Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Brown Peter: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10305] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If anybody believes that this Act is to do something for the families of this country then I invite him or her to read the “Purpose”. I thought when I heard Peter Dunne describe this bill as the “Jewel in the Crown” of United Future’s political agenda then the purpose must be something worthwhile. “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish the Commission”. Then it goes on to say how important that is: “(b) state the Commission’s functions and powers: (c) require the Commission—(i) to have regard to certain matters; and (ii) to comply with certain other obligations.” That is the purpose of this Families Commission Bill. 
I thought there had to be more to it than that so I looked at the functions in clause 7: “Commission’s main function (1) The Commission’s main function is to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” That sounds all very fine. That sounds quite worthwhile. 
 “(2) 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.” What the dickens is all this about? The commission will cost $28 million and will not look after a family or a group of families that have a particular problem or area of concern. Spending $28 million on a Families Commission $1.7 million we are told this afternoon on the Commissioner for Children and $28 million on this is an absolute disgrace. 
The definition of “family” in this bill is not good enough. It is too wide ranging. One might as well call this bill “The People’s Bill” as it defends everybody and everything but not specifically. In my name I have put an amendment to this particular part—a Supplementary Order Paper that defines “family”. It should go into the interpretation and I will read it: “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.” 
My amendment will preclude two homosexual males having the future rights to adopt children. Under the current Families Commission Bill that is not only distinctly possible it is more than likely. We heard United Future members stand up and say they supported the rights of children here there and everywhere. I say to this Committee and to those members in particular: is that what they want—homosexual males to be able to adopt children with equal rights to heterosexual parents? I do not believe that that is what United Future stands for. Certainly its support base does not believe that that is what it stands for. 
This bill went through the select committee and came out exactly as is. As a result of that the Hon Peter Dunne—if I can use the term the Hon Peter Dunne—wrote to every submitter or to a large proportion of submitters accusing political parties of being venal. I think the words he used were “unprecedented and venal political stunt”. “Venal” means “open to bribery and corruption”. I ask the United Future members and particularly Judy Turner—because she is playing a prominent role in this bill and I have stood on the political stage with her on many occasions—do they believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? 
Judy Turner 
: The meaning of the word is also “unprincipled”. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does she believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? The  
Oxford Dictionary  
defines “venal” as being “open to bribery and corruption”. Do they believe that Craig McNair is open to bribery and corruption? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not Craig! 
PETER BROWN 
: Or Barbara Stewart? Or my colleagues? I say to Mr Duynhoven that this is serious. I have taken real offence to this because that member the Hon Peter Dunne wrote to every submitter and accused the Opposition members—because we did not agree with this bill because it came back from select committee as is which is not unusual and I am sure he would agree with that—of being “venal”.