Latest news with #NicolaGaston
Scoop
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Further Cuts Fund New Tech Institute
Details of new changes to research funding under sweeping science sector reforms have been released today. The briefing confirms that set up of the NZ Institute for Advanced Technology will be paid for through reallocated science funding, including long-term reductions to specific public research funds such as the Marsden Fund and the Health Research Fund. These changes come on top of reprioritised research funding in the 2025 Budget being used to set up the three other Public Research Organisations, a new PM's Advisory Council, Invest NZ, and a new gene tech regulator. The SMC asked experts to comment. Previous expert comments on research funding in the 2025 Budget and the science system reforms are available on our website. Professor Nicola Gaston, Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, comments: 'Despite the jazz hands in display around the announcement of the NZIAT (or Advanced Tech PRO), we knew it was not new money. The shock is not the reprioritisation from SSIF, Callaghan Innovation, or Endeavour grants for this — those mechanisms are reasonably well aligned with the purpose of the NZIAT, so not too big a deal on some level – aside from the longstanding critique that the system is already underfunded and the cost of the reforms themselves are absorbing research money etc. 'But the bigger picture here is the capture of the science system by politicians and by bureaucrats. The movement of funds from the Investigator-led Marsden Fund, in addition to previously announced cuts to the scheme, is absolutely an attack on fundamental research and on internationally-recognised research excellence. I am far from a critic of applied or mission-led research, and can see potential in the PRO reforms to create critical mass. But this is killing the goose that laid the golden egg and then boiling that egg in aqua regia. 'Impactful scientific research requires sustained scientific leadership, not politicians whose decisions about where and how to allocate funding seem to be driven primarily by the extent to which they get to take credit for the funding announcements.' Conflict of interest statement: Nicola Gaston receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission as the Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. She also receives funding from the Marsden Fund. All research funding goes to the University of Auckland to pay the costs of the research she is employed to do. Dr James Hutchinson, CEO of KiwiNet, comments: 'If we want more economic growth from our science system, now is the time to invest in R&D – not cut it. The evidence is clear internationally: countries that lift R&D investment see faster productivity growth and stronger economies. 'We also need to invest in the commercialisation system that turns research into real-world impact. Currently, less than 1% of public science, innovation and technology funding supports this critical capability – the people and programmes that connect discoveries with industry and investors, and create new companies. 'To get the best return for taxpayers, we need a diverse 'garden' of research – from blue-skies to applied – coupled with stronger commercialisation pathways. That combination is what will grow the next generation of technologies, transform industries, and build a more prosperous future for Aotearoa.' Conflict of interest statement: KiwiNet is primarily funded by the Government through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Its shareholders are New Zealand universities and publicly funded research organisations. Professor Frédérique Vanholsbeeck, Te Whai Ao — Dodd-Walls Director, University of Auckland, comments: 'The NZ Institute for Advanced Technologies (NZIAT) is being set up to leverage Aotearoa successes in Deep tech, i.e. technologies that remain deeply connected to the fundamental science on which it is based. 'We applaud the creation of NZIAT to capitalize on our leadership and investment in fundamental research to date, but wouldn't want to see this at the expense of cuts to fundamental research funding. This would put NZ at risk of failing to deliver fresh innovation in 10-15 years when the fundamental research being worked on now, matures.' Conflict of interest statement: Frédérique Vanholsbeeck receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission as the Director of Te Whai Ao — Dodd-Walls Centre for Photonics and Quantum Technologies. She also receives funding from the Marsden Fund and the MBIE Endeavour Fund. All research funding goes to the University of Auckland to pay the costs of the research she is employed to do. Professor Kelly Dombroski, President of the NZ Geographical Society, comments: 'For us in the NZ Geographical Society we see so much need for urgent research and innovation in the environment-society space (such as climate adaptation, circular economies, environmental protection). The Advanced Institute of Technology is unlikely to provide the leadership needed for research in that crucially underfunded space.' Conflict of interest statement: 'I receive funding from the Marsden fund, I have a Rutherford Fellowship, and I previously received funds from the National Science Challenges.' Distinguished Professor Dame Jane Harding DNZM FRACP FRSNZ, President of the Royal Society Te Apārangi, comments: 'Over the past 30 years the Marsden Fund has enabled New Zealand researchers to achieve some world-class breakthroughs, earn a reputation for excellence, and collaborate with top international scientists. The Fund invests in the kind of cutting-edge research that can generate paradigm-shifting advances to feed our innovation pipeline. The government's cuts to fundamental research are likely to have significant unintended consequences. They will undermine the long-term potential of the new Institute – and the broader science sector – to build on discoveries from early-stage research to grow our competitive advantage, solve complex challenges, and improve health, education, and our environment.' Conflicts of interest: None declared. Dr Troy Baisden, Co-President New Zealand Association of Scientist, Principal Investigator Te Pūnaha Matatini Centre of Research Excellence, and Affiliate with Motu Research, comments: 'The cuts from a number of areas to prop up what remains a ghost proposal for a virtual Advanced Technology Organisation are deeply disappointing because we're finding out they're not just eroding the foundations of our national research system – the plan is now the equivalent of selling the furniture and floorboards on TradeMe to scrape together a few quid, while leaving gaping holes in what the community of researcher has to work with. (Concerningly, the plan seems so shaky that the numbers don't even add up. I can see $144.7m in funding reallocations totalled as providing $150.4m in funds?) 'With these cuts added to new requirements to target difficult-to-assess economic benefits of proposals, bodies like Marsden and Health Research Council (HRC) risk becoming too small to maintain effective operations that can convincingly say they fund the best proposals through high quality competitive processes. There have been international warnings that the cost of preparing proposals can exceed the value of funding received and the scale of these cuts are almost certain to finish pushing us over the brink. The high quality processes will break down and become ever more of a lottery with funding rates well under 1 in 10 proposals submitted, yet with each credible proposal requiring months of work. 'The cuts to the Endeavour Fund present a more complicated case because this fund had often been funding research that should be enduring, rather than supported by discontinuous 5-year contracts. Examples include programmes on climate change and emissions, environmental monitoring of lakes, and sea level rise. The competitive rounds meant that many of the programmes were capped at about $2 million per year to remain fundable, even though delivering outcomes almost certainly would have benefited from more funding, as well as long-term continuity. The pause to Endeavour's proposal rounds, with extensions for suitable contracts, might have enabled some of these changes but the cuts will now make that very difficult. 'Funding for Strategic Science Investment Fund is the one place where there is long-term funding, but many of the areas funded have hardly had an increase with inflation in the last 20 years. Now some will face a large cut or elimination entirely, and we'll discover the hard way they were doing something important when it is no longer there for us. 'Sadly those most likely to discover that our foundations (and furniture, and floorboards) are disappearing may be international investors tempted to support science and innovation here. Unfortunately, they'll find that a starving innovation ecosystem with less public support to build their investments on than they could find in almost any other comparable country. They won't leave behind public warnings but will silently disappear. 'There is one hope however. Partly because the system has become so reliant on these competitive research funds, overheads have become internationally anomalous. Any obvious anomaly can be fixed, but only if the willpower exists to do it. Overheads means that for every dollar spend on salary support for researchers in universities more than two dollars go to support the university's operations. The same calculations become roughly four times salary in Crown Research Institutes, recently amalgamated into fewer institutions. Thus our research overheads sit at 200-400%, with more money going to support our institutions than the research projects that are funded. In Europe the norm is 25%, and in the United States, Trump has tried to bring the cap down to 15%. 'Testifying to a Parliamentary select committee this year, the then CE of GNS Science suggested that having scientists charge out at the same rate as lawyers, or over $400 per hour, should be normalised. I question whether she or the government want to see that proposition tested as an election issue. 'There is another way. If the government is able to find funds to support institutions and reduce the competition that has blown out the overheads supporting institutions, they could cap overheads. Then the reduced funding Marsden, Health Research Council, Strategic Science Investment Fund, etc will go further and contribute to a more stable research system. 'At present, there's no indication that massively reduced overheads from competition will be achieved and we're left watching the furniture and floorbaards go on out the door as an answer to the most often asked question about our research system's reforms: are we rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or playing musical chairs? 'We are doing both.'
The Spinoff
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
Budget 2025: The great Spinoff hot-take roundtable
Finance minister Nicola Willis says her budget is 'responsible' and 'strikes the right balance'. But what do the experts think? Our Budget 2025 reporting is thanks to The Spinoff Members. The Spinoff is not backed by billion-dollar budgets or billionaires, we're backed by you. To meet our current goal, we need 500 new members by the end of June. Please donate now. Nicola Gaston: Nothing to compensate the science system for drastic funding cuts A couple of years ago I told the Labour government, in an RNZ interview regarding university funding, that we couldn't eat their ghost chips. I stand by that. But it also means that, in the face of a government that is both 'going for growth' and in charge of a once-in-a-lifetime science system reform process, I have no compunction saying in response to a budget that has NOTHING to compensate the science system for drastic cuts to funding both last year and this: Bro. Monique says you're dumb. Nicola Gaston is a professor in the department of physics at the University of Auckland and co-director of the MacDiarmid Institute Belinda Himiona: 'Nuggets' won't relieve the crisis children and whānau are in today There are little nuggets scattered throughout the budget, but let's be clear: they are small scale and will not relieve the crisis children and whānau are in today. Budget 2025 fails to deliver the bold investment required to build the foundation for a thriving future. The real challenge for the government is to match its investment rhetoric with being brave and investing comprehensively in services that we know improve lives. There are clear indications that things are not OK. Lest we forget: recently Aotearoa scored towards the bottom in all child wellbeing rankings according to Unicef, there's been a 35% increase in reports of concern for children in the last year, and there's a worsening picture for children in rates of poverty, violence, education and mental health according to the Salvation Army's State of the Nation Report. We can't keep waiting for investment, it is needed now in interventions for children and whānau at risk, poverty reduction, and fair pay that recognises the value the social sector workforce brings. Community must have a revitalised role with services devolved to community, iwi and hapū. Governments choose where to invest. There are trade-offs. Once you improve the lives of whānau, you set the foundation for all our future. Belinda Himiona is chief executive at Te Pai Ora SSPA (Social Service Providers Aotearoa) Holly Bennett: Plenty of positive initiatives Budget 2025 might have been light on 'record levels of investment' but there is still plenty to explore. One of the flagship announcements – Investment Boost – will see businesses able to make an immediate 20% deduction of the cost of a new asset from taxable income. A welcome signal that government is actively considering how better policy, rather than more money, can make enduring change. On the other side of the coin, the government has declared war on 'tax cheats who deliberately evade their obligations'. With our national tax debt clocking in at $8.5bn, the government has allocated new funding of $35 million a year for IRD to undertake more tax compliance and collection activities. Equivalent to 0.4% of the debt balance, however, will it be enough? One thing I didn't see coming but fully support is the $28 million investment in overhauling how emergency services respond to mental distress. The intention is to move New Zealand's mental distress 111 calls away from a police-led response to a 'mental health response'. Of course the devil will be in the detail: how this vision will be operationalised will be the true marker of success. Finally, I'm particularly enthused by the prime minister's personal commitment to support start-up tech businesses. As a founder who is about to embark on my first capital raise for a SaaS (software as a service) platform, it's a timely reminder that an ambitious, bold and properly funded idea executed in the private sector, rather than by state, is where we most often see the biggest drivers of change. Holly Bennett (Te Arawa, Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Pikiao) is the managing director of lobbying firm Awhi and a former adviser to National ministers. Oliver Hartwich: Budget 2025 raises serious questions about New Zealand's financial future Budget 2025 raises serious questions about New Zealand's financial future. Although the government says it plans to balance the budget, its approach makes this difficult to believe. By leaving out the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) from the main budget figures, the government isn't showing the full financial picture. Even with optimistic forecasts, the government is still expecting to spend more money than it receives right up to 2029. This kind of accounting makes it hard for taxpayers to see clearly how much money the country is really spending. On KiwiSaver, it makes sense to stop government contributions for higher earners. However, increasing the default contribution rate from 3% to 4% means both employees and employers pay more. At a time when the economy is struggling, this extra cost could make it harder for businesses to employ people and reduces individuals' choices on how to spend their money. Another concern is the finance minister's suggestion that more KiwiSaver funds should be invested in New Zealand. Although well-intentioned, it goes against good investment practices. To keep people's savings safe and growing, investing in many different countries is far better than putting most of it into New Zealand's small economy. Budget 2025 needs better financial management and smarter economic decisions to ensure New Zealand's future prosperity. Oliver Hartwich is the executive director of The New Zealand Initiative Jo Monks: Commercial gain prioritised over science motivated by environmental goals The science system funding plan outlined by the government in Budget 2025 sends a clear signal about prioritising investment in science that is likely to result in commercial gain over science motivated by environmental goals. Key initiatives announced include the establishment of a 'bioeconomy' organisation and promoting gene technology. The government's focus has been rapidly shifting away from ecological and social science rooted in environmental health, and towards science that will make more money, over recent months. While all investment in science is positive, the New Zealand Ecological Society is concerned that the commercial focus of today's science funding announcement will result in further erosion of ecological science in Aotearoa. Meanwhile, strong investment in te taiao and applied ecological research has never been more important. Dr Jo Monks is acting president of the New Zealand Ecological Society Gabrielle Baker: Not much to benefit Māori Feels like a great budget if you want to expand your business (Investment Boost), if you have too much money in your take-home pay cheque and need help to save it (KiwiSaver), or if you make your money building and planning hospitals. I have a toxic relationship with budget days. I can't wait to get into the details but, when I attempt it, I'm usually left bewildered. Same again this year. I did note down a couple of things though: • With Vote Health there are proposed savings under 'equity and evidence' and 'performance monitoring', which might give an indication of the perceived value of everyone getting good outcomes. • Vote Disability Support Services requires time and patience to decipher because last year's funding was all included in Vote Social Sector and Community Sector, and not under this new Vote. And, for some unclear reason the government plans to spend about $10m less in community-based supports – though spending increases slightly in the other disability support service categories. Unsurprisingly, given the current climate, there is not much in this budget that will benefit Māori, outside very small investments in Māori wardens. Still, I would have liked to have been pleasantly surprised. Matthew Roskruge: A bland, arguably bleak, budget with little vision in the numbers Budget 2025 was billed as a no-BS budget, and it delivered no-frills austerity. The government framed it as a 'growth' budget, but there's little vision in the numbers. The focus is on fiscal discipline, with new spending tightly contained and balanced by cuts and reprioritisations. Headline winners include small businesses, with modest tax relief for capital investment, and the health sector, which receives a significant boost – especially for infrastructure and access. Defence also fared well, possibly reflecting US-aligned priorities and overdue investment. But savings came at a cost. The cancellation of pay equity was a major loss, and emergency housing was scaled back. Māori were virtually invisible. Vote Māori was cut again, with funds pushed into general pools. There's little here that speaks to Māori priorities or the Māori economy. Education saw multiple tweaks – some welcome, like learning support and literacy – but little new money. A clear trend emerged around 'tough on youth' policies: truancy services, youth justice, bootcamps, and cutting Jobseeker access for most 18 to 19-year-olds. It's a bland, arguably bleak, budget. NZ First and Act were surprisingly muted. The bigger question is whether this signals a longer-term turn to austerity – or just a tactical reset ahead of election year 2026.
