Mapp Wayne: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17450] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The question I have to ask is: why do so many members of this Parliament and in particular Government members fear the voice of the people? Why are they scared of a referendum? What makes their conscience any better than that of a member of the public? The reality is that members of Parliament are representatives of the public. We are no better and no worse. For that reason and that reason alone I believe this issue along with all other conscience issues ought to be placed before the public. We should not fear the public. After a full and extensive debate they will make their judgment and frankly in many cases that might be a surprise to members. I think that members of the New Zealand public are fair and balanced and in the privacy of the ballot box will cast their votes for what is fair. That is why I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Brian Donnelly and the amendments put forward by Richard Worth. 
I want to make it very clear. I polled the electorate in North Shore and in a scientific poll 56 percent of the public were opposed 34 percent were for and the balance were unclear. 
Tim Barnett 
: What’s the question? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I know that Mr Barnett says: “Ah but you asked the wrong question.” but I checked that and that is not the case. More important I checked the legislation in detail and the reality is this. This legislation is in fact marriage by any other name. The form and substance of marriage are entirely reflected in the bill. There is a solemnisation procedure people make undertakings and the rules of consanguinity do apply. Those are precisely the things that we find in marriage. 
When people suggest that this Civil Union Bill is not effectively a marriage they are wrong because when one reads the bill that is precisely what the proposition is. That is why Mr Worth has put up in essence an alternative that does look more like a civil union. A number of same-sex couples have said to me that they are concerned about next of kin issues. They are concerned about property issues. I want to make it clear that I did vote in the Property (Relationships) Bill to extend those property issues to same-sex couples because those are the real issues that gay people are mostly concerned with. Well there is a mechanism to fix those issues and Mr Richard Worth’s amendment will do precisely that. I believe that if the New Zealand public were given a clear and reasonable choice they would extend the kinds of protections that Mr Worth is thinking of through a referendum. 
I ask why the Government is so afraid of a referendum. Surely as our democracy evolves it is fundamental that we should be more willing to extend greater direct democracy to the people. There is an enormous passion for it. If one asks the public that is what they want and why do they want it? Because at their heart they know that their consciences have as much validity as those of anyone in this Parliament. Surely when we are talking about civil rights we are talking about equality. Every person in this country who is an adult and who has thought about those things is able to make an informed decision. This Parliament has a historic opportunity to change the way that we do things in our democracy and to extend civil rights to the people by an extension of our direct democracy. 
I want to know from the next Government speaker whether it will take that opportunity because there is a real opportunity here which should be taken. In other countries such as the United States many European countries and Australia there is a growing trend for direct democracy. There is a growing voice in New Zealand for direct democracy. Conscience issues are the perfect vehicle for those. Civil union: it is either yes or no. The drinking age: it is either 18 or 20. Brothels: one either wants them in one’s community or one does not. The public are able to make common-sense reasonable decisions on those issues. Those referendums would not be taking place in a vacuum; there would be a large and informed debate from both sides of the issue. They should be held at the time of general elections to get the maximum participation but we should ultimately trust the voice of the people.