that occurred under that regime.

I would like to address the issue of why we are here in urgency. I talked about politics being the reason that we are here. Politics was the problem, and I am sure that more political games are definitely not the answer. We are here under urgency, and I acknowledge that that is not ideal. We are here under urgency because the clock is ticking—because we are less than 6 weeks away from the referendum. No doubt the Electoral Commission is about to be printing millions of pieces of paper so that Kiwis can have their democratic say. There was, literally, an urgent reason for Parliament to move in haste.

For more than a week, the country has watched the two parties as they have talked and as they have traded letters, allegations, and spin through the media. For more than a week, we have sat here and waited. There was real urgency; the clock was ticking. It was time for someone to act. Of course, ideally, this would not have happened under urgency. I believe that in an ideal world, Cabinet, through an Order in Council, would have simply listened to the public and included the fifth option, which was Red Peak. The reason we have put the bill to Parliament today is that time was running out, and also to test the Prime Minister’s proposition. The Prime Minister made a challenge to parties in New Zealand. He said that if there could be political support amongst the parties—excluding New Zealand First, whose position was clearly known—the National Government would support it. That proposition has been tested and it has been found true, and I would like to welcome the support of all the political parties for the Government adopting my bill.

Fourthly, and lastly, on the issue of the yes/no vote, I believe that there are legitimate and logical arguments on both sides. I believe that both sides can make a case. I understand it. I am sympathetic to the Labour members’ position. I believe that a lot of New Zealand is behind them, but I would like to point out that our position, in choosing this bill, is not to relitigate the entire process. Our position is not trying to score any points over anyone. Our position is trying simply to listen to the will of the people, to make sure that we get that fifth option before the clock counts down and it is too late.

I would like to reiterate some of our position, and the reason that we are doing this is that there was a phenomenal groundswell of support. This was not the case for any other bill in this process. In the space of only a week, we saw 50,000 people support this bill. We saw, I believe, only around 7,000 people engage with the official consultation process. We saw a massive, overwhelming groundswell of support—in only a single week, I would remind the House. That is why we are trying to make sure those people’s voices are heard.

Secondly, I do not believe that this is the most important thing that should be taking up Parliament’s time. Maybe Denis O’Rourke and I agree on that. When it comes to $26 million of taxpayers’ money, I would rather that money be spent on feeding kids school lunches. If we are talking about $26 million, I would rather that money were spent on installing solar panels in every school in this country so that the kids can save the money and spend it on musical instruments and sports equipment rather than on rising power bills. There are a host of things that we could do with this money, and I believe that it is a legitimate and right question to ask whether this is the right time to be changing the flag. Are we actually having that genuine public conversation about what the flag represents, who we are as a people, and where we are going as a nation in 2015? Should we also be looking at some of the constitutional arrangements? Despite being a card-carrying republican, I believe that the most important constitutional question we should be asking ourselves is: how do we enshrine Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our constitutional framework?

So this issue is not the most important thing. It was an incredibly flawed process, but the fact is that it is happening. We voted against the Government’s bill, but it passed. It became an Act. The referendum is going to happen in less than 6 weeks’ time, and if it were to continue down the track with the political deadlock and parties trading letters and sitting in their respective offices, nothing would have changed. It was not going to be improved. Those tens of thousands of Kiwis who wanted a fifth option would not have been listened to. So this was simply about improving the legislation.

I would like to thank a number of people. I would like to thank the big team, actually, behind the drafting of the legislation. I would like to acknowledge our spokesperson, Dr Kennedy Graham, who I know has been acknowledged in this debate as playing with a straight bat throughout the select committee process and the other parts of this process. I would like to thank the other parties for their support. I know that some of the kind words from the National members to the Greens have been genuine, which we thank them for; some of them have been damning with faint praise, which, of course, we reject. But it is good that we can work together on this, as we have worked together on home insulation and the national cycleway—just like we worked with Labour on some pioneering climate policies in the last Labour Government.

In summary, I do not know whether this is going to be the flag that we are going to get. I do not even know whether the flag is going to change. It does not matter. Regardless of what your opinion is—silver fern, Red Peak, keep the flag, or whatever—at least we have a choice. I genuinely believe that it is up to Kiwis, and they will express their will in the two referenda. But, most important, I think—as a young member, I really want to reflect on this—many of the supporters of Red Peak are younger Kiwis. If they had just been disregarded by this House, if they had been ignored, and if politics had got in the way of that choice, I fear that we would have disillusioned a whole new cohort—tens of thousands of New Zealanders who literally wanted a choice. So I am glad that we can work together. I am glad that we can put politics aside for a wee bit. I look forward to the progress of this bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First is very proud to be the only party left that is willing to defend the current New Zealand flag in this whole process. We are actually pretty surprised to be in that position, because I happen to know that there are members of the National Party who disagree with their own party on this. I could name some of them but I will have the grace not to do so on this occasion.

I am very disappointed that both Labour and the Greens have chosen to support the Government on this bill, albeit under a degree of protest, when John Key himself has never actually had the guts to come to this House—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member does not refer to a member in those terms, using that unparliamentary language.

Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify, what you are saying is that it was the words “had the guts”, even though the Prime Minister has used them to the Leader of the Opposition in this House previously?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should not be speaking in that way. It does not add to the debate.

DENIS O’ROURKE: I am happy to use a different word, which I am sure will be acceptable. I will say that John Key has never had the courage to speak—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t say that, either.

DENIS O’ROURKE: I beg your pardon?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You should not be referring in that way either.

DENIS O’ROURKE: Courage?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just move away from questions of intestinal fortitude, courage, guts, and all those things. Stick to the debate.

DENIS O’ROURKE: In that case I will simply say this: John Key has never taken part—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s well done. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE: —in a debate in this House on this flag debate. He has never taken part in this flag debate, and he should have because he is the one, in fact, who is said to be leading the whole process.

But New Zealand First is not alone in its opposition to this, because 70 percent of the people in New Zealand actually agree with us. That has been shown in poll after poll. Those are scientific polls, and so we humbly take on the role of defender of the current flag on their behalf.

Some people have claimed a groundswell of support for the Red Peak monstrosity. In actual fact, it is said that 50,000 people took part in this petition, but we happen to know—because people have actually emailed us and told us, with one person saying that he had actually voted three times, and he said that he knows many others who have done the same. So it really is not a groundswell; it is actually more of a molehill of support, and that is the truth of that. The truth is that in that scientifically run poll, fewer than 20 percent support any change to the flag at all, and 70 percent are against it. That is the truth; that is the groundswell—that is not a molehill.

John Key is embarrassed and he is running scared—scared of a low turnout in the first referendum, which will be less than 25 percent, I believe. He is scared that so few will vote, that they will vote informally by saying: “Keep our flag.”, or, like me, will stick a sticker on every one of those alternatives, whether they be four or five, and tick them, but only them, and not the alternatives—or by whatever means people will use to show their opposition. That is what the Government is running scared about in this whole mismanaged process. It will show that the second flag referendum will be a complete and utter waste of time and money.

The process in the Act, as it now is, was, in fact, misconceived in not first asking anyone whether they wanted a referendum to change the flag at all. That is the fundamental fault. Now John Key agrees that he was wrong because he did not give himself the power in the original legislation to add more flags, and that is ridiculous, I believe. That is what I saw him say on TV this evening. He had originally put his faith in an expert panel to choose alternatives, but now he disagrees with that panel and seeks in this bill to gerrymander his way out of the requirements of his own legislation. What a farce, and what arrogance.

As to the detail of the bill—what on earth is the rationale for suddenly adding another flag to the four chosen by the expert panel, after, of course, much acclaimed public consultation? In fact, there is no reason or rationale for it whatsoever. I have already mentioned the molehill of claimed public support for the horrible Red Peak flag in this so-called petition, which is really just media-driven, unscientific nonsense. We all know the truth. The fact is that John Key needs to save his backside, and the Red Peak flag is his way of avoiding the electoral spanking and the political red backside that he so richly deserves.

I suspect that John Key would have taken any excuse to add any old thing—any alternative—that he could find, as a way of getting himself out of the hole that he has dug himself into. Of course, he will be rubbing his hands in glee as Labour and the Greens fall into his political trap to support his gerrymandering bill, despite their inadequate protests.

So let us look at this peculiar alternative called Red Peak. It is angular, gaudy, and in no way representative of New Zealand or our culture. It is suitable as a road danger sign, and it looks very much like a commercial logo. It is virtually the same as that of a Canadian commercial log-hauling company.

More worrying is its similarity to the design of Nazi sentry boxes during the Second World War. Look at this photograph of a sentry box. This is actually a photograph taken from the Atlantic Wall Open Air Museum in Ostend, Belgium, and in it, that is a Nazi sentry box. Look at it. Look at the design on the side of it. Look at the fact that it begins with a red peak, with a white peak on top of that, which is also identical to the Red Peak flag. Then there is a black peak on top of that, also identical to the Red Peak flag. Only that little bit of blue, in one corner, is missing. There is an uncanny resemblance. The sad fact is that the Nazi colours were red, white, and black, as the Red Peak flag is, and those are the colours that dominate the Red Peak flag.

Those who doubt, have a look at this photograph, because this is that same sentry box in full colour. The similarity is absolutely stunning—absolutely stunning. Let us look at that design that I have just shown you and the Red Peak, side by side. Look at the similarity. Could it be much closer? It could not—it could not be much closer. That is how close the Red Peak design is to a Nazi sentry box design from the Second World War. I would like Gareth Hughes to have a good look at it, but he does not want to because he does not want to know the truth. But people will make mischief of it.

This picture of another design was obtained tonight from the internet. It is not by New Zealand First—not encouraged by New Zealand First—but by somebody already going on to the internet to say that. That is what people will do with that design because it has absolutely nothing to do with New Zealand’s culture or New Zealand’s people.

We would be ridiculed overseas in exactly this sort of way if New Zealand were to adopt that kind of awful monstrosity of a design for the New Zealand flag. Imagine what the Aussies would say, not to mention the Yanks. What about the British tabloids? They would have an absolute field day if we were to adopt a flag like that, and I would not blame them.

The national flag of New Zealand must engender respect for our country, not provide a means of ridicule. New Zealand First rejects the original process, which was back to front; this bill, which is gerrymandering; and all of the alternatives, which are utterly awful as New Zealand flags. But we would not have stood in the way had there been the genuine, bottom-up referendum required by the New Zealand people, with a proper process. This referendum is not that, and this bill should be rejected for all of those reasons.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek a ruling from you. It would be unparliamentary, I believe, and out of order in this House to raise Nazi slogans, and I wondered whether it is appropriate and parliamentary to bring in Nazi symbols as part of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] I do not need any assistance in respect of this. I think that the context in which the member very carefully used that symbol, and the fact that it was acknowledged that the Red Peak flag had been altered by somebody else and he had downloaded it from the media, he has danced sufficiently on the head of a pin to get away with it this time. But he should be careful because he knows what is at the other end of the pin from the head.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I will limit my contribution to a few main points this evening. It has been interesting watching the debate as it has unfolded this evening—seeing another little turn round the mulberry bush, if you like—on the flag referendums legislation. I just want to address a few things that have been raised. Earlier, Mr Mallard accused the Prime Minister and the Government of misleading the public, and that is a pretty bold sort of an assertion to make. I think Mr Mallard probably needs to understand the difference between that and making a statement and then listening to the concerns of the public, responding to those concerns and those issues that have been raised, and then perhaps altering the course of what is occurring. If one is to have an idea about what is going to happen and then listens in response, that is not the same as misleading, and I think that that was completely wrong and out of order.

The other thing that I think is interesting about this amendment bill that has been brought forth is that it is talking about increasing the number of options from four to five in the first referendum. I find it somewhat ironic, actually. I have to wonder whether, if we had had five in the first place, Red Peak would have actually made it into the top five. My guess is, probably not—I think it would be safe to assume that it probably would not have.

However, what we have seen from the people who are the supporters of Red Peak—of which, I have to say, I am not necessarily one—is a very good campaign to engage the public. We have seen 22,000 Facebook likes, we have seen 50,000 people sign a petition and engage with us, we have seen the #redpeak really take off on Twitter, and I have even got a few “Red Peak-inese” in my own family who actually like the idea of this design being in. So we have seen a groundswell of public opinion. We have seen the Red Peak movement achieve something that, actually, the supporters of a lot of other flag designs have not. So it is beholden on Parliament now to decide whether or not we think that is a sufficient enough public voice for us to change our process and allow a fifth flag in. By and large, if we go by the voting results of the first reading of this bill, it seems that right across the House, apart from one particular party, there is wide support, and we would agree that those people have done enough to warrant getting their Red Peak flag into the first referendum.

The other thing that I want to visit this evening is the hoary old chestnut that the Labour Party keeps bringing up, which is that we should bring in a yes/no vote. You know, those members could not accept defeat the first time around on having a yes/no vote, so they are going to come back and have another crack at that. There has not been the same groundswell of public opinion about a yes/no vote—there has not been the 50,000 likes on Facebook for “Can we please have a yes/no vote in the first referendum?”, in the way that the “Red Peak-inese” have brought that forward—and there has not been the same number of petitions brought forward to ask for a yes/no vote, so there is not really any point in our revisiting that. But when we get to the Committee of the whole House, those members’ wee bill will be brought forward as a Supplementary Order Paper, and we will be moving from there.

You see, the thing about the yes/no vote being introduced is that it is a little bit of a “to-may-to”/“to-mar-to” thing, I guess, in some respects. Mr Hughes indicated earlier that he had some sympathy for bringing it in, but, actually, we fundamentally believe that having the yes/no vote second, rather than first, is the way to proceed. And, you know, I left my piece of paper here with my notes on it before, and someone else came along and wrote “Don’t change the flag.” on it. Someone in this House does not want to change the flag—there are actually one or two of them, in fact, who do not want to change the flag. Those people will get a vote. Despite the protests of Mr O’Rourke and the people in New Zealand First, those people who fundamentally do not want to change the flag will get a vote. That vote might not be in the first referendum but it will be in the second referendum. They will get that choice. It will go through.

That brings me to my final point. This referendum process is all about the people of New Zealand having a choice in the flag that is going to represent them. They may well choose the current flag, and if that is what they want to do, they can get out there and they can campaign for that. They can promote that, and I say all power to them. And, do you know what? It will be the first time ever that the people of New Zealand will have chosen that flag, or, in fact, any flag. So I commend this amendment bill to this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I thought that the first reading in this debate on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill was fairly constructive, but I am not convinced that the same can be said of the second reading. I think that after dinner we have tended to demean ourselves a little in our excessive rhetoric. The choice of flag, one might have hoped, might allow us to transcend party politics and think about the national interest as a whole. Instead, we have tended to descend into rather small-minded party squabbling and the occasional exhibition of personal invective, and I think that is a shame. I think the choice of flag deserves more, and I think the people of New Zealand are hoping for more. I do want to acknowledge and thank a number of members of the House for their constructive comments, from National as well—Jono Naylor and Tim Macindoe, particularly, and Jacqui Dean, Jo Goodhew, and, not least, Jonathan Young, who chaired the cross-party group with such skill, and I thank you for that as well. The same cannot be said of your leader of the evening, the Minister—the Hon Bill English—who turned himself into a small creature this evening with his comments.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member referred to another member as a “small creature”. Previously, I was reprimanded for using the word “courage”. Surely, “small creature” is not parliamentary—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Oh, look—

Denis O’Rourke: —and not acceptable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have been referred to as that many times—since I can remember.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am happy to take the reprimand from Denis O’Rourke—and do we conclude that Denis O’Rourke will not, in fact, be voting for Red Peak, or is he? Perhaps we cannot put too much money on that. No, let me rephrase it. The comments from the Hon Bill English, for whom I have had a high regard in the past, are characteristic of a small creature. His comments were difficult, disruptive, and occasionally dangerous to a constructive interpretation of a second reading, and I think he caused his party and this House some shame this evening. I want to acknowledge the comments of the Hon Annette King and Grant Robertson, which I think were constructive. We disagree with the points that Labour is putting across, but we do respect the points made and we understand where Labour is coming from in that respect. The same cannot be said of the Hon Trevor Mallard, but it is not worth my bothering to comment any further. While we are covering the field on individuals, let me just pay tribute to my colleague Gareth Hughes, who has taken the initiative on this bill and conducted himself with dignity and, I think, integrity. Looking at the Hon Bill English, the Hon Trevor Mallard, and myself, I think Gareth Hughes has a bit of a lesson to teach us in this respect tonight.

Just one substantive point: we were trying to get across—and still are—tonight two things. This Parliament is acting with constitutional propriety in changing the legislation that changes the process to choose this flag. It has the power to do it, it has the right to do it, and it is constitutionally proper. The second point is that whether the Parliament should do so or not is a political judgment, and in our view, the Green Party’s view, it is a sound and wise political move to reflect the increasing will of the people. Not of everybody, Mr O’Rourke, and there may have been a few people who voted more than once, but that does not diminish the fact that there were about 50,000 people who moved for this flag, and that is overwhelming, Mr O’Rourke. Let us see which way it goes when the time comes. So, in our view, it is up to this House, all MPs as leaders elected by the people, to reflect the will of the people, bring in the fifth flag, and move on to the referendum, and then we will choose the flag from then on. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Iain Lees-Galloway—5 minutes.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): From the outset this process around changing the flag has been a complete and utter farce. This debate tonight is just another layer of farce added upon layer upon layer upon layer. The reason we are here tonight having this debate is that there was a poll on Sunday night that demonstrated once and for all that the options that had been put in front of people were roundly rejected by the New Zealand public.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He should have believed Farrar. He should have believed Farrar when he said it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My colleague Trevor Mallard says that the Prime Minister should have believed his pollster, David Farrar, much earlier, rather than waiting until the 3 News poll came out on Sunday night. Still, despite that, if the Prime Minister realised that he was on the wrong side of public opinion, if he was going to continue this poll-driven insanity that has been on the increase over the last few weeks, we still did not need this legislation tonight, because, actually, all the previous legislation did was require a referendum with four flag options. So the Prime Minister and the Government could simply have taken out one of the options—we have got three that look almost the same, anyway—and replace it with Red Peak.

Actually, the thing that appals me the most is that tonight we are wasting Parliament’s time on this issue rather than getting on with the large number of substantive bills that are sitting on the Order Paper that could actually progress the economy, the society, and our nation. This is completely unnecessary. It is a continuation of this ludicrous sideshow that the Prime Minister initiated to divert attention away from the various car wrecks that have become the litany of this Government.

I do not intend to waste too much more of Parliament’s time on this. I simply want to be on record as saying that this is a continuation of the utter farce that this flag-change process has become. It is a waste of the Government’s time. It is a sideshow from the real issues that that Government and this Parliament should be addressing. I think we are much better than this, and the politics should have been taken out of it. The Government could have dealt with this in any number of ways, but, instead, it chose the most political route, and it chose the route that would divert attention away from its various failures.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very happy to make a few points here in the second reading of this bill. When I saw the Red Peak flag, initially it had no appeal. It probably still does not. It is probably not going to be my choice if it ends up being in the referendum. But I did see an artist’s rendition of it that showed a meeting house in front of a mountain, and the mountain looked like Mount Taranaki and the meeting house looked like Te Ikaroa-a-Māui on Manukōrihi Pā in Waitara. So I thought that was quite a stunning depiction of that flag—far, far better than what New Zealand First sees in that flag. It talks about part of our heritage that is not reflected in the current flag.

When this whole debate started this conversation, and prior Prime Ministers talked about a different flag for New Zealand—this is not something new, and I would never say of Norman Kirk that it was a vanity project. I think that people see a new flag as something that can bring the people of New Zealand together in a new way. I cannot say that I am dissatisfied with our present flag, but what this referendum does for me is it offers an aspirational opportunity for our future together as the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. I think that this process of bringing amendment to this legislation is responding to a large number of people—it sounds like primarily younger people—who are responding and engaging in a process.

I think that this process of a referendum is full of promise, full of aspiration, and full of opportunity for us to have an emblem and an icon that we can all appreciate and, in time to come, celebrate under. So I am very happy to support this amendment bill. I look forward to the progress of the referendum in the future, and I do trust that we will come to a great result for this nation. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am a bit concerned following that speech, because it might have sounded quite genuine in intent, were it not for the fact that the Government is happy to give New Zealanders a say on the New Zealand flag but not happy to let them know what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

There is kind of a lack of prioritisation about what is important to New Zealanders. The Government is happy to let New Zealanders have a say on which flag represents the symbols that are important to New Zealanders, but it fails to recognise that family poverty is rising under its policies. Where are the priorities?

I am a bit concerned about the way in which this matter has proceeded through the House, but we have to come back to the bill, which seeks to insert the Red Peak option as a legitimate option within the context of the referendum that will be had. I listened very carefully to the debate, and I think people who are trying to make up their minds will consider all the options with some very fundamental questions. Does the flag represent just a symbol of our identity, or is there something more meaningful to those symbols that we can hang our hat on and that we can say truly represents the future of New Zealand and that New Zealanders can say actually defines the type of country and nation that we belong in? I think not.

The simple reason is that no matter what option is put in front of New Zealanders, they have not been given the fundamental choice of whether or not they want this question to proceed. Labour has continually highlighted that the legitimate approach to putting a referendum that would give New Zealanders a true sense of control over the type of debate we are having as a country is to ask whether we should have this referendum around the change of flag at this time—yes or no?

The thing that I am more concerned about is that Labour has an amendment sitting on the Table because we are really worried about low turnout on a question so fundamental as one about a flag, which is a symbol of our identity. I hesitate to quite a high degree on the basis that postal referendums generally have a low turnout. On a matter of such significance one would expect, surely, that a 50 percent turnout would be the bare minimum to have a convincing mandate to proceed with such a significant issue.

Here is the thing: in the 8 years of the National Government, it has been happy to start a constitutional debate, but not end it. If it were going to finish it or continue it in a genuine way with a constitutional debate that forms the pillars of what this nation stands for, we would have had that and then be debating the issue of which flag should be representing our identity as a country—our proud identity as a country.

I have no personal affinity to any of the choices on option. In fact, as a Māori, as Waikato, as Maniopoto, with heritage in Ngāpuhi, I am very proud of our navigating history. I have some leaning towards the Southern Cross, Māhutonga, as the zenith star for New Zealand, but, again, what would underpin any legitimate choice in my frame of mind about who we are as a country and where we are in the Pacific would certainly actually have a constitutional foundation underpinning it.

We should be debating the increasing level of family poverty in our country. We should be debating the high levels of domestic violence and the high rates of incarceration of young people. But, instead, we are having this debate about adding another flag, albeit it is a win for the Green Party. But this is more than just choosing a flag; this is about the symbols of our identity: what we stand for, what we value as a country, and what the legitimate priority of a Government that cares for the future of New Zealand is. I think the priorities are wrong. I think the priorities are wrong.

The way in which the referendum will be put to New Zealanders is in the wrong order. We have already raised those issues in previous debates, but, importantly, if the Government is absolutely assured of its conviction to continue down this path, there is one simple measure: will it have a convincing mandate with which to proceed with the choice of a new flag? I think not—and here is the thing. The Rugby World Cup is on at the moment, and I rather think that when the Prime Minister watches that final—hoping that New Zealand is in that final—and when those fans hold up the silver fern he will take it as a mandate to change the flag of New Zealand, and he should not. He should not.

There are much deeper, more pervading matters that should lead a Government to say why it is changing a flag, what it represents, what the values are, but, more important, what the constitutional pillars are that form a sense of purpose around the motivation for change. It is simply not there. It is a façade, it is a love-fest with a symbol that will represent very little, and it will lead to a confused outcome.

There will be a lack of mandate for the choice of something so important. I only need to point to the country that met some of these deep challenges with some conviction—and that is South Africa. Prior to the changing of its flag, it looked at its constitution very seriously. It dealt with some of the most difficult issues of apartheid and urged the nation to look forward beyond tribalism. But it hung the choice of a change of a flag in its constitution and that was why South Africans can stand and hold on to their flag and say: “This is what it means for a new South Africa. This is the country we belong to, where we can look beyond apartheid and the negative parts of our history to a future of opportunity.” This Government cannot do that for New Zealand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I say to the member, Richard Prosser, that that flag is not part of business attire and I will ask the member either to go out into the lobby or to take it off.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, otirā, tēnā tātou i tēnei pō.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, but, at the same time, acknowledgments to us this evening.]

I want to take the opportunity of this debate in the House to go unequivocally on record that I am absolutely in favour of a change for our flag. Moreover, I consider that the process that has been comprehensively put before New Zealanders is a process that is actually modelling the principles of modern democracy. We are one of the few countries in the world where a flag change has occurred where New Zealanders, in our case, have the opportunity not only to say which flag they want but to get choices before a final decision is made. Many other countries have actually arbitrarily decided for their citizens what the symbols are that should represent them, but our Government, with the support of Parliament, invested in an independent process that sets up the opportunity for New Zealanders not only to say what they chose but also to submit their own examples of what they think are the symbols and the colours that represent and resonate with New Zealanders today.

I am proud to be in a Government that values democracy so much. Of course, the Labour Opposition members naturally have an embedded heritage of ever finely slicing and redistributing, so the argument about whether or not there should be two votes rather than one is just slicing and dicing. We are not afraid to give the opportunity for New Zealanders to make a choice. We are not afraid of that. In the same way, the bill tonight is a responsive—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Kindergarten teachers are being fired all over Wellington and this member wants to talk about the flag.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Please, we are talking about the flag. In the same way, the bill tonight is responsive to the will of the people that a further flag be included. Of course, democracy does allow for fools to shout across the House rather than listen to the discussion. I think it is time for a change. I think that 150 years ago—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, the people don’t. The vast majority of people don’t want to change it.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well, we do not know whether people think that or not, until they have the opportunity. Taihoa, kia mārama taku whakamāratanga ki a koe. [Hold on and I will make my explanation clear to you.]

Clayton Mitchell: That is arrogance right there, because you want a say.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I want every New Zealander to have the opportunity to have a change—not to be shouted down by people who have a particular position. They are likely to have a variety of views and they—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I will ask the member to tone down those comments. Those interjections are unreasonable and unparliamentary, so you calm them down.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That is exactly the point—that New Zealanders should have the opportunity to say what it is that they do or do not want. I am taking that opportunity as a New Zealander to say what I do want.

I think that we have moved on significantly. We are a modern nation. We are small, we are smart, and we are sassy. We should take the opportunity to choose the symbols that represent who we are today and looking forward into the future. We should take the opportunity to think about what those symbols are. I am in favour of the fern being included. My husband, who himself has been a professional soldier, has written extensively about the history of the symbolism of the fern in New Zealand’s military history. It is on our Commonwealth graves. Last weekend I was down in Dunedin visiting my father’s grave—himself a returned serviceman—and the ferns are on his plaque. My husband tells me that he did not fight for the flag; he fought for the soldiers in his platoon and he fought for his country and he fought for values, the very ones that underpin the modern democracy that New Zealand is.

I think that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and, as Minister of Education, I absolutely encourage schools to be debating this. I absolutely encourage this because the New Zealand curriculum talks about the importance of symbol and text, talks about our place in the world, talks about what the Kiwi values are that distinguish us from other countries, and talks about our membership of the Commonwealth but distinguishes us as independent players ourselves. New Zealand deserves to have a flag that is resonant of who we are today and into the future. That does not mean we get amnesia about what our his and her stories have been, but, rather, we carry them forward, proudly into the future, and we take with that the symbols that we think today represent New Zealand. Future generations may make a different decision, but today, now, this year, and early next year we have the opportunity to make this decision for ourselves. By the way, it is not an either/or debate—that we either debate the other big issues that confront us or we debate the flag. We are a plural democracy. We are capable of debates on many things at once, and this is one of them.

Again, in education we deliver the national curriculum. Each school delivers it in their own particular way, but they do it in the context of identity, language, and culture. After all, is that not what a flag is a symbol of—our identity, language, and culture, and who we are in all our colourful diversity? Would we not want in the panoply of flags for New Zealand’s to stand out, which it does not at present? This bill is the opportunity for us to have a flag that speaks forthrightly of who we are, but, more important, it is the opportunity to make a choice. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The question was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard that a Minister was not present in the Chamber. The Chairperson declared that a Minister was present.

Part 1 Amendments to the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to start, in my first speech in the Committee stage—and I think there will end up being a number of them—focusing on how badly this particular part of the bill is drafted and how embarrassed the Government and the Green Party, if it originally drafted it, should be at how misleading the explanatory note is when compared with what is actually in the bill. We were told by the Prime Minister, and we were told by Gareth Hughes, that the effect of this legislation was to take the current four designs and add one to them. That is not what happens in this legislation. What happens in the bill, as drafted, is that the Order in Council that approved the current four that had been selected and endorsed by the Prime Minister is rescinded, and there is an opportunity for any old five to be included. We are being asked to vote for that today—any old five. The Labour Party, later on in the debate, will be providing the opportunity for there in fact to be six options.

There is a lot of debate going on at the moment about ways of taking the opportunity to improve this bill—not to do what Mr O’Rourke wants to do and put the current flag in there as one of the early options, although that would make a bit of a nonsense of the second referendum on whether you want this one or that one. But the Tino Rangatiratanga flag and the silver fern flag are two that the twitterati think are better options for New Zealand than the Red Peak one.

Can I ask the Minister in the chair, Jo Goodhew, or, by way of interjection, Gareth Hughes, whether this is the Green bill just relabelled? [Interruption] It is the Green bill relabelled. Well, I think we will forgive the Greens to a certain extent for their lack of expertise and their lack of constitutional understanding. But all they had to do was to add one. In fact, if they really wanted Red Peak to be included, they should have said so in the body of the bill. But the Green Party, in doing its drafting—I will be generous and say it is inexperience; I know my colleagues might say something a little bit stronger than that, but we will say it is inexperience. If it wanted to get it right, and if it had consulted with anyone and really just wanted the Red Peak flag added, then what it would have done is give us a bill that added Red Peak. Instead, what the Greens do is they once again scrap the current four and hand over to John Key the power to pick any five that he wants. I just say that it is a degree of naivety, a degree of silliness, and a degree of lack of maturity on the part of the Green Party that I think is causing some problems.

The other important point, and I think it is a pretty vital point and one on which there has been almost no focus, is what the bill does in clause 5(1), amending section 13(1) of the current Act. What that does is replace the 60-day limit for the Order in Council with a 40-day limit. My understanding is that what that does is give the—and before the referendum, so there is about another 2 weeks. There is about another 2 weeks that the country has got to express its opinion as to which five flags should be put before the country. It is a quite important point. The legislation is not adding Red Peak; it is scrapping the four and saying that any old five that Cabinet decides—but then, more important, it says that we have a period of another couple of weeks to decide which five those should be. I know that the National Party does not like it. I know that the Green Party does not like it that much. But in the original cross-party group—I will give credit to New Zealand First members because they saw the con job that John Key was pulling on the country before we did.

I want to apologise to my colleagues. Someone of my experience should know that these cross-party groups, in this sort of approach, are subject to Cabinet coming right over the top, ignoring what was agreed by the group, imposing a panel different from the one that the group wanted, and not—in this particular case the specific amendment I am referring to is the one in my leader’s name, in the name of Andrew Little—taking the view of every single party present at the group when it was discussed. I include the Green Party, the ACT Party, and—what is Peter Dunne’s party called these days?

Hon Ruth Dyson: United.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I include the United Future party. All of those parties, and the Labour Party, agreed. All of those parties, and the Labour Party, agreed that there should be a yes/no vote, as there was with the MMP referendum—a yes/no vote. I think that was passed by 85 percent. John Key said: “You know, if people do not know which option it is going to be, people will not vote. They will not know what they are doing.” Well, he was just wrong.

So what we have before the Committee is an amendment on this part of the bill that is in the name of Andrew Little, which would add to the ballot a yes/no question. I do understand from the Green Party that it has done a dirty deal with the National Party and it will not stay with its principles—it had been indicated at earlier stages of the bill and it supports that, and I think that is sad. But I do want to say that the current polling has over 80 percent of New Zealanders wanting to have a yes/no—yes, it does. I cannot tell if he is wobbling or if he is shaking his head. Paul Foster-Bell, the man who has got the Union Jack on his tie, seems not to accept the polling that has been run, including by the New Zealand Herald, showing that about 80 percent of New Zealanders think it is appropriate to have a yes/no vote at the beginning of the process.

All we are saying is that the Labour Party has listened to those people. We talked to them. We did quite a lot of doorknocking on it. We did some surveying on it. It does not matter which part of Hutt South you go to, people say: “Is it not logical”—[Interruption] Sorry?

Brett Hudson: They want Chris Bishop. What they say is they want Chris Bishop.

Paul Foster-Bell: They want a new member, that’s what they say. They want a new member.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, no. In fact, the member over there is chipping in—both members are chipping in while Chris Bishop is up in Ōhāriu knocking on doors because those members both know that as soon as Peter Dunne indicates he is going to retire, then Chris Bishop wants to be the candidate for Ōhāriu. Sorry, Mr Chair, I probably should not have responded to the interjection from Paul Foster-Bell.

What people can see on the second page, on the back page, of the amendment in the name of Andrew Little is a new schedule—a relatively simple schedule. It is one that is not at all complicated, and I want to say, frankly, that it is not that original. I do not want to criticise my leader in terms of his amendment, but the format of it was taken from the MMP referendum. The format of it was taken from the MMP referendum. It is a bit different because under the MMP referendum the ballot in that case was a first-past-the-post ballot. As we know, with MMP it did not really matter whether it was preferential or first post the post, because MMP won it. It would have won the preferential vote on the first ballot because it got more than 50 percent anyway. So in Andrew Little’s amendment on the schedule, which I understand we are referring to because it is—

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): It is a great honour and a great pleasure to stand up and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, the only party in real opposition to the debacle of a flag debate that is going on in front of us—here in front of all New Zealanders, of whom 70 percent are now coming out strongly in opposition to the process that is taking place right here in front of us today.

If it took a few people on Facebook to tick a like and to get in behind something—and there are 20,000-odd people in support of it—then surely the groundswell, the tsunami, of support against what is taking place here should be enough for this Government to listen and actually bring this bill back to the House and say: “Let’s scrap this flag referendum altogether.”? I can see the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jo Goodhew, shaking her head like this is some sort of daft idea, but I have to say that this here in Part 1 is all about the interpretation of this bill.

When I look at the opposition that we have had all year long—in fact, for about the last 7 years that this Government has been in Government—there has been opposition to just about everything that the Greens have come out and said, yet today we have heard this remarkable change of opinion, this replacement, because this Government knows that this referendum is in some severe trouble. It is trying to force it down New Zealanders’ throats, to somehow change what we have grown up with, understood, loved, and been supportive of—that is, the New Zealand flag that we are very proud of, which I for one am 100 percent supportive of keeping, and so, too, are all of our New Zealand First members and the New Zealand First Party. It is a crying shame that the support out there to can this referendum—or, at least, to conduct it in a democratic fashion—has been overwhelmingly flipped on its head because this Government understands that with the way it sits, this change has got absolutely no chance of going through.

The Greens have been the patsy of this Government—to be able to pull off their idea of throwing in Red Peak. We have seen some ghastly sorts of alternatives out there in the media and on Google pages already, showing what this Red Peak flag nonsense is going to look like on the world stage. I have to say that Gareth Hughes’s amendment to bring this bill forward to the House and have it absorbed by the Government has some serious concerns, because I can see that, ultimately, the Government members are going to use the Greens to fall on their sword for it, because this referendum will go nowhere. The absolute vast majority of rank and file New Zealanders see this for what it is, and we are not happy with it. Denis O’Rourke, an honourable member from New Zealand First, has got a number of amendments in—some amendments that we will certainly be supporting—and when the debate gets to clauses 1 and 2, we will certainly be speaking to those this evening.

It defies belief really that we have got ourselves into this situation, and we keep using the word “democracy”. From the changing of opinions of the Prime Minister himself, who has been caught on TV3 and TV1 news talking about there being absolutely zero chance of the Red Peak flag being brought in, we have this flip. This complete and utter change at the eleventh hour because of the uncertainty that this flag referendum is going to create creates some concern, because it just goes to show that we cannot trust what is being said out there—that at the toss of a coin or at the flip of a hat, we can actually have a Government turn round and go against something that it had emphatically made clear to the entire country would not come into play.

What is going to stop the Government turning round at the eleventh hour, after the first referendum, and saying: “Actually, we have made our decision. We are not even going to have the second referendum.”? It would not surprise me or the rest of New Zealand that this was the sort of behaviour of a Government that is not following an open and transparent line. It is not following democracy, and this is just another point that proves that very fact. Thank you, I will be taking more calls as the evening goes on.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to speak on Part 1. I know there are a great deal of other debates this House should be having tonight that are far, far more important than the cloth on the flag, but just because there are more important things we should be discussing, just because we are trying to fix up a bit of a political mess that Parliament has got itself into, does not mean we have to resort to absolute silliness in the debate. In this contribution I would like to address some of the conspiracy theories that we have heard in dealing with Part 1. The first conspiracy by the member Denis O’Rourke is that somehow this Red Peak flag is a Nazi symbol, which I find scurrilous and disgraceful. It is quite incredible that within the second reading of the bill New Zealand First descended to Godwin’s law. In only the second reading it descended to Godwin’s law, which we all know is the marker of not having a particularly good argument.

The second conspiracy theory we have heard tonight is from the Hon Trevor Mallard. We have had this debate. I have raised this point in previous contributions that the Red Peak is not specifically mentioned in, I believe, clauses 4 and 5 because of the constitutional arrangement. We sought expert advice on this and it is improper for this Parliament to instruct the Governor-General on what to do. This is why it is mentioned in the explanatory note. This is the conspiracy theory. Does the honourable member in his assertions believe that somehow the Governor-General is going to pick a different flag? Is he going to pick “Laser Kiwi”? Is he going to pick something else? If this is the message that the honourable member is putting out there, he should just say it.

The honourable member also made some other points. I have got a lot of time for Mr Mallard. He has got an esteemed history in this House, in our political history. Mr Mallard, who I believe was somewhat patronising, described me as naive, silly, and inexperienced in relation to the drafting of this bill. I will admit that this bill was drafted yesterday after our caucus meeting in the morning. It did receive some oversight from the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

I would like to address the three allegations: I am naive, I am silly, and I am inexperienced. It is true, I am naive of the old politics that we see from that member—the politics that saw two parties dig themselves into a political deadlock that has seen the Green Party try to fix it, but not by scoring points. Sure, I may be naive when it comes to scoring political points, but I am not naive when finding constructive solutions to try to break the deadlock. The member called me silly, and it may be true, but perhaps a different definition of “silly” is railing against a bill, the dirty deals that are behind it, and then voting for it.

Thirdly, I might be inexperienced. I am not experienced in the old first-past-the-post politics where deals should be done between only the two big parties. I am not experienced in that and I am proud of it. We were talking that first-past-the-post politics. The honourable member also talked about the twitterati, deprecating the social media campaign that we have heard about in other contributions on this debate.

What this bill does is add a fifth option. This is not because five is a better number than four. We all know exactly why we are here. The fifth option is because of the absolutely phenomenal groundswell of support, which all parties bar one has acknowledged. That is why we are here. We should not be deprecating those people for getting involved in politics, be it on Facebook, be it on Instagram, or be it on Twitter. It is entirely appropriate, entirely legitimate, and I do not think that we should be somehow saying that because it is done in one particular forum it does not have the equal merit of others. In fact, I think, in hindsight, we would not be in this situation. How did the Flag Consideration Panel incorporate new technology? Why on earth could not the public up-vote or down-vote the flags, based on their preference? Why on earth could they not comment on the more than 10,000 submissions, so that perhaps we could have seen a more informed process? This is what alternative flag consideration projects have done, at considerably less cost.

So let us not knock those people for engaging in politics and democracy just because they did it on a phone. Let us give them a choice. Let us make sure that this Parliament acts constructively. Kia ora.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): The very defensive National members opposite, who contribute so little to this important debate on a very important issue, have reluctantly continued to contribute very little. But this is an important issue. I want to speak to the amendment in my name, which is about giving the full range of choice to New Zealanders in this referendum. The issue for New Zealand, and indeed the issue for the Government for the last few weeks, has not just been about a fifth option. It has not just been about Red Peak. It has been about a growing disillusionment amongst New Zealanders, about a sense of manipulation, and about a referendum that offers them no real choice at all. That really came to the fore when the Government released the four final candidates, if you like, for alternative flags, which did not provide much choice at all. Three of the four options are virtually identical, apart from a change in colour, and the existence or otherwise of some stars. The fourth option is a koru flag, which is quite different from the others. But out of a long list of 40, and a much longer list even before that, that is all the Government could come up with? And still New Zealanders had not been asked whether or not they even wanted to change the flag.

This amendment is about restoring at least some dignity to the process, giving some dignity to New Zealanders, who just want the courtesy of being asked that question. What could possibly be wrong with asking that question—giving New Zealanders a choice—of whether or not they even want the flag to be changed? That has been the fundamental error of judgment by John Key and his Government. He thought he could just sort of railroad through this process.

Brett Hudson: He’s slow on the uptake, this one.

ANDREW LITTLE: You see, the problem with the National members opposite is that they will not take to their feet and argue a case. They will barrack and give cheap calls across the House, because they are terrified of the people of New Zealand. They are terrified of giving New Zealanders a real choice and a real say about whether they want to change the flag. That is how scared they are. They are happy to cheer and play along with their leader in their manipulated process because he declared from on high that he wanted a new flag with a silver fern on it. That is not where New Zealanders are at. New Zealanders deserve more respect, and they deserve more courtesy than that.

This is not about any individual politician’s personal choice about the flag. This is about respecting all New Zealanders. When we are asking them to enter into a debate about their emblem, the insignia that represents them around the world, they ought to be treated with respect and dignity. This Government has not done that. Members opposite fail to accept that at their peril. New Zealanders want to be treated with courtesy, and we do that when we give them the choice of answering the question: “Do you want to change the flag, or not?”. New Zealanders do not ask for much, but being treated with courtesy by this House, by members of this House, and by the political process is just one small thing that they ask.

When it comes to such an important choice of what sort of flag we have, then being given that choice to make about whether to change the flag—being asked to make that decision—is absolutely crucial. That is why I have put up this amendment to allow that choice to be added into the process. I was very clear. I offered this to the Government last week, but not as part of some grubby deal that meant we would put up a proposal and make a deal with the Government that we would not vote for New Zealanders to have a real say. We are not into that kind of grubby, backroom deal that others in this House are into. We are into giving New Zealanders the choice about whether to change the flag, as we have right through this process, through the cross-party process, through the input and the submissions we have had at the select committee—every opportunity we have had we have been absolutely consistent about it.

If we are to run a referendum like this, and allow New Zealanders to make a decision on their flag, our national flag, the thing that we stand under, the thing that we hold high when we are on the international stage, and the flag that so many Kiwis wrap round themselves when they at their Anzac Day events in Parliament Square in London, when they are in New York, when they are in Sydney or Melbourne, or wherever they are in the world and they look to the New Zealand flag, we should take this seriously because New Zealanders take it seriously. This is about giving choice and dignity to New Zealanders. New Zealanders deserve nothing less.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I want to just take this opportunity to reply to Minister Parata’s statements around democracy and how important democracy is in this process. The Minister needs to realise that she is speaking about democracy under an urgency process, which makes a farce of this statement in the first place. She is talking about democracy by Facebook, and she is talking about democracy by pandering to lobby groups and focus groups. That is not democracy. If the Minister would dare to stand up in this House and extol the virtues of democracy to New Zealanders—I dare her and her Government to apply the same fine principles of democracy that she would extol to this House to the debate around secret tribunals, which would undermine the sovereignty of this New Zealand Government under investor-State dispute settlements, for example. But to turn specifically to the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. We do not want to have to talk about those sorts of things. They are not part of Part 1.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am speaking specifically to the bill, to clauses 4(2) and 5 in Part 1. This Government, with the support of the Green Party, is being—as Minister Joyce would say—tricky. It is being tricky. It is allowing, by Order in Council, the current four flag options to be removed completely. So what it is doing is not adding Red Peak—

Brett Hudson: It was an Order in Council to begin with.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It is removing all four options and then, instead of simply adding Red Peak to this debate, Mr Hudson, it is adding another option. So, actually, what we find is that after this Government puts this legislation through the House, New Zealanders will not necessarily find that they will be discussing the four options already agreed to, and they will not necessarily be discussing Red Peak. What we will discuss, and what we must be mindful of, is that the Prime Minister—

Brett Hudson: Read the commentary, Mr Tabuteau.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Oh, Mr Hudson says: “Read the commentary.” For goodness’ sake! In all of the legislation presented recently you have wonderful song sheets telling us what this bill is about, but then you actually read the legislation and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what you claim it does in the explanatory note. So the reality is, despite Mr Hudson’s commentary, there are now five blank options. What I was saying before I was rudely interrupted was that what we will find is that those five options are not necessarily reflective of a process that the people of New Zealand had thought was a robust and principled one.

Pita Paraone: And would expect.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: And would expect. What we find is five blank sheets, where the Prime Minister and Cabinet can fill them in at their own device. New Zealanders need to be very, very wary of that.

I would just like to finish my contribution by speaking to an amendment presented in the name of Denis O’Rourke. It is to rename the piece of legislation to the “New Zealand Flag Referendums (Future Generations Will Not Forgive You) Amendment Act 2015”. I have visited schools in Rotorua as part of my job to discuss Youth Parliament. In those conversations, students asked me what my position was on the flag change. They wanted to know where I stood, and I told them the truth. I love our current flag and I do not want it to change, and I think this whole process has been a farce. And do you know what they said to me? They completely agreed. These are 16-year-olds—16-year-olds from all of the schools in Rotorua—consistently and unanimously agreeing that this whole process is a farce. They were as upset as anyone else about the waste of New Zealand taxpayers’ money on a referendum that does not even ask in the first place: “Do you want a flag change?”. It is an insult to this House and it is a waste of this House’s time. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I do want to speak a little bit about Andrew Little’s amendment, which presents the option of having a yes/no vote in the initial referendum. Of course, that is an incredibly sensible idea that could save millions of dollars for the country, and if the public polling that has been consistent right through is right, it would likely see a vote to keep the existing flag and save that money for the country.

It seems a sensible amendment, and I want to speak a little bit about that. But before I do, I have got a couple of other points that I want to make. The first is I want to query Gareth Hughes’ earlier comment about not putting specifics in the bill. It seems a somewhat bizarre thing to say that you should not tell the Governor-General what to do. All of the bills we put through Parliament invite the Governor-General to do what the Parliament has decided is the right thing to happen for New Zealanders. In fact, that is what we do with every bill that goes through the Parliament. So it is a very strange thing for him to say, and I wonder whether, when he takes his next call, he might explain quite how he came to the view that we should not, in the Parliament, any more suggest specific changes in law. It is very hard to understand.

The option presented in this bill is that we have five fresh flag designs. The Hon Trevor Mallard has eloquently articulated—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I wouldn’t say that.

Dr DAVID CLARK: —how that comes to be the case. I am being generous. We are being in the spirit of generosity this evening. John Key’s vanity project here is given a whole new lease of life because it leaves the Prime Minister open to choosing five flag designs that fit his particular criteria. We have already seen that he has a preference for not having designers on the panel. He has expressed great confidence in this panel, which has no people with previous flag design experience, and we have ended up with something that looks a lot more like commercial monikers, I would say, than proper international flags, amongst many of the designs that we are faced with.

I was asked earlier this evening on Back Benches, in the pre-record—and I do not want to spoil the show for those who are hanging out at home—whether I supported the Red Peak flag design. I said: “Look, I honestly have not”—have not—“given it much thought yet. It’s a new thing today.” Who knows what we may have tomorrow? I mean, we are in a position where this changes day by day.

It is a mockery of a process. It is an absolute mockery of a process that really belittles New Zealanders’ engagement in wanting to change our national symbol. We are spending millions and millions of dollars on a process that seems to change day to day, according to the Prime Minister’s polling or political whims, and that cannot be a good process for New Zealanders.

In my view, the right time to have this conversation is when we are debating whether we should become a republic or not. That is the logical time. I think we should be pushing out this debate. In Part 1 there is a way of doing that. We could increase the number of days mentioned in the amended section 13, which talks about 40 days before the commencement of the voting period to change the designs. We could change that to many, many more days, I think, with other tweaks in the amendment.

There will be people who know the subtleties of this process better than me, who would know whether we can push it out there. I am interested to hear from the Minister in the chair, Jo Goodhew, whether she thinks it is technically possible to push it out through that mechanism. Certainly, it would make the law a little bit more difficult to interpret at the other end. We could ask the Governor-General what he thinks of that.

We have come to this point where we are having a debate that changes day by day on what are the options that should represent New Zealanders. That is not the way to unite the country. If we think right back to the start, this was presented to New Zealanders as a way of uniting the country under one flag option. It has done nothing but divide New Zealanders. This process has done nothing but divide New Zealanders. There are way more opinions than flag options. But what is clear is that New Zealanders are not clear on which option they want—in fact, of the new options even. We are leading towards a situation where the vast majority think it is such a shemozzle that they would rather keep the existing flag than vote for any of the options. That is what the polls tell us. Instead of uniting a society in this process, we are paying millions and millions of dollars as a country to divide society. That cannot be the way this should have played out—that cannot be the way. But the Prime Minister has had it as his vanity project, and that has been why we have ended up this way.

I want to speak out about Mr Little’s amendment—a very sensible amendment. [Interruption] Yes, the member is right. The member in the chair obviously made the right call in choosing the Leader of the Opposition when I stood up to compete for a call. This amendment does put the choice back in New Zealanders’ hands. It tries to restore some dignity to a process that has ravaged out of control and has become more about the Prime Minister’s ego. We have seen some very erratic behaviour from the Prime Minister. We have seen him at cancer fund-raisers, asking for people to put their hands up if they are opposed to it and then berating them personally. That cannot be the kind of uniting process that people had in mind when they bought into this process—those who did—at the beginning.

I understand—the Prime Minister now has the flag process hanging around his neck like an albatross. He is now, in many polls, less popular that Prime Minister Helen Clark was when she was thrown out of the Parliament, and he still has a long way to go in his third term. His decline in popularity has been very steep, and he seems to have attached his personal fortunes to a vanity project about choosing the flag. That must be a worrying place. It is a worrying place for the members opposite. They have been very quiet during this debate. We have not had very many calls at all from the National Party members. They seem reluctant to defend it. Of course, the ones we can see are wearing the Union Jack—they are the ones who want to keep the flag process. It is a complete shemozzle on that side of the House.

So this process, which was supposed to unite New Zealand, seems to be dividing us. I would ask the Government to really quickly adopt this sensible suggestion from Andrew Little that puts the choice back into New Zealanders’ hands immediately, about whether they want to change the flag or not. I ask the Government to save the country millions of dollars and spend that money on early childhood education, or on building a new hospital in Dunedin, where it is sorely needed. I ask the Government to spend that money on anything that would help our society get ahead and unite us rather than undertake this process as prescribed in Part 1, which is dividing our country.

I implore the members opposite to please consider voting for the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment, which does give New Zealanders some dignity in the process, gives the Prime Minister perhaps a way out, and allows that money to be spent more wisely than on this process, which has become such an albatross around the Prime Minister’s neck.

We need to have this debate at another time, further down the track, when New Zealanders can be united in the final choice rather than divided. That is the kind of debate that a Labour Government would lead if we were ever to look at changing the flag, because that is the kind of inclusive process that the Labour Party believes in. Going down a track that is about popularity and commercial designs and is rushed and changed every day because of an erratic Prime Minister whose personal fate is tied to the outcome is not the way to go.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Just in case anyone had any possible doubt about this, New Zealand First says this whole referendum process, from beginning to end, is a very bad idea and we should never have embarked upon it in the first place. The nation is effectively being forced into it by John Key’s own orders, and that is the feeling that I get in the community. The community does not really want to go there but is being forced to do so by a Government that wants to distract it from other more important issues. Not only that but several National MPs, a number of them, do not agree with their own party and are in fact being whipped into shape by party discipline, which is making them vote for this bill and indeed the original legislation. That shows just how political this is and how lacking in genuine public support any part of this process actually is.

I now want to particularly refer to the general policy statement in the bill before us. The first thing that I read there is that the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act, the principal Act, is “to provide for 5 alternative flag designs”. Well, why should it be just five? What is magic about five? Indeed, what was magic about the original four? I do not understand why the legislation and why this bill needs to actually prescribe any particular number of alternatives. That is what should have come from the community. If there were enough good designs that would qualify as reasonable alternatives to the New Zealand flag, then that process should have been gone through first before any number was specified in the first flag referendum.

So that is the first problem that it has, and that is one of the things that this Government has been tripped up on, because now we have, instead of four, a fifth one, which some people—not many, I do not think; no groundswell, just a molehill of people—want added as well. Well, it is not a very good process, on that basis.

Secondly, it says in the general policy statement that this flag design is “commonly known as Red Peak”—commonly known as Red Peak? It is not commonly known as any such thing. In fact, this design is not commonly known at all, and I know that because I speak to people in my electorate and around me, and in taxis and so on, and, actually, the fact is that very few people really know what this particular flag is or what it is about. That is the truth. Some people in this Chamber have deluded themselves that there is support for this particular alternative, but in fact there is not. Most people—90 percent of the population—neither know nor care about Red Peak, and that is the truth about that.

That leads me to something else. Further down in the general policy statement we have references to other alternatives, but, in fact, there are no such other alternatives. So this one has just been one out of many other possible alternatives that for some inexplicable reason, based on a tiny little number of people in a poll, many of whom have voted several times—that is the basis. That is the basis upon which this particular design is being included, and that is a very, very poor basis for doing that. It is a very, very poor process.

I will have to say this, and I regret having to say so, but I personally believe that the expert panel actually did not do a very good job in selecting the four alternatives that are there. It is that bad job that has led to this further demand for other alternatives to be put on the ballot paper for the first flag referendum. What is wrong with what the expert panel did is they included a number of designs that are almost identical to each other. That is not very sensible. People needed completely different alternatives if there was to be a genuine choice. That is not what we got with the first four, and that is why we are now faced with this silly process of having to add yet another one—and it should not be. That other one should not have been added.

If there were going to be a process for a wider choice, it would need to be a much better process than this. It would need to be a process that provided genuine alternatives that were not very much like each other. And it would need to provide a process to develop a much larger number of alternatives for people to express an opinion on than merely four.

I want to say something about Gareth Hughes’ comments, because Gareth Hughes was clearly afraid of the truth when he protested that New Zealand First pointed out the similarity in symbolism between the Red Peak design and the use of a very, very similar design and symbolism by Nazi Germany in the Second World War. The simple truth is that in actual fact, as I demonstrated in an earlier speech, there is a very, very close similarity indeed between the actual use of that design on Nazi sentry boxes and the Red Peak flag.

Hon David Cunliffe: You’ve turned it upside down.

DENIS O’ROURKE: It was not turned upside down as one person over here says. He is simply not looking at the truth, just in the same way as Gareth Hughes is not prepared to observe the truth—and that is the truth.

In fact, the colours are the same, the design is the same, it looks the same, other people in other parts of the world will point out the similarity, and it will be ridiculed. Those people who say that it is not the same should look at those designs to see the truth in that. That is why New Zealand First pointed it out—because it is a fact. It is not our opinion; it is just a fact.

I want to go on and say this also, if I get enough time. It is this: if we were going to change our flag—and New Zealand First opposes that altogether, but if we were going to do so—there would need to be a much better process than the one that this Government has foisted upon us. This is how I think it should go. First of all, there should be no legislation at all, to begin with. The Government has the ability, without passing legislation, to simply set up focus groups throughout the country, and to say to those focus groups: “Should New Zealand consider a new flag, and if so, what do you think that flag should be?”, and it should take time over doing that—many months, if not years, to do that—because it does take time for that sort of grassroots consultation to take place. As a result of that, you would get a set of criteria that would show you the kinds of things that the general population would like to see in a flag. That would be the first step.

The second step would be to use that criteria, and to have multiple design generators to use it to start designing a flag. The multiple design generators would be, for example, schools, it would be the use of competitions, it would be some paid designers, and it would be many, many other ways of encouraging people to generate ideas about designs. That would also not require legislation at that stage. To follow on from that, you would then need a long period of public discussion on the main alternatives identified by that process. I would foresee that there might be a couple of dozen such designs that would come out of a process like that because people have all sorts of different ideas.

Having done that, and after that public discussion, an expert panel might then be used to help to narrow down those two or three dozen possible designs that could be used, to a referendum. But the first referendum should always ask that question: “Do you, the public of New Zealand, want to even consider a new flag?”. New Zealand First says no, but some people might wish to do so. That is where it should have started.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Never have I seen the potential for strengthening our national identity so squandered. This process has been crassly manipulated by the Government, and by John Key in particular, since its very inception. It has been a distraction from the real issues of the day. It is a personal legacy or vanity project for the Prime Minister, and it is one of the most cynical uses of postmodern communications that I have ever seen.

It must pain the Government that 70 percent of people, when confronted with the four personal choices of the Government’s personal appointees, hate the choices so much that they would rather leave the flag as it is. So the Government has broken the glass and pressed the emergency button, and it has had to swallow a very large, red rat. It is called Red Peak. I personally quite like it, but that is not the issue. The Government knows that without this legislation—which the Greens have helpfully facilitated in a ménage a trois; they now consider themselves virgins—none of the flag options would get up and Mr Key’s personal legacy project would be down the toilet. That is why we are here under urgency—to save the flag project from obscurity.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2015

(continued on Thursday, 24 September 2015)

Bills

New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015 (continued)

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Well, things got a bit heated in this debate last night. After the House rose, I went back to my office and I listened to a few songs, and one of those songs was “Anchor Me” by Don McGlashan. It occurred to me, as I have been pondering this issue for some time, that what is really missing in this whole debate is a mature and considered, respectful and nuanced discussion about New Zealand’s national identity and what that actually means, before the farce of a process that we have ended up with in this House today and last night.

New Zealanders are funny people. They are thoughtful people. They are can-do people, they are people who rally around in a crisis, they are people who like, and require, a fair go, and they do not like to be treated like muppets or numpties, which is what this Government is doing in this whole process and with this clever, tricky little manoeuvre—the latest clever, tricky manoeuvre—with this piece of legislation.

I want to put on record that this whole thing is a colossal waste of New Zealand taxpayers’ time—taking this bill through this House and taking hours and hours and hours. The Opposition has the right to debate this bill, but it is the fact that it is before this House when it could have been dealt with in a much quicker, much more mature and respectful way—instead, we have this farce of a process going through our Parliament right now. It is an embarrassment and it is a silly political game.

Some of the speeches I heard last night from over the other side of the Chamber were just the epitome of National being wrapped up in its own sense of entitlement—to have the gall to talk about this as being democracy. This is a law change that is being rushed through under urgency, with all its processes under urgency, with no chance for the public to have another say about it, and that is a disgrace.

This morning I got a taxi to Parliament. My taxi driver was Cambodian and has been in New Zealand for 35 years. The radio was on and we were listening to Morning Report. We were listening to the interview with the Greens’ co-leader James Shaw. I want to acknowledge the measured response from the Greens’ co-leader in that interview this morning, as opposed to some of the contributions from his colleagues yesterday in the House. I said to the taxi driver: “So what do you think about this whole flag debate?”. He kind of turned and looked at me and said: “Well, you might not like what I’m going to say.”, and I said: “Look, I want to hear what you’ve got to say.” He said: “New Zealand must be a rich country to be spending so much time debating and discussing an issue such as the flag. Aren’t there more important issues? Where is the economic value or the social value from this process?”. I said: “I completely agree with you.”

In my electorate, Dunedin South, every person I talk to rolls their eyes every time the flag debate comes up. This should have been a much better-handled process. My biggest problem with the process under which this bill is going through the House at the moment is my absolute objection to what Gareth Hughes said yesterday about this being some kind of new politics and engaging with the public. Let us be honest: this is just a stitch-up. This is a deal. It is a tricky deal that has been done with the National Government to allow this last-minute entry into the flag choices of a fifth option. I do not have any issue with Red Peak, but I think the whole process has been besmirched right from the very beginning. This is not new politics; this is old politics. This is a stitch-up deal, and it is the National Government that is doing the tricky—

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): That was quite a wide-ranging and extraordinary contribution. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr Chair, but we are currently debating Part 1 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill. It is a very, very simple part of the legislation. All it says is that the legislation will be changed such that there are five options on which the public can vote, not four. This is not actually complicated. In fact, I believe that members have the capacity to grasp what is happening well within their grasp, and yet we hear all sorts of accusations that “Everybody but me”—Clare Curran just said—“is playing politics on this issue.”

Well, there are people playing politics on this very simple bill and ensuring it takes far more of the Committee’s time than it needs to, and the puerile and infantile amendments on the Table from Denis O’Rourke are one example. It just goes to show what happens when the “Babysitter” is away. When the “Babysitter” is away, all sorts of impractical and impolitic indulgences are indulged in by the New Zealand First Party. I believe I speak for many members when I say—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The amendments that you mentioned are not to Part 1. They are actually on the clauses.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I apologise. I was not referring to the amendments in any substance; merely to the position that various parties are taking on this part, which is, indeed, very simple. In fact, going from four to five options is so simple that it is difficult to fill 5 minutes talking about anything else. Thankfully, the Opposition has given us all sorts of immaturity, all sorts of political game-playing, and all sorts of excuses to make this process far more complex than it needs to be.

If the Opposition were serious about being respectful of New Zealanders and acting in such a way that this legislative change happens quickly, efficiently, and smoothly so the House can get on to all of those things that the Opposition says are far more important, we would not still be debating this. It could have been done and dusted, and we could have got on to more important matters last night.

The truth is that the Opposition has chosen to deeply politicise the very simple exercise of going from four to five options. I would not have thought that this was a complex matter to detain the House with for a long time, but it does appear to have detained the Opposition for a long time. The Opposition, in turn, has detained the House and left us with a much, much more drawn-out process than there needed to have been.

So when the Opposition tells us that it is the Government or this side of the Chamber that is abusing or offending or taking for granted or belittling New Zealanders, all it needs to do, if it wants to move the Committee and the House on to more serious business, is to say “We’re OK with going from four to five. We’re comfortable with that. We’re numerous enough to do it.”, sit down, and allow the Committee and the House to move on to more important business.

But I predict that we are going to see the kind of puerile grandstanding from New Zealand First that we get whenever their “Babysitter” is away managing media matters for the Parliamentary Rugby Team in London, or on any other occasion when those members are unsupervised and left to their own devices in a House they could never have entered without the ”Babysitter’s” assistance. They will carry on and carry on for as long as possible, simultaneously claiming it is the Government that is taking advantage of the public and the House, while, nevertheless, it is they who have a real difficulty with the simple concept of going from four to five options. That is all we are trying to achieve here, so let us just say it—

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair. I cannot say it is a joy to follow Mr Seymour in the debate. It is interesting that Mr Seymour brings into the debate how people came into this House. I think that of all the people in this House who should not mention babysitters or special treatment or other things that have been manipulated by this Government to allow Mr Seymour to sit here to participate in a debate, it is he who should not speak of such things. I think also that it is interesting that Mr Seymour suggests that only those who are reasonable would want to push forward this New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill and not waste the House’s time.

It is interesting that Mr Seymour now stands for referendums when every other party in this House has lost its ability to take the high ground with regard to referendums. Every other party in this House refused to allow the New Zealand public to have binding referendums on other issues. Only in the last 4 years we have had issues that would have made massive social change, and yet somehow National members treat the changing of the colours that we carry into the world without the same level of importance. They would not allow the New Zealand public to express its voice around marriage amendment or alcohol laws or other laws, but around this referendum bill apparently it is OK to trust the public. Mr Macindoe waxed lyrical last night at how wonderful and magnanimous it was that the Government was responding to 50,000 likes, so that this referendum bill is now here. Yet when the people of New Zealand stood outside and asked for a voice over another bill in only the last 3 years this House said: “You can’t be trusted with it—you can’t be trusted with it.”

The other thing that I think is very interesting—and I want to acknowledge the contribution on this bill last night by Mr Mallard, when he acknowledged that the Labour Party had been naive to participate with the National Government—

Paul Foster-Bell: The Greens—he said the Greens were naive.

TRACEY MARTIN: With the National Government—go and have a look at the transcripts, Mr Foster-Bell; I was here. Mr Mallard recognised that the Labour Party had been naive by participating in what it thought was going to be a cross-party conversation with mutual respect with the Government around the creation of a panel of people to select the flag design, and then to go forward also around creating the bill that would put through the way that the referendum would be done. Mr Mallard quite clearly articulated that it was at that committee that they believed—and everybody on the committee supposedly agreed—that the first referendum question would be: “Yes or no—do you want a change or not?”, but apparently the Government overrode that. So I want to recognise that Mr Mallard gave a nod to the wisdom of New Zealand First members, who said: “We are not going to participate in the charade.”

And the charade continues—the charade continues with this bill. Not only was there the charade of a cross-party political consensus to form the panel that selected four designs—four designs that nobody wants, or that 70 percent of New Zealand does not want—but there was also the charade that there should be only four, that the panel should be independent, and that nobody should interfere with it. But when the polls start to turn—when the polls start to turn—and it looks like the Prime Minister will not get his legacy, the item that he wants to have run up the flagpole so that everybody sees his name on it in the history books, suddenly that independent process can be affected. Suddenly it is quite OK, and somehow the Government is now responding to the will of the public.

When New Zealand First actually listens to the public and the public says it wants binding citizen initiated referenda—when New Zealand First responds to that and puts it in its manifesto, it is accused of being populist. How much more populist could one be than deciding to put legislation into the House off a Facebook vote? It is not even a scientific Facebook vote. It is a vote where you do not know whether 10,000 people voted five times. Yet, apparently, this is not populist politics. Apparently, this is worthy of the time and the money of this House.

It is interesting that those who wish to rush it through, for whatever reason they hold themselves, suggest that it is those who stand for the current flag, those who represent the 70 percent of New Zealanders who do not wish to see change, those who represent the 70 percent of New Zealanders who do not want to see $26 million wasted on this referendum when there are more important issues, those of us who stand for the history of this country, those who fought and died under this flag, and those of us who wish to truly hear the voice of New Zealand, not on a Facebook page, but on a scientific poll—apparently, we are now accused by the ACT Party, of all people, of wasting Parliament’s time and money.

David Seymour: Well, you are.

TRACEY MARTIN: By the ACT Party, of all people. It is one of the largest wastes of time and money in this Parliament. So it is interesting that those who want to push this through are accusing those of us standing up against this legislation tonight of wasting Parliament’s time and money. Well, we will continue to stand against it.

I think the other thing, too, that is interesting is this push-through for flags, and I want to now speak about Mr Macindoe’s contribution to this bill yesterday, when Mr Macindoe again waxed lyrical about his personal preference. Obviously, I am doing the same thing. I am making a statement that I prefer the flag that has the history that we currently have. We also note that there is now a push by the RSA to include the current New Zealand flag in the first debate. Mr Mallard suggested that that was possible. Mr Mallard suggested that this bill has been so badly written that it could pass, it could go back to the executive, and the executive—now that Parliament has interfered in the process and removed the independence of the panel—could decide on a whole new series, a whole new five flags, and put them in front of the public.

The question New Zealand First has is not only whether there will be a commitment that that will not happen, that this legislation will be amended during the Committee stage to make sure that actually we will not trash all those options and start all over again with whatever the Prime Minister likes—or perhaps the Prime Minister and Richie McCaw could get together and tell the country what they think we should have—but also how much extra money will this cost? How much extra money now, by deciding we are going to change the independent process, is this going to add to the $26 million bill that has already been budgeted for this event?

David Seymour: Zero.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Seymour shouts from the side again with no knowledge or understanding, and it is interesting that he shouts from the side, because the Government continues to protect him through the status he holds here. It does not allow Mr Seymour to be questioned. Nobody can question Mr Seymour because he is under the protection of the Government through his parliamentary under-secretary role. Yet he continues—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

TRACEY MARTIN: —to advocate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Look, this is well wide of the content of Part 1, so I ask the member to come back to Part 1.

TRACEY MARTIN: That particular member argues for this legislation in the House. This particular member, who cannot be scrutinised in any way, stands and argues for a change to what is the historical emblem of this nation, and we would question that. We question every part of this process. We question every dollar spent on this process, and New Zealand First will continue to question every dollar spent on this process.

We will not be supporting this bill. It comes as no surprise to anybody that we will not be supporting this bill. Not only should there not be any other designs; there should not be five designs or four designs, and Red Peak, with only 50,000 likes, has not been shown to have popular endorsement. So I think I have made my point fairly clear. We will not support the bill. We stand for the current flag; we do not stand for the wasting of this House’s time and money. But it was not New Zealand First that started this waste of time and money. It was this Government and John Key.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Some of the debate around the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill has got a little bit silly. It has got a little bit out of control.

David Seymour: I agree.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: David Seymour is nodding his head, and he would know. I want to focus on what I think is the one thing that we can salvage out of this debacle, which is Andrew Little’s proposed amendment to add the question—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Calm down, boys. I think, from talking with people overnight, that actually what people want to see is a little bit of dignity and decorum in this debate. When we actually try to address some substantive issues and we get laughter and barracking from the other side of the Chamber, it does nothing to actually add to the decorum of this debate.

I want to address this question of whether or not we should be asking people: “Do you want to change the flag?”. I have heard an odd argument against why we should do this, which is that people need to see the options before they decide whether they want to change the flag or not. But, actually, people are going to be presented now with five options. People are going to know exactly what they are going to be voting on if they decide to go to a second referendum. People know exactly what they are going to be doing.

We did this when we went to MMP. This is exactly the process—the Minister in the chair, Dr Nick Smith, is shaking his head, but he obviously has as bad a memory as John Key does—we used with MMP. We asked people: “Do you want to change the voting system?”. And then the second question at the first referendum was: “Regardless of how you voted in that first question, if we were to change, what would you change it to?”. That worked perfectly well. There was no question back then that people needed to know which electoral system we would be changing to if we decided to change after that first question, and it gave us the opportunity to ask people whether that was something we should actually be doing.

I think it is even more important that we include that in the first referendum because so many people have come forward and said “We don’t agree with change.”, or “This is not the right time. We ought to get the books back into surplus. We ought to deal with the $105 billion worth of debt that the Government has amassed before we deal with this issue. We want to have an opportunity to say: ‘No, we don’t want to proceed and spend money unnecessarily.’ ” There are a lot of people out there—and I know that New Zealand First is, sort of, representing this part of the electorate—who just do not want to change. So we should simply ask that question: is this something that we want to do?

I think it disrespects the intelligence of the voting public to say that they cannot make that choice before they have voted on which of the options they want to change to. So I again implore members to support this amendment proposed by Andrew Little. We know it works. We have got previous history of using exactly this process and of it working well, and it is something that people want.

Fifty thousand people signed a petition asking to include Red Peak. We could have included Red Peak without this legislation—let us make that clear. We do not need this legislation to include Red Peak, so this is a sham and even more of a sideshow—but, anyway, never mind. People spoke up and said they wanted Red Peak. Well, actually, tens of thousands of people also signed a petition saying they wanted to have the opportunity to say yes or no at the first referendum, and 80 percent of the submissions to the select committee—

Clare Curran: 80 percent said they wanted the opportunity.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —80 percent said they wanted the opportunity for the yes/no question. So if we are responding to what the public wants and if we are going to indulge in the poll-driven behaviour that we have seen from the Prime Minister, then let us include this question—yes or no—before we even go to having the expense of a second referendum.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I want to carry on from where my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau left off last night in his quite superb contribution. I want to begin as he ended, by referring to one of the many very fine typescript amendments in the name of my colleague Denis O’Rourke. It says: “This Act is the New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015”, and to replace that name with the “New Zealand Flag Referendums (Destroying our Heritage) Amendment Act 2015”, because that is fundamentally what this bill is about. That is what this process is about.

This process is really about a not very well hidden agenda to simply remove the Union Jack from our flag because there are people who want to remove the links to our British heritage. Basically, what is underlying this whole process is a not very well hidden agenda of republicanism. I think it is a tragedy, actually, that there are fine members on the other side—Mr Foster-Bell, for example, and Mr Simpson, who I know for a fact are fine patriots and who are staunch supporters of our constitutional monarchy. That members of that ilk, who are very fine people, should have to sit in this House and defend a process that basically undermines the things that they hold dear is a tragedy.

The removing of the Union flag from our flag, for whatever reason, simply because it is an association with our British past, is an anachronism. Personally, my heritage is not predominantly British—I certainly have some British blood, but no English—but I absolutely appreciate, believe, and recognise that everything the British brought to the world is a great deal better than anything that anybody else ever brought.

If we are going to get rid of the English language, Westminster democracy, the separation powers, the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the common law, Christian tolerance, and everything else that makes our society free and successful, then what is it proposed that we replace them with? If we are not going to replace those things and if we are not going to get rid of those things, then what is either wrong or irrelevant about having the Union Jack, which is the symbol of them all, in the corner of our flag? We are not beholden to Britain. Britain has no sovereignty over us.

David Seymour: Has the member heard of Canada?

RICHARD PROSSER: Mr Seymour is chipping away in the background. Hush now, Mr Seymour. The grown-ups are talking. The Canadians had a completely different scenario to contend with. They had a French component who were not happy with the Union flag.

But we are happy with the Union flag in New Zealand, and in New Zealand First we are perfectly happy with the Union flag. Britain has had no effective sovereignty over New Zealand for more than 100 years and no legal sovereignty for 70 years. We still have the same Sovereign as Britain because we choose to, not because we are required to. We are not a colony, we are not a possession; we are not a protectorate. We are not any kind of an appendage.

David Seymour: Is this is in Part 1 of the bill?

RICHARD PROSSER: We are an independent nation, and we have been so for nearly six generations. The Union flag does not hold us under the sway or thrall of some foreign power, Mr Seymour; rather, it symbolises everything that we still believe is good about our history and our heritage.

The Union flag is our Union flag every bit as much as it is Britain’s Union flag. It belongs to us every bit as much as it belongs to British people. We are every bit as entitled to fly the symbols of our heritage and our values as are any other people who share them and who still subscribe to them.

We are a classless post-colonial society. We are not slaves or serfs or subjects over whom the British royal family lord some kind of archaic dominion. Rather, we are a free, egalitarian people, who embrace the Windsors as our royalty—the people who symbolise everything that we hold and whom we have chosen to retain as the basis for our constitutional foundation.

We are not a federal republic like the United States, we are not a federal commonwealth like Australia, and we are not a federated constitutional monarchy like Canada. We are a realm. We have picked and chosen the bits of our constitutional make-up that suit us, and we are comfortable in our skin. When our royals come and visit, we do not bow and scrape as if we are lesser. We wave and we smile because they are our royals and we are pleased to see them. Everyone is equal in this blessed and egalitarian land.

Some people on the other side, on the republican side—the apologists—talk about our association with our British history as being cringeworthy. Do you know what I find cringeworthy? It is people who cannot find pride in themselves about living in a democracy. It is people who cannot find pride in the fact that the English brought Christian values to the Western World, that the British Empire brought the light of civilisation into the deepest reaches of God’s earth, and that the English-speaking world stood shoulder to shoulder against the darkness of tyranny twice, and continues to do so every time freedom and rights are challenged anywhere in the world.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are way off the mark. We are on Part 1.

RICHARD PROSSER: Thank you, Mr Chair. I find it cringeworthy that the perpetually dissatisfied among us belittle the values of the world of which our nation is a part, and that the Union flag represents. We are an English-speaking Western democracy. We are a steadfast and willing member of a familial alliance of nations with whom we share language, culture, values, history, heritage, and blood.

I am proud of all that. I find it cringeworthy that the detractors among us are not. There are some—the apologists, the shamed—

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 44

New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to:

insert after clause 4:

4A Section 10 Amended (Subject of referendums)

In section 10(1) replace “question” with “questions”.

In section 10(2) replace “be held on the question set out in the voting paper in Schedule 2.” with “only be held on the question set out in the voting paper in Schedule 2 if more than 50% of electors returning a valid vote in Part A of the first referendum vote to change to a new flag.” and

insert after clause 5:

5A Section 38 amended (Declaration of result of referendum)

After section 38(1)(a)(iii)(E) insert:

“(EA) the number of votes received in favour of keeping the current flag and the number of votes received in favour of changing to a new flag; and”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 32

New Zealand Labour 32.

Noes 89

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to Part 1 be agreed to:

insert after clause 5:

5A New Part 3A

Ability to add additional flag

67A Adding an additional flag

Despite anything in this Act to the contrary, the Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister at least 40 days before the commencement of the voting period for the first flag referendum, prescribe a sixth additional flag design to appear on the voting paper and any necessary alterations to the voting process to accommodate this.

The Order in Council must include—

an official description of the design, to be used for the purposes of dictating the relevant parts of the voting paper under section 23(4)(c); and

an image of the design, to be used for the purposes of subsection (3) and section 14(1); and

the technical specifications of the design, including the colours, dimensions, and proportions of the design and of any shapes or images in it; and

a description of how the method of counting preferential votes and recognising preferences in Schedule 4 must be modified to accommodate the additional flag design.

When producing voting papers for the first flag referendum, the Electoral Commission must ensure that the additional alternative flag design prescribed under subsections (1) and (2) is inserted in the appropriate space as Option F on the form in Schedule 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 44

New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 77

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to New Zealand Flag Referendums (First Flag Referendum) Order 2015

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): In Part 2 of this bill we move to clause 9, the revoking of clause 5, which is about the time period. Clause 5 amending section 13(1) replaces “60 days before the commencement of the voting period …” where the alternative flag designs are determined—there were four alternative flag designs—and it now becomes “40 days before the commencement of the voting period for the first flag referendum, prescribe 5 alternative flag designs”.

I have a couple of points to make about this part of the bill. No. 1 is that it does not actually say in the actual body of the legislation what the fifth flag alternative should be. So that leaves it up in the air. Last night in the House we had Gareth Hughes telling us that there were constitutional reasons for that, which were a bit hard to fathom, really. If he is going to take another call, it might be good if he could expand on that.

Really, if we are unable to determine what the actual point of this legislation is in the actual body of the legislation, then it hardly seems to be of much point. It feels to me that this is the part of the legislation that you could drive a truck through, which is why my colleague Trevor Mallard last night described it as being badly written. That is because we now have an extra period of I am not sure how many days. Maybe somebody could illuminate us on how many days it is until the referendum occurs—when everything is fixed in place. But we now have this period of time when everything is in flux and there are five designs, and we are not actually sure what they are going to be.

David Seymour: It’s 40 days from November 20. It’s quite simple.

CLARE CURRAN: Yes. The commentary on the bill talks about Red Peak, but the actual body of the legislation does not specify what the fifth alternative should be, and we are asking why we are wasting Parliament’s time by debating this in the House and why everybody is getting so worked up about it if we are actually not saying in the legislation what that fifth design should be.

This law could have been made much fairer and much more reasonable by including a provision for a yes/no question. Sadly, that has been voted down in the previous vote. That is how the process could have been made more honest and been given more integrity and could have matched what the people of New Zealand have been asking for. But, unfortunately, the deal that was done between the National Government and the Greens precluded that agreement and precluded that process occurring.

Labour has been accused of being hung up on process, and we make absolutely no apologies for that because the process that we have argued for consistently from the beginning, which is the same process that was used in the MMP referendum—which actually managed to make substantial change to New Zealand’s parliamentary system—was undertaken in an honest way and with integrity. Our problem with this whole bill and this whole process with the flag referendum is that it is back to front and it is not giving people the opportunity to say whether they agree or not with changing the flag before they actually get to choose which alternative flag they want, if they do want an alternative flag. So it is back to front. It is wrong. It is treating New Zealanders with disrespect. It is treating New Zealanders like muppets, as I said in my previous contribution. Clause 9—the revocation clause—revokes clause 5, which is the clause that talks about the 60 days before the commencement of the voting period, just leaves open a whole lot of questions, and leaves open the possibility of there being other alternatives put in. So we might not end up with two ferns, a koru, and Red Peak—or is it three ferns?

Iain Lees-Galloway: Three ferns.

CLARE CURRAN: Three ferns, a koru, and a Red Peak—

Grant Robertson: And a partridge in a pear tree.

CLARE CURRAN: —and a partridge in a pear tree. We might end up with a partridge in a pear tree. That is what we might end up with and that is why this whole thing is a farce, and everybody out there thinks so too. Seventy percent of New Zealanders have said they do not want to change the flag, and 80 percent of New Zealanders said in a poll that was done earlier that they wanted the opportunity to answer a yes/no question first. That was the process that was used in the MMP referendum. That is the good process, and by saying, as some commentators have said, that Labour is hung up on process—well, goodness me. Somebody has actually got to care about the process. Somebody has to think that the process should have integrity and should be trusted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just before we proceed, I wrongly announced the result of the party vote on the closure motion on Part 1. The correct votes should have been that the Ayes were 77 and the Noes were 44, whereas I said that the Noes were 46. The record will be amended accordingly.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of this bill. This is the part of the bill that highlights the fact that if the National Government had really been committed to the introduction of Red Peak into this process, it could either have put it into the legislation or have done all of this already, because what this part is actually about is the Order in Council process. This is the part of the bill in which we are setting up the ability for Red Peak to be included in the referendum. It is important for those who are closely following this debate on a Thursday morning to know that, actually, Red Peak does not appear in the words of this legislation—not here.

Not to alarm the great many fans of Red Peak—Mr Seymour has gone pale at the thought that Red Peak would not actually be in this legislation. Not to alarm him, but the process that will be followed now is that of an Order in Council—effectively, Cabinet coming together and advising the Governor-General. And, according to the explanatory note of this bill, it will then decide to add Red Peak as the fifth flag. Technically, it could actually add any old thing as the fifth flag—any old flag.

David Seymour: A picture of a panda, perhaps.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. They could take Mr Seymour’s collection of ideas. We could perhaps have a glass of beer, a clock, a panda—we could have anything on that fifth flag, actually, with the way that the law is written. As for the Order in Council that is discussed in Part 2—I guess the best way of describing what is happening here is that the Order in Council process has to allow time for that provision to be scrutinised. That is why the different days are put in this part.

That shows just how shambolic this situation is, because the Government has got itself in a position where it could have done the Order in Council with the full 60 days—it could easily have done so. Mr Seymour knows this. He knows—because he talks to the Government about this—that, actually, it was within its power simply to say: “You know what? There are three flags with silver ferns on them, two of which are almost exactly the same. Why not take one of those out and put Red Peak in?”. That could have all been done without any need for legislation whatsoever—without any need for legislation whatsoever. We may need to educate the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, about the process of how Orders in Council are done, but that is the truth. The Government could have decided, had it wanted to, simply to take one of those identical flags out and put another one in. Instead, what is being done here is adding a fifth flag, and then we need a process by which to make it Red Peak. That is what Part 2 of the bill does. It shows what an absolute shambles this process has been.

The point here is that the Prime Minister went on television last night and said: “You know,”—he shrugged his shoulders, as he does when he knows he is a bit uncomfortable—“well, I wanted to stick with the process, but far be it from me to get in the way of tens of thousands of New Zealanders.” Well, the point here is that the process has been a mess from the beginning, and the Prime Minister had multiple opportunities to intervene properly rather than to intervene subtly, which is what he has done. How is it that, remarkably, three of the four flags have ended up with silver ferns on them? It is just a remarkable coincidence with what the Prime Minister happens to want in terms of the flag.

In terms of this part, I suspect that if the Prime Minister were really pushing his luck here, he would probably say “Well, actually, the fifth flag probably should be the silver fern on the black background.”, because that is what he said he wanted at the very beginning. He has not managed to get tens of thousands of signatures on a petition, so, therefore, he will not—but it is possible, under Part 2 of this bill—for that to be exactly what happens when the Order in Council is put in place.

As it happens, I am pretty confident that not even the Prime Minister can go that far. We have offered the option of perhaps having a sixth flag design, because, you know, the Government might change its mind again between now and when the referendum actually occurs.

Denis O’Rourke: Or a seventh one.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, that is right. Mr O’Rourke suggests that perhaps there should be a seventh one. The number of times that the Prime Minister has changed his mind on this process is so large that it could easily happen. What Part 2 of this bill really does show is the mishandling of this process by the Government—the fact that the Government has completely failed in getting up a process that New Zealanders can have confidence and trust in. We will make it slightly better by doing this, but only slightly.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I first wanted to acknowledge Mr Seymour’s contribution to this debate today, and, in fact, I am glad to see him here because he adds so much value to New Zealand First’s case in this debate—that is, the case to keep the current flag. Anyone listening to Mr Seymour would have been convinced by that speech that this is indeed a political process that Mr Seymour has taken a principal part in, and yet he criticised everybody else for wasting Parliament’s time and for actually making political speeches. Well, hello, this is the New Zealand Parliament. This is, in fact, the place where political speeches get made. Mr Seymour has not grasped that quite yet, but I am sure that eventually he will, in fact, catch up. So I do want to thank him for his contribution. He has certainly helped New Zealand First’s case rather a lot.

I want to particularly talk, though, about clause 8 of the bill, because that is the one about process. I want to totally agree with what Mr Robertson said about that, because the truth is that this bill is quite simply totally unnecessary, whether you wanted an additional flag as part of the options in the first flag referendum or not. We look here at the Order in Council process, and it could have been done using that process. But, really, that is not what it is about. What we should be thinking about with clause 8 is the entire process of this method of changing New Zealand’s flag, if we were to change it at all—and, of course, New Zealand First does not want to do so.

This process—which this bill and this part and this clause make only worse, not better—is totally undemocratic. It has heaped farce upon farce, and bad process upon bad process. It is an undemocratic way of going about it, and, after all, it amends a principal Act that is only a few weeks old. Really, what the Government and its supporting parties are saying is that they got it all wrong. In actual fact, that has already been acknowledged. Mr Key himself has said that he has got it wrong. He said that on TV—I heard him. That is true. The Government has got it wrong from the beginning, and this bill is not going to put it right. All it shows, really, is that this is a Government in total disarray over this bill, as it is in so many other things. It is a slap in the face for the New Zealand voters because, in fact, to change the process, this bill is being introduced even while the process under the principal Act is actually already under way. Nothing could be more inappropriate, nothing could be worse in terms of good governance, and nothing could be more disruptive.

This Government and its supporting, lapdog parties are showing just how bad its standards are in terms of governance for New Zealand with this particular piece of legislation. As part of all this, you really have to ask why John Key and his Government have allowed this bill to proceed. It is one that ostensibly is being put forward by the Greens—well, actually, I suppose it is actually being put forward by the Greens—but is really for the purposes of supporting the Government and not really for any genuine motive in terms of an improvement to the flag referendums process.

Why have Mr Key and his Government done that? The answer to that is perfectly obvious: the Government knows that it is in deep, deep trouble over its attempts to change the New Zealand flag. It has admitted it. I can see Nick Smith sitting there smiling because he knows that that is true. The Government could not be in worse trouble over this process. It is a failed process by a failed Government. This particular clause demonstrates that even more. A failed process and—

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I would like to demonstrate how to give a speech on this bill such that one does not waste the Committee’s time and overly politicise the issue. This whole bill and both its parts are very simple. They extend the number of options in the referendum from four to five. It is very simple, it need have no further debate, and I hope that this part will pass very soon so that the House can get on to more important business. I hope that my parliamentary colleagues will not waste any more of the Committee’s time on a simple transition from four to five. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on Part 2 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill, which is being passed under urgency in this House. I just want to say at the outset how disappointing it is. I used to really admire the Green Party because it always voted relentlessly against taking urgency in this House. It used to relentlessly take a principled position, but with this issue, it has completely sold out that principle, which I think is rather sad because it is not an issue of much principle at all.

In fact, in Part 2, we see that what the Green Party is after—that is, to try to get Red Peak on the ballot paper—is not a guarantee at all. It is not a guarantee. If the Green Party felt that its job was to bail out the National Government from the problem it faced, let us just examine for a minute what the problem was that the National Government faced. The problem it faced was being out of step with the majority of New Zealanders. So here is the Green Party coming to the rescue of the National Government, rescuing it from the opinion—

Denis O’Rourke: Bizarre.

SUE MORONEY: —of the vast majority of New Zealanders. It is bizarre, quite frankly—trying somehow to save the Government from its own people. I just think that that is a very odd thing, but I have a solution—if that is what the Green Party was actually trying to do. Here is the solution, and I think that this is the solution that can fit the desire of every party in this debate. The solution is this: make one of those five flags the current New Zealand flag. If that flag were put in the first referendum, then New Zealanders would have a genuine choice in the very first referendum and we would not have to waste money on the second referendum. People would have four of the flags, and one of them could be Red Peak. The other three could be one of the silver fern versions from Kyle—I have forgotten his name—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Lockwood.

SUE MORONEY: —Lockwood and the other two options, plus Red Peak, plus the current New Zealand flag. That could still be done under Part 2. The New Zealand Government could still do that and save the taxpayer an awful lot of money, because if those were the five options that were put before the New Zealand public, then people could express their view. We know that 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag, so 70 percent of people would go into that first referendum, they would tick the current New Zealand flag, and it would all be sorted—all sorted in one easy motion.

Part 2 actually allows that to happen. I urge the Government—because it will now be in the hands of Cabinet to determine which flags are the five flags after this legislation is passed—to make sure that one of those five options is the current New Zealand flag. If it does not do that, here is what is going to happen next. Already I am informed that there is a person outside our Parliament today with yet another flag option that they are wanting to put up. It is not even one of the 40; it is a completely different version. That is what is going to start happening next. New Zealanders are going to sense weakness in their Government and they are going to say: “Oh, actually, let’s start promoting yet another flag, and another flag, and another flag.” The whole process is going to become more and more of a shambles.

The sad thing is that this should have been a nation-defining moment for our country, but it has become a complete shambles because of the desire of our Prime Minister to turn it into his own vanity project—his own vanity project. That is what has got in the way.

I was disheartened to hear, in the course of this debate, the Minister of Education admit that she encouraged schools to do projects on the flag, thereby driving clickbait—using New Zealand students, our children, as clickbait for the website.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Part 2—Part 2.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Chair. How it relates to Part 2 is that we are now in a situation where the Government is scrambling to try to actually save this shambles of a process, which has been of its own design—it has been of its own design. No one else has forced it into this. Although I have to say that yesterday I was seeking a call on Part 1 and I was wanting to get the call, but I was also a little worried because yesterday—talk about strange coincidences—I just happened to decide, not knowing what was about to happen in the course of the day, to wear a necklace that had a silver fern on it. I was worried that because I had worn a necklace with a silver fern on it, somehow the Prime Minister would try to make it my fault that this had turned into a shambles, because that is what he is inclined to do. He is inclined to try to blame everyone else for his shambles, and his shambles alone.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I do want to take a brief call on Part 2 of this legislation and raise some questions that we on this side of the Chamber would like asked around this part of the legislation. We had the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, indicating that it was not possible for the Government to make a change without resorting to this legislation. So I urge the Minister to take a call and to set out exactly why that was not possible and why the Government could not have decided to change one of the four prescribed flags that were in—to take out one of the three silver ferns and substitute an altered design—and why it is that we have to be in this Chamber.

We do have to remember that the leader of the Labour Party did make the offer to the Prime Minister to sit down and talk about these very things. So I am very eager to hear from the Minister why it is that we could not still have had four flags but one could have been taken out and an alternative put in.

I am very keen to hear that, because what we are doing now, under Part 2 of this legislation, is taking out the four prescribed flags. The revoking of clause 5 of the New Zealand Flag Referendums (First Flag Referendum) Order does that. Instead, what we are doing is inserting five non-prescribed flags that will be considered. As my colleagues have pointed out, they could be anything. The amount of movement and flip-flopping from the Government on this could see us considering anything. There are no guarantees for anyone who wants to see Red Peak put to the population that they are going to see this as an option that will be put to the New Zealand public. Although under the initial legislation there were four prescribed flag options that were going to be put to the New Zealand public in the referendum, now there are five non-prescribed options.

So I am also keen to hear from the Minister what guarantees are written into this legislation that this is going to bring into effect what everyone here today thinks they are doing—that is, taking Red Peak to the masses. I do not want to hear hyperbole; I want to hear what clause of the legislation guarantees that that will be the case and that it will be.

When I look through Part 2 of this legislation, what I see is clause 9, which revokes clause 5 of the initial legislation, which did give those guarantees around what flags were going to be taken to the public in the legislation. But what I see here are very permissive clauses that, in effect—in reality—could allow the Government to do anything.

Do we think it is going to do that? Probably not. Probably not even the Prime Minister, who has made such a shambles of his vanity project, would stoop to that level, but I think the fact that we are putting through such sloppy amending legislation just shows the shemozzle we have got ourselves into here with this legislation.

It is a mess. It has been a sloppy and messy process from the beginning, and I want to know what clauses in Part 2 of this legislation actually guarantee to the New Zealand public that the Government is going to get that flag out for consultation at the referendum. So I am very much looking forward to listening to the Minister’s contribution on that.

The previous speakers have talked about this lost opportunity. This should be a nation-defining process for us. This should be a time when we stop and think about who we are as a nation. This is something that I care deeply about as a New Zealand historian. This is something that we should be thinking about and taking a very considered approach to—not passing sloppy legislation under urgency that, in effect, actually makes the process more shoddy and more shambolic than what was also a shambolic and shoddy process to begin with.

So, Minister, I am very much looking forward to hearing your contribution around why it is that the Prime Minister and the Government could not have just made the decision to insert the Red Peak flag as one of the four prescribed flags under the initial legislation and to say why it is that we are—and the Minister is gesturing to me, so I can see he is warming up to get to his feet and give a contribution on this.

So I am looking forward to a contribution on that, Minister, and I am also looking forward to a contribution from you on what guarantees we do have—sorry, not you, Mr Chair; that would be inappropriate—from the Minister on—

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 44

New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have Andrew Little’s typescript amendment replacing the voting paper in the schedule. This is now inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): 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.

DENIS O’ROURKE: 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.

DENIS O’ROURKE: 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.

DENIS O’ROURKE: 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—

SUE MORONEY (Labour): 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.

SUE MORONEY: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: 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.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 77

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 44

New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister: I move, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is a very straightforward bill that simply adds to the referendum, which New Zealand is to have in November, a fifth choice of flag, in the form of the Red Peak option. There have been all sorts of claims by members in the House as to who is acting in good faith with the electorate and the general public of New Zealand. Let me set the record very clear. Prime Minister John Key announced in January 2014, 9 months before the general election, that if National were the Government we would hold a referendum on what flag New Zealand might take into the future. Furthermore, when National was re-elected at the election last year, with the largest vote that any party has had in the history of MMP—

Denis O’Rourke: And then lost Northland.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the Government then set about delivering—I know this is unique for members opposite—on what we said we would do. A cross-party committee was formed. There was an independent panel appointed. There was the option for every New Zealander to put forward a flag option to that panel. There was legislation passed quite properly through this Parliament providing for a referendum to decide people’s preferred choice and a second referendum, to be held next year, in which people will be able to make a choice as to whether they want to keep the current New Zealand flag or vote for that preferred alternative. For any fair-minded New Zealander, you could not have a more open, straightforward process.

I want to contrast that approach with that of the Labour Opposition, because the first thing that seems to have been lost on members opposite is that they stood at the last election saying they wanted to change the New Zealand flag and they wanted to have a referendum on that issue. In fact, I would point out to this Parliament that, actually, 83 percent of the New Zealand public voted for political parties promising to have a referendum on the flag—83 percent of the public voted for parties that promised a referendum on a flag during this term of Parliament.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Let the member out more. Release him. Let him go. Why is the National Party hiding him away? Let him knock on doors.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The part that I find so disingenuous, and that has really got all the fingerprints of the wrecker Trevor Mallard on it, is that despite that policy position, Labour has twisted and turned and has disingenuously tried to do everything it can to disown its policy at the last election. It reminds me—and I would remind some of the younger members of the Labour Party—as to how dangerous it is on these sorts of issues to change what you said. People will remember in history that in the 1987 election Labour promised a referendum on MMP and then in that term ratted on that very promise and was appropriately punished at the 1990 election. In contrast, National does what it says. It promised a referendum on MMP and delivered that, and that is a heritage that I am very proud of as a National MP.

Let me just inspect some of the arguments that members opposite have put against this bill. They say this bill is not needed to add the Red Peak flag to the referendum in November, because we could simply dump one of the four flags that have been recommended by the Flag Consideration Panel. Let me place a bet: if the Cabinet had overruled the independent panel and had taken one of the four flags that it had selected and put the Red Peak flag in, the members opposite would be the first to cry blue murder and to say that we had overridden the independent panel, and that is where that suggestion is so disingenuous. Can I also come to the point that has been put forward that what we should do is, in the first referendum, simply give people the choice as to whether they want to change the flag. The reason that is simply disingenuous is that so many New Zealanders—frankly, including myself—cannot make a choice as to whether the flag should be changed unless we are clear about what the alternative is, and that is what the process we have set out does.

Can I now come to New Zealand First, because I do find its position even more extraordinary. In every single period that I have been in this Parliament—for the last 25 years—I could list over 100 occasions in which the New Zealand First Party and its leader have said: “Let the public decide. The public should be able to make these decisions.” I have heard it on gay marriage, I have heard it on electoral reform, I have heard it on State assets, and, in fact, I struggle to think of a single issue on which members of the New Zealand First Party have not argued “Trust the public; let them decide.” That is why the position of the New Zealand First Party is, again, just so disingenuous that on a genuine question over the flag, that party suddenly says: “No, the New Zealand public cannot be trusted to make a decision on what is the right ensign for our country.”

I plead that I am a humble engineer. I have very little creative talent, and I certainly am not going to make the choice as to what is the right ensign and flag for New Zealand. But what I do say is, as compared with quite complex issues, this is an issue that the New Zealand public should be given the choice on, and it should be given that choice because that is what our party promised the New Zealand people when we were re-elected in 2014.

I emphasise again that this is a very simple bill that simply extends the number of options for flags from four to five. It has come about as a consequence of a number of parties, including the Leader of the Opposition and parties like the Greens and the ACT Party, wanting the Red Peak choice to be in that referendum, and this Government has shown flexibility and good faith in simply allowing that choice to be added. The last point I would make to the Green Party is that at least you are consistent with what you said. You are not here to play games. You want to see the flag changed, you want Red Peak to be included on the referendum, and I compliment the way in which you have allowed that to be done constructively through the parliamentary process without some of the, in my view, unnecessary games around a difficult choice for our country and what the flag is that best represents the character of our nation to take into the next century. This is a good, sensible bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The Labour Party will be supporting the third reading of this bill. Right through the process since Red Peak came up we have indicated that we would work with Parliament in order to find a process whereby Red Peak could be included as one of the choices. I want to indicate that, unlike my leader, who seems to think that Red Peak has some merit, I think that it has no merit whatsoever, but that is something that will be put before the people of New Zealand. I am prepared to lay some money on the fact that it will not be amongst the final two on the preferential system, because all of the polling on this, which many of us have seen, shows that when this flag is considered by the public in an unbiased way—sitting somewhere between the two Lockwood designs; the awful thing that, apparently, is a koru; and the very, very poorly drawn fern that was selected by the panel—it will not be in the final two.

I want to say and place on the record—it is a point that I made during the Committee stage—that there are a number of people on the panel whom I have a lot of time for. There are a number of them whom I was involved with recommending. John Burrows is, clearly, an eminent New Zealander, and people like Rod Drury and Sir Brian Lochore are people whom I have an enormous amount of time for, but I think that the Government made an error in making the decision to take the design people, who were part of the recommendations from the cross-party group, off and to not include them. I think that there was a problem with the balance of the panel as a result of that. There was an extra problem, as a result of politicisation of the panel by the people who were put on it, and I think that as a result of this we ended up with what colleagues might describe politely as suboptimal options coming through the process.

Although we can have a debate about Red Peak and whether it should be included or not, I think that it is fair to say that the designs that have come through the process are ones that are either pretty unappealing or excessively complicated. I know Kyle Lockwood. He is a good New Zealander—with awful political views—living offshore, but he is doing what he thinks is important for the country around passports and around this issue. I admire him for doing that, but I must say that if we are to make a change—and, long term, I think that we will make a change—we have to change to something that kids can draw and that is easily recognisable. I think it is fair to say that Red Peak meets the “kids can draw” criterion, but I think it fails for a number of reasons.

Generally, this debate has been in pretty good humour. I think it is fair to say that I have had to spend a little bit of time correcting the Greens on the way the constitution works. I want to place on record that if Parliament had wanted Red Peak in here, we could have had legislation to add Red Peak to the current decisions. We did not do that. Gareth Hughes seemed to indicate that it would be rude for Parliament to indicate to the Governor-General what it thought. Well, that is just nonsense. Every week the Governor-General signs off legislation that indicates what Parliament thinks, and the Government-General assents to it. If Parliament had really wanted the Red Peak flag here, we should have been straightforward and just added it. But as has been indicated to me during the Committee stage, although this bill has Mr English’s name on it, some of the earlier drafting might not have had the professional support that was necessary to get it into a form that does what is logical, and, as a result of that, there has been a pretty bad mismatch between the explanatory note and the actual legislation. That is not a massive crime; it is just sloppy. I think it is pretty bad that the Government has picked up a bill that was drafted in such a sloppy way and has put a Minister’s name on it.

I want to acknowledge, as I have done on one or two other occasions, the superior judgment of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his New Zealand First team in this general process. He recognised, right from the beginning of this process, that it was not one of good faith. It was one of predetermination, and he and his team declined to be part of the cross-party group. Now, I am probably more innocent in these matters—more trusting in these matters. I trusted the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister when they indicated that there was an attempt to make this process a genuinely multipartisan process that we could work through as a team and as a Parliament.

As has been placed on the record of Parliament before, despite the honourable efforts of Jonathan Young—and I do not want to impugn his integrity in any way—he was steamrollered, to a certain extent, in his chairing of that group. There were some things that the group put up and there were some names that the group put up that were rejected by Cabinet. I think it is fair to say that just as Gareth Hughes was naive as far as some of the processes in the House are concerned, I was naive in terms of accepting the possibility of the National Party working on a genuine, multiparty basis and accepting the decisions of the group. Right from the beginning of the process there has been, I think, a degree of misleading, and we are seeing it now—to the point that we are being misled by the explanatory note and the comparison with the bill.

The Labour Party put up a couple of amendments during the process. It is a well-rehearsed issue, the yes/no vote at the beginning of the process. It is the process that was used when MMP was brought in. The Prime Minister says that it is too complicated, and to be absolutely fair to John Key, I do not think that he was in the country at the time we switched to MMP. So he maybe does not understand that New Zealanders are bright enough to understand the difference between yes and no. But they were—85 percent of New Zealanders indicated that they wanted to change the parliamentary system when faced with a—

Brett Hudson: 76 percent of voters said no to Labour.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member over there was roundly rejected—did he come third or fourth in the Ōhariu electorate? Did that member come third or fourth? He is only here as a result of MMP. He is only here as a result of MMP, and I think his chipping in and saying that New Zealanders are too thick to understand a yes/no vote is an—[Interruption] Maybe he is right! Maybe he is right!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was only reacting. The point that I want to make is that New Zealanders are bright enough to understand yes/no. They are bright enough to save $7 million, but this Parliament has repeatedly refused to give them that right. What I really regret is that the principled position of the Greens, right back in the multiparty group, has been abandoned because John Key said: “If you don’t go along with this for the whole deal, then we won’t support your bill and won’t give you kudos.”

I have seen the front page of the Dominion Post, and if Gareth Hughes really thinks that getting his photo on the front page with John Key is good for the Greens in the longer term, then let him believe that. I do not, and it is my view that the Greens will regret this at some stage. But, actually, this whole debate is irrelevant, because I think the number of New Zealanders who do not want to change the flag is now up to 74 percent, and that being the case, we are actually wasting time.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. If there is one thing you can say about this debate in the last, what, 10, 12 hours, it is that it has been robust. It has been in good spirits. I think it has proven the immutable fact of Godwin’s law incredibly fast, thanks to New Zealand First. But, also, we should not forget that this is an incredibly important issue. This is a symbol of our nation, a symbol of the collective populace of New Zealand, and it is something that, despite being polarising in this House, despite being polarising outside this House, has always been polarising.

If you cast your minds back to—what was it—10 July 1834, when Hone Heke and his band at Kororāreka chopped down that first flagpole, it was an incredibly polarising issue, identifying the importance of flags as symbolic. In this case, the flag was symbolic of the Union Jack and the power of the British Crown. That flag was cut down a second time. It was then cut down a third time, after being sheathed in iron to protect it. It eventually led to something known as the Flagstaff War. So although passions are raised and everyone has got their own positions—and it is a polarising debate—it is something that has always happened throughout New Zealand history and it is fantastic that we can keep it peaceful.

Flags are important because they have a long history, from the Sassanids using it as battle standards in Roman legions, to 1748 when the Danes picked their first flag, which they still have today—the Dannebrog—through to the Union Jack, symbolising the merger of those independent nations of the United Kingdom. The flag has had a powerful history. I am actually off to California today for a private study tour during the parliamentary adjournment. When you are in the States you can see the Stars and Stripes hanging from so many households. You would never see that in New Zealand. We have all got a view. I am definitely of the opinion that we should change our flag. I think it is anachronistic. I think that we should not have the Union Jack on it, despite the history. But what we do know is that the flag has always had an association with passions, but also with warfare, from the original classical history through to the Middle Ages, through to when we adopted our current flag in 1902, with the pomp and patriotism of the South African war in the background.

There are legitimate allegations that these referendums are simply a distraction. Flags and flag-waving have been used as political distractions, and the Green Party absolutely agrees that there are much more important issues that we should be addressing today. I believe that we should be having a broader conversation around who we are as a nation, where our country is going in 2015, and what we stand for. Unfortunately, we have had a debate around geometric patterns and not about those fundamental questions such as how we build Te Tiriti o Waitangi into our constitutional framework. How do we have a debate around whether we should have a New Zealander as a head of State? These are some of the missed opportunities.

On the positive side of the ledger, I would like to say how fantastic it is to be here—that Parliament is passing this bill, a bill that is about choice. Yesterday when I introduced this bill it was about choice. The problem, of course, was that politics had got in the way. We had seen an absolute groundswell of support for the Red Peak option. However, politics got in the way, and we have seen that in this debate, where political point-scoring seems to be more of a focus than the constructive approach. We put up the bill to try to break the political deadlock, because New Zealanders were sitting at home watching politicians in this House trading letters, trading accusations, and trying to score political points. Meanwhile, the clock was ticking. The countdown to the referendum in only 6 weeks’ time was looming, and New Zealanders risked not having the legitimate groundswell of support reflected in the official referendum coming up.

I would like to point out that this referendum was going to go ahead anyway. I would like to reiterate that the Green Party does not support changing the flag. The $26 million this country—the taxpayer—is spending would, I believe, be much better served spent on breakfasts for hungry kids or on putting a solar panel on every single school in the country so that they can stop paying rising power bills and buy music and sports equipment. This is not the most important issue. We saw a flawed process. However, the law had passed. The Green Party had voted against it and opposed spending the money on changing the flag, but, the way it was going, a flawed process was going to be even more flawed, with worse outcomes. So I am glad that parties in this Parliament could work across party lines to improve the process. It was happening anyway, and I am proud that we have managed to improve it.

We know it was young people who engaged, I believe, most with the Red Peak flag. My big fear was that had this Parliament ignored that massive groundswell, we simply would have disillusioned those tens of thousands of Kiwis who maybe for the first time engaged with a political issue. The solution was a simple, constructive bill. I did not introduce the bill to score points. I did not introduce this bill to raise other issues, as raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard. This bill was simply about trying to break that political deadlock. It did not try to relitigate the entire referendum process. I understand the Labour Party’s position, and I understand it well—I am sympathetic to it—but the fact is that we risked playing politics and not seeing the outcome that New Zealanders wanted, so I am glad that this pragmatic, constructive, positive solution has been picked up and adopted by the six parties supporting it.

I would like to pick up on the criticism of the Hon Trevor Mallard that for some reason, by not mentioning Red Peak in the clauses, there is a conspiracy theory. The Parliamentary Counsel Office assisted with the drafting, and I think that his criticism is, in fact, a criticism labelled at those officials. It is a well-established precedent with parliamentary drafting that this House cannot instruct the Governor-General. Obviously in the original Act what the legislation set out was that there was an official flag process that made a recommendation to the Governor-General to adopt an Order in Council. So I think it was a distraction—another part of playing politics.

I would also lastly like to acknowledge that this was not the ideal way to pass this bill to see the Red Peak included. We did not have to pass this bill under urgency. We could have worked together earlier. Perhaps Cabinet could have agreed earlier to include the Red Peak option based on that legitimate, absolute groundswell. So there was a genuine problem—politics was the problem—and I am glad that the Green Party has managed to find a constructive solution. I would like to once again thank the Government for adopting my bill as a Government bill so we can see it passed.

In the coming 6 weeks when New Zealanders are sitting around their kitchen tables, or maybe in their offices, filling in their referendum ballot forms, I am absolutely proud, glad, and pleased that they will get a fifth option. They can choose the Red Peak if they want, they can choose the silver fern if they want, and down the line they can choose to keep the current flag if they want, because, ultimately, this bill was all about choice. So when Kiwis are filling out those ballot forms and sending them in they will have more good choice, and I believe that is beneficial and a great example of this Parliament working together.

I guess the action going forward that we should be mindful of—as we have set an example that we can work together when it comes to the flag—is whether we can also work together on some of the more important issues facing our nation. We have worked together on the flag. We have found a compromise and a constructive way forward. Why can we not do it when it comes to climate change? Why can we not do it when it comes to feeding hungry kids? Perhaps the original referendum that established MMP and that saw an MMP solution in the House today could also lead to more MMP solutions of working across party lines.

Lastly and finally, I would like to thank the teams involved in the drafting of the legislation. I would like to thank my caucus for its support. I would like to thank the six parties for their votes in Parliament. I am confident that this bill will pass with an overwhelming majority, because Kiwis deserve a choice, which is fantastic.

So for all those doubters who thought that Red Peak had peaked, it clearly has not peaked. It is not over yet. Let us support Kiwis having a choice. Kia ora koutou. Kia ora.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased that the member Gareth Hughes has acknowledged that this process has been less than ideal, because in my view, and in the view of the Labour Opposition, this whole debate and this whole bill has been a colossal waste of time.

Gareth Hughes talked about choice and that the bill gives choice. Yes, it gives the choice of a fifth option, but it is a half choice that is being provided to the people of New Zealand. It is major missed opportunity to actually make this whole process in this flag referendum have integrity and be a process of which we as New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—can be proud of and know that we are getting the right questions being asked.

I want to actually shout out respect to New Zealand First for its consistency through this debate. I have certainly not agreed with everything that has been said, and there are things that have been said that I have not liked, but I respect the right of those members to speak. I respect their consistency, and I respect their passion on this issue.

Unfortunately, this whole debate—this whole issue of a flag and changing our flag and a flag referendum—has descended into something that New Zealanders feel deeply uncomfortable about and deeply embarrassed about. It is something that they should feel unified around. Even if they do not agree on the choices of so-called design, they should feel proud of the process that has been undertaken and feel that they have been respected. Well, they have not.

They have not been respected at all—70 percent of New Zealanders said that they do not want to change the flag and they are not getting the opportunity to vote on that first in the referendum. That is the missed opportunity, and that is the issue on which Labour has been utterly consistent. If the Greens had been consistent, they would have voted for Andrew Little’s amendment to this bill, and I think that was a missed opportunity as well.

Our economy is in trouble. We have got State houses making kids sick and, in some cases, die. We have got zero-hour contracts. We have got issue after issue after issue of substance, and here we are, in urgency, with a bill that changes the option of the number of flags that can be on a referendum ballot. What an embarrassment. Is this the state that New Zealand has come to, that this is where we spend the House’s time?

We should have started off with a proper discussion about national identity. I know that pretty much all of the Opposition parties agree on that. Well, why can we not have that discussion now? Why can we not talk about what our national identity is and whether New Zealand should have a constitution? Are we mature enough as a nation to have our own head of State? Should we start the steps to becoming an independent nation? What is the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and how can we ensure that that is given precedence and due respect? Are our voices and our stories being invested in in this country? Those are questions that we should be asking.

We are the only nation in the OECD that does not have a public television broadcaster. Radio New Zealand, which is our public broadcaster, has been starved of funding for 7 years, and here we are spending $26 million on a flag referendum—on a process that is deeply flawed and that has made New Zealanders feel deeply uncomfortable and embarrassed.

This has not transcended politics—this bill before the House in urgency—this is utter politics, and it is a deal that has been stitched up and put before the House in urgency. It has undermined the expert panel, and I do want to acknowledge its members. They also must be feeling deeply uncomfortable about this whole process—deeply uncomfortable—and as if their goodwill and their knowledge have been undermined.

I acknowledge the public pressure for the Red Peak flag design to be included—50,000 people signed a petition. In the end, it is not even mentioned in the bill, and the member Gareth Hughes says that that is constitutionally correct. Well, if that is the case, then we would be putting bill after bill after bill through this House where we would just say to the Governor-General: “Oh, well, go on. You make the decision, because we don’t think that we can, constitutionally.”

This is Parliament. We get to say what we think should be in the legislation. Whether it is good law or not can be judged by the people, but, ultimately, it is Parliament that decides what the specifics are that should be in the legislation, not the Governor-General. And that is a really important point, and, perhaps, it is another reason as to why we should have a wider discussion about whether or not we need a constitution and a constitutional discussion, just so that everybody can be clear about what their roles are. So that, again, makes this whole process into a farce—a bill that we have spent hours and hours and hours discussing that gives another option for this flag called Red Peak, but that flag is actually not mentioned in the bill.

This referendum process is wrong. It is round the wrong way. New Zealanders know that it is round the wrong way, and they are going to be subjected to having to make a choice in a way that they do not want to make the choice. That is why Labour has been utterly consistent in its approach. It is why we offered to work with the Government in good faith—and that was rejected—and it is why we are standing here today saying that this process has been wrong from the beginning.

This should have been a process that unified us; it has not. We have ended up with an X Factor competition instead of a respectful process with the public. We should have had a discussion about our national identity—of who we are and where we are going. That is why the likely outcome of this bill is not going to be to the Government members’ liking, and it is they who are utterly responsible for it—utterly responsible.

It has been a shambles from beginning to end. It has been a shambles where the New Zealand Parliament has been treated with disrespect and where the New Zealand public have been treated with disrespect. We have been treated as if we are puppets, or muppets, and I know that most people can see through it.

In my constituency of Dunedin South this is not the issue on the agenda. This is not the issue that people want to talk to you about on the streets or in the supermarkets. What they want to talk about is the fact that there are not enough jobs in our regions, that the state of our housing is terrible, that the Government needs to fix State houses, that there are not enough State houses, that private rentals are too expensive, and that there is no warrant of fitness on housing. Those are the things that are important. Those are the things that people want to talk about.

This flag debate and referendum has become an embarrassment. It is a travesty. It treats people as if they are idiots and as if they can be manipulated, and the New Zealand public cannot, and should not, be manipulated. They should be treated with respect, and, unfortunately, this Government and the deal that has been stitched up through this process has not treated New Zealanders with respect.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): You would not have thought that Labour had gone out and campaigned on a flag referendum, would you? You would not have thought that Labour had gone out and talked about consulting with the people of New Zealand through a flag referendum going into the last election. You would not have thought that, would you?

But, then, fathoming Labour’s position—[Interruption] Of course not. But fathoming Labour’s position on any of this has been a feast of changing position all the way through this whole flag debate, until finally it was utterly trumped and outplayed by the Greens. And good on the Greens, I say. Good on the Greens for focusing on what really matters, which is giving New Zealanders the opportunity to reflect on who we are via choices on the ballot paper at the end of this year and at the beginning of the next. So to Gareth Hughes I say congratulations on focusing on what matters, because what matters in this debate is providing the people of New Zealand, who do not actually care about this politics stuff, with a choice. None of my constituents has contacted me in the last wee while saying “This is outrageous. This is a travesty. This is a schmozzle.”, which seems to have become the favourite word of the left just recently. No, no. No.

The people of New Zealand want the opportunity to focus on what might be our new flag. What is it? What is it that we might stand for? What is the flag that might encapsulate how we feel about New Zealand and how we want to present ourselves to the rest of the world? After all, we are a small trading nation right at the very bottom of the world. After all, we do rely on markets being opened for trade to provide all those services that we all enjoy and need so badly in New Zealand—thank you, Mr Groser, for your ongoing work in that regard. So New Zealanders have the opportunity to choose a flag that says who we are now, and thank you to the Greens for bringing in this amendment legislation to enhance that process.

Later this year and early next year New Zealanders will be able to have a yes/no choice. Yes, they will! They will have a yes/no choice, but it will be an informed choice. First of all we get to consider what we might look like in the future. Having done that, if it is the case that New Zealanders as a whole decide that yes, they do want to contemplate a change, then they will get a yes/no vote. That is what, apparently, we all want in this House, but it will be an informed choice. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jono Naylor.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to follow the speaking order here, because you have had a couple of backbenchers from the National Party, and I thought that in this game, after many, many decades, that a certain seniority—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. Well, that is not right. [Interruption] The member will sit. [Interruption] Order! The National Party’s third call was given to the Greens. That was a swap, and the Green Party, which would have been speaking now in slot six, has had that slot taken by National. New Zealand First gets the next one, which is No. 7, and that is the procedure we are following. It has been for the previous readings and is again for the third reading. I am calling Jono Naylor.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just ask you a simple question, which I am sure will interest a lot of people in other Commonwealth parliaments and debating chambers as well. Usually the argument goes for and against, for and against.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. [Interruption] The member will sit. Parties have the opportunity to trade their calls. In this case—[Interruption] Order when I am on my feet. In this case the Greens and National have changed their third spot, so the Green Party took the third call, which was a National call, and National is taking the Green call, which is call six. That is why I have given the call to a National member. New Zealand First is call seven on the schedule, and it will get call seven.

JONO NAYLOR: I think the irony is that if we did go for and against on this bill, there would actually be only two speeches on this bill because New Zealand First gets only one speech in the debate. So if we were going for and against, it would be all over in two speeches.

I just want to briefly come back, if I can, to the actual bill. The parent legislation for which this is an amendment is all about public participation in choosing the flag of New Zealand. Some people want to change it; some people want to keep it the same. And guess what? The people who want to keep it the same will have a chance to choose, but for the first time in New Zealand’s history the people of New Zealand will get to choose the flag.

This amendment bill is really just a simple, small piece of legislation as a response to a groundswell of public opinion around the country that says: “Hey, we’d like to include a fifth option.” It is called the Red Peak. I am not a big fan of it, but guess what? We are going to put it in. That is small and easy to accomplish. The interesting thing that has been going on as we have been having this debate is the number of 10-minute speeches that I have heard from the other side of the House that talk about this being a waste of Parliament’s time. I cannot figure out why, if you thought it was a waste of time, you would spend 10 minutes trying to tell everybody what a waste of time it was instead of actually just making your point and sitting down so that we can get on with what is going to be, I think, a really encouraging process.

We have seen some good public thoughts come through on the Red Peak design. I am really looking forward to this other groundswell of what I am sure will be other interested parties who are interested in other flags putting forward their ideas. It is going to be a very healthy, public process, where everybody—those who want to change and those who want to keep it—will all get to have their say. They might have to wait for the second referendum to get rid of the current flag, or to keep the current flag, if that is what they want to do, but I am looking forward to New Zealanders having their voice. It will be a great voice that they have and at the end of the process we will be able to say that this is the flag that New Zealanders have chosen.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): It is hard to imagine any justifiable reason for that member, Jono Naylor, getting to his feet. I want to say that New Zealand First saw the Prime Minister’s proposal, and at the very beginning we looked hard at it and our experience suggested we should do all we could to oppose it, and we have. We are going to call for a personal vote, because all manner of members of Parliament have gone up there and given their views on the choices thus far, including on Red Peak, and we would like to know where they all personally stand. We think such a request is a reasonable one—an extraordinarily reasonable one. I do not want to hear some sort of constitutional argument against that, because you have heard members say: “I don’t like the four and I don’t like Red Peak.” So they should be entitled, if democracy is to prevail—and all of a sudden the National Party has been overcome by it—to have a personal vote.

Moving the goalposts after the game has started always stinks. Changing the rules after the referee has whistled the game on always smells. The Prime Minister has been utterly consistent, though—and I will be reasonable to him—in his inconsistency. He has been utterly consistent—like the Skycity deal, like the South Canterbury Finance deal, like the Hollywood deal, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and like the deal or the argument about not making New Zealanders serfs in their own country, or about separatist legislation based purely on race or about the State asset sales referenda that we have had. He has done a backflip on the whole lot including this legislation. So why are none of us surprised? You see, he was on a hiding to nothing, and we knew from day one that he could not be trusted to give the public a fair choice. We knew from day one that his obsequious toadying colleagues would do likewise, at the request of Crosby/Textor and anyone else—whoever finances the National Party right now. They personally would never make a stand in their constituency or public interests.

We said from day one we should have a choice: do you want a flag change—yes or no? If the answer became yes in a majority, then obviously the question was “To what?”. But the Government was never going to do that, and from the beginning New Zealand First smelt a rat, and, unlike all the rest, we put our record and our reputation on the line and we are being proven right. That is what National hates about it. That is what that backbench hates about it and that is what more and more out there who think they know about politics are going to hate about it. It is because on issue after issue after issue one party has principles and does not move from them.

Brett Hudson: What about baubles and titles? Ministerial limos?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—do not come here like a young pup, talking about the baubles of power. He is there because he got offered a list seat—not because he is any good, not because he bright—and he will be one of the first to go, and he will go on issues like this. We do not care about those whose experience is so little and who are so green in this Parliament.

We said from the word go that we would not join the cross-party, jack-up committee designed to “puppetise” the procedures for the PM’s whim. Here is the PM, who instead of saying “I want to leave the country in greater economic and social wealth and do great things in areas of reform.”—no, he wants to have of all things, at the end of his time, a flag. And when he is asked what flag, he says: “I dunno—I dunno.” So he wants a legacy that he does not know about. How pathetic and shallow and egotistical is that. We would not join the sham. You see, politics is about leadership, and, uniquely, New Zealand First has again on this issue—like with the Reserve Bank legislation, foreign ownership, and anti-separatist legislation—shown the way, and we will not resile from that.

Now the Greens say that this appalling change in the flag law within weeks is justified. Why? They say it is to break the political stalemate or to break the political deadlock. What stalemate? What deadlock? The Prime Minister was getting a hiding to nothing. His own internal polls were rising above 80 percent and they all dropped the bundle over there. So, like the cavalry over the hills, at the last moment comes in the most unlikely form—the most unusual salvation—from of all parties the Greens. This is pixie dust, Mr Hughes. It is naivety in the extreme. It is stupidity.

Look at the Greens’ Facebook. There is page after page after page telling them of the enormous political cost for this sort of naivety. Russel Norman would never have done this. He had his faults, but dear Russel would never have done something as stupid as this. Page after page is so damning: “Well done for helping the National propaganda machine. The rest of you are gutless.” It is unbelievable. I cannot read some of this because it is too bad. Then: “No, it’s awful—another logo.”, “Thank God for New Zealand First.”, “Why on earth are you playing into National hands?”. There is one after another. I am just reading each one separately: “You guys are idiots. Now the Greens are”—and I cannot possibly pronounce this word—“going to help National.” It goes on and on: “I can’t believe how you’ve done this. I voted for you at the last election. Now I’m going to vote New Zealand First next time.” Thank you very much. That has got to be a crowning win coming. Over and over again—“Appalled”, this person says. Oh dear me, I think I should make the Greens read this stuff out themselves because it is an appalling litany of complaints from their own supporters.

They said they did it to—what—break the deadlock, break the impasse. Oh no, they did not. They thought they were going to play politics and be real clever. I was overseas at the time and I thought: “Hallelujah! Now we’re all going to see them for what they are.” And so will the Labour Party members, who need to wake up on this issue. They cannot be trusted on our left for 5 minutes when you have got somebody who thinks that their political genius understanding of our country people measures up to a change like this. Online polling is not even the 5 percent required by referendum law. No, it is just online polling with triple voting and social media, and that amounts to a groundswell. Really? Well, we will see what is a groundswell as we rise for the next 24 months to the next election. But I know one thing: the Greens will not be around if they behave like this one more time.

This is frivolity of the worst sort. As for consorting with your worst enemy, what happened to the green-blue coalition? Well, it has well and truly gone. Month after month of vituperation from Ministers over there and over they come—the National Party—to rub their tummies and the Greens roll over. And Mr Key says: “Look, I will always have regard to a change in public opinion.” Do you believe that? Do you believe that? Well, if you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy, do you not—anybody who believes that.

Red Peak is currently used by a US business. Red Peak is as old as the late 1930s in another country. It is a result not of a 5 percent voters’ referendum but an online result riddled with mistakes and duplication of votes. The PM, poll-driven as he was, is getting a complete public thrashing now and this will not get better. Red Peak will not save him. It is a public policy that has been the subject of a duplicitous and a disgraceful process and a waste of money.

So desperate was National that we got a letter from the Speaker’s office telling us to take down our official flags from this Parliament. I wrote back to the Speaker’s office and said: “Would you please tell me who gave that instruction?”. Sure enough, they dropped the bundle and no longer argued about it because they said they had gone to the Business Committee and there was no objection to the flags remaining. That was on 1 September from the Clerk’s office and I want to know, if that is the case, who authorised that first letter to us on 24 August telling us to pull down the flags? See how biased things have got? An independent member and servant of this House had the effrontery to tell us to pull down our national flag. Well, we are not doing that. We will do our utmost in the next few weeks to ensure that New Zealanders have got a chance to go down there and write “Keep our flag” on the ballot papers, which will mean a majority of informal votes, and this waste of public money will now cease.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Last Monday evening I went to an event in New Plymouth where there were 250 people present. It was a presentation by a company that runs Dragons’ Den - type events. As people presented different aspects to what their company was about, people were invited to say “in” or “out”. They started off by warming up the crowd by saying how it worked. The presenter said “The New Zealand flag referendum—who is in for a new flag?” and up went the in/out signs. The person at the front said to the crowd that there were more ins than outs—because the other side of the sign said “out”. I estimated that out of the 250 people there, around about 60 percent—just across the board, people from New Plymouth, all sorts of ages, backgrounds, and ways of life—said that they were “in” for a flag change. I think the mood is there in the country that we want to see all the potential and possibilities of what a flag referendum offers us.

I just want to put the record straight on a couple of matters, because I have heard members of the Opposition saying that this process has been flawed from the very beginning. I chaired the cross-party committee. Let me just read out a couple of points, because, by the end of November, we took three recommendations to the Minister in charge of the process: the use of preferential voting for the first referendum, four alternative flags instead of three, and we wanted to bring the timing of the second referendum forward to March rather than April. I reported back to that committee that the Minister had taken these recommendations to Cabinet and that each had been agreed to. The Minister and Cabinet listened to our recommendations. They were not obligated to agree with us, but they considered them, and where we had presented some very good rationale, they agreed and changed the process. So for people to say that the process has been flawed from the very beginning is actually inaccurate and incorrect.

In our final meeting of four, in the last 5 minutes before it was due to end, a discussion was proposed to change the structure of the referendum to a yes/no vote. Out of four meetings, which went for over an hour each, in the last few minutes of this process, this discussion took place. It is true. I was the single voice that opposed that proposal—that opposed that suggestion. As chair of the cross-party group, I said that I would convey the views of the majority of members regarding that yes/no vote, but I reminded them that the Government was not obligated to enact their views, and it did not, and I agreed with that, not because I represented National but because I understood the process, the rationale, and the reason why we had put that into place.

I refer again to Gareth Hughes’ opening speech yesterday, in which he said that his first choice was “Laser Kiwi” and that he has changed his view. I think what this demonstrates is that as people engage in the process, their views change, and that is all right. So the yes/no vote sort of cuts things off at the pass, in my view. As Jacqui Dean said, we do have a yes/no vote, but it is in the second referendum, not the first. I believe that the process we have put in place is good and that it will work. What it will do is engage New Zealanders so that they can look at alternatives before they come to the yes/no vote in the second referendum. I think that is an appropriate way. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for New Zealand to look at these things. I believe it is, and I believe that once we decide whether it is the present flag or a new alternative flag, that we as a country will settle on that and move forward.

I believe that it is important that we have a choice between alternatives. I do not agree with Mr Mallard, who says “Yes/no vote in the first referendum and choose your alternative out of five.”, because that is not really a choice. People want to know that they are choosing between the present flag and something else—not one out of five; they want to know something definite. Choosing a flag is that important, and I believe that we have got it the right way round.

To me, as I just come to a close, my choice will have a silver fern on it. I want the Southern Cross on it. I am not sure whether I want red and blue or black and blue—I have yet to think about that. The reason I want the Southern Cross as an important component of our flag is that we are an immigrant nation. We are all navigators. Our forebears got here by being navigated by the stars. We are a nation of nations. I believe that what the Southern Cross does is put us all on the same footing and on the same ground. We are all equal in this nation. I want to have a silver fern on this flag because it is unique to New Zealand. It has been emblazoned on our national sports’ uniforms. It has honoured our war graves. It is the single emblem that New Zealanders have identified with for decades. When Olympians stand in victory, I would love to see them wrapped in a fern, like a laurel of victory, rather than a Union Jack—no disrespect to Britain, but something that represents who we are as New Zealanders. I am very pleased with this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to commend this amendment bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. I call Dr Kennedy Graham—5 minutes.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I just begin by acknowledging once more my colleague Jonathan Young for his contribution to this whole process, including chairing the cross-party working group. He did a very good job. Just to agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his contribution, politics is all about leadership. That is true. I am a little less inclined to agree with his characterisation that the Greens are naive or, for that matter, that Labour cannot be trusted. In our view, Labour can indeed be trusted.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t say that. No I didn’t. You’ve got it wrong.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I think, Mr Peters, you did. The transcript will clarify that one way or the other. Labour can certainly be trusted. The problem at the moment is that it is a little difficult to follow the logic by which it is getting to its position. Labour colleagues have characterised the bill in a variety of colourful ways: “a colossal waste of taxpayer money”, “farce of a process”, “silly political gain”, “undemocratic”, “stitch-up”, “tricky deal”, “besmirched process”, “undermining of the expert panel”, “disrespectful of the intelligence of the public”, “back to front”, “wrong”, “treating New Zealanders like muppets”, “lacking integrity”, “shambolic process”, “bizarre rescue operation”, “constitutionally dangerous”, “sloppy legislation”, “a half choice only”, and “a missed opportunity”. On the basis of that, in the exercise of Labour members’ infallible judgment, they are supporting the bill.

More seriously, the one substantive point that Labour has put forward, which we do respect, is the whole issue of the yes/no vote at the very beginning of the process in the first referendum. This is a valid point. There is, in our view, equal weight between the two positions. The first position is that you cannot make a decision as to whether or not the flag should be changed unless you know what alternative flag is in front of you, as opposed to a judgment that you can indeed, in principle, decide whether you want to change the flag, whether or not there is an alternative flag in front of you. Each of those two positions has equal weight. The Green Party was quite inclined to proceed with the Government’s perception on this. It does not really matter either way, but this is good enough to go with that particular one.

The time has essentially come now for the people to choose. When we choose we should think back to the experiences of both Canada and South Africa. In both cases, with sufficient dignity, they moved to change their flag. In both cases a number of conditions held. To change the flag did not show any disrespect to those who had given their lives under the old flag. It did not disrespect the Union Jack when they replaced it. It did not split their country asunder in either case. It did cost roughly the same as it is costing this country. Having made their decision, they embraced a new flag and resolved to move on. Let New Zealand emulate Canada and South Africa. It is time to move on now with the electoral process. The process has not been without pain. It has been politicised to an unfortunate degree, but the process remains valid and the choice before us is certainly a valid one. Now let the people choose.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, which is all about the very simple choice of having five options on the ballot instead of four. I think that, given the simplicity of the initiative, it has already taken more than enough of the House’s time, so I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It has been an interesting debate. It seems that all parties except Labour and New Zealand First actually walk the talk when it comes to giving New Zealanders a choice. I think that it is a very constructive thing to listen to the public and to give this fifth option. I endorse what we have been doing with this amendment bill.

There was a member opposite who talked about personal votes. Well, this party believes so strongly in the ability for New Zealanders to have their say that we are giving every eligible voter in New Zealand a chance to exercise their personal vote in two referendums. It is a fantastic process, and I will endorse any choice that the people of New Zealand tell us they want. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): As other colleagues have acknowledged, the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation. As colleagues in the House know, we attempted to put before the House a bill that would have allowed Red Peak to be added to the referendum, along with our clear and consistent position that that should be preceded by a yes/no vote.

We have said from the outset that as the public mood rose up in support of additional options, we wanted to support more choice. I, for one, am pleased that New Zealanders will have more choice, and that is why we are voting for this legislation.

I want to reflect on what this process could have been: the opportunity to discuss New Zealand’s identity and our sense of place in the 21st century. What kind of constitutional arrangements underpin a country like New Zealand growing and going forward into the 21st century? That is a conversation that New Zealand needs, and I believe it is a conversation that New Zealanders want to have.

The Government dipped its toe in the water of that conversation with the constitutional review panel, chaired by John Burrows, who also chaired the Flag Consideration Panel. Professor Burrows is a learned and good person. That constitutional review panel’s recommendations have, essentially, just been put in the bottom drawer and locked away by the Government. It is not interested in having a proper conversation about this.

As a country, had we had that conversation and talked about the place of the Treaty in our future, talked about our constitutional arrangements, talked about whether we feel strong enough to move towards what I personally believe we should in terms of being a republic, and talked about how we organise ourselves. Inevitably, as part of that conversation, we would have discussed the flag and whether or not the flag should change. But there has been no commitment to that process by the National Government.

The Prime Minister has lifted out from that conversation a discussion about the flag. That, to my mind, is a huge disappointment. In the absence of that wider conversation, I suspect that in March next year there will be no change to the flag. There are some people in this House who will be very pleased that that will be the outcome in March next year. I am actually not one of those people. I am actually a person who thinks we probably could change the flag and probably should change the flag, but it needed to be part of that wider process.

In the absence of that, what we are left with is an attempt by the Prime Minister to create for himself a legacy. Well, I have got news for the Prime Minister. Our future constitutional arrangements and our identity as a country is not about him. It is not about his ego. It is not about a vanity project for him. I think it is a huge shame that this process, which could have been part of something so useful for defining ourselves as a country in the 21st century, has been derailed by the Prime Minister’s approach throughout this. I am very sad about that.

I want to say a couple of things about how this piece of legislation has found its way to us today. I acknowledge that the Green Party, in putting this bill forward, has the aim of increasing choice for New Zealanders in the referendum. We should not ignore the large movement of New Zealanders who wanted something more, and I think that is important. As I said, we too were attempting to put that legislation forward.

There is no way to hide, and we have not tried to hide, the disappointment of the Labour Party in the way that this has happened, and, in particular, in the fact that as part of putting this forward, a deal was done between the Greens and National to not support Labour’s Supplementary Order Papers. That is extremely disappointing to us because we do not think, if we are trying to avoid political game playing, that that is a genuine and straightforward way of approaching this issue.

Having said that, we have a good relationship with the Green Party. We have a lot in common. We have a lot of issues that we will continue to work on together. Whatever happens around this piece of legislation, I know that that relationship can, will, and should endure.

What I do know is that on the other side of the House we have a Prime Minister who is now completely desperate about his referendum. Only 2 weeks ago he told New Zealanders there was no chance of Red Peak getting on the ballot paper—none whatsoever. He repeated it. His very good and close friend Paul Henry said to him: “Prime Minister, I want you to clarify absolutely. Will Red Peak end up on the referendum?”. The Prime Minister said: “No, it won’t. We’re not going back to Parliament to change the law.” Those are the exact words: “We are not going back to Parliament to change the law.”

So what does the word of our Prime Minister mean? What does it mean to New Zealanders now if the Prime Minister says something and in 2 weeks he can flip around? And we know why.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He listens.

GRANT ROBERTSON: “He listens.”, says Gerry Brownlee. He is desperate, Mr Brownlee, because his referendum is on the skids. Seventy percent of New Zealanders do not want to change the flag, and so the Prime Minister has taken to going to any venue in the country to run his flag process through it.

There was the bizarre situation of the Prime Minister standing up at a cancer fund-raiser and asking the people there to raise their hands as to whether or not they support the referendum. Then, those who do not support the referendum—the Prime Minister begins to interrogate them and berate them about the fact that they are not supporting the referendum. This is how desperate John Key has become.

John Key wants a legacy. John Key wants a legacy, and that legacy, for him, is to change the flag. He would be far better off leaving a legacy of lifting children out of poverty or leaving a legacy of ensuring that every young New Zealander grows up in a warm and dry home or leaving a legacy that unemployment goes under 4 percent. They would be legacies to be proud of. That would be a Prime Minister who knows that a legacy is not so much about him but about how he leaves the country.

This Prime Minister does not understand that. All the legacies he wants are about him and how he thinks he will be remembered. He is going to have to exercise enormous political capital over the next few months to try to get this referendum through. And I think he will. I think he will spend millions of dollars, probably, of taxpayers’ money on going up and down the country over the next few months, desperately trying to get his referendum passed.

That is the irony. Red Peak, the very thing he said he did not want and the very thing he said would not be on the ballot paper, is the thing he is now clutching on to as his saviour. I have said in this House earlier in the debate that I think Red Peak is a better flag than the others. I know others do not agree with me, but I think it is a better flag than the others.

I personally, as I have also said, think that the flag probably should change as part of that wider constitutional conversation. But every member of this House knows when they go out back to their constituencies and when they go to public meetings that the TV3 poll that says 70 percent of New Zealanders do not want the flag to change is accurate. Every member of this House knows that when they go back to their constituencies.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, not true.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Gerry Brownlee does not know that. The good people of Ilam are apparently completely outside of that—completely outside of that. It could actually be possible. Who knows what happens in an electorate that elects Gerry Brownlee time after time? They could be saying anything at all, but that is the truth.

This Government and, in particular, this Prime Minister have destroyed an opportunity for New Zealand to have the conversation we need to have about our future identity because of vanity and because of ego. Now, in his desperation, he accepts that there needs to be another option.

I am pleased New Zealanders will have more choice in this referendum. We support the bill because we believe New Zealanders should have more choice. We also wanted them to have the real choice of whether or not they even want to change the flag. I am disappointed that did not get through.

This has been a completely unnecessary process that typifies what has been a shambles of a referendum. The Government has failed New Zealanders once again.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to take a very short call on this wonderful bill. I want to thank the Greens’ Gareth Hughes. I have had to endure watching this debate and sitting in this House listening to a whole lot of drivel from across the Opposition benches. I commend this wonderful bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, this debate is concluded. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is it a point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a point of order; that is why I put “point of order” in front of my request. I called for a personal vote at the beginning of my speech because, as I say—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. This is the process. Let me explain the process. I told your whip this. The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. The whip came and asked me the process. I told the whip what the process was, and the process is that if a party wishes to call for a personal vote, I put the vote, as I am doing now, and when I get to the stage of asking for those contrary to the vote, a party has the right to say they call for a personal vote. At that stage the party calls for a personal vote and I will adjudicate on it at that stage. That is the process. I will start the vote again. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

Tracey Martin: No. Noes have it. Personal vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Noes? All right—a personal vote has been called for by the New Zealand First Party. This bill has not been subject to personal votes during the course of the first or second reading or the Committee stage. I see no need to have a personal vote on this matter. The votes have been quite conclusive over the period of this urgency debate and, on that basis—and I refer the party to the Standing Order 144. That is the Standing Order that is the relevant one in this case. I am not prepared to accept a personal vote.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am well aware of the Standing Orders and past procedures, but there has rarely been, in my experience in debate on this matter, when so many members have openly and on the Hansard record stated their personal—hang on, can I just finish it off?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no—I have already ruled. The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. It is the Speaker who decides whether there will be a personal vote—and let me read it out. I quoted the number, Standing Order 144: “A personal vote may be held following a party vote”—and that is the process we are at now—“if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” As I mentioned earlier—and I have presided over much of this debate in the readings and the Committee stage—there have not been close votes. It has been very, very clear. On that basis, I am not prepared to accept a personal vote. That is the end of the matter, and I am now proceeding with the vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, the business accorded urgency is now concluded. The House now moves to orders set down for the extended sitting.

Bills

Environmental Reporting Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Environmental Reporting Bill be now read a third time. This bill represents the Government’s commitment to bringing New Zealand into line with best international practice when it comes to monitoring and reporting on the condition of our natural environment. It was a policy that the Bluegreens developed during National’s time in Opposition, that National campaigned on, and that we are now delivering on. It is about giving greater integrity to New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand by providing independent and authoritative information on how we match up. Also, it represents a major advance in improving the regularity and integrity of national-level environmental data, so that New Zealanders will be able to access the information on which to base important environmental, business, economic, and societal decisions. It is very much about the fact that we manage that which we measure.

As all parties in the debate on this bill have acknowledged, New Zealand is out of step with other OECD countries, in that we are the only country not to have a statutory system for regular, independent state of the environment reports. The bill that we are now debating contains provisions that will ensure that those reports are regular, that they are independent, that they are comprehensive, and that they are accurate. This means that the public can have confidence in and certainty about the scope, timing, and quality of New Zealand’s environmental information. It means that we are going to be able to get on, rather than just spending time debating the data and whether it is accurate, whether it is relevant, whether it is timely, or where it has come from. With this regime, New Zealanders will be able to actually focus and get on and deal with the issues that are important for us to improve the management of the environment.

What is under pressure? What is not working? Where is data getting worse? Where is it improving? How can we fix it? These are the sorts of conversations that are far more constructive than some of the arguments that go on in the environmental space about whether we can rely on the information. It is essential that communities, businesses, local authorities, and central government are able to use environmental information to make better decisions on very important issues that affect our environment, our economy, and our society. In fact, I would put it to this House that New Zealand, more so than any other OECD country, requires robust environmental reporting, given the importance of our primary industries like agriculture, forestry, fishing, and tourism, which are so dependent on our natural wealth.

The scope of the reports produced under this bill will be comprehensive and will go beyond the programme of just the environmental indicator updates that the Ministry for the Environment has produced in recent years. The reports will not cover just the state of the environment; they will describe the pressures that are driving those environmental trends and the impacts of those trends on our lives. To give a bit more detail, state of the environment topics will describe what the biophysical condition of the environment is and how it has changed over time. Pressure topics will describe the human activities and natural factors that influence the environment, in order to help us understand why it is in the condition it is. The impact topics will look at what the consequences of any changes in the state of the environment are across those five categories. These categories are ecological integrity, the economy, public health, culture, and recreation, and through the select committee process we have also added, with the representations from the Māori Party, Te Ao Māori, so as to include their view in environmental reports.

The impact topics will help New Zealanders to understand how changes in the state of our environment affect different aspects of our society. A good example of this is to look at an issue like air quality, which impacts on the health of New Zealanders, and whether it is getting better or worse. If the concentration of air pollutants increases, exposure to the increase in concentrations can have an impact in terms of increasing premature deaths and hospital admissions and restricted activity days for New Zealanders. Some of these health impacts will be the result because air pollutants can aggravate existing respiratory conditions such as asthma. People in organisations need to understand these links so that they are aware of how the state of the environment affects New Zealanders. Then we can make better-informed decisions about how we expend our resources to improve things.

The environmental domains that will be reported on, as specified in the bill, are the air, the atmosphere and climate, fresh water, land, and the marine environment. The bill requires the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to publish a domain report on each of these five environmental domains every 6 months. Then every 3 years the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician will be required to publish a national-level report on New Zealand’s environment—one that covers all domains. After the reports are produced, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Statistics will be required to present such reports to this House. The bill strikes a good balance between ensuring the timely availability of information to the public and statistical integrity in developing these reports on our environment. As the new environmental reporting regime matures, the information and database on which it relies will improve.

Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry for the Environment are already working closely with organisations like regional councils, Crown research institutes, and the Department of Conservation to provide the environmental data to be able to support this national-level reporting. The independence of the new environmental reporting regime is guaranteed through the involvement of the Government Statistician in determining which statistics or measures for each topic meet the high-quality statistical standards that are required. I would like to add that the regime’s independence is especially supported by clause 16, which ensures that previously unpublished data, statistics and findings, and environmental reports will be released to everyone at the same time. This clause is a key mechanism for keeping our environmental reporting independent and at arm’s length from the Government of the day. The regime’s independence is also shored up by the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who can audit each report. This provides the public with the assurance that the information is being independently reviewed and that Parliament and the New Zealand public are being kept informed on those things about our environment that really matter.

I know that both members of Labour and the Greens know this is a good bill that addresses a deficiency in New Zealand’s environment systems, and as I have listened to their contributions on the select committee report and at the Committee stage, I think they are in that space of just opposing for the sake of it. If you go into the details of the concerns that they have, they read very much like they are clutching at straws. Let me deal quite specifically with two of those issues.

The first of the issues is that this bill provides for regulations to be set around the topics, and there have been questions about that. The reality is that the topics that we need to report on do change with time. For instance, the issue of climate change was quite new and out of left field as that science evolved. That is equally so if you look at an issue like chlorofluorocarbons and how that developed. I am sure that over the next 20 to 30 years of the likely life of this legislation, there will be changes in the issues that we need to measure, and that is appropriate. I would also say that the process of consultation around those regulations is extensive and ensures that there is integrity in the way they are developed.

I also find rather churlish the criticism that the bill does not provide for the reporting of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. That, of course, is an important issue, but I would draw the House’s attention to the Climate Change Response Act, which requires that information to be reported through the United Nations system for its audit, and I would question why we would want to double that bureaucracy.

The last point that I wish to make is that I think this is a very important bill for the management of our environment. If you asked me, as a parliamentarian of 25 years, what the most important and best bill that has been put through this Parliament was, I would say it was the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994, which required the open and transparent reporting of this country’s finances. We went from a period pre-1994, when this country had some of the worst public books in the world, and since then, we have moved to having some of the very, very best. My hope and ambition for the Environmental Reporting Act is that through this independent, quality information about the genuine state of New Zealand’s environment, it can shift the focus to those things that we do need to give priority to in order to improve how New Zealand manages its natural resources.

Can I conclude by thanking the officials and my colleagues—particularly Scott Simpson and the team on the Local Government and Environment Committee—who have done a good job of putting this bill on the books of this Parliament. It will give greater integrity to New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand, and that matters for this country of ours.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Environmental Reporting Bill. What is not my pleasure is the fact that Labour cannot support this bill, because I actually agree with a great deal that the Minister for the Environment, who has just sat down, said in his contribution. This is an important bill. New Zealand is the only country in the OECD that does not have environmental reporting. Labour absolutely agrees that it is timely and that it is preferable that this be rectified and that we have a way in which we monitor and report on our environment, so that we can be making the important legislative and policy decisions that we need to make in the future based on evidence. Our hope was that the Environmental Reporting Bill would deliver this.

We have consistently been saying throughout the passage of this bill through this House that we have very much wanted to support this bill. We certainly support the intent of it. I think it is pretty much motherhood and apple pie that we would be monitoring and reporting on our environment and providing that evidence base—that we would be looking at the key five domains of air, fresh water, land, marine, atmosphere and climate, producing the domain reports, and then every 3 years having a synthesis report that would cross all domains and draw together the best available data. But the Minister says that we are churlish and just entering into opposition to the bill for the sake of opposition, in our opposition to this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We worked constructively at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I would like to acknowledge the work that the select committee did on this legislation. We did actually manage to make some improvements to the legislation, and I think that that was a good thing. But what we could not change is what has been, since the first reading and since the introduction of this legislation, our core concern, and that is the lack of political independence in deciding what it is that we are going to report on, in setting those domain report topics, in setting those synthesis report topics—which is vested in the Minister.

We would have an objection to that whether we were in Government or Opposition. It is of concern. This is not the kind of legislation that we put in place on something so important, where we should be getting it wrong. It is our concern that we are getting it wrong. The Minister told us in his contribution today that there is that independence in clause 18, guaranteed by clause 16. This is not the case. We listened very carefully to the submitters as they came before the select committee. More than half the submitters who came to the committee and spoke to this bill spoke about their concerns around the regulation-making powers in clause 18 of this legislation. That is our reason for not being able to support this bill.

We had the Law Society come and tell us that, for it, “The regulation-making power enables Ministers to set the agenda by determining the topics to be reported on. This regulation-making power has the ability to undermine the independence and integrity of environmental reports published under the Bill.” This is not something that I could not listen to. This is not something that Labour members on the select committee could not take note of—when we had the Law Society come and talk to us about that.

We had many submitters, and I am sure some of my colleagues will go into some more of those submissions. Fish and Game New Zealand came and gave an excellent submission on this, and I think it made a very good point when it said that “The grant of some legislative power to the executive is inevitable in modern democracies but that does not mean that matters of high policy going to the heart of the Bill”—i.e., setting the topics—“should be contained in regulations.” This is simply giving the Ministers far too much power.

We supported the calls that we have the Government Statistician and the Secretary for the Environment, rather than the Minister of Statistics and the Minister for the Environment, making those calls on it because we did want to see that level of independence. The Minister says that the Ministers need to be able to make those decisions because things change, and said that we just need to look at how quickly in this space we might need to look at what needs to be reported on. He gave the example of chlorofluorocarbons as something that changes the environment quickly.

We are not for one moment, in our opposition—and I want this to be very clear on the record—suggesting in any way that we set down in the legislation what needs to be reported on. What we are saying is that we do not hand over that much power to the executive to set the rules and be the people making the decisions. This should be legislation that holds our executive to account. This should be legislation that provides us with the factual basis on which we are to measure how a Government is performing on the environment. To suggest that it is preferable that we then have the executive making the decision as to what we report on is nonsense, and is not the political independence that we want to see.

We do not want to set down in this legislation that we set the topics. That is not what we are suggesting for clause 18. What we are suggesting is that we take that power away from the Ministers and that we give that to the Government Statistician and to the Secretary for the Environment, who would also be required to consult with some of the groups that are laid out further in clause 18.

I think the Minister’s assurance that one of the reasons we could not do that is our need to be flexible and to move with the times simply does not hold water as a reason why we would not do what it is that the select committee heard submitters say—that is, take this much power away from the executive. We also heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and, of course, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has a very important role in this piece of legislation, which is laid out in clause 17 of the legislation, and that is in terms of analysing the reports and having a commentary function. As Parliament’s person who is a bit of a watchdog for the environment, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does have an important function under this legislation.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment gave a very full and very knowledgable submission that I think needed to be listened to far more closely by Government members of the committee than they did. I personally would have liked to see more of the things that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, someone who is Parliament’s servant in matters of the environment, came to us as legislators and gave her view on. She said that “Giving the selection of topics to the Government of the day creates the opportunity for political interference. For instance, it would be possible to avoid reporting on an environment topic that is important but also controversial.” That is the point. No one is suggesting for a moment that any given Minister is going to politically interfere, but Labour cannot support a piece of legislation that enshrines in our legislation the opportunity for a Minister to do that.

We need to be better than that in terms of the legislation that we are putting in place. We need to ensure that we cannot do that—that we are putting something better in place. New Zealand has waited a long time for this legislation, and I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation. Actually, I commend the Government for bringing this legislation. But what I cannot commend and support it on is the fact that it is putting the legislation in place without proper political independence. It is a missed opportunity. We could have done so much better, and it is with a heavy heart that Labour cannot vote on this legislation.

I remain hopeful that we may be able to work to a more non-partisan position on this because I think it is important that the very structure that we are putting in place to be the monitoring legislation for our environment not be about partisan politics, that we can actually have some political independence, and that it genuinely be about the state of our environment.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, it gives me enormous pleasure to speak in this third reading debate on the Environmental Reporting Bill, which is in the name of my friend and colleague Dr Nick Smith. This bill represents part of a suite of legislation that has been introduced during this National Government’s term of office that is real, meaningful, and important in terms of protecting and ensuring the enhancement of, and the benefit to, our beautiful natural environment. It is an important piece of legislation, and it is important that we as a Parliament get this piece of legislation right and correct.

Therefore, it is a great pity to watch the spectacle of Dr Megan Woods dancing in this Parliament on the head of a pin, trying to find some kind of justification and some kind of reason for objecting to this bill. This is a bill that Labour actually does want to support. It has made that very clear in its contributions at the select committee. It made it very clear in its contributions to debates on this bill earlier in this House. But oppose it must do, and it has tried to find a reason to do so.

What this bill actually does is it closes a gap in our environmental legislation that has needed closing for some time. This bill brings New Zealand into a state of best practice in terms of its environmental reporting, and I am thrilled and delighted to be part of a Government that is actually doing something that is constructive and good for our environment. As the Minister for the Environment said in his contribution earlier, you cannot manage what you do not measure. I would absolutely agree with him. The importance of providing good, reliable, accurate, and credible environmental information is the very foundation of making good quality decisions in terms of the future of our natural environment and our natural spaces.

What this bill does is it requires the regular reporting of the state of New Zealand’s environment as a whole—reporting on the state of our air and atmosphere, climate, freshwater, land, and marine domains. Those are the five key areas. It will mean that we get a production of environmental reports independently that are credible and accurate. As a Parliament and in policy terms, they will enable us to make good decisions for the future of New Zealand’s environment. Thirdly, and not at all unimportantly, is that this bill actually affirms the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in terms of reporting on environmental matters, processes, and the objectives of that office. This bill requires the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to work together to publish a report on those five environmental domains. One environmental report will be released every 6 months, with the additional synthesis reporting providing analysis and cross-domain trends and interactions once every 3 years. That is at the real heart of this legislation.

It is a very good piece of legislation, it is a timely piece of legislation, and it is one that I am very proud to support. The select committee worked well, notwithstanding the Opposition’s desire to find at any length a reason to oppose. But, notwithstanding that, the select committee did make some useful and worthwhile changes and they have been included in the bill, and that, I think, is a further sign that the select committee process works well to improve what is already good legislation and refine it even further. It is with enormous enthusiasm that I support this bill, and I heartily commend it to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I grew up in Ōtara, and went to school with many Māori peers who could trace their heritage back to either Ngāpuhi or Tainui. I learnt from them, when they introduced themselves at the Māori third and fourth form class that I took, about their references to the maunga and their references to the awa—to the mountain and to the river—which emphasises for the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand how important the environment is. In later years, as I gained a better appreciation of my own cultures—Samoan, in particular—I learnt how we as Samoans viewed the sky, the lands, the trees, and the fishes as all having spirits and as all having human characteristics of their own. The older generations valued the environment so much that they treated each one of those characteristics of the environment as if it were a member of their family.

I raise those two points because that is the point of view that I come to this debate from. I am sure that I am not alone in that with other members of this House who will share a similar value when it comes to our environment. I also raise that at the outset because when this bill was introduced I think our initial stance was that we would support it, given the fact that our rivers today have this weed growing through them—in fact, we can no longer swim in some of our lakes. Once upon a time, as a young man in Ōtara, I used to fish in some of our lakes. We cannot do that any more, and that is because, by and large, we as a collective group of people have contributed to the degradation of our environment. We have polluted it through our economic activities or have done something else that has harmed the environment.

So when the Government said that it would introduce this bill and that the bill would allow a group of people to report to this House about the state of our environment, Labour’s view in the first instance was that we would take up this opportunity because at least then we would have the facts and the data that would show us what we had done wrong with regard to the environment and how we could better improve our situation going forward. After all, we as a country pride ourselves on having this “clean, green” image. We have used that image to sell our wares throughout the entire world. In fact, we have branded ourselves with that brand, and there is a high expectation that we maintain that brand. We saw the opportunity in this bill that if this reporting continued over time and we improved the way that we conducted ourselves and the activities that impacted on the environment, then, by and large, we would end up keeping the environment safe by ensuring that the state of our environment would be left in a better situation for the next generation.

You see, from an indigenous point of view, the land and the environment, and the skies, the air, and the trees do not belong to us; they are part of who we are. They contribute to our survival and, therefore, we have got to look after the environment. We saw the opportunity that if the bill was worded right and the information was independent, we would be on the same pathway collectively as a nation, irrespective of who was in Government. We would get the correct information, and whoever was in power would do the right thing by acting on it and ensuring that, one, we continued to protect the environment for the next generation and, two, we would maintain and even enhance our brand of “clean, green” Aotearoa New Zealand.

But, alas, when the bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we began to hear the submissions from the public—and, I would say, from some very significant experts in the field of the environment—they said that to get it right, the information must be independent and it must be peer reviewed by an independent organisation or individuals. That is not what is going to happen here. What is going to happen here is that this Government wants to be able to control the information it releases, it wants to control the information that the public looks at, and it wants to control whatever environmental reporting is made available. In fact, it does not want the public to get the full and complete truth when it comes to the state of our environment, and that is the sad thing about it. As a matter of principle, we must vote against this bill because it does nothing of what this bill was written up for and was set out to do.

In fact, if we look at the general policy statement, it says: “The purpose of this Bill is to create a national-level environmental reporting system to ensure that reporting on our environment occurs on a regular basis and can be trusted by the public as independent, fair, and accurate.” Those are the key words—that this information can be trusted by the public as being independent, fair, and accurate. The submissions we heard from doctors and professors—experts, I call them—in the field of the environment said that as far as they are concerned, if the Government continues to try to control information, as it has set out in this bill to do, that information will not achieve accuracy or independence or be fair. Therefore, it is just a bloody waste of time because the Government has no such intention. What that signals to me, and signals to other people who care about the environment and care about the next generation and the kind of environment that we leave for them, is that that group there does not care. Government members do not care one iota because it is their belief that it will be somebody else’s responsibility.

They do not care what happens to this environment, and I will give you another example that shows that they do not care about the environment. I introduced as part of the process Supplementary Order Paper 92, asking to include in this reporting the impacts of our social and economic activities on the state of the environment in the Pacific, because there is a link. There is a link between our economic activities and what is occurring in terms of climate change in the ecosystem of the people of the Pacific. Those members did not support it. This week we had a person from Kiribati who was deported, and this Government refused to acknowledge the fact that he is being deported to a land that is literally sinking as a result of climate change and the impact of economic activities, not just from us but also from other big nations. Further proof that those members do not care is that in the Pacific Islands Forum it was reported to me by leaders of the Pacific that both Australia and the representatives of this Government treated climate change as if it was joke. That tells me that those members’ rhetoric is one thing, but their actions are simply totally different.

Despite what their flowery words are about this piece of legislation, it will do nothing—it will do nothing—to improve or protect the environment because the information is going to be controlled. Therefore, it will not achieve what the bill was set out to do, which was to provide independent, fair, and accurate information on the state of our environment.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call to support the third reading of the Environmental Reporting Bill. Is it not extraordinary to follow such nonsense, dare I say, that is challenging this Government’s environmental credentials? As we have already heard from the two speakers on this side of the House, this is the most reforming Government in recent memory in respect of environmental improvement. The Land and Water Forum, reform of the Environmental Protection Authority, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, the National Objectives Framework—this is a reforming Government that has at its core a fundamental belief that you can only manage what you can measure. That has anchored our approach in respect of this bill as well. Only a handful of OECD countries do not have a similar piece of legislation. Under this Government, under the leadership of Nick Smith, we are going to get the job done here today, and that is a step forward for this country.

Unlike what we have heard over the last 5 minutes, I look forward to the requirement that sits on the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician to publish a domain report on one of the five environmental domains—be it air, atmosphere and climate, fresh water, land, or marine—every 6 months. I look forward to the cross-domain synthesis report, with world-class analysis underpinning it, being published every 3 years. I look forward to having a Minister be able to assure this House that the topics are the right ones, that the report is underpinned by the appropriate analytic methodology of the highest order, and that what we are doing through those domain reports is being measured robustly and has been appropriately consulted, not only with the Government Statistician and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment but also with the public and with iwi and with local government. It is an absolutely appropriate mechanism that sits in this bill to enable the Minister to do this.

I know that ultimately through this bill we will have greater data and greater information to underpin a national conversation, and it is this Government that has led this. The Opposition is nonsensical to oppose it. I support this bill.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Environmental Reporting Bill. Government members can claim that this is a reforming Government in terms of environmental management, and the concept of comprehensive state of the environment reporting certainly is a key part of improving environmental management in New Zealand, but it is the way you deliver reform that is important. This bill will potentially do more to disguise the state of our air, water, biodiversity, and coast than it will do to provide New Zealanders with a fair, accurate picture of New Zealand’s environment, why it is like that, and what that means.

We have had a very stop-start history to state of the environment reporting in New Zealand, both in developing indicators and in producing reports. We have had only two nationwide state of the environment reports, in 1997 and 2007, and absolutely nothing since then. That was why the Green Party supported this bill’s introduction. We hoped for and worked to try to achieve a genuine consensus across the House, but the Government has persisted in rejecting the efforts of Opposition members to try to improve the bill, both in the Local Government and Environment Committee and in the Committee stage with a number of quite detailed Supplementary Order Papers.

Because of the way in which it undermines independence, we do not want to have the environment Ministers and the Minister of Statistics selecting the topics that are to be reported on in both the domain and the synthesis reports. That was something many submitters opposed, yet the Government persisted in politicising what should be an objective and independent process by giving the regulation-making powers to Ministers solely to enable them to choose the topics to be reported on. It is really disappointing that all of the changes in relation to clause 18 that we put forward in the select committee were rejected.

Another reason that we are opposing this bill is the poor quality of environmental information that the Government is prepared to accept as valid in terms of state of the environment reporting. In July the Taranaki Regional Council released its state of the environment report for the region. It really highlights the shortcomings of this regime, because the Government Minister Nick Smith went up to Taranaki to launch the report, and that report did not even follow the Ministry for the Environment’s own rules in terms of collecting water quality data. The regional council followed the ministry’s guidelines for measuring at only two out of 18 swimming spots in the region. The Ministry for the Environment requires weekly surveillance during the 5-month summer recreational period. It requires samples to be collected from a minimum of 20 data points, regardless of weather conditions. But what did the Taranaki Regional Council do? It collected only 13 samples, in good weather conditions, at 16 of the spots. By collecting data in only good weather conditions, it did not look at the variation that you get when you have got heavy rain and then much increased faecal coliform and nutrient runoff. That completely skewed the information, and it failed to tell families about the risks related to swimming at their favourite swimming spots.

When you have the Minister endorsing a state of the environment report from a regional council that did not even meet the Ministry for the Environment’s own guidelines for state of the environment information, how can we trust the information that is going to be produced under this bill? When the Government has given us a very bland report on air quality so far and when we are not seeing the sort of information that New Zealanders need in order to actually understand what is happening in terms of environmental quality, we do not think that this bill is actually going to deliver what New Zealanders had expected.

One of the other flaws in the bill is its focus on providing “best available data”. That means that when reports are done, there is no provision to include any requirement to generate information that is not currently collected or to include any requirement to identify gaps in the data. We have seen regional and district councils collect a lot of environmental information that is often for their own purposes and for their own priorities; it is not for pulling together a national data set. So their methods of analysis and their methods of collection, as we have seen in the Taranaki example, are often very different.

The bill, in relying on local authorities to collect that information, will simply fail to provide a good mechanism for collecting comprehensive accurate data from across New Zealand when there is no requirement that they do this in a consistent way. Also, in the Budget this year, the Government failed to provide any additional funding to local authorities or the Ministry for the Environment to ensure that there is good quality reporting. So it has been yet another example of the Government loading responsibilities on to local authorities but not providing funding to assist with the implementation of the laws that Parliament is passing.

When the disclosure statement on the bill says “Direct costs associated with this new environmental reporting framework will be managed within existing departmental baselines.”, we know that the same sums of money are being spread more and more thinly over a wider variety of priorities. When the Ministry for the Environment in 2007 took 28 staff and 200 other people to produce the 2007 report and when there has been no additional funding that I can find in the vote for the ministry to assist with state of the environment reporting other than the allocation to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, how is the ministry going to ensure that the information is good quality and accurate? What other priority work is going to be sacrificed in order to respond to its responsibilities under this legislation?

The Green Party had wanted to support this bill. We need to have a good consensus on the law around state of the environment reporting, but because the Government has repeatedly rebuffed attempts to improve the bill and has rebuffed efforts to ensure that state of the environment reporting is independent, is not a politicised process, and does not have the Ministers choosing the topics to be reported on in both the domain and synthesis reports, we cannot support this bill because although we need robust information about the health of our environment to ensure that we make good decisions, we are not convinced that this bill will establish the framework and the regime to actually achieve that. Instead, it risks—take the Taranaki example, where poor-quality information was used to claim that waterways in Taranaki were in a good state—potentially misleading New Zealanders about the state of our biodiversity and about the state of our water quality, and it risks not providing them with the fair, accurate picture that we need.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This Government has a talent for turning a silk purse into a sow’s ear. It has done it with the flag referendums bill and now it is doing it with this legislation. This legislation should be something that all parties in this House would like to support, but the Government has made such a mess of the bill that it is actually not possible to do so. This is something that New Zealand First wants—a good environmental reporting bill—but this is not that bill. The defects in it are so fundamental that we cannot support it.

There are three main issues. The first one relates to the fact that Ministers are given the power to choose topics for reporting, and that is unacceptable to us. There are—and many other parties have said so in the House—better alternatives. One of those that has been mentioned already in the debate today is that the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician could jointly make those decisions, and in doing so the public could see genuine transparency and genuinely independent decision-making. But there is another alternative and it is one I quite like. It is that there could actually be a schedule to the Act that could be changed every 3 years and would state what those topics should be. Three years is not so short a period that it would be impracticable. It would be good for Parliament to actually take part in such a process. It would be good for MPs to think about those issues and get their minds around them, and then we together could decide what the topics should be.

As it is, clause 18 is just another example of creeping increases of power to the executive under this Government. I have stood here in this House over the last few years complaining time after time about the creeping expansion of power to the executive by this Government, and this is just another example of it. This is especially bad and unnecessary when it comes to environmental reporting, because environmental reporting must demonstrate integrity and must generate full public trust.

The second main issue is this: clause 18 itself is not a robust process. I am looking at clause 18, and it says in subclause (2)(a) that the Minister must be satisfied that significant areas, resources, or numbers of people are involved for a pressure topic to be chosen, and, in subclause (2)(b), that topics must be measureable with robust statistical methods. That comes down to the personal opinion of the Ministers under this particular bill, and that is most unsatisfactory. How do we know what matters are going to be looked at and whether they are going to be looked at objectively in making those decisions? Minister Smith commented during the Committee process, saying: “Look, don’t worry about that. It’s OK because we have in clause 18(3) a provision for consultation.” Saying that means that he believes somehow that consultation is actually a substitute for an independent decision-making process, which, of course, it is not. It is simply an obligation to hear and to take into account the views of other people. That is not part of the decision-making process. It may well inform the decision-making process, but it is not itself independent decision-making.

This is very important in that people must see that that process is free of political interference. Like Megan Woods, I do not actually think that there would be many Ministers—no matter what party would be in Government—who would actually do that, but the point is that this bill makes it possible, and it could happen in the future that Ministers do interfere inappropriately in that way. What the public expects is that the decisions will be made objectively on their merits. Clause 14 of the bill does not save the situation. That is the one that says that the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician are required to act independently. But how can they do that under this bill, when the Ministers actually have all the power? It is just not possible, and clause 14 is valueless as a result.

In addition there is clause 15, under which the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician are required to assure in their reports “a fair and accurate representation of the state of New Zealand’s environment, or the state of the domain being reported on.”, but only “so far as it is reasonably practicable”. The words “so far as it is reasonably practicable” completely compromise the assurance of fair and accurate reporting that ought to be at the core of this bill. That is a great problem for us in New Zealand First.

The third issue for us is the issue of transparency. Ministers must have regard to pressures on the environment that could cause adverse impacts and other environmental changes. Again, I look at clause 18(2), where the Ministers must be satisfied that the pressure topics chosen have an impact on significant areas, resources, or numbers of people, measurability, and relationships between topics and impacts. But, in the end, these requirements actually place very little limitation on ministerial discretion. It is actually a very important issue and a very big problem for New Zealand First when we are being asked to support a bill on which there is such little limitation on ministerial discretion. What that means in practice is that Ministers could actually decide not to report on some topics at all, and nobody would know that they had taken such a decision. That is actually a very severe defect because Ministers could decide not to report on a topic simply because it was inconvenient for the Government or might embarrass the Government. That is a very, very serious issue for us.

So why are we not seeing much more transparency when it comes to the regulations that will prescribe the topics to be covered in synthesis reports and domain reports? Without transparency you do not get integrity and you do not get the trust of the public. That is what is at the core of this bill. That is the fundamental reason why New Zealand First cannot support it.

So what does transparency really require then? First of all, it requires, I think, the background information upon which the decision is made to be made clear. Secondly, it must show what the decision is in detail, why the topics were selected, why they were the highest priority, and so on. The bill will not only fail the transparency test but also prevent the Official Information Act from operating as intended, in relation to what is called untested information. Officials will be able to withhold that without genuine reasons for doing so. That, again, is putting far too much power in the hands of officials, and that should not be the case. The public are entitled to access that information. It is their information. There is no reason for the secrecy surrounding that. This is, after all, about decisions on what to report on the environment. It is not a major State secret. What is the reason for all this secrecy? The members opposite have not said.

For all of those reasons, there is no way that New Zealand First can support such a badly drafted and defective bill, even though we, like other parties, would like to see a good environmental reporting bill brought forward to the House.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā tuarua. In following on from that feeble piffle, I want to commend this bill to the House in the strongest possible terms. The Environmental Reporting Bill in the name of my distinguished colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is a very good bill. Dr Smith, along with Minister Maggie Barry, will go down in New Zealand’s history as being amongst the best champions of the environment we have ever had in this country.

This bill will provide reporting on five domains: water, air, atmosphere, land, and marine. It will cover the environment from the bottom of the swamps, from which the Labour Party research unit hoovers up its political muck to throw impotently across at this side, to the highest reaches of the ionosphere, those hypoxic regions where brain damage can ensue, and where the New Zealand First political strategists clearly operate. It will cover all of those environments, and for that reason it is a very good bill. I commend it to the House.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Most New Zealanders cherish our natural environment—our mountains, our forests, our rivers, our beaches. I know I do. I know that all of this is a core part of the national identity—of what it is to be a New Zealander. I know that many voters, even those who do not vote for the Green Party, care deeply about our environment not only because our “clean, green” brand is worth a huge amount to our largest exports like dairy and tourism but also because it is priceless being able to take our children walking in native forests and swimming in our rivers.

I have no doubt that there are many Government members over there on the other side of the House who do care deeply about protecting the environment. Todd Muller spoke up in this debate about how he believes that this Government has done more to reform environmental protection than any other. I am sure that he would like that to be the truth. I am sure that he would like to be part of a Government that was actually improving environmental protection because he cares about the environment and he probably knows that it is worth it to our economy. We cannot be economically successful unless we protect our environment. Those two things are inseparable.

Unfortunately, it is simply not the case that this Government has been good for the environment. In fact, its entire economic development strategy is predicated on degrading our natural environment—on increasing extraction and pollution. That is the sad truth and I have to speak up about that. This bill is a perfect example because although Government members have claimed that it is best practice, it is not best practice, and it is not going to result in robust and independent reporting.

We would like to vote for a bill that did that—we would. Government members in this debate have claimed that the Opposition is looking for reasons to oppose the bill. That is not true. That is ridiculous. We have supported good legislation when this Government has put it forward, and there is nothing I would like more than to see the Government of the day actually improving environmental protection in a way that makes it no longer a political football and that means that we can have cross-party agreement that New Zealand’s environment is worth protecting and, fundamentally, is critical to our long-term economic prosperity.

So we are opposing this bill because it is not going to result in the independent and robust reporting that is essential for us to make informed decisions about policy. Any business person would tell us that we must measure what matters to us. And it must be independent, because any Government of the day is going to come under huge pressure from vested interests to not regulate. We have seen this. The previous Labour Government, under its state of the environment report, suppressed a chapter about water quality because the Government was under huge pressure. That chapter, which the Green Party ended up leaking and providing to the public, told the hard truth that our intensive conversion to dairying had resulted in significant degradation of our waterways.

We have to face up to these hard truths. We are not going to be better off or save money or improve the economy by allowing people to continue profiting at the expense of our waterways and our natural environment. It is simply not possible. So the first thing we have to have is independent, robust, credible information.

To get that, we need legislation that sets out that framework, and we need the Government to actually fund it. That has not been forthcoming from this Government; in fact, it has been reducing the amount of money available. It speaks up about the importance of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That is a small office and an incredibly important one, but it is now doing the work that the Ministry for the Environment should be doing itself.

There is a real opportunity for New Zealand to improve our economic performance, to ensure long-term prosperity for all New Zealanders, and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but we are not going to be able to seize that opportunity as long as we do not have the independent monitoring and frameworks set up to ensure that we can make the best decisions. The sad truth is that the National Government is simply looking for opportunities to say that it is doing something on these issues, just like it claims that we are doing something about climate change and that we are reducing our carbon emissions. The truth is that we are not—not under National’s policy.

So, again, this bill is window dressing. It is not going to make the substantial changes that we need, and the Green Party cannot support it, unfortunately.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, e ngā mema o te Whare nei, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker; greetings to us all, the members of this House.]

I am happy to take a short call on this bill. The State Sector Act charges public servants with the ability to provide free and frank advice, without fear or favour, to the Government of the day. Why is this important? It is because we need to ensure that our advice to Ministers and the Government of the day is apolitical in nature and impartial.

So I want to acknowledge the important role our public servants play in the running of our Government. I raise that because clause 18 takes that value of the State Sector Act and the protection of our public servants and says to our senior officials that “You are not good enough to provide free and frank advice to the Ministers on important issues like the environment. We don’t trust you; we actually think that sits with Ministers.” I am saying, for all members of the House, that we do not operate at the level that our senior public servants operate, so I am really disheartened to hear that this bill takes away that very important role of senior public servants and places the ability to pick and select the topics that are under this legislation with the Minister, and I am very, very saddened by that.

In the Minister’s speech on this bill, he talked about managing the environment. I got to sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee briefly this morning to hear submissions on my Environmental Protection Agency (Protection of Environment) Amendment Bill.

I heard another gentleman, a submitter, talk about managing the environment. I would challenge that the environment, or, how we term it from where I came from, the taiao, is something that you manage. What we are here to do—and my colleague Su’a William Sio mentioned this in his contribution—is to protect, to nurture, to awhi, to manaaki, and to look after what is ours for the short time that we are on this earth.

So there have been two occasions today that I have heard the expression “managing the environment”, and we do not have to look very far to see the impact of climate change, not just here in New Zealand but all around the countries. So I would say that the use of the word “managing” is inappropriate, but that is what the Minister has said in our reading of this bill for the third time.

I just want to clarify another point that the Minister made in this House. He talked about the grand or good advice that he received from the Māori Party, particularly in reference to new clause 4A of this bill, when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi. Mr Assistant Speaker, perhaps for your benefit, and for other members of the House, can I make a very clear point around mandate. It is important, as holders of Māori seats, that there is only one party in this House that can say with confidence that its members speak on behalf of Māori, because Labour holds six of the seven seats.

So I just want it clarified in this House that when the Government talks about receiving good advice from its coalition party the Māori Party, it should keep that in perspective, because I would hate for the Government to feel that the advice it is getting from the Māori Party actually is a reflection of all the iwi around the country, because it simply is not. So I want to make sure that that point is really, really important.

But in terms of the clause that I indicated, new clause 4A, when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi there are two particular phrases there that probably highlight my issue around the Government’s reliance on the Māori Party. New clause 4A(a) talks about “a Māori perspective”. Can I say that that terminology is very dated. It is a very 1980s term, and if you go around iwi Māori katoa, they do not use the words “Māori perspective”. “Kaupapa Māori”—yes, you hear that, but not “Māori perspective”. So I just want to give that piece of advice for free.

The second clause is new clause 4A(b), where it talks about iwi authorities. We well know, because we have got one happening right now, about the emergency of hapū entities. So these are two examples of the reliance of the Government on the Māori Party’s advice. I am saying that with all respect. Things have moved, and you need to ensure that you are speaking to people who hold mandate, and I am sure my colleagues on this side are more than happy to help build your strength in dealing with Treaty of Waitangi issues.

I stand there; that is my contribution. We cannot stand in support of this bill. It has lost the opportunity, and I think it has got really bad advice. Kia ora tātou.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a short call on the Environmental Reporting Bill, and there are three really important points that I want to highlight. The first one is that this bill sets up an environmental reporting system that is everything that the previous Government’s attempts were not; secondly, it is robust, it is independent, and it is aligned with international reporting standards; and thirdly, there are major provisions in this bill that ensure the independence and reliability of the reports that are required. Finally, just from this side of the House: kikoraki te tai, kahuraki te tauka [Blue is the tide, priceless is the treasure]. A blue tide—where this is concerned, this Environmental Reporting Bill is a treasure. Kia ora.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say that I am really disappointed that at this final stage of the legislation Labour is still not able to support it. I think it would have been a really great move for every single party in this Parliament to have been able to vote in favour of the bill, because the intention, the framework of the bill, is certainly sound. The devil is in the detail, and that is where we have the problem with it.

Can I commend the Hon Amy Adams, who was the Minister who originally brought this legislation to Parliament. It is my view that she recognised the gap that we have in our system. We do not have environmental reporting standards, and we do not have any public accountability for the state of our environment. She recognised that deficiency and sought to address it, and then that same cause was taken up by the Hon Nick Smith.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am not a permanent member of that select committee, but I did sit on it during much of the deliberation on this bill, and I think that the members of that committee worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the submitters were heard and understood. In all but one incident they were responded to, and that is the one instance that both the Green Party and Labour expressed concern about in their minority views when this bill came back to the House.

For me, it is even more frustrating because this is a lost opportunity. We all know that we were lacking in environmental reporting. We have had only two state of the environment reports done in New Zealand in the last 50 years, both quite recently. They highlighted, actually, the need for more regular reports on the state of our environment so that we can all monitor what is happening. We all care about the environment. It is hard to say whether it is going well or not, and then to develop robust public policy, if we do not have reporting. It is impossible for our non-governmental organisations—our community and voluntary organisations—that work so tirelessly for environmental causes to be able to say that what they are doing is making a difference and having a positive impact if, again, there are no measurements.

The most important thing about measurements, though, is that people trust them and that people can rely on them to be sound. You have to have evidence that is independent and evidence that is based on science, and in this legislation we have missed that opportunity. I know that there have been a number of attempts to get the Minister to just consider that point. He was dismissive of it in his third reading contribution, and I think he is better than that, actually. I think he is probably a bit irritated that he was not able to get his Cabinet colleagues to agree to changes in the legislation. He demonstrated earlier an understanding of the frustration that parties on this side of the House felt about the lost opportunity, but he then dismissed it in his third reading speech.

We should have independent environmental reporting so that not just in New Zealand but internationally we can hold our heads up and say that we know this is evidence-based and that we know it is independent—that there has been no political tainting of this in order to make a particular Minister or a particular party leading the Government look good. I do not think that either the Hon Nick Smith or the Hon Amy Adams had that in mind when they developed and progressed this legislation, but we cannot say that their personal integrity would be enough to carry the debate in New Zealand or internationally. We should have been able to send a clear message from this Parliament that every single member cares about environmental reporting and thinks that it is something that we should have in our legislation.

I suppose the other lost opportunity that is very sad, and it has been highlighted by my colleague Su’a William Sio in his earlier contribution, is that this was also an opportunity for New Zealand to show leadership amongst our Pacific neighbours, who are the most threatened of any countries by climate change. We have done nothing. So when they look to Australia and New Zealand for leadership on these issues, they are going to be so disappointed. This was another chance that we had to say that we care not just about the impact of decisions made in New Zealand on our environment but also about the impact of decisions made in New Zealand on the environment in the Pacific. That would have been not just a good move in terms of actually monitoring the actions that we take but also a clear signal to Pacific countries that we care enough about them to consider our actions and to put it in legislation so that we can be monitored against those actions.

As I said at the beginning, this was a bill that I think started out with a lot of hope. It did fill a gap in our legislation that needed to be filled, but it has been a lost opportunity. With just a few changes to the provisions in clause 18, all parties in this Parliament could have agreed to this bill, but that was not to happen. So I hope that in the future we are able to get better progress on this and that we can truly have robust standards of reporting.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Thursday)