Latest news with #Luxon
NZ Herald
14 hours ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Civil contracting future ‘bright', PM Christopher Luxon tells Tauranga conference
'Another half a billion dollars worth of local government projects are also getting under way this year, including five projects here in Tauranga,' Luxon told the conference. He said the national infrastructure pipeline showed planned future projects across central and local government, and the private sector, totalling $207b. This was nearly $40,000 per person and $116,000 per household. 'For every $1b of infrastructure investment per year, that generates about 4500 jobs.' He said as work got under way on these projects, there would be 'real jobs and real opportunities' for thousands of Kiwis, and added momentum for economic recovery. 'We have turned the corner and the future for civil construction in New Zealand is bright.' Luxon said this was great news for the civil construction sector. 'We need the work to get done. We need action, we need shovels in the ground.' He did not give details of the five Tauranga projects when asked by the Bay of Plenty Times after his speech and said the Government would talk about these 'in due course'. He said a number of projects in Bay of Plenty were 'on the fast track'. Twelve Bay of Plenty projects have been listed to follow the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 process. Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford (left), Tauranga MP Sam Uffindell and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at the Civil Contractors Conference. Photo / Kaitlyn Morrell Luxon said growth problems had been challenging for Tauranga. 'It's a region that should do exceptionally well with a Government that wants to streamline the resource management process and get fast-track projects up and running.' Tauranga was a growing economic powerhouse for New Zealand. 'That growth needs to have quality, modern and reliable infrastructure around it as well.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced at the conference that half a billion dollars worth of local government projects will be under way this year, including five in Tauranga. Photos / Kaitlyn Morrell Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale addressed the conference and said Tauranga continued to be one of the fastest-growing cities in the country. He said a well-formed regional deal should be a game-changer, not just for the Bay of Plenty but as a model for others across the country. 'We are investing heavily to keep pace with growth.' He said the current long-term plan included $500m in annual capital expenditure for the next 10 years. Tauranga Mayor Mahé Drysdale is looking forward to faster, more efficient consenting for projects. Photo / Alisha Evans 'A significant proportion of this is dedicated to horizontal infrastructure.' He was encouraged by the Government's work to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA). 'Faster, more efficient consenting is something we can all look forward to and it will help bring costs down.' Developments in the Bay of Plenty included the Takatimu North Link, SH29 Tauriko-Ōmanawa Bridge and Te Tumu new housing area in Pāpāmoa East. Drysdale said the SH29 project would unlock industrial land, enable4000 new homes in the medium-term and support about 3000 new jobs. 'Infrastructure is too expensive in this country and we need to find ways of delivering more for less.' Civil Contractors New Zealand (CCNZ) president David Howard said the past year in the infrastructure industry had not been easy. 'I feel it's been a bit of a triple-whammy with central government cutting costs, new regulations coming in and councils rethinking their funding.' He said he remained hopeful that CCNZ had worked hard to get in front of the right decision-makers to explain the industry's needs. 'It's not easy to get Government attention, but we've made progress.' Kaitlyn Morrell is a multimedia journalist for the Bay of Plenty Times and Rotorua Daily Post. She has lived in the region for several years and studied journalism at Massey University.
Scoop
17 hours ago
- Health
- Scoop
Gore 'Not Out Of The Woods Yet'- Nitrate Level Linked To Increased Risk Of Preterm Birth
Greenpeace Aotearoa has tested a sample collected from the Gore town supply, which returned a result above 5 mg/L nitrate (NO3-N), a level associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. Above this level of nitrate, the New Zealand College of Midwives recommends that pregnant people consider finding another source of water because of the increased risk of preterm birth. The sample was collected on the morning of Wednesday 23 July and tested with an optical spectrometer, which is standard equipment for testing nitrate in the field, and followed the organisation's standard testing procedures which have been externally reviewed by GNS science. While the township's do-not-drink notice has been lifted, Greenpeace freshwater campaigner Will Appelbe says there is still a risk to public health. "Gore is not out of the woods yet and we're concerned about the risk to pregnant people and babies in other rural communities. Many rural communities are experiencing nitrate contamination caused by intensive dairying. Gore was issued a do-not-drink notice last Friday after the town supply exceeded the maximum allowable value (MAV) of 11.3 mg/L for nitrate. This was set in the 1950s to avoid blue baby syndrome, but it doesn't take into account the more recent health science that has linked several health risks with long-term exposure to nitrate at levels below the current legal limits, including bowel cancer and preterm birth. "We know the source of this pollution. It's the overuse of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser in intensive dairy farming, led by Fonterra and their lobbyists at Federated Farmers. This is an industry that isn't working for anyone except for the industry itself. Dairy pollution is contaminating people's drinking water. Meanwhile, New Zealanders are paying through the nose for a block of butter at the supermarket." "But instead of taking action, Luxon's government has proposed weakening freshwater protections at the behest of Federated Farmers - which will worsen the drinking water crisis." "It's about time that Federated Farmers were accountable to the people of New Zealand. Fed Farmers are opposing every measure to protect freshwater, and they should do right by the rural communities whose drinking water that they and Fonterra have polluted."
Scoop
a day ago
- Politics
- Scoop
World Court's Climate Ruling A Legal Warning Shot For Luxon
Greenpeace Aotearoa says the world's highest court has just delivered a wake-up call for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. In a historic climate ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has confirmed that governments have legal obligations to protect people - both now and in the future - from the worsening impacts of the climate crisis. That includes regulating big polluters like fossil fuel companies and intensive livestock operations. "This is a warning shot to Luxon that his Government's war on nature and the climate comes with consequences," says Greenpeace spokesperson Amanda Larsson. "The Court has made it clear: states must take action to prevent climate harm, no matter where it occurs. They must uphold people's fundamental right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment - for today's communities and future generations." The ICJ ruling goes beyond the Paris Agreement, reinforcing that governments have a duty to regulate climate pollution, cooperate internationally, and prevent environmental harm. It strengthens the legal grounds for climate-impacted communities to hold governments accountable. Since taking office, the Luxon Government has scrapped or weakened numerous key climate policies. It has: Overturned the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration Pledged to fast-track coal mining Shelved agricultural emissions pricing Exempted the country's worst climate polluter - intensive dairying - from meaningful accountability "Luxon is elevating the profits of polluters above people's fundamental human rights," says Larsson. "This ruling puts him - and governments like his - on notice." The dairy industry, led by Fonterra, is New Zealand's largest climate polluter. Yet under pressure from lobby groups, the Government has rolled back environmental safeguards and is now considering weakening methane targets - despite clear advice from the Climate Change Commission that action on methane must be strengthened. Earlier this year, Luxon received a letter authored by dozens of international climate scientists accusing him of ignoring scientific evidence on methane and urging him to follow the Climate Commission's advice to strengthen New Zealand's methane target. The letter was featured on the front page of the Financial Times. "New Zealand is the world's largest dairy exporter and a major player in the global livestock industry," says Larsson. "How New Zealand addresses livestock emissions sets an important precedent for the rest of the world. If Luxon guts the methane target, New Zealand risks breaching the Paris Agreement and, by extension, its trade agreements with partners like the UK and EU." The historic ICJ ruling is a result of action taken in 2019 by 27 law students from The University of the South Pacific. As the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, they campaigned for the ICJ to issue an Advisory Opinion on the responsibilities of States in respect to climate change. The resolution, put forward by Vanuatu alongside a global alliance of States, passed the United Nations General Assembly unanimously in March 2023, co-sponsored by over 130 countries. "As this ruling shows, the courts are becoming an increasingly important venue for climate justice - because governments like ours are failing to protect people and the planet. And when that happens, people will step up to defend their future."
Newsroom
a day ago
- Business
- Newsroom
Who Benefits: The power of the farm lobby, part one
Who Benefits is a year-long project tracking and disclosing lobbying and influence, starting with the agriculture sector. The project is supported financially by a grant from The Integrity Institute. Newsroom has developed the subject areas, will be led by what we uncover and retains full editorial control. If you know where influence is being brought to bear, email us in confidence at: trublenzOIA@ Part two of Who Benefits, published on Friday, zeroes in on the freshwater policy under fire from the agricultural lobby: Te Mana o Te Wai. When Christopher Luxon wanted to declare an end to Labour's 'war on farming' he joined lobby group Federated Farmers on a three-stop tour. 'There is nothing more important to New Zealand than the rural sector,' the Prime Minister told the 800-strong crowd at Mystery Creek, in Waikato, last November, flanked on stage by huge 'Restoring Farmer Confidence' signs. A story in Farmers Weekly – written by Federated Farmers itself – carried comments from Te Aroha dairy farmer Carla De Wet. 'It's pretty impressive to find out the Government has already achieved nine of the 12 things Federated Farmers asked for before the election.' De Wet added: 'I think it's bloody awesome to have ticked off so many things in such a short period of time. That just goes to show how influential that farming voice really is.' (In a circular moment, the lobby group's 2023 election policy document was called 'Restoring Farmer Confidence'.) It was Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford who said the 'nine out of 12' line at Mystery Creek. Luxon thought it was so good, though, he repeated it the next day on The Country radio show. 'The other three are still in motion,' the Prime Minister said. Radio show host Jamie Mackay asked if the Federated Farmers-organised tour – to Waikato, Canterbury and Southland – was like preaching to the choir. (For some, it would have confirmed the old adage Federated Farmers is the National Party in gumboots.) Luxon, the National Party leader, said he wanted farmers to know the Government backed them and would work with them. 'That's how it should be. You should have government and industry as adult-to-adult partners working together on the challenges but also the huge opportunities we've got.' The question is, though, where do politicians draw the line? Political parties are elected on a mandate but discrete partnerships can benefit some groups over others. They can even override the broader public interest. Close relationships also raise questions over influence by vested interests, access to power, and, crucially, who benefits. 'Too complex, too expensive' One of Federated Farmers' 12 policy pre-election demands was 'fix our unworkable freshwater rules'. In May this year, the Government proposed an overhaul of freshwater management which has provoked fierce criticism from environmental groups, Māori and others. (Submissions on the proposals close on Sunday.) Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, of National, said the Government wanted to 'restore balance' in freshwater policy, while Act's Andrew Hoggard – the associate environment minister and a former president of Federated Farmers – said existing rules were too complex, too expensive and often ignored 'practical realities'. Absent from the press statement was Environment Minister Penny Simmonds. The economy was front and centre. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay, left, with the Prime Minister at Fieldays this year. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook A discussion document covering the proposals opened with this line from Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop: 'This Government is committed to enabling primary sector growth as a key driver of both the New Zealand export sector and prosperity in the wider economy.' The Government is in a hurry to increase economic activity. But there are concerns freshwater protections will be bulldozed to boost exports when many waterways already have poor quality, principally because of intensive farming. In many cases degraded rivers, streams and lakes are still deteriorating. Problems with groundwater can affect drinking water, as shown by problems experienced in Gore. (Strengthening drinking water protections in planning and law was done after the Havelock North campylobacteriosis outbreak that made thousands sick and led to four deaths.) If ministers opt for the more extreme options in the freshwater policy overhaul it may encourage more intensive farming, opponents say, and worsen pollution of waterways. Today's political leaders face the same conundrum their predecessors did over decades: If they don't act now, how much more costly will the clean-up be in 10, 20 or 30 years? Dairy giant Fonterra made an after-tax net profit of $1.17 billion in the 2024 financial year. Photo: David Williams The proposals weren't magicked out of thin air, of course. Ministries for the Environment and Primary Industries met selected groups between October last year and February to float ideas and gather feedback on changes to the national policy statement for freshwater management (NPS-FM) and associated environmental standards. Concern is now being raised about the structure and nature of that pre-consultation, and what emerged in the discussion document. Figures provided to public health researcher Marnie Prickett and Newsroom show agricultural groups were consulted in dedicated meetings more often, and for more hours, than local government, central government agencies, and environmental non-government organisations combined. 'I'm concerned at the amount of time that these agencies have spent with the agricultural sector, given that the agricultural sector is one of the biggest polluters of our freshwater resources,' says Prickett, a research fellow at the University of Otago, Wellington's department of public health – and a member of advocacy group Choose Clean Water. Consultation with the primary sector spanned 34.5 hours over 24 meetings, while 18 dedicated meetings were held with agencies, councils and environmental non-government organisations. Over the pre-consultation period there were also an estimated 12 regular inter-agency meetings – held fortnightly for 30 minutes – taking the total to 31 hours. (The most consulted sector in the target consultation was Iwi/Māori. More on that in part two.) There's also a skew in ministerial time. A diary search of key ministers for official meetings, video conferences, events, and functions (including in other portfolios) spanning this parliamentary term shows 98 meetings with Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb, Dairy NZ, and eight with environmental groups EDS, Forest & Bird and Greenpeace. Obviously, that list excludes ministerial meetings with other groups such as the Meat Industry Association, Dairy Companies Association of NZ, Horticulture NZ, Irrigation NZ, and Fish & Game. Prickett says agricultural groups have a commercial interest in limiting regulation. 'I'm concerned that that means the Government is not operating in the public interest but rather prioritising polluting commercial interests.' The country can have productive agriculture, she says, but within environmental limits. Prickett is concerned that diluting freshwater protections would lead to dramatically more degradation, and make it harder to reverse existing problems. Removing these protections would, she says, be similar to decisions favouring the tobacco industry over the public interest. 'The issue is imbalance' Marie Doole, a researcher of environmental strategy and regulation, says lobbying is an important part of democracy, and regulated parties should be consulted on changes affecting them. 'Here, though, the issue is the imbalance,' she says. 'One of the red flags of excessive influence [is] targeted engagement focused mainly on vested interests.' About the time the targeted freshwater consultation started, Victoria University of Wellington's Policy Quarterly magazine published an article 'Navigating murky waters – characterising capture in environmental regulatory systems'. Doole was its lead author. She tells Newsroom skewed consultations favour parties with greater resources and deeper pockets as they're the most invested in moulding a favourable regulatory environment. Christopher Luxon on the 'Restoring Farmer Confidence Tour' with Federated Farmers in the Waikato. Photo: Christopher Luxon/Facebook 'Government's job is to moderate influence, and they do that by fair and balanced consultation and engagement. If they're not doing it, they're not doing the job.' Environmental Defence Society attended pre-consultation meetings with the environment ministry. Chief executive Gary Taylor defends officials, saying they did a good job 'subject to the directions that they've received from ministers'. He identifies various issues – such as who sets environmental limits, 'simplifying' wetlands and fish passage provisions, 'enabling' commercial vegetable growing – that, in his opinion, shouldn't have made the final cut. 'It's fair to say the Government does seem to be unduly influenced overall by the agricultural sector,' Taylor says. 'This Government is a farmers' government, and they are in there all the time. They're in there with Hoggard, they're in there with Bishop, and in spite of several requests, we're halfway through the term and we've yet to have a dedicated meeting with Bishop, who's driving all this. 'On the basis of my experience with successive governments over many years, that's an extraordinary failing, and a deeply troubling asymmetry of influence.' In response to a Newsroom request under the Official Information Act, Jane Chirnside, the Ministry for Primary Industries' director of resources and rural communities, says the agency led targeted engagement with the primary sector over proposed changes to the national policy statement. 'We met with individuals in their capacity as farmers and/or members of local catchment groups, to understand at a practical level the impact that the NPS-FM has at farm and catchment scale. 'We used existing MPI networks to identify participants and tried to get representatives across regions and farm types, who had an interest in freshwater management, or were involved in catchment groups.' Ministers intervened to add options Prickett, of University of Otago, says a straight line can be drawn between what agricultural groups have asked for and what's in the public discussion document. A November 14 letter to ministers McClay, Hoggard, and Simmonds, written by Federated Farmers vice president and freshwater spokesperson Colin Hurst, said national bottom lines for water quality were, in some areas, 'unachievable', because of, for example, climate change, naturally occurring processes, population growth, land use, and legacy effects. 'Our recommendation is that national direction focus on what outcomes regional councils should seek to achieve, but that targets and timeframes are set at the catchment level, by regional councils, based on the social, economic, environmental and cultural needs of the local community.' In March, after targeted consultation had finished, ministers Bishop, McClay, and Hoggard stepped in to ensure local decision-making would appear in the discussion document. The intervention was recorded in an interim Regulatory Impact Statement – in which officials assess the effects of policy changes. Associate Environment Minister and former president of Federated Farmers Andrew Hoggard says existing rules are too complex, too expensive and often ignore 'practical realities'. Photo: Supplied The additional option was councils should be given flexibility to deviate from national bottom lines when achieving them 'has a high social, cultural or economic cost'. An interim Regulatory Impact Statement (there were several) said giving councils this flexibility 'will address key concerns, including those raised in the Beef + Lamb NZ report about natural variation, and the need to vary by region'. (Prickett, the public health researcher, says talk of local decision-making is, to her, shorthand for decisions made or influenced by polluting commercial interests.) At the March 4 meeting, officials were also directed to add other options to the discussion document: removing Te Mana o Te Wai (a decision-making hierarchy putting the health of water and ecosystems first), or considering a name change; and scrapping the 190kg per hectare cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. Hurst's letter from November told ministers there should be 'no hierarchy of obligations' – a direct assault on Te Mana o te Wai – and asked for a refreshed NPS to balance environmental values with cultural, social and economic purposes. The South Island's biggest irrigation company, Central Plains Water, writing on December 2, three days after its consultation meeting, said many of the problems arising from the national policy statement stemmed from 'how Te Mana o te Wai is framed'. The hierarchy needs 'replacing in its entirety'. The company supported locals deciding if water quality and quantity should be maintained or improved, with the caveat: 'It is based on clear direction set in a NPS'. Directions on nutrient management 'do not need further strengthening', the company said. However, officials noted there would also be an increased risk of 'debate and litigation'. Another passage of the regulatory impact statement quoted a Beef + Lamb report. 'There is also concern from the primary sector that it is not possible to meet water quality bottom lines within the timeframes anticipated to be set, and 'trying to meet them will decimate farming and rural communities'.' (Doole, the independent researcher, says an explosion in catchment groups and community volunteering over the past 10 years suggests people in rural and urban environments are far more aware of their environmental impact. She struggles to reconcile that awareness with ardent advocacy to deregulate with farmers, and a 'weird binary of farmers versus environmentalists' which just feels 'exhausting and boring'.) Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy gave expert opinion evidence in the Ngāi Tahu trial on the extent to which freshwater in the takiwā is degraded, and the causes. Photo: Supplied Freshwater ecologist Mike Joy, a senior research fellow at Victoria University of Wellington's school of geography, environment and earth sciences, shared his submission to the consultation with Newsroom. The submission said councils already had flexibility to deviate from bottom lines – something noted on the environment ministry's website. Joy added there was already an 'out-clause' for waterways affected by naturally occurring processes. There was, he wrote, no justification for not applying national bottom lines. Attempts to weaken freshwater regulation were being disguised, Joy said, by using words and phrases such as 'rebalancing', 'providing flexibility' and 'simplifying'. 'There is, however, no recognition of the fact that water quality has been declining for many decades, thus the regulations they are wanting to weaken are already not strong enough.' A 2020 state of the environment report said more than 90 percent of rivers in urban, pastoral, and exotic forest areas have water quality below recommended guidelines, 76 percent of native fish were threatened with, or at risk of, extinction, and 90 percent of wetlands had been drained. Prickett, the University of Otago researcher, says rebalancing Te Mana o Te Wai would continue the primacy of polluting commercial interests over freshwater policy, which has been happening for decades and has led to declines of water quality and quantity. This degradation, she says, suggests freshwater protections have never been good enough. This despite numerous surveys showing high public concern over freshwater – that they want to be able to swim and fish in rivers and lakes, and drink high-quality water from their taps. National direction policy flood The freshwater overhaul that landed in May was part of a torrent of consultation over national direction unleashed by the coalition Government. Changes are proposed to 12 existing instruments and four new ones, with a focus on freshwater, infrastructure and development, and the primary sector. Environmental lobby group Greenpeace Aotearoa accused the Government of stripping freshwater protections to bolster corporate profits, while Federated Farmers suggested the Government had to pause freshwater rules. What are farmer groups saying now, particularly about their influence on political parties, and accusations of undue influence over that of the public interest? Hurst, of Federated Farmers, says it's 'entirely appropriate' for the Government to engage regularly with farmers and the wider primary sector, 'particularly when you consider the potential impact and cost of these rules'. Farming rules should be practical, affordable and fair, he says. 'We also want to make sure any regulation will actually be effective and achieve better environmental outcomes. 'It's important we get these rules right, particularly when you consider the huge economic contribution of agriculture for the country.' DairyNZ's David Burger, the general manager of farm solutions and policy, says it engages constructively with the government of the day on matters affecting dairy farmers 'and appreciates that other groups do the same'. Kate Acland, the chair of Beef + Lamb NZ, says farming impacts on freshwater need to be managed but there were significant issues 'and massive implications' under the previous government's approach. 'It's critical that ministers and officials first understand the issues, but also critical that they spend time with the sector to ensure rules are practical and workable.' Acland notes anyone can make a submission on the consultation, which will go through parliamentary processes, including a select committee. Ministers respond Newsroom asks ministers McClay, Hoggard, Bishop, Simmonds, and Associate Agriculture Minister Nicola Grigg for comment. Bishop responds, but he's silent on ministerial meetings and the influence of agriculture. We'll quote his comments in full – the reason for which will soon be apparent. 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for eight weeks closing on 27 July, has been shaped by feedback received from a wide range of groups during the targeted engagement phase.' (Prickett points out this selected group didn't include non-polluting commercial interests like the tourism industry.) Bishop continues: 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. 'Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'All submissions received during the public consultation period will be considered, along with feedback from the ongoing engagement, before progressing any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public submissions later this year, when exposure drafts will be released for further consultation.' (Exposure drafts are the raw wording of legislation, released to identify potential problems before it's introduced to Parliament. This seems like a concession by the Government to environmental groups.) A day after Bishop's comments were sent, the Ministry for the Environment provided Newsroom with this statement, attributed to Nik Andic, the manager of freshwater natural environment policy: 'The current public consultation on freshwater national direction, which runs for 8 weeks and closes on 27 July, has been shaped by the feedback we received from a wide range of groups during targeted engagement. 'During targeted engagement, some groups sought to discuss specific matters of interest or asked to continue discussions at additional meetings. Officials from the Ministry for the Environment accommodated these requests wherever possible, and the number and duration of meetings varied as a result. 'We will consider all submissions received during the public consultation period, along with feedback from ongoing engagement, before providing advice to ministers on any freshwater national direction changes. 'Note that there will also be a second phase of public consultation on freshwater national direction changes later this year, when exposure drafts are released.' Farming groups' influence on Government policy might be a concern but at least the public can be assured the minister and ministry are singing from the same hymn sheet.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Agribusiness and Trade: India's tech boom offers opportunities for New Zealand businesses
As New Zealand companies like Serko have discovered, India is where you go when looking for global capability hubs. While it sells professional services like law and accounting, India remains best known for its information technology services. Its tech giants like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Tech Mahindra may not be household names, but are familiar in executive suites and boardrooms. India's tech firms are active in New Zealand. In April, Spark signed a strategic deal with Infosys to accelerate the transformation of its technology delivery model using artificial intelligence and cloud tools. This year Air New Zealand and Tata Consultancy Services signed a five-year partnership deal to explore opportunities for digital transformation, innovation and operational efficiency in the airline industry. Tech Mahindra is working with the University of Auckland on AI and quantum computing projects. This last deal underlines a key point. Twenty years ago India was best known for its sweatshop call centres and low-cost IT outsourcing. Today it is a global hub for advanced technology, innovation and skilled digital talent. In 2020, India accounted for approximately 55% of the global IT service sourcing market — valued at between US$200 billion and $250b. It made up around 20% of total global IT spending. That was up from around 13% of the total in 2015. India also accounts for a large slice of the world's IT experts. In 2021, India ranked third worldwide for cloud expertise, with 608,000 professionals. In addition to exports, India sustains a huge domestic technology sector. In 2023 the industry had an estimated worth of US$245b and employed 5.4 million people. The market is growing at just over 10% a year. Speaking at the India New Zealand Business Council's Boardroom to Border leadership dialogue in May, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon identified technology as one of the key focus areas of his mission to India in March. Said Luxon: 'We worked really hard in Mumbai and Delhi to ensure that New Zealand's primary products, our technology, our education, exports and our tourism offerings, were front and centre. 'Kiwi and Indian businesses are the engines of growth creating those new opportunities, lifting trade and helping transform the relationship between our countries.' Selling New Zealand technology faces challenges. Sakthi Ranganathan, founder of Christchurch-based JIX Reality Lab told attendees at the Boardroom to Border event that it's hard to attract the world's best researchers to work in New Zealand. 'From an Indian perspective, New Zealand is not seen as a destination for cutting-edge research. It's not the place to be for the future of aerospace or food and agriculture. The cream, the high-achieving individuals will always prefer a different country to New Zealand.' Another aspect of India's rise as a technology powerhouse lies in its consumption of technology. With a population of 1.4b and a rapidly-growing middle class, it represents a huge market for products such as mobile phones and laptops. These are also essential tools for lifting Indians out of poverty. India's telecom industry is the second largest by mobile phone, smartphone and internet users after China. Figures from the GSM Association and Boston Consulting Group show there are 1.165b wireless subscribers and a total of 1.2b telephone subscribers. Which explains why Apple is showing so much interest in India. The US phone and computer maker is putting down roots there. It now manufactures iPhones in new factories outside Chennai. Today between 15% and 18% of all iPhones are produced in India. Five years ago, 100% were made in China. That country now accounts for 75%. The Times of India forecasts the nation will account for 25% to 30% of iPhones by 2027. American geopolitical tension with China and President Donald Trump's mercurial trade policies go some way to explaining the move, but the lure of a billion consumers moving out of poverty is significant. And the potential spotted by Apple also represents an export opportunity for New Zealand's tech sector. Madras-born, Auckland-based angel investor and education consultant Edwin Paul chaired a panel at Boardroom to Border exploring moves to build a shared digital future between New Zealand and India. He neatly summarises the potential. 'Both countries bring unique strengths to the table. India brings scale and a digital public infrastructure. New Zealand brings trust-based governance, regulatory agility and a people-first innovation approach. Together, we are well placed to shape a digital agenda that is not only competitive but ethical, inclusive and resilient.' Paul's agenda includes building 'future-ready frameworks in artificial intelligence, cyber security, digital services and the startup ecosystem, moving beyond pilot projects and policy papers'. He wants to see mechanisms put in place to make cross-border innovation work.' Investment is crucial to India's rise and the technology sector is set to receive the bulk of funds. Most Indian investors say they plan to allocate more than three-quarters of their funds to digital investments in the next five to seven years. Bharat Chawla, the chairman of the India New Zealand Business Council put investment into a local perspective when reporting back on the INZBC's Grow with India report. He talked about the diplomatic investment the two countries have made and work across public and private sectors. He sees the need for two-way investment between the two countries. Two New Zealand companies that have made major investments in India are Carmen Vicelich's Valocity and Serko, a publicly traded travel and expense technology company.
