Hughes Darren: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Darren: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16268. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 during this example of the Government’s bold agenda for reform in our country which sees us sitting under urgency on a Saturday. Part 1 deals with the science sector and we will deal with other parts during the morning. Of course we have been told by members opposite that they are not scared of hard work but we have heard only the briefest of calls from them during the morning. Roger Douglas who came to Parliament to try to reform the State sector could not speak for even 1 minute on a bill that reforms the State sector. So we are grateful to the Minister in the chair the Hon Wayne Mapp who is at least engaging on some of the issues. Although we have a lot of criticism of him at least there is some praise in that respect for the fact that he is taking it very very seriously. But that is not what we are seeing from other areas. 
I have about three points on different clauses that I would like to address this morning. The first is clause 7. It deals with the purposes for which specified research science and technology funding may be allocated. Subclause (2) sets out six criteria for which there are purposes that are considered to be germane to the funding of sciences. I think that the areas the Minister has set out are far too narrow. In particular I would like him to comment on the complete absence of any focus on Maori issues for research science and technology. I see that the Maori Party supports this bill and I ask them to reflect on this clause. There is nothing in the purposes listed that specifically indicates there is a role for this new agency to have any focus on Maori issues for research science and technology. I say to the Minister if the New Zealand Government is not going to have a focus on Maori issues for research science and technology then which country is? Which country will look at Maori-specific issues a Maori kaupapa view on research science and technology as he is specifically making sure that in this bill the New Zealand Government is not going to. 
That is a massive omission from and weakness in clause 7(2). New Zealand’s economic growth is specified as the second purpose but there is nothing at all for Maori interests—in particular Maori economic development. If we think of some of the areas where there are significant Maori asset holdings in the country particularly around land holdings I would have thought that the ability of innovation in research science and technology to unlock some of the potential for Maori economic interests would be absolutely suited to enhanced by and lifted up by the purposes in clause 7. I want to know from the Minister whether that was an overt decision by the Government when considering this issue through Cabinet. Did it make an overt decision to exclude a specified clause for Maori issues? 
Moana Mackey 
: They talked to him about it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member Moana Mackey makes the point to me that Maori have specifically talked to him about it. Maori interests have gone to him and said they want to be included in the research science and technology agenda. Clause 7(2) does not facilitate the ability for that to happen. I think that is a mistake; it is an omission. I do not think we should simply vote this bill through because it is Saturday morning and Government members are grumpy at the Leader of the House because they are here. That is not a reason not to speak. 
Hon Member 
: That’s rubbish. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member opposite looks particularly grumpy but that could be for other reasons. We know well and truly of their inability to engage in debate on these issues. We know they have had enough. They say we should just get over it and go. But if “getting over it and going” means that Maori interests are forgotten then the Government will have to make sure it does not omit such important issues as Maori economic interests. I want the Minister to talk about that in a very important way for our country because if the New Zealand Government cannot do it no other Government will. He needs to address that and explain why it has been left out. 
Another purpose that has been left out is to make sure there is a connection with private scientific research. That is a big mistake. This Government talks long about the need to have public-private partnerships yet this bill is at the cutting edge of the Government’s reform agenda. Members of Parliament like Melissa Lee came here to merge Archives New Zealand and the National Library. She came here to make sure that the Foundation for Research Science and Technology can line up with the Ministry of Research Science and Technology. Those are crucial issues of substance amazing things that have happened yet we now know that Government members will not have the gumption to talk about them particularly to bring that private focus through in this clause. So I wanted to talk about why the Maori focus is not included in the purposes in clause 7(2) and also why the private focus is not there. If the Minister has cause to reflect on those exclusions he may be able to inform the Committee. 
We could amend the clause right here and now. We could introduce a new paragraph (g) in subclause (2) to provide a kaupapa focus. If that amendment were put up I am sure Te Ururoa Flavell from the Maori Party would support that. He seems to be getting some notes at the present time on that very matter. I cannot believe that the Maori Party would vote for a clause that specifically excludes the ability of Maori to be recognised overtly. 
We know that National went through a phase where things Maori were unpopular. The 2005 intake campaigned on the “Kiwi not iwi” billboards and some Ministers—particularly one I see on the front-bench—cackled and giggled away about how brave they were in the Brash years. That was an amazing thing she thought. Then that kind of went out of vogue because it was all “tihei mauri ora!” with the Maori Party and getting in with them. So Government members in regard to clause 7 could show us that they genuinely meant that stuff or whether it was just a passing moment in time. Was it just one of those things one does in Opposition but not in Government? That could be the new principle of the Brownlee Government. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The member is flustered. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No there is so much to say because I know there are only a limited number of calls between now and midnight and I intend to take all of them before I come back here on Monday morning. I want to make sure we are working very hard. The Leader of the House should not be so surly about his inability to run a programme and his inability to put together a programme where people could agree on things. That would not fit with clause 7 I must admit. But clause 7 should include a Maori focus and a private focus. If the Minister ignores everything else I say I can understand that but on that Maori issue I would like to hear from him because at one time he was the Opposition spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. That is what he was. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wayne Mapp. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Wayne Mapp had a portfolio about eradicating political correctness. I want to know whether his bias and prejudice on that matter is why clause 7 has come through in this way. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Lost it in November 2008. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Huge success! The portfolio did not survive a change of leader. As soon as Brash had gone and Gerry Brownlee was sacked as deputy leader of the National Party the portfolio was gone. That was part of the long decline of Gerry Brownlee’s career which started the moment John Key took the leadership and Wayne Mapp lost his portfolio. Mr Chairman I was responding to an interjection. 
The next thing I want to say is about clause 8(3)(b) and the conflicts with the board being directed to allocate funds for the benefit of a particular person. I trust that the Minister has quite a sensible approach on this and about how the board will operate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t know about that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am a generous person. It is ridiculous. I want the Minister to give us an assurance that he will not have that board modelled on the way the New Zealand Transport Agency board has been modelled in this respect. We see extraordinary political interference from the Minister of Transport in respect of a similar kind of clause in another law. I want the Minister to give an assurance to the Committee that the kind of political interference that Steven Joyce undertakes particularly around ridiculous roading proposals for the people of Kapiti will not be repeated in the science sphere. But that is just by the by. 
The next clause I want to address is clause 10(7) and it is very important because this bill is at the heart of the Government’s reform agenda. This bill shows how it will transform the New Zealand economy—turbocharge New Zealand catch up with Australia and bring step change for working families in New Zealand. This bill is part of the reform agenda to do that. Clause 10(7) refers to all the administrative services being transferred to the new ministry to enable the board to carry out its function. That goes to the heart of the cost of this legislation becoming law. At the time Minister Tony Ryall—let us not say any more about that—said that over 3 years this bill would save $20 million through the savings in administrative costs. I would like to know from the Minister under clause 10(7) how much there will be in savings as a result of the research science and technology changes and what the administrative costs are that are being transferred for the ministry to pick up for these two boards to operate. If it is $20 million over 3 years for the whole package what proportion of that fits in under the research science and technology banner? We have not had anywhere that I can see an explanation of what those costs are. 
The Government is trying to get the deficit down because it has borrowed money for tax cuts and we are running a big deficit in New Zealand. If this reform agenda is about reducing costs then surely the Minister will be able to tell us what burden of costs will be put on the ministry under this clause. It seems to me this could be an area where any of the savings that Minister Tony Ryall has identified could easily be eaten up by the board functions. He has told us that under paragraph (a) of the purpose clause there will be two boards; the purpose of Part 1 is to establish boards. I was going to ask him how many boards; he has told us there are two. We would like to know about the cost. The Maori issues are very important.