Cunliffe David: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 We are quite shocked that the Government would want a report-back date of 6 November. As the Standing Orders provide that any motion for a report-back date of less than 4 months can be debatable I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Labour-led Opposition to register our strong concern about this. One wonders why it is that the Government is taking this very unusual step of denying the Education and Science Committee and through it the innovation community a full and proper opportunity to make submissions on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill to have its case heard to consider the submissions in the normal way to write a proper report and to report back to this House within the normal time period. This is really only a couple of—not even 2 months. It is ridiculous. 
What is the Government trying to hide in the depths of this bill? What is going on at Industrial Research Ltd that it is having to change the name change the board and fossick through this bill in the dead of daytime—or actually in the dead of the evening—at any time the House is in session? It can meet on a Friday. It can put extra strain on the select committee system. It can throw into confusion parties’ normal management of the House and all for what? A bill that has not been introduced in urgency a bill that the Opposition is supporting because it is ostensibly a small step in a positive direction. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t know why. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well there we are. As my colleague has said we do not know why because it has been supported by the Opposition in good faith on the basis that it is part of a normal legislative process. Now we find out that it is not. Now we find out that this is being rushed through the House according to the Government’s timetable in less than 2 months. 
That is outrageous. It is outrageous because there is no apparent justification for it. How do we know? Well it just so happens that we have under the Official Information Act a Treasury memorandum of 22 February 2012 an aide-mémoire to the Minister of Finance which sets out additional information on the time frame for costs related to the establishment of the Advanced Technology Institute. I wish to acknowledge my excellent colleague Megan Woods MP who has provided this document to the House. What this shows is that the original Ministry of Science and Innovation proposal for the Advanced Technology Institute— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! This debate is a very narrow debate and under Standing Order 286(3) the member cannot bring in the content of the bill. I will read it to you and this may apply to others: “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.” So the member must talk as he did earlier as to the reasons why or why not there is a truncated period for the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate your ruling but I think if you had waited just a little bit more—I was listening very carefully to my colleague and he referred to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. I am inviting the member to continue and I will listen very carefully from now on in. The point I made was valid at the time. I invite the Hon David Cunliffe— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to you Standing Order 286(3): “Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction …”. The instruction relates to the time frame. My colleague was referring to the financial consequences of the time frame. It has nothing to do with the substance of the bill. It has to do with the timing of the bill and therefore is something that is within the scope of this debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will be listening very closely. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Speaker may I offer a brief apology if the way that I framed this did not assist the Chair. Let me reread the title of the aide-mémoire in question which is “Additional information on timeframe for costs …”. The substantive point that I wish to make—and I appreciate the intervention of my colleague Mr Mallard for assisting—is that the time frame was changed. It was delayed by Treasury from the earlier time frame recommended by the Ministry of Science and Innovation. The expenditure profile therefore slipped out a year and one can only assume that the Government is trying now to make up for lost time. 
But this appears to be bureaucratic slippage. Why is the Government denying the Parliament the opportunity to properly examine and debate what ought to be a relatively standard bill? It has not been introduced in urgency and the Opposition is supporting it in principle although there are issues with it. Why the Government would pull the stunt of asking for a report back in less than 2 months which is less than half the minimum period provided for in the Standing Orders frankly beggars belief. One can only assume that the Government is making a habit of trifling with the House. Mr Speaker as you know that is “second-term-itis” writ large. That is what happens to Governments when they have been getting just a little too comfortable on that side of the House and getting a little too snug in those seats in the LTDs. They lose focus and they forget how it feels to real people out in real New Zealand. In this case the real people are the real scientists and innovators. They want this let us assume but they want it done properly. They do not want to have to come back to the House in 6 months’ or a year’s time to unpick drafting errors that should have been picked up the first time through. The Government is needlessly accentuating the risk of a drafting meltdown because it is not giving this a proper period of consideration. 
What are we asking for? The normal process is 6 months. Let us say that the Government is in something of a hurry and we took—I do not know—5 months or even 4 and a bit which is provided for in the Standing Orders. That way we would not be having a debate on a motion that has now become debatable because of the Government’s unwarranted haste. We could be disposing of this early in the new year but we are not. Instead the Government is putting pressure on the House pressure on the select committee system and pressure on the sector to rush this through on Fridays when the House is not sitting and to have the select committee meeting while the House is in session denying members the opportunity for example to have full consideration of other bills and possibly questions for oral answer. 
Why is the Government doing this? Firstly one wonders whether the Government has confidence in its own processes. My colleague Megan Woods has raised this issue in particular because of what appears to be bickering between Treasury and the Ministry of Science and Innovation. Treasury said the ministry’s timetable was not realistic and it pushed it out a year. 
It is unclear why the Government is now attempting to overrule Treasury and side with the ministry. But I think I have a theory. The Ministry of Science and Innovation is part of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment which is the bureaucratic empire created to provide a fitting throne for Mr Steven Joyce and Treasury reports to the “other” Minister of Finance Mr Bill English. It is a legend around this place that the two do not often take tea. It may be that there is a bit of a tug of war going on here for the House timetable resulting from—how would we put it—little disagreements perhaps between their respective bureaucratic empires. So there is a problem of confidence in the process. 
Is there confidence in the substance? Why are we having this debate on the time line? If the Government had the courage of its convictions— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The member cannot say that. The member will withdraw that comment. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw that comment. If the Government had full confidence in the substance of the bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a Government. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It was a Government charitably speaking. It was a Government composed of some members—and that is perhaps a liberal interpretation. But none the less the issue of confidence remains. 
Summing up there is no need for this to have an outrageous 2-month time line turn-round. We should not be back having the second reading in November this year. It should be at least in the early part of next year. The Government is abusing the Standing Orders of the House which is why it is incurring the penalty of this becoming a debatable motion. It has breached the normal 4-month rule for a report back and all for what? It has a bureaucratic mess between two departments and between two rival Ministers it has an inordinate pressure on House time it lacks confidence in the process it lacks confidence in the substance and the people— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.