Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19459] 
10. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: Does he agree with Professor Sir Paul Callaghan’s statement on science and innovation “it’s clear that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have not really seen this as a top priority”? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 No the Prime Minister himself said in his statement to Parliament earlier this year: “Over time we have prioritised science and innovation as a target for increased investment which is why over 3 years we have lifted Vote Science and Innovation from $689 million to $773 million this year.” On top of that of course we have $190 million in the Primary Growth Partnership to help farmers not penalise them. I also say I was somewhat surprised that the member did not use the full quote from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —the Radio Live interview— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —which said: “I think Wayne Mapp has done a fabulous job.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Normally a Minister of course can put a quote into context but it should be done in a rather different way from that. I think we have heard sufficient on that. 
David Shearer 
: How could he say that they have used science— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sorry Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Part of the problem is that although that answer was an egregious breach of your rules about speaking unfortunately some of the members heard it and some of them did not. We understand that it was an amusing quote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s attempt to bring some humour to the situation but I think the House has seen a little bit of humour in it anyhow. 
David Shearer 
: How could he say that they view science as a top priority when Vote Science and Innovation recorded a $14 million drop in funding between 2011-12 and 2010-11? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As the member actually knows the vote has two parts to it: the capital grant and the operating grant. Last year’s vote had a $16 million capital grant to Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand. Of course that funding was expended last year and is not repeated this year. So the operating vote actually went up as indeed it does in subsequent years. 
David Shearer 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement in May last year that investment in science “will not only keep New Zealand competitive but is at the heart of our strategy to boost economic growth.”; if so does the drop in funding this year mean that science is no longer considered to be part of that strategy? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No I do not agree with that proposition because there was no drop. I also say that statistics indicate that manufacturing has climbed to its highest level in nearly a year and that comes from a BNZ - Business New Zealand survey released today. 
David Shearer 
: What does he say to the 60 percent of companies many of them leading-edge innovative companies that applied for his technology development grant but have been refused and why are they not a priority for funding? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The technology development grant actually ranks at up to $22 million last year $45 million this year and $60 million next year. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Government has chosen to fund other areas such as the Customs Service and Veterans Affairs this year and not science and innovation has he simply failed to make the case for science and innovation to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: In each of the years the appropriation actually increases in the operating appropriations. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In the lead-up to the May 2011 Budget how much extra money did the Minister of Science and Innovation ask for in his portfolio? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Obviously there are always discussions. One of the issues here of course is the high-value manufacturing review which is not yet released. The Government will be considering its response to that soon enough. Of course there is a Budget next year. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are getting fairly close to the end of question time and of our supplementary questions. Rather than our having to use another supplementary to get an answer about how much the Minister asked for I ask you to ask him to answer the question that was put to him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is reasonably well made. The answer did not really—the question was pretty simple. It asked a question that the Minister presumably must know the answer to: how much money he asked for in the Budget process. He may argue that it is not in the public interest to reveal that but he should attempt to answer the question in my view. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Referring to the answer it is my understanding that the discussion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order not an answer? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I suppose it is a point of order in fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear a point of order from the Minister. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is my understanding that discussions between Ministers relating to the Budget are kept confidential. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear briefly from the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why then were the Minister’s papers to Treasury released under the Official Information Act? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are now getting into debate rather than points of order. It is my fault; I accept the blame for that. It is an interesting little issue. A reasonable question was asked: how much funding did a Minister seek in his portfolio? It may be that this information is public knowledge through the release of papers and a Minister may feel perfectly happy to answer it. It may be that the information is considered to be confidential and a Minister may say it is not in the public interest to answer it. Either of those are answers. All I am asking is that the question be answered and not some other question answered. That is all I am asking. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes there were discussions between Ministers as the documents indicate. It was considered that the issues relating to the high-value manufacturing review were not mature yet and thus that matter was left over to 2012. That would have required an increased appropriation over 4 years of approximately $100 million. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need to do that. I will invite the Hon Pete Hodgson to repeat his question. It appears that it may not have been heard. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In the lead-up to the May 2011 Budget how much money did the Minister of Science and Innovation ask for in his portfolio? 
Hon Simon Power 
: More than he got. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As my colleagues have pointed out more than I got. As I said the issue was over the high-value manufacturing review which was a request over 4 years for in the region of $100 million. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are all trying to coach the Minister and I suggest to you that the possible answers are: “I cannot remember.” “It is not in the public interest.” or “X number of dollars”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have given the member the opportunity to pursue this question and I think the House should move on now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the centre to which he referred the decision on which has been deferred to the next Budget the only item that was not funded for which he requested funding in this Budget? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That was the principal item; there were some other issues as well. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I refer you to the answer: “That was the principal item; there were some other issues as well.” Is that an answer to that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we should take more time on this. I have given the Opposition a lot of opportunity to question the Minister; I think I have been pretty reasonable on it. That was an answer. The Minister indicated that the main difference between the funding received and the funding sought was the particular item that he had mentioned and I think that is a pretty reasonable answer. Admittedly he has not given exact dollar figures but I still think it is a reasonable answer to the question that was asked.