The New Zealand Families Commission’s role
From the Families Commission website:
The Commission is a unique organisation that gives New Zealand families an independent voice. Through the evidence we gain from research, and by listening to families themselves, we strive to give New Zealand families a voice.
Commission responds to new research on smacking
Section 59 must be repealed,” says the Chief Commissioner of the Families Commission, Rajen Prasad.
From the Families Commission Act 2003:
Obligation to obtain views of specified groups
Section 13. Mechanisms for obtaining views of specified groups
In the exercise and performance of its powers and functions, the Commission must maintain mechanisms (for example, by appointing advisory committees or forming consultation forums) to ensure that there are at all times readily accessible to it the views
…
[Examples] d. of groups that represent families, or 1 or more kinds of family members, and of groups that have a particular interest in families or in any 1 or more matters related to the Commission’s functions.
Dunnes Diaster comes to life!
A small consolation – at least Rajen Prasad isn’t the Auditor General.
Wow!
Look it only took them 26 months to get up and running.
Such a high priority!
What a crock of shit.
How many MORE families have disintigrated in the time it’s taken these taxholes to pull finger.
And anyone reckon they’ll ‘give a voice’ to the hundreds of thousands of kids who’s fathers aren’t classed as custodial? Yeah right.
Not holding my breath here folks.
Comment by Stephen — Sat 14th October 2006 @ 4:42 am
Once again an apointed offical knows what is best for parents.
Its time Prasard stopped acting like a eunech and listened to what the people and emperical research are saying.
Hes a public servant and like the rest of the breaucrats its time he acted like one.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by scrap_the_CSA — Sat 14th October 2006 @ 10:25 am
In a commonsensical comedy the self proclaimed voice of reason rounded on our public watchdog the Auditor General. While Mr Brady was busy undoing the audit trail of deception, laid in the self interest of the sluggish politician, Mr Dunne’s attention was far from his centre piece of the 2002 Election campaign. Oh the distraction of dishonesty.
If Mr Dunne had been taking Mr Prasad to pieces for his indignant representation of one political ideology, the public may have had more faith in the ability of The United Future Party to fulfil its political role. Mr Peters, in the same vacuum of deadly sin has seven lawyers on the trail of New Zealand First’s political integrity.
The Folly of the three stooges, who stitched together a third term, third world Government, should expect to be unceremoniously put out to pasture, by their incensed colleagues. Contrary to popular belief Clark’s leadership was always an accident looking for a final destination, but these other two bunnies have only themselves to blame. They left their parties leaderless and directionless, with attention to their foreign and benign acquisitions. Clark with a Brethren Crutch may have limped past the possibility of a pre Christmas election, but who amongst the New Zealand voting public is going to give this parliament one gram of credibility, without even considering international opinion. An Election in the New Year would be a good thing for three reasons. Firstly, with the exception of the Progressives and Greens, every party in Parliament, and especially labour is at some level of internal distraction. Secondly, the brevity of this political term would be appreciated for every reason history might painfully dissect it. Thirdly, but most importantly, the individual, the man and women at the coal face, is not exclusively, but most vulnerable during unstable government.
Comment by Bevan Berg — Sat 14th October 2006 @ 7:33 pm