Worth Richard: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4046] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The jury will be out on the merit of the comments made by the previous speaker Dr Cullen but I think it was unfair and hurtful of him to characterise Mr Hide’s comments as casuistical. 
On behalf of National I say that we will support the Human Rights (One Law For All) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. I am bound to say that National thinks the legislation has been expressed with an economy of effort and also reflection. But we want to look critically at the issues that are raised in the context of the consideration that a select committee could give to it. Let us for a moment review the processes of Parliament that would lead to that consideration for here we are at a very preliminary stage of the legislation—that is determining whether it should go to a select committee. Mr Hide has properly nominated that the relevant committee should be the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That committee will obviously call for public submissions on the legislation it will hear the views of the public on its merits and it will come to a view as to whether to report back to the House that the legislation should proceed to those further stages of consideration: the Committee stage and the third reading. 
No one would argue—not even Dr Cullen on a wet hair or bad hair day—that we are all equal before the law. Of course we would also say that no one is above the law but it is right to say that the way the legislation is drafted does have significant implications and the particular clause that other speakers have identified clause 5 might be far-reaching. 
I am not sure whether it is Mr Hide’s intention that entities like the Korea studies institute at the University of Auckland for example might fall. I am not sure whether what is intended by the legislation is that it will no longer be possible for funds to go to Maori providers for the health care of Maori people. I am not sure whether it is intended that it will no longer be possible in the context of educational institutions for the Maori scholarships and the other scholarships that exist to continue. Those are issues that do need to be looked at by the select committee. 
But in the context of the race-based comments that have been made tonight I say that I think we should take pride in racial difference. We see in so many parts of New Zealand today—unlike the New Zealand that Dr Cullen referred to of the mid-1950s—that in the diversity of our population there is both excitement and vitality. Let me give a few examples of that. If we look at the contribution that Maori have made to arts culture and sport no one would deny that that contribution is other than stunning. If we look at what the Korean community has done in the context of cultural advancement and Korean tradition we see that that has been similarly fabulous. If we look at what the Chinese have done in the context of events like the Chinese Lantern Festival we see a New Zealand that is hugely enriched. 
I am bound to say and I strongly support Mr Hide on this that the Labour Government has chosen a significantly targeted approach based on ethnicity. There are big problems with that. I looked at a press release that came out today from the Government in which the Coordinating Minister Race Relations Mr Mallard has released the details of a number of reports and results from the Government’s review of targeted policies and programmes. He is quite shameless in his acknowledgment that the Government plans to continue to use targeted programmes and policies for specific ethnic groups—he said that. He also said those reviews have confirmed that for most of those programmes targeting by ethnicity is appropriate. National wants the select committee to look at those issues.