Roche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Ki te Whare tena koutou tena koutou katoa. The Families Commission was set up in 2003 and I think that before we change something it is quite useful to have a look at what it has been doing. The commission has been an able advocate for the interests of families and children. Its independent critical role is not one that our society can afford to lose at this time. The Greens are concerned that the Families Commission Amendment Bill may negatively impact on the commission’s capacity to continue with that work. 
The Families Commission’s work has included supporting and developing programmes like White Ribbon Day—a day recognised internationally when men call for an end to domestic violence. This has now moved to a model of being self-funded with communities and individuals promoting these events. 
The commission conducts fabulous research including research into the causes of family violence and amongst others that fabulous paper on paid parental leave which suggested that paid parental leave leads to better child outcomes. It has rightly identified that poor-quality rental accommodation is a major issue facing New Zealand families. In its submission to the Productivity Commission when it was reporting on housing affordability the Families Commission noted that poor-quality housing not only has a negative impact on family health outcomes but also can prevent families from accessing other support because of the stresses associated with living in substandard overpriced housing. Maybe this is the reason why the Government is restructuring the Families Commission with this bill. These are not issues that this Government is interested in addressing. 
The Government I note has been remarkably inconsistent about the Families Commission. In 2008 before the election Mr Key put forward three different policies regarding the Families Commission in 4 days. On the Monday he attracted applause from the NZ Forum on the Family by indicating that National would rather put the money currently spent on the Families Commission into NGOs. The next day he appeared to have changed his mind and said that National would rebalance the Families Commission in a way that United Future—the party that championed its establishment—would find tolerable. Then 2 days after that Mr Key was reported as saying that it is likely that National would subsume the Office of the Children’s Commissioner into the Families Commission while criticising the worth of some of the Families Commission’s work. I am just highlighting the shifting sands of the Government’s thoughts on the Families Commission because today we are looking at yet another change of direction. 
So about this bill: firstly we strongly support the monitoring and evaluation of programmes and services offered to prevent and intervene in the social issues that impact on our nation. We think there should be much more of it. We need to be continuously learning from new initiatives and the outcomes they produce. This needs to be much more than measuring the outputs of programmes; it needs to be the actual outcomes for individuals accessing them. This means learning from mistakes and fostering successes. Most important it means listening to the service users who have the insight of experience so we can ensure that the money we spend makes a real difference in people’s lives. 
We note that under this bill the monitoring and evaluation function will be transferred to the Families Commission. Until now that role has been undertaken by the Centre for Social Research and Evaluation under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Development. The question remains why Sir Peter Gluckman has recommended that an evaluation function be moved to the Families Commission. We promote the idea of an evaluation of services funded by the taxpayer in theory but we want it to be produced by a non-biased third party. 
I want to know why it is not working. Why can evaluation and monitoring not be effectively and efficiently carried out by the existing Centre for Social Research and Evaluation given that good public management includes the provision of free and frank advice to the Minister? Is there a problem within our public management system? Did the Minister or Sir Peter Gluckman have concerns about the ministry’s ability to provide these evaluations? Is this sending us alarm bells of other more endemic problems within the ministry? 
Secondly a newly appointed social science experts panel which this bill will set up gives us some concern. We are alarmed at how this may impact on the provision of non-biased free and frank advice to the Minister. This Government’s reliance on advisory groups is a worrying trend. The Welfare Working Group is a case in point. We are concerned that this Government will use these advisory committees to buy the advice and research that frankly fits with its own ideology. What we saw with the Welfare Working Group was a series of recommendations that fit with the policies this Government is keen to adopt and now we see that playing out. 
Last week we saw the passing of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill where we see a more punitive approach—under the guise of sanctions—to young people who are either unemployed or young parents and work testing for every other beneficiary from here on in. We will be seeing drug testing of those on the unemployment benefit too. Basically we are revisiting models that have failed elsewhere in the world but funnily enough they were suggestions from the advisory group the Government hired to back up its preconceived ideas. So it will introduce them anyway. 
Of particular concern in this bill is the change to section 13 which says that the commission must be readily accessible to a wide range of views but this applies only to the commission’s advocacy function not the monitoring evaluation and research of key issues programmes and interventions. 
Thirdly in the Families Commission’s statement of intent we note that the budget for monitoring and evaluation has been decreased from $8700 to $7369. We question the volume and quality of evaluations that will be achieved on the commission’s reduced budget. We also note that the performance measures and standards for the advisory services function do not indicate the number of programmes to be evaluated. It just says they will be done monthly or on request. We can assume from the statement of intent that there will be fewer programmes to look at. This does not reassure us that programmes will be adequately monitored and evaluated and the findings disseminated to where they can be put to the most use. 
At the end of May we asked the Minister in a written question about what work if any would be shifted from the Ministry of Social Development’s Centre for Social Research and Evaluation as a result of the move to set up a new social policy evaluation and research unit within the Families Commission. We received the reply that apart from the report on Growing Up in New Zealand—a good report no doubt—no decisions had been made on any staffing changes or distribution of research and evaluation responsibilities between the Families Commission and the Ministry of Social Development. 
Contrast this reduced budget and lack of focus with Australia where the state and territory Governments have agreed to build a more solid evidence base on domestic violence and sexual assault as part of their national plan to reduce violence against women and children. They are committed to developing a centre of excellence to enhance the evidence base and improve on-the-ground responses to violence against women and children. The Federal Government is investing $86 million in national initiatives to improve the lives of women who have experienced violence and towards stopping violence against women altogether. A centre for excellence versus a reduced Families Commission—I know which country is investing in families. I hate to admit it but the Australians are way ahead of us on understanding that there are longer-term costs associated with doing nothing about these social issues. 
We will be voting against this bill. We believe it hands far too much power to the Minister to dictate research results that support the ideology of the day. We are unconvinced that the advocacy role of the Families Commission will remain unchanged and most important we think that it does nothing to advance good outcomes for families. No reira tena koutou katoa.