How to grow a deep tech economy, but for real this time
It is perplexing therefore, that the Prime Minister's Science and Technology Advisory Council comprises so many qualified people, yet we would argue needs the specific scientific expertise in those areas that the Government has previously indicated as priorities, which in the context of our public research organisations, or in the Catalyst fund for international collaboration, are quite clearly stated.
This is no criticism of any of the expert individuals involved; there is certainly expertise relating to more established technologies. But a key role for the council must be to advise the Government on the grounds for changing research priorities, and particularly on the opportunities for Aotearoa New Zealand around advanced technologies as they emerge.
From the more established focus on bioeconomy, to advanced technologies such as quantum and artificial intelligence, the same topics appear repeatedly in Government documents, and were some of the priorities mentioned at the announcement of the new Advanced Technologies Public Research Organisation (ATPRO) too, which provides a useful reference for what this council will need to consider.
We would argue that the council would greatly benefit from expertise in those aforementioned areas to help guide our research system, if the council is expected to do this. No governance or leadership structure has been announced for the ATPRO. Until one is, who will be guiding funding decisions?
Perhaps it is useful to think more deeply about what the definition of 'advanced technology' in the ATPRO actually is. We would argue that advanced technologies are synonymous with emerging technologies that are dynamic in nature. This could align with the concept of 'deep tech', a term used in the investment community, but in a research context means technologies that remain deeply connected to the fundamental science on which it is based.
If New Zealand really is to maintain its global competitiveness, advanced and quantum technologies must be represented and prioritised at the highest level. Australian, UK and other governments already consider them critical and have acted accordingly, prioritising funding in them.
If our system is indeed held back by outdated settings, surely the update to those settings should be aligned with our national ambitions for our science system.
The announcement of $71 million for the first piece of the ATPRO puzzle, awarded to Paihau-Robinson Research Institute for their work applying deep expertise in the use of strong magnetic fields to sectors such as cryogenics and aviation, provides some clarity on the pathway to the formation of the new organisation.
Much of the expertise in advanced technologies sits, as with the Paihau-Robinson Research Institute, within our universities. So does a lot of the expertise in research commercialisation – whether in the tech transfer offices, Kiwinet, or in groups such as the Product Accelerator.
But while the individual puzzle pieces might be evident to those of us in the sector, the mechanisms by which they will cooperate within the framework of the new ATPRO remain unknown
In our own sectors of deep tech, recent industry commentary on the necessary system settings has been captured in both the 2024 report of the Cleantech Mission and the Photonics and Quantum Technologies Industry report. These voices of industry from both New Zealand and Australia are clear about the need for government investment to make international investment more attractive, through getting our startup companies to the necessary scale and ensuring skilled people are being trained locally.
Thus, while Science Minister Shane Reti recently celebrated an increase in business expenditure on research and development, it is not clear that that success story will continue to pay dividends while our science system as a whole remains woefully underfunded.
Last year the National Science Challenge research funding was cut from the Budget; this year the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has announced the cancellation of the Endeavour funding round for 2026. While existing contracts may be extended and not all of this funding should be lost, this will impact negatively on researchers in applied science and innovation, the exact type of applied science and innovation this Government has repeatedly stated it wants to encourage.
At 1.5 percent of GDP, our investment in science does not compare well to OECD countries of the same population, such as Denmark, Finland, Norway and Ireland, which average 2.4 percent of GDP. It gets worse when you look at actual dollars: we invested NZD$6.4 billion in 2023 whereas they averaged NZD$16.6 billion.
This underlines the loss to New Zealand due to continued underinvestment. Yes, we manage to do some excellent science in this country. But we do not have the scale to leverage that investment for economic impact: our GDP remains abysmally low in comparison to those countries that invest more as a result. As Sir Paul Callaghan said: we are poor because we choose to be poor.
This Government should be aiming to grow our investment in science in order to fulfil its own stated aim of growing our GDP. Perhaps it would be more honest to set a target in absolute dollar terms, rather than a percentage, to reflect the scale of investment needed to shift our economy in the direction of growth based on advanced technology. But whatever the target is, there is no doubt that we need one.
As the Science System Advisory Group report to government stated so clearly: 'Every other country that shows higher productivity growth compared to New Zealand decided some years ago to invest more significantly in R&D'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
39 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Working from home a legal right in Australian-first reform
Working from home for two days a week would become a legal right under a proposed reform in Victoria. Photo: Getty Employees in Victoria will be legally allowed to demand to work from home two days a week if an Australian-first proposed law is passed. The Victorian government has promised to introduce legislation to make working from home a right in 2026, in contrast to other states that want public servants to spend more time in the office. The proposed law would apply to all public and private sector employees in Victoria who can reasonably do their job from home. Yet to be determined are the legislation's definition of remote work, who can do it and the types of businesses the law would apply to, but the government promised to consult before its introduction to parliament in 2026. It sets up a major contest with business groups in an election year, with Labor seeking a fourth consecutive term that polls indicate it's on track to win. The November 2026 election will be the first as premier for Jacinta Allan, who lags opposition leader Brad Battin as preferred state leader. Ms Allan said legislating the right to work from home was good for families and the economy. "Not everyone can work from home, but everyone can benefit," she said. "If you can do your job from home, we'll make it your right." The coalition's push to end to working-from-home for public servants was partly blamed for its unsuccessful result at the May federal election, despite abandoning the policy before polling day. New South Waled Premier Chris Minns has described remote-work provisions as a thing of the past but stopped short of seeking an end to working from home, instead ordering public servants to work principally in offices. More than one-third of Australian employees usually work from home but that number swells to 60 percent of managers and people in professional services, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The bureau says 43 percent who work from home do overtime, compared to one quarter of those who do not.
1News
6 hours ago
- 1News
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US – but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed today that New Zealand exports would have a 15% tariff applied, up from 10% announced earlier. Australia remains at 10%. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." ADVERTISEMENT There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly. "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the Government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15% tariffs rate is consequential – Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." ADVERTISEMENT US President signs an executive order for new tariffs on a wide swath of US trading partners to go into effect in seven days. (Source: 1News) He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10% baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." 'Quite myopic' ADVERTISEMENT Cranes and shipping containers are seen at a port in Busan, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. ADVERTISEMENT "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time."
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Luxon to tell National faithful country is 'turning the corner'
Luxon to tell National faithful "we're turning the corner" National leader Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro National Party members are gathering in Christchurch to cap off a week in which MPs attempted to steer public minds back towards the government's cost of living policies. Members will also farewell a party stalwart, with former president Peter Goodfellow retiring from National's board of directors. While leader Christopher Luxon will be speaking to the converted, he will be acutely aware the cost of living has become front of mind . Earlier this week, he was asked what his message to the party faithful would be. "Look, they know it's been a tough time, they know that we're turning the corner," Luxon said. "But really ... this country's got great potential and a great future ahead of it, and we've just got to keep working at it." National's deputy leader, Nicola Willis, said the conference would be focused on the steps the government was taking to make the country "an easier, better place to do business, to hire people, to create well paying jobs". "It is our job as a government not to moan about the things we can't control, but to focus on how we can make things better here in New Zealand, and we're very proud of the efforts we're making," she said. It is a stark contrast to this time last year, where Luxon's message ahead of the first conference since National returned to government was its focus on action and delivery . It shows just how much the cost of living crisis is lingering, and National has spent the week attempting to convince the public it has got it under control. With no announcement to make at this week's post-Cabinet press conference (bar the card surcharge ban, which had already been announced), Luxon and Willis gave a more than 10-minute address about the economy and cost of living, and actions the government had taken. "The most important thing we can do to make you better off is to double-down on our long-term economic plan," Luxon said. Willis used her speech to remind people of National's tax changes, FamilyBoost policy and a falling Official Cash Rate. It prompted Labour to accuse the government of "more spin than a front-load washing machine" . The latest Ipsos Issues Monitor has Labour in front of National as the party New Zealanders consider most able to handle the cost of living, despite releasing no substantive policy since the election. In 2023, National won 38.06 percent of the party vote, but since then has failed to poll above that. Recent polls have had National in the low thirties, with some showing the left bloc would have enough numbers to form a government. Other polls give the coalition the numbers to form a government, but only just. National party ministers will hold panels on health, education, law and order, agriculture, and the economy and cost of living. Members will also elect board positions. Long-serving board member and former party president Peter Goodfellow will be retiring from the board. Goodfellow was president from 2009 to 2022 before stepping down but remaining on the board. ANZCO Foods founder Sir Graeme Harrison, who joined the National board in 2021, has also decided to retire. Current board member Rachel Bird is up for re-election. Under National's constitution and rules, board members serve three years and then retire. They can then be eligible for re-election. Craig Carr, Andrew von Dadelszen and Edgar Wilson have also put their names forward for the vacancies. Party president Sylvia Wood and board members Jannita Pilisi, Stefan Sunde and David Ryan are not up for re-election, and so will remain on the board. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
