Bradford Sue: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Bradford Sue: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10302] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I commend the Minister for his exposition of what I take it is United Future’s and his vision for the family. It is great but I do not think that the Families Commission is the way to realise it. The first thing I would like to point out about this part of the bill is in relation to the Government amendment to clause 7(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey which states: “… the Commission must identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance … (a) families’ resilience: (b) families’ strengths.” That sounds all well and good and uses the latest in politically correct sociological jargon but I ask what exactly it means in terms of the context and functions of the Families Commission. 
Is that organisation going to carry out strength-based social work practice with abused and neglected children as Department of Child Youth and Family Services staff continue to try to do against the odds? Will the commission work alongside families on benefits who are heavily in debt with never enough money to live on in order to help parents to find the strength within themselves to carry on living without abusing and neglecting their children? Will we see the families commissioners out in the community helping the parents of children with special needs to access the full educational health and other services they so badly need in the face of systemic intransigence and a failure to provide those services at the level that is needed? I do not think so. I do not think this $28 million Families Commission will be doing any of those things. Its functions as outlined in clauses 7 and 8 are not about any of those matters or about a myriad of other practical applications of assistance and strength-based practice to families in this country. I believe that using the language of social and community work practice and applying it here as that Supplementary Order Paper does deliberately creates a misleading impression of what this bill is about. 
Going on to the actual functions of the commission those revolve around advocating for families generally encouraging informed debate increasing public awareness of the importance of the parenting role promoting research into matters relating to families and a whole lot more in a similar vein. Does the Labour Government not understand that there is already a vast array of church and community organisations out there carrying out those very functions? Does Labour not realise that the Ministry of Social Development has hundreds of policy analysts already undertaking mountains of research on the sociology and economics of families and children in New Zealand? I am sure Labour does understand that all too clearly and as other colleagues from the Social Services Committee have already pointed out this commission is purely and simply an electoral trade-off that will not necessarily add anything at all to the sum total of good being done for families in New Zealand. I welcome the fact that the Minister has acknowledged that in the speech just prior to mine. 
In particular I cannot see the commission doing anything for low-income families who continue to suffer disproportionately despite the welcome decrease in unemployment and our so-called boom economy. The Government should not be pouring this money into a Families Commission. If it was serious about its Labour heritage and traditions it would instead put the $28 million into things like providing better funding for community groups that work at the grassroots level to help families in all their various forms. It would put the money into reforming the benefit system so that benefit levels are adequate and so that family support and family assistance apply right across the board to all families and keep pace with inflation. It would put the money into ensuring that both low-income worker and beneficiary families get all the entitlements they are allowed and into doing more to address the hardships generated by the way the benefit system operates including addressing issues around the abatement levels and the levels of debt repayment. 
Finally I believe that the Government should be prioritising the $28 million not into the Families Commission but into doing more to support existing commissions like the Children’s Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. It is ridiculous that we have the Children’s Commissioner and her staff trying to do a fantastically huge job with 12 staff and a budget of around $1.7 million a year while this new commission will get around $7 million a year. That is out of hand disproportionate and uncalled for and I think it will be a sad day when this bill goes through.