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:2361. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I think one of the most salient comments in the departmental report on this bill the Crown Entities Reform Bill is comment No. 152 on page 25 for those of you who are following at home. The point is— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It was not. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Bridges do you know what it is? Feel free to share. He knows a lot about this bill Mr Bridges as a knowledgable Minister. The comment that I am referring to is as follows: “The points made in favour of retaining the Charities Commission are acknowledged. However they do not address the Government’s wider objectives for the State sector.” In other words when people came and said to the Government Administration Committee that the independence of the Charities Commission’s functions will be compromised by transferring them to the Department of Internal Affairs when people came to the committee and said that the Charities Commission’s role in educating the charitable sector will be compromised by the transfer of its functions to the Department of Internal Affairs when people came to the select committee and said that the Charities Commission should be retained in its current form until after the completion of the review of the Charities Act 2005 and when people came to the select committee and said: “We don’t believe that this will actually save an awful lot of money for the Government.” all those points were noted.  
The ministry and the officials said: “Yes we actually think the submitters have a point but it doesn’t fit with the Government’s so-called plan.” The Government’s plan for the public sector is just to cut cut cut and in this case regardless of what the outcomes are to cut the number of organisations and to merge organisations whether they fit together or not and whether the outcomes are positive or not. That is the Government’s mantra: “cut cut cut in the public sector”. That is the only thing the Government knows how to do. It is the most unimaginative approach that you could ever have from a Government but that is what this Government has to say.  
Even in the officials’ own departmental report they say that the submitters had good points that the submitters’ points showed an understanding of the sector and in fact that the Government should listen to what those charities have to say. The report says the Government should listen to the non-governmental organisation sector that it should trust it and that it should believe it. But no because it does not fit with the Government’s mantra then it is just going to do the opposite anyway.  
It certainly does feel as though Part 3 puts the cart before the horse. It is just like we saw with the Mental Health Commission—the early termination of an organisation that still has plenty of work ahead of it. As Trevor Mallard said ordinarily what a sensible Government would do if it was going to review a piece of legislation or if it was going to review the way a Government department works would be to carry out that review first and then make the structural changes. But what we are seeing here— 
Louisa Wall 
: Too logical. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —is the Charities Commission. Well it is probably too logical for this Government I think. It is frankly just too sensible for this Government. The Charities Commission really ought to be retained until the review of the Charities Act 2005 is completed.  
Again the submitters’ points were noted but then the point was made that it is outside the scope of the bill. Well it does not really matter whether it is outside the scope of the bill. The bill is wrong. What the bill is doing is wrong. The proper approach here should be for the review to take place first and then for any changes to the structure to happen after that. Submitter after submitter charity after charity came to the select committee to tell it that but this Government just does not listen. It does not actually trust the charitable sector and it is not prepared to listen to what it has to say.  
Of course apparently this is all with a view to cutting costs. The Government has got its zero Budget coming up tomorrow—its zero growth zero imagination Budget—so it is cutting public sector organisations in an attempt to cut costs. Well I think the submitters who came to the select committee and said: “We’re a little bit dubious about that.” actually had a point. But I am not going to trust just those submitters; I am going to trust the very select committee that heard them. I am going to trust people like Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. I am going to trust people like Chris Auchinvole. I am going to trust people like Eric Roy. When they performed the financial review of the Department of Internal Affairs they discovered that when Archives New Zealand and the National Library were merged into the Department of Internal Affairs that was expected to cost $2.5 million. That merger a similar merger to the one that is being proposed in Part 3 of this bill was supposed to cost $2.5 million. Well in the end it did not cost $2.5 million and it did not cost $3.5 million; it cost $4.126 million with a further $1.751 million spent on capital assets. In case you missed that Mr Hipkins it was $4.126 million with a further $1.751 million spent on capital assets for integrating the IT systems of the departments. 
 This will not save the Government money; this is going to cost the Government money and all because of its ideological— 
Chris Hipkins 
: How much did they budget? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: How much did it budget? Two and a half million dollars. 
Chris Hipkins 
: So it was twice the cost. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: So it was twice the cost—all up it was twice the cost. 
Louisa Wall 
: How many consultants? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is a good question. That is a question for the Minister of State Services to answer: how many consultants were involved in that merger and how many consultants will be involved in this merger? It will not only cost the Government money but also destroy the functionality of the Charities Commission and it is going to put an even greater gap between the non-governmental organisations that work with the Charities Commission and the commission.  
In fact again the select committee—the same select committee that considered this bill with those members from the National Party whom I mentioned just before—actually noted in its financial review of the Department of Internal Affairs that it was very concerned that the integration of the Charities Commission with the department might reduce its transparency and the independence of the Charities Commission. That is coming not just from the sector and not just from the Labour Party the Green Party and New Zealand First but from the select committee that considered this bill—all of the members of that select committee. I would like to hear from the members of that select committee who are in the Chamber as to how they can reconcile those different positions. They are standing up and saying that they support this bill whilst in a report that they have tabled in Parliament they express their concerns and they express their very great concern about the additional cost that goes along with these amalgamations.  
With that I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister’s response is on that. I am looking forward to hearing what the members from the other side who have made those comments in those reports have to say because I think there are some very concerning and pressing issues here. We are undermining the Charities Commission and it is all for naught.