Mapp Wayne: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20423] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. I say also that the Education and Science Committee has dealt with this issue very well. It noted the various initiatives that have been undertaken over the last 2 years. It is such a contrast is it not? We listen to Mr Shearer recycle failed policies of the past. Labour will go into this election with its big commitment on science and innovation being a failed policy on a tax credit. Anyone can get it. It is a great time for lawyers and accountants but it probably will not do much for science and innovation. 
Do members know how Labour will pay for this policy? It will sock one of New Zealand’s most productive sectors the primary sector by bringing it into the emissions trading scheme 2 years early—2 years earlier than 2015. We would be the only country on the planet that would kneecap our most productive sector in this way. That is Labour’s approach. That is another failed policy of the past—Labour committed to do it in 2008. One would hope that after 3 years in Opposition it could spend a little bit more time thinking of future policy rather than just resurrecting past policies. The Government put some common sense into that issue and said it would be 2015. 
I will speak briefly about what we have actually done and the springboard that it provides for the future. There have been a variety of things and I will focus on three in particular: first the Crown Research Institute Taskforce; secondly the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Innovation; and thirdly business support. When I became the Minister some 2½ years ago it was obvious that Crown research institutes were in difficulty. There was a continuous complaint if you will from the sector that the institutes were simply buried in compliance costs having to take a huge amount of time to complete applications and so forth. 
The OECD had also seen this and made a clear recommendation of sustainable long-term funding that would provide a strategic focus. The Government put together the Crown Research Institute Taskforce which was one of the OECD’s primary recommendations. We have now implemented the Crown Research Institute Taskforce and largely picked up on the OECD recommendations which were ignored by the previous Government. We have put the Crown research institutes on a fundamentally better footing to build capability. 
Secondly we pulled together the governance system into the Ministry of Science and Innovation. Primarily that was about changing the culture of the organisation and providing a more strategic approach. I note that the Education and Science Committee was unanimous in this instance about that and saw it as an important shift in emphasis. I heard Mr Shearer himself state that this was an important initiative. The significance of the strategic approach should not be underestimated. I inherited a system that was highly fractionated and highly disorganised. Now we have one that is fundamentally more integrated and one that connects science more effectively to business. 
That leads me to the third point and that is the Government’s programme to back New Zealand businesses. Over 4 years we will put over $200 million into that programme; by next year in fact it will be $80 million. It does require a ranking if you will of the most capable businesses in New Zealand. The grant is made as a percentage—20 percent—of the company’s research and development spending. Pretty low compliance costs ensure that the money goes to the companies that have the deepest and most effective capability and indeed the best record in exports. 
I would have thought the Opposition would applaud that programme because it is forward-looking not backward-looking. That is I guess one of the fundamental differences between the National Government and the previous Government. We are concentrating continuously on doing the things that will drive our economy up. We have seen science expenditure go up but the other side is backward-looking and we see failed solutions from the past. 
Vote agreed to.