Valedictory Statement

This will be my last contribution before I take my leave and resign from this House. I came into Parliament in August 1987, following a fierce selection campaign for the Labour Party for the seat of Porirua. Having spent 25 years of my working life in the trade union movement, I accepted nomination because of my deep concern that a new-right philosophy was in the ascendancy. I was a reluctant politician but I did have a clear mission, and that was to recapture Labour, which had been hijacked by the right-wing ideologues in Cabinet and in the caucus.

Those were tense and tumultuous times, such was the bitterness about the fundamental economic policy differences. It was a searing experience for me, and one that I did not enjoy, at all, during my first term as a member of Parliament. In fact, I can say that I hated every second of every minute of every hour of those first 3 years in this House. Until the Labour-led Government was elected in 1999 I felt that I was in Opposition for all those 12 years, even when we were in Government.

During the late 1980s and in the early 1990s, under the then National Government, ideologically driven politicians privatised many of our publicly owned institutions, contracted out jobs and public services, corporatised and then privatised Government departments, and allowed the gap between rich and poor to widen. That effectively allowed the transfer of much of this country’s wealth and power. New Zealand, I believe, is still recovering from that distortion. I hope there are enough people, both throughout the community and in this House, who will not allow that to ever happen again.

One of the things about my constituency work in 1987 was that a number of people came to my electorate office desperately wanting help with immigration and housing problems. In many of the immigration cases, I imagine they had tried to get their problems solved with my predecessor, and they were trying me out as the “new chum on the block”. In nearly every case, I was offered gifts. In refusing, I had to explain that they paid me through their taxes, and that in New Zealand we did not need gifts to do our job as members of Parliament. Many were very insistent and upset, and told me that offering gifts was their custom and tradition. I had to explain that I would do my best for them, and when some of them would not take their gifts back, I had to arrange, in their presence, for my secretary to call the Salvation Army or the Presbyterian or Catholic support services to come and collect those gifts.

Well, exactly 3 months to the day after I was elected the word had got out, and the offering of gifts stopped permanently. I was always conscious that if one accepted a gift, even a small one, it would only lead to another, and probably a larger, gift the next time. I think that story is important, because I do not want to see our members of Parliament innocently slip into practices that could compromise them or lead to the corruption that is prevalent in the political process in many other countries.

The most significant reason that New Zealand now has MMP is the reaction of the people against the rapid economic and social changes of the 1980s and 1990s. New Zealanders wanted the process of change to be slowed down, and they wanted to exert some control over the political process. As I leave this House, I can observe that that objective has mostly been attained. Under MMP, some parties have come under criticism for having to compromise on their policies in their manifestos, as the price for obtaining agreement with other parties in order to form a Government. I sometimes think that in constantly having to make compromises in order to accommodate minor parties’ support for measures, we can risk ending up looking like blancmange. Is that what the public really wants? I do not think so.

However, at least MMP has stopped New Zealand from being the fastest legislator in the west, and it has forced like-minded political parties to come to terms with policies that are not as extreme as they would otherwise be. Under MMP I have observed that the select committee process is working much better. It is actually really relevant now, and there is a real sense that the public’s and MPs’ input has real meaning. However, there are times when I think the tail is wagging the dog. Some smaller parties that desperately want to make an impression, and to lift their poll rating, push the boundaries of what it is reasonable for select committees and for the Government parties to accommodate in this environment.

In spite of being in Opposition for the majority of my 16 years in Parliament, there have been some high points. I recently looked back at my maiden speech, and in it, amongst other things, I advocated for a New Zealand music quota on radio, and for a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week accident and emergency department at Kenepuru Hospital in Porirua. Up until now, the accident and emergency department was open only during office hours on weekdays. I leave here knowing that finance has been budgeted by the Government for an upgrade at Kenepuru Hospital, with a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week accident and emergency department. I want to thank Annette King, Michael Cullen, and the Cabinet for making that possible. My member’s bill, which went way back to 1989 and provided for a 20 percent New Zealand music quota on our radio stations, failed at that time. But I am pleased that a quota is now being implemented to reflect our identity and culture, even if it is in a different form.

Another effort that I am proud about was the successful campaign I waged to have the New Zealand’s Minimum Wage Act apply to the 4,000 foreign fishing crews who came to New Zealand each year to fish for joint-venture companies. Some were paid as little as US$4.50 a day. I felt totally uncomfortable with the fact that we were building a successful industry on the backs of cheap, exploited labour. That change in 1996 had the effect of increasing the number of Kiwis employed in the fishing industry, as well as of reducing the shameful exploitation of those workers. Only last year, I managed to have a very small member’s bill passed so that those same workers could claim their wages and the cost of getting home, should their vessel be stranded in New Zealand because their employer had gone broke and could not afford to pay their wages.

I recall just one or two particular difficulties I got into in my time here. One of those was when I refused to pay a $31 public hospital part-charge, because I believed it was a Government subjugation of social responsibility to the whims of the competitive market, and that it would lead to the privatisation of our hospitals. After a national campaign, which I helped to organise, the Government dropped the policy soon afterwards. Having recently used the public hospital system, I want to say that it works well. It is efficient, and we are indeed fortunate in the degree of expertise of our surgeons, doctors, technicians, and nurses. I think we can feel proud of our public health system. The second issue that stands out most clearly is the occasion when I was ordered out of this House after criticising the Minister of Housing at the time, because he would not agree to place smoke detectors in State houses following the deaths of two pre-schoolers in my electorate. Shortly after that, as though by magic, $8 million was found, and the installation of those fire alarms was authorised throughout the country.

One of the more onerous jobs that falls to constituency MPs is the constant fund-raising for one’s party for the next election. On one occasion I arranged a fund-raising debate between politicians and secondary school students, and the subject of the debate was “That youth is wasted on the young.” David Lange was one of the debaters. He was in full flight, and somehow drifted into talking about sex. He said: “I’ll bet there’s no one in this audience who hasn’t thought of sex in the past week. Put your hand up if you haven’t.” Well, to his great surprise, from the back of the hall an older grey-headed woman teacher gently raised her hand. He looked at her in astonishment and said: “And who are you?” And she said: “Sister Anne.” So there can be some fun in politics.

Of course, the most satisfaction in Parliament has been derived from being part of a Government implementing one’s own polices—policies that one can believe in. I was very proud in the year 2000 to shepherd the accident compensation bill and the Employment Relations Bill through the select committee process, in spite of the massive campaign of the Opposition—and some technical difficulties—that attracted over 16,000 submissions on the Employment Relations Bill. The downfall of civilisation has not occurred with the implementation of that legislation, as was predicted by everyone who opposed it at the time. In fact, quite the reverse has occurred, and workers are now required to be treated with dignity and respect, which they, of course, deserve.

Given the nature of the electorate that I served, public housing was always a major issue. I spent thousands of hours on dealing with the consequences of housing policies, both as a constituent MP and, for a time, as Labour’s spokesperson on housing. Because of the market rents policy of charging low-income families more than they could afford to pay—in some cases, up to 70 percent of their household income—I saw first hand high levels of overcrowding and poverty, and very bad health. I found that very distressing, and I often came home at night and found it difficult even to eat a meal. But I am delighted that, as the result of a Labour Government, State houses are now affordable for those families, and that the old housing stock, which, in many cases I think should have been bulldozed down, is at last being upgraded.

I want to say something about the effects of MMP on our politicians. After a very bad start, as many of us will remember, in 1996, MMP is, I think, working reasonably well. However, under the system there are pressures on constituency MPs that, compared with the pressures on list MPs, are simply unfair. Members of Parliament work extremely hard, whether list or constituency MPs. Compared with many occupations, members of Parliament make great sacrifices to serve the public, often at the expense of their families and their health. I acknowledge the members of this House for their contributions to our country in the various ways they represent their parties or constituencies, or both, and as parliamentarians generally. Most of the public have no idea of the long hours, the intensity of the work, or the range of issues that MPs deal with, or of the pressures that they are under.

However, when constituency MPs leave this place on a Thursday, they are faced often on that night and on the next 4 nights with meetings or functions in their electorates. Rarely would they not have a meeting on at least three of those five evenings, before they return to the House. Additionally, much of their Fridays, weekends, and Mondays would be full of meetings and engagements within their electorate. Maybe, like me, many members would have had just half a day free with their family on a Sunday. They do regularly work 15-hour days and mostly 7-day weeks—certainly if a member is a constituency MP. The point is that the work is intense, and it is rare to be able to escape it.

I know that in our party’s case, list MPs are specifically allocated electorates to work in, and act like constituency MPs. So they do work very hard. But while list MPs do work hard, I do not believe they are under the same pressure as constituency MPs. Only a fortnight ago I heard from a minor party’s list MP that he had had around 10 constituency cases to deal with, over 3 years. In my electorate office we would regularly get 10 cases each day, and often very many more. Constituency MPs cannot escape dealing with their constituents, nor should they. If they do, they suffer a fate at the next election. They are expected to be at meetings or functions, like it or not, day and night. In addition to their electorate work, which I have mentioned, there are portfolio responsibilities that will take them out of the electorate and around the country.

A list MP is not, and cannot be, put under the same scrutiny or microscope by the thousands of organisations and people who live in the same community. I believe an inherent unfairness is placed on constituency MPs because they are subjected to constant pressure from the demands and workload of their electorate, as well as having to handle their other responsibilities. The differences, in my view, are significant between list and electorate MPs, and a way should be found to ease the burden on MPs in what are now far larger electorates, since the advent of MMP.

There is another factor that I think affects the behaviour of constituency MPs. If they made some of the more outlandish statements that I have heard from some list MPs—I have to say mainly in the minor parties, in order to increase their profile and their poll ratings—their constituents would eat them alive when they visited the local bowling club, school, or supermarket. I am now more aware that an MP’s behaviour is, in part, modified because of that direct and immediate accountability.

So do I have an answer? I do, and it is to relook at the type of proportional representation that we have. It would be far better to give every MP a patch or a constituency, and for that MP to be directly accountable to the people he or she lives amongst. In my view, that would greatly enhance our democracy. If and when there is a review of MMP, or of any other system for dealing with how people get into this place, I hope the comments I have made will be considered.

My constituency work was demanding, and it was often frustrating having to deal with difficult and complicated cases for constituents, but it had its rewards. I thank the thousands of constituents whom I represented for allowing me that privilege. Of course, as an MP one is expected to attend events and functions. In my first term I had a call from the mayor of our city, who asked me whether I could get a Minister to officially open a new sewage treatment plant. Because it was close to the 1990 election, that was very difficult to arrange. By then, David Lange had resigned as Prime Minister and he agreed to do the job.

When we arrived we had to inspect the plant, and we had to walk on platforms above the holding tanks. At the best of times I have a weak stomach, and that exercise really tested me. The official party at the opening was at one end of the building, on a wide platform overlooking the machinery three floors below. At the other end of the building there was a similar platform, with the guests and staff. When it came time for David to speak he ignored the typed speech that the Department of Internal Affairs had prepared, and complimented the council on building the plant, having it commissioned on time, and delivering it under budget. He then went on to make some wonderful comments about Porirua City and the councillors’ role in the city’s rapid development. By that time one could see the councillors rising above the ground with pride, much like the rising stench from below. After largely ignoring the typed speech, he came to the end of his comments by saying: “I am declaring this plant officially open, so it’s bottoms up!”

I want to express my appreciation to those members of the Labour Party in my old electorates and elsewhere whom I have worked with and who made it possible for me to represent their interests in Parliament. I always tried to advance issues from a philosophical position that reflected Labour’s roots and traditions. I also acknowledge and thank the staff who worked for me. My electorate secretaries,

Lynne Renouf and Caroline Mill-Moses, each worked for me for 15 years, and John Grundy and Jane Blaikie worked for me for 6 years each. Like many electorate secretaries their knowledge of local issues, of Government policies, and of how the public service works, and their dealings with constituents, were truly outstanding. So I say a big thankyou to them all. And with regard to my various parliamentary secretaries over 16 years, Mavis Van Dalen, Margaret Abbott, Moana Ekenasio, Kay Martin, Pam Lobb, and Stephanie Greaves, I salute them all for their commitment and professionalism. May I thank the many staff in the parliamentary complex who help to make our job here just a little easier than it might otherwise be. We are very grateful for that.

Before I conclude, I want to thank my family for their support and encouragement over these many years. I want to recognise and acknowledge the work that my wife Janette has undertaken in my absence, in terms of raising our five children, running the household, and organising party and electorate events. I know she must have wondered at times why she was doing that, and being left alone at night and at weekends. But I am extremely grateful for and proud of her contribution, of the practical advice she gave me, and of the constancy of her commitment to me, to the Labour Party, and to the constituents. To my children and grandchildren, I want to say that in their lives, events and functions often occurred without me. I am grateful for their understanding and forbearance. I hope there may have been some compensating factors in that period.

I have enjoyed my extra work and involvement in the parliamentary Amnesty International group, Parliamentarians for Global Action, our work in helping to establish the International Criminal Court, the many MPs’ friendship groups with other countries, and, of course, the Harmony in the House fund-raising concerts for the Mary Potter Hospice. One of my most satisfying achievements as a member of Parliament is the Porirua City Community IT Educational Trust that I established in that city 3 years ago. That trust is placing 1,000 computers into 24 low-decile schools and 600 computers into the homes of parents who do not have a job. It will substantially raise the achievement levels of those pupils faster than the system can provide, and will reduce unemployment by training those parents in the use of computers.

In conclusion, I say I have had a lifelong interest in international affairs. I have been extremely proud of our country’s involvement in the wider world over very many decades. As a small nation we have played a significant and positive role in international agencies, in disarmament and peacekeeping, and in many other important areas. New Zealand is held in high regard by other countries because of that. Our independence and ability to stand up for principled positions has made me proud to be part of New Zealand and part of this Government. I look forward to continuing with that work as New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Canada and the Caribbean countries. Of course, besides promoting our trade, I will want to enhance the close cricketing relationships that we have with the West Indies while I am down there. I am sure I will be able to sell some butter during overs, while I am there.

As I take my leave, I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be a member of Parliament and to be part of this unique place. I thank my colleagues for their camaraderie and friendship, and for their concern when times were difficult. I thank them all for their commitment to the people they serve and to our democratic institution, this Parliament. We are one of only half a dozen countries in the world where a gun has not been fired at the time of a change of Government, and for that we can be proud. Members’ future role is to uphold that democratic tradition. It is all that we have, so members should work hard to protect it. Goodbye.

Sitting suspended from 5.51 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.