Power play: Qiulae Wong on R&D, AI, hi-tech skills and tax

WEBVTT - Power play: Qiulae Wong on R&D, AI, hi-tech skills and tax Could New Zealand's tech community help decide this year's election. I'm Peter Griffin, and this week on the Business Off Tech, I'm talking to someone who has quietly built a serious following in New Zealand's innovation economy, Qla Wong, leader of the Opportunity Party and a candidate for Parliament in the twenty twenty six election. In the latest political polls, the Opportunity Party is sitting at around three to four percent.

Qla tells me that the party's strongest base of support now comes from the tech sector, smart young professional startup founders, scientists who are looking for political leadership that actually knows how to leverage technology for higher paying jobs, higher productivity and a more sustainable future. If you've been frustrated watching government's talk a big game on innovation and climate then keep cutting R and D, dithering on AI, and lurching from one energy crisis to the next, this conversation is for you.

In my discussions with founders and scientists over the last year, I keep hearing the same thing. Opportunities Policy platform feels like a breath of fresh air because it's unapologetically evidence based, reform focused and willing to tackle the so called third rail issues that shape where capital flows in this country. In today's episode, QLA and I get into the nuts and bolts of the Party's tech and productivity agenda, including a plan to double New Zealand's R and D investment from around one point five percent of GDP to three percent, putting us in line with other advanced economies and giving our next generation of rocket labs a chance to actually be built here rather than offshore.

We talk about supercharging commercialization so ideas don't die in the lab, and giving the Commerce Commission more teeth to open up competition and concentrated sectors like supermarkets, banking, and energy. We also explore how Opportunity wants New Zealand to approach artificial intelligence from gold standard regulation that sets clear rules but actively invites AI companies to build here, to a dedicated AI policy and education settings that focus on both technical capability and critical thinking so workers can actually harness these tools, not be blindsided by them.

But how is the Opportunity Party going to pay for all of this? Well, reform if the tax system. Just last week, the Opportunity Party released a new tax package built around a one point seventy five percent annual land value tax, a universal citizens income of three hundred and seventy dollars a week for every adult, and a compulsory Keyvy Saber two point zero saving scheme. Chule explains how that combination is designed to shift capital out of speculative property and into productive investment, help fund the step change in R and D and the clean energy transition, and prepare us for the twin pressures of an aging population and AI driven job disruption.

We also touch on the party's energy and climate plans, from a twenty five year national energy strategy and a capacity investment scheme to unlock new renewable generation to using gen Taylor dividends to accelerate electrification in a way that still works for low income households and small businesses. You'll also hear how they're thinking about genetic technologies, getting Kiwi tech talent to return home, and using citizens assemblies to rebuild trust and participation in our democracy.

So the Opportunity Party has big plans, but can they get there? Can they get over that magical five percent threshold off the popular vote to actually be in a position to join a coalition government and have influence in all of these areas. Here's my conversation with Opportunity Party leader Qla Wong Julee. Welcome to the Business of Tech.

Thanks so much for taking the time. Yeah, thanks for having me. So wow, what a time for politics. A lot going on and interestingly, the Opportunity Party is up in the polls.

I think Roy Morgan had you on something like four percent, some of the others three percent, so three to four percent. And we have seen this with the Opportunity Party in the past. There's been a surge of interest. Haven't been able to get over the line, despite the profile of people like Gareth Morgan and my olemate Jeff Simmons, who really gave it his all.

But there seems to be momentum building again. And when I talk to people in the business community, particularly, you know, startup founders, people in the tech community, scientists in particular as well, they will just say to me, wow, you know, this is a breath of fresh air. What's coming from the Opportunity Party around things like productivity, around our R and D policies, your approach to technology, and how you intend to fund pursuing a cleaner, greener, more productive, sustainable country.

You know, there's actually you know, you think business people are tax rises or capital gains taxes are anathema to them, But actually most of the ones I talked to you say tax us more because we need more capital to run our businesses, and it's been a stranglehold on that because of our obsession with property. So there actually a lot of them anyway are on board. So we'll get to all of that and drill into some of those policies in detail. But really, for people who don't know detail your background, tell us about your pathway to opportunity, because it's quite mixed and varied, covering everything from what fashion tech to consulting services at KPMG and sustainability stuff with b Labs.

So give us the story. Yeah, well, yeah, I think you've really articulated a core vote base for us there, which is it's actually really nice to hear it from somebody else's point of view. But yeah, my background is I guess the common thread amongst all of those things that you mentioned is purpose driven business or business is a force for good. I studied law in politics at university, so I think I was always interested in this idea of social change and how can we make society better?

And I was drawn to work in the private sector because I felt like it was a more fast paced, innovative place to make change, and that if we could get businesses using the best of all of their talents and the innovation and the ideas, and you know, there's talented people to solve some of our big social environmental challenges, then that, you know, that's our best opportunity to really crack it, because there's so much more fast paced than what government seems like it's able to make change.

And it was. I spent fifteen years, as you mentioned, working across the fashion industry, in particular in London, which was amazing. I sort of saw it go from sustainability be seen as something that is like tied Ie and Hemp dresses to something that's actually really tech forward, you know, the likes of Stella McCartney really driving change in materials and manufacturing practices. And so that was a really interesting time to be part of that.

And I saw what system change looked like across the whole industry and learned a lot there, and then I broadened out and applied that to different kinds of businesses, working with the Bee CORP certification and then at KPMG to change those business models and ways of doing business. And I guess stepping into politics was about constantly coming up against the frustration that this would never become the norm. I think I had a realization that my work was focused on maybe five percent of the business community that were trying to do things differently.

The majority of businesses began small, working with the status quo, following the rules that are laid out for them, and that essentially is where government plays a strong role to set the direction and kind of create the regulations that drive business in a particular way. It's quite a big thing. I mean, you had a successful career in London, as you say, in fashion tech, and you probably could have stayed there like a lot of Kiwis. You came home and had a successful career here.

But not only have you decided to get into politics, which is a big challenge. But it's not a safe seat. Like a lot of people in national even labor get assigned or put high up the list. You're going for a minor party that hasn't had representatives and government before.

I mean, what spurred that decision and why now? Yeah, it was certainly a lot of conversations with my husband about whether or not I should do this. It was a bit of a pay cut and a huge risk I might not be jobless at the end of this year. But certainly having kids, I think it's really cliche.

But I've got a five year old and a two year old, two girls, and becoming a mum really makes you lengthen your horizon around what kind of future we are all contributing to. And even though I've always worked in this space, I suppose the real drive and impetus to do this now felt stronger than ever because I can't see things getting better with the status quo. I don't see those big solutions getting put on the table and furthered and people working together to make New Zealand an amazing country that it could be.

So yeah, I think I felt like I needed to give this a go myself, and it is something that I've thought about before, so it wasn't like a completely random idea, and I guess it was good timing with the Opportunity Party putting out their open leadership selection and going through that process. I guess we're also looking at the influence some of the minor parties have actually had in this coalition as well. I mean, we've seen coalition governments before, but this time it seems to be ACT and New Zealand First have really influenced the government's policy agenda.

And you know, obviously Seymour and Peter's are Deputy Prime Minister sharing that role as well. Is that an evolution you think that sort of has given you more hope that if you could get over that five percent threshold you could actually have significant influence in a cabinet. Yeah. On the one hand, it's interesting that it is a very diverse coalition.

There's quite divergent views, particularly between ACT and New Zealand First on some things, and so in some ways that's good because I think we should perpetuate the idea that diverse views at the table can work together and find common ground. But it's also felt quite disruptive. And that there's no common vision. People don't really know what this government's you know, where we're going, Where do we want to be by twenty fifty, what's the long term aspiration?

I think if you asked all three of those leaders, they'd give you pretty different answers, and so that's something that we're really keen to, you know, whatever coalition government we might be in, setting a really clear direction for New Zealand and being really clear about what that future is that we want to see and hopefully whichever party we work with it shares those values. In some ways, people have said to me our opportunities is a little bit like a blue green sort of coalition if they went with National, and I'd really like that, But some of your policies are more Labour's looking at reforming tax and capital gains and that sort of thing.

I guess you have to work with anyone, But is there a particular sweet spot on the political agenda you see yourself occupying. I think we would work differently with either Labor or National, and we could certainly work with either our preferences for it to be one of those major parties. If it was Labor, I think we would push them harder on stuff like tech, innovation, R and D, you know, that relationship with business and the role of business and solving some of these challenges.

If it's a National led government, we would push them harder on environmental issues and making sure that we are taking communities and people with us on this jam, not just allowing the market free reign to do everything at the expense of people in planet. So we'd work with them in different ways. We kind of say we hold National accountable on the environment and we hold labor accountable on the economy, and so when it comes to election time and negotiations, that will broadly be our approach.

Do you think the coalition and National which has driven it, in particular the likes of christ Bishop and that has gone too far with fast tracking with RMA reform, those sorts of things in terms of the environmental policy they're pursuing. Yeah, we certainly see the need for reform, and we are fully supportive of faster consenting, more streamlined rules and common sense rules around consenting. But we do also need strong environmental guardrails, and I don't think that needs to be seen as red tape because if you set really clear regulation, then people will innovate and work within those rules.

It actually creates more certainty instability if you're really clear about what those rules are. I think what's hurting at the moment is that flip flopping between you know, will will we allow this kind of mining or will we not? And you know what is part of what does mining look like for New Zealand's future. If we were clear on that for the next twenty five thirty years, we would get the businesses that agree with that vision and they would plow on and do the work.

Yeah. Same with housing density, what's happened in Auckland and rolling back some of those provisions as well. There's a lot of flip flopping going on, and I think you've come in saying we want evidence. Space policy that's from the Gareth Morgan days has always been part of opportunity, which I think a lot of smart business people like Reform Focus willing to tackle so called third rail issues and we'll get into some of these tax land use welfare design to shift capital from property into productive investment.

You have. One of your central policies is productivity unleashed. I've talked about this with lots of people on the podcast. Our stubbornly low rate of productivity growth.

We work harder and longer than everyone else in the OECD. What do you plan to do about it? So, firstly, we need to fill the top of the funnel and that's that investment in R and D. So at the moment, our investment is about one point five percent of GDP.

We'd like to see that double to three, which is about the average for the OECD. So it's not even being overly ambitious, it's just getting up to par with where we should be. So that doubling of investment, they're more support for the science sector. Those are all of those ideas are the things that build the.

Next rocket labs for the next twenty years, and so we have to keep filling that funnel. And the concern at the moment is that funnel is getting really small and dright up, and all our best researchers are going offshore to because they can get grants and funding to do that work elsewhere. So I think we firstly we have to support that end of it. We also need to tackle competition.

This is actually straight out of the OECD playbook. It's not actually us coming up with wild ideas sort of innovation. Competition and skills are the three things that the OECD says, you know, will drive a productive economy. In New Zealand.

We have big players in supermarkets and banking, energy sector. We need to both support those smaller businesses to disrupt and we also need to follow through through the Commerce Commission. Some of the recommendations that they've already made around supermarkets and banking. We'd like to see ComCom with more teeth to be able to actually push those things forward.

And obviously we'll talk about skills and really interesting your view on how to get a really good skills pipeline going on the R and D stuff. I mean, we're talking about potentially an extra billion dollars if you doubled R and D spending, maybe another billion dollars of public investment, So it's significant. The coalition and labor, to be honest, have been pretty stubbornly reluctant to do that. To match other small advanced nations get it up to three percent, So that is a problem.

There's a lot of reforms that are underway now the Institute for Advanced Technology. From what you've seen of the trajection of travel around that focusing on AI high temperature superconductors, maybe even quantum technologies at the expense of other areas of science. How do you think that is playing out and would you carry that on? I can see why there's been a reluctance to increase the spend because our books are in a bit of strife, and we are challenged to pay for the services, you know, our every day operating expenses.

And I think that's kind of where our tax policy comes in as well. So we are looking at other ways to broaden our tax base to be able to pay for this stuff. And it's an easy can to kick down the road because it's not immediate payoff with that R and D. Often it's you know, it's long term thinking.

It's about you know, twenty thirty years ahead, and so we don't immediately feel the pinch if we don't spend it. But we have to think the role of government is to take the long term view. That is, governing is looking at the horizon and trying to see what's coming. And so yeah, I think it's a real shame that it has been deprioritized by national and labor.

So I guess, you know, if you look at the shift that's happened in the last couple of years, the coalition has said we want more applied research that delivers bang for buck economic outcomes relatively quickly. That's upset a lot of people in the science sector. So you sort of need both. You need the long term stuff you're talking about thirty forty year horizon, and to do both we need to tip another billion dollars a year into the R and D budget.

Yeah, yeah, I think. I think we can't underestimate also the role of those commercialization and scaling programs as well, because it's all well and good to have nice ideas in a lab, but if we can't turn those into good, efficient businesses, then it's a bit of a waste. So it's about supporting that funnel at every step, which requires additional funding. Interest in your views on artificial intelligence, which is seen as a productivity booster, at least by the vendors who are really pushing it, but there is some good evidence to suggest adopted properly, it will deliver economic growth.

What's your view on how we should what's your review on how we should deal with AI in terms of should we regulate it, what should we be doing in terms of the workforce, and how it's going to change. So I think, like all technologies, it can be used for good and bad, and so I think at a really high level it would be great to see the government take a leadership role in looking at what outcomes we want from this technology, and it would have been great to do that through you know, throughout history with lot the advent of lots and pieces of technology, because as we've seen, it can drive really negative outcomes, you know, things like around social media, but there's also greater connectivity and communication and efficiencies.

So really being clear. Around what are the outcomes the positive outcomes that we want to drive through AI, and that will help us be clear on our purpose and where we're going in terms. Of workforce and skills. Yeah, we've you know this is we will be releasing a dedicated AI policy, but it does also show up in things like our education policy because we have to think about how we're preparing you know, people, kids for the future.

And it's both the technical skills but also different ways of thinking. We need people to be able to able to discern what AI gives us and to have those critical thinking skills. If we don't invest in that, then we might not be able to harness those Those opportunities are the benefits of R. In terms of a regulation, you've talked about sort of gold standard regulation, a really good regulatory environment for AI.

What in general terms would that look like is that we don't have dedicated AI regulation in New Zealand, the European Union does. It's been criticized for that that it's too onerous, that AI it's holding back startups from pursuing this technology in a way that US startups do. Although there is a patchwork of regulation emerging in the US where do's opportunities sort of fall on what we need to do? Do you need dedicated regulation to effectively govern this stuff?

Yeah, I think that regulation certainly will play a role here. We guess, going back to the point around sustainability as well, if we can be really clear around what the rules are and how that delivers for the purpose and the outcomes we want AI to deliver for New Zealand, then regulation means, you know, come here and and innovate within those boundaries. We also, we are an innovative tech focused nation. We should be building this stuff here and we should be you know, I think that that sort of waitless export tech sector focus is really important for New Zealand's future.

And so if we're not owning that development in New Zealand, then we will be at the whim of the rest of the world. Yeah. I was in London late last year interviewing super Bright Kiwi founders who are building their businesses in London, a lot of them artificial intelligence driven businesses. We've had just tens of thousands, if not one hundreds of thousands of kiwis leave the country in recent years.

You want to get some of them back here, and some of them have developed in a short space of time incredible skills in advanced technologies. What sort of your approach to doing that? For instance, you know we've got the Golden Visa thing which is really about attracting high net worth people to New Zealand. You support that sort of thing as well, or are you focusing more on bringing back actual skilled people.

Yeah, we'd certainly like to see more of the latter. So one of the ideas we have around this is to introduce student loan interest forgiveness. So that would be far up to three years of interest that's accumulated overseas and we would apply that at the end of you paying back your loan. So say you come back to New Zealand and you've still got five or six years worth of student loan payments to make the final three years of that, we would wipe the interest, so bring that down.

You know, a significant amount I lived in London for nine years and certainly wrapped up a lot. Of student loan interest on that. It would have been definitely an incentive for me to come back earlier, or you know, to stay in New Zealand once I do come home for that. I think there's also some some rules which are going through legislation at the moment around foreign investor the fits, so making it easier for New Zealand residents to come home and not be text twice.

On a few other areas that sort of crossover between the econ and social issues, things like cannabis, we got very close with, you know, legalization. We've had a cannabis industry here that really has fizzled, unfortunately, a lot of startups gave it a good crack and gene tech and the legislation around reform of that has stalled at the moment thanks to New Zealand first small coalition partner that it's having big influence on an area that you know, the main coalition partner prioritized wanted to set up a gene regulator change that has no act.

What's your view on both of those two issues, because there is a lot of important social issues around them, but there's real potential economic opportunities if we reform in those areas. Yeah. So we have been supportive of drug reform for you know, since the beginning. It's not an issue that we're really pushing this election.

We think that there are more oppressing things to focus on, so it's not even in our policy SUITEP time. And when it comes to gene editing, similarly, we don't have a dedicated policy on it, whereas we have in the past. We actually have just put out a statement on the current legislation because there is some conversation and concern from different groups about that piece of legislation. I think it will get blocked by New Zealand first.

Anyway, it's not going to get past. But we don't think in its current form it's quite right. It hasn't had enough consultation with different parts of industry. We're in this really funny spot where we are super pro science and innovation, but we also really care about nature and I don't think that the organic farmers and sector have had sufficient opportunity to put forward their concerns around the current legislation.

We have to protect both. We believe that innovation can play a role in solving big climate change issues, actually making it easier for farmers, particularly when we have extreme weather. But there is also a valid concern. From the organics sector that we will potentially decimate that market, and it is a growing market for New Zealand.

Fonterra is doing well out of organic milk overseas, and these are considerations that need to be had in a conversation that needs to be threshed out, and we haven't really had the opportunity. To do that with this bill. So we think that we would like to see that progressed, but in a different way. Even if we take a slower track on the food side of things, you know, growing commercial crops GM crops in New Zealand.

Even on the health side, you know cart cell therapies that Mulligan is working on, basically genetically modified organisms in therapeutic treatments, even that is still slow and burdensome. Would you be open to sort of clearing the hurds away for our health sector to innovate. Yeah, I think there's been less push back on that side, and we could certainly separate those out. And our stance has always been to intro a risk based framework around gene editing, So there are different tool there's a sort of wide range of gene technology, from gene editing, which is similar to natural breeding where you just accelerate evolution, through to genetic modification, which is inserting foreign substances into an organism.

And so we need to look at what the impact of each of those technologies is and then have different types kind of like the fast track process. You know, you have ones where you know what the outcome is going to be, you have a fair idea of what the applications are. Those things could progress quicker and easier than things which are less tested, more risk, high impacts if something does go wrong. Energy, climate and sustainability, that's a big plank really central to the Opportunity Party topical at the moment with this energy crisis, with the strait of Hormus increasingly reliant on energy imports, gas winding down, MAUI saying that's it, so cost youre going to increase there?

What's your plan for speeding that electrification and energy transition that's going to be fueled by clean, green, renewable energy. Yeah, so a couple of things on this. We have launched our energy policy earlier this year as well before everything kicked off in the Middle East, because when you talk to industry, no matter what business they're in or part of which sector they're in, energy is the number one concern, both from an economic and an environmental perspective, So we really wanted to prioritize that is an issue for us this year.

Obviously, the recent events have made that even more important, and we are feeling the pinch at the gas in our electricity prices potentially coming down the line, and even things like plastics becoming more expensive. But we have also been here before and we knew that we needed to do something about it before, and we didn't because again, it's something that's long term and it's easy to kick down the road. What we would like to see is a twenty five year energy strategy for New Zealand.

Let's focus on where we're going to be by twenty fifty that for us, we think that's a low emissions, renewable energy fuel future ring fence Crown dividends from gen tailor's and put that money into accelerating electrification, so that could look like the could look like one hundred percent depreciation for businesses investing in electrification. There's the ratepayers Assistance Scheme which is already going through the House, so. We're supportive of that. We're more supportive of market based mechanisms than straight subsidies and grants because the economics stack up.

We just want to accelerate the market action and kind of signal that yes, you should make that investment. ROI will pay off. We're not going to change tact. This is the direction we're going and give businesses and households the certainty to invest and we're already seeing that payback for people that are doing it.

We want to make sure that it's done equitably so that low income households can also afford it, small businesses can afford it. That's our focus. In terms of getting more supply, renewable supply into the grid, into the system. You know there's been there was debate at the last election around pumped hydro new dams, whether we do prioritize more wind or sol or any particular thing or pathway to more renewables that you favor.

From speaking to all the gent tailors, they've got some great projects ready to go, yeah, that are consented and they're sitting on them because we have this system where we build just in time. And there's another phrase which has been doing the rounds in the energy sector, which is never too late. We need to create a system where we don't get that twenty twenty four spike because there's always enough. That's the abundant energy.

It's never too late and we don't have to worry about it not quite getting there. To do that, our. Proposal is to have a capacity investment scheme, which is what they have in Australia, to give certainty to those gent tailors that if they build, they will get the payback for it. It's not a perfect scheme.

There's learnings to be taken as well from both Australia and the US, but at the moment there, you know, if we continue with this market model, we will continue having those risks and those challenges. Yeah, I think a lot of people have come to that conclusion. So you know, some big changes there the R and D alone and on energy stuff. If you do take those dividends and reinvestment, that's great, but that money is going into the general bucket for government's bending at the moment, so you know, how are you going to pay for all of this?

You released your tax policy last year. You're talking there about a land value to actually just blowing that in. Yeah, so just release out of tax policy last week. And it's basically got three key pillars, the land value tax, the citizens Income which is a ubi universal basic income, and a can we save a two point zero which is a compulsory saving scheme.

So the land value tax is a one point seventy five percent tax on the value of land and not on the whole property, just on the land component, paid every year. So it's a bit like your rates, but that goes into the general tax pool. For us. That's really important.

You know. It is about making sure that those who are more wealthy and more well off do pay. But we do that through property because New Zealand has developed a really unhealthy relationship with property where we depend on it for our savings, for our retirement. We see it as an investment rather than something that people should have a right to access.

By implementing a land value tax, we prevent things like land banking, where we make that less profitable or having large property portfolios. That's not to say people can't still grow their wealth, but they could do that by investing in shares or businesses and funds and things that are more productive for our economy. We think it's also a better and more effective tax on property than capital gains because with the capital gains you are just you will probably hold onto that property for longer because you don't want to pay the tax on it, whereas a land value tax makes that immediately.

You know, people have to think about the economics of it. Is it really worth me having this property right now? Is this right for my needs? So that's one component of it.

Part of that does fund the citizens Income. So the Citizens Income is a weekly payment made to all adults three hundred and seventy dollars a week in line with the job see could benefit. Some of the savings come from replacing existing benefits, and then the remainder that needed to pay for that comes from the land value tax. On the land value tax, I guess I mean one of the advantages of that is you get a predictable amount of tax revenue coming in every year.

It's one point seventy five percent. Have you done to sums yet as to what sort of figure that might look like, Yes, we have. So this is all outlined in the policy as well. It's around twenty nine billion in revenue, and then the citizens income costs about twenty five billion, so there's actually a four billion surplus within that to.

Go into R and D and then go to R and. D and you know, if we're taking five hundred million out of that bring fence dividences from gent tailor's and putting that inte electrification, we also need to plug that hole. So yeah, it's we're not naive to think that we can necessarily as a small party come in overnight and implement. This tax reform.

Even if we got started today, we think it could still take about ten years to actually implement in full because we don't want to crash the housing market overnight, and we need to get people used to that concept and have all the mechanisms in place. But I think we either start doing that now or we face real increasing challenges around the cost of an aging population, joblessness with AI. These things are not going away and they're going to get harder, So we really need to modernize our tax system to be fit for purpose and prepared for that.

And I think a compulsory KI we Save scheme would actually get a lot of support. Australia did it a long time ago. Other countries have done it as well. It seems like a no brainer.

Yeah, and again it takes some time because basically what we would like to see is eventually get to a point where we can means test SUPER, so we're only giving it to those that really need it. Everyone would still get the citizen's income, but the additional sort of top up for super would be means tested. But we can only do that if we have supported people to save through their careers, and you know, for me, that's another thirty years of working of saving to get to that point, So that would take a long time to implement as well.

But I think it's Australia. You can see the benefit of that in their infrastructure, the cities, the way that they've developed because those super funds have had enormous opportunities to invest for the benefit of everyone. So there's big systemic changes that you're proposing and would try to put through over many years. We've seen with New Zealand first and Acts.

You know, they in their first term had specific things they wanted to achieve. You know, for Act that was the Ministry of Regulation. You know, Seymour really wanted that New Zealand First has always been very big on regional development. Shane Jones has really pushed that any particular things quick wins you think you can get if you were lucky enough to be in a coalition.

So in terms of a big thing, I think energy, Actually we can get that across the line, whether it's national or labor because it's so pressing. I actually think that they like the look of our policy and would love to implement it. But it's a bit hard for a big incumbent party to say these big things. But if they can, if we can be the scapegoat to get there across the line, will happily do that.

I guess. Are more slightly smaller but still very significant policy as our Citizens Voice policy, which is around citizens assemblies and that's an improvement to strengthen democracy in New Zealand where you bring people together on big tough issues like infrastructure or supernuas. It's really interesting you explain how that works. Yeah, So they're very common around the world.

We've actually used them in New Zealand in different cities where we bring communities together to discuss an issue and look at the different possible solutions. The ideas you bring together an accurate representation of that community, so the demographics need to match what exists in that city or that country. And they come together of a series of usually a series of weekends, come sit in a room, They listen to expert evidence, a bunch of solutions are put to them, and then they have to deliberate together.

And there's you know, might be one hundred people in the room. You might have a sixty five year old retiree sitting down with an eighteen year old who's just starting work, and they come from completely different socio economic backgrounds, and they have to figure out some common ground and a solution that they both aren't necessarily might not be their first choice, but that they can live with. That's kind of the threshold. You want to get to a point where eighty percent of the room can live with that outcome, and that you know, I think that mechanism helps us exercise our democratic right and our participation in society, understand our fellow citizens, and it also means we come to solutions that are more enduring because we've got more buy in from a broader group of people.

I think we need it because engagement, particularly young people, engagement in politics, particularly local politics. And I don't know how you feel about trying voting, but it seems to me that if it can be done in a secure, safe, reliable way and marry those two things together, you're going to get a much better outcome. Yeah. Absolutely, I think we need we need obviously the digital infrastructure to support something like electric voting.

Then we live in a digital age. You know, we have to keep up and make it easier for young people to engage in democracy. So some great policies across the board. What is your pathway to victory here?

I think you have run people in electrics before, Yes, in christ Church. I think it was a promising candidate down there but never got over the line. Are you what's your strategy around running local candidates this time? Yeah, so we're very much going for the five percent party vote.

That is our number one goal. We have got nearly forty candidates across the country, which is more than we've ever stood. But the main message for everyone is party vote, and the reason we've taken that strategy is because our support is spread across the country. It seems tempting to want to go for an electorate because you know you need to convince fifteen to twenty thousand people to v for you rather than one hundred and fifty thousand.

But it's all or nothing. If you just miss out on that electorate, you've got nothing. And that's kind of what happened last election with Rath. He did a really good job did and you know, came a credible second.

But if you then divert all the resources away from the national campaign, you're diluting that message only you know, only for the christ Church electorate. So we're really very much spreading the message across the country and I think our message is a national message as well. You know, our campaign is. About big bowld change, economic reform, having the bravery to do stuff for our kids.

These are things that matter for every New Zealander and it's not just a particular electorate that we need to speak to for that. Could you see yourself in a coalition with the Greens and to party Mari if necessary. So we've said that we will sit down at the table with anyone, and that's in our values, in our philosophy that we try and fine common ground with any party. So we will certainly sit down with whoever is at the table to try and find a way forward.

If we feel like we're having to compromise too much on our values or our key policies, then we would rather sit in opposition or on the crossbenches because we only get one shot at our first term in parliament and we want to deliver for our voters. We want to demonstrate the kinds of government that we want to be a part of, and if we're compromising on stuff left, right and center, then that's not going to be and effective. I don't know if you've done any research, but where are the people coming that are more recent supporters of the Opportunity Party.

Are they sort of coming from everywhere just that general malays and politics, or is there a particular political spectrum area on the spectrum that they're coming from. Yes, I think you said it earlier. Our core base is kind of those tech and policy folk, and that's really the two and a half percent that has voted for us and supported us at every election. We do well with urban young families, and I think a lot of those people are coming to us.

It might not have voted for us before. They come from across the political spectrum, but some particular cohorts which are interesting. I think our former national voters who do really care about the environment and are upset at the way that they've managed environmental issues the last couple of years, and then the same sort of on the green side, the James Shaw type Greens who want to be more pragmatic and feel like we should be able to work across the house to progress environmental issues are not feeling at home so much with the Greens anymore and coming to us.

So, yeah, they certainly come from across the spectrum. The common thread is that they are looking very much at the future. They want to see that clear vision for New Zealand and they're frustrated with the lack of progress and action from all political parties at the month. I guess you raised James Shaw.

You know, how do you avoid the fate of James Shaw, who's so hard on climate policy and that had someones but ultimately left I think feeling disillusioned by the whole process. Yeah, I think how do we combat that. We need more people like him in Parliament because I suppose that succeeded because he was a really good operator and could work across the aisle. Without him there, it's hard to make it stick and the current parties have perpetuated this extremism, which which means you undo policy and even where there is meant to be bipartisan agreement.

So we need we need more people like that in politics, not scaring them away to take up other jobs. Yeah, we're what six months or so away from the election now, they're expensive to do well. Is any of that support from the start our community, the tech people equating into donations to opportunity? Yeah, definitely, We've got donations of all.

Obviously, every little bit helps. We have been fortunate to have some big donations, not as many as some of the other big parties, and we are completely reliant on donations. We don't have the support of parliamentary services or those huge membership bases to collect regular donations from. But we are in a better position than we have ever been barring Gareth Morgan's big cash injection at the beginning.

So we're even seeing it in our polling and our membership numbers as well. We're starting from a much higher base. This far out. We've got six months to go.

We're in a good position, the best we've ever been six months out, and we've just got to keep that momentum going wow. Okay, well, good luck. Congrats on floating what looked like some really solid policies. We'll see if they connect with New Zealanders sometime in October, so we'll see out there sort of campaigning, I'm sure doing public events.

And thanks for coming on to Business of Tech. Awesome, thank you. So that was QLA one from the Opportunity Party, which is betting that New Zealand's tech savvy, future focused voters are ready for bigger Boulder reform. The question is either enough of them to make a difference.

We've seen what New Zealand First and Act minor parties and a coalition can actually make progress on particular pet projects that they have. So the Opportunity Party could advance some of these things like a doubling of R and D spend if they were able to get over that five percent threshold. That's it for this week's episode Off the Business of Tech with Me Peter Griffin. If you found this conversation useful, follow the show in your favorite podcast app, leave a rating or review, and share this episode with someone and your team who's thinking about New Zealand tech future.

Thanks for listening, and I'll catch you next week.