Hague Kevin: 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 
Hague Kevin: 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:2721. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin by endorsing the remarks—pretty much all of them actually—that Ruth Dyson made in her contribution but I was particularly thinking of the ones about the excellence of the select committee process and how well that went.  
You know this debate on the third readings of these three bills comes on top of quite a series of contributions I have made in the debate on the previous bill the Crown Entities Reform Bill. That bill and these three bills now at the third reading range from the sensible and quite exciting through to the irredeemably stupid and I want to just run through some principles that might assist the House in distinguishing between them. It seems to me that if a Government is contemplating merging Crown entities then there are some tests some thought experiments that perhaps should be carried out to determine whether that is a good idea or not.  
First of all—I am sure Government members will appreciate this—is the function necessary? Is the function of this entity a necessary thing? Secondly—again I am sure the Government members will agree with this—is the function appropriately one for the State? Again that is an important test is it not? Thirdly are the functions of the entities that are proposed to be merged actually congruent? Does it actually make some sort of prima facie sense to merge these two things? Would they work together? Fourthly what are both the financial and the non-financial benefits and disadvantages of what is proposed? Quantify them and balance them off one against the other—the benefits against the disadvantages—and proceed only if it has a positive balance. It makes sense does it not? Then finally I suggest that the next test is how easily the gains are realised. Because as I have said on a number of occasions in debates on the Crown Entities Reform Bill the fact is that the experience of State sector changes over the past several decades is that it is extraordinarily difficult to realise the gains that are promised by the business case. Actually we have not seen the business case for any of these mergers so we do not even know really what is promised. But the reality is that the experience of the mergers that have taken place in the State sector over some quite considerable time is that usually the benefits are not realised at least to the extent that is promised.  
So there is a framework for assessing those changes and when we look at the first of these bills the amendment to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act to create this Health Promotion Agency we can say not only that this is a desirable function but that it is an extremely important one and it is one that in this country as the social determinants of health are eroded further and further by successive Government actions becomes more and more necessary. So it is a highly important function that absolutely must be carried out by the Government. That is what the Ottawa Charter is all about and Government members have talked about how important this is as a means of operationalising the Ottawa Charter.  
Are the functions congruent? Well these great organisations the Health Sponsorship Council and the Alcohol Advisory Council who have done a fantastic job over the years do in fact have highly congruent functions and actually the work of each will be advantaged by being in the same pot as the other let alone the other functions that could be added to that. I again remind Government members that I am looking to see this agency become more and more the engine for health promotion in New Zealand.  
What are the financial and non-financial benefits? Well I think there are clearly some significant efficiency gains from this particular change and it seems to me that there is very little in the way of a downside so that balance looks to me to be positive and those gains ought to be relatively easily realised. So that is a green light on all of those aspects of my test.  
Then we come to the next bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. Is the function necessary? Absolutely it is for the reasons that Ruth Dyson has very ably outlined tonight. Is the function appropriately one for the State? Again absolutely. The State is the planner and funder of mental health services for New Zealand. Although we have made dramatic advances particularly in mental health services for those with serious mental illness as a result of the changes that the Hon Ruth Dyson has outlined there is actually still a long way to go with community-based mental health services and that function must be carried out by the State.  
Are the functions congruent? In this case they are absolutely not—absolutely not. The functions of the Mental Health Commission have been long-term planning and monitoring against that long-term plan. Those are very much helicopter-view functions and prospective functions whereas the functions of the Health and Disability Commissioner tend instead to be very much analysing individual cases looking at the micro situation and usually working in retrospect to work out what we can learn from the thing that went wrong. These are both important sets of functions but there is no congruence between them. So the marriage that is proposed by this bill is absolutely the wrong one.  
What is the balance of benefits and disadvantages in this case? Well there is a massive disadvantage in the risk that is posed to achieving the mission of the Mental Health Commission—a massive disadvantage—and the benefit is probably a small cost saving. Well that is not a balance that passes my test. And the reality is that when you factor in on top of that the likelihood that that small cost saving may well not be achieved or not be achieved in a realistic time frame it suggests that that merger ought not to go ahead.  
Finally we come to the change that I described as irredeemably stupid and that is the one around the Charities Commission. Is this function necessary? Absolutely yes. Is this function one that should be carried out by the State? Well that is kind of interesting is it not? The whole point about the Charities Commission was to respect the separation between the State sector and the community sector and to manage the interface between the two through an entity that was sufficiently distal from the core State to give trust and comfort to the New Zealand community sector. That is the point of the Charities Commission. So it is not appropriate for that function to be carried out in the core State service in the Department of Internal Affairs.  
Are the functions congruent? Well again they kind of are. But that is not really the issue in this case. What is the balance between financial and non-financial risks and benefits? Well in this case the potential benefits are tiny. They are immaterial and that has to be balanced against these huge risks around the total loss of trust from the New Zealand community sector in the interface between the State and the community sector. That is a test that this merger fails absolutely.  
So let us by all means look at ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the State sector and look at structural changes but only one of these proposed changes actually passes a rational set of tests. That is the only one that we will support.