Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10243] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Father of the House! 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member—that is a compliment. Anybody who calls me a “father” is paying me a compliment. One of my greatest achievements in life—and probably it is the greatest achievement in life—is bringing up two kids. I am a second-time married person and I inherited another three children. I have five children who have all grown up to be reliable decent sound adults—all of them. That is because I put a strong emphasis on family values. Don’t nod at me in that sanctimonious manner Mr Baldock! I resent those people sitting on the United Future benches and saying across the House that because New Zealand First does not support its bill it is anti-family. I resent that by inference and I resent it by statement. Judy Turner the United Future member who put out the press release should hang her head in shame. Certainly the letter that the Hon Peter Dunne sent to submitters is disgraceful. 
Darren Hughes 
: Venal! 
PETER BROWN 
: The last person who called me venal is still recovering from the shock. When someone called me venal the jacket came off and that person went down. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: Grey hairs and all Dover Samuels—I am not past it. I draw members’ attention to a bill called the Commission for the Family Bill in the name of my honourable colleague Dail Jones. It was in the ballot before those guys in United Future knew where the toilets were. It was in the ballot before they had unlocked their offices. It contains a definition of “family”. That crowd over there in United Future is going berserk about supporting the family. That is the outfit that could not support the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill because it did not contain a definition of “stress”; yet their Families Commission Bill does not contain a definition of “family”. I listened intently to Judy Turner’s speech a few moments ago. I lost count of the times she mentioned the word “family” yet she does not even know what it means. She does not have the gumption or the intellect to put in this bill what is meant by the word “family”. 
Darren Hughes 
: Too much vinegar at lunchtime. 
PETER BROWN 
: Too much vinegar the member thinks. I agree with United Future on one aspect: families are the cornerstone of society. Where we disagree is that New Zealand First knows exactly what we mean by the word “family”. I tell those United Future MPs that “family” means “a family group including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least one adult member; and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” 
 That is a very simple definition of a family and when I last mentioned it in the House Gordon Copeland could not get across fast enough to get a copy of this document because he was worried that under the United Future bill three prostitutes and a pimp would constitute a family. I challenge one of the United Future members to tell me I am wrong that three prostitutes and a pimp living together in a house would constitute a family. They would qualify as a family under this bill. 
United Future does not even know what “family” means. It does not have a clue. I think the Labour member over there is pretty clueless but he is young enough—he can learn. The United Future guys are a little bit past it. There is no hope for those guys. They go out to the public and say they are the family-friendly party—that they are the party for the family—but they do not know what they are talking about. They cannot define the word “family” to the average member of the public. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member is still going on about that. 
PETER BROWN 
: For that member over there I will repeat the definition. “Family” means a family group including an extended family in which there is at least one adult member and in which the members have a biological or legal relationship. That is pretty straightforward—[ 
Interruption 
]. Judy Turner heckles now but she could not even come up with anything near a definition. United Future members could not come up with a definition of stress and they voted against that bill. In this bill they cannot come up with a definition of “family” and they call the bill the jewel in their Crown. 
When United Future’s term finally ends and it says goodbye to Parliament at the next election there will be more prostitution in this country than ever before—far more. United Future could not put a stake in the sand to stop that. There will be more drug use than ever before despite its mini stake in the sand. There will be more break-ups of proper families—as I understand them and United Future does not understand—than ever before. There will be more children brought up in adverse circumstances in single-parent units. 
This bill is a sop to United Future. Some $28 million worth of taxpayer dollars will go on it and there is no definition of “family”. For $28 million we could have thousands of operations and we could easily introduce breast cancer screening for every woman over the age of 40 until the age of 70 three or four times over. Yet the Government is promoting this sort of garbage legislation that says nothing just to keep this motley little crowd onside. That is what the Government is doing. Just to keep this motley little crowd onside it is giving a Families Commission Bill— 
Darren Hughes 
: Looked in your caucus room lately? 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member—I have forgotten his name—does not know what it is about. I can tell the young gentleman—is he a young gentleman? Well he is young—that the family is the most important part of our society by a long way. I share that view with United Future but the difference between us is that I know what I am talking about and United Future does not. It is playing the worst sort of politics. It is playing with people’s emotions and fears— 
Darren Hughes 
: Sit down. 
PETER BROWN 
: Has the member read the letter that was sent out to all the submitters? It is an absolute disgrace. To use the word “venal”—which is offensive by anybody’s standards— 
Darren Hughes 
: What does it mean? 
PETER BROWN 
: I just happen to have the  
Oxford Dictionary 
 definition here. The word “venal” applied to a person means “able to be bribed or corrupted”. I say to the member who knows not very much about anything that if having a definition of “family” in this bill made it that much better New Zealand First would have looked at it much more positively. But we are not prepared to support a bill that does not have a definition. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Judy Turner where the Supplementary Order Paper is. We are debating a bill with a Supplementary Order Paper that is yet to come. It gets worse and worse. 
This bill is a failure. I would move a motion that we scrap this lot and adopt my colleague Dail Jones’ Commission for the Family Bill which was written by somebody who knows what he is talking about. It is a far better bill and I am confident that we on this side of the House would all support it. If we gave United Future a little bit of coaching even it would see the error of its ways and come around to supporting that bill. This bill is garbage and Mr Dail Jones’ bill is absolutely top-notch. At least it has a definition of “family”.