May 7, 2025 • 45 mins
Reuben Davidson, Labour’s new spokesperson for science, innovation, technology, broadcasting and the creative economy, isn’t shy about the scale of the challenges facing New Zealand’s high-value sectors, or the damage he says the current government is doing.
In this week’s episode of The Business of Tech, the former TV producer, who won the Christchurch East seat in the 2023 general election, is scathing of the coalition Government’s approach to science and innovation, particularly funding cuts and redundancies, and the “rolling change” that’s left researchers and innovators in limbo.
“It feels very much to me… that this is a crisis that’s been created. If it’s unintentional, then that doesn’t make it any better,” he told me on the podcast.
So what would Labour do differently? Tune in to find out on The Business of Tech featuring Labour MP Reuben Davidson in his first major interview on science, innovation and media.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to the Business of Tech powered by two Degrees Business.
I'm Peter Griffin from Business Desk and on this week's episode,
we're surveying the science and innovation landscape from the other
side of the political isle. Labour MP for christ Church
East Reuben Davidson has been in Parliament since late in
twenty twenty three, and a few months ago was given
(00:24):
a rather attractive and important collection of shadow portfolios, including Science,
Technology and Innovation and Broadcasting, Media and a Creative Economy.
As you'd expect, Davidson isn't very impressed with the Coalition
government's approach in these policy areas, particularly in what Labour
sees as destructive and indiscriminate cuts in funding for science
(00:47):
and innovation. Labour's also starting to formulate some ideas on
artificial intelligence policy. It held in AI summit recently in
Wellington to gather ideas on how to regulate AI and
promote its use among businesses, with the Labor Party leader
Chris Hopkins opening that forum. Ruben Davidson also has written
(01:10):
a private member's bill, which so far hasn't been selected
for introduction into Parliament, but which would impose a small
video on demand levy basically a digital tax on the
big foreign streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney
Plus and Apple TV. The revenue generated from that levy
(01:34):
on those platform providers, which Davidson points out pay very little,
if any local tax, would go into a local content
fund to help the local production industry, which is where
Davidson has spent most of his career as a TV
producer of shows including What Now. So a lot of
groundcovered in this interview with Ruben Davidson, who, let's face it,
(01:56):
by the end of next year, could be the man
in charge of science, tech and broadcasting policy.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Here's the interview.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Rubin Davidson. Welcome to the business of tech. How are
you doing.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
I'm doing very well. Thank you for having me, Thank you.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
For the invitation, pleasure to have you on and great
to connect. You were elected to Parliament in October twenty
twenty three, succeeding Poto Williams. Bit of a bittersweet I
guess victory for you. That was a pretty bad election
for labor. You were one of the only new I
think Labor MPs to come in in that cohort.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Yeah, yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
It was not the result that we had hoped for
and there were two of us that came in, so
myself and christ your cheest and Kushla Tonguaden Manuel in
koradafty one of the Maori seats, the only Maori seat
that we won in the North Island. So yeah, we've
given ourselves the title of head boy and head girl.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Good on you. You you were born in christ Church, you
live in I think North New Brighton at the moment. Yeah,
and so tell us a little bit for listeners who
aren't so familiar with your background, your pathway into politics,
but also your professional career, what you were doing beforehand.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Yeah sure, so, I mean my background is in broadcasting
and media. So when I finished school, did a degree
a Bachelor of Broadcasting Communications and men started working for
TV inzt Up in Auckland, so initially as an intern,
and that was back in the days when there was
a lot of internal production within TV inst so a
(03:40):
really good opportunity to work across a number of shows,
a number of very different shows in fact, anything from
Maggie's Garden Show to Big Brother to Music Week to Havoc,
so a real mixed bag and at times working on
two shows at the same time, two very different shows
at the same time, so a great a great time
(04:03):
to work in television, a real contrast to the environment
that media is operating in now. And then I left
TVNZ after about four and a half five years and
came back to christ Church, which is my hometown, and
took up a job working for White Bait Media as
an associate producer on What Now. And that was a
(04:26):
great opportunity to really join together. At that point in time,
pretty new tech which allowed us to broadcast from just
about anywhere with two people and a satellite dish and
a crew of three.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
We'd now be able to do better with.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Our phone, but at the time it was really exciting
to be able to meet local people, local children, local
small towns around New Zealand into mainstream media and onto
What Now, and I spent the next eighteen years at
White Bait. I went on to produce Now and then
I went into content development, so developing ideas, pitching them
(05:05):
up to networks, getting them funded and then producing them ultimately,
so anything from the Adam and Eve Show through to
f Animals, and when I finished up, the last show
I worked on was Brainbusters, so essentially the Chase for kids.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, and in about twenty nineteen you served on the
community board down there. So what triggered your desire to
get into politics.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Look, I mean I've probably always been a relatively politically
active person, and I would encourage others to be the same.
But I mean at high school, I was on school
board of trustees, so I was quite politically active at
that point in time. That was motivated by the fact
that teachers were allowed to smoke at school, but students weren't.
I wasn't a smoker, but I thought that seemed pretty unfair.
(05:56):
So eventually no one was allowed to smoke at school,
which maybe really popular with the teachers. But I went
on to you just volunteer over the years for different
campaigns or you know, over different elections, and then I
started to get more formally involved and got elected into
(06:20):
local bodies. So being on a community board and then
becoming the chair of a community board there was a really,
really good opportunity to serve a community that I loved
being part of, but also to get a really good
grounding and understanding of the difference between management, which is
what I've done a lot in television and governance.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Which is what the community board role ultimately was.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
And I also had had the opportunity from that governance
perspective to also sit on the Sparta Board and that
was a really, really good chance to engage with fellow
practitioners in the industry but also with different levels of
government industry around what the needs were at a time
(07:03):
when we could see that there was trouble on the
horizon and ultimately that's the trouble that's hit us now
in the media space.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Yeah, and we will get into that because you do.
You sort of have the dream collection of portfolios. From
my perspective, You've got science, technology and innovation as well
as broadcasting, media and the creative economy. So huge synergies
between all of those. Obviously, on the broadcasting media, creative
economy stuff, you've got a huge depth of knowledge there.
(07:36):
You totally understand the TV production industry, which is a
huge flux at the moment. How do you feel about
taking on that science innovation We've seen Judith Collins, Shane Retti,
David Clark from Labor, Megan Woods was in that role
for a while. Some of them have had some science background,
(07:57):
some of them haven't. Do you need it for a
portfolio like Science and Innovation, you know.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
It's it's an enormous privilege and I'm hugely, hugely excited
by the by the by both portfolios, but by all
elements of each of them as well. I'm pleased to
say that you don't have to be a scientist to
hold the Science portfolio. And I will be the first
person to tell you I'm definitely not a scientist, but
(08:23):
you do have to understand science and ultimately to have
and I do an enormous amount of respect for those
people who work in that sector and the importance and
the value of the work that they do in the
sciences and from the field trips I've had so far,
the conversations and engagement that I've had with with our
(08:44):
science community so far, I'm absolutely amazed and inspired by
the work that they're doing and the is you know.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
The value that that work has.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
For yes, financially, but also from an environmental and from
a community perspective. It's amazing to see the kind of Yeah,
the kind of work that's taking place in that space
of New Zealand or has.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Been Yeah, and through that lends I guess your predecessor
in that sort of portfolio. Doctor Deborah Russell was quite
critical in December off the cuts to the Milestone fund,
taking humanities and social science, you know, out of that
funding bucket. Labor's been quite critical of the cuts to
(09:37):
scientists in the in the public sector. You know, around
about five hundred jobs between people going from Callahan University
job CRI job, so Labour's been quite vocal about that.
But you know, reflecting on the last few years of
Labour's approach to science and innovation, you know, my take
on it would be that I think Labor left it
way too late in its second term in government to
(10:00):
really get the ball rolling on some of its changes
in this space. You had the Green Paper, the Future Pathways,
you know, solid piece of work, but never came to
fruition before the election and it was sort of dismantled
by the you know, the Coalition government. You had the
Industry Transformation Plan, you had Agritech, Digital Advanced Manufacturing. Some
(10:24):
really good work went into all of that, but again,
because it was left late in the sort of second term,
it was very easy for National to come in and
say no, we're just going to do away with that
as well. Do you think that on reflection, was a
real problem for your predecessors that they had some big ideas,
they saw the need to change, but they left it
(10:44):
a little bit too late.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Yeah, there's a couple couple of things there, really, I guess.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I mean, I wasn't there in that in that previous term,
our most recent term and government. But I think we're
all aware that there were a number of things that
no one must expect to happen, and that to a
large extent made it really difficult to do some of
the things that would have been good and that that
(11:10):
had been desired to happen, and that certainly change in
this space in our science sector was one of those things.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
But I think, on balance, I'm very.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
Proud of the legacy that that government has and at
the response to COVID that that we rolled out, I
think that was remarkable. I think what we're what we've
seen in this current government's approach, and I share, you know,
the previous spokesperson, Debrah's sentiments on this. We've seen a
(11:43):
very destabilizing approach and we're in the media sector, we
can see that there was a crisis that we were
heading toward. It feels very much to me in the
science sector that this is a this is a crisis
that's been created so and I'm not suggesting necessary that
that's intentional, but if it's unintentional, then that doesn't also
(12:07):
make it any better.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I think there's.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Been a huge level of uncertainty that's been created through
the change and the cuts, and I think that one
of the things that struck me from my first visit
with the new portfolio was that science and our science
community don't work to the electoral cycle. There's a long,
(12:33):
long valuable projects and when you see a pendulum swing
as extreme as the one that we've seen in this
first eighteen months of this government, and the uncertainty that
that's created in the science sector, it's immensely destabilizing to
projects underway, but also to the workforce overall. That's too
(12:57):
people who are in New Zealand, internationals in New Zealand
assisting with research. It's two New Zealand residents who are
part of that science community and just aren't sure anymore
whether there's viable work for them. And it also has
a really detrimental effect to people who are considering science
as a future career and as a future opportunity and
(13:20):
some of the great and incredibly valuable jobs that exist
in that science sector really lose the viability that they
had because so much uncertainty is created.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Yeah, it's devastating for my colleagues in the science sector
who I talked to, you know, considering literally going for
greener pastures. Although the US has its own problems with
its science secret at the moment with the Doge knife
being wielded through there. So this is by no means
(13:55):
a New Zealand thing. But the headcount has gone down,
budgets have been in science. But you did recognize labor,
you know, years ago that change, structural change needed to
happen to how we do science and innovation. Our R
and D spend isn't increasing the way it should be.
Our Crown Research Institute weren't really working effectively together. Our
(14:19):
innovation system was fragmented and siloed. We kept hearing this
decade after decade, so change needed to happen. We've now
had Sir Peter Gluckman's report back the Science Sector Advisory Group.
The government has come back and said what it plans
to do. Where has that landed for you? Did it
reflect some of the things that labor wanted to see happen,
(14:42):
and which were outlined in that earlier sort of green paper.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yeah. Look, I think I think the biggest thing is that.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
We had identified that then that there was a need
for change in the sector and that there could be
benefit from having a look at the structure of you
the CRIS and that move to the pro model that
has transpired isn't necessarily all bad, but I think it's
the approach that for me is the thing that has
(15:13):
been the most damaging. So it's that lack of engagement,
lack of certainty, lack of in some case, as I
would suggest, respect of some really really crucial building blocks
of our science community. And as a result, it's very
hard to engage with people and bring them back on
(15:36):
board when the process has set out as badly as
this one has.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
So there's a loss of trust in the mechanism really
in your view, that scientists have their views haven't been
listened to.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, that's certainly a sense that I get, and that
the change hasn't been well communicated or rational, and that
it's felt like rolling change rather than setting out a
picture of what the end result is and having the
(16:13):
conversations to bring people with you. It's felt very much
like something that's happening to our science community.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
Not with yeah and undepending it all. No matter what
we do, how we shift around a deck chairs, whether
we create a new public research organization which is the
plan around advanced technologies, or merge the other ones, we're
still with a sinking lead on funding under this government.
As Debora Russell said, New Zealand only spends half the
(16:41):
OECD average on science research and development. Until we tackle
that fundamental funding problem, we're really going to be struggling
to do anything with infrastructure or the skills development that
we need for a decent innovation system.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah. Yeah, and I think you know she's right, definitely.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Yeah. So I guess, you know, we haven't really heard
much yet, and it's normal, I guess early in the
cycle about you know, what Labor is planning to do.
I haven't seen much on the website other than the
sort of pressure press releases criticizing some of the government's moves.
But is there any central sort of theme to what
you're thinking around the science and innovation portfolio emerging so far?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Look, I mean to be fair, I've primarily in my
time in the spokesperson role. So far, it's really been
getting up to speed with what the current changes are
and the impacts those are having. So for me, that's
that's been a large part of the focus of the
(17:50):
last few weeks in the role has just been to go, Okay,
where is all of this landing, and who's been taken
on the journey and who's been left behind. I think
ultimately the continuous piece of feedback, or the consistent piece
of feedback I'm getting, is that we do need to
be doing more in this space.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
It leads to.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Huge economic games for New Zealand. It creates amazing jobs
that bring people to the country but also provide fantastic
careers for local people in the sector, and so we
need to be looking at what more can we be
doing to support this sector into the future, rather than
(18:34):
the current approach which has not been doing that.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Yeah, A sort of sub category within science is artificial intelligence.
You recently held an AI summit, which unfortunately I wasn't
able to get to. Chris Hipkins sort of spoke at that.
You had a number of experts giving their views on AI.
What really shook out from that? What ideas did you
(19:00):
get from that to shape Labour's policy on AI.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Yeah, look, it was it was for us.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
It was an opportunity to put the right people in
the room and to have a conversation that a number
of people myself included, just don't think has happened yet
in New Zealand. And so that one for us was
about Chris. Chris gave a really good opening address. Francis
Valentine also gave a really good scene set for the
(19:30):
room about where you know, where the world is at
and some New Zealand context around that. And we also
had a really good piece up top from David Torbert
who Torbert Mills, who had done a survey of those
in the room but also has research into wider perspectives
and opinions on artificial intelligence in the wider New Zealand populace.
(19:53):
So that gave us a really good scene set up
top before we stepped into two panels across the afternoon
to explore in the first panel, where have we gotten
up to and in the second panel, where do we
go now? It's probably the simplest, simplest single line summaries
for each of those, and the representation on those panels
(20:13):
was for me really important because what we wanted to
make sure was that we had a very good cross
section of opinion and perspectives.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
So we needed to have.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Some industry there, some tech industry who are using AI,
but we also wanted to have strong academic perspective.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
We wanted to have the worker's voice there.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
There's some very real considerations for workers and workforce around
the impacts of AI policy perspectives, access and equity. We
had some very strong proponents and also data sovereignty, which
has some unique challenges and opportunities in the New Zealand context.
So really the that was the composition of the afternoon.
(20:58):
We had a number of other It was very well
attended and we did have your notice on those panels.
There's no big tech presence on those panels, but we
did have a number of representatives in the room and
around the conversations as well. So, I mean, the main
things that came out of the session across the afternoon
(21:22):
was the need for education and upskilling on the subject
of artificial intelligence across all communities. Definitely a strong conversation
and steering from the room towards regulatory frameworks, so looking
at what are the international examples that are really working
well and which parts of those are going to perform
(21:46):
and be needed in the New Zealand context. And specific
to that, really the tail Maldi perspective around how we
te kung into artificial intelligence and the bigger QUI around
sovereign AI for New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Yeah, and that last one is particularly topical at the moment.
You talked about big tech not being on the panel
but being in the room, and there definitely is a
discussion burning around the world at the moment about our reliance,
and some would say over reliance in this country on
the big tech tech stack. We've built our government systems
(22:26):
and many of our businesses on us technology and now
have someone in the White House who on a whim
could sort of change the rules of the game around
technology that we can access. So this is something that
no government really in recent use, has given much thought to.
Is that something that's emerging in labor as a potential
(22:49):
policy platform around developing our own sovereign technology to run
critical services like government.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
I think it will be irresponsible for any government or
party that wants to be the next government in twenty
twenty six to not have a very clear plan around
who and how AI should be enabled and managed with
them within New Zealand beyond well now and into twenty
(23:20):
twenty six. So I think, yeah, the sort of sit
back and wait and see approach won't work.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
The potential for AI to.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Have an incredibly positive impact for New Zealand and New
Zealanders is very real, but it also has the potential
if we don't do it well, to actually create you know,
very very deep division between those who have access to
AI and those who don't. So we do need to
(23:56):
be very proactive in that space. I don't think the
current approach or the current the government's current approach has
been proactive enough. And I think there's a real risk if, if,
if we don't really engage with that, that we simply
become a market for for you know, super big foreign
(24:19):
AI companies, and I think that would be that's that's
not a direction that New Zealand would want to heed.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, and arguably we're already there, so unpacking that or
unpicking it is going to be challenging. But in terms
of the the policy settings, we don't have dedicated AI
regulation in New Zealand yet. You know, Judith Colin said
she wanted a proportional, risk based and light touch approach
(24:48):
to regulating AI. So we've got the Privacy Act, we've
got other bits of legislation. Do you think that's been
a pragmatic approach. We've seen obviously the EU with the
AI Act going really big on legislation, Australia doing its
own version of that. We've sort of sat on the sidelines,
I guess to see what happens. Has that turned out
(25:09):
to be a smart move? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (25:11):
I think I think it has a level of risk and.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
How smart it has been remains to be seen, But
I think I mean there.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Are some.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Yeah, there's there's some potential positives that can come out
of the weight and see approach. But it's about getting
that balance right between being a fast follower in whether
you're a fast enough follower, but also doing what New
Zealand's done really well on a number of occasions in
the past where we actually take the lead on something.
And I think that the risk with sitting the sort
(25:44):
of weight and see pragmatic approach is that you can
get left behind. It can be too it can become
too late.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Yeah, and you know all the surveys, you'll have seen
them as much as I have from the AI forum,
and that sort of suggests that we're a little bit
behind the ball and our adoption of AI. So getting
that balance right is really important. The skills issue and
the disruption to the workforce that potentially is coming. You know,
(26:13):
I'm talking to software development companies that are seeing massive
efficiencies and how coding is done, which is great for
their customers, great for New Zealand businesses and their productivity,
but it means that as an entry level software developer,
you're not doing the sort of grunt work learning to
code type roles that would have occupied the first year
or two of your career. So what are we going
(26:35):
to do with those graduates? So I guess, and this
is something that National hasn't really addressed to any extent.
Labor at least had the Industry Transformation Plan, which did
a lot of work around digital skills. To what extent
does this need to be government sort of driven or
should this be industry and tertiary sector driven?
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Yeah, Look, I think the government has a role to
play in this space. What we're seeing is, you know,
potential mass disruption to some parts of the workforce, and
so what we need to have there is a plan
for redeployment of those people into new areas, but also
for people to be able to transition across into new industry.
(27:18):
And so that's where we need to be looking at
things like micro credentials, at people being able to train
into new jobs that may come into an existent come
into existence with the uptake or introduction of AI into
stecters or areas that they've previously worked.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
And I mean one of the things that.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
And you know, you give the example of coding one
of the other areas that we see AIS is that
it's not necessarily coming in at the super entry level,
and it's certainly not coming in at the high end.
But if it's eroding that workforce or that part of
the workforce in any sector or industry that is carrying
out the kind of mid level roles, then how do
(28:05):
the new intake grow into the more senior roles.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
All of a sudden, You've you've got.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
A real hole in the middle of your workforce and
career development. So we do need to have a plan
in there for how we address that, and I think
that government can have a role to put some teams
and structures in place in conjunction with industry and in
condunction with the education sector. But it's not necessarily that
(28:32):
people will need to go and do a whole other degree,
but they might need a micro credential or some short
training or some apprenticeship style training to transition them across
with transferable skills into a new role, either in the
same industry or in a parallel industry.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
One thing that Labor did get across the line in
its second term was the tax subsidy for the video
game sector, which the industry had lobbied hard for was
getting huge competition from state and federal subsidies in Australia,
which was seeing people leaving New Zealand to go and
work in the industry over there. You've been meeting with
(29:14):
the industry recently. What's your take on how well that
is going and is that something that Labor would sort
of commit to if it was in government again.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah, Look, it's my sense is that it's working very
well and that it's really coming to fruition. Now we've
seen major uplift in the value that the gaming industry
has it contributes to New Zealand. So I think it
was four hundred and something million it's now looking to
be seven hundred and something million, so that's an almost
(29:46):
doubling and that growth curve, there's no reason that that
growth curve won't continue.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
That was a set that we knew was really I.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Mean, I wasn't in government at the time, I wasn't
an MP, but I understand that there were you know,
gaming conventions in New Zealand where Australian recruit recruiters were
coming to those conventions and literally poaching people from New
Zealand to go and work in the Australian industry. And
they were also offering New Zealand companies huge incentives, relocation
(30:17):
costs that find them in the building that basically do
all the heavy lifting to lift and shift really successful
gaming studios from New Zealand into various parts of Australia
where they could you know, keep doing what they were doing,
but with really good tax incentives and a whole lot
of assistance to make that move. So I think that
(30:38):
an investment like that was very nimble, very good, very
good leadership from the then Labor government. It's borne good
fruit and we're going to see the results of that,
you know, when we get the reporting through for.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Where it's at now, whether or not it continues.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I mean, I think there's a real argument to be
made when it was a forty million dollar commitment and
within that first year, I think it was.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Something like two hundred million in tax reef that came in.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
So you do look at that and go, well, one
of those things is more than paying for the other.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
It's a good incentive. That's an example of.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Government getting involved to support an industry that can then
do very well locally and contribute economically.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Yeah, okay, So just to finish off a few sort
of things that have come up in recent years that
have been controversial, interesting to get your take on some
of them, to see where labor is sort of heading
towards twenty twenty six, and potentially you'll be in the
Science and Innovation portfolio. The disestablishment of Callahan Innovation good idea.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
No, I don't think it's been a good idea, and
I don't think it's been a good process.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Okay, what about the changes to visas to try and
get a high net worth people into New Zealand, highly
skilled people. I think they're basically envisaging that former Google
engineers are going to come here. Maybe invest some money
in a startup and put their expertise into New Zealand companies.
(32:17):
What do you think about that?
Speaker 2 (32:19):
This is the digital nomad approach.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
There's a digital nomad and then there's the sort of
the goal visa informally they call it, which is, if
you invest a certain amount of money into a business here,
you get a pathway to residency.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I don't actually probably know enough about that one to
give you a very well informed answer.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Yeah. The Junking of Science said that was a big
initiative that Labor had on its plate that was focused
around Wellington, quite a big one. Hundreds of millions of
investment was one of the first things that National next
when it got in. How do you feel about that?
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Well, I mean, I think it's it's been disappointing to
see the number of things that have been cut with
no alternative plan or vision in place.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah, and we've got to be realistic about the funding situation.
So I guess when it comes down to it, I mean,
when is Labor going to run the numbers and see
what's available for science and innovation. That's the big question.
All of these scientists who are sitting on the fence
looking around the world going do I continue my career
in Germany or the UK or somewhere else. When are
(33:32):
we likely to get a sign from Labor about that
much needed boost in science and innovation funding, whether it's
actually going to happen under a Labor government.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Yeah, look, I mean that's definitely something that we're looking
at across twenty twenty five leading into an election year
having some clear positions and policies across the board, But
in the science space, I wouldn't expect that to be
any different. That there needs to be a clear plan
(34:02):
and indication from people of what is the difference that
you get from a label led government versus the crisis
that's been created in the sector by the current coalition.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Yeah, and yeah, I guess you know that's going to
be the question philosophically, what is Labor's fundamentally different approach?
What will you keep and you know, what will how
will you carve a different a different path. So that's
still to come. But as you go around the science
and innovation sector talk to startups and they're like, what
(34:37):
are you seeing at the moment where you think, wow,
that is genuine opportunity for new Zealand and if we
did direct some targeted resources into this, either in funding
or in policy measures or some sort of trade support internationally,
our startups and our scientists could really thrive. Are there
any areas where you think that is something we should
(34:59):
focus on.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Yeah, Look, I mean I think that's probably a really good,
good opportunity just to revisit the success of the rebate
for the gaming sector, because that's exactly what's what's happened
there where where it was an industry that could see that,
you know, they literally had written their obituary because they
(35:21):
could see that that what was happening in Australia. The
lure of Australia and the energy and resource behind that
kind of raid on talent and New Zealand companies were
so real from Australia that they could see that that
that could spell the.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
End for a New Zealand industry.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
And with a you know, relatively small investment, the yield
has been rapid and strong, and I think that you
can see that that that that growth could continue. There's
no reason that further investment wouldn't continue to have the
(36:03):
same or greater yield from from the gaming sector.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
So I think it's.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
Identifying opportunities like that and moving fast enough to support them.
And that's about having a really good understanding of those sectors,
but also a good respectful relationship with those sectors. And
I think that's what we've seen eroded so quickly with
our science community has been that that conversation hasn't been.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Appropriate and that community haven't been.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
Allowed the opportunity to see what the vision or the
plan is, if in fact there is one. And I
think that's what was so good about the rebate for
the gaming sector was it was a really good working
relationship between government and industry that led to some support
for industry that ultimately has had such a positive result.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Just finally, with your other hat on your Broadcasting, Media
and Creative Economy hat, we talked at the start about
the pilot state of the media goes for production companies
through to mainstream media outlets. Last year was a disastrous year,
the loss of news Hub. We've seen ends in me
(37:31):
have its own cutbacks this year. Interest in your take
on the Digital News Bargaining Bill. What did you think
of it? I was, obviously Willie Jackson who shepherded that
through towards the end of the second term that Labor
was in for it seems to have gone very quiet.
(37:51):
Do you think it's dead? Do you think literally the
negotiating with big tech is no longer viable.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
Yeah, Look, I mean my sense is that dead. And
I think that's a huge shame. I think that if
the previous minister had moved faster, and if the current
minister had moved at all, it could have gotten over
the line.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
I think there's very little chance of that happening now.
And I do sense.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
I mean my sense from my personal opinion, but also
from the conversations I've had with you across the industry,
is that it did and would have made and the
fact that it was a potential was having a positive impact,
and if it had been moved through at the speed
it deserved, it would have had a real positive impact
(38:39):
across particularly across the local news media and their ability
to actually get some financial return for sharing of their
content across platforms. I think the most frustrating thing, other
than the fact that it's just been kind of mothballed
with very little communication or clarity from the minister, is
that there appears to be.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Absolutely nothing in its place. So I mean, I think.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Where what are we two hundred and eighty something days
now that that gods must been the Minister for Broadcasting
and Media. We've seen five ideas put out for people
industry to consider, with a strong caveat that none of
them have got cabinet approval or funding attached. And I
mean there's some okay ideas in there. There's probably nothing
(39:26):
wrong really with any of the ideas in that document,
but none of them are going to go anywhere near
addressing the current crisis in local media. And none of them,
or maybe one of the five, actually does anything to
address the challenges in local news media.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
So it's pretty disappointing to see that there's.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
You know, there were good ideas sitting there ready to
be enacted, and for whatever reason, and I won't try
and guess why, but for whatever reason, none of them
have been And the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill would
have been a a really positive step to support local
news media at an unpreceding time of crisis.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Yeah, unfortunately, it's it sort of has failed gradually everywhere,
whether it's Australia or Canada. You know, there's been deals
done with big tech over there, but meta has sort
of turned its back on on those sorts of arrangements. Interestingly,
one of the last things that Labor did, I think,
on its last day in Parliament in its last term,
was table some legislation around, you know, a digital tax,
(40:31):
which many see around the world as the alternative to
a sort of a news bargaining bill with media companies.
Instead of wrangling all of that, why don't you just
slap a two percent tax, for instance, on the revenue
of big tech companies in New Zealand. Is that something
that's still in your thinking or is the tariff chaos
(40:52):
that the US is wielding at the moment a real
disincentive to try and do anything like that that might
attract the ire of the US administration.
Speaker 3 (41:01):
Yeah, look, I think I think the current trade situation
with the United States has complicated things a little. Probably
be a slight understatement, but the I mean, one of
the things that the members bill that I've got in
the biscuit to unfortunately hasn't yet been pulled out, is
a streamers levy.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
So that's the same kind.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Of idea right where there's a where there's the large
media platforms that enjoy our custom and happily take you know,
the fees that we pay for the privilege of watching
their great content don't actually contribute to the local production
sector enough or in most cases at all. So putting
a mechanism in place that ensures that we can continue
(41:43):
to hear you know, and see local stories, hear local voices.
You know my background in children's television. When I started
in that genre, there was just about every kind of
show being made for New Zealand children. Here in New
Zealand you can count the number of local shows on
one hand. So I think we really have We do
(42:06):
risk losing the ability to see ourselves on screen unless
we shift the dynamics of the market to ensure that
those big tech platforms that most big media players actually
contribute to our local stories and our local identity.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
Do you have it?
Speaker 1 (42:34):
So what did we learn from Ruben Davidson. He's clearly
not happy with the science reforms, but no real indication
of what labor would do to address or reverse the
situation that the Coalition government has created with the cuts
and the demise of Callahan Innovation and other things. He
doesn't think the government is doing enough on artificial intelligence
(42:56):
that we should be a fast follower applying regulation and
initiatives to spur uptake that have been successful overseas. Not surprising.
They're a big focus on the impact of AI on
jobs and that's something with the labor movement so central
to the Labor Party that you would expect from them,
(43:18):
But no real articulation of what we're going to do
or need to do as a country to help those
people displaced by AI, which is definitely coming for us.
On the media front, Davidson seems to think that if
his predecessors had moved faster, and let's face it, Labor
could have done this under Willie Jackson, Broadcasting Minister in
the last term of the Labor government. If they'd move
(43:41):
faster on a digital news bargaining bill, could it have
been in place and been effective? Davidson thinks. So the
question is how long would it have lasted anyway, before
the likes of Google and Meta just walked away from it,
as they've done in other countries. There was a lot
of talk of the success of the tax rebate for
the video game sector, which certainly has helped keep the
(44:01):
industry intact and has contributed to growing revenues from the sector.
So a good example of a targeted intervention that works.
We're still a fair way from a general election. I
wouldn't expect from policy pledges in these portfolio areas to
be made until at least later this year or early
into twenty twenty six. But if, as Ruben Davidson says, science, innovation, AI, media,
(44:27):
the creative sector are really important to the future off
our economy and society and deserve more of a focus
the areas that warrant some policy heft this time around
and a compelling long term vision for them. I'm not
seeing that yet from labor. I do live in hope.
So thanks to Ruben Davidson for coming on show. Notes
(44:49):
are in the podcast section at Business Desk dot co
dot nz, where you can stream the podcast. It's also
on iHeartRadio and in your favorite podcast app. Please subscribe
so you don't us an episode. Thanks for listening. Thanks
to two degrees for sponsoring the show. We'll catch you
next Thursday for another episode of the Business of Tech.
Catch you then,
Welcome to the Business of Tech powered by two Degrees Business.
I'm Peter Griffin from Business Desk and on this week's episode,
we're surveying the science and innovation landscape from the other
side of the political isle. Labour MP for christ Church
East Reuben Davidson has been in Parliament since late in
twenty twenty three, and a few months ago was given
(00:24):
a rather attractive and important collection of shadow portfolios, including Science,
Technology and Innovation and Broadcasting, Media and a Creative Economy.
As you'd expect, Davidson isn't very impressed with the Coalition
government's approach in these policy areas, particularly in what Labour
sees as destructive and indiscriminate cuts in funding for science
(00:47):
and innovation. Labour's also starting to formulate some ideas on
artificial intelligence policy. It held in AI summit recently in
Wellington to gather ideas on how to regulate AI and
promote its use among businesses, with the Labor Party leader
Chris Hopkins opening that forum. Ruben Davidson also has written
(01:10):
a private member's bill, which so far hasn't been selected
for introduction into Parliament, but which would impose a small
video on demand levy basically a digital tax on the
big foreign streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney
Plus and Apple TV. The revenue generated from that levy
(01:34):
on those platform providers, which Davidson points out pay very little,
if any local tax, would go into a local content
fund to help the local production industry, which is where
Davidson has spent most of his career as a TV
producer of shows including What Now. So a lot of
groundcovered in this interview with Ruben Davidson, who, let's face it,
(01:56):
by the end of next year, could be the man
in charge of science, tech and broadcasting policy.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Here's the interview.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Rubin Davidson. Welcome to the business of tech. How are
you doing.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
I'm doing very well. Thank you for having me, Thank you.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
For the invitation, pleasure to have you on and great
to connect. You were elected to Parliament in October twenty
twenty three, succeeding Poto Williams. Bit of a bittersweet I
guess victory for you. That was a pretty bad election
for labor. You were one of the only new I
think Labor MPs to come in in that cohort.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Yeah, yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
It was not the result that we had hoped for
and there were two of us that came in, so
myself and christ your cheest and Kushla Tonguaden Manuel in
koradafty one of the Maori seats, the only Maori seat
that we won in the North Island. So yeah, we've
given ourselves the title of head boy and head girl.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Good on you. You you were born in christ Church, you
live in I think North New Brighton at the moment. Yeah,
and so tell us a little bit for listeners who
aren't so familiar with your background, your pathway into politics,
but also your professional career, what you were doing beforehand.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
Yeah sure, so, I mean my background is in broadcasting
and media. So when I finished school, did a degree
a Bachelor of Broadcasting Communications and men started working for
TV inzt Up in Auckland, so initially as an intern,
and that was back in the days when there was
a lot of internal production within TV inst so a
(03:40):
really good opportunity to work across a number of shows,
a number of very different shows in fact, anything from
Maggie's Garden Show to Big Brother to Music Week to Havoc,
so a real mixed bag and at times working on
two shows at the same time, two very different shows
at the same time, so a great a great time
(04:03):
to work in television, a real contrast to the environment
that media is operating in now. And then I left
TVNZ after about four and a half five years and
came back to christ Church, which is my hometown, and
took up a job working for White Bait Media as
an associate producer on What Now. And that was a
(04:26):
great opportunity to really join together. At that point in time,
pretty new tech which allowed us to broadcast from just
about anywhere with two people and a satellite dish and
a crew of three.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
We'd now be able to do better with.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Our phone, but at the time it was really exciting
to be able to meet local people, local children, local
small towns around New Zealand into mainstream media and onto
What Now, and I spent the next eighteen years at
White Bait. I went on to produce Now and then
I went into content development, so developing ideas, pitching them
(05:05):
up to networks, getting them funded and then producing them ultimately,
so anything from the Adam and Eve Show through to
f Animals, and when I finished up, the last show
I worked on was Brainbusters, so essentially the Chase for kids.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, and in about twenty nineteen you served on the
community board down there. So what triggered your desire to
get into politics.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Look, I mean I've probably always been a relatively politically
active person, and I would encourage others to be the same.
But I mean at high school, I was on school
board of trustees, so I was quite politically active at
that point in time. That was motivated by the fact
that teachers were allowed to smoke at school, but students weren't.
I wasn't a smoker, but I thought that seemed pretty unfair.
(05:56):
So eventually no one was allowed to smoke at school,
which maybe really popular with the teachers. But I went
on to you just volunteer over the years for different
campaigns or you know, over different elections, and then I
started to get more formally involved and got elected into
(06:20):
local bodies. So being on a community board and then
becoming the chair of a community board there was a really,
really good opportunity to serve a community that I loved
being part of, but also to get a really good
grounding and understanding of the difference between management, which is
what I've done a lot in television and governance.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Which is what the community board role ultimately was.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
And I also had had the opportunity from that governance
perspective to also sit on the Sparta Board and that
was a really, really good chance to engage with fellow
practitioners in the industry but also with different levels of
government industry around what the needs were at a time
(07:03):
when we could see that there was trouble on the
horizon and ultimately that's the trouble that's hit us now
in the media space.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
Yeah, and we will get into that because you do.
You sort of have the dream collection of portfolios. From
my perspective, You've got science, technology and innovation as well
as broadcasting, media and the creative economy. So huge synergies
between all of those. Obviously, on the broadcasting media, creative
economy stuff, you've got a huge depth of knowledge there.
(07:36):
You totally understand the TV production industry, which is a
huge flux at the moment. How do you feel about
taking on that science innovation We've seen Judith Collins, Shane Retti,
David Clark from Labor, Megan Woods was in that role
for a while. Some of them have had some science background,
(07:57):
some of them haven't. Do you need it for a
portfolio like Science and Innovation, you know.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
It's it's an enormous privilege and I'm hugely, hugely excited
by the by the by both portfolios, but by all
elements of each of them as well. I'm pleased to
say that you don't have to be a scientist to
hold the Science portfolio. And I will be the first
person to tell you I'm definitely not a scientist, but
(08:23):
you do have to understand science and ultimately to have
and I do an enormous amount of respect for those
people who work in that sector and the importance and
the value of the work that they do in the
sciences and from the field trips I've had so far,
the conversations and engagement that I've had with with our
(08:44):
science community so far, I'm absolutely amazed and inspired by
the work that they're doing and the is you know.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
The value that that work has.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
For yes, financially, but also from an environmental and from
a community perspective. It's amazing to see the kind of Yeah,
the kind of work that's taking place in that space
of New Zealand or has.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Been Yeah, and through that lends I guess your predecessor
in that sort of portfolio. Doctor Deborah Russell was quite
critical in December off the cuts to the Milestone fund,
taking humanities and social science, you know, out of that
funding bucket. Labor's been quite critical of the cuts to
(09:37):
scientists in the in the public sector. You know, around
about five hundred jobs between people going from Callahan University
job CRI job, so Labour's been quite vocal about that.
But you know, reflecting on the last few years of
Labour's approach to science and innovation, you know, my take
on it would be that I think Labor left it
way too late in its second term in government to
(10:00):
really get the ball rolling on some of its changes
in this space. You had the Green Paper, the Future Pathways,
you know, solid piece of work, but never came to
fruition before the election and it was sort of dismantled
by the you know, the Coalition government. You had the
Industry Transformation Plan, you had Agritech, Digital Advanced Manufacturing. Some
(10:24):
really good work went into all of that, but again,
because it was left late in the sort of second term,
it was very easy for National to come in and
say no, we're just going to do away with that
as well. Do you think that on reflection, was a
real problem for your predecessors that they had some big ideas,
they saw the need to change, but they left it
(10:44):
a little bit too late.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
Yeah, there's a couple couple of things there, really, I guess.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
I mean, I wasn't there in that in that previous term,
our most recent term and government. But I think we're
all aware that there were a number of things that
no one must expect to happen, and that to a
large extent made it really difficult to do some of
the things that would have been good and that that
(11:10):
had been desired to happen, and that certainly change in
this space in our science sector was one of those things.
Speaker 2 (11:18):
But I think, on balance, I'm very.
Speaker 3 (11:21):
Proud of the legacy that that government has and at
the response to COVID that that we rolled out, I
think that was remarkable. I think what we're what we've
seen in this current government's approach, and I share, you know,
the previous spokesperson, Debrah's sentiments on this. We've seen a
(11:43):
very destabilizing approach and we're in the media sector, we
can see that there was a crisis that we were
heading toward. It feels very much to me in the
science sector that this is a this is a crisis
that's been created so and I'm not suggesting necessary that
that's intentional, but if it's unintentional, then that doesn't also
(12:07):
make it any better.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I think there's.
Speaker 3 (12:09):
Been a huge level of uncertainty that's been created through
the change and the cuts, and I think that one
of the things that struck me from my first visit
with the new portfolio was that science and our science
community don't work to the electoral cycle. There's a long,
(12:33):
long valuable projects and when you see a pendulum swing
as extreme as the one that we've seen in this
first eighteen months of this government, and the uncertainty that
that's created in the science sector, it's immensely destabilizing to
projects underway, but also to the workforce overall. That's too
(12:57):
people who are in New Zealand, internationals in New Zealand
assisting with research. It's two New Zealand residents who are
part of that science community and just aren't sure anymore
whether there's viable work for them. And it also has
a really detrimental effect to people who are considering science
as a future career and as a future opportunity and
(13:20):
some of the great and incredibly valuable jobs that exist
in that science sector really lose the viability that they
had because so much uncertainty is created.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
Yeah, it's devastating for my colleagues in the science sector
who I talked to, you know, considering literally going for
greener pastures. Although the US has its own problems with
its science secret at the moment with the Doge knife
being wielded through there. So this is by no means
(13:55):
a New Zealand thing. But the headcount has gone down,
budgets have been in science. But you did recognize labor,
you know, years ago that change, structural change needed to
happen to how we do science and innovation. Our R
and D spend isn't increasing the way it should be.
Our Crown Research Institute weren't really working effectively together. Our
(14:19):
innovation system was fragmented and siloed. We kept hearing this
decade after decade, so change needed to happen. We've now
had Sir Peter Gluckman's report back the Science Sector Advisory Group.
The government has come back and said what it plans
to do. Where has that landed for you? Did it
reflect some of the things that labor wanted to see happen,
(14:42):
and which were outlined in that earlier sort of green paper.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yeah. Look, I think I think the biggest thing is that.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
We had identified that then that there was a need
for change in the sector and that there could be
benefit from having a look at the structure of you
the CRIS and that move to the pro model that
has transpired isn't necessarily all bad, but I think it's
the approach that for me is the thing that has
(15:13):
been the most damaging. So it's that lack of engagement,
lack of certainty, lack of in some case, as I
would suggest, respect of some really really crucial building blocks
of our science community. And as a result, it's very
hard to engage with people and bring them back on
(15:36):
board when the process has set out as badly as
this one has.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
So there's a loss of trust in the mechanism really
in your view, that scientists have their views haven't been
listened to.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
Yeah, that's certainly a sense that I get, and that
the change hasn't been well communicated or rational, and that
it's felt like rolling change rather than setting out a
picture of what the end result is and having the
(16:13):
conversations to bring people with you. It's felt very much
like something that's happening to our science community.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
Not with yeah and undepending it all. No matter what
we do, how we shift around a deck chairs, whether
we create a new public research organization which is the
plan around advanced technologies, or merge the other ones, we're
still with a sinking lead on funding under this government.
As Debora Russell said, New Zealand only spends half the
(16:41):
OECD average on science research and development. Until we tackle
that fundamental funding problem, we're really going to be struggling
to do anything with infrastructure or the skills development that
we need for a decent innovation system.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah. Yeah, and I think you know she's right, definitely.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Yeah. So I guess, you know, we haven't really heard
much yet, and it's normal, I guess early in the
cycle about you know, what Labor is planning to do.
I haven't seen much on the website other than the
sort of pressure press releases criticizing some of the government's moves.
But is there any central sort of theme to what
you're thinking around the science and innovation portfolio emerging so far?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (17:28):
Look, I mean to be fair, I've primarily in my
time in the spokesperson role. So far, it's really been
getting up to speed with what the current changes are
and the impacts those are having. So for me, that's
that's been a large part of the focus of the
(17:50):
last few weeks in the role has just been to go, Okay,
where is all of this landing, and who's been taken
on the journey and who's been left behind. I think
ultimately the continuous piece of feedback, or the consistent piece
of feedback I'm getting, is that we do need to
be doing more in this space.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
It leads to.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Huge economic games for New Zealand. It creates amazing jobs
that bring people to the country but also provide fantastic
careers for local people in the sector, and so we
need to be looking at what more can we be
doing to support this sector into the future, rather than
(18:34):
the current approach which has not been doing that.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Yeah, A sort of sub category within science is artificial intelligence.
You recently held an AI summit, which unfortunately I wasn't
able to get to. Chris Hipkins sort of spoke at that.
You had a number of experts giving their views on AI.
What really shook out from that? What ideas did you
(19:00):
get from that to shape Labour's policy on AI.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
Yeah, look, it was it was for us.
Speaker 3 (19:07):
It was an opportunity to put the right people in
the room and to have a conversation that a number
of people myself included, just don't think has happened yet
in New Zealand. And so that one for us was
about Chris. Chris gave a really good opening address. Francis
Valentine also gave a really good scene set for the
(19:30):
room about where you know, where the world is at
and some New Zealand context around that. And we also
had a really good piece up top from David Torbert
who Torbert Mills, who had done a survey of those
in the room but also has research into wider perspectives
and opinions on artificial intelligence in the wider New Zealand populace.
(19:53):
So that gave us a really good scene set up
top before we stepped into two panels across the afternoon
to explore in the first panel, where have we gotten
up to and in the second panel, where do we
go now? It's probably the simplest, simplest single line summaries
for each of those, and the representation on those panels
(20:13):
was for me really important because what we wanted to
make sure was that we had a very good cross
section of opinion and perspectives.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
So we needed to have.
Speaker 3 (20:25):
Some industry there, some tech industry who are using AI,
but we also wanted to have strong academic perspective.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
We wanted to have the worker's voice there.
Speaker 3 (20:35):
There's some very real considerations for workers and workforce around
the impacts of AI policy perspectives, access and equity. We
had some very strong proponents and also data sovereignty, which
has some unique challenges and opportunities in the New Zealand context.
So really the that was the composition of the afternoon.
(20:58):
We had a number of other It was very well
attended and we did have your notice on those panels.
There's no big tech presence on those panels, but we
did have a number of representatives in the room and
around the conversations as well. So, I mean, the main
things that came out of the session across the afternoon
(21:22):
was the need for education and upskilling on the subject
of artificial intelligence across all communities. Definitely a strong conversation
and steering from the room towards regulatory frameworks, so looking
at what are the international examples that are really working
well and which parts of those are going to perform
(21:46):
and be needed in the New Zealand context. And specific
to that, really the tail Maldi perspective around how we
te kung into artificial intelligence and the bigger QUI around
sovereign AI for New Zealand.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Yeah, and that last one is particularly topical at the moment.
You talked about big tech not being on the panel
but being in the room, and there definitely is a
discussion burning around the world at the moment about our reliance,
and some would say over reliance in this country on
the big tech tech stack. We've built our government systems
(22:26):
and many of our businesses on us technology and now
have someone in the White House who on a whim
could sort of change the rules of the game around
technology that we can access. So this is something that
no government really in recent use, has given much thought to.
Is that something that's emerging in labor as a potential
(22:49):
policy platform around developing our own sovereign technology to run
critical services like government.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
I think it will be irresponsible for any government or
party that wants to be the next government in twenty
twenty six to not have a very clear plan around
who and how AI should be enabled and managed with
them within New Zealand beyond well now and into twenty
(23:20):
twenty six. So I think, yeah, the sort of sit
back and wait and see approach won't work.
Speaker 2 (23:30):
The potential for AI to.
Speaker 3 (23:33):
Have an incredibly positive impact for New Zealand and New
Zealanders is very real, but it also has the potential
if we don't do it well, to actually create you know,
very very deep division between those who have access to
AI and those who don't. So we do need to
(23:56):
be very proactive in that space. I don't think the
current approach or the current the government's current approach has
been proactive enough. And I think there's a real risk if, if,
if we don't really engage with that, that we simply
become a market for for you know, super big foreign
(24:19):
AI companies, and I think that would be that's that's
not a direction that New Zealand would want to heed.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, and arguably we're already there, so unpacking that or
unpicking it is going to be challenging. But in terms
of the the policy settings, we don't have dedicated AI
regulation in New Zealand yet. You know, Judith Colin said
she wanted a proportional, risk based and light touch approach
(24:48):
to regulating AI. So we've got the Privacy Act, we've
got other bits of legislation. Do you think that's been
a pragmatic approach. We've seen obviously the EU with the
AI Act going really big on legislation, Australia doing its
own version of that. We've sort of sat on the sidelines,
I guess to see what happens. Has that turned out
(25:09):
to be a smart move? Do you think?
Speaker 2 (25:11):
I think I think it has a level of risk and.
Speaker 3 (25:15):
How smart it has been remains to be seen, But
I think I mean there.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Are some.
Speaker 3 (25:22):
Yeah, there's there's some potential positives that can come out
of the weight and see approach. But it's about getting
that balance right between being a fast follower in whether
you're a fast enough follower, but also doing what New
Zealand's done really well on a number of occasions in
the past where we actually take the lead on something.
And I think that the risk with sitting the sort
(25:44):
of weight and see pragmatic approach is that you can
get left behind. It can be too it can become
too late.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
Yeah, and you know all the surveys, you'll have seen
them as much as I have from the AI forum,
and that sort of suggests that we're a little bit
behind the ball and our adoption of AI. So getting
that balance right is really important. The skills issue and
the disruption to the workforce that potentially is coming. You know,
(26:13):
I'm talking to software development companies that are seeing massive
efficiencies and how coding is done, which is great for
their customers, great for New Zealand businesses and their productivity,
but it means that as an entry level software developer,
you're not doing the sort of grunt work learning to
code type roles that would have occupied the first year
or two of your career. So what are we going
(26:35):
to do with those graduates? So I guess, and this
is something that National hasn't really addressed to any extent.
Labor at least had the Industry Transformation Plan, which did
a lot of work around digital skills. To what extent
does this need to be government sort of driven or
should this be industry and tertiary sector driven?
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Yeah, Look, I think the government has a role to
play in this space. What we're seeing is, you know,
potential mass disruption to some parts of the workforce, and
so what we need to have there is a plan
for redeployment of those people into new areas, but also
for people to be able to transition across into new industry.
(27:18):
And so that's where we need to be looking at
things like micro credentials, at people being able to train
into new jobs that may come into an existent come
into existence with the uptake or introduction of AI into
stecters or areas that they've previously worked.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
And I mean one of the things that.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
And you know, you give the example of coding one
of the other areas that we see AIS is that
it's not necessarily coming in at the super entry level,
and it's certainly not coming in at the high end.
But if it's eroding that workforce or that part of
the workforce in any sector or industry that is carrying
out the kind of mid level roles, then how do
(28:05):
the new intake grow into the more senior roles.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
All of a sudden, You've you've got.
Speaker 3 (28:09):
A real hole in the middle of your workforce and
career development. So we do need to have a plan
in there for how we address that, and I think
that government can have a role to put some teams
and structures in place in conjunction with industry and in
condunction with the education sector. But it's not necessarily that
(28:32):
people will need to go and do a whole other degree,
but they might need a micro credential or some short
training or some apprenticeship style training to transition them across
with transferable skills into a new role, either in the
same industry or in a parallel industry.
Speaker 1 (28:51):
One thing that Labor did get across the line in
its second term was the tax subsidy for the video
game sector, which the industry had lobbied hard for was
getting huge competition from state and federal subsidies in Australia,
which was seeing people leaving New Zealand to go and
work in the industry over there. You've been meeting with
(29:14):
the industry recently. What's your take on how well that
is going and is that something that Labor would sort
of commit to if it was in government again.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah, Look, it's my sense is that it's working very
well and that it's really coming to fruition. Now we've
seen major uplift in the value that the gaming industry
has it contributes to New Zealand. So I think it
was four hundred and something million it's now looking to
be seven hundred and something million, so that's an almost
(29:46):
doubling and that growth curve, there's no reason that that
growth curve won't continue.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
That was a set that we knew was really I.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Mean, I wasn't in government at the time, I wasn't
an MP, but I understand that there were you know,
gaming conventions in New Zealand where Australian recruit recruiters were
coming to those conventions and literally poaching people from New
Zealand to go and work in the Australian industry. And
they were also offering New Zealand companies huge incentives, relocation
(30:17):
costs that find them in the building that basically do
all the heavy lifting to lift and shift really successful
gaming studios from New Zealand into various parts of Australia
where they could you know, keep doing what they were doing,
but with really good tax incentives and a whole lot
of assistance to make that move. So I think that
(30:38):
an investment like that was very nimble, very good, very
good leadership from the then Labor government. It's borne good
fruit and we're going to see the results of that,
you know, when we get the reporting through for.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
Where it's at now, whether or not it continues.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
I mean, I think there's a real argument to be
made when it was a forty million dollar commitment and
within that first year, I think it was.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Something like two hundred million in tax reef that came in.
Speaker 3 (31:09):
So you do look at that and go, well, one
of those things is more than paying for the other.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
It's a good incentive. That's an example of.
Speaker 3 (31:19):
Government getting involved to support an industry that can then
do very well locally and contribute economically.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Yeah, okay, So just to finish off a few sort
of things that have come up in recent years that
have been controversial, interesting to get your take on some
of them, to see where labor is sort of heading
towards twenty twenty six, and potentially you'll be in the
Science and Innovation portfolio. The disestablishment of Callahan Innovation good idea.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
No, I don't think it's been a good idea, and
I don't think it's been a good process.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Okay, what about the changes to visas to try and
get a high net worth people into New Zealand, highly
skilled people. I think they're basically envisaging that former Google
engineers are going to come here. Maybe invest some money
in a startup and put their expertise into New Zealand companies.
(32:17):
What do you think about that?
Speaker 2 (32:19):
This is the digital nomad approach.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
There's a digital nomad and then there's the sort of
the goal visa informally they call it, which is, if
you invest a certain amount of money into a business here,
you get a pathway to residency.
Speaker 2 (32:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I don't actually probably know enough about that one to
give you a very well informed answer.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Yeah. The Junking of Science said that was a big
initiative that Labor had on its plate that was focused
around Wellington, quite a big one. Hundreds of millions of
investment was one of the first things that National next
when it got in. How do you feel about that?
Speaker 3 (32:58):
Well, I mean, I think it's it's been disappointing to
see the number of things that have been cut with
no alternative plan or vision in place.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah, and we've got to be realistic about the funding situation.
So I guess when it comes down to it, I mean,
when is Labor going to run the numbers and see
what's available for science and innovation. That's the big question.
All of these scientists who are sitting on the fence
looking around the world going do I continue my career
in Germany or the UK or somewhere else. When are
(33:32):
we likely to get a sign from Labor about that
much needed boost in science and innovation funding, whether it's
actually going to happen under a Labor government.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
Yeah, look, I mean that's definitely something that we're looking
at across twenty twenty five leading into an election year
having some clear positions and policies across the board, But
in the science space, I wouldn't expect that to be
any different. That there needs to be a clear plan
(34:02):
and indication from people of what is the difference that
you get from a label led government versus the crisis
that's been created in the sector by the current coalition.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Yeah, and yeah, I guess you know that's going to
be the question philosophically, what is Labor's fundamentally different approach?
What will you keep and you know, what will how
will you carve a different a different path. So that's
still to come. But as you go around the science
and innovation sector talk to startups and they're like, what
(34:37):
are you seeing at the moment where you think, wow,
that is genuine opportunity for new Zealand and if we
did direct some targeted resources into this, either in funding
or in policy measures or some sort of trade support internationally,
our startups and our scientists could really thrive. Are there
any areas where you think that is something we should
(34:59):
focus on.
Speaker 3 (35:00):
Yeah, Look, I mean I think that's probably a really good,
good opportunity just to revisit the success of the rebate
for the gaming sector, because that's exactly what's what's happened
there where where it was an industry that could see that,
you know, they literally had written their obituary because they
(35:21):
could see that that what was happening in Australia. The
lure of Australia and the energy and resource behind that
kind of raid on talent and New Zealand companies were
so real from Australia that they could see that that
that could spell the.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
End for a New Zealand industry.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
And with a you know, relatively small investment, the yield
has been rapid and strong, and I think that you
can see that that that that growth could continue. There's
no reason that further investment wouldn't continue to have the
(36:03):
same or greater yield from from the gaming sector.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
So I think it's.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
Identifying opportunities like that and moving fast enough to support them.
And that's about having a really good understanding of those sectors,
but also a good respectful relationship with those sectors. And
I think that's what we've seen eroded so quickly with
our science community has been that that conversation hasn't been.
Speaker 2 (36:38):
Appropriate and that community haven't been.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
Allowed the opportunity to see what the vision or the
plan is, if in fact there is one. And I
think that's what was so good about the rebate for
the gaming sector was it was a really good working
relationship between government and industry that led to some support
for industry that ultimately has had such a positive result.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
Just finally, with your other hat on your Broadcasting, Media
and Creative Economy hat, we talked at the start about
the pilot state of the media goes for production companies
through to mainstream media outlets. Last year was a disastrous year,
the loss of news Hub. We've seen ends in me
(37:31):
have its own cutbacks this year. Interest in your take
on the Digital News Bargaining Bill. What did you think
of it? I was, obviously Willie Jackson who shepherded that
through towards the end of the second term that Labor
was in for it seems to have gone very quiet.
(37:51):
Do you think it's dead? Do you think literally the
negotiating with big tech is no longer viable.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
Yeah, Look, I mean my sense is that dead. And
I think that's a huge shame. I think that if
the previous minister had moved faster, and if the current
minister had moved at all, it could have gotten over
the line.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
I think there's very little chance of that happening now.
And I do sense.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
I mean my sense from my personal opinion, but also
from the conversations I've had with you across the industry,
is that it did and would have made and the
fact that it was a potential was having a positive impact,
and if it had been moved through at the speed
it deserved, it would have had a real positive impact
(38:39):
across particularly across the local news media and their ability
to actually get some financial return for sharing of their
content across platforms. I think the most frustrating thing, other
than the fact that it's just been kind of mothballed
with very little communication or clarity from the minister, is
that there appears to be.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Absolutely nothing in its place. So I mean, I think.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Where what are we two hundred and eighty something days
now that that gods must been the Minister for Broadcasting
and Media. We've seen five ideas put out for people
industry to consider, with a strong caveat that none of
them have got cabinet approval or funding attached. And I
mean there's some okay ideas in there. There's probably nothing
(39:26):
wrong really with any of the ideas in that document,
but none of them are going to go anywhere near
addressing the current crisis in local media. And none of them,
or maybe one of the five, actually does anything to
address the challenges in local news media.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
So it's pretty disappointing to see that there's.
Speaker 3 (39:45):
You know, there were good ideas sitting there ready to
be enacted, and for whatever reason, and I won't try
and guess why, but for whatever reason, none of them
have been And the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill would
have been a a really positive step to support local
news media at an unpreceding time of crisis.
Speaker 1 (40:06):
Yeah, unfortunately, it's it sort of has failed gradually everywhere,
whether it's Australia or Canada. You know, there's been deals
done with big tech over there, but meta has sort
of turned its back on on those sorts of arrangements. Interestingly,
one of the last things that Labor did, I think,
on its last day in Parliament in its last term,
was table some legislation around, you know, a digital tax,
(40:31):
which many see around the world as the alternative to
a sort of a news bargaining bill with media companies.
Instead of wrangling all of that, why don't you just
slap a two percent tax, for instance, on the revenue
of big tech companies in New Zealand. Is that something
that's still in your thinking or is the tariff chaos
(40:52):
that the US is wielding at the moment a real
disincentive to try and do anything like that that might
attract the ire of the US administration.
Speaker 3 (41:01):
Yeah, look, I think I think the current trade situation
with the United States has complicated things a little. Probably
be a slight understatement, but the I mean, one of
the things that the members bill that I've got in
the biscuit to unfortunately hasn't yet been pulled out, is
a streamers levy.
Speaker 2 (41:20):
So that's the same kind.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Of idea right where there's a where there's the large
media platforms that enjoy our custom and happily take you know,
the fees that we pay for the privilege of watching
their great content don't actually contribute to the local production
sector enough or in most cases at all. So putting
a mechanism in place that ensures that we can continue
(41:43):
to hear you know, and see local stories, hear local voices.
You know my background in children's television. When I started
in that genre, there was just about every kind of
show being made for New Zealand children. Here in New
Zealand you can count the number of local shows on
one hand. So I think we really have We do
(42:06):
risk losing the ability to see ourselves on screen unless
we shift the dynamics of the market to ensure that
those big tech platforms that most big media players actually
contribute to our local stories and our local identity.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
Do you have it?
Speaker 1 (42:34):
So what did we learn from Ruben Davidson. He's clearly
not happy with the science reforms, but no real indication
of what labor would do to address or reverse the
situation that the Coalition government has created with the cuts
and the demise of Callahan Innovation and other things. He
doesn't think the government is doing enough on artificial intelligence
(42:56):
that we should be a fast follower applying regulation and
initiatives to spur uptake that have been successful overseas. Not surprising.
They're a big focus on the impact of AI on
jobs and that's something with the labor movement so central
to the Labor Party that you would expect from them,
(43:18):
But no real articulation of what we're going to do
or need to do as a country to help those
people displaced by AI, which is definitely coming for us.
On the media front, Davidson seems to think that if
his predecessors had moved faster, and let's face it, Labor
could have done this under Willie Jackson, Broadcasting Minister in
the last term of the Labor government. If they'd move
(43:41):
faster on a digital news bargaining bill, could it have
been in place and been effective? Davidson thinks. So the
question is how long would it have lasted anyway, before
the likes of Google and Meta just walked away from it,
as they've done in other countries. There was a lot
of talk of the success of the tax rebate for
the video game sector, which certainly has helped keep the
(44:01):
industry intact and has contributed to growing revenues from the sector.
So a good example of a targeted intervention that works.
We're still a fair way from a general election. I
wouldn't expect from policy pledges in these portfolio areas to
be made until at least later this year or early
into twenty twenty six. But if, as Ruben Davidson says, science, innovation, AI, media,
(44:27):
the creative sector are really important to the future off
our economy and society and deserve more of a focus
the areas that warrant some policy heft this time around
and a compelling long term vision for them. I'm not
seeing that yet from labor. I do live in hope.
So thanks to Ruben Davidson for coming on show. Notes
(44:49):
are in the podcast section at Business Desk dot co
dot nz, where you can stream the podcast. It's also
on iHeartRadio and in your favorite podcast app. Please subscribe
so you don't us an episode. Thanks for listening. Thanks
to two degrees for sponsoring the show. We'll catch you
next Thursday for another episode of the Business of Tech.
Catch you then,
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!