"Why parliamentary and public time is being wasted on such expensive political puffery is beyond New Zealand First," the submission continued.
"Since 1949 there have only been ten government-initiated referenda. Three of these related to the voting system, two were on the term of Parliament, two related to six o'clock closing, with one apiece on compulsory military training, on-course betting and compulsory superannuation ... government-initiated referenda are rare, but tend to rise out of policy or electoral commitments ...
"This referendum is an arbitrary decision taken by a Prime Minister with little respect or sympathy for the flag and what it stands for. It is the desire of one person backed with little substance, as evidenced by how quickly the Prime Minister's support for a black flag evaporated once it was parodied on US television as similar to ISIS. This surely shows how vacuous the drive behind this uncalled for change truly is.
"A flag is not a brand, because treating it as such would see our flag continually change from government to government. Indeed, this Bill opens a proverbial Pandora's box whereby future Prime Ministers will look to stamp their personal design aesthetic on to our national symbols.
"Yes, our flag does look a lot like the Australian flag. However, they copied our design and they should change their flag to avoid confusion. That's usually the way it goes in copyright and patent law. If it is change for change's sake, then that same mantra applies the moment any design is chosen.
Whether 'our flag' is known by anyone overseas is an irrelevancy; so long as New Zealanders can recognise it, this is what having a flag is about. By refusing to entertain this Bill, your committee will be defending Parliament against current and future autocratic Prime Ministers.
"Listening to some criticise the Union Flag in the top left-hand corner, you would be forgiven for believing Great Britain did not create parliamentary democracy, abolish slavery and create the language, laws, sport, and impart the cultural traditions that helped form New Zealand," it added.
"It is bombastic nonsense to suggest that the Union Flag remains anachronistic, given so many of its values are shared by us too. With a blue background representing the seas around us, with the Southern Cross representing our location, the flag remains as relevant in 2015 as it did when Richard Seddon's Liberal government selected it in 1904."
And the $26 million cost of the referenda would only be the start. The government had estimated a cost of $2 to $3 million for NZDF uniform and flag changes, but had been unable to quantify the cost of replacing the Coat of Arms on every single government building and on official documentation.
There would also be confusion.
"Imagine if overseas officials are presented with differing versions of our passport (Coat of Arms), a driver's licence (current flag/new flag), birth certificates (Coat of Arms) and other forms of official documentation?" Outside the trade implications, this is a recipe for chaos that cannot be batted away with some trite 'transition period.'
"Again, there has been no disclosure or contemplation of what this cost might be, so the regulatory impact assessment and fiscal implications are woefully inadequate ... "
"New Zealand expects this committee to do its duty and recommend this Bill does not proceed."
