Logie Jan: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16811. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Families Commission Amendment Bill. The Green Party opposes this bill. We have recently had concerns regarding the independence of some of the commissioners and we are very disappointed in particular to see the commission backtrack on a very well-established and researched commitment to paid parental leave and to basically just echo the Government’s line which I must say has not been supported by evidence or the majority of New Zealanders’ values. Despite all of this we would like to see the independence of the commission strengthened not undermined as we see this bill doing.The Green Party did not initially support the establishment of the Families Commission but we were very happy to be proven wrong and have for many years now really valued its advocacy for our families and the well-considered and focused research on such topics as resources for Māori grandparents; diversity experience and support needs for disabled parents; families and whānau status reports; family violence indicators; supporting Kiwi dads; escaping debt; and changing Pacific households. All of these reports have informed our decision making and our understanding about the needs of our communities. The list of valuable research that has helped us consider our response to significant issues and best support for all our families is much longer than that. With that background and that history it really is hard to understand exactly what the problem is that is requiring this bill to come to the House to change the commission.The commission has also had a history of making strong independent submissions to this Parliament on proposed pieces of legislation of relevance to families. I would like to repeat a point that the commission made recently in a submission on the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill where it outlined how the changes to the Family Court process could have a negative effect on children and families and suggested that the proposed introduction of costs for Family Court relationship counselling services could be a barrier for some families needing to access the court.The submission also pointed to the need for more independent research into the needs of whānau particularly when negotiating care contact and financial arrangements for children especially given that 30 percent of parties to the Family Court are Māori. We need this evidence to make informed legislation and we need those perspectives to be independent. An independent perspective was given and yet sadly that bill passed without those concerns being addressed. It is a bit difficult to have confidence in the stated aim of this bill which is supposedly to improve decision making in the social sector when we are seeing that existing research which has been well respected is being dismissed so easily when it conflicts with this Government’s priorities.I would note that in the Minister’s speech tonight she said that the changes to the structure around research in the commission were to widen the focus. I would also suggest that this is basically decentring the focus on families. We do not have any research to suggest that we should be decentring families from our research agenda. In fact I would suggest that perhaps we have evidence of the opposite. Eight out of the 11 submissions on this bill opposed it. The primary concerns of submitters echoed this fear of loss of independence in the research process. They had particular concern around the appointment of the social science experts panel and we echo that concern. We absolutely support peer review of research. That is just the norm in academic circles as well as in Government circles now and it is good practice. You do not need an expert panel to be set up to provide peer review. You set it up only if you are wanting to confine and constrain that expert review which is another reason why we are opposing this bill.