McNair Craig: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
McNair Craig: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13104] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commission for the Family Bill be now read a first time. 
 My intention is for this bill to replace the existing Families Commission Act of 2003. In speaking on the Commission for the Family Bill I would like to thank those members who seem to have more pressing issues to address than to speak to their bills in the House this evening. Obviously that has allowed my bill to move up the Order Paper very quickly. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. 
Sadly despite United Future’s best intentions in getting the Families Commission established through its confidence and supply arrangement with Labour the compromises those members chose—and I highlight the word “chose”—to make with the politically correct liberal cabal within Labour has meant that this issue needs to be reviewed urgently. We in New Zealand First have two fundamental issues with United Future’s Families Commission Act. 
I refer first to the definition of “family”. Definitions are important in legislation as we all know because when they are too broad or vague they become meaningless. The definition in the United Future Act is a clear sign of its capture by politically correct Labour. United Future will say that the definition is broad so as to include all types of family in New Zealand. However we should ask ourselves this question: does it sound like the language of United Future to include such a wide description of families or do we think it might just be Labour’s influence? This is the fate of a lapdog party forced to yield its values to its master. Why on the one hand would United Future spend so much time and money attacking the Civil Unions Bill when in the Families Commission Act it has already opened the gate on those relationships? 
Let me make it clear that we understand that there are different living arrangements out there. We do not have our heads in the sand. However it is not our intention to support living arrangements that quite frankly stretch the imagination to consider them families. United Future—particularly Mr Alexander—will say that no children should be excluded due to the nature of their living relationship. We say that is the role of the Children’s Commissioner not the Families Commission. We in New Zealand First know what a family really means. 
Marc Alexander 
: What is it? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The  
Oxford Dictionary 
 would help the member. The definition of a family is defined in my bill as such in clause 4 “Interpretation”. It 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”. That is unlike the definition in United Future’s Families Commission Act which states in section 10(2): “In this section ‘family’ includes a group of people related by marriage blood or adoption an extended family 2 or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised family group.” 
Hon Member 
: It includes the cat and the dog. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is right; basically it does include the cat and dog. That definition leaves open the possibility for policy makers to define what a family is and we have mentioned that many a time. We in New Zealand First say that is not good enough. Parliament must make these decisions not faceless bureaucrats. 
Our second major concern with the Families Commission Act relates to the function of the commission. I would like to compare the functions of the commission in United Future’s Families Commission Act with those in my New Zealand First Commission for the Family Bill. Section 8 in Part 1 of United Future’s Act—which is equivalent to clause 12 in Part 2 of my bill—highlights the additional functions of the commission and states: “(a) to encourage and facilitate informed debate by any of the following persons on matters relating to the interests of families: (i) representatives of government academic and community sectors; and (ii) members of the public:”. Members should compare that with clause 12(1) in my bill which gives as the first additional function: “(a) to promote the status of families and the role of parents:”. We cut to the chase in this bill. It goes straight to the heart of the issues that families in this nation are going through. 
There is no politically correct drivel in my bill unlike another additional function in United Future’s Act which states: “(c) to encourage and facilitate the development and provision by Ministers of the Crown departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of policies designed to promote or serve the interests of families:” Again these functions leave open the possibility for direction from members of the executive of the Government at the time. 
Peter Brown 
: This is United Future’s Act? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes that is right. I quickly want to read out the general functions in New Zealand First’s Commission for the Family Bill. Clause 12(1) states: “(a) to promote the status of families and the role of parents: (b) to ensure all policy development reflects the fundamental needs of families and their children: (c) to provide a family mediation service to support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services:”. 
Peter Brown 
: Marriage! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I know it is amazing—we have used that word “marriage”. It goes on to state: “(d) to facilitate family support and parental education classes: (e) to improve co-ordination of government departments: (f) to receive and invite representations from members of the public on any matter that relates to the welfare of the family: (g) to increase public awareness of matters that relate to the welfare of the family: (h) to promote in relation to decisions that affect the lives of the family the participation of the family in those decisions: (i) to report with or without request to the Minister on matters affecting the rights of the family: (j) to inquire generally into and report on any matter including any enactment or law or any practice or procedure that relates to the welfare of the family.” 
I wonder why United Future members went quiet when I was reading out those additional functions. The reason is that they have heard it before because I was reading out what they had in their manifesto. This is what they actually promised to the people of New Zealand. This is what Mr Alexander promised to the people of New Zealand and all of a sudden he is quiet—he is not talking any more. 
Barbara Stewart 
: He’s looking at his papers. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: He is looking into his desk. The functions I read out are what they promised the people of this nation. At the end of the day all they could do was to come up with some liberal garbage. They did not have the guts to stand up for the supporters and people who voted them into this Parliament. That is a disgrace and an absolute outrage and they will pay for it come the next election. 
We are giving United Future and the other parties in this Parliament the chance to support something of substance. We have ensured that this bill is written in language they can understand. Marc Alexander I think can understand it because it was in his party’s manifesto. 
Barbara Stewart 
: They’re quiet now. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes they are very quiet. We have ensured that the bill is written in simple language. Unlike United Future’s Act my legislation is littered with the words “families” and “parents” as we have just heard and “marriage” as well. It does not have politically correct alternatives aimed at fudging the issues. We call on all parties that really support families and do not apply just lip service to that to support my bill. This is a chance to correct the blatant errors of the earlier Act. 
In closing I acknowledge my colleague Dail Jones who in his maiden speech some 20 years ago made reference to the importance of having a families commission. I look forward to the support of the rest of the parties in this House.