Families Commission Bill

It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Families Commission Bill. At the outset I pay tribute to a couple of people for the work they have done to bring this bill through to this stage. I acknowledge the work of my colleague Judy Turner, who has handled this issue, from our side, from the outset, and has done a particularly fine piece of work. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Steve Maharey, Minister for Social Development and Employment, with whom we have worked closely on this issue. I express our appreciation to him and his colleagues for the cooperative and constructive spirit in which we have been able to develop this important measure.

I was agog last night when I listened to the arguments being raised by members opposite against this bill. I have never heard reasons of such little substance raised as reasons why an important social advance should not be promoted. Firstly, they argued against the bill because of a letter that I sent to people who made submissions to the select committee. That reason was devastating enough, but then they went on to say that one reason for opposing this bill was that the Labour Party and United Future were honouring the commitment they entered into post-election. That is how rare keeping election promises is for the people on that side of the House.

Their next criticism was even better. A budget of $28 million over 4 years has been set aside for this commission, as if that was some mark against it. But it gets better. One member went so far as to say the best reason for opposing this bill was that no one had ever heard of the idea of a Families Commission until United Future promoted it. So that was a reason for opposing a good idea! The final reason that I heard advanced last night was: “You know, we’ re opposed to this because United Future’s not the only party with an interest in families.”

None of those reasons has any substance, credibility, or fact associated with it. What those paltry excuses portray is a series of jealous, whining whingers who are so annoyed that we have been able to make progress on what is an important advance in the interests of promoting the concerns of the families and the children of New Zealand, and worse still, that this measure is going to pass into law very shortly. They are further annoyed and worried that in response to the expressions of interest sought for the appointment of commissioners in recent weeks there has been a veritable deluge of interest, because out there in the New Zealand community there is a widespread feeling of support for this move. There is a widespread feeling of concern about the state of the New Zealand family and the way in which it is dealt with as an institution by Government, and there is a widespread feeling of recognition that here, at last, some positive steps are being taken to deal with the problems so many have spoken of for so long.

I want to contrast that attitude with the unctuous attitude of concern that pervaded this House last week when we talked about the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. We were falling over ourselves and wringing our hands with concern about the situation of those poor children and about the breakdown of circumstances that had led to that tragedy. I heard speech after speech, and comment after comment, about policy failure, about the inability to look at the circumstances in a total picture, and about the fact that services were fragmented, lacked coordination, lacked clear advocacy, and lacked a clear voice. Here, a week later, when we have a measure being promoted that will, for the first time, give an overarching approach to family policy, will ensure that the issues of concern to families can be properly advocated at a Government level, will ensure that we get the research done on the state of the New Zealand family and all the issues that impact upon it, and will ensure that we promote parenting from the very early stages right through to the stage of grandparenting, those same people who so unctuously wrung their hands in concern at the plight of those poor children in Masterton, now turn round and, for the most spurious of reasons, oppose it.

There is a well-known term to describe that, but I would prefer to refer to it simply as naked political opportunism. Those members do not like the idea that two things have happened. Firstly—and I say this particularly to the New Zealand First members—we have an arrangement between the Labour Party and United Future that actually works. We are not tearing ourselves apart. We are not creating chaos and instability. We are able to achieve effective policy outcomes on behalf of the people of New Zealand. The second thing that those members do not like is that this idea—having been talked about at the election campaign and responded to favourably and having been around for a number of years, when one talks to the agencies who have been promoting it—will now come to fruition; something that previous successive Governments have been unable to deliver.

So this is not a time for narrow political bigotry of the type we have seen throughout this debate so far. This is a time to celebrate a positive achievement. This is a time to recognise that the parents and the hard-working families of New Zealand who pay their taxes, and who often get very little in terms of direct tangible benefit for those taxes, will have a voice and will have some advocates in place who will ensure that the concerns of families are brought to the table when Government policy decisions are being made.

I find it extraordinary that everyone in this House, particularly members on that side, who in the last few months have fallen over themselves to appoint spokespersons for family affairs—having never had them previously—now fail the first test and oppose this legislation. I want them to reflect on that. When they go about their business they talk to the Plunket organisations of this world, to the Presbyterian Support Services agencies, and to all the social services agencies—most of whom made submissions on this bill—all of whom are outraged at their reaction to it, and then they wonder how they can be credibly thought of as capable of delivering good family policy.

The Families Commission draws on a number of international precedents. I quote from someone who shares the same name as me, but as far as I am aware is no direct relation, Dr Michael Dunne, the chair of the Irish Families Commission. He made the point in respect of that commission that probably its greatest single achievement following its establishment—and that was an achievement in itself—was that it made issues relating to Irish families centre stage for the Irish political process. As a consequence of that it put an edict, if one likes, before every Government that every action it takes has to have at its heart what the impact of that action will be on the family.

If one translates that to the New Zealand situation, let me put it this way. There are a lot of laudable things said by various parties at various times about their aspirations for the New Zealand economy, for the education system, the health system, and so on, and so forth. They are essentially abstract if the benefit of those is not derived by the people of New Zealand. For instance, if the benefit of good economic policy is not a positive outcome for the well-being of the families and children of New Zealand, then it is essentially meaningless. If the benefit of good education policy is not to be reflected in the standard and quality of family life, it is essentially meaningless. One of the things we have failed to do over the years is to recognise that. This commission, with the powers and the credibility that it will have, and its ability not only to influence the Government of the day, but also to have policy matters referred to it, is an important step forward.

In recent weeks the Government has spoken of a programme to look at family assistance. That is the sort of thing that in the future this commission will play a pivotal role in helping to bring to together. I have already referred to the crisis in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. There are other issues that crop up from time to time that we as a society lament our inability to deal with on a coordinated and constructive basis. That is what this commission is about. It is about providing leadership towards a resolution thereof. For people to get up and oppose it, on the flimsy, spurious, and bitter grounds that they have, says more about their commitment to that basic ideal than it does about their political credibility, because on this issue they simply do not have any.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last night the Minister said that there was a Supplementary Order Paper on this bill and that it would be tabled today. It is not on the Table. I wonder when the Opposition can expect to have it tabled.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Would the member please consult with the Clerk.

I rise to further support United Future’s position on this bill. I want to spend the first few minutes reflecting on, and honouring, the sincere efforts of the 58 submitters on this bill who, in my opinion, were extremely short-changed by Opposition members on the select committee hearing their suggestions. The intention of United Future and the Labour Government from the outset was to listen carefully to any concerns and to work wherever possible with submitters to adjust the legislation where genuine improvements were forthcoming. In general, submitters were very positive about the proposed commission.

The most common query was about whether the bill should embrace a specific definition of family or whether the bill should stick to an acceptance of the fact that families are diverse and that the work of the commission should not be hampered by an exclusive approach to family form. In this regard, I want to express my thanks to Georgina Beyer, the chair of the Social Services Committee, advisers from the Minister’s office, the Minister himself, the Hon Steve Maharey, and the drafters who worked so cooperatively with us to address submitters’ concerns after the select committee process fell over. Some submitters were worried that the commission would become obsessed with and, in some senses, limited by the challenges of more needy families, with the result that the advocacy they wanted to see happen for healthy families would not be attended to. In response to that concern, work has been done to ensure that the legislation is very clear that the main function of the commission is underpinned by that principle that family strengths and resilience factors need to be identified, maintained, and enhanced.

A third issue raised by submitters was a request that the commission should be required to refer matters that do not fall within its mandate to appropriate agencies either centrally or locally, depending upon the need. This is now catered for and will be introduced in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Supplementary Order Paper will also include provisions giving effect to the submitters’ request that the commission will have regard, where appropriate, to New Zealand’s international obligations, and in particular to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The final issue raised by submitters that I want to highlight is the question of the autonomous versus independent status of the commission. Some submitters wanted extensive powers to be given to the commission, and others merely wanted reassurance that the commission would be free to speak out against any future Government initiative that may inadvertently be unfriendly towards family well-being. The truth is that as it stands the commission is designed to provide vital policy advice to the Government on the Government’s own legislative agenda, plus it is able to make evidence-based recommendations separate from the Government’s own agenda for consideration. The Families Commission is therefore autonomous enough to advocate independently for families, but linked sufficiently to the Government of the day to work constructively for the good of New Zealand families at this level.

The role that families play in the well-being of their members is immense. For all that we do to educate and support New Zealanders through the activities of our various Government departments and community initiatives, if the family context in which an individual lives is unstable and lacks continuity, then our efforts are undermined. The clear mandate of the Families Commission is to complement the existing work done by governmental and non-governmental agencies, not duplicate their efforts, and to investigate then advocate for issues that clearly enhance the family environment so that those who are dependent on that context benefit from it rather than fall victim to it. The focus is on family relationships and the part that those relationships play in shaping an individual’s future. The role of the commission is to determine what influence Government decision-making has on the stability and longevity of those relationships, and what other key factors have most impact on family sustainability, which, I presume, we all agree we should be investing in.

A clear focus on the family context has been a poorly covered base in central government thinking for too long, and it is time we put in place something to make sure that family interests are no longer left to the whim or mercy of any Government of the day. The commission forms a platform for making the vital connection between family research and family policy development. It provides a forum for gaps to be identified in our understanding of what New Zealand families need, of what gives a family resilience to work through a crisis, of how families establish and maintain strengths, of whether concepts of family strength are consistent across cultures, and of who is working effectively to support parents and children. Research information can then be supplied to both Government and community organisations to help them better target resources and better target support, and to further enhance notions of best practice when working with clients in a family context.

I am particularly thrilled at the emphasis on families’ strengths that the commission is to have. Family researcher John DeFrain states: “If one studies only family problems, one finds only family problems. Similarly, if educators, community organisers, therapists, and researchers are interested in family strengths, they look for them. When these strengths are identified, they can become the foundation for continued growth and positive change in the family, and in society.” The opportunity to establish a solutions-focused Families Commission is an exciting project. In the past the main approach has been to identify the deficits and examine the pathology in families in order to deliver services that would cater to the needs of families. An increasing number of family and community-based organisations, educators, researchers, and therapists are moving away from this somewhat disempowering nanny-State approach, and are embracing a strengths perspective to their work. A family that is classified as troubled and needy is more likely to find itself on the receiving end of all sorts of services and programmes designed and delivered by outside experts. Families then become passive recipients, rather than resourceful and actively engaged in addressing their issues and solving their problems.”

In her opening address at seventh national conference of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, said that the main premise behind the Government’s stronger families and communities strategy was the belief that strong and healthy families form the best social welfare system there is, and that strengthening families represents a very sound investment in Australia’s future.

I believe that the Families Commission will help do this for us in New Zealand. If we can make the shift to measuring the nation in terms of family health, rather than just economic indicators, and if we recognise the impact that a destructive family environment has on the growth and outcomes for New Zealand, then the significance of the Families Commission becomes obvious. I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

After listening to those speeches, one would think that the Families Commission is going to save the world. One would think that all families in New Zealand are now going to be absolutely amazing. After hearing what Mr Peter Dunne was saying, one would think that the establishment of a Families Commission will solve all of New Zealand’s families problems, sort out the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, sort out the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit, and stop child abuse. I have to say that Mr Peter Dunne has a lot more faith in bureaucracy than I do. The $28 million that it will cost to establish a Families Commission could be spent on many other things that might actually do something for families in this country.

💬 Paul Adams: Like what?

I have a whole 10 minutes to tell members what that money could be spent on. [Interruption] The commission will cost $28 million. Mr Dunne has far more faith in bureaucracy than I have. The bill talks about the commission being independent. Mr Dunne said that the commission has to be independent, and it should be independent so that it can criticise Government policy. But the bill states: “the Commission must have regard to any Government policy or statement of the Government’s priorities”. Basically, the commission will be a sop to the Government.

I agree with Judy Turner that families are diverse. United Future voters I have spoken to thought that United Future would stand up to this Government’s social engineering. They thought that United Future would not use a definition like “psychological attachment” meaning that that would constitute a family. “Psychological attachment” could mean the All Blacks, could it not? I think that the All Blacks are pretty psychologically attached, and I hope that they do well. But I really believe that United Future voters put United Future into Parliament because they believed that United Future would stand up for the more traditional family values. There are very diverse families in this country, but United Future voters put United Future members in Parliament because they thought that those members would stand up for the traditional family unit. We know that New Zealand families are constituted in many ways. Labour has certainly been a voice for the diversity of the family unit. Labour has stood up for that absolutely, and it has pushed the view that psychological attachment is a good basis for the definition of families. But I do not believe that United Future voters actually wanted their party to stand up for that view. I believe that they wanted United Future to stand up against Labour’s social engineering and against the view that anything goes. United Future voters tell me that they did not expect United Future to sign up to Labour’s social liberal agenda. They did not expect them to roll over so easily for this bureaucracy—the Families Commission.

I think that we do need to do something to help New Zealand families. When the National Government was in power, it spent money on things like Family Start, Strengthening Families, and Social Workers in Schools . That is what we spent money on. If we could actually do something in this country for the 20 percent of children who are in trouble, something like Family Start, that would be a far better way for the Government to spend $28 million, rather than spending it on establishing a Families Commission. If we could put wrap-around services around those young women who have babies and are in a very disadvantaged social situation, so that just one child does better, that would be better than spending $28 million on establishing a Families Commission. We know from all the research, and from all the longitudinal studies in Christchurch and Dunedin, that kids in trouble can be identified from 3 years old. We know that those children are born into families who are at a significant social disadvantage. We know that men pass through those families at a rate of knots, that there is no stability in those families, and that the kids are passed around from pillar to post. As I doctor I saw them.

I saw them coming into the surgeries. I saw the women who were abused. I saw those kids, and I knew that those families were in trouble. Spending $28 million on wrap-around services to put intensive care into those families is what would do something for the families of New Zealand.

Do members know another thing we could spend that $28 million on? We could do something for the dads in this country, because the dads are significantly disadvantaged when families break up. I have dad after dad coming to see me. One minute they are fathers, with full rights in the lives of their children, and the next minute, when families break down, they really suffer in terms of being involved in the lives of their children. A dad is reliant on the mother to determine how much involvement he can have. All of a sudden it is the mother who has custody. In a large percentage of cases, it is the mum who has custody, and it depends on the relationship she has with the dad as to how much access he gets into the lives of his children. All of a sudden that is all dads get—a bit of access.

I have seen dad after dad who cannot cope with that psychological damage, and they leave the lives of their children. I have seen dad after dad traumatised. I had a dad come to see me who had cancer. He was dying. Against all court orders, his wife would not let him see his kids. He had to get the police if he wanted to see his children. That is appalling. That should not be able to happen in this country. That $28 million could be spent on doing something about the Family Court—on opening it up. I totally support Muriel’s Newman’s point of view that we should start from a basis of shared parenting and shared custody, because, then, parents would have to speak to each other about the lives of their children—they would have to put their children first. We should have more counselling for families when parents are going through the divorce courts. Probably, we should have mandatory counselling to make sure that the problems get sorted out and that the kids are put first. That is what would improve things in this country. We should not be setting up a bureaucracy, a Families Commission. Twenty-eight million dollars for some of the alternatives I have mentioned would do so much more for this country.

I am sorry—but I cannot see that a Families Commission will work. It will be like the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Who knows who runs it? Who knows what it ever does? A commission will not work. I do not believe it will make any difference. We know that eighty percent of our children actually do quite well in this country, and that 20 percent do not. We have to look at that 20 percent. We have to look at the lives of those families, and at putting in place systems that have been shown to work overseas. That is why I was talking about National putting in place social workers in schools—strengthening families. We have talked about the lives of those two little girls who died. What works is a policy like Strengthening Families, with just one person involved instead of a myriad of agencies that do not talk to one another. Programmes on the ground are what works, not a commission. What will work are programmes on the ground that will do something for the lives of those children. That is what National believes in, and that is what we support when we talk about families.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Father of the House!

I thank the member—that is a compliment. Anybody who calls me a “father” is paying me a compliment. One of my greatest achievements in life—and probably it is the greatest achievement in life—is bringing up two kids. I am a second-time married person, and I inherited another three children. I have five children, who have all grown up to be reliable, decent, sound adults—all of them. That is because I put a strong emphasis on family values. Don’t nod at me in that sanctimonious manner, Mr Baldock! I resent those people sitting on the United Future benches and saying across the House that because New Zealand First does not support its bill it is anti-family. I resent that by inference, and I resent it by statement. Judy Turner, the United Future member who put out the press release, should hang her head in shame. Certainly, the letter that the Hon Peter Dunne sent to submitters is disgraceful.

💬 Darren Hughes: Venal!

The last person who called me venal is still recovering from the shock. When someone called me venal, the jacket came off and that person went down.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Ha, ha!

Grey hairs and all, Dover Samuels—I am not past it. I draw members’ attention to a bill called the Commission for the Family Bill, in the name of my honourable colleague Dail Jones. It was in the ballot before those guys in United Future knew where the toilets were. It was in the ballot before they had unlocked their offices. It contains a definition of “family”. That crowd over there in United Future is going berserk about supporting the family. That is the outfit that could not support the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill, because it did not contain a definition of “stress”; yet their Families Commission Bill does not contain a definition of “family”. I listened intently to Judy Turner’s speech a few moments ago. I lost count of the times she mentioned the word “family”, yet she does not even know what it means. She does not have the gumption or the intellect to put in this bill what is meant by the word “family”.

💬 Darren Hughes: Too much vinegar at lunchtime.

Too much vinegar, the member thinks. I agree with United Future on one aspect: families are the cornerstone of society. Where we disagree is that New Zealand First knows exactly what we mean by the word “family”. I tell those United Future MPs that “family” means “a family group, including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least one adult member; and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.”

That is a very simple definition of a family, and when I last mentioned it in the House, Gordon Copeland could not get across fast enough to get a copy of this document, because he was worried that under the United Future bill, three prostitutes and a pimp would constitute a family. I challenge one of the United Future members to tell me I am wrong that three prostitutes and a pimp living together in a house would constitute a family. They would qualify as a family under this bill.

United Future does not even know what “family” means. It does not have a clue. I think the Labour member over there is pretty clueless, but he is young enough—he can learn. The United Future guys are a little bit past it. There is no hope for those guys. They go out to the public and say they are the family-friendly party—that they are the party for the family—but they do not know what they are talking about. They cannot define the word “family” to the average member of the public.

💬 Darren Hughes: The member is still going on about that.

For that member over there, I will repeat the definition. “Family” means a family group, including an extended family, in which there is at least one adult member, and in which the members have a biological or legal relationship. That is pretty straightforward—[Interruption]. Judy Turner heckles now, but she could not even come up with anything near a definition. United Future members could not come up with a definition of stress, and they voted against that bill. In this bill, they cannot come up with a definition of “family”, and they call the bill the jewel in their Crown.

When United Future’s term finally ends and it says goodbye to Parliament at the next election, there will be more prostitution in this country than ever before—far more. United Future could not put a stake in the sand to stop that. There will be more drug use than ever before, despite its mini stake in the sand. There will be more break-ups of proper families—as I understand them, and United Future does not understand—than ever before. There will be more children brought up in adverse circumstances in single-parent units.

This bill is a sop to United Future. Some $28 million worth of taxpayer dollars will go on it, and there is no definition of “family”. For $28 million, we could have thousands of operations, and we could easily introduce breast cancer screening for every woman over the age of 40 until the age of 70 three or four times over. Yet the Government is promoting this sort of garbage legislation that says nothing, just to keep this motley little crowd onside. That is what the Government is doing. Just to keep this motley little crowd onside, it is giving a Families Commission Bill—

💬 Darren Hughes: Looked in your caucus room lately?

The honourable member—I have forgotten his name—does not know what it is about. I can tell the young gentleman—is he a young gentleman? Well, he is young—that the family is the most important part of our society by a long way. I share that view with United Future, but the difference between us is that I know what I am talking about, and United Future does not. It is playing the worst sort of politics. It is playing with people’s emotions and fears—

💬 Darren Hughes: Sit down.

Has the member read the letter that was sent out to all the submitters? It is an absolute disgrace. To use the word “venal”—which is offensive by anybody’s standards—

💬 Darren Hughes: What does it mean?

I just happen to have the Oxford Dictionary definition here. The word “venal”, applied to a person, means “able to be bribed or corrupted”. I say to the member, who knows not very much about anything, that if having a definition of “family” in this bill made it that much better, New Zealand First would have looked at it much more positively. But we are not prepared to support a bill that does not have a definition. [Interruption] I ask Judy Turner where the Supplementary Order Paper is. We are debating a bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that is yet to come. It gets worse and worse.

This bill is a failure. I would move a motion that we scrap this lot and adopt my colleague Dail Jones’ Commission for the Family Bill, which was written by somebody who knows what he is talking about. It is a far better bill, and I am confident that we on this side of the House would all support it. If we gave United Future a little bit of coaching, even it would see the error of its ways and come around to supporting that bill. This bill is garbage, and Mr Dail Jones’ bill is absolutely top-notch. At least it has a definition of “family”.

After the interminable 10 minutes that the deputy leader of New Zealand First just subjected us to, it is clear that a Families Commission is OK, provided New Zealand First dreamt it up. If anybody else brings a bill to Parliament, then that must be a bad thing—it must be terrible. New Zealand First must lace the bill with personal abuse against a party that has come into Parliament with a very clear mission—a party that has come into a governing relationship with the Labour Party and Progressive, and is getting something done.

There was once a time when New Zealand First was in Government. Did it promote the Families Commission then? Oh, no. Its members came into Opposition when they walked out of Government because they could not take the pace, and they sit over there giving gentleman’s-hour speeches, like the one we just heard from Mr Brown. I support the speeches given by Mr Dunne and Mr Maharey. This is a great bill, and I will vote for its second reading.

I am pleased to follow my learned colleague, and I find it extraordinary that on an issue like this, New Zealand First is so incapable of giving any even slightly reasoned argument. That party comes in here day after day, rants on about prejudice, talks about immigration, and tries to scratch any sore it can find, and is even now having its leadership referred to as the blowfly of New Zealand politics. For that party to follow those arguments illustrates what an absolute paucity it brings to the Chamber. I am happy to support this legislation.