Govt unveils new Institute for Advanced Technology
The government has unveiled a new public research organisation focused on "supercharging" the country's economy through advanced technology.
Speaking in Auckland this morning, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Technology would be based focus on turning technologies like AI and quantum computing into commercial success.
The announcement follows the establishment of three public research institutes focused on Earth Science, Bioeconomy and Health and Forensic Science.
The institute will first be incubated within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) before becoming an independent entity when legislation comes into effect in July 2026.
Luxon said it would be New Zealand's fourth institute and the cornerstone of government's plan to make a high-tech, high-value economy.
"I expect it to be forward-looking, with the support and advice of the Science Advisory Council, to invest in new areas of science that are reshaping the global economy, where we can develop excellent talent, create high-paying jobs, build new sectors and increase our export earnings," he said.
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Shane Reti said the government was committing $231 million over the next four years to the institute, which will be based in Auckland and work with other research centres, universities and industries.
"Our first major investment announced in May is already under way at Wellington Robinson Research Institute specialising in future magnetic and materials technologies and cryogenic superconducting further investments will be guided by the Prime Minister's Science Innovation and Technology Advisory Council," he said.
"New Zealand has a proud history of innovation, from agri-tech to clean energy, and these institutes will build on those strengths while unlocking new frontiers. This is not only research, it's about jobs growth and global impact, it's about delivering long term value for New Zealanders."
Asked what consideration had been given to ethical AI use, Luxon said managing the negative impacts of AI had to be done in a "multilateral" way, by working with other countries to build legislative frameworks for it.
"There is a lot more upside with AI than there is downside, and this is a country that needs to embrace a lot more AI, quantum computing, synthetic biology, all of those," he said.
"We understand the challenges around AI, but we will manage that through global forums, in terms of building out strong legislative frameworks. But the bigger opportunity is for us to get on and embrace it, because it's not coming, it's actually already here."
Luxon said New Zealand had a history of producing "incredible" scientists.
"I don't want this to be a country where we proudly say, 'oh, we invented that', and then someone else around the world commercialised it," he said.
"Just look at Denmark, right? Think about the work that they did on pharmaceuticals, around weight loss drugs, Ozempic and other things that have been huge around the world. That is powering that economy. That is a huge focused investment in science and technology."
Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Simon Bridges said it was a move that followed clear calls from the business community to supercharge the city's tech future.
"This is just the start. We now need to double down on digital skills, commercial investment, and putting our startups on the global map," he said
Bridges said the suburb of Newmarket was a natural home for the new institute.
"Newmarket offers the full package - advanced R&D, space to scale, and commercial potential.
"I certainly hope the institute will be based at Newmarket, it is the right place for it. But regardless of the precise final location, Auckland is the right launchpad for a national push into advanced tech."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Healthworkers want MPs to waive private healthcare while in office
A group of healthworkers — including specialists, GPs, nurses and paramedics — have signed an open letter to MPs asking them to waive private healthcare during their time in office. Politicians making critical decisions about the public health system system — to cut funding, defer maintenance, or implement restructures — should not be allowed to "insulate" themselves against the consequences, they write. Their prescription? All MPs — and the families of Cabinet ministers — should rely on the public system. The group's spokesperson, Northland cardiologist Marcus Lee, said the public deserved leaders who were so committed to public healthcare that they were willing to stake their family's wellbeing on it. ADVERTISEMENT "Essentially, we want fair and transparent leadership with integrity. We want people who have skin in the game." The test was whether politicians were "comfortable and confident" enough to rely on the public health system for their families, he said. "If it's good for them, it's good for us. If it's not good enough for them, it shouldn't be good enough for anyone." Nicola Willis and Simeon Brown in 2020 (Source: Getty) The letter asks MPs to consider questions including: Would I be comfortable with my child waiting six months for this procedure? Is this emergency department adequate for my elderly parent? Are these staffing levels sufficient for my family's safety? Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not believe having private health insurance meant he was out of touch with the problems besetting the public system. ADVERTISEMENT "I think we're well aware of the challenges in the healthcare system, which is why we've put a record amount of investment in," he said. "We inherited again a botched merger that just created a layer of bureaucracy and we've put the money in, we're hiring more people, we've got clarity on the targets. "We're starting to see some stabilisation of those targets and in some cases improvements on those health targets. "But we now need a high performing Health NZ, and that's what we're fixated on." Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall said MPs with private health insurance were "betting their own money against the public system". "Ministers of Health should place a bet on the public health system succeeding and meeting New Zealanders' needs. Having private health insurance is a sign that you're not willing to place that bet." Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — a former health minister — took a less hard-line approach. "I got health insurance 20 or 30 years ago as a union membership benefit and I've kept it since then, although I'm fortunate I haven't really had to use it. "I'm not going to begrudge people who have it. But I want to make sure that, if you haven't, you still get the standard of care you deserve." Health Minister Simeon Brown said he did not have private health insurance but he would not impose that choice on anyone else. "Ultimately there's a large number of New Zealanders who use health insurance, that's a fantastic part of our health system, and ultimately people make individual choices." Brown said his focus was on timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders, which included making better use of the private sector. "We will work with private hospitals to unlock capacity, publicly funded [patients] but in private hospitals to speed up access." ADVERTISEMENT Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Education Minister Erica Stanford both had private health insurance. Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey did not, saying he is "happy using the public health system". Other National MPs were more coy. Minister of Climate Change, Energy, Local Government and Revenue, Simon Watts: "I won't answer that, it's a personal question." Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Disability Issues, Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston: "That's not a question in the public interest." Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford: "I'm not interested in talking about that. It's not necessary for people to know — I don't go out into the general street and ask people about their health insurance." Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March said it was "quite rich" to see politicians not being worried about the state of the public healthcare system, when they had the means to pay for private insurance or private care. ADVERTISEMENT "That is why we are really concerned with the Government's flirtation with privatising more of our public healthcare system, which will ultimately see our poorest less able to access basic healthcare." For some Labour MPs, it was a matter of principle. Kelston MP Carmel Sepuloni: "I believe, as politicians, if we're going to be working to ensure the healthcare system works for everyone, we should be reliant on it too." Nelson MP Rachel Boyack: "My father was a public health chief executive so I've always had a strong belief in the public health system, and that the health system should be available to all New Zealanders, and that includes me as an MP." Mt Albert MP Helen White could understand why some people opted to have it, but it was not for her: "I just think that I should live by my principles. Also I probably couldn't afford it. I know I'm on a decent salary, but it's a lot of money." Mt Albert MP Helen White says she probably couldn't afford health insurance. (Source: 1News) Labour MP Ginny Andersen said health insurance was not in her budget: "By the time I pay my mortgage and my insurance and my rates and feed my children." ADVERTISEMENT ACT Party leader David Seymour, who is also the Associate Health Minister, said the healthworkers made "an interesting argument" — but, in his view, MPs should come from a broad range of backgrounds. "I don't think you should have to fit into a sort of ideological straight-jacket to do that." The healthworkers behind the letter said MPs who refused to give up their private safety net would be revealing "exactly what they really think about our healthcare system". "We'll be watching to see who has the courage to put their family where their policies are."
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
'A ray of sunshine': NZ litigants spurred on by international climate ruling
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone A landmark ruling by the United Nations' highest court puts further pressure on the New Zealand government over a large hole in its climate plans, a group of climate lawyers say. Another litigant taking on big polluters calls it a "a ray of sunshine" - while the climate minister will only say it's "long and complicated". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found overnight that countries can be responsible for paying reparations for damage caused by their greenhouse gases. It also said governments are legally obliged to set climate targets that are consistent with keeping temperatures within 1.5C (not 2C) and that they must "pursue measures capable of achieving" those goals. The decision said states could be in breach of international law for failing to address fossil fuel consumption, granting fossil fuel exploration licenses, and providing fossil fuel subsidies, something the New Zealand government is doing with its $200 million fund for drilling . New Zealand is currently on track to be over 80 million tonnes of emissions short of meeting its 2030 climate target, because the coalition government has broken with plans by previous governments to meet the target largely by buying carbon credits from overseas. The coalition has been told there is no feasible way to meet the target purely inside this country, without some kind of offshore deal. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has acknowledged that this is true, he has so far ducked making any public commitment to closing any of the necessary deals beyond "exploring options". At times, ministers have explicitly said the government wouldn't spend money offshore to meet the target, despite officials warning them that their inability to explain how New Zealand would close the gap would lead to overseas scrutiny. Jessica Palairet, executive director of Lawyers for Climate Action, said the international ruling confirmed that paying lip service to international climate targets wasn't enough. Under the Paris Agreement, countries' targets are known as NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions. The first ones run from 2021-2030, and the second set from 2031-2035. "The judgment confirms that New Zealand can't just say it hopes it will meet the NDC and that it's committed to our targets, it has to take real and demonstrable steps towards meeting it, it has to demonstrate that intent to meet it. The judgment clarifies that, and I think in the face of an 89 million tonne hole, there are real questions about whether or not we're doing that," she said. "When we made the NDC commitment in the first place, we had a plan for how we were going to meet the gap, but the government is changing course and the ICJ starkly brings into focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said the ruling also sharpened questions over whether New Zealand's second Paris Agreement target , out to 2035 was aligned with curtailing heating within 1.5C. Watts has defended the new target of 51-55 percent reductions by 2035, saying the cuts were difficult to achieve and met the definition of ambition, but several experts - and independent advice - disagreed. "There have been real questions raised about whether our second NDC is 1.5 degrees aligned," Palairet said. "Put it this way, Simon Watts specially asked officials for the second NDC to align with domestic emissions budgets, to avoid having to pay offshore mitigation." "The problem is that our domestic emissions budgets are set according to a test that's different to the where that leaves us is we have an NDC that likely isn't 1.5 degrees-aligned likely doesn't reflect highest possible ambition and likely doesn't reflect our fair share," she said. "The ICJ opinion really draws into sharp focus whether that is lawful." Palairet said court's opinion that 1.5C was a binding target could also have implications for the government's plans to lower the country's methane target. The coalition has been considering lowering the goal for methane reductions from between a 24 and 47 per cent by 2050 to between 14 and 24 percent. "The ICJ opinion has crystalised 1.5C as the target states have to work towards," Palairet said. "The government is considering reducing our methane target to 14 percent," she said. "The problem is that government's own independent expert advisory panel said that a 14 percent target was consistent with 2C, so I think there's a real question if New Zealand reduces its methane target to 14 percent, whether that's consistent with international law." Palairet said the government's gas and oil exploration subsidies and backtracking on the ban on new offshore exploration might also be incompatible the court's statements. "The ICJ had really strong statements on those kind of subsidies and decisions being in breach of international legal obligations." "It's advisory only, it's non-binding but it is really authoritative and it holds significant legal and moral authority and it's very likely going to be used in court cases all around the world, including New Zealand court cases." That might include Lawyers' for Climate Action's existing judicial review against Watts, which argues there are glaring holes in the country's emissions reduction plans. The world's top greenhouse gas emitters denied they had any obligations beyond the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the 2015 Paris agreement. The court rejected that argument, saying a range of other treaties applied, including the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, the Montreal protocol, the convention on biological diversity and the UN convention to combat desertification. It also said states were obliged to cooperate to solve climate change. Asked to comment on the ruling, Watts sent a written statement noting the advisory opinion had been issued. "Climate change is an important issue in our region, and we know our Pacific Island neighbours are following this development closely," it said. "This is a long, complicated opinion, and New Zealand will study it carefully before commenting on the substance." Iwi climate leader Mike Smith said environmental lawyers were already discussing how to use the landmark ruling in New Zealand. Smith won the right in the Supreme Court last year to sue seven companies - including Z Energy, Genesis Energy, NZ Steel and Fonterra - for their role in causing climate change. He said the findings by the international court overnight offered hope in a time of worsening climate damage. "In all of that darkness this is a ray of sunshine, this is a beacon, it gives us hope that we can leverage these decisions and effect change," he said. "It strengthens [my case] in the sense that the decision confirmed that states are legally obligated to prevent climate harm and they must not support or subsidise emissions-intensive activities." "I've been talking to the lawyers from ELI, the Environmental Law Initiative, and they are all putting their minds to what falls out the bottom of this opinion and what opportunities are there now to bring further proceedings against the government."
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Gumboot Friday founder says measure of success is young people getting help fast
Mike King says in the last year no child who had asked for a counselling session via Gumboot Friday had missed out. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The founder of Gumboot Friday's youth counselling initiative Mike King says the service is meeting demand and all young people who are coming through are getting sessions in an appropriate time frame. Gumboot Friday has had a green light for its second year of funding but has had its targets increased after meeting the minimum numbers set for its first year. In the first 12 months it has delivered 30,000 sessions for 10,000 young people, that target will go up to 40,000 sessions for 15,000 people. It now has 700 counsellors, which is a 33 percent increase over the last year. The government had announced the I Am Hope foundation (the parent charity of Gumboot Friday) would receive $6 million a year for four years to provide counselling services to five- to 25-year-olds, as part of the coalition agreement. Last year the process by which the charity was awarded funding came under scrutiny by the auditor-general who said the way the decision came about was "unusual and inconsistent". But Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey has backed the charity saying it is helping thousands of young people get access to support faster. King said the young people getting help fast was his measure of success. Talking to RNZ's Checkpoint King said that this year all the children who had have asked for a session were seen in a timely fashion. He said no one missed out on counselling sessions. Currently Gumboot Friday has got 742 counsellors on its books according to King, and another 70-odd were going through CV check. He clarified that Gumboot Friday was a voluntary service, not a service provider. "We provide a platform which connects young people in need of counselling, who would like counselling with professionals who can provide counselling. "And we are meeting the demand, so everyone who's coming through is getting the sessions in the appropriate amount of time." On average Gumboot Friday provided three and a half sessions per young person, King said. If a young person needed more counselling sessions, the counsellor could reapply and Gumboot Friday would provide them with extra sessions, he said. King rejected the assertion that children could only receive a maximum of four counselling sessions through the programme. "If any counsellor comes to us and says they have a young person in need, on a case-by-case basis they will be granted extra sessions." Previously many young people could only get a counselling session if they were in crisis, which was often too late, he said. "We are an early intervention system where young people can voluntarily come forward and talk about a little problem before it becomes a big problem, before it becomes a suicidal thought," King said. "However, if a young person comes to us in crisis and they need extra care, they reach out to us and we will pathway them to crisis teams and crisis mental health where and when it is needed." King told Checkpoint that no other mental health service organisations in New Zealand delivered the same breadth of counselling services for anyone aged from five to 25 and gave "100 percent of the government funding to the counsellors" while covering the other costs themselves. "So yes I am comfortable that we do this better than anyone else out there." The minister has set a target for the next year for Gumboot Friday to organise 40,000 sessions for 15,000 people in the next 12 months. Asked whether Gumboot Friday would be able to meet the minister's new target, King said "target schmarget, we will meet the demand". King was confident that young people who came forward for counselling sessions would get them. "I have said to the minister we will meet the target of any young person coming into our service up to $6 million a year." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
