Rich Katherine: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Rich Katherine: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10288] 
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.