Families Commission Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Families Commission Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Families Commission Act 2003 and is part of the process designed to refocus the Families Commission in order to make it a more relevant, effective, and efficient organisation. We are streamlining the commission’s core activities through a leaner and more focused structure, as part of our confidence and supply agreement with United Future. I wish to thank it them for its contributions and these changes.

The changes provided for in the bill are relatively straightforward and can be summarised as follows. First, the commission will acquire a new monitoring, research, and evaluation function. This will encompass the whole social sector and be separate from the commission’s current main function of advocating for families. Under this, the commission will identify evidence and research that will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s policies and priorities in the social sector. The commission will also play a role in coordinating research and evaluation across the wider social sector.

Second, the bill changes the commission’s governance structure by removing the title “commissioner” from all but one member of the commission, who will be known as the Families Commissioner. It puts the commission on the same footing as most other Crown entities, and will ensure a more focused structure. Thirdly, the bill also provides for the creation of a social science experts panel. This group will complement the work of the commission’s board, and provide guidance and academic peer review of research undertaken by or for the commission. This will ensure that all research is rigorous and credible. Finally, the bill will require that the commission prepares and publishes an annual family status report. This will provide a means by which the well-being of New Zealand families can be regularly measured and monitored.

I would like to thank the Social Services Committee for its thorough and careful attention to this bill. A total of 11 submissions were received on the bill. A number of submitters were positive about the new model of the Families Commission. The Salvation Army, the National Council of Women, and the IHC all support the changes and the new function for monitoring, research, and evaluation. The IHC pointed to the huge potential advantage of the new—to be known—SuPERU database to avoid research silos, and the Salvation Army is particularly interested in joining projects in partnership with the Families Commission.

There have been some recommended technical amendments from the Social Services Committee, and the committee recommended including new clauses 4A and 9A. This addresses some submitters’ concerns based on a misinterpretation of the bill’s provisions and relevant Crown entity legislation. These clauses make it clear that the autonomy of the commission as prescribed in the Crown Entities Act 2004 remains unchanged.

The committee also recommended changes to new section 8A in clause 7. These changes make it clear that the commission is to actively “identify evidence and research that will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s policies and priorities in the social sector.” Other changes make it clear that in carrying out its monitoring, evaluation, and research functions, the commission must act independently of the programmes and interventions being monitored or evaluated. This is an area where I believe the commission can add real value.

Finally, I wish to comment on the potential of the new SuPERU unit—the monitoring, research, and evaluation arm of the Families Commission. If we—

💬 Chris Hipkins: I thought Subaru was a type of car.

It has got the wheels, buddy, to do the business. If we are going to make a difference for the families who are struggling, we need to be able to invest in interventions that we know will work. This new unit will build a body of evidence that will allow policy makers, NGOs, and anyone wanting to invest in social services to make informed decisions about which programmes are effective for New Zealand families, which will add real value to the way that we all work together. I commend the bill to the House.

I am happy to rise to give this contribution on the second reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleagues on the Social Services Committee. In particular, I acknowledge Jacinda Ardern and Dr Rajen Prasad, because it was those two who took the lead in Labour’s contribution as this bill was analysed through the committee.

As the Associate Minister for Social Development the Hon Chester Borrows said, this bill seeks to amend the Families Commission Act 2003 to make a number of changes to the role and operation of the commission, with the aim of improving decision making in the social sector. Labour supported the first reading of this bill. We wanted it to go to the select committee as we wanted to look closely at the implications of the bill and give the wider community the opportunity to make its submissions and to raise its concerns on this matter.

We understand that one member of the commission would be appointed by the Minister for Social Development as Families Commissioner, while the remaining members would remain members without being appointed commissioners, as they are at present. The Families Commission members would continue to comprise the board. The restructure would include the establishment of a social science experts panel to provide guidance and academic peer review of any research undertaken by, and on behalf of, the commission. The commission would also be given a new monitoring, evaluation, and research function, which would require it to determine where evidence and research would help decide, or achieve, Government priorities and to commission research and manage research contracts in the social sector. The commission would also be required to prepare and publish an annual Families Status Report, which would measure and monitor the well-being of New Zealand families. It would also be given access by the Government Statistician to individual schedules for research or statistical purposes.

After the select committee process, and in consideration of what we heard from submitters, Labour now opposes this bill. Labour believes that the changes proposed to the commission in this bill continue an agenda to fundamentally alter its nature so that it becomes something close to a Government department or ministry, rather than being an autonomous Crown entity. These changes, in our view, compromise the commission and will limit its independence and ability to advocate effectively for families. Given these changes, Labour stands by its policy of disestablishing the commission and, instead, establishing a ministry for children to focus on policies and programmes that place children and families at the centre of all policy and ensure their interests are paramount.

I think that when we considered the significant submissions that came from the public, the one that stood out in my mind was the submission by the Salvation Army, and, more particularly, it was reaffirmed in its report She’ll be Right. One cannot help but recognise that we have a huge problem amongst the children of New Zealand. In fact, the figures show that unless we actively have the political will to address the poverty that is experienced by many families, we are just not going to get on top of it. So, in Labour’s view, establishing a ministry for children would enable a greater focus of energy, resourcing, and political will in attempting to address this issue, recognising that the issue of the safety and the well-being of our children has to be a priority for the long term.

This bill before us limits the advocacy function of the commission and establishes a centre for family and whānau knowledge within the commission to focus on consultations and advocacy. It is unclear to us why Peter Dunne is supporting this bill, given that the Government is curbing the role and independent nature of the commission. The funding for this function is predetermined at $3.8 million per annum, but this centre is given the additional function of producing an annual Families Status Report, which measures and monitors the well-being of New Zealand families. Arguably, this could be done by the Ministry of Social Development. This function is likely to be the dominant focus of the commission’s advocacy function and will take up a big chunk of the funding if it is done well. It is likely that there will be little focus on the more general advocacy role of the commission. The amendment bill stipulates that the commission’s consultations with families will be limited to its advocacy functions. Hence its research and evaluation function will not benefit from the views of family generally.

The bill also establishes a social policy evaluation and research unit within the commission, with a predetermined annual budget of $3.55 million. This unit will provide independent monitoring and evaluation of programmes and intervention in the social sector, and provide research into key issues, programmes, and interventions across the sector. This section has the additional functions of identifying opportunities where evidence of research will assist in achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector, commissioning research on behalf of the Government, and managing contracts—again, on behalf of Government. This will be closely linked to what the Government is doing and thus eliminate the independence of the commission to undertake research it considers necessary—for example, research into poverty and financial literacy, research into paid parental leave, and research into family violence: research into all the areas that our community has identified are important in order for us to address this issue adequately.

The bill significantly alters the governance arrangements of the commission. There will be only one Families Commissioner, who will not necessarily be the chair of the board of the Families Commission. Others on the board will be members. The functions of the Families Commission will be determined by the board. The chief executive officer position is retained. In addition, a social science experts panel will be appointed by the Minister and the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor to peer review the commission’s evaluation and provide advice. Currently the commission uses peer reviewers from universities, other research centres, and independent experts. It is difficult to see how a panel of four people can peer review the range of research that might be undertaken. Once again, arguably, the commission will be acting like a Government department or ministry, focusing on the issues that the Government considers important. We question the need for this.

This is, in our view, a confused governance structure. The power effectively lies with its chief executive, as the Families Commissioner’s sole role is redundant. It is unclear who will set the work programme for the commission: the Minister, the Government, the advisory panel, the Families Commissioner, the chief executive, or the senior staff of the commission. The advocacy functions of the commission will be seriously limited as it will be preoccupied with reporting annually on the state of families. This is something the social report used to do yearly, and which will be produced only every 3 years.

Recently there was an example where my colleague Sue Moroney promoted a very successful campaign around paid parental leave—a campaign that was picked up and supported by the majority of New Zealanders, which this Government does not like. But the commission abandoned its role as an independent commission and agreed with the Government on paid parental leave solely based on the economic cost rather than evidence-based policy assessment.

That gives you an example that this Government, rather than allowing the commission to independently provide evidence-based advice—as the commission was set up to do—wants to be able to control the commission. I think the Government is on the wrong path. The right path is the Labour Party policy of disestablishing the commission and establishing instead a ministry for children. That then gives the Government and us—this House—a greater focus of energy and resources on addressing the issues of children.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak; I thought that guy would be speaking until 7 tonight, but I thank Su’a William Sio for his contribution. I just want to say that it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this second reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I just want to, first, thank the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett. Yesterday we acknowledged her role and her legacy in terms of the welfare reforms that she has brought to this Parliament, which will have a huge positive impact on our country. Today we are going to acknowledge her contribution in terms of this legislation, because the Families Commission is about to undergo a welcome transformation.

The reason it will be transformed is that this Government, this National Government, believes in better, more effective public services. What does that mean? What are we going to do? Well, the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows touched on it earlier. We are restructuring the commission because this will see its core activities streamlined into a leaner, more focused structure. It will be headed by a single commissioner, and the search for that single commissioner is going on as we speak. The number of commissioners will go down from the original number of seven. That is right—less bureaucracy in one fell swoop. It will be governed by a board, and the board will include Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. It will also have public sector, philanthropic, and business representatives, and it will give credible community input into—[Interruption] Oh! Asenati Lole-Taylor knows this—the direction of an important entity in our Government.

For the benefit of Parliament, I say that yesterday we had the financial review of the Families Commission. We had some valuable contributions from the acting chairman and the acting chief executive officer, as well as Sir Peter, who turned up to elaborate on the future of this commission.

The commission will also commission and contract social sector research on topics referred by the Government. I know my colleague Su’a William Sio referred to the lack of independence, but it really is important that some of the research done actually becomes implemented and becomes part of the Budget-setting process for the Government, so that those things can make a difference to people out in our communities. There is no point in having research sitting on a shelf in the Wellington office of some policy analyst in one of the Government departments. It is really important that we have this type of research out in the open, read by many, distributed across many sectors, and implemented by those who are able to do the implementation, which includes Government officials and politicians alike. So the commission will take on a new role providing independent monitoring, evaluation, and research to measure the effectiveness of initiatives across our social sector.

Labour doubts this, but we were left in no doubt on this side of the House by the testimony of Sir Peter Gluckman yesterday at the financial review that it is about independence. It is about evidence-based research that will be implemented in our communities through policy. So funding will be reduced from $32 million over 4 years to $28 million, and $14 million will be reprioritised for the social policy evaluation and research unit, which some people call SuPERU.

Before I finish my contribution tonight I just want to touch on the recommendations of the Social Services Committee, which the Minister also alluded to. I want to thank all the members of the committee for their contributions, Dr Prasad and those across the aisle, and also my colleagues, like Alfred Ngaro and Melissa Lee, who is the deputy chair, and the other members of our committee. Even though there were a small number of submitters—there were 11—we actually gleaned quite a bit of feedback and we made certain adjustments. Also, I want to acknowledge our officials, parliamentary counsel, and our clerks, who were also part of the team, if you like, that brought these recommendations back to the House. I want to acknowledge them, and they are with us here tonight.

Just very quickly, we are amending clause 11 to ensure that the social science experts panel will comprise a minimum of four members—a minimum of four, Su’a. I know he criticised the figure, but it is a minimum of four members, and we changed it to allow for a degree of flexibility to appoint additional members if required. So we have allowed for that degree of flexibility in our recommendations. It is also about amending clause 11 to ensure that the panel would come under appropriate provisions pertaining to the appointment and payment of members, conflicts of interest, indemnities, and insurance. So that is another important addition to the bill as presented to the House at its first reading.

The Minister referred to amending clause 7. It is really about correcting the misconception that the commission will merely identify opportunities for evaluation and research. It will be actively identifying these opportunities. I think that is an important consideration when we move forward in terms of those subjects that will be identified. Yesterday the commission went through some of those. Some involved improving the achievement levels of Māori and Pasifika children. There is a whole host of these subjects that it is seeing as priorities going forward. If we are going to make a difference for the families in this country, Aotearoa New Zealand, who are struggling, we need to be able to invest in interventions that we know will work.

The body of evidence that will come out of this commission will allow policy makers, service providers, politicians, and anyone wanting to invest in our social services to make better, more informed decisions. It is about having an evidence base, as Sir Peter Gluckman referred to at our financial review of the commission yesterday. It is about those evidence-based interventions that produce better long-term outcomes for our families, our communities, and, ultimately, our nation. That is why I support this bill.

I am very interested in what the member opposite, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, has just said. The member talked about the legacy of the Minister for Social Development. It is very interesting that we had the Families Commission before the Social Services Committee yesterday, and now we are talking about this legacy. Let me tell the chairman of that committee that there is daylight between how the Minister conceives this commission and how the commission presented itself yesterday. There is daylight in that—absolute daylight. Just putting a small number of very well-known researchers on to the commission will not make an efficient commission in the sense that the Minister thinks it will.

Let us take just one of the things that this Minister is presiding over, and I look forward to hearing what the explanations are. Yesterday we found out about the commission in this manifestation spending $411,000 on one staff member for 17 months—$411,000.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That sounds like the sort of thing that used to happen under the Labour Government.

Is the member supporting this? Is the Hon Mr Bridges supporting this? Because if the member is, then that Government has got a lot of work to do to find out about all of the consultants who are being used. That is what this commission has been driven to: bringing people from Australia, who then establish their own consultancy company, and then their own consultancy company gets hired—hiring the same person back to the commission and spending $411,000. That is what this Minister is presiding over at the moment. I know there have been some justifications such as “We’ve been restructuring.” and “We’ve been having a look to see.” Well, why is this commission not developing the capacity within the commission? It is not. So there is daylight between what the legacy of this Minister will be and what this commission is set up to do.

There is also daylight between how the Minister conceives of the research functions of this commission and how the commissioners described it yesterday. At the moment, it seems it will end up being probably not too different from what it has been evolving to, yet the Minister has couched this in terms of this radical differentiation between what the commission has been set up to do and where she wants it to go. There will not be much difference. There will still be largely—[Interruption] Three million dollars, Mr Bridges, will not give you the kind of research that this Minister wants. The Minister talks about evidence-based research. There is daylight between evidence-based research—that Government is not using the evidence that is currently available. On the “boot camps” legislation, the research says do not do it. The Minister did it. It is not working. Mr Bridges might like to know about this. It is the same with the welfare reforms that we debated yesterday. The English experience and evidence show that those kinds of sanctions do not work. But, no, the Minister wants to do it. So why is there this daylight between the Minister’s policies—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How much will it cost?

—in the area of the most vulnerable in our society and the work of the commission, trying to set it up to do the evidential work that it will do? It will produce the reports, and I bet you this Government will not put them into operation. That is what will happen. So now there is this daylight. What is the question the member is asking about costs?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: How much will it cost?

Well, all that your Government is giving for this role, Minister, is $3 million. It cannot be done—cannot be done.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.