Families Commission Bill

The Families Commission that is to be set up under this bill will not save one child. It will not save one family. Not one family will be left intact because of this commission. Twenty-eight million dollars of taxpayers’ money—not Government money, but taxpayers’ money—will be wasted to pay off a debt that Labour owes to United Future. The sum of $28 million is the price of New Zealand families. Not one family will be saved by this bill, or by anything in it. When I look at the bill, I can see how we can save taxpayers $28 million. I suggest that children need love, discipline, and boundaries. They need to know who they are. They need to know their whakapapa. What they do not need to know is who their mum’s latest boyfriend is. They need education. They need to be healthy and, absolutely, to have hope.

United Future members have told us today that they have a vision. Well, I think their vision was a faulty one. They need to have their eyes looked at, because I am sure their vision did not tell them that they would be pushing for—not just supporting, but pushing for—a bill that talks about everything except mum, dad, and the kids; or even mum and the kids, with dad being an active father. Nowhere in this bill does anyone talk about the family unit as it actually is. Everywhere it talks about families being whatever people think they are. It is a bit like the word “Māori”, which has become debased over the years, because now—under a Labour Government and previous Labour Governments—Māori is no longer about blood. It is all about how one feels about it.

When I look at this bill as a mother—

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: We give in!

JUDITH COLLINS:—I am absolutely disgusted with this Government and with United Future. The Minister says he gives in, and so he should, because what does he know about being on the 4 o’clock morning shift? People who have not been there should not talk about it, and people like young Darren Hughes—a very nice young boy, who is trying to interject—should not talk about things they know nothing about. My mother was brought up in a solo parent family with seven little children during the Depression. If you ever said to my mother, who is now dead—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

The bill does not contain anything suggesting that solo parents with seven children will have a much tougher time than people with two parents and seven children. It does not say that, because this is just a rubbish bill for rubbish people. Parents need to know that the best thing for their children is, almost inevitably, that they be active parents and, wherever possible, stick together. Nothing in this bill states that. That is one of the awful things about it. It is a fraudulent bill, because nowhere does it tell the truth that, wherever possible, two parents—two good and great parents—will do better than one good and great parent, because that is what kids need. Children need fathers, and they need their mothers.

They definitely need their fathers. One of the things we need in this country is active fathers—fathers who are embraced as part of the family, not as some sperm donor who happens to pop along every now and again, or send a Christmas card. That is not what we need. This bill should be telling people the truth, and if it cannot do that, it is a complete waste of money. This bill is $28 million of taxpayers’ money being thrown down the drain, and it will be going into the pockets of people who should know better. If they do not know what makes a good family, then I and others in the Opposition—the real Opposition—will tell them.

Sometimes some of the words I hear spoken in this Chamber absolutely amaze me. Judith Collins asked whether we had a vision. If she would like to go back to my maiden speech, she would see that one of the things I said in it was that I wanted to see the hearts of fathers return to the children, and the hearts of children return to the fathers. The family was very seldom mentioned until United Future came along. We recognise the importance of the family unit. Therefore, we have been very pleased to come forward with the Families Commission.

Every member of United Future is married. Every member of United Future has children. But we are well aware that many children in this nation do not have the same sorts of family relationships. As I look through the streets of this fine nation, I see some of the circumstances that some children are brought up in. I am one who, with every ounce of my being, believes that a family unit of a mother and a father is by far the best unit in which to bring up children. I believe that the Families Commission, as it researches things, will begin to produce statistics that show that. Yet I do know that children do not choose their parents. Therefore, children in this nation—whatever colour, whatever creed, and whatever religion they are—deserve to have a commission that will take the time, do the research, and study what the best set of circumstances is to bring them up in. With regard to the small percentage that have same-sex parents, did those children choose to have same-sex parents? No, they did not, but that is what they have. Therefore, somebody needs to love them enough to take the time to help them work through real-life situations.

Much has been said about fathers. Fathers in this nation are under tremendous pressure these days. The expectations on fathers are unrealistic in many cases, but I agree that fathers need to be encouraged to be great fathers. These days, when a mother has her first child—especially now that there are many mothers who do not have an extended family, or close family members around them—who is there to help her? What information does she have when her baby begins to cry in the early hours of the morning? I have four children myself, and I know what it is like. Will the mother know whether the crying is normal, whether it is just part of what a young child does as it grows up? Who will give the mother the information?

I believe that the Families Commission will research things. It will start to say: “This is the best pattern. This is what has worked best.” United Future members stand proud of the Families Commission Bill, because we are concerned about all the families of this nation. Yes, we have an understanding of what we think the perfect family is, but not everybody is living in a perfect family. When something has to be rebuilt one has to start with where it is now, and to work on what is at hand to make it as best as one can. There must be research, and this is what the Families Commission will do. It will look at the whole range of families and will come up with the finding that some families are not producing the results that others produce. Therefore—

💬 Peter Brown: We already know that.

Members may already know that, but at least there will be a Families Commission in place that will focus on the families of this nation. I am pleased that United Future is in the situation where we are working on that.

Many have said that they have worked for years with children. Well, I have worked for years with children. I have worked with my own children. I have worked with children in the community who are not in the same sort of family as I have. What I have discovered is that all children and all families have the same basic requirements, but not all families have the ability to find out what works for them. The Families Commission will help them—whatever sorts of families they are. It will give them information and situations that will help them bring up their children, so that family units in this country can become far stronger and far greater. If this country does not rebuild families, we are in deep yoghurt.

Mr Chairman, I have to say—

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that Katherine Rich will make a valuable contribution to this bill—I have no doubt about that whatsoever—but I do point out that my colleague Barbara Stewart has been seeking the call for some time. She did not get a call on the title. You have now given two calls to National members on this part, and you have ignored Barbara Stewart again. I want another call, but I have been refraining from taking a call, so that my colleague can get the call.

I am looking at proportionality, and it is generally two to one in favour of National over New Zealand First. Secondly, under Speaker’s ruling 23/3, I have already called the honourable member Katherine Rich, so I have to give her the call. But I have noted that your colleague wants the next call, and she will have the next call.

💬 KATHERINE RICH: After that preaching from Paul Adams, a member of United Future, I have to ask that member, given all those different scenarios he has just talked about, how the Families Commission will make life any different for those families. It will not achieve the sort of Utopia that that member has just described. I feel sorry for the Minister, Steve Maharey, right now, because I know he would love to take the $28 million and put it into some other, worthy projects. This commission will cost a significant amount of money, but will achieve little other than being just another bureaucracy in Wellington.

When this bill was first introduced, National members read it and found that a family group was defined as one whose members “have significant psychological attachments to one another”. Our immediate interpretation of that was that it could include a lot of New Zealanders that it is not intended that the Families Commission should advocate for. It could represent gangs, flatmates, social clubs, cults, or even the Labour Party, and that was not the intention in creating the Families Commission. When National members brought up this issue, our points were met with derision from the Government and United Future. We were accused of being unintelligent, and United Future even went so far as to say that our opposition to the bill was venal. When members look up the meaning of that word—and I am convinced now that the press secretary who wrote that particular press release did not understand it—they will find it means open to bribery and corruption. My question to those members here today is who is open to bribery and corruption, when we are looking at a $28 million pay-off to United Future for its support of this Government—$28 million that could be put into a wide range of services that would actually make a difference to New Zealand families.

The other point that I think is worth discussing is the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 173 to the commission’s main function. We understood that the commission’s main function was to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally, and that the function did not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families. Within the Supplementary Order Paper, some additional points have been added. Subclause (3) of clause 7 provides that the commission must “identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance either or both of the following: (a) families’ resilience:”. I ask the Minister to take a call and tell members what that means. We are talking about New Zealand families here, not Sealy Posturepedic beds or Aunt Daisy’s sponge. I would like to know what “resilience” means in terms of a legal definition. We are right back to academic psychobabble that does not mean anything and has no place in any legislation.

The next point is that the commission must have regard to families’ strengths. Once again, what does that mean in terms of the law? It is waffly, namby-pamby sort of stuff that actually does not mean anything. It is feel-good legislation, but when one starts to interpret it and ask what will happen, it is very difficult to describe what exactly that part of the bill will do.

Once again, it can be seen from the new definition, which excludes gangs, that those on the benches opposite have come to understand that National members were right all along when we brought up that interpretation of the definition of family. There now are 62 words that are designed to say: “This definition does not include gangs.”—62 words. It is probably one of the waffliest provisions that I have seen. I do not know why the Government did not just come out and say that the Families Commission does not include gangs. It would seem that it has skirted around the issue. Nobody can quite come out and say it—so much for it being an improvement!

Those are the sorts of things that were brought up during the select committee process by the members of National, ACT, and New Zealand First. We were rubbished for bringing up these issues. How did these changes miraculously occur, half an hour before the Committee stage of this bill? Why were these changes suddenly, miraculously made, when these points had all been made during the select committee? Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain to members how he suddenly had a revelation.

Mr Adams, along with the rest of United Future, may have had the vision, but we, the people of New Zealand, will have to live with the nightmare of the Families Commission—a $28 million nightmare, I might add. The Families Commission will not do what Mr Adams wants. It will not save even one child. The issue is not about defining families; it is about ensuring that New Zealand children are raised in the best possible situation and the best possible way. This bill will not save one child.

We want the best conditions and the best outcomes for New Zealand children, and New Zealand First believes that the best way to do that is to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children. We all know that children are the basis of families, so why not give the Commissioner for Children part of the $28 million that is being set aside, and appoint a Families Commissioner who could work in conjunction with the Commissioner for Children?

Likewise, in reference to clause 16, we believe that there should be only one commissioner and one deputy commissioner rather than the huge bureaucracy that is being set up, with at least three but not more than seven commissioners, a chief commissioner, and a deputy chief commissioner. Lo and behold, a general manager—or a chief executive, as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 173—will also be appointed. I must remind United Future that none of those commissioners, or the chief executive, will be paid at the lower end of the scale—they definitely will not be. By the time the bureaucracy that has to surround all those officers is in place—the people who will be employed to carry out the research and clerical functions—we will be looking at a giant, expensive bureaucracy. When we come down to it, we could have called this bill the “Building a Bureaucracy Bill” or the “Biggest, Best Bureaucracy Bill”. It is foolish to test the water with both feet by building such a huge bureaucracy.

New Zealand First would have definitely supported the appointment of a family commissioner to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children, plus some additional researchers to carry out research on “families’ resilience” and “families’ strengths”, as the Supplementary Order Paper phrases it—whatever that might mean. With this bill, the opportunity to support strong families has basically been dismissed. That $28 million could have been better spent in other ways. We believe that, unfortunately, this giant bureaucracy will not deliver what is required for children and for families in New Zealand.

I also would like to correct United Future on a point that its members constantly make as they try to ensure that they have a monopoly claim on families—which they do in a rather condescending manner. I remind that party that family-friendly policies were around prior to its coming to Parliament, and they will be around long after it leaves.

The Families Commission will not do exactly what United Future believes it will do. We all know, even without a Families Commission, that the family is fundamental to the optimal development of children, and that many current social problems are the result of a lack of support of that traditional institution. I would like to think that the legislation introducing the proposed commission would have recognised that, but I believe that, in this instance, it absolutely fails to do so, and will just exacerbate the current situation. The cumbersome structure that is proposed in the bill, and the duplication of tasks that are undertaken by a whole lot of other agencies, mean that the goals of the commission will never be realised, despite the eloquence of United Future members. New Zealand First believes that the commission is totally neutered. It is political expediency and a sell-out of traditional New Zealand families. It was most interesting, too, to see that the appointment process for the commissioners is not included in this legislation.

I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Families Commission Bill. It is very worrying that the creep of political correctness that this bill represents is now overwhelming New Zealand society. This bill promotes a view that all family types are equal. Instead of supporting the traditional nuclear family structure, which has been the cornerstone of society for ever, as demonstrated by all the evidence, this bill is now promoting divergence and difference, and stating that those are the types of family structures that we in New Zealand should be celebrating. My having said all of that is not to say that other family groups are not successful and do not do a wonderful job in raising children, because they do. There are many families that struggle against enormous odds and manage to raise wonderful children in the face of very difficult challenges. But surely the role of Government and of legislation is to promote success—to actually promote the type of organisation or structure that will achieve success for the majority of citizens.

That used to be the goal of Government and the role of legislation. But, then, my experiences are of what used to happen before a socialist Labour Government came along. Many of us in Opposition are learning about socialism under the term of the Labour Government, because the socialist-feminist agenda promoted by the Government is to undermine the traditional family, to undermine the role of fathers in the family, to promote diversity, and to promote instability, and—guess what—by doing those things, the Labour Government simply promotes a growing group of people who rely on a strong Government to provide support for them. That is Labour’s agenda. It does not want to see families consisting of people who are strong and able to get on with their lives independently of the State, because those people, in general, do not vote for a socialist Government.

I feel really disappointed on behalf of all those good New Zealanders who voted for United Future because they thought that party would come into Parliament and promote and support the family unit. When those people look at this bill, they see that the United Future party has essentially sold out. It has sold out to a socialist Government that wants to undermine the nuclear family. A whole bunch of people who put those eight MPs into Parliament must be sitting there right now wondering what on earth they did at the last election. What we now have is a party that has sold out to the Labour Government. United Future is now supporting Labour’s anti-family agenda. United Future members might say that is not correct, but I urge them to read about the historical roots of socialism and to understand what it is that socialist parties are engaged in, and then to have a look at the record of this Labour Government. They will find that it is doing everything to undermine the family, in spite of its fine words.

What we now have is United Future undermining the family to the tune of $28 million of taxpayers’ money. The Families Commission Bill will create a huge bureaucracy. I understand that the Commissioner for Children’s funding is in the region of $1 million. The funding for the Families Commission is 28 times larger. Although the bill makes the functions of the commission sound really good, in Parliament today we are passing legislation that will give $28 million to supporting an agenda that denigrates the nuclear family, marginalises fathers, encourages dependency, and makes the situation of families in New Zealand a lot worse. That is why the ACT party is opposing this bill. It is costing us $28 million.

I always like to follow the words of Dr Muriel Newman, because they are nothing short of entertaining—always. They are something like The X Files, I always find: the entire world is a series of conspiracies. It is an amazing mind to try to get inside, when one listens to Dr Muriel Newman talk. I notice that over the last little while there have been a large number of her articles, in which she has been raving on in a very similar fashion, on the net. They are often sent off to newspapers or publications. I have not seen one single one of them published, and I imagine that that is because people can recognise stupidity when they see it.

I want to reflect on what I think are the two core points that have been made by—

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that this debate is a robust one, but I think that the Minister just tipped over the edge a little, in terms of denigration, back then. If you had have been listening very carefully, you might have pushed him a little back on to the straight and narrow in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say two things to the member. The first is that under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 people are allowed leeway in order to respond to the previous speaker. Secondly, members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It is personal reflections that are out of order.

I want to reflect on what I think are two core points that have been made in this debate. The first, I guess—and I respect this point of view—is that we should not do it. The view that we should just not have a Families Commission would seem to be the point made by most of the people who are speaking on the Opposition side of the Chamber. But we are going to do it, and we are going to do it not because the Families Commission is a sop to United Future but because this is a minority Government. In other words, parties get to advance a range of policies in a public relations environment that they would not get elsewhere. Just as New Zealand First advanced policies when it was in coalition with the National Party, we are seeing in this Parliament the advancing of a policy that comes from a party other than the Government. There is nothing of a sop about that; it is simply a fact of life that parties can do that now, in this environment. Frankly, I welcome that. I think it is a good thing that we have a multi-party environment where other ideas can rise to the surface, and can be advanced and debated in this Chamber. In this case, United Future has quite properly made that possible.

The second point that people frequently make really hinges around whether we should advance privilege, and only talk about one kind of family—which is usually referred to, I have to say, as the traditional nuclear family. We could get into a very long debate about that, but I say to people that I do not think members mean what they are advancing. The traditional nuclear family, as it is often called, is a relatively recent invention even in Western society.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Not an invention.

Well, it is a way of organising the family that stems largely from Victorian times in Britain. If Ms Tariana Turia were here—but Taito Phillip Field is—she would refer, as he refers, to the traditional family, whether Māori or from the Pacific Islands, as an extended form of family, which may well have seen grandparents, or aunties and uncles, bringing up children rather than their biological parents. Those societies would certainly have relied on a large network of people, who may or many not have been biologically associated with those children, and they would traditionally have had that family structure for a long period of time. So the notion that we would start to say we should have a piece of legislation that defends the traditional nuclear family, as people have said, because it goes back to Genesis is just factually wrong and stupid to talk about. It is a stupid thing to say, and it has no merit because it does not reflect history. Nor does it reflect the direct experience of a large number of people in this Parliament.

The other thing we are told about the nuclear family being traditional is that it is made up of mum, dad, and the kids. In the sense that we usually applied that in New Zealand, it meant mum being at home and looking after the kids, and dad being at work. Now, I know that Katherine Rich does not support that. I do not criticise her at all for being here in Parliament. It is her right to organise her family in a way that she believes will serve her children well—

💬 Phil Heatley: You’re so generous.

I am not being generous. I am just saying that when we get up and advance those ideas about the traditional nuclear family, we should realise we have already passed on from that tradition in this country. Everybody in this Parliament supports the new organisation, because they support the right of women to choose to go to work—to go outside the home to earn a living. They also support, quite rightly, the fact that it may be that males stay at home and provide the ongoing care of children. So let us not get hung up on a silly notion that this debate is about the traditional nuclear family being somehow dragged out of history and preserved in legislation—as if the family ever existed in that form, traditionally, or as if anybody in this Parliament wants it to exist in the way that perhaps my mother and father experienced it, with my mother staying at home to look after us, and the breadwinner, dad, working outside the home. We do not believe in that any more in this Parliament, and the notion that we would preserve it in legislation in this way is clearly something that no one wants. Those are empty debates.

I suggest, therefore, that the most sensible line of argument that has come through here today—and I have heard it from National speakers, as well as from speakers all around this Chamber—is that we should not be arguing about the form of the family but should want good outcomes from every kind of family. No one in this Chamber doubts that it is a good idea for kids to be brought up by their parents. That is a great idea to have. I was brought up by my parents; I liked that. I am sure there are other people all around here who also experienced that—but other people who did not. Yes, it is good if kids can stay with their parents and be brought up as children by them, but, of course, that is increasingly not the case in this society. We have extended families, we have whānau, and we have sole parent families—we have a diversity of families. Should we not as a Parliament be dedicated, as speakers have said, to the functions of all kinds of families?

I heard before, from a National Party speaker, that the key functions of families are easy to detect. It is common sense, as well as research-founded knowledge, that if kids get good support from families, if they get good nurturing, if they get love, and if they get consistent boundaries for their behaviour, they will be pretty well certain to turn out OK. I hope that the Families Commission will commit itself to ensuring that every child comes out of every kind of family with those outcomes. That is what I hope. Some kind of notion that it will dedicate itself to advancing only one kind of fictitious form of family would be a complete travesty of public policy, and I do not think anybody in the Committee would want us to have that. We want mums to be able to work outside the home. We want fathers to take responsibility for their kids, all the way through their lives. We want children to grow up in an environment where they will become dependable adults, just as they, hopefully, are able to depend on adults to bring them up. That is the kind of vision I think that United Future has been expressing extremely well, and that is why the Government has been comfortable to facilitate this bill and put it through.

I know that when I sit down we will go back to a silly debate about the traditional nuclear family and so on, but I want to put on the record the fact that we as a Government stand for kids coming out of every single kind of family with the best possible outcomes. That is what we stand for, that is the vision of the Families Commission, and that is what it is hoped the Families Commission will achieve. If it does that, then every kid in this country will be thankful.

I commend the Minister for his exposition of what, I take it, is United Future’s and his vision for the family. It is great, but I do not think that the Families Commission is the way to realise it. The first thing I would like to point out about this part of the bill is in relation to the Government amendment to clause 7(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey, which states: “… the Commission must identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance … (a) families’ resilience: (b) families’ strengths.” That sounds all well and good, and uses the latest in politically correct, sociological jargon, but I ask what, exactly, it means in terms of the context and functions of the Families Commission.

Is that organisation going to carry out strength-based social work practice with abused and neglected children, as Department of Child, Youth and Family Services staff continue to try to do, against the odds? Will the commission work alongside families on benefits who are heavily in debt, with never enough money to live on, in order to help parents to find the strength within themselves to carry on living without abusing and neglecting their children? Will we see the families commissioners out in the community, helping the parents of children with special needs to access the full educational, health, and other services they so badly need, in the face of systemic intransigence and a failure to provide those services at the level that is needed? I do not think so. I do not think this $28 million Families Commission will be doing any of those things. Its functions as outlined in clauses 7 and 8 are not about any of those matters, or about a myriad of other practical applications of assistance and strength-based practice to families in this country. I believe that using the language of social and community work practice and applying it here, as that Supplementary Order Paper does, deliberately creates a misleading impression of what this bill is about.

Going on to the actual functions of the commission, those revolve around advocating for families generally, encouraging informed debate, increasing public awareness of the importance of the parenting role, promoting research into matters relating to families, and a whole lot more in a similar vein. Does the Labour Government not understand that there is already a vast array of church and community organisations out there, carrying out those very functions? Does Labour not realise that the Ministry of Social Development has hundreds of policy analysts already undertaking mountains of research on the sociology and economics of families and children in New Zealand? I am sure Labour does understand that all too clearly, and, as other colleagues from the Social Services Committee have already pointed out, this commission is purely and simply an electoral trade-off that will not necessarily add anything at all to the sum total of good being done for families in New Zealand. I welcome the fact that the Minister has acknowledged that in the speech just prior to mine.

In particular, I cannot see the commission doing anything for low-income families, who continue to suffer disproportionately, despite the welcome decrease in unemployment and our so-called boom economy. The Government should not be pouring this money into a Families Commission. If it was serious about its Labour heritage and traditions it would, instead, put the $28 million into things like providing better funding for community groups that work at the grassroots level to help families in all their various forms. It would put the money into reforming the benefit system, so that benefit levels are adequate, and so that family support and family assistance apply right across the board to all families, and keep pace with inflation. It would put the money into ensuring that both low-income worker and beneficiary families get all the entitlements they are allowed, and into doing more to address the hardships generated by the way the benefit system operates, including addressing issues around the abatement levels and the levels of debt repayment.

Finally, I believe that the Government should be prioritising the $28 million not into the Families Commission but into doing more to support existing commissions, like the Children’s Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. It is ridiculous that we have the Children’s Commissioner and her staff trying to do a fantastically huge job with 12 staff and a budget of around $1.7 million a year, while this new commission will get around $7 million a year. That is out of hand, disproportionate, and uncalled for, and I think it will be a sad day when this bill goes through.

I must say I am somewhat surprised by United Future. If this was indeed its flagship policy, the big win that it got when it knocked on Helen Clark’s door on 28 July 2002 to say it wished to be associated with her Government, I would have thought that when we passed this flagship policy in the House, United Future would demand of the Labour Party a clause by clause debate on the issues in this bill. But, no, it has not done that. I would even have thought that United Future’s leader, Peter Dunne, might have taken the time to take a call on the matter—but no. That is a huge disappointment for those of us in the Opposition, opposing this bill. I will put some good questions to this Committee: why is this flagship policy not being debated clause by clause, why did United Future not demand that it be debated clause by clause, and why has Peter Dunne not taken a call on it? The answer is here on my left: Katherine Rich was quite right to say that it is simply because there is no substance to the bill. That is what she said.

I was intrigued by Minister Maharey’s discourse on the family and on how wide-ranging it was. I was intrigued by his definitions of the family and how he encompassed all in his definition of the family. It was a beautiful thing to see him hug all and sundry, in all the situations in the lives of New Zealanders. That was a great thing. I was intrigued that originally in this legislation “family”, according to Minister Maharey, encompassed gang members, rugby teams, and anyone else who had a psychological attachment and a deep love for one another. We have seen Minister Maharey spend some time on examining families in New Zealand. It will be a great relief to my mother to learn when she reads this bill that, thankfully, I still remain related to her, and she to me. I am her son, and she will be delighted at that. I only wish that my grandparents—Grandma Heatley, which nobody would have guessed, and, on the other side of the family, Grandma Needham—could have had Mr Maharey’s confirmation before they died that I was their grandson, worthy of the great inheritance that would pass down to me: I am family, I am blood, and I carry the family mantle. I thank Mr Maharey for securing that for me.

I guess I wish that I was a member of all the other families that Mr Maharey would have liked to see me be a member of: rugby clubs, gangs, the Mongrel Mob, and various others. Perhaps I could have been a family for the National Party. Perhaps he would have encompassed me in Labour, United Future, or somewhere else. Mr Maharey would have liked to see me in all types of families. But no, he has decided on the basis of his vast study that my grandparents, and certainly my mother, father, sisters, and even my children, will be reassured by this bill that, in fact, “family” includes a group of people related by marriage, blood, adoption, an extended family where there are two or more persons living together as a family, and a whānau or other culturally recognised group. Maharey says solo parent families are as good as traditional families. Good for him! I am glad he has taken the last 2 months to come up with that evidence, and could give it to this Committee. Good for him! I am glad that he has confirmed that all the solo parents out there are doing the best they can in difficult situations—often struggling.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member that he may not refer to a Minister by his or her surname. It must be by the full title or portfolio. That is in Speaker’s ruling 24/5.

Is “Minister Maharey” OK then?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Minister?

Maharey.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is acceptable.

OK, thank you, Mr Chairman. Minister Maharey has said he has confirmed that all those family groups are doing very, very well and are all successful in this country. That leaves one wondering why we need a Families Commission, given that all families are successful and all can be recognised and acknowledged.

I move, That the question be now put.

If anybody believes that this Act is to do something for the families of this country, then I invite him or her to read the “Purpose”. I thought when I heard Peter Dunne describe this bill as the “Jewel in the Crown” of United Future’s political agenda, then the purpose must be something worthwhile. “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish the Commission”. Then it goes on to say how important that is: “(b) state the Commission’s functions and powers: (c) require the Commission—(i) to have regard to certain matters; and (ii) to comply with certain other obligations.” That is the purpose of this Families Commission Bill.

I thought there had to be more to it than that, so I looked at the functions in clause 7: “Commission’s main function (1) The Commission’s main function is to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” That sounds all very fine. That sounds quite worthwhile.

“(2) That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” What the dickens is all this about? The commission will cost $28 million and will not look after a family, or a group of families that have a particular problem, or area of concern. Spending $28 million on a Families Commission, $1.7 million, we are told this afternoon, on the Commissioner for Children, and $28 million on this, is an absolute disgrace.

The definition of “family” in this bill is not good enough. It is too wide ranging. One might as well call this bill “The People’s Bill” as it defends everybody and everything, but not specifically. In my name I have put an amendment to this particular part—a Supplementary Order Paper that defines “family”. It should go into the interpretation, and I will read it: “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.”

My amendment will preclude two homosexual males having the future rights to adopt children. Under the current Families Commission Bill, that is not only distinctly possible, it is more than likely. We heard United Future members stand up and say they supported the rights of children here, there, and everywhere. I say to this Committee, and to those members in particular: is that what they want—homosexual males to be able to adopt children with equal rights to heterosexual parents? I do not believe that that is what United Future stands for. Certainly, its support base does not believe that that is what it stands for.

This bill went through the select committee and came out exactly as is. As a result of that, the Hon Peter Dunne—if I can use the term the Hon Peter Dunne—wrote to every submitter, or to a large proportion of submitters, accusing political parties of being venal. I think the words he used were “unprecedented and venal political stunt”. “Venal” means “open to bribery and corruption”. I ask the United Future members, and particularly Judy Turner—because she is playing a prominent role in this bill, and I have stood on the political stage with her on many occasions—do they believe that I am open to bribery and corruption?

💬 Judy Turner: The meaning of the word is also “unprincipled”.

Does she believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? The Oxford Dictionary defines “venal” as being “open to bribery and corruption”. Do they believe that Craig McNair is open to bribery and corruption?

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Not Craig!

Or Barbara Stewart? Or my colleagues? I say to Mr Duynhoven that this is serious. I have taken real offence to this because that member, the Hon Peter Dunne, wrote to every submitter and accused the Opposition members—because we did not agree with this bill, because it came back from select committee as is, which is not unusual and I am sure he would agree with that—of being “venal”.

This has been a very interesting debate. Hearing what the Opposition parties are trying to say in order to defend the indefensible position that they take against the families of New Zealand says more to us about what National, ACT, New Zealand First, and the Greens believe about families than it does about anything else. They are quick to say that families are the foundational unit of our society; that families are failing at huge costs to the taxpayer; and that the benefits of the family are being lost as families disintegrate. But they have done nothing at all in this Parliament or previously to help resurrect the family and save that situation.

What have National and New Zealand First—at the times that they have been in Government—done in order to help salvage the family, to promote it, and to strengthen it? Nothing whatsoever. Instead, as soon as United Future arrived in this House, New Zealand First and ACT immediately appointed spokespeople for the family.

All of a sudden they think they need a spokesperson for the family. They did not have one before. National, probably because it was in disarray at that time, or perhaps because it was so embarrassed that it has never had a spokesperson for the family, took until a couple of months ago to appoint a spokesperson for the family. What have those spokespeople done?

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is meant to be a robust debate on a bill. This guy is going on about whether we have members with responsibility for the family. For his enlightenment I tell him that New Zealand First is firmly committed to the family, always has been, and has had a spokesperson on it for all of its terms in Parliament.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is not actually a point of order. The member is coming to the point now. I was giving him leeway under Speaker’s ruling 38/1. I ask him to come to the point.

I am interested to hear that New Zealand First is for the family. It may now change its vote and support this bill, which is there in order to support the family. But let us just look at the two, and only two, arguments that have been put up against this bill by the Opposition parties. The first argument—typically Judith Collins’ comment—is that a family constitutes mum, dad, and the kids. Now this is a party that also at the same time says that it believes that a child’s welfare and best interests are paramount when it comes to family life. So what are they saying to the children of this nation? They are saying to them that if they are not in a situation with a mother and a father, they do not belong to a family. They are saying to every child with a sole parent bringing that child up that he or she is not part of a family. They are saying to widows and widowers that they are not a family. They are saying to children being raised by their grandparents that they are not a family. New Zealand First is saying to children being brought up in a de facto situation that they are not part of a family. New Zealand First is saying to foster families that those children do not belong to families. They are saying to children whose parents have been killed and who—

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would be keen to know what this guy stands for, not what he thinks we are for or against. I draw your attention, Mr Chairperson, to the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table, in my name on behalf of New Zealand First, that clearly illustrates that we recognise de facto families.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much. It is a debatable issue.

If New Zealand First believes that de facto families are biologically or legally connected, then I suggest they have another look at their definition. They are saying that children brought up by de facto families do not come within that definition.

So, what are we looking at in a families perspective? We are trying to find an environment and to strengthen families in New Zealand, wherever children find themselves placed. United Future is looking at the welfare and best interests of children. We are saying to children that whatever environment they find themselves in, we are setting up a commission that will look at strengthening that environment to improve their prospects in life. We are doing that by setting up a commission that will have an overarching look at the whole situation of families in New Zealand and at ways to improve that.

That brings me to the second argument—the only other argument put up against this bill. It is an argument that has been put up by National and by ACT. They say that this is just a bureaucracy; that it is just putting money into an environment where it could be better spent at ground level. That is what the Greens say. When ACT and the Greens agree on something, one has to think there is something suspicious about it. It is like saying to the All Blacks: “You don’t need a coach. Why should we pay for a coach to sit up there in the grandstand looking out of his window at the play and giving directions from above? Why don’t we just pay the players a little bit more money, then they can go on the field and do what they think is best to do in running the team?”.

The Families Commission will be a coach. It will provide an overarching view of families. It will look at what is happening now in families. It will address where the problems are. It will look at what is lacking in families and family education. It will carry out and implement research to try to fill in the gaps in knowledge that we have about families and how they relate. Then it will encourage the direction of funding into those areas where we see there is a weakness.

The argument Judith Collins put up that this is a bureaucracy, typifies the approach that National takes in terms of all these policies, which is: just keep throwing money at the grassroots instead of doing any planning at all, any oversight, or having any sense of direction.

I seek leave for the honourable member to have an extension of time of 1 minute.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows he cannot seek leave for another member. Please be seated.

He has made some comments, and I would like to know his view on homosexual adoption.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has been warned by the previous Chairperson.

Have I? Have I got a yellow card?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It was not a point of order previously.

💬 Murray Smith: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Hon Member: There was no point of order.

💬 Murray Smith: If the Committee wants to encourage me to have extra time, I will seek leave for an extension to my time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member was absolutely right—there was no point of order.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. Craig McNair has been seeking the call.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I might have misheard, but I thought that the member did actually seek leave, and I thought that the question of leave should be put.

💬 Jill Pettis: He was only joking.

No, he sought leave. Maybe, Madam Chair, you could get the member to clarify that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on it. The member was speaking to a non-existent point of order.

💬 Murray Smith: Madam Chair, I did seek leave for an extension. I did so at the invitation of New Zealand First, whose members want to hear more of what I have to say. I will seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has sought leave for an extension of time. He really should just seek another call—that is what he should be doing. But he can seek leave. Is there any objection to that? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. During that point of order about seeking leave, Jill Pettis was yelling across the Chamber: “He was only joking.” My understanding is that there is supposed to be silence in the Chamber, as there is now, when a member raises a point of order. If you are going to allow a member to shout across the House and put words in the mouth of the person taking the point of order, that is unacceptable, and I just raise that matter with you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There were actually about three people speaking during that seeking of leave. I give members an overall warning that there is no discussion at all during points of order. They will be heard in silence. Everyone knows that.

In speaking to this part, I start by saying that any party that cares about the welfare of children must celebrate and support committed, enduring family relationships. We in New Zealand First are not opposing this bill because of opposition to the family. We are not opposed to the family unit, at all—whatsoever. But New Zealand First will continue to fight to protect our social fabric and traditional family values, and that is the point we are trying to make here in our speeches. New Zealand First does not support the Government’s legislation for a Families Commission, as it still fails, we believe, to properly define a family or to set out structures that will provide children with a safe environment, and that is a major issue, as my colleague Barbara Stewart mentioned in her speech.

I believe that the bill introduced by the Government, and supported by United Future, still broadly defines the family group. Mr Baldock said in his speech that we should not exclude. But what is wrong with promoting a traditional, proven family unit that has worked for 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years? That is what we are getting at. This Government would have us believe that the two-parent family is history. It seems that the Government’s preference is to promote and support diverse family compositions almost to the exclusion of the two-parent, mum and dad family. That is what I am trying to get at here.

💬 Moana Mackey: What?

I would like Moana Mackey to take a call on this, but all she wants to do is move that the question be now put. If she disagrees with me, why does she not take a call and tell me why she disagrees with me?

I believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on promoting and supporting family structures that are independent, that work, and that have worked for the last 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years, and so on—right back to Adam and Eve. New Zealand First has always been an advocate of the importance of the family to the future of New Zealand. It is time for United Future and the Government, I believe, to stop being so PC and to ensure that traditional family values are not lost, and I do not think that is too much to ask.

New Zealand First has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the politically correct Families Commission as proposed by this Government. The social fabric of our society continues to be seriously eroded by the promotion of so-called liberal policies, such as prostitution law reform—and I will not focus on that, because I am not speaking about it. But the family is fundamental to the optimal development of children, and many current social problems are a result of a lack of support for this traditional institution. The question we have to ask is whether this commission will better support the family unit, and I say that in its current form it will not. How do we justify $28 million being spent on it? I have no problem with $28 million being spent on a Families Commission, but not the commission in its current form.

A couple of speeches ago my colleague Peter Brown said that, in all fairness to United Future members, they probably honestly do not believe in the current definition of the family, and I saw that Murray Smith—I was probably the only one who noticed, because I was at the back, on the other side—disagreed with that comment by Mr Brown. Murray Smith honestly believed—it seems, from what he was saying—that the current definition in Supplementary Order Paper 173 is a good definition, and that his view on that issue has not changed. Well, I do not think the people who voted for United Future support this definition in any way. United Future’s support of the Government over this bill has, I believe, cost United Future a lot of its credibility, and has won its supporters nothing but the sop of a family commission where the definition of a family is likely to offend, I would say, most, if not all, of its supporters.

I move, That the question be now put.