Woods Megan: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6474. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill and to deal with some of what we have heard in the House this afternoon because it is simply astounding that members opposite can think that this legislation is going to deliver on the vision of Sir Paul Callaghan. It is just astounding. This is a woeful piece of legislation that needed strengthening and it is a missed opportunity. Labour is supporting this legislation. It is supporting it in a very lukewarm way. We firmly believe that this is an opportunity lost. We are very disappointed that members opposite have failed to take the opportunity that setting up something like the Advanced Technology Institute could have afforded us. I think it speaks volumes that the chair of the Education and Science Committee Nikki Kaye who saw this legislation through used 3 or 4 minutes of her speech on this piece of legislation to take low blows and cheap shots instead of addressing the substance and some very real concerns that have been raised in this legislation. 
We on this side of the House are fearful that this is yet another grand scheme from a Government that talks big on science and innovation but has failed to deliver a game-changer. We are fearful because of its track record. We have real reason to be fearful here. There is nothing in this legislation that addresses the structural flaws for the manufacturing sector. It is with some irony that we are standing here today discussing and debating a bill that is around more innovation for our high-value manufacturing sector on a day when we have had unemployment figures out that show the manufacturing sector is continuing to bleed jobs. This is what this bill is about. It is about strengthening this sector and it is about the creation of high-value jobs and highly skilled jobs and this bill will fail to do that. 
There are some worrying echoes of other initiatives that this Government has tried. We can just look to its voucher scheme which has been a complete and utter flop. This was talked big in Budget 2010. There was going to be $20 million over 4 years to high-value manufacturing firms with co-investment for projects of over $100000. Well what has happened? It has failed to spend this money because it has no understanding of what is required for innovation in New Zealand. What have we got in 2012? Well less than $4 million has been granted in 2 years and only one in three of these projects has been over $100000. It has had to expand this into the agritech sector away from concentrating just on the high-value manufacturing sector and it has had to take the co-funding option down to $30000. There are some very worrying parallels with what has happened with the passage of this Advanced Technology Institute idea since it was born. 
So what we had from the chair of the select committee Nikki Kaye was her saying that there were some very clear comparisons that emerged in the deliberations over this legislation at the select committee. Well I agree completely with her. There were some very clear comparisons that emerged between the Government and the Opposition side of the table. What emerged from the Government side of the table was a failure to understand what 21st century innovation looks like in New Zealand and what it will take to truly transform our economy. We have heard a whole lot of hysterical shrieking that we want to look after our union mates by daring to suggest that maybe workers might have some input into innovative processes. 
I actually want to take you through what Labour suggested in terms of the stakeholder advisory panel. Labour said it would be really good if we had good industry input into what was happening in the high-value manufacturing sector. We noted that there were very few submissions from industry because of a rushed process which I will come back to later. But we thought about the people who were investing their money setting up the businesses—we want to have their voice heard. We want them on the stakeholder advisory panel and we would quite like the other providers of research science and technology innovation there as well as the universities and the Crown research institutes. We would like their voice heard. And then what about the people who actually perform the innovation? What about the people who work as scientists the people who work as technicians and the people who work in the manufacturing firms on the shop floor and on the lines? These people have got a pretty good idea about what innovation takes and how it is that we can transform this. Because you know what? This is what happens all over the world. 
If members opposite knew anything about what 21st century innovation looks like and how other countries are doing it and succeeding they would get past their hysterical shrieking. We need only look at one of the most effective lobby groups in science in this country the Public Service Association science committee which is made up of some of the top scientists in this country. But no they are members of unions! You certainly could not have them inputting into anything! Members opposite need to take off their blinkers and realise what it will take to transform our manufacturing industries in New Zealand. Hearing from everybody with some stake in the game is something that we are fully supportive of.  
We also thought it would be a really good idea to ensure that there would be some regional representation on this stakeholder advisory panel. We thought that it would be really good if the areas where the economic development potential resided and existed were represented so that we could get a broad view of what innovation in this sector in New Zealand might look like. But no we could not have anything like that! Labour will be putting up a number of amendments that address these representation issues. We will be putting up a number of amendments for this bill because actually we want to see this succeed. 
What we are really disappointed by is the fact that this Government simply does not understand what it is going to take. For us innovation is a means to an end. It is about good regional and economic development that will create jobs and higher-paying jobs which is clearly something that this Government does not turn its mind to when we look at the employment figures that came out today. Actually jobs do not happen by magic. They take a Government that is willing to take an interest and a Government that is willing to invest. We think that the Advanced Technology Institute could actually afford us such an opportunity but this is a Government that is not willing to even countenance that we may have a look at that. 
What we believe is that innovation in New Zealand needs to be an interconnected and joined-up process and that we need to have industry we need to have the science providers and we need to understand what it takes to commercialise. We have a number of concerns with this bill and not only about the representation. We have a worry that the Advanced Technology Institute is going to succeed or fail on its ability to be part of this interconnected and joined-up group of people. It is going to rise and fall on its ability to be an active player. The way that this Government is setting this institute up is ensuring and is embedding—through this very permissive enabling legislation—that it is going to be seen as a competitor to be feared. 
Members on the Government side of the House will not even countenance that we put in some protections to make sure that it is seen as an organisation that does not unnecessarily replicate and duplicate functions that are already successfully being carried out. They simply would not countenance that we would put those protections in place. Nor would they even agree to the fact that the idea that this new organisation is both a funder and a provider might create a little bit of suspicion amongst other people with whom it is going to have to go out there and form very strong collaborations. It is its ability to collaborate and its ability to work not only with industry but with other providers that will make this an institute that will succeed or fail. 
Labour also sees the Advanced Technology Institute as something that needs to be part of a wider economic development strategy. Labour thinks that the Advanced Technology Institute cannot succeed unless it also has a research and development tax credit sitting alongside it. We heard from one submitter the Manufacturers and Exporters Association—in fact one of the few industry submissions that we received—that it saw that the tax credit was a fundamental thing that needed to be addressed for manufacturing to succeed in this country. We also heard from the Manufacturers and Exporters Association that one of the biggest impediments to it being able to innovate to it being able to hire and to it being able to grow was the volatility of the New Zealand dollar and that it was about time that we had a Government that was willing to address the macroeconomic issues that were undermining the manufacturing sector’s ability to get on to succeed in this country. 
The Advanced Technology Institute cannot exist in isolation. I hope members opposite will consider at future readings the amendments that Labour put up because we want to see this succeed but we are fearful that in its present form it will not. Thank you.