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:10289] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to take issue with you Mr Chairperson but I will use part of my 5-minute speech to say that I thought you could have given Mr Copeland a little bit longer. As much as I disagree with him on the concerns United Future has— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no the member cannot challenge the Chair. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will get to the title but I would have liked to hear what Mr Copeland had to say. This bill could be called the “Experiment with Children Bill” or the “United Future in Trouble Bill”. This bill is a sop to United Future. Until this afternoon we did not even have a definition of the family and how can one have a Families Commission Bill without a definition of the family? How can one do that? Perhaps the Minister will take a call and tell us that many months after the bill was first tabled with United Future’s hand-clapping in the background he has come up with a definition of “family” that did not exist until an hour or so ago. 
I have some real difficulty in saying that this is a genuine Families Commission Bill. I was not on the Social Services Committee. My good colleague Barbara Stewart was on it and she will no doubt speak in more detail than I can about the contents of the bill. But if one reads the bill one cannot help but conclude that it is bureaucracy going mad. We are to spend $28 million on a Families Commission under this legislation—and until an hour or so ago we did not know what the definition of the family was in the Minister’s mind at least although that has always been clear to New Zealand First—and I ask how one can justify that expense. Maybe the Minister will take a call and explain that. This is bureaucracy. If we had a genuine Families Commission in this legislation $28 million would be far too much money. We could put a genuine Families Commission in place at much less cost. It would mean identifying the family. The definition of the word “family” in Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey—and I asked the Minister this afternoon what it meant—states: “ … 2 or more persons living together as a family”. I understand that to include a de facto relationship. But are two homosexual men who are living together a family? Are we experimenting with children under this Families Commission Bill? That is a question I would like to put to the Minister. 
New Zealand First is not prepared to experiment with the lives of children under the Families Commission Bill or indeed any other bill. We think that this bill needs to be rethought completely. I think in fairness to the United Future members they would like to see the bill rethought if they were absolutely honest about it. This is an “Experiment With Children Bill” and I tell the honourable Chairperson and the members of this Committee that that is the wrong way to treat families and children in this country—experimenting with their lives. The title of this Families Commission Bill is inappropriate. It should be called the “Experiment With Children Bill”. That would be a fair reflection of the bill. Or it could be called—because Labour wants to get United Future up the polls from about 0.1 percent to something reasonable so that it can get back into power—the “United Future in Trouble Bill” or the “Help United Future Out of the Trench It Has Dug Because It Does Not Understand What a Family Is Bill”. But certainly the “Families Commission Bill” is not an appropriate title for this bill. I am quite disappointed if this is the best that United Future and Labour can come up with for a Families Commission Bill. I say that it is a failure. 
We would welcome supporting a proper correctly structured bill that addressed the core issues that concern families in this country but this bill does not do that. We would be better to spend the $28 million elsewhere in society rather than starting a new bureaucracy that will allow to some extent as I have said several times experimentation with the lives of children. Experimenting with kids and bringing them up in circumstances where we know the outcomes will be less than favourable is a serious matter.