Dr Wayne Mapp MP - Speech

Speech at the Academy of Military Science, Beijing: 'New Zealand's Strategic Outlook'

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:44:00 +1200

I welcome this opportunity to speak today and thank the Academy for hosting today's meeting.

There are three areas I would like canvass today in advance of general discussion.

These are: the New Zealand strategic context, New Zealand's Defence Review 2009, and the New Zealand-China Defence Relationship

There are two chief aspects to New Zealand's strategic context. The first is the Asia-Pacific region and in particular the increasingly important role that China now plays in the region. China's remarkable economic transformation has benefited hundreds of millions of people. The scale and pace of this change is unprecedented.

New Zealand welcomes that change as an opportunity. The "Four Firsts" are evidence of this:

New Zealand was the first Western country to conclude a bilateral agreement with China on its accession to the World Trade Organisation, in August 1997.
New Zealand was the first developed economy to recognise China's status as a market economy, in April 2004.
New Zealand was the first developed country to enter into FTA negotiations with China, announced in November 2004.
New Zealand, in April 2008, was the first developed country to sign a high-quality, comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement with China.

The second particular aspect that informs New Zealand's strategic context is the rising incidence of intra-state conflict and state instability. This has become more prominent over the past two decades and has superseded the earlier context provided by the super-power rivalry of the Cold War.

This has resulted in an increased demand for disciplined forces to undertake nation-building roles, either through a formal government-issued invitation or UN mandate. New Zealand attaches importance to having either a formal government-issued invitation or UN mandate before deploying personnel to nation-building missions. Increased demand has meant the armed forces of many nations, including New Zealand, are confronted with a resultant increase in operational rate and tempo.

New Zealand's strategic and security interest can best be described as a series of concentric circles.

The first concentric circle is drawn around New Zealand itself. This expresses the importance of securing New Zealand and its Exclusive Economic Zone.

The second concentric circle stretches out to include Australia and the South Pacific.

New Zealand has no closer defence partner than Australia. When Australia looks around the near region for a like-minded and effective defence partner it rightly looks to New Zealand.

This relationship is reflected in Australia's Defence White Paper, which also showed Australia's clear wish to further build the Australia-New Zealand defence relationship.

Given the geographic isolation and challenges of our immediate region, Australia and New Zealand need to have the capacity to act in an integrated way if we are to respond to regional demands with maximum effectiveness. In Australia, this has been characterised as acting "together alone" in a region where it would be expected we would have a primary interest and affinity.

That is why Australia's and New Zealand's defence capabilities must be interoperable and complementary to a considerable extent.

The next concentric circle brings in Asia, especially South-East Asia. Both New Zealand and Australia are networked into Asia in terms of our political, economic and security interests. Yet New Zealand has its own approach to Asia, which reflects our particular set of cultural and geographic circumstances. Our nearest neighbour is a friend. Our nearest region is the South Pacific. Asia is a source of economic opportunity and political connections on a range of fronts. We therefore share a widespread commitment to the continuing stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region.

We attach great importance to our participation in Asia-Pacific regional architecture, including the ASEAN Regional Forum, APEC, and, most importantly from a New Zealand Defence Force perspective, the FPDA.

New Zealand considers regional defence co-operation and confidence-building as a crucial component of peaceful regional growth and development.

We view China's growth as a considerable catalyst to positive regional development. Both Australia and New Zealand, not to mention the global economy and the Chinese people themselves, have benefited from China's remarkable growth. Australia and New Zealand continue to take an interest and play an active role within the Asia-Pacific region, as befits the increase in our regional ties.

The final concentric circle stretches beyond Asia to the broader international sphere. New Zealanders expect to be engaged beyond our region. We expect to be asked to play our part in maintaining a stable international system.

We are a nation of travellers. Our history and our values drive us to a level of international engagement that is unusual for a country of our population size.

In many ways engagement in the current international environment is not a passive choice. Seven New Zealanders' lives have been lost in terrorist attacks. Some might say the terrorist threat is distant from New Zealand: let's leave others to deal with it.

In the end we have to ask ourselves - should we leave others to respond to international risks that affect New Zealand? I don't think New Zealanders want to be free-riders. That is why we are in Afghanistan and in many other UN authorised missions. That is why we are one of the world's exemplary peacekeeping nations.

The next area I would like to discuss today is New Zealand's Defence Review. Given the strategic changes I have just outlined, the Government's Defence Review has been undertaken to provide a pathway for Defence, especially over the next decade.

The review is not being undertaken simply because it is over a decade since the last formal review. Rather, the review is intended to set out the objectives of New Zealand's defence policy, and then the capabilities needed to fulfil them. The Review's outcomes will influence Defence for at least the next thirty years.

The Review process has involved extensive public consultation. A considerable number of written submissions have been received and we are currently undertaking a series of public meetings.

This Government believes all New Zealanders have a stake in the Review, which is making solid progress towards publication early next year. Major strategic priorities have been identified. The implications of these priorities on our capabilities, both now and in the future, are being worked through. I would note that this process is running concurrently with the wider public consultation, and although it is not completed, it is apparent there is a broad consensus on New Zealand's fundamental security priorities.

New Zealand needs to develop capabilities to match our strategic interests. We need capabilities to respond to a foreseeable range of circumstances.

Beyond our region we have a very wide range of capability choices. New Zealand's choices in the international arena should be guided by our areas of niche expertise.

Given the demands of our geography we are good at surveillance and reconnaissance. The P3 Orions, for example, are a sophisticated NZDF capability for such a small defence force.

We are already engaged in Asia and it is expected that we will make a contribution. Our participation in Five Power Defence Arrangement exercises with Singapore and Malaysia is an example of an effective use of our core skills, and has provided a framework for New Zealand, Britain and Australia to build capacity in these two countries. In particular, and given the distances involved, our maritime and surveillance capabilities are important to our regional partners.

Our naval capabilities give a very high profile internationally and we are regular visitors to China's ports. Our frigates have played a role in recent times in counter-terrorism missions in the Middle East.

The basic test is that the Defence Force should essentially consist of those capabilities that are likely to be used, rather than capabilities that are unlikely to be used except in the case of general warfare.

The points I have discussed today show that defence issues are an integral part of New Zealand's strategic outlook for the Asia-Pacific region and our wider foreign policy. Defence deployments in response to our calculation of our strategic interests are symbolic of our values and New Zealand's willingness to play our part.

I would like to conclude with the most important component of my comments today, given our current meeting.

As Prime Minister John Key noted in his speech at Beijing University in April this year: "New Zealand celebrates the growing relationship between our two countries and the significant opportunities this presents for China and New Zealand alike."

We have a shared interest in the peaceful and sustainable development of our region.

The armed forces of our two countries work to further this shared interest. We work together as part of a network of defence forces co-operating throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The growing outward focus of the People's Liberation Army means that New Zealand will have more occasions for greater interaction with the PLA in multi-lateral forums, maritime security and in UN-led peacekeeping missions.

The current interaction between our two armed forces in, for example, the areas of naval visits, training, and search and rescue demonstrates the healthy defence relationship.

I look forward to a continuation and growth of this healthy relationship, especially in the area of naval activities and disaster relief.

Thank you.

Speech at the opening of the Waikato Aviation Cluster's new runway

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:58:00 +1200

Today is a day of milestones for the Waikato Aviation Cluster, for its associated businesses, and for the Waikato region.

We have just heard a few fascinating comments about the significance of the 1000^th aircraft, but my first duty here is to help with the opening of this new runway.

This runway development makes sound commercial sense.

Recent statistics show Hamilton International Airport is now the second busiest airport in the country, behind Auckland.

Whilst the main 2200m runway at the airport accommodates most commercial passenger traffic, the original 650m long grass runway has been used extensively by CTC Aviation Training (NZ) Ltd, the Waikato Aero Club, Hamilton Aero Maintenance and several other businesses and private pilots.

CTC Aviation Training relied heavily on that grass runway to deliver airline pilot training programmes with up to 45,000 flying hours in 2008 - more than any other flight training operator in the country.

However, over the last pwo winters the grass runway was closed for more than five months, and this created problems for training.

When the grass runway is closed the aviation traffic is diverted to the busier main runway with a consequence for pilot training hours and generally impeding operational efficiency.

The winter closures of the grass runway also created issues for maintenance operations.

Customers were inconvenienced by having to wait for other air traffic and the additional flight time before getting on the ground.

This possibility of delays created a risk that customers would go elsewhere for their maintenance needs. Making life difficult for a customer is never a sound business approach.

Not surprisingly the Aviation Cluster had previously identified that having appropriate airport infrastructure, including runways and taxiways, was critical to ensuring aircraft maintenance and airline pilot training growth was not impeded.

This culminated in the Hamilton International Airport and the Waikato Aviation Cluster making the decision to fund the cost of sealing the grass runway.

The cluster contributed $300,000 including GST, drawn from NZTE's $2 million Major Regional Initiative (MRI) funding.

Decisions like this show that the Waikato Aviation Cluster is demonstrating good commercial leadership.

I note the cluster has already helped greatly increase productivity within its businesses by applying "Lean Manufacturing" techniques.

It has also developed the infrastructure by getting a specialist aviation heat treatment facility built, saving a lot of money for cluster businesses each year.

I am advised that the cluster is now undertaking a lot of work on building a specialist aviation paint facility, which would be another significant step towards enhancing the reputation of the aviation cluster.

These have all been important steps towards developing this location as New Zealand's specialist aviation centre.

So it is a pleasure for me to welcome the completion of this new runway.

It is the culmination of a good idea brought through to fruition. I am sure it will improve your business outcomes, and I am confident that it will be an important step towards an even brighter future for the Waikato Aviation Cluster.

Speech at the opening of the Australasian Research Management Society Annual Conference

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:57:00 +1200

Dr Ian McMahon, delegates, thank you for the opportunity to give the opening address to the 11^th Annual Conference of the Australasian Research Management Society. I note that this is the second time that New Zealand has hosted this conference, the first being in Auckland in 2003.

This conference is very timely. The themes and presentations that you will be discussing over the next three days are very much the issues that Governments on both sides of the Tasman are grappling with right now. The recession not only challenges government and society; it also forces new thinking.

Today I first set out the process and the challenge of setting science priorities. This is directly related to the conference themes of supporting, evaluating and encouraging research in areas that will enhance growth. Second, I will discuss the opportunities that New Zealand and Australia have to work together to advance science.

The Government's fundamental priority for New Zealand is economic growth. Improved growth is the only sustainable path to building the jobs, incomes and society that New Zealanders want and expect. As a country we have underperformed and we need to do better. Innovation is one of the main pathways to achieve the growth we need.

It is easy to set that as an objective. The hard part is recognising the impediments to growth, and what we have to do to change.

There is general agreement in New Zealand that our science and research system is too complicated and too fragmented. We need greater investment and a big improvement in getting science from the lab to the marketplace.

These issues are not unique to New Zealand. Australia is going through its own review of science, and it is noteworthy the priority setting exercise in Australia is virtually identical to ours.

I also note that Dr Janet Halliwell, who is speaking later at this Conference, has described the Canadian science and innovation system as having "... low business expenditures on R&D, a concentration of radical innovation in a limited number of sectors, and more generally, cost containment, dominating innovation as a strategy for competitiveness". I have heard similar concerns in many forums in this country.

If these are the common problems, then what are the solutions?

The first one is that the Government needs to make its priorities much more explicit. This process has already started. For instance, Budget 2009 put more funding into fundamental capability development through substantial increases to Marsden, the Health Research Council and capability funding to Crown Research Institutes.

The Primary Growth Partnership also recognised the ongoing importance of the "cultures" - agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, viticulture and others - to the New Zealand economy. Within that initiative was also investment into climate change and environmental issues that are critical to our economic base.

There is also a need to revisit the balance of science funding. The current largely contestable model has resulted in short-term approaches, excessive competitive behaviour and an emphasis on funding for funding's sake, rather than longer-term science.

Of course competition matters - the best science always needs to be specifically encouraged and recognised. But our overarching goals for growth mean that we need a more strategic approach. There is no point in promoting competition where it is obvious where the expertise lies and what needs to be done.

The Centres of Research Excellence have been very successful at bringing together science teams across universities.

The same approach is behind the recent Hazards platform, led by GNS but with several other institutions involved. The reality is we know that in New Zealand we need to study natural hazards such as earthquakes. It is not optional for us to study these things. It makes sense to draw together the best expertise and fund them on a far more strategic basis. It is simply pointless to have an artificial contestable funding system that adds cost and compliance with no benefit to the science output. Of course there will be opportunity for new knowledge and new people to enter the platform.

What should the other platforms be? That is something that we will be seeking input into over the coming weeks. As we deliver those platforms, it will become clear where this Government's priorities lie. Areas such as food research, energy and oceanography are areas that New Zealand has both expertise in, and a vested interest in staying ahead of the competition.

Identifying these priorities is particularly important for "enabling" science, where the benefit underpins the economy but is not directly translatable to short-term profit.

The question that will inevitably follow the clearer science priorities and more strategic funding is whether the current structures are well aligned. Are there too many funding pots? Are there too many providers, with the attendant duplication of administrative overheads? These issues will be well discussed over the next few months.

A critical task is getting science and business working more closely. We want to push science out of the universities and CRIs and into the commercialisation space. We also aim to build greater enthusiasm for science from businesses. It isn't that our institutions can't do the science; the challenge is stimulating the demand from business.

IRL's recent contest "What's your problem NZ?" was an innovative way to engage more businesses in research. Resene Paints was the winner, but IRL now have a huge range of companies interested in working with them. These are companies who can now see what research and innovation could do for them and their profitability.

Another way of stimulating demand is simplifying the system. This simplification will help both generators and users of science know what schemes are relevant to them. It should also reduce the compliance time and cost.

We also need far better information as to the impact of our investment. The Government priority is economic growth. We therefore need to measure what growth has occurred, and whether the long term objectives of strategic science are being realised. We need objective evidenced based information to inform ongoing investment.

The importance of this goes well beyond the Government. One of the biggest challenges in science is getting investment from outside the public sector. Business has been reluctant to invest in R&D because it does not clearly see the benefits.

We need far more transparent measures of how investing in R&D actually helps growth. It is not good enough to use anecdotal information or assume that it must be "a good thing". Shareholders are reluctant to invest on this basis, and taxpayers should be too.

Fortunately, there are many success stories. Investment in Plant and Food Research led to the gold kiwifruit from Zespri, which is now the foundation of $400 million of exports. We need to ensure that this "cause and effect" is clearly understood. In saying this there will always be failures and scientific blind alleys. We can learn just as much from the failures as we can from the successes - but only if we can objectively evaluate which is which.

The reality is that Government investment in science will always be constrained by available resources and competing demands. Substantial growth in investment will have to come from the private sector.

There are many ideas about how we should stimulate business to invest in science. Showing business that there is a direct link between science investment and their growth is the most obvious. Once they are convinced of this, they will search out the science they want.

I want to turn now to the opportunities that New Zealand and Australia have in working together. This is especially the case in what the Prime Ministers Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has called "big science".

What do I mean by "big science"? It is where the science itself is the objective, rather than a contributory factor to economic growth. The intent is to increase the global knowledge base.

Fifty years ago, "big science" was concentrated in the larger nations, in areas such as the exploration of space. It was fuelled by a global power competition. New Zealand and Australia had little to contribute to this endeavour, though Australians at the Parkes Observatory were famously involved in receiving the transmissions from Apollo 11.

In the 21^st century global circumstances may be working in our favour. New Zealand does have expertise in areas like greenhouse gasses, particularly pastoral emissions. These are global problems that are demanding global co-operation on solutions.

Similarly, astronomy has transformed into a concerted and collaborative global effort to find out more about the universe. This has led to projects like the Square Kilometre Array (SKA).

The benefits to both countries would be immense. The global investment in the SKA in high-performance computing, broadband, infrastructure, and fundamental science could transform our research and development base. It represents an opportunity that New Zealand on its own could never have.

Geography has led to Australia and New Zealand being uniquely suited to this project. We have to make a concerted and cooperative effort. The recent meeting between the two Prime Ministers last month highlighted this opportunity, and we will be working side by side with Australia on our joint bid.

Our two countries have a good record of working together. This is particularly true of universities and research institutions. Bigger projects, such as the Synchrotron in Victoria, have increased the co-operation. The SKA could take it to a whole new level.

In a fortnight, I will again be meeting with Senator Kim Carr, my Australian counterpart. This follows on from our meeting at the Australia-New Zealand Leadership Forum. We will be sharing ideas on how we can fundamentally improve our science systems and also discussing progress towards the SKA.

The overall relationship between New Zealand and Australia is getting closer across a whole range of areas from defence to immigration procedures. Science is a particular area where the sum of our efforts can allow us to take a far bigger role in global initiatives. The Australasian Research Management Society is proof that you have figured out these benefits years ago.

At this conference you are directly addressing issues that are not only important to you, but important to us as a Government and to the people of New Zealand. Our science consultation will involve you, and I know that many of you will contribute to that consultation.

Sir Paul Callaghan set the key imperatives in his book "Wool to Weta", stating that:

"The crucial determinant of funding direction for economically focused tools should be the quality of the proposals, the science excellence, the potential for innovation and the entrepreneurial capabilities of the team."

Innovation lies at the heart of modern economies. The public enthusiasm for science has been well illustrated by the interest in Sir Peter Gluckman's appointment as Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. There is strong expectation for change and improvement. This conference plays a key part in setting the scene for reform that will benefit us all.

Speech to PRINCE2 Managing Successful Programmes and Office of Government Gateway Conference

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:09:00 +1200

Thank you for the invitation to open the second annual PRINCE2 Managing Successful Programmes and Office of Government Commerce Gateway project and programme management conference.

First, there are some people whom I would like to acknowledge:

Andy Murray, from Outperform in the UK, who has come out here to give practitioners an update to the PRINCE2 2009 standard
Peter Foster from CC Learning, who has brought practitioners, suppliers and learners of the OGC methodologies together to achieve best practice
the Wellington PRINCE2 user group, for maintaining a useful and helpful environment for the sharing of lessons learned and ideas
the Office of Government Commerce, an independent office within Treasury in the UK for providing, free of charge, the methodologies to be used in the public and private sector in New Zealand.

The range of attendees will enable effective sharing of innovation and building knowledge. Of course, this will continue beyond the conference among users and practitioners.

This ultimately improves New Zealand's competitiveness in a global economic environment.

PRINCE2, MSP (managing successful programmes) and Gateway methodologies have all evolved to improve the efficiency of delivery on projects and programmes across all sectors.

It is a sophisticated management tool that will enable the efficient management of large scale projects. Such projects are a common feature of modern government.

You only have to think of the complexity involved in building large hospitals and introducing sophisticated data systems. Their use has since spread beyond the UK to more than 50 countries, including New Zealand. Our natural fit with UK management practices has meant we are early adopters.

Five of the 13 organisations that piloted the 2009 version of PRINCE2 were from New Zealand and are credited in the PRINCE2 manual. The Ministry of Economic Development is one; the others are the Capital Coast District Health Board, the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Education, and Fishserve.

Their contribution gave New Zealand a head start. It demonstrated those organisations' willingness to innovate, to try new things, and to contribute what they learnt directly to the British Government for wider dissemination. The willingness to experiment fits with our No 8 wire heritage.

MSP (Managing Successful Programmes) is gaining ground within the New Zealand landscape.

The Gateway methodology is being championed by the State Services Commission Gateway Unit.

I understand that approximately 18 Gateway reviews have been carried out in New Zealand to date.

Standardising on project and programme management methods within the public sector enables like-for-like comparisons and forms the basis for continuous improvement. This, in turn, improves our Value for Money proposition.

Applying best practice means that in New Zealand we are competitive and positioned well to make the most of the economic recovery.

These methods provide a common language between industry and the public sector to facilitate the transfer of ideas and implementation of projects and programmes.

PRINCE2 2009 has been developed to meet the challenge of projects to innovate, deliver more with less, and to deliver greater value for money.

As you know many New Zealand organisations both public and private have tailored the methods to suit their environments.

The Ministry of Economic Development's Companies Office/Companies Registry project is a real PRINCE2 success story, and Justin Hygate, who is managing this project, will be speaking later in the conference.

As a key pilot project that is currently under way, the use of the PRINCE2 method has brought strong discipline to both the Ministry and the vendors involved. This project aims to build on an already successful system. It presents the challenges typical of balancing the needs of many divergent users.

The New Zealand Companies Office has been voted the most helpful government agency every year since 2003, a great credit to them and to the Ministry of Economic Development.

The pressure is on to ensure that their next IT system builds on the successes of the past.

In particular it is aiming to improve the experience for busy small business owners at one end of the spectrum and large law firms on the other.

PRINCE2 is being used on this project and is helping to deliver a wide range of benefits, such as:

ensuring user involvement at appropriate parts of the project to deliver a quality outcome
enabling integration with existing methods and procedures
focusing the project on quality
allowing for the capturing of lessons learned and distribution of improved practice.

Most importantly PRINCE2 has enabled delivery of the work so far on time, to budget and to the required quality.

The State Services Commission has just completed their project to implement OGC Gateway. It uses a peer-review process to make recommendations to improve the success levels and the quality of major government programmes and projects at key decision points in the project life cycle.

This Government's overarching objective is to grow the New Zealand economy.

We live in an environment where economic theory is being turned on its head and formerly stable business models are being challenged. Better systems of management are essential.

Effective and efficient allocation of resources will ensure that benefits are shared with all New Zealanders now and after the economic recovery.

These methodologies have been developed over long periods of time in the public sector to provide transparent controls around spending the taxpayer's dollar.

In conclusion, there will always be challenging issues to be faced throughout the economy to ensure we get value for money from how resources are allocated.

There will be opportunity for the continued growth of these methodologies to work across all sectors, and with the Government, to achieve the best economic outcomes for New Zealand.

This attitude reflects a clear focus on the future to drive efficiency and generate real growth for the economy.

I am sure your conference will be stimulating and thought-provoking. I wish you well for the future.

Speech to the ed&co Annual Forum

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:08:00 +1200

Sina Aiolupotea-Aiono, chair of the ed&co Trust; Julie Donvin-Irons, CEO of ed&co; George Frazis, CEO of Westpac; Sir Ron Carter from the Committee for Auckland; Dick Hubbard; board members; business partners; principals and friends of ed&co,

ed&co are doing excellent work to support governance and management in schools.

There are parallels between what ed&co is doing in forming productive links between schools and businesses, and what the Government seeks to do in forming productive links between schools and tertiary education and industry.

The objective of the productive links formed by ed&co is to meet the needs of schools in terms of training in governance and management. The objective of the productive links that the Government seeks to form is a better fit between education and training opportunities and the needs of young people.

When we look at the school leaving statistics, and the stories behind them, it is clear that for some young people, the current school system itself is simply not the best fit.

This Government doesn't believe that simply raising the school-leaving age is the answer to early school leaving. Rather, we believe in broadening the options available to young people at school so they can pursue meaningful qualifications while remaining part of the schooling system.

As a start, the Government has pledged to establish at least five new Trades Academies by 2011.

Trades Academies are about making education more relevant to young people. We want to get more young people actively engaged in their education, and offer students who prefer hands-on learning a high-quality option for gaining the skills that New Zealand needs.

Trades Academies will provide students with more options for and information about learning that will contribute to future employment. Automotive skills, engineering, forestry, and business are some of the education programmes we envisage.

Programmes will also include career advice and education planning, and literacy and numeracy for those who need further skills in those areas.

Trades Academies are designed to motivate more students to stay at school, by providing them with a greater range of courses; give students a head start on training for vocational qualifications; and make schools more responsive to business and industry needs.

A new and very exciting project that is working right on the boundary of secondary and tertiary is the opening of a tertiary high school programme at Manukau Institute of Technology, or MIT.

The tertiary high school will be run as a partnership between MIT and contributing schools. It will enable students who are underperforming in school and are likely to fail to move into a more tertiary environment and combine both school and tertiary level vocational qualifications.

By combining the strengths of both a school and a tertiary institution, the tertiary high school should provide a much more integrated approach and therefore a smoother transition.

There has not been a programme like the tertiary high school in New Zealand before. It is a unique model. The students will do most of their education in the tertiary environment, but retain links with their home school for sports, cultural and other age appropriate activities.

We will be watching it closely to see how it benefits the students involved, and how we can apply a model like this more broadly across the system.

One of National's election promises, the Youth Guarantee, is in many ways the centrepiece of the Government's work to ensure all young people have access to the training they need.

The Youth Guarantee promises every 16- and 17-year-old New Zealander that they can have access to tertiary education without paying fees. That tertiary education might be delivered through an industry training organisation; it might be while they are based in a workplace; it might be while they are attending a polytechnic.

Youth Guarantee focuses on a range of vocationally focused courses linked to levels 1 to 3 on the National Qualifications Framework. With literacy and numeracy a priority for the Government, there will also be courses that focus on or at least include the ability to read, write and do maths.

In 2010 and 2011, two thousand young New Zealanders will be able to access a student place under the Youth Guarantee. The cost will be $52.7 million. In these initial years, we will target areas with high youth unemployment rates where there is access to suitable vocational training programmes.

The ultimate aim is to make the scheme available to all 16- and 17-year-olds.

The business-school partnerships promoted by ed&co can provide strength to the operation of schools, ensuring that schools develop their strategic direction and implement this through good management systems. Good governance and good management support good education provision.

The partnership also benefits business. Businesses can gain an appreciation of the differences between business and school environments, learning about how schools operate, the leadership skills of principals, and schools' relationships with their community.

ed&co's mission is to reduce educational inequality within New Zealand's schools. This fits in with the Government's priorities for education. It's about every child being able to achieve at their best -- and schools having the governance and leadership capability to let that happen.

The Government wants to raise education standards at all levels to ensure equality of opportunity for all our young people, and to develop a skilled workforce.

In order to achieve this we have we have developed six areas of priority to ensure a clear focus on raising standards across the education system.

These priorities for schools include literacy and numeracy - making sure that every child achieves literacy and numeracy levels that enable their success; skills and qualifications - making sure that every young person has the skills and qualifications to contribute to their and New Zealand's future; and Maori enjoying education success as Maori.

Sound governance and management in schools is important to achieve these priorities, and the Government is committed to ensuring that support and training is available for all boards.

This support includes core services especially around legal and employment areas, delivered by the New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA). It also includes webinars and e-workshop based training available for all boards, delivered by the Ministry of Education, and a national panel of contractors available to provide tailored training, mentoring, and advisory services to individual boards or clusters of boards.

The equal partnerships that ed&co establish are a good example of a relationship with private sector organisations which complements this range of training and support mechanisms available to boards of trustees.

I commend those organisations and businesses who have stepped up to be part of this important community initiative, and the schools who have taken the opportunity to work in this way.

Speech to the Chief of Army's Conference: 'Enduring Conflict: Challenges and Responses'

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:19:00 +1200

Chief of Army Major General Rhys Jones; Massey University Vice-Chancellor Hon Steve Maharey; Service Chiefs; fellow speakers; members of the ABCA Delegation; members of the Defence Attaché Corps; senior members of Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Customs Service and Police; ladies and gentlemen.

The concept of "Enduring Conflict" is the background to the Defence Review. The past 15 years has seen the continuous deployment of the New Zealand Defence Force. These have included combat operations, as with the SAS in Afghanistan and elements of the early deployment to Timor-Leste. They have also involved stabilisation operations, shipping interdiction and patrol and intelligence gathering. All three services have been actively involved.

The effect is that contemporary service people can expect to be deployed on overseas operations. It has become the expectation of our Defence Force. This is no surprise given New Zealand's geographic place in the world. For over 100 years, New Zealand servicemen and women have fought far from home. Whilst ships were sunk near New Zealand, the country was not threatened with direct invasion even during the two World Wars.

A Defence Force for which overseas operations become the norm has significantly different demands on it, than a Defence Force that is unlikely to be deployed. More care has to be given to the nature of training, the type of equipment acquired, and strategic assessments that are made.

I will therefore deal with the broader strategic picture that underpins the Defence Review. These include the relationships that New Zealand has with its closest partner Australia, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. However, New Zealand is not just confined to the Asia-Pacific region. We also have wider interests.

I will also deal with the effect that the conflicts of the past decade have had on the operational capabilities of the New Zealand Defence Force.

The ANZAC partnership is our most fundamental defence and security commitment. It is not just history that brings us together. Our politics are similar. Our people are similar. This means that our view of the world is similar. We are both trading nations that rely on export income as the basis of our economies. When our two nations look around the region, it is apparent to each of us that there is a very strong commonality of interest between Australia and New Zealand.

This common interest extends to our desire for the maintenance of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. The likelihood is that the 21st century will be the Asian century, at least in terms of economic prowess.

As part of that wider region, both our countries are well placed to benefit from the trade and development that will flow. As you would expect, both countries are actively involved in regional issues and recognise that we have a responsibility to be engaged in defence and other relationships.

That does not mean that our interests are identical. For example, Australia and New Zealand have somewhat different defence contexts. Australia's size, location and status as a "middle power" in the region have led it to develop and maintain capabilities that are beyond the scope of New Zealand.

This disparity in our size also means that New Zealand has to think carefully how to make the best and most useful contribution to the ANZAC partnership. Although in personnel terms New Zealand's defence force is one-fifth the size of Australia's, there are many areas where we add a much greater value to the ANZAC partnership than the size differential suggests.

For example, during a recent visit to the Royal Australian Navy base at Garden Island in Sydney, the importance of our naval logistic capability was emphasised. The Endeavour represents one-third of the naval replenishment capability across the two navies. As you all know, across the range of regional deployments, the New Zealand Army frequently contributes rather more than one-fifth of the frontline personnel.

The Australian White Paper released earlier this year also recognised this. It noted that " . . . we must also plan together on the basis that our combined operations in pursuit of our common security interests, as have occurred over recent years, are the new norm". It went on to suggest that the two countries should look for opportunities to further work together and integrate force elements "in the ANZAC tradition". Defence relations between the two countries are in excellent shape.

The two Prime Ministers are committed to further building the ANZAC partnership. Last month they announced that the two countries would investigate an ANZAC defence contingent which could be deployed at short notice.

This provides a real impetus to our own Defence Review. We will need to carefully examine how we can step up the ANZAC defence relationship. There are many forms that a joint contingent could take that do not prejudice our ultimate national autonomy. Alongside this could go the deepening of specialist capabilities that each of us has so as to avoid duplication, and further efforts in defence industry co-operation.

This close relationship has particular relevance in the Pacific region. This is a region where Australia and New Zealand will be taking the lead - a concept for which Professor Hugh White has coined the phrase "together alone". If we do not have the will and the means to act, then we cannot expect that anyone else will do it for us.

The situation a decade ago in Timor-Leste brought this home with great clarity. We could not wait for wider global forums to take the lead. The situation demanded that we act swiftly and in concert.

This has been played out on several occasions in the Pacific since then. In an operational sense, we have demonstrated effective integration of our defence forces. New Zealand has been a significant partner and sometimes the leader in these operations. The result has been a far deeper appreciation between both our countries of what each of us can do and the benefits of working closely together.

Beyond the Pacific, the Asian region has become a far greater focus of attention. As the Asian economies have grown, they have become more outward-looking. There is a desire from Asian countries and an expectation from other nations that they will play a bigger role in contributing to the wider global responsibilities that nations share. This in turn influences relationships within the region and the development of defence policy.

New Zealand is vitally interested in this changing dynamic. We are optimistic that relationships across the region will continue to develop in a positive way. There is no reason to think otherwise. We also realise that we have to play a real role in ongoing confidence and security-building.

This requires that we participate not just with words, but with deeds. We have to make a contribution in defence terms that has value and is noticed.

This is something that we have been able to do through capabilities that we already have. New Zealand is a frequent participant in FPDA exercises and in defence-related activities throughout the region. Our "blue water" naval capabilities and the value of surveillance assets such as the Orions are noted and appreciated. New Zealand is one of the smallest countries with capabilities of this sophistication and reach. Our challenge is to maintain and build on these capabilities.

New Zealand's defence responsibilities do not end with our region. Our history and our values drive us to a level of international engagement that is unusual for a country of our population size.

We do not really have a choice in this. Terrorism is not something that happens to other people. The fact is that seven New Zealanders' lives have been lost in terrorist attacks since September 11. Historically New Zealanders have not stood by while their countrymen's lives and well-being have been threatened and attacked, and we should not do so now.

This takes considerable effort. Yet we also go to great effort and expense to protect New Zealanders from other infrequent, but potentially high cost, risks such as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and pandemics.

In the end we have to ask ourselves: should we leave others to respond to international risks that affect New Zealand?

New Zealanders are not free-riders. That is why we are in Afghanistan. That is why we have taken on responsibilities beyond our size when it comes to peacekeeping. We are prepared to work with like-minded countries to improve security where we can.

New Zealand has just reviewed its commitment to Afghanistan. We are deploying the SAS. The work of our Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamiyan Province will be more focused on developing and building the local governance and security capability. We will continue to monitor progress.

The events of the past decade will inevitably shape the capability requirements of the NZDF. Of course it would be imprudent to just use specific conflicts as the only guide to capability. Rather, they inform the requirements. The NZDF does have to have enough flexibility to cover a wide range of contingencies, whether they involve combat operations, peacekeeping operations or humanitarian operations such as was recently required in Tonga.

What capabilities do we need? The basic test for a Defence Force as small as New Zealand's is that it should essentially consist of those capabilities that are likely to be used, whether for peacekeeping or for combat, rather than capabilities that are unlikely to be used except in the most extreme cases.

It follows then, that New Zealand's ability to contribute to global coalition operations comes as a "spin-off" from the essential capabilities we need to maintain closer to home.

We will be ensuring that whatever demands are made on our forces they will be well-trained and interoperable with our likely partners - particularly our ANZAC partner, Australia.

The essence of the capabilities can be seen this way. In our region, that is, out to Timor-Leste, we have to have the full range of capabilities for any reasonably foreseeable defence task. We don't envisage shooting down enemy aircraft or sinking submarines, but pretty much everything less than that has to be dealt with.

It is clear already that there are limitations in the ANZAC capability. Tonga was an example of this. Both Australia and New Zealand deployed dive teams of a similar size and capability. Neither of us could operate effectively deeper than about 55 metres. It raises the issue of what complementary capabilities we should focus on.

Diving is an occasional requirement. By contrast, fisheries and maritime surveillance is a role that is vital to the small Pacific states, but generally beyond their own capabilities. There is considerable potential for New Zealand and Australia to work together to raise the standard and presence of surveillance in the region. Both countries could focus on developing specific capabilities that when combined provide a utility greater than the individual components. This approach could also extend to other areas, such as logistic and medical support.

Most military operations require soldiers on the ground. That is why the Army has twice as many people as the other two services. The professionalism of our soldiers has been tested continuously over the past decade with ongoing deployments throughout the region.

While the capital costs of Army procurements are not as high as those of the Navy or Air Force, continuous deployment brings its own challenges. These include training both for specific deployments while keeping other combat skills current, and having equipment available which is effective and compatible with partner countries.

We have also learnt that we cannot base our doctrine and equipment on the last operation that we have done. Each new commitment is different from the one before. The "one size fits all" model is no longer sufficiently flexible to meet the requirements of a contemporary defence force.

The range of deployments has meant that the Army has moved away from deploying fixed units. Task forces built around the specific requirements of the operation have become the norm. The Army Transformation Plan is a response to this reality. Through this and other projects, Army has demonstrated how it is adapting to the flexibility required of it. The Review will further develop this process. It will build on the organisational and operational developments that are under way.

It is this flexibility and professionalism in all three services that makes us a welcome partner both in the region and further afield. Our geography and small size has led to the development of forces with a versatile outlook and lighter logistic footprint.

We have developed considerable skills in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, whether on land, sea or in the air. These are skills that are in considerable demand for real world operations. A priority for the Review is how to sustain and build these skills.

New Zealand's defence capabilities must be matched to our strategic interests. Those capabilities will be judged by how well they allow us to respond to a range of military deployments. The success of the Review will depend on how well we can meet the challenge.

In 1950, Governor General Sir Bernard Freyberg farewelled the Army contingent to Korea with these words: "The reputation of New Zealand is in your hands. I wish you God speed and a safe and quick return."

In many countries around the world, you continue to be the standard bearers of New Zealand's reputation.

It is likely that in the decade ahead there will continue to be a high level of operational deployments. The missions you have and the countries where you will be needed will change over time. What will not change are the values, skills and professionalism that the NZDF contribute. Our reputation is in good hands.

Thank-you.

Speech at the opening of the 19th Queenstown Molecular Biology Conference

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:19:00 +1200

Thank you to Vic Arcus and the organisers for inviting me to open this year's conference. I'd particularly like to extend my greetings to Nobel Laureate Professor Sir Martin Evans and his wife Judith, Lady Evans.

First, I'd like to congratulate you for 19 years of the Queenstown Molecular Biology Meeting. It is now an eagerly anticipated event in New Zealand's science scene. The conference regularly attracts Nobel Laureates and other leading scientists from around the world. I am also pleased to see the focus that this conference places on supporting and encouraging young researchers.

As you know the theme of this year's meeting is stem cells. It's a topic that is of considerable interest to the public as well as to the research community. I note from the programme the significant level of commitment that New Zealand research groups are making to stem cell research.

Stem cell research has its public image in regenerative therapies and cancer research. For New Zealand, it is a priority to also apply stem cell research to our farm animals, as well as plants. New stem cell research has particular appeal to New Zealand. We naturally have concentrated on biotechnology, whether it is for animals or humans.

Professor Richard Faull, who will be speaking shortly, demonstrates the commitment made in the most sophisticated areas of biotechnology. He and his research team astonished the rest of the world a few years ago by proving that the brain can repair itself by growing new cells.

Professor Faull's work in establishing the Neurological Foundation Human Brain Bank at the University of Auckland is important for several reasons. It is an invaluable resource for researchers seeking to understand the brain and its pathologies.

The bank has provided opportunities for New Zealand researchers to collaborate with leading researchers all around the world, which is vital for a small country like ours.

The degree of public interest in the research and the Huntington community's active support of the brain bank is a testament to Professor Faull's ability to communicate the importance of his research,

As Professor Faull said, "If we are not finding new knowledge and communicating that with the community, we are not doing our job as scientists . . . we must always seek and look for the vision for the enhancement of life."

I am looking forward to hearing Professor Faull talk about his team's research on how the brain can fix itself.

Tonight, I will cover three key issues. The first is the Government's commitment to fundamental research and raising the profile of science. The second is set out how the Government is setting its priorities for research, science and technology and the process that will unfold throughout the rest of the year. Finally I will briefly touch on some of the progress that has already been made.

Fundamental research, such as that undertaken by Professor Faull, and by Professor Sir Martin Evans, is vital for any advanced society. It is from such research that innovations emerge that contribute to our economic and social development.

New Zealand supports fundamental research primarily through the Marsden Fund, the PBRF and through the Health Research Council. The 2009 Budget placed particular emphasis on fundamental research.

The Marsden Fund was increased 24%, from $38 million to $47 million, and PBRF funding was increased by nearly $6 million to $242 million. An additional $8 million per year was also given to the Health Research Council.

The CRI Capability Fund, which gives CRIs the ability to investigate more speculative research, was also increased by $10 million. These are generous increases given the current fiscal climate, and indicate the importance the Government places on fundamental research.

The Government is also supporting fundamental research through the Centres of Research Excellence, such as the Maurice Wilkins Centre and the National Research Centre for Growth and Development. The CoREs are good examples of collaboration for excellence between institutions.

We are a small country with limited resources so we have to focus on working more effectively together. One of the key actions that assists research partnerships is providing access to expensive or specialised equipment.

This year's Budget committed $12 million to genomics infrastructure that will be available to all New Zealand researchers. Investing in state of the art gene sequencing technologies and bioinformatic capabilities will help New Zealand remain at the leading edge of genetic research.

We are also continuing to support the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network to help you share and analyse the increasingly complex data that you produce. Upgrading and maintaining infrastructure is essential for an innovative science system.

The Government is also supporting future science opportunities. New Zealand has formally joined Australia in bidding to host the Square Kilometre Array. This formal arrangement has boosted the prospects for the SKA being hosted in Australasia. The broader signal is that this Government backs fundamental science. Co-hosting the SKA would add to New Zealand's potential for innovation, discovery and economic benefit.

Government support for fundamental research requires an understanding of why these commitments are important. The Prime Minister's Science Prizes that we are establishing is one way of publicly highlighting the contributions of science to New Zealand.

The establishment of the position of Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor is another. One of Professor Sir Peter Gluckman's roles is to raise the profile of science in New Zealand, and he has been very active in this over the first two months of his tenure.

Sir Peter has posed the challenge to the science community to really ask and answer questions such as "what is the purpose of science?", "what does it achieve?" and "why should we bother to invest in science?"

It is the responsibility of every scientist to be able to communicate what they are doing and why. Later this month Sir Peter is holding a workshop with scientists to consider how we can improve the commercialisation of the good ideas that are produced. Part of the improved understanding is demonstrating how science underpins modern economies.

We know that we produce high-quality health research in New Zealand. In fact, using the traditional academic measures of research quality, we are doing very well. But we need to think well beyond impact as measured by publications and citations.

This year's science Budget was about supporting fundamental research. However, the Government is clear that a critical outcome of science investment is improved economic and social outcomes. We are looking for both direct and indirect performance improvements.

Two months ago the Prime Minister noted six policy drivers to improve our economic performance. Innovation is one of those drivers, with Government investment in research, science and technology being a major contributor to that.

In a speech last month, I outlined the four themes that the Government will use to guide what we do to improve the productivity of research funding. These themes are:

enhancing the migration of science from the laboratory to the marketplace
improving the way we strategically invest in the public good science that underpins our economy
directly boosting economic growth through more effective market driven research
simplifying the entire system.

The next few months will be the key period in establishing these themes. It will involve setting priorities.

We have to be more effective in how we use the research funds that we have. As you will know the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology are ensuring the science funding system is easier for scientists as well as businesses to access. The outcome will be clearer priorities, and reduced compliance costs.

Greater clarity as to what we fund in science will also assist the Government in making strategic choices in the future. By clearly identifying what strategic purpose funding actually supports, we can make value judgements about the relative importance of that funding. One of the big decisions we have to make is whether the balance best reflects the overall Government priorities for science.

This is a key priority for me as Minister. I have directed the Ministry and the Foundation develop a more transparent science funding system. We are currently preparing a document for feedback from the sector. This will be targeted at key stakeholders, in order to meet the tight timeframe before planning begins for Budget 2010.

It will enable identification of the high-level strategic purpose for Government-funded research.

It is the Government's intention to focus the funding of science on the areas of most relevance to New Zealand's economic and social future. This is public-good, long-term strategic research such as maintaining collections of flora and fauna and developing a better understanding of our land and sea environments. This research is the foundation that our economy is built on.

A few weeks ago I was at the launch of the Natural Hazards Research Platform. This is a template for future developments in enabling science and collaboration across institutions. We are in the process of clarifying other key priority areas for such platforms and we will fund them on a more strategic basis.

The second area is science that supports our productive sectors. The Prime Minister refers to "the cultures" - agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, aquaculture, silviculture and others. Our comparative advantage in these industries needs to be sustained by science and innovation. We invest in a broad range of science in these sectors because they support our whole economy and standard of living.

The Government will be launching the Primary Growth Partnership later this month, starting with $30 million this year and rising to $70 million in four years' time. This will address key growth and market-led research for "the cultures". Importantly, it will be done in equal partnership with the sectors.

The third area is investing in business-focused technology and innovation. We need to support businesses to develop products and to focus on market-led opportunities.

New Zealand has world-leading companies in digital film, software, medical appliances and high-tech metals, amongst others. The returns and productivity of these companies are very high. They will contribute greatly to the task of lifting New Zealand up the OECD scale.

The Foundation will also be placing greater emphasis on the economic return and commercialisation potential of the investment. Timely and accurate reporting on the benefits of the investment will form part of future assessments.

We already have some good partnerships between research organisations and industries. There is scope to develop these links and increase their effectiveness.

All of this activity - setting priorities, supporting fundamental research through the Budget, appointing the Chief Science Advisor - is done with a purpose. We need research, science and technology to generate more innovation, and lead to greater productivity. This is how the science sector will contribute to the goals that the Prime Minister outlined in July.

Thank you for inviting me to open this conference. The Queenstown Molecular Biology Conference is one of the most significant conferences held in New Zealand, and I trust you will enjoy this year's programme.

Keynote speech at the Canterbury Software Summit

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:18:00 +1200

Good afternoon. I appreciate being asked to speak at the fourth annual Canterbury Software Summit.

I would like to acknowledge the guest speakers for the day: Craig Richardson of Jade Software; Donald Hastie or ERMLive; Ian McCrae of Orion Health; Steve Simms of TOMIZONE and Chris Mardon of Energy Mad. I would also like to acknowledge the summit's host, Canterbury Software Incorporated.

I was here in Christchurch in April with the Prime Minister for the opening of NZi3. We were both very impressed with the way NZi3 is working as a "hothouse" of information and communications technology (ICT) research, bringing together researchers and business in this area.

The objective of this year's summit is to inspire Canterbury's ICT companies to take the next step in the development of their business by focusing on success stories of business growth. The theme of "Starting up, Growing up, Selling up, and Starting Over" fits well with our economy emerging from the recession.

I have two main themes today. The first is how innovation fits into the Government's broader economic agenda. The second is what we are doing to encourage innovation. The ICT sector should be able to take particular advantage of the commitments the Government is making.

The Prime Minister's speech on the Government's economic agenda, given in July, set out six policy drivers that are fundamental in relation to boosting New Zealand's economic performance. One of these drivers is innovation.

Innovation can be found throughout our economy including, of course, the primary sector, which dominates our exports.

Commentators often say that research priorities for New Zealand are a choice between the land-based economy and what are often called "hi-tech" industries. In reality both of these broad areas are "hi tech". Both are crucial to New Zealand. Both have demonstrated excellent growth prospects and productivity improvements.

The New Zealand economy continues to diversify into new services and specialised manufacturing, where we can be internationally competitive.

Software development is one such area. Software is the essential interface between people and machines. In the wired 21^st century world, it is increasing the interface between people and people as well. Software development has become a key driver in lifting productivity, in the same way electricity was in the early 20^th century. It is a highly mobile product, in most cases available via information technology networks.

The OECD described New Zealand's software industry as a "pocket of excellence". Given our strengths in ICT and digital technologies, these industries are valuable contributors to the diversification of our economy, and subsequent economic growth.

The Government's investment in innovation will help firms connect with overseas markets and develop new ideas to create new and higher value products and services.

It is our intent to invest in firms which have the best export opportunities and operate internationally. The Government is also working to ensure our various support schemes deliver clarity as to where funding should be sought, and what the requirements of that support will be.

There will be room for the "start-up". But the serious support will go into those that have the most effective path to significant gains.

The Foundation for Research Science and Technology currently invests approximately $13.5 million per annum in ICT research. The purpose of this ICT investment is to assist business and society to take advantage of and make best use of the infrastructure and technologies. Because ICT is a fast-changing industry, we need to have simple and swift support processes.

Today's consumers want to stay up-to-date and connected worldwide. This has led to today's smartphones. Little over a decade ago our mobile phones were "bricks", only able to make limited and expensive phone calls. A generation later the mobile phone is both ubiquitous and essential.

This month New Scientist is highlighting the change that the smartphone has brought to social, business and economic connectivity and value. The conclusion of this article is that smart phones are actually altering the way we think.

Ultimately, smartphones facilitate our digital lives. This is not because of the hardware. It is the ability of the software to exploit the functions of these devices that is driving progress.

Smartphones are one highly visible platform for software right now. In reality, innovative software is enabling and changing just about every other aspect of our lives as well.

New Zealand has some great examples of these "underpinning" products.

Optima's ambulance service product, named SIREN, optimises ambulance response and coverage. SIREN is now in use in New Zealand, Australia, Europe and North America. This is changing the ambulance industry, making the distribution of resources more effective and efficient.

In other fields, New Zealand's software developers put their expertise under the spotlight.

New Zealand is leading the use of digital technology in movies. Weta Digital needs little description, but they are world renowned for their advances in digital film. Weta's work on Avatar and Tintin may usher in a new era in 3D and motion capture technology.

The ability to do this work is underpinned by software and programming. Last month, the Government supported a broadening of Weta's capabilities with a $5.8 million TechNZ grant. This funding is matched two for one by Weta. The purpose is to allow deeper research and development that looks beyond the commercial horizon of the next few films and allows Weta to stay at the forefront five and 10 years out.

Here in Christchurch, Tait Electronics is a well-known company. They have had to shift their platform from analogue to digital - a step change in technology.

The result is an increase in sales from less than $10 million to over $43 million in one year. It has expanded their markets in the export security sector. It has also kept research and production jobs in Christchurch.

These are three different examples of investment in technology. A common ground is that software development underpins the ability of these companies to innovate and succeed. The Government recognises that encouraging a vibrant ICT sector has benefits across the broader economy.

Government support for ICT also extends to infrastructure. We have recently made two important commitments to improving ICT linkages.

The first is the $1.5 billion broadband investment announced as part of the Budget earlier this year. To drive growth and innovation in the coming decades we need to create world-class ICT infrastructure.

This Government has committed to rolling out ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of the population where they live, work and study over the next 10 years.

The Government also invested $16 million in REANNZ in the Budget. Long-term, REANNZ have to make sure that the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network (KAREN) is self-funding. REANNZ are due to report to Ministers on how this can be accomplished by the end of this year.

For innovation to succeed, we also need to make sure that business innovation is supported.

The Government has already made changes to the tax system, and is reviewing business assistance programmes to focus on better economic performance.

As a sector, you will be aware of the many opportunities for new products, services and markets. There are two areas where Government commitments could create major opportunities for further software development.

One of these potential opportunities is the Square Kilometre Array. Australia and New Zealand have a combined bid to host the SKA. If we are successful, the SKA will generate significant economic benefits and spinoffs in a number of areas. These include supercomputing, fibre optics, data transmission, renewable energy, construction and manufacturing.

The SKA would provide a conduit for NZ institutions and businesses to be involved in the development of significant technology and infrastructure over its expected 50-year life span. These opportunities have already attracted the attention of major technology multinationals and local SMEs.

The SKA project is also a catalyst for fostering further strong links and cooperation between Australian and New Zealand industry, particularly in the high-technology sectors.

Another opportunity is around the Kiwi Advanced Research Education Network, KAREN.

KAREN is primarily a research and education network. It is also New Zealand's entry ticket to participation in international research and access to data intensive global content.

This week, the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) announced it has installed the southern hemisphere's most powerful supercomputer for climate change modelling. KAREN makes it possible to exchange this data with other global leaders in climate research.

Having KAREN gives us greater inclusion and collaboration in global research, education and innovation. In turn, this has potential spinoffs by bringing in new ideas and applying them to New Zealand's challenges. KAREN also gives us access to new markets for our own ideas.

Last month I set out my key themes for the Research, Science and Technology portfolio. In summary, these are:

better migration of science from lab to market
more strategic investment in enabling science
more effective support for commercialisation
simplifying the system.

Progress is already being made in each of these areas. Both generators and users of science are giving plenty of feedback on how we can speed the process.

We are doing this because improving productivity is the main goal of this Government. We are committed to an agenda which uses innovation to drive economic growth. The software and ICT sector will benefit from the changes we are making. This benefit will flow back through the economy through more jobs, new ideas and export growth.

Long-term economic resilience comes down to investment in people and innovation. The Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, Sir Peter Gluckman, said in Sydney last month that "a scientifically literate and engaged society at all levels is more likely to be ambitious, innovative and productive."

The software and ICT industry is at the forefront of demonstrating just how ambitious, innovative and productive our economy can be. Your success is vital to New Zealand's future. Thank you for this opportunity to address today's summit.

Speech at MacDiarmid Young Scientists of the Year Awards

nospam@example.com (admin) — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:17:00 +1200

Good evening to scientists and innovators both young and old, families, supporters and distinguished guests.

I would like to acknowledge Murray Bain of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology for hosting this event, and the major sponsors of the MacDiarmid Young Scientists of the Year Awards for their support.

Tonight we celebrate the science and technology achievements of the most talented of New Zealand's young scientists. We recognise their excellence in research, and their ability to communicate their ideas to a wider audience.

Over the past two decades there has been a much greater focus on how science informs society and business. Researchers are expected to understand how their scientific work affects society, the environment and the economy from early on in their professional education.

Since becoming Minister, many people in the science system have told me about the tremendous struggle that young scientists can have establishing themselves.

In the early years scientists will be typically focused on fundamental research that will provide the platform for future careers. In their foundation work, they build up initial capability based on deep inquiry.

Research excellence is without doubt the most important driver of a better science output. Whether you are funded by the PBRF, the Marsden Fund, the Health Research Council or the Foundation, there has to be a commitment to funding the best.

Research that focuses on excellence stretches the horizons of young researchers, and broadens society's possibilities. Promoting excellence is why the Government increased the Marsden Fund and Health Research Council funds in the 2009 Budget.

The Government in this year's Budget made fundamental science a key priority. We increased the Marsden Fund by 24%, from $38 million to $47 million. The CRI Capability Fund was increased 20%, from $50 million to $60 million, and Health Research Council funding grew 13%, from $63 million to $71 million.

Focusing on fundamental research led Alan MacDiarmid to his Nobel Prize. As he said two years after being awarded the prize:

"Conducting polymers were an answer waiting for the pertinent question, which had not yet been asked."

All of us now carry improvements and innovations based on his fundamental discovery. The next time we use our iPhones and Blackberrys we should think of Alan MacDiarmid's insights into the nature of electrical conductivity.

The other area of excellence the MacDiarmid Awards recognise is communicating science to New Zealanders. We are in an era of explosive developments in communication technology. Creative communication will lead to a better understanding of the science that underpins our society.

Explaining why science is critical to innovation and economic growth is a considerable challenge. We still have work to do in conveying to New Zealanders why science matters to their jobs, and the jobs of their children.

This is a particular role of the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, Sir Peter Gluckman. Sir Peter has noticeably lifted the profile of science since his appointment, and he will give new life to discussions about research in New Zealand.

Investment in science will lead to better health outcomes, a more sustainable environment and a more highly skilled society.

Tonight's awards will raise the profile of science. They celebrate success. They provide an example to others.

To the finalists, congratulations on being nominated. Your best years of research are still ahead of you. I look forward to meeting the winner and runner-up of the MacDiarmid Young Scientist of the Year later tonight.

Thank you and enjoy the evening.

Speech to WaikatoLink Accelerating Innovation Through Collaboration Forum

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:57:00 +1200

Mark Weldon, Mark Stuart, Jim Bolger, David Bennett, Sir John Anderson, Guests of WaikatoLink.

First, can I congratulate Chris De Boer and WaikatoLink on the launch of the AngelLink Network.

People often talk about "picking winners". Governments are not always very good at picking winners. What we need to do is ensure that winners get appropriate assistance. Specialist angel investors bring their skills and expertise to sort out the best. But someone has to choose.

AngelLink brings together investors and science. It directly targets the challenge of bringing science to the market. The networking of investment funds such as K1W1 set up by Stephen Tindall, Endeavour Capital headed by Neville Jordan, Angel Investment company Movac and Spark Box, comes at a crucial time when early stage capital is more scarce than it has been due to the global financial crisis.

On the Government's part, the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund will ensure $4 million funding through Seed Co Investment Fund.

I understand investments will be on the basis of up to $250,000 per investment, on a 1:1 matched funding basis. It will be like TechNZ but for start-ups, linked to venture capital and angel investors.

This month, both the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and I have given speeches on priorities for the science sector. There are two key issues. The first is the shape of our overall science and research sector. The second is how we can encourage the migration of science from lab to market.

New Zealand has low levels of science investment. This is partly because of the nature of our economy, which is still largely pastoral. We also have large numbers of smaller enterprises, rather than a few large companies. Many smaller companies do not have R&D in a formal sense.

It is also worth noting we have to research across a range of disciplines, including geology, climate science and oceanography that are all of critical importance to New Zealand.

This has meant that the New Zealand Government is a comparatively larger investor into research, science and technology than other countries. Thousands of scientists directly benefit from the investment. It has been a key part of our comparative advantage.

What are the plans for the future? Two weeks ago, I set out my four key themes for Research, Science and Technology. In summary, these were:

improving science migration from concept to business
a more strategic approach funding and delivering public good enabling research
more effective commercialisation of science, and
simplifying the system.

These themes are not my own. They came from discussions and input from people right across the sector. At the conclusion of that speech, I invited all those who generated and used science to give me input into how we can turn these themes into actions. This evening is a valuable part of that.

Much of the scientific work in New Zealand is undertaken in the universities and in the CRIs. The universities in particular play a vital role in producing both new scientists and new science. Funding through PBRF and many of the funds administered by FORST helps support this fundamental science.

This leads to my second point this evening. We need to get the maximum benefit out of the fervour of ideas in universities. We cannot afford to let good ideas pass by.

The Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, spoke about this very issue at the Australia-New Zealand Leadership Forum last week. He noted that scientists and business needed to be exposed to each other much earlier in the research cycle. Science can offer so much more than assisting at a late stage in development. Transformational technologies are more likely to be generated if science can be brought to bear on the problem, rather than on a narrow solution.

The corollary of this is that scientists need to also be more focused on the potential outcomes of their research. They need to be more aware of the sorts of problems and challenges that business faces. This can only be achieved by getting science and the marketplace much closer together.

The Government also has an important role in this. The funding systems that we have must be simpler. They must also encourage the flow of science. Everyone responds to the incentives (and disincentives) of where their money comes from. A critical part of this is supporting increased collaboration throughout the system. Keeping science in silos does not help the cross-fertilisation of ideas.

The overall goal is to ensure that the generators of science, whether they be in universities, CRIs, or elsewhere, are not disadvantaged by getting their science into the marketplace.

We must also make sure that the users of science are encouraged to make best use of it. They have to know where to find it, and recognise the leverage that science can provide. They need to think and invest for the long term, not just for tomorrow.

The result is a win for everyone. Scientists benefit, because they get access to funding outside the finite resources of institution funds. Business benefits through improved competitiveness and growth. And New Zealand is the biggest winner through more and better jobs and an increased standard of living.

New Zealand has both the science and the entrepreneurship. We just need to better combine these two key ingredients. This Government is focused on growth. The AngelLink will provide opportunities for new researchers. The entrepreneurship will provide the opportunity for New Zealand jobs, exports and for New Zealand growth.

Speech to Bayer Innovators Awards ceremony

nospam@example.com (admin) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:57:00 +1200

First, may I acknowledge Nevil Gibson, Editor-in-Chief of the National Business Review, and the regional head of Bayer, Hans-Dieter Hausner.

Thank you for inviting me, as the Minister of Research, Science and Technology, to speak at the third Bayer Innovators Awards ceremony.

Bayer has a long history of successful products in New Zealand - in healthcare, agribusiness and high-tech materials. It's also a very important global player in research and development, investing more than six billion New Zealand dollars globally last year.

This is a significant figure financially, as it very clearly marks Bayer's serious commitment to research-led innovation. That commitment is also, of course, strongly reflected in the Innovators Awards that Bayer has established in New Zealand.

The National Business Review has long sponsored business innovation. It is a particular commitment of publisher Barry Colman and Editor-in-Chief, Nevil Gibson.

The purpose of the awards is to recognise and acknowledge New Zealand's best and brightest innovators. The awards celebrate people, companies and their innovations.

Innovation is about the future of our economy. The awards recognise that innovation is a growth engine for the economy.

Peter Drucker once defined innovation as "the specific instrument of entrepreneurship. The act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth".

The focus of this Government is economic growth. Higher levels of growth that will push us up the OECD scale will only be achieved if New Zealand becomes more innovative. This needs to happen across both our traditional sectors of the economy and in emerging areas.

Our success in agriculture is built almost entirely on innovation. There are many places in the world with good rainfall and sunshine. Few, however, have shown the innovation of New Zealand's agricultural sector. New Zealand has led improvements in animal health, in pastoral productivity, farm management and scientific application of fertiliser and feed supplements, and in milking systems.

In the industrial and service sectors, we have seen innovation in engineering and manufacturing of agricultural aircraft and marine craft. New Zealand also has recent success in contemporary fields such as digital film, lightweight materials, and GPS technology.

In each case, individuals have seen a gap in the market, and developed innovative ideas and processes to bring new products and services to the market. It often depends on a single person's vision, but it can also involves teams of people working to a common purpose.

To quote Nobel laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: "Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought."

The Government has a role to support and assist innovation. We do this by providing funding for research and business assistance. People often talk about "picking winners". Governments are not always very good at picking winners. What we need to do is ensure that winners get their chance.

Awards such as the Bayer Innovators Awards play an important role in recognising success. We need to show the value and the impact that innovative people and their ideas have on our society.

Two weeks ago, I set out my four key themes for Research, Science and Technology. In summary, these were:

improving the migration of science from the laboratory to the marketplace
a more strategic approach funding and delivering public good enabling research
boosting economic growth through more effective market-driven research
simplifying the system.

These themes are not my own. They came from discussions and input from people right across the sector. But they were based on my earliest instincts about research and development policy.

We all understand that serendipitous discovery is a great source of innovation. New Zealand has great science and great scientists. Where we need to focus is on getting that discovery out into the economy where, bluntly, it can make us money. That is the essence of the first theme and the focus of these awards tonight.

We also need business to be very clear, almost demanding, about where it needs research and development. The better business communicates their needs, the more likely it is that researchers in the universities and CRIs can contribute to their success.

Our vision is very simple. Innovation means increased productivity, economic growth, wealth, jobs and a better standard of living. We should celebrate people who are fulfilling that vision.

Looking through the biographies of the finalists, it is interesting to see the range of innovation. We are looking at leaders in software development, health technologies and biofuels, amongst others.

It is notable that all the finalists in the Agriculture and Environment section are innovating to respond to climate change. This is a tremendous opportunity for New Zealand science, especially given our distance from key export markets. This Government recognised that opportunity in the Budget, with the announcement of funding for the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research.

These awards recognise the role of design and engineering in innovation. Having been to companies such as Buckley Systems, with world-class expertise in magnets for the semiconductor industry, and Hamilton Jet, who use design to stay ahead of much larger competitors, I appreciate how much these disciplines can contribute to the economy.

It is good to see that innovation with a sense of fun and recreation is recognised, in the nomination of Kiwitub. New Zealand is certainly a country that promotes fun and recreation to drive new opportunities. The bungee is a New Zealand innovation. Others such as Martin Jetpack are also focused on adventure tourism.

What really stands out is that this group of innovators has a clear market opportunity in mind. These innovations address big themes around recognising opportunity, whether it is responding to climate change, or saving money on healthcare.

I congratulate Bayer and the National Business Review for their initiative with the Innovators Awards. Events such as the Bayer Innovators Awards are good opportunities to celebrate success.

Speech to the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:55:00 +1200

The defence partnership between Australia and New Zealand is enduring. It has its origins in shared experiences, not just in Anzac Cove, but also through World War Two and in South-East Asia. Today we are both in Timor-Leste, the Solomons and Afghanistan.

In 2009 it is now clear that we have a unique opportunity to develop the relationship beyond interoperability to a much deeper joint approach. Our two Prime Ministers have already signalled their intent in this regard.

This afternoon, I want to deal with three particular aspects of the ANZAC partnership. The first is the progress of our own Defence Review. The second is the role that both of us play in our immediate region, especially within the Pacific. The third is our commitment to continuing to be a valued partner on the broader world stage.

Our Defence Review is making solid progress towards its publication early next year. Major strategic priorities have been identified. The implications of these priorities on our capabilities, both now and in the future, are being worked through. Concurrently with this work we have been undertaking wider public consultation. Although the public consultation is not completed, it is apparent there is a broad consensus on New Zealand's fundamental security priorities.

The public understand the need for a Defence Force that is able to meet the challenge of contemporary operations. They understand that for New Zealand more than just about any other country, defence is something we do away from home, whether it be in the Pacific with our ANZAC partner, or further afield as part of our multilateral relationships.

Part of this understanding is a widespread view that New Zealand is not directly threatened in a traditional military sense. Even during the global conflicts of the 20^th century, New Zealand itself remained free from invasion, although ships were sunk off our coast during World War Two.

This does not mean that New Zealanders believe that we should remain apart, secure behind the biggest natural moat in the world. Rather, it has led to a deep appreciation that the best way to ensure peace for ourselves is to take our wider responsibilities seriously. The ANZAC partnership is our most fundamental defence and security commitment. We actively work in conjunction with other like-minded countries to foster a secure and stable world.

New Zealand has as much to lose as anyone if there is a significant rise in tensions, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. We also realise that being a part of the wider region means both playing and being seen to play an effective part, whether it be in defence or other relationships.

In this, I should note that Australia and New Zealand have somewhat different defence contexts. Australia's size, geographic positioning and status as a "middle power" in the region require it to develop and maintain capabilities that are beyond the scope of New Zealand.

The disparity in our size means New Zealand has to think carefully how to make the best and most useful contribution to the ANZAC partnership. I do note that in personnel terms New Zealand's defence force is one-fifth the size of Australia's. It is our intent that New Zealand adds real value to the ANZAC partnership.

We noted with considerable interest the Australian White Paper released earlier this year. It particularly recognised the close ties between our two countries. Significantly, Australia's Review forecast the further development of the ability to integrate our forces, where appropriate in the ANZAC tradition. We have taken this on board, and this is a key factor in the development of our own White Paper.

The Prime Ministerial announcement yesterday, to investigate an ANZAC defence contingent which could be deployed at short notice, will provide a real impetus to our Defence Review.

This brings me to my second point, which is the deepening of our shared relationship in the Pacific.

The situation a decade ago in Timor-Leste brought home to us that in our region, it will be the two ANZAC nations who take the lead. If Australia and New Zealand do not have the will and the means to act, then we cannot expect that anyone else will do it for us. This has been played out on several occasions in the Pacific since then. Our nations have operated in common accord. In an operational sense, we have demonstrated effective integration of our defence forces.

There is surely scope to deepen our capabilities on an ANZAC basis. The Tongan ferry tragedy illustrates the point. In this case, both countries responded immediately. We would expect that. We both sent dive teams, who have worked well together. Again, no surprises.

What is interesting is that both teams are of very similar sizes and capabilities - and have similar limitations. There are very good reasons why this is the case - but it also raises the opportunity to take an ANZAC approach to develop a deeper level of capabilities of direct relevance to the Pacific. This would benefit both our nations, and the nations of the Pacific region.

In the Pacific, where Australia and New Zealand will be taking the lead - a concept for which Professor Hugh White has coined the phrase "together alone" - the concept of an ANZAC approach to certain specialisations for the common good seems very attractive. It is an area that I anticipate both our defence forces will develop further in the wake of our respective Reviews.

Our first area of defence responsibility, outside our own EEZ, is the maritime region of the Pacific. Our Review will be looking carefully at how well our capabilities are matched to the likely range of requirements in the area, and how they can best be developed further.

Fisheries surveillance of the Pacific Forum nations is surely one such opportunity to boost the economies of the Forum nations.

New Zealand may be smaller than Australia in terms of broader defence capability, but in the Pacific region we understand our responsibility to be a significant partner in ANZAC operations. It is a responsibility we do not take lightly.

My third point is the role that New Zealand plays in the wider region beyond the Pacific.

In common with Australia, we have become far more focused on the Asian region over the past two decades. Increasingly, our trade is with the region. Commercial linkages are growing rapidly. Immigration is altering our social perceptions. Asia has become the nexus of global economic activity.

This has brought with it a major influx of wealth to the region, and an increasingly international outlook from Asian countries. They are growing into the wider global responsibilities that nations share. This in turn is reflected in their approach to defence engagement.

New Zealand recognises this changing dynamic. We are optimistic that relationships across the region will continue to develop in a positive way - indeed it is in everyone's interest that they do so. We also realise that, as part of the ongoing confidence and security building, we have to participate not just with words, but with deeds. Being engaged means making a contribution that has value and is noticed.

This is one of the major challenges facing the Defence Review. Our current capability mix allows us to participate in regional security arrangements in a meaningful way. Our intention is to maintain an effective capability to continue to do so.

We need to develop capabilities to match our strategic interests. Beyond our region, military operations involve a wide range of capabilities from many coalition partners. New Zealand's choices in the international arena should be guided by our areas of niche expertise.

Both our nations are making a hugely valued commitment in Afghanistan, reflecting our particular expertise. We do so because both our citizens have been victims of terrorism.

New Zealand has just reviewed its commitment to Afghanistan. We are deploying the SAS to Afghanistan. The work of our Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamiyan Province will be more focused on development and governance objectives. It is our objective that the Afghanistan National Police take responsibility for security.

Given the demands of our region we have built particular expertise around surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence. The P3 Orions are among the most sophisticated capability the NZDF operates. In fact, New Zealand is the smallest country that has such a capability. The SAS also has these unique skills, at a world-class level.

New Zealand is already engaged in Asia and it is expected that we will make an effective contribution. Our participation in FPDA exercises illustrates an effective use of our core skills. For example, the participation of a Royal New Zealand Navy frigate and a replenishment ship in a naval exercise is both a significant contribution to the exercise itself and demonstrates that New Zealand can add real capability to combined operations in the region.

Our Naval and maritime surveillance capabilities have a high profile internationally, and fit with our surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence expertise.

The basic test for a Defence Force as small as New Zealand's is that it should essentially consist of those capabilities that are likely to be used, whether for peacekeeping or for combat, rather than capabilities that are unlikely to be used except in the most extreme case.

It follows that New Zealand's ability to contribute to global coalition operations comes as a "spinoff" from the essential capabilities we need to maintain closer to home. We will be ensuring that whatever the demands are that are made on our forces they will be well trained and interoperable with our likely partners - particularly our ANZAC partner, Australia.

I should also note that in developing our defence forces we have opportunities to build industrial capability. The ANZAC ship project was a stellar example. Over the next few years we need to ensure that companies on both sides of the Tasman continue to have the scope to participate in the full range of defence contracts.

The ANZAC relationship was formed at the very birth of our nations. We each bring particular qualities to the contemporary ANZAC partnership. It is the fusion of each country's particular strengths that will further build and sustain the contemporary ANZAC partnership.

By building on these strengths and working together we can ensure that the sum of the parts is greater than the individual parts themselves. The enduring relationship of the ANZAC partners is set for a new level of development. We will bring new strength both for ourselves and for our wider partners, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.

New Zealand's Commitment to Afghanistan

nospam@example.com (admin) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:12:31 +1200

It is now eight years since the New Zealand Defence Force was first deployed to Afghanistan. They have provided civil reconstruction, security, and have directly engaged Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters. In all roles they have brought great credit to the professionalism of the Defence Force. Many including Corporal Willie Apiata have been highly decorated for bravery, and leadership. Their contribution has been highly valued in Afghanistan.

It is appropriate that New Zealanders ask what we intend to achieve in the future. Today’s debate, the discussion in the media, and the letters and e-mails are centred on this question. Most people, including the Green Party, do accept that we have a role in Afghanistan. The issue is what kind of role that New Zealand should undertake.

We should recall the principal reason why we first went to Afghanistan. It was September 11. Al Qaeda had its base in Afghanistan. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was unwilling to reject Al Qaeda and ensure they were brought to international justice.

It is intolerable that a government should provide a safe haven to terrorists who had perpetuated the worst terrorist incident in history. New Zealanders have died in each of the Al Qaeda directed and inspired incidents, including September 11, London, Bali, and most recently in Jakarta. We have a duty to our fellow New Zealanders to deal directly to the source of terrorism.

The Taliban government was defeated in 2002 by an international coalition, which included New Zealand. There was specific United Nations Security Council authorisation for this action – UNSCR 1368 (2001) and UNSCR 1373 (2001). There is continuing annual Security Council resolutions to support the NATO/ISAF missions.

The challenge now is to produce a sufficiently stable Afghanistan so that it does not once again become a haven for terrorists. That was the case in 2003 and 2004 when the SAS was deployed, and is the case today. President Obama, during the 2008 campaign, understood the importance of focusing on Afghanistan, that the United States had neglected the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

In February this year at the NATO/ISAF Defence Minister’s Conference in Krakow, I put New Zealand’s case that we needed a much more sophisticated approach. The goal of the NATO/ISAF mission should be specifically to deal with the risk of terrorism, to build the institutions of civil governance, and to enable the reconciliation of the political factions in Afghanistan including the more moderate elements of the Taliban. The use of defence forces needs to be carefully considered, including a more careful use of air power. This view was widely shared, particularly among the European ISAF partners, and by Australia.

In April 2009 the NATO/ISAF set out the new strategy, which adopted many of these concerns. It does involve an increased commitment of defence forces to build security within the country. The reason is to prevent the country reverting to Taliban control, and therefore providing a safe haven for terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda. Of course, this involves the strengthening of the Afghan government and the Afghan security forces. The Afghan government also has its role to play in being more inclusive. It has to find an effective way to reconcile the people of Afghanistan including moderate parts of the Taliban.

The NATO/ISAF partners are taking a dual approach. It involves first building the security of Afghanistan, and second, civil reconstruction of the country. This is not just physical infrastructure such as schools, health clinics and roading and electricity distribution, it is also improving civil governance, training police, the judiciary and the civil service. In the longer term these will be the key for a stable Afghanistan that does not threaten, or allow its territory to be used to threaten wider international peace.

New Zealand’s deployment in both the PRT and now the SAS meets both of these needs. New Zealand’s engagement in Afghanistan requires contributing to both security and to civil reconstruction. This is common with the other NATO/ISAF partners.

The current surge of troops is intended to change the security situation. There is no doubt this would be risky for the SAS. But so is the Provincial Reconstruction Team. In fact if security is not improved, the PRT will be in greater danger.

There has already been an increase in activity in Bamyan over the last eight months. This was occurring before the surge in April. We do face a challenge of changing the security picture. I recognise that New Zealanders will need to see improvement over the next 12 months. That is the expectation of the people within all of the NATO/ISAF countries.

We need to understand the risk, not just to our servicepeople. If Afghanistan fell into the hands of radical Taliban, then Afghanistan would become an uncontested home for Al Qaeda. That is an intolerable risk.

We need to know the stakes here. New Zealanders have been killed in terrorist attacks. We are protecting ourselves by dealing with the terrorists and those who support them where they actually are. Afghanistan is that place. By our presence we protect ourselves and our values.

Speech at the Higher Education Summit - Research and Innovation Forum

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:20:00 +1200

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the Research and Innovation Forum. I would also like to acknowledge Professor Jeannie Herbert.

The Prime Minister made a major speech last month on the Government's economic agenda. He made reference to six policy drivers that are fundamental to boost New Zealand's economic performance and improve our standard of living. Innovation is one of those drivers.

So, what does this have to do with your Summit? Those of you who attended on Wednesday will have heard the Tertiary Education Minister, Hon Anne Tolley, talk about the Tertiary Education Strategy.

On the same day, I spoke about my key themes for Vote RS&T. It will be no surprise to you to know that these are interlinked. Innovation traverses the broad sweep of education, research, development and business assistance. We are determined to encourage all sectors to work together towards building New Zealand's future.

Today I want to discuss the contribution higher education makes to research, science and technology, to innovation and thus to the Government's primary goal - lifting New Zealand's economic performance. In particular I will focus on the importance of tertiary and higher education providers to our overall national research and development capacity.

I have three major points to make. These are:

the importance of the independence and excellence in our tertiary institutions
the role of PBRF in helping New Zealand build excellence and therefore contributing to economic growth
the responsibilities of universities as major recipients of public funding through Vote RS&T.

Independence and excellence

Universities and other higher education institutions play a pivotal role in our knowledge system. They link the education of our future workforce, the development of new ideas, and the absorption of those people and their ideas into our firms and society.

We are all aware of the role of universities in education. They are there to teach, train and educate students. Highly skilled, well-rounded knowledgeable people are the primary benefit to society from higher education. Many students can go on to lengthy training in law, medicine, engineering and postgraduate studies. Universities provide this vast education choice.

Universities also have a particular role as a critique and conscience of society. We expect that the talented pool of academics and researchers will provide commentary on government, business, community and societal issues. The reason is to ensure that people think critically about the issues facing our nation.

Universities are therefore actively involved in researching and reporting on policy developments from the Government. We do not expect them to always agree with us. This role stimulates the formulation of quality policy.

Excellence in research also gives scientists and academics higher profiles, so that their voices and critiques carry weight with society. For instance, Professors Sir Paul Callaghan and Sir Peter Gluckman are two high-profile science researchers that I seek advice from in Vote RS&T.

Sir Peter is, of course, the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. He is a world leader in his field, and has a powerful voice that reaches beyond the research community.

The expectation of all tertiary institutions from this Government, and from society, is that they focus on excellence, no matter what the field. Focusing on excellence is the principal expectation we have of universities in their research output.

The role of PBRF

The Performance Based Research Fund is now $242 million. The fund supports excellent research in tertiary institutions. There is quite a lot of debate in the education sector about whether the PBRF effectively measures the full range of research output.

I should note that the PBRF does not purchase research, because it does not fund individual researchers, specific research projects, or specific research areas. Instead, PBRF funding is bulk-funded to each institution to pay for the teaching of degree-level students and the supervision and training of postgraduate students. In practice, most PBRF funding is allocated to the eight universities.

As you know, PBRF funding is allocated on the basis of the quality of the research of each provider, as assessed through three mechanisms

a portfolio of each academic researcher's work is assessed periodically by peer review panels, with an award of a quality evaluation score;
the volume of research degree completions by each institution
the external research income earned by each institution.

Sixty percent of PBRF funding for each eligible institution is allocated according to the sum of quality evaluation scores, with significantly more funding attached to the highest level of assessed excellence. The cost of research is also taken into account, with more funding attached to areas with a higher cost of research, such as engineering, applied biological sciences, veterinary and medical studies.

Twenty-five percent of the PBRF fund is allocated on the basis of completed research degrees (masters degrees and doctorates). This is an indicator of both excellence and capability.

Fifteen percent of PBRF funding is allocated according to the level of external (i e non-TEC) research income earned by that provider. External research income is a good indication of the value that the wider community place on the research generated.

The overall amount of the PBRF is set each year by government. This year's Budget was set in the most challenging economic situation for at least two decades. In spite of this, PBRF funding was increased by nearly $6 million. It is an indication of the importance the Government places on research.

PBRF is one of the most significant investments that the Government makes in building our fundamental science capability. It is the single largest fund across government for research - larger even than the $215 million in FoRST's Research for Industry Fund.

Because PBRF goes to institutions rather than researchers per se, we do not control what research is undertaken. Nor do we want to. But we do want to ensure that science with a commercialisation potential can migrate without penalising the PBRF indicators for the institution.

An independent strategic review of the PBRF was completed in June 2008. This review was in general positive about the purpose and operation of PBRF. It did however indicate areas for improvement.

For example, the report noted concerns that applied and field-based science, and science that was conducted over the longer term, might be penalised by PBRF. It also sounded warnings that PBRF may not encourage collaboration.

The report was also mixed on the impact of PBRF on commercialisation. One Department Head of Science was quoted as saying: "The incentives are for international publication. Our Department has taken work right the way through to commercialisation but the PBRF gives no reward or recognition for this."

The report also noted a tension between the PBRF's focus on individuals and the need to have a healthy research environment. Dr Jonathon Adams, the author of the review, was challenged by the Review Advisory Group to describe a "healthy research environment". He characterised it (in part) as:

" . . . a track record of research achievement, collaboration and developing people who went on to make contributions elsewhere. It would have good links with both the public sector and relevant industry, contributing tangibly to innovation through IP, products and process. It would be able to produce clear statements about what is important in its track record and why its future strategy is valuable to discipline and the economy".

I agree with this description. Fundamental science, and the flexibility and freedom to pursue scientific endeavour, are vital attributes in our tertiary system. But the ability for science to flow through to the trading economy is equally vital.

The importance of serendipity is certainly recognised. So much of the modern world stems from unexpected discovery. But we should not rely on the hope that serendipity will occur. We must make it easier for businesses to be exposed to the range of research, so that they can make serendipitous discoveries among the science being undertaken.

PBRF is certainly not broken. But as we move towards the next quality evaluation we will be keen to ensure that it does not mitigate against the full value of scientific endeavour being released for the benefit of New Zealand.

Many researchers already know that the pathway to greater funding opportunities is to be able to involve other funders beyond the Government or institution in their science. We need to remove roadblocks that prevent them taking these opportunities.

Vote RS&T and the role of universities

PBRF is one important source of research funding for universities. Universities are also very substantial beneficiaries of funding through Vote RS&T. This is seemingly not that well known amongst universities. Last year, that amount totalled $216 million - just about as much as PBRF.

Where does this money come from? Universities get about 86% of the Marsden Fund, and 92% of the Health Research Council funding. Both of those funds were substantially increased this year - the Marsden Fund by $9 million and Health Research Council by $8 million. This will mean an additional $16 million of research funding for universities. The Centres of Research Excellence and social research funding also goes primarily to universities.

You also benefit from the business-facing investment through Vote RS&T. Twenty-five million dollars or 34% of the New Economy Research Fund is spent with universities. Another $24 million flows to you through the Research for Industry Fund.

Clearly tertiary institutions and universities in particular are a key component not only of our fundamental science capability, but also of our directed funding in Vote RS&T.

On Wednesday, I set out my key themes for the research, science and technology portfolio. These are:

enhancing the migration of science from the laboratory to the marketplace
improving the way we strategically invest in the public-good science that underpins our economy
directly boosting economic growth through more effective market driven research
simplifying the entire system.

These themes are not solely my own. They have come from discussions with scientists, users and other interest groups. Over the past few months I have had over 50 meetings with groups and individuals. I have visited every CRI, private research firms, the universities and a range of businesses from New Zealand's largest to emerging entrepreneurs.

Each one of these themes has implications for you as major recipients of funding and generators of research. I have discussed science migration already. It is useful with respect to fundamental research, but it is the sole purpose with respect to research funded through Vote RS&T.

We want to improve the ability to pull this science through to realise commercial opportunities. Science and venture capital need to get closer together. Pathways for technology transfer need to open up.

This needs to happen across all areas of research, from incremental improvement work which builds on existing ideas and technologies through to what is called disruptive technology, where breakthroughs lead to step changes.

Each university has developed new ways of directly connecting their research with the market. The largest, UniServices, has been particularly successful in putting commercially focused resources alongside researchers. Its revenue of $120 million is equal to that of the CRIs.

My second theme is more strategic funding for enabling science. This approach recognises that in many areas we want to build our science capability on the core expertise we have. The strong signal is that sharing and growing expertise is encouraged. Long-term science needs long-term commitments.

On Wednesday I visited the MacDiarmid Institute. This is hosted by Victoria University. However, like all the CoREs, it has wider links with three other universities and two CRIs. Since 2002 they have graduated 68 PhDs and 35 MScs. That is over 100 highly-skilled people that the MacDiarmid Institute has added to national and global capability.

I have also visited the Riddet Centre at Massey. The proximity of this centre to Fonterra, which is the largest investor in research and development next to the Government, makes good sense for everyone.

And of course I am no stranger to Professor Gluckman's Liggins Institute. These and the other Centres of Research Excellence are good examples of collaboration for excellence between institutions. We will focus on this collaborative approach, and fund it in a more strategic way.

These themes lead directly to the third theme of directly boosting economic growth through more effective market-driven research. The priority here is to improve the transition from concept to reality.

What we want to do is ensure that in the applied sciences progress towards the end goal is more sharply defined, and the pathway towards it is managed in a staged way. Funding decisions will need to be made against real progress.

I realise that by its nature science investment in growth can have quite long time horizons. This does not mean that it cannot be subject to time gates and ongoing support made conditional on progress.

I have directed FoRST to increase their focus on the economic return potential of the proposed investments. Timely and accurate reporting on the benefits of the investment will form part of future assessments.

The final theme for Vote RS&T is to simplify the system. This will make it easier to navigate for the users, whether they be scientists or businesses. FoRST already has significant work under way to achieve this.

Greater clarity as to why we fund science and exactly where the money goes will also assist governments in making strategic choices in the future. By clearly identifying what strategic purpose funding actually supports, we can make value judgements about the relative importance of that funding.

The current funding picture is a maze of schemes, outputs, directions and portfolios. We want a much more strategic approach. The intent is twofold. The first is to make it obvious to the applicant what funding stream is relevant to them, rather than hunting across a range of funds and potentially skewing their research because of the constraints of the system rather than in the best interests of the science.

The second is more important. It will enable a much better sense of the priorities that the public should fund through Vote RS&T. One of the big decisions we have to make is whether the current balance best reflects the overall government priorities. I will be seeking your input on these priorities.

Over the next few months, I will be working with stakeholders to develop these priorities. I will be providing specific policy direction to Cabinet by the beginning of December this year, so that changes can be reflected in Budget 2010. I invite you to be part of that feedback process through the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and other tertiary organisations.

New Zealand has a strong reputation in producing excellence in science. We now need to substantially improve the connection of science with the market. Excellence will be the guiding principle.

Sir Paul Callaghan set the key imperatives in "Wool to Weta", stating that:

Speech at the University of Otago Christchurch Medical School Mid-Winter Dialogue

nospam@example.com (admin) — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:18:00 +1200

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this Mid-Winter Dialogue series.

As Minister of Research, Science and Technology, with responsibilities for the Health Research Council, it will come as no surprise that I will be focusing most of my remarks on health research, and the insight it provides in the wider research, science and technology sector.

The public funding of health research encapsulates many of the issues facing the research, science and technology sector, including the priorities and effectiveness of the system.

Today I will start by discussing first my plans for the research, science and technology system in New Zealand and the increased investments the Government has made in health research. Second, I will talk about measuring impact from health research and the role of health technology in the economy. Third, I will talk about some of the developments the Health Research Council is progressing.

Setting clear research, science and technology objectives

Most of you will know that on Wednesday I gave a speech in Wellington, outlining the strategic changes I wish to bring to the science system. There are four improvements I am working towards:

enhancing the migration of science from the laboratory to the marketplace
improving the way we strategically invest in the public-good science that underpins our economy
directly boosting economic growth through more effective market-driven research
simplifying the entire system.

These actions come from the meetings and discussions I have had since becoming Minister. They take account of views from universities, CRIs, businesses, investors and others in the research sector.

This morning I was in Wellington talking to researchers and senior management from the higher education sector. One of the challenges I laid out for them is to ensure the research our universities and CRIs undertake makes a greater contribution to the growth of New Zealand companies. Health research should - and does - play a role there too.

The Health Research Council is simplifying their application processes, as are FRST and the Marsden Fund. It is not my intention to significantly change the HRC or what it currently funds - in fact, the Minister of Health will still set HRC priorities. But the changes the Government will make to other aspects of the sector will boost the impact of health research in New Zealand.

New funds for health research

The importance the Government places on health research is reflected in the additional $8 million per year to the Health Research Council in this year's Budget. That is, a 13% increase to $71 million per year. This is a generous increase given the current fiscal climate.

It was one of several commitments in research, science and technology funding this Government had signalled pre-election and which we delivered through the Budget. We also increased the Marsden Fund by 24%, which has some cross-over with health research, and increased the CRI Capability Fund by 20%.

As well as the Budget commitments, you can also look to the appointment of Professor Sir Peter Gluckman as Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. So both through the Budget, and through other policies such as the Chief Science Adviser, we fulfilled commitments that we made during the election campaign.

The balance across fundamental and applied research is at the heart of the science debate. The new investment in health research will support fundamental research, as well as more applied research. This is not just a question for health research, but for the Government's investment in all research, science and technology.

The Government recognises that health research is measured primarily by how it improves the health of individuals and populations. However, it also benefits the physical and economic health of society. Health research is a partnership with the New Zealand health system. It does have high costs and it constantly requires new capability.

My colleague, Hon Tony Ryall, spoke here last week, and I understand talked about how the right workforce and the right environment are needed for good healthcare. One of the points he made was that research plays a role in creative, innovative healthcare, and these are the kinds of workplaces we want to develop.

It is also vital that we recognise that New Zealand's health science fits into a world of health research. By maintaining excellent and well-connected teams, we can link into health science globally, and bring improvements to New Zealand's health in this way.

So in the $8 million increase, I instructed the Health Research Council that $3.5 million of the new funds must sustain and support New Zealand's excellent health research teams and their contributions to new knowledge, teaching and links with international science teams.

The other $4.5 million of the research will be focused more directly on improving New Zealanders' health and the health system. This is inevitably more population focused. It means we can respond to some of the pressing health issues we face in New Zealand, such as diabetes and respiratory diseases. The funds will also support the new Health Research Council investment stream to develop innovative models of care and improve productivity in health and disability services.

In Canterbury, there are strong local trusts and foundations who take great pride in supporting health research. Funding from sources such as the Christchurch Medical Research Foundation and the Canterbury Community Trust can substantially leverage the government investments in health research, and generate wider goodwill within the region. Other national organisations, such as the Cancer Society, provide further community support for health research.

The intent of our commitment is a clear demonstration of the commitment to research. It is vital that we maximise this backing - primarily for health outcomes. However, we also gain economic outcomes as well; in particular the partnership of medical research with pharmaceutical and other health firms in the development of new drugs and new medical technology.

Impact from health research

This leads into the second issue, of the impact of health and its link to the economy. New Zealand has to take particular care to get the best value out of its research effort. Unlike larger, more developed countries, we have less capacity to make funding mistakes. As Lord Rutherford noted "We've got no money, so we've got to think". Yet like other larger countries we have to run a sophisticated health system that is able to meet public expectations.

I recently visited Singapore and toured some of their science facilities, including the impressive Biopolis biomedical science park. It is sobering to know that Singapore has a similar population size to us, but clearly we don't have the same outcomes, at least with respect to economic performance. New Zealand is not Singapore, but we can draw some lessons.

The Prime Minister's Chief Science Adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, talked about impact in his inaugural speech last month. He posed the challenge to the science community to really ask and answer questions such as "what is the purpose of science?", "what does it achieve?" and "why should we bother to invest in science?"

Health research makes impacts with new knowledge about health conditions, evidence supporting better clinical decisions and new medicines and services.

A good example is the Cardio-endocrine Research Group here at the University of Otago. Led by Professor Mark Richards, and built up over 20 years, their capability covers disciplines from "bench to bedside". The main focus is on improving prediction and protection in heart disease.

Their work has resulted in cardiac peptide blood tests becoming standard practice worldwide for heart failure. This speeds diagnosis, reduces hospital stays and saves healthcare costs.

Their international connections and reputation also put them, and New Zealand, on the world stage and provide access to international expertise in other health research disciplines far beyond what we have here.

Health research also has a positive impact on the training, professional development, recruitment, and retention of health professionals. As Associate Tertiary Education Minister, this link between research and training is of particular interest to me. Minister Ryall has also expressed an interest in research that contributes to a more skilled and productive health workforce.

Health research also supports economic outcomes. Delivering cost-effective healthcare supports a healthy and long-lived labour workforce. Research in health should lead directly to a more productive society and economy.

Health research also leads to new business opportunities. There are some well-known success stories in New Zealand, such as Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and Orion Health. A significant proportion of the TIN100 Group of innovative companies are in the health sector.

Here in Christchurch, having the University of Otago campus on the hospital site means your researchers work in close proximity to the doctors, nurses and managers that can provide links to research direction and application.

The Crown Research Institutes ESR and IRL also have a presence in Christchurch, working in areas such as public health, health systems, disability and rehabilitation technologies. The University of Canterbury has complementary strengths in engineering and information technology.

Having this mix of CRIs and universities assists a more coordinated approach to working with companies and the DHB. This collaborative approach is a key to getting the most benefit from limited resources.

I am looking forward this afternoon to meeting the bioengineering team and learning more about the MARS CT scanner that you are developing here in Christchurch.

Health technology

One area where health research translates into business growth is in health technology.

Earlier I mentioned the TIN100 report that provides an analysis of 100 of New Zealand's leading technology businesses. The 2008 report gives us a view of how these companies are managing in the current economic climate.

The report is particularly valuable in the way it highlights companies that are resilient even in today's economic environment. Common features include continuing and deep investment in research and development, technology leadership, a focus on cost efficiencies and cost, and unrivalled quality.

These more resilient companies include high-tech health-focused businesses such as Orion Health (New Zealand's largest software exporter), Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and Douglas Pharmaceuticals. The list also includes smaller businesses such as Intrahealth and MedTech Global.

Christchurch has a number of smaller companies and start-up businesses, many of which have their origins in New Zealand science labs. These include Veritide, ARANZ, Dynamic Controls, and IZON. Their capacity for growth will drive the New Zealand economy up the value path.

Emendo, a local health IT company, recently won a UK award for its CapPlan health workforce planning solution that has been implemented by Bedford Hospital in the United Kingdom. This is saving them £600,000 annually.

The Canterbury DHB helped with product development and acted as a reference site supporting Emendo's growth. In return the Canterbury DHB is saving millions of dollars, through being better able to anticipate demand for beds and match staffing.

The success of Emendo and other companies show that impact from health research and technology can be measured both in better health for New Zealanders, and in greater opportunities for health research and its impact on economic opportunity.

The same type of enterprise is shown by the work the Canterbury Development Corporation (CDC) is doing in partnership with the Canterbury DHB on a Health Innovation Hub. This is a visionary initiative that grasps the opportunity to bring together the interests of firms and the DHB.

It has the potential to deliver for firms, improved hospital performance targets, patient and health outcomes, and workforce retention. These are the goals that health research clearly needs to have.

HRC developments

The third issue I will discuss today is some important changes the Health Research Council is introducing over the next few years, particularly around simplification and strategy. This is part of a broader objective across Vote RS&T.

The HRC, like all research, science and technology funding agencies, is currently working to simplify their funding process. You will all know how there are many more bids submitted to the HRC than it can possibly fund, and you will also know the frustration of the time involved in preparing a bid, especially when you are not successful.

These are inefficiencies we can't afford to have in the system. I have been clear to both the HRC and the Foundation that we cannot afford the overly contestable system we currently have, and that there need to be changes.

The HRC for its part is moving to a two-stage application process to help reduce transaction costs, and it is also working with other funding providers to simplify the application process, for example through use of more on-line processes and use of a common CV template.

The HRC is also moving towards more targeted investments.

The new system will have investment priorities, each with a set budget. There will also be extended assessing committees that represent both the science perspective and other stakeholders who might use the new knowledge.

The HRC Board is phasing this new system in gradually. It will be focused on goals that can be realised in the short to medium term, generally within five years. It will provide new opportunities for clinicians and healthcare teams to engage in research. It will also encourage those research teams to tap into the wider of science talent, for example our engineers and IT specialists.

I expect this new fund to both drive improvements in hospital services and support prevention initiatives in our communities.

Next week the HRC are starting a series of meetings to explain their new process. They will be in Christchurch on 26 August, speaking in this same lecture hall, and I encourage you to attend.

Closing remarks

In closing, I want to acknowledge the dedication and skill you bring to your work on this campus and the impact this has on your local community, your international peers, and everyday New Zealanders.

I also want to acknowledge the strong partnership you have with the Canterbury DHB, particularly here at the hospital. Partnerships like this will enhance quality health research.

Health research is central to achieving the Government's ambition of building New Zealand's social and economic future.

Your role in building this culture places at you at the forefront of these goals.