Faafoi Kris: 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 
Faafoi Kris: 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:2729. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Taloha ni. 
For those people watching Parliament TV tonight—just in case they went to get a cup of tea while Mike Sabin was talking and I do not blame them—I would like to just remind them what we are actually debating here tonight. We are debating the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and also the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2). But Mr Sabin in his contribution on those three bills which I would like to remind those people who are watching tonight that we are debating talked about front-line services and the agenda of this Government to make sure that front-line services are delivering better for all New Zealanders. I would like to just remind Mr Sabin—or maybe he has not read the papers in the last couple of days—about the front-line services that have been affected in the education sector. Maybe Mr Sabin might want to go and have a look and read the  
Dominion Post 
 or maybe the local paper up in Northland just to see the front-line changes that this Government has announced and the back-pedalling—the significant amount of back-pedalling—that is happening with the Government’s announcements in the Budget with front-line services.  
Can I turn to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill after rebutting some of the points that Mr Sabin has made and just talk about—and Mr Sabin used the word—the synergies that will come about from bringing the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) and the Health Sponsorship Council together in the Health Promotion Agency. We do agree with that measure that is contained in this legislation. We do believe that bringing together two agencies like ALAC and the Health Sponsorship Council which has done such good work in terms of its promotion of the anti-smoking message is a good move. I would like to thank the board of ALAC and also Gerard Vaughan the Chief Executive of ALAC for the work he has done over many years. We do hope that that new agency does good work.  
I know there was some concern during the select committee stage and especially from Alcohol Healthwatch which did not agree with the merger of those two agencies. In its submission to the Government Administration Committee it said: “However the establishment of the new entity—the Health Promotion Agency—appears to be driven by cost cutting measures rather than a desire to see better health outcomes for New Zealanders. This is of great concern to us given that any cost savings will not necessarily be increasing investment in health.” Although Labour is supporting this measure in the first of the three bills that we are debating here tonight we will be keeping a close eye on that measure to make sure that the synergies actually do deliver and that it is not just cost savings that we are looking at.  
Can I now turn to the Charities Amendment Bill (No 2) which is the most contentious part of the legislation. Mr Sabin said this was the most debated or interesting part. I think the correct term may be that this is the part of what was the Crown Entities Reform Bill that got the most opposition. Of the 43 submissions on the bill 20 were specifically in opposition to it. I would like to just point out the comments made by the United Future leader Peter Dunne who was very very I believe supportive of some of the moves around this area. I would like to just point out an email that was sent to me by Mr Robin Gunston who was one of my electorate in Mana and who was also funnily enough a United Future candidate in Mana. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Who was it again? 
KRIS FAAFOI 
: Robin Gunston who helpfully sent me an email. [ 
Interruption 
] He did. He said: “I am writing to you to ensure that as a local MP you are fully aware of the proposed Government changes to the future of the Charities Commission which we in the sector are deeply concerned about. My wish and those of the boards and volunteers of the various charities I represent would ask Parliament to drop the Charities Commission from the Crown entities that the Government is seeking to reform at this stage.” He goes on to say: “The monetary savings are minuscule but we cannot afford to lose the independence of the Charities Commission at this juncture. There is time to do this in the 2015 sectoral reform already announced.” Mr Gunston goes on and I would just like to remind the House that Mr Gunston was a United Future candidate: “Through the meetings and phone calls that we have had with Ministers it has become clear that the ramifications or timing of this were not especially well-thought-through and aside from the hoped-for cost savings there does not appear to be overwhelming evidence to support the move certainly not that the Ministers have articulated.” I do want to note that Trevor Mallard moved Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the Committee stage to delay this by 3 years. That was not picked up and that is very unfortunate. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Mr Speaker—