Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: 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.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I want to go back to a provision that I am developing a lot of anxiety about. I am referring to clause 157(2) which is to direct the Crown entity to be a good employer. Apparently to be a good employer it has to operate a personnel policy and that policy has to recognise the aims and aspirations of Maori and their employment requirements. I do not have too much problem with the clause up to that point but clause 157(2)(d)(iii) refers to the need for the involvement of Maori as employees of the entity. The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard should take a call and say whether the employment of Maori staff does not naturally mean they are employees of that entity. It is a very strange provision that states that after Maori staff are employed they are required to be treated as employees of the entity. 
Of course it gets even more interesting. For me coming from an Asian background I looked to see whether the Minister or the chief executive would make sure that other ethnic minorities would also be involved as employees. Apparently not. All that clause 157(2) states is: “(d) recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Maori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Maori;”—whatever they are—“… and (f) … the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups;”. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain to us whether that provision means that a chief executive would be labelled as a good employer if he or she were somehow to employ ethnic minority staff without involving those staff as employees. One has to scratch one’s head and ask what that is all about. 
When it comes to women the provision simply refers to the recognition of the employment requirements of women. So somehow a good employer does not have to recognise the aims and aspirations of women but just their employment requirements. That is all very strange. 
The Minister should take a call and say what the different requirements mean for those chief executives. I think that the chief executives of some Crown entities might find it difficult to make that distinction. I presume that if they employ European males then they do not have to pay attention to the aims aspirations and employment requirements of those males or involve them as employees. It is all very very strange so clause 157 “Crown entity to be good employer” needs a lot of explanation before people like myself in the future can conduct financial reviews of Crown entities and ask them to explain themselves when they may not be aware of those specific requirements. 
Clause 174(1) states: The board of a Crown entity must supply to its responsible Minister any information relating to the operations and performance of the Crown entity that the Minister requests.” I thought that that sounded pretty fair. However clause 175(1) states that there are exceptions when the Crown entity can withhold information on the grounds that it is necessary to protect the privacy of a person or that it will limit the ability of the Crown entity or its members etc. “(b)… to act judicially or to carry out the statutorily independent functions of the entity”. 
I think the Minister should take a call. I am not sure whether that provision is helpful to him. After all if we refer back to Part 4—