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:2377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Well that was an ignorant call from the Minister of State Services because if he understood Parliament’s Standing Orders and if he understood how the Committee stage of a bill actually worked he would know that it is possible to amend the commencement date only whilst the Committee is debating the title and commencement of the bill. He would also know if he had been paying attention earlier on in the night that Denise Roche attempted to debate Supplementary Order Paper 32 during Part 3 and in fact the Chairperson at the time— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And they took a point of order.  
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes the National Party took a point of order in order to close down that debate and the Chairperson at the time supported that point of order and informed the Committee— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am really reluctant to do this to my colleague but he is doing what the Minister did. He is now referring to points of order that were ruled on as part of a previous debate. This is actually quite a broad amendment but what he is saying is not part of it.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his help and I remind the member of course that the Chair is the sole judge of relevancy. I have been listening to the member Iain Lees-Galloway and I would ask him to reflect on what he has said and to bring it to the debate as it is supposed to be: on these clauses and on Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 32.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Sorry I was not asking you to rule on a question of relevancy. I was asking you to rule on a question of whether this was within the scope rather than relevant. There are numerous rulings from Speakers that indicate that it is not in order to refer to a previous ruling from a Speaker or in this case—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: In the same debate.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In the same debate. These are different clauses. It was a previous part; it has been ruled on. But whether or not it was a previous part what the member has been doing—and I mean he is one of my colleagues and no doubt I am going to have to shout him afterwards for making this point. But the point is that he is not allowed to refer to a matter that has been raised—and he is absolutely right: it was raised and it was ruled on and ruled on in favour of the National Party. He is not allowed to raise it now.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. He is right of course but can I also remind him that points of order are short terse and to the point and not a debate. He certainly should not shout. The member will come to order and debate these clauses in the way in which they should be debated. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Very good. Well thank you very much Mr Chairperson and can I say thank you very much to my honourable colleague Trevor Mallard. It is always helpful to get advice from the more elderly members of the caucus and I will take that advice— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am not as old as the member you are sitting next to! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I could not comment about that but I will take that advice and I will attempt—I am not as old as that member either— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! We have had our fun. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I will attempt to bring the debate back to the title and commencement of the Crown Entities Reform Bill and indeed the amendment proposed by my colleague Trevor Mallard. As has been said a number of times during the debate this bill has three parts that are each quite different in terms of their outcome. Superficially they look similar but the three parts are in fact quite different. I think for that reason there is a very good case to be made for having three separate commencement dates for each of the parts.  
As has been discussed Part 1 has received broad support from the Committee and it does make sense given that it is a change that is supported and for which the sector and the organisations involved are prepared for that part to come in as is stated in the current clause 2 of the bill on 1 July 2012. That I think is something that no member of the House would have any reason to disagree with.  
Part 2 of course if quite different. Part 2 actually brings forward the date for the disestablishment of the Mental Health Commission. The reasons for not wanting to do that have been well canvassed. To support the arguments made against doing that a sensible and logical move would be for the commencement date for Part 2 to be 31 August 2015 which is the current date for the disestablishment of the Mental Health Commission. Having said that I agree again with the Hon Trevor Mallard that having dates for the commencement or disestablishment of Crown entities that are not at the beginning of the financial year is a little untidy. So I think most members would probably see— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mine should have actually been 1 July 2015 rather than the 3 years—I apologise to the Committee. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well I am sure the Committee would appreciate that apology. I would agree that I think a sensible commencement date for Part 2 would in fact be 1 July 2015.  
That would give an opportunity for the second blueprint which is about to be published by the Mental Health Commission to be given a 3-year period of bedding in. You never know. From the way the blueprint is finally drafted it may be determined by Parliament that that commencement date of 1 July 2015 would no longer be relevant. We may want to push it out or we may not want to disestablish the Mental Health Commission at all. Again this is a case where we have an important document—a guiding document—for the sector that has not yet been published yet we are determining the structure for the organisations that are guided by that document. Indeed the commencement date of the change that is included in this bill has been established before the final version the public version of the second blueprint is actually available. So it is somewhat similar to our concerns around Part 3 where again the Government has put the cart somewhat before the horse. So a very very sensible amendment could be to have the commencement of Part 2 on 1 July 2015.  
That brings me to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. It would amend the bill so that Part 3 comes into force on the day 3 years after the date on which this legislation receives the Royal assent. Trevor Mallard is again quite right in that the logical date for that to achieve the same thing would be 1 July 2015. That would give the Government an opportunity to make good on its promise to the sector—not that this Government is particularly good at keeping its promises—to review the role of the Charities Commission the Charities Act itself and the charitable sector as a whole. The Government has said it intends not to carry out that review until 2015 which again is somewhat inconsistent. There is a great rush to bring this legislation in and for this legislation to receive the Royal assent yet the Government sees so little importance in reviewing the sector that that review it says will be put off until 2015.  
But this amendment in my colleague’s name would offer a period of grace under which the Government could actually bring that review forward. It could have that review. It could figure out what the right structure is then if it still believes that bringing the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs is the right thing to do it would be able to do that in 2015. That seems I think to most sensible people to be the logical approach. I will certainly—and I know members on this side of the House will—be supporting that amendment.  
We are also debating the title of this bill. The title is the Crown Entities Reform Bill. That word “reform” often strikes fear into the hearts of those organisations that are going to be— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A predecessor of the National Party the Reform Party. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes ha ha! It is such an innocuous word but it is so often loaded. The organisations that are affected by this bill—you cannot actually tell what reform means. Will it be a positive? Will it be a negative reform? Really for this Government reform is a euphemism for cuts or a euphemism for a transfer of responsibility from the Government on to those organisations—in this case on to the charitable sector.  
But there are some other possible titles for this bill: the “Change for the Sake of Change Bill” would be quite a good title for this bill. As the Minister has said he anticipates that nothing will change in their day-to-day operations for the organisations affected by this bill so you have to ask what the point is of enacting this legislation.  
Another name for it might be the “Public Sector (Mergers and Acquisitions) Bill” given that it is entirely focused on merging different Government organisations regardless of whether the outcome of that merger is sensible whether it is good for the sector and in the case of the Mental Health Commission whether it is good for the organisations working in the mental health field or indeed for the consumers of mental health services. It is just an example of this Government’s fixation on the merger of different Government organisations. We saw Steven Joyce in the Chamber for a little while earlier on. I wondered whether maybe he had come down to take control of this bill and these organisations as well. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why didn’t he do the Budget? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well that is right. I am sure Steven Joyce will be all over tomorrow’s Budget. Steven Joyce is perhaps not so involved with these mergers and acquisitions although he does seems to be the maestro behind most of the other mergers and acquisitions of the Government sector.  
The “Consultant Pay Enhancement Bill” might be another name for this piece of legislation. We will be seeing the need for the Government to contract more consultants to assist it with this merger process and that of course will result in more costs. So there are plenty of possible different titles for this bill.