Recommendation

The Social Services Committee has examined the Families Commission Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed with the amendments shown.

Introduction

This bill seeks to amend the Families Commission Act 2003 to make a number of changes to the role and operation of the Commission, with the aim of improving decision-making in the social sector.

One member of the Commission would be appointed by the Minister of Social Development as Families Commissioner, while the remaining members would remain members, without being appointed Commissioners as they are at present. The Families Commissioner and members would continue to comprise the board.

The restructure would include the establishment of a Social Science Experts Panel to provide guidance and academic peer review of any research undertaken by or on behalf of the Commission.

The Commission would also be given a new monitoring, evaluation, and research function, which would require it to determine where evidence and research would help decide or achieve Government priorities, and to commission research and manage research contracts, in the social sector.

The Commission would also be required to prepare and publish an annual Families Status Report, which would measure and monitor the well-being of New Zealand families. It would also be given access by the Government Statistician to individual schedules for research or statistical purposes.

Membership of the Social Science Experts Panel

We recommend amending clause 11, new section 18C(1), so that the Social Science Experts Panel would comprise a minimum of four members. The bill as introduced specifies that the panel would have four members charged with providing academic peer review of any research, evaluations, standards, reports, or other publications done or issued by the Commission, and to provide guidance to the Commission.

We recognise that there might be occasions where the range of expertise covered by a four-person panel would not be wide enough to provide peer review and guidance in all the required subject areas. For this reason, we propose that the Panel should be able to appoint additional members if necessary.

Legislation governing the Social Science Experts Panel

We recommend amending clause 11, new section 18C, by inserting a new subsection (5) to provide that clause 14(2) of Schedule 5 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 applies to persons to be appointed to the Social Science Experts Panel, and by inserting new subsection (6) so that clause 15 of Schedule 5 of that Act applies to panel members as if the Panel were a committee appointed by the board under clause 14(1) of that schedule. This would ensure that the Panel would come under appropriate provisions pertaining to appointment and payment of members, conflicts of interest, indemnities, and insurance.

Independence of the Commission

We recommend inserting new clauses 4A and 9A. Clause 5, new section 7(2) of the bill as introduced is intended to clarify the Commission’s independence from programmes and interventions that are to be monitored and evaluated. However, we are aware that, because section 7 of the Act specifies the Commission’s main functions, there was concern that the Commission’s autonomy would be affected.

We therefore recommend deleting clause 5, new section 7(2), while moving the policy intent in that provision to clause 7, new section 8A. Having the reference to the independence of the Commission from providers of programmes in section 7 gave people the idea that this affected the Commission’s autonomy. For this reason we consider it would be better placed in new section 8A, which deals specifically with the Commission’s monitoring, evaluation, and research function. We expect that this will clear up any confusion about this matter.

We also recommend inserting new clause 4A, which would move the matters currently prescribed in section 17 of the Act to section 6 (Commission established). This would also align the Act with other similar Acts that establish Crown entities, such as the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003. The intention is also to make it clear that the autonomy of the Commission, as prescribed in the Crown Entities Act, remains unaffected, meaning the Commission would continue to have regard for government policy only when so directed by the responsible Minister, and would not be required to give effect to it. New clause 9A would repeal section 17 of the Act, as it would no longer be needed.

Monitoring, evaluation, and research function

We also recommend amending clause 7, new section 8A, to correct the misconception that the Commission merely identifies “opportunities” for evaluation and research. The Commission should also be able to identify existing and on-going evidence and research relating to the determination and achievement of the Government’s priorities and policies.

Access to statistical schedules

We recommend the deletion of clause 11, section 18D, and the cross-heading, because it is no longer required. In the bill as introduced, section 18D allowed the Government Statistician to provide the Commission with access to individual statistical schedules for research or statistical purposes. Since the bill was referred to us, the Statistics Act 1975 has been amended by the Statistics Amendment Act 2012. This amendment allows the Government Statistician, under certain conditions, to provide any person with access to individual statistical schedules for research or statistical purposes, rendering the proposed amendment unnecessary.

Issues

Two other issues featured in our discussion of the bill. These were how the role and duties of the Families Commissioner would be determined, and the role of the Social Science Experts Panel.

The proposed structure of the Commission would see the title of Commissioner removed from all but one of the members, who would be referred to as the Families Commissioner, with the particulars of this role to be determined by the Commission. Previously, the role of Chief Families Commissioner, which could be seen as equivalent to that of the Families Commissioner under the proposed structure, differed from the role of the other Commissioners in that the Chief Families Commissioner was also the chairperson of the board. Some of us were concerned that the amended Act would not specify any particular duties for the Families Commissioner beyond those also to be undertaken by the members of the Commission. However, most of us agreed that the Commission should be allowed to determine the particular duties of its members, and noted that this approach is common for some existing similar entities.

Some of us were concerned that the Social Science Experts Panel’s role, in exercising its academic peer review and guidance function, would be to direct which research and evaluation projects would be commissioned. Our view is that the Commission’s independence could be qualified if the Panel, having been appointed on the joint recommendation of the Minister and the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, were to have a role in deciding which projects were to be undertaken. However, most of us are confident that the Panel’s role would be to provide quality assurance, and not to direct the work of the Commission.

New Zealand Labour Party minority view

The New Zealand Labour party believes that the changes proposed to the Commission in this bill continue an agenda to fundamentally alter its nature as an autonomous Crown entity into something close to a government department or ministry. These changes, in our view, compromise the Commission and will limit its independence and ability to advocate effectively for families. Given these changes, Labour stands by its policy of disestablishing the Commission and instead establishing a Ministry for Children to focus on policies and programmes that place children and families at the centre of all policy and ensure their interests are paramount.

The Commission’s new roles of managing government contracts and carrying out evaluation of programmes in the social sector are essentially the roles of the Ministry of Social Development. The expertise and funding to undertake these roles are already a central part of the research and evaluation responsibilities of the ministry. These functions are being shifted to the Commission, thereby limiting the tasks the Commission can undertake that emerge from how it sees the interests of families independent of government direction. The ministry will maintain its evaluation capability but limit it to programmes and initiatives only in the state sector. This is a multi-million-dollar programme, while the Commission’s focus on evaluation will be limited to a little over $3 million. Thus we question how serious the Government is about proper evaluation of social-sector programmes. If there is a problem in the evaluation of social-sector programmes, then this is not the way to fix it.

Furthermore, we believe the advocacy function of the Commission will be circumscribed because it will now be required to produce an annual Families Status Report that measures and monitors the well-being of New Zealand families. We believe this is a major function akin to the Social Report produced by the ministry. We believe the cost associated with the scope of this task provided to the select committee by officials is understated. It is probable that the task has been seriously under-scoped, and therefore will be of limited use. To be done well and be usable this task will duplicate the functions of the ministry and as a result will limit the ability of the Commission to advocate for families effectively in other areas. We believe this is a ministry role and should be retained there. Its transfer to an autonomous Crown entity effectively limits the ability of the Commission to adequately meet its other roles.

The bill alters fundamentally the governance of the Commission. Where currently the Commission is led by a Chief Commissioner and other Commissioners with considerable breadth of experience and expertise in family matters, in future it will be led by a board of between three and seven members. The bill proposes one Families Commissioner whose role is not defined. It is left entirely to the board to define the role in any way it likes.

Officials have explained to the select committee that this is a similar process to like commissions. In fact this is not the case. Like commissions are those led by the Children’s Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. In each of these commissions the roles are clearly defined. The bill takes a very limited view of the role of the Families Commissioner, and it is surprising it has nothing to say about what that one person on the board with that role will do.

Conventionally commissions of this type are led by the commissioner carrying the designation of that particular commission. This convention establishes clearly in the minds of the public who leads the Commission and who can be called to account for the decisions and pronouncements of the Commission. This is the person (or persons) who command attention when the Commission takes a strong position on a matter affecting families, when government policy or performance is being questioned, and when radically different alternatives are being advocated from the Commission’s independent thinking. This is the person with whom the public identify particularly when they need to have their voices heard.

The effective neutering of the position of the Families Commissioner is probably the strongest signal in this bill that the Government is cynical about the Commission and of its intention to morph it effectively into a government department or ministry. This bill effectively destroys the Commission as an independent advocate for families, but it remains in name only to satisfy its coalition agreement.

The New Zealand Labour Party does not support this bill.

New Zealand First minority view

New Zealand First believes that the family unit should be preserved and afforded opportunities to excel, particularly in the case of children. Any initiative that would have the potential to undermine this statement should be reassessed and structured accordingly, so that New Zealand families feel valued, particularly during times of financial uncertainty and hardship.

(Currently, the Commission is governed by a board of Commissioners, who are appointed by the Minister for Social Development. Each appointment is for up to three years with the potential for reappointment. Commissioners work for up to 100 days per year.

At present, there are four Commissioners. However the Families Commission Act 2003 states that no more than seven, and no less than three can be appointed.)

The Families Commission Amendment Bill, through its core, will seek to undermine efforts to protect the family unit and children. The proposed changes will minimise the effectiveness of the Commission by reducing the number of Commissioners from seven to just “the one”. Moreover, changes will simultaneously occur regarding the allocation of funding.

We are opposing the proposed changes because these alterations will produce more harm than good.