Mallard Trevor: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5249. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Advanced Technology Institute Bill is a bill on which there has been a debate on the substance and I think it was clear during that debate that it had the lukewarm support of Labour Party. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: 108 members. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was lukewarm—lukewarm—because although the new institute may or may not be a good thing there was a question raised about whether the legislation is necessary or not. Given that—given the lukewarm nature of it—and the fact that all parties other than New Zealand First were supportive one would have thought that the Government would tend the process to garner support and to try to get a degree of unanimity around the legislation and around the process. 
But what do we have here? We have a Government that wants to ride roughshod to build up something that it says is going to be important for decades to come. What it is doing is changing the process that would normally occur in order to rush this through the system. I think it is important that if we are building something around which there is consensus we should as far as is possible have consensus around the process because then we can focus on the substance of the legislation rather than on the process as we will now be doing and as will occur in the truncated select committee process. 
I indicated in the earlier debate that I represent hundreds if not thousands of scientists if we take a broad definition especially in the information science area. Many of those people will want to make submissions but most of those people have something else to do. It is called a “job”. Many of them are self-employed many of them are employed in small businesses some of them are employed in Crown research institutes and some are employed in universities and technical institutes. Those people know a lot about this area and they will want to make submissions. 
I am told by my colleague Ruth Dyson that the normal process is that there is normally a 6-week period that Parliament sets. That is the standard period: 6 weeks for submissions to come back. The committee meets and there is 6 weeks. Well if the committee meets next week and there is a 6-week period for submissions to come back that leaves no time whatsoever in order to hear those submissions and that is an absolute disgrace. 
My colleague David Cunliffe I am just going to sort of disagree with him a little bit. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: No! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no I have never done that before! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It never happens! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have never done that before! He said that we are running roughshod over Parliament. Well in a way that is true but it is not the real issue. What we are doing here is we are running roughshod over the people of New Zealand over the stakeholders and over the businesses who have an interest in this and an interest in getting it right. We have had feedback that the rapid process that is being used here and has been used previously around the abolition of credits has caused major damage to New Zealand business. It has caused major damage to New Zealand business. Why should we repeat the process that caused that much damage in this bill? 
I want to make another point and that is the question of travel. I sit on the Business Committee and it is very very rare for us not to come to an agreement around the ability of select committees to travel to hear submissions. We think it is a good thing taking Parliament out to the people. But we do it by agreement. We do it by the parties getting together in the Business Committee and saying that this is a good thing to do for this committee there is enough notice people are of agreement and there are enough submissions in the area; good on them get them out there talking to the people. 
What we do not like and what is not good parliamentary politics is to have a Minister saying: “We’re telling you what to do select committee.” and a whole pile of monkeys opposite voting for that Minister for that approach. That is not acceptable. That is not an acceptable approach to running Parliament in a positive manner. That is not an approach that should happen. 
There are some other things such as meeting during the day. Select committees can with the support of the Business Committee often make decisions to sit during the day while Parliament is sitting where something is urgent. If something is urgent if something is really urgent then the Parliament has its systems for dealing with it and for dealing with these issues responsibly. But with what we have here I frankly do not understand the reasoning of the Government and why it wants to burn off Opposition support albeit lukewarm for a bill by running this sort of process. 
There are other things. I mean you know in respect of what Business Committee members say—without sharing too widely what happens in the Business Committee because it is generally confidential—I think people are allowed to say what the committee members say or quote themselves. I get damned annoyed with select committees that regard adjournments as holidays and do not meet. I get damned annoyed with lazy Government members who do not meet in the adjournments regard them as holidays—regard them as holidays—and then come to this House and tell members that they are not allowed to come to the Chamber that they are banned from the Chamber. It comes so close that if there was not a motion of the House it would be a breach of privilege to have select committees meeting at this time when the House is sitting when lazy Government members—lazy Government members—have not been prepared to meet in the adjournment. 
Mike Sabin 
: We will remember that when you’re next asking for it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I hope the member does remember that fact and I hope the member is also a member who stands up for the Parliament and the people of New Zealand. What is that one’s name? What is his name? 
Hon Members 
: Mike Sabin. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mike Sabin. I want Mike Sabin to stand up after me and say that he is standing up for his constituents. I do not know how much science they do in Northland. No I do. They actually do some quite interesting science up in Northland. But I want him to say that his constituents are going to get a fair shot at making a submission on this bill and that they are going to get if not 6 weeks 4 weeks—4 weeks—to prepare a submission. I think they should be allowed at least 4 weeks to prepare a submission and then if there are enough submissions from Northland I think the committee should go up there preferably in the adjournment and should deal with it. 
If we did this properly and maybe even worked it around Waitangi Day the committee could meet there—at almost no additional travel costs because most members are up there—and report the bill back at the appropriate time early in the new year. What I am hoping for is that it could be dealt with in a positive way. It could be dealt with in a positive way and we could end up supporting it. What is going to happen if the Government rides roughshod over the people of New Zealand is that we will end up opposing this legislation to the closure.