Woods Megan: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 28 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call at this stage of this Advanced Technology Institute Bill. I want to talk specifically to my Supplementary Order Paper 154 and the range of amendments to this bill that we are putting up and to urge the Government and the Minister in the chair the Minister of Science and Innovation to listen to some of the reasons why we have put these amendments forward and the improvements that we genuinely believe that these amendments could make to Callaghan Innovation and what it can achieve. I think it is fair to say that the piece of empowering legislation that we have before us in terms of its ability to establish Callaghan Innovation is pretty much motherhood and apple pie. I think there is no aim in there that any member of this Committee disagrees with. Certainly it is absolutely central to Labour’s vision for New Zealand and that is why we are really concerned at the opportunity lost that is contained within this legislation. We have $166 million going into a new institute and we do not have enough of the framework established to ensure that it is going to achieve what the objectives set out it does. We have put forward amendments that we think will strengthen its ability to bring about those transformations and to ensure that the success we all want will take place. 
So we were very much aware of a problem in terms of the submissions that we heard at the Education and Science Committee. Although we have heard from Government members of the committee opposite about how all but one submitter came before the committee and were in favour of the institute—and it is fair to say that—the other thing that we have to have an honest discussion about is that even those submissions we heard that were in favour of the establishment and the general purpose of the institute suggested changes because they did not think what the Government had put up in the initial framework in the initial establishment legislation was going to achieve what it needed to. They pointed us as committee members to a number of flaws that they had serious reservations about. In many ways the amendments that we have put forward have picked up on those reservations and those fears that were put forward to us at the select committee. 
Our amendments really fall under four broad headings. The first of these is around the purpose of the Advanced Technology Institute. The chair of the Education and Science Committee Nikki Kaye has talked about how there was a lot of debate in our committee about whether we were going to have a benefit to New Zealand or a net benefit to New Zealand. For Labour members of that committee the most important bit to us and what we put up as an amendment is that the benefit to New Zealand should be a key objective—not an operating principle but an objective of the enabling legislation—because this is incredibly permissive legislation. For us the symbolism of making it an absolute mainstay that this is about the benefit to New Zealand and not just having that listed as one of many operating principles is something that we take seriously—although I can see from the face the Minister is making at me from the chair that he thinks that that is not the case. 
One of the things that we have also put up a number of amendments around is the ability of this organisation to collaborate within the existing science system that we have in New Zealand. We had submitter after submitter whether they be from universities or they be from other research organisations come before our committee and say: “Look this is a really good idea. We think there are some really positive things and we would like to see it happen but frankly we have got some concerns around how it is we are all going to work together how it is that we can all work together to provide the best for us from a research perspective how we can be producing the academically best research we can in New Zealand and how it is that we can provide the best research and development to industry.” We listened to those concerns and we put up a number of amendments around those. 
My colleague Grant Robertson has talked about the need for the link—and the very explicit link—with the tertiary education system. But I think there was by many Government members on the committee a false dichotomy drawn between fundamental research and applied research. One does not exist without the other and this is something that Labour members were very much aware of. We know that someone does not move in and out of basic research on a daily basis in the way that Government members think that people move out of poverty on a daily basis. Actually what we have is a strong interconnection that needs to be acknowledged. For this reason we have put up an amendment to clause 15 that asks that Industrial Research Ltd retain its existing governance structure even while it is a subsidiary of the Advanced Technology Institute or Callaghan Innovation because what we want to see is that research focus remain within Industrial Research Ltd. There is some very good research that is carried out and some very good research that needs to be continued to be carried out within that organisation. 
But perhaps the largest concern that was voiced to us on that committee about the potential for collaborations and for the partners to all be working together in a way they have to if we are going to succeed at this—and David Clendon has spoken of the problem that many people had with this—was the fudging between funder and provider. This is something that I think is going to be a deal-breaker for the success of this institute. I hope that it is not. I hope that we are wrong. But we are asking that this institute be given every fighting chance because if it is going to succeed it needs to collaborate with the other research providers that are there. It needs to work very closely with our universities with our Crown research institutes and with our other research providers. But I can tell you that every research provider is going to be looking at this organisation with a great deal of suspicion not only because the organisation is the new entrant in providing research or the new kid on the block but also because the organisation is going to be dishing out the money. This is something that we think is really a do or die for the organisation and we would like to see that cleared up. 
We also think that the stakeholder advisory group is incredibly important. We think that this group is one of the fundamental success blocks to the institute succeeding. We think that there needs to be a range of voices within the stakeholder advisory group. We have asked that we do have tertiary institutions having a place secured within that group. We have asked that the industry have some autonomy to appoint someone to that group. We know that in order for this to succeed the industry does need to have a say and we have to acknowledge that this is not the only part of our economy that will achieve economic transformation and those views do need to be there. This is the 21st century and we need to think about what the world post the global financial crisis looks like. We need to look at actually empowering everybody involved in this. It is a nonsense that we would not want the scientists and the people who work in innovation to have a voice within that advisory group. These are the people with real skin in the game. These are the people who know what is happening on an everyday basis so we have asked for employee representation. 
Something else that we are asking for is that we have a diversity of geographical representation on this advisory group as well. We need to have the various areas of New Zealand where the economic development opportunities exist represented and their views heard. I am sure there are many members opposite some of whom are members of the select committee—Colin King—who represent rural electorates and do not want to see this captured just by urban manufacturing. That is an important voice but we also have to ensure that we have a range of regional economic development views heard within this as well. 
Labour has put forward a range of amendments around who is going to be feeding into what is happening in the Advanced Technology Institute. We have talked about the way in which it needs to collaborate and be part of an interconnected infrastructure of science innovation economic development and commercialisation in New Zealand. We really hope that this can succeed but what we see in the legislation that this Government is putting before us makes us fearful that it will not. We want to see that change. We want to see it strengthened. For Labour’s vision for David Shearer’s vision of a smart green economy to occur we know we have to have this level of science and innovation within our economy. 
We are supporting this legislation. It was actually a line call with us because we can see so many holes in it. We are hoping it will work but we are urging Government members to vote in favour of our amendments because we believe that they actually give the institute more of a chance of success. It is a shame that although we had a very short period for consultation we did not have more time to discuss this. David Clendon talked about the fact that if we actually had more time to work through some of these issues the Greens may have been able to come to supporting this legislation. It is a shame that such an important initiative in New Zealand’s economic future has been rushed through in such haste. As David talked about we really did not have an adequate answer given to us at the select committee about the need for this very undue and unseemly haste it has to be said. So I urge—