Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to take up exactly where my very good colleague Pansy Wong left off. Clause 157 “Crown entity to be good employer” in Part 5 is blatantly racist legislation. I want the Minister to explain to this Committee why he expects us to pass racist legislation like that. It is an insult to Maori. I am speaking specifically with respect to clause 157(2)(d). What on earth is it about being a good employer that requires a Crown entity to recognise the aims and aspirations of only Maori? What about people of Pacific origin and people of other ethnic backgrounds? Why does this law require a Crown entity in order to be a good employer to recognise the aims and aspirations of only Maori? That is blatant racism. I expect the Minister to explain that clause because I suggest that it is offensive to Maori as well as to anyone else. Does the Minister think Maori are pathetic? What does the Minister want with regard to that clause? I think this Committee deserves an explanation because that clause can only be described as racist legislation. 
Clause 157 mentions no group of people other than Maori. Why should the aims and aspirations of Pacific New Zealanders not be relevant? Why should the aims and aspirations of people of European descent in New Zealand not be relevant to a Crown entity being a good employer? Why are only Maori referred to? I thought the Prime Minister had made the Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard responsible for dealing with this kind of racist legislation yet he has brought to this Chamber legislation that perpetuates racism in our law. That is disgraceful. Why is it that in order to be a good employer under clause 157(2)(d)(iii) Crown entities have to consider only “the need for involvement of Maori as employees”? Why do they have to consider only that? What about other New Zealanders and their need for involvement as employees? What would occur if a Crown entity were involved in other issues around for example Pacific Island New Zealanders? Some Crown entities may be involved in such specific issues. But no they will have to consider the aims and aspirations of Maori and the need for involvement of Maori as employees. This Committee deserves an explanation of that because we should not be asked to pass such blatantly racist legislation without explanation. 
I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 165. I think we deserve an explanation of what the hell it means. Clause 165 “Saving of judicial protections from liability” states: “A Judge who is appointed as a member of a statutory entity has the same immunities and limitations or other protections from liability when acting as a member of that entity as he or she would have as a Judge.” Now if the Minister appoints a judge to any old Crown entity why should that judge have the same protections that he or she has when acting as a judge in a specific judicial role when the appointment to the Crown entity may not be in a judicial role? In fact I can think of plenty of judges who have been appointed to Crown entities where they are not acting in a judicial role. Why should those judges have the same protection as they have when they are performing a judicial role? I think that should be explained to the Parliament if the Minister expects us to support this legislation. 
Even though it is close to 5 minutes to midnight the Committee does deserve an explanation because this is important legislation. It affects the entire Crown entity sector. Here we have in clause 157 blatantly racist legislation. I also think we need to be given an explanation as to what the Minister is seeking to do under clause 165 by providing to those members of the judiciary who are appointed to Crown entities the protections that they have when acting as judges. I am prepared to take my seat so that the Minister can answer before we rise.