Mapp Wayne: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17568] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for allowing me to take a brief call on the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill and it will be relatively brief because it would be fair to say that Mr Robertson has canvassed all the issues that need to be canvassed. 
I think it is important to emphasise that the change being sought was very much at the request of the Royal Society which currently consists of the scientific and technological community. I would like the branches of the society to consider the implications of that. It was scientists and technologists who requested a broadening of their own scope and purposes to include the humanities. They recognised that the existing purposes of the society were simply too narrow so they have incorporated the humanities. That lines up with the general view that prevailed in the funding arrangements for the Marsden Fund. Again that was almost exclusively prior to that convened by the scientific community. 
So this measure was in effect the scientific community reaching out to broaden the scope of research. It is not entirely surprising that that would be the case. In smaller nations like New Zealand royal societies tend to cover both science and the humanities. In larger nations like the United Kingdom it would of course be somewhat different. In our case it is necessary that the one society covers the full range of academic endeavour. So it was a somewhat unusual situation that the society which is very significantly Government funded and indeed administers a number of Government funds had to request its local member—its head office being based in Wellington Central—to advance a bill. But this is perhaps one of those occasions where it is quite a good thing that the public can see collaboration across the Parliament around a common cause. 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I note that an Opposition spokesperson on science and innovation is present in the House. It would be fair to say there is a broad consensus around what is appropriate in this area. I note of course that we clearly have our small differences from time to time but they tend to be not so much about purposes but extent if I could put it that way. I guess we in the Government have to deal with the reality of fiscal constraints whereas Opposition parties can perhaps take a slightly freer range about things and indeed are inclined to do precisely that. 
It is interesting that the previous Government was in office for 9 years and had plenty of opportunities to do all sorts of things. 
Moana Mackey 
: R and D tax credits. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: During a time of amazingly large surpluses—$10 billion—it took the previous Government until 2009 to introduce some research and development tax credits. 
Moana Mackey 
: We didn’t require Crown research institutes to give their money back to the Government. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have noted what the interjector said just then. Labour did it just at the point of the global financial crisis. Labour members of course seemingly are still operating in the paradigm of $10 billion surpluses. I would like to remind them from time to time that the world has changed just a little and it is probably necessary to change policies just a little to accommodate that reality. 
I also remind those members—all members because I think this is something we should all be able to all celebrate—that from 2008 through to 2010 there was a significant gain in the total share of GDP of New Zealand that is spent on science and innovation or under the more traditional nomenclature “R and D”. It went from 1.19 percent to 2008 which was the last year I think of the previous Government to 1.30 percent in 2010. That is about an 8 percent increase at a time of economic constraint. It is significant I think that in a time of economic constraint businesses universities and the Government have recognised the need to drive up that share compared with what was one would have to fairly say reasonably halcyon times for the economy. That was not due to the previous Government of course but rather to global economic conditions and the previous Government was not able to achieve the sorts of gains that were needed to be made. 
I will not quibble about these things too much. It is possibly inappropriate to do so to excess during this debate. I just draw these points to the attention of the House. I say to members in the House that those statistics are from Statistics New Zealand and are therefore highly reliable. They came out yesterday I note. 
I am very happy to share in the collaboration in the House to advance this bill. The changes that have been made are perfectly appropriate. They are more general in nature than the bill as first presented and I think we would all agree with that. I also note the other changes. I guess we can take the point about the nature of this bill by how quickly it was resolved by the Education and Science Committee and by the length of the report which covers four short paragraphs. It would be fair to say that this bill will be passed by unanimity and it will go through the Committee stage smoothly thence to the third reading. 
I join with my colleagues in the House in supporting this bill and indeed supporting the endeavours of all of our scientific community and other researchers in the humanities for their hard work over recent years to improve the understanding of the importance of science and innovation in our wider community. I think everyone would concede that there has been a significant change over the last 2 years and the data demonstrated the reality of that. Thank you.