9. Question No. 9—Research Science and InnovationDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion No. 9—Research Science and Innovation9. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: Does she stand by all aspects of the Government's R & D tax credit policy?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Malo ni Mr Speaker. Yes in particular that we will have our R & D tax incentive scheme in place for 1 April 2019 due to this Government's commitment to prioritising an uplift in R & D and I was pleased to be able to introduce the enabling legislation today. I want to take this opportunity to thank all stakeholders who submitted during the recent consultation phase and I look forward to engaging with members as the legislation makes its way through the House.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why did the Minister tell the House that the R & D tax credit policy as originally proposed would help 3000 businesses but with the finalised R & D tax credit policy which has a higher rate and a lower threshold she's saying only 2000 firms are likely to benefit?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The figure that has been used from the time that we introduced the discussion has been between 2000 and 3000 businesses that could benefit. I've used the number between 2000 and 3000 in the media and in statements consistently. We have conservatively estimated 2000 companies will benefit from this but we remain optimistic and actually expect that we will see between 2000 and 3000 businesses benefiting from this scheme and we certainly have allowed enough headroom in the funding of the scheme to allow for that.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To an oral question the Minister said it was around 3000 firms that will benefit—in the House.SPEAKER: And why are you telling me that?Dr Parmjeet Parmar: The Minister is saying that she has been saying it's 2000 to 3000 and that is not right.SPEAKER: Well if the member thinks that the Minister's been deliberately misleading the House then there's a process for that. If she disagrees with an answer well I think the word is tough".Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is she really saying that making something more attractive and easier to qualify for will mean fewer people do it?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Not at all. If the member had listened to my previous answer the number of between 2000 and 3000 businesses that will be eligible is still the same. That is what we expect. We certainly note this is a huge uplift on the 300 businesses that benefited from the previous Government's growth grant scheme. I would point that member to the hugely positive reaction there has been from our business community. They are looking forward to the introduction of this scheme and a Government that truly backs them in an uplift in R & D.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Is the reason she has reduced the number of likely firms that will benefit to give the appearance the new policy will cost the same as the budgeted policy and to hide the risk of the scheme blowing out the same way the Australian scheme did?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Again I invite that member to listen to my previous answers. Let's be very clear on the amount of money that was budgeted for this scheme in this year's Budget because this is a Government that believes in the value of R & D. Over a four-year period there is over $1 billion additional funding budgeted for this scheme. Over the four-year period there will be available from growth grants baseline funding a further $528 million making $1.5 billion available over the four-year period. The forecast cost of the scheme at the 15 percent rates that we've gone with with the $50000 threshold is $1.2 billion give or take. That allows $333 million worth of headroom. While that member might call it a blowout we will call it a success when we get to spend that money. This is a Government that backs our businesses into R & D.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she accept the fact that the R & D tax credit policy will not benefit 99.6 percent of New Zealand businesses a thousand fewer than originally claimed is an admission that the policy is not nearly as effective as originally claimed?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That member should really listen to answers that are given in this House and adjust her questions—SPEAKER: No this has gotten to the point of being tedious repetition. I'm going to stop it."