Gudgeon Bill: Budget Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Gudgeon Bill: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13704. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 Liberal British educationalist John White illustrated as quoted by Dr Rex Ahdar the major philosophical chasm that separates the liberal State from traditional family values. To illustrate that chasm Dr Ahdar quotes Mr John White on whether parents should be allowed to shape a child’s values given the liberal belief that parents should simply deliver their child as a blank canvas to school where appropriate values can be instilled by teachers. To all New Zealanders I say beware. Amongst us in society and indeed in the Western world are those who think that the role of parenthood is to bring into this world children devoid of any responsibility as we know it—to have less responsibility less freedom or no freedom to exalt to a higher plateau of agency or moral views. In other words there will be a direct relationship between the State and the child. Parents are to the side and perform a purely facilitative role in fostering future citizens. 
New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and every so often the New Zealand Government is required to report to it on progress being made on implementing United Nations policy in this country. The question that has been asked is what article 3 of the convention document is. Does this document require States to make traditional parental rights subservient to the State in what it calls the best interests of the child? The review that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child talked of has materialised and is now before Parliament as the highly controversial Care of Children Bill. Where once upon a time educators imparted knowledge now the Government pays them to impart values. 
The two key roles of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services are one to be a high-quality provider of services to children who need care and protection or who have offended and to support and assist families to keep their families safe; and two to facilitate and collaborate in the delivery of high-quality services to children and young people who are living in circumstances where they are at risk or in need of care and protection or committing offences. The question I ask is where are the parents and what are they doing. Too many people are evasive about this because it strikes home to the core of where their responsibilities really lie. The total departmental appropriations are $409.379 million which is broken down into such areas as policy advice and ministerial servicing funding of community services prevention services care and protection services youth justice services adoption services and the residential services strategy. All of this is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff picking up the pieces. 
In the latest International Save the Children Alliance magazine there are inserts about Save the Children Norway Save the Children Cambodia etc. but a reluctance to mention what and where the parents are. I am not advocating that we deny people humanitarian aid—I am all for that—but is there a possibility of a greater percentage of our younger generations being positive contributors? There are very many positive and excellent organisations throughout the world with the International Save the Children Alliance being one of many that could do with much more funding than it already has. 
 Contributors to this Budget debate to date have talked about transport and roading costs tax cuts etc. and made accusations about the general public being baited with vote-catching promises. Let me say that if we take the family out of the equation what do we have? Zero. Let us close the gate before the horse bolts and not after by putting parenting at the top of the agenda. New Zealand First will ensure in the next Government that the policies implemented next time round ensure growth and prosperity for all families throughout New Zealand. The New Zealand First Party advocates strong parental ties with all siblings being encouraged to have a belief in their own potential and development to be progressive in attitude and mind to strive for the highest goals possible in whatever field they choose to be employed in and to be leaders in their own right. A Government that does not advocate independence of the State would be opening the gate to becoming a participant with other Third World nations. 
New Zealand First members believe that the talent and skills are in our party. Firstly we have a leader of the calibre of Winston Peters. Secondly we have Barbara Stewart as our health spokesperson. We have Ron Mark as our spokesperson for law and order and Pita Paraone as our spokesperson for Maori affairs. 
Debate interrupted.