Smith Murray: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Smith Murray: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10306] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate. Hearing what the Opposition parties are trying to say in order to defend the indefensible position that they take against the families of New Zealand says more to us about what National ACT New Zealand First and the Greens believe about families than it does about anything else. They are quick to say that families are the foundational unit of our society; that families are failing at huge costs to the taxpayer; and that the benefits of the family are being lost as families disintegrate. But they have done nothing at all in this Parliament or previously to help resurrect the family and save that situation. 
What have National and New Zealand First—at the times that they have been in Government—done in order to help salvage the family to promote it and to strengthen it? Nothing whatsoever. Instead as soon as United Future arrived in this House New Zealand First and ACT immediately appointed spokespeople for the family. 
 All of a sudden they think they need a spokesperson for the family. They did not have one before. National probably because it was in disarray at that time or perhaps because it was so embarrassed that it has never had a spokesperson for the family took until a couple of months ago to appoint a spokesperson for the family. What have those spokespeople done? 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is meant to be a robust debate on a bill. This guy is going on about whether we have members with responsibility for the family. For his enlightenment I tell him that New Zealand First is firmly committed to the family always has been and has had a spokesperson on it for all of its terms in Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is not actually a point of order. The member is coming to the point now. I was giving him leeway under Speaker’s ruling 38/1. I ask him to come to the point. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I am interested to hear that New Zealand First is for the family. It may now change its vote and support this bill which is there in order to support the family. But let us just look at the two and only two arguments that have been put up against this bill by the Opposition parties. The first argument—typically Judith Collins’ comment—is that a family constitutes mum dad and the kids. Now this is a party that also at the same time says that it believes that a child’s welfare and best interests are paramount when it comes to family life. So what are they saying to the children of this nation? They are saying to them that if they are not in a situation with a mother and a father they do not belong to a family. They are saying to every child with a sole parent bringing that child up that he or she is not part of a family. They are saying to widows and widowers that they are not a family. They are saying to children being raised by their grandparents that they are not a family. New Zealand First is saying to children being brought up in a de facto situation that they are not part of a family. New Zealand First is saying to foster families that those children do not belong to families. They are saying to children whose parents have been killed and who— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would be keen to know what this guy stands for not what he thinks we are for or against. I draw your attention Mr Chairperson to the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table in my name on behalf of New Zealand First that clearly illustrates that we recognise de facto families. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. It is a debatable issue. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: If New Zealand First believes that de facto families are biologically or legally connected then I suggest they have another look at their definition. They are saying that children brought up by de facto families do not come within that definition. 
So what are we looking at in a families perspective? We are trying to find an environment and to strengthen families in New Zealand wherever children find themselves placed. United Future is looking at the welfare and best interests of children. We are saying to children that whatever environment they find themselves in we are setting up a commission that will look at strengthening that environment to improve their prospects in life. We are doing that by setting up a commission that will have an overarching look at the whole situation of families in New Zealand and at ways to improve that. 
That brings me to the second argument—the only other argument put up against this bill. It is an argument that has been put up by National and by ACT. They say that this is just a bureaucracy; that it is just putting money into an environment where it could be better spent at ground level. That is what the Greens say. When ACT and the Greens agree on something one has to think there is something suspicious about it. It is like saying to the All Blacks: “You don’t need a coach. Why should we pay for a coach to sit up there in the grandstand looking out of his window at the play and giving directions from above? Why don’t we just pay the players a little bit more money then they can go on the field and do what they think is best to do in running the team?”. 
The Families Commission will be a coach. It will provide an overarching view of families. It will look at what is happening now in families. It will address where the problems are. It will look at what is lacking in families and family education. It will carry out and implement research to try to fill in the gaps in knowledge that we have about families and how they relate. Then it will encourage the direction of funding into those areas where we see there is a weakness. 
The argument Judith Collins put up that this is a bureaucracy typifies the approach that National takes in terms of all these policies which is: just keep throwing money at the grassroots instead of doing any planning at all any oversight or having any sense of direction.