Chauvel Charles: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5254. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to say a few words about the motion that Minister Goodhew moved. I guess my fundamental point in this contribution is to say that the Opposition accepts that there will be occasions when these sorts of motions are appropriate. Just the other day we had a motion to truncate the scrutiny that would be able to be afforded to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The proposal was that that should go to the Regulations Review Committee and it should come back to the House on 5 November. 
The committee met this morning and we had a look at the strictures that that would put on our ability to consider the bill. Basically because it was pretty much a procedural piece of legislation we worked out that we could accommodate the House’s instruction. I had been given the courtesy as the chairman of the committee in advance from the relevant Minister by way of some advice that that was what the Government wanted. It wanted the legislation back quickly. We could not see any harm in that. There was no great controversy in the legislation; it was a procedural bill. As I said we worked out in the committee today on advice that we could without appointing advisers write to the departments concerned and ask them for evidence by way of a written response to questions— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the member is talking about a different bill here. I am having difficulty following him. We are discussing the reasons for this. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Speaking to the— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I have made a ruling. I have said that I am listening. The member should continue. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I apologise if you think I am straying. What I am trying to do is draw an analogy between a situation where it is entirely proper to do this and the present situation. 
I am going to get the present situation I promise you. But I want to make the point that we concede it is proper on occasion to do this but it is not even in those cases an easy thing for a select committee to accommodate. It is necessary to do away with the possibility for example as we did today of the likelihood of hearing evidence. We are simply going to do things mainly on the papers. We are going to do without advisers. We are going to simply try to rely on our expertise and on the evidence that we receive from departments concerned. That is probably just doable in that sort of case. This legislation is substantive legislation. 
The reason I have tried to draw the analogy is that it calls for the reporting back of the legislation a day after the bill that I have just mentioned. The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is due back on 5 November. I have tried to illustrate to the House how the Regulations Review Committee has had to deal with that in order to meet that deadline. This is a much more substantive piece of legislation. 
No doubt the Education and Science Committee is going to have to consider the same sorts of short cuts and abridgments that the Regulations Review Committee had to consider this morning. It will have to consider whether it can fully hear evidence whether it can travel whether it can hear from all the witnesses that it wants to hear from and whether it is going to get the sort of advice that would customarily be able to be tendered from officials in the very very short time frame that is available even if it sits through all the adjournments and all the sittings of the House that lie between now and 6 November. 
I want to make another point about the desirability of this practice. It is by way of trying to illustrate to the House the sorts of perils that can come up. When the criminal compensation legislation was being considered by the House the Minister of Justice had said to me that because there was an expiry date coming up she wanted to expedite the consideration of that legislation. So there was a very good reason why expedition should occur. 
I agreed on behalf of my colleagues that we would cooperate particularly at the Justice and Electoral Committee in assisting to pass interim legislation so that the primary legislation which was about to expire would not leave a hole in the law while we as a Parliament considered what the replacement should be. There was a proper case for expedition. What there was not was consultation about whether there should be a truncation motion—just like in this case—so when it was moved even the Acting Leader of the House the Hon Anne Tolley was surprised to have it sprung on her. She was not surprised to see that there was objection from our side of the House to the truncation motion. 
That has led I have to say to some real difficulty in terms of the ongoing relationship between me and the Minister. The Minister felt that because we agreed to expedition but not truncation and then we voted against truncation because it came up on a surprise basis we had gone back on the deal we had. That certainly was not the case but it is a good example of the sorts of problems that can arise in this sort of situation where without consultation a truncation motion is moved. 
I would make a plea to the Minister of Science and Innovation and to the Government to reconsider the wisdom of the truncation motion in this case. It is generally I think agreed to be not good practice. It should occur only where there is a good reason. I have tried to give two cases where I think there was good reason. First of all was one where really only procedural matters were being dealt with—and that clearly is not the case here—and secondly there was a case where there was primary legislation due to expire and there was a need for some interim legislation to come up and be dealt with on an urgent basis. Again that was clearly a case where it was justifiable to contemplate this sort of procedure even if there was not proper consultation and agreement on truncation. 
 That is not the case here. This is very substantive legislation. I am not going to refer to the substance of the bill but what I am going to say is that the reason why this bill differs from the two cases that I have tried to put to the House includes the fact that it will involve a transfer of employees legally from one entity to another. It will involve the creation of a new Crown entity. If we have a look at clauses 15 and 16— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. The member is now outside. You will come back to the provisions in the motion to shorten the period. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The motion is in fact much wider than the question of the shortening. There is the question of when the committee can sit. There is the question of where it can sit. I think it is important that members are not restricted. We had a bit about the shortening but I am sure that as debate goes on it will be about the other provisions of the motion as well. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well that was a nice try but it is outside the Standing Orders. Let me just read the Standing Order again: “Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction set out in the motion. It may not extend to the principles objects or provisions of the bill to which the motion relates.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The special powers or instructions that were moved—I accept that you were not in the Chair at the time—relate not only to the length of the period before the report back but also to when the committee can sit in the sitting— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I have heard the member. Firstly I do have the House relayed in my office. I also have the motion in front of me and I have the Standing Orders. I have instructed the member quite clearly on what he should speak on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You instructed him to speak only on the length of— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That is exactly what you referred to Mr Speaker. And that is why I raised the original point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well it is the provisions that were in the motion. Let us be quite clear. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I was simply making the point that although I was pointing out to the House that there were procedural bills where this sort of motion was appropriate and there were occasions where a bill might contain a sunset clause where Parliament had not moved expeditiously to deal with replacement legislation this is not one of those cases. This is substantive legislation. I am sure members in the select committee will want to hear about the effect of for example creating a new Crown entity. They will want to hear from experts about the effect of legally transferring employees from one entity to another. 
There is another point that I want to really invite the representatives of the Government in the House to consider. This is a bill that has had virtually unanimous support in the House today. The bill has been referred to as Sir Paul Callaghan’s bill. Sir Paul is a person who commands posthumously enormous respect from all New Zealanders. I really think that this is the sort of case where the Government ought to just pause and consider whether it wants to create a controversy like this around legislation that it regards as clearly being something of a centrepiece of its economic development agenda and where it has invoked the memory of a very great New Zealander somebody who does deservedly have— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —respect across the House. Well Mr Speaker I am making the point that a procedural motion such as this does not do honour to the person whom the Government wishes to name the institute after. It is another reason why I invite the Government to reflect again as well as on all the consequences that my colleague Chris Hipkins has foreshadowed as to whether this is a course of action that it wishes to pursue.