Heatley Phil: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Heatley Phil: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10304] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say I am somewhat surprised by United Future. If this was indeed its flagship policy the big win that it got when it knocked on Helen Clark’s door on 28 July 2002 to say it wished to be associated with her Government I would have thought that when we passed this flagship policy in the House United Future would demand of the Labour Party a clause by clause debate on the issues in this bill. But no it has not done that. I would even have thought that United Future’s leader Peter Dunne might have taken the time to take a call on the matter—but no. That is a huge disappointment for those of us in the Opposition opposing this bill. I will put some good questions to this Committee: why is this flagship policy not being debated clause by clause why did United Future not demand that it be debated clause by clause and why has Peter Dunne not taken a call on it? The answer is here on my left: Katherine Rich was quite right to say that it is simply because there is no substance to the bill. That is what she said. 
I was intrigued by Minister Maharey’s discourse on the family and on how wide-ranging it was. I was intrigued by his definitions of the family and how he encompassed all in his definition of the family. It was a beautiful thing to see him hug all and sundry in all the situations in the lives of New Zealanders. That was a great thing. I was intrigued that originally in this legislation “family” according to Minister Maharey encompassed gang members rugby teams and anyone else who had a psychological attachment and a deep love for one another. We have seen Minister Maharey spend some time on examining families in New Zealand. It will be a great relief to my mother to learn when she reads this bill that thankfully I still remain related to her and she to me. I am her son and she will be delighted at that. I only wish that my grandparents—Grandma Heatley which nobody would have guessed and on the other side of the family Grandma Needham—could have had Mr Maharey’s confirmation before they died that I was their grandson worthy of the great inheritance that would pass down to me: I am family I am blood and I carry the family mantle. I thank Mr Maharey for securing that for me. 
I guess I wish that I was a member of all the other families that Mr Maharey would have liked to see me be a member of: rugby clubs gangs the Mongrel Mob and various others. Perhaps I could have been a family for the National Party. Perhaps he would have encompassed me in Labour United Future or somewhere else. Mr Maharey would have liked to see me in all types of families. But no he has decided on the basis of his vast study that my grandparents and certainly my mother father sisters and even my children will be reassured by this bill that in fact “family” includes a group of people related by marriage blood adoption an extended family where there are two or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised group. Maharey says solo parent families are as good as traditional families. Good for him! I am glad he has taken the last 2 months to come up with that evidence and could give it to this Committee. Good for him! I am glad that he has confirmed that all the solo parents out there are doing the best they can in difficult situations—often struggling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member that he may not refer to a Minister by his or her surname. It must be by the full title or portfolio. That is in Speaker’s ruling 24/5. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Is “Minister Maharey” OK then? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Minister? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Maharey. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is acceptable. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: OK thank you Mr Chairman. Minister Maharey has said he has confirmed that all those family groups are doing very very well and are all successful in this country. That leaves one wondering why we need a Families Commission given that all families are successful and all can be recognised and acknowledged.