Kaye Nikki: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Kaye Nikki: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6472. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the late Sir Paul Callaghan. He was a great man he did have great vision for New Zealand and this legislation is actually about delivering on that vision. But firstly can I take just a moment to comment on the wider economic agenda and the theatrics that we just had from—I believe it was David Cunliffe but I think it is interesting that he is filling in for the actual research and innovations spokesperson who has been very quiet on this bill the leader of the Labour Party David Shearer. Perhaps this is a very ominous sign. Perhaps this actually— 
Scott Simpson 
: Ian Shearer? 
NIKKI KAYE 
: My colleague says “Ian Shearer”. Perhaps the real truth is that we just heard the leadership speech of the Labour Party from David Cunliffe. But can I say that everything that we just heard from David Cunliffe is rhetoric. Whenever it comes to many economic initiatives—and we heard about Weta—when it comes to  
The Hobbit 
 films do those members support these initiatives? No they vote them down. When it comes to greater intensification they vote it down. When it comes to mineral exploration they vote it down. 
What has been very interesting through this legislative process is to see a very clear comparison between the parties. We are a party that is supporting a framework to enable businesses to get more ideas to market quicker. This bill was supported by a range of parties across the House but the key thing is—and we saw it in the Labour Party minority report—those members talk the talk but when it comes to the actual detail we see them looking after their mates. We saw this with their advocating for union seats on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill. That is extraordinary. Their major economic solution for New Zealand is to hold up our commercialisation vehicle with union seats. 
It was a very collaborative process for this bill and there were many great changes as a result of the Education and Science Committee’s consideration. But can I say that when it came to the crunch when we saw Labour’s true colours in the minority report we saw a party that is outdated and back in the 1990s. We saw a party that is absolutely beholden to the unions. We saw a party that is committed to legislating for everything. 
What I am confident of is that whether it is the fact that we have increased science funding by 17 percent whether it is the fact that we have made major investments in infrastructure or whether it is the fact that we are delivering a crucial piece of legislation that is going to ensure that we have greater collaboration between our scientists and our businesses we are actually delivering. We have a plan and we are investing in that plan by 17 percent additional science funding. 
If you compare that with the Labour members they are very clear that they want to legislate for their union mates and that they want to stop everything else from happening in other areas of our economy whether it is mineral exploration intensification in terms of farming or labour laws—all of these things that add up to having a much more flexible economic agenda that is actually focused on growth and jobs. I think we need to mention that because we constantly hear the rhetoric but we do not see the detail that will actually take New Zealand forward. 
We had a range of submissions on this bill that were incredibly supportive. I think there were 23 submissions—seven oral submissions. I also acknowledge that in terms of the changes made to the bill we strengthened the clauses around collaboration and I want to thank Kiwinet for its submissions on that. I also want to acknowledge other members of the committee such as Tracey Martin David Clendon Megan Woods and other members of the Labour Party. I think it was an incredibly collaborative process. Under very tight time frames we achieved a lot in making some very valuable changes to this bill whether it was the collaboration clauses or whether it was ensuring there was consultation with the wider sector. 
I think this is a very good piece of legislation. It is part of our wider economic agenda which involves not only greater investment in science which we have delivered on and not only ensuring that we have very good economic policy in terms of our labour laws but also ensuring that we have greater collaboration via vehicles like this. The sum of $166 million is an extraordinary amount to ensure that we have high-tech centres right across New Zealand particularly in Auckland and in Canterbury. I am very confident that through the select committee process we have delivered a vehicle that will be crucial in delivering on Sir Paul Callaghan’s vision of ensuring that more businesses are able to take their ideas to market. 
I want to comment on a couple of key clauses such as the net benefit clause. I think that was a very positive change. We recognised that we wanted to have a similar test to the Crown research institutes so we changed that from “net benefit” to “benefit”. As I said before we made a key change around the collaboration to ensure that the Advanced Technology Institute would not be replicating current and existing funding structures. Another key point that was made throughout a number of submissions was the issue of the research framework and its capability. We were quite clear on this side of the House that we do not think it is appropriate to be legislating for that detail because things do change in a rapidly changing environment in terms of technology. Also if a country wants to be flexible about where it spends its money and where its economic agenda is we do not want to tie up the institute by being overly prescriptive. Finally a number of other points were mentioned in the speech of the Minister for Primary Industries around the need not to necessarily prescribe the detail around stakeholders—the stakeholder advisory board. I think that was the right thing to do because as has been mentioned in Cabinet circulars there are a number of provisions around ensuring there is greater geographical representation. 
I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. I think it will be a key vehicle for greater commercialisation taking more New Zealand businesses’ ideas to market. I think it has been a very collaborative process across the House. I think it was done under difficult time frames but that we mitigated that by ensuring that we wrote to a range of submitters. It was very pleasing that only a couple of submissions were opposed to the bill. It is important to note that this is part of our wider Government economic agenda which includes greater investment in science real policies around infrastructure investment and good policies around labour laws. The Opposition has raised what I think are very overly prescriptive policies in terms of this bill as part of its philosophical vision for New Zealand which is to tie the country up and oppose everything. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.