Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I think Gerry Brownlee's made it quite clear that one of two things has happened. The first is that he hasn't read the bill properly or the second is that he's been led down the garden path by Nick Smith down the creek with no paddle and Nick Smith is taking the rest of the National Party members with him with an ill-informed uneducated ill-read look at what this bill is actually trying to achieve and what it actually is going to achieve whether they like it or not—whether they like it or not.You see there's a couple of things that firstly Nick Smith said and that Gerry Brownlee backed up. A couple of quotes: the first is that it allows the leader to dismiss an MP". That is absolutely and totally false—absolutely and totally false. It is written in the legislation itself that there needs to be a two-thirds majority caucus decision. Now I'm not entirely sure how the National Party caucus runs or is trying to run at the moment—let's put aside the fact that it's rudderless at this point in time—but that's not how a democratically run party that is represented in this House runs. Two-thirds majority—that is stipulated in the legislation.The second is something very strange that Mr Smith said. He said that it doesn't allow voters to fire the MPs. That's what he said—quoted. This legislation actually does that very thing. It puts the mandate on the people of this country. It puts the decision on the people of this country in two ways.Brett Hudson: No it doesn't.DARROCH BALL: In two ways Mr Hudson. If you want to listen up you might learn something because obviously you haven't read the bill either.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually I don't have to read the bill.DARROCH BALL: That member Mr Hudson will learn something if he listens because he obviously hasn't read the bill either. Stop listening to Mr Nick Smith. You see if one is a list member then who put them in this Parliament—who put them in this Parliament? Why are there a number of seats proportionally speaking in this Parliament the way that they are very much today—the way they are today? The people.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not the voter directly.DARROCH BALL: Oh yes they did.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No they didn't.DARROCH BALL: Oh yes they did Mr Brownlee. Oh yes they did. It's called a party vote you see. This is the biggest problem that this National Party has had over the last decade. When they were in Government they acted like this was first past the post—like it was first past the post.Here's a question Mr Brownlee and all those sitting over there at this stage: hands up who believes—truly believes—that they would have got and won their seat if they're a seat holder not standing on a National Party ticket. Hands up. Mr Brown—Simeon Brown—put your hand up if you will. See the only person was Mr Nick Smith. That's how far out of touch that gentleman is and that's how far he is leading the rest of this party the National Party down the garden path. They want to listen to him. Mr Smith actually believes that he would have won this seat as an Independent but no one else—no one else here.See this is the whole point. The Rt Hon Winston Peters when he disagreed with the National Party what did he do? He took his opinions and his grievances with the National Party back to the people. He resigned and he went back to the people and he got a mandate. That is what one calls a mandate.The arrogance is palpable from that side of the House that they truly believe that they're sitting there because of them—because of that tick. Whether that party likes it or not we are living in an MMP environment an MMP democracy. The most important word represented in MMP is the "P" for proportional. Who decides what proportion is sitting in here? The people—the people do. So what the National Party want in not having this legislation is that when the people are ticking the party vote on election day they will have absolutely no certainty whatsoever that that will remain. Now they can talk about the individual electorates voting that certain person in and whatnot and if they truly believe that they got there because of that then they should take their differences—that they quite obviously have—when they leave that party and take it back and get a mandate just like the Rt Hon Winston Peters did.When someone such as Dr Smith has strong opinions about obviously political issues you usually end up landing on the left side of the argument on the right side of the argument or somewhere in between. Unfortunately for Mr Smith he has landed in la-la land and he is taking the National Party with him.I'll give an example of what I mean. I've got two opinion pieces here from opposite sides of the spectrum and both of them agree with him. One is from Chris Trotter and the other one is from—not usually a bastion of or a flag-bearer for New Zealand First—one Mike Hosking. They both say the same thing. I want to quote firstly from Chris Trotter because he's actually got it right. If we listen to the likes of Nick Smith he says "The rights of the poor old voters are of course almost entirely disregarded by these upright constitutional guardians. The electorate's assumption that the undertakings given to it by political parties immediately prior to the general election will remain viable for the full three years of the Parliament term is dismissed"—by the likes of Mr Smith and the National Party—"as quaintly naïve."Mike Hosking opposite on the political spectrum but of the exact same opinion who said—and Gerry Brownlee mentioned the Alliance—"Go back to Alamein Kopu. She fell out with the Alliance but because she fell out with the Alliance she just got to sit in Parliament."Hon Gerry Brownlee: I didn't mention her at all.DARROCH BALL: No you mentioned the Alliance so if—DEPUTY SPEAKER: I mentioned nobody.DARROCH BALL: Mr Brownlee mentioned the Alliance which is what I said—which is what I said. "She wasn't elected to Parliament she was elected on the Alliance list but she got to sit in Parliament for free." He goes on to say—and I quote—"if you are elected under the umbrella of this particular organisation."—being the party—"If for whatever reason you cannot cope with that and you no longer want to be part of that organisation you don't get then to just sit in Parliament as an independent as you didn't get elected that way and therefore you should get booted out."If Mr Brownlee or anyone else from the National Party has doubts about this legislation perhaps they just want to see the writing on the wall from their mates. They are saying that this legislation upholds the very nature of MMP in this country—of MMP in this country.It is not up to the whims of the individual MP just because they don't like the ticket they're sitting on any more to quit and not represent what the voters want them to and what they voted for on election day which was the proportionality of this Parliament. That's why the arrogance is palpable coming from that side of the House. On this side of the House we recognise as a basic fundamental that we represent the people of this country—that we represent the views and the wants and the needs of the people of this country and how they voted. Anyone else that is going to vote against that legislation disagrees with the statement I just made—disagrees with the fundamental basics of an MMP environment in this country. It is disgraceful and telling at the same time that all the seat holders sitting over there did not put their hand up when I asked them. That answers the question for them and it speaks volumes for the public of this country."