Roche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Families Commission Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9194. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): The Greens will continue to oppose this bill the Families Commission Amendment Bill. We oppose this bill because we believe that the number of changes that the Government wishes to introduce will not serve the interests of families in New Zealand. We remain concerned that this bill dilutes the governance of the Families Commission and neuters its ability to provide free and frank and independent advice. The commentary on the bill states under the heading “Introduction” that the aim of the bill is to improve decision making in the social sector which we agree is a laudable aim. However we are not convinced that this bill will deliver that.Since the introduction of the Families Commission through legislation in 2003 the commission has been a strong advocate for families in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is perhaps best known for its flagship work campaigning around the eradication of domestic violence—in particular the White Ribbon campaign and we sincerely hope that that campaign will not be undermined by the proposed changes. As part of its advocacy role the commission has in the past developed research and providedsubmissions to Government select committees and to councils as well—to name just a couple of examples.In February it made submissions to the Auckland Council’s gambling policy review where it acknowledged that the council’s recommended draft sinking-lid policy would reduce harm to families and therefore the commission supported that policy.Also in February it made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Government’s Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill where it outlined how the changes to the Family Court process could have a negative effect on children and families and that the proposed introduction of costs for Family Court relationship counselling services could be a barrier for some families needing to access the court. This submission also pointed to the need for more research into the needs of whānau particularly when negotiating care contact and financial arrangements for children especially given that 30 percent of parties to the Family Court are Māori.The Families Commission also makes the case for having a role in monitoring and evaluating the impact that the Family Court changes will have and I would say that it would also have a role in evaluating the impacts of the two bills that preceded this one through the House tonight. On the Family Court bill it says that “It is crucial that outcomes particularly for those most vulnerable and for children are assessed. Independent evaluation of the delivery of [Family Court proceedings] will also be necessary. If services are provided for children—these should be trialled and evaluated as well.” Please note that I stress the word “independent”—independent advice independent research independent assessment and independent evaluation. This has been the common theme from many of the submissions the Social Services Committee heard during the hearings process.Out of the 11 submissions received eight were opposed to the Families Commission Amendment Bill. There was a common theme and the major concern was that shifting the social policy evaluation and research unit from where it has previously sat within the Ministry of Social Development to the Families Commission would mean it will be used to provide evidence that reinforces the ideology of the Government’s reforms. This was signalled by the wording in the original clause 7 of the Families Commission Amendment Bill which talked about the functions of the commission being: “to identify opportunities where evidence and research will assist in determining or achieving the Government’s priorities in the social sector”.I acknowledge that several amendments have been suggested to clarify this particular wording but I remain unconvinced that the bill will enable the level of independence that we need in the social services sector. I note that politicisation of the commission has already begun. It is already under way. My colleague from Labour the honourable Rajen Prasad has already noted some of the appointments of commissioners.Last year in particular the Families Commissioner Carl Davidson contradicted the Families Commission’s own reports from 2010 and 2007 which said that extending paid parental leave to 12 months would be hugely beneficial to families and children and to the country. Mr Davidson was appointed to the commission by Minister Bennett in 2010. Concerns about appointments were also highlighted during the select committee process.In particular there was concern about the appointments and the role of the social science experts panel. We do not have any major concerns with the idea that research should be peer reviewed; in fact it is best practice. However we are not convinced that the social science experts panel has a role in this. We are particularly concerned about the lack of clarity around appointments to this panel and the details around their roles.Originally the bill said that there would be four members of this panel. However the report as it has come back to the House suggests that there should be an amendment soit is a minimum of four and can be extended. Even so I remain unsure about whether these people will have the required expertise to review research independently and with rigorous academic scrutiny.This view is shared by the Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children which said in its submission that it was concerned that these panel members “Would be appointed on the combined recommendation of the Minister for Social Development and Chief Science Adviser” because they believed that it did not allow enough independence from the Government. This group echoed my concerns which I raised in my first speech on this bill about the worrying trend by this Government to use ministerially appointed advisory groups.The Auckland coalition also stated that when the Government appoints the members of the social science experts panel it raises concerns of Government interference in the conduct and publication of social science research. It recommends that monitoring and evaluation work be carried out by clearly independent third parties.It goes on to say—and I think it is worth quoting it actually—“We do not believe that that four people irrespective of their experience would have the knowledge and skills to provide a fair and comprehensive evaluation of such a broad range of research. Again this is particularly a concern given the specialist knowledge required in different sectors for example family violence sexual violence and other forms of violence against women and children.” We do need good research about family violence. Australia has undertaken the research to show the economic impact family violence has on the economy. We have not yet done that and that is something that we should be looking at.The Greens support making good public policy based on sound independent research and evidence. There is a role for a lot more research and a lot more monitoring and evaluation of programmes that need to be undertaken particularly since the Government is rolling out a bunch of reforms that have not yet been trialled in New Zealand. We are simply concerned that this bill will not deliver that evaluation monitoring and independent analysis of the research. The changes outlined in this bill would require the Families Commission to publish a families status report on the well-being of families.Debate interrupted.