Clendon David: Callaghan Innovation Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Callaghan Innovation Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7016. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. I am pleased to take a final call on this bill this legislation that we now will refer to as the Callaghan Innovation Bill of course. The Greens initially supported this legislation under another name for the very simple reason that we did see a need a value in establishing some sort of organisation some entity that could bridge the gap and that could be a networking organisation a facilitation organisation to inform developments both within science research and within the business community. There is a crying need for us to better develop and to turn good ideas good science and good technology into saleable ideas—saleable and ideally weightless commodities or very high value low volume commodities—that can better serve our economy. Unfortunately we were obliged to turn our backs on that support. We are now in opposition to this legislation. 
It is interesting that in my notes I have one of the words used by the former speaker our Labour colleague Grant Robertson and that is “muddled”. He added the words “confused” and “ad hoc”. Unfortunately they are fair descriptors of the nature of this legislation. 
The chair of the Education and Science Committee Nikki Kaye indicated that the Government’s choice was not to make this legislation prescriptive. That is something of an understatement. This is so permissive that the parameters within it are almost meaningless. There are virtually none. This House today will pass this legislation into law with very little idea of the outcome of the final structure of the real functions and of the powers and limitations of this new entity and that is a great shame. 
We think that in a sense it is unfortunate that Sir Paul Callaghan’s name is attached to this entity because an organisation whose genesis is confused is muddled and is ad hoc is unlikely to be the success that that name deserves I would say. This bill was rushed through and indeed the process—the very flawed process—is part of the reason that we are opposing this legislation. Not all of it—the key to it is the content what is contained within it—but the process was inexcusable. Two or 3 days after the bill was introduced we had the first reading. The report-back date from that first reading was 6 weeks which was the start of November—the 6th I think. Less than 4 weeks later we are now seeing the third reading of this bill and there are still so many unanswered questions so much we simply do not know and so much that is left to ministerial discretion that it is a misuse of the power of this Parliament to bring a piece of legislation like this to the House. 
 There was not a large number of submissions on this Callaghan Innovation Bill. Those that did come in were remarkably well-informed and coherent given how little time there was for those people and organisations to prepare their submissions. It is fair to say that most of them were supportive but it was very very qualified support. Almost without exception those who were supporting the legislation proposed amendments or highlighted shortcomings difficulties or potential problems in the bill and they were spot on the mark. Very few of those concerns have been met. It is unfortunate that the Government accepted virtually none of the amendments put in the select committee consideration of the bill. The committee itself was able to put in some somewhat better provisions but overall it is still so permissive and so unconstrained. The Minister will have such extraordinary power to direct the future of the relationship between business and science and the academic community that it is almost doomed to fail in its present form. 
As I have made the point before this new entity will almost certainly disrupt and set back some very positive and productive relationships that have already been established. The Economic Development Agencies of New Zealand the umbrella body for the economic development agencies around the country put forward a very good submission when it highlighted the danger of the very good work being done by organisations like the Economic Development Agencies of New Zealand and others being likely to be set back because this bill is so poorly thought through and so poorly drafted. Inevitably almost this organisation will come in over the top and undo some of the good work that has been done. 
The Economic Development Agencies of New Zealand pointed out that the economic development agencies are in a unique position to add value to leverage the money that comes to them through contestable funding because not only can they apply to it the limited resource that they get but also they can add it to their existing resource. It was a very compelling submission made by the Economic Development Agencies. Unfortunately it will be deeply disappointed to see that the existing relationships the organisations and the work that has been done are nowhere protected within this bill and in all likelihood the good work will be undone. 
The deal-breaker for the Greens in this bill was the very bland bald statement in the bill that the Advanced Technology Institute—Callaghan Innovation as it now is—will administer and allocate funding with absolutely no indication and no information about which funding or on what grounds. We are told that fairness and transparency will prevail. Well I have to say that one can very transparently starve critical organisations of funding. One can very fairly make decisions if you use a fairly loose interpretation of that word. It is an appallingly broad non-specific provision in the bill and that critically was one that was highlighted. The danger of funding being channelled so so narrowly was highlighted in many of the concerns of the submitters. 
Despite being described as a networking agency and despite the Cabinet papers highlighting the fact that it would be a networking agency nevertheless Callaghan Innovation is also going to have a considerable research capacity. Initially it will take over Industrial Research Ltd as a subsidiary and in time Industrial Research Ltd will be disestablished. You get the classic funder/provider dilemma. Callaghan Innovation as a provider of science and research will also be making funding provisions and that is a very very unsatisfactory outcome for this. The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand advocated for this new organisation not to have a research function saying that it should instead find the existing providers and facilitate resource and support—all of those good things that the language of the bill might allow but almost certainly will not given the clumsiness of the structuring that has been done. 
There is a major concern now for some 360 to 380 staff at Industrial Research Ltd mostly scientific and technical people who are in very short supply in this country and it is a diminishing supply. Those people go into the holiday period looking forward to the new year with considerable trepidation. What is their future? Is it secure? The likelihood is that it is not secure. We are likely to lose more talent which has been the story of science and research in this country for at least the last decade or indeed the last 15 years or so. 
 The question of the career path for science was referred to by some of the Labour speakers who have already spoken today. I would suggest the Minister have a good read of last week’s  
National Business Review 
 particularly the article from Dr Jacqueline Rowarth who is currently at Massey. She is a very well-respected scientist with a good track record particularly in agricultural science. She points to the fact that the Minister of Science and Innovation is talking about supporting more science and more engineering graduates from our universities but he is rather overlooking the fact that one can fund as many positions as one likes but one must not overlook that potential science and engineering graduates are not going to go into those fields if they cannot see a clear career path. It is muddled decisions like this one about Industrial Research Ltd that will discourage that young talent from going into science as a career. 
We know that the Minister has decreed that one of our largest universities shall have x number of entrants going into science and engineering. The rather “quaint” response from the university which I absolutely endorse—it is “quaint” in the Minister’s eyes—is that it has got this belief in something called academic freedom and that the institutions must be allowed to decide how many students they take on and graduate in time. But the key point is that there must be a career path or our science and technology capacity will erode over time as indeed it has eroded over the last several years and that is something we need to turn round. This entity could have helped that. Instead we fear that it will actually have a negative effect on that. 
Finally I would say that having established this entity this Callaghan Innovation—and I still believe there needs to be another word after that to give it a proper title—and put on it the name of one of our most remarkable scientists and one of our most remarkable science communicators the responsibility now lies with this Government to make it work. I think that will be a significantly difficult task for it. Thank you.