Jones Dail: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13115] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate Craig McNair on taking the Commission for the Family Bill on. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You set him up. 
DAIL JONES 
: I make the point—exactly what Clayton Cosgrove has just been saying—that I asked Craig McNair whether he really wanted to take this bill on bearing in mind there is now a Families Commission Act and he insisted on doing it because he supports the family and could see the errors in the existing legislation. Craig McNair was given the choice not to move this bill but he insisted on doing it because he is a family person and because the existing bill has grave deficiencies. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You set him up. 
DAIL JONES 
: That is your answer I say to Mr Cosgrove. 
Craig McNair is a family person newly married and we in New Zealand First are thrilled that our youngest member of Parliament should want to make a stand and draw a line in the sand as to what a family is as set out in this bill and what a family is not as set out in the Labour - United Future legislation. That is the line in the sand for New Zealand First. Now it may be that the National Party the ACT party and some of the other parties do not in principle support this type of legislation and that is fair enough but if one is going to support this type of legislation one should do it properly and get a decent definition for “family”. 
 One should get a definition that states as this bill does in its explanatory note—and I quote because Labour members have not read the bill and I include Steve Chadwick and the Minister Mr Maharey in that comment—“A family is defined as a family group including an extended family—(a) in which there is at least one adult member;”. For the benefit of Mr Maharey I point out that “one adult member” includes solo parents. He is attacking this bill for not supporting solo parents. It does in the words “one adult member;”. The explanatory note continues: “(b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” Steve Chadwick has not read this bill either. She said her grandchild would not have the benefit of this bill. Well her grandchild will because my definition of “biological” includes “my grandchild”. I congratulate Steve Chadwick and her family on having a grandchild today but she has not read this bill and her grandchild would come within the scope of this legislation. 
The United Future party and the Labour Party have set this bill up from the point of view of it being a precursor to the Civil Union Bill. The definition in the existing Families Commission Act is perfect if one supports the Civil Union Bill—and clearly United Future does. Section10(2) of the Families Commission Act states: “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.” That is a pretty wide definition and subsection (3) continues it. There will be some great problems associated with the definition set out in the Labour - United Future legislation. 
It was interesting to hear from Ms Turner of United Future. She was quite vitriolic about this bill. She seemed terribly upset. After all when we look at United Future’s election policy we see that she was criticising something that was in that party’s election manifesto. United Future went around the country saying it would establish a commission for the family “to provide a family mediation service to support promote and develop the provision of marriage and relationship counselling services.” That was United Future’s election policy but tonight Ms Turner turned her back on the policy that was put in every letterbox that that party could possibly find. It is set out here in United Future’s election policy which Craig McNair will seek to table in the House at the conclusion of this debate. 
May I say that of the speeches I have heard tonight I would have to congratulate Deborah Coddington on making the best speech of all. Even though she disagreed with the bill I thought her speech far surpassed anyone else’s especially that of Katherine Rich from the National Party. When one looks at the calibre of someone like Deborah Coddington—who can make a genuine speech on behalf of the family—and the calibre of someone like Katherine Rich one knows who is the winner by a country mile. 
The crunch of Deborah Coddington’s speech which really rubbished that of Katherine Rich concerned the fact that—and this was the thought that occurred to me—some members commented on what a cheek it was for Craig McNair to bring a member’s bill into the House but that it is a member’s constitutional right to bring to the House any bill that he or she feels like bringing to the House. Those other members may not like it but a member may bring it in. Members may bring in an abortion bill a homosexuality bill a death with dignity bill—any kind of bill they like. It is their right as members of the New Zealand Parliament to bring in a bill whether or not other members of Parliament like it. It is a member’s constitutional right. The National Party does not support that constitutional right and neither do the Greens. Although the Greens bring in some quite outlandish bills we will never deny them the right to bring those into the House.