Valedictory Statements

E rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa. It is exactly 23 years ago today that the meeting that saw me selected to run as the Labour candidate for Christchurch Central began. A hotly contested selection saw the result delivered after midnight, so I was actually selected on Women’s Suffrage Day. It is 120 years tomorrow since New Zealand led the world with universal suffrage. It took a further 40 years for a woman to be elected to Parliament from the Lyttelton seat in Christchurch, and it took the change to MMP to see women take up a third of the seats in Parliament. The Chinese have a saying: “Women hold up half the sky.” All the bloggers who mocked the Labour Party’s attempt to debate how we ensure that women can do so in this place do an injustice to the importance of the debate. I encourage all parties to explore every option to ensure women’s participation. It does matter that young girls see this Parliament as a place they can aspire to serve, and they must not find that they are staring through a glass ceiling.

I had wanted to give my valedictory 2 weeks ago, on 4 September, that being the third anniversary of the earthquake that shook our world in Canterbury in more ways than one. I was looking for closure. I would not be leaving Parliament now if it had not been for the earthquake and all that has happened since. But today has meaning too. Twenty-three years ago I was preparing myself for the meeting that would lead me here. It had been a whirlwind 3 weeks since Mike Moore had become the Prime Minister and Geoffrey Palmer had announced he was retiring from Parliament at the election, which was just over a month away. Preparing the selection speech brings back great memories, and I offer my best wishes to each of the six candidates who are now busy preparing their own selection speeches to contest the selection to replace me.

It is hard to squeeze 23 years into the 15 minutes we are allotted. When I first arrived, we had 20 minutes for maiden speeches and valedictories. That was also the case for second reading speeches. I remember saying to our senior whip, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt: “What happens if I get to the end of my notes and I still have time left?”. He said: “Start again at the beginning. No one will notice.”

I was elected in the biggest defeat Labour had suffered for a long time. Labour had 29 seats to National’s 67, and Jim Anderton held the Sydenham seat for the New Labour Party, which was to form the basis of The Alliance. There were only seven first-time Labour MPs to National’s 25. My new colleagues made a formidable team: Pete Hodgson, John Blincoe, Steve Maharey, George Hawkins, Paul Swain, and, of course, the person who was to become one of my closest friends, Judith Tizard. We were collectively known as the backbench seven. With the exception of John Blincoe, who did not survive the switch to MMP, all of us served as Ministers in the three terms of Government led by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It remains an honour and a privilege to have served the country at that level.

On the other side of the House, 1990 saw the arrival of the likes of Bill English, Tony Ryall, and Nick Smith, all members of the brat pack and now all highly ranked Ministers with huge importance to the city of Christchurch. I will be in touch. The year 1990 was a good year to arrive. Opposition is a great place to learn the ropes. I have always encouraged new colleagues to take calls. It helps build confidence, which is actually what this place is all about. A Government falls on the loss of confidence. Before Christmas the employment equity law had been repealed, and the Employment Contracts Bill had been introduced, along with the first of a number of social security bills, this one bringing in the benefit cuts. The first Budget that I listened to sitting in the House as an MP was the 1991 Budget. The Minister of Finance had herself labelled it as the “mother of all Budgets”, and it was. I remember describing it as the dismantling of the very foundations of the welfare State.

The passing of the Employment Contracts Act remains a low point for me. The claim that individuals would have the freedom to negotiate with their employers was the mantra designed to disguise that the only bargaining strength many employees had was being stripped away. Collective bargaining and national awards, which guaranteed industry rates of pay above the minimum wage, were replaced with individual employment contracts. Many conditions that people took for granted, like tea breaks, had no legislative backstop and suddenly became unenforceable when national awards disappeared. In my maiden speech I said: “Unfortunately, the reality of the proposals for flexibility will mean cutting real wages—cutting the lowest wages the most, and that will hurt women—breaking up national negotiation procedures, attacking employment legislation, making it easier to sack people, increasing job insecurity, attacking the social welfare system, and reducing health and safety and environment protection. The reality is that none of those measures is a recipe for achieving economic growth, higher living standards, and an improved quality of life.”

A hidden cost that the Employment Contracts Act imposed on the nation, most recently felt in Christchurch, was the expansion of the personal grievance provisions to people in management positions above a certain salary bar. I regret that we did not reverse this when we were in office, and I make a plea for it to be addressed. Reinstate for them the tort of wrongful dismissal—a much higher threshold—and let them argue their cases in the High Court.

I began advocating for constituents straight away. I remember going to see the then Minister of Education, the Hon Lockwood Smith, about the impacts on young people who had been caught by some changes to the rules for student allowance. He listened and amendments were made. I also remember going to see the Hon Doug Graham in his role as Minister of Justice. A constituent wanted to register his son’s death on the New Zealand register, but because his son had died in Australia, he could not. The Minister said that his officials were opposed to the amendments because of the cost. I said that the cost could be recovered in the fee. To cut a long story short, my passionate plea in the House during the Committee stage of the bill saw the Minister instruct officials to write an amendment overnight, and my constituent got the closure he was looking for. I always use this as an example to show that Opposition MPs can be effective in this place. To all the people who have trusted me with their personal stories, I say thank you.

I had a number of portfolios in Opposition. Being the ACC spokesperson at the time that the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Bill was going through Parliament reinforced my firm belief that this is a precious scheme, the principles of which should be entrenched in law: community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation, and administrative efficiency. The good thing about the passage of the legislation was my discovery that the Regulations Review Committee was one of the most important select committees in this place. Anyone who wants to be a Cabinet Minister should serve on it. It is chaired by an Opposition member and it is Parliament’s watchdog on the power of the executive. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that this committee is not politicised. It now has only three National MPs and two Labour MPs, one of whom is the chair. That is simply insufficient for the quality of scrutiny that this House is entitled to.

I became Labour’s spokesperson on health at one of the most controversial times in the history of our health system. The introduction of the competitive market model, the funder/provider split with regional health authorities and Crown health enterprises, and the introduction of means-tested part charges in our hospitals were major challenges. As I was closing my electorate office for the Christmas holidays at the end of 1996, I was left a copy of a report: Patients Are Dying. The report showed that a number of patients had died at Christchurch Hospital in circumstances where their deaths were preventable. Warnings were given, warnings were ignored, and people died—that is what the report said. People who were close to me know how much I invested in getting to the bottom of what had occurred. Most people do not know that this included standing alongside the families as they went through the coroners’ inquests. Everyone had lawyers except the families of the people who had died. That is wrong. Families need to be represented so that the right questions are asked, and representation should not be subject to legal aid means testing. It is the public interest in getting to the truth of the matter that is the client in such a case. There was a lawyer who said something that has remained with me. He said that the coroner’s court was not a court of blame; it was a court of understanding. That phrase remains with me today, as I seek to ensure that we understand all that has happened in Christchurch, not to attribute blame but to learn lessons. The Stent report, as the Health and Disability Commissioner’s report became known, was an indictment on a managerially focused health system, oriented predominantly as it was on issues of efficiency, funding, and financial performance. They are important, but not at the expense of public safety.

It is true that I hit the wall. The explanation I offer as I leave this place is that the core of my inner being was rocked by discovering that the same ethical approach that guides clinicians and health professionals in their work did not apply to those managing the public health system in such an environment. I may have crashed, but, as I have found out, what does not kill you makes you stronger. The silver lining was getting to know people like Stu and Susie Gowland, Phil and Sue Bagshaw, and Gary and Liz Nicholls. I know there were others, but they helped me understand what truly matters in this world. Of course, Murray Gardiner, whose brother Brian, was one of the patients who died at Christchurch Hospital, has sent a text to say that he will be watching. So hello, Murray.

The year 1999 saw Labour in Government with The Alliance, and I was elected to Cabinet. I loved the immigration portfolio. To this day I have people who rush up to me to thank me for their residence in New Zealand. I did not have an Associate Minister in the first term, so I made all the individual decisions as well. This meant that the policy and operations officials from immigration met together in my office for my weekly briefing. That is where I learnt that policy and operations are strengthened if they are informed by each other. While I have been here I have seen Government departments split apart to separate policy and operations—for example, the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Justice. It is like separating the head from the hands. The senior public servants whom I worked with in immigration were outstanding. I know that I will embarrass them if I name them in my valedictory speech. Some of them are here tonight, and I thank them for their commitment to public service.

There were many highlights, including establishing the New Zealand Immigration Programme, improving New Zealand’s refugee determination process, creating a focus on settlement outcomes—the New Kiwis website was the first partnership with the Auckland chamber of commerce—and the introduction of the talent visa. It is the Tampa incident, however, that will always stand out for me as an important milestone in our nation’s history, and a symbol of the role that a small country can play when called upon to do so. It is just over 12 years since we made the decision to bring some of those asylum seekers to New Zealand to determine their claims. I am proud of what so many of them have achieved here in New Zealand, as well as grateful for their loyalty and commitment to the country that offered them refuge when others had turned them away.

There were many times when I relived in my mind the sequence of events that ended in my resignation from Cabinet on Friday, 20 February 2004. I did not have to look up the date. My personal integrity is very much about who I am. So, for the record, I had nothing to do with the case. It was a decision for my Associate Minister, and he made the right decision. I was sent a copy of a document from an electorate office that received it as part of the lobbying process. The document confirmed that a media campaign was going to be mounted if all the lobbying failed. I made a copy available to a journalist. I believed that the journalist did not want it known that I was the source. That is why I was fudging the issue. I accepted full responsibility for my actions and I resigned.

I was reinstated after the 2005 election, which leads me to reflect briefly on the commerce portfolio. I remember that when I was first given the role in 2002, a consultant, who may be here, sent out a message to his clients describing the new Cabinet. He had a warning about me: probably the worst of Helen Clark’s appointments, a left-wing trade unionist who knew nothing about business. He sent me a photograph a year later with him taking a bite out of a large slice of pie that had the word “humble” written upon it. That would have to be the best apology I have ever received.

There are too many reforms in this area to mention them all—Part 4 of the Commerce Act, the Building Act review, the review of financial products and providers, the quality regulation review. The list goes on. Regulatory frameworks are important, but they must be right-sized, they must be fit for purpose, and they must remain fit for purpose. I gave a speech last week that expressed my sense of regret that we did not fully regulate the finance companies sooner. For me the lesson learnt was the lack of a helicopter view. The Reserve Bank was reporting on one aspect of the risk, the Securities Commission on another, and market participants were expressing concerns, but no one was joining the dots. Mum and dad investors lost a lot of their hard-earned money without ever knowing the degree of risk they were exposed to. I really valued working collaboratively with Simon Power, first as a spokesperson and then as Minister, as we, across Government, set about rectifying what was wrong. Again, as a parting comment, can I urge the Government to keep that set of regulatory frameworks under review. We should relax rules for sophisticated investors who can take care of themselves, but we must remain vigilant on behalf of those who are at the mercy of those who play on their lack of financial literacy.

I cannot leave this place without reflecting on a place called Aranui, a place that has truly come into its own, sparked off by two significant Labour Government initiatives led by visionary Ministers—the Aranui Community Renewal, led by former Minister of Housing Mark Gosche, and the Strengthening Communities Fund, led by former Minister for Social Development Steve Maharey. Let me be clear. The Government did not make what happened in Aranui happen. The Government was the facilitator or the enabler for the community, which led the way. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the Government, the council, and the community, which paved the way for true partnership. The approach is very much based on the community’s strengths. I encourage the Government to continue to work with the Aranui Community Trust Incorporated Society on this basis.

When we look at deficits in a community, we end up defining its needs. If we do that in designing the new school, for example, there will be a desire to put health and social services on the site. But if we look at the assets those kids take into that school every day—their talent, their culture, their artistic creativity, their sporting prowess, their acting ability, their song and dance—then we would want to build a business school, a centre for innovation, an art gallery, and a performing arts centre, so that they can transform their talent into a future for themselves and their families. If we look at the strong base that Aranui built on the back of the housing and social development initiatives, maybe it is time to start thinking about how it could become its own landlord as a community, providing income for its own community development and providing a source of local work.

As I said at the outset, there is insufficient time to cover all my portfolios, the lessons I have learnt, and the highs and the lows, especially because I was not quite ready to leave here. At the beginning of the year I still believed I had more to offer this place. So before speaking to why I am leaving, may I take the time to thank everyone who has supported me and helped me along the way. I am not going to name everyone, so I apologise in advance. I will start with my husband, Rob, who deserves to be at the top of the list. Thank you for believing in me. The Rt Hon Helen Clark has been a mentor, but, more important, she entrusted me with ministerial roles that have prepared me for whatever lies ahead. She set exacting standards, and rightly so. To the Christchurch Central and Christchurch East Labour Party members who have kept me focused—thank you, David, Deon, Marie, Angela, and Graeme for representing them all here. There are probably others I have missed. To the Labour Party, from Ruth Dyson, Labour Party president when I was elected, to Moira Coatsworth today, through you I thank all members. I would not have been elected to Parliament if I had not been the Labour candidate. To my family—my father died just after the 2008 election, but I know he would have flown over from Sydney and he would have been sitting in the gallery today—thank you, Roanna and Beverley for representing the whole family, who are here in spirit. Thank you to all my friends—Trish, Tony, Dave, Kaine. There are too many to name, but I thank you all. Those are the ones who paid for me to mention their names. I thank you for tolerating an appalling lack of proactive work on my part at keeping our relationships going. To my electorate, parliamentary, and ministerial staff over the past 23 years—I started with Ane, Jane, and Chris, and then in my ministerial office Bev and Juli, and ending with Raewyn, Kath, Heather, and Laura. Thank you for being here for me tonight, and thank you for being there for me throughout.

To my colleagues past and present—I have learnt so much from you all and wish you well. A special thankyou goes to Judith Tizard. People say that you do not make friends here, but our friendship proves that that is not the case. I wish my former colleague Charles Chauvel was still here. I know that lawyers are not well regarded. Starting a speech with “I’m a lawyer and a politician. You can trust me.” always manages to get a laugh. But we do need lawyers in this place. I want to mention two colleagues who have passed away. They are David Lange and Larry Sutherland. Both were very special to me. I want to mention the Hon Tariana Turia. You will never know how meaningful your description of why you could not support the foreshore and seabed legislation was to me in terms of helping me understand Te Ao Māori, and I thank you. To everyone who makes this place tick: the gallery staff, security, Hansard, Office of the Clerk, including select committee staff, people who make me long blacks every day, and, of course, the VIP Transport Service—I had hoped to make it back for one more ride, but it was not to be—please accept my heartfelt thanks for your good humour and unstinting service.

Finally, I come to why I am leaving. I have been on a journey of discovery for the past 3 years, since that wake-up call on 4 September 2010 at 4.35 a.m. Although I began my time here when the Government was dismantling the underpinnings of the welfare State, I leave here in the firm belief that the answer to that is not to continue to reinstate what cannot survive the turning of a political tide. It is debilitating to any Government to have to spend its first term in office fixing what has been done. The solution is to build a resilient nation, a nation of communities that are resilient to the ebb and flow of political change, by becoming more self-reliant and self-sufficient but also resilient to the emergent challenges that we can no longer predict with any certainty. From welfare State to resilient nation is how I describe my journey of discovery. I have learnt what liquefaction and lateral spread are. I now know that it is wrong to build unreinforced concrete slab foundations alongside wetlands that are susceptible to both. I now know the true meaning of words like “community”, “leadership”, and “resilience”. Community is not the co-location of houses—that is a suburb—it is the relationship between the people in those houses, and their relationship as a group with the decision makers. That is community. Leadership is not a position you hold; it is a mark of your character. And resilience is not strength in the face of adversity—that is stoicism—it is the capacity to plan and prepare for, absorb, recover from, and adapt to the consequences of an adverse event. It is also about the capacity to co-create a new normal. I now know that disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and sustainable community development are all interconnected.

There are people whom I have met in Christchurch and around the world over the past 3 years who have changed my life for ever. You know who you are when I say thank you for helping me learn about post-disaster recovery, especially the geotechnical engineer who made time so I could understand what had happened to the land. Many people know what I have been through, but very few know what it has meant for me personally to face my fear and take on my next challenge. I am not the same person I was 3 years ago; my priorities have changed. This place no longer seems as relevant as it was even at the beginning of the year. But I will leave a final message to you all. Please be kind to each other. I found last year very difficult, as some of you know. Vigorous debates are an important feature of this place, but we are human. And although we come from different perspectives, we all come with a desire to make New Zealand a better place.

That being said, I am very much looking forward to what lies ahead. If the people of Christchurch elect me as their mayor, I will commit 100 percent of my energy to building strong relationships with the Government, the other councils, Environment Canterbury, the Canterbury District Health Board, Ngāi Tahu, business, and the diverse communities that make up the city where I was born and have lived all my life. We are building the newest city in the world and it is exciting.

When an MP makes their maiden speech, they often include lofty ideals upon which they reflect in their valedictory. I remember that 23 years ago, fresh from representing low-paid workers in the service sector, I said I wanted to be the face of the people who could not be seen and the voice of the people who could not be heard. And for a magic moment in time, in the silt-sodden streets of the east of Christchurch, I truly felt that I had lived up to what I entered Parliament to do. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.