Families Commission Amendment Bill

Our main opposition to the Families Commission Amendment Bill is that it takes away the likelihood of independent and thorough research into families and issues that concern families. We will be opposing this bill. We do not believe it is good for New Zealand. We do not believe that it is good for New Zealand families. We will be voting against it.

Tēnā koe e te Matua Kaikaranga. Huri noa i te Whare i runga i te reo karanga o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Tēnā hoki tātou katoa. It says: “Greetings, Mr Speaker and my colleagues in the House. I acknowledge you in Te Reo, in celebration of Māori Language Week. Greetings, one and all.”

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the second reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. The well-being of families is crucial to our society. The family passes on culture, and we all come from very different cultures. In New Zealand we have more than 200 ethnicities, with the values that those different ethnicities bring and the knowledge that the family is at the very heart of our community. We are going to make a difference for the families in New Zealand that are struggling. We need to be able to invest in interventions that we know will actually work.

The Families Commission Amendment Bill is about streamlining the Families Commission’s core activities through a learned and more focused structure. It will remain an autonomous Crown entity, but it will be more streamlined, with a single Families Commissioner, which is down from the original seven. This will put the commissioner on the same footing as most other Crown entities, and the structure will be more focused. The board will be made up of members from the public sector and academic and philanthropic representatives, and there will be scope for the appointment of a member other than the Families Commissioner to be the chair of the board.

These are significant changes for the Families Commission in terms of its structural arrangements, work programmes, capability requirements, and size. Functions will be introduced, such as independent monitoring and evaluation, to drive quality services for families. So I am a little bit confused as to why Denise Roche actually said what she said just before, saying that she feels that the independence will be taken away in terms of research. The new functions will definitely provide for more independent monitoring and evaluation of the functioning of the Families Commission.

A social science experts panel will be created. This panel will complement the work of the commission’s board. It will provide guidance and academic peer review of research done by the commission, which to me says that it is definitely independent. The commission will prepare and publish an annual families status report, which will measure how New Zealand’s families are getting on. I think that it is very, very important, at any point in time, that we look at the way our families function. Over the years the functions of families have sort of changed because we have come from very extended families to more nuclear families—we have fewer children and fewer people living in one household—and the way we operate has also actually changed. But the fact is the core value system of families has not really changed, and the ways we nurture our children have not really changed.

The Families Commission currently receives $8 million in funding each year, which equates to $32 million over 4 years. We are prioritising $4 million over 4 years into parenting programmes. We have identified in different bills that have actually gone through this House that we have a major issue with parenting. We need to teach our young people how to parent. For some reason they do not seem to be getting that kind of nurturing to find out how to best become parents. When I became a parent, I guess I did not really know what a good mother or a good father should be. I guess the only role models we have are our own parents, and we do not really get that kind of education at school. I think learning how to look after our children is actually a good thing.

Relationship education and youth mental health initiatives are also very important, and $14 million over 4 years will be reprioritised into the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, because if we want to make a difference to families, we have to make informed decisions about programmes that will actually work for our families.

The Social Services Committee considered 11 submissions on the Families Commission Amendment Bill and many, including the Salvation Army, the National Council of Women, and the IHC, supported the changed services. This is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Families Commission Amendment Bill. Yet again we have been left totally disappointed by this bill. The Social Services Committee failed to make any changes that would change our position on this particular bill. New Zealand First opposes this bill because it has failed to make any worthwhile difference to families in New Zealand. Again, we are very surprised that the Hon Peter Dunne has not ensured that the commission, which he advocated for with the Labour Government back in 2002-03, has been left to wallow and fall into this level of disarray. Where was his support to ensure that it remained a vibrant, worthwhile, successful operation that could produce the results that were required to ensure that it remained operational?

In our minority report we also stated that we believe that these changes are detrimental to the well-being of New Zealand families and whānau and that reducing the number of commissioners from seven to one will negatively affect the work that the commission carries out. If the complication of the projected budget that will be invested into the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit is added, the situation gets disorganised and issues will inevitably rise to the surface regarding accountability. So we have got a lot of questions about this revised Families Commission.

We also question whether or not this Families Commission organisation is worthwhile when it does very much the same research as that carried out by the Ministry of Social Development. We believe that the Families Commission can no longer be justified. It is time really that we worked towards protecting the family unit rather than making steps that would be detrimental or provide no added value for it. We believe that this amended bill has actually undermined the efforts to protect the family unit and children. The proposed changes do not really do any good whatsoever. These alterations will be more harmful than good.

Although we realise that it may be economically and politically desirable to minimise the number of commissioners that we currently have, that number should not be pared to just one. That is far too small. We fail to see, when seven were not doing the job properly, how one person can actually pick up all of that slack and improve the lives of families in New Zealand.

What we are actually seeing here is a major revamp of the role of the Families Commission. One has to ask whether this revamp really goes far enough and whether we really need the Families Commission any more. We in New Zealand First do not think that we do. We know that hard economic times are upon us, and research in these hard economic times must be forward thinking and very, very focused, and the money could be better spent towards research in some other area.

In New Zealand First we think that the Families Commission has got a long way to go to improve—far further than what this bill actually stipulates. We know that the commission reports directly to the Minister for Social Development, the Hon Paula Bennett, who justifies the amount that is actually being invested into the research unit. However, there is a lack of consideration of the fact that the issues and the themes on which the research unit will be focused are interrelated and they cross many social sector boundaries. For example, the White Paper for Vulnerable Children that the ministry and the research unit produced last year contains issues and themes that are directly related to the work that the commission carries out. These kinds of underlying problems will surface again and again, and, basically, complicate the work that the commission administers, especially now that it will have just one commissioner overseeing the entire organisation. This will inevitably have dire consequences, and we believe that Parliament will most likely be re-evaluating the work of the commissioner in the future.

What we are seeing here is that version 1 did not really work out in 2003 so we now have version 2, which is more focused and leaner. Our best hope is that the new version 2 of the Families Commission will be carefully monitored on a regular basis, to ensure the best-possible output. There is a definite limit on how many versions of the commission there can be before people actually lose confidence in it totally, and version 2 almost reaches that limit.

Greater emphasis needs to be placed on promoting and carrying out more groundwork that creates better understanding and fosters better outcomes for all New Zealand families. We know that New Zealand families are already experiencing economic and social hardship. Changing the governance of the Families Commission and reprioritising its budget will do nothing to help in this particular instance. In fact, we believe that it will just produce further barriers to their development. Paying for a group of professionals and academics through the social science experts panel will only emphasise on paper all of the problems that New Zealand families are facing on a daily basis. Research and groundwork are needed to work simultaneously and in conjunction with one another.

New Zealand First would have liked to see something that would be useful to New Zealand families, for the money that is spent. We are going to be carefully monitoring the outputs, and ensuring that the money is not spent on consultants to travel around New Zealand and overseas at the expense of families. It is for these reasons that New Zealand First opposes this bill.

It is good to hear a member of the House talk about the sort of fiscal prudence that this National Government has become known for. The Better Public Services that this Government has committed to is a very, very important part of changing the economic fortunes of this nation through some very tough times, with the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. The Better Public Services model can, once again, be seen in the work that is being done in this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill. The programme of work has seen, through the select committee process, very little in the way of consequence or issue brought to the table, because I think it is quite clear from the manner that we have gone about reorganising these sorts of structures that what it is about is delivering better outcomes. It is not necessarily about the structure or how much money is thrown at the issue; it is about the structure that sets about achieving the resolutions and the outcomes that are required.

The Families Commission moves from having seven commissioners down to having one, and it introduces the new function in a research, monitoring, and evaluation setting. I take note of the comments made with some scepticism by the member who has just resumed her seat, Barbara Stewart, about this sort of function. The whole point is that what we have arrived at here is a leaner, more functional model that has some very clear targets. We have found through other work in the Better Public Services efforts that we have made that when you set some clear expectations and when you have a structure that supports that—when you are driven towards outcomes—you are far more likely to achieve those. You can achieve those—sorry, not you, obviously, although I am sure you will be contributing markedly to those. We can achieve those by ensuring that we get better bang for buck in the way we go about business—so removing the title of commissioner from six and leaving the single commissioner, and requiring the Families Commission to develop an annual families status report goes to the heart of those sorts of outcomes, ensuring that there is a more deliberate and accountable structure.

There will be new functions, as I mentioned, that include the independent monitoring and evaluation. I will look very closely at that to see just how that sort of monitoring and evaluation function falls into shape. One thing is for sure: the family dynamic in New Zealand—or anywhere, for that matter—is quite diverse, and there are a number of different challenges that families and communities do face and confront. So I guess the important note here is that for the structure and what we are looking to measure and how we are measuring it, the devil will be in the detail, but I am sure the Families Commissioner will be taking on that challenge.

The Families Commission currently receives $8 million in funding each year, which is $32 million over 4 years, obviously. We are reprioritising $4 million over 4 years into parenting programmes, relationship education, and youth mental health initiatives. Youth mental health is something that this country has some significant and severe challenges with, and that is intrinsically linked, of course, to the family. Over 4 years $40 million will be reprioritised into social policy evaluation and research units, which are now known as “SuPERU”. These acronyms seem to spring up from nowhere but I think it will stick, that one.

I have no trouble in commending the work done by the Social Services Committee in this bill. It is about better public services. It is about outcomes. I commend it to the House.

Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui mō Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[So salutations to you, Mr Speaker, and in regards to Māori Language Week, a huge one at that.]

The problem with that speech by Mike Sabin, who has just resumed his seat, is that that is not what the Families Commission Amendment Bill does at all, not even vaguely. The disestablishment of the Families Commission is not something that the Labour Party necessarily has a problem with. In fact, it was its policy in the last election. It is what you replace it with that is key, and what we are replacing the current Families Commission with, this watered down weakened Families Commission, is not a good step forward for families. It seriously undermines the advocacy role—the independent advocacy role—of the Families Commission and makes it something more akin to a Government department.

If that is what the Government wants, then it should just roll it into the Ministry of Social Development and put the funding there. But that is not what the Government is doing. It is keeping this fig leaf of a commission, this fig leaf of autonomy, and yet constantly sprinkled right the way through the bill we see the phrases “on behalf of Government” and “Government’s priorities”—that is not autonomy. That is not autonomy at all. That is simply another Government entity controlled by the Government, which is not what the Families Commission was set up to do.

We supported the bill going to the Social Services Committee, because we wanted to look at what the changes would mean, at the role of evaluation and research within the Families Commission and where that would now sit, and at the reporting around outcomes. Unfortunately, we now have to oppose this bill because it is a step backwards for the Families Commission. The cut in funding for the commission is also going to severely limit the role of the Families Commissioner, especially now that they are being required to produce an annual families status report.

Well, we have to ask ourselves why the Government got rid of producing the social report through the Ministry of Social Development every year and will now be doing that every 3 years. It was a report that was providing good information on how the Government, Government departments, and all the relevant Government entities were doing in dealing with the issues facing not just families but all of our community. That is gone. It is now only every 3 years and it is now being replaced with this families status report, but the funding that would be required to actually do that work in a robust manner is not being provided; in fact, the commission’s funding is being halved. There is nothing wrong with parenting courses and more assistance for youth mental health is great. There is nothing wrong with that. But that is just a distraction from what we are actually doing to the Families Commission, which is the issue that we are discussing under this bill, which is slashing its funding, reducing its ability to advocate on behalf of families, and limiting its independence.

We had seven commissioners before, and that number recognised the complexity of the issues facing families. So we had people who covered a broad range of disciplines, particularly in the research field, all of which were relevant to families and all of which had something to bring to the table in terms of advocating for good policy for families.

Well, now we have got one commissioner. I am sorry, but there is absolutely no way that one commissioner can have the required depth of understanding across the broad range of disciplines that the Families Commission covers, which just shows the complete lack of respect for evidence-based policy-making from this National Government. If it did respect good research and having good research underpinning policy for families, then it would not be moving from having seven experts to one—seven experts to one.

Even our Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Peter Gluckman, does not have the experience across all the disciplines that we are talking about that are currently represented. He is a very knowledgable man and very useful to have there, but I think even he would acknowledge that the broader the range of disciplines represented, the better. I note that he is one of the people who are going to be on the social science experts panel; it has mentioned the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.

What if the next Prime Minister’s science adviser has nothing to do with family research? What if the late Sir Paul Callaghan had been the science adviser? With his experience in physics, would he still have been on the social science experts panel? So I hope the flexibility is there, in case the next science adviser does not have an expertise in the area of families or child development, as Sir Peter Gluckman has. I suspect that is how short thinking this bill is—we are not even thinking about what discipline. It might be an astrophysicist. It might be from my discipline—a biochemist—and that would be a wonderful and beautiful thing, but perhaps not the best person to sit on the social science experts panel. That just says to me that this has not been thought through properly.

You see that again in the very, very confused governance structure of this organisation. We are not clear about whether the Families Commissioner will actually be the chair of the board. We do not actually know what the role of the Families Commissioner is. The National Government keeps saying that this is just like all the other commissioners—this is just like bringing it into line with the other commissioners. That is actually not true. Their roles are clearly defined in legislation.

The role of the Families Commissioner is no longer defined in legislation. There is a confused governance structure. We are not clear what the roles of the various parts of the organisation now are. The chief executive role is retained. It appears from first reading that the chief executive might be the chair of the board, not the Families Commissioner. This is very, very confused lawmaking and it will not result in good outcomes. The member Mike Sabin said before that it will deliver lean and efficient outcomes from the Families Commission. In fact, I suspect it will be the exact opposite as they muddle their way through trying to work out who is in charge of doing exactly what in this new and confused structure.

The other thing that worries me is the new social policy and evaluation unit within the commission. The bill says that this will provide independent monitoring and evaluation of programmes and interventions in the social sector. Well, that is all very well and good. It is now sitting within the unit, so I have to question how independent it is given that this unit is now far more beholden to the Government than the Families Commission once was. Of course, currently the commission uses peer reviewers from universities, from other research centres, and from independent experts. It does not just use the people it has within its own commission. It goes broader, outside, to really maintain that independence and get that expertise, and that is now not going to happen.

Currently the Families Commission has the independence to identify where the gaps in research are, and child poverty is a good example of where the Government is not putting a focus on research and where the Families Commission will step in and say: “This is somewhere where we need some robust, independent research, so that we can have good evidence underpinning good public policy.” Well, now, where the Families Commission has this function of identifying opportunities for evidence and research, it is now only where it will assist in achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector—commissioning research on behalf of the Government and managing contracts on behalf of the Government. That is not independent at all.

So currently the commission can go out and see where Government is failing to step up to the mark in protecting our families, and where the Government is failing to do the research because it does not want people to know what is going on out there. The Government knows that the evidence will show that it is not taking issues like child poverty seriously enough, so it does not want that research done. It does not want that evidence pointing to its utter failure as a Government to address the growing inequality in this country, the growing inequality within families, and the increase in child poverty. It does not want that research done. So it is changing the rules for the Families Commission to say that it can identify gaps only where it is working to achieve the Government’s priorities. That is unacceptable—completely unacceptable. So it is a shame. As I said, we would have no issue with the disestablishment of the Families Commission if what was being put in its place was going to guarantee better outcomes for families and for children in this country.

The key question is: what are you replacing it with? What is the Government replacing it with? It is replacing it with a fig leaf that is going to be hamstrung—the new commission is not going to be independent. It is not going to be allowed to carry out research where it feels that the Government is falling through the gaps. Also, the new commission will be shambolic in its structure, and it is going to cause enormous uncertainty. The Government is limiting the pool of experts within the commission across the broad range—and as for the number of disciplines, you need only look at that Otago University longitudinal study to see the incredible range of disciplines that are included when you are talking about families.

A reduction in the number of commissioners, from seven down to one, means that it will be a hard task to get that broad range of disciplines represented effectively. That just shows the scant regard this Government has for peer-reviewed independent research underpinning good public policy.

Tēnā koe e te Rangatira. Whakanui i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. I want to acknowledge the celebration of Māori Language Week. Before I do, I was here last night during the dinner break, and I want to acknowledge the dedication and the unveiling of the commemorative plaques for Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and the missions in support of peace that are here today as a reminder. Last night, what was also to remind us were the families and the whānau who were here to celebrate the sacrifice that was made. That leads me into my brief speech in regard to the Families Commission Amendment Bill, because it really speaks to the importance of the role that the Families Commission plays. The previous speaker, Moana Mackey, talked about the importance of independence. It is quite interesting. She may have forgotten that for a while there the Labour Party talked about “hands on”, and now it wants to preach about hands off, so it is a bit confusing to sort of hear that speech about that. I think that this actually, seriously, is a combination of the two things.

So let us see what the commission actually does, Ms Mackey. The Families Commission, established in 2003, was important because it was about identifying the needs of families and whānau in our community. Most important, it was about the research that was a part of it, and I was a part of that previously, especially around the Family Violence Clearinghouse and information relating to family violence, and that was quite critical. That function has not been removed. There is still the importance of evidence-based information that informs policy makers, NGOs, and others, so that when we are focusing our focus of energy and effort, it goes into the appropriate places.

It is important to see that under the Crown Entities Act 2004, the Families Commission still has that sense of autonomy, even though there have been arguments against that. So its role is as an advocate for the interests of families inside of our communities. Also, it is to monitor and evaluate those programmes and interventions. What was mentioned was about Sir Peter Gluckman. Well, in the Social Services Committee, where we interviewed with the Families Commission, it was important that Sir Peter Gluckman actually confirmed, commented on, and celebrated the shifts of the Families Commission in these amendments. In fact, he said to us quite clearly at that point in time that the focus on evidence-based research was absolutely important. So when we went from seven commissioners down to one, the other commissioners had an engagement role. This would ensure that by having a families status report and a Social Sciences Expert Panel, we would have an even greater sense of an evidence base, and we would have a clear focus on what that could provide for the policy makers and for our communities at large.

Moana Mackey also talked about the longitudinal study, and I know Professor Richie Poulton. In fact, I met him last week and spoke with him about the work that he was doing—the longitudinal study, which is world leading, absolutely—and the importance of that impact on families. We also talked about the role of the Families Commission, and we could see the benefits and the pluses of the Social Sciences Expert Panel and the evidence, combined with that longitudinal study, that could make a difference. So we do not agree on this side that these amendments will in any way discredit or take away the credibility of the Families Commission. Our view, quite clearly, from the experts who have been quoted and talked about, from the communities, and from those who are on the ground, is that in actual fact this will truly make a difference. So I support this bill. I think that actually these amendments will both help and support the direction and the focus. Most important, at the end of the day, will it truly make a difference to the families in our communities? We believe it will. I commend these amendments to the House.

I understand that the next call is a split call. Carol Beaumont.

I just really want to follow my colleague Moana Mackey in explaining our concerns, because Labour did support this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill, to the Social Services Committee. We wanted to look closely at the implications of the bill and to look at what the role of evaluation and research should be in relation to what was being proposed. We now oppose this bill, having considered it carefully during the select committee process. We believe that the changes proposed to the commission in this bill continue an agenda that is about fundamentally altering the commission’s nature as an autonomous Crown entity and, really, making it something more akin to a Government department or ministry. We believe that the net effect of that is really to compromise the commission, and to limit its independence and, most important, its ability to advocate effectively for families.

So, given those changes, we stand by our policy for the disestablishment of the commission, instead replacing it with a “Ministry for Children” in order to focus on policies and programmes to ensure that children and families are the centre of all policy. I just want to say that my colleague Jacinda Ardern is doing a great deal of work in this area, because, in the end, what happens to our children is the most important thing. As members of Parliament, we should be considering everything that is done in this House in light of what the implications are for the future generations. At the moment in this country, we can see the fact that we now have a situation where many young people do not believe that they have a future in this country. They do not believe that they have a right to a job or do not believe they will get a job. They do not believe they will own a house. What are the implications of that? What are the implications of so many children living in poverty? How will that flow through over the next decades? The implications are very, very serious, which is why in Labour we do believe that children and families should be at the centre of all policy. So, as I said earlier, this bill does limit the advocacy function of the commission, and we believe that that really, effectively, means that it is meaningless. It is not going to be sufficient for doing what needs to be done.

Probably the final point I would make is that the governance structure as established is very confused. I think my colleague Moana Mackey went through the fact that there will not be the ability to have the range of disciplines reflected in this that is necessary for something as multidisciplinary as this. So, with those few words, I just again repeat that Labour is opposing this bill.

I rise to add another Green voice to our opposition to this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I have heard words from the other side of the House about the streamlining of the Families Commission to make it leaner and more functional. You know, they are good words. We like “functional”. We like “streamlined”. But I have to let the other side of the House know that when the community hears those words from you, alarm bells go off. That is not what they are looking for, and they know, when they hear those words, that it is about an agenda that is different from theirs.

I would just like to read some statements from two submissions that were made to the Social Services Committee in response to this bill. The first one is from the Women’s Refuge, and in its conclusion it said: “we oppose the Families Commission Amendment Bill 2012. The Bill will shift the focus of the Families Commission away from the very important function of advocating for families. Indeed, the Bill undermines the Commission remaining a commission at all.” Alarm bells are going off in our communities because of the intent that lies underneath this bill.

I quote also, in a little more depth, from the Child Poverty Action Group submission. From its perspective it is saying that “The proposed Bill also removes the autonomy of the Commission by ceding decision-making and direction to the 4-member Social Science Experts Panel who are appointed on the direct recommendation of the Minister and the Prime Minister’s principal Science Advisor. At the same time, the functions of the Families Commission are considerably extended to absorb many of the research and monitoring roles currently performed by the Ministry of Social Development. The changes proposed in the Families Commission Amendment Bill 2012 would transform the Commission into an arm of Government, further undermining the diminishing support available to families in New Zealand. Child Poverty Action Groups strongly urges that the Amendments should not proceed.”

Our comments on this bill are not based on our own ideological view of the world. They are based on the experience of those in the community and their desire for a community where children are able to live to their potential, where families are supported and nurtured, and their needs are met by the Government. Sadly, we find this bill to be another nail in the coffin of those aspirations of our community. It is a sad day—another sad day—in this House, when we see those needs being so undermined.

I would like to take a moment to speak, as well, to one of the functions that sit within the Families Commission at the moment, and that is the White Ribbon campaign, which will be moving out of the commission. I want to speak a little bit more on this. It seems to me that there are two major challenges to our country at the moment in terms of our overall well-being and specifically the well-being of our children, and those are domestic violence—violence against women and children—and child poverty. They are two enormous tasks, challenges, and harms to our country at the moment that we need to be focusing as much of our resources as possible towards addressing. And what is this bill doing? It is taking resources away from those challenges. It is undermining our ability to actually to be able to provide the safe and healthy future for our children.

The White Ribbon campaign sits within the Families Commission at the moment, but now we are hearing from the Chief Families Commissioner that she does not believe that it fits with the new shape of the Families Commission. In 2011 the White Ribbon campaign produced 623 media reports. It led to 7,000 Facebook users a day going towards its page, and to 58,000 hits on its website. When I look at its website now, I have not seen any action pretty much all year. It seems that already, even though things are not supposed to shift until 2015, because of the direction of this bill the ability of the campaign has been undermined to the point where it is hard to see any action whatsoever. That is a shame for this country.

I rise to support the Families Commission Amendment Bill. It introduces a new function in research, monitoring, and evaluation; establishes a social science experts panel; and requires the Families Commission to develop an annual families status report.

There are some changes, absolutely. There will be one commissioner. The new functions include independent monitoring and evaluation to drive quality services for families. The commission will remain an autonomous Crown entity, which should give members a lot of confidence about what we are doing.

The Families Commission currently receives $8 million in funding each year—$32 million over 4 years. It is still a substantial body and does substantial good in this country. I support this legislation.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.