The government’s job chops across the public sector have a Lincoln University professor concerned New Zealand is only going to go from bad to worse in its global rankings for R&D investment.
Jon Hickford, professor at Lincoln’s Department of Agricultural Sciences, said he is watching with concern calls for 6-7% cost-cutting measures across all government departments when national research expenditure is already relatively low.
“Between 2019 and 2023 AgResearch dropped from 722 full-time equivalents [FTEs] to 666 FTEs, which came at a time when there was considerable bloat occurring in almost every government department.”
The cost-cutting comes at the same time as $97 million in National Science Challenge funding runs out this June.
At this stage it remains unclear what and how much funding is due to replace it.
In the science area the axe has already fallen across NIWA and science advisers to the Department of Conservation.
The Callaghan Innovation centre is also looking at a “strategic reset” that may see as many as 30 jobs go from its 382 in full-time employment, but details on where and when have not been made clear yet.
Scientists are nervously eyeing their futures in a country where expenditure on research and development as a percentage of GDP already sits well below the OECD average.
Latest OECD data indicates NZ spent 1.47% of GDP on R&D in 2022, compared to 1.67% for Australia, but well below the OECD average of 2.73%.
Israel has the highest investment of any country, averaging 5.6%, of which agricultural R&D claims a 42% share with an emphasis on a “startup” culture.
If the $97m of National Science Funding money is removed from the country’s R&D budget, NZ’s share of R&D as a percentage of GDP will fall to about 1.37%.
That puts NZ closer to the likes of Lithuania for investment levels, and behind Turkey.
Earlier this month climate scientist and New Zealander of the Year Dr Jim Salinger described NZ’s science spend as “shockingly poor”.
The new government has not yet declared the plans Labour had for science funding through the Te Ara Paerangi Future Pathways reform dead.
The plan aimed to boost funding to 2% of GDP.
It also had almost half a billion dollars earmarked to invest into Wellington, turning it into a “science city” and bringing together three research hubs focused on climate change, pandemic readiness and tech innovation.
But Hickford said he had mixed feelings about that programme.
“It felt like just a bit of a tweak, and I am not sure it really set out to address the base funding problems we have.”
He also believes there is a level of “anti-ag” sentiment in funding philosophies.
“We seem to have been trying to talk ourselves out of primary sector production since Lange declared it a sunset industry back in 1988.”
Then in 2001, Helen Clark’s Knowledge Wave conference aimed to increase growth in areas beyond the primary sector.
Hickford said he found it ironic that since that year the primary sector’s productivity has consistently outstripped all other sectors’ performance.
Labour productivity in the primary sector between 2008 and 2020 has consistently increased at 1.5% a year, over double that of other goods-producing sectors.
Hickford pointed to a report completed for the Treasury that valued the return on investment into agriculture between 1927 and 2001 as delivering a 17% per annum return.
While farmers and growers have proven adept at adopting new processes to maintain productivity growth, his concern is a decline in research means that growth will plateau as all existing researched practices are exhausted, and not replenished with new work.
This also comes at a time when demographics are seeing a generation of skilled researchers retiring.
Timed with funding cuts, a skills vacuum is now a reality.
“We are already struggling to recruit domestic PhD students with the standard B Ag Science degree.
“We do get overseas students, but NZ’s relatively unique pastoral systems mean they take a decade to really understand.”
