Shirley Ken: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7260] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I wish to address the— 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You will be aware as I have just raised this issue with you that the matter of the proportionality of Parliament and the allocation of time in this 8-hour debate is at issue here. Can you confirm my understanding please that of the 36 minutes that were allocated to the ACT party—with the agreement of all parties I hasten to add—35 minutes have elapsed and that Mr Shirley’s speech will therefore be for a maximum of 1 minute? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my understanding that the Standing Orders give a total of 8 hours maximum for the debate. How the whips divvy that time up is determined between them; it is an informal arrangement between the parties concerned. I will attempt to ensure of course that everybody gets a fair go when the occasion arises. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I totally concur with the statement you just made. My understanding is that we are governed by the Standing Orders notwithstanding any Business Committee arrangements and that the Standing Orders provide for 5-minute speeches in this debate. I am seeking the call and if granted the call my expectation will be to give a 5-minute speech. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The issue is that with the agreement of all whips including Mr Shirley’s whip—and he may not have discussed this matter with Dr Newman but she indicated her agreement to me yesterday afternoon as did all other whips in Parliament—we allocated the time across all the estimates. That was done so that we could cooperate as best we could in ensuring that the relevant Ministers were in the Chamber and in the chair in order to facilitate the most rational and well-informed debate and response. To date that is exactly the pathway that has been followed with only one exception and in that case Mr Tisch informed me immediately that there had been a reallocation of one of National’s speaking slots. 
I certainly have no direct difficulty with Mr Shirley having a full call of—hopefully—no more than 5 minutes on this estimate but I would like the Committee to understand that that was the exception rather than the rule. Given that on the basis of the agreement between whips whereby speaking time has been allocated according to respect for the proportionality of each party’s membership in the Parliament other people have not spoken it would be most inappropriate if they were to lose that entitlement because of one party—or potentially of more than one I guess—not sticking with the deal that was clearly agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say again that members must realise that points of order take up debating time. I remind members they should be aware of that. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. David Benson-Pope mentioned me. Could he clarify that reference please? I was not sure what it was. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I am happy to do so. It was in reference to a call that Dr Smith took last night that had not been signalled but when I checked it with Mr Tisch I found it was a swap with one of those that had been previously indicated to me—with which I have no difficulty. That matter was dealt with appropriately and professionally but I am finding it difficult to be told now that there is a call on an issue that the ACT whip had not indicated. In fact if it is a full call—which as I have said the Labour Party will agree to—it will take the ACT party over the time allocated to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to rule on this matter. I will say that again: I want to rule on this— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am speaking on behalf of the ACT party as I know that Mr Shirley may be taking the call himself. According to that party’s reckoning it has had only five speeches which have not been 10-minute speeches. The ACT party was entitled to seven 5-minute speeches which is the 35-minute allocation. The whip tells me that the party has only had five 5-minute speeches so maybe I should hand it over to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Hand over to the Hon Ken Shirley. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order I have just been in touch with our whip who is somewhat concerned about the matter raised. She advises me that her records are that we have had five speeches which is a total of only 25 minutes so we are well within our allocated time as agreed by the Business Committee. There may be a misunderstanding in the calculations on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Informal arrangements between whips are something that I cannot rule on. I will attempt to ensure that there is a fair basis of proportionality and I say that the first two speeches on this estimate will both be for a maximum of 10 minutes each. 
David Benson-Pope 
: First of all in terms of the records that were confirmed with me by the Clerk this morning at my request—to confirm or amend my records of the elapsed time from last evening—the confirmed figure which the Clerk will be able to support is that the ACT party spoke for 20 minutes yesterday and therefore had 16 minutes remaining today. Members will appreciate that I have not been in the Chamber; I have been on parliamentary business with the other whips this afternoon outside the building. But consulting the record of today’s discussions tells me on my first assessment that Ms Coddington and Mr Eckhoff of the ACT party have spoken for 5 minutes and 10 minutes respectively leaving 16 minutes minus 15 minutes—that is 1 minute—remaining of the agreed time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say again that I cannot rule on agreements between whips. I understand that was not a determination of the Business Committee and I seek the indulgence of the House because I want to ensure proportionality. That is necessary in order to do this job properly. I am prepared to take a call from someone. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I speak in the interests of making positive progress but I also want to make this point: whereas it was strictly the case that there was not an agreement of the Business Committee it certainly was the case that there was an understanding that the whips would reach this arrangement on this debate. I do not think that anyone would dispute that. So yes it is not a formal resolution. But I think it is important—indeed crucial—for the proper operation of this Parliament that when deals are struck with whips they just have to be adhered to by everybody to respect the fact that this place will not work otherwise. In the interests of seeing good progress I will on behalf of the Government side of the Chamber suggest that we will accommodate a 5-minute speech from Mr Shirley in this debate. That will enable him to make a proper contribution but it is fair to acknowledge that that is in excess of the time that is actually available by common agreement among the whips. If we do that it will allow us to continue on and we will then absorb that additional time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that all of this is coming out of their time. We have lost nearly 10 minutes. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No this is important. Speaking to the point of order I am grateful for that consideration but there is a misunderstanding here. I have been in touch with my whip in the last few minutes. Her understanding is that we had 35 minutes which I think Lindsay Tisch indicated. She advises me that we have had five 5-minute speeches which is 25 minutes. The understanding of the whip is that there are 10 minutes remaining and two speeches to be given. I am to give one and Muriel Newman is to give the other. So I seek clarification of where the misunderstanding may be because our understanding and expectation is that we have two more 5-minute speeches remaining. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I can help. I have just put down a phone after a call from the previous speaker’s whip who informs me exactly where the misunderstanding is: Mr Eckhoff was not intended to speak for 10 minutes but he did so. However we are quite prepared to make the accommodation—and Mr Shirley can confirm that with Dr Newman; everyone who was in the Chamber prior to the break will confirm that. I am quite happy to listen to—no perhaps that is an overstatement; to accommodate—Mr Shirley’s full speech but I think that this is an unproductive waste of Parliament’s time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I understand that I have 10 minutes in which to try to convince the member—[ 
Interruption 
] The Standing Orders provide that I have 10 minutes. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Come on; be reasonable. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The comments the member made were not reasonable. I have sought the call and the Standing Orders give me 10 minutes. Without those comments I would have stuck to 5 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that we have already wasted 10 minutes on this matter. The speech could quite easily have been made in that time which means that members have wasted their own time. There needs to be some sort of compromise. I cannot rule on private arrangements between whips; that is something that they must do themselves. I am guided by the Standing Orders which state that when I call the first speaker on any estimate in this debate the first two speakers have 10 minutes. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: In speaking to Vote Crown Research Institutes— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I had the call. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is quite clear that you gave a ruling and you sat down. At the end of your ruling I was given to understand that there was an opportunity to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thought you were raising a point of order. I had already given the call to the Hon Ken Shirley and I have to abide by Speaker’s ruling 23/3 on that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: At the outset I would like to say that science is of critical importance to New Zealand. I think it is perhaps one of the most under-rated endeavours. Our whole economy is dependent on good science from the production and processing of our primary industries right across the economy. I acknowledge the contribution of successive Ministers of science and I believe the Minister in the chair the Hon Pete Hodgson is making a valiant effort in scientific endeavour. 
The challenge is that as a society we do not recognise the importance of science to the extent that we should. Scientific method transcends all cultures and creeds; it is the pursuit of physical truth. Whether it be in physics chemistry biology or genetics there are universal standards of research that have stood the test of time. Whether we are talking about the work of Aristotle or Galileo or right through to that of Pickering and Rutherford there has been a scientific method that has stood the test of time. We should not forget that scientists through the ages have withstood social pressures. Galileo was charged with heresy by the Christian church for having the temerity to suggest that the earth went round the sun. 
The point I want to make is that we in this country are at the point of abandoning reason and giving way to mythical spiritualism in our science. Other cultures have done that through the ages but one does so at one’s peril. We have now had a proposal that there is some form of Maori science and that is nonsense. Certainly Maori can endeavour in science but not through a separate methodology. All cultures have a major contribution to make to science; I acknowledge that. There will be new ways of doing things and new suggestions and methods based on traditional Maori culture will be of value to science but one does not give way to the physical pursuit of truth in the name of pursuing a metaphysical cultural belief. That is the reality. That is what Galileo faced when he suggested that the earth went round the sun. When people start to talk about leprechauns hobgoblins holy ghosts or whatever else one might want to talk about they are abandoning science. I fear that unfortunately we are seeing too much of that in this country. 
In particular I would like to refer to the work being done by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences because it confronts that very issue in its research into the volcanology of Lake Taupo. I think many New Zealanders do not appreciate the importance of that work. Lake Taupo is one giant volcanic crater. Its last major eruption was in AD 186 when it spewed out something like 40 cubic kilometres of magma. One can go to the Chatham Islands today and still find 6 inches’ depth of explosive material in the soil from the AD 186 eruption of Taupo. Chinese culture still talks about the summers that country did not have because of the Taupo eruption in AD 186. There was an even larger eruption some 20000 years ago when 400 cubic kilometres of material blew out. The AD 186 eruption was the biggest eruption in recorded history but the one 20000 years ago was 10 times bigger than that and about 400 times bigger than the Krakatoa eruption. So that is what we have in New Zealand with Lake Taupo which is a volcano. 
When the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences brought out the mini-submarine from the Max Planck Institute in 2001 with the intention of doing important volcanological survey work on the bed of Lake Taupo that submarine sat in its packing crate for over 6 months on the wharf. The institute would not confront the opposition of kaumatua from Ngati Tuwharetoa who were holding it to ransom and wanting extortion payments for allowing that important research to take place. The Minister of Maori Affairs is sitting there chuckling smiling and laughing and I challenge him to rise and explain that. In 1993 the Jim Bolger - led National Government transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngati Tuwharetoa. But there were important conditions attached to that transfer of ownership and I will remind the Committee of what they were. 
One of the conditions of the transfer of ownership was that free unfettered access would be permitted in order to allow people to engage in all recreational pursuits and all forms of scientific research work. [ 
Interruption 
] For the benefit of the member for Rotorua who does not even seem to understand the nature of the problem I tell her that there was to be free public access for all recreational pursuits and scientific endeavours. It was a condition of that transfer to Ngati Tuwharetoa that those activities could continue at no fee. It was on that basis— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Ken Shirley can’t even keep his word in this Parliament. He can never be trusted in this Parliament again. He has broken yet another undertaking. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Chair is there a doctor in the Chamber? Minister Burton seems to be having a seizure over there on the Government benches. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I caution members that they are becoming very unruly and it is leading to disorder. There is no need for that in the course of this debate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I shall continue. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: He can’t be trusted. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The member for Taupo should be very very interested in this issue. The Crown agreed in 1993—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairman we have a barrage of interjections here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/4 which states “Strictly speaking a member is entitled to be heard without interruption” although members may ask reasonable questions to elicit further information. This is getting beyond that. If members wish to take a call they will be able to do so next time. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am happy to respond to any reasonable questions. I reiterate that in 1993 the Crown transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngati Tuwharetoa on the clear condition that free access for all recreational activities and scientific endeavours would be permitted—at no fee. 
The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences brought out the mini-submarine  
Jago 
 in 1999 and did some major work on the volcanology of Lake Taupo. It was very important work and Television One did a splendid programme that screened on Labour weekend of that year showing the underwater pictures of that research work and the seismology associated with the bed of the lake. When the institute wanted to repeat that critically important work in 2001 Ngati Tuwharetoa said it would not give the institute permission to do that research work unless the institute was prepared to pay it a quarter of a million dollars. Ngati Tuwharetoa said the institute had to pay it to do that research work although that is absolutely against the condition of the transfer of ownership. 
I say to the Committee and to the Labour Government that in the work the Government is doing now on the foreshore and seabed—and I know the complexity of the issue; I am not trying to understate it—for goodness’ sake it should think very hard because those precedents exist out there. The Prime Minister and members on the Government side of the Chamber actually say that Lake Taupo is a good example of how wonderful things will be in respect of the foreshore and seabed. All I say is that they should look at the facts and at the truth of what has happened. 
However my question is more fundamental. I say to the Minister for Crown Research Institutes that when the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences was confronted with that dilemma the board had meetings with the Minister—or his predecessor; perhaps the Minister could clarify that point—and asked him to confront the issue that the Crown had transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo on the condition that free access without fee was permitted and required as a condition of the transfer. That was reneged on by certain kaumatua of Ngati Tuwharetoa. I say at the outset that there were many in Ngati Tuwharetoa who did not agree with that and who were against the opposition to the undertaking of that very important and critical work. I would like the Minister to answer me on that and to explain why he did not back the institute up in doing that work.