Families Commission Act Repeal Bill

I move, That the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by Monday, 30 April 2018, and that the committee has authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

This bill repeals the Families Commission Act 2003 in order to disestablish the Families Commission, which, since 2013, has operated as the social policy evaluation and research unit, or SuPERU. The bill also provides for the other such arrangements required as a consequence of the disestablishment of SuPERU, such as the management of residual assets and liabilities, and employment-related matters.

The Families Commission, SuPERU, is an autonomous Crown entity attached to the social development portfolio. Its functions are set out in the Families Commission Act 2003 and centre around acting as an advocate for the interests of New Zealand families in general and providing independent monitoring and evaluation of, and research into, key issues, programmes, and interventions across the social sector.

The decision to disestablish SuPERU was originally made by the previous Government as part of a number of changes to social sector leadership arrangements. This decision has now been considered and endorsed by this Government. As a result of this bill, all remaining functions and activities currently undertaken by SuPERU will cease on legal disestablishment, and have been proactively managed down in the interim. Action has already been taken to transfer all of SuPERU’s key functions to other agencies in the social sector, along with their associated funding and, in some cases, staff. Functions that have already been transferred include management of the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse contract—this is transferred to the Ministry of Justice. The annual family and whānau status report and supporting research—this has been transferred to the Ministry of Social Development. Oversight of the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study is also transferred to the Ministry of Social Development.

It is also expected that the Social Investment Agency will pick up some of the work previously undertaken by SuPERU—this includes the operation of the social sector research database known as “the Hub”, which the Social Investment Agency will assume responsibility for in April. Particular care will be taken to ensure that all research publications, online guidance materials, and tools will continue to be available to those who wish to use them. This will ensure that any disruption arising from the disestablishment of SuPERU is kept to a minimum.

It’s important to note that the disestablishment of SuPERU does not lessen our commitment to research and evaluation excellence in social science. However, this is seen as a necessary step towards achieving greater efficiencies in the provision of social science research within the public sector, and is an opportunity to reflect on lessons with regards to what has and hasn’t worked in the past and how we can improve things moving forward.

I would like at this stage to acknowledge the professionalism of Mr Len Cook, the outgoing SuPERU board chair, and other members of the SuPERU board. They’ve taken an active role overseeing the disestablishment process, especially over the process for transferring functions to other agencies. At the same time, they have ensured that SuPERU has continued to deliver on its 2017-18 work programme and that all legislative commitments are met. They have also acted as a good employer, ensuring that disruption to SuPERU staff is kept to a minimum.

I am confident that the changes associated with this bill will provide for the more effective and efficient use of social science research into better decision-making. I am pleased to be able to present this bill here today. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to stand and say that National will of course be supporting this piece of legislation. It was, of course, the work of the Hon Anne Tolley in the former Government. I’m somewhat surprised, though, given that this bill is a bit of a mechanical one in terms of wrapping up the changes to disestablish the Families Commission, which was restructured into the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) in 2014, that this is actually so much of a priority of the new Government, instead of, actually, things that they campaigned on in the election last year. But, needless to say, we are very keen that this is a piece of work that the Government wants to put forward.

I want to emphasise one particular part, because what this legislation actually does is part of the reconfiguration of agencies and resources that was designed to support social investment. We haven’t heard too many occasions where the Government is picking up the social investment model, but the fact that it has got this legislation up as so much of a priority, I think, actually gives a very strong message to the sector and the country that social investment is here to stay. So I am excited by that, and, in the spirit of cooperation, I’m also very hopeful that Government members will also put serious consideration into working across the House for the proposed changes for the Child Poverty Reduction Bill, one of which, of course, is to embed social investment in that legislation to ensure that we are lifting an even greater number of children out of poverty than we did in our term of office.

I thought I would just touch on a few areas. I don’t want to take too much time on this. It’s clearly a tidy-up piece of legislation and, as the Minister has said, is about reconfiguring the agencies. The Families Commission was, of course, set up through the Families Commission Act in 2003, but that was then streamlined into the social policy evaluation and research unit, or SuPERU for short. As I said before, part of the reconfiguration of the agencies was aimed very directly at supporting social investment, and we heard a description of social investment last week at the select committee that I thought I would put on record here: social investment is about making good choices on how best to support New Zealanders. That was, of course, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, and the Ministry of Social Development will, of course, be taking up some of the functions of the Families Commission, which is being disbanded by this legislation.

So social investment isn’t a mystery; it’s quite straightforward. It’s about changing lives, and I’m absolutely delighted that the Government has decided that this is an important part of the mix and is supporting legislation that changes the structures to better enable social investment, because, of course, this side of the House is incredibly proud of what that provides and what it enables in changing the lives of New Zealanders, particularly those who have needs greater than others.

So I thought it was worth just having a bit more of a discussion about the social sector leadership that was discussed by the Cabinet that I was part of in the last Government, and this was really taking steps to embed the social investment approach with the decisions to establish the social investment board and the Social Investment Agency. I have asked questions in this House around greater use of the social investment boards and, for example, the place-based initiatives where this is very much, kind of, at the grassroots and the forefront, and I haven’t actually had any answers about that yet. So I shall wait to see—and I am very hopeful, again, and optimistic that the Government is going to support that very important work on the ground.

This is absolutely about making sure that we continue research and evidence-based work, and some of the work that’s already been undertaken, the families and whānau status reports, is going to the Ministry of Social Development. The Ministry of Justice will get the Family Violence Clearinghouse contract, and then, of course, the Growing Up in New Zealand study, which is key to New Zealand and our future, is also important. So I’m very pleased to support this legislation, which our previous Government did the bulk of the work on.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā tēnā tātou katoa kei roto i ngā āwhā o te wā.

[I greet you, honourable Assistant Speaker, indeed I greet all who are here while we are in the midst of a cyclone.]

Sir, thank you very much for this opportunity and, in recognising you, I also recognise our families out there who, right now, are hunkered down with the onset of Cyclone Gita onto our shores. We wish them all the best at this point in time.

Can I thank the Minister for Social Development for the introduction of the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, and I take the point from the member opposite, Louise Upston, that this is, for the most part, while reading the bill, rather technical—technical with respect to winding up the social evaluation policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU), as referred to by the Minister, properly, making sure that employment contracts are met, asset liability is met, but also that it’s done in an expedient manner. The Minister made mention of this particular bill being a decision made by the previous Government, and while we are here left holding the baby, it is important that we continue the good work for the benefit of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I will touch on that as my speech progresses, because the member opposite makes a few points around the Social Investment Agency that I’d like to touch on.

But, first, can I, in introducing this bill and supporting it, thank all of the people who have been involved in both the Families Commission and, of course, SuPERU since its inception. A lot of good work has come out of SuPERU. We know that they’ve been a leader in terms of research and evaluation for social impact. One of those particular matters that they’ve been at the forefront of, which I’m really quite proud of, I guess, and interested in as Minister for Whānau Ora, is about the engagement with Māori communities, not just in research, not just in evaluation, but also in the use of the data, and that’s an important point.

Most people in the House will know that Māori in particular seem to be at the wrong end of every bit of social statistics read in this country. Therefore, a lot of data is collected about them, a lot of research and evaluation is done, and I know that SuPERU in the past have done a good job at actually engaging with communities, one, so that they better reflect the communities that they serve, but, two, that the data and the research and evaluation they collect and, of course, publish best serves and informs Government on policy direction in relation to those communities who are affected.

Can I point, briefly, to one of those, just in recognition of the work that SuPERU have done—one of them is the Youth Mental Health Project evaluation. I think it’s an important part, as Minister for Youth. I want to acknowledge the work that they’ve done there. It acknowledges that while some sectors actually did benefit from some of the decisions from the former Government, it was made clear, once the evaluation was done properly, that there are still many minority communities out there, and minority groups, who are left out of a lot of the mainstream services that are provided for young people and their mental health services.

One of those, of course, is the LGBTIQ sector. One of those, of course, is also the Māori - Pacific Island sector. Of course, one that’s dear to my heart, as the member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau, is those young people in South Auckland. There are many South Auckland MPs in the House tonight who will acknowledge that the work done by SuPERU certainly highlighted that effective research and evaluation is important.

Another one of those is, of course, the Families and Whānau Status Report. This plays, of course, a pivotal role in the rhetoric around research and evaluation. What that particular report did was it put whānau at the centre of all policy and decision making made by Government. That’s important and I will pick up on some of these points as we get to discuss the Social Investment Agency and then, certainly, the future prospects for our people under the leadership of this Government.

I can’t highlight enough the cultural perspectives taken on board by the Families Commission and SuPERU to make sure that the cultural dynamics of our communities are heard in research and evaluation. But it’s important to remember, and I quote my grandfather at this point in time, that we’ve come too far not to go further; we’ve done too much not to do more. In acknowledging the good work of SuPERU, we want to focus on the future. One of those is actually about making sure that this bill goes through the House expeditiously, to make sure that we wind up the role of SuPERU but focus, more importantly, on the future.

What does that future hold for us? Well, I’m excited about it. The Minister has already explained how some of the functions will transfer over to the Ministry of Justice under the stewardship of the Minister of Justice. Of course, the Ministry of Social Development will hold on to significant parts of the work that’ve been done and will continue them; in fact, better them—and, of course, there is the Social Investment Agency. And this brings me to a few points I’d like to make in reference to the contribution of the member before me.

The Social Investment Agency, under the last regime, was one about making sure that fiscal risk did not fall upon this country. It was focused on money and data. What we hope to lead in social investment is actually focusing on people. It’s putting people at the forefront of our decision making, making sure that the data, the research, the evaluation, and the analytics done with social data and in the social sector actually inform us to move forward; not looking at individuals as a future fiscal risk to this country.

That particular model led by the last regime—I’m dumbfounded. Why? Because across the rest of the world, they actually focus on people. Our Government, under the last regime, actually led us by focusing on the fiscal risks. They weren’t aspirational for our people. They didn’t think that our people had the capability, the capacity, or the aspiration to actually make this place a better country. That’s a concern. So in addressing the last member’s contribution—we have a different role and a different perspective on social investment. We’re not a ministry. It’s an agency to support everything else that this Government has in place and in plan and in train for our country.

One of those things is making sure we get it right. Under the last regime, they noticed that actually they’d been missing the social sector conversation, and they left their run too late. What happens there is that the establishment of the Social Investment Agency was done hastily. We are, on this side, of course, prepared to make sure we do the groundwork to make sure that we don’t rush into it and we learn from the mistakes of the past so that our outcomes and our policy direction are actually enduring, sustainable, and achievable for our country—they reach the aspirations that our people have for each other, our people have for each other; not just what the Government tells them to do but what our people in our communities have for each other.

I’m excited about that. I’m excited about that. Under the leadership of Minister for Social Development, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, she and her ministry and all of her advisers are really focused on making sure that our fingerprint is on the Social Investment Agency model; not the one of the former regime, which, once again looked at the fiscal risks and not at the potential of our people. So I want to leave that part there.

I’m also excited to say to the House tonight that while some might question why we might be doing this expeditiously, it’s important that we remember that we are a Government that’s committed—committed to working towards a social sector that achieves long-term good for our people. How do we do that? We do that with effective data and research—effective data and research. We do that by using that effective data and research to inform our policy direction. From there, only then can we have sustainable outcomes for our people. I’m excited and I support this bill in its progression and, of course, moving it expeditiously through this House to ensure that we forget the regime in its direction of the past and we focus on a brighter future for our people in the social sector and achieve their aspirations within their communities and in their whānau. Only then can New Zealand truly realise its potential. Therefore, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

I want to acknowledge my honourable colleague across the way, because the Hon Peeni Henare is a great orator in this House. He’s given many speeches in the House that have been articulate, that have been charismatic, that have been passionate, but I have to say that speech had none of that. Why is that? Because he was swallowing a tuna that he did not catch. This tuna he did not catch, and so it was like a dead rat that he’s had to swallow. And why is this? Because this bill is a bill that came from the National-led Government.

All the things that he talked about—social investment—it was amazing. It’s almost like he read the copybook that came from our caucus that talked about social investment and the importance of it. He went on and on, but I have to tell you, when I looked across the way—and I’ve seen this orator speak. When he’s spoken, he’s captured the attention of the people. That speech was not one of them. Why? Because he knows he’s had to swallow the tuna that he did not catch. But he knows that this is a good tuna. Why? Because this tuna has all the elements of doing the right things.

Let’s see where this tuna actually came from. In 2002, the Hon Peter Dunne, what did he do? He had an agreement. There was an agreement with the Labour Party of the day that they would actually form a Families Commission. The intent was to provide research, to provide data, to provide evidence that would ensure that their policy, which focused in the right direction, with fiscal accountability, would truly make a difference. So none of us ask the question: why? This is the issue—the question is: how? So we’re here today because under a National-led Government we talked about the disestablishment of the social policy evaluation and research unit and the Families Commission because we wanted to put it in a place that would truly make a difference. So we stand here.

We enjoy the fact that the Government of the day are struggling to make their speeches because they know that their speeches are written exactly here from this caucus when it was the National-led Government, which truly made a difference. They are sounding like us. This is what they’re saying: we want to make a difference for our families; we need to have the right data; we need to talk about social investment; we need to have an agency. Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m going to tell you this: it’s as if they were sitting inside the caucus room themselves and they wrote their speeches by listening to us as we spoke. But, you know, we criticise a little bit, but we support the fact that—we will support this bill because they support this bill.

I’m proud to say that in this bill—one of the things I’m proud that will continue on is the Growing Up in New Zealand, a longitudinal study that started under a National-led Government to ensure that we had the right tools in the right place to make the right difference. I don’t need to speak too much. We support this bill into the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. I acknowledge the Hon Alfred Ngaro, who has just resumed his seat. He is right. This is another piece of work, another loose end after nine long years, that this Government is having to tidy up for the previous administration. So I acknowledge that.

I’m very pleased, also, that the honourable member acknowledged where the Families Commission Act 2003 actually came from. It was with a support agreement between the United Future party, led by Peter Dunne, and the Labour Party. I don’t know how many people remember how controversial this piece of legislation was when it first came in. Something unusual happened, and what it was was that the opposition to this piece of legislation had the majority on the select committee that it went through. I believe it was Georgina Beyer who was actually the chair of the select committee at the time that the original Families Commission Act 2003 went through. The supporting administration didn’t have enough votes inside the select committee to actually make any amendments or to provide any report back, like a minority report or whatever, on this piece of legislation.

It was very controversial at the time, and the Hon Peter Dunne did a large number of press releases and a large number of media interactions about how awful he felt that was. However, in the House the bill went through. I think it cost about $28 million to set up; so it cost $28 million to set up back in 2003. I guess we could say—I think we should say—that actually the Hon Peter Dunne was visionary with regard to the creation of the commission in the first instance and what its purpose was, which was to provide research for policy development and policy direction. Many have taken hold of that vision, I suppose, and used it in ways that they believe suits their purpose.

We’ve had others today talk about the fact that the words “social investment”, and so on and so forth, are mentioned throughout the documentation that will repeal and therefore remove this entity. But I think it’s very interesting, and I want to pick up on the contribution by the Hon Peeni Henare, because New Zealand First doesn’t use those words. We don’t use the words “social investment” actually, and I think what this Government—in one of the areas that I’m responsible for, we actually talk about well-being. We talk about the well-being model that’s being developed, and the hope from my office, anyway, is that the well-being model will do what the Families Commission Act hoped would be done, and that is that we would be able to know what were the key things that identified well-being for our people; not what the risk was but what were the key things that would identify well-being.

Once we have identified well-being, that is the line in the sand that we hope that none of our citizens will fall below. So, unlike some of my colleagues, I don’t use the phrase “social investment”. I am more focused on, actually, the well-being of our citizens, rather than treating them as some commodity that we’re either going to put dollars into or dollars not into. I think that is going to be one of the markers of what will be a test with this piece of legislation.

The reality is, the disestablishment of the commission has gone so far that it would be inappropriate to turn it back. The previous Government had taken it so far forward that to turn it back would actually have incurred much higher costs. They had already redistributed those moneys and those responsibilities.

I think it is interesting that Alfred Ngaro mentioned the Dunedin study, the Growing Up in New Zealand study. I think it’s interesting that he mentioned it, because it’s actually that party that tried to shrink it—actually went to take away funding from it, so that it went down from the number of young people that we were going to follow and continue to study in New Zealand. But there was conversation by one of their Ministers in the previous Parliament that they were going to shrink those numbers; they would not fund it to that level. So I do think it’s interesting that that was raised by one of the speakers there.

I think what’s going to be interesting as we go forward is to see where these responsibilities have been shifted to. For example, the Family Violence Clearinghouse contract has now gone to the Ministry of Justice. The Family Violence Clearinghouse produces some incredible pieces of work. They’re confronting, they identify areas of—I’m going to say “challenge”, which really minimises what they actually identify, but they identify areas of challenge for New Zealanders, for our citizens, that many a Government has not gone far enough to address. We’ve either ignored it because it’s uncomfortable and we don’t want to believe it about ourselves, or for whatever other reason somebody decided that that investment wasn’t worth it. So I would be interested to see that the quality of reporting that has come out of the Family Violence Clearinghouse continues, even though it has been shifted into the Ministry of Justice. As I mentioned, the Growing Up in New Zealand study, the ministerial social sector research fund questions—they’ve gone to the Ministry of Social Development, and the Department of Internal Affairs has picked up the qualifying social enterprise.

The online hub—I would suggest that as many New Zealanders as possible, before this bill goes all its way through and that website disappears, please go and have a look at the research that the social policy evaluation and research unit did and put online. It has impacted positively in so many ways, so we certainly don’t want to take it away, but I think it’s going to be important to see whether that quality of research, that quality of policy advice, is going to continue once we have now moved all these functions to somewhere else.

So, in closing, this is another situation of the current Government just tidying up some of the loose ends left behind by the previous administration, who appeared to be so busy—we’re not sure doing what in nine years—that they couldn’t complete a few things. So this Government will pick it up, and New Zealand First will support, with our Government members, this piece of legislation through. We want to honour the Hon Peter Dunne and United Future, which way back in 2003 had the vision to start us on a pathway that some wish to now refer to as the social investment model, but many of us now talk about the well-being that we will place for our people. Kia ora.

What a very good place to start: loose ends. The member who has just resumed her seat, Tracey Martin, said that this was the Government tidying up loose ends from the previous Government. Well, actually, what I would describe it as is loose beginnings, because I don’t think there is a single piece of legislation that we have got through, apart from that one that we’ve just had, that wasn’t the work of the previous National Government. This is certainly an example of both an extremely busy National-led Government and an extremely quiet Labour-led Government, who can only see their way clear to progressing the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill because nothing else is coming through the pipeline. But obviously we support it; it was our work. It’s the tidy up of a body of work that will improve social policy in this area.

I want to just make a couple of quick points, firstly about the term “social investment”, which was referred to both by the Hon Peeni Henare and the Hon Tracey Martin, and that, I think, reflects a sad lack of understanding about the term “investment” as if this was some kind of pecuniary thing. Actually, what we were talking about was investment in people; not in dollars—and in people who needed that help the most. And I hope in whatever review that the Minister for Social Development wants to embark on, and whatever changing nomenclature that the Government will implement, that that core goal of what we call social investment—that is, the target interventions to those individuals, children, and families who needed it the most in order to live healthy lives independent of the State—is not lost.

I’d also like to quickly touch on the Dunedin study, which was mentioned by the Hon Tracey Martin in the context of that perhaps being at risk—of undermining its funding. Nothing could have been further from the truth, and I can say as the National member of Parliament based in Dunedin that would never have happened on my watch. That is one of the world’s leading social inquiries, it has been going for 46 years this year, and it will go on in perpetuity. But I do encourage Tracey Martin to consider going to the Minister of Finance at Budget time and saying that she would want one of her programmes to be budgeted in perpetuity; it just doesn’t happen. Every programme, however worthy—as the Dunedin multidisciplinary study is—is certainly subject to periodic budget scrutiny.

I note there is a shortened report back, not, in fact, because this has been well consulted on, but actually because the Government is so desperate for work that they need to get the second reading, committee stage, and third reading out before the Budget, because they’re worried about running out of work. So we’ll probably let that one go through to the keeper, whether or not we support it. We certainly support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of this and to offer the Green support of this legislation as well. I just do need to, for the record, make a couple of corrections for the previous speaker, Michael Woodhouse. I think there was the suggestion that all of the legislation that’s been introduced has been the work of the previous National Government. This is a very fundamental shift to their approach to employment relations—that they would have introduced legislation that would be strengthening collective bargaining to this House, as was suggested and I suspect is not quite accurate, as well as the Families Package, which I think was the Labour Party’s policy going into the election. So it’s quite strange to hear that National is now claiming that policy.

Also, to correct a point, the previous speaker seemed to be under the misapprehension that when we’re talking about the survey Growing Up in New Zealand, we’re talking about the Otago longitudinal study; they are different studies. And I will back up the Hon Tracey Martin in her claim that the previous Government had put that they were reducing the scope of that study and that they were funding a reduced number of participants, which would have reduced or constricted the way that that survey would be able to be analysed. So it is interesting to hear them speaking so positively about it now.

The Greens are supporting this. I do want to endorse the previous view that, really, the disestablishment had gone too far to be able to reverse that and maybe it is the time to be absorbing the learnings that we were given from the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) into the core working of Government and to consider an alternative agency having oversight of that. I also notice that the transfer of the core functions has been already made to other agencies. The Family Violence Clearinghouse contract has gone to justice and the family and whānau status report has gone to the Ministry of Social Development, as has the oversight of the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study, and the Social Investment Agency will pick up the social sector research work—the work of the Hub. Care is being taken to ensure that the research and the tools that were produced by SuPERU will still be available for community-based organisations and interested people, because the research has been useful—and I would not want my speech to suggest that it hasn’t been.

The Greens, I think, from memory, opposed the Families Commission legislation in the first instance, and that was in the context of a very politicised environment and what seemed to us at the time a very constrained view of what a family was. It has been pleasing, over time, that actually the Families Commission, and then SuPERU, has taken a far more accurate look at and an understanding of the diversity of our families—and, in fact, has promoted the diversity of our families—and has been a very strong proponent for an understanding of the differences between “family” in different cultural contexts, including the culturally specific constructions of whānau.

I would like to mention Len Cook for his recent work as the Families Commissioner. In the times he appeared in front of the select committee for reviews, I found his analysis and view and the independence of it very helpful. I do not take from his comments that he was a fan of the social investment approach as it was articulated by the previous Government, and I am also of the school that does not believe that “social investment” is the right language for us as a country.

I think that if we went to most people in the street and said “Investment: what does that mean to you?”, most people would say it meant something about money. In their heads, they would go towards thinking about what would give them the best return on their money, and I think that if we gave them “investment” versus “support”, we’d be thinking about very, very different things. I believe part of our challenge as a Government is to actually refocus ourselves on what is our duty to our people and how can we best support people to live their best lives, and that’s a very different conversation than a conversation about investment and money. So I share the Hon Tracey Martin’s view that maybe a focus on well-being and support would be better for all of us.

I do also want to mention and acknowledge the letter that was sent by Len Cook, the Families Commissioner, to the Minister for Social Development, accompanying the briefing to the incoming Minister, where he pointed out several of their learnings over recent years and asked the new Government to consider how those learnings could be maintained or integrated after the disestablishment of SuPERU. I do think he made some very poignant points, which we will be keeping in mind as we move forward.

One of the points he made was that there is significant unrealised potential of existing data and research resources held within Government and the wider social services sector. In recent times, we’ve had a lot of focus on creating new information without thinking about what information we do actually have and how can we analyse that to inform good decision-making, rather than collecting more and more data and putting it into a database and hoping it’s magically going to give us the right answer to our social policy challenges.

He also pointed out that we need to be using a variety of evidence sources, both qualitative and quantitative—that they’re essential for social policy and service delivery. I think that goes to some of the research that they did at a community level that looked at how we can strengthen our interventions, and what they found was that with a shared vision, it needs to be owned by community. There needs to be community readiness, intentionality and a focus on outcomes, long-term and adaptable funding arrangements, a focus on community capacity-building, and a focus on relationships.

Now, when we hear from the Opposition that what we’ve been saying on this side is just more of the same, they couldn’t be more wrong. The approach we heard from the previous Government around social investment was all about information divorced from relationship—divorced from community—and what we’ve been told by SuPERU and the research at the ground level is that, actually, we need to restore relationship. We need to get back to considering and hearing from people about how the system is working for them and to shape our responses based on their experiences. That was not part of the previous approach, and that needs to be informed by a cultural understanding.

He specifically pointed out that “The actuarial analysis of administrative data … has not been evaluated against the likely larger and more immediate payback from attending to the wider range of opportunities to develop an evidence base.” I’m quoting from his letter, which is clearly saying we need a change of direction.

While we are supporting the disestablishment of SuPERU, we are very much cognisant of his recommendations and committed to a different framework for evaluation and policy making in terms of our social services. We want to return people to the decision-making process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I just want to echo the sentiments that have come from this side of the House on this bill. I just want to say how great it is that the Labour-led Government has prioritised the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, a National-led Government bill that prioritises, really, a social investment approach. It’s great that Labour are starting to see the light through the eyes of the National-led Government. I think it’s great that that’s what’s happening today, with this bill.

I think it also signals that the Labour-led Government is running out of ideas, it’s running out of policy, and it’s running out of all of those things that a Government’s supposed to have. But—thank God for this side of the House—it has got plenty of work coming before it.

I just want to comment on a few of the things that have been said here in the House. The first one is around the Families Package, that it was a Labour initiative. It wasn’t a Labour initiative; the Families Package came from this side of the House and we had a very strong families package, and, at the end of the day we were putting more back into the pockets of those middle- to low-income families through our families package. So, you know, if people are out there saying that it was a Labour-led initiative, it’s a load of bollocks.

So, as I stand here and I’m very pleased that this Families Commission Act Repeal Bill has come through—you know, at the end of the day it does tidy up just a loose end of disestablishing the social policy evaluation and research unit from the Families Commission so that this repeal bill can actually go ahead and make it all pretty much smooth running from here on out. So, without any further ado, obviously this side supports the bill—we would, because it’s our bill that the Government has taken up. So without any further comments, I support the bill. Kia ora.

I understand this is a split call. Marja Lubeck, you have five minutes.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill. For the record, I would also like to make some corrections to the previous speaker’s comments, because the narrative from the other side of the House continues to be that we somehow seem to prioritise the previous Government’s bills. Well, unlike the member Michael Woodhouse said, we are not desperate for work at all, because if you look at what we actually prioritised in the previous 100 days—maybe we should just repeat some of those. We had the first-year fees-free study; we had the healthy homes bill; we had the extension to parental leave; we had banning foreign speculators; we had stopping the State house sell-off; we had setting up the Tax Working Group and the inquiry into State care; we began our KiwiBuild; we passed the Families Package; we did the mental health inquiry; we restarted payments to the Superannuation Fund; we addressed child poverty. You asked what we prioritised and what we actually did, so here is your list: medicinal cannabis, we increased the minimum wage, we did the Pike River Recovery Agency, and we established the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: Point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I’ll get to the bill right now, if that was your point of order.

💬 Hon Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to bring to your attention that for the last two or three minutes the member has been speaking out of scope from the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for his intervention. I’d encourage the member to come back to the content of the bill.

Absolutely. I just thought I wanted to get that off my chest. So what we’re doing here, as we’ve heard, is we’re repealing the Families Commission Act 2003. Pretty much, from what I understand, it is basically a tidy-up of the processes of transferring the Families Commission’s function.

The Families Commission was established in 2004, restructured in 2014, and has been operating as the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU). Now, it can be quite a challenging exercise to focus on improving the lives of families, children, and whānau because the diversity of the family forms nowadays has made it probably quite hard to target assistance where it’s needed. So SuPERU has done a great job in that aspect. There are also plenty of really good examples of good literature reviews that have come out in social science research, which have made it easier to make better decision-making. Minister Martin mentioned the Hub research database, which will remain available. There’s some really awesome stuff on there. So it’s important work that they’ve done, but there was significant doubling up and overlap with other Government agencies and it will be more efficient and effective to embed the functions of those agencies rather than having a stand-alone Crown entity.

Some of the key functions have been taken over already by the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Social Development, and the Social Investment Agency. Some of the examples we’ve heard were about the Family and Whānau Status Report, putting whānau at the centre of policy making, which has gone to the Ministry of Social Development, and the management of the Growing Up in New Zealand study, which I understand is the study to provide evidence about what actually shapes children’s early development, so that every child can have the best start in life. That hasn’t stopped; it is now the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Development. Also, the responsibility for managing the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse contract has transferred to the Ministry of Justice.

Other key functions have been reallocated and this legislation will ensure that any remaining residual responsibilities, liabilities, duties, debt, and assets will be transferred to the Ministry of Social Development. Any information held by the commission will also go to that ministry. Any work that is not transferring to another agency will finish by the time this legislation is repealed, likely around mid-2018. But, again, it is important to note that the important work at SuPERU will continue. It will just be done more efficiently, without doubling up within Government agencies, and it won’t be doing it as a stand-alone unit.

It’s also really important to make a mention of several of the former SuPERU staff who have transferred to the ministry and will continue to be involved. I echo the sentiments of Minister Sepuloni regarding the professionalism of all the staff and of all the leadership that were involved.

So, lastly, thank you, members on the other side of the House, for helping us tidy up yet another loose end, and thank you for supporting this bill. I support it and commend it to the House. Thank you.

I call Simeon Brown. You have five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s great to hear from Government members how important it is to be tidying up loose ends. Well, I think the emphasis needs to be on the word “loose”. But it’s good to be here to speak on another National Party piece of legislation, the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: You’ve said this speech before.

Well, I have. I have given this speech so many times because this Government has run out of ideas and they’re still in their first six months in Government. So I’m really glad to hear that. It is great to be here again progressing our legislation, and I’m sure that we’ll continue doing some more of that over coming weeks.

I’ve been hearing a number of members on the other side of the House talking about the term “social investment”, and how they could use this term or that term to rename it. But I think at the end of the day, that’s just semantics. What it comes down to is the work that has been done by the previous Government—the work that we’re very proud of in terms of helping those and investing in those who need support most, in terms of turning lives around and ensuring that we support the families and whānau up and down this country who need the support of our Government. We could argue the semantics of these words, but what is actually more important is the work that is being done by many people up and down this country and the work that we should be recognising here in this House.

It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this bill. This bill will be achieving some greater effectiveness and efficiencies in the provision of social science research and advocacy in the interests of families across this country. The National Party is pleased to be supporting it, and we look forward to seeing it progress through the House. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is an honour to take a call on the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill, as someone who has been a social policy researcher before and a social worker as well. It is, however, slightly bitter-sweet as well, given that I have had a fair bit to do with the Families Commission and the social policy evaluation and research unit—which is more popularly known as SuPERU—in some of my prior lives, I guess, before I came to this House. When I was a newbie researcher looking into the issue of forced marriage in New Zealand, it was the first piece of research into that area that was done in New Zealand, and the Families Commission was one of many entities that I approached for support in terms of the research work that I was doing. I want to thank them for the support that they gave me and for the work that they’ve done over the years.

I want to take a moment as we—and actually, before that, I might just go into the purpose of this bill, which, of course, is to repeal the Families Commission Act 2003 and to disestablish the Families Commission. Given that we are discussing the disestablishment of something—an entity that has been going since 2004 and has contributed tremendously to the social policy research landscape in New Zealand—I think it’s apt to take a moment just to thank the board, the chief executive (CE) and the successive CEs over the years, and the staff who have worked at the Families Commission, and now SuPERU, for the work that they have done, for their contribution to evidence-based research in New Zealand, and for their unwavering focus on improving the well-being of families and whānau since their establishment back in 2004.

Now, it is heartening to know that as a result of this bill—and this bill does have support from across the House, which is great. Actually, at this point, I might bring in a point made by a member on the Opposition benches, which was that it was started by the Hon Anne Tolley, and just recognise the work. I mean, it might be that we’re supporting this because the disestablishment has gone too far, but I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the work that has been put into this bill, and also the process of disestablishment to date.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Fair call, fair call. They still fluffed about, though.

Well, yes, but you know, we’ve still got to acknowledge some of the work, even if it was a little bit fluffy, as the member Kieran McAnulty puts it. But anyway, the work of SuPERU will not be lost, and that is incredibly important, because there is a huge amount of research. A large number of publications, I understand, will still be available. There have been online guidance materials and tools that have been produced by SuPERU that will continue to be available to those who really need them. An example of that, which has been taken up a fair bit in the community and voluntary sector more specifically, is the NGO capability guidance material and tools.

So for those who might be watching at home, and so on and so forth, let’s just also go into a little bit about the functions of SuPERU and what would happen to some of those functions if this bill were to go through to select committee. One piece of work that I want to highlight is the Families and Whānau Status Report and related work that SuPERU has been conducting or undertaking in that space over the years. That will transfer to the Ministry of Social Development, and I understand that former staff who have been working in that area of research have also transferred to the Ministry of Social Development, which is great from a continuity point of view. So what is the Families and Whānau Status Report? It’s a report that is published annually and measures how New Zealand families and whānau are faring across a wide range of well-being measures.

Another contract that has been undertaken by SuPERU is the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study. The cohort for that, I was quite happy to notice, is broadly generalisable in terms of ethnicity and socio-economic status to contemporary New Zealand, and that’s a nod to how the research has been undertaken by this entity, which is in keeping with the changing demographic—the changing face—of New Zealand. The purpose of this particular study is to provide evidence about what shapes children’s early development, so that every child in New Zealand can have the best start in life. This was a study that was started in 2008, and it will also be transferred to the Ministry of Social Development.

Now, another area that SuPERU has had oversight over is the Family Violence Clearinghouse. Having been an advocate in this space and having been a family violence activist and a policy analyst in this space as well, the Family Violence Clearinghouse is a part of SuPERU that I’ve had a lot to do with. Some amazing research reports that have been produced by the Family Violence Clearinghouse are still available online, so I just want to urge everyone to go back and have a read through of the research that’s come out from SuPERU, because, as I mentioned before, it’s still available online and it’s absolutely valuable work.

Family violence has been a key priority of SuPERU since 2005. Actually, the Family Violence Clearinghouse has been known to be the national centre of research and information on family and whānau violence, so I’m really pleased to note and highlight that this work won’t be lost—that the Family Violence Clearinghouse contract won’t be lost, but it will, in fact, be transferred to the Ministry of Justice.

Now, we all know that Government policy absolutely has to be based on evidence—on sound, good, robust evidence—and SuPERU has demonstrated this, time and again. One of the reasons that we have to, as members in this House, be cognisant of the fact that our policy must be evidence- and research-based is partly because areas like social policy research—social and cultural problems, I guess—are often known as wicked policy problems. They’re known as wicked because they’re difficult or they’re impossible to solve for a number of reasons: for one, it could be that there’s incomplete or contradictory knowledge; the number of people and the opinions involved; the fact that these policy issues pose a large economic burden on the country; and the interconnected nature of these policy problems, really.

For example, poverty, which is a social policy issue, is linked with education. Education is linked with nutrition. Nutrition, again, is linked to poverty and the economy. So it’s that all these different social policy areas are interconnected in the way that if you make a policy change in one space, it often has ramifications and implications for other policy spaces, as well. So it’s really important, when it comes to issues like crime—which, of course, is outside the ambit of the social policy space. But for things like poverty, or if you’re looking at social welfare, you’ve got to look at them in a way that is cognisant with other policy areas as well.

So, in a sense, taking it out of SuPERU, disestablishing this entity, and mainstreaming the research is potentially a good way of looking at the interconnected nature of these different social policy areas. So they’re complex. They’re hard-to-solve policy issues, and that’s why they’re called wicked problems, not because they’re evil—and I just feel the need to point that out at this point. So there’s no real quick fix for any of these policy issues, but careful consideration is absolutely required, and that’s what we’re going to see. With the disestablishment of this entity and the mainstreaming of the research areas, what we must absolutely highlight is that the work will not be lost. It will remain; it will just take place in a slightly different form.

I also want to note the staff who have worked there. There have been, I think, close to 30-odd staff members employed by the entity, and they’ve been given options to move on—some of them who’ve had responsibility in specific areas—to the ministries that will now be overseeing these pieces of work.

So I just want to say once again that I thank the Families Commission and SuPERU for the work that they’ve tirelessly been involved in. It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The purpose of this bill is, of course, to disestablish the Families Commission. I thought it fitting that I talked to a former Families Commissioner. After all, it is quite hallmark, what we’re doing here today. He said that what counted—and this is what every Families Commissioner knew over the years—is that if we keep family, we keep whānau, and we keep them all at the forefront of what we do, then we will build a great nation, build a great family—build a great nation.

At the same time, they knew and they discovered over the years that there were significant and tough challenges that we would face as a Government—a Government of any hue. They came across one particular discovery, which he recalled to me. He termed it the Masterton discovery. Dozens and dozens and dozens of Government-funded agencies were found out, there in Masterton, serving the bottom 2 to 3 percent of struggling families. They all knew who the top 12 to 15 families were in Masterton, but the agencies couldn’t talk to each other. This is a familiar narrative that, of course, led to the birth of the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) and then to social investment.

So did we, as a National Party Government, sit on that? No, we didn’t. We went from SuPERU, to the Social Investment Agency, and we’ve been defined, we’ve been targeted, and we’ve been intentional. This is exactly what we’ve done and what we’ve followed through on, and it’s now this Government’s challenge. They need to decide whether they are on or off with social investment. Are they willing to admit that the model is actually much bigger than us all? And are families and their lives—Masterton families’ lives, if we want to use that example—more important than political ping-pong? That’s this Government’s challenge.

Thank you to all those who served in the Families Commission. Time has moved on. Social investment is what we need.

I rise in support of this bill. Before I get into the winding up of the bill, I just want to speak to some of the things that have been talked about today. Firstly, there’s been quite a lot of commentary from across the floor around the fact that this is work that they began and that we are finishing. Well, it would appear that it only ever was a press release and very little else before this Government came in, and the drafting and the work has been done by this Government. Like all things, this Government is a very responsible Government.

I look at the work that’s been done by the previous Government; there’s been some very good work done, and it behoves us as a new Government to look at what’s been done and to make sure we take the good and do away with the bad—improve it. You’ve seen our legislative programme, and our legislative programme is going to considerably improve—as every Government should seek to do—on the work that has been done. This piece of work is simply something that, when we’ve looked at it, we’ve said, “Yes, this is something that we’ll carry on, that piece of work. We’ll put a lot more meat on the bones”—in fact, there weren’t any bones when we got it—“and we’ll now put this before the House.”

There’ll be many members of the public out there—as my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare talked about—watching with one eye out the window on Cyclone Gita and seeing what effect that’s going to have, who’ll also be watching this in the House. Some of them may be a little alarmed that they think the very tool that they’re about to use when they get the call from the emergency services, their Subaru, may be in some way in danger. I can assure them that it is not the Subaru we’re talking about; it’s SuPERU, which is actually an acronym—a quite badly put together acronym—the social policy evaluation and research unit, which is actually now being wound up.

Also, I’d imagine that a lot of the people watching and listening to this—so often when they watch politics, they see what comes out of this House. We are seen to be always building, putting in some more, investing some more money in various other agencies. They’ll be pleased to know that, actually, we do move on, that we actually do disestablish agencies as well, which is part of that whole evolution, part of making sure that legislation, social—that whatever we are doing, we are actually making sure it is a moving target and that we’re constantly seeking to improve. So no one should be in any way perturbed that SuPERU is going to be going.

But I suppose we should really talk about some of the things that it did do, breaking down what did these guys—if they were that important, why can we all of a sudden do without them? But let me just talk about some of the things they did do, which you will understand were incredibly important and will all continue.

One of those pieces of work they did was the Centre for Longitudinal Research. People watching may be aware of the longitudinal study, which has been referred to before. This is a different piece of work. This was put together by the Labour Government in 2007-08. For those that are interested, when the previous Government came in, they took it on, put some meat on the bones of that, and did recruit the people, but all the work was done, the conception work was done, and it was simply a matter of putting, as I say, a bit of meat on the bones of that research project, which is now in its ninth year.

Just how that works—the parents were interviewed before birth, at nine months, at two years, and at 4½ years in its initial periods. They were also spoken to by telephone during that period as well, just to ensure that those parents, who were all seeking the health and well-being of those children—the family/whānau life, the education, the psychological development, the neighbourhood and environmental issues, and the culture and identity. These were all the things that this questionnaire in this survey that those who were taking part had put to them. It’s been a mine of information for planners and policy makers. That sounds like a piece of work that should continue. It will continue, and that has been transferred to the Ministry of Social Development.

Another piece of work that this agency did was around gangs. Again, we won’t go into the depth of how little work was actually done on gangs by the previous administration—that was something that we’re now paying the price of. One of the real issues around gangs is improving the outcomes for children of gang-involved parents—again, trying to break that cycle. The children of gangs, for instance—and it’s common sense, but it’s nice to actually have this identified—of course are at greater risk of abuse, neglect, and witnessing violence. We can only surmise—we don’t need to surmise; we know the effect of that.

A quarter of families of gang members or gang families are known to Youth Justice. They’re already in the system. They’re more likely to join a gang. They’re more likely to be fatalistic about life in the gangs. They’re going to end up there, and are more likely to have every other family risk factor that is going to result in poorer life outcomes.

Again, this is the work that was done by this agency. Fortunately, that work will continue and it will continue for the greater good of us all. That is an issue we really do need to get to grips with in this country, and this Government is going to be doing that.

What are some of the responses, and what do you do about it? That’s obviously identifying the problems. Helping young people at risk to reach the potential outside gangs, providing alternative lifestyles, sport—you’d be surprised how many of the well-known names in sport, in league, in rugby, in netball—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Could I just encourage you to come back to the bill please?

Oh, well, yes. Excuse me, Madam Assistant Speaker. I can come back to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I have given you quite a bit of leeway.

Certainly, Madam Assistant Speaker. Another aspect of the bill I will come back to is the decommissioning. We don’t just wipe an agency. They don’t go away. Some of the previous speakers have spoken, too, about the very good work that has been done by the previous people working, but it’s important that we do identify where, for example, these organisations have assets. Where do they go? They don’t go to the local auction shop. Progress on various management tasks are required upon the legal disestablishment, and these include preparing physical and electronic records for archiving, and the identification of residual assets and liabilities. These are, again, aspects that are addressed in the bill quite specifically, so it’s very important that we don’t just shut down an agency, shut down a building, but that we know where the work is going to go, but, also, it’s very important that we know where the physical assets are going to go, and the records.

One of the previous speakers—we should take time to actually think of those that have actually worked for this agency, for SuPERU. You grow. Whatever we’ve done before we came to this place—we’re all part of an agency, we’re all part of a life. You have ownership. You’ve seen this thing grow, and now that organisation is—hopefully all those people have found work in other agencies. They’ll take their work elsewhere, but it’ll never be quite the same around the ownership they’ve had of this—as it turned out—relatively temporary agency that had done its work.

To sum up the work, to sum up this bill, this is now going to be—the Act that we are set up to disestablish—the Families Commission Repeal Bill, which is actually the bill, which, essentially, is now going to disestablish SuPERU. This bill now, which is before the House, is going to ensure that while we make a good transition, it also ensures that that work will carry on. The best thing about that, of course, is that as each new agency takes on that new work, there’ll be a large element that will ensure that they are looking at the good part of that work. It’s going to be re-evaluated, and I’m sure that it will be a better product.

Each of those different aspects that the bill addresses, whether it be the Family Violence Clearinghouse or the Families and Whānau Status Report, in their new home, I’m confident will be a better product as a result of this work. So I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

I move, That the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill be reported to the House by Monday, 30 April 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Bringing forward the report date for the select committee is important to ensure that the bill is passed in time to allow the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) to be formally disestablished on 30 June 2018, the end of the current financial year. The timing of disestablishment is administratively easier, both for SuPERU and for the various agencies taking over its functions, and will support a smooth transition to the new operating arrangements. It also saves unnecessary costs by avoiding the need for a further round of accountability documents and associated reporting requirements.

I do want to make the point that the Opposition, at this very time, are shaking their heads at this motion, but it is the responsible way forward. The previous Government made the announcement that this entity would be disestablished. Public confidence can be affected when an agency has announced that it will be disestablished. There are also issues with morale for anyone working for that agency or entity if a public announcement is made that it’s going to be disestablished and then that disestablishment doesn’t happen in a timely manner. This Government is doing the responsible thing. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that functions of SuPERU have for the most part been transferred or wound down, and staff capacity has dropped significantly as a result.

The social development spokesperson on the other side continues to shout as I deliver this speech, and I need to remind that member that they made the decision, initially, to disestablish the Families Commission. On this side of the House, we had to draft the legislation because it hadn’t been done when we came in, and now, as I said, we’re doing the responsible thing by disestablishing in a timely manner, after functions have already been transferred to other agencies and after staff have already been released from SuPERU to other agencies.

Sticking to this time frame for disestablishment by requiring an earlier report back from select committee provides a degree of certainty for SuPERU staff and members of the SuPERU board about their own next steps. I recommend this motion to the House.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Madam Assistant Speaker.

Before I call the honourable member, I just want to say that this debate is about the specifics of the motion, and I want to urge participants in this debate to stay close to the specifics, not talk about the bill, and then we will all be happy. So I encourage complete relevance.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’ll stay relevant and then sit down at that point.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That would be great.

Ha, ha! Thank you very much. I acknowledge humour when I hear it.

The decision to truncate a select committee period should never be taken lightly, but it is an operational matter as to why we have taken this decision. The select committee process is one of the most important in the legislative process, to enable the public to have their say. But I would point out to the Hon Louise Upston, who was showing some discontent with the decision to truncate the period down to two months, that the truncation has been forced, essentially, by the inaction of the previous Government. In order for us to have this piece of legislation in force to disestablish the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU) by 30 June this year—I guess, in layman’s terms, we have to get our skates on. In order to do that, the Minister in charge of the bill has asked that the public be given, or the select committee be given, that two months.

I would also like to point out, in terms of the time frame, the previous Cabinet made the decision, I believe, in July of last year to disestablish SuPERU by 30 June this year.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don’t you want to talk about cartels?

Oh, look, I’m, happy to take the opportunity to talk about a myriad of things.

Because the previous Government had made that decision in July last year and wasn’t able to get the legislation to this House before the previous Parliament was dissolved, that’s why we’re here, asking for this piece of legislation to have a truncated select committee process. So I find it just a little bit rich of the member who was shaking her head earlier in this debate to say, “Why are we doing this?”, when this timetable was, essentially, forced upon us, to make sure that SuPERU is disestablished within the time frame that the previous Government has set.

There are some practical reasons for that, in terms of doing it within financial years and to have some certainty—which I think is important—for those employees who are still working within SuPERU. So, on that note, seeing that the member showed some discontent with that time frame, I’d just like to push some of that responsibility back to the previous Government, as to why we’re asking the select committee to take a truncated amount of time to consider this bill, for operational reasons.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to make a short contribution here. In saying how New Zealanders value democracy, I want to allay the fears the public may have, certainly stirred up by that side of the House, around a truncated process to make sure that work has already taken place to date.

What we are, simply, doing here is actually an administrative function that will see it fit within a certain time frame. The public are well aware, the employees and staff of the social policy evaluation and research unit are well aware—and, to the point made by the Minister for Social Development—to give them confidence and certainly some certainty around their particular job is important.

My contribution is to make sure we allay the fears of the public, who may see democracy being sidestepped, if you like, in the House. But we make a very clear point that it is administration, and it is actually finishing the job that the former regime were unable to do because they acted with the strength of a hairless Samson. And that’s simply not good enough. We’re making sure that we get this job done. We can do this by making sure we have a truncated process.

So my only contribution is, simply, to allay the fears of the public that we are sidestepping democracy here—no; in fact, we are making sure we stick to a good administrative time frame that not only sits well with the financial years but also allows this aspirational Government to achieve for the future of New Zealand.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I was tempted to just sit there, but I do stand, with some reservation, simply in fear that if we do not speak to this motion, the other side of the House will simply portray this as something that it is not. So I feel it’s upon myself to come and stand and speak in support of the Minister for Social Development and her motion, and to congratulate her on bringing this forward, because this Government simply has no choice.

A shortened time frame should ensure that this bill is passed in time for the financial year. It is a little bit rich for the other side of the House to suggest that this is not needed. That was certainly the indication that we got when the motion was moved by the Minister. It is indeed needed, and in many respects it is needed because of the actions of the previous Government. It is no secret now that this decision was brought to the previous Government in July 2017. If this issue was so important, and if this is something, as has been said today, that was their idea—they’re certainly pleased to be able to say that, and it’s, in fact, all that has been said on the other side of the House—why on earth was it not actioned in July 2017 in order for it to be in place in November last year? Yet again, this Government comes forward and tidies up something that wasn’t finished by the previous Government. In fact, it was only last week that we were discussing the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill, another example of something that could have been done last term and was not.

In specific reference to this motion here, it is very important to note that at the moment the process of disestablishment is already under way. The staff within the social policy evaluation and research unit need that certainty, and if we went through the full process of the vital select committee process, that may add unnecessary uncertainty to those workers. So I do support the Minister in this motion, and I ask that the other side of the House do so as well. If it is indeed such a good idea, as they’ve told us, and if there is such a need to get this underway, let’s do so.

💬 Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Madam Assistant Speaker.

Before I call the honourable member, I just want to encourage against repetition in this debate, as well. Relevancy and lack of repetition are key elements of this debate, so I encourage the member in her contribution to be mindful of those two aspects. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’ll keep my contribution brief as well, at the risk of repeating some of the very important points that previous members have made. The one thing I will say, though, is that many of us on this side of the House have stood up previously and spoken about the important work that the Families Commission, now the social policy evaluation and research unit (SuPERU), has done, and the fact that this bill, if it were to go through, which it probably will, will actually disestablish that entity. We’ve also talked about the staff and the people who’ve been involved in this process, and the importance, therefore, that the process is followed well.

That being said, of course the role of select committee is vital. It’s often been described as the engine house of Parliament, where detail is nutted out about the legislation and where members of the public have an opportunity to contribute. So I just want to highlight that this is not something that we take lightly. However, it is an issue of balance. Firstly, as other members have pointed out, our hand is being forced, to a large extent. This is something that could have been dealt with by the previous Government but was not, and therefore we have to be mindful of the fact that the process has, in effect, already started. There are a number of contracts and projects that have already been transferred out of SuPERU to other ministries and staff as well, so this is something that is time bound, and that is why, going back to the substance of the motion, I’m standing in support of a truncated select committee consideration period, because we have to get this done by a certain time frame so that there’s some certainty for those involved, and because, in effect, the process has already started.

The final point that I will make before I resume my seat is that this is a very straightforward bill. The entities and potential submitters who have a stake in this can quite easily be identified and so can be invited to provide submissions on this bill, which, of course, is incredibly important, but it is not a bill that is likely to elicit a huge amount of submissions, so it can be done in that short period that we are talking about when this bill goes through select committee. That’s the final point that I wanted to make, so thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Madam Assistant Speaker, can we just assess for a moment here what is happening in this Parliament. We have a motion to shorten a report back on a very simple bill where we’ve just had three Ministers of the Crown stand up and debate a motion that Governments typically don’t even want debated. We had three Ministers of the Crown stand up and debate the motion. We’ve had several other Labour MPs standing up debating the motion, when it’s highly likely it’s going to go—I’ll tell you right now: it’s going to go through unanimously. We also had the bill, which is a simple 12-clause bill that we probably would have done through a statutes amendment bill, and it would go through unanimously, but we’re seeing here delaying tactics where the Government is chewing up House time with a motion on an instruction to shorten report-back time.

So I just want to put on the record for this House that the New Zealand Government, the great Green - Labour - New Zealand First Government, has so few opportunities to pass legislation that they’re now debating instructions that are going to go through unanimously.

When it came to the select committee opportunity for other bills in this House, like the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill just last week; like the extension to the brightline test, which they’re not giving the public an opportunity to comment on; like the issue with the Families Package last year—no select committee opportunity. But here we have the Labour Party trying to slow down the Parliament, trying to chew up House time, trying to filibuster their own legislation and their own instructions because they’ve run out of ideas. That’s what’s going on right now. The Government has run out of ideas. They’re chewing up time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’d just encourage—[Interruption] Order. I’d just encourage you to just come back a little bit more closely to the motion, please.

Wow—I think it’s pretty relevant, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it’s relevant to highlight for New Zealanders that are watching this important debate, which members of the Government are standing up and diligently having their say on, that this is simply a delaying tactic because they’ve got no legislation.

I say to the Government: come here with some real legislation—more than a 12-clause bill that we were going to do anyway. Carmel Sepuloni’s an intelligent individual. She’s a hard-working Minister, we’re told. Why can’t she do better than a 12-clause bill that they’re now filibustering? That’s what I’ve got to say: that we are wasting House time. It’s important to remind New Zealanders exactly what the Government’s doing right now, and I think they should do better for New Zealanders.