Mapp Wayne: General Debate 
Mapp Wayne: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:16906] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This week two things have united this Parliament. The first thing goes back two decades and that is honouring the grievances of the past and settling them. I congratulate the iwi of the central North Island today on that. The second issue is that yesterday the House unanimously supported the Prime Minister’s motion to condemn the Mugabe regime and its fraudulent election. 
It is just a pity that the Prime Minister does not have a better appreciation of irony because on that very same day she told the people of New Zealand that no they could not have a vote on something that 10 percent of the population has signed a petition for. She said they could not have a vote at the time at which it would matter most—at a general election. No wonder Tom Scott’s cartoon today made a very apt comparison with the Prime Minister. Who does the Prime Minister think she is? Does she really think she can just issue a decree saying: “No you can’t vote at the time of a general election.”? That is what she seemed to say again today and her excuses were completely fatuous. 
It is simply absurd to suggest that it is not possible for the Electoral Commission to do something as simple as draft a literally one-line ballot paper with the simple question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. That is a one-line question that has a simple answer—yes or no. Why would the Prime Minister not want the public to give their answer at a time when 80 percent of New Zealanders will be at the polls? It is an extraordinarily simple thing and to hear the Prime Minister today with all her excuses is the sort of thing we heard in Zimbabwe is it not? It took 6 weeks to count one vote—right through March and right through April—and we are hearing the same kind of fatuous absurdities from the Prime Minister today. 
The Prime Minister knows of course that she is not correct. She knows perfectly well that the excuses she raised are just that—excuses. She knows that the last possible day on which a vote could be approved is 26 September. That is nearly 2 months before the last possible day for a general election. Well snap elections can be conducted in 4 weeks—that happened in 1984. In fact in 2002 the Prime Minister called an early election and that was done in only 6 weeks. So surely the Prime Minister cannot seriously expect New Zealanders to believe her when she says that it is all too difficult and that we could not possibly have time to organise a referendum at the same time as the election. She does not really need to hear the public’s voice on election day and she said there is plenty of time to do that by postal ballot. Well we know the real reason for her stalling tactic do we not? She does not want the referendum to be yet another reason why the public would say no to her Government. 
Ron Mark 
: Did you vote for the smacking bill? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I say to Mr Mark that the key issue is not my vote; it is the vote of the public. Surely that is what a democracy is actually about—the public having their say. I have always stood for citizens initiated referenda because the public should have their say. 
The reason why the Prime Minister wants to deny a vote is that she wants to deny the opportunity for the public to say no to her Government. Well I say to the Prime Minister that the message is very very clear. She needs to uphold our democracy—that is a simple proposition. A democracy is about people having the right to express their views. So I say to the Prime Minister that she should give the people their vote on a citizens initiated referendum and at the most relevant time which is at the general election. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to ask the member a question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member is perfectly entitled to do that but it is most unusual during a general debate. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to ask the member a question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection? There is. It has been opposed. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is the public of New Zealand that matters. Apparently Ron Mark does not want to hear what the public want to say. He is obviously lining himself up with the Labour Government in denying the public of New Zealand the right to have their say at a citizens initiated referendum. 
Ron Mark 
: That’s a lie! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Mark should go to the Prime Minister and tell her that she should be telling the public of New Zealand to have that vote. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you give me some guidance? What that member said is clearly not the truth Mr Assistant Speaker. You know—it is in the  
Hansard 
—that New Zealand First called for a referendum during the passing of that bill. So what redress do I have against a member who tells an untruth? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is of course entitled to say what he likes in the House. We have freedom of speech and it is a debatable issue. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at what the member said earlier—which you heard Mr Assistant Speaker—about people telling lies and so forth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well— 
Dail Jones 
: I appreciate the opportunity that the member has given New Zealand First to make it clear that what he was saying about supporting a referendum is untrue. We do support a referendum. We proposed it in the bill. It is New Zealand First policy that the member is now trying to support. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you heard Ron Mark say that I was telling a lie. I ask him to withdraw and apologise for his statement. It is quite simple. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member used that particular language. He is a longstanding member and knows he cannot use that language in the House. The member should withdraw and apologise for the use of the word. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I right in saying that the only way I can address an issue that I believe has been deliberately misrepresented is to take the person to the Privileges Committee? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot actually raise that on the floor of the House. But the member of course can seek leave to make a personal explanation. That is something entirely different. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As the member well knows I simply— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would Dr Mapp and Mr Mark please be seated. I am on my feet. Dr Mapp your time has expired.