It's time to back Auckland's innovation moment
Opinion: I attended Mayor Wayne Brown's Innovation Forum, the day he updated his Manifesto for Auckland, and the proposal to form an Auckland Innovation Alliance.
In it, he said the Government needed to focus on three areas: technology and innovation, housing and growth, and immigration and tourism.
I came away encouraged that the leader of Auckland was putting innovation on the agenda, as crucial in the imagining and delivery of our city's future.
I love Auckland and believe in its potential. I was born and raised in the Bombay Hills, back before we had a 'Super City', studied at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland, met my husband working in the Viaduct during the America's Cup, and now live in Te Atatū.
Over the past year, like many Aucklanders, my family and I have made the most of what this city offers: swimming at our beaches, bush walking in the Waitākeres, Eden Park concerts, scooter rides along the waterfront, and the playful chaos of the Dog Disco pop-up in Aotea Square. We joined 40,000 other 'geriatric millennials' in the Domain for the Synthony Festival and got behind the launch of Auckland FC. I share this not to age myself, but because I genuinely believe we live in a vibrant, creative, and world-class city.
Yes, Auckland has problems. it also has enormous potential, and that potential hinges on people.
The mayor's moves to put innovation and economic transformation at the heart of Auckland's agenda will go a long way towards attracting further talent.
For years, different groups have published reports diagnosing our economic underperformance and pointing to untapped innovation capacity. The Committee for Auckland's State of the City reports have benchmarked us against global peers, while the Auckland Chamber Tech Council, led by Simon Bridges, has brought together business leaders who are investing time, capital, and energy to help Auckland step into its future.
The proposed Auckland Innovation Alliance, a partnership between Auckland Council, the Government, business, and universities, could be the catalyst the city needs. In cities like Singapore, Dublin, and Copenhagen, similar alliances have driven bold, coordinated action.
Why should everyday Aucklanders care?
Because innovation isn't just about startups and tech, it's about people. A truly innovative city creates high paying, meaningful, and future-proof jobs, not just for software engineers, but for educators, health workers, tradespeople, and students. It leads to better services, smarter infrastructure, and more vibrant communities. Above all, it offers opportunity.
The Time for Growth report identifies three globally competitive sectors where Auckland can lead: CreativeTech, FinTech, and HealthTech. Innovation in these areas, and further afield, is how we will keep people here and attract others. But we must do it on our own terms – we can't and don't need to mimic Silicon Valley.
We can lead with a model shaped by Aotearoa's values, grounded in partnership, sustainability, and inclusion. Te Ao Māori values like kaitiakitanga (guardianship), manaakitanga (care), and whanaungatanga (connection) offer us a blueprint for innovation that puts long-term impact and intergenerational wellbeing ahead of short-term gains.
The mayor's vision to make Auckland the innovation capital of the South Pacific is bold, and timely. His proposals—stronger government partnerships, targeted investment, and an Advanced Technology Institute—are the right moves.
A key part of this vision is forging more intentional partnerships between universities and industry, not by expecting them to be and become the same, but by understanding their distinct roles. When they come together, we spark innovation, and build a pipeline of talent that powers the city's future.
At the Mayor's Forum, a map of the city's innovation ecosystem showed just how much is already here, university incubators, research and development labs, startup hubs, and investors.
Take Outset Ventures, once a garage for tinkerers, now a 5000 square metre deep tech campus backing world changing companies like Toku Eyes, Wellumio, and Zincovery. Add to that Icehouse Ventures, Bridgewest, and others who've invested in hundreds of early-stage ventures and it's clear: the foundations are strong, the momentum is real.
Universities are central to this momentum, as both knowledge producers, and as anchor institutions in the civic and economic fabric of Auckland. At the University of Auckland, initiatives like UniServices, the Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the Product Accelerator, and MedTech iQ help turn research into real world impact. The Newmarket Innovation Precinct is fast becoming a hub for this work.
AUT, through AUT Ventures and a new investment fund, is backing new emerging technologies into startups. Together, these institutions are not only developing ideas, but shaping the people who will drive them.
And that's the point: innovation doesn't happen without people. It doesn't happen without belief in our talent, or commitment to supporting it.
If we harness the current momentum, Auckland won't just be a great place to live. It will be a city where ideas take root, capital flows, and talent from around the world chooses to stay.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
1News
6 hours ago
- 1News
Environmentalists see forestry changes as dangerous step for Tairāwhiti
Tairāwhiti environmentalists have called changes for commercial forestry under proposed Resource Management Act reforms "a slap in the face" and a return to weaker forestry regulations. Local groups are preparing to make submissions on proposed changes to the way forestry is managed after consultation on the Resource Management Act opened on Thursday. The proposals would make it harder for councils to have their own discretion in setting stricter rules to control tree planting. Gisborne District Council said the proposed changes grant both "real opportunities" and "some challenges". The Eastland Wood Council is still considering its options around submitting. ADVERTISEMENT Mana Taiao Tairāwhiti (MTT), the group behind a 12,000-signature petition that triggered the Ministerial Inquiry into Land Use (MILU) in Tairāwhiti and Wairoa, claimed the Government was relaxing "already permissive forestry rules". The inquiry, published in May 2023, followed the destruction caused by Cyclone Gabrielle and other major storms, when woody debris, forestry slash and sedimentation flooded the region's land, waterways and infrastructure. At the time of the inquiry's findings, the previous Government announced actions to reduce the risk of a Gabrielle repeat. MTT spokeswoman and Ruatōria resident Tui Warmenhoven said, "We were promised stronger protections – what we're getting is deregulation dressed as reform". The proposed changes were "a slap in the face to the hundreds of whānau who've already paid the price for poor forestry regulations," said Warmenhoven in a group statement. Another part of the proposed changes will require a Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessment as part of all harvest management plans. It would also consider refining requirements to remove all slash above a certain size from forest cutovers. ADVERTISEMENT MTT welcomed the proposed requirement for Slash Mobilisation Risk Assessments, however, it warned "this would be ineffective without enforceable planning requirements and local oversight". "A slash assessment without an afforestation plan is meaningless – it's a partial fix that ignores the root of the problem," said Warmenhoven. "We've already seen what happens when forestry is left to regulate itself and the problems with planting shallow-rooting pine on erosion-prone slopes. We are also concerned about the removal of references to woody debris, given that whole pine plantations collapsed during Cyclone Gabrielle and still line many waterways in the region." Last September, Eastland Wood Council chairman Julian Kohn said forestry firms were "bleeding money," with many companies finding Gisborne too costly to invest in. Speaking with Local Democracy Reporting, Kohn said Eastland Wood Council was still considering whether to submit its own response or work with other council members to make submissions. "We've been working closely with the minister and advocating for what we see needs to be real change in respect of some of the causes in the NES-CF [National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry]," said Kohn. "Our real concern is that the way the council is treating many of these consents and these enforcement orders are literally sending these forest companies to the wall." ADVERTISEMENT He said forestry companies would close if things continued the way they were, which would leave forests unmanaged and unharvested. "Next time we have a rain event, then some of those trees which have been locked up are going to come down the waterways, which is exactly what everybody wants to try to prevent." Gisborne District Councils director of sustainable futures, Jocelyne Allen, said the consultation documents came "as no surprise" as they were broad and aligned with what the council had seen in the Cabinet paper and Expert Advisory Group report. "The packages cover infrastructure, the primary sector, freshwater, and urban growth, all areas that matter deeply to our region. "There are real opportunities here, but also some challenges, and we're taking the time to work through both carefully," Allen said. The council intends to submit a response and will be taking a strategic and collaborative approach to doing so, including engaging with tangata whenua, whānau, hapū and iwi across the region and working through its sector networks, particularly the Local Government Special Interest Groups and Te Uru Kahika, said Allen. Before the announcement of the proposed changes, in an email to Local Democracy Reporting on Monday, Primary Industries and Forestry Minister Todd McClay said forestry played an important role in the economy and provided many jobs on the East Coast. ADVERTISEMENT "The Government is working closely with the Gisborne District Council and respected members of the forestry industry, farming and iwi to manage and reduce risk through better and more practical rules rather than blanket restrictions or bans." He said they are reviewing slash management practices and will amend the NES-CF so councils can focus on the most at-risk areas, lower costs and deliver better social and environmental outcomes. "We want them to focus on high-risk areas, which is what Gisborne District Council is currently doing, rather than suggesting that there should no longer be any forestry in the Tairāwhiti region," he said. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
