logo
ENFRع
#

Latest news with #MinistryofBusiness

We keep measuring the Māori economy – but what are we actually counting?
We keep measuring the Māori economy – but what are we actually counting?

The Spinoff

time2 days ago

  • Business
  • The Spinoff

We keep measuring the Māori economy – but what are we actually counting?

New report after new report declares the growth and potential of the Māori economy. But what even is it, and why do we keep measuring it? Last week, yet another report was released outlining the prowess and potential of the Māori economy. 'The 'Māori economy' is thriving and diversifying,' the report from WEAll Aotearoa begins, following with many impressive figures and statistics: 'contribution of $32 billion… asset base of $126bn'. So what are these numbers, how are they measured, and what purpose does dissecting and analysing the Māori economy as a standalone sector of our capitalist system serve? What even is the Māori economy? Honestly, I couldn't tell you. In its most recent report on the Māori economy released earlier this year, Te Ōhanga Māori 2023 – The Māori Economy Report 2023, the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment states: 'Te Ōhanga Māori is not always a separate, distinct, and clearly identifiable segment of the Aotearoa New Zealand economy.' From what I gather, what we now call the 'Māori economy' was born not from Māori, but from a colonial lens – one that separated Māori economic activity from the broader economy of Aotearoa. Before colonisation, however, the Māori economy was the entire economy of Aotearoa. We cultivated and traded internationally, maintained thriving markets with our Pacific neighbours, and by the 1800s, were actively bartering with European and American markets. There's a quote from Mānuka Henare that often gets missed in these debates. He reminded us that the artistic flourishing of the 16th-18th centuries – the carving, weaving and tattooing – didn't come from scarcity. It came from a dynamic, thriving Māori economy. A creative economy rooted in relationships, surplus, and time to think, carve and dream. And then came colonisation… Bingo. Mass disruption and dispossession completely changed the face of the Māori economy. Christ came alongside capitalism – monocultural capitalism, to be exact. For the most part, Māori were excluded from participating in the settler economy, except as low-paid labour. The wealth of the British Crown in New Zealand was essentially built on the back of stolen resources and slave labour. This depleted the Māori economy of its capitalistic wealth. The cultural wealth of Māori was also severely depleted through tools of colonisation. Laws encouraging assimilation and prohibiting Māori from speaking our language and carrying out cultural practices amounted to cultural genocide. A majority of the Māori population was forced to shift to urban areas during the 1950s to the 1970s, taking wage labour jobs and being disconnected from whenua or collective models. During this time, Māori economic power was deliberately undermined. The Crown's policy was to assimilate Māori socially, politically and economically – not to support indigenous enterprise. Clearly things have changed. In the 1970s, we witnessed what's known as the 'Māori renaissance'. A key part of this was the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal and the treaty claims process. The first claim to be settled was the Māori Fisheries claim, also known as the Sealord Deal. This provided an economic basis for iwi authorities to begin rebuilding their economic wealth, albeit under a Crown-controlled capitalist model. Other large-scale settlements such as Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui provided iwi with capital and assets, although this was a comparatively minuscule amount compared to the total value of loss. However, this led to many iwi creating commercial entities like Ngāi Tahu Holdings and Tainui Group Holdings, which reinvested in property, farming, tourism, infrastructure and finance. These entities are often what gets counted in Māori economy stats today, via Māori authorities. So the Māori economy is just measuring how well settled entities are doing? Seems a bit narrow. Yes, for the most part. In 2002, the IRD introduced a tax rate specific to Māori authorities, aiming to modernise the tax rules for organisations managing Maori assets held in communal ownership. In 2012, Stats NZ began defining and measuring 'Māori authorities' – the entities that form the core of the so-called 'Māori economy'. This legally recognises post-settlement governance entities – not pakihi Māori. This is one reason the data often skews toward iwi corporations and not the thousands of small Māori-owned businesses or social enterprises. What was the point of measuring this data in the first place, especially with such a narrow scope? A friend half-jokingly said to me it's to illustrate how Māori are leeching from the Crown – as crude as it might sound, there is some truth in this statement. The state wanted to understand how the capital being returned to Māori via the settlement process was being used, how it might contribute to national GDP and how Māori entities could be integrated into broader economic policy and investment. Arguably, the Crown began tracking these measures to make Māori legible to the state – easier to understand, manage, and control – first through tax and compliance, then through economic policy, and now through investment lenses. It began as a state-driven interest in managing, taxing and tracking Māori collectives post-settlement. However, it has since evolved into a strategic economic conversation, which Māori are increasingly reframing to reflect kaupapa Māori values, collective aspirations and indigenous economic thinking. And what is it actually telling us? That we're outside the general economy? There is an argument that by measuring the Māori economy, we're saying we need to be tracked separately because we're not good enough to stand on equal footing. Personally, I don't buy the warm fuzzy intent. As mentioned above, I suspect it started as a way to quantify what Māori were 'costing' the nation – to calculate the burden, not the benefit. Even now, those numbers get weaponised: 'Look how wealthy Māori are. Why do they still need support?' It's a setup and it flattens the story. Success in a few iwi boardrooms does not always trickle down to every whānau struggling with rent in Māngere or Moerewa. Worse still, when handled carelessly, these metrics can reinforce the ceiling. They frame success as: 'That's a great Māori business,' instead of just, 'that's a great business.' As stated in the WEAll Aotearoa report released this week, 'too often the success of Māori businesses is conflated with the Māori economy, when it is more appropriately conceptualised as Māori businesses operating within a global capitalist economy.' But there are economic benefits to measuring this data, right? Progressive procurement policies, legislative support for indigenous businesses, etc. Yes – there are some real benefits, but they depend on how we measure. To truly deliver, data must be disaggregated – by region, by business type, and by iwi lineage – so we understand the diversity within Māori enterprise. Māori must be empowered to define what counts as success – both profit and wellbeing, GDP and cultural strength. To drive real change, we need public/private partnerships to fund business support, procurement pathways, and legislation shaped by Māori data. Measuring the Māori economy enables DEI strategies, justifies indigenous business support, fosters inclusive economic development, strengthens infrastructure, and reveals systemic gaps. But it only works when Māori are designing and owning the data narrative. The data has helped some of us unlock capital, attract co-investment, and push for equity in government policy. Measurement, if wielded wisely, can be a tool for mana motuhake.

Govt unveils new Institute for Advanced Technology
Govt unveils new Institute for Advanced Technology

Otago Daily Times

time5 days ago

  • Business
  • Otago Daily Times

Govt unveils new Institute for Advanced Technology

By Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira of RNZ The government has unveiled a new public research organisation focused on "supercharging" the country's economy through advanced technology. Speaking in Auckland this morning, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Technology would be based focus on turning technologies like AI and quantum computing into commercial success. The announcement follows the establishment of three public research institutes focused on Earth Science, Bioeconomy and Health and Forensic Science. The institute will first be incubated within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) before becoming an independent entity when legislation comes into effect in July 2026. Luxon said it would be New Zealand's fourth institute and the cornerstone of government's plan to make a high-tech, high-value economy. "I expect it to be forward-looking, with the support and advice of the Science Advisory Council, to invest in new areas of science that are reshaping the global economy, where we can develop excellent talent, create high-paying jobs, build new sectors and increase our export earnings," he said. Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Shane Reti said the government was committing $231 million over the next four years to the institute, which will be based in Auckland and work with other research centres, universities and industries. "Our first major investment announced in May is already under way at Wellington Robinson Research Institute specialising in future magnetic and materials technologies and cryogenic superconducting further investments will be guided by the Prime Minister's Science Innovation and Technology Advisory Council," he said. "New Zealand has a proud history of innovation, from agri-tech to clean energy, and these institutes will build on those strengths while unlocking new frontiers. This is not only research, it's about jobs growth and global impact, it's about delivering long term value for New Zealanders." Asked what consideration had been given to ethical AI use, Luxon said managing the negative impacts of AI had to be done in a "multilateral" way, by working with other countries to build legislative frameworks for it. "There is a lot more upside with AI than there is downside, and this is a country that needs to embrace a lot more AI, quantum computing, synthetic biology, all of those," he said. "We understand the challenges around AI, but we will manage that through global forums, in terms of building out strong legislative frameworks. But the bigger opportunity is for us to get on and embrace it, because it's not coming, it's actually already here." Luxon said New Zealand had a history of producing "incredible" scientists. "I don't want this to be a country where we proudly say, 'oh, we invented that', and then someone else around the world commercialised it," he said. "Just look at Denmark, right? Think about the work that they did on pharmaceuticals, around weight loss drugs, Ozempic and other things that have been huge around the world. That is powering that economy. That is a huge focused investment in science and technology." Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Simon Bridges said it was a move that followed clear calls from the business community to supercharge the city's tech future. "This is just the start. We now need to double down on digital skills, commercial investment, and putting our startups on the global map," he said Bridges said the suburb of Newmarket was a natural home for the new institute. "Newmarket offers the full package - advanced R&D, space to scale, and commercial potential. "I certainly hope the institute will be based at Newmarket, it is the right place for it. But regardless of the precise final location, Auckland is the right launchpad for a national push into advanced tech."

Ministry Feared Costs Of $60m A Year To Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill
Ministry Feared Costs Of $60m A Year To Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill

Scoop

time6 days ago

  • Business
  • Scoop

Ministry Feared Costs Of $60m A Year To Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill

Officials have warned David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates suggested, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. Seymour is playing down the concerns, saying AI will solve some of those problems and the officials have not accounted for some aspects of the bill he expects will speed up government processes. The documents released under the Official Information Act show Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials feared $50 million to $60m a year in costs to government departments would be on the low end of estimates. They also believed the bill would slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks, and make the business environment more uncertain, slowing economic growth. Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed "concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality", and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. MBIE estimates of costs to review legislation In feedback ahead of last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three full-time staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. "This translates to 95 - 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation - larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation." As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. "It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (full time employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the Minister on whether departures are justified." This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional full-time employee would be needed for each new bill the government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding "an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process". "As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25," the advice stated. "It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver Ministers' policy priorities." The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees - which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. "The advice provided high level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the Bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the Bill is passed." Estimated $50m to $60m annual cost to departments a 'lower bound' MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of "$50m-$60m per year", saying this was likely on the lower end. "As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work." The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. "We offered to work with the Ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48 hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE". However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Seymour expects AI will bring department costs down Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. "It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis," he said. "It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the Bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? "This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend." He suggested AI could also help. "Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI," he said. "Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here." He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. "I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for." Victoria University senior lecturer in Artificial Intelligence Andrew Lensen warned artificial intelligence is not the silver bullet David Seymour has suggested it will be for reducing the cost of the Regulatory Standards Bill. "There are some benefits we've seen in the public sector with the use of AI to help public servants do some stuff, but I think what the minister is proposing is very optimistic and not at all what I'd suggest as a reasonable solution," Lensen told Midday Report. He said human oversight would be needed if AI was used to make sure there were no mistakes or inaccuracies. "If you need someone to baby-sit a model, or baby-sit that system, then it's sort of limited how much efficiency you can gain from that process," Lensen said. He added the return investment in AI is not clear because there is a big risk of legal costs if AI makes a mistake. Concerns over opposition to RSB affecting business confidence The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. "Because some of the principles in the Bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the Bill as a whole. "Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn." Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, "which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth". RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. Cost estimates 'highly concerning' - Greens The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on "doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill". He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations "that protect people and planet". "Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project." He said Seymour's explanations sounded like "total BS", saying it was "desperation". He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5 percent. "AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings - it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated," Hernandez said. "Seymour is spinning." He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it - saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. "The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is." Cabinet removed requirement to review every 10 years after every ministry complained The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concerns about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. "David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers," the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. "People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10 year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store