Clark David: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 28 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise following Dr Megan Woods’ excellent speech to confirm some of the same points because I think she has drawn attention to the rushed process. I will say a little more about that but firstly I really want to remind us why we are here and what this legislation the Advanced Technology Institute Bill is about. 
This bill before us would establish a new Crown agent the Advanced Technology Institute—now being referred to as Callaghan Innovation; an excellent amendment—to support science and technology - based innovation and its commercialisation by business. We are told the Advanced Technology Institute would act as an intermediary connecting businesses in certain industries with researchers and promoting the commercial application of research discoveries. 
These are lofty goals and Labour supports this kind of economic development that would achieve these goals but we are a little bit sceptical about some of the ways in which this Government is going about making this change. We know that this bill alone will not be successful in transforming New Zealand to a high-value manufacturing economy. Transformation requires bigger issues to be addressed. We need macro-prudential tools to address exchange rate issues. We need to get away from the simple interest rate - based policy that has governed the Reserve Bank in its decision making and look at wider things like jobs and the economy. 
We need things like a capital gains tax pro-growth tax policy and research and development policies. We need these pro-growth policies that will make sure that our economy grows and transforms and that the investment signal is toward the productive sector because we have seen a decline in manufacturing under this Government. We have seen jobs lost again in Dunedin in recent days and that points again to this declining economy which this Government seems happy to oversee. 
We need proper savings policies that make sure there is capital to invest in businesses for economic development. We need procurement policies that recognise the benefit of training New Zealanders rather than spending taxpayer money on employing people overseas to build up skills in the manufacturing sector as we have perhaps seen in the Hillside situation again in Dunedin. We need to recognise that these kinds of policies would go a long way further than this bill toward addressing the dearth of support for economic development and for manufacturing in New Zealand. 
This Government seems content to oversee the worst unemployment record in 13 years. We have growing unemployment. Actually we have a Government with the worst economic record overall of any Government in the last 50 years and it is little wonder when we see rushed processes. It is like with the asset sales legislation. We saw that rushed through Parliament because the Government did not want to hear from the submitters. It did not want to hear that its policy was not supported by New Zealanders because it would cost us $100 million a year Treasury tells us. 
Here we have another example with the Advanced Technology Institute Bill of a select committee process that was truncated to just 6 weeks placing an unreasonable deadline on submitters. Many chose as we know not to submit as a consequence. It is not unusual for a select committee’s process to take 4 to 6 months. That is what is allowed for that process and it would not have hurt the Government to actually listen to those affected. 
Let us think about who might have contributed and who might have submitted further to the Education and Science Committee. We might have seen more submissions from industry we might have seen more submissions from the scientific community from those with an interest in economic development and more from the general public. Then we might have had more time for reflection on those submissions for the members of the select committee to help shape this policy so that it had a wider economic development impact rather than the narrow economic impact it is likely to have as a consequence of the rushed process. Of course Opposition members on the select committee did signal their dissatisfaction with the truncated time frame but an extension in time was voted down by the Government members on that select committee. I think that is to be their shame. 
One industry submission in particular raised an issue about really fundamental concerns about the probable success of the Advanced Technology Institute. The real shame is that the points that were raised in that submission were not able to be fully examined in the time frame and neither were the points raised by those who put in supporting submissions. Their refining recommendations were not able to be considered by the select committee because of the time frame. 
A clear statement of purpose should have been included in the Advanced Technology Institute’s main objective set out in clause 12 of the legislation. It could have said something like “The Advanced Technology Institute is established to achieve a stronger and larger export-focused manufacturing sector which provides well-paid and skilled jobs.” We could have been really clear in this legislation that that was the aim of the legislation and that we were trying to get to a position where we had skilled and well-paid jobs in the New Zealand economy. It speaks to the lack of ambition of the current Government that it did not have a clear statement of purpose in the legislation. 
So the economic development goals expressed in clause 12 are inadequate and we need to realise that as they are expressed they are not an end in themselves. We need to be focused on the bigger prize on those things that real economic development policies could achieve—joined-up thinking—and that could include a dropping unemployment rate rather than one that is rising. This Government could do that and potentially if it had that ambition and if it wanted to state clearly in the purpose of the bill why it is doing this rather than finding weasel words and taking a tepid approach that sees very little new money and what new money is in there is a very small contribution. 
There are other points that have not been picked up in the debate which I think is a shame. The Government has chosen not to address the fact that there is no explicit subclause to ensure there is not unnecessary duplication and competition within existing research provision by the Advanced Technology Institute. Dr Megan Woods raised that earlier in her speech but we have heard nothing from the Government on that. 
We have heard nothing about a way through the conflicts presented by the funder/provider roles. That is another point that my colleague Dr Megan Woods raised that has not been addressed. Submitters did raise these concerns about the conflict and we have seen nothing from the Government in response. 
We in the Labour Party would like to see a stronger industry representation on the stakeholder advisory group. We think there need to be strong links between the Advanced Technology Institute and the education sector. We recognise that on its own this bill cannot successfully transform the economy. The Government seems blind to this; it is carrying on. We are watching the manufacturing sector decline a decline since 2008 of 9.5 percent in the elaborately transformed manufacturing sector. 
When we divide out the primary sector from the actual manufacturing sector that the public have in their minds we see a nearly 10 percent drop under this Government in the manufacturing sector. That is a disgrace. This is a Government that seems content to oversee the demise in our economy and it is a shame. We will be supporting this bill but as a tepid first step towards a proper economic development policy. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 151 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 154 in the name of Dr Megan Woods to clause 10 be agreed to.