Chadwick Steve: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13110] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand and speak to the Commission for the Family Bill today and I certainly will not be supporting it. I think it is an incredibly naive bill from the member who is not exactly branded with being a family man or having an in-depth understanding about family issues. I feel quite justified in standing up to say that because today I have become a grandmother. I am a grandmother to a new member in my family who is not legally part of my family at all but is my grandchild. And by golly I will be there to support that little girl right through her family life. That little girl’s mother is not married to my son but she is my son’s partner and she is the mother of my grandchild. I am proud of the way that they have worked together to give this little child a wonderful start in her life and a joyous beginning today. We as a family do not give a jot whether our children are married are legally bound together or have one adult member. We just know in our family that when one of our children sires a baby that child belongs to our family our whanau and we will give it the love and support those parents need and walk beside them in their life. 
So I feel quite justified in standing here today to question why that member went to the effort with good intentions—I think he is well intentioned—to put together a bill such as this that it was very clear in the House advocates a Commission for the Family to our Minister for Social Development and Employment. The member had every opportunity to work with United Future and to come together with that party to our Minister. We would have loved it if other parties had showed their support and had come in and worked with us on developing very robust legislation such as we have now but that member did not ever take that opportunity. He never pounded a path to the Minister’s door. He has not joined with other parliamentary groups that seriously consider family issues such as the Littlies Lobby that holds regular meetings and looks at issues that impact on families and family support. 
I find the actual definition in the bill simply silly. It is out of touch with reality today in the contemporary New Zealand world. Why do families have to have members with a biological or legal relationship? What right does that member have to define what a family is? 
Then we turn to functions. The member proposes 10 lofty functions for his commission and all are rather peculiar. How could a commission for families improve the coordination of Government departments? For goodness’ sake! Has the member not listened to the Minister for Social Development and Employment who stood here week after week talking about an all-of-Government approach so that we do build resilient families? 
The member has one function in the bill that is about antenatal education. For goodness’ sake! Antenatal education exists now. What is the point of setting it up? I wonder whether the member himself knows how much it costs to go to antenatal education classes how available classes are and when to engage in classes. I think the member should be a little more considered when he tries to brand himself as he said with a bill that is not PC. 
I say that this bill is a dismal failure. I urge the member with his well-intentioned approach to come and work collaboratively with us on putting some sense into the Families Commission that is to be launched in July this year. I would have thought that the right thing to do was not to waste the energy of the drafters and the Parliamentary Counsel Office or the time in this House but actually to put constructive criticism and input into the alliance that Labour has put together with United Future under the leadership of Minister Maharey to build something that will be durable and sustainable. 
I think it is unfortunate that people get labelled. The member must realise that with a member’s bill one gets labelled. I am very proud of being labelled with the anti-smoking bill but I think it is unfortunate that Mr McNair will be labelled with this dismal bill.