Hipkins Chris: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 As my colleague Moana Mackey alluded—it was a very good call—I wish to talk about the purpose of the bill as stated in Part 1. The Minister of Research Science and Technology is being given the power to establish boards to make independent funding decisions and I stress the word “independent”. I will quiz the Minister in the chair the Minister of Research Science and Technology. I hope that he will give me some responses to the questions I am about to raise about how some of the powers vested in this bill will aid that independence in the decision-making criteria. 
Clause 8(1) states: “The Minister must from time to time by notice given to each board and published in the 
 Gazette 
 set criteria for the assessment of proposals for specified RS&T funding.” But clause 8(3) prevents the Minister from directing funding decisions toward particular people so the Minister could not determine that a particular person or project would be funded. 
However I would like to know how the Government will ensure that the powers given in clause 8(1) and also in clause 10(3) which specifies: “The Minister may specify that a board is to make funding decisions on proposals for specified RS&T funding in relation to 1 or more areas of research science or technology or related activities” will not be used in such a way that funding is directed to specific projects or people. In the research science and technology community in New Zealand there will probably be only one or two people or entities working in a particular area in some cases. It seems that the Minister is being given through the bill the power to direct funding into quite specific projects. I would like some comment from the Minister on that. 
Perhaps as a useful way of doing that he could comment on this: one of the things the bill does is require the Minister to establish one or more boards but I do not think we have heard how the Government envisages implementing this proposal. I would like to know how many boards for example the Government envisages establishing under this bill. The Minister is indicating two boards. I would be interested to hear what areas they will be working in and what the scope of those two boards will be. It could well be that the concern I had about funding being directed into specific areas will be alleviated by the way those boards are to be composed and the remit that they will be given. 
Under the purposes for which research science and technology funding may be allocated I guess I welcomed the order of priority given in the ordering of the activities referred to in the sense that the first priority set out in clause 7(2)(a) is to increase knowledge or understanding of the physical biological and social environment. As my colleague Moana Mackey said we do not always know where scientific discovery will land up. It could well be that some of the major advances in science and technology in the future come from pursuits and endeavours in a research area that at the moment we do not necessarily see much value in. If we were to place the priorities set out in paragraph 7(2)(b) ahead of the priorities set out in subclause 7(2)(a)—subclause 7(2)(b) refers to contributing to New Zealand’s economic growth—we might well miss out on some absolutely fantastic opportunities. 
One of the concerns that we have about all funding for research science and technology—and when I say “we” I mean generally as a country as opposed to specific parties or politicians—is that funding is being too narrowly focused on stuff with an economic impact and not on the wider value of science. If we want to really promote scientific discovery and research new and exciting areas that do not necessarily let us know where the research will lead to it will require a much more holistic approach than simply what is in the bill. The bill is pretty narrowly focused and as Moana Mackey commented it will not really change an awful lot. 
We need to look at where science takes place starting at schools. We are struggling to get kids coming out of schools who are interested in pursuing careers in science. [ 
Interruption 
] There will be even fewer under national standards because science is not given a particularly high priority under the Government’s national standards policy. Actually that is where it starts. It starts with getting more kids who are leaving school wanting to pursue careers in science. If we are not doing that and the Government has taken science advisers out of schools then a lot of the rest of this debate will be immaterial. Also I guess we have to look at the scientific research and endeavours that are undertaken in universities.