I
I call on
I call on Government Orders of the Day No. 2 and 3. Families Commission
Social Security Legislation Rewrite
of the Families Commission Act Repeal Bill and the
of the Families Commission Act Legislation
Paikea
Paikea point of order. I seek leave for the provisions to be taken
as one debate. Leave is sought for that
course of action.
one debate. Leave is sought for that
There appears to be none. Member, the question is that parts 1 and 2
schedules 1 and 2 and
clauses 1 and 2 stand part. I call
the Hon Alfred Ngaro. Thank you. I rise to take
a call in the Committee of the whole
House in records to the
families
and the repeal bill. I look forward to this. This
bill. It's been well thought out. In fact, over the last nine years
because it is a bill that came under
while this is a good bill, we've supported it throughout
its different stages
supported it throughout its
National Party as it is progressing through the House. In the
Committee of
of the whole House there are questions
questions that are important, that we would like to see answered
by the Minister herself, who I think
has been on record, and has spoken in
the House. In fact, her speech
was written, though
the House. In fact, her speech was
speech I sensed there was regret. This was a time in which
the Minister who was a member spoke out
strongly about the position of the
Government of the day, the
position it was taking in regard to the changes. In fact, if we
can remember that 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 and direction in
regards to research and evaluation that
focus and direction in regards to research and evaluation that was
focused on families, to ensure
that any Government of the day would take
this into account and
in in particular where there wasn't enough
discussion
discussion to the detail. In discussion
discussion to the detail. In particular, this is a Crown entity
that was established. 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
concerns of the community at large.
Government. I understand why this was
Government. I understand why this Government.
was difficult by the current was
was difficult by the current Government of the day to take the
bill through the House. In a
sense, we've heard from the,
and I would like to make some quotes on
the who spoke at a time where she
did not actually agree with
the direction of that current Government,
which was
fact, I want to read from her quote, where
where she talks about the changes that happened in 2014 from
the Families Commission to the
Superu. She talks about the fact of the new
She talks about the fact of the new agency called
She talks about the fact of the new
Policy Evaluation and Research Unit. Carmel
Policy Evaluation and Research Unit. Policy
Policy Evaluation and Research Unit. Carmel Sepuloni said it speaks
have to question how seriously they are taking the work of
the Families
the type of sticker a child would get in an assembly on a Friday if
they behaved themselves
get in an assembly on a Friday if
My question to the Minister in the Chair
My question to the Minister in the
learned member over here, the Hon Andrew Little,
learned member over here, the Hon
this House to give a commitment to the purpose and principles of
the bill when there was a position that
she held. He talked about
the factor that the direction
of the current Government of the day,
that the direction of the current
point of order. Just I have no counter. Not sure where I'm hat.
Happy to restart again! No!
minute left. I'm unaware of the counter up there... As long as
I
I know Greg O'Connor likes my speeches. He gives reasonable
speeches, even though they are
Anyway. My question to the Minister is simple. Can she articulate
to the House and to the
public the reasons and to articulate
them rationally as to why there has been a
change in
bill. We're supporting the bill. We think it is a bill that
is important because actually to the intent of
effectiveness and efficiencies,
which is stated in the bill, it was
actually it was passed in July of 2017 last year, where there will be
the disestablishment of the
Families Commission. From our side
the disestablishment of the Families
point of view, there is no mistaking the aspect of the purpose
and the reasons why we are supporting
this bill. I would like the Minister
in the chair to stand and to articulate
to us in this House and though the
public as to the reasons
why she has changed her position. And to give us
a rational reason as to why she is
wanting to... Madam
a rational reason as to why she is
I call the Hon Ngaro. I shall concentrate. Yes!
I call the Hon Ngaro. I shall
Ha ha! There is a second question I also have for the Minister as well.
That is, in particular, to the
shortened report backdate that has been asked. One can be quite
cynical. Can say that when one looks
at the factors, maybe they
didn't have enough work. When
their cynicism, there has to be
fact. One needs to look at the Order Paper,
and when one looks at the Order
Paper, one would see a number of the
bills
Paper, one would see a number of the
here on the Order Paper have all come from the
National Party. I'm here
come from the National Party. I'm not going to use that cynicism.
I am sure there is a valid reason
why we have had the
shortened report back date. The second question to thor is
why did we have
a shorter report backdate in the reason I
day that is the has been strong and clear that
it is important
appropriate process. If one looks at the departmental disclosure
statement and if we look at part 2,
background material and
policy information, it talks about the
publicly available inquiries, reviews or evaluation
reports that have formed or are relevant
to the policy to be given effect
by this
her purpose and her reason, then she needs to be cheer about
the factors
declared she will look for a review around Da collection and
collection. She's asked to go out to with the community. A form of
inquiry. Talking to those
stakeholders at the front line. Also asking the public. Why did the
Minister, who was using that
principle of transparency or
engagement with the community,
and again to the disclosure
statement, has been clear
again to the disclosure statement,
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. The second question that I think
is
a clear process and she's had her principles where she's engaging into
the community. Said that publicly.
Why, in this regard, is she not
actually
actually enacting the same principles that I think are really
important as well. If you
look further down through the
disclosure statement, it talks about the
regulatory impact analysis. The
question that is asked is this,
statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to
this
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. All of us
importance of a regulatory impact
maybe the members of public don't realise the importance
of a regulatory impact statement. The
important work
regulatory impact statement. The
when we think about the analysis of any form of legislation, as it's
proceeding through the House,
that before we get the Royal assent,
proceeds to the final
reading, we need to know what are
the impacts financially, systematically as well
to other stakeholders that are
in there. I've heard the Minister as a
member argue strongly where
is the regulatory impact statement. Again,
I have to say I am disappointed
because I would have
expected that the Minister would have asked for
some form of regulatory
impact statement. When I
lock at the disclosure statement, 2.3, the
answer to whether there is one
are two questions. I'm looking forward
are two questions. I'm looking
I would like to pose further on into the debate today. So, again, I
remind the Minister
the debate today. So, again, I
question is the rational and reason as to why she has changed position
and she is now supporting
this bill through the House. I have
to say that if she wasn't fully supportive,
if she questioned the
bill and the intent of the previous
Government, why did she not put it under the scrutiny
she would expected
under the scrutiny she would under
under the scrutiny she would expected to happen. Why is
there no reviews, inquiries or evaluation.
Why is there no regulatory impact
statement. I would
have expected that the Minister would have
required before stepping forward. As
difficult as it may have been to be
able to swallow the factors she's
now having to adopt and also too
without amendment, a bill she spoke
strongly in the direction
of from the previous Government, I think
it would be important for
the Minister now
would be important for the Minister to stand and give us a
reason for that. The last
to stand and give us a reason for
say is if regards to the impact analysis
say is if regards to the impact
for the process to have a regulatory impact statement as
well. for
I call the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. I will just quickly respond to a few
of the questions asked by the Hon
Alfred Ngaro and then allow someone
else to take a call. This
is straightforward. The
straightforward. The honourable member Alfred Ngaro
asked why we didn't take this out, why
we didn't the an e are view, why
we haven't consulted widely, why
we didn't have an
consulted widely, why we didn't have didn't
consulted widely, why we didn't have an inquiry. Number