Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10696] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think the honourable member has voiced some concerns about families and to be fair to this side of the House if we thought this bill would deliver the solutions we would be supportive of it. I tell that member that before this bill even emerged in any way at all my colleague Dail Jones had a families commission bill in the members’ ballot. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Lifted it straight from our policy. 
PETER BROWN 
: Dail Jones was not in the House before the election. He could not have put the bill in before the election. A clause in that bill identified a family as being what I think we all believe a family would be. If the member over there thinks this bill will address the issue then I invite him to read his own bill—the purpose clause. There is no mention of a family in it. The nearest it gets to mentioning it is to state that the bill’s purpose is to establish a Crown entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act 1989 to state the commission’s functions and powers and to require the commission to have regard to certain matters and to comply with certain other obligations. 
We looked at the functions clause. There are three functions under the main function clause. The first is: “The commission’s main function is to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” We thought that was quite good. It is a move in the right direction. But look at the second: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” Families have to go somewhere else; the commission will not handle that. 
Basically this bill is too liberal and is hugely bureaucratic so the select committee would not support it. It sent it back to the House. As a response the honourable leader of United Future sent a very damning letter to all the submitters or at least most of them which referred to “an unprecedented and venal political stunt by these four parties”. I ask that member what is unprecedented about a bill coming back to this House. The member has been here a long time far longer than me and he knows that many bills have come back to this House without the support of the select committee. He knows that. He is shaking his head. Maybe I should refresh his memory because I can think of at least one. [ 
Interruption 
] In my 7 years? That member has been here five times those 7 years. 
His letter goes on to state it was a venal stunt. “Venal” is probably the worst word one could use in politics to describe a fellow MP. There cannot be much worse than that. I do not take offence at a great deal and to be honest if the member called me venal in the House I would not object. I would live with it. But he wrote to submitters to say that people in my party are part of a venal political stunt which means they are open to bribery and corruption. I invite members from United Future to reflect on that. That is what the word means; that is the dictionary definition. If the member does not believe that I invite him to check the dictionary. I know he knows what it means. I invite the member to reconsider and do what he did when he spoke about Professor Jane Kelsey. In September he said something quite damning about her and 1 or 2 months later he was in the House retracting it. I invite the member to think because he has a precedent of withdrawing those sorts of comments. If he thinks we are not taking it seriously he should think again. 
There is more to families than children although they are very very important and I do not want to imply otherwise. I believe that with extra resourcing for the Commissioner for Children most cases involving children could be handled. At least the Commissioner for Children advocates on behalf of children. But does this bill cover families of mature people older people people who might be worried about their finances health and end-of-life problems? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Have you read the bill? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have read the bill. I cannot see anything that says the commission would consider supporting things like end-of-life concerns as advocated in my Death with Dignity Bill. 
Hon Member 
: Wouldn’t do that. 
PETER BROWN 
: One of his members is saying he would not do that. The commissioners are not allowed to look at end-of-life situations and concerns that older people older families have. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Helping people kill themselves? 
PETER BROWN 
: Older people are worried about end-of-life situations. Mr Dunne should not make light of that. It is a serious concern for many people in New Zealand. If the family commissioners were asked to look at it would the member endeavour to stop it? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What? Helping them kill themselves? 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not helping them kill themselves. The member is being frivolous about a genuine concern. 
What does this definition of a family mean? Let me read the definition. The bill states: “(2) In this section family includes a group of people related by marriage blood or adoption”—all very good thus far—“an extended family 2 or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised family group.” The little bit there that concerns me is “2 or more persons living together as a family”. Would the family commissioners be looking at for example—I am asking the United Future members—two homosexual men who are living together and have a passionate desire to adopt children? Are they embraced as a family under this bill? Oh the members are silent now. Paul Adams is silent. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: They are not embraced. 
PETER BROWN 
: They are not embraced under this bill. Well let the honourable member tell me how he is going to control the family commissioners because the family commissioners will be appointed under the equal opportunities legislation and the Human Rights Act. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: They are appointed under the Families Commission Act. 
PETER BROWN 
: But they will have to be governed by the equal opportunities legislation and the Human Rights Act. Is it impossible that one or more of the family commissioners could be homosexual? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Who knows? They haven’t been appointed yet. 
PETER BROWN 
: But the member will not deny that they could well be homosexuals and want to promote this— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: They might even be Asian people. 
PETER BROWN 
: I hope at least one of them is Asian. But I am pointing out to the member that if we have homosexual people as family commissioners it is not impossible that they will promote homosexual men being able to adopt children. Does United Future stand for that? I tell members that on this side of the House New Zealand First has real concerns about that. It is illegal at the moment and we have real concerns about that happening. If members are opening the door there they should be aware of it. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: It’s illegal. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says it is illegal now. There is a bill likely to come before this House within the next year that will make it— 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: One at a time. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am asking those members how they will control it with this bill. This bill is opening the door wider and I think they are fooling themselves if they think it is not. I say to honourable members that New Zealand First is not prepared to experiment with the lives of children. The research that we have seen shows that children brought up in homosexual families are put at a disadvantage and we are not prepared to experiment with the lives of children. I cannot get that assurance from the United Future people. They say we do not support this bill because we are frivolous and because we are jealous. Nothing could be further from the truth. New Zealand First would be keen to support something that develops families in this country and principally develops the traditional family which has served this society of New Zealanders so well in its 150-plus years of history. 
Marc Alexander 
: As long as they are not from other countries I presume. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does a member have a question for me? I am willing to answer a question. 
Marc Alexander 
: Would you include people from other countries? 
PETER BROWN 
: How stupid is the member! I come from another country. How stupid is the member not to recognise that! I am the foremost immigrant in New Zealand First and proud of it. New Zealand First would support any legislation that legitimately addressed the concerns the Hon Peter Dunne raised but this bill does not. It is far wide of the mark and it will be very costly. There are better ways of spending the money. Widening the breast-screening age range to include women aged from 40 to 70 would be a better way of spending the money. Regrettably New Zealand First cannot support this bill because it is too liberal and too bureaucratic. But when we are in Government next time we will amend it.