Mackey Moana: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16260. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What a load of twaddle! I am sorry but nothing in the State Sector Management Bill will achieve all the grandiose stuff we just heard about. I am not sure but apparently the Minister of State Services has had great conversations with the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp about how he would have great discussions with the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology. Well the only discussion I have had with Dr Mapp on this matter was when he told a select committee that the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology should not be combined. That is the only thing I have heard Dr Mapp talk about when it comes to the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology. 
The Minister of State Services says we should have a strategic approach. How is this merger a strategic approach to assisting research science and technology in New Zealand? There is nothing strategic about a Minister who less than 18 months ago said this merger should not happen suddenly deciding that because the Government needed to be seen to be doing something it should happen. The Minister also said this merger would help with the delivery of science and science outcomes. I see that the Minister of Research Science and Technology is now in the chair and I would like to know which exact clauses will suddenly help the commercialisation of science in New Zealand. What really worries me about that contribution is that nothing in this bill will do that. Labour will not vote against Part 1 not because we think it will be great but because we do not think it will necessarily do any damage. But if the Government seriously believes that there will be a step change in science in New Zealand from combining the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology then we are really in trouble when it comes to innovation. It simply will not do that. 
I circled under clause 4 which is the interpretation clause: “ ‘Minister’ means the Minister of the Crown who under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Part”. I would like to remove the word “Minister” and replace it with “Paul Hutchison” because he is a National member who understands the science sector. He would never have stood up and given a contribution like the one given by the Minister of State Services. He claimed that this bill will result in a strategic approach to research and science in New Zealand and commercialisation and all these grandiose things. Paul Hutchison would never have said that because he knows that what the sector needs is more funding. That is why we should remove the word “Minister” and replace it with “Paul Hutchison”. 
I will talk about Subpart 1 “Allocation of funding” which is in Part 1. It outlines the purposes for which this research science and technology funding may be allocated. There a number of very worthy causes here. Clause 7(2)(a) states that the activities should be “likely to increase knowledge or understanding of the physical biological or social environment;”. As we know we are in a brave new world now. The Royal Society of New Zealand is bringing the humanities into its organisation so it is appropriate that under this part of the bill we recognise the research that goes on in the social sector. As we go to clause 7(2)(b) we see that a funded activity “is likely to contribute to New Zealand’s economic growth;”. Absolutely but there should be recognition of the fact that just saying that will not make it happen. I come back to the fact that all the ideas listed in clause 7(2) are worthy ideas but they will not result in anything if the Government keeps slashing funding and support and if scientists in New Zealand keep on being fired. That does not contribute to the economic growth of New Zealand. 
Then we see in clause 7(2)(c) that a funded activity “is likely to develop maintain or increase skills or scientific or technological expertise that is of particular importance to New Zealand;”. We cannot argue with that except to say again that just saying it does not make it so. We would like to see the Minister in the chair take a call to outline how the decisions that his Government has made to cut back on the funding that the previous Government put in place will help bring about the activity described in clause 7(2)(c) into being. From where we sit and from the discussions we are having around the country with people in the sector things are going in the opposite direction. Clause 7(2)(c) states “increase skills or scientific or technological expertise”. Increasing skills in science is a core part of what the sector needs yet science advisers in schools are being fired. How can this measure increase science skills in New Zealand if we have no science advisers which means that science is undervalued at primary school? That will feed all the way through the system and we are very very concerned about that. Those advisers have gone now. They are highly talented highly skilled. They have all been snapped up by other countries which are very happy to have them and those advisers are very happy to be in countries with Governments that support science unlike in New Zealand. 
I think clause 7(2)(d) is very telling. It states that the activities referred to are “unlikely to be funded or adequately funded from non-governmental sources;”. Why do we have to have that? Because New Zealand has one of the lowest private sector spends on research science and technology. Acknowledging here that there is not adequate funding in this area raises the question as to why the National Government got rid of Labour’s research and development tax credit. Why did it get rid of Labour’s research and development tax credit to the point where it now even has to admit in legislation that we cannot get funding from non-governmental sources? The provision refers to activities “unlikely to be funded or adequately funded from non-governmental sources;”. Why does the Minister in chair not explain why he cut one of the single biggest factors that would have resulted in more non-governmental funding of science in New Zealand? Everyone was telling him that. Prior to the last election we found out that groups from all over the country were flying around trying to catch up with Bill English who was then the Opposition spokesman on finance to tell him to please not get rid of the research and development tax credit because more non-governmental funding for science was needed. Yet this Government decided based on who knows what reason it has for doing anything in this area that it would get rid of it. Well Australia did that and do members know what? Australia had to bring it back because its funding had fallen down so far and it had been such a failure yet this Government failed to take that lesson on board. 
We come now to clause 8 which is under the heading “Criteria for assessing RS&T funding”. It lays out criteria that the Minister is to set and that the boards the Government is setting up will need to adhere to when deciding who gets this particular funding. Clause 8(1) states: “The Minister must from time to time by notice given to each board and published in the 
 Gazette 
 set criteria for the assessment of proposals for specified RS&T funding.” That is quite a lot of power for the Minister. We get a bit nervous about a whole lot of power in an area of such technical expertise being placed with a Minister who from time to time may be someone who does not know a lot about research science and technology and does not have a background in it— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Oh! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Simon Power assumes I am talking about the Minister in the chair but I said “from time to time”. That was a very telling Freudian slip I say to Mr Power but I was not actually talking about his colleague. Although I note that when Dr Mapp took over the portfolio he kept telling everyone he went to meet that he did not want the portfolio and was as surprised as anyone to get it. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I never said that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Dr Mapp that he did. I think Dr Mapp was trying to lower expectations but it had a bit of a negative effect in the sector. 
From time to time we may have a Minister who does not have a lot of expertise in this area yet clause 8(1) provides that Minister with an extraordinary amount of power to decide where this funding goes and to set criteria. As someone with a science background one thing I like to point out to colleagues—and I think David Carter has also pointed it out—is that the person who invented the motorcar said that if people had asked what politicians wanted and businesses wanted they would have been told they wanted faster horses. That is very telling. Sometimes Ministers do not know where science funding will go or what the next big thing will be. We could look at a whole lot of other things: penicillin was discovered by mistake; when the electron was discovered everyone said what a useless piece of information it was even though it was kind of interesting and now our entire world is run by electronics. Yet this clause puts the power to direct the direction of funding of science in the hands of one person and I wonder whether that is the most sensible thing to do. It seems to me that it is a move away from the funding of fundamental science which is where we tell people to go out and find new discoveries—the big things that actually create a lot of wealth. They are the kinds of things that are funded in the United States and more and more are being funded in places like Australia where people understand the importance of fundamental science. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is chipping away at me but he could get to his feet and take a call which I would very much appreciate. It seems like a lot of power is being given to one Minister to direct which areas of science will be funded. 
I note that funding cannot be given to particular people. That is a very important safeguard in the law and I absolutely agree with it. But there are areas of science where not many people work so one could direct funding towards a particular area of science and it would go to a particular person who one knows is the key person working in that area. So there is a little bit of undermining of that perhaps. I know that my colleague Chris Hipkins is particularly concerned about this issue so I will not steal his thunder in that regard. 
But I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and can I say how pleased I am that the Minister of Research Science and Technology is in the chair for this particular part.