Moroney Sue: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6482. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Advanced Technology Institute Bill but it is lukewarm support as you have already heard from Labour speakers before me because effectively unfortunately this is an opportunity gone begging. It is another example from this Government of too little too late—far too little far too late. Today we have heard the unwelcome news—the shocking news actually—that unemployment has increased again to 7.3 percent. The Government would have us believe that it has got a plan. Apparently we are hearing through this debate today there is an economic plan. Well if there is a plan it is not working. And when that was put to Bill English earlier this week he said that its economic plan is working. That is what he informed the House. Well that economic plan if it is working must be a plan to have high unemployment and low wages because that is in fact exactly what is happening in New Zealand and that is why we need a much better response than this bill from this Government. 
Although I guess it sounds like the Government is doing something—it is going to create a new Crown entity. That is what it is going to do. That is going to fix the problems in New Zealand! Go and create a new Crown entity. That is exactly what this bill is doing. There is high unemployment and low wages and what does the National Government do? It goes and establishes a new Crown entity. And in that new Crown entity the Government clearly has no interest in what workers have to contribute to the innovation of this country. During this debate it was very sad to hear the chair of the Education and Science Committee Nikki Kaye use her—oh she did not use even 10 minutes; I think she might have used 5 minutes because there is not too much to say about this bill. It does not do too much. She used most of that time to attack the Labour Party for daring to say that workers should have a say in this Crown entity and that workers have something to contribute to innovation. Has that Government learnt nothing from the Pike River mine disaster? Has it learnt nothing from the events of this week and the report that landed on its desk about the importance of involving workers in big decisions? Has it learnt nothing? Nikki Kaye used this debate to attack the Labour Party for insisting that workers do have a right to have something to say about their future and that workers do have something to contribute about innovation. They certainly have a lot more than that Government has to contribute to the discussion of innovation. If this is the best that the Government can come up with it is woefully—woefully—inadequate. 
I too want to acknowledge and honour the memory—honour the memory—of Sir Paul Callaghan but this bill does not honour his memory. This establishment of an Advanced Technology Institute falls woefully short—woefully short—of the sort of vision that Sir Paul Callaghan had for a proper investment in innovation in science. He had a vision of a high-wage economy not the low-wage economy that that Government is investing in and continuing to argue for in this House by saying that unions have no role in innovation. For goodness’ sake! Read the Pike River mine report. Understand the importance of working people and their contribution to the economy. Understand how important it is that we get it right for this country. We will not get it right if working people are not invested in and engaged in and part of that decision-making process. This bill demonstrates again how little faith—how little faith—the Government has in working people how little it values their contribution to the economy. It is another example of exactly that. 
I have a real concern about the process for this bill because it was entirely rushed. I can think only that the Minister of Science and Innovation did not have his act together with regards to this bill because suddenly without any notice to the Education and Science Committee—and this is a select committee I sit on—there was a bill put on us that apparently we had to deal with in a matter of weeks. This is supposed to be a large vision the new vision for this Government that is going to save the country and yet the Education and Science Committee had to deal with it in a matter of weeks. Blink and you would miss it the process for this bill. In fact in my instance go and hear a few submissions on paid parental leave and you miss it. I actually was not able to participate in hearing any of the submissions on this bill because it was so truncated—so truncated. If this is the thing that is going to turn round the New Zealand economy if this is the big hope that this Government is going to give those several thousand newly unemployed people in New Zealand whom we have learnt about today then it deserved to have more attention paid to it. It deserved to have a Minister who at least could get the bill in a form where it could be presented to the House for first reading so that a select committee could have a reasonable amount of time to actually deliberate on it. The select committee did not have adequate time to deliberate on it. It was not given due regard and if that rushed process is an example of how the National Party wants to honour one of our very finest scientists then I am afraid it does fall woefully short. I hope that I can be proven wrong and I hope that this Crown entity does live up to his vision but there is nothing in the bill that would convince me that that in fact will be the case. 
The Government does not want to address the really big issues when it comes to research and development. It will not—despite now overwhelming expert advice—consider returning the research and development tax credits that it slashed that this Government actually dumped. Research and development tax credits were warmly welcomed by business were warmly welcomed by the science fraternity as being a really significant way not like this bill that we could actually make a great deal of difference and improvement in the investment in research and development in this country. That is the type of very specific and detailed policy that would make a tangible difference to research and development and innovation in this country. Will the Government go near that? Will it even entertain the idea? Worse than not even entertaining the idea it got rid of it. 
When the Government got rid of that policy it got rid of a significant opportunity to improve this country’s record when it comes to research and development. Ever since it got rid of it it has been scrambling to try to find a replacement. As we have heard from a previous speaker the voucher system has not replaced it. That has been a failure. Now it is trying to say that the development of a Crown entity will somehow replace that very good Labour policy of a research and development tax credit. Well it plainly will not. This is woefully inadequate and I challenge the Government to actually come up with something that will work. We do not need any more slogans like a cycleway. That failed as well. A Crown entity is another attempt to make it look like the Government is doing something. But we will support it because quite frankly doing something no matter how little is better than doing nothing at all which is what the Government has been doing to date.