Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10297] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am looking at proportionality and it is generally two to one in favour of National over New Zealand First. Secondly under Speaker’s ruling 23/3 I have already called the honourable member Katherine Rich so I have to give her the call. But I have noted that your colleague wants the next call and she will have the next call. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: After that preaching from Paul Adams a member of United Future I have to ask that member given all those different scenarios he has just talked about how the Families Commission will make life any different for those families. It will not achieve the sort of Utopia that that member has just described. I feel sorry for the Minister Steve Maharey right now because I know he would love to take the $28 million and put it into some other worthy projects. This commission will cost a significant amount of money but will achieve little other than being just another bureaucracy in Wellington. 
When this bill was first introduced National members read it and found that a family group was defined as one whose members “have significant psychological attachments to one another”. Our immediate interpretation of that was that it could include a lot of New Zealanders that it is not intended that the Families Commission should advocate for. It could represent gangs flatmates social clubs cults or even the Labour Party and that was not the intention in creating the Families Commission. When National members brought up this issue our points were met with derision from the Government and United Future. We were accused of being unintelligent and United Future even went so far as to say that our opposition to the bill was venal. When members look up the meaning of that word—and I am convinced now that the press secretary who wrote that particular press release did not understand it—they will find it means open to bribery and corruption. My question to those members here today is who is open to bribery and corruption when we are looking at a $28 million pay-off to United Future for its support of this Government—$28 million that could be put into a wide range of services that would actually make a difference to New Zealand families. 
The other point that I think is worth discussing is the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 173 to the commission’s main function. We understood that the commission’s main function was to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally and that the function did not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families. Within the Supplementary Order Paper some additional points have been added. Subclause (3) of clause 7 provides that the commission must “identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance either or both of the following: (a) families’ resilience:”. I ask the Minister to take a call and tell members what that means. We are talking about New Zealand families here not Sealy Posturepedic beds or Aunt Daisy’s sponge. I would like to know what “resilience” means in terms of a legal definition. We are right back to academic psychobabble that does not mean anything and has no place in any legislation. 
The next point is that the commission must have regard to families’ strengths. Once again what does that mean in terms of the law? It is waffly namby-pamby sort of stuff that actually does not mean anything. It is feel-good legislation but when one starts to interpret it and ask what will happen it is very difficult to describe what exactly that part of the bill will do. 
Once again it can be seen from the new definition which excludes gangs that those on the benches opposite have come to understand that National members were right all along when we brought up that interpretation of the definition of family. There now are 62 words that are designed to say: “This definition does not include gangs.”—62 words. It is probably one of the waffliest provisions that I have seen. I do not know why the Government did not just come out and say that the Families Commission does not include gangs. It would seem that it has skirted around the issue. Nobody can quite come out and say it—so much for it being an improvement! 
Those are the sorts of things that were brought up during the select committee process by the members of National ACT and New Zealand First. We were rubbished for bringing up these issues. How did these changes miraculously occur half an hour before the Committee stage of this bill? Why were these changes suddenly miraculously made when these points had all been made during the select committee? Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain to members how he suddenly had a revelation.