Maharey Steve: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Maharey Steve: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10206] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
I move  
That the Families Commission Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill establishes a new Crown entity to be known as the Families Commission. The bill gives effect to the undertaking in the agreement for confidence and supply between the Government and United Future and acts on the Government’s commitment to support families and children. The aim of the Families Commission is to establish an entity to advocate for the interests of families in New Zealand. The commission will promote the interests of the full range of families. It will also promote better understanding of family issues and needs amongst Government agencies and the wider community.  
The Social Services Committee received 58 submissions and the majority supported the bill. The submissions supported the commission’s roles of advocacy and increasing public awareness of matters relating to the interests of families. Submitters supported the inclusive approach taken towards New Zealand families and the recognition of the diversity of those families. They also supported the Families Commission’s strong research role. Only a small number of submissions expressed reservations about the bill. The primary reason for the lack of support was the concern that the Families Commission would duplicate roles of other Government agencies. In developing the commission the Government has been very careful to ensure that it does not duplicate functions of existing departments or agencies. Overall four main areas were of concern to submitters and they are as follows: the definition of family and family groups the functions of the commission the ministerial direction of the commission and mechanisms for obtaining the views of specified groups.  
I will briefly discuss the issue of defining “family” and “family groups” in the bill. Submitters raised a broad range of issues and one of the key areas raised was the definition of “family”. The bill does not attempt to define the term “family”. It places an emphasis on the function of families rather than on the form that families take by requiring the commission to have regard for the kinds structures and diversity of families and family groups and I think that that will be one of the things debated most when the Families Commission comes into being next year. I think some people will advance the argument that the only thing that matters is the structure of the family. We will hear arguments that things have gone wrong in this country because we do not maintain a particular structure of family. As opposed to that this bill is saying that the outcomes from a variety of family forms matter most. Are young people nurtured loved supported and given boundaries for their behaviour by the grouping that they are in which is called a “family”? There are solo parent families extended families Asian families whanau Pacific Island families and nuclear families as we know them. There are many family forms but the question we should be asking is: “What comes out of those different family forms?” We should be insistent on saying that we must nurture and support young people and that we must set boundaries for the behaviour of young people as they grow up—so they understand what they can do—and we must have a loving environment for children. That is what we should be after. I think that the inclusive approach of the Families Commission will focus on what should be provided for young people and on what men and women should get out of these kinds of relationships. It is the outcomes that we are after and that is what should be championed next year by the Families Commission.  
As United Future often says young people should be able to grow up with the parents they were born with. That would be the ideal but when it does not happen—as increasingly it does not in our society—we should be asking whether the alternative form that young people find themselves in means that they are in a dependable environment for the kind of outcomes I have just talked about so that they can grow up to be dependable adults. That is the question we should be asking. This approach encompasses the very wide range of living arrangements that exists in New Zealand now. The select committee’s work has affirmed that wide range of families and I think that that is one of the most important things the committee has done. I think this is a very significant debate for this country. We will be clear that we accept this diversity and that we will place the onus of providing a good environment for young people on all these family forms. There are no excuses among the different kinds of family forms. Young people must get these outcomes.  
I will also talk about the functions of the commission which many submitters made points about. The commission’s main function will be to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally. The commission will not take on any individual family’s cases or issues. It will also have additional functions to assist it to effectively perform its advocacy functions. The commission will encourage and facilitate informed debate on matters related to the interests of families across sectors; increase public awareness and prompt better understanding of matters related to the interests of families including the importance of stable family relationships and the rights and responsibilities of parents; encourage and facilitate the development and provision of policies and services designed to promote or serve the interests of families; consider and report on any matters related to families referred to it by any Minister; stimulate and promote research into any matter relating to the interests of families for example by collecting and disseminating research about families and their interests by advising on research priorities or gaps and by contracting research on families; and undertaking any incidental functions related to its main function or additional functions. These functions enable the commission to develop a good knowledge of family issues. They will also allow the commission to identify new and emerging issues that have an impact on our families. These functions mean the commission will have input into policy development as a key stakeholder wherever it might be.  
If we reflect for 2 seconds on the role I have read out here we can see that it will be a challenge. It will be a big challenge as it ought to be. United Future members are fond of saying—and Labour agrees with them absolutely—that the family is the fundamental institution in our society. It is what we all pass through. There is no escape from some kind of family form because one has to be born and go somewhere. If this institution is not working then society is not working and we know at the moment that there are a lot of problems that stem from families not working. We have been shy as a society in the debate about the family when it comes to saying what should and should not happen. We should not be shy. We should expect some things from our families. We should expect mums and dads to do their jobs. We should expect men to look after their kids. Even if the family breaks up men are responsible financially and emotionally for those kids forever. There is no escape from being a father or mother or someone who cares for children. There is nothing wrong with saying that and it is time to say that. I think one of the things that the Families Commission with these responsibilities will do is say them. It will be hard. People will feel challenged and they damn well should be because that should be the nature of the debate about the importance of the family today. I applaud the fact that one of the things United Future has done over the last little while is ensure that that debate is well and truly back firmly on what we are doing.  
I did find one thing disturbing and that was the way the Opposition parties did not allow the views of people who came and submitted to come through to this House. We had to write a Supplementary Order Paper to get those views back in the bill. Instead of the other parties listening to submitters and saying: “We do not own the committee. These people come and submit to us and we communicate these views back.” we had to go through the facade of writing a Supplementary Order Paper to get those views back in here rather than the select committee doing its job. I think that was very disappointing and it should not be the way that select committees work. They are there to serve those submitters. They are not there to say: “Huh. We do not want to report this back. We are not going to do this.” Well they should have reported that back and we should have been able to do that job properly.  
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is misrepresenting the political process here—the way that select committees work and the Minister knows that. He knows that if he does not get the numbers on the committee the bill is discharged. He is misrepresenting that fact in his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a debating matter not a point of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was typical of ACT party members. They parade in here about values and interrupt the speech now because it suits them to make what is not a point of order—just because they are so ignorant and stupid that they want to stand up and make that point. This is a debate and Muriel Newman will be able to get up and have her say at the right time when she can make that debating point. But demonstrating her stupidity of course is something she does fairly often. The way that the select committee did not report these things back was disappointing. But we do now have a Supplementary Order Paper. It does set out a whole range of things to do with the powers the independence and the role of the commission. It defines more clearly the word “family” so we no longer risk including gangs flatmates community groups and so on. There is now a much clearer definition and I am thankful for the debate between United Future and us which I think was quite productive in getting that better definition. I applaud the work that has been done by the select committee and I commend this work as it is shaped to the House.