Rich Katherine: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Rich Katherine: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10208] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
It is nice that the Minister finished up with a big thank you to the select committee after that slanging he gave us during his speech. Once again we have seen that patronising smarmy sensitive new-age guy routine— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That sort of language is totally inappropriate in the Chamber and I think the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No I do not think the member needs to withdraw and apologise. It was no different from the language used by the previous speaker at the tail end although provoked into it. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I think the use of the words “smarmy” and “patronising” is not appropriate in this Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that but if the member whom it was directed at objects to it that is a different matter. But the member has not. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It seems the boys are a bit sensitive tonight and so they should be. There is a reason that this bill was reported back to the House unchanged and the reason is that the select committee could not agree. When a select committee of 10 New Zealand MPs fails to agree what chance is there of getting full support for this bill from all New Zealanders throughout the country? There is a huge debate about this bill about what constitutes a family and about what needs to be done within our country to make sure that families are supported.  
This bill is much ado about nothing. This is feel-good politics that will really do very little to assist the sorts of families who are in need. I must say that I did take offence at some of the material being distributed by United Future and I ask those members how they can say with straight faces that the members who are against this bill are anti-family. When we look around this House we see parents and we see people who are all parts of families and who very much cherish the family networks they have. It is smug fundamentalist rubbish to suggest that simply because people do not believe in this particular bill they are anti-family. One of the letters that was sent out by United Future accused the Opposition of a venal political stunt. Now the leader of United Future is usually a very articulate gentleman but I am beginning to wonder whether the other members of United Future know what venal means because the dictionary says “characterised by bribery and corruption”. I think that all members of Parliament should take offence at that sort of inference. Frankly I think it is over the top to suggest that those who do not support this bill are venal and should be accused of that. We do not support this bill because we do not think it will deliver on the expectations that have grown out there in New Zealand.  
The Minister is agnostic on the idea of family structure. Yes sure there is a wide range of different families in New Zealand but there are some successful family structures out there—and we know they work and we should be able to say so. The seven commissioners in being advocates for everything will actually be advocates for nothing. There is a good saying in  
Through the Looking Glass 
 and it is: “If you don’t know where you’re going any road will take you there.” It is the same with the Families Commission Bill. One of the things I think many people are hanging their hats on is that they think this bill is the answer for a lot of families who are having difficulty. I have just been reading the James Whakaruru report. There were some unfortunate similarities between the life of Te Rangi Whakaruru and the life of Charlene Aplin. Both women had their first babies when they were 15. I think we all know and we should be able to say that if a woman has her first baby at that age on her own the chances are that things will not turn out all that well for her children. Sure there are some amazing exceptions some marvellous exceptions where people can overcome all sorts of barriers that they face in their lives. But there are some structures that are successful for bringing up children. There are some structures that are successful in terms of supporting families in this country and the commission should be able to say that. We are talking about $20 million at a time when there are a whole lot of other Government— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: $28 million. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Sorry $28 million. We are talking about $28 million at a time when we have a number of community organisations crying out for funding. That $28 million could buy well over 2 million Plunket Society inquiries. It could buy 360000 booster seats for kids.  
It could fund 750000 free doctors’ visits for children. Governments have to make their minds up about a lot of things and it is all about priorities. I say that the priority is not for another Wellington bureaucracy that is just going to have a big talkfest about families but achieve very little. This commission lacks the power to do anything much. It must have regard to Government policy and the views of the Minister. When will it ever be able to speak out about things that are important to families when it is always watching its back to see what the Government of the day is going to be asking it to do?  
My next point is that we still have this wacky definition of what constitutes a family. Even up until the time that this bill was discharged neither the Government nor United Future had any inclination to change that definition. It includes people who have “significant psychological attachments to one another;”. As we know that can include the gangs. It can include a whole range of people that I do not see as being families. The Minister over there was obviously thinking warm fuzzy thoughts towards gangs the other day because he said he did not worry whether one was a member of a gang or Rotary—one still deserved a State house just the same. Really in terms of the Families Commission what is being proposed is not going to make a difference. It will not stop another Saliel Aplin or Olympia Jetson case or make a skerrick of difference to a “Lillybing” or even in my home town to someone like poor Iris Davidson whose death is currently being debated.  
It is not clear what groups the Families Commission will stand for. It is going to be standing for everything. A group of seven commissioners will be travelling the country chanting “Families are good families are good.” We all know that families are good. The connections we have with one another are important. Having some Government bureaucracy at a cost of $28 million is not really going to make one iota of difference to those families who are most in need. So the National Party will not be shamed into supporting this feel-good legislation. Supporting this bill is not about saying whether we think families are good. It is about putting in place policy that will actually make a difference.  
10 select committee members could not agree on this bill. That is why it was discharged without amendment. So I do not think seven commissioners will be able to agree about what constitutes a family either and I think we should be very honest about that. The groups that came before the select committee had huge concerns about the definition and about the objectives of this commission. Some submitters were not terribly well informed when it came to understanding what the commission is actually going to do. I am still convinced that there will be significant duplication. A huge amount of work has been done by the Ministry of Social Development. It has analysts for Africa and they are doing research every day. A huge amount is already being done and frankly we already have a lot of the most important answers because we have the results of research that has already been done in respect of families. We do not need to reinvent the wheel in New Zealand and pretend we are so special that research on family networks which has taken place all around the world will have terribly different results here. 
This bill will create a huge debate. We are going to make sure it does. We are not here in Parliament to support feel-good legislation that is nothing more than an election bribe. We all know this is just to gain the support of United Future but I say to United Future that it should have put the $28 million into something that will actually make a difference to New Zealand families not just another bureaucracy. If we know anything about this country it is that we need another committee and another commissioner like we need a hole in the head. Every single group now has supposedly its spokesperson. But with this bill there is a very unclear definition and this group will be advocating for absolutely everybody. If we are going to have a Families Commission the Government should be honest about it and say what it stands for. It should say it wants to promote certain sorts of family structures because it knows they are successful not skirt around the issue and try to develop a sensitive new-age approach. If we are going to put $28 million into something let us make it something that will make a difference to families. Let us put the money into things that may prevent the next Saliel Aplin or Olympia Jetson or the next “Lillybing”. We need things that will make a difference not some sort of election bribe.