New Investment To Drive AI And Biotech Innovation
The Government is investing $24 million in smart, practical science that will help New Zealanders live healthier lives and support the development of sustainable food industries.
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti today announced two major research programmes in partnership with Singapore, focusing on artificial intelligence (AI) tools for healthy ageing and biotechnology for future food production.
'Science and innovation are critical to building a high-growth, high-value economy. That's why we're investing in research with a clear line of sight to commercial outcomes and real public benefit,' Dr Reti says.
'This Government is focused on backing the technologies that will deliver real-world results for New Zealanders – not just in the lab, but in our hospitals, homes, and businesses.
'Whether it's supporting older Kiwis to live well for longer or developing smarter food production systems, these projects are about practical applications of advanced science to solve problems and grow our economy.'
Funded through the Catalyst Fund, designed to facilitate international collaboration, the investment will support seven joint research projects over the next three years, deepening New Zealand's research ties with Singapore and building capability in AI and biotechnology.
The AI programme, delivered alongside AI Singapore, directly supports the Government's Artificial Intelligence Strategy – a plan to use AI to safely and effectively boost productivity and deliver better public services.
'Our AI Strategy is about encouraging the uptake of AI to improve productivity and realise its potential to deliver faster, smarter, and more personalised services, including in healthcare,' says Dr Reti.
'These projects will help develop tools that support clinicians and improve care for our ageing population. Our collaboration with Singapore, a country well advanced in their use and development of AI, will help grow Kiwi capability to explore future practical uses of AI.'
The biotechnology programme will focus on turning scientific research into scalable food solutions, including alternative proteins and new food ingredients, in partnership with Singapore's A*STAR.
'These partnerships are about future-proofing our economy and our communities — tackling global challenges with New Zealand science at the forefront,' Dr Reti says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why NZ should be clamping down on deepfake images
technology 42 minutes ago Denmark is set to clamp down on deepfake images, giving citizens copyright over their likeness and voice. A deepfake is an image, video or audio recording which has been digitally altered to appear to be someone else. They have become increasingly sophisticated with the rapid advancement of AI, and recent studies have shown that the vast majority of people can't distinguish between deepfake and real images So are New Zealand laws fit for purpose? Jesse finds out.
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Business case flawed: Brooking
The release of a "flawed" business case means more information is needed before Labour decides whether it would dump the planned Waikato Medical School, a Dunedin MP says. Last Monday, Health Minister Simeon Brown announced Cabinet had approved $82.85 million in government funding to build the country's third medical school at the University of Waikato — the institution was expected to contribute more than $150m to the project. Dunedin MP Rachel Brooking, of Labour, said she was "very sceptical" about figures used by the government to make its decision. The project's detailed business case was made public on Friday evening, part of a document dump which revealed the cost of producing GPs at the graduate-entry Waikato medical school would be $50 million a year cheaper than at the existing medical schools at Otago and Auckland universities. "The business case has really been written with an outcome in mind and not traversed all of the options, and that's just bad decision-making," Ms Brooking said. "It's bad way to make use of taxpayers' money, and it seems that in general, this all will cost more." She said the "flawed" business case would have consequences for the Otago Medical School: "those are difficult to predict exactly". However, Labour had "no plans at the moment" to dump the medical school, Ms Brooking said. "The issue is that we don't think the business case is credible. "So we'll keep asking questions about that and try and make any assessments on good information when we're in a position to do so." Taieri MP Ingrid Leary said "the so-called business case is really just a public relations document, given the outlandish assumptions and comparators". In a statement last Monday, Mr Brown said the project was an innovative model "that supports our focus on strengthening primary care, making it easier for people to see their doctor — helping Kiwis stay well and out of hospital". Waikato University would begin construction on new teaching facilities later this year. A full cost-benefit analysis was presented to Cabinet before any proposal was finalised, as part of the National-Act New Zealand coalition agreement, he said. Green MP Francisco Hernandez said the government's cost-benefit analysis used to "ram through" the Waikato Medical School made assumptions revealing the "lack of objectivity". Mr Hernandez said the document "falsely assumed" Otago and Auckland universities could not have negotiated a four-year rural graduate programme similar to Waikato University's proposal. "This assumption enables the government to claim that Waikato University will train medical students 'cheaper' because Waikato is assumed to have a four-year programme," he said. The government had also assumed Waikato University was more likely to produce GPs "even though Otago and Auckland could have also done a rural graduate programme". "Fundamentally, these flawed assumptions stem from the government's failure to run a transparent tender process from the start," Mr Hernandez said. "Rather than putting out an open tender to every university in New Zealand, they gave Waikato University a sweetheart deal." He called for the government to "be up front and honest about the actual costs" of the project and release the full agreement with Waikato University with all relevant advice. "The government's failure to rule out further handouts or to release the actual agreement raises questions on whether there were further sweetheart deals negotiated behind closed doors in the agreement that might end up with the taxpayer bailing out Waikato University."
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Political cosyism behind 3rd medical school decision-making
On 21 May I was introduced to two new words (always a moment of light excitement for me) by Dr Bryce Edwards, Director of the newly established Integrity Institute which publishes regular Integrity Briefings. On this occasion the new word was 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism': Chumocracy and cosyism. He was referring to the work of Auckland University Professor of Economics Robert MacCulloch who was calling out 'soft corruption' by political and business elites in Aotearoa New Zealand. His focus included government, banks, big business and the rightwing 'thinktank' New Zealand Initiative. Such was the strength and persistence of the hostile response from these elites that he felt sufficiently pressured to close his website. The core of MacCulloch's argument is that New Zealand is run by a 'chumocracy' of elites who are connected by what he calls 'cosyism'. Third medical school announcement These were the words that I began to think about after absorbing the announcement by Health Minister Simeon Brown and Universities Minister Shane Reti early in the afternoon of 21 July that it was proceeding with the proposed third medical school at Waikato University: Official announcement. Later that the same day I was interviewed about the decision on Radio New Zealand's The Panel where my main focus was on the poor process which was likely to lead to an eventual poor outcome: Medical school decision based on poor process. Nearly two years earlier I had outlined my concerns about the Waikato University proposal in an article published by BusinessDesk (26 August 2023): Third medical school caution. What is the third medical school The new medical school is to provide a four-year medical degree for students who already are graduates with a non-medical degree to work as general practitioners (or as other rural doctors) in regional and rural areas. The medical degree at the existing two medical schools, Auckland and Otago, is five years. The advocated expectation is that the proposed Waikato Medical School will be graduating 120 doctors a year once it is up and running. With its opening scheduled for 2028 the first graduates should start working as general practitioners or other rural doctors at the earliest in 2037. This gap comprises both the time at the medical school and the time as resident (junior) doctors in training. Last year the Ministry of Health commissioned a report which advised that that Waikato's teaching model would be similar to the model in Wollongong University, south of Sydney. Reportedly 45% of the latter's graduates become GPs of which around 30% proceeded to work in rural areas. In 2017 the Auckland and Otago medical schools had proposed that they be allowed to jointly establish a new joint 'school of rural medicine'. However, while the previous Labour-led government and Ministry of Health was favourably disposed to this initiative, progress was understandably impeded by the Covid-19 pandemic. In a memo to then Health Minister Shane Reti in September last year, Treasury recommended that Auckland and Otago Medical Schools be asked to present a counter-factual argument to the Waikato proposal. However, it appears that no such invitation was made. Analysis by the Integrity Institute The best commentary I have seen on this decision has come from Bryce Edwards in another Integrity Briefing published the same day as the Government's announcement and after my The Panel interview (21 July): Costly case study in policy capture. Edwards also drew upon the excellent investigative work of Radio New Zealand's Guyan Espinar. Consistent with his above-mentioned piece on 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' he describes the decision as: … not, at its core, a decision about health policy. It is a decision about political power, influence, and the erosion of good process. This project serves as a textbook case study of policy capture, where the interests of a well-connected institution, amplified by high-powered lobbyists, have overridden expert advice, fiscal prudence, and superior alternatives. Later in his piece he adds: This lack of transparency and due process is antithetical to good governance. The entire Waikato med school saga has unfolded via secret contracts, private lobbying meetings, and politically wired relationships – all largely hidden from the public until journalists and watchdogs pried it into the light. Backing this up Edwards draws upon many questionable process features including: Waikato Vice-Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley working 'hand-in-glove' in 'partisan coordination' with Shane Reti before the last election and promising the proposed school would be 'a 'present' to a future National government'. Waikato University helping pay for the National party's campaign announcement of the medical school plan (about $5,000). Government officials seeing 'red flags' in the proposal including alarm bells ringing from Treasury, the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education warning of bloated costs, duplication risks and logistical hurdles. The use of two of the most well-connected lobbyists: initially former Labour senior adviser Neale Jones and more substantially former National cabinet minister Steven Joyce. Joyce's firm was paid about $1 million over three years by Waikato for 'consultancy' (le, leveraging his political influence). Questionable procurement in the way Waikato University hired Joyce leading to a public 'scolding' by the Auditor-General John Ryan. Ignoring the arguably better alternative of expanding the existing Auckland and Otago medical schools which were already running rural immersion schemes and satellite programs geared toward rural health. Edwards does not hold back: At its core, the Waikato medical school saga is an illustration of how not to make public policy. The process has failed every basic test of transparency, public accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. A public university and eager politicians cooked up a major spending initiative as a political favour, greased by lobbyists and implemented via dubious means. The normal checks and balances – open procurement, independent policy analysis, genuine stakeholder consultation – were subverted or ignored. It's the kind of deal that breeds public cynicism in politics, the sense that big decisions are made on behalf of the powerful or the connected, not the public. Further: By greenlighting this project in July 2025, ministers have signalled that political paybacks matter more than prudent spending. They have effectively rewarded a campaign of lobbying and pressure that sidestepped the usual contest of ideas. That sets a horrible precedent. It tells every other vested interest: hire the right insiders, make the right donations or deals, and you too can get the government to write a big cheque, officials' advice be damned. And: The Waikato medical school greenlight might be a political win for a few, but it's a loss for New Zealand's standards of governance. It undermines confidence that our health investments are made wisely and fairly. And it should prompt some soul-searching in Wellington: if this is how we make big decisions now, what does that say about who really runs the country? Unconvincing contrary views There have been contrary analyses supporting the Government's decision which I find unconvincing. Luke Malpass, Stuff Political, Business & Economics Editor and formerly holding a leadership role in the New Zealand Initiative expressed a negative view of current medical schools describing them emotively, but without substantiation, as a 'duopoly'. Writing in The Post (22 July; paywalled) in a flaky critique he dismisses those critical of the process, presumably including Bryce Edwards, as 'weird': Flaky rather than investigative. Two days later Waikato University ethics professor and philosopher Nick Algar wrote a paywalled opinion piece in The Post abstractly arguing that those critical of the Government's were guilty of 'sloppy thinking'. This reminded me of the expression 'pot calling the kettle black': Sloppy thinking in the debate over Waikato medical school | The Post Sloppy analysis of 'sloppy thinking'. He also reminded me of Oscar Wilde on philosophy although without the latter's famous and infamous wit: 'My philosophy? I'm always right and you are wrong.' The last word Let's leave the last word to the action of the Government in releasing its redacted 'cabinet business case' material at 6.45pm last Friday as reported by the Otago Daily Times the following day: Politically expedient timing of third medical school case. This timing has been a common practice of successive governments recognising that this is the most difficult time for media scrutiny before it is taken over by other news. If the difficult to substantiate claim of $50 million savings per year stood up to rigorous scrutiny it would have been released at a time convenient for media scrutiny. But 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' necessitated otherwise. Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
