Fitzsimons Jeanette: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3787] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Education and Science Committee report on the financial review of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd was not very informative. A number of issues about the way this Crown research institute spends money need looking into. I actually learnt more about the institute from the media—and particularly from Tom Frewen’s article in the  
National Business Review 
—than I did from the select committee’s investigation. 
The article discloses that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd has been through a major rebranding exercise. It has beefed up the number of staff in communications and marketing has ordered new letterheads and a new logo and has extended to a new building. The institute has moved its Auckland offices and undertaken a refit of the new building. The annual report from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd reveals only that there was $58 million of capital spending on a number of issues which included accommodation upgrades. It is impossible to find out how much was spent on accommodation upgrades but I understand that the institute has moved from Newmarket to the Viaduct Basin. 
I asked the Minister of Research Science and Technology the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp by how much the rent had increased and the total refit cost of the new building. The Minister refused to answer my written questions on the grounds that the matter was an operational matter that he took no interest in. But I understand that the rent far more than doubled that the old premises were plenty big enough for the staff and that the refit cost around $3 million. If those figures are wrong I would like the Minister to correct them in the Committee but as far as I am aware at the moment those are the figures being talked about. That is $3 million—plus the rest—that could have been spent on science particularly the science that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd does around climate change which is one of the foremost issues of the day. The select committee itself made the very mild observation that it thought that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd could address climate change issues in a more proactive and public way. The money could have helped them do that. 
The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd’s mission statement is “to conduct leading environmental science to enable the sustainable management of natural resources for New Zealand and the planet”. But when a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd scientist tries to address climate change issues in a more proactive and public way he or she gets into very deep trouble. One scientist who previously worked at the institute has been the public face of that organisation for years is well known on television and is well loved by the public for explaining clearly what is going on with the weather and climate—that is Dr Jim Salinger. He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Nobel Prize that the panel and its leading scientists received. He is world famous. Last month he was sacked for addressing climate change issues in a more public and proactive way and was given 3 hours to clear his desk. Again I invited the Minister to take some responsibility and asked a question in the House but the Minister replied that it was an employment matter for the board and chief executive of the institute and not a matter for the Minister. That is absolutely right when we are dealing with matters of administrative detail but when does a scandal over the sacking of a world-leading Nobel scientist for doing his job—a scandal that reached the pages of  
Nature 
 magazine—become a matter for the Minister? When does New Zealand’s international reputation become a matter for the Minister? It appears to be never for this Minister. 
Salinger is not the only one. Dr Andy Reisinger left the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd and now works for Victoria University where he has more academic freedom. He described the sacking of Dr Jim Salinger as “incomprehensible”. Dr Dave Lowe left the institute 18 months ago and now works independently because he wanted the freedom “to get on with the job”. The problem here is that the institute has a culture where corporate bureaucracy is put above good science. It has a culture where obeying bureaucratic rules is more important than being a world-leading scientist. It has a culture where academic freedom and the freedom to speak out is a sackable offence. I am not talking about criticising the organisation or Government policy; I am talking about the freedom when on the West Coast to ring a television presenter with whom the institute has a contract and say that it is raining so hard the rivers are flooding.