Borrows Chester: Families Commission Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Families Commission Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16506. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Acting Minister for Social Development):I want to acknowledge the contributions of the previous speakers who spoke passionately against this piece of legislation the Families Commission Amendment Bill—and that is not surprising. The contributions from Sue Moroney Jacinda Ardern and Dr Prasad have indicated the long history they have had working in this area particularly Dr Prasad as the inaugural Chief Families Commissioner. It is not surprising that he is concerned about any change. Although he says the bill is dripping with cynicism in actual fact it is really the different view of a different Government at a different time in our evolution as a State dealing with the problems of young people. I have heard him on a number of occasions—through the select committee process for instance—speak to the Families Commissioners as they have appeared before the Social Services Committee and his passion is obvious.But I think what the Government is doing is recognising that there are times for changes as there are in the work of any Government entity. I cannot help but note that although we know that Labour believes that the proposed changes continue an agenda to fundamentally alter the commission so it becomes something closer to a Government ministry—which is pretty much what Dr Prasad has said—that seems a little inconsistent with Labour’s own policy which is to replace the commission in order to create a “Ministry for Children”. The concern is about doing away with the commission and doing something more in line with a Government department but is that not exactly what Labour would intend to do by dissolving the commission and turning it into a “Ministry for Children”? It is important to note that nothing in the bill changes the commission’s status. In fact it extends its powers and functions in order to make it more relevant.New Zealand First has indicated that it has concerns and believes that the commission’s work will duplicate research carried out by the Ministry of Social Development and yet there is a very clear delineation between what the ministry and the commission will be working on. They will work together to ensure that their research activities complement each other’s. The ministry’s functions focus on welfare reform and those requiring access to confidential in-house data. The commission’s role is to focus on being able to independently evaluate policies and programmes that it does not fund or deliver.New Zealand First has also indicated that there is a lack of consideration that the commission reports to a single Minister but the bill recognises that by explicitly extending the new research and evaluation functions across the broader social sector. It has also been a hallmark of this Government that ministries work together in clusters related to their portfolios. So although the commission would report to one Minister in actual fact the work would be scrutinised by a team of Ministers.In relation to comments made in respect of the new additional functions in clauses 5 and 7 Dr Prasad has been concerned that new section 8A(1)(a) tasks the commission with identifying “evidence and research that will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s policies and priorities in the social sector:”. The new function though is designed to ensure that the commission’s work is relevant and of use. I quote the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who noted during the second reading that “There is no point in having research sitting on a shelf” in Wellington. The commission is to actively identify and move forward on areas where research will assist. An example is the social services policy round table discussion which the commission has facilitated on 17 February to strengthen links between the academic social sciences and the Public Service. It follows from Sir Peter Gluckman’s report on the role of evidence in policy formation. The commission remains an autonomous Crown entity and must have regard only to Government policy.Labour has also indicated that it has concerns that the new research and evaluation function reduces the commission’s advocacy role and resources but it is important to point out that the research and evaluation role and the advocacy role are not mutually exclusive. Often the best way to advocate for families is to identify what works to address the issues facing families. Funding for the commission’s core advocacy function is still sufficient—more than $3.5 million per annum to carry out this role—especially as the commission has adopted a leaner structure and is being more effective in how it uses its funding. The commission is also gaining significant additional funding against which it can leverage $1 million over 3 years for youth mental health.The Green Party has expressed concern that the White Ribbon Day campaign will be undermined to the point where it will be hard to see any action whatsoever but it is important to note that the White Ribbon Day campaign is something that has grown legs of its own through the community. The website hits have increased significantly in November 2013 to 45777 compared with the 2011 record of 31000. The pledge page received 4081 visits with 1040 of those visitors going on to complete the pledge form—an uptake rate of 25.5 percent—and Facebook “likes” rose from 8200 to 14700 in November. This shows that indeed the White Ribbon Day movement has grown a life of its own which is exactly what the promoters of it would like it to do.There has been concern expressed about a lack of independence and the fit with the social report but the commission is confident that the usefulness of the next report will be self-evident. It considers it an improvement on the 2013 report which will identify useful areas for further work. Minister Dunne is to be briefed on this and hopefully he will speak to it at some stage during the course of this Committee stage.There have been concerns from Opposition parties that changes being described in clauses 10 and 11 are confusing and poorly understood. Labour has claimed they will result in power effectively residing in the chief executive but it is important to point out—and there is a need to emphasise—that apart from changing their title for all but one member of the commission nothing else in the legislation changes. The number of members remains the same—between three and seven—and duties and responsibilities are also unchanged from those set out in the Crown Entities Act. The main effect of the change in the title is that it reiterates that members of the commission are to concentrate on their board member role. This has been happening for a number of years with most current members averaging less than 30 days a year on commission business compared with up to 100 per year when the commission was established in 2004.There has also been concern expressed that the process for specifying the additional duties to be carried out by the new sole commissioner is to be determined by the commission but a proposal that the board collectively determine what additional powers and functions are to be delegated to the sole commissioner is the norm for Crown entities. Under the Crown Entities Act all power rests with the board and it is up to it to decide how these are to be delegated between meetings.There has been concern expressed about the panel of four not having skills across a broad range but we need to note that the bill was changed at the select committee stage to provide for a minimum of four members. I also emphasise that the panel will not work in isolation and that its function will be complemented by the skills and experience of the members of the commission the various reference groups put in place by the commission and steering groups put in place to support specific projects.