Business R&D gets $234m budget boost - but with hooks
Research, science and technology will be one of the major recipients of $225 million in new funding in the 2010 budget, Prime Minister John Key said today.
There are catches, however.
A business must have revenue over $3 million and spend more than 5% of that revenue on research and development to qualify for a 20% tax break on R&D spending.
The immediate online reaction from entrepreneur Lance Wiggs, one of the founders of Pacific Fibre, after scanning background documents: "So far I am not a fan. It seems painful." (Read more of Mr Wiggs' critique here.)
"The Budget will focus squarely on building faster and sustainable economic growth - it's the only way we can create the jobs, higher incomes and the better living standards New Zealanders deserve," Mr Key said.
"Research, science and technology will help us achieve that goal.
"In February, I said that science and innovation would be a priority for this government and today's announcement backs that up."
Of the total allocation of $321 million for new initiatives over the next four years, $225 million is new funding and $96 million is reprioritised funding.
Some $44 million will go on expanding research infrastructure, with Mr Key name-checking the AUT University-driven Square Kilometre Array (SKA) bid in his speech today announcing the measures (read transcript here).
New Zealand has joined Australia in its bid to win the right to build this megascience project, which will come with a $4 billion price tag (to be shared by all international partners).
The centrepiece of the funding increase is a $234 million boost for support for business research and development over four years.
This includes:
- $189.5 million over four years for technology development grants to support R&D in businesses that already do significant amounts of R&D
- $20 million over four years to trial technology transfer vouchers, which will encourage links between companies and publicly-funded research organisations
- $11 million over four years to support technology transfer from research organisations to businesses and commercialisation of new products and processes
- $13.7 million over four years in contingency funding for initiatives to improve the transfer of technology from research organisations to the private sector
The other major new initiatives are:
- $25 million over four years for the Rutherford Discovery Fellowships which will support early to mid-career researchers
- $9 million over three years, starting in 2011/12 to attract top science entrepreneurial talent to New Zealand
- $44.3 million over four years in contingency funding for proposed large-scale science infrastructure, subject to cabinet approval.
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit















Comments and questions1
1) The exclusion of smaller entities is a real defect.
2) The vouchers might be useful for some entities who don't yet have any proper R&D, but are a waste of time for those who are already active with R&D as they would want to deal with the most appropriate counterparty anywhere in the world, not just be limited to a NZ CRI or University because it is subsidised. Frankly much of the CRI competency and output is very sub-standard (but not all...)
3) They are "retaining the existing TechNZ grants, which provide for 50% funding of a particular project ... and we are keen to continue with them, albeit with a sharper focus."
If this sharper focus means that the bureaucrats will have more power in deciding what is funded then we are going backwards. They haven't been able to pick winners so far and that won't change. The funding decisions should be very neutral. If owners are willing to fund 50% of a project then what basis does FRST have to say that it isn't worth funding?
4) "$11 million over 4 years to establish a national network of commercialisation centres" will probably be wasted. The CRIs and Universities are already crawling with business development groups, who don't achieve a lot because in many cases the underlying science isn't wanted by the market or has no significant value.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below