Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3739] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I may appear to be frivolous in the next few minutes but often the easiest way to illustrate a point is to show the extent to which it becomes ridiculous. In this case it is a very serious point. 
When we write law that is obscure that is deliberately ambiguous and that can mean just about anything someone wants it to mean we are really lining the pockets of lawyers and feeding the egos of the activist judges. We are giving them the ability to make decisions that this House is not willing to make. I point here to clause 4 and the definition of “equal employment opportunities programme” and the definition of “good employer”. 
With the equal employment opportunities programme definition in this Television New Zealand Bill the Government is telling TVNZ—under clause 22A which comes later—that it must develop and ensure the implementation of programmes to eliminate “all aspects of policies procedures and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate … inequality in respect of the employment of any person or group of persons.” What the hell does that mean? What possible meaning can a court give to this when any persons or group of persons can come along and complain about inequality in employment? Does this mean it is wrong for TVNZ to have a screening policy for example that keeps out the stupid? Does this mean that it is wrong for TVNZ to do psychological testing to make sure it eliminates those who may pick on their fellow workers or who may steal money? Does this mean that the procedures for seeking references in order to shut out those who have a history of criminality can be precluded because those people can then come back and say: “You are excluding the group that has a criminal record.”? Does this mean that in any employment dispute this poor institution is going to face constitutional lawyers bringing up clause 22A and demanding to know why TVNZ has taken any kind of step that discriminates between the good and the bad? 
What does this do if for example TVNZ turns down a Jehovah’s Witness we find that TVNZ has no existing Jehovah’s Witnesses in its employment and it is asked why it does not eliminate this inequality? What does it do for Mormons or paedophiles in that situation? What about members of the Man-Boy Love Association who claim that their views should not preclude their involvement in programming? What about the Prostitutes Collective? I guess this provision would be wasted on the Minister in the chair who has led his life of “blameless excellence” and would not have any particular interest in this. The range of groups or persons who can claim that they have been the subject of inequality in employment practice is almost endless. 
We want to know from the Minister whether TVNZ is allowed to discriminate between the polite and the impolite or the respectful and the disrespectful or those who are sensitive to the mores of Catholics or of Maori and those who are not. Are we allowed to have even the vigour of broadcasters like those from The Rock who can make very good jokes that a number of others do not appreciate? This provision says to me that inequality—which is not defined—in relation to any persons or group of persons will be the basis for legal action. 
This is not trifling. This is not mere rhetoric. We could for example get the Libertarianz demanding to know why its members cannot be employed because their view that Inland Revenue Department workers should be brought before a Nuremburg-type tribunal probably has not been represented by TVNZ to date. That is pretty unequal because there has been plenty of representation of the view that more tax is good! We have had countless repetitions of the view of the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen that whacking up tax rates is clearly a social virtue irrespective of the fact that the Government has put up the tax rates on working families even more.