Families Commission Bill

Clause 2 of schedule 1 is very important. It states that the functions of the commission must be performed “efficiently and effectively” by the board. That will prove to be very difficult, because if one advocates for everything, then one advocates for nothing. If one stands for everything, then one ends up standing for nothing. So we come back again to the definition of what a family is, and the definition of what the Families Commission will do once it is set up. According to the way the bill is set out, the Families Commission covers every single New Zealander many times over. The National Party has argued that we already have a representative body of New Zealanders. It is called the New Zealand Parliament, and if we look around this Chamber today we will see people who represent different groups around the country, with a greater budget, I have to say—[Interruption] At least I have one, I say to that member.

In terms of the efficient and effective management of the Families Commission, the board members will have to say that they cannot fulfil their obligations with such a nebulous and wide definition of what they are supposed to do. We heard from Murray Smith that the role of the Families Commission is supposed to be to act as a coach for all New Zealand families. With a budget of $28 million, it will be very difficult for the commission to touch the lives of all New Zealand families. At the moment the definition is so broad that it includes every single New Zealander many times over. There will be significant duplication when it comes to the work the commission is to do. The policy group within the Ministry of Social Development already has hundreds of analysts studying the sorts of issues that this commission will look at.

I can see why the Government has made sure that this bill has not had much time in the Committee, and why it has been structured so that it comprises only a couple of parts. This is a very short bill, and it really is an embarrassment to the Government. Government members know that this bill will not make a difference to New Zealand families. There is no way that the commission can provide effective and efficient advocacy for them when the organisation will be a bureaucratic nightmare because it stands for every New Zealander, on a shoestring budget. This Parliament runs with a more significant budget than that; it is the true House of Representatives. Because the Government has not really tried to define what the Families Commission will actually do, it will achieve very little.

Likewise, in clause 5 of schedule 1 there is a duty to act with honesty and integrity. If board members are to do that, they will be saying that the Families Commission is a sham. The Families Commission will not achieve anything for New Zealand families; it will be just another bureaucracy sitting here in Wellington. Unfortunately, it will not do anything to help the sorts of families we have seen in the news in the last couple of months—for example, the family of Tamati Pokaia. Do members think the Families Commission would have made a difference to the life of that child? I think the answer is no. This bill is nothing more than feel-good legislation, to keep afloat a group that is keeping the Government in power. If members of the board look at themselves in the mirror, they will say that there is no way they can keep to the provisions of this part of the legislation. They cannot behave with honesty or integrity, or keep a straight face, while fulfilling their roles. We are going to see them travelling the country, chanting: “Families are good, families are good!”

We all know that, but let us not pretend that this legislation is anything more than the Government’s pay-off for the support of United Future. That is why we have not seen a robust debate from United Future. Its leader has not even taken a call. Murray Smith tried to extend his speaking time, and Labour declined that. He actually wanted to talk more about the issue, but was declined leave to do that by the Government. Some Government!

I will address my comments on the schedules first of all to the financial accountability that the commission will be required to maintain. That refers to the regular practices that any business or Government organisation would have to adhere to. But also, I believe, it refers to the issue of whether the money the commission is given is well spent. We have heard a great deal of criticism about the commission’s huge budget, but we are very pleased that it is being given an adequate budget of $6 million a year to do its work. I believe that the commission will have no difficulty in seeing that the money is well spent. For years and years people have said it was time that we built fences at the top of the cliff instead of having ambulances at the bottom, and that is exactly what the commission will be about. Spending $6 million a year in order to give the commission the opportunity and power to address some of the root causes of family breakdowns in our society is not in any way, shape, or form a waste of money, when the results of family breakdowns cost us $5 billion to $6 billion. How could one ever suggest that spending $6 million is a waste of time if we can do something about reducing the huge amount of wastage that results from the breakdown of relationships and families throughout the country?

The schedules also address the qualifications the commissioners need and the way they are to be appointed. It is thrilling to see the response in the community to the opportunity that is being provided by this legislation. That has been wonderful. I understand that at least 300 requests for the information packet have been received from people who want to apply to become commissioners. Unlike the Opposition parties, which are just firing cheap shots at this legislation and saying it will be a waste of time, a large number of good people out in the community see this bill as a fantastic opportunity not just to talk about the problems but to get involved, roll up their sleeves, apply for the job of commissioner, and then be given the incredible responsibility and privilege of doing something for families in New Zealand. I applaud all of those who are beginning to engage now in the application process. I believe that some very, very qualified people will be appointed as commissioners.

I understand that the legislation provides for at least three full-time or part-time commissioners, and that there can be a maximum of seven commissioners. They are the people who will make the difference. All the rest is just talk and hot air. All the discussion about the definition of “family” will mean absolutely nothing when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road, and the commissioners begin to do what is needed in this country—that is, to focus on the families and the situations that arise for many children across the country, in terms of the appalling circumstances in which they live their lives. I believe that the commissioners will be able to interpret the requirements of this legislation. They will not be at a loss to know what their job is about. They will not be at a loss as to knowing the kind of family that produces the best kind of result. That is self-evident, and has been so for thousands of years. But that is not the only task we are asking the commissioners to address; we are also asking them to address the needs of all children in New Zealand, as has been said so very well already in this debate. I believe that the commissioners will serve this nation very well, and we look forward to their final appointment. Good people, I believe, always know what to do. It is only some of those in this Chamber, who spend their entire lives talking about what ought to be done and never actually accomplishing anything, despite all the promises they have made, who do not know what to do.

Under Part 1 of this legislation the commissioners will even have the power to appoint committees to look into specific issues that need to be addressed. One of those issues is, I believe, the rate of marriage breakdown in our society. I believe that the commissioners—well-chosen people with a good background of experience in family matters, perhaps in ministries that have been involved in helping people, because I think that means a lot more than having a lot of academic qualifications—may well decide to use the powers given to them to appoint special committees that will look into ways of strengthening marriage in our society. They will look at ways to prevent the increasing rate of marriage breakdown, and that will be an excellent thing. I believe the commissioners will also be able to use the powers given to them to address some of the consequences of family breakdowns. That is something that is not happening very well in society at this point, and the Family Court definitely needs to have a committee that can look into it.

I rise to speak to schedule 1, and particularly to clause 2, “Functions must be performed efficiently and effectively and in manner consistent with spirit of service to public”. I know that our faith in the public service justifies our belief that correct accounting practices will be followed, as mentioned by the previous speaker. I have no doubt that those accounts will be audited fairly closely. I was quite interested to hear from the previous speaker about the application process that has been followed, particularly when, as far as I am aware, no advertisements should have been placed at this point in time.

💬 Larry Baldock: They’ve been in the paper.

It is interesting that the advertisements have been in the paper, the member tells me, before the bill has passed through Parliament, but I suppose I should not be surprised by that at all.

Clause 2 of schedule 1 says that the functions must be performed “efficiently and effectively”. They are suitably vague terms. They are very difficult terms to measure and even more difficult to define, particularly when it comes to something like the Families Commission. How will the public, or even the Government, know whether the commission has ever met its goals, or whether it has had value for the dollars that have been spent? While I can appreciate that these terms need to be very broad, I think that unless we can be sure that we will get some efficiency and effectiveness from this commission, we need to have it further defined.

We do know that this commission advocates for everything, and it will be very difficult to measure the commission against even the main functions that have been set up. As previous speakers have said, it appears the commission is set up to normalise diversity, so how on earth can efficiency and effectiveness be measured? I come from a corporate background, and I know that efficiency and effectiveness are very difficult to measure and justify. I really wonder how this will be done.

I also wonder who will carry out this audit of performance on efficiency and effectiveness. Will it be the Minister’s office? Will it be United Future? The United Future member talked about accountability, but how can this broad, general measure ever be used to hold people to account? I really do wonder. Will it be the amount of research that is completed and published? We do not quite know. How will we measure efficiency and effectiveness if other agencies are also carrying out the same functions, as we have heard many, many times? So when I look at clause 2, I really have to wonder how it will be done. I will be most interested to see how it is done. I will be looking at those audits very, very closely, having been involved in that area.

I turn to the membership of the commission. I note that there will be three full-time commissioners and three part-time commissioners. I will be most interested to see what they achieve. The bill does not set out the exact role that each one will carry out. That has been left suitably vague, so that, I suppose, anything that can be carried out, will be carried out. It has not been defined as to whether one commissioner will be focused on research; one focused on marriage and the traditional nuclear family, which has been talked about quite often in this Committee stage; or even one focused on solo parents. Who knows? I will be most interested to see what role the commissioners will be carrying out.

I know when we have a term of office of 3 years, I would want to be sure that the commissioners achieve what they set out to achieve. I know that achievement means different things to different people, but I am really concerned when I look at the term “efficiency and effectiveness”. Is that how the commissioner will be assessed at the end of the year, or at the end of the 3 years? I really do wonder. While I can agree that it is quite good to have that term so general, as a member of the public or as a member of the Government and the Opposition, I wonder how on earth this commission will ever be measured.

I would like to spend a bit of time looking at schedule 2 of this bill, because that is the schedule that talks about how the commissioners will be appointed. In particular, clause 1(2)(b) states that the Minister: “may only appoint a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, has appropriate skills and experience to assist the Commission to perform its functions;”. That is “in the Minister’s opinion”—a Minister who told us just a few minutes ago in this debate that marriage was a recent phenomenon. In fact, history shows that it goes back between 2,000 and 4,000 years to the beginning of time.

I really worry about this Minister. The other day at a conference, he stated: “I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds.” He claims to have been a sociologist in his past academic career, before he came into Parliament, but I would like to quote now from a piece that appeared in the New York Times from a professor of sociology, who stated: “Yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on the side of the issue. On the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable.”

This is a Minister who will be the judge of who can be a commissioner. United Future members might have one set of ideas about what the commissioners will do, but this Minister has another. This is a Government that funded research some time ago that was meant to prove why teenage pregnancy is good for girls. I remember questioning it at the time. Clause 1(2)(d) of schedule 2 provides that when the Minister appoints a person as commissioner, he or she must take into account “the desirability of promoting diversity in the membership of Crown entities.” In other words, it will not be the best people for the job; it will be the politically correct view of who should be appointed as commissioners. It will be whether they match in with the Labour Government’s agenda of making sure that it has diversity in the public service, when what most New Zealanders want to see in any role in Government or the bureaucracy is people appointed because they are the best for the job.

I would like to look at clause 8, which talks about how commissioners can be removed. I have to tell any potential commissioners out there to be very cautious, because clause 8(1) provides that: “The Minister may, at any time and for any reason that in the Minister’s opinion justifies the removal, remove a member from office by written notice to the member.” It can be done with as little formality as possible. If the Minister does not like what the commissioner is saying, doing, or writing, then he or she can remove the commissioner without any recompense or comeback at all. There is no compensation for removal from office. In other words, the commissioners are appointed by the Minister at the Minister’s behest, and they can be removed at any time by the Minister.

One of the core reasons why our party would not be supporting this bill even if we did think it was a good idea is that the commissioners will be appointed solely by the Minister. They will be the type of people who will do what the Minister wants them to do, and who will go along with his agenda. If at any time they start to stray and get into issues that most New Zealanders would think that they should be looking at and working on, and the Minister does not like it because it is not part of his politically correct agenda, he can just remove them. They will not have any recompense at all. It would be very good for the Minister to take a call right now, just to tell members about those two things. It sounds pretty much like a dictatorship, with the Minister, Mr Maharey, as the complete and utter controller of this commission.

Maybe there are more checks and balances in there. I know that when the select committee looked at this bill, we did not go into this part of it in a great deal of detail. Are there rights that the commissioners have so that the Minister cannot come out of the blue and say: “I do not like what you are doing or what you are saying. You have got to go.”? I would like to know whether there are safeguards in there for those commissioners.

I move, That the question be now put.