Families Commission Bill

This part includes the schedules, I think.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, it does.

I can see—[Interruption] I did check this with the Clerk before.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to check the bill, but I have been advised that the debate is on clause 60, which relates to schedule 4. Clause 60 states: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.”

💬 John Carter: Yes, that is correct, which covers a number of schedules.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, just schedule 4, and then we take the schedules.

💬 John Carter: So are we having two separate debates? Are we having a debate now on just the amendments to schedule 4, and then there is a separate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will just clarify that. It is my understanding—

💬 John Carter: My understanding is that Part 2 covers all the schedules, but if there are two debates, that is fine. We are very happy with that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We will just double-check the resolution from the—

💬 David Benson-Pope: On the agreement of the Committee, and on the agreement of Mr Carter, I would be pleased to ask for leave for there to be one debate on this part and the schedules. That would accommodate Ms Rich.

💬 John Carter: I do not know that the member will get leave.

💬 David Benson-Pope: One question, rather than two, would be sensible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is objection. We will just be very clear that we are now debating Part 2, which contains clause 60: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” So members can speak to schedule 4 now, then can speak to the rest of the schedules in the next question.

💬 John Carter: So there are two questions to be addressed?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes.

It was very interesting to hear the contribution from Murray Smith on this bill, and to see that, although he sought leave to extend his time to speak about this bill, that leave was denied by Labour. I had thought that the whole point of this Committee stage, from the perspective of United Future, was to sing the praises of this bill from the rooftops. So it is interesting that the Committee stage is being rushed through. I can understand why. I can see why the Minister would be embarrassed to have to sit in the chair while we discuss the various parts in the bill. He knows that this Families Commission will do nothing for the most disadvantaged families in New Zealand. I think if the Minister were able to make decisions about the $28 million, he would prefer to put that sum into areas like the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services or Work and Income, or into a new project to get people back into work, or into something that would actually make a difference at the front line for New Zealand families. I was surprised to hear Murray Smith say he thought this Families Commission would be a coach of New Zealand families.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but clause 60—

I am getting there, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There are two matters in clause 60—let me explain. It relates to the Public Finance Act and to provisions of the Ombudsmen Act. So the debate is very narrow. There will be a wider debate on the schedules.

I seek clarification. I do understand, though, that I am able, when I take a call, to refer in passing to comments that have been made by other members, before I get on to other parts of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member must be relevant to what is being spoken to.

Clause 60 relates to schedule 4, which looks at amendments to other Acts, and it is very important to see there reference to the Public Finance Act. I think that once again gives me an opportunity to talk about the expenditure that this Government will have to make to put in place the Families Commission. This bill was set out—

💬 Mark Peck: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a very narrow clause, and all that the amendment to schedule 4 does is insert in that Act the words “Families Commission”. It does not bring in any other matters that the member could possibly canvass in the way she is doing. The legislation has been to a select committee. My submission to you, Madam Chair, is that she is totally out of order in her comments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is a narrow debate. It is about the Families Commission and the provisions within the Public Finance Act only.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If you look at Part 2, “Amendments to other Acts”, which includes clause 60, “Amendments set out in Schedule 4”, you will see it is very difficult to debate this clause without making reference to schedule 4, which I was doing before I was rudely interrupted by that member. I was making reference to the Public Finance Act.

💬 Mark Peck: It is a very simple matter. Part 2 deals with amendments to other Acts of Parliament. The other Acts of Parliament are simply being amended by the insertion of two words, “Families Commission”. There is no wide debate on that. All that the speaker can possibly do within the Standing Orders is to say whether “Families Commission” should be included in the two pieces of legislation being amended by clause 60, which is Part 2 of this bill—nothing more, nothing less. The bill has been to a select committee. The member has been here for some time; she should know that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. However, the part is about the commission relating to the Public Finance Act and all the provisions within that Act. I think the member was trying to get to that.

I sat on the select committee that discussed this bill. I have read the bill, unlike that member over there, who took no part in evaluating the Families Commission Bill. As I said, I was speaking to Part 2. Part 2 relates to amendments to other Acts. If members look at clause 60, they will see that it states: “Amendments set out in Schedule 4.” I challenge that member over there to tell me how one debates Part 2 without making reference to schedule 4. It states: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” Although schedule 4 looks like a small amendment to that member, in terms—

💬 Mark Peck: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I will not sit here and listen to the member’s reflections on me in that respect. I ask her to withdraw and apologise for her derogatory comments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member was being interrupted by you, Mr Peck. I think the member is entitled to a fair go in relation to what she was speaking about—that is, the Public Finance Act.

I would like to clarify one point. When I was speaking about a small amendment to the bill, I was not referring to that member over there, although he obviously took it as that. I was referring to very significant pieces of legislation—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is entitled to a fair speech. Would the member please desist now.

It seems that there are a few sensitivities flying around today.

Although the insertion of the words “Families Commission” into the Ombudsmen Act in schedule 4 looks like a small one, it is actually quite a significant change in this case, because it means that the Ombudsmen Act now oversees this particular bill. Likewise for the Public Finance Act, in respect of which schedule 4 states: “Insert in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Schedules, in each case in its appropriate alphabetical order, the following item: ‘Families Commission’.” We see two small words, but it just goes to show that when one sets up a $28 million bureaucracy like this, one has to rewrite lots of other pieces of legislation at great cost to the community.

If I understand it correctly, schedule 4 is quite a significant amendment. By putting the Families Commission under the control of the Ombudsmen Act, we are saying that Family Commission matters, for want of a better term, can be ruled upon by the Ombudsman. Maybe the Minister will give us some guidance on that. Is that not what this measure means? Does it mean that the Ombudsman can look at issues that stem from the Families Commission? Maybe Mr Peck can explain that to me, because it is a sincere question.

I thought the Ombudsman looked at individual cases. If people have an issue about something, then they write to the Ombudsman—that was my understanding. The bill states: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families in connection with a particular case or issues.” We are actually putting this bill under the control of the Ombudsman, but we are saying that individual families, or a collection of families with an individual problem, cannot go to the Ombudsman to ask that it be solved.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: I would answer the question, but the member is being silly again.

The Minister has said something. I think everybody would appreciate some guidance.

💬 Hon Steve Maharey: Wasting my time.

It is wasting his time. He cannot be bothered. The truth is that the Minister does not know. Maybe United Future members can tell us—they are claiming the credit for this bill. Does putting this commission under the control of the Ombudsmen Act give people who are appealing to the Families Commissioner the right to write to the Ombudsman if they get a less than satisfactory answer? If it does not, what is the point of putting it under the Ombudsman’s charge? Why do we bother putting it there if the Ombudsman cannot have any say on an individual family issue?

I think that that is a legitimate question. I ask anybody on the Government benches, including United Future members, to explain how the Ombudsman can have control over the Families Commission but not have any say in matters that affect an individual family who might have approached the Families Commission for a solution. Maybe the officials can answer, as there is dead silence from Government members. Maybe the officials will know—I see they are looking at something. I think the officials have recognised that there is a valid point here. Maybe the Minister would like to consult them and explain to the Committee.

This has not gone through the select committee process in the normal sense, and I think we are entitled to know whether the Ombudsman could have a conflict here. Could a family that writes to the Ombudsman over a particular issue involving the Families Commission be told by the Ombudsman that he or she cannot get involved because the commission cannot deal with individual family cases? If it is the case that there is no right of appeal from the Families Commission to anywhere, why are we spending $28 million and saying that this bill is in the interests of children and families, when it is not?

If putting this commission under the Ombudsmen Act just means that the Family Commissioner can go to the Ombudsman for any problem that he or she might have in the operation of the Families Commission, why do we not say so? The impression one gets by reading this bill is that the Ombudsman will be open to families who have some concern about the way the Family Commissioner does his or her job. But we then look at the function and, as I said earlier, it does not allow the commission to act as an advocate for the interests of a particular family, or particular families, in connection with a particular case or issue. That does not make sense to me, but I am but a simple sailor, and I think the Minister should take a call to explain how that rests with him, and how he understands it will work in practice. Indeed, I invite United Future members to take a call, because this bill is meant to be the jewel in their crown.

We are discussing schedule 4, which, as we know, is to make sure the Families Commission is in line with the Ombudsmen Act and the Public Finance Act. We have legislation here that will cost the taxpayers $28 million, and it has to be inserted under the provisions of the Public Finance Act so that Parliament can not only appropriate that taxpayers’ money, but also adequately scrutinise the spending of it. The Public Finance Act provides a framework for the parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s management of the assets and liabilities of the Crown, and we are now talking about a $28 million spending line. It provides for a select committee to scrutinise the work and performance of the Families Commission to make sure it is doing what it is it is set up to do.

That is where we will have some trouble in the future, because as we go further in this debate it appears to me that what the Government is setting up is basically a $28 million spin-machine to indoctrinate New Zealand with its view of the family—with its world view, so to speak, as it relates to social issues. That is a great concern to many New Zealanders, particularly those people who really did think that the Government was going to support traditional families. We now understand very clearly that that is not the intention of this legislation. The Government’s agenda is simply to promote, support, and normalise diversity and marginalise what we have always thought of as being the normal type of family in New Zealand.

I would also like to use this opportunity to respond to a statement made by the Minister about how traditional nuclear families are a relatively new invention.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No.

This is a debate. The Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, as we said before, the member must speak to Part 2.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The other part has been dealt with.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify this point for me. This is a debate in the Committee stage of the Families Commission Bill. We are being given only one call per part in this debate. The Minister took a call and criticised my contribution to the last part. This is the first opportunity I have to respond to his criticisms.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member will be seated.

Are you telling me that I cannot respond to his criticisms?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member knows very well that members can speak only to the part that is being debated at the moment. I have already ruled on that point in this debate. Please continue.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I need to clarify my point. Can you tell me when members get to actually answer the personal criticisms made by Ministers against them?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member knows that that is a part of debate.

Well, when?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That debate has finished.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on the point. The member will be seated.

The fact the bill is also subject to the Ombudsmen Act means that we will be able to ask the Ombudsman to help us with questions on issues that the Families Commission would be working on. I suggest that one of the first issues the commission might have to deal with is the origins of the family. We will be able to ask the Families Commission questions under the Official Information Act about its research on the origins of the family, which go back to the 11th century AD, in spite of claims that the family is a modern precept.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Possibly back further than that.

Yes, the family probably does go back much further. I have some new information from the library that shows that.

However, the Ombudsmen Act allows the Ombudsman to debate with the Minister and the commission if they refuse to give such information to members of Parliament. Members of the Opposition will probably be using the Ombudsman rather a lot under this Government, because this Government is not open and transparent, like it pretended to be when it was elected. In fact, for most of the regular information asked from this Government under the Official Information Act, we ended up by appealing to the Ombudsman. That is why the Ombudsman is so busy under Labour.

However, I am very pleased that the Ombudsman will be there to assist members of Parliament. When one looks at the projects the commission is set up to be able to do, I suspect that it will be working on a lot of controversial information. In general, it will be only through the Ombudsman that members of Parliament on the Opposition benches will be able to figure out what the commission is doing.

The Public Finance Act means that members can question how the $28 million will be spent. That is a huge amount of money.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take a very brief call on this part and also schedule 4. Certainly, the intention is that the legislation would be able to dovetail into other appropriate legislative frameworks that exist, and that is what this part reflects. It has always been the intention that the commission will be accountable for its actions, and a framework is in place for it to be accountable for the work it puts out.

People have talked about the fact that the commission is not given the mandate to investigate individual cases. There has been much accusation from the Opposition that this commission will duplicate the work of other agencies, and that is the very reason why this clause has been put in. The predominant work of the commission will be to advocate for families in that general sense. However, we certainly checked with the drafters at the time that submitters talked to us about that, and it was very clear that there was nothing in the legislation that stops or forbids the commission from using a particular case, where it illustrates a particular trend in families. It may illustrate that by referring to a particular family situation, and advocate for a particular cause based around a particular circumstance that illustrates where that is happening to other people. In that case, the Ombudsman may want to be involved or may want to be referred to.

The commission will be obliged to refer to any other agencies where a case or a situation is presented to it that is not the direct mandate of the commission. Therefore, again, it may be appropriate for the commission to refer to the Ombudsman anything that comes across its path that is not its direct mandate to deal with.

That is the obligation within the Act, and it is strengthened absolutely within the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That is really all I wanted to say on that. This dovetails this legislation appropriately with the supporting legislation around it, and we welcome it.

I move, That the question be now put.