Turner Judy: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10239] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to further support United Future’s position on this bill. I want to spend the first few minutes reflecting on and honouring the sincere efforts of the 58 submitters on this bill who in my opinion were extremely short-changed by Opposition members on the select committee hearing their suggestions. The intention of United Future and the Labour Government from the outset was to listen carefully to any concerns and to work wherever possible with submitters to adjust the legislation where genuine improvements were forthcoming. In general submitters were very positive about the proposed commission. 
The most common query was about whether the bill should embrace a specific definition of family or whether the bill should stick to an acceptance of the fact that families are diverse and that the work of the commission should not be hampered by an exclusive approach to family form. In this regard I want to express my thanks to Georgina Beyer the chair of the Social Services Committee advisers from the Minister’s office the Minister himself the Hon Steve Maharey and the drafters who worked so cooperatively with us to address submitters’ concerns after the select committee process fell over. Some submitters were worried that the commission would become obsessed with and in some senses limited by the challenges of more needy families with the result that the advocacy they wanted to see happen for healthy families would not be attended to. In response to that concern work has been done to ensure that the legislation is very clear that the main function of the commission is underpinned by that principle that family strengths and resilience factors need to be identified maintained and enhanced. 
A third issue raised by submitters was a request that the commission should be required to refer matters that do not fall within its mandate to appropriate agencies either centrally or locally depending upon the need. This is now catered for and will be introduced in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The Supplementary Order Paper will also include provisions giving effect to the submitters’ request that the commission will have regard where appropriate to New Zealand’s international obligations and in particular to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
The final issue raised by submitters that I want to highlight is the question of the autonomous versus independent status of the commission. Some submitters wanted extensive powers to be given to the commission and others merely wanted reassurance that the commission would be free to speak out against any future Government initiative that may inadvertently be unfriendly towards family well-being. The truth is that as it stands the commission is designed to provide vital policy advice to the Government on the Government’s own legislative agenda plus it is able to make evidence-based recommendations separate from the Government’s own agenda for consideration. The Families Commission is therefore autonomous enough to advocate independently for families but linked sufficiently to the Government of the day to work constructively for the good of New Zealand families at this level. 
The role that families play in the well-being of their members is immense. For all that we do to educate and support New Zealanders through the activities of our various Government departments and community initiatives if the family context in which an individual lives is unstable and lacks continuity then our efforts are undermined. The clear mandate of the Families Commission is to complement the existing work done by governmental and non-governmental agencies not duplicate their efforts and to investigate then advocate for issues that clearly enhance the family environment so that those who are dependent on that context benefit from it rather than fall victim to it. The focus is on family relationships and the part that those relationships play in shaping an individual’s future. The role of the commission is to determine what influence Government decision-making has on the stability and longevity of those relationships and what other key factors have most impact on family sustainability which I presume we all agree we should be investing in. 
A clear focus on the family context has been a poorly covered base in central government thinking for too long and it is time we put in place something to make sure that family interests are no longer left to the whim or mercy of any Government of the day. The commission forms a platform for making the vital connection between family research and family policy development. It provides a forum for gaps to be identified in our understanding of what New Zealand families need of what gives a family resilience to work through a crisis of how families establish and maintain strengths of whether concepts of family strength are consistent across cultures and of who is working effectively to support parents and children. Research information can then be supplied to both Government and community organisations to help them better target resources and better target support and to further enhance notions of best practice when working with clients in a family context. 
 I am particularly thrilled at the emphasis on families’ strengths that the commission is to have. Family researcher John DeFrain states: “If one studies only family problems one finds only family problems. Similarly if educators community organisers therapists and researchers are interested in family strengths they look for them. When these strengths are identified they can become the foundation for continued growth and positive change in the family and in society.” The opportunity to establish a solutions-focused Families Commission is an exciting project. In the past the main approach has been to identify the deficits and examine the pathology in families in order to deliver services that would cater to the needs of families. An increasing number of family and community-based organisations educators researchers and therapists are moving away from this somewhat disempowering nanny-State approach and are embracing a strengths perspective to their work. A family that is classified as troubled and needy is more likely to find itself on the receiving end of all sorts of services and programmes designed and delivered by outside experts. Families then become passive recipients rather than resourceful and actively engaged in addressing their issues and solving their problems.” 
In her opening address at seventh national conference of the Australian Institute of Family Studies the then Minister for Family and Community Services Senator Jocelyn Newman said that the main premise behind the Government’s stronger families and communities strategy was the belief that strong and healthy families form the best social welfare system there is and that strengthening families represents a very sound investment in Australia’s future. 
I believe that the Families Commission will help do this for us in New Zealand. If we can make the shift to measuring the nation in terms of family health rather than just economic indicators and if we recognise the impact that a destructive family environment has on the growth and outcomes for New Zealand then the significance of the Families Commission becomes obvious. I look forward to the passage of this legislation.