Estimates Debate — Vote Crown Research Institutes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

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.

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 Māori science, and that is nonsense. Certainly, Māori 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 Māori 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 20,000 years ago, when 400 cubic kilometres of material blew out. The AD 186 eruption was the biggest eruption in recorded history, but the one 20,000 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 kaumātua from Ngāti Tuwharetoa, who were holding it to ransom and wanting extortion payments for allowing that important research to take place. The Minister of Māori 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 Ngāti 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 Ngāti 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.

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.

I shall continue.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: He can’t be trusted.

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.

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 Ngāti 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, Ngāti 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. Ngāti 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 kaumātua of Ngāti Tuwharetoa. I say at the outset that there were many in Ngāti 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.

This is my 13th year in this House, and I do not think that in 13 years I have heard a speech from anyone as disgraceful as the one that has just been uttered by the Hon Ken Shirley. I do not believe I have heard a speech as disgraceful—actually, I think “despicable” is a better word. I want to lay out why. I will come later to the issue of how long the member spoke, agreements, and so on. I want to talk about science, science models, and whether the member has the faintest idea about a philosophy of science—the idea that science is nestled in the culture in which it finds itself; that science is informed by the culture in which it finds itself.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: So Galileo should have been persecuted?

No, Galileo should not have been persecuted. Galileo suffered from a different problem—that of a lack of academic freedom. That is the issue. There is academic freedom—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Absolutely that is the issue.

I did not interrupt the member at all during his address, his most provocative address. I uttered not one syllable agin him. But I am doing it now, and I suggest that he sits and takes it as well as he can give it.

I say to the member that that despicable address was based on the idea that there is only one culture, not only in New Zealand but in the world. Chinese science is different from Western science. The Western medical model is different from the Chinese medical model. It is vastly different. There is Chinese medicine in this country and there is Western medicine in this country. What needs to be said about this country—New Zealand, Aotearoa—is that there are two cultures predominant. One of them is Māori, and the Māori way of thinking about science is different. Eliciting Māori knowledge through that cultural lens, if you will, will give a different insight. What is truth, then, is that which is discerned by the society in which the science finds itself. So we do not believe a lot of Chinese medicine, but the Chinese do, and they do not believe a lot of ours. As those cultures come together—which in my hometown of Dunedin they are doing, wonderfully well—we end up with some very, very interesting synergies and explosions of understanding.

That is a possibility in New Zealand with Māori science and European science. What is more, it can only happen here, because this is the only country in the world in which Anglo-Saxon thinking and Polynesian thinking collide, and the collision continues. I say to the member that if he wants to be so unilateral, monocultural, and linear in his thinking, he is the worse for it.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What about Taupo?

I will talk about Lake Taupo in a minute. The member should not worry; I will get to that, no trouble at all! I am currently giving the member a towelling for being stupid. He ought to try not to be. He has a good head on his shoulders; he just has a linearity that, as he gets older, gets worse.

That member should remember that he comes, as I do, from a culture that not only has leprechauns in it, as he mentioned, but also Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Loch Ness monster, and on it goes. All of us are informed by the culture in which we find ourselves.

Let us go to Lake Taupo. The story the member told is almost certainly wrong and quite possibly libellous. I was the Minister at the time, I did have discussions with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences at the time, and, actually, I did speak with the paramount chief at the time. As far as I am aware, and it may be that I do not know everything, it is my understanding that there was no requirement for quarter of a million dollars, or any other sum. I am not aware of that. So that accusation of extortion, made freely in this Chamber by that member, is probably, to the best of my knowledge, wrong. Actually, the sister-in-law of the paramount chief has just spoken to me about this. She is a member of this House; she is from the National Party. She came over to me and said she is unaware of any extortion. I have to ask the member who has resumed his seat why he made that claim. The Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit, the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, the scientists who were involved, the paramount chief, and the sister-in-law of the paramount chief, who is an honourable member of this House, did not tell me that that was going on, so why should the member take it upon himself to make an accusation of that ilk? I think that is a very, very disgraceful thing to do.

I will say something else. The really important thing about this story is that the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences and Tuwharetoa have a hugely improved relationship because of the learning of one another’s positions that has been derived from it. I say to the member that next time a submarine wants to go to Lake Taupo everybody will know how to make it happen.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: So there was a problem.

Absolutely a problem. But the problem was not to do with money.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It was politics.

It was not politics; it was serious cultural misunderstanding. Because the member himself has serious cultural misunderstanding, he will be the last to get it. It is just not going to happen to him. I think he is going to die before he gets there.

Another issue needs to be addressed, and I want to address it here and now. The reason that a mistake occurred in the time allotted to the ACT party is that nobody could shut up the ACT member from Otago, who wanted to talk about methane emissions. Mr Gerry Eckhoff went on for two 5-minute speeches. That was where it happened. The Labour Party, courtesy of the acting Leader of the House, Mark Burton, donated time to the ACT party in order to progress harmony in the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the Minister that we are supposed to be speaking about the spending plans, not what formal agreements were made between whips or otherwise.

And in one sentence I will return to them. In taking that extra time, and using the Standing Orders to his fullest advantage, the member has done the ACT party very serious damage, not just with the Labour Party but with all other parties. The member’s arrogance is compounded not by what he said but the circumstances in which he said it.

The last thing I want to say about science is this. The Government holds science as one of the cornerstones of our progress. The role of Māori in science is improving significantly, not just in terms of Māori knowledge, not just in terms of taking what is often narrow caste knowledge, and codifying it, and broadcasting it, which is difficult in Māori culture; what else is happening is that young Māori are stepping up to PhDs in rapidly increasing numbers, and some of them are just eye-wateringly good. I say to the member Ken Shirley that a bit of change is going on. The future of this country is browner than it is now. The contribution that Māori will make to science, both through a Māori ethos and through a Western ethos, will be remarkable indeed.

Vote agreed to.