5. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
What is the Government doing to ensure that the voices of families are heard in New Zealand?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
The Labour-led Government has supported the Families Commission to be an advocate for the interests of families. We are prepared to be clear about that, regardless of which audience we are talking to, unlike the leader of the National Party, who delivers what line he thinks will get the most applause.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
What issues has the Families Commission advocated for on behalf of New Zealand families?
The Families Commission has consulted widely to identify issues that are of concern to New Zealand families. These include preventing family violence, supporting parents, and improving families’ work-life balance. It is not surprising that the National Party wants to axe—the Leader of the Opposition describes it as “rebalancing”—that kind of advocacy, because we know that it runs counter to its agenda on opposing paid parental leave, scrapping 20 free hours’ early childhood education, and dismantling Working for Families.
Sue BradfordWhat does the Minister think of today’s calls from the Every Child Counts conference, which is happening here in Wellington, for children’s interests to be at the centre of Government decision-making; and will she support the establishment of a cross-party parliamentary group for children after the election?
I support, and have demonstrated as the Minister responsible for social development, having children at the centre of all policy development. I certainly endorse the comments that were made. In regard to the cross-party proposals, I have had a discussion with Baroness Massey about the way cross-party groups operate in the United Kingdom and I do not believe they have much that is dissimilar to what is already operating in New Zealand.
Judith CollinsWhat is her justification for the Families Commission spending $200,000 of taxpayer dollars on a summit and cocktail party to discuss “money, time, and relationships”, and does she endorse the Families Commission soliciting sponsorship for this vanity event by promising to help telephone companies to “capture potential customer details and the age of their current phone for replacement, provide assistance in developing a publicity plan that targets your specific consumer markets, and provide media access to top experts and celebrities”, including Rajen Prasad, and how does Rajen Prasad’s self-proclaimed celebrity status help everyday Kiwi families?
I will answer just a couple of points in the many questions that the member raised. I strongly support the comment of National list candidate Viv Gurrey, who said the Families Commission is the bedrock for the community sector. In regard to Rajen Prasad, I would put him up as our No. 12 candidate against National’s Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith as its No. 12 candidate any day.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. She did not address the question, which was about her justification for this outrageous spending. She did not address that, at all. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask her to now address the question.
Madam SPEAKERI listened very carefully to the member’s question, and a variety of thoughts were contained in it. As the Minister indicated, normally a supplementary question contains one thought, which then enables a response. The Minister chose to answer at least two of the thoughts in the question, so she addressed it.
Gordon CopelandHow can the Minister claim to listen to the voices of families when her Government gave its complete backing to the criminalisation of good parents, even though 80 percent of them voiced their opposition to that Draconian law, and, although 390,000 signatures were collected to force a referendum, her Government has put the referendum off until 2009, when it could have been held on polling day this year?
Again I will address just some of the questions contained in the member’s supplementary question. In respect of the first part of his question, the overwhelming majority of this Parliament voted against allowing a legal defence for assaulting a child. That is what section 59 of the Crimes Act was—a legal defence for assault. If people around the country had known that that is what section 59 was about, the referendum would not have gained any signatures, in my view, because I do not know a single New Zealander who supports assaulting a child. In respect of the latter part of the member’s question, I say that if the member was able to participate in question time more regularly, he would have heard the Minister of Justice address that issue on many occasions.