Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Madam Chair. I just really want to take a call to deal with some of the issues raised that I thought were very sensible—well not many actually from the Government but anyway. I think one of the issues really is around this information. We've heard quite a lot about the—what is it called now?—social well-being or something that they want to do now rather than social investment. I think there is an acknowledgment that we actually have a lot of information about what works for families what works for children in particular what works for the elderly what works generally. It used to be called common sense but apparently it's not that common any more. We also know that we've had some—Greg O'Connor: Dollars and sense help.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —really great longitudinal studies. I wish that Mr Greg O'Connor would be quiet—silly man. We have great longitudinal studies out of Christchurch out of Canterbury University and out of Otago—many of us have met with the people who run those. They've looked at families over the years and particularly young kids—taken them up from birth really; before birth even—to see how they have coped in life and what has been thrown at them and what has actually worked for them and what hasn't. Those longitudinal studies from New Zealand are quoted all over the world. I was very interested to hear once when I was in the United States that the New Zealand studies are considered to be world class and are looked at by other countries to see what they should do and help them inform their social policy. So it always felt I think that the Families Commission were already doing a job that was being very well done. But they did try to make the most of their opportunity to research.Ultimately I think most people don't like being the subject of research. They like to benefit from them but actually they're sick of being looked at and poked and prodded and asked what they think. They actually want Governments and Government agencies their families their communities to help them not to view them. People are not animals in a zoo and even the animals in a zoo don't like being looked at and prodded I'm sure. I think most people know exactly what's needed in families. The trouble is of course that knowing it is entirely different from actually delivering on it. I think the social investment policies of the National-led Government were an acknowledgment that we have in many cases families that we all know in our electorates—in areas where list MPs are based or electorate MPs represent—often no more than four five or six of them who have it seems to me a social agency at their door every day if not more than one and sometimes together and sometimes not. The issue has always been how to best use those vast resources of the State and the taxpayer to better help families and not make them more dependent and actually help them to overcome their challenges in life wherever possible and to genuinely make their lives better.I sometimes look at some of the interventions that Governments of all hues and whatever do and agencies do and I wonder sometimes if they do make things better for some families. I think in some cases they will in many cases they will but I often look at them and think: has much changed? And for some families they actually haven't changed that much. Some people will say Oh they've got worse in this case." or "They've got better in this case." But overall the State is a very very bad parent. The State is an extraordinarily bad parent. When we look at the prison population we see amongst everything else that around 70 percent of the people in prison have been at some stage in the care of the State.I don't blame the State for that at all actually. I think the State tries its very best with very difficult situations and I would say that children do not end up in the care of the State because their parents have been doing a fabulous job. They end up there in most cases because no responsible parent is caring for that child and by the time they come into the care of the State a tremendous amount of harm has been done to that child—and why would we presume that that will just be overcome?So I think the Families Commission certainly looked at this issue very seriously. They did their best. But ultimately they're research papers. I think too that the longitudinal studies are actually the gold standard the world standard. We do know that the Families Commission was something that Governments of both sorts had to put up with and made the most of it. I don't wish to belittle the very earnest members of the Families Commission who in many cases I know and are very responsible people who tried their best but ultimately it was a creation of Parliament in 2003 for a political reason and we continued it as well. So let's just be frank about it.I'm delighted that it's ending because I think in many cases it was seen as some sort of panacea or band-aid and ultimately I think we all pretty much know—although some would admit it more than others—what actually makes a good life for kids; it is a good family responsible parents. And if the parents aren't available or are not there or dead or whatever it needs someone else who cares enough to say no and that's someone who cares enough to make sure that kids go to school that they have food that they are clean that they are clothed and that they are loved. That is something that no commission can do. No commission and no State can love a child like a child needs to be loved and that's what needed."