Robertson Grant: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 28 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call on this Advanced Technology Institute Bill which establishes as we have just heard from the Minister of Science and Innovation Callaghan Innovation. The sad thing about Part 2 of this bill particularly is that it mirrors the Minister who has just sat down in the chair the Minister of Science and Innovation: it promises a lot and delivers very little. Although on this side of the Chamber we are encouraged by the idea of a more strategic approach to the way that we develop research science and technology especially in the manufacturing area this part of the bill indicates to me that the Government’s thinking is somewhat muddled and confused as to exactly what it is expecting Callaghan Innovation to do. Therefore I think it is a very bad start for what should be a leading part of the way research and science develop in New Zealand. 
The first point I want to make in that regard actually picks up something that Tracey Martin just said. I did not serve on the Education and Science Committee for this bill so it was interesting to hear from Tracey Martin the comment about 80 percent of the work being about relationships. I think that is very important because one of the things that this bill in my view fails to do in this part particularly is understand that research is actually undertaken by people. Research is actually done by people and those people in New Zealand particularly— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Scientists. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes scientists. Those people in particular tend to emerge out of tertiary education and move into research and development. It is that connection that I believe is crucially missing from the functions that are listed in clause 13 of this bill. I know that Government members of the Committee have previously said that it is mentioned it is referenced—it is there by talking about research science and technology providers. But actually that is not good enough. In a bill like this which is establishing an important part of our research framework we need to be much more specific. We actually need to be absolutely clear that we want this institute to work closely with tertiary education providers. We could clearly and specifically say that in clause 13. Supplementary Order Paper 154 in Megan Woods’ name goes towards that. 
In New Zealand the development of innovation comes about often by the association of tertiary institutions the private sector and other research providers including Crown research institutes—Government research providers. Indeed one of Sir Paul Callaghan’s great legacies to New Zealand was the development of the MacDiarmid Institute which was exactly that: a collaboration between several tertiary institutions Crown research institutes and private sector players. That then spun off Magritek. Magritek continues to this day to do exactly the thing that submitters who came and talked on this bill asked for which is to work as a pipeline—it is not really a pipeline actually; it is a virtuous circle of people moving through tertiary institutions Crown research institutions and private sector research and development organisations. 
My submission is that this bill is lacking—in clause 13 in particular; in the functions—in being able to say it is clearly a function of Callaghan Innovation to be part of that virtuous loop of people who are moving through research and science in New Zealand. There is nothing in the functions that makes that absolutely clear to me. If we want to leverage more out of our tertiary institutions in terms of the value of research which I think we should do then we need to be explicit about how that happens. The university researchers in New Zealand can be very pleased. There was a study done in 2010 that said that $802 million worth of research is being developed in tertiary institutions in New Zealand. That is terrific. Let us leverage off that and use things like Callaghan Innovation to be the chance that takes that into the billions of dollars. 
Before I became a member of Parliament my job immediately before coming in here was working for a university in New Zealand to do exactly that work to develop research proposals in a university setting that could be developed in the private sector with a Government agency or with a Crown research institute. It was hard work because there were a lot of barriers in the way of actually making sure that our tertiary institutions our Crown research institutes and private sector providers can work together. They want to but there are barriers in the way. This has the opportunity to be the institution that breaks those barriers down but I just do not think at the moment that in the functions in clause 13 or indeed in other parts of the bill in terms of the stakeholder advisory group—the way that is put together—we are doing enough to say this is a collaboration. We are a small country. We are a country that needs to make the absolute best of what is a small but highly talented pool of researchers. That is not happening sufficiently clearly to me under this bill. 
We are proposing in Supplementary Order Paper 154 a number of amendments that attempt to make clear that there is a role in terms of drawing tertiary education together with this kind of proposal. I would urge the Government to support those because our researchers do need to be able to have all the incentives in the right place to work together. 
There are other Crown research institutes outside of this where we need to keep working on this. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd has good collaboration with a number of our universities but could do more. It is the same with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd. It should be clearer and it should be more established that that is one of the roles. 
I have a genuine question for the Minister around one of the functions and I know he alluded in part to this before— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Are the other ones not genuine? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No I have not asked a question yet Todd—keep up. This is about clause 13(1)(f) around allocating and administering research science and technology funding. My question— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The Minister’s texting from the chair. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He is probably just trying to get an answer to my question so that is all right. What I am trying to uncover here is the extent of the allocation and administering of funding because it will provide a muddled mandate for this institute if it is involved heavily in the allocation and administering of research science and technology funding. I can see that causing problems as it works as both a provider and a funder in a sector where money is so contestable. This is a question for the Minister in the chair to explain the extent of the allocation and administering of research science and technology funding that will be done. Of course the Minister may just choose to be texting to see whether the rest of his costume is finished for his moment on the 
 Hobbit 
 red carpet or he could choose to pay attention to the debate. It is really up to him. Clearly he is preferring the former at the moment which may well reflect his commitment to research science and technology generally. 
The other point that I just wanted to make in this particular call is again around the question of whether we have the relationships right in this bill. I am looking here at clause 10 “Stakeholder advisory group” and again in Megan Woods’ Supplementary Order Paper 154 there are some amendments that I think the Government should take seriously. The first of those relates to clause 10(1) which says: “The Minister may establish a stakeholder advisory group …”. Of course the Minister needs to establish an advisory group on this. It is vitally important to build those relationships that Tracey Martin was talking about earlier so that word should be changed to “must”. It must happen because otherwise we run the risk that Callaghan Innovation may lose some of the relationships that it should have. 
The other part of this is the question of who should be on this advisory group. There are comments about it being broadly representative. Well again that is not good enough for a piece of legislation that is establishing an important part of our research science and technology infrastructure. There needs to be a much more direct understanding that this Parliament wants the advisory group. It wants Callaghan Innovation generally to be linked in with the rest of the sector. We need to be clear that we want tertiary education involved and to be clear that we want the scientists the employees to be involved in the advisory group. These are fairly basic parts I would have thought of establishing something as significant as this. 
Again this bill flatters to deceive. It has got good general ideas. It is going in the right direction but what we see here is a lack of commitment to the people who do this work and to the relationships that are important in ensuring that science and innovation flourish in New Zealand. 
There are a number of amendments to Part 2 that I believe the Government should take up so that we actually know that the body that is being established here is properly connected into the tertiary education sector and takes real note of the fact that research does not just happen; it happens as a result of scientists who are trained in our tertiary institutions. We want to create a virtuous circle of people moving through tertiary education into research out to the private sector and back in again so that we know that New Zealand is getting the best out of this kind of science funding.