Lees-Galloway Iain: Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Crown Entities Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2252. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 We have heard from a number of my colleagues on this side of the House and other Opposition parties that there are mixed views on the Crown Entities Reform Bill. That is because the three parts of the bill although they superficially appear to do very similar things actually do quite different things. The similarity of course comes from the fact that each of Parts 1 2 and 3 amalgamate parts of the public sector; it is usually amalgamating two different organisations into one single organisation. But of course the organisations that are being amalgamated are very different. In Part 1 the Health Sponsorship Council and the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) are being brought together. Part 2 sees the Mental Health Commission rolled into the Health and Disability Commissioner. Part 3 amalgamates the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs.  
What this represents is the ideological position of the National Party that reducing the number of public sector organisations is by definition a good thing. It does not matter what the outcome of that amalgamation might be but the fact that there is an amalgamation and the fact that the number of organisations is being reduced is by definition a good thing. Well nothing could be further from the truth. It is the outcome of those amalgamations that really matters. That is why most parties are saying that Part 1—the bringing together of the Health Sponsorship Council and ALAC—makes a certain amount of sense. It makes one single Health Promotion Agency which is focused on well-being healthy lifestyles and the promotion of healthy lifestyles. Although I can understand some reservations at a time when there is considerable focus on the issue of alcohol-related harm in New Zealand at the moment and people’s concern that the folding of ALAC into that Health Promotion Agency may reduce the role and the importance of ALAC we are reasonably confident from the discussions had at the Government Administration Committee that that does have positives and the fact that we will have one single agency focused on health promotion is a good thing. 
Then you have in Part 2 the bringing together of the Mental Health Commission and the Health and Disability Commissioner with the Mental Health Commissioner becoming a deputy to the Health and Disability Commissioner. I think it is fair to say there are some reservations about that change on this side of the House. Mental health has always been the poor cousin of the health system the Cinderella of the health system—whatever you want to call it. What we are trying to say is that mental health does not get the focus and attention that it ought to and that has certainly been the case for a number of years. There was an effort under the first mental health blueprint to fix that and of course at the moment what is happening is consultation and preparation for the second mental health blueprint which of course is being carried out by the Mental Health Commission. We all expect that that will be produced in fairly short order because of course the Mental Health Commission will cease to exist fairly soon so it is going to have to get that job done before it disappears. But under the current Government there is no mental health target there is no additional mental health funding for secondary services and we continue to see the proliferation of this attitude towards mental health services as being very minor—almost the health system’s dirty secret which we do not want to talk about and which we do not want to support and promote. Supporting mental well-being in the community is absolutely part of health promotion. So there are some reservations about Part 2. 
Part 3 which I do not really intend to speak about much because my colleagues have addressed that at some length is of course the part that we are completely opposed to. 
Those three different positions are I think quite consistent because what the Opposition parties are doing what Labour is doing is looking at the outcome of these amalgamations. We are not simply looking at should we or should we not amalgamate or reduce the number of public sector organisations; we are looking at what their roles are and what is the best structure for achieving the outcomes that are desirable. National however with this bill simply takes a very I think blunt approach which is that the reduction of the number of public services and the reduction of the number of public organisations in and of itself is a good thing.  
Part 1 of course establishes the Health Promotion Agency and as I said we are quite supportive of that. I am looking forward to seeing the work of that agency and seeing it pick up the work that the Health Sponsorship Council has been carrying out. The Health Sponsorship Council works in tobacco control sun safety for cancer prevention nutrition and physical activity and of course minimising the harm related to gambling. It is that particular aspect of its work that I think is probably going to become more challenging fairly soon if John Key and the Government have their way because what we have seen of course is that this Government which is prepared to sell its own grandmother to get a deal is going to increase the number of pokie machines just so that it can get a deal with Skycity. Well I took a look at the Health Sponsorship Council’s website this afternoon to see what it has to say about problem gambling. Here is what it has to say: “Every day New Zealanders lose $5.5 million on gambling. That is around $2 billion each year.” That is lost from our families and our communities. This is the role of the Health Sponsorship Council and it will be a role of the Health Promotion Agency as established in Part 1 of this bill so this is important information that is absolutely relevant to this debate. The website states: “More than 18000 New Zealanders are problem gamblers.” and around half of the money lost to problem gambling or to gambling in general particularly to problem gambling in New Zealand goes on pokie machines the very component of gambling that our Prime Minister John Key wants to see expanded in this country.  
As Kevin Hague said earlier on this is not simply about some economic approach to health care where people will weigh up the pros and cons of a healthy lifestyle and will choose automatically a healthy lifestyle. What we are talking about here is that many of the issues that this Health Promotion Agency will have to deal with will be related to addiction and people do not make sensible logical decisions when they are dealing with addiction. It is about the environment and it is about how we construct our communities to reduce the harm and to reduce the opportunities to engage in harmful and addictive behaviour. That is what really counts. The Health Sponsorship Council knows that. I am sure the Health Promotion Agency will know that. The only people who do not seem to know that are Government members over there those people who want to increase the opportunities for gambling and who in respect of nutrition and physical activity got rid of the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programmes the health promotion in schools the very health promotion activities that we should be carrying out in order to actually achieve the outcomes that these agencies are supposed to be focusing on. 
If we look at the Health Sponsorship Council it actually looks at some of the costs related to the issues that it is trying to work on. I have talked about the costs related to gambling. We already know about the significant costs related to smoking. Of course if we look at the costs related to preventable cancer for instance it is estimated that skin cancer costs New Zealand about $57 million a year. But again what this Government is not interested in is health promotion or promoting healthy lifestyles. What it is doing and what we have seen from its reprioritisation of health funding is movement away from health promotion movement away from primary health and into secondary health. In other words: “We don’t care if you get sick. We’ll clean up the mess afterwards instead of working hard to keep people well in the first place.” 
The last thing I just briefly want to touch on is the very important fact that the ALAC levy will be secure under this new structure and that that ALAC levy will be used for alcohol harm reduction promotion activities. It is interesting that we have an alcohol levy yet we do not have a tobacco levy. That is a question that needs to be canvassed in much greater detail than can be done this afternoon—[ 
Interruption 
] It might be in the Budget but it is I think an important factor that although we have this very specific levy for alcohol the fact that we do not have a similar specific levy for tobacco is I think a gap that we want to consider addressing. In summary there are very mixed feelings about this legislation on this side of the House. We look forward to the Committee stage where we can get down and talk about it part by part. For now we will support the bill but without significant changes to some parts of the bill that support cannot be guaranteed into the Committee stage and third reading.