Turner Judy: Adjournment 
Turner Judy: Adjournment 
[Volume:627;Page:22375] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take part in the adjournment debate on behalf of United Future and in particular on behalf of the Hon Peter Dunne who is unable to be with us tonight. I start from a position of gratitude—firstly to my colleagues for an amazing 3 years. To come to Parliament with one statesman and seven rookies was a pretty unusual start for a party. We have had a wonderful journey and we are very grateful to each other. 
We want to thank United Future party officials. Those people have worked tirelessly for us for 3 years and continue to do so at an increased pace right now. They do not get salaries at the end of the day but work in a very fine way because they are committed to the cause of New Zealand families as we all are. 
We would like to thank our new affiliated partner Outdoor Recreation NZ which has added strength to our party policy. Its members the “bright greens” have given us some common-sense conservation policies and have given voters a chance now to vote for conservation-based policies without having to be pro-drug or anti-trade in their ideology. 
We also want to thank our staff who have been amazing and who have supported us in amazing ways. In particular I thank our research team who include some of the most amazing young people I have ever had the privilege to work with. We want to thank the Clerk’s Office and we want to thank you Madam Speaker for the way you have so smoothly taken over your new role and provided support. 
As we go into this election campaign I want to reiterate what other members have said—that there is unfinished business. Certainly United Future believes that we have much unfinished business to continue after the election particularly in the area of family outcomes. 
Family law in New Zealand still needs a huge amount of work and the Care of Children Act was a wasted opportunity to do that work. It is unbelievable that in New Zealand right now there is no clear legal path by which a father can ensure that he is named on a child’s birth certificate and that the power for that decision still remains in the hands of the mother who can put huge legal obstacles in front of a father who genuinely wants to be part of his child’s life. United Future is committed into the future to seeing that changed. 
We also want to bring to the attention of the House as we finish this 3-year period the amazing work of kinship caregivers. In particular I want to give credit to the members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust who have been valuable lobbyists for me during the last 3 years. Those people—thousands of them in New Zealand—are some of the unsung heroes of our nation. They are people who give up a whole season of their life to take over under difficult circumstances extremely traumatised children and who are yet to be acknowledged by the State by being given full foster-care status so that they may receive the financial benefits they desperately need at a time of life when they are often on fixed incomes. Again that is another family cause on which United Future is committed to seeing improved outcomes. 
United Future wants to thank the Sensible Sentencing Trust for the relationship we have had with it. We want to remain committed to the victims in New Zealand families who I believe are yet to receive the full support of law they deserve. Until the law in this country becomes victims-focused we will not see the kinds of outcomes we need. We need to see a complete restructuring of our legal system. Having 30000 cases backlogged in our court system is a complete nonsense and makes no sense. Victims certainly feel re-victimised by the lack of action in our court system. We want to be part of the ongoing work to see that situation improved. 
I also want to bring to the House’s attention the fact that although we believe that United Future has been able to make a series of sensible contributions to the improvement of the very dysfunctional Government department the Department of Child Youth and Family Services we believe there is still a long way to go. For every James Whakaruru and Coral Burrows who comes to the public’s attention every week—without a lie—I have had a letter from a family whose children have been removed by that department for reasons that seem shabby and shaky. It is years sometimes before those decisions are reviewed and those people get their children back. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes sometimes the decision is right and we are not trying to undo those situations when it is right. But too many families have had their children removed for reasons that are unclear and have waited a long time for a review of their cases. We want to show our gratitude to the many community organisations and non-governmental organisations that are working in the area of child protection in this country and working with families to improve outcomes. 
United Future remains committed to New Zealand families. We believe for instance that couples who are raising dependent children must get the chance to hold on to more of their income through the process of income splitting. It is absolute nonsense to say that somebody who earns $40000 and supports only himself or herself needs the same tax breaks as somebody on $40000 who is raising three children and who has a dependent partner. We must start to have a tax system that reflects the number of people being supported by each income and income splitting is an amazingly good way to go about that. It is fair and it gives recognition and value to a parent who chooses to spend some time at home doing the all-important task of raising children. 
Both the Labour Party and the National Party have a lot to answer for with policies that provide all the incentives at the other end of the spectrum—towards subsidising people to put their children into proxy childcare rather than providing any financial incentive to have their children raised at home by one of the parents. Income splitting is one of the best opportunities for that and there are National Party candidates standing at this election who support us on that policy. We know it and we believe that the National Party should have a serious look at the issue. 
We are about to discover in the next few weeks whether keeping one’s word makes a difference to New Zealand voters. Until 2002 the experience of MMP in this country was that smaller parties providing support either imploded on themselves or “tantrummed” and threw their toys out of the cot when they did not get their own way thus bringing down the Government of the day. They were punished severely by the voters at the next election for so doing. We are about to find out whether the voters see some value in a party giving its word keeping its word and sticking to the agreement it has made. 
I find the comments made by the deputy leader of New Zealand First absolutely ironic. That party has one of the worst track records in this Parliament’s history for poor behaviour and once absolutely held the country to ransom for 9 weeks followed by scandal after scandal with late-night drinking binges and with the whole media fiasco seen by the nation. He stood up tonight at the end of this 3-year term and made fun of a party that kept its word when after this election he is dying for New Zealand First to get the role United Future has had with the major party. 
Stability is something that should not have too small a price put on it. The OECD credits New Zealand with having had 5 of the most prosperous years in its measurable history. One of the main reasons the OECD has given for that is that we have enjoyed 3 of the most stable years of Government in our MMP history. United Future is hugely proud to have been part of that. 
But we want to put both Labour and National on notice right now because neither party is automatically entitled to our support after this election unless it is prepared to look very seriously at the policy planks on which we are going into this election campaign. Those things are not to be dismissed lightly at the end of this term. 
Simon Power 
: Are they bottom-line? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Yes some of them will be bottom-line. We have made it very very clear that the retention of the Families Commission and the maintenance of the current status in law of cannabis are bottom-line issues for us and we will certainly be bringing other issues to the table. We appreciate as does no other party that we will have to wait and see what window of opportunity exists after this election. Whether it is a centre-right opportunity or a centre-left opportunity we will have policy planks that are achievable in the following 3 years for New Zealand families. We are excited about those prospects and we are very willing to work cooperatively but if either of the major parties feels that we are some sort of political pushover and that the things written in our policies can be traded off—[ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Mr Brownlee that we are very proud of the fact that we can hold up pages and pages of accomplishments that United Future has achieved in the last 3 years. Some of them are clauses in bills that would not have existed if we had not been pushing for them. We are very proud of that. Those are the kinds of accomplishments one gets when one works cooperatively. Mr Brownlee might be very very pleased with our track record should he manage to drag his party over the appropriate line after the election on 17 September. 
Madam Speaker thank you for all you have done in this debate and in the time you have been leading this House. We wish everybody in Parliament well for this next period and we hope that everybody has a safe and exciting journey.