10. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this
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) Link to this
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 SPEAKERNormally 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.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
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.
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.
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 Link to this
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.
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 Link to this
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.
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 Link to this
The technology development grant actually ranks at up to $22 million last year, $45 million this year, and $60 million next year.
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 Link to this
In each of the years the appropriation actually increases in the operating appropriations.
Hon Pete HodgsonIn 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 Link to this
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 Link to this
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.
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 Link to this
It is my understanding that discussions between Ministers relating to the Budget are kept confidential.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why, then, were the Minister’s papers to Treasury released under the Official Information Act?
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 Link to this
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.
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.
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 PowerHon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
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.
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”.
We have given the member the opportunity to pursue this question, and I think the House should move on now.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
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 Trevor Mallard Link to this
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?
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.