Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The question that those listening on will have in their minds now is: why are the National Party so afraid of the voters? What is it about the democratic process that they are so afraid of? What is it about the principle of MMP that says it's the voters who should decide the make-up of Parliament—what is it about that principle that they are so afraid of? Why do they believe that members of Parliament once they get to Parliament having been elected under a party banner should be free to abandon that party banner and distort the make-up of Parliament in a way the voters never intended without going back to those voters for a mandate?It is absolutely acceptable for a member of Parliament to stand up in this House and say I do not support the position of my party and I've got to go back to the electorate and seek a new mandate because I don't support the party that I got elected under." It's happened before and members of Parliament who have done that have been rewarded by their constituents for doing just that. Tariana Turia did that. I disagreed with her doing that I was disappointed when she did that but she did it and she was re-elected. She had the integrity to go back to the people of her constituency and say that she didn't feel she could be a member of this party any more—the Labour Party—and therefore she sought a fresh mandate from her constituents. When Winston Peters was expelled from the National Party he had the integrity to go back to his voters and say "I am no longer a member of my party of the party under whose banner I was elected and I will therefore seek a fresh mandate."—and he got it. He was not afraid of the voters.So what is it about the National Party of today? What is it that they are so afraid of that if they think they are no longer willing to support the position of their party they should not have to go back to their constituents and seek a fresh mandate? Why is that a problem? What is so affronting about that?Rarely has a bill in this House been the subject of so much misinformation as this one has been and much of that misinformation—much of that misinformation—has been propagated by the increasingly bizarre questions from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Over the past couple of weeks he has compared New Zealand to Zimbabwe in his contributions. He has reached back to the depths of the 19th century and invoked the name of Winston Churchill who he told us had changed parties twice over appeasement which the history books will say is not true. In fact the only time Winston Churchill changed parties was once in 1904.So let's go back 120 years and consider what Nick Smith is holding up as the beacon of democratic representation. What is he holding up? Well let's go back 120 years: women could not vote in that Parliament half of the working-class men could not vote in that Parliament Oxford University had its own MPs in that Parliament and half of the Parliament—half of the Parliament—was reserved for rich men who gained their seats through a hereditary entitlement. That is what Nick Smith is now holding up as the beacon of democracy for New Zealanders. I think we've come a long way since then. One hundred percent of the MPs in this House are elected by the people of New Zealand and that is exactly as it should be.If the members of this House no longer feel that they can remain true to the policies and the platform that they were elected under then they should go back to the people of their constituencies and they should seek a fresh mandate. If they are standing on a point of principle and the people of New Zealand believe that it's a legitimate point of principle then they may well be rewarded for that but this idea that MPs part-way through a parliamentary term can go and set up a whole new party and then for the remainder of that term represent an entirely different platform—that's what the National Party are arguing for: an entirely different platform to that which they were elected under. That is what the National Party are saying that people should do and I thoroughly disagree with that proposition. I think that members of Parliament having been elected by the people of New Zealand on a party platform under a party banner should stay true to that.Nobody is suggesting that the conscience vote in this House should be removed. We've seen conscience votes exercised in this very term of Parliament. In fact the only party in Parliament that prevented its MPs from exercising their conscience was the National Party because several members indicated publicly that they were going to exercise their conscience one way and then the National Party stopped them doing that. On this side of the House we're happy for MPs to exercise their conscience on conscience votes. They will go back to their constituents in the next election and then people will be able to decide one way or the other. Medicinal cannabis was exactly that case: members on our side voted for and against that but those members on the other side of the House who wanted to vote for the bill were prevented by their party from doing so.So nobody on this side of the House is proposing that the conscience vote be done away with. Nobody on this side of the House is saying that where members disagree with their parties and the parties are OK with them voting their conscience they should be prevented from doing so—and as my colleague Andrew Little pointed out there's history with that. Damien O'Connor disagreed with the Labour Party on issues to do with the West Coast and has voted differently to the party. He's still here; the party didn't seek to expel him from the Parliament. So there's all this scaremongering on the other side about the potential effects of this that simply is almost entirely false.The issue here at heart is that the voters of New Zealand should get the Parliament that they vote for. That is what MMP is all about. Why should MPs be able to leave their parties set up new parties and remain in Parliament potentially for three years? Under the National Party's reasoning someone could be elected under a party banner the day after the election they could start a whole 'nother party and promote policies completely contradictory to the platform they were elected under and that is OK. That is not OK and New Zealanders have been very very clear that they don't support that approach because those MPs who have done that—the history of MMP will show—don't generally tend to fare very well when they stand for re-election at the next election. What this bill does is it says they shouldn't get that far. They should have to seek a fresh mandate when they do it and there's nothing wrong with that.This bill is perfectly acceptable. It says that it is the voters that should determine the make-up of Parliament and I do not understand why the National Party think that is such an affronting idea."