Commission for the Family Bill

I move, That the Commission for the Family Bill be now read a first time. My intention is for this bill to replace the existing Families Commission Act of 2003. In speaking on the Commission for the Family Bill, I would like to thank those members who seem to have more pressing issues to address than to speak to their bills in the House this evening. Obviously, that has allowed my bill to move up the Order Paper very quickly. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee.

Sadly, despite United Future’s best intentions in getting the Families Commission established through its confidence and supply arrangement with Labour, the compromises those members chose—and I highlight the word “chose”—to make with the politically correct liberal cabal within Labour has meant that this issue needs to be reviewed urgently. We in New Zealand First have two fundamental issues with United Future’s Families Commission Act.

I refer first to the definition of “family”. Definitions are important in legislation, as we all know, because when they are too broad or vague they become meaningless. The definition in the United Future Act is a clear sign of its capture by politically correct Labour. United Future will say that the definition is broad so as to include all types of family in New Zealand. However, we should ask ourselves this question: does it sound like the language of United Future to include such a wide description of families, or do we think it might just be Labour’s influence? This is the fate of a lapdog party forced to yield its values to its master. Why, on the one hand, would United Future spend so much time and money attacking the Civil Unions Bill, when, in the Families Commission Act, it has already opened the gate on those relationships?

Let me make it clear that we understand that there are different living arrangements out there. We do not have our heads in the sand. However, it is not our intention to support living arrangements that, quite frankly, stretch the imagination to consider them families. United Future—particularly Mr Alexander—will say that no children should be excluded due to the nature of their living relationship. We say that is the role of the Children’s Commissioner, not the Families Commission. We in New Zealand First know what a family really means.

💬 Marc Alexander: What is it?

The Oxford Dictionary would help the member. The definition of a family is defined in my bill as such, in clause 4, “Interpretation”. It means “a family group, including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least 1 adult member; and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship”. That is unlike the definition in United Future’s Families Commission Act, which states in section 10(2): “In this section, ‘family’ includes a group of people related by marriage, blood, or adoption, an extended family, 2 or more persons living together as a family, and a whānau or other culturally recognised family group.”

💬 Hon Member: It includes the cat and the dog.

That is right; basically, it does include the cat and dog. That definition leaves open the possibility for policy makers to define what a family is, and we have mentioned that many a time. We in New Zealand First say that is not good enough. Parliament must make these decisions, not faceless bureaucrats.

Our second major concern with the Families Commission Act relates to the function of the commission. I would like to compare the functions of the commission in United Future’s Families Commission Act with those in my New Zealand First Commission for the Family Bill. Section 8 in Part 1 of United Future’s Act—which is equivalent to clause 12 in Part 2 of my bill—highlights the additional functions of the commission, and states: “(a) to encourage and facilitate informed debate, by any of the following persons, on matters relating to the interests of families: (i) representatives of government, academic, and community sectors; and (ii) members of the public:”. Members should compare that with clause 12(1) in my bill, which gives as the first additional function: “(a) to promote the status of families and the role of parents:”. We cut to the chase in this bill. It goes straight to the heart of the issues that families in this nation are going through.

There is no politically correct drivel in my bill, unlike another additional function in United Future’s Act, which states: “(c) to encourage and facilitate the development and provision, by Ministers of the Crown, departments of State, and other instruments of the Executive Government, of policies designed to promote or serve the interests of families:” Again, these functions leave open the possibility for direction from members of the executive of the Government at the time.

💬 Peter Brown: This is United Future’s Act?

Yes, that is right. I quickly want to read out the general functions in New Zealand First’s Commission for the Family Bill. Clause 12(1) states: “(a) to promote the status of families and the role of parents: (b) to ensure all policy development reflects the fundamental needs of families and their children: (c) to provide a family mediation service to support, promote, and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services:”.

💬 Peter Brown: Marriage!

I know, it is amazing—we have used that word “marriage”. It goes on to state: “(d) to facilitate family support and parental education classes: (e) to improve co-ordination of government departments: (f) to receive and invite representations from members of the public on any matter that relates to the welfare of the family: (g) to increase public awareness of matters that relate to the welfare of the family: (h) to promote, in relation to decisions that affect the lives of the family, the participation of the family in those decisions: (i) to report, with or without request, to the Minister on matters affecting the rights of the family: (j) to inquire generally into, and report on, any matter, including any enactment or law, or any practice or procedure, that relates to the welfare of the family.”

I wonder why United Future members went quiet when I was reading out those additional functions. The reason is that they have heard it before, because I was reading out what they had in their manifesto. This is what they actually promised to the people of New Zealand. This is what Mr Alexander promised to the people of New Zealand, and all of a sudden he is quiet—he is not talking any more.

💬 Barbara Stewart: He’s looking at his papers.

He is looking into his desk. The functions I read out are what they promised the people of this nation. At the end of the day, all they could do was to come up with some liberal garbage. They did not have the guts to stand up for the supporters and people who voted them into this Parliament. That is a disgrace and an absolute outrage, and they will pay for it come the next election.

We are giving United Future and the other parties in this Parliament the chance to support something of substance. We have ensured that this bill is written in language they can understand. Marc Alexander, I think, can understand it, because it was in his party’s manifesto.

💬 Barbara Stewart: They’re quiet now.

Yes, they are very quiet. We have ensured that the bill is written in simple language. Unlike United Future’s Act, my legislation is littered with the words “families” and “parents”, as we have just heard, and “marriage”, as well. It does not have politically correct alternatives aimed at fudging the issues. We call on all parties that really support families, and do not apply just lip service to that, to support my bill. This is a chance to correct the blatant errors of the earlier Act.

In closing, I acknowledge my colleague Dail Jones, who in his maiden speech some 20 years ago made reference to the importance of having a families commission. I look forward to the support of the rest of the parties in this House.

I rise to speak on the Commission for the Family Bill, which obviously is the expression of Mr Craig McNair. I tell Mr McNair that that was the first time, I think, in the 2 years since he has been here that I have had the pleasure of listening to his exposition on families on behalf of whatever constituency he is serving this evening.

I think I should make it clear at the outset that the Government does not support this bill, for the very obvious reason that we have a Families Commission process under way. We have a piece of legislation that will ensure that in July we launch that commission. We will have commissioners who will have a very wide brief. And, of course, the Government has not put aside funding for Mr McNair’s dream of a Commission for the Family. So I am sorry to say we will be voting it down.

We should also note that Mr McNair’s speech this evening seemed largely tailored to try to antagonise the people from United Future. I did not hear a serious argument, and I could tell from the demeanour of such serious people as Barbara Stewart, whom I have enjoyed working with in this House, that what we were watching was a joke. The joke was an attempt to run at United Future a debate that said that those members are wrong because they have taken an inclusive approach to the family, rather than adopting a narrow definition such as the one adopted by Mr McNair in his bill.

I want to tell the United Future people that one of the most refreshing parts of working with them is that they came into the House not only championing families, not only arguing that families should be on the mat, but with a view that they wanted to include the wide range of families in this country within their legislation, and that is what they have attempted to do. They are inclusive. They are able to talk to all New Zealanders, as a result. They are not dividing New Zealanders according to one form of family, which is the only one that Mr McNair wants to talk to, and forgetting about everybody else. By the way, I tell Mr McNair, the majority of people do not currently live in the kind of family he is talking about. They live in other kinds of families as well, and United Future has had the guts—to use his word—to front up in here and put together a policy that appeals to that wider ranges of families, rather than coming in here and talking to just one particular group of people.

So I assume that what we are seeing tonight is not a serious effort to advance this argument. It really is just designed in a cheap way, which often goes on in politics—but I do not think it should on a serious issue like this—to tell the United Future members, who, facilitated by the Government, have made a very serious attempt to put the family on the political agenda, that somehow they are embarrassing, wrong, or whatever, and should be withdrawing what they are trying to do. I tell Mr McNair that I think this is a very serious debate. I think the family debate is one that this Parliament ought to be having. The fundamental institution of this country, of course, is the family, which we all come into.

But it does take a very wide range of forms. I shall give just one little example of why constantly harping on about the nuclear family might not be the wisest thing to do. Members should just think about the diversity of people we have in this country. Let us take the indigenous people—Māori. What is the most likely form of family, historically, amongst Māori? It is a form of family that often sees people raised by a biological member of the extended family; people may be raised by a grandmother or raised by an auntie. The family takes an extended form. There is not always a biological link, by the way—not in the sense that Mr McNair means. Children may not have an immediate biological link to their family; they may be raised by people who are quite a long way away from them biologically. It is a very different kind of family.

That is what United Future has had the wisdom to look at—that there are different kinds of families with different kinds of traditions, and all those families need to be part of any kind of commission that looks at what modern New Zealand society is about. What we get from Mr McNair is an argument that says, in effect, that if a person does not belong to the traditional nuclear kind of family, he does not want to talk to that person. That usually means, to use the kind of language he talks about—he says one is being PC if one talks about other kinds of families—that people like him do not like sole parent families. They usually say they are an inadequate kind of family, and if people happen to be in such a family, well, that is not the way things should be. That is the usual argument that comes from people like that.

I want to tell Mr McNair that a lot of people live in sole parent families, and the main reason that people in sole parent families have difficulties has nothing to do with the family form; it has to do with the amount of money that comes into the household. The research right across the world shows that if we can get the right kind of money going into those families, then they can be a successful form of family. I want to tell Mr McNair that no one on this side—

💬 Craig McNair: Where did you read that?

I promise Mr McNair that I have read a lot more than he has. No one on this side of the House says that it is not a good idea—probably, it is the best idea—if a family stays together and the kids stay with their parents. But the fact of life is it does not always happen. That is what public policy has to allow for. It has to talk about that diversity of family, and make sure that the best outcomes for the parents and for the children come from all those family forms. We should not try to pretend that somehow we can shoehorn everybody back into one kind of family once again.

That is why the United Future people have been wise in the way they have gone about this issue. They want the best for all kids. They want the best for all parents. They want the best for all communities. They are not going to talk about one simple little section—no matter how important that section might be to the overall debate. That is why I applaud what the United Future folks have done on this issue. They have approached it in a way that includes every single New Zealander, and does not marginalise any of them. I think that later on in this debate, I am sure, I will hear the United Future members make their own case as forcibly as they should, and they will make it with the kind of dignity that this subject deserves—not the kind of constant laughter and undermining of the issue that seemed to go on around Mr McNair’s speech. Obviously, he has put this bill together merely to raise this debate today; it is not a serious effort to advance the cause of families, at all. I think that is a real shame, given that we are about to go into a major debate of importance about it. I would have thought he would do a little more work and give us a better debate this evening.

I return to the fact that the Families Commission will be up and running in July. That is the main reason, of course, that we cannot accommodate that particular commission—because we are already paying for one. I say to New Zealand First that our Families Commission has support right across the whole of the community from people who are interested in family issues. There were 58 submissions on that bill, and there was support for the bill right across those submissions. Major groups like Plunket, Barnardos, and Parents Centres have identified this particular process as the one that they want to support.

I am not quite sure what public pressure there might have been for New Zealand First to bring forward this particular bill. It would be interesting if maybe a later speaker could tell us where the public swelling of support was for the notion that we have a Commission for the Family of this kind. I have not heard it. It has not been on my desk. I cannot imagine that the United Future people, Katherine Rich, or anybody else have had people writing lots of letters saying they want an alternative commission, and want it to look like this proposal. It does not seem to be coming from people all over the community, particularly because all those people who might have written such letters have already made a submission in support of what United Future introduced.

Just to round off—

💬 Dail Jones: Not another 2 minutes—this is rubbish!

I agree with Mr Jones about another 2 minutes being spent on this debate. We have just had to listen to 10 minutes of the New Zealand First member, and it worries me too, really, that we have to spend our evening talking about this particular bill, which New Zealand First would have known from the beginning was not a serious effort to put forward anything. We already have a Commission for the Family. This bill is just a device to try to bait the United Future people into feeling a little bit bad, or whatever, about the Families Commission. So I simply want to finish by saying that United Future has done an outstanding job of trying to put these issues on the map. Those members are way ahead of the debate that is contained in this particular bill, because they are prepared to take on the issues of 21st century New Zealand, and talk about how to have all forms of family deliver the best for kids, their parents, our community, and our society. I applaud the way that they have gone about it, and just repeat that the Government will not be supporting this bill.

I do not doubt for one second that Mr McNair had good intentions in bringing this bill to the House, and that he meant well by putting this bill in the ballot, but I think that as members of Parliament we should always think very carefully about bringing bills of any kind to the House, because of the expense that is involved. Just keeping this Parliament going for 1 hour costs many, many thousands of dollars. I do not think that bringing a bill like this to the House was the correct thing to do, because we already have a similar initiative, which is well under way.

Our party does not support this bill. That will not come as a surprise to the many people who would have heard the debates about the initial Families Commission Bill, which was brought to this House by the Government. National did not support the establishment of the Families Commission, because although we saw that it had some worthy goals, we felt that its cumbersome structure and overly bureaucratic nature meant it would not deliver the things that many New Zealanders thought it would deliver. Yes, there has been support for the commission, now that it is to be established in July. Although there was a very robust debate and both sides put forward their views very strongly, we are now in a position where the Families Commission will be established, and I think any attempt to undermine that development, or sabotage it before it happens, is not particularly useful. We are at a stage now where money has been put aside, the process of putting together the commissioners is under way, and a lot of the people who are involved have taken on board the good intentions. So I think we need to work with that commission now, to make sure that the money is well spent and that it can at least try to achieve some of its goals, which I think everybody in this House would support.

We did have quite a bit of debate about the definition of a family, but I do not think the definition in this bill adds any greater clarity. There still will be a huge debate about what a family is, what constitutes a family. We will never get to a position where there is a heck of a lot of agreement.

But I think there are some good things in this bill that are worthwhile talking about. This bill intends to create greater public awareness of the importance of families, which I think is a good thing. It looks also to providing some practical services for families, so that there is somewhere for families to go to seek help with mediation, somewhere that promotes families, provides counselling, and does that sort of thing. Perhaps there is some merit in considering that. But these things could have been considered and put forward at the time of the initial bill. So that is why I think it is not a good use of time to spend members’ day discussing something that I think the country is well on the way to providing.

Just further to the definition of the family, during the debate on the other bill many people were surprised that the initial definition potentially could have included the likes of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power. When I first raised this issue, press releases were fired off saying that I had made “a silly claim” and I had missed the point entirely. It was very interesting that in the final parts of the debate that definition was tightened up. It was not just a concern of the National Party; it was a concern of many New Zealanders that there was not the clarity in that definition that they wanted.

I understand that the Families Commission will be looking at a wide range of research. One of the concerns we raised at the time was that it should not go into areas where the Ministry of Social Development is already doing a lot of research. Our initial argument against the Families Commission Bill was that there is a huge amount of family-oriented research going on. We felt that the Ministry of Social Development was already doing that. Groups like the Parenting Council, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, Parentline, Plunket, Parenting with Confidence, Triple P, and Parent to Parent are already doing a huge amount of work within the community to assist families and to promote the all-important role of the family as a unit within our community.

I am delighted to stand and speak to the Commission for the Family Bill today, and I certainly will not be supporting it. I think it is an incredibly naive bill from the member, who is not exactly branded with being a family man or having an in-depth understanding about family issues. I feel quite justified in standing up to say that, because today I have become a grandmother. I am a grandmother to a new member in my family, who is not legally part of my family at all but is my grandchild. And, by golly, I will be there to support that little girl right through her family life. That little girl’s mother is not married to my son but she is my son’s partner, and she is the mother of my grandchild. I am proud of the way that they have worked together to give this little child a wonderful start in her life, and a joyous beginning today. We as a family do not give a jot whether our children are married, are legally bound together, or have one adult member. We just know in our family that when one of our children sires a baby, that child belongs to our family, our whānau, and we will give it the love and support those parents need, and walk beside them in their life.

So I feel quite justified in standing here today to question why that member went to the effort, with good intentions—I think he is well intentioned—to put together a bill such as this that, it was very clear in the House, advocates a Commission for the Family to our Minister for Social Development and Employment. The member had every opportunity to work with United Future and to come together with that party to our Minister. We would have loved it if other parties had showed their support and had come in and worked with us on developing very robust legislation, such as we have now, but that member did not ever take that opportunity. He never pounded a path to the Minister’s door. He has not joined with other parliamentary groups that seriously consider family issues, such as the Littlies Lobby that holds regular meetings and looks at issues that impact on families and family support.

I find the actual definition in the bill simply silly. It is out of touch with reality today, in the contemporary New Zealand world. Why do families have to have members with a biological or legal relationship? What right does that member have to define what a family is?

Then we turn to functions. The member proposes 10 lofty functions for his commission, and all are rather peculiar. How could a commission for families improve the coordination of Government departments? For goodness’ sake! Has the member not listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who stood here week after week talking about an all-of-Government approach so that we do build resilient families?

The member has one function in the bill that is about antenatal education. For goodness’ sake! Antenatal education exists now. What is the point of setting it up? I wonder whether the member himself knows how much it costs to go to antenatal education classes, how available classes are, and when to engage in classes. I think the member should be a little more considered when he tries to brand himself, as he said, with a bill that is not PC.

I say that this bill is a dismal failure. I urge the member, with his well-intentioned approach, to come and work collaboratively with us on putting some sense into the Families Commission that is to be launched in July this year. I would have thought that the right thing to do was not to waste the energy of the drafters and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, or the time in this House, but actually to put constructive criticism and input into the alliance that Labour has put together with United Future, under the leadership of Minister Maharey, to build something that will be durable and sustainable.

I think it is unfortunate that people get labelled. The member must realise that with a member’s bill, one gets labelled. I am very proud of being labelled with the anti-smoking bill, but I think it is unfortunate that Mr McNair will be labelled with this dismal bill.

There is not a lot more to say about this bill, but I must admit that as a member of the Social Services Committee, which not that long ago spent some considerable months hearing submissions and considering the bill that established the Families Commission, I find it extremely odd to be debating the first reading of the Commission for the Family Bill tonight. Members’ bills usually represent substantial drafting and political commitment from the members of parties that put them forward. I would have thought that Mr McNair and New Zealand First, as a minor party without the ability to create and implement Government legislation, would put their efforts into a somewhat more useful and creative policy initiative at this time.

However, I will make just a few points about Mr McNair’s bill. First of all, as others have pointed out, it is totally redundant. The Families Commission, for better or worse, is being established and will get under way in July. Although the Green Party did not support the Families Commission Bill, I have to acknowledge the thought and work that went into it from both United Future and Labour. I believe that anyone who cares about families and children, as the member’s party claims it does, should now work with the Families Commission and make the most of what has been achieved so that it does work in the future for the benefit of all families and children in this country. That is an obligation on any of us who support the kaupapa of families and children.

The second point I would like to make is around what appears to be Mr McNair’s key motivation in continuing to put his bill forward, his enthusiasm for establishing a different definition of family than that which evolved through the whole developmental process of United Future’s Families Commission Bill. Mr McNair seems to be oblivious to the many debates that took place in the select committee and in the House—and, I am sure, the many more debates that took place behind various closed doors—about the definition of “family” in New Zealand today. I have sat through many of them, and it is a very complex issue. Those discussions ended up with even a very morally conservative party like United Future agreeing that in this country in 2004 the nature of families is widely variable and does not fit at all with the kind of simplistic wording we see in this bill tonight. Mr NcNair’s bill is a most ill-informed and rudimentary attempt at a member’s bill, and I hope his next effort goes better.

As for the rest of the bill, the functions he puts forward are pretty much all contained within the Government legislation, apart from ones that are irrelevant, as Steve Chadwick pointed out, because they already exist. I have to agree with Steve Chadwick, Mr Maharey, Katherine Rich, and others who have said that this bill is basically wasting the time of the House. I would rather be debating a real policy initiative, no matter how much I disagreed with it, than wasting time on this bill.

I am going to congratulate Craig McNair on the Commission for the Family Bill.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: The grand coalition!

Well, it is good to see a young member of the House who does not have the cynical, world-weary, “thumb-your-nose” view on any attempt to do something good that other members of this House have. I am serious. The ACT party is consistent, in that its members do not support any commission for the family, so we are not supporting this bill. But I do not see the need for other members in this House to say this bill is wasting our time. The last member who spoke criticised Mr McNair for wasting the time of the House. I would argue that her member’s bill would waste the time of the House, too, because it would be better to get people who are on welfare off welfare and out into work, than have them racking up more welfare and locked into dependency for the rest of their lives.

The purposes in the explanatory note of this bill are good. There are good things in this bill. There are things in this bill that everyone in New Zealand should look at if they are serious about the family. The family is the basis of a civil society. The family is what keeps a civil society together. If we do not have families that function well, then we do not have a society that functions well. What does it matter that this member is newly married and does not have children? I see a number of members on that side of the House who have no children, either. Does that disqualify them from commenting on legislation that seeks to protect the family?

💬 Peter Brown: We’ll have to think about that!

They say they will have to think about it. I do not think so. If we were disqualified from speaking on legislation just because we did not have experience in various areas, there would be a lot of people in this House who should not be getting up and speaking. United Future members, I notice, in their legislation mentioned the word “family” in only six out of 60 clauses. Yet they say they are the party for the family. Their bill was really about building up and inflating the bureaucracy. It was all about superannuation for commission members, etc., etc. This is the exact reason why the State, the Government, should not be involved in the family at all until someone gets hurt. When someone in a family is breaking the law, that is when the State should step in to protect them. But the carping that has gone on tonight, under the pretence of debate, shows exactly why Government should not be involved in the family. Labour members are saying: “We support the family only when it is our bill. When it is your bill we don’t support the family. It’s all different. It is a waste of time.”

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: The bus has left. It’s gone.

Clayton Cosgrove says he has missed the bus, so Clayton Cosgrove believes that the Government’s Families Commission is perfect. Well, we shall wait and see, when it comes in. I am sure there are parts of this legislation that could have improved Labour’s legislation by a long shot.

💬 Steve Chadwick: Have you matched them up?

Has that member defined what is a family? Does that party know what is a family? Therein lies the problem of the State getting involved in trying to define what is a family. According to that party, a “family” is anyone a person has some sort of spiritual or emotional connection with. If we get down to that level of definition it is “jokers’ wild”, because then the family means anything. If the Government concentrated more on ensuring that every child was a wanted child and that every child had two parents who, whether or not they stayed together, were financially, emotionally, and intellectually committed to the welfare and upbringing of that child, then family life in this country might be a lot improved.

Having a child is the greatest thing that two people will ever do in their lives. It is a gift. That Government, in the Budget that is coming out, will lock more and more families into dependency and welfare, and consign more children to the scrapheap of dependency on the State than anything else it has done in its term of Government. The Government will be a welfare Government. It will destroy the family even more than it has now. That is what those members should be ashamed of.

I rise on behalf of United Future to voice our absolute outrage at the time-wasting and game-playing that the House is being subjected to by the sponsor of this bill. The credibility of the party that member represents was completely shot to pieces during the select committee process on the Families Commission Bill, which passed into law at the end of last year. When those members joined forces with the National and ACT parties to throw away the opportunity to propose changes to that bill, it was left to the Government and United Future to address the suggestions that were made by submitters. Most members are thrilled when their members’ bills are superseded and fast tracked into the House by a Government bill, and they work hard to make sure that their concerns and interests are, at least in some way, reflected in the Government’s proposal. But that was not so with the members of New Zealand First. Oh, no! They sabotaged the process, insulted submitters, and voted to return the bill with no commentary—not even a minority report outlining any concerns.

One would assume, then, that this member’s bill is significantly different and focused in a completely different direction from the commission negotiated by United Future with the Labour-Progressive Government, which is scheduled to be up and running by 1 July this year, only a few weeks away. The explanatory note of this bill outlines 10 functions and powers for this alternative Commission for the Family. Eight of the functions listed are covered in the legislation passed last year, and the remaining two would see the commission wasting taxpayer dollars on competing with and duplicating the work of the many parent educators, marriage counsellors, and family therapists already operating in New Zealand.

The bill has two parts. The first includes the normal preliminary provisions. The second has 22 clauses, half of which are dedicated to the nuts and bolts of the appointment and job description of the commissioners. One clause repeats the list of functions from the explanatory note of the bill, and then it goes on beyond what is in the explanatory note to reveal what appear to be rather vague, but extensive, powers for the commissioners. The bill does attempt to define the family. However, in doing so, it excludes large numbers of New Zealanders who are members of families, including orphaned siblings and step-parents who have not obtained legal guardianship of their partners’ or spouses’ children. I can only conclude that that was unintentional, because clause 11 of Mr McNair’s bill requires commissioners to have regard to and recognise family diversity—just like the original bill. Voters interested in this project will now be hard-pressed to understand why the New Zealand First members joined in the howls of protest last December, when the Labour - United Future version of the bill acknowledged the reality of family diversity. They will be left with only one conclusion, which is that New Zealand First is more interested in game-playing than it is in really supporting the cause of New Zealand families.

I say to Mr McNair that the New Zealand voter is not stupid. The proposed commission has neither a research function nor any requirement that policy advice be evidence-based. It appears that policy would be driven by suggestions made by anyone who was of a mind to make them, but it is unclear what mechanism would be used when conflicting advice had to be processed. This proposal gives commissioners the power to access confidential information from the courts, but then it is very unclear what the information could and would be used for. It certainly could not be used to challenge court decisions, because the proposal is clear that it could not be, and if the plan does not mean to duplicate the new powers of the Children’s Commissioner, then one can only guess at the intention.

This proposal has been in the ballot unchanged for nearly 2 years now, and if either of the New Zealand First sponsors who at different times have lent their names to the proposal had bothered to consult widely with family-focused organisations, or had at least measured their proposal against the submissions made on the existing legislation, they would have concluded that this proposal falls well short of the advice and recommendations of the huge numbers of groups that supported the notion of a families commission from the start. This bill seeks to set up an additional family service provider to offer mediation, education, and counselling. Instead of advocating for family services, this model would compete for Government funding alongside existing providers. The commission proposed by this member would end up pitting itself against the very organisations it should be advocating for.

I rise to oppose the Commission for the Family Bill. In the words of my predecessor in the Waimakariri electorate, this member is a day late and a dollar short. Mr McNair sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with me, and I think he is a reasonable bloke, but I do not hold him responsible for this bill, as it should have been pulled. The senior members of New Zealand First—and I see Dail Jones, the Arthur Daly of New Zealand politics is here—hold the leadership role in that party. Dail Jones should have advised the new member to pull the bill. He should not have stuck the member out on a pole tonight—and I have some sympathy for Mr McNair, but for different reasons from Ms Coddington’s. I have some sympathy for him, and say he should not have been stuck out on a pole tonight and told, for the sake of political expediency, the politics of envy, and reasons to do with jealousy, to have a go at United Future because it got there first and worked constructively with the Government. Mr McNair should not have been stuck out on the ledge; he should have been told to pull the bill. So I do not hold Mr McNair responsible for this situation.

I think United Future deserves—as the Hon Steve Maharey said—a huge amount of congratulations on the way it promoted this policy. The Families Commission was a flagship policy for the United Future members. They came to the Government after the last election and said it was one of the flagship policies they wanted. They worked with us, and now we have a Families Commission. They deserve credit for that. The commission will become activated in July, and $28 million or more has been put up for that. It is a concrete step, rather than the flippant puffery that members hear from Dail Jones. I know members will hear that again tonight, because Dail Jones cannot resist getting on his feet and putting his foot in his mouth. He should have shown leadership and advised his colleague to pull the bill, but he did not. Perhaps if Winston Peters had been in charge of the New Zealand First members tonight—if one can put it that way—I think he would have advised the member to pull his bill. But they have the B team in the leadership role tonight, and they did not front up to do that.

I want to briefly address Ms Coddington’s comments, because it was the usual ACT diatribe from that member and the rest of the ACT team. I think she said that they would not support any legislation to assist families, except for their mates’ families. That means except for the families with Mercedes-Benzes and flash places in Remuera—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: The ones who pay their GST.

The families who pay their tax—some do; some do not—are the sort of families that party would support. Those members are not interested in what the Families Commission will do, which is to support those who need assistance, to reconstruct families where appropriate, to give advice, and to support families who are in need of that support. No, no—to quote from another colleague, the ACT party is interested only in the “big end”, the silver-plated end, of town. That is the group the ACT members represent, because they know they do not get their 2 percent of the vote—or is it 1 percent—from the battlers who need assistance. They get their support from the “big end”, or the silver-plated end, of town.

In summation, this bill is, as a few other speakers have said, a well-intentioned bill from Mr McNair. I will give him credit for that. But it is ill-advised, and when one is in this place—and I have not been here in Parliament very long myself—one does look to the senior people in one’s party for advice and leadership from time to time. I go back and say again to Mr Jones and Mr Brown that they should have shown leadership tonight, and advised Mr McNair that he had missed the bus. He was a day late and a dollar short. They should not have stuck him out on a pole, for the sake of political expediency, downright jealousy, and the politics of envy. All that has been accomplished tonight is that the New Zealand First members have vented their spleen by trying to have a crack at United Future. Well, I am sorry to tell Mr Jones and Mr Brown that the sad thing for those members is that United Future can stand up with credibility, along with this Government, and say it has done it—established the Families Commission—and that in July the commission will become operational, with $28 million in funding. That Opposition party can say it did not contribute to the debate on the Families Commission and did not put policy up, but had a crack at the issue at the eleventh hour. All that that has generated for the New Zealand First members, bluntly, is a degradation of their integrity and some humiliation.

I would like to congratulate Craig McNair on taking the Commission for the Family Bill on.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: You set him up.

I make the point—exactly what Clayton Cosgrove has just been saying—that I asked Craig McNair whether he really wanted to take this bill on, bearing in mind there is now a Families Commission Act, and he insisted on doing it because he supports the family and could see the errors in the existing legislation. Craig McNair was given the choice not to move this bill, but he insisted on doing it, because he is a family person and because the existing bill has grave deficiencies.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: You set him up.

That is your answer, I say to Mr Cosgrove.

Craig McNair is a family person, newly married, and we in New Zealand First are thrilled that our youngest member of Parliament should want to make a stand and draw a line in the sand as to what a family is, as set out in this bill and what a family is not, as set out in the Labour - United Future legislation. That is the line in the sand for New Zealand First. Now, it may be that the National Party, the ACT party, and some of the other parties do not in principle support this type of legislation, and that is fair enough, but if one is going to support this type of legislation, one should do it properly, and get a decent definition for “family”.

One should get a definition that states, as this bill does in its explanatory note—and I quote because Labour members have not read the bill, and I include Steve Chadwick and the Minister, Mr Maharey, in that comment—“A family is defined as a family group, including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least one adult member;”. For the benefit of Mr Maharey, I point out that “one adult member” includes solo parents. He is attacking this bill for not supporting solo parents. It does, in the words “one adult member;”. The explanatory note continues: “(b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” Steve Chadwick has not read this bill, either. She said her grandchild would not have the benefit of this bill. Well, her grandchild will, because my definition of “biological” includes “my grandchild”. I congratulate Steve Chadwick and her family on having a grandchild today, but she has not read this bill, and her grandchild would come within the scope of this legislation.

The United Future party and the Labour Party have set this bill up from the point of view of it being a precursor to the Civil Union Bill. The definition in the existing Families Commission Act is perfect if one supports the Civil Union Bill—and clearly United Future does. Section10(2) of the Families Commission Act states: “In this section, family includes a group of people related by marriage, blood, or adoption, an extended family, 2 or more persons living together as a family, and a whānau or other culturally recognised family group.” That is a pretty wide definition, and subsection (3) continues it. There will be some great problems associated with the definition set out in the Labour - United Future legislation.

It was interesting to hear from Ms Turner of United Future. She was quite vitriolic about this bill. She seemed terribly upset. After all, when we look at United Future’s election policy, we see that she was criticising something that was in that party’s election manifesto. United Future went around the country saying it would establish a commission for the family “to provide a family mediation service to support, promote, and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services.” That was United Future’s election policy, but tonight Ms Turner turned her back on the policy that was put in every letterbox that that party could possibly find. It is set out here, in United Future’s election policy, which Craig McNair will seek to table in the House at the conclusion of this debate.

May I say that of the speeches I have heard tonight I would have to congratulate Deborah Coddington on making the best speech of all. Even though she disagreed with the bill, I thought her speech far surpassed anyone else’s, especially that of Katherine Rich from the National Party. When one looks at the calibre of someone like Deborah Coddington—who can make a genuine speech on behalf of the family—and the calibre of someone like Katherine Rich, one knows who is the winner by a country mile.

The crunch of Deborah Coddington’s speech, which really rubbished that of Katherine Rich, concerned the fact that—and this was the thought that occurred to me—some members commented on what a cheek it was for Craig McNair to bring a member’s bill into the House but that it is a member’s constitutional right to bring to the House any bill that he or she feels like bringing to the House. Those other members may not like it, but a member may bring it in. Members may bring in an abortion bill, a homosexuality bill, a death with dignity bill—any kind of bill they like. It is their right, as members of the New Zealand Parliament, to bring in a bill whether or not other members of Parliament like it. It is a member’s constitutional right. The National Party does not support that constitutional right, and neither do the Greens. Although the Greens bring in some quite outlandish bills, we will never deny them the right to bring those into the House.

In reply to the speeches I have heard tonight, I will start with what Katherine Rich said. She raised the issue of me wasting Parliament’s time in bringing this bill to the House. I will always feel that people should stand up for what they believe in, which is similar to what Dail Jones has just been saying. I believe that people should stand up for what they believe in, and not be ashamed for it. I want to acknowledge Deborah Coddington for believing that one should stand up for what one believes. She admitted that her party would not be supporting this bill, and that is fine. That is her right. But I want to thank her for believing in the right to be able to stand up and be counted.

I want to say how disappointed I am in the Minister, Steve Maharey, Judy Turner from United Future, Steve Chadwick, and others who questioned my intentions for this bill. They said that I did not have very good intentions. But, I ask, if one disagrees with somebody, does that mean that one has bad intentions? I disagree with Tim Barnett on most issues. Does that mean I think he has bad intentions? No. He may have very genuine intentions—and he does. I am sure he does. But we approach a lot of issues from different angles and different viewpoints, and I respect him for that. I have heard the most disgusting, outrageous speeches from United Future and from Labour, but especially from United Future. Judy Turner comes from a church community, which says one should stand up for issues like this. I have been put down for standing up for what I believe in, and I say that is, quite frankly, disgraceful. It is a real shame. I also take issue with what Clayton Cosgrove said. He said that I was set up. No—I was not. I went to Dail Jones and asked him if I could take on this bill. I am very passionate about it. I tell Mr Cosgrove that, quite frankly, I do not want his sympathy. I do not need his sympathy. I am absolutely 100 percent proud of this bill and of what New Zealand First is standing for.

I am very much looking forward to taking this issue back to the community I live in, at Rodney, and sharing with them the information as to who voted against, who voted for, and who said what. I will definitely even be telling them that at least the ACT party and Deborah Coddington respect somebody for standing up for what they believe in. I think that that has incredible virtue compared with how members on the Government side of the House want to talk about giving me sympathy or whatever, as Mr Cosgrove did, and use the excuse that I was hospital-passed this bill. That is ridiculous. I underline again and reiterate exactly what the general functions and powers of the commission in my bill are. Actually, I will read them from United Future’s manifesto, just to highlight again what I was saying, because they are exactly the same as those in my bill.

💬 Peter Brown: It can’t be.

I know. It is just unbelievable. The manifesto of United Future states that that its aims are to promote the status of families and the role of parents; to ensure all policy development reflects the fundamental needs of families and their children; to provide a family mediation service to support, promote, and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling—[Interruption] Shall I read from this, or shall I read from my bill? I want to know whether United Future members are voting against this. They are, and they seem proud of it. That United Future member was one who joined in the song with Steve Maharey, saying that I should not stand up for what I believe in. She even put out a press release quite a few months ago when the bill came out to say that we were venal. Yes, she remembers that, and I will bring out the press release for her if she wants. She remembers. She knows what I am talking about. I am not just throwing something around and saying a load of rubbish like some of the speeches I have heard today. It is a sad, sad thing to see United Future sticking up for legislation like the commission they have set up with Labour.

I want to continue with the general functions and powers of the commission in my bill, because I want to say how important these are compared to the PC drivel in the Labour - United Future Act. I seek leave of the House to table United Future’s 2002 manifesto.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.