Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7755] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to pick up a theme developed by my honourable colleague Gerry Brownlee—“vacancies”. I have read the dictionary on the word “vacancies” which means more than one vacancy. It is plural. I think the media of this country have a duty to phone all Labour Party members and ask them whether they have applied for a passport since the last election whether they have been granted a passport since the last election and whether they have sworn allegiance to a foreign prince or power since the last election. Those are straightforward questions that are easy to answer. 
Simon Power 
: Ask Matt Robson. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Hon Matt Robson a former Minister— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He said he didn’t. He’s on the record. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is on the record. Clayton Cosgrove said he is eligible. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: No I didn’t. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He said he is eligible. The confession is there. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He’s clean. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He is clean. What about the Hon Chris Carter? What is his answer? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I neither confirm nor deny. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well there is an opening. We should remember what the situation is in this Parliament. We must take the word of each and every member on the face of it; otherwise they would be misleading Parliament and it would be a matter of privilege. Mr Carter might see that as a frivolous matter. Given that his interjection—which is on the record—was that he could neither confirm nor deny he now has a serious obligation to the Parliament and to the nation to say which is true. 
Obviously this piece of legislation using the plural word “vacancies” in its title was intended to cover Mr Carter. I asked him a simple question about whether it applied to him—and his interjection which is on the record has left us uncertain. I think it is clear in this situation that Parliament and the country are entitled to know what the facts are. 
In the course of our contributions we will be asking that question of every single Labour Party member. We will pause and give them the opportunity to reply because they have a duty to do that. That is what the law says. If the Government genuinely believes that it wanted to fix up one particular situation it could have done that. Mr Peters along with Mr Dunne is on the record as saying he would have supported a narrow provision. Actually it is unclear with Mr Dunne; he may well support a wide provision—I see he is shaking his head in denial. So as I understand it he will be voting against this legislation. I know that New Zealand First will be voting against it. 
National is clear that there should be a by-election irrespective of the outcome of that election. It is irrelevant; the law takes its course. The Government should have called the bill the “Electoral (Vacancies and By-election) Amendment Act” because that is the normal and proper consequence. That would be the Government’s proper duty. 
I refer to the Speaker’s ruling on this issue. It states that the Speaker is not necessarily the person who decides whether a vacancy actually is a vacancy. Well I have news for the Speaker: the vacancy exists and has existed since 11 June. In my view the proper course for the Speaker was to immediately recognise that fact. That would then lead to the consequence of a by-election. The Government could have done something it said it could not do: bring in retrospective legislation for Parliament to elect Mr Duynhoven to the seat. Even the Government would have said that that would be going too far. In principle what is the difference? Is that not what we are really doing here? 
Mr Peters himself said he has been through a by-election and knows what a difficult process it is and there are costs. I can understand the psychology of that. But we are not here for that; we are here to implement the law. That is the test.