Turner Judy: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13113] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to voice our absolute outrage at the time-wasting and game-playingthat the House is being subjected to by the sponsor of this bill. The credibility of the party that member represents was completely shot to pieces during the select committee process on the Families Commission Bill which passed into law at the end of last year. When those members joined forces with the National and ACT parties to throw away the opportunity to propose changes to that bill it was left to the Government and United Future to address the suggestions that were made by submitters. Most members are thrilled when their members’ bills are superseded and fast tracked into the House by a Government bill and they work hard to make sure that their concerns and interests are at least in some way reflected in the Government’s proposal. But that was not so with the members of New Zealand First. Oh no! They sabotaged the process insulted submitters and voted to return the bill with no commentary—not even a minority report outlining any concerns. 
 One would assume then that this member’s bill is significantly different and focused in a completely different direction from the commission negotiated by United Future with the Labour-Progressive Government which is scheduled to be up and running by 1 July this year only a few weeks away. The explanatory note of this bill outlines 10 functions and powers for this alternative Commission for the Family. Eight of the functions listed are covered in the legislation passed last year and the remaining two would see the commission wasting taxpayer dollars on competing with and duplicating the work of the many parent educators marriage counsellors and family therapists already operating in New Zealand. 
The bill has two parts. The first includes the normal preliminary provisions. The second has 22 clauses half of which are dedicated to the nuts and bolts of the appointment and job description of the commissioners. One clause repeats the list of functions from the explanatory note of the bill and then it goes on beyond what is in the explanatory note to reveal what appear to be rather vague but extensive powers for the commissioners. The bill does attempt to define the family. However in doing so it excludes large numbers of New Zealanders who are members of families including orphaned siblings and step-parents who have not obtained legal guardianship of their partners’ or spouses’ children. I can only conclude that that was unintentional because clause 11 of Mr McNair’s bill requires commissioners to have regard to and recognise family diversity—just like the original bill. Voters interested in this project will now be hard-pressed to understand why the New Zealand First members joined in the howls of protest last December when the Labour - United Future version of the bill acknowledged the reality of family diversity. They will be left with only one conclusion which is that New Zealand First is more interested in game-playing than it is in really supporting the cause of New Zealand families. 
I say to Mr McNair that the New Zealand voter is not stupid. The proposed commission has neither a research function nor any requirement that policy advice be evidence-based. It appears that policy would be driven by suggestions made by anyone who was of a mind to make them but it is unclear what mechanism would be used when conflicting advice had to be processed. This proposal gives commissioners the power to access confidential information from the courts but then it is very unclear what the information could and would be used for. It certainly could not be used to challenge court decisions because the proposal is clear that it could not be and if the plan does not mean to duplicate the new powers of the Children’s Commissioner then one can only guess at the intention. 
This proposal has been in the ballot unchanged for nearly 2 years now and if either of the New Zealand First sponsors who at different times have lent their names to the proposal had bothered to consult widely with family-focused organisations or had at least measured their proposal against the submissions made on the existing legislation they would have concluded that this proposal falls well short of the advice and recommendations of the huge numbers of groups that supported the notion of a families commission from the start. This bill seeks to set up an additional family service provider to offer mediation education and counselling. Instead of advocating for family services this model would compete for Government funding alongside existing providers. The commission proposed by this member would end up pitting itself against the very organisations it should be advocating for.