Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8757] 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he agree with the “key actions” of the New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy to recruit and retain scientists and to encourage collaboration between research providers and businesses; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Yes I do because recruitment retention and collaboration are good things. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: With the new knowledge that the AgResearch plans to close the Wallaceville Animal Research Centre will have far greater impact than originally thought including significant loss of scientists overseas huge loss of morale and the disintegration of the research business clusters in the Hutt Valley what role will he play to prevent this critical loss of science capacity in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member appears to be misinformed. The truth of the matter is that the immunology group which is due to leave for Palmerston North in something like early 2005 has chosen to do so. The animal health group has chosen to leave and set up with Massey University and the AgResearch campus across the road around about January 2006. The only group of scientists who have yet to make their decision are the reproductive scientists. They are likely but not yet certain to move to the Invermay Agricultural Centre in I think January 2007. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister provide any examples of where the Government is facilitating collaboration between research providers and business? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I can. The Government’s new Research Consortia programme is proving very popular with New Zealand industry. Already six consortia have been contracted and four more are under negotiation. Together these consortia have a total private and public budget in excess of $30 million a year each year for the next 4 to 6 years. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: If the New Zealand Biotechnology Strategy does not have sufficient funding—as in the case for instance of the Lincoln University Soil Programme—what other avenues are available to recruit and retain their scientists and how do the business partners act when the Government research body is unable to operate? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret the member is a little misinformed about the soil science issues. There have been reports that soil science research has been cut. This is not true. It has been cut a little—from $7.4 million I think to $7.2 million—but not the $6 million to $3 million cut that the  
New Zealand Herald  
would have us believe. The underlying fact is that the sustainability round just completed was oversubscribed by nearly 300 percent. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How does he reconcile his earlier reply with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on the closure of Wallaceville which shows an annual loss of $24 million to the regional economy and the loss of 240 full-time jobs around the Hutt Valley; and does he accept that the AgResearch closure plan needs an urgent review with a view to retaining and building on the strengths of Wallaceville? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret to advise that I have seen a pattern with New Zealand Institute of Economic Research reports in that they tend to have some bearing on those who pay for them. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two articles. The first is entitled: “The economic impact of closing the Wallaceville research facility” which shows a loss of $24 million a year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second is from the  
Independent 
 July 2003: “Government punishes research while promising to promote it”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.