Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2773] 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he intend to move ahead with major changes away from contestable Government funding for science research and technology given a University of Auckland report found that “evidence from the operation of the contestable funding system clearly shows that its introduction saw … significant improvement in performance and relevance of services provided.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Contestability continues to be an important part of the science system but too much contestability can affect the ability of our scientists and our science organisations to carry out their research. We want to move towards a more balanced system that does not have so high a level of contestability. I point out that the model we have in New Zealand has a very high level of contestability—in fact it is the highest of any country in the OECD. Evidence from discussion with the sector recent evaluations through parts of the Research Science and Technology vote and the yet-to-be-released OECD report that was produced recently when OECD officials went through the country all showed the need for a change to a more balanced science funding system. The foundation will now go out and talk with the sector about the details of this funding model before it is finally implemented. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why did his Government introduce highly contestable performance-based research funding into New Zealand’s universities only a few years ago if it was a system that did not deliver quality results or could not be sustained? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine that the member is referring to the introduction of the Performance-based Research Fund—yes? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Indeed. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That was something I did. If members look at the model they will notice that the model is based upon sustaining excellence— 
Hon Bill English 
: Another Maharey mess. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say to Mr English that I do not hear the member saying he would change it. The introduction of that model was of course something that allows for a 6-yearly reviewable cycle. This is not contestable in the sense that most science research is. It is an outstanding model that is having outstanding results. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What changes is the Minister proposing to make science and technology funding more stable? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: While maintaining appropriate levels of contestability we intend to work with the sector to negotiate longer-term programmes for those who have a proven track record to do a systematic technical review of science programmes to reduce the cost and complexity of funding processes to identify the essential backbone infrastructure and to continue to increase the capability of our Crown research institutes. As well as strengthening the economic contribution of science these changes will ensure that we retain scientists and ensure that they have a clear career path. That is why we are doing it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does science Minister Maharey disagree with the Steve Maharey who was an Associate Minister of Education who said: “The introduction of contestable research funding through the PBRF would lead to excellence and had the strong support of the community and the sector.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before to Mr Hutchison the Opposition spokesperson on this topic what we did with the Performance-based Research Fund was introduce a system that is 6-yearly renewable. That is a reviewable process and it is exactly the kind of model that is being mooted for introduction to a larger amount of the science coming through the forced fund. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is he ploughing ahead with his plan when he can give no hard evidence of any benefits in his answer to written questions—and that is because the scientific and economic literature shows no benefits—or does the Minister assert that rigorous evidence need not underpin the design of science-funding systems? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is powering ahead because that is what we always do as a Government to introduce this new funding model. It is clear from the reviews of the science sector—reviews by such people as the OECD—that a more balanced model closer to the kinds of models we see in some other very successful science communities around the world will serve the country well. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does he agree with the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples who recommended that social delivery services should continue to be specifically targeted and tailored to the needs of Maori requiring more targeted research evaluation and a statistical basis or does he think the $1 million announced last week out of a total vote of $633 million or 0.16 percent is enough to spend on indigenous Maori knowledge given that the Maori population is 15 percent and rising? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There were a number of questions in there about comments made by the rapporteur and the answer would be that we still see the need to deliver services on the basis of need and that need often is amongst Maori and that yes we think we do need to research and evaluate that expenditure so that we know it is making an impact on the needs of Maori. On the question of whether we think that $1 million out of $653 million is enough for indigenous knowledge I think that if the member checks he will find that there is a major strategy within the forced funding model which will result in more than a million dollars being spent on that particular area of knowledge. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What further actions does he intend to take to ensure that New Zealand science drives the country’s economic transformation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has a large number of proposals which will result in the promotion of the uptake of science in New Zealand the commercialisation of new research ideas the stabilisation of funding for the sector longer-term funding models for the sector and working with the sector to ensure it is able to develop a highly skilled workforce—in other words a very comprehensive programme indeed. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard who said: “Contestable funding moves the emphasis to quality over quantity in research.”; if not why is the Minister reducing the use of contestable funding for Crown research institutes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said before contestability will remain part of the funding model where it is useful to what we are doing. In other parts of the model we will be adopting one of providing for capability development. We will be funding those long-term data sets for example that do not need to be contestable. We will be negotiating longer-term contracts with people. I would invite the member if he does not like this to put up an alternative model and we will see how long it lasts. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a newsletter from the Labour Party’s own website dated 4 May 2006 where Steve Maharey praises the contestable funding model. 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second document is a written question in which Minister Maharey fails to demonstrate any benefit to science from his proposed plans. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.