The Problem with Government Science and Innovation Policy – Simon Wilson

“Trust the science,” she said at one point, and that’s not a bad mantra. A government that trusts the science, with the right rigor, transparency, and ethical standards, would do a good job.

But Collins’ enthusiasm couldn’t hide the fact that she had told the audience almost nothing of substance. They were polite about it, but the room was perplexed.

We are pleased with our scientific and technological skills in this country and we think that being at the edge of the world gives us a special power. “RocketLab!” enthused the minister, who is also the world’s only minister for space.

And yes, we do have innovative companies and institutions, but they are often not big enough or big enough. In the inaugural State of the City report, released last August, Auckland scored just 3 out of 10 for innovation: the lowest score of any city we compared our performance with.

Funding for innovation here was about half that in Melbourne, Singapore and Sydney.

Similarly, the country as a whole performed well in the Global Innovation Index published last November. New Zealand came 27th overall, down three places from a year earlier, while we came 39th in our knowledge and technology scores and 31st in our market sophistication.

Unsophisticated! You would think this would be embarrassing for business and government.

This underperformance is not due to a lack of ideas. In 2022, Koi Tū, the Informed Futures Centre led by Sir Peter Gluckman and based at the University of Auckland, published Reimagining Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, a report that outlined several options to “realise the region’s potential”.

One of these was to become an “innovation city” and there were many suggestions on how to do this. However, almost none of the recommendations and observations in these reports were taken seriously by either this or the previous government.

Quite the opposite. More than 350 science jobs have been lost this year, with more cuts on the way. Universities New Zealand chief executive Chris Whelan warned last week of a “catastrophic” outcome if the government fails to commit to current funding levels for his sector, something it has not done so far.

It’s not the government’s fault, but it’s a problem the government needs to solve. Collins was introduced at the meeting by Mark Spencer, chairman of the Committee for Auckland (CfA) and CEO of Beca Consulting. He referred to CfA research that shows private sector R&D funding trails government funding.

Collins’s response was grim. “The only way we can move forward is through innovation,” she said. “And that requires money. And there isn’t any.”

Different point of view: Oliver Hartwich on foreign investments in the technology sector.

Time is running out. Statistics NZ says a record 52,500 citizens made net emigration in the year to March 2024. And 39% of those emigrating are aged 18-30.

In her speech, Collins spoke glowingly of the S&T commitments of Ireland, Austria, Denmark and Estonia. She could have added Israel, Switzerland, Singapore and other Nordic countries. But we do almost nothing about what makes these economies work, not only in terms of supporting innovation but also in terms of tax, social and infrastructure planning.

And above all in wages. We have a low-wage economy and if we don’t change that, all the enthusiasm in the world for technology and innovation will remain a fantasy. Young people will go where they can earn good money.

On the subject of “trusting the science”, Collins’s top ministers, Simon Watts and Chris Penk, last week slammed the idea.

Watts, the Climate Change Minister, has released his draft Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) which reveals that we will meet our 2025 and 2030 targets, but that is because of the policies of the previous government. We are on track to miss our 2035 and 2050 targets.

Watts’ plan relies on “breakthrough technologies” to reduce emissions and offset emissions by planting trees and buying credits abroad. This means that as far as ordinary citizens and businesses are concerned, we don’t have to change anything we do. Agriculture will remain outside the scope of the Emissions Trading Scheme for a long time yet.

This is dangerous. New technologies will of course offer solutions, but they are unlikely to be magic bullets. For example, Watts is keen on slow-release methane inhibitors for livestock, but the Climate Change Commission warns that a viable version of this solution may not be available until 2039.

Relying on technology at some point in the future undermines efforts to reduce emissions now and supports deniers around the world. “Science will save us” is the excuse of the day for people who believe there is no climate crisis: people who, by and large, have openly denied climate change science for years.

Besides, government is not based on science.

If that were the case, they wouldn’t scrap the clean car standard or the clean car rebate or eliminate subsidies for companies that want to adopt clean energy. ERP says these policies will increase our emissions by 5.7 megatons (5.7 million tons) by 2030.

However, the introduction of 10,000 fast chargers for electric vehicles will save only 0.01 Mt.

A megatonne of emissions is equivalent to nine million petrol car journeys from Auckland to Wellington.

ERP says lifting the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration could mean an increase in emissions of 51 Mt by 2050.

Watts, like all ministers, says the economy is in too much trouble to do more. But the longer we wait to integrate economic and environmental goals, the more expensive it will be.

And if we miss the 2035 target, it will cost the country many billions of dollars. Not just because we will have to buy carbon credits, but because our free trade agreements with Europe and the UK require us to meet the target.

The government’s economic excuses for not doing more are very bad economics.

Penk, the housing minister, has announced he wants to move away from the H1 home insulation standard introduced just last year.

In its flagrant disregard for public health, public opinion, economic efficiency and scientific evidence, this idea ranks alongside Deputy Health Minister Casey Costello’s repeal of tobacco reform and Transport Minister Simeon Brown’s intention to raise speed limits.

The new insulation standard is expected to cut heating bills by 40% and reduce hospital admissions and greenhouse gas emissions, while adding only about $15,000 to the cost of a typical new build. But Penk said some builders have told him the new rules make homes too expensive and “too warm.”

The industry was quick to correct him, with Certified Builders chief executive Malcolm Fleming saying the minister “appears to have been told the costs were three times higher than they actually were, confusing building a $3 million house with building an ordinary house”.

Fleming wondered whether the minister was aware of the significant investment that the government and industry had made to prepare for the new standards last May. Manufacturers, for example, had invested heavily in new plants and machinery to produce windows with high thermal efficiency.

Richard Arkinstall of the Insulation Association said: “Insulation accounts for around 1.2-1.4% of the total cost of building a new home, but its impact is significant. Properly installed insulation can deliver a return on investment of $4 for every $1 spent through energy savings for families struggling with the cost of living, better health, fewer sick days and fewer visits to the doctor.”

He also said: “Insulation cannot overheat a home – only solar gain and artificial heating keep homes warm. If it is cold outside, insulation keeps the heat in. Similarly, if it is hot outside, insulation keeps the cold air in, reducing heating and cooling energy costs.”

James Biscaldi of the Institute of Building Surveyors also weighed in. “Rolling back insulation standards is not the answer,” he said. “Instead, we need to focus on educating our builders and industry professionals to ensure compliance and efficiency.”

It’s great that Collins is a fan of scientific and technical innovation. But is the lack of government engagement surprising when some of her colleagues show such little respect for scientific evidence? Is this playtime in the Cabinet? They’re like a herd of Teddy Bears with Very Small Brains.