King Annette: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Social Housing Reform (Flexible Purchasing and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3616. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): When we get down to the hard end of a debate that is when we actually get the opportunity to question the Minister and the Minister can take that chance to answer the questions that we have been posing in the first reading and the second reading. We have one of the up-and-coming Ministers—well he was an up-and-coming Minister—in the chair this morning Simon Bridges and I am sure that he is going to take this debate very seriously. Last night we were told how proud and excited members opposite are about this legislation. They were so proud and excited that they took 1-minute speeches. I think the record was 27 seconds. That is how proud they were. In fact I think the speech from the member Jono Naylor might have been 27 seconds.But anyway we are now in urgency debating a bill that is not going to go to the select committee. It is not going to the select committee—for no reason that we know about. There is nothing urgent about this legislation other than that Mr Doocey from down in the South Island said that if we pass it today we will get 3000 homes tomorrow. Well of course we all know that that is rubbish. So now is the time for the Minister in the chair to answer the questions that the public would ask if they had the opportunity to appear before the select committee. I would like the Minister to tell me whether he has read the regulatory impact statement of this bill. If he has read the regulatory impact statement then why are there no reviews or evaluation reports to inform on this bill and on whether the policy given effect by this bill will work? That is what the regulatory impact statement says—that there are no reviews or evaluation reports on this policy. So the Government does not even know whether this policy is going to work because it did not bother to get an evaluation or a review on the policy.The Government has not allowed the public to review or evaluate the policy because it is passing it under urgency. Why was there no evaluation? Why not do what Sir Peter Gluckman the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor constantly tells the Government to do? What does he say? He says that the Government should base its policies on evidence—good evidence—and that good policy comes from good evidence.Hon Member: Any evidence.Hon ANNETTE KING: Any evidence would have been a help—that is true. So why was there no evaluation or review done on this policy before this bill was brought into the House? Minister we would like an answer on that.Secondly Minister why did Treasury not provide independent opinion on the impact of this bill? Why did Treasury not provide that independent opinion? From my experience as a Minister Treasury usually comments on absolutely everything whether you want it to or not. I can only assume that the Government did not want Treasury to comment on this bill because the regulatory impact statement says that no there was no independent opinion from Treasury. Why not Minister? Why not do the work to find out whether this policy is going to work for the very people who are affected by it?I think that the members opposite were absolutely stunned. The “C Team” that rolled up here last night was absolutely stunned that there was no evaluation done. Do you know what? They had not read the regulatory impact statement. Not one of them had picked it up off the Table—[Interruption] Had you? Not one of you had read it. So like lambs to the slaughter they come in here and vote for something when they do not even know how it works. There has been no evaluation done on this policy. Well that is very very poor policy making indeed.For my last question I want to know Minister why the Minister concerned wants more powers to make delegated legislation under ministerial direction. My understanding is that there is already power for the Minister but she is seeking greater powers for greater flexibility to be able to sell off State houses and all she needs to do is gazette this ministerial direction and present a copy to the House after some sort of consultation. When I look at the consultation that took place on this bill it took place with people in the community sector who did not know what the agenda was and it took place back in March when Bill English was saying “The Salvation Army are really keen on this policy. They’re going to move on this policy.” But the truth is that they were sold a pup and they are not interested in it.