Martin Tracey: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 28 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6886. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora. I would like to pick up on just a couple of comments from my Green colleague David Clendon. First of all the Education and Science Committee worked really well together—or up to this point it has; we have the Education Amendment Bill it could change from here. It works very well together and it was a process where we did discuss particularly at the front of the bill trying to get as clear a picture as we could under the restraints that we had. So under the time constraints I take on board the comments by David Clendon that we are asked to take these things on trust. I believe that there is a very fine line between governance and management and that this bill is one of those situations where there is a level of trust one is going to have to take. 
Remember that New Zealand First was the only party to vote against this bill the Advanced Technology Institute Bill at first reading. Then we listened to the submitters and we listened to those people who came to us and although there may not have been many—and that may be a reflection of the tight time frame which again we protested against as we would prefer to see the process take its course—they were very clear that they needed an institution like this. Because that is part of what New Zealand First believes is its job—which is to listen to the people with the expertise inside the industry actually out there doing the job—we have changed our position. We have placed on record and again voiced this in the select committee process to make it as clear as possible in the commentary on the bill our understanding of the level of trust that is being placed in the Minister and in the Government going forward about what they have said this bill is intended to do. 
I do however want to address a couple of things particularly while we have the Minister in the chair the Minister of Science and Innovation because he is a particularly busy Minister and it is not often that I can get to speak to him directly. First of all I want to recognise that there are two things that are not addressed in this bill. The first is that there is still a gap. There is still a gap in regard to research funding for aquaculture. That is the other thing that I think I need to pick up on from David Clendon’s comments— 
Colin King 
: Is that agriculture or aquaculture? 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Aquaculture. I never got the impression that this was the only research funding institute that was going to exist. It is not my understanding that this is the only entity that is going to exist. My understanding is— 
Colin King 
: PGP! 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Yes Mr King. My understanding is that there are selected areas that it is going to be in. But aquaculture is not there so to have the research to take it from one research point to a commercialisation or a farming point in aquaculture is not addressed and I would welcome any opportunity that the Minister may give me outside of the House to assist me to find where the funding may come from. 
The other thing is that there has been no compensation situation addressed to the ratepayers of Auckland for the absorption of The FoodBowl. The FoodBowl was in part paid for by the city of Manukau prior to its absorption into Auckland City. And considering that yesterday there was an intense conversation from the Government around the rates of rates I would have thought that compensation there might be appropriate. 
I have Supplementary Order Paper 149 a Supplementary Order Paper with regard to a single word “identify” being inserted into clause 14(1)(b) and that word came from the Kiwinet submission. I take on board that the officers advising us said that they felt that it was not necessary to insert that word because they believed it was appropriate to assume that if the Advanced Technology Institute Callaghan Innovation was engaging it would have identified—and I think we all know what “assume” does when you and I deal with it. I do not believe it is appropriate to assume that just because Callaghan Innovation will be engaging with some people inside the research area or inside business they will know of all and without the word “identify” without making it a specific requirement of the institute to identify who is doing what I believe there is a door open there for them to—either unintentionally or intentionally and give themselves a way out—compete. So I am asking for the Government benches to support my Supplementary Order Paper. It is about a single word. I believe it adds value to the bill or I would not have put it in there. I also just want to make a statement that New Zealand First will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 154. We see more good—