Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Newman Muriel: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10699] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party has opposed this bill right from the beginning. We see it as a $28 million bureaucracy and we have to remind ourselves that the Commissioner for Children operates on a budget of less than $2 million. We also see it as a direct payback by the Labour Government to United Future that—and I say this advisedly—pathetic little party that is the Government’s lapdog. I have to say that having listened to the Hon Peter Dunne’s contribution to this debate. 
The major reason that the ACT party is not prepared to support the Families Commission is that it will be manned by political appointees. We know we have a Labour Party that is opposed to the family—that is its socialist origins and ideology are anti-family. The real concern is that New Zealand will be given a $28 million spin machine to promote Labour Party anti-family propaganda. Given that there is no way that a party like ACT can support that machine. If the commissioners were not political appointees we probably would not have supported this bill but at least we would have considered it. 
In his speech earlier on in this debate the Minister for Social Development and Employment mentioned that he was supporting this legislation because it was pro-family. Yet in a recent speech he said: “I know of no social science that says the nuclear family is more successful than other kinds.” That is the real colour of that Minister—he is anti-family. Coming from somebody who was a sociologist before he came into Parliament that comment is quite extraordinary. The comment that there is no social science that shows the nuclear family to be more successful than other kinds flies in the face not only of evidence within New Zealand but evidence around the world—and also common sense. 
The married family is the cornerstone of society. Marriage is the best child-rearing institution ever invented. Contrary again to what the Minister has said in this debate it is an institution that dates back thousands of years and children raised in a successful married family in general go on to be successful themselves. But the interesting thing is that in being successful—in other words in having good jobs good prospects and all the rest of it—many of those children grow up to be centre-right voters. That is why the Labour Government and “Mr Progressive Party” sitting there are so opposed to the family. The married family creates people who believe in centre-right philosophies of limited government more prosperity and all of those things. 
However I do want to acknowledge on behalf of our party that that is not to say that other forms of family do not also succeed really well in building a good life for themselves and their children. But on the balance of probability other forms of families do face increased difficulties and their children do face greater risk factors in life. Back to 1987 when Professor David Ferguson was working in Christchurch on his child development study of some 1200 children who are now in their 20s he warned the Lange Labour Government against accepting the enthusiastic claims about family diversity as being good for children. Back in those days—the 1980s—he warned against sole parenthood and de facto relationships because he saw that they created instability for children. 
Over the years we have also had warnings from Government departments—right up until very recent warnings from the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Child Youth and Family Services—that family instability and sole parenthood are risk factors for children. Those two factors are the strongest predictors of infant mortality; childhood injury; physical emotional and sexual abuse of children; neglect of children; poor school performance; youth crime; youth suicide; and teenage pregnancy. If this Government cared about the future of children it would be promoting stability in this bill about the Families Commission and it would be promoting marriage. That is not to say that marriage is the be-all and end-all for every couple in this country but at least if it forms a successful type of relationship in which to raise children it should be promoted by the Government of the day for goodness sake! 
What is really bizarre is that United Future could not even persuade the Government that it should recognise marriage in this bill. That again is an extraordinary situation given all the pro-family rhetoric of United Future. But United Future could not end up promoting marriage Labour could not promote marriage so all of those comments about those parties being pro-family I am afraid are hollow ones. The proof is not in the pudding. The proof is not in this bill. The word “marriage” does appear in the bill because it was in the previous legislation but it is not promoted in the actual content of this bill and the reasons for it—as many submitters wanted it to be. 
When we think about it the Labour Party and United Future have instead been promoting instability in this term of Parliament. They have voted for a more generous welfare system. In fact United Future voted for a weakening of the restraints around the domestic purposes benefit. If members talk to community groups out there they will say that the domestic purposes benefit creates the greatest incentive for marriage and family breakdown of any single type of benefit or even type of incentive. United Future has supported the Government in raising taxes and again that has put lots of financial pressure on families. That sort of pressure unfortunately often leads to family breakdown. 
But what is worse is that when families do break up United Future and the Labour Party appear to be committed to marginalising fathers. I know that United Future will say that that is not correct but the proof will be in what happens to the Care of Children Bill and whether it supports shared parenting in that bill and also supports the opening up of the Family Court. Those two changes to the law would significantly help to reduce the marginalisation of fathers in New Zealand and help connect them to their children even though their families have broken up. I will wait to see the results of the United Future party’s and Labour Party’s deliberations on shared parenting and opening up the Family Court. 
During this debate we have heard a sanctimonious contribution from the leader of United Future who appeared to blame all the other Opposition parties for playing politics. I say that it is the United Future party that has been guilty of playing the most terrible game of politics over the Care of Children Bill by telling all the submitters that because the bill was discharged from the committee because there was not a majority on the committee to pass it we were not taking any notice of all those submitters. United Future described the Opposition parties as “bloody-minded” and “rat cunning”. 
I have never heard such a disgraceful rendition of what has happened to the parliamentary process in New Zealand as I have from the United Future party. It is an absolute disgrace to Parliament that United Future members could use what is a normal procedure when there is no majority on a select committee. I say it is that party that has been playing politics. United Future is very unhappy because we are not going along with its views but we cannot do that because this is not a sound initiative.