Lees-Galloway Iain: 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 
Lees-Galloway Iain: 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:2715. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak on 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 as the Minister for Community and Voluntary Services pointed out are the bills formerly known as the Crown Entities Reform Bill. On this side of the House we actually agree with the decision to split that single bill into three bills—we think each of those component bills is quite distinct in its nature and it is for that reason that I would like to make it clear that on this side of the House we believe there should be three questions put so that members have the opportunity to make their views known on all three bills. I appreciate the positive affirmation I am getting from the Deputy Speaker about that. So we look forward to being able to vote on each of these three bills.  
As was pointed out by members on this side throughout the debate on these bills although superficially there are some similarities in that essentially they legislate for the merger and acquisition of a number of public entities—which is I suppose the only approach that this Government has to the public sector—the outcome from those mergers is quite different in each case. We have been very supportive of the establishment of the Health Promotion Agency which of course will be the result of the merger of the Health Sponsorship Council and the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). The Health Sponsorship Council of course was originally established to promote activities that reduce the harm caused by tobacco but people will probably remember it most for its role in supporting those organisations that had hitherto been dependent upon tobacco industry sponsorship. I do not want to traverse all the different organisations that received tobacco industry sponsorship but needless to say some of them seemed quite perverse. When sports or ballet companies for instance or even orchestras and bands were supported by a tobacco company you have to think what the performance of those sports teams would be like if all their members were smokers. What would the performance of a ballet troupe be like if all its members were smokers? What indeed would the performance of the woodwind section or the brass section of a band be like if all of its members were smokers? So it was unusual I think that all those organisations were so dependent on— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You could do it with alcohol. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well I am coming to that Ms Dyson. It was unusual that so many organisations were dependent on the tobacco industry. And I know that there was a lot of nervousness amongst those organisations that they would not be able to find replacement sponsorship if they were unable to get that support from the tobacco industry. What the Health Sponsorship Council did in a way was to be a kind of nicotine patch for those organisations. It helped them wean themselves off that addiction they had to funding from the tobacco industry.  
I note that the Cancer Society when it made its submission to the Government Administration Committee on the Crown Entities Reform Bill submitted that part of the Health Promotion Agency’s core business should be addressing the issue of alcohol sponsorship which my colleague Ruth Dyson alluded to moments ago. I think this is a worthy consideration and Parliament should take the next possible opportunity to consider the Health Promotion Agency’s role in reducing the impact of alcohol sponsorship. What getting rid of tobacco sponsorship was about was a public health measure to reduce not the availability but the normality of tobacco in our communities. I guess what the Cancer Society is getting at is reducing the normality of the presence of alcohol in sporting events for example. I mentioned during one debate on this bill that students associations have a very close relationship with the liquor industry and there is a wide range of other organisations that do probably feel dependent on sponsorship from the alcohol industry.  
I think the Cancer Society has a good point that is worthy of debate at the very least and that is around the Health Promotion Agency’s role in reducing the influence of alcohol sponsorship and assisting organisations through the same transition that had to be made when tobacco sponsorship was brought to an end. That is obviously something for Parliament to consider in the future but certainly the establishment of the Health Promotion Agency makes that initiative far more likely especially seeing as the expertise of both ALAC and the Health Sponsorship Council will be brought together.  
Although we support the creation of the Health Promotion Agency I would like to point out some of the inconsistencies in Government policy. You simply have to look at the Budget that was announced last week to see how inconsistent this Government is on the issue of public health. Although it is establishing the Health Promotion Agency it is also cutting $80 million worth of public health programmes over the next 4 years. We have no idea which because of course the Budget documents are purposefully vague as to which programmes are being cut; I look forward to hearing what the Minister of Health can tell the Health Committee about which programmes those are. Of course these are the public health programmes that actually save us money in the health sector in the future. It is an investment in the health and well-being of New Zealanders for the future and it will save our health system money. But this Government is not interested in the future; this Government is interested in the here and now and it has sucked money out of those public health programmes to put into its pet projects its politically motivated projects in the health sector. So there is a very very inconsistent approach on public health from this National Government.  
The second bill that we are debating this evening is the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. I do not have too much to say about this bill other than to say that we look forward to the release of the second mental health blueprint which I understand is due to be launched on 13 June. That will be an important step forward. Of course that will actually be the final act of the Mental Health Commission and that blueprint document will have to be picked up and guided through its infancy through the Health and Disability Commissioner.  
I know that a number of submitters to the select committee expressed some concern and disappointment about that but that is the nature of what this Government is about. It has no particular plan for growing the economy and therefore what it has to do to balance the books is these little tinkering mergers within the public sector to save a penny here and a dollar there so that it can make up for its abysmal failure to grow the economy and bring in the revenue that is required to run these public agencies properly. I think it reflects the incompetent management of the economy by this Government the negligence that we have seen from John Key. That is what we are seeing in these bills which really are tinkering around the edges and will save very very little.  
I think the Minister actually referred to the fact that these are structural changes that will have no impact on the outcomes for these organisations. They will have no positive public health impact and they will have no positive impact on the delivery of mental health services. And as my colleagues will get to later on as for the changes to the Charities Commission well that is just utterly negative but it is driven by a desperate need within this Government to find any little cuts that it can to make up for the appalling lack of effort in growing the economy and bringing in the revenue required. We have a range of positions on these bills being that they are three different bills which will become clear at voting time.