Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10313] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 We are discussing schedule 4 which as we know is to make sure the Families Commission is in line with the Ombudsmen Act and the Public Finance Act. We have legislation here that will cost the taxpayers $28 million and it has to be inserted under the provisions of the Public Finance Act so that Parliament can not only appropriate that taxpayers’ money but also adequately scrutinise the spending of it. The Public Finance Act provides a framework for the parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s management of the assets and liabilities of the Crown and we are now talking about a $28 million spending line. It provides for a select committee to scrutinise the work and performance of the Families Commission to make sure it is doing what it is it is set up to do. 
That is where we will have some trouble in the future because as we go further in this debate it appears to me that what the Government is setting up is basically a $28 million spin-machine to indoctrinate New Zealand with its view of the family—with its world view so to speak as it relates to social issues. That is a great concern to many New Zealanders particularly those people who really did think that the Government was going to support traditional families. We now understand very clearly that that is not the intention of this legislation. The Government’s agenda is simply to promote support and normalise diversity and marginalise what we have always thought of as being the normal type of family in New Zealand. 
I would also like to use this opportunity to respond to a statement made by the Minister about how traditional nuclear families are a relatively new invention. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: This is a debate. The Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No as we said before the member must speak to Part 2. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The other part has been dealt with. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify this point for me. This is a debate in the Committee stage of the Families Commission Bill. We are being given only one call per part in this debate. The Minister took a call and criticised my contribution to the last part. This is the first opportunity I have to respond to his criticisms. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member will be seated. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Are you telling me that I cannot respond to his criticisms? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows very well that members can speak only to the part that is being debated at the moment. I have already ruled on that point in this debate. Please continue. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I need to clarify my point. Can you tell me when members get to actually answer the personal criticisms made by Ministers against them? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows that that is a part of debate. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Well when? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That debate has finished. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the point. The member will be seated. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The fact the bill is also subject to the Ombudsmen Act means that we will be able to ask the Ombudsman to help us with questions on issues that the Families Commission would be working on. I suggest that one of the first issues the commission might have to deal with is the origins of the family. We will be able to ask the Families Commission questions under the Official Information Act about its research on the origins of the family which go back to the 11th century AD in spite of claims that the family is a modern precept. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Possibly back further than that. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Yes the family probably does go back much further. I have some new information from the library that shows that. 
However the Ombudsmen Act allows the Ombudsman to debate with the Minister and the commission if they refuse to give such information to members of Parliament. Members of the Opposition will probably be using the Ombudsman rather a lot under this Government because this Government is not open and transparent like it pretended to be when it was elected. In fact for most of the regular information asked from this Government under the Official Information Act we ended up by appealing to the Ombudsman. That is why the Ombudsman is so busy under Labour. 
However I am very pleased that the Ombudsman will be there to assist members of Parliament. When one looks at the projects the commission is set up to be able to do I suspect that it will be working on a lot of controversial information. In general it will be only through the Ombudsman that members of Parliament on the Opposition benches will be able to figure out what the commission is doing. 
The Public Finance Act means that members can question how the $28 million will be spent. That is a huge amount of money.