Bradford Sue: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10213] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
I rise tonight on behalf of the Green Party to assure Parliament and the interested public that our position on this bill has not changed despite accusations from United Future that we and other colleagues on this side of the House have somehow engaged in a venal political stunt by opposing this legislation. Since the Families Commission was first mooted the Green Party has been consistent in voicing its principled concerns. I took an active role on the Social Services Committee during the course of the bill and I have read and heard the submissions that came to us. The submissions did not change our party’s position and in fact a number of submitters raised exactly the same issues with the bill that we have.  
These are firstly that we believe there are already other organisations both governmental and non-governmental that are quite capable of carrying out the functions of the commission as outlined in this bill. Secondly the extra funding going into the commission would be much better spent on supporting the work of non-governmental organisations already doing research and advocacy work with families and providing hands-on assistance to families. I have spent many years of my life working in the community sector and seeing at first hand the work of groups like the Child Poverty Action Group in Auckland Charles Waldegrave’s Family Centre in Lower Hutt Barnardos New Zealand the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services in all its different arms and the Downtown Community Ministry (Wellington) Inc.  
These and a whole lot of other organisations spend a lot of time scrapping for funding and using much volunteer time and energy to carry out functions such as acting as an advocate for the interests of families generally encouraging and facilitating informed debate on matters relating to the interests of families considering and making recommendations on policy relating to families and promoting research into matters relating to the interests of families. All these functions are exactly those being replicated in the Families Commission Bill before us tonight. If the Government is happy to pour some $28 million into these purposes as proposed by the bill and the budget provision behind it I would much rather see a fair proportion of the money go to the groups I have mentioned with an excellent track record on the ground rather than to a new Government bureaucracy—no matter how well intentioned its proponents might be.  
On top of that we also have a huge amount of taxpayers’ money spent on policy analysts here in Wellington. Just looking at the Ministry of Social Development alone within whose ambit research on families surely lies I gather there are some 350 or so analysts paid at salaries way beyond the imagination of most community-based activists and researchers. These analysts regularly produce major pieces of research such as the social report and the New Zealand living standards report as well many other smaller studies. On top of that one of its key pieces of work for the year ahead is to provide advice on the development of the Government’s overall social strategy.  
All of this work includes analysis of the state of families and children in our country—hundreds and hundreds of pages of it each year. With this huge resource already at its disposal I fail to comprehend why the Government needs yet another body set up to carry out this research function from yet another pool of taxpayer money.  
Thirdly I think all of us are acutely aware at the moment of the need for a lot more resources to go into groups working with families out in our communities around New Zealand doing the kind of preventive work that helps parents and children before they end up in a Saliel Aplin Olympia Jetson or Coral Burrows type of situation. I am thinking here of groups such as Homebuilders Parent Centres Parentline Plunket a huge range of hapu iwi and pan-tribal organisations and a heap of other church and community groups that are doing their utmost often on very scarce resources to work with families to make their lives better in ways that mean something real. Each baby that is saved each mother or father who does not bash a child each parent who learns a little more about how to deal with the latest teenager in crisis is worth more than three to seven family commissioners. The Green Party would rather see a good portion of this $28 million going to provide more secure funding for some of the groups I am talking about here rather than spending it on setting up a new little arm of the State whose existence has come about only because of backroom post-election deals not because of widespread and heartfelt community demand.  
I would be the first person to be supporting this bill if I sensed any kind of build-up of community need for such a thing as a Families Commission. I had never heard of that demand before United Future’s election campaign last year. There has never been talk of this in the community sector that I come from. No one has ever seen the need for this strange beast called a Families Commission. It was not needed. There are plenty of people out in the New Zealand community who advocate for families. A Families Commission is not what they were wanting—then or now.  
In recent days Peter Dunne has made a public statement accusing those parties that oppose the bill of playing an “unprecedented and venal political stunt” and of “abusing the democratic process”. On behalf of the Green Party and indeed all the other parties that have been equally accused I would just like to say that I do not believe that playing our part in the democratic process of the select committee in Parliament is somehow abusing democracy or is in any way corrupt as the word “venal” implies. Voting against a bill for good reasons in a principled manner based on one’s party’s kaupapa and policies is not venal or corrupt. It is doing the job that the voters elected us to do. To have this sort of invective hurled at us for voting against a piece of legislation that we oppose on principled grounds is in itself an abuse of democracy.  
I find it deeply ironic that a party that got its votes on the back of so-called common sense and decency is now proving itself so lacking in integrity that it accuses some of the most hard-working and serious members in this House from all the parties on this side of venality. To those groups in the community—[ 
Interruption 
] In response to the member from United Future who has accused us of sitting on our hands I do not think that Katherine Rich Barbara Stewart Muriel Newman or myself are sitting on our hands when it comes to our work in the Social Services Committee or in this House on matters relating to families and children. I have been on the select committee for one and a half terms of Parliament and I am very well aware of the work of the fellow members of my committee. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members for United Future should not be interrupting and interjecting in the way they are on a member who is immediately next to them. Surely by now they know the rules of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I was about to interrupt and I ask members on that side— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling but there is always going to be a problem with members on this side of the House when a vigorous debate such as this one is turning out to be ensues. Members who are being criticised do have a right to respond. I accept there is a problem given the seating arrangement but I think that in moderating the proceedings you need to take into account that the two parties that are having a go at each other at the moment just happen to be two parties that are forced to sit side by side. I suspect that neither would prefer it that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. Interjections should be rare and reasonable; not continuous. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: To those groups in the community that did come to the select committee with their support for the bill I would just like to say that I did listen to them and I did take their opinions and experiences on board. However as with any piece of law it is up to each political party its MPs and party members to consider that law on the basis of our own beliefs and policies. In this case we have come to the conclusion that we should not support the Families Commission Bill. We do not do this lightly or just to make some cheap political point but rather for the whole range of reasons I have already outlined tonight. We believe that families do need research support advocacy and help but not in ways that simply duplicate work that is already being done and waste taxpayers’ money.