NRT: National’s “innovation” agenda

65 comments on “NRT: National’s “innovation” agenda ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jono 1

   19 May 2013 at 10:53 am

   So nothing new there, just more of the same giving with one hand and taking with the other. Didn’t they kill off Bright Futures scholarships almost as soon as they took over in 2009. I am doing a PhD on an NZ subject at an Aussie uni right now, fully funded by the Aussie government (Aus Postgrad Award). I did a seminar last week and almost everyone who attended across several departments, was a kiwi. A good kiwi friend is just finishing his PhD in the social sciences and already has an Aus Research Council post doc to take up -AU$90k PA plus 17k super for five years!

   A Bright Future with National? My arse!
   • ghostrider888 1.1

     19 May 2013 at 12:16 pm

     from the Stuff link; 52% of the PhD ‘renaissance’ at CU is International students. Tee, hee.
2. ianmac 2

   19 May 2013 at 11:27 am

   When all the current inequities are put together as Clair Browning has done over on Pundit, it becomes Claire that we are being mislead and that this Government is intent on destroying our Demoracy. Claire and earlier Andrew Geddis are joining some of the dots as does the Post above.
   http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/kicking-the-tyres-from-beneath-new-zealand#comment-35214
3. Colonial Viper 3

   19 May 2013 at 12:21 pm

   English needs his surplus, and R&D is not going to deliver it by 2014/2015. So more short term thinking fuelling more short term decision making. Usual for NZ.
4. DH 4

   19 May 2013 at 2:12 pm

   ” Estimate of Appropriations for Vote: Science and Innovation ”

   Reading through that it becomes clear why this country is so backward & broke. They blow too much of the money on useless bureaucrats & consultants;

   Not much of the money looks to be for actual research or development, a lot is administrative bullshit. Even much of the CRI vote looks to be for purposes other than physical R&D.

   We need R&D to generate new wealth for the country; to invent & create new products and intellectual property that we can export and which will lead to more jobs, more local industry blah blah. There ain’t much money going towards that is there.

   When you look overseas & read science journals it’s noticeable that a lot of new science today is coming out of universities. We’re letting too many of our talented postgrads bugger off to other countries when we should be keeping them here with the R&D spending. Even $100 million a year spent directly where it’s needed will employ a hell of a lot of people and almost certainly generate a positive return for the country.
   • tc 4.1

     19 May 2013 at 2:54 pm

     We have been losing talent from tertiary since trolley then bovver boy Joyce was handed it as ayatolley lacked the ‘skills’ to do the ‘brighter future’ on the higher education funding. These are smart enlightened folk who could see the end game under the NACT and got out years ago.
     • DH 4.1.1

       19 May 2013 at 4:22 pm

       Labour were no better. They blew wads of R&D dosh on useless social issues that don’t bring any tangible economic return. You can’t patent that stuff so we should be leaving that to the rich countries & spending our R&D money where it makes a difference.

       Look at this “National Science Challenges” nonsense;

       • Aging well – harnessing science to sustain health and wellbeing into the later years of life
       • A better start – improving the potential of young New Zealanders to have a healthy and successful life
       • Healthier lives – research to reduce the burden of major New Zealand health problems
       • High value nutrition – developing high value foods with validated health benefits
       • New Zealand’s biological heritage – protecting and managing our biodiversity, improving our biosecurity, and enhancing our resilience to harmful organisms
       • Our land and water – Research to enhance primary sector production and productivity while maintaining and improving our land and water quality for future generations
       • Life in a changing ocean – understanding how we can exploit our marine resources within environmental and biological constraints
       • The deep south – understanding the role of the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean in determining our climate and our future environment
       • Science for technological innovation – enhancing the capacity of New Zealand to use physical and engineering sciences for economic growth
       • Resilience to nature’s challenges – research into enhancing our resilience to natural disasters

       Most of that is feel-good extravagance. We need R&D that produces jobs, increases wages, more exports, greater wealth etc….
       • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1

         19 May 2013 at 6:17 pm

         More exports makes us poorer. We can’t have wealth if we’ve exported it all.
         • DH 4.1.1.1.1

           19 May 2013 at 7:24 pm

           Depends how you look at wealth I guess. To me wealth is really just a store of our collective labour; it’s the value we add to raw materials. When we export we only export the raw materials, the wealth created stays here in the form of export receipts.

           Besides, we need to export more to pay for imports. The current account is running a $12-13billion deficit which is basically how much more we need to export.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.1.1

             19 May 2013 at 7:55 pm

             Depends how you look at wealth I guess.

             I see the raw materials as the base wealth. Without those we can’t do a damned thing.

             Money is not wealth as, by itself (without the raw resources), it’s useless.

             The current account is running a $12-13billion deficit which is basically how much more we need to export.

             And so what we need to be doing is producing more of what we use here in NZ from our own resources. Trade should be minimised.
       • McFlock 4.1.1.2

         19 May 2013 at 7:28 pm

         “Useless social issues” is a contradiction it terms brought to you by people who can’t see past next month’s balance sheet.
         • ghostrider888 4.1.1.2.1

           19 May 2013 at 7:34 pm

           keeping with the flow of “Life in a changing ocean…”, interesting to see the Blue Whales cruising down to the coast off Taranaki.
       • Murray Olsen 4.1.1.3

         19 May 2013 at 9:06 pm

         That list doesn’t look like feel good extravagance to me. It looks like exactly the sort of stuff we should be looking at, but of course the devil is always in the detail. If done properly, everything on that list could fit your criteria. What type of research in particular would you propose, DH?
         • DH 4.1.1.3.1

           19 May 2013 at 9:54 pm

           Explained further down. I think it’s extravagant partly because most of what’s on that list is research already conducted by pretty much every western country, many of whom are richer than us. It’s not patentable research and there’s nothing uniquely NZ about it so we can get it for free already.

           Our greatest need is more decent jobs and better wages and the bulk of R&D spending should go towards just that IMO.

           I don’t think it’s appropriate to spend money on researching “Aging well ” when a lot of Kiwis are living in poverty and won’t reach old age let alone live it well. How many people unemployed or on the minimum wage are going to be able to afford ‘high value nutrition” or have “Healthier lives”. It’s all a bit middle class really isn’t it.

           R&D is a gamble and there’s a need to manage the risk in business but there are also some areas where a lotto win is beckoning and which business won’t go near. We produce some pretty talented graduates and I think if we gambled say $100 million each year on global issues like energy & food there’s a good chance we’d hit the jackpot sooner or later. We have to start backing ourselves.
           • Murray Olsen 4.1.1.3.1.1

             19 May 2013 at 10:13 pm

             OK, let’s just look at the first item, ageing well. Research could well show that missing out on food at school, then not earning sufficiently to eat well during the years until retirement impacts significantly on this. That’d provide more reason and motivation to change the way we organise work and society, even though we’ve got heaps already.
             Can’t feed yourself properly on the minimum wage – put it up. I don’t see what’s middle class about that. We’ve got plenty of food. The healthy stuff doesn’t cost more than processed crap because of academic research. It costs more because the sellers of mass market crap don’t have to pay the medical costs that come from eating their rubbish. If they’re a multinational, they can even transfer profits to somewhere more fiscally favourable and pay taxes there.
             On the other hand, hitting a jackpot so a few business owners and shareholders can making a killing very seldom results in increased employment or wages, particularly with the way things are run. What you’re advocating seems to be trickle down again, where the government subsidises development for private business and the rest of us get pissed on. We need to back all of ourselves. Backing private “wealth and job creators” just does not work in the way that’s promised. That’s not even middle class from where I’m sitting. It’s 100% bourgeois.
             • ghostrider888 …

               19 May 2013 at 10:19 pm

               “research already conducted” is the point DH raises I believe Murray.
               • Murray Olsen …

                 19 May 2013 at 11:22 pm

                 The thing is with research on such grand topics, it’s never fully conducted. Those were broad topics which have more effect on how academics write their funding applications than anything else. Particularly in the social area, things change.
                 Woof woof.
                 I’m not the one who has the funny idea that only middle class people should be able to eat healthy food. Sounds a bit like Waitakere Man to me. Real workers eat Big Macs and KFC. Yeah, right.
                 I’m not the one who negates society except when it can pay for development to help my business.
                 I’m not the one who thinks state aid is charity.
                 I’m the one who has noticed that trickle down doesn’t deliver.
                 I’m the one who’s barking mad.
                 Woof woof.
                 I can live with that, and I’ll keep doing my research, none of which is ever likely to result in a patent. Even if it were possible, I like to think I’d take the approach taken by Jonas Salk.
                 • ghostrider888 …

                   19 May 2013 at 11:35 pm

                   as I suggest below, I’m not sure that the solutions for the social issues outlined do not already exist, and in the context of the post, overall funding is essentially static or cut; these are two important points of context, I believe. maybe the term is ‘lip-service’ at the pressing issues.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     19 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

                     Shall we commission another white paper on Child Poverty?

                     Describing the problems in ever increasing detail and theory makes it look like you are doing something while avoiding the main problem: lack of will and vision to make the sweeping political economic changes needed.

                     Reliance on “experts” has been a downfall.
                   • Murray Olsen …

                     20 May 2013 at 12:04 am

                     Governments only ever want to give lip-service to these sorts of issues. Academics don’t have to go along with this, they can engage with the wider community, although this is being made more difficult. I’d say Jane Kelsey is a good example of someone who manages to contribute to the struggle. Greg Newbold is a good example of someone who reinforces the government line through his work. There are others in both camps.

                     In terms of the main point of the post, yeah, the government is lying. They have no real desire to support research except in a very narrowly defined way. They cut funding and are making it more difficult for students to get to the level where they can do world class research. At the same time, they see the universities as cash cows where Chinese (mainly) students can buy degrees.

                     As for white papers, they’re generally just a trough for those who can be relied on to play the game and churn out the required results. I never mentioned them. They’re about as useful as youtube videos of “chemtrails”.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:22 pm

                     Describing the problems in ever increasing detail and theory makes it look like you are doing something while avoiding the main problem: lack of will and vision to make the sweeping political economic changes needed.

                     Reliance on “experts” has been a downfall.

                     And your mistrust of people who actually know what they’re talking about is worthy of the Tea Party mumpties.
                   • ghostrider888 …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

                     where are the aggregate evidence-based outcomes of health / social science research reflected overall in our health and well-being statistics Flockie, other than reductions in infant mortality and increases in longevity, which we really need as a global community…
                     would they be in the increasing incidence of
                     -heart disease (managed better)
                     -diabetes (an increasing epidemic)
                     -depression (marketed to)
                     -addiction (well, there are entire industries on both sides of that ledger)
                     -bullying (facilitated more effectively by technology)
                     -individualistic self-centredness (supported by neo-darwinian positions)
                     -the medication of society
                     -increases in sexual and related offences against the person
                     -manifest institutional and individual corruption
                     -elder abuse
                     -child abuse and neglect reports increase
                     -poor educational achievement
                     -increased racist polarization (as polled)
                     -increased personal consumption if affordable
                     -increased individual and corporate fraud
                     -drug-enhanced sport performance
                     -bigotry
                     -religious intolerance
                     -privacy invasions…

                     -time for a sandwich 😀
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:41 pm

                     And your mistrust of people who actually know what they’re talking about is worthy of the Tea Party mumpties.

                     Any expert who can deliver the results that they promise could be considered a real expert. Plenty of highly paid faux experts out there though, usually the nicer the suit the more faux they are.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 May 2013 at 2:42 pm

                     Researchers don’t promise results. They report them.
                   • ghostrider888 …

                     20 May 2013 at 2:45 pm

                     btw, Flockie, best thing about the Ben and Steve show in Hamilton; The Locals
               • Murray Olsen …

                 20 May 2013 at 12:54 am

                 If DH means the research is already being done overseas, this is wrong for a number of reasons. Fundamental research crosses national boundaries and is an international effort. It’s usually difficult to say exactly what part is done where. Most of those topics specifically mention New Zealand. Let’s take one at random: “New Zealand’s biological heritage – protecting and managing our biodiversity, improving our biosecurity, and enhancing our resilience to harmful organisms” Whereabouts overseas is that being done?

                 The idea that we can’t compete with the wealthier countries in scientific research is thankfully one that Rutherford and our other Nobel Laureates never adopted. I’ve heard it before from the Brazilian government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso which privatised everything that moved – the advanced countries could do the research and Brazil didn’t need to because all the results were on the internet anyway. Funnily enough, our “wealth creators” think they’re of international quality despite the lack of supporting evidence, but can’t see how our academics might be. This approach also neglects the fact that you pretty much need to be doing research yourself before you can understand and apply the research done by others.

                 So, to make a long story a bit longer, we have social and ecological conditions that are not found anywhere else and can only be investigated where they exist; and fundamental research is an international endeavour anyway. As well as that, there is the climate problem mentioned below, which might make most of this irrelevant.
                 • McFlock …

                   20 May 2013 at 1:02 pm

                   If the research on how actual NZers in a NZ context can be enabled to live more ably for longer has already been done to the point that we already know everything we need to know about the issue, then quite frankly there would be irrefutable proof against most government policies that deal with health and aged care.

                   I like research. It minimises the wriggle room for tories. Without research, the child poverty debate would be framed exclusively around a few negligent parents, rather than it being a systemic problem in this country.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:08 pm

                     Thats because no one is making a political economic argument against poverty, the causes of poverty, and the elimination of poverty.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:33 pm

                     But the only way to actually make a political and economic argument against poverty is to link it to empirical research and demonstrate that it is a systemic issue, not just the result of individual choice.

                     That was Marx’s entire kick: exhaustive, intensive research to demonstrate that the few times economic injustice hits the headlines are the tip of the iceberg, not just a few unfortunate exceptions. He didn’t just whack together some dialectical materialism, he researched and documented the problems for decades. That’s one reason his arguments became so robust and long-standing.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:44 pm

                     There’s a poverty researcher in NZ which has effectively framed a political economic theory to what is going on in our country? Who is that?

                     BTW the Right wing make plenty of effective political economic arguments and they don’t need weighty tomes of academia to do so.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 May 2013 at 2:38 pm

                     There’s a poverty researcher in NZ which has effectively framed a political economic theory to what is going on in our country? Who is that?

                     Not just one.

                     Sallies, Barnado’s, Children’s Commission, and CPAG have all managed to shift the debate from where it was five or ten years ago. Now even the nats talk about child poverty on occasion. It used to be almost exclusively down to a “blame the parents” mantra.

                     And the right wing do use research to support their position – often it’s shonky and a postgrad can find flaws in the excel table, but the point is that they still use empirical research like builder’s bog to cover the gaping holes in their “good for the 1% = good for the country” position. Right back to trickle-down theory and senseless sentencing.
                   • Murray Olsen …

                     20 May 2013 at 3:03 pm

                     “the Right wing make plenty of effective political economic arguments and they don’t need weighty tomes of academia to do so”

                     You might think they don’t need them, but they sure do use them. What were Friedman and the Chicago School all about? What about the crap spouted by English academics about benefit dependency? The climate deniers hired by various liberty, freedom, and prosperity institutes? Almost every economics department, political science, history and sociology department in the world has eminent professors pouring out weighty tomes of justification for the actions of the right.

                     Have you ever tried basing an argument on reality, CV? It might be an interesting exercise.
                   • Arfamo …

                     20 May 2013 at 3:21 pm

                     If CV means the Right can get away with making glib, convincing-sounding arguments for further extending and entrenching poverty-increasing anti-democratic policies, based on the last 30 years of neoliberal economic theory propaganda that has been very effectively sold to the media and public as established “facts”- without being expected by media or the public to prove those “facts” are still (or ever were) really true – my opinion is that they can, and do, do this, all the time.
                   • McFlock …

                     20 May 2013 at 4:27 pm

                     If CV means the Right can get away with making glib, convincing-sounding arguments for further extending and entrenching poverty-increasing anti-democratic policies, based on the last 30 years of neoliberal economic theory propaganda that has been very effectively sold to the media and public as established “facts”- without being expected by media or the public to prove those “facts” are still (or ever were) really true – my opinion is that they can, and do, do this, all the time.

                     But they usually have a veneer of cherry-picked “research” to muddy the waters. What they’ve done over the last thirty years is implement policy with glib arguments and references to “research” produced by think-tanks. The “research” can usually be disproved within a few years, but all they need to do is argue it for weeks and by the time that it’s shown to be bunk all the decisions have been legislated.

                     I firmly believe that one thing we need to do (if we want our policies to be shaped by reality rather than cherry-picked or fraudulent data) is regain the initiative on the research front. Real-world evidence is just as important as pithy arguments and street marches, so we need to get socio-economic and population health research to the same level as climate research, i.e. to the point where reports based in reality have gained (after extensive effort) the upper hand over think-tank propaganda.
             • DH …

               19 May 2013 at 10:32 pm

               “Backing private “wealth and job creators” just does not work in the way that’s promised. That’s not even middle class from where I’m sitting. It’s 100% bourgeois.”

               There’s nothing bourgeois about people wanting to make their own way in this world. I don’t want to owe anyone and I want to pay my own way. Charity from the state is an insult to able-bodied people, a tacit accusation that they’re not capable of looking after themselves.

               Everyone has the right to work for a decent wage and to self-respect. If you think that’s bourgeois then I think you’re barking mad.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 19 May 2013 at 11:49 pm

                 …a tacit accusation that they’re not capable of looking after themselves.

                 Here’s the important truth: You’re not capable of looking after yourself.
                 As a human you must, absolutely must, live in a community. The state is that community.

                 The state doesn’t do charity, never has done and never will do no matter what the RWNJs think.

                 When the state helps you to get over being in an accident, that’s not charity – that’s the state looking after itself.

                 When the state keeps a roof over your head and food on your table, that’s not charity – that’s the state looking after itself.

                 The state needs people. Without them, it dies.

                 You are the state.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               19 May 2013 at 11:39 pm

               The healthy stuff doesn’t cost more than processed crap because of academic research. It costs more because the sellers of mass market crap don’t have to pay the medical costs that come from eating their rubbish.

               That’s only part of it. The main part that you’ll find that brings down the price of processed food is economies of scale and the purchasing power that comes with it. The bigger the purchaser, the less that they pay.

               Backing private “wealth and job creators” just does not work in the way that’s promised.

               No, all that does is make the already rich richer and a lot of other people poorer.
               • Murray Olsen …

                 20 May 2013 at 12:14 am

                 I understand what you are saying about economies of scale, but I don’t see why these can’t be applied to healthy food as well. I can see why capitalist enterprises have no interest in applying them, to either food or housing. In Australia the economies of scale and monopolistic purchasing power of Coles and Woolworths, for example, is driving farmers to despair. A decent economic system would reward those who grow the food as well as those who stack the shelves, not just the shareholders. Paying farmers a little more would allow them to use healthier growing practices for a start.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   20 May 2013 at 11:20 am

                   I understand what you are saying about economies of scale, but I don’t see why these can’t be applied to healthy food as well.

                   You can really only get economies of scale that large through the use of machines. Organically grown food is going to require a lot more labour and time.

                   A decent economic system would reward those who grow the food as well as those who stack the shelves, not just the shareholders.

                   We don’t have a decent economic system, we have have one that is systemically corrupt. One that rewards wealth and not work.
                   • RJL …

                     20 May 2013 at 1:59 pm

                     You can really only get economies of scale that large through the use of machines. Organically grown food is going to require a lot more labour and time.

                     It’s not really about organically grown food. “Organically grown food” is only a small subset of “healthy food” and it is not necessarily “healthier” than non-organically grown food. Highly processed food can be healthy too. And, in fact, large urban populations located far from the source of production can only be fed healthily via a substantially processed food diet.

                     The real problem is an entire diet that is unhealthy due to an excess of some things and a deficiency of others. Which is largely about the choices people make in selecting their food, and the manner and quantity that people choose to consume food in. If people chose healthy diets, then that is what would be supplied.
                   • Murray Olsen …

                     20 May 2013 at 3:08 pm

                     Even though I wasn’t specifically thinking of organically grown food, I don’t see how the use of machines stops something from being organic. Chemicals, sure, but machines?
           • ghostrider888 4.1.1.3.1.2

             19 May 2013 at 10:17 pm

             you are correct in identifying “research already conducted” DH; which “raises” the question, wtf is all this about!
       • tricledrown 4.1.1.4

         20 May 2013 at 11:08 am

         DH you are wrong research doesn’t pay dividends on average at around 15 years!
         Blind Bill English cut the R&D budget soon as he got into office saying labour doesn’t know what they are doing.
         But Hello he has now reinstated the same model as labour started 10 years ago saying its works better.
         So we have had a massive disruption to R&D investments in the meantime that have set back any positive gains from R&D!
         DH get your research right before you develop any tin pot theory!
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     19 May 2013 at 6:06 pm

     We should be spending at least 1% of GDP/year or about $2b. IIRC, and this budget hasn’t changed that, we’re spending about .5%. That’s at a government level, private investment makes up a little more.

     IMO, we need to be spending at least 5% of GDP on R&D at a government level with all NZ businesses being able to use the research produced. This would need some changes such as not accepting overseas patents, limiting patents to a more reasonable level. ATM, IMO, what can be patented is far too broad.
     • DH 4.2.1

       19 May 2013 at 7:35 pm

       Agree with the access to R&D by business but don’t think the amount is necessary. Most businesses do R&D as a matter of course already. I’ve spent considerable time & money researching new products & markets over the years, some pays off & some doesn’t. It’s an expense that’s tax deductible and the payback comes from the increase in sales.

       I’d only personally need or want R&D funding to develop a new product or idea. That does cost big bucks but I’d expect to do most of the research myself first.

       I think it’s more the development we’re missing out on rather than the research. There’s no shortage of people with good ideas, there is a shortage of those ideas getting to market. We don’t appear to direct much R&D funding towards that area.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1

         19 May 2013 at 11:52 pm

         Most businesses do R&D as a matter of course already.

         Actually, I think you’ll find that most businesses don’t. That’s why Labour were going to give a tax credit to businesses that did.
         • Murray Olsen 4.2.1.1.1

           20 May 2013 at 12:36 am

           They do marketing research and product development. These are not fundamental research. Very, very few businesses do fundamental research and even government funding agencies are trying to move away from it.
       • tricledrown 4.2.1.2

         20 May 2013 at 11:41 am

         DH research has shown very few NZ companies spend very little money on R&D!
         Most NZ companies still rely solely on the old bean counting way of doing business of continually driving costs down!
         Your naivety around business understandings leads me to believe you have little or no experience in business and are just pulling ideas out of the blue to advance your poorly researched point of view!
         • DH 4.2.1.2.1

           20 May 2013 at 1:06 pm

           Run my own business for the last fifteen years. Done the research, spent the money and supplied goods & services to many other businesses who also did the research.

           SMEs are the most numerous type of business in NZ and they’re often owner operated. The owners in many cases are professionally qualified in something and they often do their own research. SMEs are a hothouse of ideas, it’s where most innovation originates. They also tend to be ignored by governments & statisticians because individually they’re not economically important or glamorous enough.

           Many of NZs most successful businesses started out as individuals & SMEs that kicked off from a good idea & solid research. Tait, Gallagher, Hamilton, Rakon, Ghost, Buckley… and plenty, plenty more. But hey, it’s not ‘fundamental’ research so I guess it doesn’t count huh, they just provide employment & pay taxes.
           • ghostrider888 4.2.1.2.1.1

             20 May 2013 at 1:13 pm

             and exports. some truth in the big picture of the last line; no one is indespensible.
           • Colonial Viper 4.2.1.2.1.2

             20 May 2013 at 1:14 pm

             Yeah sorry, if the point of your research programme is to turn a profit on a commercial timescale (say 5 years or less), then that severely limits the types of research that you will engage in.

             Also, any serious research requires minimum capital outlays of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at a very minimum, and I don’t see how many SMEs can justify that unless it is for near term product development and commercialisation (again on a 5 year or less timescale).
5. Ad 5

   19 May 2013 at 7:58 pm

   Does anyone remember the late, great Fast Forward Fund? I worked hard on it for one of the main Departments.

   It began as the bringing-together of the big pastoral players in shared frustration and common interest in research: DCANZ, Fonterra, etc etc. They could see common interest in increasing pastoral productivity. All the main Ministers turned up to that meeting of CE’s, and we got charged with turning it into something real.

   What was forged out of it was a massive $$ 1:1 fund that would boost research into pasture, soils, grasses, chemical minimization etc. By now it would have been a multi-billion dollar partnership that would have forged a vast research field connecting the CRI’s, the pastoral interests, the Universities with pastoral foci, and of course the state. The politics of this Fund, of course, was a way for Labour to forge a long-lasting bind with farmers. Something that had not been done since Supplementary Minimum Prices.

   In 2013 its a really, really bad case of coulda-woulda-shoulda.

   For a future government, forging a compact of common interest between the state, farmers, and the agricultural-industrial complex (and one that withstands the scrutiny of the WTO rules) remains the great missing link of our remaining manufacturing economy.

   Without such a lasting bind, Labour will be consigned to a declining number of poorer urban suburbs. With it, we begin to harness the state and the greatest part of our productive economy in to a common future.
   • xtasy 5.1

     20 May 2013 at 12:55 am

     Ad: I well remember “Fast Forward” `being announced, and as I try to remember, it was what Labour wanted to bring in before or after the 2008 election.

     Voters wanted tax cuts, get rid of rules on showerheads, wanted to see their beneficiary neighbours forced into servant labour, and have a new stigmatised underclass blamed for all the wrongs of society, so the large “middle class” fell for Key and his smiles, the smilin assassin and his promises to keep most of what Labour had introduced in policies (interest free student loan scheme, WFF and a few other things).

     They gullibly fell for the devil making promises, voted them in, and the first term only a few things were changed. But yes, scientific research funding was decimated at first, for the excuse of the GFC making it unaffordable. Other measures were introduced not compensating the large and generous scientific research funding, but they were only a patch up job, as far as I can recall.

     So with recent announcements National has only come a bit back to where things should be in regards of research and development, and I suppose, making better milk powder, baby formula and growing better or larger logs and fish to export for “enhancement” in China does not require that much research funding.

     Instead of investing smartly in the future early enough, we face a trend of only doing the least that is necessary to keep the ship afloat, kind of.

     Foreign students of value are already shunning many NZ institutes, as learning here is getting behind of what other countries do. Science is much talked about, but it deserves much more focus and spending than this government is willing to offer. I am astonished that Professor Gluckman is still serving as the ready fig leaf of the PM and his government. Maybe he is more concerned about his early retirement plan, than the sake of NZ science and the country?

     Too few businesses in NZ are paying attention to research and scientific development, as most are small and just try to survive with paying the bills week to week.

     NZ has sadly not been good at developing a truly significant science and development program, and that is seriously endangering the status of this country as supposed “first world” country.
6. red rattler 6

   20 May 2013 at 12:05 am

   The only research that makes sense today is blue sky research on how to stop global warming, and its effects (like how to survive radiation from damaged nuclear power stations) and of course in the strong likelihood that we fail, we need research into how to survive as long as possible before running out of oxygen and food.
   All the other stuff we already know or don’t need to know, unless we get a reprieve and have time on our hands to ponder further unknowns.
   • Murray Olsen 6.1

     20 May 2013 at 12:29 am

     We know what needs to be done. What’s lacking is the will to do it.
     Once things really hit, we’re right back in survival mode and we won’t be able to afford universities. We’ll be too busy looking for water and edible roots.
7. xtasy 7

   20 May 2013 at 1:05 am

   I would dare to say that National is actually “highly innovative” in certain areas, and one of the is poverty creating, marginalisation also comes to mind. They are true experts in those fields, and they do all to disincentivise people above 40 to even contemplate post grad study now, and once you are older, 60 or 65 I hear, you belong to the scrap heap. That is a great message, while they want to keep retirement incomes ensured for those from that age. Go and retire early, get your income paid by WINZ and shut up. I have nothing wrong with the present retirement age, but hey, do we not perhaps need to think a bit smarter and reward people that may be able to and willing to do an extra effort, to learn more and provide to society?

   As the student loan scheme is maintained, but many get their limitations set to not spend more than 120 hours on studying, or they will lose student allowances, and while the government now plans to arrest suspected defaulters on arrival at airports, what is the real message by this government.

   The message is: Go overseas, study and work there, forget where you come from, and look after your future, which will not be in New Zealand.

   Excuse, me, but how damned stupid is that? We already have about 50 thousand leave this peace of earth, that should deserve much better, to go to Australia and elsewhere just to survive on better wages and salaries. Do they want to drive the rest out now, that may have potential to study and be learned?

   I cannot believe what goes on in New Zealand, I an struggling to find any country and government of it more short sighted and stupid. But there you have it: National is just that, right? Get another TUI board erected, for a good cause. Donations welcome, at the departure lounge, for those that need to get up and switch the light off, before leaving also.
   • xtasy 7.1

     20 May 2013 at 5:23 pm

     “As the student loan scheme is maintained, but many get their limitations set to not spend more than 120 hours on studying…”

     Sorry, a mistake sneaked into that sentence I used. 120 weeks, I believe, it is supposed to be.
8. xtasy 8

   20 May 2013 at 1:12 am

   Adding to my post above: National under Key and his pet girl Paula Bennett did just do one other thing, to ensure “innovation” to keep people locked into poverty and on benefits. They made sure the Training Incentive Allowance was cut as soon as they got their hands on the steering wheel in government. Sole parents that dared to raise issues were “shut up” by privacy breaching revelations about how much the tax payer paid them weekly.

   So they continue to support those learning to read and count, fair enough, that is a priority, but anything like level 3 or higher is “too damned academic”. So no nursing, teaching or other skills are supported. Go and get a student loan, suffer and pay extra, to study, if you are so damned determined to better yourselves.

   That is what Nats think about “helping” people on benefits.

   Now wait for the next round, with reforms to kick in in mid July, where sick and disabled will be chased off their wheel chairs, beds and out of their homes, to compete with the fit and healthy for jobs on the “open” market.

   They tried this in the UK, with bizarre, draconian new work capacity assessments, and over 1,100 died in much of 2011 alone, not coping or committing suicide.

   Welcome to the “innovation” to enforce and maintain poverty and social injustice, NatACT are the experts, for sure. Thank you Bennett and Key, we will count the victims.
9. MakereSH 9

   20 May 2013 at 2:24 am

   @DH, you’re economics is self-serving, antiquated, and will not take anything or anyone into a sustainable future, however or by whatever approach you define sustainable. You, and others, need to wake up.
   Yes I too am barking mark if you like, I’m also fairly intelligent, I’d also rather be at home contributing to a decent standard of life based on a sustainable economic, social and political model which has decent human values of collectivity as its basis. .@red ratter, there is a straightforward answer to that which you’re not going to like.. The blue skies research was done, and confines, we are unable now to stop global warming as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere now will ensure that warming continues for a long Tim even f you threw all your petrol-driven engines over the cliff tomorrow, which I most strongly recommend that you do, by the way.. So we need to be engaged furiously in mitigation which means for instance massive replacing and Eco-system restoration, NOT carbon trading or geoengineering, etc, @ Xtasy – yes indeed, @Murray, goes without saying.. Good god everyone, get off the grass and get rid of that damned Tory govt while we still have a shred of a country, then lets get to work. Oh, that means collectively…
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     20 May 2013 at 1:20 pm

     Massive mitigation schemes sound good…until you calculate the amount of energy and economic activity that will require. Want to build a new higher sea wall? How much concrete will that take? How much CO2 released in the production of that concrete? And how much diesel burnt by the construction equipment erecting the wall?

     I’ll put it another way – unless people start talking about massive decreases in daily fossil fuel energy use (say 50% or so), decreases which are going to crimp modern lifestyles noticeably – mitigation is not going to be effective.
10. DH 10

    20 May 2013 at 1:40 pm

    “@DH, you’re economics is self-serving, antiquated, and will not take anything or anyone into a sustainable future, however or by whatever approach you define sustainable. You, and others, need to wake up.”

    I’m just a realist with feet firmly planted in the ground. NZ is a democracy and people are inherently selfish. They’re not going to willingly give up their comfortable lives & material goods for you, me or anyone else. I stopped chasing rainbows when I grew up and saw the world for what it is.

    Democracy is a killer of ideals. To change the world you need majority vote and the majority of voters don’t want the world to change. Bit of a catch-22 there isn’t it. Do you spend a lifetime as the 1-5 percent ‘morallly right’ but achieving nothing of substance or do you moderate your views to get the votes?
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      20 May 2013 at 1:46 pm

      NZ is a democracy and people are inherently selfish.

      Nah that’s just you.

      Broader sociological research disagrees with you 100%.

      Good to see you make the argument for elite right of rule though, at least you don’t hide your authoritarian preferences.
11. muzza 11

    20 May 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Again with the discussing soutions, without addressing the core problem!

    That of, manufactured monetary scarcity!

    Clapping at thunder would produce a better outcome, meantime NZ inc is being plundered, and the futures of those left behind, looking increasingly grim!

    Must be a heap of people on this site without kids, or financially/economically illiterate to the contraints NZ is under while participating in the *global economy*, or perhaps its denial!
    • kiwicommie 11.1

      20 May 2013 at 5:27 pm

      Blackadder – S03E03 – Nob and Nobility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA7n1QvjZ_g
      The ‘paris collection’ looks fairly similar to what the poor in NZ wear these days.

Links to post

1. Political science - The Standard: posted on 20 May 2013 at 7:21 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS