Budget Reaction – Time To Back Science With Long-Term Investment
These principles emphasise the significance of public investment in R&D for achieving long-term economic prosperity. Science funding is not a luxury or a cost - it is a core ingredient in economic success. Yet Budget 2025 underdelivers for science - at best holding funding steady in nominal terms, and at worse an actual reduction to health research funding, while inflation continues to erode our national science capability. New Zealand invests approximately 1.5% of GDP in science, while the average expenditure within the OECD sits at approximately 2.7% of GDP.
We urgently need a long-term strategic plan, along with associated investment, for science and technology. Agencies like MPI have created excellent roadmaps in areas like biotechnology and climate-smart primary production, but these strategies remain unrealised without funding. Strategic planning without resourcing is not a plan - it's a wish list.
We applaud the new investment in advanced technology research at Robinson Research Institute. This kind of targeted funding is precisely what New Zealand needs: it boosts high-tech exports, strengthens connections between research and industry, and generates high-value jobs. But one initiative alone does not build a future. We need to see this approach expanded to other areas of advanced science and technology with the potential to generate real wealth for Aotearoa.
Without a step change in science investment, we risk falling further behind not only in global competitiveness but also in our ability to address the complex challenges facing New Zealand.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Treasury briefing points finger at government spending during Covid-19 pandemic
The Treasury briefing said the Covid-19 response showed the challenges of using fiscal policy to respond to shocks and cycles. Photo: FANATIC STUDIO / SCIENCE PHOTO L The previous government spent too much during the Covid-19 pandemic, despite warnings from officials, according to a briefing released by the Treasury. The Treasury's 2025 Long Term Insights Briefing said debt had risen in recent decades, partly because responses to adverse shocks were not met by savings between those shocks. The higher debt meant less capacity to respond to future shocks, like natural hazards, weather-related risks and biosecurity risks. Treasury estimated the total cost of the pandemic was $66 billion over the 2020-26 financial years and about 20.4 percent of GDP. The IMF and OECD estimated it was among the largest Covid-19 responses globally. The agency releases a briefing every three years, with this one looking at the role of fiscal policy through shocks and business cycles. The briefing said the Covid-19 response showed the challenges of using fiscal policy to respond to shocks and cycles. Initially, Treasury recommended "strong fiscal stimulus" at the start of the pandemic, which was cited as "perhaps" causing the economy to be much stronger than expected by the end of 2020. The wage-subsidy scheme in particular was seen as making an important contribution to the strong initial recovery, limiting the increase in the unemployment rate and enabling economic activity to resume when restrictions relaxed. Treasury then moved away from recommending broad-based stimulus, preferring more targeted and moderate support. Its post-election advice to the then-Finance Minister in late 2020 highlighted "the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge." By August 2021, with the Delta lockdowns coming in, Treasury recommended any decisions to provide support to businesses "should take account of macroeconomic trade-offs". It recommended against any further stimulus from Budget 2022 onwards. Wage subsidies and similar schemes during lockdowns made up about 35 percent of the costs of the response. A further 18 percent came from health-system costs, like vaccination, contact tracing, and managed isolation and quarantine. The remaining "nearly half" was made up of a wide range of initiatives that Treasury said had "varied objectives". Some were aimed at directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19, others were aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or "achieving social or environmental objectives". They included "tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches". Programmes within the fiscal response that were not tied to the shock were seen as having "a lagged impact on the economy and proved difficult to unwind in later years". The report suggested cyclical management was best left to monetary policy, run by an independent central bank. It also suggested governments set out clearly when fiscal policy will be used ahead of time, including pre-defining responses. Ideally, this would have cross-party agreement. An independent fiscal institution, which could scrutinise and report on the sustainability of fiscal policy, was also suggested. The previous government had considered setting up a watchdog to cost election policies, but it could not get cross-party support. National then changed its tune, with current Finance Minister Nicola Willis supporting such a measure, but New Zealand First and ACT were opposed to the idea. Willis jumped on the report's release, saying Treasury's language was "spare and polite", but its conclusions were "damning". She said the briefing showed the challenges of using "big spending measures" to respond to one-off shocks. Willis singled out the briefing's focus on the money spent on initiatives not directly tied to the Covid-19 response. "That is a very diplomatic way of saying New Zealanders are still paying the price of the previous government extending a big-spending approach, initially intended for a pandemic response," she said. RNZ has approached Labour for comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Grocery Action Group hits out at supermarkets as Kiwis keep paying high prices for groceries
The commission's report found New Zealanders paid 3% more for their groceries in 2023 than the OECD average. 'That puts us in the top five most expensive in the OECD,' Chetwin said. But the report said 2023 prices were closer to the OECD average than previous years. Kiwi shoppers were paying 9% above the OECD average for groceries in 2022, and 14% more in 2021. However, prices for goods in the 'milk, cheese, eggs' and 'fruits, vegetables, potatoes' categories were significantly higher in New Zealand than the OECD average. The report said it was a concern 'that many of the goods in these two categories are produced and sold domestically'. New Zealanders spent more than $27 billion at supermarkets and grocery stores in the year to June 30, 2024, up 5.3% compared with the previous 12 months. Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden said change in an industry this large and entrenched will take time and a deliberate, co-ordinated effort. 'In 2024, retail grocery prices appeared to have stabilised after years of significant growth, which was reflected in a slowing of the major supermarkets' gross margin growth, however, grocery prices remain higher than the OECD average,' van Heerden said. 'Recent data shows retail prices increasing again in 2025 ... there is more work to be done to improve competition.' The report also found barriers to entry for new competitors remain, while the major supermarket chains (run by Foodstuffs and Woolworths) continue to wield their power over smaller suppliers. In addition, the report highlighted geographical inequities in the two major supermarket chains' dominance. In Auckland, the major supermarkets hold 71% of the market compared to 88% in the rest of New Zealand, the report said. 'Consumers in Auckland and other main cities have a range of options, but consumers in smaller towns and rural areas typically have minimal to no choice within their locality, with some stores in small towns functioning as a localised monopoly,' van Heerden said. Supermarkets respond Foodstuffs North Island CEO Chris Quin said the co-op was making solid progress across key areas of regulatory reform. 'We back the intent of the still relatively new regulatory framework to drive competition, efficiency and better outcomes for New Zealand consumers,' Quin said. 'We've taken that responsibility seriously from day one and have put in place a broad programme of work to meet our obligations and make the system work well for customers, suppliers and retailers alike. 'Much of this work has been under way for some time and it's being delivered alongside our day-to-day focus on serving millions of customers a week, investing in new stores and technology and keeping our supply chain efficient and resilient.' Quin welcomed the commission's findings that competition in the grocery sector is more developed in areas with higher population density. 'We're pleased the commission has recognised that competition is strongest where demand and population support it, and that concerns about land holdings are not borne out by the evidence,' he said. 'We're focused on opening new stores and providing new jobs in small, remote and growing communities where the need is clear.' Foodstuffs South Island chief executive Mary Devine said the co-op's focus remained delivering for customers in all corners of the South Island and building enduring and trusted supplier relationships. 'The South Island presents unique logistical challenges due to its low population density – approximately eight people per square kilometre. 'Yes, we have supermarkets in cities and major towns, but we also have 37 stores that serve communities of less than 5000 people [and] 56 that serve communities of under 10,000 people and that's a responsibility we take seriously.' The Annual Grocery Report said 90% of Kiwis are within a 10-minute drive from a major supermarkets. Woolworths has been approached for comment.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Prices shouldn't depend on postcode: consumer group
Fair prices for groceries should not depend on a shopper's postcode, a consumer advocacy group says The Commerce Commission's Grocery Report - released yesterday - highlighted the fact that areas like Auckland enjoyed more competition and cheaper prices. The Grocery Action Group said the commission's report had no good news for consumers. Chair Sue Chetwin said the lack of competition in smaller centres meant markups were much higher, even though overheads such as rent were much lower. "In rural areas and smaller towns where New Zealand's supermarket choices are narrow or non-existent, the report confirms what those living there already know - that consumers pay a premium for the lack of competition. "This kind of geographic price gap is unacceptable. Fair prices shouldn't depend on your postcode." Chetwin said on top of the 4.6% increase in grocery prices for the year to May, there were other findings in the report that were thoroughly alarming. "For instance, it notes we are paying higher than the OECD average for groceries even though we earn well below the average OECD wage. "Another disturbing fact is the prices that the supermarket chains pay their suppliers are subsidised by around $5 billion in rebates, discounts and promotional payments paid by suppliers." The report confirmed Kiwi consumers were paying way over the odds for their groceries, she said.
