Woods Megan: Families Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Families Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3846. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I would actually like to give a 10-minute response to that 2-second speech we have just heard from the member opposite Mike Sabin. What we have had is a member stand up and say that this piece of fundamental legislation around families and children and how they are cared for in our society the Families Commission Amendment Bill is about Government priorities and better public services. We have heard a chorus of calls from the other side that Labour wants to scrap the Families Commission and that this is supposedly a bad thing. But yes it is Labour’s ultimate aim to not have the Families Commission because we want to see a real and genuine commitment to child-centred policy in this country. We want to see something meaningful something beyond rearranging some deckchairs. 
We have done some very detailed and evidence-based policy work around how it is that we can best serve children in this country. The policy work that the Hon Annette King did prior to the last election that has been picked up by my colleague Jacinda Ardern in her role is exceptional work and it actually provides a real way forward on how it is that we can better serve the children of this country. The bill that we have before us does not do this. None the less Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee and we are supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee because this is a conversation that needs to be had. We do need to have a real and genuine conversation about doing something real and about doing something meaningful to lift the standard for so many of the children and families in our country. That is why we will support it. Labour believes that families are important and that families are a crucial part of our society and a crucial unit of our society. This is where children the future of our country get their best start in life. 
The National Party has never been a fan of the Families Commission. We have seen this all over the place. If we go back to 2008 and the stoush in the 2008 election campaign we see that John Key had to backtrack on his off-the-cuff offer to scrap the Families Commission because he was afraid of losing a coalition partner. It has always been a history of compromise in relation to the Families Commission. Mr Dunne was reported to be disappointed in 2008. Well with one vote in the House now we certainly cannot be seeing that. That would be what you would call a disappointed majority and that would not be something that we would be doing. 
National has repeatedly criticised the commission since it was set up and has continued to do so. In 2008 when John Key did his backtrack on his off-the-cuff offer to scrap the commission he offered a shake-up—a shake-up of the commission is what he described in 2008. Fast-forward to 2012 and in the legislation we are debating now we are having a rebalancing. Rebalancing is obviously the 2012 version of a shake-up. It shows what happens in a second term of Government when you have been there for a while. 
What are we seeing under this legislation? Let us dig down beneath the rhetoric of members opposite talking about—well actually not talking about—how important the Families Commission is. I mean I think we are seeing the importance that the party opposite puts on this bill and puts on the Families Commission by its contribution to this debate. But what we really are seeing here is funding for the Families Commissioner being slashed—and we are seeing the number of commissioners cut from seven to one—but not with any real plan to replace it. There is no real plan for how it is that we are going to provide for the children of our country and no real plan for how it is that we are going to guarantee that New Zealand children get the start in life that they deserve. 
Of the $32.48 million of funding that the Families Commission receives over 4 years the Government is going to rearrange the deckchairs with this money. It would use a minimum of $14.2 million over those 4 years to set up the new Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit which I will talk about in a while. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has talked extensively about the families status report that will be produced within this funding and the reports that are currently there. We are seeing that a further $4 million over the 4 years will be redirected out of the Families Commission to fund the extra parenting and relationship education in schools of the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Programme. This is a rearranging of the deckchairs around supporting children families and young people in this country. It is not new funding as it has been heralded; instead it is reprioritisation for better public services but without doing anything to fundamentally address the causes that are there. 
Labour has a number of questions and concerns around this bill which we want to see addressed when it goes to select committee. My colleagues Dr Rajen Prasad and Jacinda Ardern have already articulated many of those concerns and many of those questions. We really are concerned at the watering down—or the gutting—of the advocacy role of the Families Commissioner that we will see under this bill. What we are seeing is clause 5 amending section 7 of the principal Act which is the section that currently provides that the commissioner’s main function is “to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” The new section retains this as a main function of the commission—the advocacy function that is—but it adds a new function. So what we are seeing is that the commissioner is going to be asked to do more work with less resource. It simply will not be able to fulfil its advocacy function which is prescribed under the current Act if this new piece of legislation goes through. We are going to see its views on what is best for families and children in this country not being adequately advocated for. 
This week is a fantastic week for us to be talking about the independent role of the Families Commissioner with my colleague Sue Moroney’s member’s bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill coming up for debate tomorrow. What we have here is a very good example of how it is that the Families Commissioner’s role has been tinkered with. It has been shaken up and now it is being rebalanced to use the current language so that instead of independent advice that is about advocating for the betterment of children and families in this country we are seeing a commissioner who is increasingly asked to do the Government’s bidding. It is not for the commissioner to take a political position on whether or not paid parental leave is affordable. That is a matter for the politicians. It is the role of the commissioner to provide advice and advocacy on the impact of policies on children and families. What we have seen is that the way in which National deals with the commissioner is going to be intensified under this legislation and we will see less of an advocacy role out of the commissioner than we should be seeing. 
We also look at this new unit that is being set up to provide research advice. The bill sets up the Social Policy Evaluation and Research Unit within the commission with a predetermined annual budget of $3.55 million. We have been told this is because National wants to provide us with evidence-based policies. That is something I commend. I think that is a great thing but this capacity should have been used before. It theoretically exists within existing ministries and departments and should be there. In reality what we are seeing is a watering down of the advice that can be offered and the kind of evidence base that we can get on policy. What we are going to see is a Families Commissioner who will be asked to do research into what the Government dictates rather than issues that the commissioner sees as important for advocating the betterment of children and families. Poverty literacy paid parental leave family violence—these will not be choices that the commissioner can make but instead will be directed by the Government. 
Currently what happens is that the commissioner uses a range of peer reviewers from a number of our universities and other research centres and independent researchers. Under this new piece of legislation that advice will be limited to four people. We have some very clever and talented social policy and social science academics in this country but I cannot think of four of them who can provide advice right across the whole plethora. Labour has serious questions about this bill and we need to see them answered at the select committee. Thank you.