Scott Lynda: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Scott Lynda: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10241] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 After listening to those speeches one would think that the Families Commission is going to save the world. One would think that all families in New Zealand are now going to be absolutely amazing. After hearing what Mr Peter Dunne was saying one would think that the establishment of a Families Commission will solve all of New Zealand’s families problems sort out the Department of Child Youth and Family Services sort out the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit and stop child abuse. I have to say that Mr Peter Dunne has a lot more faith in bureaucracy than I do. The $28 million that it will cost to establish a Families Commission could be spent on many other things that might actually do something for families in this country. 
Paul Adams 
: Like what? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I have a whole 10 minutes to tell members what that money could be spent on. [ 
Interruption 
] The commission will cost $28 million. Mr Dunne has far more faith in bureaucracy than I have. The bill talks about the commission being independent. Mr Dunne said that the commission has to be independent and it should be independent so that it can criticise Government policy. But the bill states: “the Commission must have regard to any Government policy or statement of the Government’s priorities”. Basically the commission will be a sop to the Government. 
I agree with Judy Turner that families are diverse. United Future voters I have spoken to thought that United Future would stand up to this Government’s social engineering. They thought that United Future would not use a definition like “psychological attachment” meaning that that would constitute a family. “Psychological attachment” could mean the All Blacks could it not? I think that the All Blacks are pretty psychologically attached and I hope that they do well. But I really believe that United Future voters put United Future into Parliament because they believed that United Future would stand up for the more traditional family values. There are very diverse families in this country but United Future voters put United Future members in Parliament because they thought that those members would stand up for the traditional family unit. We know that New Zealand families are constituted in many ways. Labour has certainly been a voice for the diversity of the family unit. Labour has stood up for that absolutely and it has pushed the view that psychological attachment is a good basis for the definition of families. But I do not believe that United Future voters actually wanted their party to stand up for that view. I believe that they wanted United Future to stand up against Labour’s social engineering and against the view that anything goes. United Future voters tell me that they did not expect United Future to sign up to Labour’s social liberal agenda. They did not expect them to roll over so easily for this bureaucracy—the Families Commission. 
I think that we do need to do something to help New Zealand families. When the National Government was in power it spent money on things like Family Start Strengthening Families and Social Workers in Schools . That is what we spent money on. If we could actually do something in this country for the 20 percent of children who are in trouble something like Family Start that would be a far better way for the Government to spend $28 million rather than spending it on establishing a Families Commission. If we could put wrap-around services around those young women who have babies and are in a very disadvantaged social situation so that just one child does better that would be better than spending $28 million on establishing a Families Commission. We know from all the research and from all the longitudinal studies in Christchurch and Dunedin that kids in trouble can be identified from 3 years old. We know that those children are born into families who are at a significant social disadvantage. We know that men pass through those families at a rate of knots that there is no stability in those families and that the kids are passed around from pillar to post. As I doctor I saw them. 
 I saw them coming into the surgeries. I saw the women who were abused. I saw those kids and I knew that those families were in trouble. Spending $28 million on wrap-around services to put intensive care into those families is what would do something for the families of New Zealand. 
Do members know another thing we could spend that $28 million on? We could do something for the dads in this country because the dads are significantly disadvantaged when families break up. I have dad after dad coming to see me. One minute they are fathers with full rights in the lives of their children and the next minute when families break down they really suffer in terms of being involved in the lives of their children. A dad is reliant on the mother to determine how much involvement he can have. All of a sudden it is the mother who has custody. In a large percentage of cases it is the mum who has custody and it depends on the relationship she has with the dad as to how much access he gets into the lives of his children. All of a sudden that is all dads get—a bit of access. 
I have seen dad after dad who cannot cope with that psychological damage and they leave the lives of their children. I have seen dad after dad traumatised. I had a dad come to see me who had cancer. He was dying. Against all court orders his wife would not let him see his kids. He had to get the police if he wanted to see his children. That is appalling. That should not be able to happen in this country. That $28 million could be spent on doing something about the Family Court—on opening it up. I totally support Muriel’s Newman’s point of view that we should start from a basis of shared parenting and shared custody because then parents would have to speak to each other about the lives of their children—they would have to put their children first. We should have more counselling for families when parents are going through the divorce courts. Probably we should have mandatory counselling to make sure that the problems get sorted out and that the kids are put first. That is what would improve things in this country. We should not be setting up a bureaucracy a Families Commission. Twenty-eight million dollars for some of the alternatives I have mentioned would do so much more for this country. 
I am sorry—but I cannot see that a Families Commission will work. It will be like the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Who knows who runs it? Who knows what it ever does? A commission will not work. I do not believe it will make any difference. We know that eighty percent of our children actually do quite well in this country and that 20 percent do not. We have to look at that 20 percent. We have to look at the lives of those families and at putting in place systems that have been shown to work overseas. That is why I was talking about National putting in place social workers in schools—strengthening families. We have talked about the lives of those two little girls who died. What works is a policy like Strengthening Families with just one person involved instead of a myriad of agencies that do not talk to one another. Programmes on the ground are what works not a commission. What will work are programmes on the ground that will do something for the lives of those children. That is what National believes in and that is what we support when we talk about families.