Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:650;Page:18602] 
6.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What reports has he received on progress with the New Zealand Fast Forward initiative? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The New Zealand Fast Forward Fund is making excellent progress. A high-quality business and science board has been appointed and it met for the first time last week. Major business and industry organisations that have signed up to Fast Forward include Dairy New Zealand Fonterra Meat and Wool New Zealand the Meat Industry Association PGG Wrightson and Zespri. Aquaculture New Zealand has announced that it will now sign up as well. This is the single largest boost to innovation research and development in New Zealand history. Combined with private sector contributions it will amount to $2 billion in innovation research and development. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of plans to change the funding for New Zealand Fast Forward? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have seen one. It is this publication which is evidently the National Party’s so-called science policy. It says that National will scrap New Zealand Fast Forward and replace the $2000 million of public and private funding with a budget allocation of $25 million a year. The National Party’s funding would take 80 years to add up to the value of New Zealand Fast Forward by which time everyone in this House except Darren Hughes will be dead. Not only is it cutting research funding National is also slashing the research and development tax credit. That makes sense only if one thinks New Zealand is doing too much research and development. It may come as a surprise to the National Party that this policy is the greatest leap backward since the Catholic Church tried Galileo for his theories. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Why is the fund better than the annual grant? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: A fund like New Zealand Fast Forward gives the private sector confidence that the Government is committed and will continue to fund. The private sector therefore gives a commitment of its own to increase its expenditure. There is no way that that commitment from the private sector would be forthcoming if we were just to increase—as the National Party proposes—a budget for a couple of Crown research institutes. Research and development budgets are the first to go when budgets get cut; everyone on this side of the House knows that. We watched the National Government do exactly that. Who says that there will not be budget cuts for science research and other matters under a future National Government? National wants to axe the research and development tax credits because really too much research and development is proposed by the private sector. More research and development is proposed by the private sector; the National Party wants to scrap it and put it in the hands of bureaucrats in the Government. I thought it was against bureaucrats. I thought it was against the public sector knowing everything. But no— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is not the general debate. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the Minister confirm that despite his waffle the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund will deliver only $20 million this year and $30 million next year as compared with National’s policy of delivering at least $70 million each and every year into primary sector research? That is the truth. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: What I will confirm is that National members are so deceptive in what they put out that they put out a table for only 3 years which actually shows $70 million versus $65 million. If they went out to 10 years they would find $2000 million spent versus the $70 million they claim they are spending which only becomes $25 million in any case. This policy of the National Party to scrap research and development funding and to scrap New Zealand Fast Forward is a blow against the provincial sector and the pastoral and agricultural sector of New Zealand that the National Party will regret right up to the day of the election. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What effect would cuts to science and research funding have? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: These cuts would be disastrous for the New Zealand economy in general and for the pastoral agricultural and food production sector in particular. The only way to improve this is to improve productivity. National is proposing to cut the research and development grant. I ask National members whether that is true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about free trade. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I ask Mr Smith whether that is true. Yes it is we know that. National could not move backwards faster in a more anti-science way if it actually put its science policy in the charge of astrologers and faith healers. 
Hon David Carter 
: I seek leave to table a press release dated 18 March 2008 from the Progressive party’s website in the name of Mr Anderton— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I seek leave of the House to table an example of the appropriate artwork for the National Party’s science policy— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I sought leave to table Mr Anderton’s press release. You have not even put that leave to the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did put the leave and if members would be quiet they would hear it. There was objection. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a picture of the kind of scientist who would be impressed by National Party— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek the leave of the House to table 300 millilitres of “Stop Leak”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? Yes there is.