Maharey Steve: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
Maharey Steve: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13106] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Commission for the Family Bill which obviously is the expression of Mr Craig McNair. I tell Mr McNair that that was the first time I think in the 2 years since he has been here that I have had the pleasure of listening to his exposition on families on behalf of whatever constituency he is serving this evening. 
I think I should make it clear at the outset that the Government does not support this bill for the very obvious reason that we have a Families Commission process under way. We have a piece of legislation that will ensure that in July we launch that commission. We will have commissioners who will have a very wide brief. And of course the Government has not put aside funding for Mr McNair’s dream of a Commission for the Family. So I am sorry to say we will be voting it down. 
We should also note that Mr McNair’s speech this evening seemed largely tailored to try to antagonise the people from United Future. I did not hear a serious argument and I could tell from the demeanour of such serious people as Barbara Stewart whom I have enjoyed working with in this House that what we were watching was a joke. The joke was an attempt to run at United Future a debate that said that those members are wrong because they have taken an inclusive approach to the family rather than adopting a narrow definition such as the one adopted by Mr McNair in his bill. 
I want to tell the United Future people that one of the most refreshing parts of working with them is that they came into the House not only championing families not only arguing that families should be on the mat but with a view that they wanted to include the wide range of families in this country within their legislation and that is what they have attempted to do. They are inclusive. They are able to talk to all New Zealanders as a result. They are not dividing New Zealanders according to one form of family which is the only one that Mr McNair wants to talk to and forgetting about everybody else. By the way I tell Mr McNair the majority of people do not currently live in the kind of family he is talking about. They live in other kinds of families as well and United Future has had the guts—to use his word—to front up in here and put together a policy that appeals to that wider ranges of families rather than coming in here and talking to just one particular group of people. 
So I assume that what we are seeing tonight is not a serious effort to advance this argument. It really is just designed in a cheap way which often goes on in politics—but I do not think it should on a serious issue like this—to tell the United Future members who facilitated by the Government have made a very serious attempt to put the family on the political agenda that somehow they are embarrassing wrong or whatever and should be withdrawing what they are trying to do. I tell Mr McNair that I think this is a very serious debate. I think the family debate is one that this Parliament ought to be having. The fundamental institution of this country of course is the family which we all come into. 
But it does take a very wide range of forms. I shall give just one little example of why constantly harping on about the nuclear family might not be the wisest thing to do. Members should just think about the diversity of people we have in this country. Let us take the indigenous people—Maori. What is the most likely form of family historically amongst Maori? It is a form of family that often sees people raised by a biological member of the extended family; people may be raised by a grandmother or raised by an auntie. The family takes an extended form. There is not always a biological link by the way—not in the sense that Mr McNair means. Children may not have an immediate biological link to their family; they may be raised by people who are quite a long way away from them biologically. It is a very different kind of family. 
That is what United Future has had the wisdom to look at—that there are different kinds of families with different kinds of traditions and all those families need to be part of any kind of commission that looks at what modern New Zealand society is about. What we get from Mr McNair is an argument that says in effect that if a person does not belong to the traditional nuclear kind of family he does not want to talk to that person. That usually means to use the kind of language he talks about—he says one is being PC if one talks about other kinds of families—that people like him do not like sole parent families. They usually say they are an inadequate kind of family and if people happen to be in such a family well that is not the way things should be. That is the usual argument that comes from people like that. 
I want to tell Mr McNair that a lot of people live in sole parent families and the main reason that people in sole parent families have difficulties has nothing to do with the family form; it has to do with the amount of money that comes into the household. The research right across the world shows that if we can get the right kind of money going into those families then they can be a successful form of family. I want to tell Mr McNair that no one on this side— 
Craig McNair 
: Where did you read that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I promise Mr McNair that I have read a lot more than he has. No one on this side of the House says that it is not a good idea—probably it is the best idea—if a family stays together and the kids stay with their parents. But the fact of life is it does not always happen. That is what public policy has to allow for. It has to talk about that diversity of family and make sure that the best outcomes for the parents and for the children come from all those family forms. We should not try to pretend that somehow we can shoehorn everybody back into one kind of family once again. 
That is why the United Future people have been wise in the way they have gone about this issue. They want the best for all kids. They want the best for all parents. They want the best for all communities. They are not going to talk about one simple little section—no matter how important that section might be to the overall debate. That is why I applaud what the United Future folks have done on this issue. They have approached it in a way that includes every single New Zealander and does not marginalise any of them. I think that later on in this debate I am sure I will hear the United Future members make their own case as forcibly as they should and they will make it with the kind of dignity that this subject deserves—not the kind of constant laughter and undermining of the issue that seemed to go on around Mr McNair’s speech. Obviously he has put this bill together merely to raise this debate today; it is not a serious effort to advance the cause of families at all. I think that is a real shame given that we are about to go into a major debate of importance about it. I would have thought he would do a little more work and give us a better debate this evening. 
I return to the fact that the Families Commission will be up and running in July. That is the main reason of course that we cannot accommodate that particular commission—because we are already paying for one. I say to New Zealand First that our Families Commission has support right across the whole of the community from people who are interested in family issues. There were 58 submissions on that bill and there was support for the bill right across those submissions. Major groups like Plunket Barnardos and Parents Centres have identified this particular process as the one that they want to support. 
I am not quite sure what public pressure there might have been for New Zealand First to bring forward this particular bill. It would be interesting if maybe a later speaker could tell us where the public swelling of support was for the notion that we have a Commission for the Family of this kind. I have not heard it. It has not been on my desk. I cannot imagine that the United Future people Katherine Rich or anybody else have had people writing lots of letters saying they want an alternative commission and want it to look like this proposal. It does not seem to be coming from people all over the community particularly because all those people who might have written such letters have already made a submission in support of what United Future introduced. 
Just to round off— 
Dail Jones 
: Not another 2 minutes—this is rubbish! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I agree with Mr Jones about another 2 minutes being spent on this debate. We have just had to listen to 10 minutes of the New Zealand First member and it worries me too really that we have to spend our evening talking about this particular bill which New Zealand First would have known from the beginning was not a serious effort to put forward anything. We already have a Commission for the Family. This bill is just a device to try to bait the United Future people into feeling a little bit bad or whatever about the Families Commission. So I simply want to finish by saying that United Future has done an outstanding job of trying to put these issues on the map. Those members are way ahead of the debate that is contained in this particular bill because they are prepared to take on the issues of 21st century New Zealand and talk about how to have all forms of family deliver the best for kids their parents our community and our society. I applaud the way that they have gone about it and just repeat that the Government will not be supporting this bill.