Families Commission Bill

The Families Commission Bill is a travesty. It is a travesty because the United Future party has allowed itself to accept that the definition of “family” is not to now mean what everyone in this country really understands “family” is all about. It is about the traditional family unit. First, it is the nuclear family unit of mum, dad, and the kids. And today, just as 10 years ago, just as 50 years ago—just as way back to the time of Genesis in the Bible—mum, dad, and the kids was a pretty good thing that tended to work most of the time, and it still does. That does not mean that we cannot have extended families. When I look at the Families Commission Bill and at its title, I ask where it states what families are all about. I am coming to the point that “families” actually has to mean something.

I think it is a great thing that the Minister has mentioned today that he has a Supplementary Order Paper in which he will now exclude gangs. It will no longer be the “Families (Gang) Bill”. That is because of the Opposition, not any other party. We pointed it out and we were pooh-poohed about it, even though we were absolutely right. The Families Commission Bill could be more aptly named the “We Really Did Sell our Soul to the Devil Bill”, and that is exactly what United Future has done in this instance. It is an absolute disgrace. I would love to be able to support this bill and to be able to say that we have some recognition of families and their role in society, but this bill is inappropriately named because it has nothing about families in it. It is all about bureaucracy. There are a couple of clauses that try to define some sort of family, but as long as it does not state “mum, dad, and the kids”, it seems that it might be a family. As long as it is not that, then it could be a family.

This bill is all about commissions; it is all about bureaucracy. It could, instead, be called the “Families (Bureaucracies) Bill”. That would be a better name, rather than misnaming it the Families Commission Bill. This is possibly the payback to United Future for being good little bunnies and doing as the Government tells them. That is about all we can say about this bill. It is a hopeless bill, it is a hopeless name, and it should be consigned to the gutter.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next speaker I just say to members that this is a title debate. Members need to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this issue because it is obviously one that will affect people. This bill is really in two parts only. It is a bill that should have been, in normal drafting, in several parts, and I expect that the debate will be allowed to be wide ranging.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is a matter for the Committee to decide. Is the member seeking leave to do so?

Yes, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

In speaking to the title, the Families Commission Bill, I want to begin by outlining the fact that in arriving at Bowen House one morning recently, my eyes were drawn to a radiantly happy young woman who had just alighted from a taxi. As the taxi drove away, I noticed on the footpath in front of her, a baby in a car seat. The incident made me realise what a thrill I feel when I see that special joy that exists between parents and their children. My primary goal in deciding to offer myself for election to Parliament last year was to work towards seeing a greater number of New Zealand families functioning on the basis of stability and harmony. The ideal is for every child to grow up loved and nurtured by a mother and a father, in a situation of certainty and stability, with the support from the intergenerational extended family and whānau.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is a title debate.

In talking to the overarching goal of this bill and the title, we need to establish a commission called the Families Commission because it is a vitally important step towards its achievement. There has been debate during the passage of this bill about the definition of “families”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. This is a title debate, and the member must discuss the question of whether the title adequately describes the bill. That is the key issue.

I believe that the title does adequately describe this bill, because we are talking here about definitions of families and family groups, which are incorporated in Part 1. Much of the debate that has been heard in this Chamber so far has been misdirected, and it is more than answered through the United Future and Government Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Arguments about what this should be called, about definitions, and even the name of this bill essentially miss the heart of what it is that the Families Commission seeks to achieve. While striving to obtain the best possible family outcomes, we also need to deal with the reality of our present situation.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The honourable member who is debating the title of this bill, does seem to keep straying. I know that you have tried to bring him back, but maybe you could just explain a little bit more clearly what the title debate is all about, and the narrowness of it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for drawing it to my attention. Can I just say to the honourable member on his feet that I am getting close to terminating his speech. The title debate is a very specific debate. There will be an opportunity for the member to debate the issues he is debating now when we come to Part 1. The member must ask himself this question: does the title adequately describe the bill? That is what the member is allowed to debate, and the member may call the bill all sorts of names, or whatever, but he must come back to the debate. It is a very narrow one.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. One can see that the logic of my argument, if it was listened to, that we need to use the word “families” in the title of the bill, rather than the singular “family”, which had previously been suggested by some. What I am trying to outline is why we should use the word “families” in the title to this bill. The image of the radiant young woman with her baby, which I mentioned earlier, sadly, stands in contrast to the many struggling, unhappy children I see in our society; children who are not only being raised in poverty but also frequently without the presence of a mum or dad. That is reality for many of our children. Some of them are growing up in ways that we could not even begin to describe as a stable family—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but he is not addressing the title, and I am terminating his speech.

Speaking to the title of this bill, I would like, first of all, to address some of the comments raised by Mr Copeland. He started off by talking about the fact that the whole point of the Families Commission is to set up something to support families. He said, for example, that he does not disagree with the facts that we want a loving environment for children, that the best possible environment for children to grow up in is a family, and that children are basically being ruined by poverty. He said a lot of things that I do not think anyone in this Committee would disagree with. The member on the Government side of the Chamber is gesturing for me to return to the issue of the title of the bill, but if he had read his Standing Orders he would know that a member is able to make reference to comments that the previous speaker has made, as long as they are not over the top or made for a long period of time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will come to the debate.

Mr Copeland made a lot of points that I do not think anyone in this Committee disagrees with, but let us not pretend for a moment that the Families Commission is going to create good, strong family networks for those children who are most in need. Let us not pretend that the Families Commission will make a difference with regard to the most vulnerable children or stop there being more cases like that of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson, and children like them.

💬 Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Surely, if you had to terminate Mr Copeland’s speech earlier because he was getting wide of the mark, it cannot be long before you give some instruction to this member that she must address the title of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his consideration. However, it is quite true what the member says. Under Speaker’s ruling 38/1, some leeway is given, for the first 30 seconds or so of a speech, for a member to respond to comments that have been made, and that is what I have been allowing. But I now ask the member to speak strictly to the title.

Absolutely, Mr Chairman. But I was just taking my opportunity to respond to some rather naive comments about matters that, I think, are not addressed by this bill, at all.

In speaking to the title of this bill, the Families Commission Bill, I say, basically, the definition of a family really does matter. We can talk about this issue and go round in circles, but basically, if a commission is an advocate for every sort of New Zealand family and every sort of New Zealander, then, in a way, it becomes an advocate for nothing. If we are trying to set up a Families Commission to be something that will actually make a difference to families in New Zealand, then the name of the bill should give people the opportunity to consider what the role of the commission is to be. If we look at the name “Families Commission Bill”, we see that the title does not represent what is actually in the bill. There are six clauses in the bill that relate to families, and the rest of the clauses are all about setting up a bureaucracy. This bill is all about setting up a bureaucratic commission—just another bureaucracy that will sit here in the middle of Wellington and be totally divorced from the realities of New Zealand families. In fact, the bill should be called the “All Things to Everybody Commission” because that is what we are talking about here. The definition of “family” is so broad that it basically includes every single New Zealander. We already have a representative body for every single New Zealander. It is called the New Zealand Parliament, and that is what we are all here to do.

If we look at the title of this bill, we see that it does not reflect what the bill is about, at all. It should be called the “Can’t Advocate for Anything in Particular Bill”. If one looks at the very, very general nature of the definitions in this bill and at its aims, one sees it basically tries to be all things to everybody. It is not able to state, for example, that two-parent families are a successful way of bringing up children. This Families Commission will not be able to say that. This Families Commission will basically allow United Future the opportunity to say it has got something. One of the areas where United Future failed, of course, at the start of this debate was even to be able to debate the bill clause by clause. For some reason, although this bill is supposed to be United Future’s absolute flagship, United Future has allowed the debate to be condensed down into just a couple of parts. Obviously, United Future is not aware of the way things work here in Parliament.

I do hope that we will have a broad and wide debate on these particular issues, because if one looks at the entire set of parts we have in this bill one sees there are a lot of issues to bring up. I think we need to look at the title first of all. I am a great believer that if one calls a bill something, that has to reflect what is in the bill itself.

I do not want to take issue with you, Mr Chairperson, but I will use part of my 5-minute speech to say that I thought you could have given Mr Copeland a little bit longer. As much as I disagree with him on the concerns United Future has—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, no, the member cannot challenge the Chair.

I will get to the title, but I would have liked to hear what Mr Copeland had to say. This bill could be called the “Experiment with Children Bill” or the “United Future in Trouble Bill”. This bill is a sop to United Future. Until this afternoon we did not even have a definition of the family, and how can one have a Families Commission Bill without a definition of the family? How can one do that? Perhaps the Minister will take a call and tell us that many months after the bill was first tabled, with United Future’s hand-clapping in the background, he has come up with a definition of “family” that did not exist until an hour or so ago.

I have some real difficulty in saying that this is a genuine Families Commission Bill. I was not on the Social Services Committee. My good colleague Barbara Stewart was on it, and she will no doubt speak in more detail than I can about the contents of the bill. But if one reads the bill, one cannot help but conclude that it is bureaucracy going mad. We are to spend $28 million on a Families Commission under this legislation—and until an hour or so ago we did not know what the definition of the family was in the Minister’s mind, at least, although that has always been clear to New Zealand First—and I ask how one can justify that expense. Maybe the Minister will take a call and explain that. This is bureaucracy. If we had a genuine Families Commission in this legislation, $28 million would be far too much money. We could put a genuine Families Commission in place at much less cost. It would mean identifying the family. The definition of the word “family” in Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey—and I asked the Minister this afternoon what it meant—states: “ … 2 or more persons living together as a family,”. I understand that to include a de facto relationship. But are two homosexual men who are living together a family? Are we experimenting with children under this Families Commission Bill? That is a question I would like to put to the Minister.

New Zealand First is not prepared to experiment with the lives of children under the Families Commission Bill or, indeed, any other bill. We think that this bill needs to be rethought completely. I think, in fairness to the United Future members, they would like to see the bill rethought if they were absolutely honest about it. This is an “Experiment With Children Bill”, and I tell the honourable Chairperson and the members of this Committee that that is the wrong way to treat families and children in this country—experimenting with their lives. The title of this Families Commission Bill is inappropriate. It should be called the “Experiment With Children Bill”. That would be a fair reflection of the bill. Or it could be called—because Labour wants to get United Future up the polls from about 0.1 percent to something reasonable, so that it can get back into power—the “United Future in Trouble Bill” or the “Help United Future Out of the Trench It Has Dug Because It Does Not Understand What a Family Is Bill”. But certainly the “Families Commission Bill” is not an appropriate title for this bill. I am quite disappointed if this is the best that United Future and Labour can come up with for a Families Commission Bill. I say that it is a failure.

We would welcome supporting a proper, correctly structured bill that addressed the core issues that concern families in this country, but this bill does not do that. We would be better to spend the $28 million elsewhere in society, rather than starting a new bureaucracy that will allow to some extent, as I have said several times, experimentation with the lives of children. Experimenting with kids and bringing them up in circumstances where we know the outcomes will be less than favourable is a serious matter.

I rise to speak on the title of this bill, and I wish to say to this Committee that this is an excellent title because this bill is about families in New Zealand. There are 479,334 families in New Zealand with dependants, and this legislation will address the needs of all those families in our country. It is appropriately called the Families Commission Bill because United Future had a vision at the election in 2002 that the families of this country ought to be addressed in this Chamber, and that all legislation passing through this Chamber should be viewed in terms of its effect on families. That is why it is appropriate that this legislation is called the Families Commission Bill.

Seventy-one percent of the families of New Zealand are two-parent families, and therefore we welcome the fact that this legislation will address their circumstances. However, some people would suggest that this bill should have been called the “Two-Parent Family Commission Bill”, because those are the only families they wish the commission to focus upon. It would have been a great travesty if that had been the case. The correct title for this legislation, and for the intent of it, is the Families Commission Bill, because 29 percent of our families in New Zealand are one-parent families. In fact, I grew up in one of those types of families, and it would be abhorrent to the people of New Zealand to suggest in any way, shape, or form that the family I grew up in was not a family. Clearly, it was a family. One-parent families ought to be considered by this commission, because if we are to have a better outcome for the children of New Zealand we need all family types to do a better job of parenting.

Some people would have liked the bill to be called the “Marriage Commission Bill”. While I have great concern about the state of marriage in our country and am deeply committed to the institution of marriage, I do not think it would have been appropriate to call this legislation the “Marriage Commission Bill”. If we are to correct and improve the lives of children in this country, then we must focus on all the types of families that exist. In this legislation—and we will debate this later on with regard to clause 26—it is possible for the commission to appoint committees that can look into the institution of marriage and at how to strengthen it. I would be very much in favour of the commission doing that. There is no impediment that would prevent the commission from doing that.

There are also other kinds of families in this country, and the statistics from the Ministry of Social Development that have been revealed point out that 0.2 percent of families are parented by same-sex couples. Nine hundred and fifty-eight children, or more, are being raised by parents of the same sex. Some people would have liked to call this bill the “Let’s Exclude Them From the Definition Family Commission Bill”. Again, I think that most caring New Zealanders would consider that to be a travesty, also. Those children have not chosen their family form, and we need to encourage all adults in this country who are responsible for raising children to be able to do the very best job of parenting they possibly can. The commission has a wide scope of powers. It can address such questions as which family form is producing the right outcome in our society, and we expect the commission will adequately accomplish that.

This bill is called the Families Commission Bill because when we see something of value and a culture in our society that needs to be sustained, protected, and advocated for, we often set up a commission. We already have a Human Rights Commission, an Office of the Privacy Commissioner, a Children’s Commissioner, a Retirement Commissioner, a Health and Disability Commissioner, and a Law Commission. It is good news for the people of New Zealand that this week we will debate in this Chamber the Families Commission Bill. The bill is aptly titled because the commission will represent the interests of families, and we commend the bill to the Committee.

I move, That the question be now put.

The title of the bill is the Families Commission Bill, but I have a number of suggestions that I think would probably more clearly reflect the nature of this bill and the way it has arisen in the House. I would like to start off by saying that a very good name for this bill would be the “United Future Anti-Family Bill”. All along, we have heard that we are not allowed to really promote the traditional nuclear family in this bill. We have to promote any other type of family, but we cannot focus on the most common type of family in New Zealand, which is the traditional married family, so I think the “United Future Anti-Family Bill” would be quite appropriate. However, I thought that maybe we could make that a little bit better by calling it the “United Future - Labour Coalition Anti-Family Commission Bill”. To bring Labour into it is better, because we know that Labour’s agenda is to undermine the nuclear family. That has always been Labour’s agenda, and this bill sort of plays that out.

However, if we want to be more realistic about the nature of the Family Commission and the fact that the commissioners are appointed by the Minister, that it is a political commission—in other words, it is not appointed by a cross-party process—we could call it the “United Future - Labour Political Payback Bill” or the “Political Puppet Bill”. We could even look at saying that it is a bill to implement the United Nations agenda, which we will see later on in this parliamentary term when the Family Commission introduces anti-smacking legislation. We can see that coming a mile off. Another type of name for the bill would be the “Family Commission (Implementing the United Nations Agenda) Bill”. That will be a big debate when it happens, because most New Zealanders certainly do not agree with abusing children, but they do not see that anti-smacking legislation will stop people abusing children. That legislation will significantly impact on the way parents go about raising their children in their family homes.

As well, I thought this bill could be called the “Marginalising Fathers Bill”. A lot of the political correctness that surrounds this family debate is all about saying that every type of family is OK, but nowhere does anybody say: “Hang on, we actually want to promote dads as being a very important part of that family equation.” This bill marginalises fathers. Many of the submitters were worried about that particular issue, and I know that many people hope that the Family Commission comes out and talks about the importance of fathers in their children’s lives. But we have to remember that it is a politically correct and politically promoted commission, so its agenda will definitely be set by the Labour Government. If we have a Labour Government that is anti-male and anti-father, then I am afraid that that will be what a lot of the work of the Family Commission will focus on.

During the time the bill was in front of the select committee, we saw promoting psychological attachment as a big issue. Many submitters were worried about the fact that gangs could be part of the psychological attachment definitions in the bill. Until the Minister came up with his Supplementary Order Paper, I thought that another name could have been the “Family Commission Promoting Criminal Gangs Bill”, which would be an absolute outrage. This is one time when I support something the Minister has done, and I can see he is very excited by that. A Supplementary Order Paper that clarifies that criminal gangs are not included in the psychological attachment definitions in the bill is a good move, and one that most members of Parliament would support.

I come back to the fact that this is anti-family legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

In response to the speeches made by United Future members, I say that if this bill is a result of their vision, they should start praying for blindness. This bill is a disgrace, and not one claim that any of the United Future members have made about it can be substantiated upon reading it. I do not know how Mr Adams can tell me that I should read the bill and conclude that his view of it is the way it is. I think that a new title of this bill should be “Family (Includes a Group of People Related by Marriage, Blood, Adoption, or an Extended Family, or Two or More Persons Living Together as a Family, a Whānau, or Another Culturally Recognised Family Group) Bill”. Quite frankly, that means that anybody at all living in the nature of a marriage could claim that he or she is a family. That is what the United Future party has delivered for its constituency.

What do those members really think when they look at the Supplementary Order Paper that has been laid on the Table today setting out of some of the duties of the commission under international obligations? Page 3 of the bill states that the commission must have regard to a range of matters. I do not think that this commission will have any autonomy at all. The bill should be referred to as the “Throw a Fish to the United Party Bill”. That is all it is. It is a few baubles, or perhaps a better way to put it would be 30-odd pieces of silver, thrown to a group of people who constantly run around the countryside pretending that they have the moral high ground on everyone else in this House, and then turn out to be the emperor with no clothes when it comes to a bill like this.

It is an absolute disgrace that we are wasting Parliament’s time debating a bill and its title when it is abundantly clear that the commission itself will not be able to do anything outside of any law written in this country. It cannot make a recommendation without referring first to the appropriate Government agency responsible, and must give all sorts of credence to various groups that might or might not have an interest in the family. Perhaps the bill should have been called the bill that requires the commission to consult groups that represent families, or family members, and groups that have a particular interest in families, or in any one or more matters relating the commission’s functions—for example, groups that represent parents, mothers, fathers, children or young persons, men women, social service providers, academics, researchers, family law specialists, employers–and here is the kicker—or workers.

I think that most people in this country could probably identify themselves with one of those descriptives. We will have a commission that has to give equal weight to the views of all manner of radical groups in this country, simply because United Future has agreed that they fit the definition of families. I suggest that the bill might have been better called “We Wish They Had Never Started On It Bill” because, quite frankly, families will become weakened as a result of the commission’s work.

If those members over there want any sort of analogy as to why I think that might happen, they should look at other commissions that operate in this country. Very few of them stay out of trouble. Very few of them achieve what they should achieve. I will not go into any great detail in my 5 minutes on the title, but I ask members to look at other commissions and statements made by commissioners in this country, compare their legislation with this legislation, and then ask themselves whether they have done well by their constituents. They have not. This bill is a total sham, and perhaps should be called “Families Commission Sham Bill”. I cannot see one thing in the bill that will lead to the strengthening of New Zealand families, who are the backbone of this country.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I realise that you have had a number of closure motions. I know that you are not a member of the Social Service Committee, but I point out that some members who were on the committee, including Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First, have not taken a call yet. I am aware that the Green Party has not taken a call yet, either. I just wanted to get in before you might have accepted a closure.

I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Expertise, of course, can be taken into account. I also remind members that this is a title debate. It is a very narrow debate. The contents of the bill can be debated at length when we come to Part 1.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just draw your attention to the fact that you have given United Future two calls. They were—

💬 Phil Heatley: Three.

I believe two, but I stand corrected, but at least more than one, whilst I see that New Zealand First, a much larger party, has had only one call.

I thank the honourable member for that. Maybe I did the wrong thing there, but I did terminate one member’s speech. The member had not spoken very long, but he did not address the title. I felt that it would be only fair if a member of that party were given the opportunity to debate the title.

I do not think that the Families Commission Bill even begins to describe what it sets out to do. I think it would be better described as the “United Future Derision Bill”. One could say that United Future is just having a laugh, but I do not think that is the reason the bill should be called that. It should be called the “United Future Derision Bill”, because with this move United Future has become the laughing stock of the country. The bill is an absolute waste of $28 million. It replicates good work already being done by a number of community groups, church groups, and even Government departments.

One could call it the “Misuse of Taxation Revenue Bill”. That would be a more accurate description of what the bill does. It would be far more effective, more efficient, and sensible to put that money into supporting the many excellent community groups that work in the area and are screaming out for adequate funding, and I mention the Child Poverty Action Group, Plunket, and Homebuilders. The Green Party opposes the squandering of that tax money. The title does not begin to describe what the bill does at all.

Another approach would be to call it the “Intolerance Bill”, because the usual reaction from United Future to anyone who opposes its policy proposals has been personal abuse—regardless of the fact that members like my colleague Sue Bradford have a far greater wealth of experience and knowledge of this area, and in working on the ground. Personal abuse is the usual retreat of United Future when faced with disagreement in a policy area.

We could also call the bill the “Venal Bill”. We are all familiar with how that term has been used. We have received an abusive letter from Mr Peter Dunne—surprise, surprise—that describes opponents to the bill as “venal”. How interesting! How is fulfilling the functions inherent in the role of a member of the House of Representatives to protect the public interest venal? I cannot begin to imagine. What I would describe as venal is accepting $28 million in an election bribe.

Can the member just come to the title debate, please. I know it is difficult, but members need to address the title.

💬 NANDOR TANCZOS: Thank you. I am suggesting that the bill be described as the “United Future Bribery Bill”. That would be an adequate description of what the bill does.

I will not allow the word “bribery”. The member will withdraw and apologise.

💬 NANDOR TANCZOS: I withdraw and apologise. Perhaps another title could be the “United Future Venality Bill”. The bill is an attempt to keep United Future supporting a Government that, strangely enough, has been described by Mr Dunne himself as a trendy-lefty, think-pink party. He has described the Prime Minister as being hijacked by the thought police, and the Labour Party as hand-wringing, sickly white liberals. That is the Labour Party, as described by Mr Dunne, which he continues to support, because of the $28 million venality bill.

What will the bill give us? It will give us a commission with three to seven commissioners. It creates a commission, and an expensive office will be set up to replicate work already being done in the community. How much money will be wasted on establishing an office, on administration costs, on the letterheads, on the logo design, and on all of the fancy accoutrements relating to those things, simply to replicate work that is already being done in the community? We could call this bill the “Family Issues Replication Bill”, the “Snatching Scarce Resources from the Community Bill”, or the “Another Bureaucracy Bill”, as the previous member has already mooted.

No doubt the seven commissioners will be well paid, soaking up scarce funds that are needed by grassroots organisations, in order to stroke the ego of Mr Peter Dunne. That is no criticism of any future commissioners; I am sure that they will all be competent and well intentioned. No, the criticism is reserved for United Future, which is prepared to force this waste to occur, then abuse members who point out the deep flaws. The title of this bill does not even begin to describe what the bill does in any shape or form.

I move, That the question be now put.