Review and views on the RSI Green Paper

“Te Aranga Paerangi – Future Pathways”

Allan Main, Principal, MAINly Consulting Ltd

All opinions expressed here are the author’s personal views and should not be attributed to any other party or entity.

Introduction

The Labour Government, provided with a sweeping mandate to govern at the last election, has shown itself to be unusually daring in 2021 in pursuing fundamental reform of several public institutions. First the Ministry of Health announced a major plan to condense administration of the health and disability system into a single centralised agency, and to substantially rejig the Ministry. Shortly thereafter the “3 Waters” proposal was announced to centralise responsibility for our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater networks into a central government agency. Most recently, in late October the Minister of Research and Science, Hon Dr Megan Woods and her Associate Minister, Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall released their Government Green Paper “Te Aranga Paerangi – Future Pathways”(1) which presumes to review New Zealand’s Research Science and Innovation (RSI) system. If we have grown accustomed to inertia in New Zealand government then 2021 seems to be the year of breaking that habit. The first two plans have precipitated no small amount of controversy. Can we expect the same from this third announcement?

RSI in review – again

The Government signalled the RSI review through declaring(2) that our “30-year-old RSI system needs to modernise to meet future requirements”. That statement provides something of a half-truth as this is not the first review of the publicly funded RSI system in 30 years as implied in that declaration. Back in 2009 the Government of the day commissioned an independent taskforce to review the performance of CRI’s. Their report, published in February 2010(3) was driven to resolve a significant number of the same issues (poor clarity on institutional roles, destructive competition, poor collaboration performance with unreliable and unsustainable funding) that the current ministers cite to precipitate this next re-evaluation. In today’s case the government has opened its door to review through the vehicle of this green paper, an approach touted as a “no commitment” position paper for general consultation. In this instance the Minister is at pains to advise “The outcomes of this process will be informed by your input: we have no pre-commitment to specific solutions”. In short, a Green Paper provides an opportunity to fly some kites in order that political palatability can be determined without losing face if a backtrack proves sensible. At 43 pages, as government papers go it is not a particularly lengthy tome but there is something about its style that makes it a challenging read, unresponsive to skim reading. There is an awkward and disjointed flow that demands it be read with close attention. This is not a document for dipping in and out of by adventitious grazing.

Scope of document

So what scope does the paper traverse? An executive highlights summary would embody the 43 pages in these brief statements of intent:

• Setting Priorities – Providing a set of national research priorities to direct research to national needs with ministers and ministries having a more direct role in determining big picture science ambitions;

• Funding Reform – Looking for funding mechanisms that provide greater reliability and continuity for CRI’s, possibly by directly funding institutional fixed costs with variable costs recovered through project funding;

• Workforce – Providing enhanced career pathways for researchers within a system of well-ordered research institutions (extending to include universities);

• Infrastructure – More efficient use of research assets through co-location or shared use of infrastructure resources between all parts of the research and education system with potential scope for consolidation, potentially rationalising the number of CRI’s;

• Te Tiriti – Placing Maori and Te Tiriti front and centre in science funding decisions and direction.

The latter point provides a strong backbone theme to this straw man. If the focus of a document can be informed by the density of keyword use, then the frequency of Maori-related terms indicates the priority this aspect is accorded by government in performance of the review. While defining terms like “research” (660 occurrences) and “system” (256 occurrences) show the greatest prevalence, amongst qualifying terms “Maori” (162 occurrences), “matauranga” (62 occurrences) and “Te Tiriti” (61 occurrences) show the strongest presence. These compare with “CRI(s)/Crown Research Institute(s)” (89 occurrences), researcher(s) (56 occurrences) and “funding” (135 occurrences) holding lesser mention. It appears from that metric that the government intends that this review will bring a strong lens to integrating the Maori voice into the science system as a top priority.

Of specific interest to this audience, the term “food” receives just six mentions.

Notably the paper includes collections and databases alongside facilities and equipment as critical components of the RSI infrastructure and the review extends to include how these can be better supported to make them more efficiently and effectively applied to research and to inform national action.

A notable exclusion

At an early juncture this thesis addresses what is not in scope. Central to that consideration is that the review is bounded by the RSI Ministerial vote, that is, to the public-funded research infrastructure, primarily the Crown Research Institutes and the research components of Callaghan Innovation. Thus the university research system, as funded through the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), is out of bounds. Accepting the convenience of the boundaries of ministerial budget vote to define boundaries, this limitation assumes an erroneous construct that universities are predominantly about education. That overlooks a point made in the cabinet paper(4), but not in this green paper, which observed that there had been a significant shift in the institutions performing publicly-funded research since the CRI’s were established in 1992. Prior to the formation of the CRI entities, research at educational institutions (primarily universities) was funded at about two-thirds the amount of crown-owned research institutions. In parallel with Government research funding growth (increasing by around 75% since 2010) the balance in funding has also shifted such that universities now receive 25% more public research funding than do CRI’s. So it seems irrational to analyse a science research “system” but ignore the largest component of that system.

A functioning system operates as a unitary whole and not as a mélange of its subsidiary parts. So if the Government’s true intent is to provide a review of an operational science system it would require that the entirety of that system be included in its evaluation. To do otherwise invites erroneous conclusions and inappropriate responses. As the Government’s own RSI strategy document(5) observed in 2019, “Our (research) system consists of around 20,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) researchers (not including students), around 4,000 R&D performing businesses (with many more reporting innovation), eight Universities, seven Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), and many independent research organisations, business accelerators and incubators, and other support functions.” To isolate a relatively small portion of that complex system for detached scrutiny in the guise of a system review is like a doctor performing a health check-up by intensively studying the patient’s right hand. Far better that government mimic the approach it seeks to encourage in the research system and conduct a cross-ministry collaboration to diagnose the entire patient that is the NZ RSI system.

Establishing focus

A further key plank of the paper is to consider an approach of directing funding through mid- to long-term national priorities with these collective areas identifying where research (in its broad guise) offers substantial future impact on New Zealand’s well-being – social, economic and environmental. This approach is intended to bring focus, purpose and funding stability along with greater impact. An analogy is drawn with the current National Science Challenges (NSC’s) where cross-system collaboration is deemed to have been substantially enhanced by providing a challenging but clear mission to be collectively accomplished. Like the NSC’s, the green paper suggests that each research priority would have a discrete dedicated funding allocation. To exemplify the characteristics of themes intended to be prioritised the paper suggests Climate Change, Infectious Diseases, Fresh water, Food and Advanced Manufacturing as potential priority science platforms. In short these are big grunty matters with deep and substantial impact. Within the context of prioritisation the paper observes that research priorities could focus on a problem (e.g., pollution), an opportunity (e.g., alternative proteins), a technology (e.g., CRISPR), a mission (e.g., space) or a field of research (e.g., soil science). Many who read those words will infer that this approach is one step too close to the government “picking winners”, a taboo long out-of-bounds for government intervention.

Consultation

Back in 2019 government set a goal(6) to raise R&D expenditure from the 1.3% recorded in 2017 to two per cent of GDP by 2027. This Green Paper is the next step in the Government’s effort to make that happen, with this exercise focusing on improving the publicly funded science infrastructure. It is a brave initiative, but not as brave as it would have been had the scope extended to the entirety of the national research science and innovation system. This consultation initiates a multi-year review and response programme. Written submissions on this Green Paper will be open until 02 March, 2022 with a set of in-depth workshops slated for early 2022 to inform respondents. From there, Cabinet will determine the options for further consideration for implementation based on written submissions to the paper. That will trigger another consultation round to enhance the detail of preferred options. Only after that process will an implementation plan be effected. Ministers Woods and Verrall jointly encourage all who engage with the RSI system, whether in performance of, or reliance on research activities, to provide their input to the review. There are many questions posed in need of well-informed deliberations that are best framed from the ground up. Perhaps you can take the paper on summer holiday with you and provide your insights from a more relaxed frame of mind! References

1. NZ Government Green Paper, October 28, 2021: “ Te Ara Paerangi – Future Pathways Green Paper 2021” (available at https://www.mbie. govt.nz/dmsdocument/17637-future-pathways-green-paper accessed 20/11/2021) 2. Government Press Release, October 28, 2021: “30-year-old RSI system to modernise” (available at https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ release/30-year-old-rsi-system-modernise accessed 20/11/2021)

3. Report of the Crown Research Institute Taskforce, February 2010: “How to enhance the value of New Zealand’s investment in Crown Research Institutes” (available at https://www.mbie.govt. nz/assets/7502750043/how-to-enhance-the-value-report-of-the-critaskforce.pdf accessed 22/11/2021)

4. MBIE Cabinet Paper, 28 October, 2021: “Future Pathways for the Research, Science and Innovation System” (available at https:// www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/17664-future-pathways-for-theresearch-science-and-innovation-system-proactiverelease-pdf accessed 20/11/2021)

5. NZ Government Consultation Paper, September 2019: “New Zealand’s Research, Science & Innovation Strategy” (available at https://www. mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/6935-new-zealands-research-scienceand-innovation-strategy-draft-for-consultation accessed 22/11/2021)

6. NZ Government Press Release, 1 March 2019: “R&D rising but greater acceleration needed” (available at https://www.beehive.govt. nz/release/rd-rising-greater-acceleration-needed accessed 22/11/2021)

Declaration of interest: While the author has written this article in his capacity as an independent consultant Food Technologist, in the interests of full disclosure he declares that he is employed part-time by the Crown Research Institute Plant & Food Research. The article provides the personal views of the author and should not be attributed to any other party or institution.