Stewart Barbara: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10211] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said in his speech that there was a Supplementary Order Paper. I have checked on the Table and it is not there. I wonder when the Minister expects to be able to table it. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Tomorrow. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Thank you Mr Speaker— 
Paul Adams 
: Doesn’t matter when it arrives. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Oh it does not matter when it arrives—that is interesting. On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Families Commission Bill. At the outset I congratulate the chairperson of the Social Services Committee Georgina Beyer on her management of the select committee process. As usual she did a really excellent job. All the political parties contributed in a very positive way to that process. It was just a part of the democratic process that the changes were not included in the bill at this stage. But if they are to be on a Supplementary Order Paper that is where we will find them. They will definitely be there because we all worked on them.  
New Zealand First is a family orientated party and no party in this House has a monopoly on that label—not even United Future. We all believe in families. We all believe in that institution implicitly. All of us want the very best for families in New Zealand because we know that they have a very important role in the raising of children. When I read the press release issued by United Future’s spokesperson on the family I thought of the old saying: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The press release was totally erroneous; it was devoid of accuracy and common sense. In fact it was totally inane. I was totally disappointed in that member and in the party that prides itself on bringing common sense back into politics. I suppose United Future members thought they would not let the facts get in the way of a good story. The total bitterness that actually followed makes me really wonder about that party. Then to have United Future write to all the submitters stating that its views were totally ignored by the Opposition was nothing more than a cheap political stunt. I think it is called “pork-barrel politics”. Again the language used in that press release was no credit to United Future. I for one am totally disappointed in that party. Passion is in no way an excuse to prevent professionalism.  
All the submitters were listened to and questioned by members of the select committee. Some submitters were disappointed with the actions taken by United Future. I have been contacted by some of them. In fact they thought that United Future did not really have a future in politics at all. I would like to correct United Future members on a point they make as they try to ensure they have a monopoly claim on families in this Parliament. Family-friendly policies have been around for quite some time. They were around prior to their coming into Parliament and they will continue long after they leave. I am tired of United Future members putting out the erroneous statements that when they came to Parliament they were the only people to have a spokesperson on the family. They are wrong. I was appointed as New Zealand First’s spokesperson on the family when I came here in July 2002. I suppose that can be considered as quite recent but it is no more recent than the appointment of United Future’s spokesperson on the family. I ask them to please get it right.  
The family is fundamental to the optimal development of children and many of the current social problems we see are the result of a lack of support for this traditional institution. The proposed commission fails to recognise this and it will only exacerbate the situation. This commission will be able to promote only a really broad generic message that families are good institutions. We all know that. The commission will never do anything more than that.  
When we look at the definition of “family”—it has been mentioned by many of the submitters and by the Minister—we see that it is so broad that basically it excludes no one. Although we know that legislation always needs to be exclusive this definition is so broad that it can include anyone and everyone. Families can be whatever anybody wants. So while being a strength it can also be a weakness and a number of submitters commented on that.  
Looking at the number of commissioners New Zealand First has very grave doubts about the viability of this new bureaucracy. Under clause 16 the commission consists of at least three but not more than seven commissioners. We are also told that a chief commissioner must be appointed and that a deputy chief commissioner may be appointed. That makes a total of ten executive positions. Then lo and behold a general manager must be appointed by the board. None of the commissioners or the general manager will ever be paid at the lower end of the scale. If we have seven commissioners a chief commissioner a deputy chief commissioner a general manager as pointed out in clause 29 and all the office staff and researchers we are told will be employed to carry out this research to support all these people then we are looking at a giant expensive bureaucracy. It is plainly foolish to test the water with both feet with a bureaucracy such as this. We really believe that.  
We are particularly mindful too of the fact that other agencies already carry out much of the work the new commission hopes to carry out. So we must ask the question: why do we have to pay Government agencies twice to get the job done once? The logic is totally astounding. This bureaucracy the Families Commission will not ensure that our families are any better off than they are now. Families need some practical help. This money could be far better spent so that New Zealand families can be healthier or can get the services they require or it could be spent on early intervention programmes to strengthen what is already in place—for example on agencies like Plunket and I was pleased to read that Plunket is going to receive some additional funding from the Government. But there are also other agencies like family support and those giving home-based support. There are also heaps of other organisations in the voluntary and charitable trust area.  
This commission will be established at considerable expense. Nothing comes cheaply these days particularly with this type of bureaucracy. New Zealand First believes that this money could be better spent on services that can make some real difference to New Zealand families. The $28 million that is to be used for this commission could be used for the work of other agencies that have already proven they are effective. They have a good track record so why sink money into this bureaucracy? Many of the submitters also raised concerns about the duplication of services.  
New Zealand First would have supported the appointment of a commissioner to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children plus some additional resources to carry out the research on whatever areas the Families Commissioner focuses on. After all as we have been told many times and we all know children are the basis of the family. We know that the Office of the Commissioner for Children has already proven its value and it is highly respected. Why not use what has already been set up? It is a simple solution. Why set up a bureaucracy on a monumental scale such as this? The bottom line is that we would be failing in our job as an Opposition party by approving an additional bureaucracy. New Zealand First does not support an additional bureaucracy.  
Many families in New Zealand hoped that the commission would be able to advocate on their behalf particularly when it came to dealing with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. The bottom line is that this commission cannot do that at all. It is not one of its functions. New Zealand families deserve far more than what the bill can offer. The opportunity to support strong families as the basis of our communities has been traded for political expediency. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.