Ngaro AlfredParts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to take a call in the committee of the whole House in regard to the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill repealing the Act of 2003. I look forward to this bill because this is a well-written bill. It's a bill that's been well-thought-out over a long period of time—in fact over the last nine years previously because it is a bill that came under the National-led Government. While this is a good bill we've supported it throughout its different stages Madam Chair—the changing of the Chairs. Ha ha! What I would say is that this is a bill that is supported by the National Party as it's progressing through the House.However in the committee of the whole House there are a number of questions that I think are important that we'd like to see answered by the Minister in the chair herself Carmel Sepuloni who I think has been on record and has spoken in the House. In fact her speech was written though I have to say and when she delivered the speech I sensed there was a sense of just regretting reading the speech because this is a speech that—there was a time in which the Minister who was a member actually spoke out strongly about the position of the Government of the day the National-led Government and the position it was taking in regard to the changes.In fact if we can remember this is a long history. This is a history that came from 2003. It was an Act that was established out of a coalition agreement. It was done so under the Labour Government at that period of time to ensure that there was a focus in the direction in regard to research and evaluation that particularly was focused on families to ensure that any Government of the day would take this into account in particular where there was a concern that there wasn't enough conversation and discussion especially around the detail. In particular this is a Crown entity that was established through this Act so it had both autonomy to be an advocate to speak on behalf of the needs and the concerns of the community at large. Again this was led by a Labour-led Government.So I can understand why this was really difficult for the current Government of the day to be able to take this bill through the House because in a sense we've heard from the Minister—and I'd like to make some quotes from the Minister who spoke at a time where she did not actually agree with the direction of that current Government which was the National-led Government. In fact I want to read from her quote where she talks about the changes that happened in 2014 from the Families Commission to SuPERU. She talks about the fact that the new agency is called the social policy evaluation and research unit or SuPERU for short. Labour's Carmel Sepuloni says it speaks volumes about the Government priorities. In fact she is quoted as saying this: You have to question how seriously they're taking the work of the Families Commission." She also says "Someone said 'Well what do you think?' I likened it to the type of sticker a child would get in an assembly on a Friday if they behaved themselves all week." So my question to the Minister in the chair is this—Hon Andrew Little: You're not getting one of those stickers this week Alfred.Hon ALFRED NGARO: And also too the learned member over here the Hon Andrew Little. This I'm sure will interest him as well—is that for the Minister to stand and actually clearly articulate her reasons why she has shifted her position why she has stood up in this House and given a very strong commitment to the purpose and the principles of this bill when quite clearly there was a position that she held she spoke very strongly she talked about the fact that the direction of the current Government of the day in which—oh sorry. I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I just have no counter; I'm not sure where I'm at at the moment. I'm happy to restart again right from the beginning if you'd like.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My counter has you with a minute left to go.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Sorry Madam Chair. I'm just unaware of the counter up the front there so—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's all right—as long as I know you're OK.Hon ALFRED NGARO: OK thank you Madam Chair.Greg O'Connor: No one's listening anyway.Hon ALFRED NGARO: I know that Greg O'Connor likes my speeches. He gives quite reasonable speeches even though they are misguided at times.Anyway my question to the Minister is really quite simple: can she articulate to the House and to the public the reasons—and articulate them rationally—as to why there has been a change in her position? We're happy with this bill. We're supporting this bill all the way through. We think actually it's a bill that is important because actually the intent of effectiveness and efficiencies which are stated in the bill—it was under a National-led Government and I'd like to remind the Minister actually it was passed in July of 2017 last year—where there will be the disestablishment of the Families Commission. So from our side from our point of view there is no mistaking the aspect of the purpose and the reasons why we are supporting this bill. I'd like the Minister in the chair to stand and articulate to us in this Chamber and to the public the reasons why she has changed her position and to give us a rational reason as to why she is wanting to—[Bell rung] Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Oh here we go. Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Alfred Ngaro.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you Madam Chair. It's an honour to keep—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I shall concentrate—I shall concentrate.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Thank you yes. Ha ha! So I'd like the Minister to stand and answer that question. I think that's critically important as well.There's a second question I also have for the Minister as well and that's particular to the shortened report-back date that has been asked for. Now one can be quite cynical and can say that when one looks at the factors maybe they just didn't have enough work. But when there's cynicism there has to be fact. So one needs to only look at the Order Paper and when one looks at the Order Paper one would see that actually a number of the bills—I'd say 80 percent; probably others could say 90 percent of the bills—that are actually in here that are on the Order Paper have all come from the National Party. I'm not going to use that cynicism. I'm sure there's a valid reason why we've had the shortened report-back date but the important aspect of the second question to the Minister is why did we have a shortened report-back date?The reason I say that is that the Minister herself has been very strong and very clear that it's important that we have an appropriate process and if one looks at the departmental disclosure statement and if we look at "Part Two: Background Material and Policy Information" it talks about—the question in 2.1 is this: "Published reviews [and] evaluations: Are there any publicly available inquir[ies] review[s] or evaluation reports that have informed or are relevant to the policy to be given effect by this Bill?"Now if the Minister is quite clear about her purpose and her reason then she needs to be clear about the fact that already she's declared publicly that she's going to look for a review around data collection and data collation and the importance of that. She's asked to go out to engage with the community. It's a form of inquiry. She's talking to those who are the stakeholders the key practitioners at the front line. Also she's asking questions of the public. Why then did the Minister who is using that principle of transparency and engagement in the community—and again the disclosure statement has been very clear. It clearly states that there has been no public inquiry. There has been no review. There's been no evaluation reports that have been able to inform this bill. So the second question that I think is important which I'd like the Minister to answer to us here is again that she's had a clear process and she's had her principles where she's engaging into the community. She's said that quite publicly. Then why in this regard is she not actually enacting the very same principles that I think are really important as well?If you look further down through the disclosure statement there is also too in 2.3—it talks about the regulatory impact analysis. The question that is asked is this: were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this bill? The answer is no. Well I have to say that again I've been—and we've sat on the opposite side of the House. I've heard the Minister who was a member quite strongly talk about the importance of a regulatory impact statement. Now all of us in the House—and maybe the members of the public don't realise the importance of a regulatory impact statement. The role of the regulatory impact statement is to ensure that when we think about the analysis of any form of legislation as it's proceeding through the House—before we get the Royal assent before it proceeds to its final reading—we need to know what are the impacts financially systematically as well to other key stakeholders that are in there. In fact I've heard the Minister as a member argue very strongly: where is the regulatory impact statement? Again I have to say that I am disappointed because I would have expected that the Minister would have asked for some form of regulatory impact statement and again when I look at the disclosure statement 2.3 in answer to whether there is one the reply is no there's not.So there are two questions and there are other questions that I'd like to pose further on in the debate today. So again I remind the Minister that the first question is the rationale and reason as to why she has changed her position and she is now supporting this bill through the House. I'd have to say that if she wasn't fully supportive if she questioned the bill previously and the intent of the previous National-led Government then why did she not put it under the scrutiny that she would have expected to have happened? Why are there no reviews inquiries or evaluation? Why is there no regulatory impact statement that I would've expected the Minister would have required before stepping forward? As difficult as it may have been to be able to swallow the fact that she is now having to adopt—and also too without amendment—a bill that she spoke very strongly in the direction of from the previous Government I think it'd be important for the Minister to stand and give us a reason for that.The last question that I'd like to ask is in regard to the regulatory impact analysis: why she has not required for this process to have a regulatory impact statement as well."