Clendon David: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Advanced Technology Institute Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6476. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 We had our first sight of this Advanced Technology Institute Bill on 10 September this year—not last. Three days later we had our first reading and in those 3 days we looked at the bill—as much as you can in a few days—and frankly we saw no harm in it. We saw no massive benefit nor did we see a great deal of harm. We thought there was a possibility that this proposed new entity might do some good and so we supported the bill through to the Education and Science Committee. 
We entirely agree that it is important that we seek to maintain and increase the strength of the direct links between science and research and actual commercial activity. We are very much in favour of a cleantech greentech economy. That is the way of the 21st century unlike some of the Government’s policies which are leaping backward into the early 19th century. We see that this is an important and necessary thing to do—to increase our output in the high-tech sector. 
The question that has since come to us in terms of the proposal to establish this Advanced Technology Institute is quite a simple question. It is simply to ask why. What is actually the need for such an organisation? What gap does it fill? What is the necessity for an entirely new entity a new structure rather than working within existing structures and existing sets of relationships perhaps enhancing those and making them work a little differently or better? What is so wrong with Industrial Research the institute that to date is effectively doing what this new entity is supposed to do? If one has a look at the statement of intent for the current year to June 2013 the objectives the strategic goals of our Industrial Research are fundamentally the same as what is proposed for this new Advanced Technology Institute this new organisation. 
I must say that it seems that this Government seems to have a very peculiar relationship with the public sector. And I must say in passing that I was equally surprised and somewhat amused by the chair of the committee Nikki Kaye launching into the Labour Party for daring to suggest that the unions might be represented on the board of this entity. The representatives of the scientists the technicians the tradespeople who actually design and make stuff—how dare Labour propose that they should be represented on a body that will make key decisions about linking the science and the economic and social outcomes! 
More particularly this Government seems to have a perverse situation. It is putting the boot into the public sector. In the name of so-called efficiencies it is actually taking away the capacity of the public sector to do its job and yet when the Government perceives a problem it tends to create a new entity a new public sector entity. It did it with the Productivity Commission. Acknowledging that we have a very low productivity economy the Government said “Let’s create a public entity to try to solve it.” which to date has clearly failed to address even the key issues let alone resolve them. Similarly with this bill we have an issue about not getting enough high-tech high-value manufacturing so let us create a new public organisation a new bureaucracy. Perhaps that will do the trick. It is a very peculiar response from a Government that alleges that it represents the private sector rather than the public sector. 
We received submissions on the Advanced Technology Institute proposal on the bill. There were not that many of them and clearly they were written in haste because submitters were given really only days never mind weeks to come up with and prepare them. Nevertheless they were of very good quality. They were from some very significant commentators some important players in the sector and they all offered—with one or two notable exceptions—very qualified support and I do stress the word “qualified”. Everybody agrees as the Greens did at the first reading that an entity some sort of a networking organisation that can bring together our science and research capacity with our good business brains and our good business organisations is a good thing. But the qualifications came through and they tended to follow themes—common issues that came through again and again from the various submitters. These included the likelihood that this new organisation would duplicate and even disrupt existing successful and productive relationships and situations that already exist with the commercialisation arms of the universities and the members of the economic development agencies that have done some very solid and robust work over a number of years in this area. 
The committee did agree on prompting from particularly Labour and the Greens that clause 14 of the bill should include the word “collaborate” just to drive home the fact that this organisation the new Advanced Technology Institute should demand that we get a high level of collaboration rather than a more top-down hierarchical approach. That was a good step. It was a positive step and we supported that. It was a necessary step but it was not a sufficient one in terms of endeavouring to avoid the almost inevitability of duplication and disruption of what are currently well-functioning and very productive relationships. 
The world has not been sitting idly by waiting for this Government to create an entity that will bridge the gap if you like or will strengthen the relationships between research science and technology—that creative sector—and the business sector. Of course business done well is also a creative activity. Again as I say we absolutely support the principle of doing that but there has been a great deal of very good work done over a number of years. Nowhere in this bill—it is so loosely drafted; it is so poorly supported by argument—do we see any reassurance that the institute will not come in with size 11 boots and trample all over disrupt and set back a lot of those very positive relationships that already exist. One hopes that the Minister of Science and Innovation is even aware of them and that he has considered that but there is no evidence of that having happened. We asked the obvious question of the committee about what the nature would be of the relationships between the Advanced Technology Institute and these other incubators—the commercialisation arms and so on. The answer we got was that no decisions had yet been made about how those relationships will be maintained or held. What an entirely unhelpful response that was. 
The extent to which the Advanced Technology Institute would become a provider of science and therefore a competitor to the other organisations was also of concern to many of the submitters. Again I hope nobody will raise the imaginary objection of self-interest. These are senior respected scientists and commentators who are actually looking at what is good for this country—what is good in terms of achieving the proposed goals of this legislation. The dean of science at Auckland University gave the committee a supplementary submission. He was very concerned that the Advanced Technology Institute should function in predominantly a service role. He suggested that the research function should be a very minor component of the institute’s role and ideally should occur only through the transition period. He went on to say that the arguments that the Advanced Technology Institute requires a research capacity to fill the gaps that other institutions could not meet are not persuasive and are based on a limited understanding of research and the challenges of working with the high-value manufacturing sector. 
In regards to concerns about the Advanced Technology Institute being both a funding agency and a provider of research clause 13(1)(f) of the bill tells us simply that the Advanced Technology Institute will allocate and administer research science and technology funding. The very obvious and logical question for the select committee to ask was what funding? How much? How much control will it have over research funding in New Zealand? Again the response we got back from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment was that no decisions had been made regarding which funding the Advanced Technology Institute will administer because the ministry is currently reviewing the schemes. A report back to Cabinet is due on 30 November by which time this bill we expect will be done and dusted. We are being asked to support a pig in a poke. We do not know what the boundaries of this organisation will be. We do not know what its relationship will be with existing very positive initiatives. We do not know what funding it will control. We suspect that it will be a lot.  
The issue of funding would be less critical if this was an organisation with any autonomy. It is a Crown agent. It must give effect to Government policy. It has very little autonomy. This gives the Minister of the day licence to pick winners and picking winners was one of those activities that the late great Sir Paul Callaghan directly advised us to avoid like the plague. He was absolutely clear on that point. Governments are very bad at picking winners and the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association which has already been mentioned in its opposition to this organisation made it clear that picking winners has a dishonourable history of complete failure. It is very hard to argue with that.  
I have outlined some of the objections from submitters. I look forward to the Committee stage and the third reading when we will be able to engage a little more. For the moment on balance the Greens given all the flaws in this bill—we see that Labour is supporting it and we respect its decision; we were on a bit of a tightrope as well—cannot support an entity we know so little about when the legislation is so poorly drafted and where the intentions the operational functions the role and the powers of this entity are unknown. We will therefore not be supporting this legislation.