Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10215] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
I do not think anybody could disagree about the importance of families in New Zealand. They are the cornerstone of society and in fact the married family is the best child-rearing institution ever invented if we look back over history. Strong families in general raise successful and healthy children and happy children. That is not to say that children from other types of families also do not raise successful happy and healthy children. But on the balance of probability other forms of families have increased difficulties. Their children face more risk factors; and as we know only too well in this House some face violence fear and abuse on a daily basis.  
I ask the Government why not throw political correctness to the wind and promote the traditional nuclear married family? If that former family is the most successful in our society why not promote it? Why not say that it is something that is regarded as a good thing in society? What better place to do it but in a bill that is about the family? Many of the submitters to the select committee brought up this very issue. They could not understand why it was that in legislation about the family nowhere was the word “marriage” mentioned. They said: “Hang on a minute isn’t it a good thing that couples particularly if they want to have children get married and try to live a good life together and look after their children and all the rest of it? Is that not a good thing?  
I have to say that most New Zealanders would agree. I think that it is a real shame that this Labour Government supported by the United Future party I might add is so politically correct that we cannot even use that one word any more in our legislation—“marriage”.  
The Families Commission Bill promotes diversity. The Government says that we should not exclude other family types. All of us would agree with that because we do have diverse types of family arrangements in New Zealand. But it really has missed the point. Sure mention other family types but at least promote marriage. I would say to the Minister who is about to table a Supplementary Order Paper tomorrow that many of us live in hope that that Supplementary Order Paper might actually heed the voice of many of the submitters who brought up this point because it is a very very important one.  
Many New Zealanders are very concerned that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in the Western World one of the highest rates of child abuse in the Western World and one of the highest rates of youth crime in the Western World. Many of those people have looked with some hope at the Families Commission as being a body that might be able to do something about it—that might be able to promote legislation or policy changes that could actually help to turn the tide on that disastrous trend that New Zealand now has.  
I have to say that the Families Commission with its politically appointed commissioners will be a puppet for the Labour Government. There is nothing surer. I know that right now I and I guess many other members of Parliament are being approached by really good people who have an interest in families and an interest in the role of commissioners who are basically saying: Would you write a letter of support if I put my name forward?”. I am saying to them: “Hang on a minute my letter of support won’t help.” The Labour Government will not want to pick somebody who the Opposition thinks is a good person to be a commissioner. It will put only its political mates in there—people who think the same way as it does.  
That is a shame on this Government. It is known to do it in all sorts of other ways but the family is the most important institution in New Zealand society and the Government should at least treat it with some respect. The whole appointment process should be cross-party like the appointment of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General where the Government puts up a list of people and asks Opposition members whether they think those people would be good people to take the position.  
If the Government had done that then maybe we would not be so negative about the Families Commission. But it is not doing that. We know that it will have political appointees and we know that it will not have the mandate to address some of the real tough issues that we absolutely have to address in New Zealand if we are going to turn the tide of the negative statistics that we see in our newspapers on a daily basis.  
It is interesting that in Britain the Prime Minister has set up a social exclusion unit. That unit is a policy group. Its job is to look at the problems faced by families and by society to expose where the problems lie to analyse the problems and then to propose some solutions. They get to heart of the problem. They look at the welfare system. They see that the welfare system incentivises family breakdown and they put forward recommendations for change. They look at child abuse and they know the sorts of families where child abuse is most common and they try to say: “This is what should be done.” In other words they tackle the tough issues. Here in New Zealand we do have one Government agency that does the same—that is the Ministry of Social Policy. But when it puts out reports that basically state that welfare is bad for children and that sole parenthood is bad for children—in other words why does the Government not try to change those things around in its policy area—this Government totally ignores any outcomes or recommendations that it makes.  
In fact it was bizarre because just after those two papers were released is when the Labour Government changed the rules on the domestic purposes benefit making it far easier for people to get on and far harder for them to leave which means there will be more family breakdown under Labour and more children will be damaged by the welfare system under Labour. That was at a time when the Government’s own social policy agency was telling it that it should be doing something differently.  
These issues were raised by submitters. They want an agency of Government—if there is to be one—to come up with some solutions because people out there are despairing at the moment. They see the headlines of yet another child who has been abused and died and they wonder where on earth it will all end. Under the current system without any changes to laws and without any changes of policy it will not end. It will simply get worse.  
If we are honest about it the Families Commission is a $28 million payback for support from United Future. That is essentially what it is. This is the Labour Government paying its lackey for its support over all sorts of legislation putting us into urgency denying us questions during the periods that we are in urgency and a whole lot of issues. The Government relies on the poodle party—United Future—to support it and this is that party’s payback. It is like blackmail except that that party entered into willingly. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will know the content of this point of order. Any reference to people blackmailing anyone in this House is completely out of order and that reference was totally offensive and deserves to be withdrawn immediately. 
Dail Jones 
: The member on her feet was just saying that it is like blackmail. She did not say that it was blackmail. I am sure she was not alluding to any political party in this House when she made that remark. She was just saying that it was like blackmail and expressing it as a simile not stating it as a fact. On that basis it is not out of order.