Wall’s valedictory

So many interesting things said in Louisa Wall’s valedictory. Some extracts.

When I was forced out of my electorate in 2020, by the unconstitutional actions of the party president, Claire Szabó, and some members of council, I was devastated. The president accepted a late nomination, did not share the fact of its late receipt with the council until questions were asked, and then retrospectively tried to justify and legitimise her actions. 

The late nomination was that of Arena Williams, who was backed by Ardern and Robertson. Wall is right that accepting a late nomination is unconstitutional. It is likely Labour would have lost the court action Wall filed over this.

 I especially want to acknowledge Raewyn Turner and her late husband Trevor, and Andrew Beyer, who all served on the executive of my LEC, and to thank them for their continuous support. Further, I want to apologise to them for the actions of the party president and council members who disenfranchised them, without any basis or explanation, after years of loyalty. For me, people like Raewyn, Trevor, and Andrew—and those who are here today—are the foundation of Labour. The way they were treated in order to punish me is reprehensible and it is as a result of that corrupt process that I am standing to deliver my valedictory statement today.

A retiring Labour MP has referred to her party as running a corrupt process. That should be very newsworthy.

I have learnt that working across the House is the best way to make effective and long-lasting change. I have always been grateful to my colleagues in other parties who are willing to listen and are open to discuss issues, and I acknowledge that the engagement of colleagues on this side of the House has often been influenced by matters outside the issues. In my view, there is no place here for an us-and-them mentality. We need to be more kaupapa- rather than personality-driven.

I saw this first hand on the marriage equality bill. I sat on a cross party group that worked on getting the numbers for the bill. Louisa listened to advice on how to best get National MPs on board, and never went out and made the bill a party political issue. She put getting the law passed over party politics. It was the difference between the bill passing narrowly and the bill passing with a near two thirds majority.

It was during this journey that I experienced most acutely how personal politics can override kaupapa. For me, the debate around marriage equality was rooted in basic human rights principles. How could the State deny the rights of a group of people to enter into the State-recognised institution of marriage? While the deputy leader of the caucus at the time wanted more recognition of civil unions, I believe that advocacy for marriage equality was based on fundamental human rights, and that civil unions became a stopgap measure because it was not clear that marriage would get over the line. When I expressed this view, I was told that this would be the end of my career and I would be on my own.

So the then Deputy Leader (that would be a Mr G Robertson) told the MP who got marriage equality passed, that if she advocated for it as a rights issue, her career would be over. And it turned out he was right.