United Future
Hon Peter Dunne

Families Commission Bill - Second Reading speech

 At the outset I pay tribute to a couple of people for the work they have done to bring this bill through to this stage. I acknowledge the work of my colleague Judy Turner, who has handled this issue, from our side, from the outset, and has done a particularly fine piece of work. I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Steve Maharey, Minister for Social Development and Employment, with whom we have worked closely on this issue. I express our appreciation to him and his colleagues for the cooperative and constructive spirit in which we have been able to develop this important measure. I was agog last night when I listened to the arguments being raised by members opposite against this bill.

I have never heard reasons of such little substance raised as reasons why an important social advance should not be promoted. Firstly, they argued against the bill because of a letter that I sent to people who made submissions to the select committee. Now that reason was devastating enough, but then they went on to say that one reason for opposing this bill was because the Labour Party and United Future were honouring the commitment they entered into post-election. That is how rare keeping election promises is for the people on that side of the House. Their next criticism was even better: a budget of $28 million over 4 years has been set aside for this commission, as if that was some mark against it. But it gets better.

One member went so far as to say the best reason for opposing this bill was that no one had ever heard of the idea of a Families Commission until United Future promoted it. So that was a reason for opposing a good idea. The final reason that I heard advanced last night was that: “You know, we are opposed to this because United Future’s not the only party with an interest in families.” None of those reasons has any substance, credibility, or fact associated with it.

What those paltry excuses portray is a serious of jealous, whining, whingers who are so annoyed that we have been able to make progress on what is an important advance in the interests of promoting the concerns of the families and the children of New Zealand, and worse still, that this measure is going to pass into law very shortly. They are further annoyed and worried that in response to the expressions of interest sought for the appointment of commissioners in recent weeks there has been a veritable deluge of interest, because out there in the New Zealand community there is a widespread feeling of support for this move.

There is a widespread feeling of concern about the state of the New Zealand family and the way in which it is dealt with as an institution by Government, and there is a widespread feeling of recognition that here at least are some positive steps being taken to deal with the problems so many have spoken of for so long. I want to contrast that attitude with the unctuous attitude of concern that pervaded this House last week when we talked about Child, Youth and Family Services. We were falling over ourselves and wringing our hands with concern about the situation of those poor children and about the breakdown of circumstances that had led to that tragedy. I heard speech after speech, and comment after comment, about policy failure, about the inability to look at the circumstances in a total picture, and about the fact that services were fragmented, lacked coordination, lacked clear advocacy, and a clear voice.

Here, a week later, when we have a measure being promoted that will, for the first time, give an overarching approach to family policy, will ensure that the issues of concern to families can be properly advocated at a Government level, will ensure that we get the research done on the state of the New Zealand family and all the issues that impact upon that, and will ensure that we promote parenting from the very early stages right through to the stage of grandparenting, these same people, who so unctuously wrung their hands in concern about the plight of those poor children in Masterton, now turn around, and for the most spurious of reasons, oppose it. There is a well-known term to describe that, but I would prefer to refer to it simply as naked political opportunism.

They do not like the idea that two things have happened. Firstly—and I say this particularly to the New Zealand First members—we have an arrangement between the Labour Party and United Future that actually works. We are not tearing ourselves apart. We are not creating chaos and instability. We are able to achieve effective policy outcomes on behalf of the people of New Zealand. The second thing that those members do not like is that this idea—having been talked about at the election campaign and responded to favourably, and having been around for a number of years when one goes and talks to the agencies who have been promoting it—is now going to come to fruition; something that previous successive Governments have been unable to deliver. So this is not a time for narrow political bigotry of the type we have seen throughout this debate so far.

This is a time to celebrate a positive achievement. This is a time to recognise that the parents and the hard-working families of New Zealand who pay their taxes, and who often get very little in terms of direct tangible benefit for those taxes, are going to have a voice and are going to have some advocates in place who will ensure that the concerns of families are brought to the table when Government policy decisions are being made. I find it extraordinary that everyone in this House, particularly on that side, who in the last few months have fallen over themselves to appoint spokespersons for family affairs—having never had them previously—now fail the first test and oppose this legislation.

I want them to reflect on that when they go about their business, they talk to the Plunkets of this world, they talk to the Presbyterian Supports, and they talk to all of the social services agencies, most of whom made submissions on this bill, all of whom are outraged at their reaction to it, and then wonder how they can be credibly thought as capable of delivering good family policy. The Families Commission draws on a number of international precedents. I want to quote from someone who shares the same name as me, but as far as I am aware is no direct relation, Dr Michael Dunn, the Chair of the Irish Families Commission. He made the point in respect of that commission that probably its greatest single achievement following its establishment—and that was an achievement in itself—was that it made issues relating to Irish families centre stage for the Irish political process.

As a consequence of that it put an edict, if one likes, before every Government that every action it takes has to have at its heart what the impact of that action is going to be on the family. If one translates that to the New Zealand situation, let me put it this way. There are a lot of laudable things said by various parties at various times about their aspirations for the New Zealand economy, for the education system, the health system, and so on and so forth. They are essentially abstract if the benefit is not derived by the people of New Zealand.