Walker Holly: Member Vacancy — Epsom Electoral District—Hon John BanksText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWalker Holly: Member Vacancy — Epsom Electoral District—Hon John Banks[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18653. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]HOLLY WALKER (Green):Well like the other parties that have spoken so far in this debate the Green Party will support the motion that no writ be issued for an Epsom by-election following the sad departure of Mr Banks. Like others we agree that it is in no one’s interests to have a by-election just 3 months out from an election with just 4 sitting weeks left in this term of Parliament.We do not want to waste taxpayers’ time and we do not want to waste taxpayers’ money with an unnecessary by-election at the same time as a general election campaign. It would be irresponsible to allow a by-election to go ahead. But of course plenty of taxpayers’ time and money have already been wasted in this sad affair. In fact you could argue that the past 3 years have been a complete waste of time and money for Epsom voters because they are ending this term of Parliament with no MP and for much of the term their representative was under a cloud after being charged with and eventually being found guilty of electoral fraud relating to donations he received before he even re-entered Parliament at the last election during his 2010 Auckland mayoral campaign.The unfortunate events resulting in Mr Banks being found guilty of electoral fraud are not good for this Parliament as we have just heard from the previous speaker Grant Robertson. It reinforces the perception many members of the public hold that Parliament is full of corruptible self-interested dishonest individuals and it does nothing to enhance the reputation of this institution. This case not only reflects on all of us here in this House in a poor light but also brings into question much of the legislation that has been passed in this term of Parliament.As my colleague and co-leader Dr Russel Norman noted in his earlier contribution in this debate the single-vote majority afforded to this National Government by Mr Banks has allowed this Government to pass 13 controversial bills by 61 to 60—a single-vote majority—during the current term of Parliament. Bearing in mind that the offence that Mr Banks has been found guilty of took place before this term of Parliament commenced I believe that that calls into question the legitimacy of that legislation. That legislation includes the legislation that allowed the sale of our State assets. It includes the legislation that returned us to the discriminatory system of paying a lower minimum wage to young workers. It includes legislation that removed protections from our conservation estate that gave the Minister for Economic Development decision-making power over our conservation estate and that restricted New Zealanders’ rights to protest at sea. These were controversial bills that were not supported by the majority of New Zealanders but they squeaked across the line in this House thanks to the vote of someone who has now been convicted of a dishonesty offence that took place before the commencement of this term of Parliament.That single vote is a vote that John Key was prepared to keep casting on behalf of Mr Banks. Even after the allegations were made public even after the police report was placed on John Key’s desk even after a private prosecution was taken and found to have merit even after the police belatedly took up the case and it was taken up by Crown Law and even after it was obvious that John Banks was going to stand trial in the dock for electoral fraud this Government and its leader John Key were perfectly happy to keep casting the vote of Mr Banks to pass legislation like those 13 controversial bills. And for a brief moment last week after the verdict in the case and before his advisers had got in his ear the Prime Minister was even prepared to keep casting John Banks’ vote for the remainder of this term of Parliament—before somebody had a quiet word and said it might be better for Mr Banks to simply go.So were it not for Mr Banks none of that legislation would have been passed. It should never have been passed and the fact that it did highlights how badly we need reforms to improve the transparency of both central government and local government and to tighten the rules on electoral donations particularly anonymous donations. The Green Party has a bill to do just that. It is our Local Electoral (Finance) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague Denise Roche. That bill would bring the provisions for local elections into line with those for general elections when it comes to the declaration of donations when it comes to filing returns and when it comes to the limits for anonymous donations. It would lower the limits and bring those rules more into line. We went some way towards doing that earlier in this term of Parliament but we have not gone far enough and the case of Mr Banks in Epsom I think highlights exactly why that bill needs to be adopted and passed in this House.I also want to speak briefly about the implications of all of this for our electoral system MMP. The Green Party is supporting this motion not to have a by-election in Epsom because we do not want to waste taxpayers’ time and money. In many ways any election in Epsom is a waste of time and money because of the way that this Government has chosen to continually exploit the MMP electoral system. For the last several elections—and it looks like this year’s election is going to be no different—the National Party and the ACT Party have collaborated to attempt to exploit the coat-tailing provision where if a member wins a single seat their party’s party vote allows them to bring more MPs with them into Parliament in order to maximise the majority in Parliament for the National Government. That worked for them when Rodney Hide was the leader of the ACT Party in 2008. Because he won the seat he brought several MPs into Parliament with him. It did not work so well actually in 2011 because despite the sideshow that was the cup of tea in Epsom all we got was John Banks—thank goodness—and his single vote allowing National to govern and to pass the kind of legislation I talked about earlier. What it showed was that voters are absolutely sick of that coat-tailing provision being exploited in that way.The sideshow that was the cup of tea in Epsom was really the nail in the coffin I think in terms of the public’s opinion of that coat-tailing rule. So when we had the opportunity to review MMP because of the referendum and the review system that was set up as a result of a positive result in favour of keeping MMP at the referendum in 2011 voters spoke out in no uncertain terms saying that they would like to see that provision changed. In terms of the large amount of feedback that was received by the Electoral Commission in reviewing MMP the one-electoral-seat threshold was by far the one that received the most feedback and it was the clearest in terms of public opinion both in the polling that was undertaken and also in terms of the submissions received. Not only that but the members of the royal commission that recommended the introduction of MMP in the first place back in 1987 have subsequently said they feel that the introduction of the coat-tailing rule was their one mistake in the introduction of MMP. So there is a very very clear set of public opinion that that coat-tailing provision should no longer exist.Unfortunately though John Banks is not the only recent example of people trying to exploit that rule and there are new parties forming at the moment aiming to do the same thing. As the Green Party spokesperson for electoral reform I am extremely concerned that as a result of all of this our electoral system is becoming a political football. It never should be and it would not have been had the process that was set up following that referendum on MMP in 2011 been followed correctly. What happened was that a referendum was held and the public vote of 58 percent to retain MMP—because clearly people saw that it was a good system and that it should be retained—triggered a review process where changes could be made and where people could have their say on things like that coat-tailing provision the 5 percent threshold and a number of other aspects of the system.In good faith many thousands of members of the public engaged with that process thinking that this was their opportunity to make the changes to our electoral system that they wanted to see. Unfortunately after that process was completed—as Russel Norman mentioned in his contribution before—we got no further because the Minister of Justice sat on it for months and months and months until there was pretty much no time left in which to make the changes before the election. Then she announced she could not get the majority in Parliament that she needed to make those changes neglecting to mention that the only party that was not prepared to entertain those changes was her own party the National Party.What has happened since is that our electoral system has become a political football. We now have parties seeking to exploit the rules again. We also have parties seeking to change the rules in this House through members’ bills and through other proposals from outside Parliament to amend parts of the electoral system. We have parties taking different positions on different recommendations and I fear that this is going to continue and that the public’s confidence in our electoral system will continue to be eroded. What should have happened is that the Electoral Commission’s recommendations should have been adopted as a package. Until that happens unfortunately the sad case of Mr Banks simply continues to underline the fact that our electoral system has become a political football.