Rich Katherine: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5625] 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a point raised by Sue Bradford. Imagine if this $28 million were given to the Office of the Commissioner for Children an organisation that is already acting as a strong advocate for a fair chunk of the family—that is children! By my calculation if the Commissioner for Children had that $28 million he could use it to answer at least 55000 inquiries at least 11200 in-depth inquiries. If that significant amount of money were spent on the Commissioner for Children the backlog of cases within the Department of Child Youth and Family Services which is presently an absolute disaster in this country could be wiped. 
I have sat in the House and listened to a lot of nice things being said about the family. Frankly there has been nothing said that I could disagree with. We all have families we all understand their importance and for the last 67 years families being a cornerstone of society has been a fundamental principle of the National Party. But I ask members on that side of the House what the Families Commission will do to make anything different for New Zealand families. They cannot articulate the answer in a sentence and that says to me that they are struggling to understand the function of this commission as well. 
I pay tribute to the intention of United Future members but I have to say that in their negotiations with the Government they have had the wool pulled over their eyes. The Families Commission was one of United Future’s key planks yet when we look at the actual bill we see it has been totally neutered. 
Let us discuss again the whole issue of the definition of a family. When United Future members were on the election platform they had a clear idea about what a family was but the definition in the bill refers to any group whose members have “significant psychological attachments”. Some people have those sorts of attachments to their hairdresser. Certainly when talking about “significant psychological attachments” as a method of describing the family nobody for one minute thought that that description could cover the Mongrel Mob or Black Power. I think the Devil’s Henchmen will be quite surprised to hear that they too are seen as a family in terms of this bill as are the Hell’s Angels. I do not support anything that by any stretch of the imagination could encompass a definition of family that would include gangs but at the moment from the way that this bill is worded gangs are in there and I think United Future has confirmed that yes perhaps that could be a valid interpretation. The definition could also be extended to business partnerships franchise networks and a wide range of other relationships that we have on a day-to-day basis that are not intended to be family relationships. But in terms of the definition those sorts of relationships are all in there. 
I remember reading a book when I was a child called  
Through the Looking Glass 
. There was a line in the book that said: “If you don’t know where you’re going any road will take you there.” It is going to be the same with this Families Commission. It has no idea what it stands for. I ask United Future how it can advocate for something when it is not clear what the definition of family is. At the moment every single New Zealander can be described within the definition in the bill. 
Well we already have an advocate for every single New Zealander. It is called the New Zealand Parliament. That is what we as members of Parliament are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be advocating for a wide range of people. That is why we have different parties and different policies. But that is our role. The Families Commission is never going to be able to communicate the diversity of the New Zealand population; neither should it. 
The other thing that I think has nobbled the success of this commission is the fact that it is not able to advocate on behalf of individual cases or individual families. If we look at the reason for the success of the Commissioner for Children we see that he has been able to raise a wide range of issues by bringing up individual cases. Individual cases of child abuse have been brought to the country’s attention by the commissioner talking about them—cases like that of Craig Manukau; or the significant report on James Whakaruru that was done by the Commissioner for Children; or the cases of Mereana Edmonds or Saliel Aplin. By raising individual cases the Commissioner for Children has brought to New Zealanders’ attention some very important issues. 
The Families Commission will not be able to do that because it is not allowed to talk about any individual cases or any individual situations—for example the problems that many disadvantaged families might have or the problems that families of mum dad and the kids might have or the problems that solo parent families might have. It will not be able to talk about any of those in the debate. The commission’s ability to advocate has been totally nobbled by the Minister’s definition of family. Although we can talk about that and although I suppose eventually United Future will have to come up with a different definition because it will be criticised extensively for the current one from the way in which the commission is set up it will not make one skerrick of difference to the sorts of families that Sue Bradford highlighted in her speech. 
I stood at the sideline of a schoolboy rugby game on Saturday and like Bill English I wondered what the Families Commission would do for those families. Imagine if the $28 million were spent on rugby boots and jerseys! I started to think about what else could be done with that $28 million. It could fund over 2 million calls to the Plunket Line. It could fund far more Parents as First Teachers programmes or Parenting with Confidence courses or a whole raft of other courses and support networks that are already funded and already out there within the community. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why not just give it back? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Well that is another option as well but when such a huge amount of money is put aside in the Budget I think of what other priorities could be more pressing. When the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is currently facing a backlog of unallocated cases running into the thousands—that is kids who have not even seen a social worker yet— I think frankly this funding is an absolute crime. 
It is not that the National Party is anti-family. It is always a cheap shot to say that anybody who does not support the Families Commission is somehow anti-family. I look around me and I cannot see anybody who is anti-family. I can see some people who are anti-bureaucracy anti-wastage and anti duplication of research funding. We know that the Ministry of Social Development with its hundreds of researchers already takes into account a lot of research issues that are of importance to families. 
One thing that we will be looking to do during the select committee process is see how the bill can be improved. However I am doubtful of that. From the way in which it is structured it is a recipe for disaster. If one looks at the consultation provisions one sees that the commission will be bogged down in consultation because it will have to travel the country to talk to various groups as wide-ranging as senior citizens caregivers men—interestingly enough—and women and basically the whole of the country given the various hats that we all wear. 
The last reason that this commission will be nobbled is basically the structure of the commission. The commission is set up so that it has to have regard to Government policy. It will never be in a position to criticise Government policy. It will never be in a position even to critique Government policy. The structure of the commission is not sufficiently independent for it to advocate on behalf of families or to advocate on behalf of any group for that matter. If this money is to be put into the Budget I think there are plenty of other pressing priorities that are important to families childcare being one of them. It is the bane of every working parent’s life. 
Certainly a lot of community groups that work in the area of parenting support deserve far greater support than they have received. I know that a lot of groups that work with parents will be very unnerved. They may be supportive of this measure now but when they realise that the real agenda behind it is to muscle in on a number of parenting support services that are provided by the community sector I think that will change. When people read the definition of family they will see that it is so broad that it is nebulous and so vague that the commission really will not be able to advocate for anything—that is if it can even reach agreement on a definition of family. 
Those are the main reasons why National is not supporting this bill.