Lole-Taylor Asenati: Families Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Families Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. E nga mana e nga reo e nga hau e wha e rau rangatira ma tena koutou tena koutou tenatatou katoa. The Families Commission Amendment Bill proposes drastic changes that undermine the importance of families and diversity in New Zealand. Despite its overall mission of providing independent monitoring evaluation of programmes and intervention across the social sector the bill makes little difference and gives less convincing proposals of how effective those programmes will be on New Zealand families. The Families Commission Amendment Bill hides behind New Zealand families by this proposal to downsize and reallocate funds. This is why New Zealand First opposes this bill. 
The Families Commission should be at the forefront of supporting New Zealand families through initiatives that seek to speak for the people and not try to avoid any public backlash concerning the commissions that aim to speak for them. It is pertinent to mention the emphasis on how they may better reflect New Zealand families and provide positive remedial reform. 
I find it troubling that Peter Dunne can just cut his ties with the Families Commission considering the fact that this was an initiative United Future supported and agreed to during its coalition with the Labour Party 8 years ago. His attitude and the ease with which he distanced himself from his initiative is indicative of how he wants to be at the forefront of positive initiatives in the early stages but then takes a step back when they crumble. He should protect his 8-year-old project and aim to find more alternatives instead of relying on National to sort out his mess. This handover inevitably loses the original substance and essence of the Families Commission. Its potential to make wide-ranging positive outcomes is limited through the proposed changes to the size and allocation of funding. 
The Families Commission Amendment Bill aims to cut down seven commissioners to one—no doubt that will be Carl Davidson. He will chair the board alongside the Government’s Chief Science Advisor and four other appointees. From the outset we can see that the board may be appointed with National Party mates who may have little experiential similarity to constituents who live in low socio-economic areas. There needs to be a clear link from the bottom up. We cannot expect top-down solutions to trickle their way to the bottom and impact equally on all New Zealand families. There needs to be greater transparency and also improved communicating of ideas more effectively to all stakeholders. 
New Zealand First addresses the issues and themes that New Zealand families are confronted with. We have found this bill to contradict its label. We might as well convert the title of the commission to the “Elitist Commission” as it may benefit only a small few at the expense of many. The proposed changes send out a clear message to the public that despite the current hardships many New Zealanders’ families face the National Government is content with downsizing commissions that are not geared towards improving its livelihood and that it does not mind cutting jobs in the process. I am sure Simon Bridges and his friend from Hamilton East David Bennett would be very familiar with this. 
 Not only does this contradict the importance of tackling barriers that prevent New Zealand families from living happy and dignified lives it also undermines the National Government’s optimistic desire to protect New Zealanders from losing their jobs. Maybe it wants to make Australia more desirable. Cutting down the sheer size of commissions illustrates the magnitude at which this Government is attentive to the social political and economic barriers that New Zealand families face and experience. This is the reason why New Zealand First strongly opposes this bill at this stage. Thank you.