Families Commission Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move, That the Families Commission Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The changes provided for in this bill are integral to building a stronger, more resilient social sector. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development, can I thank officials and the Social Services Committee for the work they completed to get this bill here to the House today. With a more focused and streamlined structure, the Families Commission will be in a much better position to contribute to the social sector than it has been previously. With the creation of the new social policy evaluation and research unit—or SuPERU—Government agencies, NGOs, academics, and philanthropists have a vital new tool for the important work they do with New Zealand families. We are confident that these changes have the power to improve decision making across the social sector and, as a result, help New Zealanders improve their lives and build better futures.

The bill proposes to amend the commission’s current role. Two broad functions will be established, headed by a single commissioner, down from the original seven. The social policy evaluation and research unit will be able to carry out thorough and independent research on, and monitoring of, the issues faced by New Zealand families and the communities they live in. We have historically had a real gap in this area, as has been clearly identified by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman. The Families Commission already undertakes some research, but this has been restricted specifically to its advocacy role for families. This bill extends this research and evaluation function across the entire social sector.

The commission will also play an important role in coordinating research and evaluation across the wider social sector. This is a significant change, particularly at a time when agencies are working closer together than ever before in sharing ideas and expertise. The Families Commission must be able to review and evaluate cross-sector work to remain relevant and to provide vital independent expertise. This goes beyond merely identifying opportunities for evaluation and research. Through these changes the commission will be expected to actively identify evidence and research that will support the achievement of social sector policies and priorities. The academic rigour of the unit and its focus on delivering greater transparency and value for money will allow us to work out what supports and services will add value to the social sector. This will ensure that the Government and communities are making decisions based on the best possible advice.

The changes proposed in this bill not only enable the commission to take a sector-wide view; they task it to do so. Simply put, there is no point in undertaking research to have it sit on a shelf unread. As the sector changes, the way we measure it must change, as well. We have made it clear that in carrying out its monitoring, evaluation, and research functions, the commission will be acting independently of the programmes and interventions being monitored or evaluated. This is essential to make sure that the work of the commission is seen as credible and robust, and not captured by provider interests.

Already the unit has taken over the management of the longitudinal study Growing Up in New Zealand from the Ministry of Social Development. In last year’s Budget the Government committed $6.4 million to the Growing Up in New Zealand study. This is New Zealand’s largest and most diverse longitudinal study, and it is following the lives of 7,000 4 to 5-year-olds from birth until they reach 21. It will provide information on child development that is New Zealand - specific. We have got high expectations that our investment will deliver results providing robust information that can be used to inform policy.

The bill also requires the commission to prepare and publish an annual family and whānau status report. The first has already been published, with the second due shortly. The report is a valuable means by which the well-being of New Zealand families can be regularly measured and monitored.

Additionally, the bill provides for the creation of a social science experts panel. This group will provide guidance and academic peer review of research undertaken by, or for, the commission to ensure that all research is rigorous and credible. It is important to be clear that the panel is to provide quality assurance and not to direct the work of the commission. The proposed changes require a minimum of four panel members, and we are pleased to note that the commission has already established an expert advisory group. This group is made up of seven respected academics and professionals representing a range of disciplines and experience. This clearly demonstrates the willingness of some of our best minds to contribute to the work of the commission. Even so, the panel would not provide the sole means for peer review of the commission’s research. There may be occasions where the range of expertise offered by the panel would not be wide enough to provide peer review and guidance in all the required subject areas. In these cases, the commission has the ability to consult more widely.

The final changes provided for in the bill are largely designed to refocus the commission’s governance arrangements. To that end, this bill requires removing the title of commissioner from all but one member of the commission, who will be known as the Families Commissioner. This will focus the attention of the other commission members on their governance role as board members. It puts the commission on the same footing as most other Crown entities. By aligning the governance of the commission more closely to other Crown entities, roles and responsibilities will become clearer, with a leaner and more effective structure. As such, the autonomy of the commission as prescribed in the Crown Entities Act 2004 remains unchanged. The commission will continue to have regard to Government policy only when directed and would not be required to give effect to it. The board will ultimately decide the course the commission takes. It remains responsible for decisions relating to the operation of the commission. This is consistent with the Crown Entities Act, which states in section 25(1) that the role of the board of a statutory entity is “to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the entity.”

We firmly believe that the Families Commission Amendment Bill will enable the commission to become the modern, forward-looking, and relevant organisation it needs to be to meet the needs of an ever-changing and innovative social sector. I commend this bill to the House.

Bula vinaka, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take my final call in this long debate around the Families Commission. The Families Commission Amendment Bill restructures the commission and redraws its functions. Though we are passing this bill today, almost all of these changes are already in place, so we can look back and look at the results that the Families Commission has produced under the leadership of the Minister for Social Development. What we find is a train wreck. The Families Commission today is a train wreck. I want to go through why that is. It certainly is a train wreck in terms of its performance. It is not performing, and it has not performed over this past year that it has just reported on to the Social Services Committee.

The second aspect of the train wreck is that the commission is now riddled with political conflicts, and there will be no way that this particular commission can actually resurrect itself to become the kind of commission it should be, the kind of commission it was, and the kind of commission it was designed to be. The other point is that the Minister herself has actually been donkey deep in this right from the time that she took over the ministership of this particular commission because she has set its functions and she has set its particular governance structure, and it is a train wreck.

I want to go through each one of those aspects of the commission that I have identified. The changes actually reduce the consultation functions and the advocacy role of the commission. They do it in a way by giving new functions to the commission that will keep it bogged down in the kinds of things that the Government wants it to produce, rather than the kind of advocacy the commission was designed to deliver for the families of New Zealand. It actually increases its evaluation and management of those things that were Crown functions—functions of the Ministry of Social Development. One of its major functions now is the management of Government contracts—contracts of evaluation in the social sector. Those jobs and responsibilities were quite well handled by the Ministry of Social Development. By giving the commission those roles, the Government has actually confounded, restricted, and reduced the ability of the commission to function well and to advocate for families.

Although the Minister Anne Tolley, who was just talking, sings the praises of the new longitudinal study coming under the management of this particular commission, there was no need for that. It will not be much management, because that programme is run by the University of Auckland. It is a multimillion-dollar project that is doing very well. It is the new generation of longitudinal studies for families. It will produce the results. The Families Commission is now simply holding, if you like, in very small quotes, the “management” of this particular thing. It is managing the Government aspects of that, but none of the work takes place in the Families Commission. That particular function, the longitudinal study, cannot really be counted as a new function of this particular commission.

Then the bill changes the board and the board’s functions. It is amazing that here we have a Families Commission, and this bill now allows for any one of members of the board to be a Families Commissioner, and the functions of that particular commissioner to be determined by himself or herself. So the Minister has no view on what the role of the Families Commissioner ought to be, and the Minister’s focus was absolutely wrong when she said that this is how it is with the other commissions. Who is in any doubt about the role of the Children’s Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, or the Chief Human Rights Commissioner? It is all very clearly identified in the legislation. But here we have a hybrid structure that actually takes those kinds of things away, and this particular structure is actually flawed.

If you look at the results that it has produced, I just want to take two things from its current annual report. When it comes to its influence on organisations working with families and whānau, here are the results: in 2001 its actual performance rating was 83 percent; in 2011-12 it was 83 percent; and in 2012-13, the period of reform, the target was 85 percent. What did it produce? It produced 59 percent. Well, that is a huge reduction in anybody’s language. Then for the other one, its own output indicator—“Impact of knowledge transfer activities on public awareness on those who influence policy and practice”—the target was 850; the actual performance was 115. These point to a big hole in what this particular commission is now doing, so it is flawed.

I want to come to talk about the conflicts of interest that are now endemic in this particular organisation. We now have the Chief Families Commissioner underperforming, really, at the last select committee, when she could not see why it was the business of the select committee to ask questions about a conflict of interest with one of her commissioners. Here we have one of her commissioners campaigning with a National Party rosette on at the Pasifika Festival a week and a bit ago. So here is a deliberate political act by a commissioner. These commissioners are required to be independent, and palpably so.

What is more, the Minister Paula Bennett knew about the politics of this particular commissioner. She said: “I have known Dr Parmar for several years and I am well aware of her political views …”. Despite that, she appointed Dr Parmar to the Families Commission, did no work in managing the potential conflicts that are emerging there, and did no work to advise the Families Commission as to how that should be managed. Or did she? Was it a deliberate position of a National Party candidate – to – be? She has now come out and declared her candidacy for the Hunua seat. So right from the time when she was appointed, this conflict was palpable, yet it was not managed. Here Dr Parmar is, campaigning with the Prime Minister.

That is not the only conflict. When we look at the opinions expressed by the Chief Families Commissioner on her own website—that is, the commission’s website—she takes the view, amazingly so, that in election year, family violence does not need more money. Her reasoning is as follows: we have spent $60 million - odd over the last 10 years or so on family violence, and the numbers have gone up. Therefore, it is not working. Therefore, money is not the answer. It is amazing. Anybody who knows the family violence area knows that the whole programme was designed to bring family violence out into the open. Therefore, it would produce many more complaints and many more incidents would be brought to its notice. But here is this commissioner arguing, in election year, the Government’s agenda—that we do not need to throw money at this. I wonder why, when the actual advocacy should be quite the opposite.

She defends the conflict by saying that it is in tune with the State Services Commission’s requirements. Well, it is not. The requirements of the State Services Commission are very, very clear, and there is a conflict because things that she is doing now will affect other things that she has been part of. That is a conflict. Declare it and deal with it. The guidelines of the Auditor-General are also very, very clear. So how can this commission hide behind something that it has created for itself, to say that the conflict is not there?

In the end, this is a compromised commission. Its very focus is now compromised. How can it be taken seriously? Everything is now internal. Its advice comes internally. It previously had the ability to go to anybody that it wanted to, nationally and internationally, to peer review its particular reports. Now it has got to be done internally. The advisory panel is internal. This is a reduction of the potential influence of this commission and it is fatal. The reforms are fatal and what this bill does is flawed. How the commission has been working has realised all of its risk. The responsibility for all of that lies with the present Minister for Social Development, because it is under her leadership that she has restructured this commission in her own image. It has not performed, and therefore now what we see is the destruction of an institution. The Labour Party will be honest about this—let us morph it into a Ministry for Children. Thank you.

Ahn nyung ha se yo, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in this third reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. But before I actually get on to the bill, I would like to address some of the comments that were made by the speaker who just took his seat, Dr Rajen Prasad. He did actually say that it was “amazing”. He used that word quite a lot, and I have to agree with him. It is amazing that that member could stand there and talk about conflicts of interest. He did actually say that the Families Commission was riddled with political conflicts.

Let me put some facts to the House. When that member was with the Families Commission, he was in fact the Chief Families Commissioner—not just a commissioner; he was the Chief Families Commissioner—in 2008. When he became a member of the Labour Party—and he was actually on the Labour list; he was elected in November 2008—how many months before that election did he stand down from his position as the Chief Families Commissioner? It was actually only about 2 or 3 months before, and he is talking about someone who is not even a candidate in the election that is coming up in September and saying that there is a conflict of interest. I have to say that that is amazing. That is so rich coming from that member.

I have to say that I hate talking about friends across the House, because I have known Dr Rajen Prasad for many, many years. But I really hate the fact that he actually believes—it is very sad—that there is a conflict of interest when he himself, as the Chief Families Commissioner, did not declare his political interest. He was on the list at No. 12. If he is on the list for Labour at No. 12, how long were the negotiations going on for? How long was he a member of the Labour Party for? How long was he actually campaigning for the Labour Party before he became a member of Parliament? He also travelled to India. That member travelled to India with the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, when he was the Chief Families Commissioner. Was that a conflict of interest? It is rich coming from that member, talking about another person who is not even a candidate yet in the election.

If we are going to make a difference for families who are struggling, we need to be able to invest in interventions that will actually work. No one in this House wants to waste time researching issues that are going nowhere. No one in this House wants to research issues that may end up becoming of absolutely no use to anybody. This bill will streamline the Families Commission’s core activities. The commission will continue to work on issues that are important to families, within a leaner and more focused structure. I thought “focus” was a good word. We are not altering the commission so that it becomes closer to being a Government ministry, as some Labour members like to think. The Families Commission is not going to turn into something that is closer to being a Government department. The bill simply means that the way that the Families Commission works is going to change. It will remain an autonomous Crown entity. In fact, the bill extends the commission’s powers and functions in order to make it more relevant.

It is strange that Labour members worry that the changes we produced to the bill will bring the Families Commission closer to being a Government department when they would rather dissolve the Families Commission altogether and turn it into a Ministry for Children. What the changes to this bill will mean is that there will be significant change for the Families Commission in terms of its structural arrangements, work programme, capability, and size. The Families Commission will be headed by a single commissioner, down from the original seven. The commissioner will take on a new role, providing for independent monitoring, evaluation, and research to measure effectiveness of initiatives across the social sector. The bill requires the Families Commission to develop the annual families status report to see how New Zealand families are getting on, and provides for the appointment of a social sciences expert panel to provide academic peer review and guidance. The panel compromises a minimum of four members, with the flexibility to appoint additional members if necessary, as concern was expressed that a panel of four may not have skills across a broad range. The Government will be redirecting $4 million over 4 years to fund extra parenting programmes and relationship education in secondary schools.

The Ministry of Social Development and the Families Commission will work together to make sure that the research of each, in fact, complements that of the other. The research will not be duplicated, and I know that New Zealand First members mentioned that they were quite worried about that happening. But the Ministry of Social Development and the Families Commission have two very different roles, so I believe that there will not be duplication. Nobody wants duplication. That would be a complete waste of money. The Families Commission is to actively identify and move forward in areas where research will actually assist. An inter-agency team from the Ministry of Social Development, the State Services Commission, and the Families Commission is currently overseeing the changes. It is a significant change for the Families Commission in terms of its structural arrangements, work programme, capability requirements, and size. The 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.

As the Minister mentioned, there is a longitudinal survey that we have undertaken called Growing Up in New Zealand that looks at 7,000 young children aged between 4 and 5 and tracking them right to the age of 21. It will be an amazing piece of research for all of us to take note of and understand.

This is a great bill, and I commend it to the House.

Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. As the previous speaker, Melissa Lee, sits down, I just want to say to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to the members of this House, that there was no shred of truth in her attacks on my colleagues, and I would challenge her to show any evidence—any example—that my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad, as a former Families Commissioner, was campaigning during the period that he was a commissioner. That is not what we saw in the behaviour of a current member of the Families Commission, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. We actually saw a picture of that member of the Families Commission standing next to the Prime Minister, with a National Party blue rosette on. She should step down from the role that she currently holds and become political—get involved in politics, if that is what she wants—but do not beguile the community by wearing a rosette and at the same time holding the position of Families Commissioner.

The Child Poverty Action Group, in its submission on the Families Commission Amendment Bill, said that in the history of New Zealand there has rarely been a greater need for an autonomous Crown entity whose role it is to advocate for the interests of families. I agree with that submission. That need is greatest today, right now.

Child Poverty Action Group goes on in its submission to list a range of things that are happening within families in our communities the length and breadth of New Zealand. It lists the number of people who are self-harming, the number of people who have committed suicide, family violence, and family violence - related crimes, the number of police apprehensions, and the number supported by Women’s Refuge. In its submission it highlights that these things have been rising over time. In fact, it is one of the reasons why the Families Commission was formed in the first place—to try to attempt to address these issues, because if they are happening to one family, they impact on the rest of our communities.

Today the need is greater than ever before for an organisation to be championing and advocating for the needs of families. And I say that the need is even greater today because New Zealand families are under constant attack, not necessarily from violence and the related suicide and all of that bad stuff. They are under constant attack now from poverty—poverty that has been rising in the last 5, almost 6, years. Inequality is rising rapidly. At least one child in five lives in severe and significant poverty. If 185,000 children are living in severe and significant poverty, all of those families are doing it tough right now, today.

Unemployment continues to remain high, at 6.8 percent—with all the hardship that that means for our families. In the Pacific and Māori communities it is even worse. They are, in particular, the hardest hit today, despite the economic recovery that we hear about from this Government. Pacific unemployment is at 13.7 percent today, almost double what it was in 2008. The rate of Pacific youth aged from 15 to 24 years who are not in education, employment, or training stands at 21 percent today. The Pacific median income—the weekly incomes for Pacific people—fell from $455 in 2008 to $381 in 2013, while the median income for the rest of New Zealand rose by $51 a week in the same period. The Salvation Army reported that in 2012 it gave away almost 5,000 more food parcels to Pasifika clients as compared with the number of food parcels it gave out in 2008.

All of this signals the plight and the struggles that families are undergoing throughout New Zealand, and it has been getting worse under this Government. There is a need for an advocate, a Crown entity, that is able to champion and advocate on behalf of all of these New Zealand families. But, alas, in this particular bill all we are getting is tinkering on the edges and the removal of the independence of this particular Families Commission. This is really critical.

The removal of the independence of the Families Commission means that it becomes almost as if it was a puppet of this Government. It is an example of where once upon a time the Families Commission was the champion and strong advocate for paid parental leave, but the minute that this Government decided that that was not on, that it did not support that, what did we find later on? The same Families Commission organisation that supported paid parental leave then began to toe the party line advocated by this particular Government.

This bill removes the independence and the freedom of the Families Commission to be able to advocate strongly and to think for itself about how to address the hardships and the difficulties that families are facing today. In addition to the removal of the independence of the Families Commission, the Government’s legislation means that the commission loses its autonomy and it loses its ability to think freely and to advocate for those things that would support families up and down New Zealand.

Under this bill there is the establishment of a social science experts panel. I do not know what the aim of this expert panel is, but I recall under Labour it was the Ministry of Social Development that released on an annual basis a state of the nation report on the situation of families in New Zealand. On releasing that report, all other Government agencies would act upon it to try to rectify and provide the badly needed support that families required, like employment, like income, like support for early childhood education. The removal of the ability of the Ministry of Social Development to be able to release that annual report and giving of it to this special expert panel just simply means, again, a removal of the requirement for this Government to act for and support our families who are in need.

National has gutted the independence of the Families Commission and, as far as Labour is concerned, it is best now to disestablish it altogether. Labour will, in its stead, subsume the Families Commission’s original and independent role and its functions into what we will call the Children’s Commissioner. I said earlier that there are 185,000 children who are classed by many, many reports as being in significant and severe poverty. They are not poor by themselves; they belong to families. All of those families are struggling to put food on the table, and they have been struggling even more since the coming into power of this particular Government.

By doing what this Government is doing to the Families Commission, it is actually washing its hands of its responsibility to support families in New Zealand. When Labour comes into power on 20 September, we will establish a children’s Minister. We will make sure that the Children’s Commissioner has its independent voice and is able to act autonomously to support the needs of those children, because when we are able to do that—when we are able to support families and their children—we are also supporting in the long run the welfare of this country.

That is where our interests are and I doubt very, very much, based on this piece of legislation, that that Government has any consideration for the rest of New Zealand other than for the kinds of people whom we have seen in the previous several weeks—the kinds of people whom it supports. It is supporting only its people, its families, which are a few. And I say that any New Zealanders who are listening so far to the debate that has occurred are not stupid. They will have recognised once and for all that this is an arrogant Government—an arrogant Government—that is looking after only itself and its mates, and it does not care one iota about the rest of New Zealand’s families who are struggling and doing it tough.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Families Commission Amendment Bill. We will be opposing it, and it will not come as any surprise to members of the House that we will be doing that.

Essentially, we believe that the changes that the Government is making to the Families Commission with this legislation fundamentally undermine the commission’s ability to advocate for families in Aotearoa New Zealand. Like others and the previous speaker, Su’a William Sio, we have concerns about the independence of the commission and we question the motives of the Government in actually going through this process of essentially decommissioning the commission.

We are concerned about the independence of the Families Commission because this legislation changes things so that the Government has the upper hand in picking who will be in the governance roles and what type of research can be conducted. The Government will be hand-picking, if you like, the board that will replace the commissioners, and it will be hand-picking the social science experts panel. We have already heard during the Committee of the whole House stage from members of the Labour Party that that hand-picking already occurs, and that there is a close personal relationship between some of the existing commissioners and National Party MPs. We are concerned about this because we believe that it has an impact on the quality of the research that the Government then receives. That is important because Governments should be receiving strong independent research that underpins the policies that they want to enact to make a better society for our families and children.

We have already seen examples where the independence of research is being undermined. If we look back to the example of the research that was commissioned in late 2008 on paid parental leave, it was very, very supportive of the role that parental leave could play in supporting families and supporting children. We saw that completely reneged on by the existing Chief Families Commissioner when she took office, who basically said that the commission did not have a view on paid parental leave at this stage. Nothing has changed. The research did not change, but the view of the commission did change because the relationship of the commission with the existing Government changed. It is independence that we need to see in place.

The Families Commission has a huge part to play in advocating for families, and it always has. The commission has given evidence to Productivity Commission inquiries and to select committees, and that evidence has enabled politicians to make sound policy. What we see from this undermining of research and this undermining of independence is a decrease in democracy. That is what happens when we do not see free and frank advice being offered from independent organisations that work alongside the Government. What we see is a dumbing-down of the policies that get made. What we see is evidence being presented to the Government, ministries, and Ministers to make decisions that is based on the policies that they want to have in place. We do see this happening. We see this with the welfare reform panel that was set up. We see these things being set up that actually reinforce the Government’s position, and that is not free and frank advice.

When we take into account, at the same time, that if we are wanting independent research we need to be relying on third parties to provide it, what we are starting to see is that they too are being stifled in their ability to give free and frank advice. Again, that is an undermining of democracy. As an example of this, I am thinking of universities, where academic researchers are now stating quite clearly that they do not feel that they can give too much of a critical opinion on the Government policies of the day in case they lose their funding.

We are seeing this in the community and voluntary sector as well. We saw this with submitters who came to the Social Services Committee. Some people are actually too scared to offer an independent opinion because they fear that the Government’s tentacles will reach out and pull away the funding that they exist on. That is why the Families Commission is even more crucial than ever. It is—or was, before these reforms—an independent body that was charged with advocating and putting together the programmes that would lift our families out of poverty and away from the social harms that they are facing today. Like previous speakers, we suspect that the Families Commission will eventually become a Government department, with all pretence of independence removed.

I just want to go back to research again and talk about that a bit. In the research sector, there are some alarming things that are happening. The Families Commission had a role in ensuring that the collection of research was put in one place and could be utilised. When we change the Families Commission so that it is now contracting out that role, if you like, we also undermine the very existence of some of these research organisations.

The one that springs to mind most is that of Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, which is a Māori research organisation that currently has its funding in jeopardy because the people who make the decisions about the funding for research for that organisation are the members of the Royal Society of New Zealand. It is sort of like a second-tier contractor, if you like, and the society determines how the funding pie is cut. This time it has cut Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga out of the picture altogether. What worries me about this is that we do not really know how the Royal Society of New Zealand made that decision. We do not know whether it has Māori on its board who are making those decisions. We certainly do not know whether it is valuing the research that is coming through. I would have thought that we need more research specifically for Māori because in every social indicator of deprivation, Māori are overrepresented.

One of the things that I have always loved about the Families Commission has been the White Ribbon programme and the work that it has done to support men to take responsibility, step up, and say that violence in families is not OK. The commission has done huge amounts of work on this, and it has every right to be proud of it. My concern is that with the changing nature of the commission, that programme will also change.

We heard at the Social Services Committee quite recently that the programme is looking at partnerships in the private sector to keep it going. What worries me about that is whether we are suddenly going to have “Skycity White Ribbon Day”. Are we going to be partnering with companies that will incredibly undermine the whole meme of what White Ribbon Day is about? I am absolutely worried that partnership with organisations that promote family—[Interruption] I am concerned that the Families Commission and White Ribbon Day—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Thank you. I am concerned that the Families Commission could partner with organisations and companies that actually contribute to family harm and violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. When I say that, I am referring to the alcohol industry and gambling sector. Just to wind up, this Government—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Can I just remind members that it is a longstanding convention in this House to be aware of the fact that when you are on the cross benches and you are close to someone who is addressing the Chamber, any interjections on the speaker have an effect on the microphones. As I said, it is a longstanding convention, so would members please respect that.

This Government is obsessed with meddling in places where it is undeserved and unwarranted. We will be opposing this bill because we support advocacy for families, and this Government is undermining that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a point of order. Please, points of order are to be heard in silence.

In light of what has been said by Melissa Lee, I seek leave of the House to make a personal statement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? [Interruption] Order! Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Melissa Lee, in her speech, referred to a visit to India in 2004 that I made with the then Prime Minister. I want to put it on record that the then Prime Minister invited two senior officials to go with her for the State visit to India: me, as Chief Families Commissioner, and Anand Satyanand, the then Ombudsman. That was because of our familiarity with India and because of our own ancestry as Indians. At that time I was not a member of the Labour Party and did not participate in any political activity. Melissa Lee then went on to imply that I also took political action in my role as Chief Families Commissioner. During the time I was Chief Families Commissioner, I did not take part in any political activity for any party. I want to put that on record. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. In light of the comments by Mr Prasad, I would say that the Opposition has been going on for some time about the issue of perception. I suppose, Mr Prasad, there is an issue of perception in that one may perceive that there is a conflict. Anyway—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. After my having made a personal statement, is it in order for the member to then refer to that and deride it in the way that he has?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I say that once a personal statement is made, then that is it, and there should be no further reflection on the member. It has been accepted by the House.

I just want to make a couple of points, though, to the member who just spoke, just in regard to his comments about one of the commissioners. He raised this as a conflict of interest. We know that the election period, officially, is around about 3 months out from an election. That person, who is a commissioner, did not declare, during that period of time, that they were going to be a candidate. So again I just want to reiterate the point that, OK, there was no conflict in there.

There are issues in the fact that inside the commission itself there is a senior staff member who is a candidate for the Labour Party, for Ōtaki. Now, in regard to that, action has been taken place, a declaration has been made, and the right, appropriate processes have been put in place. With regard to the commissioner, that process was not in place because the commissioner had not officially acknowledged that they were standing. So I think that it is a bit of an anomaly. It is politicking that is going on.

But I want to get straight to the point on this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill, which I think is of importance. Denise Roche, the previous speaker, actually talked about the issue of independence. We know that the Families Commission is still bound by the Crown Entities Act of 2004. There is no evidence in the things that she has been talking about—conflicts, or independence being taken away. In fact, I also want to talk about the fact that Sir Peter Gluckman, who has been highly acknowledged and recognised for his skill and his independence, has clearly said that he confirmed, commented on, and also celebrated the shifts and the changes in the commission in terms of the direction that it is taking.

The Families Commission has not changed its intent. The new statement of intent clearly declares the fact that the Families Commission has an exciting new mandate to act as a catalyst in New Zealand’s social policy—a clear focus and direction. None of that has been removed. None of that has been taken away. I think that what is very clear, and what is exciting, is the fact that we are now seeing that this is going to be focused also on an evidence base.

Mr Prasad talked about the fact that the Families Commission was managing contracts. It is not managing contracts. In fact, if anything, it is monitoring and evaluating research that is evidence-based and does make a difference. If he had read the full report, he would have seen that the commission is also to focus on issues like Pacific families and problems there. In fact, today we had the Retirement Commissioner talk about the importance of this evidence, this collaboration, in dealing with the issues of families in our communities. If Mr Prasad had read even further, he would have seen that there is the Families and Whānau Status Report 2013, which is absolutely important when talking about the high rates of family mobility and transience in our communities. Again, this is clear evidence of what we are bringing to the conversation and the discussion for decision makers around this.

The last thing that I want to talk about is the longitudinal study, which I think is absolutely important. Mr Prasad talked about this and said that there was no need. Mr Prasad knows that the fact is that the longitudinal study also needs to have a champion. It needs to have a champion. I will say this. Minister Maharey, in a former Labour Government, commissioned the blueprint report. I was part of that blueprint report. Over 2 years when we developed that, one thing that it lacked in its implementation was a champion. We have now got a Families Commission that is taking on the role of Growing Up in New Zealand, which is absolutely critical.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Peter Gluckman’s taking it over.

It is the right role. Ms Ardern knows it, Mr Prasad knows it. This is a critical role. We think that the changes that have been made focus both the intent and the direction of the Families Commission. That absolutely does make a difference. It is evidence-based, it is independent, and we are actually seeing the results already. I am looking forward to this bill being implemented. In this third reading of the bill in the House, I commend the bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the third reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. Yet again we have been left disappointed with this bill. There have been no substantive changes made that would make us, or even enable us, to reconsider our position on this particular bill. I have listened very carefully to the speeches from the opposite side, but nothing concrete has actually come from there. As we have always said, New Zealand First opposes this bill because to date the commission has failed to make any worthwhile difference for families. A practical difference has not been evident. Replacing seven Families Commissioners with one will not have any positive effect on the operation of the commission. Basically, any impetus for change in the commission has been negated. Of course, as we have heard, one must then question the overall independence of the commission from the Government.

Ironically, the support and work that the Families Commission has provided is already being undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development, and in New Zealand First we have to question whether the Families Commission is really worth the investment when it does much the same work and research as the Ministry of Social Development. We all know that duplication of effort is wasted in these strapped economic times, but I must say that I was very pleased to hear a National speaker stating that this was not going to happen. So we will be watching this area with great interest. We believe that the Families Commission, basically, is no longer worthwhile and that its continued existence cannot be justified.

Today is quite a sad day for the Hon Peter Dunne. It was one of his conditions of his supply and confidence agreement with one of the previous Labour Governments that the Families Commission actually came into existence. So it appears from the outside that the Hon Peter Dunne has finally sold out his Families Commission when, ironically, he has always been in a position of influence in every Government to ensure that it functioned appropriately, that it was financed appropriately, and that it could meet the objectives that were set. So it is quite a sad day for the Hon Peter Dunne. Wherever your efforts were, Mr Dunne, I have not seen them yet.

In 2014, looking on, it is now time that we worked towards protecting the family in times of widespread poverty, rather than taking steps that would be detrimental and taking money away from this area. In New Zealand First we believe that the Families Commission Amendment Bill actually undermines efforts now to protect the family unit and children. Families requiring assistance will look to the commission for leadership only. They will be disappointed. Although it may be economically and politically more desirable to minimise the number of commissioners to a lower number, we do not believe that that number should be pared down to just one. Of course, a number of the Families Commissioners have already signalled that they will be leaving the role and heading into politics—into Parliament—so it is quite timely for them, but it leaves a big gap in the Families Commission. What we are actually going to see is a major revamp of the role of the Families Commission, and one has to ask whether it goes far enough. Do we really need this Families Commission, particularly when one of the Opposition parties—Labour—is talking about creating another organisation?

Hard economic times are upon us. We have heard that story many, many times. Research in these hard economic times has to be forward and focused, and the money could be better spent towards research elsewhere. And, of course, there is a total limit for the amount of research that can be carried out. Somewhere along the line we do want to see something practical from these organisations. There seems to be a total lack of consideration of the fact that the issues and themes on which a research unit will be focused are totally interrelated, and, of course, they cross many social sector boundaries. Because many of the social issues are interrelated, it would make far more sense for the Ministry of Social Development to use that amount of available funding wisely and with consideration of this particular fact.

We look at some of the studies that have been carried out by the select committees. The White Paper for Vulnerable Children, which the Ministry of Social Development produced last year, contains issues and themes that are directly linked to the work that the commission carries out. Of course, we have to take note of the recent Health Committee report. Again, it points out to the Families Commission a way to go. I know that the Māori Affairs Committee has also carried out research in this area. All of these solutions are starting to surface and complicate the work that the commission administers, especially when we are going to have only one commissioner overseeing the entire body. Of course, this will inevitably have dire consequences on the expected outcomes for the commission. Here in Parliament we will most likely be re-evaluating the work of the commissioner in the future.

What we are seeing is that version one in 2003 did not work out. So we have got version No. 2, which is supposed to be leaner and more focused—or so we are told. Our best hope is that version two of this Families Commission is going to be monitored on a very regular basis to ensure the best possible output and outcomes and that monitoring is taken to ensure that the direction that this new Families Commission is going to take is worthwhile for New Zealanders. There is definitely a limit as to how many versions of the commission there can be before New Zealanders lose their confidence in it totally. Version No. 2 almost reaches that limit. Greater emphasis needs to be put on promoting and carrying out groundwork that creates better understanding and ensures better outcomes for all New Zealand families. We know that New Zealand families are experiencing considerable social and economic hardship. Changing the governance of the Families Commission and reprioritising its budget is only going to complicate it further.

In New Zealand First we would like to see an agency that would be useful to New Zealand families, for the money that is spent. We will be carefully monitoring the outputs and ensuring that the money is not spent on consultants to travel at the expense of these families. It is for these reasons that New Zealand First is opposing this bill.

I for one accept Rajen Prasad’s apology and explanation to the House in his personal statement. It came as some surprise to me that he used his speech to attack a possible National Party candidate out there, because it is not like him to attack people personally. It is not like him. It is not in his character to do that and I was a little bit surprised. It is true that people raised that he was, in fact, Chief Families Commissioner once. He clearly had some sort of Labour Party allegiance or support at that time. He has explained that, in fact, he was not active.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is going to say. The member speaking cannot relitigate comments following a personal explanation, so the member will not mention that again. It has been cleared. A personal explanation is the finality of it, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I was just accepting Mr Prasad’s statement.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, just carry on and go ahead with your speech.

I acknowledge that and support this legislation, the Families Commission Amendment Bill, in the House. This bill amends the Families Commission Act 2003. It provides for a single Families Commissioner, along with new provisions for the independent monitoring, evaluation, and research of key issues and programmes across the social sector.

There have been threats that the Families Commission will be subsumed under a new Labour Government. Should that ever come to pass, it would be a sad thing. The reality is that it is a commission that is going to become more focused and more useful to families and the taxpayer in the future. I am disappointed, as I say, in the Labour Party’s approach, and in Rajen Prasad’s approach, given his history. But I support this bill in the House today.

It is my pleasure to speak to more of the substance of the Families Commission Amendment Bill than Phil Heatley, the last speaker, referred to. Our concern with this bill has been that for some time there has been an erosion of the Families Commission. It has moved away from its original purpose and it is no longer advocating for the best interests of families in New Zealand, and we believe that that is being furthered today through this legislation. Not only do we have organisational change—so, fewer commissioners; some consolidation of the way that the structure works—it also feels to us that there is a narrowing of the advocacy role of the Families Commission, as if it could have been narrowed any further.

The best example I can think of is that recently the Families Commission chose not to put down an advocacy position around the extension of paid parental leave, despite research and evidence from the World Health Organization advocating an extension, and despite the Families Commission itself in the past having done research and advocating an extension. Therefore, the only thing you could point to was that there was some kind of politicisation—that because the Government did not wish to extend paid parental leave to the extent that the Labour Party was promoting through Sue Moroney’s bill, it was a face-saving mechanism not to have a commission like the Families Commission come out and agree with that. That is the only interpretation one can take, given that there was such a turn-round in its position.

So it has become our view that, given all of that, the Families Commission should be abolished entirely and that we should instead start investing greater effort in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, particularly given that it has demonstrated a greater advocacy role and has taken up of its own volition—which it should, as an independent entity—what we think are the true issues facing children. In fact, we would like to give it greater independence, in the same way that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is independent, for instance.

The New Zealand First member Barbara Stewart, rightly, I think, pointed out that we do now have a wealth of information out there about the kinds of things that we need to be doing on behalf of children and their families. We have had the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty, we have had the Māori Affairs Committee, and we had the Health Committee produce a very, very good report on the importance of the first 1,000 days and what should be done to improve the lot of children there. So we have a range of evidence, and yet, interestingly, the Families Commission—which presumably would have been involved, you would have thought, or at least advocating on or realising some of the issues that have been raised in these areas—had very little to say on it. In fact, when you ask it via a select committee about its main focus in the future, it talks about things like adolescence and alcoholism. Yes, alcoholism is very, very important, but there is a range of other issues that feel very, very untouched on by the Families Commission.

So that is what we would do differently. Not only would we reallocate that investment to the Children’s Commissioner; we would also establish a children’s Minister. We would establish child impact assessments, so that every piece of legislation coming through Parliament that would have an effect in some way on children would have an impact assessment included. So, for instance, any bills that suggested changes in gambling laws would, rightly, include an assessment of the impact on children and families. Alcohol law changes—exactly the same. It would be a really practical measure that we could take to improve the lot of children and families.

We would also introduce a child poverty eradication and reduction bill. Essentially, it would be an action plan for children and families. It would set out how we would measure child poverty and what targets we would set to reduce it. It would establish a board across health, education, and social development and create a set of objectives on how we would make sure that we would reduce the effects of poverty across all of those areas—housing, as well. For instance, if you wanted to reduce rheumatic fever rates, you would not just put that with health; you would put it with housing. We would make it an across-the-board gathering of chief executives, and we would set genuine targets to start reducing the effects of poverty on children and their families.

Those are some of the practical initiatives that we want to take to put children at the heart of everything we do. We do not believe that the Families Commission is a part of that any more. It has simply stepped too far away from its mantra.

One concern I do want to raise, though, given that the Government has decided to retain the Families Commission, is that it will now establish a social policy and evaluation unit. It has got a predetermined annual budget of $3.5 million. There is not too much specific information about what it will be confined to researching. There are a great number of contracts out there in this space of working with families that might, for instance, tap into the evaluation resource that will exist here, but we are not quite clear on who will be benefiting from the existence of this unit.

One thing we do know—and Alfred Ngaro talked about this—is that the Government wants the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study to be connected to the Families Commission. Alfred Ngaro claimed that what the longitudinal study needed was a champion. Well, I have to disagree. The longitudinal study was doing very well, thank you very much, without having to have a 40 percent funding cut, as I understand, attached to what Alfred Ngaro then dressed up as needing better advocacy. The advocacy it needed was to be able to maintain its ability to continue that very, very important study without having a Government come in and start adjusting whether or not it had the money to survive and continue. That is the kind of advocacy it needed. Instead, however, we have seen carte blanche shifting of that report, and for what reason? Why is that occurring?

The University of Auckland was a perfectly good home for the longitudinal study, as was Otago University the last time we did something similar. The Ministry of Social Development was funding the longitudinal study. There was nothing that suggested that anything was going wrong. We had some very good interim reports and some vital information—the kind that this unit is now being established to produce because, apparently, we do not have it. We do. We have very good information. Why the change?

If some member on that side of the House can tell me why we needed this change, I would be very interested to hear it, because it strikes me that it is nothing more than political. Also, could some member perhaps rationalise the funding cut to that study—anyone? Does anyone wish to give us a reason why what this bill presumes to advocate, which is the provision of greater research and evaluation, a better evidence base, and better information for us so that we can benefit families—which report did that better than the longitudinal study Growing Up in New Zealand? It is pretty hard to find anything that is going to do a better job at it than that report, and yet this unit is getting a separate budget allocation, and the Growing Up in New Zealand report has seen a change for the worse in terms of its funding. So if any member would like to explain that to me, I would be greatly enlightened.

I suspect that it has got something to do with the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor coming in and playing a role in some regard and deciding that things needed to be done differently. A little transparency would be very, very useful. But, overall, that is not the only contradiction in this bill—all of which points to the fact in our minds that this organisation is now highly politicised, and we have seen good examples of that lately. It is time for it to go. The role that it plays could be played better by the Children’s Commissioner. That is why Labour opposes this bill.

I will give a short contribution to cap off what other members have been saying on the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the member Dr Rajen Prasad for his previous role and, actually, for his thoughtful contribution to the Social Services Committee. We do not often agree on things, but I have to say that the member’s experience is valued.

The previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, just alluded to finances and funds, and so on and so forth. Interestingly enough, we just had the Families Commission in for a financial review the other day, and it said that it was not about money; it was about outcomes. Actually, that is exactly what the New Zealand taxpayer should rightly expect of good Government—that is, that we are always looking to evaluate to ensure that we are getting the absolute best outcome for the investment that the taxpayer is making. The changes in this legislation and what this legislation really points to is the fact that the Families Commission has now got a far more prescriptive role in terms of driving its research towards arriving at positive outcomes for the families that are struggling in this country. I personally get very cynical about the idea of creating commissions here and administrative bodies here, there, and everywhere and thinking that if we throw a lot of money at them, somehow that is going to change things. What we really need to ensure is that for every dollar that we are spending—that the Government is ultimately spending—we are doing it in such a way that we can drive a better outcome. That really goes back to the heart of the Better Public Services improvements that we have been making and to putting expectations upon agencies that are receiving Government funding.

In terms of the discussion that we had at the financial review the other day, the commission focused very much on the idea of its enhanced ability to be able to understand a problem, to therefore understand the nexus with the appropriate solution, and then to look to drive those solutions to achieve outcomes and measures and to evaluate those. I think that is a very fine place to end this call. I very much commend the bill to the House.

I understand that the next call is a split call. Poto Williams—5 minutes.

The Labour Party opposes this bill, the Families Commission Amendment Bill. We did support the bill going to the Social Services Committee because we wanted to have a closer look at the implications of it. What does this bill do? Well, one of the things it does is it changes the governance structure of the commission and it devolves the commissioners, and therefore it can determine a lot more of its own course and functions. So it really could be seen as a quasi - Government department rather than an independent, autonomous Crown entity that makes useful recommendations on what the issues are that families face and what the Government, social service providers, and the community can do to better support our families. By developing this governance structure, we lose the independent advisory nature of the current commission’s set-up, and that makes no sense to me at all. So you lose the advocacy ability of the commission, the ability to advocate on the best way forward for New Zealand families, because some of the recommendations will likely be at odds with Government policy. Is that not a useful, grown-up, and good thing to have—an independent commission that can advise you when your policies are not meeting the needs of New Zealand families and potentially doing them harm?

This bill also, by its very nature, does away with the valuable programmes that have been developed in conjunction with the community, such as the White Ribbon campaign. I have heard a member from the other side of the House say during a previous reading of this bill that the White Ribbon campaign has a life of its own and that it would survive without the injection of support and funding from the commission. Yes, that is true. It has become an event, or a series of events, that is hugely successful and has gained a lot of traction. But why stop now when more and more men are coming on board with pledges, becoming ambassadors, wearing the ribbon, and having healthy and safe conversations about family violence? Why would you stop? Does it not make more sense to continue with the momentum that is building? I think so, anyway.

What else does this bill do? It establishes a social policy evaluation and research unit within the commission to provide independent monitoring and evaluation of programmes being delivered in the community, and also to provide research into key issues, programmes, and interventions. That is great—I hear lots of people say—but I just want to quote from something that the Hon Anne Tolley said in the House a little earlier. She said: “The intention of the unit is to improve decision making across the sector and to thereby help families improve their lives. The evaluation would go across the wider social sector.” So is the intention to provide genuine, unbiased, evaluative advice and feedback to the community groups working with those families, or, as I suspect it might be, to act as an audit function into the sector? What if your group or your provision does not make the grade? What then? Do you potentially lose your ability to serve your community? Does the ministry then decide to pull your funding?

Or have I got that completely wrong, and will the research concentrate on developing best-practice models for the sector? That would be great, too. The best-practice models and ideas for developing the workforce had better come fairly cheap because I can assure you that the Government is unlikely to fund best practice, even if its own research unit recommends it. It is unlikely to spend money on developing the workforce, either. Why do I say this? Because of the funding cuts that have already been made to the Families Commission and to programmes.

Why will we not support this bill? We do not support this bill because we feel the changes being promoted will diminish the useful work that the commission has had a long history in providing. We would do away with the commission altogether and focus on funding the Children’s Commissioner. We would do that because we know that there is one glaring omission on this Government’s watch, and it has been the development of measurements and targets to reduce child poverty. Backed by legislation, we would require regular reporting on progress at every Budget, because it is important and useful and should be done as an absolute priority. But we all know that this Government is not good at numbers—missing 20,000 kids off the poverty list. Healthy kids grow up to be healthy adults; hungry children living in damp homes with poor nutrition grow up to be unhealthy adults. I am afraid that the health and social impacts are cumulative and progressively detrimental. Thank you.

I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. The Green Party opposes this bill. We have recently had concerns regarding the independence of some of the commissioners, and we are very disappointed, in particular, to see the commission backtrack on a very well-established and researched commitment to paid parental leave, and to basically just echo the Government’s line, which I must say has not been supported by evidence or the majority of New Zealanders’ values. Despite all of this, we would like to see the independence of the commission strengthened, not undermined, as we see this bill doing.

The Green Party did not initially support the establishment of the Families Commission, but we were very happy to be proven wrong, and have for many years now really valued its advocacy for our families and the well-considered and focused research on such topics as resources for Māori grandparents; diversity, experience, and support needs for disabled parents; families and whānau status reports; family violence indicators; supporting Kiwi dads; escaping debt; and changing Pacific households. All of these reports have informed our decision making and our understanding about the needs of our communities. The list of valuable research that has helped us consider our response to significant issues and best support for all our families is much longer than that. With that background and that history, it really is hard to understand exactly what the problem is that is requiring this bill to come to the House to change the commission.

The commission has also had a history of making strong, independent submissions to this Parliament on proposed pieces of legislation of relevance to families. I would like to repeat a point that the commission made recently in a submission on the 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 suggested that the proposed introduction of costs for Family Court relationship counselling services could be a barrier for some families needing to access the court.

The submission also pointed to the need for more independent 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. We need this evidence to make informed legislation, and we need those perspectives to be independent. An independent perspective was given, and yet sadly that bill passed without those concerns being addressed. It is a bit difficult to have confidence in the stated aim of this bill, which is supposedly to improve decision making in the social sector, when we are seeing that existing research, which has been well respected, is being dismissed so easily when it conflicts with this Government’s priorities.

I would note that in the Minister’s speech tonight, she said that the changes to the structure around research in the commission were to widen the focus. I would also suggest that this is basically decentring the focus on families. We do not have any research to suggest that we should be decentring families from our research agenda. In fact, I would suggest that perhaps we have evidence of the opposite. Eight out of the 11 submissions on this bill opposed it. The primary concerns of submitters echoed this fear of loss of independence in the research process. They had particular concern around the appointment of the social science experts panel, and we echo that concern. We absolutely support peer review of research. That is just the norm in academic circles as well as in Government circles now, and it is good practice. You do not need an expert panel to be set up to provide peer review. You set it up only if you are wanting to confine and constrain that expert review, which is another reason why we are opposing this bill.

The Minister outlined clearly that the reasons for these changes are to build a more resilient social sector, and I am happy to lend my support to the Families Commission Amendment Bill. I wish the newly structured Families Commission well in the work ahead of it.