Families Commission Amendment Bill

The Families Commission Amendment Bill is a cynical piece of legislation proposed by a party that never liked or supported the Families Commission when it was first established by a Labour Government in which United Future was a coalition partner. The mandate for the commission was, broadly, to advocate for families through consultations with families, provide public information, undertake research, and promote family policy. The National Government is reliant on the support of United Future, so it cannot do what it would rather do, and that is to get rid of the Families Commission. Instead, what the Minister for Social Development has done is set out from day one to systematically destroy the Families Commission as an independent entity that promotes the interests of families and provides the information that they require.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Labour’s going to close it down.

I shall give the Minister evidence as to why that Minister’s policies have set about destroying this commission. If the Minister listens, she might understand the argument.

This Minister initially appointed commissioners who had a track record for their somewhat narrow focus on families and their trenchant criticism of the Families Commission before they were appointed. One has only to think about Bruce Pilbrow, whom this Minister appointed as deputy commissioner, who was interested only in the types of parenting education provided by this organisation. He resigned, and soon afterwards he secured a Government grant of $1 million for his organisation to provide parenting education. The other commissioner the Minister appointed was Christine Rankin. Her views are well known. Her claim to fame is related to employment issues with a former Minister. She was critical of the Families Commission right from its inception, and she was never going to make any long-lasting contribution to outcomes for our most vulnerable families through this commission.

The Minister also appointed a chief commissioner who did not stay very long, but who obliged the Minister by shifting the commission from its independent advocacy role for families to become an instrument of Government. During his term he was very compliant and even shifted the commission from its advocacy for paid parental leave, based on the state of the economy. The commission’s flagship position was to support paid parental leave. That chief commissioner shifted it to placate this particular Minister. Of course, this fitted in very well with the Minister’s own analysis.

Interestingly, the Minister did not oversee the commission closely enough to avoid the spending of $411,000 on one staff member, who became the commission’s highest-paid official for the time she was there—a scandal, indeed. And now she washes her hands of the whole matter.

Now this bill reduces the number of commissioners to one, who will not be the chief commissioner and whose role will be determined by the board comprised of members. This Minister has no views on what the role of the chief commissioner is, so it will be just another person in the commission whose role will be chief commissioner. In every other commission it is the chief commissioner who leads the commission, so again it is a cynical approach by this Minister to, effectively, destroy this commission.

To demonstrate her total contempt for the Families Commission and position it on its path to ultimate decline, the Minister has now appointed one of her own ministerial staff and close National Party confidant to head the commission—a person with no substantive experience in the various major responsibility areas of the commission. But then, this Government is getting used to doing that. There has been another commissioner appointed elsewhere with a similar kind of background. This is further evidence of the Minister’s cynicism regarding the commission.

The new chief commissioner is already readying the commission to get rid of its own flagship programme on family violence, the White Ribbon campaign. The commission has had a clean-out of almost all its senior staff since the present restructure—the second restructure under this Minister’s reign. But there is more evidence that the Minister is hell-bent on destroying the commission. This bill loads up the commission with what can only be described as tasks that should rightly be the responsibility of service delivery entities like the Ministry of Social Development and Child, Youth and Family. There are clauses in the bill that explicitly state that the functions are to be undertaken on behalf of the Government. So there is plenty in this particular series of actions by this Minister that makes this commission very vulnerable, and they are cynical.

The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor is now a Families Commissioner. At the financial review recently, it was clear to my side of the House that he intends to be his own man and to be a good scientist. He should continue to speak his mind and to expose the Government when it is not operating in an evidence-based way, which is often. The last bill we have just passed, the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, was not evidence-based. Much of the Government’s welfare reform is not evidence-based and, in fact, is contrary to good research.

What this Minister has done is position much of the work of this commission to eventually be privatised and to simply be a monitoring arm of the Government. This is not the role of an independent commission of this type, and so this side of the House will not be supporting this bill. In the Committee stage we will show clause by clause where the faults lie. Thank you.

The Greens will continue to oppose this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill. We oppose this bill because we believe that the number of changes that the Government wishes to introduce will not serve the interests of families in New Zealand. We remain concerned that this bill dilutes the governance of the Families Commission and neuters its ability to provide free and frank and independent advice. The commentary on the bill states, under the heading “Introduction”, that the aim of the bill is to improve decision making in the social sector, which we agree is a laudable aim. However, we are not convinced that this bill will deliver that.

Since the introduction of the Families Commission through legislation in 2003, the commission has been a strong advocate for families in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is perhaps best known for its flagship work campaigning around the eradication of domestic violence—in particular, the White Ribbon campaign, and we sincerely hope that that campaign will not be undermined by the proposed changes. As part of its advocacy role, the commission has in the past developed research and provided submissions to Government select committees and to councils as well—to name just a couple of examples.

In February it made submissions to the Auckland Council’s gambling policy review, where it acknowledged that the council’s recommended draft sinking-lid policy would reduce harm to families, and therefore the commission supported that policy.

Also in February it made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Government’s Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, where it outlined how the changes to the Family Court process could have a negative effect on children and families, and that the proposed introduction of costs for Family Court relationship counselling services could be a barrier for some families needing to access the court. This submission also pointed to the need for more research into the needs of whānau, particularly when negotiating care, contact, and financial arrangements for children, especially given that 30 percent of parties to the Family Court are Māori.

The Families Commission also makes the case for having a role in monitoring and evaluating the impact that the Family Court changes will have, and I would say that it would also have a role in evaluating the impacts of the two bills that preceded this one through the House tonight. On the Family Court bill it says that “It is crucial that outcomes particularly for those most vulnerable and for children are assessed. Independent evaluation of the delivery of [Family Court proceedings] will also be necessary. If services are provided for children—these should be trialled and evaluated as well.” Please note that I stress the word “independent”—independent advice, independent research, independent assessment, and independent evaluation. This has been the common theme from many of the submissions the Social Services Committee heard during the hearings process.

Out of the 11 submissions received eight were opposed to the Families Commission Amendment Bill. There was a common theme, and the major concern was that shifting the social policy evaluation and research unit from where it has previously sat, within the Ministry of Social Development, to the Families Commission would mean it will be used to provide evidence that reinforces the ideology of the Government’s reforms. This was signalled by the wording in the original clause 7 of the Families Commission Amendment Bill, which talked about the functions of the commission being: “to identify opportunities where evidence and research will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector”.

I acknowledge that several amendments have been suggested to clarify this particular wording, but I remain unconvinced that the bill will enable the level of independence that we need in the social services sector. I note that politicisation of the commission has already begun. It is already under way. My colleague from Labour the honourable Rajen Prasad has already noted some of the appointments of commissioners.

Last year in particular the Families Commissioner Carl Davidson contradicted the Families Commission’s own reports from 2010 and 2007, which said that extending paid parental leave to 12 months would be hugely beneficial to families and children and to the country. Mr Davidson was appointed to the commission by Minister Bennett in 2010. Concerns about appointments were also highlighted during the select committee process.

In particular there was concern about the appointments and the role of the social science experts panel. We do not have any major concerns with the idea that research should be peer reviewed; in fact, it is best practice. However, we are not convinced that the social science experts panel has a role in this. We are particularly concerned about the lack of clarity around appointments to this panel and the details around their roles.

Originally the bill said that there would be four members of this panel. However, the report as it has come back to the House suggests that there should be an amendment so it is a minimum of four and can be extended. Even so, I remain unsure about whether these people will have the required expertise to review research independently and with rigorous academic scrutiny.

This view is shared by the Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children, which said in its submission that it was concerned that these panel members “Would be appointed on the combined recommendation of the Minister for Social Development and Chief Science Adviser” because they believed that it did not allow enough independence from the Government. This group echoed my concerns, which I raised in my first speech on this bill, about the worrying trend by this Government to use ministerially appointed advisory groups.

The Auckland coalition also stated that when the Government appoints the members of the social science experts panel it raises concerns of Government interference in the conduct and publication of social science research. It recommends that monitoring and evaluation work be carried out by clearly independent third parties.

It goes on to say—and I think it is worth quoting it, actually—“We do not believe that that four people, irrespective of their experience, would have the knowledge and skills to provide a fair and comprehensive evaluation of such a broad range of research. Again, this is particularly a concern given the specialist knowledge required in different sectors, for example family violence, sexual violence and other forms of violence against women and children.” We do need good research about family violence. Australia has undertaken the research to show the economic impact family violence has on the economy. We have not yet done that, and that is something that we should be looking at.

The Greens support making good public policy based on sound independent research and evidence. There is a role for a lot more research and a lot more monitoring and evaluation of programmes that need to be undertaken, particularly since the Government is rolling out a bunch of reforms that have not yet been trialled in New Zealand. We are simply concerned that this bill will not deliver that evaluation, monitoring, and independent analysis of the research. The changes outlined in this bill would require the Families Commission to publish a families status report on the well-being of families.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.