Families Commission Bill

I move, That the Families Commission Bill be now read a second time. This 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, and acts on the Government’s commitment to support families and children. The aim of the Families Commission is to establish an entity to advocate for the interests of families in New Zealand. The commission will promote the interests of the full range of families. It will also promote better understanding of family issues and needs amongst Government agencies and the wider community.

The Social Services Committee received 58 submissions, and the majority supported the bill. The submissions supported the commission’s roles of advocacy and increasing public awareness of matters relating to the interests of families. Submitters supported the inclusive approach taken towards New Zealand families, and the recognition of the diversity of those families. They also supported the Families Commission’s strong research role. Only a small number of submissions expressed reservations about the bill. The primary reason for the lack of support was the concern that the Families Commission would duplicate roles of other Government agencies. In developing the commission, the Government has been very careful to ensure that it does not duplicate functions of existing departments or agencies. Overall, four main areas were of concern to submitters, and they are as follows: the definition of family and family groups, the functions of the commission, the ministerial direction of the commission, and mechanisms for obtaining the views of specified groups.

I will briefly discuss the issue of defining “family” and “family groups” in the bill. Submitters raised a broad range of issues, and one of the key areas raised was the definition of “family”. The bill does not attempt to define the term “family”. It places an emphasis on the function of families, rather than on the form that families take, by requiring the commission to have regard for the kinds, structures, and diversity of families and family groups, and I think that that will be one of the things debated most when the Families Commission comes into being next year. I think some people will advance the argument that the only thing that matters is the structure of the family. We will hear arguments that things have gone wrong in this country because we do not maintain a particular structure of family. As opposed to that, this bill is saying that the outcomes from a variety of family forms matter most. Are young people nurtured, loved, supported, and given boundaries for their behaviour by the grouping that they are in, which is called a “family”? There are solo parent families, extended families, Asian families, whānau, Pacific Island families, and nuclear families as we know them. There are many family forms, but the question we should be asking is: “What comes out of those different family forms?” We should be insistent on saying that we must nurture and support young people and that we must set boundaries for the behaviour of young people as they grow up—so they understand what they can do—and we must have a loving environment for children. That is what we should be after. I think that the inclusive approach of the Families Commission will focus on what should be provided for young people, and on what men and women should get out of these kinds of relationships. It is the outcomes that we are after, and that is what should be championed next year by the Families Commission.

As United Future often says, young people should be able to grow up with the parents they were born with. That would be the ideal, but when it does not happen—as increasingly it does not in our society—we should be asking whether the alternative form that young people find themselves in means that they are in a dependable environment for the kind of outcomes I have just talked about, so that they can grow up to be dependable adults. That is the question we should be asking. This approach encompasses the very wide range of living arrangements that exists in New Zealand now. The select committee’s work has affirmed that wide range of families, and I think that that is one of the most important things the committee has done. I think this is a very significant debate for this country. We will be clear that we accept this diversity and that we will place the onus of providing a good environment for young people on all these family forms. There are no excuses among the different kinds of family forms. Young people must get these outcomes.

I will also talk about the functions of the commission, which many submitters made points about. 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’s cases or issues. It will also have additional functions to assist it to effectively perform its advocacy functions. The commission will encourage and facilitate informed debate on matters related to the interests of families across sectors; increase public awareness and prompt better understanding of matters related to the interests of families, including the importance of stable family relationships, and the rights and responsibilities of parents; encourage and facilitate the development and provision of policies and services designed to promote or serve the interests of families; consider and report on any matters related to families referred to it by any Minister; 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, and by contracting research on families; and undertaking any incidental functions related to its main function or additional functions. These functions enable the commission to develop a good knowledge of family issues. They will also allow the commission to identify new and emerging issues that have an impact on our families. These functions mean the commission will have input into policy development as a key stakeholder wherever it might be.

If we reflect for 2 seconds on the role I have read out here, we can see that it will be a challenge. It will be a big challenge, as it ought to be. United Future members are fond of saying—and Labour agrees with them absolutely—that the family is the fundamental institution in our society. It is what we all pass through. There is no escape from some kind of family form, because one has to be born and go somewhere. If this institution is not working, then society is not working, and we know at the moment that there are a lot of problems that stem from families not working. We have been shy, as a society, in the debate about the family, when it comes to saying what should and should not happen. We should not be shy. We should expect some things from our families. We should expect mums and dads to do their jobs. We should expect men to look after their kids. Even if the family breaks up, men are responsible financially and emotionally for those kids forever. There is no escape from being a father or mother, or someone who cares for children. There is nothing wrong with saying that, and it is time to say that. I think one of the things that the Families Commission, with these responsibilities, will do is say them. It will be hard. People will feel challenged, and they damn well should be, because that should be the nature of the debate about the importance of the family today. I applaud the fact that one of the things United Future has done over the last little while is ensure that that debate is well and truly back firmly on what we are doing.

I did find one thing disturbing, and that was the way the Opposition parties did not allow the views of people who came and submitted to come through to this House. We had to write a Supplementary Order Paper to get those views back in the bill. Instead of the other parties listening to submitters and saying: “We do not own the committee. These people come and submit to us and we communicate these views back.”, we had to go through the facade of writing a Supplementary Order Paper to get those views back in here, rather than the select committee doing its job. I think that was very disappointing, and it should not be the way that select committees work. They are there to serve those submitters. They are not there to say: “Huh. We do not want to report this back. We are not going to do this.” Well, they should have reported that back and we should have been able to do that job properly.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is misrepresenting the political process here—the way that select committees work, and the Minister knows that. He knows that if he does not get the numbers on the committee, the bill is discharged. He is misrepresenting that fact in his speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is a debating matter, not a point of order.

That was typical of ACT party members. They parade in here about values, and interrupt the speech now because it suits them to make what is not a point of order—just because they are so ignorant and stupid that they want to stand up and make that point. This is a debate, and Muriel Newman will be able to get up and have her say at the right time, when she can make that debating point. But demonstrating her stupidity, of course, is something she does fairly often. The way that the select committee did not report these things back was disappointing. But we do now have a Supplementary Order Paper. It does set out a whole range of things to do with the powers, the independence, and the role of the commission. It defines more clearly the word “family” so we no longer risk including gangs, flatmates, community groups, and so on. There is now a much clearer definition, and I am thankful for the debate between United Future and us, which I think was quite productive in getting that better definition. I applaud the work that has been done by the select committee, and I commend this work, as it is shaped, to the House.

It is nice that the Minister finished up with a big thank you to the select committee after that slanging he gave us during his speech. Once again we have seen that patronising, smarmy, sensitive, new-age guy routine—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That sort of language is totally inappropriate in the Chamber, and I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not think the member needs to withdraw and apologise. It was no different from the language used by the previous speaker at the tail end, although provoked into it.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I think the use of the words “smarmy” and “patronising” is not appropriate in this Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I accept that, but if the member whom it was directed at objects to it, that is a different matter. But the member has not.

It seems the boys are a bit sensitive tonight, and so they should be. There is a reason that this bill was reported back to the House unchanged, and the reason is that the select committee could not agree. When a select committee of 10 New Zealand MPs fails to agree, what chance is there of getting full support for this bill from all New Zealanders throughout the country? There is a huge debate about this bill, about what constitutes a family, and about what needs to be done within our country to make sure that families are supported.

This bill is much ado about nothing. This is feel-good politics that will really do very little to assist the sorts of families who are in need. I must say that I did take offence at some of the material being distributed by United Future, and I ask those members how they can say, with straight faces, that the members who are against this bill are anti-family. When we look around this House, we see parents, and we see people who are all parts of families and who very much cherish the family networks they have. It is smug, fundamentalist rubbish to suggest that simply because people do not believe in this particular bill, they are anti-family. One of the letters that was sent out by United Future accused the Opposition of a venal political stunt. Now, the leader of United Future is usually a very articulate gentleman, but I am beginning to wonder whether the other members of United Future know what venal means, because the dictionary says “characterised by bribery and corruption”. I think that all members of Parliament should take offence at that sort of inference. Frankly, I think it is over the top to suggest that those who do not support this bill are venal and should be accused of that. We do not support this bill because we do not think it will deliver on the expectations that have grown out there in New Zealand.

The Minister is agnostic on the idea of family structure. Yes, sure, there is a wide range of different families in New Zealand, but there are some successful family structures out there—and we know they work and we should be able to say so. The seven commissioners, in being advocates for everything, will actually be advocates for nothing. There is a good saying in Through the Looking Glass, and it is: “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.” It is the same with the Families Commission Bill. One of the things I think many people are hanging their hats on is that they think this bill is the answer for a lot of families who are having difficulty. I have just been reading the James Whakaruru report. There were some unfortunate similarities between the life of Te Rangi Whakaruru and the life of Charlene Aplin. Both women had their first babies when they were 15. I think we all know, and we should be able to say, that if a woman has her first baby at that age on her own, the chances are that things will not turn out all that well for her children. Sure, there are some amazing exceptions, some marvellous exceptions, where people can overcome all sorts of barriers that they face in their lives. But there are some structures that are successful for bringing up children. There are some structures that are successful in terms of supporting families in this country, and the commission should be able to say that. We are talking about $20 million at a time when there are a whole lot of other Government—

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: $28 million.

Sorry, $28 million. We are talking about $28 million at a time when we have a number of community organisations crying out for funding. That $28 million could buy well over 2 million Plunket Society inquiries. It could buy 360,000 booster seats for kids.

It could fund 750,000 free doctors’ visits for children. Governments have to make their minds up about a lot of things, and it is all about priorities. I say that the priority is not for another Wellington bureaucracy that is just going to have a big talkfest about families but achieve very little. This commission lacks the power to do anything much. It must have regard to Government policy and the views of the Minister. When will it ever be able to speak out about things that are important to families when it is always watching its back to see what the Government of the day is going to be asking it to do?

My next point is that we still have this wacky definition of what constitutes a family. Even up until the time that this bill was discharged, neither the Government nor United Future had any inclination to change that definition. It includes people who have “significant psychological attachments to one another;”. As we know, that can include the gangs. It can include a whole range of people that I do not see as being families. The Minister over there was obviously thinking warm fuzzy thoughts towards gangs the other day, because he said he did not worry whether one was a member of a gang or Rotary—one still deserved a State house just the same. Really, in terms of the Families Commission, what is being proposed is not going to make a difference. It will not stop another Saliel Aplin or Olympia Jetson case, or make a skerrick of difference to a “Lillybing”, or, even in my home town, to someone like poor Iris Davidson, whose death is currently being debated.

It is not clear what groups the Families Commission will stand for. It is going to be standing for everything. A group of seven commissioners will be travelling the country, chanting “Families are good, families are good.” We all know that families are good. The connections we have with one another are important. Having some Government bureaucracy, at a cost of $28 million, is not really going to make one iota of difference to those families who are most in need. So the National Party will not be shamed into supporting this feel-good legislation. Supporting this bill is not about saying whether we think families are good. It is about putting in place policy that will actually make a difference.

10 select committee members could not agree on this bill. That is why it was discharged without amendment. So I do not think seven commissioners will be able to agree about what constitutes a family either, and I think we should be very honest about that. The groups that came before the select committee had huge concerns about the definition, and about the objectives of this commission. Some submitters were not terribly well informed when it came to understanding what the commission is actually going to do. I am still convinced that there will be significant duplication. A huge amount of work has been done by the Ministry of Social Development. It has analysts for Africa, and they are doing research every day. A huge amount is already being done, and, frankly, we already have a lot of the most important answers because we have the results of research that has already been done in respect of families. We do not need to reinvent the wheel in New Zealand and pretend we are so special that research on family networks, which has taken place all around the world, will have terribly different results here.

This bill will create a huge debate. We are going to make sure it does. We are not here in Parliament to support feel-good legislation that is nothing more than an election bribe. We all know this is just to gain the support of United Future, but I say to United Future that it should have put the $28 million into something that will actually make a difference to New Zealand families, not just another bureaucracy. If we know anything about this country it is that we need another committee and another commissioner like we need a hole in the head. Every single group now has, supposedly, its spokesperson. But with this bill there is a very unclear definition, and this group will be advocating for absolutely everybody. If we are going to have a Families Commission, the Government should be honest about it and say what it stands for. It should say it wants to promote certain sorts of family structures because it knows they are successful, not skirt around the issue and try to develop a sensitive, new-age approach. If we are going to put $28 million into something, let us make it something that will make a difference to families. Let us put the money into things that may prevent the next Saliel Aplin or Olympia Jetson, or the next “Lillybing”. We need things that will make a difference, not some sort of election bribe.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, principally because it is an important bill. For too many years now in New Zealand we as a community have talked about the importance of families, but I have to say, sadly, that in many instances we have really only paid lip service to the importance of this very significant and principal institution. This bill will go a long way towards helping us, as a society, to work out ways that we can be supportive of individuals and groups—all the groupings that make up what we know as “families” in New Zealand—and help them to work cohesively and supportively towards and for each other.

This bill has been strongly supported by United Future. I am, though, surprised by some of the dynamics that, I have learnt, took place on the select committee. I think some of that is quite misguided in its intent. We have spent so long in New Zealand talking about the importance of families, so it seems really strange that when it comes down to how one is going to vote on a select committee, voting is done for party political reasons—that is quite, quite absurd. I am surprised at the right-wing parties of National, ACT, and New Zealand First voting against a bill like this.

💬 Sue Bradford: Don’t forget the Greens.

I was not going to pick on the Greens. I am trying to express my concern about some of the party politics that got in the way of a bill that is working very strongly towards supporting and assisting families in our country. Sometimes we lose sight of some of the reasons that families have come under so much pressure in this country. Massive pressures were applied to families in the 1990s. Families were placed under huge economic stress because of appallingly thought-through policies. That is the reason that so many families in the low-income category are struggling so much today. It is not rocket science to work out that when a family is short of money, it can no longer cope with the pressures it could normally cope with. There is an old saying that when money flies out the window, love usually follows it. Sometimes that applies in broader instances to families, not just to matrimonial relationships. I have to say that some of the sanctimonious comments coming from the National Party with regard to this bill make one realise what very little institutional memory there is around this place. Some of the policies that were implemented by that party during the 1990s have been forgotten by some of those members who have literally been here only 5 minutes.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Like market rents.

My colleague Mr Carter is absolutely right. Market rents were imposed almost within 5 minutes of the National Party being in Government, and they had a huge negative impact on families in New Zealand. National cut benefits and cut superannuation rates. A whole range of policies was put into place, and we as a society are paying for them now. This bill has the potential to be of considerable assistance to families in New Zealand. I look forward to listening to the debate and to the bill’s progress through the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said in his speech that there was a Supplementary Order Paper. I have checked on the Table and it is not there. I wonder when the Minister expects to be able to table it.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

💬 Paul Adams: Doesn’t matter when it arrives.

Oh, it does not matter when it arrives—that is interesting. On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to speak to the Families Commission Bill. At the outset I congratulate the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, Georgina Beyer, on her management of the select committee process. As usual, she did a really excellent job. All the political parties contributed in a very positive way to that process. It was just a part of the democratic process that the changes were not included in the bill at this stage. But if they are to be on a Supplementary Order Paper, that is where we will find them. They will definitely be there, because we all worked on them.

New Zealand First is a family orientated party, and no party in this House has a monopoly on that label—not even United Future. We all believe in families. We all believe in that institution, implicitly. All of us want the very best for families in New Zealand, because we know that they have a very important role in the raising of children. When I read the press release issued by United Future’s spokesperson on the family, I thought of the old saying: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The press release was totally erroneous; it was devoid of accuracy and common sense. In fact, it was totally inane. I was totally disappointed in that member, and in the party that prides itself on bringing common sense back into politics. I suppose United Future members thought they would not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The total bitterness that actually followed makes me really wonder about that party. Then to have United Future write to all the submitters, stating that its views were totally ignored by the Opposition, was nothing more than a cheap political stunt. I think it is called “pork-barrel politics”. Again, the language used in that press release was no credit to United Future. I for one am totally disappointed in that party. Passion is in no way an excuse to prevent professionalism.

All the submitters were listened to and questioned by members of the select committee. Some submitters were disappointed with the actions taken by United Future. I have been contacted by some of them. In fact, they thought that United Future did not really have a future in politics, at all. I would like to correct United Future members on a point they make as they try to ensure they have a monopoly claim on families in this Parliament. Family-friendly policies have been around for quite some time. They were around prior to their coming into Parliament, and they will continue long after they leave. I am tired of United Future members putting out the erroneous statements that when they came to Parliament they were the only people to have a spokesperson on the family. They are wrong. I was appointed as New Zealand First’s spokesperson on the family when I came here in July 2002. I suppose that can be considered as quite recent, but it is no more recent than the appointment of United Future’s spokesperson on the family. I ask them to please get it right.

The family is fundamental to the optimal development of children, and many of the current social problems we see are the result of a lack of support for this traditional institution. The proposed commission fails to recognise this, and it will only exacerbate the situation. This commission will be able to promote only a really broad, generic message that families are good institutions. We all know that. The commission will never do anything more than that.

When we look at the definition of “family”—it has been mentioned by many of the submitters and by the Minister—we see that it is so broad that, basically, it excludes no one. Although we know that legislation always needs to be exclusive, this definition is so broad that it can include anyone and everyone. Families can be whatever anybody wants. So while being a strength, it can also be a weakness, and a number of submitters commented on that.

Looking at the number of commissioners, New Zealand First has very grave doubts about the viability of this new bureaucracy. Under clause 16, the commission consists of at least three, but not more than seven, commissioners. We are also told that a chief commissioner must be appointed and that a deputy chief commissioner may be appointed. That makes a total of ten executive positions. Then, lo and behold, a general manager must be appointed by the board. None of the commissioners, or the general manager, will ever be paid at the lower end of the scale. If we have seven commissioners, a chief commissioner, a deputy chief commissioner, a general manager, as pointed out in clause 29, and all the office staff and researchers we are told will be employed to carry out this research to support all these people, then we are looking at a giant, expensive bureaucracy. It is plainly foolish to test the water with both feet, with a bureaucracy such as this. We really believe that.

We are particularly mindful, too, of the fact that other agencies already carry out much of the work the new commission hopes to carry out. So, we must ask the question: why do we have to pay Government agencies twice to get the job done once? The logic is totally astounding. This bureaucracy, the Families Commission, will not ensure that our families are any better off than they are now. Families need some practical help. This money could be far better spent so that New Zealand families can be healthier or can get the services they require, or it could be spent on early intervention programmes, to strengthen what is already in place—for example, on agencies like Plunket, and I was pleased to read that Plunket is going to receive some additional funding from the Government. But there are also other agencies, like family support, and those giving home-based support. There are also heaps of other organisations in the voluntary and charitable trust area.

This commission will be established at considerable expense. Nothing comes cheaply these days, particularly with this type of bureaucracy. New Zealand First believes that this money could be better spent on services that can make some real difference to New Zealand families. The $28 million that is to be used for this commission could be used for the work of other agencies that have already proven they are effective. They have a good track record, so why sink money into this bureaucracy? Many of the submitters also raised concerns about the duplication of services.

New Zealand First would have supported the appointment of a commissioner to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children, plus some additional resources to carry out the research on whatever areas the Families Commissioner focuses on. After all, as we have been told many times, and we all know, children are the basis of the family. We know that the Office of the Commissioner for Children has already proven its value, and it is highly respected. Why not use what has already been set up? It is a simple solution. Why set up a bureaucracy on a monumental scale such as this? The bottom line is that we would be failing in our job as an Opposition party by approving an additional bureaucracy. New Zealand First does not support an additional bureaucracy.

Many families in New Zealand hoped that the commission would be able to advocate on their behalf, particularly when it came to dealing with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. The bottom line is that this commission cannot do that, at all. It is not one of its functions. New Zealand families deserve far more than what the bill can offer. The opportunity to support strong families as the basis of our communities has been traded for political expediency. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

I rise tonight on behalf of the Green Party to assure Parliament and the interested public that our position on this bill has not changed, despite accusations from United Future that we and other colleagues on this side of the House have somehow engaged in a venal political stunt by opposing this legislation. Since the Families Commission was first mooted, the Green Party has been consistent in voicing its principled concerns. I took an active role on the Social Services Committee during the course of the bill, and I have read and heard the submissions that came to us. The submissions did not change our party’s position, and in fact a number of submitters raised exactly the same issues with the bill that we have.

These are, firstly, that we believe there are already other organisations, both governmental and non-governmental, that are quite capable of carrying out the functions of the commission as outlined in this bill. Secondly, the extra funding going into the commission would be much better spent on supporting the work of non-governmental organisations already doing research and advocacy work with families, and providing hands-on assistance to families. I have spent many years of my life working in the community sector and seeing at first hand the work of groups like the Child Poverty Action Group in Auckland, Charles Waldegrave’s Family Centre in Lower Hutt, Barnardos New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services in all its different arms, and the Downtown Community Ministry (Wellington) Inc.

These and a whole lot of other organisations spend a lot of time scrapping for funding and using much volunteer time and energy to carry out functions such as acting as an advocate for the interests of families generally, encouraging and facilitating informed debate on matters relating to the interests of families, considering and making recommendations on policy relating to families, and promoting research into matters relating to the interests of families. All these functions are exactly those being replicated in the Families Commission Bill before us tonight. If the Government is happy to pour some $28 million into these purposes, as proposed by the bill and the budget provision behind it, I would much rather see a fair proportion of the money go to the groups I have mentioned with an excellent track record on the ground, rather than to a new Government bureaucracy—no matter how well intentioned its proponents might be.

On top of that we also have a huge amount of taxpayers’ money spent on policy analysts here in Wellington. Just looking at the Ministry of Social Development alone, within whose ambit research on families surely lies, I gather there are some 350 or so analysts paid at salaries way beyond the imagination of most community-based activists and researchers. These analysts regularly produce major pieces of research such as the social report and the New Zealand living standards report, as well many other smaller studies. On top of that, one of its key pieces of work for the year ahead is to provide advice on the development of the Government’s overall social strategy.

All of this work includes analysis of the state of families and children in our country—hundreds and hundreds of pages of it each year. With this huge resource already at its disposal, I fail to comprehend why the Government needs yet another body set up to carry out this research function from yet another pool of taxpayer money.

Thirdly, I think all of us are acutely aware at the moment of the need for a lot more resources to go into groups working with families out in our communities around New Zealand, doing the kind of preventive work that helps parents and children before they end up in a Saliel Aplin, Olympia Jetson, or Coral Burrows type of situation. I am thinking here of groups such as Homebuilders, Parent Centres, Parentline, Plunket, a huge range of hapū, iwi, and pan-tribal organisations, and a heap of other church and community groups that are doing their utmost, often on very scarce resources, to work with families to make their lives better in ways that mean something real. Each baby that is saved, each mother or father who does not bash a child, each parent who learns a little more about how to deal with the latest teenager in crisis, is worth more than three to seven family commissioners. The Green Party would rather see a good portion of this $28 million going to provide more secure funding for some of the groups I am talking about here, rather than spending it on setting up a new little arm of the State whose existence has come about only because of backroom post-election deals, not because of widespread and heartfelt community demand.

I would be the first person to be supporting this bill if I sensed any kind of build-up of community need for such a thing as a Families Commission. I had never heard of that demand, before United Future’s election campaign last year. There has never been talk of this in the community sector that I come from. No one has ever seen the need for this strange beast called a Families Commission. It was not needed. There are plenty of people out in the New Zealand community who advocate for families. A Families Commission is not what they were wanting—then or now.

In recent days Peter Dunne has made a public statement accusing those parties that oppose the bill of playing an “unprecedented and venal political stunt” and of “abusing the democratic process”. On behalf of the Green Party, and indeed all the other parties that have been equally accused, I would just like to say that I do not believe that playing our part in the democratic process of the select committee in Parliament is somehow abusing democracy, or is in any way corrupt, as the word “venal” implies. Voting against a bill for good reasons in a principled manner, based on one’s party’s kaupapa and policies, is not venal or corrupt. It is doing the job that the voters elected us to do. To have this sort of invective hurled at us for voting against a piece of legislation that we oppose on principled grounds, is in itself an abuse of democracy.

I find it deeply ironic that a party that got its votes on the back of so-called common sense and decency is now proving itself so lacking in integrity that it accuses some of the most hard-working and serious members in this House, from all the parties on this side, of venality. To those groups in the community—[Interruption] In response to the member from United Future who has accused us of sitting on our hands, I do not think that Katherine Rich, Barbara Stewart, Muriel Newman, or myself are sitting on our hands when it comes to our work in the Social Services Committee, or in this House, on matters relating to families and children. I have been on the select committee for one and a half terms of Parliament and I am very well aware of the work of the fellow members of my committee. [Interruption]

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members for United Future should not be interrupting and interjecting, in the way they are, on a member who is immediately next to them. Surely by now they know the rules of this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I was about to interrupt, and I ask members on that side—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling but there is always going to be a problem with members on this side of the House when a vigorous debate, such as this one is turning out to be, ensues. Members who are being criticised do have a right to respond. I accept there is a problem, given the seating arrangement but I think that, in moderating the proceedings, you need to take into account that the two parties that are having a go at each other at the moment just happen to be two parties that are forced to sit side by side. I suspect that neither would prefer it that way.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. Interjections should be rare and reasonable; not continuous.

To those groups in the community that did come to the select committee with their support for the bill, I would just like to say that I did listen to them and I did take their opinions and experiences on board. However, as with any piece of law, it is up to each political party, its MPs, and party members to consider that law on the basis of our own beliefs and policies. In this case we have come to the conclusion that we should not support the Families Commission Bill. We do not do this lightly or just to make some cheap political point, but rather for the whole range of reasons I have already outlined tonight. We believe that families do need research, support, advocacy, and help, but not in ways that simply duplicate work that is already being done, and waste taxpayers’ money.

I do not think anybody could disagree about the importance of families in New Zealand. They are the cornerstone of society, and, in fact, the married family is the best child-rearing institution ever invented, if we look back over history. Strong families, in general, raise successful and healthy children, and happy children. That is not to say that children from other types of families also do not raise successful, happy, and healthy children. But on the balance of probability, other forms of families have increased difficulties. Their children face more risk factors; and, as we know only too well in this House, some face violence, fear, and abuse on a daily basis.

I ask the Government, why not throw political correctness to the wind, and promote the traditional, nuclear, married family? If that former family is the most successful in our society, why not promote it? Why not say that it is something that is regarded as a good thing in society? What better place to do it but in a bill that is about the family? Many of the submitters to the select committee brought up this very issue. They could not understand why it was that in legislation about the family, nowhere was the word “marriage” mentioned. They said: “Hang on a minute, isn’t it a good thing that couples, particularly if they want to have children, get married and try to live a good life together and look after their children and all the rest of it? Is that not a good thing?

I have to say that most New Zealanders would agree. I think that it is a real shame that this Labour Government, supported by the United Future party I might add, is so politically correct that we cannot even use that one word any more in our legislation—“marriage”.

The Families Commission Bill promotes diversity. The Government says that we should not exclude other family types. All of us would agree with that because we do have diverse types of family arrangements in New Zealand. But it really has missed the point. Sure, mention other family types, but at least promote marriage. I would say to the Minister, who is about to table a Supplementary Order Paper tomorrow, that many of us live in hope that that Supplementary Order Paper might actually heed the voice of many of the submitters who brought up this point, because it is a very, very important one.

Many New Zealanders are very concerned that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in the Western World, one of the highest rates of child abuse in the Western World, and one of the highest rates of youth crime in the Western World. Many of those people have looked with some hope at the Families Commission as being a body that might be able to do something about it—that might be able to promote legislation or policy changes that could actually help to turn the tide on that disastrous trend that New Zealand now has.

I have to say that the Families Commission, with its politically appointed commissioners, will be a puppet for the Labour Government. There is nothing surer. I know that right now I and, I guess, many other members of Parliament are being approached by really good people who have an interest in families and an interest in the role of commissioners, who are basically saying: Would you write a letter of support if I put my name forward?”. I am saying to them: “Hang on a minute, my letter of support won’t help.” The Labour Government will not want to pick somebody who the Opposition thinks is a good person to be a commissioner. It will put only its political mates in there—people who think the same way as it does.

That is a shame on this Government. It is known to do it in all sorts of other ways, but the family is the most important institution in New Zealand society, and the Government should at least treat it with some respect. The whole appointment process should be cross-party like the appointment of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, where the Government puts up a list of people and asks Opposition members whether they think those people would be good people to take the position.

If the Government had done that, then maybe we would not be so negative about the Families Commission. But it is not doing that. We know that it will have political appointees, and we know that it will not have the mandate to address some of the real tough issues that we absolutely have to address in New Zealand if we are going to turn the tide of the negative statistics that we see in our newspapers on a daily basis.

It is interesting that in Britain the Prime Minister has set up a social exclusion unit. That unit is a policy group. Its job is to look at the problems faced by families and by society, to expose where the problems lie, to analyse the problems, and then to propose some solutions. They get to heart of the problem. They look at the welfare system. They see that the welfare system incentivises family breakdown, and they put forward recommendations for change. They look at child abuse, and they know the sorts of families where child abuse is most common, and they try to say: “This is what should be done.” In other words, they tackle the tough issues. Here in New Zealand we do have one Government agency that does the same—that is, the Ministry of Social Policy. But when it puts out reports that basically state that welfare is bad for children, and that sole parenthood is bad for children—in other words, why does the Government not try to change those things around in its policy area—this Government totally ignores any outcomes or recommendations that it makes.

In fact, it was bizarre, because just after those two papers were released is when the Labour Government changed the rules on the domestic purposes benefit, making it far easier for people to get on, and far harder for them to leave, which means there will be more family breakdown under Labour, and more children will be damaged by the welfare system under Labour. That was at a time when the Government’s own social policy agency was telling it that it should be doing something differently.

These issues were raised by submitters. They want an agency of Government—if there is to be one—to come up with some solutions, because people out there are despairing at the moment. They see the headlines of yet another child who has been abused and died, and they wonder where on earth it will all end. Under the current system, without any changes to laws, and without any changes of policy, it will not end. It will simply get worse.

If we are honest about it, the Families Commission is a $28 million payback for support from United Future. That is essentially what it is. This is the Labour Government paying its lackey for its support over all sorts of legislation, putting us into urgency, denying us questions during the periods that we are in urgency, and a whole lot of issues. The Government relies on the poodle party—United Future—to support it, and this is that party’s payback. It is like blackmail, except that that party entered into willingly.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will know the content of this point of order. Any reference to people blackmailing anyone in this House is completely out of order, and that reference was totally offensive and deserves to be withdrawn immediately.

💬 Dail Jones: The member on her feet was just saying that it is like blackmail. She did not say that it was blackmail. I am sure she was not alluding to any political party in this House when she made that remark. She was just saying that it was like blackmail, and expressing it as a simile, not stating it as a fact. On that basis it is not out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I know what was said, and it was exactly as Mr Jones has relayed it. In normal circumstances any suggestion that there has been blackmail is out of order. That was a reference to “like” blackmail.

As a result of the payback to United Future we witnessed in the select committee what can only be described as a hissy fit, because the select committee did not have a majority voting for the Families Commission. I have to say that the Minister misrepresented that process. United Future almost certainly will misrepresent the process when it gets to speak, but the point is that if a committee does not have a majority on the changes that the committee has made to the bill, then the bill is simply discharged back to the House, and the Government will put all those changes through in a Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister promises will be tabled tomorrow. If that Minister were on the ball, and United Future were on the ball, it should be on the Table tonight. United Future members talk about the fact that our committee did not put a report back to Parliament. Where is the Supplementary Order Paper? Why is it not here tonight?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.