Science sector faces biggest overhaul in decades, warns cuts will put new research at risk
Samples at an Auckland laboratory.
Photo:
Nick Monro / RNZ
The administrators of a leading science fund fear cuts as part of the sector's biggest overhaul in decades could come at the cost of new and innovative research.
Budget 2025 allocated just over $813 million for business, science and innovation. Almost three quarters of that, nearly $577m, was dedicated to rebates for international filmmakers, leaving about $236m for science and innovation.
The budget funded major science reform through the reallocation of money from funds dedicated to research and innovation, with much of the $212m repurposed for new government initiatives.
The Science Minister said the reprioritisation of funds would help unleash the long-term potential of the new science system.
However, administrators of the blue-skies research Marsden Fund are worried cuts will curb innovation and evidence-based solutions at a time when they are needed most.
Much of the $212m reallocated from research and innovation funds such as the Health Research Council, Marsden Fund and Strategic Science Investment Fund, would help set up an office to oversee
changing gene technology rules
as well as an agency to attract foreign investors.
Eighty-four million dollars of repurposed funds were slated for Invest New Zealand over four years and close to $23m to establish a new Gene Technology Regulator over the same period, while the merging of Crown Research Institutes into three of the four new public research organisations was allocated $20m over two years.
Money found in the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation would contribute to the new science landscape.
Photo:
RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King
Money found in the
disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation
would also contribute to the new science landscape, such as the formation of the Science, Innovation, and Technology Advisory Council - nearing $6m over five years.
However, $38m of reallocated money was set aside for Callaghan Innovation's shutdown, with another $20m to keep its Gracefield Quarter running for another year, while the government decided its future.
The chair of the Marsden Fund Council, Professor Gill Dobbie, said Budget 2025 resulted in a $5m funding cut over three years, and suspected that would come at the cost of new research projects.
The 30-year-old fund, established to support excellent fundamental and blue-skies research, was allocated just under $79m in the 2025/2026 financial year.
The Science Minister's office confirmed that funding for Marsden would be cut in stages over the next couple of years, with a new baseline funding of $71m from 2028/29.
For the 2025 funding round, the Marsden Fund Council anticipated just over 100 projects - from a total of
978 proposals
- would receive grants from about $80m in available funding.
Science Minister Shane Reti.
Photo:
RNZ / Marika Khabazi
Projects typically received funding for three years of research, Dobbie said, therefore already contracted researchers would be prioritised when the cuts came in.
"There likely will be a reduction in [the] number of new grants we can award each year from 2026/27," she said.
"The Marsden Fund Council will review the amount committed through existing research contracts and then determine the number of new grants that can be awarded."
In a post-budget statement, the fund's administer, the Royal Society of New Zealand, said the budget cuts came at a time when New Zealand needed "innovation, critical thinking, and evidence-based solutions more than ever" and followed changes to the Marsden Fund last year, that saw support for social sciences and humanities research dropped, and an increased focus on research with the potential for economic benefit.
Royal Society chief executive Paul Atkins expressed concern that funding cuts would "effectively reduce the amount available for active research projects".
"The capability of our research sector has taken years to build up, and we risk losing talented, knowledgeable, and highly skilled experts."
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) has cancelled the 2026 funding round for its contestable Endeavour Fund to focus on the merger of Crown Research Institutes into new mega science entities.
The $55m Endeavour Fund supported research via Smart Ideas - designed to be fast-fail - and longer-term research programmes of up to five years.
MBIE said there was precedent to pause contestable funding rounds during a shake-up to reduce the burden on staff.
It said the funding for 2026 would instead be directed to current research projects that would otherwise end.
"We expect that a contestable round will be undertaken in 2027 subject to further work as part of the science reforms."
Technology used to assess the characteristics of fruit.
Photo:
Gianina Schwanecke / Country Life
Science Minister Shane Reti said the reallocated funding would ultimately benefit the system and create more opportunites for research and innovation.
He said funding for science, innovation and technology was in line with Budget 2025's approach to economic and fiscal management.
"The government has reprioritised funding for initiatives we need to unleash the potential of our science system in the long term - providing for a modern gene technology regime and fundamental changes to New Zealand's science, technology and innovation system, including new public research organisations and a forward-looking science council."
Science, innovation and tech start-ups would also benefit, he said, from the government's $100m budget boost to Elevate NZ Venture Funding and an increase to the R&D tax incentive.
"I see these as long-term investments that will over time create even more opportunities for world-leading research and innovation that leads to better outcomes for New Zealanders and our economy."
Regarding the Endeavour Fund, he said it had not been suspended.
"Any speculation about the future of the Endeavour Fund is just that - speculation. Changes to future funding rounds would likely be subject to Budget decisions."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House: Making law - a final avalanche of edits
Pavan Sharma, the Manager of the House Office at New Zealand's Parliament. Photo: VNP / Johnny Blades There are five parliamentary stages to passing a law. The three reading stages are short and built of speeches. The remaining two are when the real work is done, by two very different committees. Select Committees get a lot of attention and, when governments don't dodge this stage entirely, are the best opportunity to improve or alter an impending law. The second, less glamorous committee, is Parliament's last chance saloon for fixing mistakes or changing minds before a bill is finalised. It is variously referred to as the Committee Stage, Committee of the Whole, or the mouthful Committee of the Whole House. "The Committee of the Whole is essentially a big committee that takes place in the debating chamber. Any MP can participate in the Committee of the Whole, and any member can propose an amendment to a bill. There's no limit on the number of amendments that they propose." That is how Pav Sharma describes the Committee Stage, and he should know. He manages the House Office, which is the part of Parliament's secretariat tasked with looking after the debating chamber. "Our focus is ensuring that members have everything that they need to debate legislation, to debate other aspects of house business, to scrutinise the government's finances." All the 'paper' that comes or goes from Parliament's debating chamber (the House) transits through the House Office. Bills, questions, petitions, papers, reports, and amendments - many thousands of them - make the office a thrumming hive of clever people keeping a large machine running smoothly. Johnny Blades has described them as Parliament's Brain . I often seek their expertise, but have learned that one time not to wander in asking dumb questions is when the House is in the middle of a contentious Committee Stage, as they may be swimming through hundreds of amendments on the bill under discussion. These will have arrived as emails, typed notes, or scribbled on slips of paper. They need processing almost instantly, while they are still relevant and under discussion in the chamber. "It can get very busy," Sharma says. "It can get a little bit tense in the House Office and in the chamber when we have a particularly contentious Committee Stage." The point of all of this is a fundamental of Parliament - the mutability of legislation. That it can evolve and improve during its journey through Parliament. "One of the points of the legislative process is that bills should be able to be amended - that they're amendable. Ideally, a bill will start its legislative process in one way and it will be improved as a result of the legislative process and come out a better, more fit-for-purpose piece of legislation." Most of the amendments Parliament accepts on bills come out of the select committee process. But mistakes are made, problems are missed, arguments continue over both the policy and the method - and the Committee of the Whole is the final chance to fix things. When bills debated under urgency skip a select committee entirely, the Committee Stage becomes the only chance for improvement. Not every amendment arrives in a final scramble. There are two kinds. It's worth noting the difference because you hear MPs in Parliament referring to them by their different names - an 'amendment paper' and a 'tabled amendment'. Roughly, amendment papers arrive in advance, while tabled amendments happen in the action. They might also be drafted by different groups of people. "If it's from the [minister] in charge of a bill, [an amendment paper is] usually drafted by the minister's officials, so the Parliamentary Counsel Office [who also draft government legislation]. If it's an amendment paper for a non-minister, then that's where the House Office comes into play and we will draft the amendments for the member based on their instructions," Sharma said. "The great thing about an amendment paper is that it's printed in advance. It's published on the legislation website. It has its own unique number, so it's really easy to identify and to cite in debate." Amendment papers from the MP in charge of a bill (usually a minister) occasionally substantially rewrite a bill. Amendment papers from opposition MPs are usually much more specific, but they are also often written in advance. "Opposition members do instruct us to draft amendment papers and often they're very organised and we can have a whole raft of amendment papers that are released from opposition members in advance of the committee stage." The tabled amendment is the more last minute of the two. It is referred to as 'tabled' because it can literally be scribbled out on a sheet of paper, walked up to the front of the debating chamber and handed to the Clerk at the Table. As Sharma elaborates: "They can be typed out or they can be handwritten. They can be delivered to the Clerk at the Table in the chamber, or they can be delivered to the House Office. And the general principle is that if they are an 'in order' amendment, then they are voted on." Examples of (both handwritten and typed) proposed amendments to the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. Photo: VNP / PS Bills are seldom a done deal when they begin at Parliament. Almost all bills are amended, and improved by the process. Improved as law especially, regardless of their policy. But policies are also smoothed, particularly via select committee hearings, when unintended consequences are pointed out and can be avoided. But improvement is not the only reason to offer an amendment. "I think it's important to note that there are different purposes for amendments," Sharma said. "It's quite common for the member in charge of a bill, often the minister, to propose amendments to their own bill. This could be to fix some inconsistencies, tidy up the bill itself, or to potentially introduce some new policy to the bill." An opposition MP suggesting an amendment has a more varied range of purposes, including just eating up House time by slowing the inevitable process. They offer something to discuss in debate and help prevent repetition (which might bring debate to a close). Even the process of voting on them eats time. "In New Zealand, we have party voting. It's pretty quick. You're looking at somewhere like 45 seconds for a particular vote, but if you've got over 100 amendments on a particular part of a bill, then, yep, you're looking at at least an hour of voting, which can be a bit of a challenge for members because votes are taken in silence." It's not all about filibustering though. "They do use up some House time, but they're [also] an important part of the Committee of the Whole debate. [An amendment is] also a really good way of signalling the Opposition's different …policy positions. It could be that they would approach this issue from a completely different angle. It's also a way in which they can [raise] the interests of a community group or other party. So they're kind of almost using their representative function by putting up an amendment." This is a crucial part of the democratic process. "It's a really important principle that members should be able to put up amendments and that every in-order amendment is voted on. That the committee does get that opportunity to make a decision on those amendments. Because some of them actually do improve the bill. A fundamental lore of a 'good parliamentarian' is that, even if they disagree with a policy, they will try to help make good legislation. "A key function for members of parliament is that they are legislators, and when they're putting up amendments to the bill, they are quite often trying to improve the bill," Sharma said. In select committees, working on amendments is a much more collaborative process, but even in the Committee of the Whole government ministers do occasionally accept an opposition suggestion. "It does happen," agreed Sharma. "It happens on relatively rare occasions, and I think part of the reason for that is that the amendments are being put up in Committee of the Whole, and so there hasn't necessarily been the opportunity for ministers and officials to assess those amendments to ensure that they are not going to cause … unintended consequences, for example. That said, there are occasions where you do get that really good debate across the House. Opposition members are able to provide a good explanation of their amendment. They're able to persuade the minister that this is a good idea, and that amendment is essentially adopted by the government and that change is agreed to." When, after much debate, the Committee of the Whole comes to vote on part of a bill, it first votes on all of the amendments relevant to that part, that are within the rules. It is only at this point that amendments are ruled out by the chair. A reason is always given for rejecting an amendment. The rulings come from the chair and are entirely their call, but are based on advice from the clerks. "[Parliament's rules], the Standing Orders say that the Committee of the Whole can make amendments that are relevant to the subject matter of the bill, that are consistent to the principles and objects of the bill, and that otherwise conform to the standing orders and practises of the House. …The default is that unless there's a good reason for an amendment to be ruled out of order, it should be voted on." In brief, an amendment must be three things: it will be relevant to the bill, consistent with its principles and objects, and conform to expectations. Those guidelines lead to a few key reasons for rejecting amendments. "One of the most common [reasons] an amendment is ruled out of order is that it's outside the scope of the bill," Sharma said. That rule is part of the requirement for relevance. "We've got some quite tight rules around what's an acceptable bill. A bill has to have a single subject area and it has to have a focus, which means that you don't have these really big, disparate bills, which you can throw all sorts of different provisions into. "The scope of the bill is really determined by 'how big is this bill at introduction?' and how much it does. So a really narrow bill is going to be much harder to amend than a wide ranging [one]. What we're considering there is how relevant is the amendment to the bill that [was] introduced to the House? "A really good example of that would be an amendment that is 'inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill', which is kind of a parliamentary phrase, but really it's talking about what's the overall intent or the overall thrust of the bill? "You could, for example, have a bill, which is increasing the number of district court judges. An amendment that would reduce the number of judges is definitely relevant to that bill, but it is a completely different direction of travel. So that would be a relevant amendment, which would still be 'out of order' because it's inconsistent with the bill's intent or its principles and objects." An amendment can also be relevant initially and become irrelevant. An amendment already agreed to can alter what is relevant, because now the bill is different and things have moved on. "Sometimes an amendment will come later on in the debate and in the bill, and the committee has already done some voting, …and it's made some decisions. And so those later amendments are inconsistent with the decisions that the committee's already made." It's like the MPs were planning a holiday and have already decided on a beach location, at that point it becomes pointless to debate who will bring the skis. An amendment might be both relevant and consistent and still fail, because it does not conform to the expectations for legislation. "At a basic level, an amendment needs to make sense, …and it needs to make sense in the context of the bill. So you can't just add some random words to the piece of legislation. You have to know where in the bill that amendment's going to go. It has to be a coherent amendment. So if an amendment doesn't do that, it could be ruled out as not in the correct form of legislation. So it's got to be written as if it was part of the bill and actually make sense within the whole." It's complicated. Certainly the advice the clerks offer is both useful, and also essential. The House Office offers advice to all MPs, not just presiding officers. Clever MPs accept that assistance and learn as much as possible. That includes help in drafting amendments likely to fit within the rules - if that is required. Not all amendments need to fall within the rules to be useful for debate. "We do provide advice to members when they are discussing their amendments with us," says Sharma. "We can …say, 'we think it's possible that this could be …out of order for particular reason'. But ultimately, the decision on whether something is in order or out of order sits with the chairperson of the Committee of the Whole, (the Deputy Speaker or the Assistant Speakers). It's their sole decision. Note: The Speaker never presides over the Committee of the Whole, only his team does. "[When an amendment is tabled] we read it really closely. We read it not in and of itself. We also read it in the context of the bill. So that relationship between the amendment and the bill itself is what's going to determine whether it's going to be 'in order' or not. So, yes, is it relevant to the bill? And is it consistent with what the bill's trying to do?" A predictable flurry of amendments is always offered on a bill's shortest section - its title and the date it comes into effect. These 'preliminary clauses' are a bill's first section, but the final one that is voted on. The amendments to them are often (but not always), unserious, even sarcastic, Some may fall within the rules, but many will not. "It's common for members to put up dozens… of amendments on the title clause. Opposition members have been doing this for many, many parliaments. [Historically] we've had amendments which described a bill as 'Orwellian' or as 'betraying senior citizens'. Lots of these amendments are an opportunity for opposition members to signal their dislike of a particular bill, or just critique it." "They're quite good for us because we can rapidly see that they're going to be 'out of order' because they're not necessarily a serious amendment or not an objective description of the bill." The sarcasm or irony in many title clause amendment suggestions carries a small upside of releasing a little tension in the final debate after a long Committee Stage. Oppositions predictably lose the final vote on any government bill, but after many hours of hard debate they get to not just critique the policy, but outright mock it. And once the preliminary clauses are agreed and the sometimes hundreds of amendments on a bill have all been dealt with, the House Office can collectively exhale. But never for long. Another avalanche of paperwork is always heading their way. *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
Tourism's role in peace and prosperity
The Nobel Peace Prize has been won by presidents, fighters for the oppressed, people who've changed history and put their lives on the line for a cause. So when Washington-based Auckland-educated Lelei Tuisamoa Lelaulu found out he'd been nominated, it's not surprising he thought it was a prank. He is a Samoan development entrepreneur whose leadership has extended across the globe including the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and the World Indigenous Games. He chairs the Earth Council Alliance and a council at George Washington University School of Business. This year he told the Metropolitan Museum of Art to take its reimagined Rockefeller Wing arts collections on tour to the places they came from. Lelaulu is nominated 'for his work in reshaping the narrative around tourism – not just for leisure, but as a vessel of peace'. He's still trying to get his head around the nomination. 'It's a huge honour and I'm just a little bit stunned waiting for something to happen. It's a little bit overwhelming.' Lelaulu was nominated by NGOs associated with the Anglican Church and the United Nations. 'It was a bit out of the blue in a sense 'cause I don't really go to Anglican churches or any churches generally, so I thought it was a prank initially, and then they called back and it was true, and they sent the recommendation and I saw it and away it went. We'll see what happens.' But what does tourism have to do with peace? 'I think that tourism is the only real peace dividend,' he says. 'It's basically the industry of peace because if you think about it … this is the largest transfer of resources from the haves to the have nots in history – voluntarily. No one's forcing it. 'Then you think about the hundreds of millions of lives that have been lost because people tried to wrest resources from others over the centuries; it's just astounding but tourism has reversed all that,' Lelaulu said. If it's handled properly tourism gets resources and money to communities instead of corporations 'and it has enormous possibilities for allowing communities to improve their education, their health, their welfare and their dignity – their ability to live lives of dignity. That's why I think the industry of peace is tourism,' he says. Lelaulu explains to Lei'ataualesa Susana Lei'ataua in a special episode of The Detail that bilateral aid goes mostly to the treasuries of countries whereas tourism handled properly goes to families and the communities directly 'and it builds them up and gives them a whole new dignity of life'. But how does tourism fit in when it comes to conflict zones? 'In terms of conflict we have to end the conflicts before tourism can apply. It is very much the industry of peace because once there's peace then people tend to stream across borders to see what their former adversaries are like and what they did and how they live, and this then builds up connections between former adversaries and this is what I hope for,' Lelaulu said. Lelaulu is quick to point out the 'holus bolus' introduction of tourists is not the answer. The wine routes in France are a successful example of a planned approach to directing a huge percentage of tourists outside of an over-crowded Paris, benefiting the agricultural sector. He says we could take a leaf out of that book. 'New Zealand is obviously one of the most beautiful countries on the planet but it also has one of the richest cultural ethnic heritages that should be looked at, and pulling people out of the major tourist destinations is the way to do it.' Lelaulu highlights Māori tourism. 'It's incredibly innovative and very effective. If you look at what they're doing in the South Island, looking at Kaikōura and what the iwi are doing there that's enormous. It's one of the most successful tourism projects in New Zealand … and they're very, very generous with the local communities which is an important thing.' Lelaulu was a guest speaker at the re-opening of the Metropolitan Museum of Art's US$70m revamped Michael C Rockefeller Wing in New York, and had a strong message for them. 'We should move these wonderful pieces of art around the world so that more and more people should see them … move it overseas to the major art capitals of the world and also to the places of origin like Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Samoa, Fiji. Let the people there see the beauty of what emerged from their artists a long, long time ago.' Lelaulu suggested these collections would tour for six months at a time and door-take profits would be split with the destinations to upgrade and build 'museologically sound' facilities for the artefacts. 'In a sense as the collection goes around and as you return some of the artefacts now and then where applicable, the collection that comes back to the Metropolitan Museum is going to be richer and more valuable than the exhibit that left, so I called it a cultural diplomatic continuum.' The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize will be announced on October 10, with the award ceremony taking place on December 10 in Oslo, Norway. Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NZ Int Film Festival 2025: Ardern doco and an Aotearoa arts hall of fame
First the book and now the movie. Former prime minister Jacinda Ardern's memoir A Different Kind of Power has been keeping the nation's bookshops in business in past weeks. Now comes the US-NZ documentary Prime Minister as the centrepiece of this year's NZ International Film Festival. The film, partly shot
