The Government has been accused of ignoring funding problems facing our publicly-owned research institutes - three of which are "on watch" over performance. Photo / File
The Government has been accused of ignoring funding problems facing our publicly-owned research institutes - three of which are "on watch" over performance. Photo / File
The Government has been accused of ignoring funding problems facing our state-owned research institutes – three of which are "on watch" over various performance issues.
National's Dr Parmjeet Parmar described the latest report card for the seven Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) as "depressing" - and aired fears of scientists leavingfor greener pastures overseas.
The CRIs – ESR, Niwa, Scion, AgResearch, GNS Science, Plant & Food Research and Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research – employ 3400 staff and around two thirds of publicly funded scientists outside of health and IT.
They carry out three quarters of research contracted out by business and lead crucial science on everything from earthquake monitoring to water quality.
The Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation's most recent six-monthly performance report found that, as a group, the seven CRIs were hitting their financial targets.
But it also raised serious issues with how they were being funded and suggested this was contributing to financial instability for some CRIs.
With core public funding - mainly through the cornerstone Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF) - having been static, CRIs had become increasingly dependent on contestable rounds like the Endeavour Fund.
MBIE went as far as telling Science, Research and Innovation Minister Megan Woods that CRIs were in danger of losing capability in priority areas - and suggesting that capital injections could be a better way of supporting them.
National's science, research and innovation spokesperson Dr Parmjeet Parma says New Zealand's Crown research institutes need more support. Photo / File
Shadow minister Parmar said the report "wasn't a good look" for the Government.
"In my view, it reflects a very depressing image of investment in our CRIs and scientists by this government," she said.
"As a former scientist, I know that you need good long-term planning to deliver good scientific outcomes. We are compromising a lot here, and I'd hate for us to be losing scientists to other economies."
Parmar accused the Government of ignoring the funding issues, given Woods had been briefed before 2019/20 Budget was released.
She called on Woods to act immediately.
But last night, Woods told the Herald that CRIs were managed prudently and received cash injections "when needed".
"This is not unusual, as with AgResearch receiving $10 million in late 2018."
There were now three CRIs – Scion, AgResearch and GNS Science – on watch.
Being "on watch" meant that MBIE was monitoring a CRI more closely over identified performance issues - sometimes with extra reporting requirements.
AgResearch had been on watch since 2011 and GNS Science had been on watch since May last year, while Scion had been since March this year.
Scion had already raised concerns over funding uncertainty, with a number of its funded programmes now coming to an end.
It had bids in with the current Endeavour round and was continuing to vie for other contestable funds.
"We will get more clarity on these matters come October and will therefore be able to budget with more certainty," its chief executive Julian Elder said.
Scion chief financial officer Rob Trass (left) and chief executive officer Julian Elder. Photo / File
MBIE said AgResearch had been having organisational and financial challenges - namely with changes in its science focus and implementing its $133m Future Footprint Programme.
That had included a proposed joint facility with Lincoln University that now wasn't going ahead, leaving AgResearch with a $9m asset write-down over its investment in the plan, and a new business case to develop.
Its financial position had improved after receiving the $10m boost through the SSIF, with a requirement that it carry out a new science review of the organisation this year.
AgResearch chief executive Tom Richardson said the new business case was close to being completed for Woods to consider, and that the institute remained on firm financial footing.
MBIE would meanwhile be keeping GNS Science on watch until it demonstrated further progress on its new organisational and science strategy, and could return to making a profit.
MBIE was concerned over GNS's forecasting accuracy – and its ability to reduce expenditure and generate new income.
GNS Science chief executive Ian Simpson said the institute had carried out an organisation-wide review refocusing its science direction toward its "core strengths", and the bulk of changes that had come from it were now bedding in.
A fourth CRI, ESR, hadn't been put on watch but MBIE reported it had been facing a number of challenges, including renegotiating its contract with the Ministry of Health and its property redevelopment at Porirua.
Again, Woods said it wasn't unusual for CRIs to go on watch.
Nearly all of the CRIs had been on watch at some point: among them, Niwa (between June 2011 and February 2012), Plant & Food Research (November 2011 to November 2013) and Landcare Research (July 2013 to May 2015).
UNCERTAINTY WORRIES
The report came after CRIs group Science New Zealand had voiced concerns about funding to successive governments.
Science, Research and Innovation Minister Megan Woods said it wasn't unsual Crown Research Institutes to be put on watch over performance. Photo / NZ Herald
Its chief executive, Anthony Scott, said bidding for contestable funding meant there was uncertainty about what would get funded in any round.
It was the SSIF that enabled CRIs to be strategic and plan for the future, yet that fund was based on sums that were initially set up 15 or more years ago, he said.
"So obviously it funds fewer [full-time equivalent roles] year by year."
NZ Association of Scientists president Dr Heide Friedrich said she was concerned that "more and more research organisations have to undergo frequent evaluations on the costs and benefits of their existence".
"This plays into the hands of short-term thinking and decision making centred on this short-term thinking," she said.
"It is important that we have the debate on who should shoulder the costs.
"We have to work towards a balance of accountability and long-term financial stability for research organisation."
MBIE's entity performance and investment general manager Michael Bird said MBIE was still considering whether in particular circumstances, in future, it might be better if CRI investments were supported through capital injection.
While the ministry wasn't looking at formally reviewing the SSIF, or how contestable funding regimes were configured, there was ongoing work to ensure the funds were effective within the wider science system.
"These funds represent only a portion of the CRIs overall revenue and need to be viewed in this context," Bird said.
"The SSIF and the contestable fund play different roles within the system and both represent important sources of revenue.
"Taken as a group, the CRIs have had considerable success through contestable processes and the fund represents an important mechanism to support cutting edge science."
