Moroney Sue: Member Vacancy — Epsom Electoral District—Hon John BanksText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMoroney Sue: Member Vacancy — Epsom Electoral District—Hon John Banks[Sitting date: 18 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18658. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate about whether we should have a by-election in Epsom given the resignation of John Banks. I think it is all about timing really is it not? This debate is all about timing because when these allegations first came to light if the police had prosecuted at that point then we would not be having a debate about whether to have a by-election; we would definitely be having one because it would have been around about 2 years ago that this would have all occurred. And then we would have had the prospect of trying to find out whether the National Party was going to stand a bag of flour whether it was going to stand a candidate or in fact what it would do in the case of a by-election for Epsom. Because the police chose not to and made a decision not to prosecute Mr Banks at that time we are instead here having this debate on this day where all the parties are agreeing that it actually would not be a good idea to have a by-election even though the disgraced MP has resigned because of the timing of this now. We are running hard up against a general election and everyone I think whom I have heard speak so far in the debate has seen the logic of not having a by-election at this particular point in time.But I think there are questions that remain around why that prosecution did not happen 2 years ago when it should have. My colleague Annette King is quite right—there are a number of pieces of legislation that have been to the detriment of the New Zealand public that would not have passed if John Banks’ vote had not been used to prop up those pieces of legislation. These are pieces of legislation that have not found favour with the public like the sale of our State-owned assets and pieces of legislation like charter schools. Just hearing Annette King speak about that reminded me that of course at the time when the charter schools legislation went through supported by John Banks’ one vote the Government was not really very upfront at that time and did not tell us that of course the students going to these charter schools would be funded at a much higher rate than children who are going through our State schooling system. I wonder had John Banks known that—or perhaps he did—whether he would have voted for that legislation and it may not have gone through anyway.Here we are some 18 months or 2 years on from when this debate could have been held about a by-election in Epsom when it would have been in a suitable time frame for exactly that course of action to be taken. Some many pieces of dreadful legislation later—propped up by John Banks who has now departed this place—and we are all saying that having a by-election would not be in the best interests of the public purse or of the public spend because we have got an election coming up. However in the meantime quite a lot of damage has been done by a vote that should never have been able to be used. I think that is the thing that causes me grief for democratic principles. What we have been talking about on this side of the House is that it was plain to us 2 years ago that this action should have been taken.I think it was plain to the National Party as well because I can see now in hindsight exactly why the Prime Minister chose the election date of 20 September. It was earlier than many people were expecting but of course the Prime Minister in hindsight I believe chose that date knowing that John Banks would be found guilty and would in fact be prosecuted and therefore would have to leave as a member of Parliament. So I find that a deeply cynical thing for the Prime Minister to have done—to have been so certain that John Banks was in fact guilty of what he had been accused of that I believe the election timetable has been set around that certainty. And if I am right and if the Prime Minister was certain that that was going to be the outcome of the court case then why did he not do what he should have done all along and actually act on the information that he had? Why did the Prime Minister sit it out and wait it out for around 2 years knowing what he knew and wait for a court to make that decision?I just want to place on record my view that the Prime Minister did in fact know—that he did in fact know—exactly the finding that the court would come to because what other explanation do we have for a 20 September election date?Ian McKelvie: How could he know that?SUE MORONEY: How could he know it? Ian McKelvie asks how the Prime Minister could know that. Well just use your imagination Mr McKelvie. The Prime Minister kept saying over and over again that he took Mr Banks at his word and yet once he knew that John Banks was going in front of a court of law he set about choosing an election timetable that would have us having this debate around about this time with parties conceding that actually having a by-election at this point so close to a general election probably is not the best use of taxpayer funding. I think that the timing of that has been quite deliberate. So I am concerned about that but I am also concerned about that one vote and I think that now New Zealanders can look at this and go: “Gosh actually this Government is hanging on by a thread—absolutely hanging on by a thread.” And do you know how they know that? It is because members of the public now know that the Government has not got the votes to put through some legislation it dearly wants to put through.I want to speak about one of those pieces of legislation because it is a piece that is very dear to my heart. That is the amendment legislation that the Government has in front of this House to take away the legal right to have a tea break at work. It is very dear to my heart because actually I wrote the original piece of legislation. It was a member’s bill that I had in my name in my first term in 2005 when I came in. Fortunately it was a Labour-led Government and the Labour-led Government chose to take up my member’s bill as a Government bill. Labour actually added a little bit more on to it around breastfeeding breaks at work as well but up until that point—I think it finally got passed in about 2007—there was no legal right for people to have a tea break a lunch break or a meal break at work. If they had it in their employment agreement it was a legal right for them but if their collective employment agreement was silent then they did not have that right.That law was passed in 2007 by Labour and that is the piece of law that is part of the piece of legislation that the Government now cannot pass—thank goodness—because John Banks is no longer here to prop up that very very bad piece of employment legislation. Of course it does other very bad things as well like taking away the ability for people to get a decent pay rise by ensuring that employers do not have to negotiate and do not have to conclude a collective employment agreement. It does all sorts of terrible things for working people but I am really pleased that that one vote will no longer be used to take away people’s legal right to have a break at work.So I am very pleased in some ways that the Government no longer has that very—what would I call it? I cannot use the word I really want to use but the mandate that it has used the one vote that it has used to put all sorts of dreadful laws through—it should never have had the right to use that vote because this debate has been going on for a couple of years now about whether John Banks knew what he knew and whether he did what he was accused of doing. I think the National Party knew all the way along that he was in fact guilty as the court has found him and it should never have been using his vote to prop up the very bad legislation that it has been putting through in that time.It is a sad day for Parliament because one of our own has had to resign. He has had to resign because in fact when you are found guilty of a charge such as the one he has been found guilty of then you have no choice but to resign. The only thing that he had a choice about was the timing of that resignation. The timing of this debate I think has been constructed for some time. Thank you.Motion agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.