Kaye Nikki: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6841. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill. At the outset I would like to acknowledge that there is a Supplementary Order Paper. There was a function at Parliament whereby an announcement was made about the Advanced Technology Institute being renamed Callaghan Innovation and there is a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect. I think that we all in this Chamber acknowledge and many people throughout the different speeches on this bill have acknowledged the late Sir Paul Callaghan and we do that again this evening. 
I just want to start by mentioning a couple of issues around the process. Obviously in the Committee stage here we are looking at Part 1 which is about the purpose but members opposite have raised issues of process. As I have said before although it was a tight 6-week select committee process at the Education and Science Committee we made a huge effort to ensure that stakeholders were aware of this legislation. We wrote to a number of stakeholders and we delivered a very lengthy commentary to address some of the issues that had been raised not only by Opposition members in their speeches but also by the many submitters who came to us. We had 23 submissions of which we heard seven oral submissions. Of those submissions I think it is really important to note as well that only a couple were opposed. So the majority were in favour and we saw that the other week actually at the announcement of Callaghan Innovation. 
I believe that it is actually very clear what the purpose of this legislation is. I think we also need to understand that it is part of the wider economic framework. In relation to the comments that Megan Woods has made—and I am going to address what Clayton Cosgrove is talking about in terms of that wider economic framework—specifically around both the purpose and what other people think about that purpose and also in relation to a number of the comments she made about for instance the core statement of purpose these issues were addressed through the select committee process. They are in the commentary. We heard submissions around the statement of core purpose. But the big message we came back with as a select committee—it was what the majority of the select committee said—was that a number of the amendments that were raised were about being overly prescriptive. Whether it was the stakeholder advisory group and putting forward seats for unions or whether it was prescribing geographical areas for the stakeholder advisory group these were incredibly prescriptive things for an institute that was set up to have some flexibility. As we all know the technology space is a rapidly changing area. 
I just want to touch on a couple of things around the core purpose. It is very clear that the first role is to help lift capability within the innovation system and it is going to do this through a couple of things. The first is to help build industry-led innovation consortia that combine Crown research institutes universities polytechnics economic development agencies and businesses. One of the core changes that we made as a select committee was to insert the word “collaboration” because we recognise—whether or not it is through Kiwinet which came to us—that there is an important aspect of this institute in that it is bringing together stakeholders. It is providing a one-stop shop for businesses to ensure that we convert more ideas to market but we also do not want to duplicate existing networks. 
The second thing is that it will be a portal through which businesses can access appropriate research and development and technical expertise and facilities within New Zealand and overseas. Again that is a crucial driver for this institute—that it is a one-stop shop for businesses. 
Thirdly it is there to foster the mobility of experts for example by sponsoring secondments between universities the Advanced Technology Institute and businesses. Again that is about the transfer of knowledge. 
So I think it is very clear when we look at this purpose within both Part 1 and also the many discussions at the select committee about whether we are being overly prescriptive that these issues have been canvassed including in a lengthy commentary. 
I just want to touch on that issue that Megan Woods raised in terms of the statement of core purpose. We said in the select committee that we recognised that one submitter did propose that the Advanced Technology Institute be required to adopt this. We actually—the majority—disagreed with that because although we accept that that is a specific mechanism for Crown research institutes we recognise that the Advanced Technology Institute will have a purpose document and that the responsible Minister is currently considering what that purpose document might look like. We need to understand that we are dealing with something different here. Whether it was about the status of the Advanced Technology Institute in terms of it being an autonomous Crown entity we dealt with issues right the way along about that variance of the Advanced Technology Institute compared with other entities. So in my view the issues of the core purpose have been adequately canvassed throughout the select committee process. When you look at Part 1—