Families Commission Amendment Bill

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I move, That the Families Commission Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill, and at the appropriate time I will be moving that the committee reports back to the House finally on or before 27 November 2012. This bill will allow the Families Commission to be more relevant, efficient, and purposeful than ever before. It will focus the commission on independent monitoring, evaluation, and research, specifically filling current gaps within the social sector, as well as its current function of acting as an advocate for families generally.

The purpose of this legislation is to enable the technical changes that underpin this restructure. The amendments to the Families Commission Act will introduce a new function in research, monitoring, and evaluation; establish a social science experts panel; remove the title of commissioner from all but one member, who becomes the sole Families Commissioner; require the Families Commission to develop the annual Families Status Report; and give the commission access to statistical information in accordance with the relevant sections of the Statistics Act 1975. These changes give effect to the National and United Future confidence and supply agreement. Essentially, the bill enables some technical changes to be made so that we can refocus the Families Commission to get the best out of it. I welcome the select committee scrutiny of this bill in respect of these technical changes.

Let me explain the vision, though, that will follow these changes. Although it was outside the scope of the bill for the select committee’s purposes, I think it is helpful in terms of explaining the context. We are taking $3.5 million of the $8 million a year in funding and channelling it into the new Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, known as SuPERU. This unit will independently monitor and evaluate programmes and initiatives in the social sector—a job currently done largely by Government departments. I believe giving that role to a more independent body is beneficial, and will see more NGOs entering into more robust evaluation and monitoring. The truth is, how many NGOs are actually going to go to the body that funds them, to get a true evaluation done on their effectiveness, if they feel that at some level that funding might be under jeopardy, depending on what that sort of outcome is? Having a more independent body where they can get that robust research and evaluation done I think gives a level of distance from Government, which is important. I hope that we eventually see it being even more independent than what it currently is, and that we set it up accordingly.

In New Zealand there is a serious lack of evidence of what works in this country. We have thousands of social organisations working in the community, often with very vulnerable and at-risk families and individuals. But we often lack sufficiently robust evidence, through monitoring and evaluation, to be able to confidently say whether they are making a positive and tangible difference. The Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit will be able to radically change that picture over time. It will not be an overnight kind of change. But unless we start setting out the right avenue and the right place for that to happen, then we cannot get the change that we need.

An important part of this is the rigour that will be alongside of it—academic peer review and guidance from a social science experts panel. This is being headed up by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman. That panel will bring academic and scientific rigour, which will ensure the Families Commission’s future as a highly regarded centre for evaluation. The type of research that I anticipate a unit of this calibre will commission will be pertinent, relevant, and really useful. It may not be doing all of the research itself, but currently we do not have a place of excellence where the research that the Government is commissioning, as far as research from universities goes, has somewhere to go through and actually collect all of that data. So individual departments do it at the moment—quite well, in some cases—for specific purposes, but it is not actually being collected in one place and having that right kind of avenue to go through it. I think that is going to make a huge difference.

Let me give you a bit of an example, which I think is the best way to describe it. An example could be that a town has decided that it wants to set up a youth programme, because anecdotally it believes there is a need for it. They are seeing young people in the street—and we hear this all the time. I see them being able to go directly to the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit. So they may get money from a philanthropist, they may have saved some funding themselves, or they may get money from Government—and that is a reality—to fund that bit of research. The first thing they will do is get the scoping work done. They will scope what really is there, get it done slightly independently, and then they can have the research done and get an idea of what is best practice. I imagine that the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit will have the five components that are really necessary to make a successful youth programme, and then they can design it around that to be the best programme.

At the moment, we have it done in a very ad hoc way. A good organisation will go out and meet other good organisations and ask them what they do and how they do it. They may try to get a bit of research done themselves, or look at what research is available. But it is not done in a way where it is collected easily, and it is at the whim of, usually, an individual who goes out and does it. Imagine having a place that has that kind of rigour behind it, and has that kind of academic research. I eventually see Governments accessing more research through this unit. I see them asking for assistance from it.

The other thing is that the Families Commission, with the other $3.5 million, will be doing what it does already: the White Ribbon Day campaign, and the family violence prevention work it does. We will also be requiring a families status report, which for the first time will be really analysing each year where families are at and how we measure that against it, which I think is very important.

The organisation remains an autonomous Crown entity. There are changes to the governance structure. So there will be one commissioner, as I have said, and then there will be a board underneath that. That board will be made up of everyone from people on community organisations to philanthropists and others. Then there is this, I think, very important experts panel under Sir Peter Gluckman that will have that academic rigour behind it, which I think will really enhance the quality of the work that is coming out and its relevance.

The one thing I have learnt in this job is that you cannot go backwards and start collecting information differently from how you do collect it, so that you can analyse it and get the right evidence. The truth is that in the first year when I was there and looked at what programmes were working for my own Ministry of Social Development’s $550 million spend on about 4,500 contracts to 2,300 organisations, I could not tell the New Zealand public how effective they really were. Then when I did an analysis of all of those, which took quite some time, what came out of it was: 20 percent were evaluated and doing a very good job, 20 percent were doing an absolutely shocking job and in some respects may actually have been doing harm, and the truth of the matter is that for 60 percent we did not know. So we have dropped the contracts for the 20 percent that were doing such a poor job, and we have backed the 20 percent that are doing a great job. For that 60 percent, which is obviously most of them, that are in the middle, we are now trying to collect information, get their outcomes more focused on what we are trying to achieve, and in many cases work our way through what is such a massive job of building up that kind of evidence base that we need as to what does work. But it is not a job that happens overnight.

I think this bill and this research unit are going to make a fundamental difference to how we get that kind of evidence behind it to be used by NGOs, to be used by financial institutions, and to be used by government, and have that level of independence. I commend this bill to the House.

Tuatahi, e ngā whānau whānui o te motu ka nui te mihi ki a koutou, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā koutou katoa. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

[Firstly, to the families at large of the nation, a huge acknowledgment to you collectively, so greetings, greetings, and greetings indeed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.]

Labour will support the Families Commission Amendment Bill going to the Social Services Committee. Labour certainly is committed to families and believes that families are the foundation of our society and that family well-being is critical to the development of our children and to other members of our families and communities. However, it is important to note that National has never been a strong supporter of the Families Commission, and it was only going to be a matter of time before it began to restructure the commission in this way. Judith Collins certainly regularly attacked the commission in Opposition, as did the Minister for Social Development.

Of course, this restructuring that the Minister has talked about is not starting with this bill. It has actually been going on for some time: the types of appointments that have been made to the commission, the transfer of funds from the commission to other entities, and “shaping” the work of the commission—so much so that in recent times even the current chief commissioner has resiled from probably one of the best pieces of work that the commission has done, on paid parental leave, because he took the particular political line that the country could not afford it. That demonstrates the way in which the commission has, in a sense, been prevailed upon by this Government and by this Minister.

The Families Commission is an autonomous Crown entity, and that means something. It has to work at arm’s length from the Government. The amendments to the Families Commission in this bill actually, from our perspective, begin to seriously circumscribe the role of the commission. It is beginning to look a lot more like a Government department or a Government ministry. We make those comments with some thought.

The commission will have a new evaluation and monitoring role for the social sector. The Minister has just now explained what her vision is as to how that might operate. I guess if we are setting up a unit within an autonomous Crown entity to have a monitoring, evaluation, and research function in that particular way, it is really difficult to see where it might end up. In new section 8A in clause 7 we get a more detailed statement on how the Government sees the commission operating. With its additional functions here, it appears to us that the commission will do the Minister’s bidding. Under the Crown Entities Act, which applies to the Families Commission, currently the Government can direct the commission only to have regard to Government policies. But when we look at new section 8A, the commission actually becomes an arm of government, and is required to do a whole bunch of stuff for the Government. New section 8A says that the additional functions, including evaluation, are “to commission research in the social sector on behalf of the Government”. Why is the Government not doing its own research? This is an independent commission set up to work in a particular way and to manage contracts. Now the commission, this particular unit within the commission, will be managing the contracts in the social sector on behalf of the Government. Those are just two of the provisions of that particular clause. The commission will now undertake research on behalf of the Government and will manage contracts.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: This is a front-bench bid, Rajen—bidding for the front bench.

Has the member from Tauranga read this bill? Does he know anything about this particular bill, or is he still bored with his own portfolio? Mr Bridges, listen—you might learn something.

The commission, through these kinds of provisions, is being developed into not a Crown entity but an arm of government, and therefore a department or ministry. We have to ask, and we will ask in the select committee, whether this should remain a commission. That is an important question. If it is circumscribed in this way and is being directed by the Minister to this extent, then why is it a commission? Autonomous Crown entities are supposed to go and do the work on contemporary issues themselves. The commission should do its work and then put the evidence of that where it lies. That is the work of an independent body.

The Ministry of Social Development has a multimillion-dollar Centre for Social Research and Evaluation. It is the activities from there that are being transferred to the Families Commission. They actually belong to that particular unit. Here is a multimillion-dollar centre—tens of millions of dollars have been spent there—but this function is to be transferred to the Families Commission, which has about $3 million to do that with. One can see the sincerity of that particular approach, and we have major questions.

The other change is the change to the advocacy function of the commission. This is the strength of the commission—to go and examine topics, to do the work, and to bring it back. In addition to all of that, clause 6 requires the commission to prepare an annual Family Status Report. That is a large piece of work, and quite a lot of resources will be gobbled up by that particular role. What kind of report will be produced? The Hon Peter Dunne says he has seen the English example and that the English example is one he wants to emulate. I have the English examples here, both the first and second reports: The State of the Nation Report: Fractured Families, and the second one, which is recommendations, Policy Recommendations to the Conservative Party. Larry Baldock will be very pleased with the approach taken in the state of the families report.

So what is being done here? At the select committee we will want to know what is the scope of that particular report and what kinds of things are required. That might give us a bit more of a steer as to what the Minister or the commission has in mind. Again, the expertise for that kind of work lies in the Ministry of Social Development. The ministry produces the Social Report, and it takes a lot of resources to produce that. This is a kind of social report on families. Why are those two things not being linked, and the largest department that has the greatest amount of resources doing that work? No, it is being transferred into something that is an independent commission. Here we have the role of Government departments being transferred on to an autonomous Crown entity—the Families Commission—and we have to ask why, because that really is saying that we do not need a Families Commission. If that is what the Minister is saying, would it not be honest to actually come out with that?

Then there is this notion—the Government’s arrangements with the commission are also being changed. There will be one Families Commissioner. There will be a board and there will be one Families Commissioner. The role of the Families Commissioner is not defined. In fact, it is left to the board. Currently other—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: We’ll put you on it if you sit down.

I have been there, Mr Bridges. I know a lot more about it than you or all of your members put together, which is why I am talking carefully and with some experience on the bill. That member is so bored with this. If you do not know something about something, Mr Bridges, do not go there.

Indeed, this is a problem. Can the Minister not describe what the role of the commissioner in the Families Commission is? That person will not necessarily be the chair of the board. They will be with the transition, but not necessarily, as members will describe.

In addition to that, there is also a review panel. Here is the Minister telling a research institution how to do its work. The Minister has good grounds to ask for peer review. That then opens up for the commission; it is doing that work now. Any expert in New Zealand or internationally is used by the Families Commission for peer reviews. But here we are putting this panel right in there. I think it is interference, and I think it is designed to hold and control the commission so it does not get lost anywhere, does not do the kinds of things it might do, and does not criticise Government policies. Well, if that is what the Government’s agenda is, then we will ask—and we will keep on asking—why we have a Families Commission, because what this bill does is make it look more and more like a Government department. It makes it look more and more like a ministry, and many of its functions are already today in ministries with far greater resources. Significant roles are being transferred from there on to a commission. It looks like the commission accepts those, but we will want to question it as to how it is going to fulfil these roles with the rather limited amount of resources it currently has, and how it is going to address the real advocacy functions that, indeed, are the cornerstone for this particular commission. We have serious concerns. We will ask them, but that will happen at the select committee. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, koia nei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori me whakanuia e tātau. Kia ora.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. This is Māori Language Week and we must celebrate it. Thank you.]

I hope I did that correctly in te reo. It is, after all, Māori Language Week. It was interesting to listen to the member who just sat down, Rajen Prasad. Obviously, as he said, he was a Families Commissioner, and he does, in fact, know probably more than most of us as to what goes on in the Families Commission. But it was interesting to note how he forgot to mention that is was, in fact, his party’s policy to get rid of the Families Commission. I believe that it was Annette King who tried to get rid of it, in the previous Government.

Families are the very heart of our community. They make us laugh; they often make us cry. Different people, different generations, and different cultures have different expectations of what families should do. In New Zealand, with our diverse culture, there are so many different expectations of what families should be, but there is one core function that our families have in common, and that is the nurturing, rearing, socialisation, and protection of our children.

The restructuring of the Families Commission will streamline the core function, which is advocating for families. It was really wonderful to see the vision from the Minister for Social Development, the reason why she wants to streamline the Families Commission, and how she actually sees the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit working. It was lovely to actually get some detail on that.

The Families Commission will remain an autonomous Crown entity and will continue to work on issues that are important to families, within a leaner, more focused structure—and focused and leaner is actually really good. The commission will be more streamlined, as I say. The new families status report will measure just how New Zealand families are doing. I think that will be a really wonderful read. I would love to read that report at the end of it, because, over generations, families have changed. The way we operate has changed, and the definition of families has changed as well. It will be wonderful when every year the Families Commission comes up with the status report on how our New Zealand family is performing.

The Families Commission Amendment Bill is a great bill, and I look forward to the submissions to the Social Services Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Families Commission Amendment Bill. Obviously we are discussing the commission that was established under a Labour Government. At that time, I think it is fair for us to point out, Peter Dunne was a significant driver of the establishment of the Families Commission. I do have to raise—

💬 Andrew Little: He insisted on it.

He did, indeed, insist on it, says my colleague Andrew Little. I do have to question, and I will be asking this question of the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage: would she still have the Families Commission in place if it were not for Peter Dunne’s ongoing role in propping up the National Government? What may be called “streamlined” by that side of the House is actually neutering, if we are honest. What this bill does is rip the guts out of the Families Commission and leave it. It loses its advocacy role.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Well if it’s neutering, it’s not the guts, Jacinda.

So let us get into a little more detail. I will have Simon Bridges speak no more of neutering. I know how he feels about animal welfare. So we will leave it at that.

Labour does support this bill going to the Social Services Committee, but our view is that this does not go far enough. In fact, it is Labour’s view that the Families Commission should be disestablished altogether. I will spend a little more time talking about that.

But why does it not go far enough? Well, originally, the Families Commission was established to advocate for families in whatever form they existed. I think we have seen clear evidence in recent times that the Families Commission has lost that role. I would not wish to guess as to the reason why it has done that. I could hazard a guess that political pressure has played a role, because if you look at one example where we have seen the Families Commission push aside its advocacy role, there would be no better than paid parental leave. We had the Chief Families Commissioner stand up and tell the New Zealand public that on one of the most soundly based, in terms of evidence, policies around the importance of child development and the role of the first 6 months in forming an attachment with their family in developing a strong, stable footing for a child in those first 6 months, he was not sure New Zealand could afford it. I would say that New Zealand cannot afford not to bring in a policy like that, supported by Sue Moroney and her member’s bill. To have the Families Commissioner stand up against the extension of paid parental leave—how is that acting as an advocate for families? That was absolutely nonsensical to me. What happened to evidence? What happened to advocating based on research and sound practice and evidence? That, for me, was the point at which we really saw the Families Commission tip over the edge.

If we want to talk about streamlining, which the Government member who just took her seat, Melissa Lee, talked about, the ultimate form of streamlining would be to get rid of it entirely and beef up the Children’s Commissioner and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. In fact, add some additional support around that from the central government perspective, as well. Bring in a Minister for children, create a children’s ministry where the Office of the Children’s Commissioner is acting as a direct advocate, and put pressure on the children’s Minister to act in the best interests of children. That would be the ultimate form of streamlining. Surely, we can all accept that advocating on behalf of children, a strong Children’s Commissioner, and a strong role within central government would be in the best interest of families as well, so there by default picking up the job that the Families Commission has long since abandoned.

This bill, instead, keeps the Families Commission. But it does, as I have said, weaken the role that it plays, and Rajen Prasad would know that well. Given that he was once in the Families Commission, he can see intimately the changes that have been made here and what a difference it will make to the way it operates. Moving to one commissioner, as I have said, would be pointless if they are not an advocate, anyway. What is the point of one commissioner who does not advocate for families when you have seven who currently do not, anyway?

Then it is creating a centre for family and whānau. Again, if you cannot guarantee the independence of this group, are we not then creating a new unit within a Government department? If the Minister cannot demonstrate to us that that is not going to happen, then, again, I do not see the point of that. Surely, then, we should just ask the Ministry for Social Development to pick up that role—it is, indeed, funded to play that kind of role.

We have heard much discussion and celebration from the other side of the House around the introduction of something called the annual families status report. In its own right that report might sound interesting or useful, but I would ask Government members to at least canvass this space in which they are now thrusting out this annual families status report. What already exists? Well, we have got the Social Report, which used to happen every year. It was a really comprehensive, important report, and it became the foundation of a lot of work that the Ministry for Social Development was doing for our families. But, unfortunately, the Social Report is no longer happening every year; it is happening every 3 years. We could probably have saved ourselves a lot of money by simply returning that report to an annual basis, and perhaps diluted the need for an annual families status report. We also have The New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor. We have Bryan Perry’s excellent work on the report Household incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2010, which generates, again, a lot of the policy development we see coming out of not just the Ministry for Social Development but other agencies working in this field. And we have the OECD income inequality report.

We have the critical but underutilised Growing Up in New Zealand research, which is probably going to be the most useful piece of research for future development around children’s policy and the policy for our families over the next 10, 20, 30 years. It is an extension of the kind of work that we had done in Dunedin—the longitudinal study. I see that the Growing Up in New Zealand work is going to be transferred to this unit, and I can guarantee to the Government that this side of the House will be keeping a very watchful eye on the preservation of that critical piece of work. It is so important that we understand across a cross-section of our New Zealand families what it is to bring a new child into New Zealand and grow up in New Zealand. That is why that report is so, so key—we have had two reports thus far. I would like to see the Ministry for Social Development utilising it a lot more. And I hope to see it in the alternative white paper; if it is not, we will be asking some big questions.

But that is not the only report. Add to that the Salvation Army status report, the health report, the report coming out from the Health Committee on the first 1,000 days, the green paper, the white paper, and the Māori Affairs Committee work that Louisa Wall has been instrumental in instigating. All of these pieces of work exist, and my big question would be: how will the annual families status report add to that comprehensive list of work that already exists? And, secondly, if it is going to add to it—I will be interested to see how it will bring something new to the table—will we actually do anything with it? As Rajen Prasad has pointed out, we have certainly had plenty of pieces of work, including on paid parental leave, coming out of the Families Commission that have since been ignored—not just ignored, but contradicted—by the Chief Families Commissioner. It is one thing to produce a report; it is another thing to do something with it.

My final point is whether this newly structured Families Commission has the independence it needs when it comes to the research and evaluation function it will have through the new $3.8 million research and evaluation unit. New section 8A, “Commission’s monitoring, evaluation, and research function”, states: “In order to perform its monitoring, evaluation, and research function, the Commission has the following additional functions: (a) to identify opportunities where evidence and research will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector:”. That is the wrong way around. The old legislation used to state: “to encourage and facilitate the development and provision, by Ministers of the Crown, departments of State, and other instruments of the Executive Government, of policies designed to promote or serve the interests of families:”. It used to be that the research did not come with any bias. It was used to inform what the Government did. Now we are using the research and evaluation to prop up and support existing Government policies and ideas. It is the wrong way around.

In fact, much of this bill is the wrong way around, and it is our contention that the way forward is to scrap this commission altogether. That is what we will be proposing when this bill goes to the select committee. I look forward to the Government members trying to justify this neutered commission’s existence.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ki te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. The Families Commission was set up in 2003, and I think that before we change something, it is quite useful to have a look at what it has been doing. The commission has been an able advocate for the interests of families and children. Its independent, critical role is not one that our society can afford to lose at this time. The Greens are concerned that the Families Commission Amendment Bill may negatively impact on the commission’s capacity to continue with that work.

The Families Commission’s work has included supporting and developing programmes like White Ribbon Day—a day recognised internationally, when men call for an end to domestic violence. This has now moved to a model of being self-funded, with communities and individuals promoting these events.

The commission conducts fabulous research, including research into the causes of family violence and, amongst others, that fabulous paper on paid parental leave, which suggested that paid parental leave leads to better child outcomes. It has rightly identified that poor-quality rental accommodation is a major issue facing New Zealand families. In its submission to the Productivity Commission, when it was reporting on housing affordability, the Families Commission noted that poor-quality housing not only has a negative impact on family health outcomes but also can prevent families from accessing other support, because of the stresses associated with living in substandard, overpriced housing. Maybe this is the reason why the Government is restructuring the Families Commission, with this bill. These are not issues that this Government is interested in addressing.

The Government, I note, has been remarkably inconsistent about the Families Commission. In 2008, before the election, Mr Key put forward three different policies regarding the Families Commission, in 4 days. On the Monday he attracted applause from the NZ Forum on the Family by indicating that National would rather put the money currently spent on the Families Commission into NGOs. The next day he appeared to have changed his mind, and said that National would rebalance the Families Commission in a way that United Future—the party that championed its establishment—would find tolerable. Then, 2 days after that, Mr Key was reported as saying that it is likely that National would subsume the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into the Families Commission, while criticising the worth of some of the Families Commission’s work. I am just highlighting the shifting sands of the Government’s thoughts on the Families Commission, because today we are looking at yet another change of direction.

So, about this bill: firstly, we strongly support the monitoring and evaluation of programmes and services offered to prevent, and intervene in, the social issues that impact on our nation. We think there should be much more of it. We need to be continuously learning from new initiatives and the outcomes they produce. This needs to be much more than measuring the outputs of programmes; it needs to be the actual outcomes for individuals accessing them. This means learning from mistakes and fostering successes. Most important, it means listening to the service users who have the insight of experience, so we can ensure that the money we spend makes a real difference in people’s lives.

We note that under this bill the monitoring and evaluation function will be transferred to the Families Commission. Until now that role has been undertaken by the Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Development. The question remains why Sir Peter Gluckman has recommended that an evaluation function be moved to the Families Commission. We promote the idea of an evaluation of services, funded by the taxpayer, in theory, but we want it to be produced by a non-biased third party.

I want to know why it is not working. Why can evaluation and monitoring not be effectively and efficiently carried out by the existing Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, given that good public management includes the provision of free and frank advice to the Minister? Is there a problem within our public management system? Did the Minister or Sir Peter Gluckman have concerns about the ministry’s ability to provide these evaluations? Is this sending us alarm bells of other, more endemic problems within the ministry?

Secondly, a newly appointed social science experts panel, which this bill will set up, gives us some concern. We are alarmed at how this may impact on the provision of non-biased, free and frank advice to the Minister. This Government’s reliance on advisory groups is a worrying trend. The Welfare Working Group is a case in point. We are concerned that this Government will use these advisory committees to buy the advice and research that, frankly, fits with its own ideology. What we saw with the Welfare Working Group was a series of recommendations that fit with the policies this Government is keen to adopt, and now we see that playing out.

Last week we saw the passing of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, where we see a more punitive approach—under the guise of sanctions—to young people who are either unemployed or young parents, and work testing for every other beneficiary, from here on in. We will be seeing drug testing of those on the unemployment benefit, too. Basically, we are revisiting models that have failed elsewhere in the world, but, funnily enough, they were suggestions from the advisory group the Government hired to back up its preconceived ideas. So it will introduce them anyway.

Of particular concern in this bill is the change to section 13, which says that the commission must be readily accessible to a wide range of views, but this applies only to the commission’s advocacy function, not the monitoring, evaluation, and research of key issues, programmes, and interventions.

Thirdly, in the Families Commission’s statement of intent we note that the budget for monitoring and evaluation has been decreased from $8,700 to $7,369. We question the volume and quality of evaluations that will be achieved on the commission’s reduced budget. We also note that the performance measures and standards for the advisory services function do not indicate the number of programmes to be evaluated. It just says they will be done monthly or on request. We can assume from the statement of intent that there will be fewer programmes to look at. This does not reassure us that programmes will be adequately monitored and evaluated, and the findings disseminated to where they can be put to the most use.

At the end of May we asked the Minister, in a written question, about what work, if any, would be shifted from the Ministry of Social Development’s Centre for Social Research and Evaluation as a result of the move to set up a new social policy evaluation and research unit within the Families Commission. We received the reply that apart from the report on Growing Up in New Zealand—a good report, no doubt—no decisions had been made on any staffing changes or distribution of research and evaluation responsibilities between the Families Commission and the Ministry of Social Development.

Contrast this reduced budget and lack of focus with Australia, where the state and territory Governments have agreed to build a more solid evidence base on domestic violence and sexual assault as part of their national plan to reduce violence against women and children. They are committed to developing a centre of excellence to enhance the evidence base and improve on-the-ground responses to violence against women and children. The Federal Government is investing $86 million in national initiatives to improve the lives of women who have experienced violence, and towards stopping violence against women altogether. A centre for excellence versus a reduced Families Commission—I know which country is investing in families. I hate to admit it, but the Australians are way ahead of us on understanding that there are longer-term costs associated with doing nothing about these social issues.

We will be voting against this bill. We believe it hands far too much power to the Minister to dictate research results that support the ideology of the day. We are unconvinced that the advocacy role of the Families Commission will remain unchanged, and, most important, we think that it does nothing to advance good outcomes for families. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Kia ora e te Whare.

💬 Hon Members: Kia ora.

Thank you, Dr Prasad. Hōmai te pakipaki. This measure needs to be seen in the context of the Government’s commitment to the delivery of better public services for all New Zealanders. It provides for a leaner and more focused Families Commission, which will be taking on a new role, providing for independent monitoring, evaluation, and research to measure the effectiveness of initiatives across the social sector. We need to be confident that the Families Commission will be able to make a difference for families who are struggling, and we—sorry, I should have put my glasses on! We need to be able to invest in interventions that we know will work. This is a serious matter, and I will be looking for evidence of that, and assurances to that effect, in our Social Services Committee deliberations. I support the first reading of this measure.

The Speaker has been informed that New Zealand First intends to split its call. There will be a 4-minute bell.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Families Commission Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill. We need to be consistent with the approach that we had in 2003, when we opposed the setting up of the Families Commission. We opposed it then because we could not see how it could provide the practical, hands-on assistance that New Zealanders were actually looking for at that point in time—and National opposed it too—when we were told that research was going to be the prime focus of the Families Commission. Of course, we were also concerned with the millions of dollars that were needed to set up this research unit.

New Zealand First is a family-friendly party, as are all the parties in this House, and we recognise the strength of the family unit. As my former colleague the late Hon Brian Donnelly said so many times—and I have to quote this when it comes to the Families Commission—“The quality of the future that we will leave to our children will be determined by the quality of the children whom we leave to the future, and the quality of those children will be determined by the quality of family relationships.” So we do recognise how important this family unit is.

In 2003 we were told that the main focus of the Families Commission would be family-focused research, much of which was already being undertaken by the Ministry for Social Development. So why would one want to try to duplicate this role and spend extra dollars to get the same result? At the very outset, it was very easy for the Families Commission to become so nebulous that it could become all things to all people. We know that no organisation can survive if that is the path it has to follow.

What we are seeing now is that the role of the Families Commission is being ramped back significantly. One must ask whether we really need this Families Commission. We have been told that hard economic times are upon us, and research in hard economic times must be focused and must have a very tangible output. One wonders, when one reads the Bills Digest, whether or not the new family status report, which is going to be developed to measure how families are getting on, is really what we are looking for.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Hon Peter Dunne has sold out the Families Commission, which he negotiated so hard for with the Labour Government. New Zealand First would have thought that once a Minister had established a commission such as this as part of a confidence and supply agreement, carefully monitoring the result and ensuring that the output was the best possible would be a personal priority, and would be carried out, particularly when the Minister establishing it has always been a part of the Government—but apparently not. I found a quote from One News from Minister Dunne stating: “I am on the record as saying the Families Commission lost its way early on under Labour administrations that milk-sopped it into a politically correct institution.” Where is Mr Dunne’s work in this particular area? Why has he not stood up for the Families Commission?

What we are seeing here is that version No. 1 of the Families Commission did not work out, so we have another version that is focused and leaner—so we have been told. We can only hope that this time round the Families Commission is carefully monitored on a regular basis to ensure that the output meets the needs. There is a definite limit as to how many versions of a Families Commission there can be before people lose their confidence in it absolutely and totally.

One must wonder what the remaining staff of the Families Commission are actually going to do. What are they going to research? What are they going to advocate for? What sound evidence are they going to be able to produce? We believe that there is a limit on the amount of research that can be carried out. The select committee process around this is going to be very interesting. In New Zealand First we would like to see something that will be useful to New Zealand families for the money that is spent, and we are going to be carefully monitoring the outputs.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. The Families Commission Amendment Bill proposes drastic changes that undermine the importance of families and diversity in New Zealand. Despite its overall mission of providing independent monitoring, evaluation of programmes, and intervention across the social sector, the bill makes little difference and gives less convincing proposals of how effective those programmes will be on New Zealand families. The Families Commission Amendment Bill hides behind New Zealand families by this proposal to downsize and reallocate funds. This is why New Zealand First opposes this bill.

The Families Commission should be at the forefront of supporting New Zealand families through initiatives that seek to speak for the people, and not try to avoid any public backlash concerning the commissions that aim to speak for them. It is pertinent to mention the emphasis on how they may better reflect New Zealand families and provide positive remedial reform.

I find it troubling that Peter Dunne can just cut his ties with the Families Commission, considering the fact that this was an initiative United Future supported and agreed to during its coalition with the Labour Party 8 years ago. His attitude and the ease with which he distanced himself from his initiative is indicative of how he wants to be at the forefront of positive initiatives in the early stages, but then takes a step back when they crumble. He should protect his 8-year-old project and aim to find more alternatives, instead of relying on National to sort out his mess. This handover inevitably loses the original substance and essence of the Families Commission. Its potential to make wide-ranging positive outcomes is limited through the proposed changes to the size and allocation of funding.

The Families Commission Amendment Bill aims to cut down seven commissioners to one—no doubt that will be Carl Davidson. He will chair the board alongside the Government’s Chief Science Advisor and four other appointees. From the outset, we can see that the board may be appointed with National Party mates, who may have little experiential similarity to constituents who live in low socio-economic areas. There needs to be a clear link from the bottom up. We cannot expect top-down solutions to trickle their way to the bottom and impact equally on all New Zealand families. There needs to be greater transparency, and also improved communicating of ideas more effectively to all stakeholders.

New Zealand First addresses the issues and themes that New Zealand families are confronted with. We have found this bill to contradict its label. We might as well convert the title of the commission to the “Elitist Commission”, as it may benefit only a small few at the expense of many. The proposed changes send out a clear message to the public that despite the current hardships many New Zealanders’ families face, the National Government is content with downsizing commissions that are not geared towards improving its livelihood, and that it does not mind cutting jobs in the process. I am sure Simon Bridges and his friend from Hamilton East, David Bennett, would be very familiar with this.

Not only does this contradict the importance of tackling barriers that prevent New Zealand families from living happy and dignified lives, it also undermines the National Government’s optimistic desire to protect New Zealanders from losing their jobs. Maybe it wants to make Australia more desirable. Cutting down the sheer size of commissions illustrates the magnitude at which this Government is attentive to the social, political, and economic barriers that New Zealand families face and experience. This is the reason why New Zealand First strongly opposes this bill at this stage. Thank you.

This bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill, is another good example of the Government and its priorities, delivering on those better public services for New Zealanders. That is what New Zealanders expect of a responsible Government. That is why we are in Government and those members opposite are not. Long may that continue. I commend this bill to the House.

I would actually like to give a 10-minute response to that 2-second speech we have just heard from the member opposite Mike Sabin. What we have had is a member stand up and say that this piece of fundamental legislation around families and children and how they are cared for in our society, the Families Commission Amendment Bill, is about Government priorities and better public services. We have heard a chorus of calls from the other side that Labour wants to scrap the Families Commission and that this is supposedly a bad thing. But, yes, it is Labour’s ultimate aim to not have the Families Commission, because we want to see a real and genuine commitment to child-centred policy in this country. We want to see something meaningful, something beyond rearranging some deckchairs.

We have done some very detailed and evidence-based policy work around how it is that we can best serve children in this country. The policy work that the Hon Annette King did prior to the last election that has been picked up by my colleague Jacinda Ardern in her role is exceptional work, and it actually provides a real way forward on how it is that we can better serve the children of this country. The bill that we have before us does not do this. None the less, Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee, and we are supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee because this is a conversation that needs to be had. We do need to have a real and genuine conversation about doing something real and about doing something meaningful to lift the standard for so many of the children and families in our country. That is why we will support it. Labour believes that families are important, and that families are a crucial part of our society and a crucial unit of our society. This is where children, the future of our country, get their best start in life.

The National Party has never been a fan of the Families Commission. We have seen this all over the place. If we go back to 2008 and the stoush in the 2008 election campaign, we see that John Key had to backtrack on his off-the-cuff offer to scrap the Families Commission, because he was afraid of losing a coalition partner. It has always been a history of compromise in relation to the Families Commission. Mr Dunne was reported to be disappointed in 2008. Well, with one vote in the House now, we certainly cannot be seeing that. That would be what you would call a disappointed majority, and that would not be something that we would be doing.

National has repeatedly criticised the commission since it was set up, and has continued to do so. In 2008, when John Key did his backtrack on his off-the-cuff offer to scrap the commission, he offered a shake-up—a shake-up of the commission is what he described in 2008. Fast-forward to 2012, and in the legislation we are debating now we are having a rebalancing. Rebalancing is obviously the 2012 version of a shake-up. It shows what happens in a second term of Government, when you have been there for a while.

What are we seeing under this legislation? Let us dig down beneath the rhetoric of members opposite talking about—well, actually, not talking about—how important the Families Commission is. I mean, I think we are seeing the importance that the party opposite puts on this bill and puts on the Families Commission by its contribution to this debate. But what we really are seeing here is funding for the Families Commissioner being slashed—and we are seeing the number of commissioners cut from seven to one—but not with any real plan to replace it. There is no real plan for how it is that we are going to provide for the children of our country, and no real plan for how it is that we are going to guarantee that New Zealand children get the start in life that they deserve.

Of the $32.48 million of funding that the Families Commission receives over 4 years, the Government is going to rearrange the deckchairs with this money. It would use a minimum of $14.2 million over those 4 years to set up the new Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, which I will talk about in a while. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has talked extensively about the families status report that will be produced within this funding, and the reports that are currently there. We are seeing that a further $4 million over the 4 years will be redirected out of the Families Commission to fund the extra parenting and relationship education in schools of the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Programme. This is a rearranging of the deckchairs around supporting children, families, and young people in this country. It is not new funding, as it has been heralded; instead, it is reprioritisation for better public services, but without doing anything to fundamentally address the causes that are there.

Labour has a number of questions and concerns around this bill, which we want to see addressed when it goes to select committee. My colleagues Dr Rajen Prasad and Jacinda Ardern have already articulated many of those concerns and many of those questions. We really are concerned at the watering down—or the gutting—of the advocacy role of the Families Commissioner that we will see under this bill. What we are seeing is clause 5 amending section 7 of the principal Act, which is the section that currently provides that the commissioner’s main function is “to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” The new section retains this as a main function of the commission—the advocacy function, that is—but it adds a new function. So what we are seeing is that the commissioner is going to be asked to do more work with less resource. It simply will not be able to fulfil its advocacy function, which is prescribed under the current Act, if this new piece of legislation goes through. We are going to see its views on what is best for families and children in this country not being adequately advocated for.

This week is a fantastic week for us to be talking about the independent role of the Families Commissioner, with my colleague Sue Moroney’s member’s bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill, coming up for debate tomorrow. What we have here is a very good example of how it is that the Families Commissioner’s role has been tinkered with. It has been shaken up and now it is being rebalanced, to use the current language, so that, instead of independent advice that is about advocating for the betterment of children and families in this country, we are seeing a commissioner who is increasingly asked to do the Government’s bidding. It is not for the commissioner to take a political position on whether or not paid parental leave is affordable. That is a matter for the politicians. It is the role of the commissioner to provide advice and advocacy on the impact of policies on children and families. What we have seen is that the way in which National deals with the commissioner is going to be intensified under this legislation, and we will see less of an advocacy role out of the commissioner than we should be seeing.

We also look at this new unit that is being set up to provide research advice. The bill sets up the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit within the commission, with a predetermined annual budget of $3.55 million. We have been told this is because National wants to provide us with evidence-based policies. That is something I commend. I think that is a great thing, but this capacity should have been used before. It theoretically exists within existing ministries and departments and should be there. In reality what we are seeing is a watering down of the advice that can be offered, and the kind of evidence base that we can get on policy. What we are going to see is a Families Commissioner who will be asked to do research into what the Government dictates, rather than issues that the commissioner sees as important for advocating the betterment of children and families. Poverty, literacy, paid parental leave, family violence—these will not be choices that the commissioner can make, but instead will be directed by the Government.

Currently what happens is that the commissioner uses a range of peer reviewers from a number of our universities and other research centres and independent researchers. Under this new piece of legislation that advice will be limited to four people. We have some very clever and talented social policy and social science academics in this country, but I cannot think of four of them who can provide advice right across the whole plethora. Labour has serious questions about this bill, and we need to see them answered at the select committee. Thank you.

I am just wanting to support my colleagues and their very good speeches on this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill, and to draw attention to the Labour Party’s not wishing to have a Families Commission. National is making the right adjustments to make sure the Families Commission is effective and delivers for New Zealanders going forward. Thank you.

Another split call—4-minute bell.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. For many of you listening at home you might be wondering what need this Families Commission Amendment Bill is addressing. What need is this bill addressing? Well, actually, I can tell you that the need was in the confidence and supply agreement that National and United Future came up with. If you look at the actual quote from this coalition agreement: “The Families Commission will have two broad functions—the existing functions will be headed by a single Commissioner,” we should note that the position of that single commissioner, Carl Davidson, is very interesting, particularly on paid parental leave, given he is supposed to represent an organisation that is representing New Zealand families. The research is unqualified in its support for paid parental leave. We know that parents being able to stay home with their children not only benefits children but also actually benefits communities. It is at the heart of community and family resilience, which was actually one of the two primary roles of the Families Commission, and my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad, will know this well because he was the original Chief Families Commissioner.

The commission was empowered to identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance families’ resilience and families’ strengths, so I find it incredible that we are discussing the change to a bill that will actually change the function of this institution, which has always been about being a voice for our families. It is going to change from becoming an autonomous Crown entity to, basically, a Crown agent. It will have to have give effect to Crown policy and in fact it says in the documentation in the bill that this bill adds these functions to assist in determining or achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector, to commission research on behalf of the Government and others, and to manage contracts for research in the social sector on behalf of the Government.

I note the whole intention of the Families Commission in the early days, and I want to highlight one of the original commissioners, a woman called Carolynn Bull, who was a member of the Māori Women’s Welfare League and represented Ōtautahi very well. She was very staunch in promoting not only to me but also to many people The Couch. For people who do not know what The Couch was within the Families Commission, it was actually a formal mechanism for families and people who were interested in issues related to families to have a formal say in what the needs and interests of our communities were. The Couch was set up to promote the interests of all families and promote a better understanding of family issues and needs amongst Government agencies and the wider community. That is the issue with this change in orientation—interesting word—of the Families Commission. What it is going to become is a Government voice. We do not need Government voices advocating for families. Actually, what we need is family voices advocating for families.

What the Government has done by reorienting this bill is justify why Labour, when we are in Government, will not have a Families Commission. We will get rid of the Families Commission and create a ministry for children. We will have a Minister for children who will advocate and speak on behalf of New Zealand families and New Zealand children, which is completely opposite to what these changes propose to do. So we, in this first reading, will let New Zealanders have a say, and we will support this bill’s referral at first reading to the Social Services Committee. But people out there must know that we will be ensuring that your voices are captured in this debate, because the orientation of this new bill is going to ensure that New Zealand families do not have a say. The needs and interests of New Zealand children are not a priority for that Government, and we know this because child poverty is growing in this country. A bill that relates to paid parental leave should be something that the Families Commissioner is the champion of. That is not what is happening, and this bill will ensure that it does not. Kia ora.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatoru mihi atu ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, arohatia te reo rangatira. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker of the House. Secondly, to the members of our House, greetings to you all. Thirdly, acknowledgments to Māori Language Week; cherish the chiefly language. Greetings to you all.]

I am pleased to rise in the first reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill to support my colleague Denise Roche in articulating the Green Party’s position on the future of the Families Commission, Kōmihana ā Whānau. The Green Party will be opposing this bill at the first reading.

We have an interesting history with the Families Commission, because we did, in fact, oppose its original creation in 2003. We saw it then as an unnecessary, additional bureaucracy created to meet the demands of a political agreement between the then Labour Government and United Future without meeting the urgent needs of New Zealand children and families. I think it is probably fair to say that the history of the Families Commission since then, in terms of its relationship to various coalition agreements, has continued on the same track.

We expressed at the time our concern about a lack of clarity in the role and function of the commission, and I guess in some ways that lack of clarity may have led now to this Government bill, which seeks to streamline and make more efficient the functions of the commission. However, we cannot support the changes outlined in this bill and we share many of the serious concerns outlined by the Labour members in this debate. For the Green Party, however, these concerns are significant enough for us to be voting against this bill at the first reading.

I want to address the issue of research—the quality of Government social research and the supposed need for a new families status report, which will now be produced annually if this bill is passed into law. I would like to echo the concerns that Jacinda Ardern raised earlier in the debate about the Social Report and Bryan Perry’s excellent Household incomes in New Zealand report—both very comprehensive, high-quality reports on the status of families and children across a range of social and economic indicators produced by the Ministry of Social Development. Where these were once released with some fanfare, they now appear unceremoniously on the Ministry of Social Development website once a year—or, in the case of the Social Report, now only once every 3 years—and I have significant concerns about the future of this important research when the work currently performed by the Centre for Social Research and Evaluation in the Ministry of Social Development is, under this bill, subsumed into the newly altered Families Commission.

I also question the additional value of a new families status report in addition to the existing research from the Ministry of Social Development and from a huge range of other organisations and academics that produced high-quality research on the well-being of children and families. I think I would probably speak for many thousands of New Zealanders when I say that I think we are getting sick of more and more reports telling us how bad things are for our children. We are impatient for genuine cross-party action to end child poverty and reduce inequality in New Zealand, and I do not see this bill as helping that agenda in any way.

The Green Party is also concerned about the restructuring of functions away from the Ministry of Social Development and towards the oversight of a new advisory panel in this bill. This, I think, is part of a trend that we are seeing towards ministerially appointed advisory groups dictating our social policy in New Zealand, and it is nothing to be celebrated. First, we had the Welfare Working Group, then we had the recently announced welfare reform board, and now we have a social science experts panel, and I have to question whether in fact there is a job for Paula Rebstock in this bill as well.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. When we broke for dinner I was talking about the trend towards ministerially appointed advisory groups such as the social science experts panel, which is established in this legislation. The Green Party is pretty concerned about this trend, and would question both the value for money of moving towards these highly paid panels, which are more akin, we would contest, to boards of directors than they are to appropriate social policy expertise, and the independence of a ministerially appointed panel such as this. Other parts of the bill cause us to question that independence, as well.

The emphasis on advancing the Government position is very concerning. As we heard before from the member Jacinda Ardern, we think that is the wrong way round. Of particular concern is the amendment to section 13 of the Families Commission Act, which previously stated that the commission must maintain mechanisms to ensure it is at all times readily accessible to a wide range of views. This bill will amend this section so that it will apply only to its advocacy function and not the monitoring, evaluation, and research of key issues, programmes, and interventions. That lack of independence, that change, is very concerning to us, coupled with our concern about the future of high-quality research currently coming out of the centre for research at the Ministry of Social Development and, indeed, some longstanding concerns that we have had with the Families Commission, the direction of the current Government, and the lack of action on child poverty and inequality. We remain very concerned about this bill and we are very proudly voting against it at its first reading. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to take a call on the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I am only sorry I was not able to speak earlier in the debate, but a range of other commitments prevented that.

I support this bill because what it does is take the Families Commission forward into its second decade, effectively. When we set it up back in 2004, this was groundbreaking territory. I want to acknowledge the work that the former Chief Families Commissioner Dr Prasad did in those early years. I note the constructive comments he made earlier in this debate. It is a great pity they are at variance with the comments made by the remainder of his colleagues, who, unlike Dr Prasad, do not see a future role for the commission; they want to abolish it. But, then, I should not be surprised, because as early as the launch of the White Ribbon campaign in 2004, just a few months after the commission had been established, Mr Maharey, the then Minister responsible, was talking to me about whether it should be abolished. So here was the Labour Party, which entered into a confidence and supply agreement with United Future in 2002 to establish the Families Commission, within 2 years starting the process that culminated in its policy position at the last election of trying to white-ant it. So its criticisms today really do not bear a great deal of credibility.

There are a couple of very important provisions in this bill. The restructuring of the governance arrangements to provide for a single Families Commissioner, supported by a board, deals with one of the issues that has been problematic for the commission since its inception: the relationship between the commissioners, plural, and the staff of the secretariat. This change in this bill makes a very important statement and clarifies the relationship vis-à-vis the governance of the commission and the work it does as an advocate, as a policy adviser, and as a deliverer of a variety of different programmes.

The second important thing this bill establishes, and I have heard some comment already this evening that I think is misplaced, is the institution of an annual state of the family report. This idea draws on work that the coalition Government in the United Kingdom has put in place in the last couple of years to provide for an annual reporting mechanism over a range of indicators about how well family performance is being monitored and policies are being implemented to give effect to those issues in the United Kingdom. I think for a long time it has been an issue that has been a missing link in New Zealand. If you go right back to the early 1990s, we passed the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, which put a lot of stringent requirements on Government in terms of reporting on its achievement of its fiscal objectives—greater clarity and greater transparency around those. At that time we toyed briefly—it was during the period of the National - United Future coalition Government in the mid-1990s—with a social responsibility bill to get the Government to be required, on an annual basis, to report on how it was meeting its social obligations in parallel with the Fiscal Responsibility Bill.

The relevance to this legislation is that the state of the families report is, in effect, the modern incarnation of that concept of reporting on the achievement of broad social responsibility objectives. So it is a welcome step. The commission is well-placed to deliver it. It still retains its statutory independence. It still retains that degree of distance from Government, but it is also part of the policy-making and advisory mix. What this bill does is position the Families Commission for its next decade. What this bill does is take the learnings of the first nearly 10 years, repackage those in a way that is fit for purpose in today’s context, and set the commission forward with a new, more clear, and more straightforward mission as it approaches its next decade.

Finally, can I make the observation that consistently since 2004, around the world the Families Commission in New Zealand has been looked to as an example of a premier body, recognising and taking account of the interests of families in terms of the relationship to government. This legislation enhances that role.

I am very delighted to support it. I was proud to be able to negotiate with the Government, post-election, on the changes that have occurred, and I think they will be, overall, hugely beneficial for New Zealand families, and that is the ultimate test of this commission.

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Social Services Committee report finally to the House by 27 November 2012.

Motion agreed to.