Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10286] 
Families Commission Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Families Commission Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Families Commission Bill is a travesty. It is a travesty because the United Future party has allowed itself to accept that the definition of “family” is not to now mean what everyone in this country really understands “family” is all about. It is about the traditional family unit. First it is the nuclear family unit of mum dad and the kids. And today just as 10 years ago just as 50 years ago—just as way back to the time of Genesis in the Bible—mum dad and the kids was a pretty good thing that tended to work most of the time and it still does. That does not mean that we cannot have extended families. When I look at the Families Commission Bill and at its title I ask where it states what families are all about. I am coming to the point that “families” actually has to mean something. 
I think it is a great thing that the Minister has mentioned today that he has a Supplementary Order Paper in which he will now exclude gangs. It will no longer be the “Families (Gang) Bill”. That is because of the Opposition not any other party. We pointed it out and we were pooh-poohed about it even though we were absolutely right. The Families Commission Bill could be more aptly named the “We Really Did Sell our Soul to the Devil Bill” and that is exactly what United Future has done in this instance. It is an absolute disgrace. I would love to be able to support this bill and to be able to say that we have some recognition of families and their role in society but this bill is inappropriately named because it has nothing about families in it. It is all about bureaucracy. There are a couple of clauses that try to define some sort of family but as long as it does not state “mum dad and the kids” it seems that it might be a family. As long as it is not that then it could be a family. 
This bill is all about commissions; it is all about bureaucracy. It could instead be called the “Families (Bureaucracies) Bill”. That would be a better name rather than misnaming it the Families Commission Bill. This is possibly the payback to United Future for being good little bunnies and doing as the Government tells them. That is about all we can say about this bill. It is a hopeless bill it is a hopeless name and it should be consigned to the gutter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I just say to members that this is a title debate. Members need to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise this issue because it is obviously one that will affect people. This bill is really in two parts only. It is a bill that should have been in normal drafting in several parts and I expect that the debate will be allowed to be wide ranging. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a matter for the Committee to decide. Is the member seeking leave to do so? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to the title the Families Commission Bill I want to begin by outlining the fact that in arriving at Bowen House one morning recently my eyes were drawn to a radiantly happy young woman who had just alighted from a taxi. As the taxi drove away I noticed on the footpath in front of her a baby in a car seat. The incident made me realise what a thrill I feel when I see that special joy that exists between parents and their children. My primary goal in deciding to offer myself for election to Parliament last year was to work towards seeing a greater number of New Zealand families functioning on the basis of stability and harmony. The ideal is for every child to grow up loved and nurtured by a mother and a father in a situation of certainty and stability with the support from the intergenerational extended family and whanau. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is a title debate. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: In talking to the overarching goal of this bill and the title we need to establish a commission called the Families Commission because it is a vitally important step towards its achievement. There has been debate during the passage of this bill about the definition of “families”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. This is a title debate and the member must discuss the question of whether the title adequately describes the bill. That is the key issue. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I believe that the title does adequately describe this bill because we are talking here about definitions of families and family groups which are incorporated in Part 1. Much of the debate that has been heard in this Chamber so far has been misdirected and it is more than answered through the United Future and Government Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Arguments about what this should be called about definitions and even the name of this bill essentially miss the heart of what it is that the Families Commission seeks to achieve. While striving to obtain the best possible family outcomes we also need to deal with the reality of our present situation. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The honourable member who is debating the title of this bill does seem to keep straying. I know that you have tried to bring him back but maybe you could just explain a little bit more clearly what the title debate is all about and the narrowness of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing it to my attention. Can I just say to the honourable member on his feet that I am getting close to terminating his speech. The title debate is a very specific debate. There will be an opportunity for the member to debate the issues he is debating now when we come to Part 1. The member must ask himself this question: does the title adequately describe the bill? That is what the member is allowed to debate and the member may call the bill all sorts of names or whatever but he must come back to the debate. It is a very narrow one. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. One can see that the logic of my argument if it was listened to that we need to use the word “families” in the title of the bill rather than the singular “family” which had previously been suggested by some. What I am trying to outline is why we should use the word “families” in the title to this bill. The image of the radiant young woman with her baby which I mentioned earlier sadly stands in contrast to the many struggling unhappy children I see in our society; children who are not only being raised in poverty but also frequently without the presence of a mum or dad. That is reality for many of our children. Some of them are growing up in ways that we could not even begin to describe as a stable family— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but he is not addressing the title and I am terminating his speech. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Speaking to the title of this bill I would like first of all to address some of the comments raised by Mr Copeland. He started off by talking about the fact that the whole point of the Families Commission is to set up something to support families. He said for example that he does not disagree with the facts that we want a loving environment for children that the best possible environment for children to grow up in is a family and that children are basically being ruined by poverty. He said a lot of things that I do not think anyone in this Committee would disagree with. The member on the Government side of the Chamber is gesturing for me to return to the issue of the title of the bill but if he had read his Standing Orders he would know that a member is able to make reference to comments that the previous speaker has made as long as they are not over the top or made for a long period of time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come to the debate. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Mr Copeland made a lot of points that I do not think anyone in this Committee disagrees with but let us not pretend for a moment that the Families Commission is going to create good strong family networks for those children who are most in need. Let us not pretend that the Families Commission will make a difference with regard to the most vulnerable children or stop there being more cases like that of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson and children like them. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Surely if you had to terminate Mr Copeland’s speech earlier because he was getting wide of the mark it cannot be long before you give some instruction to this member that she must address the title of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his consideration. However it is quite true what the member says. Under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 some leeway is given for the first 30 seconds or so of a speech for a member to respond to comments that have been made and that is what I have been allowing. But I now ask the member to speak strictly to the title. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Absolutely Mr Chairman. But I was just taking my opportunity to respond to some rather naive comments about matters that I think are not addressed by this bill at all. 
In speaking to the title of this bill the Families Commission Bill I say basically the definition of a family really does matter. We can talk about this issue and go round in circles but basically if a commission is an advocate for every sort of New Zealand family and every sort of New Zealander then in a way it becomes an advocate for nothing. If we are trying to set up a Families Commission to be something that will actually make a difference to families in New Zealand then the name of the bill should give people the opportunity to consider what the role of the commission is to be. If we look at the name “Families Commission Bill” we see that the title does not represent what is actually in the bill. There are six clauses in the bill that relate to families and the rest of the clauses are all about setting up a bureaucracy. This bill is all about setting up a bureaucratic commission—just another bureaucracy that will sit here in the middle of Wellington and be totally divorced from the realities of New Zealand families. In fact the bill should be called the “All Things to Everybody Commission” because that is what we are talking about here. The definition of “family” is so broad that it basically includes every single New Zealander. We already have a representative body for every single New Zealander. It is called the New Zealand Parliament and that is what we are all here to do. 
If we look at the title of this bill we see that it does not reflect what the bill is about at all. It should be called the “Can’t Advocate for Anything in Particular Bill”. If one looks at the very very general nature of the definitions in this bill and at its aims one sees it basically tries to be all things to everybody. It is not able to state for example that two-parent families are a successful way of bringing up children. This Families Commission will not be able to say that. This Families Commission will basically allow United Future the opportunity to say it has got something. One of the areas where United Future failed of course at the start of this debate was even to be able to debate the bill clause by clause. For some reason although this bill is supposed to be United Future’s absolute flagship United Future has allowed the debate to be condensed down into just a couple of parts. Obviously United Future is not aware of the way things work here in Parliament. 
I do hope that we will have a broad and wide debate on these particular issues because if one looks at the entire set of parts we have in this bill one sees there are a lot of issues to bring up. I think we need to look at the title first of all. I am a great believer that if one calls a bill something that has to reflect what is in the bill itself. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to take issue with you Mr Chairperson but I will use part of my 5-minute speech to say that I thought you could have given Mr Copeland a little bit longer. As much as I disagree with him on the concerns United Future has— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no the member cannot challenge the Chair. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will get to the title but I would have liked to hear what Mr Copeland had to say. This bill could be called the “Experiment with Children Bill” or the “United Future in Trouble Bill”. This bill is a sop to United Future. Until this afternoon we did not even have a definition of the family and how can one have a Families Commission Bill without a definition of the family? How can one do that? Perhaps the Minister will take a call and tell us that many months after the bill was first tabled with United Future’s hand-clapping in the background he has come up with a definition of “family” that did not exist until an hour or so ago. 
I have some real difficulty in saying that this is a genuine Families Commission Bill. I was not on the Social Services Committee. My good colleague Barbara Stewart was on it and she will no doubt speak in more detail than I can about the contents of the bill. But if one reads the bill one cannot help but conclude that it is bureaucracy going mad. We are to spend $28 million on a Families Commission under this legislation—and until an hour or so ago we did not know what the definition of the family was in the Minister’s mind at least although that has always been clear to New Zealand First—and I ask how one can justify that expense. Maybe the Minister will take a call and explain that. This is bureaucracy. If we had a genuine Families Commission in this legislation $28 million would be far too much money. We could put a genuine Families Commission in place at much less cost. It would mean identifying the family. The definition of the word “family” in Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey—and I asked the Minister this afternoon what it meant—states: “ … 2 or more persons living together as a family”. I understand that to include a de facto relationship. But are two homosexual men who are living together a family? Are we experimenting with children under this Families Commission Bill? That is a question I would like to put to the Minister. 
New Zealand First is not prepared to experiment with the lives of children under the Families Commission Bill or indeed any other bill. We think that this bill needs to be rethought completely. I think in fairness to the United Future members they would like to see the bill rethought if they were absolutely honest about it. This is an “Experiment With Children Bill” and I tell the honourable Chairperson and the members of this Committee that that is the wrong way to treat families and children in this country—experimenting with their lives. The title of this Families Commission Bill is inappropriate. It should be called the “Experiment With Children Bill”. That would be a fair reflection of the bill. Or it could be called—because Labour wants to get United Future up the polls from about 0.1 percent to something reasonable so that it can get back into power—the “United Future in Trouble Bill” or the “Help United Future Out of the Trench It Has Dug Because It Does Not Understand What a Family Is Bill”. But certainly the “Families Commission Bill” is not an appropriate title for this bill. I am quite disappointed if this is the best that United Future and Labour can come up with for a Families Commission Bill. I say that it is a failure. 
We would welcome supporting a proper correctly structured bill that addressed the core issues that concern families in this country but this bill does not do that. We would be better to spend the $28 million elsewhere in society rather than starting a new bureaucracy that will allow to some extent as I have said several times experimentation with the lives of children. Experimenting with kids and bringing them up in circumstances where we know the outcomes will be less than favourable is a serious matter. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of this bill and I wish to say to this Committee that this is an excellent title because this bill is about families in New Zealand. There are 479334 families in New Zealand with dependants and this legislation will address the needs of all those families in our country. It is appropriately called the Families Commission Bill because United Future had a vision at the election in 2002 that the families of this country ought to be addressed in this Chamber and that all legislation passing through this Chamber should be viewed in terms of its effect on families. That is why it is appropriate that this legislation is called the Families Commission Bill. 
 Seventy-one percent of the families of New Zealand are two-parent families and therefore we welcome the fact that this legislation will address their circumstances. However some people would suggest that this bill should have been called the “Two-Parent Family Commission Bill” because those are the only families they wish the commission to focus upon. It would have been a great travesty if that had been the case. The correct title for this legislation and for the intent of it is the Families Commission Bill because 29 percent of our families in New Zealand are one-parent families. In fact I grew up in one of those types of families and it would be abhorrent to the people of New Zealand to suggest in any way shape or form that the family I grew up in was not a family. Clearly it was a family. One-parent families ought to be considered by this commission because if we are to have a better outcome for the children of New Zealand we need all family types to do a better job of parenting. 
Some people would have liked the bill to be called the “Marriage Commission Bill”. While I have great concern about the state of marriage in our country and am deeply committed to the institution of marriage I do not think it would have been appropriate to call this legislation the “Marriage Commission Bill”. If we are to correct and improve the lives of children in this country then we must focus on all the types of families that exist. In this legislation—and we will debate this later on with regard to clause 26—it is possible for the commission to appoint committees that can look into the institution of marriage and at how to strengthen it. I would be very much in favour of the commission doing that. There is no impediment that would prevent the commission from doing that. 
There are also other kinds of families in this country and the statistics from the Ministry of Social Development that have been revealed point out that 0.2 percent of families are parented by same-sex couples. Nine hundred and fifty-eight children or more are being raised by parents of the same sex. Some people would have liked to call this bill the “Let’s Exclude Them From the Definition Family Commission Bill”. Again I think that most caring New Zealanders would consider that to be a travesty also. Those children have not chosen their family form and we need to encourage all adults in this country who are responsible for raising children to be able to do the very best job of parenting they possibly can. The commission has a wide scope of powers. It can address such questions as which family form is producing the right outcome in our society and we expect the commission will adequately accomplish that. 
This bill is called the Families Commission Bill because when we see something of value and a culture in our society that needs to be sustained protected and advocated for we often set up a commission. We already have a Human Rights Commission an Office of the Privacy Commissioner a Children’s Commissioner a Retirement Commissioner a Health and Disability Commissioner and a Law Commission. It is good news for the people of New Zealand that this week we will debate in this Chamber the Families Commission Bill. The bill is aptly titled because the commission will represent the interests of families and we commend the bill to the Committee. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The title of the bill is the Families Commission Bill but I have a number of suggestions that I think would probably more clearly reflect the nature of this bill and the way it has arisen in the House. I would like to start off by saying that a very good name for this bill would be the “United Future Anti-Family Bill”. All along we have heard that we are not allowed to really promote the traditional nuclear family in this bill. We have to promote any other type of family but we cannot focus on the most common type of family in New Zealand which is the traditional married family so I think the “United Future Anti-Family Bill” would be quite appropriate. However I thought that maybe we could make that a little bit better by calling it the “United Future - Labour Coalition Anti-Family Commission Bill”. To bring Labour into it is better because we know that Labour’s agenda is to undermine the nuclear family. That has always been Labour’s agenda and this bill sort of plays that out. 
However if we want to be more realistic about the nature of the Family Commission and the fact that the commissioners are appointed by the Minister that it is a political commission—in other words it is not appointed by a cross-party process—we could call it the “United Future - Labour Political Payback Bill” or the “Political Puppet Bill”. We could even look at saying that it is a bill to implement the United Nations agenda which we will see later on in this parliamentary term when the Family Commission introduces anti-smacking legislation. We can see that coming a mile off. Another type of name for the bill would be the “Family Commission (Implementing the United Nations Agenda) Bill”. That will be a big debate when it happens because most New Zealanders certainly do not agree with abusing children but they do not see that anti-smacking legislation will stop people abusing children. That legislation will significantly impact on the way parents go about raising their children in their family homes. 
As well I thought this bill could be called the “Marginalising Fathers Bill”. A lot of the political correctness that surrounds this family debate is all about saying that every type of family is OK but nowhere does anybody say: “Hang on we actually want to promote dads as being a very important part of that family equation.” This bill marginalises fathers. Many of the submitters were worried about that particular issue and I know that many people hope that the Family Commission comes out and talks about the importance of fathers in their children’s lives. But we have to remember that it is a politically correct and politically promoted commission so its agenda will definitely be set by the Labour Government. If we have a Labour Government that is anti-male and anti-father then I am afraid that that will be what a lot of the work of the Family Commission will focus on. 
During the time the bill was in front of the select committee we saw promoting psychological attachment as a big issue. Many submitters were worried about the fact that gangs could be part of the psychological attachment definitions in the bill. Until the Minister came up with his Supplementary Order Paper I thought that another name could have been the “Family Commission Promoting Criminal Gangs Bill” which would be an absolute outrage. This is one time when I support something the Minister has done and I can see he is very excited by that. A Supplementary Order Paper that clarifies that criminal gangs are not included in the psychological attachment definitions in the bill is a good move and one that most members of Parliament would support. 
I come back to the fact that this is anti-family legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In response to the speeches made by United Future members I say that if this bill is a result of their vision they should start praying for blindness. This bill is a disgrace and not one claim that any of the United Future members have made about it can be substantiated upon reading it. I do not know how Mr Adams can tell me that I should read the bill and conclude that his view of it is the way it is. I think that a new title of this bill should be “Family (Includes a Group of People Related by Marriage Blood Adoption or an Extended Family or Two or More Persons Living Together as a Family a Whanau or Another Culturally Recognised Family Group) Bill”. Quite frankly that means that anybody at all living in the nature of a marriage could claim that he or she is a family. That is what the United Future party has delivered for its constituency. 
What do those members really think when they look at the Supplementary Order Paper that has been laid on the Table today setting out of some of the duties of the commission under international obligations? Page 3 of the bill states that the commission must have regard to a range of matters. I do not think that this commission will have any autonomy at all. The bill should be referred to as the “Throw a Fish to the United Party Bill”. That is all it is. It is a few baubles or perhaps a better way to put it would be 30-odd pieces of silver thrown to a group of people who constantly run around the countryside pretending that they have the moral high ground on everyone else in this House and then turn out to be the emperor with no clothes when it comes to a bill like this. 
It is an absolute disgrace that we are wasting Parliament’s time debating a bill and its title when it is abundantly clear that the commission itself will not be able to do anything outside of any law written in this country. It cannot make a recommendation without referring first to the appropriate Government agency responsible and must give all sorts of credence to various groups that might or might not have an interest in the family. Perhaps the bill should have been called the bill that requires the commission to consult groups that represent families or family members and groups that have a particular interest in families or in any one or more matters relating the commission’s functions—for example groups that represent parents mothers fathers children or young persons men women social service providers academics researchers family law specialists employers–and here is the kicker—or workers. 
I think that most people in this country could probably identify themselves with one of those descriptives. We will have a commission that has to give equal weight to the views of all manner of radical groups in this country simply because United Future has agreed that they fit the definition of families. I suggest that the bill might have been better called “We Wish They Had Never Started On It Bill” because quite frankly families will become weakened as a result of the commission’s work. 
If those members over there want any sort of analogy as to why I think that might happen they should look at other commissions that operate in this country. Very few of them stay out of trouble. Very few of them achieve what they should achieve. I will not go into any great detail in my 5 minutes on the title but I ask members to look at other commissions and statements made by commissioners in this country compare their legislation with this legislation and then ask themselves whether they have done well by their constituents. They have not. This bill is a total sham and perhaps should be called “Families Commission Sham Bill”. I cannot see one thing in the bill that will lead to the strengthening of New Zealand families who are the backbone of this country. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that you have had a number of closure motions. I know that you are not a member of the Social Service Committee but I point out that some members who were on the committee including Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First have not taken a call yet. I am aware that the Green Party has not taken a call yet either. I just wanted to get in before you might have accepted a closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Expertise of course can be taken into account. I also remind members that this is a title debate. It is a very narrow debate. The contents of the bill can be debated at length when we come to Part 1. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just draw your attention to the fact that you have given United Future two calls. They were— 
Phil Heatley 
: Three. 
PETER BROWN 
: I believe two but I stand corrected but at least more than one whilst I see that New Zealand First a much larger party has had only one call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. Maybe I did the wrong thing there but I did terminate one member’s speech. The member had not spoken very long but he did not address the title. I felt that it would be only fair if a member of that party were given the opportunity to debate the title. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I do not think that the Families Commission Bill even begins to describe what it sets out to do. I think it would be better described as the “United Future Derision Bill”. One could say that United Future is just having a laugh but I do not think that is the reason the bill should be called that. It should be called the “United Future Derision Bill” because with this move United Future has become the laughing stock of the country. The bill is an absolute waste of $28 million. It replicates good work already being done by a number of community groups church groups and even Government departments. 
One could call it the “Misuse of Taxation Revenue Bill”. That would be a more accurate description of what the bill does. It would be far more effective more efficient and sensible to put that money into supporting the many excellent community groups that work in the area and are screaming out for adequate funding and I mention the Child Poverty Action Group Plunket and Homebuilders. The Green Party opposes the squandering of that tax money. The title does not begin to describe what the bill does at all. 
Another approach would be to call it the “Intolerance Bill” because the usual reaction from United Future to anyone who opposes its policy proposals has been personal abuse—regardless of the fact that members like my colleague Sue Bradford have a far greater wealth of experience and knowledge of this area and in working on the ground. Personal abuse is the usual retreat of United Future when faced with disagreement in a policy area. 
We could also call the bill the “Venal Bill”. We are all familiar with how that term has been used. We have received an abusive letter from Mr Peter Dunne—surprise surprise—that describes opponents to the bill as “venal”. How interesting! How is fulfilling the functions inherent in the role of a member of the House of Representatives to protect the public interest venal? I cannot begin to imagine. What I would describe as venal is accepting $28 million in an election bribe. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member just come to the title debate please. I know it is difficult but members need to address the title. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you. I am suggesting that the bill be described as the “United Future Bribery Bill”. That would be an adequate description of what the bill does. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not allow the word “bribery”. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I withdraw and apologise. Perhaps another title could be the “United Future Venality Bill”. The bill is an attempt to keep United Future supporting a Government that strangely enough has been described by Mr Dunne himself as a trendy-lefty think-pink party. He has described the Prime Minister as being hijacked by the thought police and the Labour Party as hand-wringing sickly white liberals. That is the Labour Party as described by Mr Dunne which he continues to support because of the $28 million venality bill. 
What will the bill give us? It will give us a commission with three to seven commissioners. It creates a commission and an expensive office will be set up to replicate work already being done in the community. How much money will be wasted on establishing an office on administration costs on the letterheads on the logo design and on all of the fancy accoutrements relating to those things simply to replicate work that is already being done in the community? We could call this bill the “Family Issues Replication Bill” the “Snatching Scarce Resources from the Community Bill” or the “Another Bureaucracy Bill” as the previous member has already mooted. 
No doubt the seven commissioners will be well paid soaking up scarce funds that are needed by grassroots organisations in order to stroke the ego of Mr Peter Dunne. That is no criticism of any future commissioners; I am sure that they will all be competent and well intentioned. No the criticism is reserved for United Future which is prepared to force this waste to occur then abuse members who point out the deep flaws. The title of this bill does not even begin to describe what the bill does in any shape or form. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Families Commission 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Families Commission that is to be set up under this bill will not save one child. It will not save one family. Not one family will be left intact because of this commission. Twenty-eight million dollars of taxpayers’ money—not Government money but taxpayers’ money—will be wasted to pay off a debt that Labour owes to United Future. The sum of $28 million is the price of New Zealand families. Not one family will be saved by this bill or by anything in it. When I look at the bill I can see how we can save taxpayers $28 million. I suggest that children need love discipline and boundaries. They need to know who they are. They need to know their whakapapa. What they do not need to know is who their mum’s latest boyfriend is. They need education. They need to be healthy and absolutely to have hope. 
United Future members have told us today that they have a vision. Well I think their vision was a faulty one. They need to have their eyes looked at because I am sure their vision did not tell them that they would be pushing for—not just supporting but pushing for—a bill that talks about everything except mum dad and the kids; or even mum and the kids with dad being an active father. Nowhere in this bill does anyone talk about the family unit as it actually is. Everywhere it talks about families being whatever people think they are. It is a bit like the word “Maori” which has become debased over the years because now—under a Labour Government and previous Labour Governments—Maori is no longer about blood. It is all about how one feels about it. 
When I look at this bill as a mother— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We give in! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
:—I am absolutely disgusted with this Government and with United Future. The Minister says he gives in and so he should because what does he know about being on the 4 o’clock morning shift? People who have not been there should not talk about it and people like young Darren Hughes—a very nice young boy who is trying to interject—should not talk about things they know nothing about. My mother was brought up in a solo parent family with seven little children during the Depression. If you ever said to my mother who is now dead— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The bill does not contain anything suggesting that solo parents with seven children will have a much tougher time than people with two parents and seven children. It does not say that because this is just a rubbish bill for rubbish people. Parents need to know that the best thing for their children is almost inevitably that they be active parents and wherever possible stick together. Nothing in this bill states that. That is one of the awful things about it. It is a fraudulent bill because nowhere does it tell the truth that wherever possible two parents—two good and great parents—will do better than one good and great parent because that is what kids need. Children need fathers and they need their mothers. 
They definitely need their fathers. One of the things we need in this country is active fathers—fathers who are embraced as part of the family not as some sperm donor who happens to pop along every now and again or send a Christmas card. That is not what we need. This bill should be telling people the truth and if it cannot do that it is a complete waste of money. This bill is $28 million of taxpayers’ money being thrown down the drain and it will be going into the pockets of people who should know better. If they do not know what makes a good family then I and others in the Opposition—the real Opposition—will tell them. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Sometimes some of the words I hear spoken in this Chamber absolutely amaze me. Judith Collins asked whether we had a vision. If she would like to go back to my maiden speech she would see that one of the things I said in it was that I wanted to see the hearts of fathers return to the children and the hearts of children return to the fathers. The family was very seldom mentioned until United Future came along. We recognise the importance of the family unit. Therefore we have been very pleased to come forward with the Families Commission. 
Every member of United Future is married. Every member of United Future has children. But we are well aware that many children in this nation do not have the same sorts of family relationships. As I look through the streets of this fine nation I see some of the circumstances that some children are brought up in. I am one who with every ounce of my being believes that a family unit of a mother and a father is by far the best unit in which to bring up children. I believe that the Families Commission as it researches things will begin to produce statistics that show that. Yet I do know that children do not choose their parents. Therefore children in this nation—whatever colour whatever creed and whatever religion they are—deserve to have a commission that will take the time do the research and study what the best set of circumstances is to bring them up in. With regard to the small percentage that have same-sex parents did those children choose to have same-sex parents? No they did not but that is what they have. Therefore somebody needs to love them enough to take the time to help them work through real-life situations. 
Much has been said about fathers. Fathers in this nation are under tremendous pressure these days. The expectations on fathers are unrealistic in many cases but I agree that fathers need to be encouraged to be great fathers. These days when a mother has her first child—especially now that there are many mothers who do not have an extended family or close family members around them—who is there to help her? What information does she have when her baby begins to cry in the early hours of the morning? I have four children myself and I know what it is like. Will the mother know whether the crying is normal whether it is just part of what a young child does as it grows up? Who will give the mother the information? 
I believe that the Families Commission will research things. It will start to say: “This is the best pattern. This is what has worked best.” United Future members stand proud of the Families Commission Bill because we are concerned about all the families of this nation. Yes we have an understanding of what we think the perfect family is but not everybody is living in a perfect family. When something has to be rebuilt one has to start with where it is now and to work on what is at hand to make it as best as one can. There must be research and this is what the Families Commission will do. It will look at the whole range of families and will come up with the finding that some families are not producing the results that others produce. Therefore— 
Peter Brown 
: We already know that. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Members may already know that but at least there will be a Families Commission in place that will focus on the families of this nation. I am pleased that United Future is in the situation where we are working on that. 
Many have said that they have worked for years with children. Well I have worked for years with children. I have worked with my own children. I have worked with children in the community who are not in the same sort of family as I have. What I have discovered is that all children and all families have the same basic requirements but not all families have the ability to find out what works for them. The Families Commission will help them—whatever sorts of families they are. It will give them information and situations that will help them bring up their children so that family units in this country can become far stronger and far greater. If this country does not rebuild families we are in deep yoghurt. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I have to say— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that Katherine Rich will make a valuable contribution to this bill—I have no doubt about that whatsoever—but I do point out that my colleague Barbara Stewart has been seeking the call for some time. She did not get a call on the title. You have now given two calls to National members on this part and you have ignored Barbara Stewart again. I want another call but I have been refraining from taking a call so that my colleague can get the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am looking at proportionality and it is generally two to one in favour of National over New Zealand First. Secondly under Speaker’s ruling 23/3 I have already called the honourable member Katherine Rich so I have to give her the call. But I have noted that your colleague wants the next call and she will have the next call. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: After that preaching from Paul Adams a member of United Future I have to ask that member given all those different scenarios he has just talked about how the Families Commission will make life any different for those families. It will not achieve the sort of Utopia that that member has just described. I feel sorry for the Minister Steve Maharey right now because I know he would love to take the $28 million and put it into some other worthy projects. This commission will cost a significant amount of money but will achieve little other than being just another bureaucracy in Wellington. 
When this bill was first introduced National members read it and found that a family group was defined as one whose members “have significant psychological attachments to one another”. Our immediate interpretation of that was that it could include a lot of New Zealanders that it is not intended that the Families Commission should advocate for. It could represent gangs flatmates social clubs cults or even the Labour Party and that was not the intention in creating the Families Commission. When National members brought up this issue our points were met with derision from the Government and United Future. We were accused of being unintelligent and United Future even went so far as to say that our opposition to the bill was venal. When members look up the meaning of that word—and I am convinced now that the press secretary who wrote that particular press release did not understand it—they will find it means open to bribery and corruption. My question to those members here today is who is open to bribery and corruption when we are looking at a $28 million pay-off to United Future for its support of this Government—$28 million that could be put into a wide range of services that would actually make a difference to New Zealand families. 
The other point that I think is worth discussing is the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 173 to the commission’s main function. We understood that the commission’s main function was to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally and that the function did not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families. Within the Supplementary Order Paper some additional points have been added. Subclause (3) of clause 7 provides that the commission must “identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance either or both of the following: (a) families’ resilience:”. I ask the Minister to take a call and tell members what that means. We are talking about New Zealand families here not Sealy Posturepedic beds or Aunt Daisy’s sponge. I would like to know what “resilience” means in terms of a legal definition. We are right back to academic psychobabble that does not mean anything and has no place in any legislation. 
The next point is that the commission must have regard to families’ strengths. Once again what does that mean in terms of the law? It is waffly namby-pamby sort of stuff that actually does not mean anything. It is feel-good legislation but when one starts to interpret it and ask what will happen it is very difficult to describe what exactly that part of the bill will do. 
Once again it can be seen from the new definition which excludes gangs that those on the benches opposite have come to understand that National members were right all along when we brought up that interpretation of the definition of family. There now are 62 words that are designed to say: “This definition does not include gangs.”—62 words. It is probably one of the waffliest provisions that I have seen. I do not know why the Government did not just come out and say that the Families Commission does not include gangs. It would seem that it has skirted around the issue. Nobody can quite come out and say it—so much for it being an improvement! 
Those are the sorts of things that were brought up during the select committee process by the members of National ACT and New Zealand First. We were rubbished for bringing up these issues. How did these changes miraculously occur half an hour before the Committee stage of this bill? Why were these changes suddenly miraculously made when these points had all been made during the select committee? Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain to members how he suddenly had a revelation. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Adams along with the rest of United Future may have had the vision but we the people of New Zealand will have to live with the nightmare of the Families Commission—a $28 million nightmare I might add. The Families Commission will not do what Mr Adams wants. It will not save even one child. The issue is not about defining families; it is about ensuring that New Zealand children are raised in the best possible situation and the best possible way. This bill will not save one child. 
We want the best conditions and the best outcomes for New Zealand children and New Zealand First believes that the best way to do that is to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children. We all know that children are the basis of families so why not give the Commissioner for Children part of the $28 million that is being set aside and appoint a Families Commissioner who could work in conjunction with the Commissioner for Children? 
Likewise in reference to clause 16 we believe that there should be only one commissioner and one deputy commissioner rather than the huge bureaucracy that is being set up with at least three but not more than seven commissioners a chief commissioner and a deputy chief commissioner. Lo and behold a general manager—or a chief executive as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 173—will also be appointed. I must remind United Future that none of those commissioners or the chief executive will be paid at the lower end of the scale—they definitely will not be. By the time the bureaucracy that has to surround all those officers is in place—the people who will be employed to carry out the research and clerical functions—we will be looking at a giant expensive bureaucracy. When we come down to it we could have called this bill the “Building a Bureaucracy Bill” or the “Biggest Best Bureaucracy Bill”. It is foolish to test the water with both feet by building such a huge bureaucracy. 
New Zealand First would have definitely supported the appointment of a family commissioner to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children plus some additional researchers to carry out research on “families’ resilience” and “families’ strengths” as the Supplementary Order Paper phrases it—whatever that might mean. With this bill the opportunity to support strong families has basically been dismissed. That $28 million could have been better spent in other ways. We believe that unfortunately this giant bureaucracy will not deliver what is required for children and for families in New Zealand. 
I also would like to correct United Future on a point that its members constantly make as they try to ensure that they have a monopoly claim on families—which they do in a rather condescending manner. I remind that party that family-friendly policies were around prior to its coming to Parliament and they will be around long after it leaves. 
The Families Commission will not do exactly what United Future believes it will do. We all know even without a Families Commission that the family is fundamental to the optimal development of children and that many current social problems are the result of a lack of support of that traditional institution. I would like to think that the legislation introducing the proposed commission would have recognised that but I believe that in this instance it absolutely fails to do so and will just exacerbate the current situation. The cumbersome structure that is proposed in the bill and the duplication of tasks that are undertaken by a whole lot of other agencies mean that the goals of the commission will never be realised despite the eloquence of United Future members. New Zealand First believes that the commission is totally neutered. It is political expediency and a sell-out of traditional New Zealand families. It was most interesting too to see that the appointment process for the commissioners is not included in this legislation. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Families Commission Bill. It is very worrying that the creep of political correctness that this bill represents is now overwhelming New Zealand society. This bill promotes a view that all family types are equal. Instead of supporting the traditional nuclear family structure which has been the cornerstone of society for ever as demonstrated by all the evidence this bill is now promoting divergence and difference and stating that those are the types of family structures that we in New Zealand should be celebrating. My having said all of that is not to say that other family groups are not successful and do not do a wonderful job in raising children because they do. There are many families that struggle against enormous odds and manage to raise wonderful children in the face of very difficult challenges. But surely the role of Government and of legislation is to promote success—to actually promote the type of organisation or structure that will achieve success for the majority of citizens. 
That used to be the goal of Government and the role of legislation. But then my experiences are of what used to happen before a socialist Labour Government came along. Many of us in Opposition are learning about socialism under the term of the Labour Government because the socialist-feminist agenda promoted by the Government is to undermine the traditional family to undermine the role of fathers in the family to promote diversity and to promote instability and—guess what—by doing those things the Labour Government simply promotes a growing group of people who rely on a strong Government to provide support for them. That is Labour’s agenda. It does not want to see families consisting of people who are strong and able to get on with their lives independently of the State because those people in general do not vote for a socialist Government. 
I feel really disappointed on behalf of all those good New Zealanders who voted for United Future because they thought that party would come into Parliament and promote and support the family unit. When those people look at this bill they see that the United Future party has essentially sold out. It has sold out to a socialist Government that wants to undermine the nuclear family. A whole bunch of people who put those eight MPs into Parliament must be sitting there right now wondering what on earth they did at the last election. What we now have is a party that has sold out to the Labour Government. United Future is now supporting Labour’s anti-family agenda. United Future members might say that is not correct but I urge them to read about the historical roots of socialism and to understand what it is that socialist parties are engaged in and then to have a look at the record of this Labour Government. They will find that it is doing everything to undermine the family in spite of its fine words. 
What we now have is United Future undermining the family to the tune of $28 million of taxpayers’ money. The Families Commission Bill will create a huge bureaucracy. I understand that the Commissioner for Children’s funding is in the region of $1 million. The funding for the Families Commission is 28 times larger. Although the bill makes the functions of the commission sound really good in Parliament today we are passing legislation that will give $28 million to supporting an agenda that denigrates the nuclear family marginalises fathers encourages dependency and makes the situation of families in New Zealand a lot worse. That is why the ACT party is opposing this bill. It is costing us $28 million. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I always like to follow the words of Dr Muriel Newman because they are nothing short of entertaining—always. They are something like  
The X Files 
 I always find: the entire world is a series of conspiracies. It is an amazing mind to try to get inside when one listens to Dr Muriel Newman talk. I notice that over the last little while there have been a large number of her articles in which she has been raving on in a very similar fashion on the net. They are often sent off to newspapers or publications. I have not seen one single one of them published and I imagine that that is because people can recognise stupidity when they see it. 
I want to reflect on what I think are the two core points that have been made by— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that this debate is a robust one but I think that the Minister just tipped over the edge a little in terms of denigration back then. If you had have been listening very carefully you might have pushed him a little back on to the straight and narrow in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say two things to the member. The first is that under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 people are allowed leeway in order to respond to the previous speaker. Secondly members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It is personal reflections that are out of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I want to reflect on what I think are two core points that have been made in this debate. The first I guess—and I respect this point of view—is that we should not do it. The view that we should just not have a Families Commission would seem to be the point made by most of the people who are speaking on the Opposition side of the Chamber. But we are going to do it and we are going to do it not because the Families Commission is a sop to United Future but because this is a minority Government. In other words parties get to advance a range of policies in a public relations environment that they would not get elsewhere. Just as New Zealand First advanced policies when it was in coalition with the National Party we are seeing in this Parliament the advancing of a policy that comes from a party other than the Government. There is nothing of a sop about that; it is simply a fact of life that parties can do that now in this environment. Frankly I welcome that. I think it is a good thing that we have a multi-party environment where other ideas can rise to the surface and can be advanced and debated in this Chamber. In this case United Future has quite properly made that possible. 
The second point that people frequently make really hinges around whether we should advance privilege and only talk about one kind of family—which is usually referred to I have to say as the traditional nuclear family. We could get into a very long debate about that but I say to people that I do not think members mean what they are advancing. The traditional nuclear family as it is often called is a relatively recent invention even in Western society. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Not an invention. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Well it is a way of organising the family that stems largely from Victorian times in Britain. If Ms Tariana Turia were here—but Taito Phillip Field is—she would refer as he refers to the traditional family whether Maori or from the Pacific Islands as an extended form of family which may well have seen grandparents or aunties and uncles bringing up children rather than their biological parents. Those societies would certainly have relied on a large network of people who may or many not have been biologically associated with those children and they would traditionally have had that family structure for a long period of time. So the notion that we would start to say we should have a piece of legislation that defends the traditional nuclear family as people have said because it goes back to Genesis is just factually wrong and stupid to talk about. It is a stupid thing to say and it has no merit because it does not reflect history. Nor does it reflect the direct experience of a large number of people in this Parliament. 
The other thing we are told about the nuclear family being traditional is that it is made up of mum dad and the kids. In the sense that we usually applied that in New Zealand it meant mum being at home and looking after the kids and dad being at work. Now I know that Katherine Rich does not support that. I do not criticise her at all for being here in Parliament. It is her right to organise her family in a way that she believes will serve her children well— 
Phil Heatley 
: You’re so generous. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not being generous. I am just saying that when we get up and advance those ideas about the traditional nuclear family we should realise we have already passed on from that tradition in this country. Everybody in this Parliament supports the new organisation because they support the right of women to choose to go to work—to go outside the home to earn a living. They also support quite rightly the fact that it may be that males stay at home and provide the ongoing care of children. So let us not get hung up on a silly notion that this debate is about the traditional nuclear family being somehow dragged out of history and preserved in legislation—as if the family ever existed in that form traditionally or as if anybody in this Parliament wants it to exist in the way that perhaps my mother and father experienced it with my mother staying at home to look after us and the breadwinner dad working outside the home. We do not believe in that any more in this Parliament and the notion that we would preserve it in legislation in this way is clearly something that no one wants. Those are empty debates. 
I suggest therefore that the most sensible line of argument that has come through here today—and I have heard it from National speakers as well as from speakers all around this Chamber—is that we should not be arguing about the form of the family but should want good outcomes from every kind of family. No one in this Chamber doubts that it is a good idea for kids to be brought up by their parents. That is a great idea to have. I was brought up by my parents; I liked that. I am sure there are other people all around here who also experienced that—but other people who did not. Yes it is good if kids can stay with their parents and be brought up as children by them but of course that is increasingly not the case in this society. We have extended families we have whanau and we have sole parent families—we have a diversity of families. Should we not as a Parliament be dedicated as speakers have said to the functions of all kinds of families? 
I heard before from a National Party speaker that the key functions of families are easy to detect. It is common sense as well as research-founded knowledge that if kids get good support from families if they get good nurturing if they get love and if they get consistent boundaries for their behaviour they will be pretty well certain to turn out OK. I hope that the Families Commission will commit itself to ensuring that every child comes out of every kind of family with those outcomes. That is what I hope. Some kind of notion that it will dedicate itself to advancing only one kind of fictitious form of family would be a complete travesty of public policy and I do not think anybody in the Committee would want us to have that. We want mums to be able to work outside the home. We want fathers to take responsibility for their kids all the way through their lives. We want children to grow up in an environment where they will become dependable adults just as they hopefully are able to depend on adults to bring them up. That is the kind of vision I think that United Future has been expressing extremely well and that is why the Government has been comfortable to facilitate this bill and put it through. 
I know that when I sit down we will go back to a silly debate about the traditional nuclear family and so on but I want to put on the record the fact that we as a Government stand for kids coming out of every single kind of family with the best possible outcomes. That is what we stand for that is the vision of the Families Commission and that is what it is hoped the Families Commission will achieve. If it does that then every kid in this country will be thankful. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I commend the Minister for his exposition of what I take it is United Future’s and his vision for the family. It is great but I do not think that the Families Commission is the way to realise it. The first thing I would like to point out about this part of the bill is in relation to the Government amendment to clause 7(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey which states: “… the Commission must identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance … (a) families’ resilience: (b) families’ strengths.” That sounds all well and good and uses the latest in politically correct sociological jargon but I ask what exactly it means in terms of the context and functions of the Families Commission. 
Is that organisation going to carry out strength-based social work practice with abused and neglected children as Department of Child Youth and Family Services staff continue to try to do against the odds? Will the commission work alongside families on benefits who are heavily in debt with never enough money to live on in order to help parents to find the strength within themselves to carry on living without abusing and neglecting their children? Will we see the families commissioners out in the community helping the parents of children with special needs to access the full educational health and other services they so badly need in the face of systemic intransigence and a failure to provide those services at the level that is needed? I do not think so. I do not think this $28 million Families Commission will be doing any of those things. Its functions as outlined in clauses 7 and 8 are not about any of those matters or about a myriad of other practical applications of assistance and strength-based practice to families in this country. I believe that using the language of social and community work practice and applying it here as that Supplementary Order Paper does deliberately creates a misleading impression of what this bill is about. 
Going on to the actual functions of the commission those revolve around advocating for families generally encouraging informed debate increasing public awareness of the importance of the parenting role promoting research into matters relating to families and a whole lot more in a similar vein. Does the Labour Government not understand that there is already a vast array of church and community organisations out there carrying out those very functions? Does Labour not realise that the Ministry of Social Development has hundreds of policy analysts already undertaking mountains of research on the sociology and economics of families and children in New Zealand? I am sure Labour does understand that all too clearly and as other colleagues from the Social Services Committee have already pointed out this commission is purely and simply an electoral trade-off that will not necessarily add anything at all to the sum total of good being done for families in New Zealand. I welcome the fact that the Minister has acknowledged that in the speech just prior to mine. 
In particular I cannot see the commission doing anything for low-income families who continue to suffer disproportionately despite the welcome decrease in unemployment and our so-called boom economy. The Government should not be pouring this money into a Families Commission. If it was serious about its Labour heritage and traditions it would instead put the $28 million into things like providing better funding for community groups that work at the grassroots level to help families in all their various forms. It would put the money into reforming the benefit system so that benefit levels are adequate and so that family support and family assistance apply right across the board to all families and keep pace with inflation. It would put the money into ensuring that both low-income worker and beneficiary families get all the entitlements they are allowed and into doing more to address the hardships generated by the way the benefit system operates including addressing issues around the abatement levels and the levels of debt repayment. 
Finally I believe that the Government should be prioritising the $28 million not into the Families Commission but into doing more to support existing commissions like the Children’s Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. It is ridiculous that we have the Children’s Commissioner and her staff trying to do a fantastically huge job with 12 staff and a budget of around $1.7 million a year while this new commission will get around $7 million a year. That is out of hand disproportionate and uncalled for and I think it will be a sad day when this bill goes through. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say I am somewhat surprised by United Future. If this was indeed its flagship policy the big win that it got when it knocked on Helen Clark’s door on 28 July 2002 to say it wished to be associated with her Government I would have thought that when we passed this flagship policy in the House United Future would demand of the Labour Party a clause by clause debate on the issues in this bill. But no it has not done that. I would even have thought that United Future’s leader Peter Dunne might have taken the time to take a call on the matter—but no. That is a huge disappointment for those of us in the Opposition opposing this bill. I will put some good questions to this Committee: why is this flagship policy not being debated clause by clause why did United Future not demand that it be debated clause by clause and why has Peter Dunne not taken a call on it? The answer is here on my left: Katherine Rich was quite right to say that it is simply because there is no substance to the bill. That is what she said. 
I was intrigued by Minister Maharey’s discourse on the family and on how wide-ranging it was. I was intrigued by his definitions of the family and how he encompassed all in his definition of the family. It was a beautiful thing to see him hug all and sundry in all the situations in the lives of New Zealanders. That was a great thing. I was intrigued that originally in this legislation “family” according to Minister Maharey encompassed gang members rugby teams and anyone else who had a psychological attachment and a deep love for one another. We have seen Minister Maharey spend some time on examining families in New Zealand. It will be a great relief to my mother to learn when she reads this bill that thankfully I still remain related to her and she to me. I am her son and she will be delighted at that. I only wish that my grandparents—Grandma Heatley which nobody would have guessed and on the other side of the family Grandma Needham—could have had Mr Maharey’s confirmation before they died that I was their grandson worthy of the great inheritance that would pass down to me: I am family I am blood and I carry the family mantle. I thank Mr Maharey for securing that for me. 
I guess I wish that I was a member of all the other families that Mr Maharey would have liked to see me be a member of: rugby clubs gangs the Mongrel Mob and various others. Perhaps I could have been a family for the National Party. Perhaps he would have encompassed me in Labour United Future or somewhere else. Mr Maharey would have liked to see me in all types of families. But no he has decided on the basis of his vast study that my grandparents and certainly my mother father sisters and even my children will be reassured by this bill that in fact “family” includes a group of people related by marriage blood adoption an extended family where there are two or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised group. Maharey says solo parent families are as good as traditional families. Good for him! I am glad he has taken the last 2 months to come up with that evidence and could give it to this Committee. Good for him! I am glad that he has confirmed that all the solo parents out there are doing the best they can in difficult situations—often struggling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member that he may not refer to a Minister by his or her surname. It must be by the full title or portfolio. That is in Speaker’s ruling 24/5. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Is “Minister Maharey” OK then? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Minister? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Maharey. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is acceptable. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: OK thank you Mr Chairman. Minister Maharey has said he has confirmed that all those family groups are doing very very well and are all successful in this country. That leaves one wondering why we need a Families Commission given that all families are successful and all can be recognised and acknowledged. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If anybody believes that this Act is to do something for the families of this country then I invite him or her to read the “Purpose”. I thought when I heard Peter Dunne describe this bill as the “Jewel in the Crown” of United Future’s political agenda then the purpose must be something worthwhile. “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish the Commission”. Then it goes on to say how important that is: “(b) state the Commission’s functions and powers: (c) require the Commission—(i) to have regard to certain matters; and (ii) to comply with certain other obligations.” That is the purpose of this Families Commission Bill. 
I thought there had to be more to it than that so I looked at the functions in clause 7: “Commission’s main function (1) The Commission’s main function is to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” That sounds all very fine. That sounds quite worthwhile. 
 “(2) That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” What the dickens is all this about? The commission will cost $28 million and will not look after a family or a group of families that have a particular problem or area of concern. Spending $28 million on a Families Commission $1.7 million we are told this afternoon on the Commissioner for Children and $28 million on this is an absolute disgrace. 
The definition of “family” in this bill is not good enough. It is too wide ranging. One might as well call this bill “The People’s Bill” as it defends everybody and everything but not specifically. In my name I have put an amendment to this particular part—a Supplementary Order Paper that defines “family”. It should go into the interpretation and I will read it: “Family means a family group including an extended family (a) in which there is at least one adult member and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” 
My amendment will preclude two homosexual males having the future rights to adopt children. Under the current Families Commission Bill that is not only distinctly possible it is more than likely. We heard United Future members stand up and say they supported the rights of children here there and everywhere. I say to this Committee and to those members in particular: is that what they want—homosexual males to be able to adopt children with equal rights to heterosexual parents? I do not believe that that is what United Future stands for. Certainly its support base does not believe that that is what it stands for. 
This bill went through the select committee and came out exactly as is. As a result of that the Hon Peter Dunne—if I can use the term the Hon Peter Dunne—wrote to every submitter or to a large proportion of submitters accusing political parties of being venal. I think the words he used were “unprecedented and venal political stunt”. “Venal” means “open to bribery and corruption”. I ask the United Future members and particularly Judy Turner—because she is playing a prominent role in this bill and I have stood on the political stage with her on many occasions—do they believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? 
Judy Turner 
: The meaning of the word is also “unprincipled”. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does she believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? The  
Oxford Dictionary  
defines “venal” as being “open to bribery and corruption”. Do they believe that Craig McNair is open to bribery and corruption? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not Craig! 
PETER BROWN 
: Or Barbara Stewart? Or my colleagues? I say to Mr Duynhoven that this is serious. I have taken real offence to this because that member the Hon Peter Dunne wrote to every submitter and accused the Opposition members—because we did not agree with this bill because it came back from select committee as is which is not unusual and I am sure he would agree with that—of being “venal”. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate. Hearing what the Opposition parties are trying to say in order to defend the indefensible position that they take against the families of New Zealand says more to us about what National ACT New Zealand First and the Greens believe about families than it does about anything else. They are quick to say that families are the foundational unit of our society; that families are failing at huge costs to the taxpayer; and that the benefits of the family are being lost as families disintegrate. But they have done nothing at all in this Parliament or previously to help resurrect the family and save that situation. 
What have National and New Zealand First—at the times that they have been in Government—done in order to help salvage the family to promote it and to strengthen it? Nothing whatsoever. Instead as soon as United Future arrived in this House New Zealand First and ACT immediately appointed spokespeople for the family. 
 All of a sudden they think they need a spokesperson for the family. They did not have one before. National probably because it was in disarray at that time or perhaps because it was so embarrassed that it has never had a spokesperson for the family took until a couple of months ago to appoint a spokesperson for the family. What have those spokespeople done? 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is meant to be a robust debate on a bill. This guy is going on about whether we have members with responsibility for the family. For his enlightenment I tell him that New Zealand First is firmly committed to the family always has been and has had a spokesperson on it for all of its terms in Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is not actually a point of order. The member is coming to the point now. I was giving him leeway under Speaker’s ruling 38/1. I ask him to come to the point. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I am interested to hear that New Zealand First is for the family. It may now change its vote and support this bill which is there in order to support the family. But let us just look at the two and only two arguments that have been put up against this bill by the Opposition parties. The first argument—typically Judith Collins’ comment—is that a family constitutes mum dad and the kids. Now this is a party that also at the same time says that it believes that a child’s welfare and best interests are paramount when it comes to family life. So what are they saying to the children of this nation? They are saying to them that if they are not in a situation with a mother and a father they do not belong to a family. They are saying to every child with a sole parent bringing that child up that he or she is not part of a family. They are saying to widows and widowers that they are not a family. They are saying to children being raised by their grandparents that they are not a family. New Zealand First is saying to children being brought up in a de facto situation that they are not part of a family. New Zealand First is saying to foster families that those children do not belong to families. They are saying to children whose parents have been killed and who— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would be keen to know what this guy stands for not what he thinks we are for or against. I draw your attention Mr Chairperson to the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table in my name on behalf of New Zealand First that clearly illustrates that we recognise de facto families. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. It is a debatable issue. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: If New Zealand First believes that de facto families are biologically or legally connected then I suggest they have another look at their definition. They are saying that children brought up by de facto families do not come within that definition. 
So what are we looking at in a families perspective? We are trying to find an environment and to strengthen families in New Zealand wherever children find themselves placed. United Future is looking at the welfare and best interests of children. We are saying to children that whatever environment they find themselves in we are setting up a commission that will look at strengthening that environment to improve their prospects in life. We are doing that by setting up a commission that will have an overarching look at the whole situation of families in New Zealand and at ways to improve that. 
That brings me to the second argument—the only other argument put up against this bill. It is an argument that has been put up by National and by ACT. They say that this is just a bureaucracy; that it is just putting money into an environment where it could be better spent at ground level. That is what the Greens say. When ACT and the Greens agree on something one has to think there is something suspicious about it. It is like saying to the All Blacks: “You don’t need a coach. Why should we pay for a coach to sit up there in the grandstand looking out of his window at the play and giving directions from above? Why don’t we just pay the players a little bit more money then they can go on the field and do what they think is best to do in running the team?”. 
The Families Commission will be a coach. It will provide an overarching view of families. It will look at what is happening now in families. It will address where the problems are. It will look at what is lacking in families and family education. It will carry out and implement research to try to fill in the gaps in knowledge that we have about families and how they relate. Then it will encourage the direction of funding into those areas where we see there is a weakness. 
The argument Judith Collins put up that this is a bureaucracy typifies the approach that National takes in terms of all these policies which is: just keep throwing money at the grassroots instead of doing any planning at all any oversight or having any sense of direction. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for the honourable memberto have an extension of time of 1 minute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he cannot seek leave for another member. Please be seated. 
PETER BROWN 
: He has made some comments and I would like to know his view on homosexual adoption. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been warned by the previous Chairperson. 
PETER BROWN 
:Have I? Have I got a yellow card? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was not a point of order previously. 
Murray Smith 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Member 
: There was no point of order. 
Murray Smith 
:If the Committee wants to encourage me to have extra time I will seek leave for an extension to my time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member was absolutely right—there was no point of order. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. Craig McNair has been seeking the call. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I might have misheard but I thought that the member did actually seek leave and I thought that the question of leave should be put. 
Jill Pettis 
: He was only joking. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: No he sought leave. Maybe Madam Chair you could get the member to clarify that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on it. The member was speaking to a non-existent point of order. 
Murray Smith 
: Madam Chair I did seek leave for an extension. I did so at the invitation of New Zealand First whose members want to hear more of what I have to say. I will seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for an extension of time. He really should just seek another call—that is what he should be doing. But he can seek leave. Is there any objection to that? There is. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. During that point of order about seeking leave Jill Pettis was yelling across the Chamber: “He was only joking.” My understanding is that there is supposed to be silence in the Chamber as there is now when a member raises a point of order. If you are going to allow a member to shout across the House and put words in the mouth of the person taking the point of order that is unacceptable and I just raise that matter with you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There were actually about three people speaking during that seeking of leave. I give members an overall warning that there is no discussion at all during points of order. They will be heard in silence. Everyone knows that. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to this part I start by saying that any party that cares about the welfare of children must celebrate and support committed enduring family relationships. We in New Zealand First are not opposing this bill because of opposition to the family. We are not opposed to the family unit at all—whatsoever. But New Zealand First will continue to fight to protect our social fabric and traditional family values and that is the point we are trying to make here in our speeches. New Zealand First does not support the Government’s legislation for a Families Commission as it still fails we believe to properly define a family or to set out structures that will provide children with a safe environment and that is a major issue as my colleague Barbara Stewart mentioned in her speech. 
I believe that the bill introduced by the Government and supported by United Future still broadly defines the family group. Mr Baldock said in his speech that we should not exclude. But what is wrong with promoting a traditional proven family unit that has worked for 10 20 30 40 or 50 years? That is what we are getting at. This Government would have us believe that the two-parent family is history. It seems that the Government’s preference is to promote and support diverse family compositions almost to the exclusion of the two-parent mum and dad family. That is what I am trying to get at here. 
Moana Mackey 
: What? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I would like Moana Mackey to take a call on this but all she wants to do is move that the question be now put. If she disagrees with me why does she not take a call and tell me why she disagrees with me? 
I believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on promoting and supporting family structures that are independent that work and that have worked for the last 10 20 30 40 or 50 years and so on—right back to Adam and Eve. New Zealand First has always been an advocate of the importance of the family to the future of New Zealand. It is time for United Future and the Government I believe to stop being so PC and to ensure that traditional family values are not lost and I do not think that is too much to ask. 
New Zealand First has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the politically correct Families Commission as proposed by this Government. The social fabric of our society continues to be seriously eroded by the promotion of so-called liberal policies such as prostitution law reform—and I will not focus on that because I am not speaking about it. But the family is fundamental to the optimal development of children and many current social problems are a result of a lack of support for this traditional institution. The question we have to ask is whether this commission will better support the family unit and I say that in its current form it will not. How do we justify $28 million being spent on it? I have no problem with $28 million being spent on a Families Commission but not the commission in its current form. 
A couple of speeches ago my colleague Peter Brown said that in all fairness to United Future members they probably honestly do not believe in the current definition of the family and I saw that Murray Smith—I was probably the only one who noticed because I was at the back on the other side—disagreed with that comment by Mr Brown. Murray Smith honestly believed—it seems from what he was saying—that the current definition in Supplementary Order Paper 173 is a good definition and that his view on that issue has not changed. Well I do not think the people who voted for United Future support this definition in any way. United Future’s support of the Government over this bill has I believe cost United Future a lot of its credibility and has won its supporters nothing but the sop of a family commission where the definition of a family is likely to offend I would say most if not all of its supporters. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert the following definition in its appropriate place: 
Family 
 means a family group including an extended family— 
(a)In which there is at least 1 adult member; and 
(b)in which the members have a biological or legal relationship. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 This part includes the schedules I think. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes it does. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I can see—[ 
Interruption 
] I did check this with the Clerk before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to check the bill but I have been advised that the debate is on clause 60 which relates to schedule 4. Clause 60 states: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” 
John Carter 
: Yes that is correct which covers a number of schedules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No just schedule 4 and then we take the schedules. 
John Carter 
:So are we having two separate debates? Are we having a debate now on just the amendments to schedule 4 and then there is a separate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just clarify that. It is my understanding— 
John Carter 
:My understanding is that Part 2 covers all the schedules but if there are two debates that is fine. We are very happy with that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will just double-check the resolution from the— 
David Benson-Pope 
: On the agreement of the Committee and on the agreement of Mr Carter I would be pleased to ask for leave for there to be one debate on this part and the schedules. That would accommodate Ms Rich. 
John Carter 
:I do not know that the member will get leave. 
David Benson-Pope 
: One question rather than two would be sensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is objection. We will just be very clear that we are now debating Part 2 which contains clause 60: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” So members can speak to schedule 4 now then can speak to the rest of the schedules in the next question. 
John Carter 
: So there are two questions to be addressed? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It was very interesting to hear the contribution from Murray Smith on this bill and to see that although he sought leave to extend his time to speak about this bill that leave was denied by Labour. I had thought that the whole point of this Committee stage from the perspective of United Future was to sing the praises of this bill from the rooftops. So it is interesting that the Committee stage is being rushed through. I can understand why. I can see why the Minister would be embarrassed to have to sit in the chair while we discuss the various parts in the bill. He knows that this Families Commission will do nothing for the most disadvantaged families in New Zealand. I think if the Minister were able to make decisions about the $28 million he would prefer to put that sum into areas like the Department of Child Youth and Family Services or Work and Income or into a new project to get people back into work or into something that would actually make a difference at the front line for New Zealand families. I was surprised to hear Murray Smith say he thought this Families Commission would be a coach of New Zealand families. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but clause 60— 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am getting there Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There are two matters in clause 60—let me explain. It relates to the Public Finance Act and to provisions of the Ombudsmen Act. So the debate is very narrow. There will be a wider debate on the schedules. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I seek clarification. I do understand though that I am able when I take a call to refer in passing to comments that have been made by other members before I get on to other parts of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member must be relevant to what is being spoken to. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Clause 60 relates to schedule 4 which looks at amendments to other Acts and it is very important to see there reference to the Public Finance Act. I think that once again gives me an opportunity to talk about the expenditure that this Government will have to make to put in place the Families Commission. This bill was set out— 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a very narrow clause and all that the amendment to schedule 4 does is insert in that Act the words “Families Commission”. It does not bring in any other matters that the member could possibly canvass in the way she is doing. The legislation has been to a select committee. My submission to you Madam Chair is that she is totally out of order in her comments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a narrow debate. It is about the Families Commission and the provisions within the Public Finance Act only. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. If you look at Part 2 “Amendments to other Acts” which includes clause 60 “Amendments set out in Schedule 4” you will see it is very difficult to debate this clause without making reference to schedule 4 which I was doing before I was rudely interrupted by that member. I was making reference to the Public Finance Act. 
Mark Peck 
: It is a very simple matter. Part 2 deals with amendments to other Acts of Parliament. The other Acts of Parliament are simply being amended by the insertion of two words “Families Commission”. There is no wide debate on that. All that the speaker can possibly do within the Standing Orders is to say whether “Families Commission” should be included in the two pieces of legislation being amended by clause 60 which is Part 2 of this bill—nothing more nothing less. The bill has been to a select committee. The member has been here for some time; she should know that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. However the part is about the commission relating to the Public Finance Act and all the provisions within that Act. I think the member was trying to get to that. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I sat on the select committee that discussed this bill. I have read the bill unlike that member over there who took no part in evaluating the Families Commission Bill. As I said I was speaking to Part 2. Part 2 relates to amendments to other Acts. If members look at clause 60 they will see that it states: “Amendments set out in Schedule 4.” I challenge that member over there to tell me how one debates Part 2 without making reference to schedule 4. It states: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” Although schedule 4 looks like a small amendment to that member in terms— 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will not sit here and listen to the member’s reflections on me in that respect. I ask her to withdraw and apologise for her derogatory comments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member was being interrupted by you Mr Peck. I think the member is entitled to a fair go in relation to what she was speaking about—that is the Public Finance Act. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I would like to clarify one point. When I was speaking about a small amendment to the bill I was not referring to that member over there although he obviously took it as that. I was referring to very significant pieces of legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is entitled to a fair speech. Would the member please desist now. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It seems that there are a few sensitivities flying around today. 
Although the insertion of the words “Families Commission” into the Ombudsmen Act in schedule 4 looks like a small one it is actually quite a significant change in this case because it means that the Ombudsmen Act now oversees this particular bill. Likewise for the Public Finance Act in respect of which schedule 4 states: “Insert in the Fourth Fifth Sixth and Seventh Schedules in each case in its appropriate alphabetical order the following item: ‘Families Commission’.” We see two small words but it just goes to show that when one sets up a $28 million bureaucracy like this one has to rewrite lots of other pieces of legislation at great cost to the community. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If I understand it correctly schedule 4 is quite a significant amendment. By putting the Families Commission under the control of the Ombudsmen Act we are saying that Family Commission matters for want of a better term can be ruled upon by the Ombudsman. Maybe the Minister will give us some guidance on that. Is that not what this measure means? Does it mean that the Ombudsman can look at issues that stem from the Families Commission? Maybe Mr Peck can explain that to me because it is a sincere question. 
I thought the Ombudsman looked at individual cases. If people have an issue about something then they write to the Ombudsman—that was my understanding. The bill states: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families in connection with a particular case or issues.” We are actually putting this bill under the control of the Ombudsman but we are saying that individual families or a collection of families with an individual problem cannot go to the Ombudsman to ask that it be solved. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: I would answer the question but the member is being silly again. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister has said something. I think everybody would appreciate some guidance. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Wasting my time. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is wasting his time. He cannot be bothered. The truth is that the Minister does not know. Maybe United Future members can tell us—they are claiming the credit for this bill. Does putting this commission under the control of the Ombudsmen Act give people who are appealing to the Families Commissioner the right to write to the Ombudsman if they get a less than satisfactory answer? If it does not what is the point of putting it under the Ombudsman’s charge? Why do we bother putting it there if the Ombudsman cannot have any say on an individual family issue? 
I think that that is a legitimate question. I ask anybody on the Government benches including United Future members to explain how the Ombudsman can have control over the Families Commission but not have any say in matters that affect an individual family who might have approached the Families Commission for a solution. Maybe the officials can answer as there is dead silence from Government members. Maybe the officials will know—I see they are looking at something. I think the officials have recognised that there is a valid point here. Maybe the Minister would like to consult them and explain to the Committee. 
This has not gone through the select committee process in the normal sense and I think we are entitled to know whether the Ombudsman could have a conflict here. Could a family that writes to the Ombudsman over a particular issue involving the Families Commission be told by the Ombudsman that he or she cannot get involved because the commission cannot deal with individual family cases? If it is the case that there is no right of appeal from the Families Commission to anywhere why are we spending $28 million and saying that this bill is in the interests of children and families when it is not? 
If putting this commission under the Ombudsmen Act just means that the Family Commissioner can go to the Ombudsman for any problem that he or she might have in the operation of the Families Commission why do we not say so? The impression one gets by reading this bill is that the Ombudsman will be open to families who have some concern about the way the Family Commissioner does his or her job. But we then look at the function and as I said earlier it does not allow the commission to act as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue. That does not make sense to me but I am but a simple sailor and I think the Minister should take a call to explain how that rests with him and how he understands it will work in practice. Indeed I invite United Future members to take a call because this bill is meant to be the jewel in their crown. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 We are discussing schedule 4 which as we know is to make sure the Families Commission is in line with the Ombudsmen Act and the Public Finance Act. We have legislation here that will cost the taxpayers $28 million and it has to be inserted under the provisions of the Public Finance Act so that Parliament can not only appropriate that taxpayers’ money but also adequately scrutinise the spending of it. The Public Finance Act provides a framework for the parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s management of the assets and liabilities of the Crown and we are now talking about a $28 million spending line. It provides for a select committee to scrutinise the work and performance of the Families Commission to make sure it is doing what it is it is set up to do. 
That is where we will have some trouble in the future because as we go further in this debate it appears to me that what the Government is setting up is basically a $28 million spin-machine to indoctrinate New Zealand with its view of the family—with its world view so to speak as it relates to social issues. That is a great concern to many New Zealanders particularly those people who really did think that the Government was going to support traditional families. We now understand very clearly that that is not the intention of this legislation. The Government’s agenda is simply to promote support and normalise diversity and marginalise what we have always thought of as being the normal type of family in New Zealand. 
I would also like to use this opportunity to respond to a statement made by the Minister about how traditional nuclear families are a relatively new invention. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: This is a debate. The Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No as we said before the member must speak to Part 2. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The other part has been dealt with. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify this point for me. This is a debate in the Committee stage of the Families Commission Bill. We are being given only one call per part in this debate. The Minister took a call and criticised my contribution to the last part. This is the first opportunity I have to respond to his criticisms. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member will be seated. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Are you telling me that I cannot respond to his criticisms? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows very well that members can speak only to the part that is being debated at the moment. I have already ruled on that point in this debate. Please continue. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I need to clarify my point. Can you tell me when members get to actually answer the personal criticisms made by Ministers against them? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows that that is a part of debate. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Well when? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That debate has finished. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the point. The member will be seated. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The fact the bill is also subject to the Ombudsmen Act means that we will be able to ask the Ombudsman to help us with questions on issues that the Families Commission would be working on. I suggest that one of the first issues the commission might have to deal with is the origins of the family. We will be able to ask the Families Commission questions under the Official Information Act about its research on the origins of the family which go back to the 11th century AD in spite of claims that the family is a modern precept. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Possibly back further than that. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Yes the family probably does go back much further. I have some new information from the library that shows that. 
However the Ombudsmen Act allows the Ombudsman to debate with the Minister and the commission if they refuse to give such information to members of Parliament. Members of the Opposition will probably be using the Ombudsman rather a lot under this Government because this Government is not open and transparent like it pretended to be when it was elected. In fact for most of the regular information asked from this Government under the Official Information Act we ended up by appealing to the Ombudsman. That is why the Ombudsman is so busy under Labour. 
However I am very pleased that the Ombudsman will be there to assist members of Parliament. When one looks at the projects the commission is set up to be able to do I suspect that it will be working on a lot of controversial information. In general it will be only through the Ombudsman that members of Parliament on the Opposition benches will be able to figure out what the commission is doing. 
The Public Finance Act means that members can question how the $28 million will be spent. That is a huge amount of money. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call on this part and also schedule 4. Certainly the intention is that the legislation would be able to dovetail into other appropriate legislative frameworks that exist and that is what this part reflects. It has always been the intention that the commission will be accountable for its actions and a framework is in place for it to be accountable for the work it puts out. 
People have talked about the fact that the commission is not given the mandate to investigate individual cases. There has been much accusation from the Opposition that this commission will duplicate the work of other agencies and that is the very reason why this clause has been put in. The predominant work of the commission will be to advocate for families in that general sense. However we certainly checked with the drafters at the time that submitters talked to us about that and it was very clear that there was nothing in the legislation that stops or forbids the commission from using a particular case where it illustrates a particular trend in families. It may illustrate that by referring to a particular family situation and advocate for a particular cause based around a particular circumstance that illustrates where that is happening to other people. In that case the Ombudsman may want to be involved or may want to be referred to. 
The commission will be obliged to refer to any other agencies where a case or a situation is presented to it that is not the direct mandate of the commission. Therefore again it may be appropriate for the commission to refer to the Ombudsman anything that comes across its path that is not its direct mandate to deal with. 
That is the obligation within the Act and it is strengthened absolutely within the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That is really all I wanted to say on that. This dovetails this legislation appropriately with the supporting legislation around it and we welcome it. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Clause 2 of schedule 1 is very important. It states that the functions of the commission must be performed “efficiently and effectively” by the board. That will prove to be very difficult because if one advocates for everything then one advocates for nothing. If one stands for everything then one ends up standing for nothing. So we come back again to the definition of what a family is and the definition of what the Families Commission will do once it is set up. According to the way the bill is set out the Families Commission covers every single New Zealander many times over. The National Party has argued that we already have a representative body of New Zealanders. It is called the New Zealand Parliament and if we look around this Chamber today we will see people who represent different groups around the country with a greater budget I have to say—[ 
Interruption 
] At least I have one I say to that member. 
In terms of the efficient and effective management of the Families Commission the board members will have to say that they cannot fulfil their obligations with such a nebulous and wide definition of what they are supposed to do. We heard from Murray Smith that the role of the Families Commission is supposed to be to act as a coach for all New Zealand families. With a budget of $28 million it will be very difficult for the commission to touch the lives of all New Zealand families. At the moment the definition is so broad that it includes every single New Zealander many times over. There will be significant duplication when it comes to the work the commission is to do. The policy group within the Ministry of Social Development already has hundreds of analysts studying the sorts of issues that this commission will look at. 
I can see why the Government has made sure that this bill has not had much time in the Committee and why it has been structured so that it comprises only a couple of parts. This is a very short bill and it really is an embarrassment to the Government. Government members know that this bill will not make a difference to New Zealand families. There is no way that the commission can provide effective and efficient advocacy for them when the organisation will be a bureaucratic nightmare because it stands for every New Zealander on a shoestring budget. This Parliament runs with a more significant budget than that; it is the true House of Representatives. Because the Government has not really tried to define what the Families Commission will actually do it will achieve very little. 
Likewise in clause 5 of schedule 1 there is a duty to act with honesty and integrity. If board members are to do that they will be saying that the Families Commission is a sham. The Families Commission will not achieve anything for New Zealand families; it will be just another bureaucracy sitting here in Wellington. Unfortunately it will not do anything to help the sorts of families we have seen in the news in the last couple of months—for example the family of Tamati Pokaia. Do members think the Families Commission would have made a difference to the life of that child? I think the answer is no. This bill is nothing more than feel-good legislation to keep afloat a group that is keeping the Government in power. If members of the board look at themselves in the mirror they will say that there is no way they can keep to the provisions of this part of the legislation. They cannot behave with honesty or integrity or keep a straight face while fulfilling their roles. We are going to see them travelling the country chanting: “Families are good families are good!” 
We all know that but let us not pretend that this legislation is anything more than the Government’s pay-off for the support of United Future. That is why we have not seen a robust debate from United Future. Its leader has not even taken a call. Murray Smith tried to extend his speaking time and Labour declined that. He actually wanted to talk more about the issue but was declined leave to do that by the Government. Some Government! 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will address my comments on the schedules first of all to the financial accountability that the commission will be required to maintain. That refers to the regular practices that any business or Government organisation would have to adhere to. But also I believe it refers to the issue of whether the money the commission is given is well spent. We have heard a great deal of criticism about the commission’s huge budget but we are very pleased that it is being given an adequate budget of $6 million a year to do its work. I believe that the commission will have no difficulty in seeing that the money is well spent. For years and years people have said it was time that we built fences at the top of the cliff instead of having ambulances at the bottom and that is exactly what the commission will be about. Spending $6 million a year in order to give the commission the opportunity and power to address some of the root causes of family breakdowns in our society is not in any way shape or form a waste of money when the results of family breakdowns cost us $5 billion to $6 billion. How could one ever suggest that spending $6 million is a waste of time if we can do something about reducing the huge amount of wastage that results from the breakdown of relationships and families throughout the country? 
The schedules also address the qualifications the commissioners need and the way they are to be appointed. It is thrilling to see the response in the community to the opportunity that is being provided by this legislation. That has been wonderful. I understand that at least 300 requests for the information packet have been received from people who want to apply to become commissioners. Unlike the Opposition parties which are just firing cheap shots at this legislation and saying it will be a waste of time a large number of good people out in the community see this bill as a fantastic opportunity not just to talk about the problems but to get involved roll up their sleeves apply for the job of commissioner and then be given the incredible responsibility and privilege of doing something for families in New Zealand. I applaud all of those who are beginning to engage now in the application process. I believe that some very very qualified people will be appointed as commissioners. 
I understand that the legislation provides for at least three full-time or part-time commissioners and that there can be a maximum of seven commissioners. They are the people who will make the difference. All the rest is just talk and hot air. All the discussion about the definition of “family” will mean absolutely nothing when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road and the commissioners begin to do what is needed in this country—that is to focus on the families and the situations that arise for many children across the country in terms of the appalling circumstances in which they live their lives. I believe that the commissioners will be able to interpret the requirements of this legislation. They will not be at a loss to know what their job is about. They will not be at a loss as to knowing the kind of family that produces the best kind of result. That is self-evident and has been so for thousands of years. But that is not the only task we are asking the commissioners to address; we are also asking them to address the needs of all children in New Zealand as has been said so very well already in this debate. I believe that the commissioners will serve this nation very well and we look forward to their final appointment. Good people I believe always know what to do. It is only some of those in this Chamber who spend their entire lives talking about what ought to be done and never actually accomplishing anything despite all the promises they have made who do not know what to do. 
Under Part 1 of this legislation the commissioners will even have the power to appoint committees to look into specific issues that need to be addressed. One of those issues is I believe the rate of marriage breakdown in our society. I believe that the commissioners—well-chosen people with a good background of experience in family matters perhaps in ministries that have been involved in helping people because I think that means a lot more than having a lot of academic qualifications—may well decide to use the powers given to them to appoint special committees that will look into ways of strengthening marriage in our society. They will look at ways to prevent the increasing rate of marriage breakdown and that will be an excellent thing. I believe the commissioners will also be able to use the powers given to them to address some of the consequences of family breakdowns. That is something that is not happening very well in society at this point and the Family Court definitely needs to have a committee that can look into it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak to schedule 1 and particularly to clause 2 “Functions must be performed efficiently and effectively and in manner consistent with spirit of service to public”. I know that our faith in the public service justifies our belief that correct accounting practices will be followed as mentioned by the previous speaker. I have no doubt that those accounts will be audited fairly closely. I was quite interested to hear from the previous speaker about the application process that has been followed particularly when as far as I am aware no advertisements should have been placed at this point in time. 
Larry Baldock 
: They’ve been in the paper. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It is interesting that the advertisements have been in the paper the member tells me before the bill has passed through Parliament but I suppose I should not be surprised by that at all. 
Clause 2 of schedule 1 says that the functions must be performed “efficiently and effectively”. They are suitably vague terms. They are very difficult terms to measure and even more difficult to define particularly when it comes to something like the Families Commission. How will the public or even the Government know whether the commission has ever met its goals or whether it has had value for the dollars that have been spent? While I can appreciate that these terms need to be very broad I think that unless we can be sure that we will get some efficiency and effectiveness from this commission we need to have it further defined. 
We do know that this commission advocates for everything and it will be very difficult to measure the commission against even the main functions that have been set up. As previous speakers have said it appears the commission is set up to normalise diversity so how on earth can efficiency and effectiveness be measured? I come from a corporate background and I know that efficiency and effectiveness are very difficult to measure and justify. I really wonder how this will be done. 
I also wonder who will carry out this audit of performance on efficiency and effectiveness. Will it be the Minister’s office? Will it be United Future? The United Future member talked about accountability but how can this broad general measure ever be used to hold people to account? I really do wonder. Will it be the amount of research that is completed and published? We do not quite know. How will we measure efficiency and effectiveness if other agencies are also carrying out the same functions as we have heard many many times? So when I look at clause 2 I really have to wonder how it will be done. I will be most interested to see how it is done. I will be looking at those audits very very closely having been involved in that area. 
I turn to the membership of the commission. I note that there will be three full-time commissioners and three part-time commissioners. I will be most interested to see what they achieve. The bill does not set out the exact role that each one will carry out. That has been left suitably vague so that I suppose anything that can be carried out will be carried out. It has not been defined as to whether one commissioner will be focused on research; one focused on marriage and the traditional nuclear family which has been talked about quite often in this Committee stage; or even one focused on solo parents. Who knows? I will be most interested to see what role the commissioners will be carrying out. 
I know when we have a term of office of 3 years I would want to be sure that the commissioners achieve what they set out to achieve. I know that achievement means different things to different people but I am really concerned when I look at the term “efficiency and effectiveness”. Is that how the commissioner will be assessed at the end of the year or at the end of the 3 years? I really do wonder. While I can agree that it is quite good to have that term so general as a member of the public or as a member of the Government and the Opposition I wonder how on earth this commission will ever be measured. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to spend a bit of time looking at schedule 2 of this bill because that is the schedule that talks about how the commissioners will be appointed. In particular clause 1(2)(b) states that the Minister: “may only appoint a person who in the Minister’s opinion has appropriate skills and experience to assist the Commission to perform its functions;”. That is “in the Minister’s opinion”—a Minister who told us just a few minutes ago in this debate that marriage was a recent phenomenon. In fact history shows that it goes back between 2000 and 4000 years to the beginning of time. 
I really worry about this Minister. The other day at a conference he stated: “I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds.” He claims to have been a sociologist in his past academic career before he came into Parliament but I would like to quote now from a piece that appeared in the  
New York Times 
 from a professor of sociology who stated: “Yet in three decades of work as a social scientist I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on the side of the issue. On the whole for children two-parent families are preferable.” 
This is a Minister who will be the judge of who can be a commissioner. United Future members might have one set of ideas about what the commissioners will do but this Minister has another. This is a Government that funded research some time ago that was meant to prove why teenage pregnancy is good for girls. I remember questioning it at the time. Clause 1(2)(d) of schedule 2 provides that when the Minister appoints a person as commissioner he or she must take into account “the desirability of promoting diversity in the membership of Crown entities.” In other words it will not be the best people for the job; it will be the politically correct view of who should be appointed as commissioners. It will be whether they match in with the Labour Government’s agenda of making sure that it has diversity in the public service when what most New Zealanders want to see in any role in Government or the bureaucracy is people appointed because they are the best for the job. 
I would like to look at clause 8 which talks about how commissioners can be removed. I have to tell any potential commissioners out there to be very cautious because clause 8(1) provides that: “The Minister may at any time and for any reason that in the Minister’s opinion justifies the removal remove a member from office by written notice to the member.” It can be done with as little formality as possible. If the Minister does not like what the commissioner is saying doing or writing then he or she can remove the commissioner without any recompense or comeback at all. There is no compensation for removal from office. In other words the commissioners are appointed by the Minister at the Minister’s behest and they can be removed at any time by the Minister. 
One of the core reasons why our party would not be supporting this bill even if we did think it was a good idea is that the commissioners will be appointed solely by the Minister. They will be the type of people who will do what the Minister wants them to do and who will go along with his agenda. If at any time they start to stray and get into issues that most New Zealanders would think that they should be looking at and working on and the Minister does not like it because it is not part of his politically correct agenda he can just remove them. They will not have any recompense at all. It would be very good for the Minister to take a call right now just to tell members about those two things. It sounds pretty much like a dictatorship with the Minister Mr Maharey as the complete and utter controller of this commission. 
Maybe there are more checks and balances in there. I know that when the select committee looked at this bill we did not go into this part of it in a great deal of detail. Are there rights that the commissioners have so that the Minister cannot come out of the blue and say: “I do not like what you are doing or what you are saying. You have got to go.”? I would like to know whether there are safeguards in there for those commissioners. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Procedure 
The Chairperson reported the bill without amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 86 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; United Future 8. 
Noes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.