The Food and Pastoral Research Fund
The Herald previews today’s announcement of a new research fund for the pastoral and food industries.
Details are not yet known, but on the face of it investing in research is a good thing to do. That is potentially a useful contributor to increasing productivity and economic growth.
One beneficial outcome would be research which leads the way to have less methane emissions in the diary industry, as this would reduce out Kyoto liability. One has to ask of course why didn’t the Government establish this research oh around seven or eight years ago when it confirmed Kyoto, instead of a few months before its third term ends.
The other thing which isn’t clear to me, is why it needs to be a dedicated fund, rather than merely an increase in annual funding. The simple answer is the political one – because $500 million into a capital fund sounds far more sexy than announcing and extra $35 million a year in research funding. So when you hear the big numbers, remember that is capital, not expenditure.
Cullen also is probably desperately trying to reduce the cash surplus, so he can attack National’s tax cuts as unaffordable, while his own tax cuts will magically be affordable and non-inflationary
March 11th, 2008 at 7:17 am
DPF: Cullen also is probably desperately trying to reduce the cash surplus, so he can attack National’s tax cuts as unaffordable, while his own tax cuts will magically be affordable and non-inflationary
And there I think you have hit the nail on the head. Labour and their partners in crime, the Greens, has had seven or eight years to do something about this mess they’ve landed on us. Both have talked a lot, neither have achieved a whole lot. Now, just before they’re due to lose what should have been the unlosable election they are attempting to screw the next government and NZ as much as possible with the aim of coming back and saying: “We told you so! You’re better off with Labour!”
Foolish, foolish little children.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:29 am
It’s a scorched-earth policy.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:29 am
“The other thing which isn’t clear to me, is why it needs to be a dedicated fund, rather than merely an increase in annual funding. The simple answer is the political one – because $500 million into a capital fund sounds far more sexy than announcing and extra $35 million a year in research funding”
D’oh, because its dedicated to pastoral and food industries. If $35 million was just ploughed into the Marsden fund then it would end up in all kinds of research, much of basic research because basic research sounds sexier to reviewers.
Nor would it be a good idea if 35 million was just ploughed into existing research instituitons as that would miss out on the discipline that having competitive funding streams provides to come up with the best founded research proposals.
A pastoral and food industries fund is an excellent idea.
“One beneficial outcome would be research which leads the way to have less methane emissions in the diary industry, as this would reduce out Kyoto liability. One has to ask of course why didn’t the Government establish this research oh around seven or eight years ago when it confirmed Kyoto, instead of a few months before its third term ends.”
Actually there is already research ongoing for at least the last five years (I don’t know if National did something in this regard as well, but I suspect not) into reducing methane emissions and which has been supported by a number of government funding agencies including MAF and conducted by research providers such as Agresearch and Dexcel.
Is getting facts right so very hard?
March 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
But nobody has pointed out that under the present regime it is more profitable to be a touter of commodities than it is to export so called value added dairy products. I saw Tatua dairy products for sale in Santiago. Nothing from Fonterra, yet the commodity touter, Fonterra, thrashed Tatua in the 2007 payout stakes. Tatua’s immense research into lactoferrins etc has cost them a bomb, so it is rather sad to see a mammoth basic foods processor beat them.
I seriously doubt whether anything the Mount Albert sex kitten pulls out of the hat now will make any difference.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:02 am
“yet the commodity touter,” for a moment I thought you were referring to the great Robin Hood of the South Pacific, he who robs from the rich Australians and gives to the poor Kiwis, John Key.
I doubt anything will change in that regard under Mr Ex Merril Lynch’s stewardship.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:03 am
But how do we know the money won’t be “invested” in a new Head Office building for AgResearch along with HR managers and “communication specialists” (to tell us all about sustainability)? It would be nice to see this money tied to real scientific results.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“But how do we know the money won’t be “invested” in a new Head Office building for AgResearch along with HR managers and “communication specialists””
Because its a contestable fund, hence anyone can bring along a proposal along with a budget for the number staff needed and consumables, so private agricultural firms, Agresearch, Universities and CRIs are all competing to put up the best projects. Thats why a fund is an excellent idea.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Will this think tank fund help too reduce the price of milk and meat for the struggling kiwi consumer?
March 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am
“I doubt anything will change in that regard under Mr Ex Merril Lynch’s stewardship.” said the ineffable NPOG.
Quite entertaining to see that even this die-hard Labour supporter is starting to consider the possibility of losing power. Things cannot be good in the home of socialism when one of his staunchest supporters is losing faith.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:45 am
How much will be spent on GM?
That used to be such a big issue but Labor brought the Greens off long ago.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The only point of this ‘new’ research budgeting will be to find more ways to waste increasing resources and focus on the imaginary notion of ‘climate change’, ‘carbon footprints’ and other mad garbage.
I can absolutely guarantee that no new research of any useful nature will be done under this government. This announcement is nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors excercise to further push their environmental agenda. Its not science. Its a politically motivated attempt at increased mind control and more pandering to international Greens via the UN, and I’m surprised, DPF, that you seem not to see it as such.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
THOUGHT:
METHANE: Greenhouse gas
METHANE: Energy source, VERY CLEAN BURNING.
Solution: plumb the nations cows into a methane collection system and burn the methane for energy, just like methane from landfills is being burnt already. WIN – WIN !!!!!!!!!!
Research funders, take note.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Fair point, NPOG.
Sounds like a great idea for the health system. Private healthcare providers could compete to put up the best proposals.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture etc generate 57% of countries export earnings and NOW they want to fund research, its been generating this for many years now. Further cynical politics from cynical, do anything to stay in power, politicians.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The contestable system does mean that you get more bang for your buck. A vast amount of money is spent when scientist take time away from research to write bids, employ FRST relationship advisors to make sure you get the right signals from the foundation, take other scientist out of research to review bids internally, spend time building relationships with Industry to ensure you have co-funding, match the foundations/industry mutually exclusive aims of science stretch and proven technology to market, have the foundation (tax-payer) pay for possible barrier to entry (industry).
Yeah its a dream contestable funding, best system in the world.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
A fund is just a fund.
It is a government paper bookeeping entry, with a government hypothetical interest each year, which we assume will be the only money that will be contestible each year.
The fund itself will not be used.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I don’t see why they should spend our money trying to pick winners. Having some knowledge about how these govt grants get distributed, it seems to me that the people who get them are those who are best at knowing how to get govt grants, rather than the genuinely productive.
It would be much better if the didn’t take the $500 million in the first place.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Dick4Justice @9.24 – You are a complete tosser aren’t you D4J, the party you so admire stands for private enterprise.
The price of Dairy products has always been driven by what NZDB and now Fonterra gets for therir products on the international markets. What’s the problem, market rates are market rates, ie if you don’t like the price don’t buy the product.
If you want to be a Blue blood deal with it. or drink beer.