Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's an absolute pleasure to speak on this. There is simply no way I think Parliament can support a commencement date as currently written. As members have canvassed members were elected at the last general election under a set of terms and conditions. The voters understood what it was they were casting their votes for and how members would serve their terms.We heard Mr Little try his best to somehow have us believe that this would not be retrospective because it would only apply to members' actions in the future—totally disregarding the fact that they were elected under a certain set of electoral laws and expectations. Well I'll say this. If a member seeks to dance on the head of a pin like that all that is going to happen is they're going to feel a little prick—as I'm sure Mr Little is around about now—because you simply cannot justify that position. I will speak to the history of MMP in New Zealand that reinforces the fact that it is wrong not only to change these conditions for MPs and how they serve but certainly very wrong to change it part way through an electoral term.The other thing that really astounded me about what Mr Little had to say was that he clearly does not understand—once elected—what the distinctions are between an electorate and a list MP in Parliament because there are only two. There are only two things that distinguish between an electorate MP and a list MP and they are that a list MP may not associate themselves as representing a geography. That is the sole privilege of the member that was elected for that electorate. The only other thing that a list MP cannot do and that an electorate MP can do is nominate someone to be a justice of the peace. The only two differences between an electorate MP and a list MP—and that has been true for every year that we've had MMP in New Zealand except for that short and very dark part of our democratic history when the Rt Hon Winston Peters managed to get waka-jumping legislation in this House for a short period of time. But under MMP the only things that distinguish list MPs from electorate MPs are geographical representation and being able to nominate a justice of the peace.Therefore to put legislation forward that suggests that if you're an electorate MP and you get sacked by your party leader or you have a disagreement with your caucus—I mean you can articulate it however one wants to. But if you get removed or leave a caucus then you have one set of rules for you. But as a list MP if you have the same disagreement that you basically get expelled from Parliament and the next one on your party list comes in completely misses the fact that except for geographic representation and the nomination of a justice of the peace in this Parliament since we've had MMP those are the only two differences between list and electorate members once they are elected.So this bill absolutely undermines at a very constitutional level—as members have noted on this side of the Chamber—what it is to be a member of Parliament once elected. It seeks to rewrite the conditions upon which one enters the Parliament and is placed here by voters and how one is treated. It is an egregious usurpation of power from voters. We got MMP through a referendum. Should we be fundamentally undermining it through a simple majority of Government members seeking to protect Winston Peters who doesn't trust the members of his own caucus because they've got history?Hon Member: No.BRETT HUDSON: We don't.The last point I'd make is it is wrong to make this change part-way through a parliamentary term. It should be made for new MPs entering this House.I make one last point. We've always known the Greens are Marxists on this side of the House. We thought it was Karl Marx. It turned out it was Groucho Marx because Groucho said These are my principles but if you don't like them I've got others." and that describes the Green Party."