Families Commission Bill

I move, That the Families Commission Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will be moving that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee.

Families play an important role in the lives of their members. They provide emotional, psychological, and material support. They nurture and protect children and other vulnerable family members. They pass on culture, knowledge, and obligations. Supporting families was one of the important elements in the pre-election policies of Labour, the Progressive Coalition, and United Future. This Government is committed to supporting families and children, and this bill is evidence that those commitments will be honoured.

The bill establishes a new Crown entity, to be known as the Families Commission. The bill gives effect to the undertaking in the agreement for confidence and supply between the Government and United Future New Zealand. The bill establishes a commission with a clear purpose. The commission will promote the interests of the full range of families in New Zealand, and promote better understanding of family issues and needs amongst Government agencies and in the wider community. A number of Government agencies already play a significant role in the provision of family policy, services, and research. It is not intended that the Families Commission should replicate those functions. The commission’s main function will be to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally. The commission will not take on any individual family cases or issues. It will have additional functions to assist it to perform effectively its advocacy function, and I will list those functions now.

The commission will encourage and facilitate informed debate on matters relating to the interests of families across sectors and involving the general public. It will increase public awareness and promote better understanding of families in relation to the interests of families, including the importance of stable family relationships, and the rights and responsibilities of parents. It will encourage and facilitate the development and provision of services and policies designed to promote or serve the interests of families. It will consider and report on any matters relating to families that are referred to it by the Minister of the Crown. It will stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to the interests of families—for example, by collecting and disseminating research about families and their interests; by advising on research priorities, or gaps in research; by contracting for research on families; and by undertaking any incidental functions relating to its main function or to any additional jobs that will be given to it.

This bill establishes a commission that will be responsive to the needs, interests, and priorities of all New Zealand families. Many New Zealand families are couples with children; however, families are more diverse than that. They include single-household nuclear families, extended families, the wider kinship groupings, Māori whānau, customary structures in our Pacific and Asian communities, families that span generations, families that disperse across households, and families created second and subsequently, through other unions. The bill requires the Families Commission to take an inclusive approach to the family in New Zealand, and to concern itself with issues faced by all of them, whatever shape or form they may take.

Although it is important that the commission has a degree of independence from Government, the bill sets out the guidelines for the commission, in terms of both its scope and priorities, as a set of matters that the commission will have regard to. Firstly, in the exercise and performance of its functions and powers, it must have regard to any policies and priorities of the Government that relate to the commission’s functions, and that are communicated to the commission in writing by the Minister. Those directions must be discussed with the commission before they are given. That provision is in line with the framework approved by the Government and proposed for application to all Crown entities. It envisages that a responsible Minister may direct an autonomous Crown entity to have regard to a Government policy that relates to the entity’s function. Secondly, the commission must have regard to the diversity of all New Zealand families and family groups, which have many different forms and structures. Finally, the Families Commission must have regard to the needs, values, and beliefs of particular groups: Māori as tangata whenua, Pacific Island peoples of New Zealand, and other ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand.

I am pleased that the Labour manifesto commitment to establish a parenting council is honoured through the creation of the Families Commission.

The commission provides the opportunity to draw on expertise from the Government and from community and academic sectors, to coordinate a joined-up approach to the issues of parenting, to promote the importance of parenting, and to give advice on the development and implementation of new programmes supporting parenting. Those objectives are motivated by our manifesto commitment to establish a parenting council. I intend to use the bill’s requirement that the commission have regard to any general policy in relation to families, or any statement of the priorities of the Government in relation to families, to communicate to the commission that an important immediate priority for it should be to focus on families caring for children or other dependants. Those other caring roles may include caring for aged parents or adult family members with disabilities.

Successful parenting is crucial to the overall strategy of creating the knowledge society that the Government is aiming for. Sound parenting is vital if children are to grow up to be dependable adults, and it is essential if children are to be able to take up the challenges of further education and successful employment. In short, sound parenting is crucial to creating a prosperous, innovative society in which all can realise their ambitions. The knowledge economy is truly born in the home, where it is nurtured by parents and supported by the family. It is, therefore, important that the commission have a focus on parenting. It is also important that the Families Commission be responsive to the broad range of families that exist in this country and their interests. Therefore, the commission will be required to do just that.

The bill establishes the Families Commission as an autonomous Crown entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. That is the best structure to ensure that the commission has the degree of independence from Government necessary for it to promote the interests of the family effectively and with a sense of clear independence.

The bill provides for up to seven commissioners to be appointed. That will allow the Government to appoint to the commission a variety of people, to reflect the diversity that the commission will be dealing with.

Finally, the bill sets out a range of operational and organisational matters. Those matters are generally consistent with the Government’s framework for Crown entities. They include providing the commission with powers of delegation, allowing the commission to appoint committees, providing for the appointment of a general manager, requiring the commission to produce an annual report, and providing for ministerial powers of review of the commission’s operation and performance.

This bill establishes the Families Commission. That will greatly advance the interests of families in New Zealand. The research role of the commission will advance our understanding of the needs and interests of families, and will be welcomed, I think, by the social research community. The commission’s contribution to policy development, as a key stakeholder, will ensure that the needs and priorities of families are properly considered when the Government is developing new initiatives.

I will quickly reflect on one aspect before I close my comments on our forming the commission. I am flanked in the House today by, on my right, Peter Dunne and Judy Turner from the United Future party—and I want to say that we had very productive and useful discussions leading towards the introduction of this legislation today—and, on my left, Matt Robson from the Progressive Coalition, who has been equally as involved in ensuring that the broad policies we are following have the support of all the parties that are involved in the process of government.

What I hope ensues from this point is an informed debate about how central the family, as the core institution of our society, needs to be in advancing what we are trying to do in this country. One of the problems over the last few decades has been that we have not maintained a focus on New Zealand as a place that should be proud of raising children in whatever shape the family takes, and, thus, on ensuring the family is at the centre of social policy. I think the Families Commission will help ensure that the family is restored to that central place. I applaud the work that has taken place so far, and I look forward to seeing the Families Commission carry out its role. I commend this bill to the House.

Is it not interesting to hear such sincerity from a member of a party that recently—just prior to the last election—regarded any mention of the word “family” as a personal attack on the Prime Minister, and responded to it viciously, as I found myself? The question is whether that leopard has changed its spots, and the answer is no. No one should presume that the Families Commission Bill represents anything other than a triumph for the paranoia of Steve Maharey and the Labour Party about the fact that we may end up having a debate in New Zealand about the social facts of family.

I was looking forward to being able to support the Families Commission. When United Future said that it was seeking one, in the aftermath of the election, I thought that that was good. It is a strong interest of mine, and I hoped that United Future would make progress on it. Much like many of the people who voted for United Future, I had assumed that it would achieve a Families Commission—or some kind of representative function for families—that would mark out the territory that its voters thought it should mark out, and that is to advocate for a pretty well-defined family, actually. Whether United Future’s supporters are correct in their view of the family is beside the point; the fact is they expected a clear definition of a family. I ask the House this question. If, during the election campaign, Peter Dunne had said: “I support families—that is, any group with a psychological attachment.”, do members think he would have got the support he did? The answer to that is no, because, in that context, everyone from a parliamentary caucus to a bikie gang has a psychological attachment.

The fact is that the bill reflects Labour’s desperate and paranoid attitude that the family may actually get some definition. I say to Labour members that they need not have bothered. Why cannot families decide? Why cannot normal people, who run these groups, decide whether the Families Commission is advocating for them? That is the first big problem with this legislation. Now, a family is a family if it fits the bureaucrats’ definition of one, and their definition is, of course, “anyone”. This bill is a “New Zealand Population Commission Bill”, because there is no one who is not included. The point of that is the commission itself will become meaningless because it is not advocating for anyone.

In fact, the people who supported Peter Dunne share my view, to some extent. One of the reasons we are debating this kind of legislation is that the family, and people who run families, have become a minority interest group. I think that is correct. They now have become a minority interest group. We cannot assume that the people who run the country, or spend public money, have an interest in, or an understanding of, or empathy for the issues that thousands of New Zealanders raising a family in New Zealand face every day. That is why we have this bill. It is also why we have a range of lobby groups around the country such as the new Parenting Council that is being set up.

Now that we have seen Steve Maharey put his fingerprints all over this legislation, we know that the $28 million the Government has dedicated to it will be funding one great big binge in political correctness. I could stand on the sideline at any sports game this Saturday—I will not be there this Saturday, but I will be there for a few more—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: It’s like the America’s Cup.

The America’s Cup has got more—that is right—because it is much more important than this! I could stand on the sideline at any sports game and ask the parents there whether they think Steve Maharey spending $28 million on a Families Commission will make any difference to them, and the answer, of course, will be no.

For instance, the commission will be appointed by the Minister, and will have to reflect the diversity of people who have psychological attachments. Of course, we will end up with a commission so diverse that it is incapable of agreeing about whether to have biscuits for morning tea, let alone getting on with the difficult job of advocating the interests of families.

What will the Government do if someone on that commission gets up and says that all the social research done about families and groups tells us that two-parent families work best, and that therefore the commission should make that its top priority? That is the least contestable conclusion of social research in the last 30 years. It is the clearest conclusion of any social research done in the last 30 years. The Minister will ring the commission up—

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Oh, rubbish!

The Minister says that is rubbish. Does anyone think the Minister will let the Families Commission do that? Of course not, because he would have any number of people all over him, saying that, no, we cannot get caught in that fuddy-duddy, conservative, backward-looking version of families. This commission will have to advocate for everything; that is what it will have to do. It will have to advocate for diversity. It will have to advocate for everyone. Well, of course, at that stage it will be pointless. It will have even less point than the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, which, I notice, the Government is itself seeking to abolish.

I have got another message here, and it is for all those fine, dedicated people in our community who do work so hard to support and to advocate for families, and who are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether unrelated people living in a household amount to a family. They are quite capable of sorting that out. One would think we never knew about those situations until Steve Maharey told us about them. That is how we know there is diversity. I ask who does live in the ivory tower: is it Steve Maharey, or is it everybody else? Is it the front bench of the Labour Government, or is it everybody else?

I say to all those groups that this bill is a threat. This is a Government that cannot stand community groups that have a point of view it does not like. So the Minister of Education says to schools, publicly, that they should boycott the Life Education Trust because it is too successful. It has strong community support. Now the Government is setting out to destroy the Yellow Ribbon campaign and Project Hope. I say to the Parenting Council and to Parenting with Confidence that their biggest enemy will be the Families Commission, because it has been charged to develop and implement parenting programmes. The bureaucrats are now going to develop and implement parenting programmes.

Why not leave it to parents? Why not use a fraction of the $28 million to help fund the Parenting Council, which has just been set up, and was launched by that Minister just a couple of months ago? Why not use a fraction of it to put programmes of the quality of Parenting with Confidence in front of every parent in New Zealand? No. Hui, seminars, human rights, indigenous rights, diversity—dumbed-down, difficult, stupid political correctness—will kill this.

I give United Future credit for trying, but I give them my sympathy for having failed. I say to United Future that we are with it. We want strong advocacy for families, and good use of public money to encourage and build the families of New Zealand, and I hope we can work with United Future to make this legislation even vaguely workable. But I must say that it does not matter what is in here; as long as this Government is in charge, this measure will certainly fail because the Government wants it to fail. It has designed it to fail. It wants to make sure it cannot actually focus on the realities of family life. This commission will be praised to the skies in the Human Rights Commission and laughed at in the families of New Zealand.

I stand to speak on behalf of United Future in the first reading of the Families Commission Bill. It is certainly not difficult to see why certain members from other parties have trouble getting their heads around this proposal. The very nature of the political animal is that it is driven by the 3-year cycle. The quick fix, instant gratification, and tick both boxes, please—that is about as far as many politicians can see. While nobody disagrees that addressing the immediate needs of New Zealanders is part of what the Government should do, responsible government should include planning for the future. That is why this legislation is not a knee-jerk reaction to the many cases of dysfunctional families and the increasing statistics of child abuse that we hear about via the media. This legislation will create a vision, and will contribute to an environment in which families will flourish and be able to participate fully in society—an environment in which all children will be enabled to reach their greatest potential.

Clearly, the Families Commission will, over time, advocate for a raft of issues that relate to needy families in our community. However, it will not advocate solely for families with identifiable needs, but for taking a strength-based approach to determining, through consultation and using evidence-based data, what it is that Governments do that creates an environment in which families thrive, and where Governments create obstacles that weaken families’ resolve to succeed. Traditionally, families need to be at risk or to be failing miserably before they enjoy the attention of the Government. Part of the change that needs to be advocated for is a change towards investing in families that are not at obvious risk. For that reason, the commission will not focus on families as a needy cause, but rather it will focus on families as a context in which people live their lives.

For instance, if a mum is receiving mental health support, it can be rightly assumed that there are some issues at home that will need addressing—in other words, her mental health does not exist in isolation from the context of her family. As a country we have, over previous years, been very good at treating individuals in need separately from their family context, and we then often wonder why our efforts are not sustainable.

Many of us know the questions that need to be asked, but up until now we have not had an independent body to ask those questions, and to come up with workable and sustainable solutions. This commission will be charged with advising on a broad range of issues, and on the way those issues impact on families. For instance, what is the impact on family life when we talk about work-life balance? What is the impact on families as we set taxation rates for families with dependants? What about the Family Court—how do families feel about it and about the outcomes from that court? What about the gaps in parent education in our communities? What about the level of tertiary qualifications for those who are working in the field of family service provision? How will the families of the future be able to balance their student loan repayments, retirement savings, and homeownership demands? Those are all the kinds of issues that may be looked into, researched, and have recommendations made on to the Government.

Because the Government will consider the commission as a key stakeholder on family policy, some of those issues will be addressed by the Government of the day, and the commission will make comment on them. However, the commission will also raise other issues independently. It will therefore be essential that the commission establish a strong working relationship with the Government, family service providers, academics, and the voluntary sector in order to ensure that there is robust policy analysis, well-researched data, and effective and workable policies for all New Zealand families.

It is important at this time to thank all the social service, education, health, and family support organisations that have so willingly participated in the consultation process that has gone on at the design stage of this legislation. We want to thank the Federation of New Zealand Parents Centres, Plunket, the Child Poverty Action Group, the family centre at Victoria University, Relationship Services, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, Parent to Parent New Zealand Inc., Triple P New Zealand, Parenting with Confidence, the Office of the Commissioner for Children, the Auckland University of Technology, Bethlehem Institute of Education, the Pacific Foundation, the National Council of Women, and many others who have come and made extremely good submissions to us, and who have made some fabulous recommendations that are included in this legislation.

United Future has been a strong supporter of New Zealand’s voluntary and charitable sector, which we believe is passionate about family issues and is best placed to deliver assistance to families in need. Therefore, it was never United Future’s intention that the Families Commission would be designed to duplicate its work. Those providers respond to the immediate and often crisis-ridden needs of individuals by providing relief and, if possible, intervention in order to prevent further decline. They work tirelessly in advocating for children and families, and our country is much richer for their existence.

It is important for the Families Commission to be able to identify with, and to speak for, the widest range of parent-child environments. Anything less than that would have relegated the commission to advocating for a special-interest group. Without that breadth of definition, the commission’s scope would have disqualified it from being a key adviser to the Government on a wide range of interests. Of even greater concern would have been that the commission could be designed in such a way as to be captured by a narrowly focused interest group. We have avoided ideological definitions of the family, because the commission is not set up to serve families as they should be, but rather families as they are. I would like to take this opportunity to extend United Future’s thanks to the Hon Steve Maharey and his staff, and to the officials from the Ministry of Social Development for what has been an open and extremely positive working relationship on that matter.

To reiterate, the commission is designed to look at the big picture and, in particular, to determine the factors that strengthen family connectedness and improve family outcomes. The commission is concerned with building social and human capital. For example, the link between educational outcomes and family cohesiveness is well documented in overseas studies. The commission will help to build our country’s stock of social capital, for it is within the family that we learn the necessary skills and values that we need in order to form social capital out in the wider community. One might consider the commission as a social capital incubator. It is within the family that we learn and are taught the value of trust, and of the usefulness of sharing norms and expectations. The commission, through its research and its role of advocacy, will be able to amplify and propagate that message to all New Zealanders. More important, it will once again remind us of one more reason that families are so important. By fostering and teaching social capital, it will make a reality of United Future’s favourite saying: “If it is good for the family, it is good for the country.”

I think all of us in this House looked forward with eager anticipation to this legislation, because we recognise that the strength of the family is undoubtedly the foundation of the nation. 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.

At the last election, United Future received critical electorate support because of its emphasis on families—and I say “critical” because in the last couple of weeks before the election that emphasis took it from about 0.5 percent in the polls up to whatever it was that enabled United Future to hold the balance of power and to hold the Greens out. Nevertheless, when United Future members were talking to the public at large out on the hustings and at campaign meetings, it was quite clear what they were talking about. They were talking about a particular type of family. I will give members an example of that. When one candidate was asked what was meant when that candidate talked about the family, the response was that it meant a man, a woman, and kids—tied together in matrimony. That was what the family was for that candidate.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Which candidate was that?

I will not name any particular candidate, but it was a United Future candidate.

In its election manifesto, United Future talked about establishing a commission for the family to promote the status of families and the role of parents, to ensure all policy development reflected the fundamental needs of families and their children, to provide a family mediation service that would support, promote, and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services, to facilitate family support and parental education classes, and to improve the coordination of Government departments. Then we come to this particular legislation.

The first challenge the Families Commission will have is to get a working definition of what a family is, because under this bill everything is included—and I mean everything. It includes all the different types of relationships. We know there is a range of different relationships, but this definition even includes relationships such as those in the Mongrel Mob. That is all in the definition. The definition refers to members who have biological or legal relationships with one another, who have significant psychological attachments to one another, or who are members of a whānau or other culturally recognised family group. Well, I would argue that Bert Potter and his family at Centrepoint would have fallen within that definition. A former member of National—not one who is in the House at the moment—could tell us all about the workings of Centrepoint. However, Centrepoint would still have fallen within the definition. If the Families Commission is to try to work within that definition, we will have a muddle of monumental proportions.

New Zealand First’s Dail Jones has put up a commission for the family bill. In fact, he got it under way long before the combination of United Future, Labour, and the Progressive party put their bill together. In Dail Jones’ bill, the definition of a family group, including an extended family, is one in which there is, first, at least one adult member, and in which, second, the members have a biological or legal relationship. The definition in the bill before us today does not provide that there has to be an adult within the grouping—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Lord of the Flies.

Yes—kill the pig, kill the pig! That really is the problem with this bill. United Future, probably with the best of intentions, but very naively and certainly not having fully thought through some of the promises and pledges it made to the electorate at the last election, has been finessed by Labour. It has been finessed by Labour’s world view, and Labour’s world view is a very different one, I believe, from that of the people who were listening to United Future prior to the election, and saying its policy was good and we should get in behind the family.

One of the things that New Zealand First made very clear in the debate over the property relationships legislation was that it believed certain groupings were preferred in our society. We understand there is a whole range of different arrangements, but if it is the children that we are really concerned about—and not only the children but the whole thing—then there has to be a preference for certain types of arrangements within our society. This bill gives no preference whatsoever. It is “anything goes”.

The leader of the National Party has made a good point. If the research shows—and it would not be a very hard case to mount—that in the best interests of children and the nurturing, caring, and upbringing of those children, the old traditional nuclear family, or at least a family around which there is support from both father and mother, the biological parents or even if they are not, the legal parents of children, is in the best interests of those children, what does this bill do to promote that particular idea? The answer is that it does nothing. This commission will end up as a very expensive talkfest. That is all it will be; it will be an expensive talkfest. The commission is not even autonomous. It cannot come out and say things that it judges are correct. It can only do that within the framework of Government policies, and that framework is already set by political agendas and so on.

I remind the House that something is going on contemporaneously with the setting up of this Families Commission: this Government is abolishing the Early Childhood Development unit. We have a unit that costs $20 million a year, and it is being abolished. That unit is supposed to get out there to help and support parents. It actually runs Family Start programmes, and so on. That unit is going, but we are to put in this Families Commission, which is a talkfest and cannot do anything about it.

We really have to ask ourselves whether this measure is not just a $28 million sop to United Future in order to get the Greens off Labour’s back. When the election came up that is exactly what happened. Labour had to find a way of getting the Greens off its back, with the lifting of the moratorium. Labour went along to United Future and told it not to ask for too much. Labour said if United Future wanted a family commission it would put something in place to keep it happy, even though the commission would not necessarily have any teeth. Labour said it would make sure that the commission did not have any teeth.

In the definition of families the Government has said that it cannot show any preference whatsoever and that anything goes. However, when it comes to the needs, values, and beliefs of particular groups, clause 11 states: “In the exercise and performance of its powers and functions, the Commission must have regard to the needs, values, and beliefs—(a) of Māori as tangata whenua: (b) of the Pacific Islands peoples of New Zealand: (c) of other ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand.” In other words, this Government is prepared to state a preference in that particular clause. All that the Government had to do was to say the commission must have regard to the needs, values, and beliefs of all ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. That would have covered the whole thing, except that the commission has to give preference along ethnicity lines, but not preference along relationship or family lines and so on.

New Zealand First held out a great deal of hope for what would come from the policy work. We absolutely support some of the ideas that were mentioned by Judy Turner and by the Minister about the strengthening of the family, and about how important the family is in the nurturing of children and in the future of our nation. We support all those things, but we have a vehicle here that will not work. All that the commission will do is to cost the taxpayers $28 million of expenditure, and at the end of 4 years nothing will have happened apart from one great big debate. We know what happens following the great big debates here in the House. It is exactly the same thing, and that is what will occur by establishing the commission. New Zealand First will not support this bill, although we support everything that families stand for.

I rise to speak in support of this legislation. We have heard from a number of speakers who have all said that they agree that families and the support thereof are fundamental to the success of our society, but then we seem to have a division along party lines as to whether this measure will achieve anything towards furthering that end. Those in the Government and in United Future have said that it will, but those on the Opposition side of the House have said that it will have no good effect. I suggest to listeners who are interested in this debate that they listen to some of the commentators’ views, and I will mention three of them briefly.

Jan Pryor, the head of the centre for family studies at Victoria University, speaking in support of the proposals, said: “Strong families cannot be legislated for. However, families can be supported, provided with advocacy and helped to identify and build on their strengths.” Similarly, Plunket’s chief executive has come out in support of the proposal and has said: “The Families Commission has the potential to make a positive contribution to the outcomes for New Zealand children.” The Parents Centre president, Sharon Cole, said: “To have even one Government agency promoting to Government what parents need to succeed is not only a break with tradition but incredibly cost effective.”

I support this legislation.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this bill. I note that Opposition parties thought it sufficiently important for the Leader of the Opposition to speak for the National Party, and I, as leader of the ACT party, am speaking for it. However, I note that Mr Peter Dunne, the leader of United Future, who has 18 years experience in Parliament, has realised that it is not a good idea for him to speak to the bill, and that he had better get one of his more junior members to do it. I suspect that that is because Mr Dunne realises what this bill is.

The ACT party is opposed to this bill, because we know, and the Government knows, that this bill is an attack on the family. There is no doubt about that, at all. A State-funded commission is an attack on the family. Labour and United Future are moving down some crazy “let’s not offend anyone”, politically correct path that just does not acknowledge the reality of life for the average Kiwi. It is not about making a harsh judgment on other lifestyles—single people, gay couples, or de facto couples—but it is about saying that marriage is the chosen lifestyle of a majority of people, and let us not back away from that. What does the Minister say to that?

💬 Hon Annette King: You tell me what a family is!

Perhaps United Future members might like to let me know what they think about that statement. Marriage is not even included in the bill. Here we have a bill that states that a single person is a family. It is also saying that the Mongrel Mob is a family. I say to members opposite that that quote actually came from United Future members. They were saying that 6 months ago.

💬 Hon Annette King: Hypocrisy!

The Minister is dead right. I did not use the word hypocrisy, but the Minister recognises it when she sees it.

💬 Hon Annette King: Talking hypocrisy!

Yes, absolutely! The Minister said it is hypocrisy, and I agree with her.

Whether we view United Future policy as biblically sound, or just plain common sense, we serve a common cause. Does the Minister believe that the Mongrel Mob meets the biblical description of a family, a marriage, or gay marriages? Judy Turner said she was opposed to having a narrow definition, because that was ideological. Prior to the election, she said hei policies were biblically based. Every member of this House knows how the United party was elected. That party’s real name is United Future, and the Future party were the Christian Democrats. It went around the electorate and funded that party. It went around the electorate, church-by-church, and said: “We will make a stand for traditional Christian values.” Judy Turner said it was biblically sound. I say to the House that no member thinks that about this bill. The Government would not even think of putting Christian values into this bill. United Future did not ask for them.

I make this point, which was made by Brian Donnelly—the Government would not put Christian values into a bill, but it is quite happy to acknowledge the needs, values, and beliefs of the following groups: Māori as tangata whenua—that is interesting, tangata whenua means not just Māori, so I guess that that is sort of pre-Christian and is OK—Pacific Islands peoples of New Zealand, and other ethnic and cultural groups. This Government has said that it is quite prepared to legislate for any values except Christian values. That is the reality, and that is what United Future is doing. I think Peter Dunne has done it on purpose, because he wants to move his party away from being seen as a Christian party.

I say to those members that the people who voted for United Future did not expect to see a Families Commission—and we all know what it is going to do. There will be a UN definition of the family. The commission will be politically correct. It will advocate on behalf of gay couples—there is no doubt in my mind about that—and it will actually advocate on behalf of single parents. It will go out there and make an attack on the traditional family. There is no doubt about that, and every experienced MP knows it.

💬 Hon Annette King: What’s a traditional family?

The member opposite tells me she does not know what a traditional family is. What has the United Future party been doing? Prior to the election, when the United Future party was asked that definition, it was “Mum, dad, and the kids”, but now we have a Labour Minister calling out across the House that she does not know what a traditional family is.

💬 Hon Annette King: What’s your definition?

Let me make it quite clear: the ACT party does not believe that taxpayers’ dollars should be spent on family commissions. We have never supported that. We would not vote for it today, or tomorrow—unlike the other parties who have all said that they are in favour of a families commission only if it is defined the way they want it. The ACT party says it is not in favour of the State—[Interruption] The member is calling out to me. I am not in favour of the State getting involved in advocacy of this sort, Minister.

💬 Hon Annette King: What is your personal definition?

I am in favour of “Mum, dad, and the kids”. The member asked me—and that is my family. That is what I think about it, but so what? The Minister should not be involved. Why are we having taxpayers’ money spent on this talk shop? I ask the Minister to name me one good proposal that will come out of this commission. Come on, Minister—you made a promise, call out to me!

💬 Hon Annette King: What happens to your family when you die—is it not a family anymore?

The Minister wants to know what will happen to my family when I die. That is very comforting! I sincerely hope that the Families Commission will have nothing to do with them. God help them if it does!

I say to the Government—and every MP knows it—that this a $28 million waste of money. It is the United Future party’s sell-out of every single one of its voters. No voter for United Future thought he or she would see a party MP get up and describe “Mum, dad, and the kids” as an ideologically narrow focus. That is how Judy Turner described the family. Prior to the election she said: “Our policy is biblically sound.” After the election, she calls people who are biblically sound “ideologically narrowly focused”. That may be a reasonable view, but not of a party that used to be called the Christian Democrats—not of a party that was funded by churches up and down New Zealand. [Interruption] Now the member is saying she was not funded by churches up and down New Zealand. Talk about denying three times! Here is a party that is even denying its background. Peter Dunne was smart enough not to speak to this bill. He knows, as we all know in this House, that whenever we see anything that says “family law”, it is an attack on the family. Family law is divorce law. A Families Commission is an attack on the traditional family. The pensioners of New Zealand should not be paying extra for their drop of sherry to pay for this ideological nonsense.

But I make this point to the United Future party and the Labour Party: if this bill is so good, then why is the introduction date put off to 1 July 2004? It is because Peter Dunne knows that this bill is useless, and so does the Labour Party. It is laughing about it. It is actually a squalid political deal, and will do nothing for any family in this country. It will not add value; it will just provide jobs for the boys and girls. They will be going on UN trips to study the family in Geneva and New York, and they will not be helping the average battler. If the Government really wants to help the family, how about a tax cut for mum and dad who are working, so that they have a bit more money for the family? That $28 million would have gone a long way towards helping many low-income families in New Zealand.

The ACT party is against this sort of politically correct claptrap—a squalid deal that gives a bad name to MMP—and will be voting against this commission. ACT members will be saying to every New Zealander who voted for United Future: “If you want to support the family, the best thing you can do is get rid of those United Future—what was the word you used, Minister?—hypocrites.”

I rise to support the first reading of the Families Commission Bill, and I will be voting with my Labour colleagues for its first reading.

It is very interesting to follow the Hon Richard Prebble, the leader of the ACT party, who came to the House this afternoon and full of fury, rage, and rhetoric, attacked United Future and those who are actually trying to do something for the families of this country. He gave us his own personal definition of the family as “Mum, dad, and the kids.” What happens when one parent passes away and there is only one parent, and the kids, in the family? Mr Prebble said that did not meet his definition of a family.

He made reference to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of the National Party. That is true, but the Leader of the Opposition refused point blank to give us his definition of a family, or the National Party’s definition of a family. Opposition members are speaking with total rhetoric on this piece of legislation. The commission will be set up with the support of the Labour Party, Progressive, and United Future, because we want to support family units in whatever shape and size they come. We believe that units of love are the best place for children and young people to grow up in. Members of Parliament should be supporting that, instead of indulging in rhetoric and empty attacks on parties that are trying to do something about it.

The Green Party will not be supporting the Families Commission Bill, which is before us this afternoon. The bill is an affront to families in desperate need of support right now, and it is an affront to hard-pressed community organisations that already do the work the commission is charged with. The Government sees fit to put up to $9 million or more a year into a superfluous new bureaucracy, simply to meet the demands of a political agreement with United Future.

There is nothing wrong with trying to do more for families, or parents, or children, or the groups that serve them. The Green Party campaigned last year on ending child poverty—the child poverty that still afflicts up to a third of this country’s children. We also campaigned for increased support for education in parenting, a universal child benefit, reforms in family assistance and family support, and a whole host of other things that would immediately benefit families in a practical way. We would also like to see more funding going to groups that advocate for—and in other ways work for—families and children, and we are totally behind the Commissioner for Children Bill.

However, rather than giving immediate income, housing, or other relief to families in need, or boosting the work of hard-pressed community groups supporting families and children, this bill before us this afternoon takes $27.8 million of taxpayers’ money to establish a new Crown entity whose main function will be “to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” To quote further, subclause 7(2) states: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.”

So just what will this new commission be doing? In this country, we already have a number of fine organisations that advocate strongly and well for families, and for parents and children, in a variety of ways. A number of such groups also carry out the subsidiary functions outlined in the bill, such as promoting informed debate, lobbying the Government, and carrying out research on matters relating to families. I will name just a couple in the latter category—there are many more. I am sure we have all noticed the sterling efforts in recent years of the Child Poverty Action Group and Charles Waldegrave’s Lower Hutt Family Centre. Both carry out sound research on issues affecting families, especially low-income ones, and advocate strongly for the interests of children and families at every level, and in every part of the political spectrum. We have also seen the rise of groups like the Parents Centres, which provide programmes for parents around the country—alongside organisations like Parentline, Homebuilders, the People’s Centre, and a whole range of community, iwi, pan-tribal and Pacific peoples’ organisations, whose whole existence is geared to supporting the needs of families, particularly those who need help most.

I would much rather have seen at least some of the proposed $28 million poured into direct support and infrastructure funding increases for those organisations, rather than into another layer of bureaucracy whose purpose seems indistinguishable from a lot of what is already in the public sector, and whose functions are already being met in all sorts of places in the voluntary sector. At a time when lotteries funding is diminishing by the year, and the funding of Community Organisations Grants Scheme committees in places like Manukau City is so stretched that average grants are around a totally inadequate $4,000 a year, it seems ridiculous to prioritise investment in a body like the new Families Commission.

In terms of what is already there in the public sector, notably we have the Commissioner for Children. A bill geared to strengthening the commissioner’s role has languished on the Order Paper for the last couple of years, and there is still no sign of it surfacing in the near future—that I am aware of, anyway. If Labour had been serious about wanting to increase the advocacy role for the children and young people who constitute a high percentage of families, I am sure we would have seen the Commissioner for Children Bill back in the House some years ago.

On top of that, in the public sector we have the Ministry of Social Development itself—a massive enterprise employing around 350 policy analysts, many of whom spend much of their time researching and analysing social conditions in this country and giving advice to the Government. That is a huge public investment in social research. On the Social Services Committee we often receive the benefit of briefings on their latest research results, much of which provide useful underpinnings for the development of social policy—for example, through the excellent living standards survey, and social reports. Those studies include detailed information about the living standards of a whole range and type of New Zealand families, and the development of indicators to measure desirable social outcomes—with a particular focus on the needs of children and young people. It is hard to see how a much smaller Crown entity, in the form of the new Families Commission, could ever emulate the depth and breadth of research in policy advice relating to families already offered by the Ministry of Social Development. Community-based research, such as that carried out by groups like the Child Poverty Action Group and the Rev. Charles Waldegrave, could be of much added value if more resources were put into it, but I do not see that same quality and style of research coming from another State body.

In the past, the Green Party has tended to support the establishment of new bodies that could offer independent advice to Government in critical areas. However, our recent observations of the actions of the Tertiary Education Commission and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority have led us to believe that those bodies are not necessarily offering independent advice at the level we would expect, and we are no longer so quick to assume that setting up an avowedly autonomous Crown entity will achieve particularly useful and independent outcomes.

Further, the Green Party notes that it is intended that the new Families Commission will consist of between three and seven commissioners, and that it will have a budget of $9.2 million a year when it becomes fully operational. That is astonishing, when one considers that the Office of the Commissioner for Children receives less than $2 million, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs $4 million, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment $2 million, and the Human Rights Commission just under $8 million. What are the Government’s priorities here? What is the real point of what it is doing? After all, the Human Rights Commission—a long-established and respected body endeavouring to advocate and research a huge range of issues, as well as dealing with a large number of actual cases—receives less than this new body. It is pitiful to see the Commissioner for Children and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment treated with such comparative contempt, given the importance of the critical interests they attempt so valiantly to represent on very low budgets.

The $28 million being spent on setting up and running the Families Commission is a slap in the face for families in desperate need of support right now—in May 2003. We do not know exactly what the Budget this week will bring families, but from what has been made public already, it is pretty clear that there will be no changes, reforms, or improvements to family assistance, family support, or benefits. Nor am I expecting any major new initiatives to allow low to medium-income families to rent or buy homes that they can afford, in the districts where they live and can get jobs. A lack of decent, affordable housing remains one of the biggest causes of health and educational problems for children and families.

I am, of course, under no illusion about the political imperatives under which the Labour Government is operating with this bill, but it is a pity nevertheless that taxpayers’ money is to be spent in a less than efficacious manner, simply because of past election deals. If United Future really had families at heart, there are many other ways in which it could have pushed Labour to spend this money. I hope the day will come when common sense, rather than a blind commitment to a vague ideal of “family”, will determine how we spend precious dollars when a third of this country’s children are still living in poverty.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Government in support of this bill.

I want to pick up on a point raised by Sue Bradford. Imagine if this $28 million were given to the Office of the Commissioner for Children, an organisation that is already acting as a strong advocate for a fair chunk of the family—that is, children! By my calculation, if the Commissioner for Children had that $28 million, he could use it to answer at least 55,000 inquiries, at least 11,200 in-depth inquiries. If that significant amount of money were spent on the Commissioner for Children, the backlog of cases within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, which is presently an absolute disaster in this country, could be wiped.

I have sat in the House and listened to a lot of nice things being said about the family. Frankly, there has been nothing said that I could disagree with. We all have families, we all understand their importance, and for the last 67 years families being a cornerstone of society has been a fundamental principle of the National Party. But I ask members on that side of the House what the Families Commission will do to make anything different for New Zealand families. They cannot articulate the answer in a sentence, and that says to me that they are struggling to understand the function of this commission, as well.

I pay tribute to the intention of United Future members, but I have to say that in their negotiations with the Government they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. The Families Commission was one of United Future’s key planks, yet when we look at the actual bill we see it has been totally neutered.

Let us discuss again the whole issue of the definition of a family. When United Future members were on the election platform they had a clear idea about what a family was, but the definition in the bill refers to any group whose members have “significant psychological attachments”. Some people have those sorts of attachments to their hairdresser. Certainly, when talking about “significant psychological attachments” as a method of describing the family, nobody for one minute thought that that description could cover the Mongrel Mob or Black Power. I think the Devil’s Henchmen will be quite surprised to hear that they, too, are seen as a family, in terms of this bill, as are the Hell’s Angels. I do not support anything that, by any stretch of the imagination, could encompass a definition of family that would include gangs, but at the moment, from the way that this bill is worded, gangs are in there, and I think United Future has confirmed that, yes, perhaps that could be a valid interpretation. The definition could also be extended to business partnerships, franchise networks, and a wide range of other relationships that we have on a day-to-day basis that are not intended to be family relationships. But, in terms of the definition, those sorts of relationships are all in there.

I remember reading a book when I was a child called Through the Looking Glass. There was a line in the book that said: “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.” It is going to be the same with this Families Commission. It has no idea what it stands for. I ask United Future how it can advocate for something when it is not clear what the definition of family is. At the moment, every single New Zealander can be described within the definition in the bill.

Well, we already have an advocate for every single New Zealander. It is called the New Zealand Parliament. That is what we, as members of Parliament, are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be advocating for a wide range of people. That is why we have different parties and different policies. But that is our role. The Families Commission is never going to be able to communicate the diversity of the New Zealand population; neither should it.

The other thing that I think has nobbled the success of this commission is the fact that it is not able to advocate on behalf of individual cases or individual families. If we look at the reason for the success of the Commissioner for Children, we see that he has been able to raise a wide range of issues by bringing up individual cases. Individual cases of child abuse have been brought to the country’s attention by the commissioner talking about them—cases like that of Craig Manukau; or the significant report on James Whakaruru that was done by the Commissioner for Children; or the cases of Mereana Edmonds or Saliel Aplin. By raising individual cases the Commissioner for Children has brought to New Zealanders’ attention some very important issues.

The Families Commission will not be able to do that, because it is not allowed to talk about any individual cases or any individual situations—for example, the problems that many disadvantaged families might have, or the problems that families of mum, dad, and the kids might have, or the problems that solo parent families might have. It will not be able to talk about any of those in the debate. The commission’s ability to advocate has been totally nobbled by the Minister’s definition of family. Although we can talk about that, and although, I suppose, eventually United Future will have to come up with a different definition because it will be criticised extensively for the current one, from the way in which the commission is set up it will not make one skerrick of difference to the sorts of families that Sue Bradford highlighted in her speech.

I stood at the sideline of a schoolboy rugby game on Saturday, and, like Bill English, I wondered what the Families Commission would do for those families. Imagine if the $28 million were spent on rugby boots and jerseys! I started to think about what else could be done with that $28 million. It could fund over 2 million calls to the Plunket Line. It could fund far more Parents as First Teachers programmes, or Parenting with Confidence courses, or a whole raft of other courses and support networks that are already funded and already out there within the community.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Why not just give it back?

Well, that is another option, as well, but when such a huge amount of money is put aside in the Budget, I think of what other priorities could be more pressing. When the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is currently facing a backlog of unallocated cases running into the thousands—that is, kids who have not even seen a social worker yet— I think, frankly, this funding is an absolute crime.

It is not that the National Party is anti-family. It is always a cheap shot to say that anybody who does not support the Families Commission is somehow anti-family. I look around me and I cannot see anybody who is anti-family. I can see some people who are anti-bureaucracy, anti-wastage, and anti duplication of research funding. We know that the Ministry of Social Development, with its hundreds of researchers, already takes into account a lot of research issues that are of importance to families.

One thing that we will be looking to do during the select committee process is see how the bill can be improved. However, I am doubtful of that. From the way in which it is structured, it is a recipe for disaster. If one looks at the consultation provisions, one sees that the commission will be bogged down in consultation, because it will have to travel the country to talk to various groups as wide-ranging as senior citizens, caregivers, men—interestingly enough—and women, and, basically, the whole of the country, given the various hats that we all wear.

The last reason that this commission will be nobbled is, basically, the structure of the commission. The commission is set up so that it has to have regard to Government policy. It will never be in a position to criticise Government policy. It will never be in a position even to critique Government policy. The structure of the commission is not sufficiently independent for it to advocate on behalf of families, or to advocate on behalf of any group for that matter. If this money is to be put into the Budget, I think there are plenty of other pressing priorities that are important to families, childcare being one of them. It is the bane of every working parent’s life.

Certainly, a lot of community groups that work in the area of parenting support deserve far greater support than they have received. I know that a lot of groups that work with parents will be very unnerved. They may be supportive of this measure now, but when they realise that the real agenda behind it is to muscle in on a number of parenting support services that are provided by the community sector, I think that will change. When people read the definition of family they will see that it is so broad that it is nebulous, and so vague that the commission really will not be able to advocate for anything—that is, if it can even reach agreement on a definition of family.

Those are the main reasons why National is not supporting this bill.

Bodies can be set up to achieve something or bodies can be set up just to obfuscate and do nothing. The New South Wales Government has set up commission after commission to strike at police corruption, and the New South Wales police force is still one of the most corrupt police forces in the world. So there is an example from just across the Tasman of commission after commission that never achieved any of the high-sounding goals that it set itself. But this Families Commission has been set up by three parties in this House that, between them, represent over 50 percent of the population. Each of those three parties went to the electorate and said that it would focus on strengthening families.

As far as I could see, so did every other party; all of them went to the electorate and said that they would strengthen families. Now we have a responsibility to say to the public that that is what we will do. At the very least, one would think that those other parties that have policies to strengthen families would bite their tongue, sit back, and see whether this body will achieve what it says it will do, and will undertake the task that it is mandated to undertake. Those parties have been in Government—particularly, National and New Zealand First, and ACT was an influential partner of the National Party when it was in Government—and they should be a little bit humble about their lack of achievement in this area. [Interruption]

I would caution them to wait. I tell Dr Smith that Napoleon had a saying—and I do not know whether it reached Nelson—“On s’engage et on s’en voit.”—“You engage and then you see.” What he was saying is that if one has a practical task, one should grasp the nettle, undertake the task, then see whether one can achieve one’s goals. The only way to see whether the commission will be successful is to begin the process. We will always be defeated if we never take up the challenge, and the challenge is to strengthen families.

We will have to make sure—and we will be held to account if we do not—that the people we put on this particular body, which will be charged with giving the Government advice, are first-class. If first-class people are put on a body, they do not hold back, if they wish to uphold their scientific reputation or their reputation for expertise, by saying that they must put up something that pleases this or that Minister. They come forward fearlessly with the research that they have undertaken and the results that have come out of it. Certainly, my party, the Progressives, in coalition with the Labour Party, want to ensure that the full-time commissioners will give us as a Government good advice. I am certain that that is the wish of the United Future party as well. [Interruption] I have not checked the Hansard.

When the Law Commission was set up, I am sure there were people in Parliament saying that it was a terrible thing to set up a Law Commission, and asking why we had to waste money on getting better laws. I know that I as a Minister, and other members who are Ministers in this House, and members on select committees have always been glad that the Law Commission has done valuable research and come up with opinions based on scientific research. It does not mean that we have to agree with what the Law Commission has proposed, but at least we have a body of research that is useful.

Further, my party is looking at developing our commitment to a balance between family life and work, and we want to progress such things as 4 weeks’ leave, which, in my humble opinion, is a fundamental right of the working people of this country. I do not say that the Families Commission is charged with that at this stage, but it is on issues like that that it will be able to have an influence—the balance between work and family life, and actually strengthening families. So let us make sure that we can begin to progress the key institution that everybody in this House says he or she is committed to: the family.

I take this call on the bill with a huge amount of disappointment. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. New Zealand First is aware that many New Zealanders had really high hopes for this commission, but with this bill their hopes are dashed. As we have all heard today, strong families cannot be legislated for, as is outlined in this bill.

New Zealand First is a family-friendly party, as are all the parties in this House, and we recognise the importance of the early years of development, and the strength of the family. New Zealand First recognised this and did something about it, when it was in coalition Government, by ensuring that there was free medical care for all children aged under six—something that, we hear, is now being gradually eroded away. We were attempting to ensure that the youngest, most vulnerable members of our families were kept healthy—something that does strengthen families. New Zealand First knows the importance of the family for the development of children, and believes that programmes that provide families with support and guidance to ensure a safe and healthy environment are absolutely essential for our families within New Zealand.

Does this bill do that? No. This commission is duplication and increased bureaucracy. As has already been said, a huge amount of family-focused research was undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development—a function also to be undertaken by this commission. So why duplicate this bureaucracy? The role of this Families Commission’s bureaucracy is so nebulous that it has to become all things to all people. What does that do for a Crown entity? It is easy to be a jack of all trades and master of none. That is what this commission is set up to become.

New Zealand First believes that there should be a continuing focus on early intervention by expanding the programmes that are already in place, such as Family Start, Plunket, and home-based support, and there are many, many more in the voluntary and charitable trust area. The $28 million required to establish this commission could be used to ensure that those agencies are more comprehensive in some of the services they currently offer—and very successfully too, I might add. Those agencies have already proven their effectiveness.

When we look at United Future’s election pledge we see that it stated in its pamphlet that a Families Commission would promote the status of families and the role of parents; ensure that all policy development reflected the fundamental needs of children and families; and provide a family mediation service to support, promote, and develop the provision of marriage and relationship-counselling services. But is marriage mentioned in this bill? There is not a mention. United Future also stated that the commission would facilitate family support and parental education classes, and improve the coordination of Government departments. Well, this bill fails to meet any of those pledges. It is clear that, again, United Future has sold out.

There is no evidence in this bill, either, that the public of New Zealand have even been listened to. How often do we, as parliamentarians, get letters from people in New Zealand asking for help for their families from other Government agencies? The answer is regularly. Yet clause 7 of the bill states of the Families Commission: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” So what is this commission going to do? New Zealand First questions the role of the Families Commission, particularly bearing in mind that it appears to have no powers and there is no role definition. How can one advocate for something when one is not clear about what it is that one is advocating for?

How much will we pay the chief executive officer of this bureaucracy for being the chief executive officer? Another $250,000 a year? That appears to be the going rate. That is what will be required. So why not spend that money on helping families to be healthy and to get the services that they require?

The bottom line is that in this bill we have another Government bureaucracy, another Crown entity, that will not ensure that our New Zealand families are any better off than they are now. That is a real shame when one considers the amount of money that is being spent on this particular commission.

Like the Greens, we are really concerned about the place on the Order Paper of the Commissioner for Children Bill. It has been there ever since Parliament began this session. We know that there will be a change of commissioner. How much impact has the bill’s languishing on the bottom of the Order Paper had on the person who is currently leaving that office? The next thing we need to ask is how much duplication there will be between the role of the Commissioner for Children and that of the Families Commission. Why do we have to spend the money twice to get the job done once? We really must question it.

New Zealand First does not believe that this bill will work in its current form. Yet we definitely support families and everything they stand for. There is nothing that we support more than we support families. I will be most interested in the select committee process, to see how this bill is modified so that we can all support it, because families are something that we all support in New Zealand. But in this instance I have to say that New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill at its first reading.

I seek the leave of the House to allow the introduction of the Commission for the Family Bill, which is a member’s bill and stands in my name—and, incidentally, has a definition of family in it—and to have it referred to the Social Services Committee along with this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.