Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10291] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The title of the bill is the Families Commission Bill but I have a number of suggestions that I think would probably more clearly reflect the nature of this bill and the way it has arisen in the House. I would like to start off by saying that a very good name for this bill would be the “United Future Anti-Family Bill”. All along we have heard that we are not allowed to really promote the traditional nuclear family in this bill. We have to promote any other type of family but we cannot focus on the most common type of family in New Zealand which is the traditional married family so I think the “United Future Anti-Family Bill” would be quite appropriate. However I thought that maybe we could make that a little bit better by calling it the “United Future - Labour Coalition Anti-Family Commission Bill”. To bring Labour into it is better because we know that Labour’s agenda is to undermine the nuclear family. That has always been Labour’s agenda and this bill sort of plays that out. 
However if we want to be more realistic about the nature of the Family Commission and the fact that the commissioners are appointed by the Minister that it is a political commission—in other words it is not appointed by a cross-party process—we could call it the “United Future - Labour Political Payback Bill” or the “Political Puppet Bill”. We could even look at saying that it is a bill to implement the United Nations agenda which we will see later on in this parliamentary term when the Family Commission introduces anti-smacking legislation. We can see that coming a mile off. Another type of name for the bill would be the “Family Commission (Implementing the United Nations Agenda) Bill”. That will be a big debate when it happens because most New Zealanders certainly do not agree with abusing children but they do not see that anti-smacking legislation will stop people abusing children. That legislation will significantly impact on the way parents go about raising their children in their family homes. 
As well I thought this bill could be called the “Marginalising Fathers Bill”. A lot of the political correctness that surrounds this family debate is all about saying that every type of family is OK but nowhere does anybody say: “Hang on we actually want to promote dads as being a very important part of that family equation.” This bill marginalises fathers. Many of the submitters were worried about that particular issue and I know that many people hope that the Family Commission comes out and talks about the importance of fathers in their children’s lives. But we have to remember that it is a politically correct and politically promoted commission so its agenda will definitely be set by the Labour Government. If we have a Labour Government that is anti-male and anti-father then I am afraid that that will be what a lot of the work of the Family Commission will focus on. 
During the time the bill was in front of the select committee we saw promoting psychological attachment as a big issue. Many submitters were worried about the fact that gangs could be part of the psychological attachment definitions in the bill. Until the Minister came up with his Supplementary Order Paper I thought that another name could have been the “Family Commission Promoting Criminal Gangs Bill” which would be an absolute outrage. This is one time when I support something the Minister has done and I can see he is very excited by that. A Supplementary Order Paper that clarifies that criminal gangs are not included in the psychological attachment definitions in the bill is a good move and one that most members of Parliament would support. 
I come back to the fact that this is anti-family legislation.