Martin Tracey: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6479. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill. I would just like to remind the House that New Zealand First was actually the only party that opposed this bill at its first reading on the grounds that this work was already being done. I am pleased to stand here and say that we were right and we were proven right by just about every submitter who came to see us. We are very pleased with the work that the Education and Science Committee has done within very tight time frames. We would have liked to have more opportunity from the Government to really flesh this out and to have a greater input from the industry itself but the submissions we did get were valid they were in-depth and they were well-thought-out and I appreciated the level of expertise that was brought by the submitters to this topic in the very short time frame that we had. 
There was a lot of work done around the word “collaboration”—a lot of work done—and a lot of talk and discussion around the role of the Advanced Technology Institute and making sure that it did not duplicate that it did not compete with people currently doing the research work and currently inside this environment. However those submitters who were doing this work although they were very concerned that another competitor was not put into the contestable research funding market and that there was not a duplication of expense and a duplication of work done did acknowledge the need for an organisation that was aware of all the players in that area so that people could be connected. I think if I recall correctly one of the conversations we had at the select committee was that 80 percent of the Advanced Technology Institute’s role is actually going to be about connecting people. Eighty percent of the institute’s role will be about the relationship between business and the researchers and bringing those organisations together appropriately to take a product from a certain place and be able to commercialise it. 
I am going to take this opportunity however while the Hon David Carter is here to talk about the fact that there still is a bit of a gap here. I hope that the other 20 percent of the institute’s role that we have talked about—we do not know how much money will be dedicated or what budget line will be given to this 20 percent which is the research itself that the institute will be looking at undertaking because that information is not available to us yet. There is a bit of a concern I still have when I hear the Hon David Carter speaking and Colin King talking that we are still talking about widgets and gadgets that have been produced that this bill is just about looking at them figuring out a way to improve and going on to commercialising that market. I see Mr King shaking his head and that is a good thing. I am pleased to see that. We have now got that in the  
Hansard 
. That is great. 
For example on 30 October I was with the Taipei cultural and commerce office representative the consul-general of Japan and the deputy consul-general of Japan at the Mahurangi Technical Institute in Warkworth. It has taken eggs from eels. It can take 2 million eel eggs get 2 million live births and keep those eels alive for 12 days but it now needs $3 million to take those eels from 12 days to mass production. That market if we can get that investment from this Government—I do not know whether it is something the Advanced Technical Institute would be able to use part of that 20 percent to invest in—is not yet commercialised. Should that industry be commercialised should that investment be made it would be bigger than oyster farming and bigger than mussel farming. That is an industry that this country could really lift off on. 
But when we do not have an organisation that can invest in that way we leave those people vulnerable to having to sell their intellectual property overseas and that intellectual property goes overseas and it stays overseas. So I am hoping that part of what we are trying to create here is that the 20 percent that the institute will actually be using for research investment will be invested in those sorts of areas and will not—definitely not—be used to compete with other researchers and other business organisations that are working well but just need linkages. 
There was another point that New Zealand First tried to have—as mentioned in our minority report—and it was a very small thing. It was a single word. It was a single word that we were hoping to have inserted into clause 14(1)(b). Clause 14(1) reads: “In meeting its main objective and performing its functions ATI must—… (b) proactively engage and collaborate with businesses other RS&T providers and other persons that ATI considers relevant to the performance of its functions;”. All we asked for was the word “identify”. We asked for the word “identify” to be inserted after the word “proactively” and before the word “engage” so it would read “proactively identify engage and collaborate”. It may seem very small but the point of inserting that word was to ensure that one of the things the Advanced Technology Institute must do is first of all find out who is in the market so that it can then go and engage and collaborate. That word would take away the excuse should it enter into competition with anybody currently in the market that it did not know they were there. It is a very small thing but a very practical thing to make sure that people do know who is in that market that the institute does not enter into competition with people who are providing this service already. 
There is another little concern that I have. I voiced it at the time. It is around the FoodBowl of Auckland. The FoodBowl is going to be absorbed—that may not be the appropriate word. It is going to become part of the Advanced Technology Institute. The FoodBowl was partially funded by the ratepayers of Auckland and it is about to be absorbed. I would suggest that there is some compensation that needs to be paid to the ratepayers of Auckland for losing this asset. If the Government benches would like to know the amount of money that has been invested by the ratepayers of Auckland in the FoodBowl then they can contact my office and I will have that amount sent to them. 
We opposed this bill to start with. New Zealand First will now be supporting this bill. We support it because we have been listened to. The submitters have supported our original concerns around this bill. We believe that the work done by the select committee was adequate and strong for the time frame it was given. We will be watching the institute to see that it does not compete for contestable funding. We will be seeking support for the Mahurangi Technical Institute and the eel project and if there is anything extra there is a whitebait project there that could actually do with a bit of an input as well. Just in closing we would like to thank all members of the select committee for what was a collaborative process. We will be supporting this bill.