Coster and Foster Failed Us All

Posted on Saturday, 19 February, 2022 by Paul Spence

ronnies I will defend to my last breathe the right for New Zealanders to peacefully protest about issues they feel strongly about. But the mob camped on the lawn in Wellington have now gone too far. It’s bad enough that they have obstructed a public road, shut down a bus station and university campus and harassed innocent passers-by. Now the Police have allowed a vigilante “security” force to impede access of citizens to Parliament grounds, a public venue that belongs to all of us. It’s no joke that the Police, Wellington City Council and the two Andy’s have failed the people of New Zealand.

For a protest group ostensibly “protecting our freedoms”, this is beyond rational. But then there’s nothing rational at all about the melange of bizarre causes being promoted by these sheeple and their conspiracist puppet-masters. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with vaccine mandates and lockdowns, this is not the way to win hearts and minds. In fact it must only be a matter of time before an organised counter-protest arises, at which point we will indeed see the kind of direct conflict that was hoped to be avoided. No doubt the counter-protestors will be quickly arrested or dispersed, for their own safety of course.

If the disaffected filthy few wish to live like Orwellian farm animals together on the Parliament lawn to promote their cause, let them do so. However the moment that occupation spreads onto the surrounding streets and into peoples’ lives, it becomes domestic terrorism. The “freedom protesters” have ironically made it clear that they actually have no regard for the freedom of those outside of their own circle. Once the initial threat of a Capitol style storming receded, the Police strategy seems to have been to withdraw and allow the lunatics to take over the asylum. An entrenched mob will be very hard to remove at this point.

Police Commissioner Andrew Coster and Mayor Andy Foster are complicit in this mess. Suspending the rule of law in the Molesworth Street precinct was an enormously foolish capitulation that has set back civic society immeasurably. Foster will be gone at this year’s local body election for sure, but Coster continues to enjoy the tacit support of the government, who wish not to be seen being involved in directing the response. But operational mismanagement of the situation has now led to a petition for Andrew Coster’s removal.

Appointed in March 2020, about the same time the pandemic began sweeping across the globe, it was clear from the outset that Coster’s tenure would be challenging. But his arrival signaled quite a shift in strategic direction for the New Zealand Police, with the much lauded “policing by consent” methodology being invoked. Armed patrol units were withdrawn from the streets of Auckland. Within months a young police officer and several civilians had been shot dead as Police lost control of the city to armed gangs. Softly, softly may have once been the motto of a fictional police television series, but that approach is clearly not working.

But the most concerning aspect of Coster’s appointment is that he represents the gentle, smiling face of a new generation of Cabinet appointed leadership within the public service. A leadership group that has become infiltrated by politically correct sycophants quietly “reforming” institutions, infrastructure and instruments of government without the permission of the electorate. Calls for his removal simply echo an increasing level of discomfort over the current direction of our public institutions. “Policing by consent” may be the flavour of the moment, but there’s nothing consensual about the direction our public service is heading in right now.

2021 – A Political Retrospective

Posted on Monday, 27 December, 2021 by Paul Spence

This year has been remarkable if for no other reason than the pandemic has resurfaced some ugly divisions that continue to bubble away behind the easy-going facade of New Zealand society. We are doubtless challenged now more than ever on numerous complex topics, including environment, poverty, crime, health, immigration and race. So the need for change is absolutely genuine. But the manner in which change is now being enacted is both contemptuous and potentially self-defeating.

2021 firmly reminded us of the fragility of the social contract. In an otherwise generally compliant nation, a vocal minority held out against vaccinations and wise public health measures on the basis that their “freedoms” were being threatened. There was of course little discussion by these lost souls about the freedoms of thousands of elderly or unwell who would have very likely lost their lives, had we caved in to the views of the misinformed. I had several respectful but somewhat disturbing conversations with individuals this year invoking thinking from my recent article on why science is more trustworthy than their deranged social media feeds.

At the other end of the political spectrum, hand-wringing social purists doggedly continued to promote the longstanding policy of shutting down any debate that appeared to challenge their well meaning, but at times misguided ideologies. Consequently institutions that had been previously hotbeds of intellectual debate and where ideas were once challenged and tested in open fora, have latterly become hotbeds of conformity and intolerance instead. Nowhere was this more apparent than the embarrassing public skewering of celebrated evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, for daring to question why a group of science academics were being villified in a Galilean inquisition by the very body responsible for promoting science discourse in New Zealand.

Of course the danger in shutting down the intellectual debate of good ideas is that bad ideas from across the political spectrum similarly do not receive proper analysis or exposure to the sunlight. This appears to be part of the strategy currently being invoked by the government as it pursues a programme of social reform aimed at centralising control of some of the most important assets and resources in the country. With convenient distractions provided by the public health crisis, our servants in the Capital have quietly set about executing a quite radical socio-political agenda that the majority of voters actually did not yet sign up for.

History has shown however that rapid, ideologically driven reforms are quite often not very successful and ironically may even disenfranchise the intended beneficiaries long term. Unfortunately, many of the idealistic and bright-eyed policy wonks busily designing the new order from Wellington were not even born when we last fundamentally overhauled our economic order and thus have little lived experience to draw upon. Worryingly, much of the reform model is based on a flawed legal premise around the nature of our important responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi. The interpretation of this precedent perversely constrains governments to take a narrow, binary and transactional approach in an obviously highly diverse and increasingly complex world.

The other difficulty here is that this reform programme received little exposure at the last election and therefore suffers from what some have termed “democratic deficit”. Worse still, in the absence of a properly informed and curated public debate, the attitude of some of the critics has turned from fearful to venomous with some unpleasant personal attacks containing racial overtones. That is unfortunate and sad. But it also illustrates that sidelining large sections of society is not the way to pursue important social reforms. Instead of stifling open public debate around big ideas, we must encourage it.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, principal at GeniusNet Research and an advisor at ThincLab. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

Stop The Grievance Virus

Posted on Monday, 27 September, 2021 by Paul Spence

The number of pandemic “experts” seems to be growing by the day. Now with a former Prime Minister wading into the murk, it has opened the floodgates allowing a wave of discontent to infect the nation. But actively demonstrating a partnership approach with business could deliver better outcomes and bring some smart minds to bear on the gnarly problems that confront us.

In recent weeks a number of prominent New Zealanders have been expressing their impatience with the government’s approach to managing the pandemic crisis. Curiously the concern is not so much about the travails of extended lockdowns, but more to do with the impact of travel restrictions as a throttle on economic growth. Unsurprisingly, most of the complainants are absorbed with their own particular business predicaments. But rather than be labelled “whingers” (to their credit) some creative solutions have been proposed by them.

In 2020 our government urgently cobbled together an interim response to keep us safe. Controlling foreign arrivals, managing quarantine and rolling out the largest vaccination programme in our nation’s history have been huge, imperfect undertakings delivered under extraordinary and rapidly evolving circumstances. Without these initiatives, I am absolutely certain that several vulnerable members of my immediate family would not have made it through the last 18 months.

One only needs to look at the data from offshore to understand the dire situation we find ourselves in. But perhaps the most telling data point is that investing in snuffing out the virus does indeed result in a quicker and stronger economic rebound, at least in the medium term. Placing our trust in a benevolent State has paid off so far, but patience is waning as purveyors of a wide variety of grievances across the political spectrum become ever more vocal. So openly demonstrating a willingness to have business as part of the conversation would be reassuring to the public, whilst bringing a greater diversity of thinking to the top table. None of this should obviate the need to carefully balance social and economic considerations, of course.

Putting aside the fact that I find sports analogies rather tedious, some of the ideas for getting New Zealand business moving again have actually been good ones. We have a wealth of technical and management expertise in our business community and there are homemade solutions available for improving almost every aspect of the crisis response. I believe where the difficulty lies is that there is a public perception at least of a lack of engagement between government and business. That may not be entirely fair, but in politics perception matters.

Early in the crisis, the government appointed former Air New Zealand CEO Rob Fyfe as a liaison person between the government and business. That was a good move, but very little has been heard since. The Cabinet wisely considers advice from the pandemic technical advisory group who are respected clinicians and academics. But from time to time self appointed media darlings from scientific fields outside of epidemiology have an annoying habit of confusing the public by contradicting the actual expert viewpoints. So we have to be discerning about where we get information. Similarly we should not simply cave in to loud voices from the business sector who manage to get their views published.

Preserving life is paramount. But at present, it’s not clear what the exit strategy will be. There is a strong sense that the business community has not been fully enrolled as a partner in this process. I might add that this includes a wholesale failure to engage the talent sitting in our research institutions and technology incubators. What is clear however is that we will have no choice but to open up again in 2022, because the present approach is economically unsustainable in the long term. Elimination may already be nonviable and everyone (including business) need to deal with the reality of the new normal. The best piece of advice anyone can follow right now – get ready, get vaccinated!

Frontier Firms Follow-On Funding Favoured

Posted on Tuesday, 27 April, 2021 by Paul Spence

The recently published New Zealand Productivity Commission Report on the economic contribution of “frontier firms” predictably rated only a passing mention in local media. However recommendations in the publication could have far reaching impacts if implemented. But is the government listening?

Frontier firms are described as the most productive, profitable and innovative in an economy and generally have scale and global reach. But the report says that New Zealand’s frontier firms lag behind their global peers in terms of productivity. The OECD defines productivity as the ratio of economic output compared to inputs. Nations with highly productive frontier firms have greater competitiveness because of more efficient use of resources such as labour and capital. These nations also benefit from secondary “innovation and knowledge diffusion” within their economies.

Chairperson of the Commission Ganesh Nana, in an interview with Radio New Zealand says New Zealand is already well behind other small developed economies in the OECD in terms of productivity and the gap is growing every year. He says part of the reason is because we do not have many so-called frontier firms to which smaller innovation based companies can anchor. One of the key findings of the report is that the government must invest in developing a deeper innovation ecosystem, including supporting more commercialisation of research, science and technology.

But will the government take on board this message? Many of us currently working within the New Zealand innovation ecosystem have lobbied in the past for vastly increased resourcing and for setting greater aspirations as a nation. But such pleas have largely fallen upon deaf ears over the years. There are sadly also actors within our ecosystem that are philosophically opposed to any kind of government investment on the basis that only wealthy and well-connected players should be allowed in the game. This is despite the fact that our neighbours (and competitors) in places like Australia, South Korea and Singapore identified the value many years ago and have literally invested hundreds of millions of dollars into building out their own innovation ecosystems.

Developing more frontiers firms is not about growing more “unicorns” as some have mistakenly claimed. But it is about building a more interconnected economy that has research, science and technology at the heart of the beast. That’s a big ask for a small nation for which there are many competing priorities and challenges to face such as health, housing and climate change. But the key to motivating the decision-makers involves grasping the reality that having a powerful innovation ecosystem is actually part of the solution to those challenges.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest, advisor at ThincLab within the University of Canterbury Centre for Entrepreneurship and principal at GeniusNet Research. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest. Paul is a co-author of the Entrepreneurship Manifesto 2020.

The Commercialisation Imperative

Posted on Monday, 22 March, 2021 by Paul Spence

Blue Skies Thinking Needed

Competing and surviving in a highly technological, fast changing and globalised economy increasingly dictates that universities and institutes step up and generate economic returns on their research. But although there have been a few notable exceptions at New Zealand universities, we continue to underperform in the commercialisation of new scientific knowledge into value generating products and services that drive economic growth. So if disruptive innovation lies at the core of economic development, how can we better reconcile commercialisation with the core purpose of our institutions?

Firstly, there are some valid arguments in favour of the separation of commerce from academia. Normative, collectivist elements of academic science as a social system, along with the autonomous nature of university culture, seem to sit uncomfortably with the motivations of profit seeking firms that wish to take ownership of intellectual property. Claims of IP ownership can lead to fears of diminishing the scientific commons, which would be detrimental to the collegial and collaborative nature of science and therefore hinder the very process that will drive future discoveries.

Furthermore, commercialising technology research is risky and accommodating new and developing fields of commercially focused science takes up resources that might be used for other teaching and research, impacting the core mission of universities. We have already witnessed closures and staff reductions within arts and humanities faculties where commercial outcomes are less of a focus. There’s also a danger that high tech institutes established in emergent fields become impenetrable and elitist silos of specialist knowledge open to only a few, at a time when we should be striving for greater equity. Are there other societal factors at play that dampen success?

Patent filings data is sometimes quoted as an indicator of “innovativeness” in the context of economic development. New Zealand sits at the lower end of the table, but not because it is a small economy. Countries with relatively small populations such as Finland, Switzerland and Israel lead the pack. In New Zealand total expenditure on research and development as a proportion of GDP has been increasing in recent years, but continues to lag behind other developed countries. Investment rose to 1.37% in 2018. This compares to an average research intensity figure of 2.38% across all OECD countries, ranking New Zealand 21st out of 34 nations [Statistics NZ — 2018]. So whilst the size of an economy does not fully explain the innovativeness of a nation, the level of commitment to research and development investment certainly plays a part.

Approximately half of that R&D investment originates from publicly funded sources. With government investment comes an expectation that tax payer funded academic research will provide a “return on science” or economic and social benefits to society. The challenge then is to generate meaningful commercial outcomes, that do not undermine the core missions of teaching and research. There are a great many reasons to do so, not the least of which is our ability to fund future health, education and welfare needs. As a nation heavily reliant upon commodity based income we must gravitate towards higher added value goods and services to ensure the future economic wellbeing of our society. Developing an ecosystem approach to cultivating innovation is a key part of this journey.

For example, benefits in cultivating university-industry ties become amplified due to network effects and serendipitous conversations around the humble water cooler (or perhaps kombucha fridge these days). This “innovation ecosystem” approach has benefitted a number of scientific fields. For example the emergence of biotechnology as both a science and business from MIT and other institutions clustered within the Boston area. Commercialisation of new knowledge can also speed up solving complex social, health and environmental problems that might not otherwise be addressed, attracting both government and private sector funding into academia.

The global pandemic has also accelerated the need for scientific innovation. Previous hard won gains against poverty and improvements in social equity have been wiped out by pandemic related economic carnage. In addition, because of growing urgency in relation to addressing environmental challenges, there is forecast to be a vast migration of capital away from polluting industries over the next two or three decades. This green transition will create enormous opportunities for scientific organisations operating at the leading edge of cleantech, renewable energy, low carbon construction and regenerative agriculture, for example.

Embedded within entrepreneurship centres of research, university innovation labs such as ThincLab at the University of Canterbury are important intermediaries in the cycle of innovation and a key part of a vibrant ecosystem that engages with a wide array of supporting players to ensure the success of spin-off companies, whilst at the same time respecting the scholarship that underpins scientific discovery.

This article was first published on the ThincLab blog and formed the basis of my presentation to the Food, Fibre and Agritech Supernode Challenge 2021 cohort.

When Will CellTech Disrupt Our Economy?

Posted on Monday, 26 October, 2020 by Paul Spence

What do a vegan Middle Eastern prince and a Singaporean cheese maker have in common? Not a joke. In fact it’s a rather serious question for New Zealand. Earlier this year Saudi based KBW Ventures invested over US $3 million in a “seed” round backing a company that claims to have developed a proprietary technology for producing milk from bovine mammary cells, by hosting the live cells within a laboratory bioreactor. The long term implications of this technology for the New Zealand economy are obvious.

This was the second tranche of funding for Singapore based TurtleTree Labs within six months. It is probably no coincidence that the first round was achieved just prior to lock downs due to the global pandemic. The increasing interest in lab raised food comes at a time when food security is under the spotlight more than ever. It has now become clear how easily global supply chains can be impacted in a crisis. No doubt these emerging technology stories are also of great interest to the food obsessed and security conscious residents of Singapore who currently import the vast majority of their food resources, due to very limited space for agriculture on the island.

Consumer preference is also tipping towards food sources that are less impactful on the environment. TurtleTree founder Fengru Lin claims that their future product will achieve 98% less carbon emissions than regular cow milk (and that’s without even considering other bovine greenhouse gases). With waterway degradation and groundwater quality under threat from a bloated and insufficiently regulated dairy industry in New Zealand, there’s a pent up demand for greater product sustainability. This only goes one of two ways. Either agricultural nations clean up their act and get on board with new food tech or they suffer enormous losses when the basis of global protein production gets hugely disrupted.

Celltech may not yet be scalable or widespread yet – but it’s only a matter of time. There will no doubt be many more cellular technology companies to follow TurtleTree and eventually technologies for growing lab based food will be licensed widely and become ubiquitous and more acceptable to consumers. That poses an existential threat to nations such as Australia and New Zealand for whom a very large section of the economy rests on animal based protein production.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a recently exited co-founder of a New Zealand based technology venture, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest and principal at GeniusNet Research. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest. Paul is a co-author of the Entrepreneurship Manifesto 2020.

Photo Credit: Renea Mackie

Finnotec Triumphs Again

Posted on Sunday, 1 December, 2019 by Paul Spence

finnotec2019 After missing the previous two events due to timetable clashes, the planets aligned and I finally made it to this year’s Finnotec event. With some important partnerships now sorted and a bunch of thought-provoking speakers in hand, Binu Paul from Savvy Kiwi, the driving force behind the event, has ensured Finnotec will remain New Zealand’s prime conference for all things FinTech related.

With payments technology being an important aspect of my previous venture, I thought that I possessed at least a rudimentary knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes in traditional financial processing systems. But the high quality speakers at Finnotec soon made me realise that I had a lot more to learn. The annual one day conference has become an important “clearing house” for accessing regulatory knowledge, business networking and a nice showcase for emerging talent in a category that barely existed a decade ago.

I was especially impressed by speaker Cathryn Lyall, who clearly has a huge depth of experience across the FinTech space. A board member at Deutsche Bank UK and with 30 years in a variety of roles across capital markets, including as a market floor trader, ex-pat Aussie Lyall is undoubtedly well placed to be an investor and advisor in Fintech. The big takeaway from her talk was about the urgent need for Fintechs to “create real value” for customers in a crowded marketplace where users already get a lot of their services for free from the incumbents.

So courtesy of Rewired the new Xero co-working space, we enjoyed a number of presentations from some hot new startups that have been making waves in our local FinTech scene. Here’s a quick run-down from the showcase:-

MyCap Markets – A blockchain based private share management offering complete with a secondary market platform. Solving the problem of liquidity for shareholders of smaller, unlisted companies.

Kernel – A data driven approach to index investing with a digital tool kit that helps customers make informed decisions.

Transactional AI – Using AI to analyse consumer spending behaviour and better inform lenders. One of the shining stars of this year’s Kiwibank FinTech accelerator at CreativeHQ and a favourite with the Finnotec crowd.

Planolitix – A financial cashflow diagnostic Saas offering initially aimed at financial advisers. Anything that banishes spreadsheets has got to be good, right?

First AML – Simplifying dealing with the obligatory and burdensome administration around anti-money laundering legislation. Solving a real pain point.

Relay.AI – Back in the day it was called “factoring”, but this startup digitally reduces waiting times for businesses to receive invoice payments.

Overall, a thoroughly informative and engaging day out with a diverse group of highly dedicated players and supporters in New Zealand Fintech. Harmoney, Westpac Ventures, Paymark, Xero and UK DIT deserve compliments for having the foresight to back this event. With a little more community curation and the continuing support of FinTechNZ, this event can only get bigger and better as the industry grows.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, formerly a co-founder of New Zealand based technology venture iwantmyname, a co-founder and director of Creative Forest and principal at GeniusNet Research. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

Capital Punishment: Is It Time To Accept That Wellington Has A Crisis?

Posted on Tuesday, 14 May, 2019 by Paul Spence

civic Let me begin by stating that I like Wellington Mayor Justin Lester as a person. He’s way more approachable than the previous two incumbents and I respect that he is doing his best to navigate the council through a very difficult patch in the city’s long history. He’s been a business owner in the Capital and will be acutely aware of the many challenges confronting the inner city right now. So when he announced his policy platform for re-election, I must admit to being a little disappointed.

Eliminating homelessness and assisting refugees are very worthy goals and not to be discounted of course. Good luck with all that. But Wellington has even more pressing problems. Because it is now finally beginning to dawn on city dwellers that there are very widespread structural problems which have gone unaddressed for many years. Removing vagrants from the street may become a moot point, if the central city declines into an unliveable wasteland.

Wellingtonians are political animals by nature and in recent years have been very effective at rallying support to challenge poorly planned developments around the city where there was often insufficient public consultation. Shelly Bay and the Queens Wharf hotel are classic examples, as was the Basin Flyover that was knocked for a six and the dog’s breakfast that now passes for the Island Bay cycle lane. The highly questionable airport runway extension proposal has also been defeated (for now). These lengthy battles have been a huge distraction for councillors and previous Mayors, who should have been focused on much more pressing needs, as it turns out. Public advocacy is a good thing of course, but, for their part, opponents to infrastructure projects must also come to the table with fresh solutions to offer, not just blanket opposition. Developers and investors will soon stop calling. Some already have.

Now Civic Square is dying with the much loved library and both the Town Hall and council buildings buggered due to quake damage. This is a heavy loss. The Square was once the lively centre piece of the city. If the wooden footbridge leading to the square has to close, as has been suggested recently, it will be the final nail in the coffin as the central city is cut off from the waterfront. Dozens of at risk commercial buildings in the CBD are already untenanted, unfixable and possibly uninsurable and thousands of older homes around the CBD perimeter are in need of major refurbishment – or demolition. And let’s not even mention the failing transport networks with buses and trains that don’t work, congested arterial roads and the hellish nightmare of simply trying to find a car park in the CBD.

This is Christchurch all over again, but in slow motion. It’s time to accept that the underlying framework of the city is in real crisis now. A crisis that has crept up on the current council, but which has been in the making for decades. A complete re-visioning is needed to future proof the city, also taking into account threats related to climate change. A Christchurch style solution might be the inevitable conclusion, but more likely spread over a longer period of time. Retain and strengthen a few key edifices, bulldoze and start over with the remainder? Unfortunately I fear that it will take a much broader political will and a lot more time than one election cycle, to get things back on track.

Paul Spence is a commentator and serial entrepreneur, a co-founder of New Zealand based technology ventures iwantmyname and Creative Forest and a mentor with Startup Weekends and Lightning Lab. You can follow Paul on Twitter @GeniusNet or sign up for a free weekly digest of startup, tech and innovation related events curated by him through New Zealand Startup Digest.

What Can We Learn From Our Day Of Barbarism And Shame?

Posted on Monday, 25 March, 2019 by Paul Spence

Who would have imagined that New Zealanders would ever have to endure such a day of horror and pain? Whether we like it or not, life has changed forever for us. Terror has reached our shores and our hearts are breaking for everyone affected by this despicable act. But how did we ever allow technology to empower this vile behaviour?

I abhor bullies of all kinds. In 2017 my eyes were opened to the brutal reality of distorted social media when I was the victim of an orchestrated and one-sided gang-bang led by someone from the rabid “woke left” who (somewhat ironically) spoke flippantly about “truth in a post truth world”. That experience now seems insignificant compared to what happened in Christchurch, of course. But the lessons regarding the abuse of power and acceptance of a culture of intolerance empowered through online media are not dissimilar.

The same cadre of desparados have gleefully seized upon this grim episode and used it as a clarion call to politicise all manner of perceived ills relating to our social history. I find that highly offensive and insensitive at a time when people are trying to grieve together and build bridges. Yes, we have more work to do on race relations and social equity. But in relative terms we have historically made more progress than almost any other nation on Earth that one cares to name. One madman from outside our country cannot undo this reality; so we certainly should not allow incoherent, petty political activism to divide us.

But thanks to technology, we have allowed the bullies to grow and thrive. Extremists of all hues have invaded our psyche because of out-of-control, propaganda laden platforms that have little respect for statehood, decency or privacy and to whom we have foolishly handed over control of our lives. How is live streaming of a mass murder acceptable in a civil society? Why are extremists left unchecked to promote an online agenda of evil even after complaints have been laid? Powerful AI technology already exists that can quickly flag bad behaviour online and identify suspicious communications. How did authorities not know about this individual?

I have never operated a “FaceBorg” account and these events only strengthen my resolve in this regard. Resistance is NOT futile! We should not allow our political discourse to be controlled by fanatics from anywhere on the political spectrum, nor by faceless American corporations lacking ethics. Why do governments continually fail to act on this? If you think I am a lone voice on this topic – look around and do some reading. Calls for curbs on mega-platforms are growing daily.

We do not always need to agree on everything. But that does not prevent us from engaging in rational debate. Now more than ever we must protect freedom of speech, support an independent and balanced media and promote the lost art of intelligent public discourse. And we must no longer provide platforms for the divisive rhetoric of bullies and intolerant fanatics – irrespective of their political persuasion and views.

I’m pleased to say there is a better way. A few days ago, flanked by heavily armed police, I stood proudly with my teenage son and a few others outside our local mosque and participated in a moment of reflection with the entire nation. It was a small act of acknowledgement, but it gave me hope. Young people have the most to gain by drawing strength from one another and moving forward to build the future world that they want to live in. A world that values and respects both cultural diversity and diversity of thought.

* These are my personal opinions and not the views of my employer or any other organisation that I am affiliated with.

Photo credit: Christchurch City Council

Whatever Happened To Competitiveness?

Posted on Thursday, 17 January, 2019 by Paul Spence

Having spent a decade helping to build a technology business as well as giving back to the community along the way, I thought that I was making a valuable contribution to growing a more knowledge intensive economy here in New Zealand. I was able to measurably improve my own lifestyle and assumed that we were all heading in the right direction together. But with regional economic development becoming more politicised than ever and national indicators of labour productivity and GDP actually decreasing over the last two years – I now realise that we have a lot more hard thinking ahead of us as a nation if we are to deliver on the clean and competitive, high value economy that we all hoped for.

Lately, in an effort to determine how I can best contribute intellectually to this creative endeavour, I’ve been revisiting some of the traditional macro-economic theory around “competitiveness”. As well, I’ve been exploring some new approaches that are emerging in the development arena, with the goal of bringing together my business experience and the latest in economic development thought leadership. I’m a firm believer that policy and actions should be driven by a combination of practical skills and academic theory.

The World Economic Forum defines competitiveness as “the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country”. Productivity is simply the ratio of outputs versus inputs in an economy. Traditionally a more productive economy generates more wealth and (theoretically) more income per capita and better standards of living for its citizens. In practice, it is more problematic and here’s why.

Firstly because this formula assumes wealth is the only measure of good. Happily, some governments and corporations are now beginning to rethink GDP and put more weight on less tangible measures of progress such as well-being for example. Secondly, social factors can skew apparent productivity. For example wealthy nations with large populations of guest workers who have a much lower standard of living compared to local residents. Also the rise of pan-national states (such as EU) and the drift away from globalism towards regional trade agreements, force us to revisit how we look at competitiveness from a global perspective.

Competitiveness is as relevant as ever, but it is being framed within a somewhat different context these days. Even Prof. Michael Porter, who famously drove much of the original thinking around competitiveness, agrees that the landscape has shifted. Today businesses (and national economies) are highly networked, social and collaborative – meaning that the forces of competition have changed. Furthermore Porter has evolved his own thinking and now dedicates much of his time to promoting social progress as a measuring stick independent of GDP.

The challenge for New Zealand remains the same. How do we drive our economy up the value chain and away from extractive and polluting commodity based export industries? After ten years on the job, I learned that building and scaling a knowledge based business is very hard work. Even for those who do succeed, the returns may not outweigh spending the same time and capital investing in property, dairy farming or planting pine trees. That’s a huge competitiveness problem that we need to solve if we are to maintain our enviable lifestyle into the future.

Photo credit: Renea Mackie – Creative Forest

Genius Net

Technology, innovation and entrepreneurship in New Zealand.

Tag Archives: New Zealand