Of course we support Science. Of course we support innovation. We have the Crown Research Institute mandated to support New Zealand industry, Indutrial Research Limited, IRL. The IRL focused towards increasing economic growth by improving the performance and productivity of New Zealand’s industrial manufacturing and services sector firms in developing market-led products and increasing human capital and research management expertise in the industrial manufacturing and associated sectors that will lead to a rise in business R&D investment and R&D performed by firms.

We have the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, MBIE, a named catalyst for a high performing economy to ensure New Zealand’s lasting prosperity and wellbeing. MBIE integrates the functions of four former agencies – the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Science and Innovation, the Department of Labour and the Department of Building and Housing.

The MBIE focuses on building trusted, competitive and effectively regulated markets with participation from confident businesses and well informed consumers. Ensuring that businesses have access to the skills they need, and that current and future demand for skill is matched by supply. Ensuring safe and fair workplaces. Developing and supporting a high-performing science and innovation system. Lifting firms’ capability – including ideas, access to capital and relationships – so they can succeed internationally. It supports the development of efficient, effective infrastructure.

And yet today, 13 September, we have heard the first reading to scrap both of these existing institutes and create a third for the fine cost of $166 million taxpayer dollars. This bill provides the legislative framework for establishing the Advanced Technology Institute, or ATI, a new high-tech HQ for innovative New Zealand businesses. The function of this new institute is the same as the first two. But with a new board that has already been decided upon. It will be very strongly business – focused and connected, and very responsive to commercial imperatives and time frames.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): “Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise to dash the House’s hopes of a complete cross-party accord on this bill, the Advanced Technology Institute Bill.” … “The first line of this bill says: “This bill establishes a new statutory Crown entity,”. I just hear today that the board has already established it. The establishment board is already here. What is this? Is this just, what, some kind of fait accompli , some sort of “Let’s just go through the process, but we’ve already ticked that box. Thanks very much for your time.”? I find that amazing. I find that disappointing that here in a New Zealand Parliament we have to pass stuff after it has already been assumed it is going to happen. The intent of this bill is admirable. It is to support manufacturing and the service sector businesses to improve competitiveness and growth in science and technology, based on innovation and commercialisation to increase the number of businesses undertaking research and development. Brilliant—nobody can disagree with them. But is it necessary to create another entity to do it? Is it necessary to spend $166 million of what we consistently hear is a very scarce resource—taxpayers’ dollars—to achieve these outcomes? Over the next 4 years, $90 million of operational funding and $76.1 million of capital funding will be spent, with $11.9 million alone in this financial year. There is a creation of another board, and there is the absorbing of Industrial Research —all under the umbrella of the new super Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This is another business-led organisation to be funded with taxpayers’ money.”

What is more shocking is that there will be less than two months for the scientific and industrial community to submit to the select committee.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): We are quite shocked that the Government would want a report-back date of 6 November. As the Standing Orders provide that any motion for report back of less than 4 months be debatable, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Labour – led Opposition, to register our strong concern about this. One wonders why it is that the Government is taking this very unusual step of denying the Education and Science Committee, and through it the innovation community, a full and proper opportunity to make submissions on the Advanced Technology Institute Bill, to have its case heard, to consider the submissions in the normal way, to write a proper report, and to report back to this House within the normal time period. This is really not even 2 months. It is ridiculous. What is the Government trying to hide in the depths of this bill?

What is going on at Industrial Research Ltd that it is having to change the name, change the board, and fossick through this bill in the dead of daytime, or actually in the dead of the evening, at any time the House is in session? It can meet on a Friday. It can put extra strain on the select committee system. It can throw into confusion parties’ normal management of the House, and all for what? A bill that has not been introduced in urgency, a bill that the Opposition is supporting because it is ostensibly a small step in a positive direction.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: “…we are running roughshod over Parliament. In a way that is true, but it is not the real issue. What we are doing here is we are running roughshod over the people of New Zealand, over the stakeholders, and over the businesses who have an interest in this and an interest in getting it right. We have had feedback that the rapid process that is being used here and has been used previously around the abolition of credits has caused major damage to New Zealand business. Why should we repeat the process that caused that much damage in this bill.”

So for example—and … I think it should be noted—the establishment board has a real lack of scientists on it. Scientists might have a view on that, and they might want to come to the committee and prepare a considered submission. Bearing in mind that the committee probably will not meet until next week to open submissions, can scientists prepare a considered submission if that committee gets the bill next week, then advertises for submissions, open submissions, gives people only maybe a week or two to make their submissions, then the committee has only a week or two to hear them, and then a week or two to consider them, and then the bill has to be reported back to the House. How on earth is that going to actually allow for due, proper consideration and a depth of thought to go into that process? It is not. Basically, if we pass this resolution, what this House is saying to the committee is actually: “Don’t worry about the process; the outcome has been predetermined. The Government already knows what it wants to do. It is simply going through the motions of sending this to a select committee, but it does not actually expect it to change, because it is not going to give you sufficient time to run a proper process so that errors in the bill or improvements might be identified, and the people who actually have expertise have an opportunity to have a say.” The Government do not want the committee to have that ability. I think that that is a very, very bad message for it to send. This is quite an important issue, and it is one where we have offered cooperation to the Government by supporting the substance of the bill, but we are very concerned about the process. Our support for the bill, of course, may be potentially contingent on the outcome of the next part of the process.

We have also heard announced that the Advanced Technology Institute will be named after one of New Zealand’s greatest scientists, the late Sir Paul Callaghan.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: This is a bill that has had virtually unanimous support in the House today. The bill has been referred to as Sir Paul Callaghan’s bill. Sir Paul is a person who commands posthumously enormous respect from all New Zealanders. I really think that this is the sort of case where the Government ought to just pause and consider whether it wants to create a controversy like this, around legislation that it regards as clearly being something of a centrepiece around its economic development agenda, and one where it has invoked the memory of a very great New Zealander, somebody who does deservedly have respect across the House.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I rose very slowly to give the Government benchers an opportunity because I think we in this Chamber and the public of New Zealand would like to hear from the Government benchers exactly why they are taking this step to have a shortened report-back time so that the public, the experts, and the interested people can get to have a say on this bill. It is deeply unfair. I think it is going to be counter-productive, but sadly I think it is symptomatic of the approach we see from this Government. Looking at the Government benchers, we see them—we do not hear them, of course—sitting there mute. None of them are prepared to take a call to explain why they are doing this. There could be perfectly good reasons. There may be perfectly good reasons, but we will never know. The public will never know, because the Government benchers, sitting there mute, refuse to answer it. It is deeply unfair. It is unfair because we are not going to hear from the people who are busy, as Mr Mallard pointed out. Many of these people—the experts, the innovators, and the technologists—are busy working, and the Government benchers are saying that they are not going to give them much time to have a say. We have the select committee has the time. We have heard from many members of the select committee that they have the inclination to actually travel to hear from the experts. It will be counter-productive, because what we want to see is good lawmaking coming out of this Parliament. If we do not have a chance to hear from the experts, if we do not have a chance to have adequate, in-depth scrutiny at the select committee consideration, it will be counter-productive . What we are likely to see is the Minister, no doubt, down the line table a massive amendment on the Table, because there was not the adequate scrutiny of this bill. Perhaps that is exactly what the Minister is intending. I think it is quite likely, knowing the Minister’s track record; one will just have to look at previous bills he has introduced where he has thumped down massive amendments.

-Compiled by Starfire

References:
ATI Bill

First Reading Transcripts Of ATI Bill

IRL – Who We Are

MBIE – What We Do

Of course we support Science. Of course we support innovation. We have the Crown Research Institute mandated to support New Zealand industry, Indutrial Research Limited, IRL. The IRL focused towards...