The vexed issue of AgResearch's restructuring of its operations continues to provoke strong feelings on both sides of the divide with Auditor-general Lyn Provost weighing into the debate this week.
In response to a complaint from Labour MPs David Clark, Clare Curran and David Parker, Ms Provost visited Invermay, near Mosgiel, in February with a senior member of staff.
In her subsequent report, Ms Provost wrote her office was impressed with the standard of the newest buildings and the campus grounds.
She appreciated the history of the campus, its place in the local and regional economy and the considerable sense of attachment felt by staff, ex-staff and others in the community.
However, she noted most of the buildings were under-used, giving her the impression of the challenging decisions AgResearch must make to best manage its science capability and physical resources.
It was outside her mandate to second-guess the management decisions, Ms Provost wrote.
And there is the nub of the problem for both AgResearch and the local community affected by the decision of the Government-controlled entity.
If the buildings had been better utilised by AgResearch capitalising on the research capabilities in Otago, particularly at the University of Otago, would the restructuring process be a different one?
If, instead of the facility seemingly being run down, a push towards an expansion in the South could have made a huge difference to the region.
There has been much debate on whether it would have been more efficient for AgResearch to build its Invermay capability, rather than centralising its South Island operations at Lincoln University and its North Island operations at Palmerston North.
Despite claims to the contrary from AgResearch chief executive Tom Richardson, some Invermay staff have left, and some of those who remain feel nervous and anxious about their future.
Some are plain angry about the consultation process they see as being one way or the highway.
The Government has managed to quell some opposition in the region by pouring money into the University of Otago - a key stakeholder in the future of Invermay - for other research projects.
Recently, the university received a $14.6 million confirmation it is at the cutting-edge of health science research - and there could be more to come.
The university was awarded the lead role in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's fifth National Health Challenge - Ageing Well.
The promise of more to come will dampen protests about the loss of senior and experienced researchers from Invermay.
Looking at Ms Provost's response to the Labour MPs, she was far from totally critical of AgResearch, despite saying more work needs to be done in the business case for the $100 million restructuring.
The October 2012 business case was sufficient to support decisions to move to the next stages of Future Footprint planning, but an update business case is now needed, she said.
The Labour MPs alleged staff are walking because of a botched restructuring process, but Ms Provost found while there had been a small reduction in the number of AgResearch's scientists and technicians between 2011 and 2014, the reduction was not inconsistent with the overall trend in the Crown Research Institute sector.
Dr Clark, Labour's economic development spokesman and Dunedin North MP, responded by saying the auditor-general's report was evidence AgResearch is playing fast and loose with taxpayers' money.
Sheep farmers across New Zealand, as well as scientists and local residents who have been campaigning for Invermay to be retained in the South, will find reason to hope in this letter from Ms Provost.
Not surprisingly, Dr Richardson had a different view, saying the letter was an endorsement of the restructuring process.
Sadly, it is becoming increasingly unlikely a resolution that is satisfactory to the people of the South about the perplexing restructuring of Invermay will be forthcoming.
