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:17890. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 This bill goes from bad to worse to the bizarre. As we look at Part 4 we see that it is bizarre. I draw members’ attention to clause 57 which sets out the core things that statutory entities can do. What does it state? It states: “A statutory entity may do anything authorised by this Act or the entity’s Act.” What a stupid clause to put in. Obviously statutory entities cannot do things they are not authorised to do. Clause 58 is: “Other things statutory entities can do”. They can do anything “a natural person” can do. 
This is typical of this Labour Government. The legislation it is passing through this Parliament is just junk law. If we look at clause 65 “Interpretation” we see that the word “do” is interpreted and that its meaning includes: “(a) to do an act;”. I know that one should not bring the Speaker into the debate but just in passing may I suggest that Mr Speaker Hunt would be horrified at the grammar in this bill. What on earth do we mean by: “to do an act”? For example clause 59 “Acts must be for purpose of functions” states: “A statutory entity may do an act …”. For goodness’ sake! What are we coming to in this Parliament when we pass legislation that includes language that is not even English? I do not know what language it is but “to do an act” is surely not English. 
It gets even worse than that. I draw to members’ attention clauses 67 and 69. Clause 67 spells out the accountability of members of entities to the responsible Minister. It states that members of entities—I presume that includes individuals and can even include employees—are accountable to the Minister for any directions given to an entity. They are accountable to the Minister yet if we look at the original clause 69 struck out by the Finance and Expenditure Committee we find that now the Minister is not accountable to this House. Members of Crown entities are accountable to the Minister but the Minister in relation to this bill does not appear to be accountable to this House. I think the Minister should explain to Parliament why that provision was in this part and why there is no clause requiring him to be accountable to this House when statutory entities or their members have to be accountable to him. 
I come back in particular to the provisions of clauses 59 and 65 where we get down in law to interpreting the word “do”. I imagine that in court we will have problems with that. In courts of law there will be problems because “do” has a general meaning in the English language and if legislation like this one seeks to redefine what “do” means I suspect there will be problems with the law. I think the Minister should explain why on earth it is necessary to interpret what the word “do” means in legislation and why on earth this bill includes the language “to do an act”. 
John Key 
: It sounds sordid actually. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I do not want to put that kind of unsavoury interpretation on it but I think that if the Minister expects this Parliament to treat his legislation seriously he should explain why on earth he is coming along to this Committee with that kind of language in a bill. Clause 59 states: “A statutory entity may do an act …” under various sections “… only for the purpose of performing its functions.” What on earth is that kind of language in our law for? I think the Minister should explain that. As for spelling out in clause 65 “Interpretation” what “do” includes—it includes firstly “to do an act”—that is just bizarre lawmaking.