Lees-Galloway Iain: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Crown Entities Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 23 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2344. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 As we on this side of the Chamber indicated during the debate on Part 1 Part 2 is a different matter and we unfortunately cannot be as supportive as we were of Part 1. I guess that reflects the fact that as I think was stated during the second reading debate the amalgamation of public services for the sake of it is not necessarily a good thing. What matters is what the outcome is from that amalgamation and although we can see merit in the amalgamation of the Alcohol Advisory Council and the Health Sponsorship Council we cannot support the amalgamation of the Mental Health Commission—or essentially the absorbing really of the Mental Health Commission—into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner and the creation of a deputy commissioner within the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner who is responsible for mental health. If the Government had listened closely to what the submitters said at the Government Administration Committee it would have come to the same conclusion.  
The Mental Health Commission was originally established in response to the recommendations of the 1996 ministerial inquiry into mental health services most popularly known as the Mason inquiry. It was established really because there was a recognition that mental health services not only were underfunded and under - provided for but also did not get the recognition and the attention that they needed and that that was having a detrimental effect on our communities—that the people who suffered mental illness were not receiving the services that they ought.  
Although things have certainly improved in the years since then—we have seen the establishment of the mental health blueprint we have seen mental health funding ring-fenced and we saw on a number of occasions the length of time for which the Mental Health Commission would remain established extended through ultimately to 2015 was the last extension it received—it is fair to say that the job is far from done. In fact the replacement for the blueprint Blueprint II I would imagine is now in its pretty final drafting stages and the expectation is that that will be published soon. That seems to be the least appropriate time to disestablish the Mental Health Commission—given that one of the last things it will do is to publish the second blueprint it would be appropriate really for the Mental Health Commission to then see out its time through to 2015 and to use those first few years to get the second blueprint under way. If the people and the organisations that submitted on that drafting process are actually listened to there will be some not insignificant changes to the way we approach mental health services and to the way I suppose mental health services are shifted from a focus on secondary care to a focus on primary care and also an understanding that we need to focus on a much wider proportion of the population than what was mandated for in the first blueprint.  
That amount of change and shift in focus really needs a dedicated organisation to navigate the sector through that period of change and it seems extremely short-sighted to bring forward the disestablishment date for the Mental Health Commission from 31 August 2015 to 30 June 2012 and then leave it up to the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner which has not had that focus on mental health and to a person who becomes a deputy commissioner subordinate to somebody else to be in charge of the navigation through that period of change. Given that if you talk to both consumers of mental health services and people practising in the area of mental health one of their principal concerns and beliefs—and I think quite reasonable beliefs—is that mental health services remain a Cinderella component which is the word that has been used of the health system I think it absolutely sends the wrong signal to be disestablishing the one organisation that was focused on mental health and to be folding that into another organisation and reducing that focus.  
I notice that in its comments to the select committee the Ministry of Health noted the fact that the Mental Health Commission’s longevity or existence has been tenuous. The fact that it has lasted as long as it has been the result of Governments successively extending its lifespan. The comment was made that shifting the monitoring and advocacy functions of the Mental Health Commission into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner secured those functions into the future. I accept that that is probably true but it is not necessary. We do not have to shift the functions of the Mental Health Commission into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner to give it that security. Parliament—the Government—is quite capable of giving the Mental Health Commission that level of security and still retaining it as a stand-alone organisation. So although it is true that the shifting of those responsibilities into another organisation does potentially create some security it is not a necessary change in order to secure those functions.  
There are no doubt some efficiencies to be gained in terms of transferring and reducing back-office functions but of course what we have seen across the State sector is that when back-office functions have been somehow rationalised or made to use the Government’s terms more efficient what ultimately ends up happening is that the people who are supposed to be delivering the front-line services end up having to pick up those back-office services. Therefore front-line services actually suffer. We on this side of the Chamber are very very sceptical of any arguments made that by reducing back-office functions that somehow will allow the shift of resources to the front line. Whether you look at the police force the Defence Force or all across the State sector we have seen that what ultimately happens is a reduction in front-line services. I think that is something that we have to be acutely aware of as well.  
A number of submitters said that shifting the Mental Health Commission into the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner would make the organisation more reactive. I think that is true: the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner is a very reactive organisation. It reacts essentially when things go wrong in the health system whereas the Mental Health Commission is a much more proactive organisation involved in the promotion of activities to promote and secure mental well-being. Again it is a shift in the focus a shift in the nature of the organisation. That really is a retrograde step as far as securing and supporting mental health services in New Zealand are concerned.  
So although superficially Part 1 and Part 2 may appear similar in that they are about the amalgamation of organisations the outcomes of those amalgamations are quite different. On this side of the Committee we cannot support the dissolving of the Mental Health Commission and the reduction of focus on services supporting those people with mental illness in our community.