Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2718. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak in the third reading of these three bills—the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2)—which previously came under the Crown Entities Reform Bill. Can I begin by acknowledging the constructive way in which our Government Administration Committee worked on these three bills. There were a large number of submitters some of whom were incredibly angry and frustrated and were in opposition to Part 3 of the Crown Entities Reform Bill. They were treated by all members of the select committee including members who did not agree with their views with the respect that I think gave both the members of the select committee and the submitters appropriate credit. So I just want to acknowledge that. I think it is a good way for the select committee to operate.  
I also want to acknowledge our advisers. Generally when you have a piece of legislation you get advisers from one department or agency and in this particular instance we asked for advisers from three agencies. We had an adviser from the State Services Commission one from—I am not entirely sure whether the person was from the Ministry of Health or the National Health Board—but a public health expert and also an adviser from the Department of Internal Affairs. So I want to thank the Ministers for making those advisers available and I also acknowledge the hard work that the advisers put in. In fact it was a lot of work right up to the last minute when we had an unexpected change to some minor wording in the legislation. The advisers were able to just deal with that extraordinarily competently as did our select committee clerks.  
As previous speakers have noted because of the very different nature of the three bills that we are considering it is certainly appropriate for there to be three separate votes held on the legislation. There is a huge difference between the public health bill the Mental Health Commission Bill and the charities commission bill and I certainly look forward to separate votes being held on those three bills even though we are debating them all in one section in this third reading.  
To just go to the first bill the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill I suppose the best thing you could really say about this is that it is the first thing in the public health space that has been done by the National Government so that is a bit of a move in the right direction. Certainly we heard from submitters on the legislation that even though the investment in public health—which we all know will reduce the need for further spending in health down the track because if you invest in public health you are less likely to need to invest in secondary and tertiary care later. But also of course investment in public health greatly contributes to the overall well-being of individuals and families and therefore our communities. So it is good that we have got some action in this space. It is just a real shame that the only action in the public health space is rearranging the agencies rather than looking at a decent public health strategy and investment. Nevertheless the submitters on this section of the legislation were pretty enthusiastic about it and that was good to hear.  
In terms of the second part of the legislation that was not as strongly supported. I guess the crux of it from my perspective—and I recalled it at the select committee during the discussion—was that it took me back to the time when one of the most impressive actions took place in this Parliament. We have a lot of action in here but not many of those actions are what you would really call truly impressive. That was when the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley and the Hon Helen Clark as she was then made a deal basically across the House. It was before other parties were in Parliament. It was a deal between the National Party and the Labour Party that mental health was going to start getting the respect and value and support that it needed within the health system. 
 We used to hear frequently that mental health was the Cinderella of the health system and the most vulnerable people in our society those who need support or services within the mental health system were the people who were not only missing out on that support or services but being used as political fodder and footballs including in this very Parliament. The deal that the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley and the then Hon Helen Clark made at that time was that that should cease and that we should start giving people within the mental health system proper respect and proper support. I think that was amazing leadership and I want to pay tribute to both those women.  
We know from many discussions in this House about the establishment of the Mental Health Commission about the blueprint money about the ring-fencing of it and how that was so important to people who could see the money always being pulled at by other parts of the health system. It is very rare that you get anyone in the health system saying: “Thank you very much. We’ve got adequate funding. Perhaps we’ve got a little bit too much. We’d like to give some back.” It is not a common occurrence in the health system. So there was a determination that that blueprint money would be ring-fenced for mental health.  
Concerns have been well expressed about this part of the legislation in terms of maintaining that integrity. The new blueprint is coming out soon in just a matter of weeks. We can never let mental health become the Cinderella of the health system again and I want to put it on the record that Labour will not tolerate it. I implore members from all parties in the House to reflect on the agreement that was made between Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark and say that for the most vulnerable—often—in our community that was a huge leap forward and we have a responsibility to maintain it. So whether it is the functions of the new commissioner as proposed in this legislation whether it is the maintenance of the ring-fencing of the blueprint money whether it is the funding level increasing at appropriate levels—we know that in the last three Budgets the blueprint money has not been reached the target has not been reached and that is a shame—or whether it is the proactive approach the independence and the advocacy that the current Mental Health Commissioner is able to act on those are functions that we will be monitoring because this will pass into law and it is just too important an issue to say “Well whatever happens happens.” So that is notice really to the House that this is not an issue that is going to go away. It is going to be very very closely monitored on behalf of people who often do not have the access or the ability or the voice to speak for themselves.  
I come to the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) arising out of the third part of the original bill. I challenged my deputy chair Chris Auchinvole to name one submitter in support of this part of the bill and I did not hear him mention one submitter. We had a large number of submitters talking about this part of the original bill and I do not think that I could express strongly enough in appropriate language in the House their opposition. There was nobody who thought this was a good idea. There were a lot of people who thought it was particularly foolish and all the submitters said it went against the very intention of the Charities Commission legislation.  
So this legislation arising out of the third part of the original bill should not proceed in our view. It is just total nonsense. We had organisations like the Todd Foundation and the Tindall Foundation—they are quite big. The Todd Foundation—have you heard of them—and the Tindall Foundation? Quite big in this sector! Philanthropy New Zealand is quite a big organisation which represents every single philanthropic group in the country and we had the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa which represents every single community and voluntary sector organisation. So all the key players in this space said this is nonsense and this is going to totally undermine the independence the autonomy and the integrity of our charitable sector which this Parliament works so hard to create. And the reason that Minister Goodhew gave for introducing it—that somehow it is all going to be all so efficient and effective—was just nonsense. Well “If it’s not broke don’t fix it.”  
But also more than that at the moment there are two major reviews going on: one is already under way and one is about to commence. One is the review of the incorporated societies legislation and the other is the review of the Charities Commission legislation. Why on earth would you make huge structural change to the very nature of the Charities Commission—basically gut it—and put it into a department which for all the fine words from those opposite cannot be independent from a Minister because it is a Government department not an independent Crown entity? Why would you do that? Why would anyone do that sort of change when neither the incorporated society review nor the charities review— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The time has expired. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have indicated to the member that her time has expired. Thank you.