This week on the Business of Tech powered by two Degrees Business, we're talking DOGE, the Trump Administration's Department of Government Efficiency. It's tearing through government agencies, laying off tens of thousands of public servants, and dismantling entire departments such as US AID. It's all in aid off a grand plan to slash the US deficit, which sees America pay iwatering amounts each year to service national debt. Here's how Elol Musk, doge's chief architect, describes the mission to Fox News.

This week on the Business of Tech powered by two Degrees Business, we're talking DOGE, the Trump Administration's Department of Government Efficiency. It's tearing through government agencies, laying off tens of thousands of public servants, and dismantling entire departments such as US AID. It's all in aid off a grand plan to slash the US deficit, which sees America pay iwatering amounts each year to service national debt. Here's how Elol Musk, doge's chief architect, describes the mission to Fox News.

Our goal is to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, so from a nominal deficit of two trillion to track cut the deficit in half to one trillion, or looked at it in toilet federal spanning, to drop the federal spanning from seven trillion to sex trillion. We want to reduce the spending by eliminating waste and fort reduce the spanning by fifteen percent, which seems really quite achievable. The government is not efficient and there's a lot of Western frauds, so we feel confident that fifteen percent reduction can can be done without affecting any of the critical government services.

Our goal is to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, so from a nominal deficit of two trillion to track cut the deficit in half to one trillion, or looked at it in toilet federal spanning, to drop the federal spanning from seven trillion to sex trillion. We want to reduce the spending by eliminating waste and fort reduce the spanning by fifteen percent, which seems really quite achievable. The government is not efficient and there's a lot of Western frauds, so we feel confident that fifteen percent reduction can can be done without affecting any of the critical government services.

Sounds great in theory, but critics argue that the efficiency drive is really a thinly veiled attempt to weed out the so called deep state that Trump believes trying to derail his first presidency. They also claim all hurt US citizens by radically reducing key functions like Social Security and the National Institutes of Health. Even the Department of Education is getting a massive cut. DOAGE claims it's amassed one hundred and fifty billion US in savings already, thirty percent of it from contract grant and lease cancellations. Musk tells us that less than fifteen percent of the spending being cut is out and out fraud. The next six to twelve months will reveal the impact of DOGE on the USA government and on the services that citizens enjoy, but already governments around the world are considering their own cost cutting drives. We got off to an early start even before the Coalition government came into office, with labor trimming public servant headcount. That's accelerated under the Coalition, which spending cuts to programs across the board with a similar aim to cut national debt. We've also got David Seymour's Ministry of regulation tasked with identifying and cutting superfluous rules and regulations. Let's be fair, doge is something else entirely with Elon Musk's team of young geeks given unprecedented access to government records, it's ripe for conflicts of interest as well, with musks companies SpaceX and Tesla having received billions in contracts and subsidies from the US government. But I think most people have some sympathy for the idea of smaller government and cutting red tape and using technology to gain more visibility into government spending and procuring services in a smarter way. So how could we do doge properly here in New Zealand. Well, I assembled a super smart panel of people to try and find out. Joining me this week are Rob Campbell, Ben Reid, and Paul Quickendon.

Sounds great in theory, but critics argue that the efficiency drive is really a thinly veiled attempt to weed out the so called deep state that Trump believes trying to derail his first presidency. They also claim all hurt US citizens by radically reducing key functions like Social Security and the National Institutes of Health. Even the Department of Education is getting a massive cut. DOAGE claims it's amassed one hundred and fifty billion US in savings already, thirty percent of it from contract grant and lease cancellations. Musk tells us that less than fifteen percent of the spending being cut is out and out fraud. The next six to twelve months will reveal the impact of DOGE on the USA government and on the services that citizens enjoy, but already governments around the world are considering their own cost cutting drives. We got off to an early start even before the Coalition government came into office, with labor trimming public servant headcount. That's accelerated under the Coalition, which spending cuts to programs across the board with a similar aim to cut national debt. We've also got David Seymour's Ministry of regulation tasked with identifying and cutting superfluous rules and regulations. Let's be fair, doge is something else entirely with Elon Musk's team of young geeks given unprecedented access to government records, it's ripe for conflicts of interest as well, with musks companies SpaceX and Tesla having received billions in contracts and subsidies from the US government. But I think most people have some sympathy for the idea of smaller government and cutting red tape and using technology to gain more visibility into government spending and procuring services in a smarter way. So how could we do doge properly here in New Zealand. Well, I assembled a super smart panel of people to try and find out. Joining me this week are Rob Campbell, Ben Reid, and Paul Quickendon.

Now.

Now.

Rob Campbell has been a board director and chair of companies like SkyCity, Tourism Holdings and Somerset Group, as well as sitting on the boards of government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and tefatu Ura Health New Zealand, where he was sacked as board chair in February twenty twenty three. For a LinkedIn post, he wrote that criticized the National Party's policy on the Three Waters reform. If anyone knows where the inefficiencies in our largest government agencies are, it's probably rob Ben Reid returns to the show the christ Church Futurist and tech can sultant. He's given a lot of thought to how technology can play a role in creating a more efficient and fairer government in everything from policymaking to electronic voting, and Paul quickened In rounds out the panel. Paul's the chief commercial officer and head of the New Zealand operation of Easy Crypto, the largest locally owned crypto exchange, which last month was acquired by Australian owned swift FX. Paul thinks a lot about how decentralized technologies like the blockchain and smart contracts can be applied to the big problems facing society. So, without further ado, here's my chat with the Doge Panel this week on the Business of Tech. Rob Ben Paul, welcome to the Business of Tech. Thanks so much for coming on. You're Jordder so like me, you've probably been watching with a mix of horror, fascination and sort of amusement. What's been going on in the US with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk led efforts, and boy, it's just amazing what's coming out every week some of the things that he has done. Obviously big layoffs in some government departments, some government departments effectively being dismantled, the likes of us AID. You're seeing the United States Digital Services, an agency that was run out of the White House that's been basically absorbed into DOGE. You've got Elon Musks essentially saying I need the source code of government to do this properly. I need to get into every database, look at every data feed to make sure that what I'm being told about what is going on in government is accurate. He's talking about magic money computers that exist in the US government. A lot of people have said, well, duh, yeah, that's what the Treasury and others do. They print and manufacture money. But you've also got a vein I suspect you agree as well. Of Look, this is actually a useful thing to do to look at efficiency, waste, and even fraud. And Musca said he thinks it's probably about ten to twenty percent of its actual fraud that is going on where they see they need to fix things. The rest of it is inefficiency, and it's probably something you can all relate to. We're all frustrated about how slow moving and bureaucratic government can be and that is leading to real problems in society, inequality, slow access to for instance, healthcare. We've just in the last couple of days we heard some horrific stories about people having to wait for cardiograms and potentially that leading to fatal conditions. So we know there is an efficiency, there are bottlenecks there, but really Keen, first of all, we will stell it with you, Rob, with your extensive experience both in business and obviously as the chair of Ta Fatuura for period as well, overseeing huge government spending there and a big bureaucracy. What do you make of dog and is there a kernel of value on what they're attempting.

Rob Campbell has been a board director and chair of companies like SkyCity, Tourism Holdings and Somerset Group, as well as sitting on the boards of government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and tefatu Ura Health New Zealand, where he was sacked as board chair in February twenty twenty three. For a LinkedIn post, he wrote that criticized the National Party's policy on the Three Waters reform. If anyone knows where the inefficiencies in our largest government agencies are, it's probably rob Ben Reid returns to the show the christ Church Futurist and tech can sultant. He's given a lot of thought to how technology can play a role in creating a more efficient and fairer government in everything from policymaking to electronic voting, and Paul quickened In rounds out the panel. Paul's the chief commercial officer and head of the New Zealand operation of Easy Crypto, the largest locally owned crypto exchange, which last month was acquired by Australian owned swift FX. Paul thinks a lot about how decentralized technologies like the blockchain and smart contracts can be applied to the big problems facing society. So, without further ado, here's my chat with the Doge Panel this week on the Business of Tech. Rob Ben Paul, welcome to the Business of Tech. Thanks so much for coming on. You're Jordder so like me, you've probably been watching with a mix of horror, fascination and sort of amusement. What's been going on in the US with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk led efforts, and boy, it's just amazing what's coming out every week some of the things that he has done. Obviously big layoffs in some government departments, some government departments effectively being dismantled, the likes of us AID. You're seeing the United States Digital Services, an agency that was run out of the White House that's been basically absorbed into DOGE. You've got Elon Musks essentially saying I need the source code of government to do this properly. I need to get into every database, look at every data feed to make sure that what I'm being told about what is going on in government is accurate. He's talking about magic money computers that exist in the US government. A lot of people have said, well, duh, yeah, that's what the Treasury and others do. They print and manufacture money. But you've also got a vein I suspect you agree as well. Of Look, this is actually a useful thing to do to look at efficiency, waste, and even fraud. And Musca said he thinks it's probably about ten to twenty percent of its actual fraud that is going on where they see they need to fix things. The rest of it is inefficiency, and it's probably something you can all relate to. We're all frustrated about how slow moving and bureaucratic government can be and that is leading to real problems in society, inequality, slow access to for instance, healthcare. We've just in the last couple of days we heard some horrific stories about people having to wait for cardiograms and potentially that leading to fatal conditions. So we know there is an efficiency, there are bottlenecks there, but really Keen, first of all, we will stell it with you, Rob, with your extensive experience both in business and obviously as the chair of Ta Fatuura for period as well, overseeing huge government spending there and a big bureaucracy. What do you make of dog and is there a kernel of value on what they're attempting.

There's a kernel of value in continuously reevaluating what you're doing to ensure that you are doing it efficiently and effectively, whether you're in private business or government, and governments are notoriously not good at this, So there's value in that. Whether letting a mad axe man into the front door and having him roam around the government is a good way of doing that. I'm much less convinced. I don't think there's much to be said for the way they're going about it. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a need to have continual reevaluation of that kind going on. But as has happened here much lesser levels. The key to doing any of these exercises is to understand the mechanism, the model that you're dealing with. Understand what is happening there, not just deal with it, which with the metrics which are coming out the far end, but understand what the model is you're working with. And if you don't do that, you can go and roam around. Accountants to it quite often, and just as dangerously, you can go and roam around. And so we want to cut this, we want to cut that, we want to do this. But if you don't understand to come back to it, don't understand the model of what's going on here, then you're probably going to cause as much damage as you'll do good. And I suspect that with the way they're approaching it in the US, that's highly likely to be the case.

There's a kernel of value in continuously reevaluating what you're doing to ensure that you are doing it efficiently and effectively, whether you're in private business or government, and governments are notoriously not good at this, So there's value in that. Whether letting a mad axe man into the front door and having him roam around the government is a good way of doing that. I'm much less convinced. I don't think there's much to be said for the way they're going about it. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a need to have continual reevaluation of that kind going on. But as has happened here much lesser levels. The key to doing any of these exercises is to understand the mechanism, the model that you're dealing with. Understand what is happening there, not just deal with it, which with the metrics which are coming out the far end, but understand what the model is you're working with. And if you don't do that, you can go and roam around. Accountants to it quite often, and just as dangerously, you can go and roam around. And so we want to cut this, we want to cut that, we want to do this. But if you don't understand to come back to it, don't understand the model of what's going on here, then you're probably going to cause as much damage as you'll do good. And I suspect that with the way they're approaching it in the US, that's highly likely to be the case.

Yeah, And that's a big criticism of DOGE so far is that the team members, while a lot of them are skilled computer programmers, some of the very young, gifted people that have come out of Tesla and other companies like that, they sort of lack any understanding of government processes, contracts, how grants work, the actual realities of working in government. So it's one thing to take a sort of a tech focus on this, and they know how efficient tech can be, but the actual workings of government is a completely different thing. And without doing it in conjunction with all those people who have that domain knowledge, I guess you're going to run into trouble.

Yeah, And that's a big criticism of DOGE so far is that the team members, while a lot of them are skilled computer programmers, some of the very young, gifted people that have come out of Tesla and other companies like that, they sort of lack any understanding of government processes, contracts, how grants work, the actual realities of working in government. So it's one thing to take a sort of a tech focus on this, and they know how efficient tech can be, but the actual workings of government is a completely different thing. And without doing it in conjunction with all those people who have that domain knowledge, I guess you're going to run into trouble.

Yeah, and two steps there, Peter one, I agree with the way you frame it that I would go even further and say that it's not enough just to understand the current machinery, because it's a fair bet the current machinery is clumsy and wrong and obscuring things. You've got to go back to that real model of what it is we're trying to do here, How are we trying to do it? Does that make sense? And the technology and the accounting and everything else really follows on after that, You know, you can send in some bright tech people. There's not really any different descending and some bright accountants to look at one of these things. If you really don't understand what you're trying to achieve and have a good model of what you try to achieve, the danger is that you will just cause distruction, not creation.

Yeah, and two steps there, Peter one, I agree with the way you frame it that I would go even further and say that it's not enough just to understand the current machinery, because it's a fair bet the current machinery is clumsy and wrong and obscuring things. You've got to go back to that real model of what it is we're trying to do here, How are we trying to do it? Does that make sense? And the technology and the accounting and everything else really follows on after that, You know, you can send in some bright tech people. There's not really any different descending and some bright accountants to look at one of these things. If you really don't understand what you're trying to achieve and have a good model of what you try to achieve, the danger is that you will just cause distruction, not creation.

And what's your take on Doge? Obviously you've written a book last year, Fast Forward Our Tailor, which is really advocating for digital first government, things like legislating full service application programming interfaces to make government a lot more efficient and equitable. What's your take on what you've seen sort of unfold in the US with Doge.

And what's your take on Doge? Obviously you've written a book last year, Fast Forward Our Tailor, which is really advocating for digital first government, things like legislating full service application programming interfaces to make government a lot more efficient and equitable. What's your take on what you've seen sort of unfold in the US with Doge.

Yeah, like Rob says, sort of going in there with a chainsaw is you know, we'll wait to see how it all turns out. But I mean I've listened. I think the US is a very different political environment to hear and out there are and I think what I had a very interesting podcast recently where the Gray Area Podcasts, where the speaker was basically describing the underlying political access here. Whereas you've got status quoests who seem to think that everything's fine, versus brokennests who think that everything is broken, and you have the extreme brokennest wing have now taken hold of the leaves of power, and so really they really didn't think it was worth fixing, if you if you like, So, I think part of the strategy here is to go in and just utterly dismantle what is there, and it can't be any more broken than it was before. So, you know, I think that, as I say, the US context is very different to hear it in out you know, the book. In my book, you know, it was really thinking about how emerging technology can provide solutions to deliver our rutcomes. And if we agree that productivity, accessibility, efficiency are all outcomes of you know, horizon points we should be aiming towards, then you know, employing some of these modern technologies is arguably, you know, the way to achieve that very quickly. Yeah, So look some of the ideas that I you know, I like to reimagine the state quote and I wouldn't say that Altibor's government is broken, but I'd say it has a whole lot of inertia inside it. You have a permanent public service constitutionally, which leads to almost a culture of risk avoidance and and you know, reluctance to rise significant change and if you if you think about, you know, the modern services that we're that we're consuming from, you know, the frontier technology firms right now, then they are all software interfaces. And so if you could re imagine the service delivery channels of government as being software and application programming interface, and increasingly that you could have an AI agent that would interact with government services, then I think you could probably take out aultimate a lot of the roles that are happening, you know, in government right now, and and actually build of a better service outcomes there. Finally, those better service outcomes is the front front loading of the whole process that they're certainly not doing in the in the US right now.

Yeah, like Rob says, sort of going in there with a chainsaw is you know, we'll wait to see how it all turns out. But I mean I've listened. I think the US is a very different political environment to hear and out there are and I think what I had a very interesting podcast recently where the Gray Area Podcasts, where the speaker was basically describing the underlying political access here. Whereas you've got status quoests who seem to think that everything's fine, versus brokennests who think that everything is broken, and you have the extreme brokennest wing have now taken hold of the leaves of power, and so really they really didn't think it was worth fixing, if you if you like, So, I think part of the strategy here is to go in and just utterly dismantle what is there, and it can't be any more broken than it was before. So, you know, I think that, as I say, the US context is very different to hear it in out you know, the book. In my book, you know, it was really thinking about how emerging technology can provide solutions to deliver our rutcomes. And if we agree that productivity, accessibility, efficiency are all outcomes of you know, horizon points we should be aiming towards, then you know, employing some of these modern technologies is arguably, you know, the way to achieve that very quickly. Yeah, So look some of the ideas that I you know, I like to reimagine the state quote and I wouldn't say that Altibor's government is broken, but I'd say it has a whole lot of inertia inside it. You have a permanent public service constitutionally, which leads to almost a culture of risk avoidance and and you know, reluctance to rise significant change and if you if you think about, you know, the modern services that we're that we're consuming from, you know, the frontier technology firms right now, then they are all software interfaces. And so if you could re imagine the service delivery channels of government as being software and application programming interface, and increasingly that you could have an AI agent that would interact with government services, then I think you could probably take out aultimate a lot of the roles that are happening, you know, in government right now, and and actually build of a better service outcomes there. Finally, those better service outcomes is the front front loading of the whole process that they're certainly not doing in the in the US right now.

Okay, and we'll come back to some of the suggestions you have in Fast Forward al Tara around this that may help. Paul. You're at easy Crypto at the moment, you're really passionate and understand blockchain technologies, and you're actually running a hackathon on this particular issue. Was this sort of inspired by Doage seeing what was going on in the US and thinking, actually, could we do this in a sensible way and get some of our most innovative technologists to contribute to it.

Okay, and we'll come back to some of the suggestions you have in Fast Forward al Tara around this that may help. Paul. You're at easy Crypto at the moment, you're really passionate and understand blockchain technologies, and you're actually running a hackathon on this particular issue. Was this sort of inspired by Doage seeing what was going on in the US and thinking, actually, could we do this in a sensible way and get some of our most innovative technologists to contribute to it.

So we wrote a series of provocations for the Hack of Time some time ago, and at that time, the rumors of what DOGE was going to be and what it's turned out to be a very different and what I mean by that, as DOGE was trying to drive some efficiency, there was talk of what chains being embedded in some US processes to streamline stuff and where you know, I represent a sector that believes that blockchains do have a role to play and some of that, and so we write a series of provocations. But it's not just about building government departments on blockchains and eliminating and that's not that's not what the Hack of pons about. It was just really trying to get people to think about some real world use cases and those solutions that would have meaningful value. And given you know, we all touch government, central or local government in some way, shape and form, like, it's an easy thing for us to all from the outside look in and go maybe we could do this a little bit better. And you know, I think as citizens were allowed to question our services are delivered to us, and I think that's part of a good robust democracy. But we are not advocating for what's you know, the ideologically driven stuff that's coming out of DOGE. Now, that's that's not where we started. And you know, again like the one that I think you know, we were faring to around, could you run in an expense system a government expenses a blockchain. That was just one of maybe twenty five provocations to the teams. So you know, we're just trying to get people who's great mat of stimulated when we wrote this sometime again.

So we wrote a series of provocations for the Hack of Time some time ago, and at that time, the rumors of what DOGE was going to be and what it's turned out to be a very different and what I mean by that, as DOGE was trying to drive some efficiency, there was talk of what chains being embedded in some US processes to streamline stuff and where you know, I represent a sector that believes that blockchains do have a role to play and some of that, and so we write a series of provocations. But it's not just about building government departments on blockchains and eliminating and that's not that's not what the Hack of pons about. It was just really trying to get people to think about some real world use cases and those solutions that would have meaningful value. And given you know, we all touch government, central or local government in some way, shape and form, like, it's an easy thing for us to all from the outside look in and go maybe we could do this a little bit better. And you know, I think as citizens were allowed to question our services are delivered to us, and I think that's part of a good robust democracy. But we are not advocating for what's you know, the ideologically driven stuff that's coming out of DOGE. Now, that's that's not where we started. And you know, again like the one that I think you know, we were faring to around, could you run in an expense system a government expenses a blockchain. That was just one of maybe twenty five provocations to the teams. So you know, we're just trying to get people who's great mat of stimulated when we wrote this sometime again.

Yeah, that's great, and I'm sure that's something actually the likes of Judith Collins, the Minister for Digitizing Government, is actually going to welcome, you know, sort of innovation in this space. But Rob, you know, you're the one who's had the most experience actually on the inside of working with big government departments. I think at one point you said New Zealand health system you described as a blocked digestive system, which is a nice metaphor for it. But can you sort of elaborate on that in a big department like that? And health is a sort of I guess is a special case and they are working to try and fix it. But where are the sorts of places that you really see the inefficiency and the wastage that just really starts to result in a degradation of service for citizens.

Yeah, that's great, and I'm sure that's something actually the likes of Judith Collins, the Minister for Digitizing Government, is actually going to welcome, you know, sort of innovation in this space. But Rob, you know, you're the one who's had the most experience actually on the inside of working with big government departments. I think at one point you said New Zealand health system you described as a blocked digestive system, which is a nice metaphor for it. But can you sort of elaborate on that in a big department like that? And health is a sort of I guess is a special case and they are working to try and fix it. But where are the sorts of places that you really see the inefficiency and the wastage that just really starts to result in a degradation of service for citizens.

Well, I think I think health was and still is a particularly ramshackle. It doesn't really even deserve to be called a system. It's a kind of a ramshackle assembly of different systems. And if you take, for example, the recent stuff about t FUTU or are trying to run the finances on a spreadsheet, Well, actually what they were trying to do was take a whole lot of systems that were producing different financial information and had to assemble it somehow had never been assembled before, and the obvious way to assemble it was on a spreadsheet. It wasn't that anyone had started out wanting to manage it that way, to be fair to the people currently running that. But the reimagining thing, it sounds a bit of a grand phrase, but there is enormous scope to improve these systems. I'm working with a small fintech setup at the moment that has some ideas about payments and accountability and audits and all those kind of things that could improve distribution of benefits, for example, And there are any of these ideas around and what there was what there needs to be is an openness to consider, apply and experiment with those within the public service, which there isn't. So what you had in health was a whole lot of ideas that had been thrown at what was when Tavardaora was formed, the largest software development house in New Zealand, accumulating people who were defending often incompatible projects that were working against one another, and simply because no one had really stood back and properly thought about what are we trying to achieve here, what are the priorities, what are the available technologies. So they were basically trying to assess various offers that were being made to them by various other providers and then rebuild them in some way. So it was no wonder. It was a mess, and I think that's not uncommon. So some of that culture has to change, but I don't really think that's all that difficult. I mean, New Zealand does have a pretty active ecosystem of people coming up with quite practical ideas which are not moonshots by any stretch of the imagination, but are immediately applicable, which could be picked up by government departments. And there is a degree of sclerosis within those government departments, as there is within within a number of larger private companies too. I think the cause of that is a lack of understanding both of the models of what is being done, but also of the technologies at politician level, at board member level, and at senior executive level. There are a lot of people within the public service that understand, are open to and would welcome innovation, but it is really being stopped by a lack of understanding from the type.

Well, I think I think health was and still is a particularly ramshackle. It doesn't really even deserve to be called a system. It's a kind of a ramshackle assembly of different systems. And if you take, for example, the recent stuff about t FUTU or are trying to run the finances on a spreadsheet, Well, actually what they were trying to do was take a whole lot of systems that were producing different financial information and had to assemble it somehow had never been assembled before, and the obvious way to assemble it was on a spreadsheet. It wasn't that anyone had started out wanting to manage it that way, to be fair to the people currently running that. But the reimagining thing, it sounds a bit of a grand phrase, but there is enormous scope to improve these systems. I'm working with a small fintech setup at the moment that has some ideas about payments and accountability and audits and all those kind of things that could improve distribution of benefits, for example, And there are any of these ideas around and what there was what there needs to be is an openness to consider, apply and experiment with those within the public service, which there isn't. So what you had in health was a whole lot of ideas that had been thrown at what was when Tavardaora was formed, the largest software development house in New Zealand, accumulating people who were defending often incompatible projects that were working against one another, and simply because no one had really stood back and properly thought about what are we trying to achieve here, what are the priorities, what are the available technologies. So they were basically trying to assess various offers that were being made to them by various other providers and then rebuild them in some way. So it was no wonder. It was a mess, and I think that's not uncommon. So some of that culture has to change, but I don't really think that's all that difficult. I mean, New Zealand does have a pretty active ecosystem of people coming up with quite practical ideas which are not moonshots by any stretch of the imagination, but are immediately applicable, which could be picked up by government departments. And there is a degree of sclerosis within those government departments, as there is within within a number of larger private companies too. I think the cause of that is a lack of understanding both of the models of what is being done, but also of the technologies at politician level, at board member level, and at senior executive level. There are a lot of people within the public service that understand, are open to and would welcome innovation, but it is really being stopped by a lack of understanding from the type.

In my view, I totally agree with that, and I think what I'd also add is structurally the way that the bureaucracy is structured into these monolithics, siloed departments where actually a technology student will be architected with common components across all of these and they're you know, there were you know, there is a g CDO trying to coordinate across all of them. But actually, you know, services like identity, like payments would be common across the whole government platform, and yet every individual department still operates their own to some degree. And so, you know, I think there's this fundamentally re architecting the bureaucracy is going to be a consequence of attempting to digitize the whole government, and these these departments are not in the mood for that right. They operate with a with a large degree of inerture. As I said, So, one of the considerations I would say is why do we have permanent government departments, government agencies? Why do we not just the same way as we have an election every three years, Why don't we just put us sinessa limit that you know, a government department will live for five years and then it will be recycled and shut down. And so you know, why could you not actually derive some of this permanent refreshment of your bureaucracy into some legislation.

In my view, I totally agree with that, and I think what I'd also add is structurally the way that the bureaucracy is structured into these monolithics, siloed departments where actually a technology student will be architected with common components across all of these and they're you know, there were you know, there is a g CDO trying to coordinate across all of them. But actually, you know, services like identity, like payments would be common across the whole government platform, and yet every individual department still operates their own to some degree. And so, you know, I think there's this fundamentally re architecting the bureaucracy is going to be a consequence of attempting to digitize the whole government, and these these departments are not in the mood for that right. They operate with a with a large degree of inerture. As I said, So, one of the considerations I would say is why do we have permanent government departments, government agencies? Why do we not just the same way as we have an election every three years, Why don't we just put us sinessa limit that you know, a government department will live for five years and then it will be recycled and shut down. And so you know, why could you not actually derive some of this permanent refreshment of your bureaucracy into some legislation.

Yeah, and you know, one of the ideas in the book, as I said at the start Digital First, government legislated full Services API. No government service can be enabled without API implementation. And for people who don't understand what that is, this is a sort of a plug and essentially that allows data to be transferred between systems in a seamless sort of way. So, and that's something I hear a lot across government. It is very siloed, and it's sort of by design, partly for the reasons that I think you've alluded to that they don't want to change, but also citizens don't necessarily want to change. We don't even want a digital driver's license in this country. There's a lot of opposition to putting data all in one place, even if there's a good case that it's going to help people get more equitable access.

Yeah, and you know, one of the ideas in the book, as I said at the start Digital First, government legislated full Services API. No government service can be enabled without API implementation. And for people who don't understand what that is, this is a sort of a plug and essentially that allows data to be transferred between systems in a seamless sort of way. So, and that's something I hear a lot across government. It is very siloed, and it's sort of by design, partly for the reasons that I think you've alluded to that they don't want to change, but also citizens don't necessarily want to change. We don't even want a digital driver's license in this country. There's a lot of opposition to putting data all in one place, even if there's a good case that it's going to help people get more equitable access.

So my take on all of this conversation is that it's when you are in health and you're a nurse. You're very clear what you're doing and the goals you know is the patient right in front of you. But as you start to get further away your loose side of the outcomes you're trying to deliver. It happens in big companies. I used to work for a tower communications company. It happens there as well, and you can get fixated on your little project and your little thing and have no actual connection to the outcome you're trying to do the thing. The observable thing for me is that across all of the bureocracy that is government is there's no single vision or platforms. And you know, you've talked you know being and I agree with some of what you said. I may have some challenges with some others parts of what you said, but that's okay. You know, things about identity and access management, how that's done, my personal information, how that is shared or not shared. Payments because it's still about moving money and did you money around. Those sorts of things all should be a foundation blocks for every government department that builds on it. But that's not how it's been constructed. And it's because they were organically developed, you know, as they were digitizing. They're probably digitized at different times. You know, I can remember before the dhvs became an amalgamated set, like they were just hospitals, So you know, they all kind of grew and then you have such huge technology debt that trying to bring it together what you're talking about being which is the Amazon way and API first, but you had a very charismatic, single leader at the top who was able to enforce that stuff and doing that through a public service, that's a real challenge, and you know, you almost get to a point in time where you have to say, we have to start a new we have to start with some foundational building blocks and starting new.

So my take on all of this conversation is that it's when you are in health and you're a nurse. You're very clear what you're doing and the goals you know is the patient right in front of you. But as you start to get further away your loose side of the outcomes you're trying to deliver. It happens in big companies. I used to work for a tower communications company. It happens there as well, and you can get fixated on your little project and your little thing and have no actual connection to the outcome you're trying to do the thing. The observable thing for me is that across all of the bureocracy that is government is there's no single vision or platforms. And you know, you've talked you know being and I agree with some of what you said. I may have some challenges with some others parts of what you said, but that's okay. You know, things about identity and access management, how that's done, my personal information, how that is shared or not shared. Payments because it's still about moving money and did you money around. Those sorts of things all should be a foundation blocks for every government department that builds on it. But that's not how it's been constructed. And it's because they were organically developed, you know, as they were digitizing. They're probably digitized at different times. You know, I can remember before the dhvs became an amalgamated set, like they were just hospitals, So you know, they all kind of grew and then you have such huge technology debt that trying to bring it together what you're talking about being which is the Amazon way and API first, but you had a very charismatic, single leader at the top who was able to enforce that stuff and doing that through a public service, that's a real challenge, and you know, you almost get to a point in time where you have to say, we have to start a new we have to start with some foundational building blocks and starting new.

I think you also have to have regard to the way finance and spending ability is spread through the public service. It really operates on what I've always seen is kind of a jamjar theory where there's an appropriation of money for a particular purpose, which is to find ahead of time, and that's what's available for that purpose, and that goes into that jam jar. And if you're managing a public service operation, you have a whole set of these jam jars which have been predetermined for you, and what you're not doing is really ever sitting back and seeing where the money would be most effectively spent, So you are spending it out of each jar, and that does lead to a kind of a very inefficient decision making system as well. So my point is it's embedded in the way they're financed, embedded in the way that they have the ability to spend, which entrenches it so that actually saving some money or doing something better in one part of the operation doesn't necessarily make any progress for you.

I think you also have to have regard to the way finance and spending ability is spread through the public service. It really operates on what I've always seen is kind of a jamjar theory where there's an appropriation of money for a particular purpose, which is to find ahead of time, and that's what's available for that purpose, and that goes into that jam jar. And if you're managing a public service operation, you have a whole set of these jam jars which have been predetermined for you, and what you're not doing is really ever sitting back and seeing where the money would be most effectively spent, So you are spending it out of each jar, and that does lead to a kind of a very inefficient decision making system as well. So my point is it's embedded in the way they're financed, embedded in the way that they have the ability to spend, which entrenches it so that actually saving some money or doing something better in one part of the operation doesn't necessarily make any progress for you.

Again, that's where we'd think blockchain a role to play, because if a blockchain system was there and every government department could see that someone's building a brand new payment system, you had some sort of edict that said, why don't you reuse what we've got rather than build something new. Those types of things is where you know, we think blockchains are really powerful because they're quite transparent in that regard, and they're also really good at managing the flow of information because it's always there, you know. That's kind of the other key element of blockchains. And so having a system where what someone did in twenty twenty three is available to the people in twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five, so they can kind of see the evolution, I think is also a powerful thing around blockchain. So that's why, Peter, you know, we did have these publications written. So we do think there are good uses for blockchain technology in the public sector, but it's not a be all in or we're not trying to take it all over.

Again, that's where we'd think blockchain a role to play, because if a blockchain system was there and every government department could see that someone's building a brand new payment system, you had some sort of edict that said, why don't you reuse what we've got rather than build something new. Those types of things is where you know, we think blockchains are really powerful because they're quite transparent in that regard, and they're also really good at managing the flow of information because it's always there, you know. That's kind of the other key element of blockchains. And so having a system where what someone did in twenty twenty three is available to the people in twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five, so they can kind of see the evolution, I think is also a powerful thing around blockchain. So that's why, Peter, you know, we did have these publications written. So we do think there are good uses for blockchain technology in the public sector, but it's not a be all in or we're not trying to take it all over.

I mean, I would say that every government in the West world, in the democratic world, is going to be having the same conversation right now. The UK announced last week kis that I think gives forty five billion pounds of efficiencies of cost cutting from AI and digitization their initiative, and so I think, you know, the Elon Musk led Doge initiative in the US is driving this conversation of worldwide, and I think that's an opportunity because if every government is having the same challenges. Then let's coordinate, let's cooperate, let's build open gov stack and I'm sure it just exists so that you can basically just coordinate and take the best bits from what everybody else is building all around the world blockchain, but other open source components as well, and that would be The other principle absolutely is that unless there is a compelling reason why the software that is deployed inside government needs to be closed source, then as a principle, everything that is deployed needs to be open source. That also mitigates against the enclosure of of government services by large technology companies who have managed to basically build significant footprint underneath government services that exists, and that's going to be quite hard in future if we don't change direction towards more open source, flexible software to actually get to wean ourselves off.

I mean, I would say that every government in the West world, in the democratic world, is going to be having the same conversation right now. The UK announced last week kis that I think gives forty five billion pounds of efficiencies of cost cutting from AI and digitization their initiative, and so I think, you know, the Elon Musk led Doge initiative in the US is driving this conversation of worldwide, and I think that's an opportunity because if every government is having the same challenges. Then let's coordinate, let's cooperate, let's build open gov stack and I'm sure it just exists so that you can basically just coordinate and take the best bits from what everybody else is building all around the world blockchain, but other open source components as well, and that would be The other principle absolutely is that unless there is a compelling reason why the software that is deployed inside government needs to be closed source, then as a principle, everything that is deployed needs to be open source. That also mitigates against the enclosure of of government services by large technology companies who have managed to basically build significant footprint underneath government services that exists, and that's going to be quite hard in future if we don't change direction towards more open source, flexible software to actually get to wean ourselves off.

Yeah, that's a big bone of contention with our local tech companies. The likes of Ian McCrae from Orion Healthcare. It felt like he was being his head against the brick wall dealing with our health system because that big, big tech procurement is so entrenched, the likes of Microsoft's and AWS. We have a cloud first strategy and government, and they are the default providers to offer that.

Yeah, that's a big bone of contention with our local tech companies. The likes of Ian McCrae from Orion Healthcare. It felt like he was being his head against the brick wall dealing with our health system because that big, big tech procurement is so entrenched, the likes of Microsoft's and AWS. We have a cloud first strategy and government, and they are the default providers to offer that.

The political climate has changed, right, so they are effectively beholden to a very unpredictable, unstable government which will potentially could add tariffs reverse tariffs to the cost of those and so it would be very at idea I think to build some resilience and diversity in voice into where we're procuring most of the platforms we're running our then it systems on. Yeah.

The political climate has changed, right, so they are effectively beholden to a very unpredictable, unstable government which will potentially could add tariffs reverse tariffs to the cost of those and so it would be very at idea I think to build some resilience and diversity in voice into where we're procuring most of the platforms we're running our then it systems on. Yeah.

Absolutely, I think often government under official government officials often underestimate the extent to which those very large mega vendors are running their own business model quite effectively too. And it may coincide with your needs it or it may not, but it's not The aim is not that and so the more we can take a open attitude towards that, the better. And I think for a non technologist like me, which I say straight away I am, the more you get involved in the stuff, the more you learn how much better protection there is in terms of accountability, auditability, and transparency in open systems. So totally agree with that.

Absolutely, I think often government under official government officials often underestimate the extent to which those very large mega vendors are running their own business model quite effectively too. And it may coincide with your needs it or it may not, but it's not The aim is not that and so the more we can take a open attitude towards that, the better. And I think for a non technologist like me, which I say straight away I am, the more you get involved in the stuff, the more you learn how much better protection there is in terms of accountability, auditability, and transparency in open systems. So totally agree with that.

Yeah, Rob. One of the premise of DOGE is that they need sort of access to the source code of government. Is they don't trust the government officials. You know, they talk about things like social security. There are problems with the so called death file, the record of deceased individuals. They claim that people have been receiving benefits for years after they've actually been deceased. So there are issues like that which you may get given a report put on your desk as someone in governance off a government department, and you get one view off it, but the reality is different. So that's the argument for the deep reach they need to have into these government departments. What was your sense when you were sharing to fatu Aura? Could you actually trust the information? Did you have faith in the information that was being presented to you that you had to make major, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars type decisions based on that?

Yeah, Rob. One of the premise of DOGE is that they need sort of access to the source code of government. Is they don't trust the government officials. You know, they talk about things like social security. There are problems with the so called death file, the record of deceased individuals. They claim that people have been receiving benefits for years after they've actually been deceased. So there are issues like that which you may get given a report put on your desk as someone in governance off a government department, and you get one view off it, but the reality is different. So that's the argument for the deep reach they need to have into these government departments. What was your sense when you were sharing to fatu Aura? Could you actually trust the information? Did you have faith in the information that was being presented to you that you had to make major, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars type decisions based on that?

It was not trustworthy. People were trustworthy, the people were honest, but they were working within systems that couldn't be relied upon to be accurate or compatible with one another. Absolutely a problem, and you know, I think it's no wonder you know that there are inefficiencies, I'm sure, and I don't know about the US system, but Elon Musk has probably benefited from more of the inefficiencies than anyone else in history, so he would know. But here there are undoubtedly, you know, individually small but possibly collective inaccuracies and wrong payments and wrong allocations going on all the time. And it isn't everyone's interests that we improve those and improve them quickly. And the better that's, the quicker that's done, the better, So, you know, I think it almost Peter, I know you sort of wanted to hang this discussion around Doge, but actually the discussion is much better if you ignore Doze in my view, and look at what we really need here and and what our problems are and the solutions that are available.

It was not trustworthy. People were trustworthy, the people were honest, but they were working within systems that couldn't be relied upon to be accurate or compatible with one another. Absolutely a problem, and you know, I think it's no wonder you know that there are inefficiencies, I'm sure, and I don't know about the US system, but Elon Musk has probably benefited from more of the inefficiencies than anyone else in history, so he would know. But here there are undoubtedly, you know, individually small but possibly collective inaccuracies and wrong payments and wrong allocations going on all the time. And it isn't everyone's interests that we improve those and improve them quickly. And the better that's, the quicker that's done, the better, So, you know, I think it almost Peter, I know you sort of wanted to hang this discussion around Doge, but actually the discussion is much better if you ignore Doze in my view, and look at what we really need here and and what our problems are and the solutions that are available.

Well, just one, you know, the immediate issues in front of our health system. One of them is you know, they're making a call at the moment about letting go essentially a large part of the health IT workforce, from you know to fatu Aura. Interesting your views on that rib at a time where it seems that digital health and preventative healthcare and all the digital tools that are available now around the world to provide those sorts of services. I mean, does this make sense to you that we need to sort of sort of burn it all down and rebuild it, or are you really worried about the loss of capability that's going to come with us.

Well, just one, you know, the immediate issues in front of our health system. One of them is you know, they're making a call at the moment about letting go essentially a large part of the health IT workforce, from you know to fatu Aura. Interesting your views on that rib at a time where it seems that digital health and preventative healthcare and all the digital tools that are available now around the world to provide those sorts of services. I mean, does this make sense to you that we need to sort of sort of burn it all down and rebuild it, or are you really worried about the loss of capability that's going to come with us.

Well, a couple of things there. One is you've got to be very careful in politicians and public service executives talk about the job cuts they're making. Typically most of those jobs that no one's in. They like to announce that they're making job cuts, but often their vacant positions that they're cutting, So you've got to watch the numbers. There was scope for rationalization in the way the Ministry of Health and the individual health boards had built up their digital teams. It wasn't well structured or well organized, so there was scope for rationalization. And that I'm just not close enough to know whether the decisions being made now are the right ones in that but you know, this is not a matter of having the most people. It's a matter of having the right systems and well directed thinking going on about it. So yeah, I'm just too far away to know now. But there was certainly scope for rationalization.

Well, a couple of things there. One is you've got to be very careful in politicians and public service executives talk about the job cuts they're making. Typically most of those jobs that no one's in. They like to announce that they're making job cuts, but often their vacant positions that they're cutting, So you've got to watch the numbers. There was scope for rationalization in the way the Ministry of Health and the individual health boards had built up their digital teams. It wasn't well structured or well organized, so there was scope for rationalization. And that I'm just not close enough to know whether the decisions being made now are the right ones in that but you know, this is not a matter of having the most people. It's a matter of having the right systems and well directed thinking going on about it. So yeah, I'm just too far away to know now. But there was certainly scope for rationalization.

And you could see in the US the law of unindenda consequences that are about to flow through, right, and the people who are indulge and let's be honesty and I think may still be the richest man alife, but Tesla's shoes are forward, aren't aren't going to be hurt, right, But the funding cuts, the decision that they're making are going to flow through and start affecting everyday people's lives, whether it's their benefits, whether it's their health, whether it's their education, those sorts of things, and you know, even inside of you know, the New yealing house system. If we if we do get to a position where we take an idealistic we need to cut x amount of people from the its stuff, it'll be the patience that suffer because while while those people it's very hard to connect what they're doing, I can guarantee you because we saw it in Locatto when there was a big hack, stuff, bad stuff will happen. You're no one in that organization is setting out to do a bad job. They're actually doing things. And if we dis arbitrarily cut it, and I've worked in an organization that used to do this, we're going to go, hey, we're just going to take fifteen percent of our workforce out this year, bad stuff happens.

And you could see in the US the law of unindenda consequences that are about to flow through, right, and the people who are indulge and let's be honesty and I think may still be the richest man alife, but Tesla's shoes are forward, aren't aren't going to be hurt, right, But the funding cuts, the decision that they're making are going to flow through and start affecting everyday people's lives, whether it's their benefits, whether it's their health, whether it's their education, those sorts of things, and you know, even inside of you know, the New yealing house system. If we if we do get to a position where we take an idealistic we need to cut x amount of people from the its stuff, it'll be the patience that suffer because while while those people it's very hard to connect what they're doing, I can guarantee you because we saw it in Locatto when there was a big hack, stuff, bad stuff will happen. You're no one in that organization is setting out to do a bad job. They're actually doing things. And if we dis arbitrarily cut it, and I've worked in an organization that used to do this, we're going to go, hey, we're just going to take fifteen percent of our workforce out this year, bad stuff happens.

Yeah, one hundred percent. My attitude, my argument would be that there was a need to rationalize duplication and confusion, and the projects that were being worked on, not that the certain I don't have no idea whether the numbers were right or on. What I would absolutely guarantee is, from what I know of the senior executives and directors and commissioners within that organization at the moment, the chances that they are making the right decisions about what it projects to proceed with them which not are very low. It's almost sitting there making the wrong decisions.

Yeah, one hundred percent. My attitude, my argument would be that there was a need to rationalize duplication and confusion, and the projects that were being worked on, not that the certain I don't have no idea whether the numbers were right or on. What I would absolutely guarantee is, from what I know of the senior executives and directors and commissioners within that organization at the moment, the chances that they are making the right decisions about what it projects to proceed with them which not are very low. It's almost sitting there making the wrong decisions.

Well and this and this again goes back to that question of transparency, right, So there are lots of if you could see the source code, if you could see the architecture, if the actual applications were in GET in a GET repository where people could download them and contribute to them, I just I just feel that there'd be more collective intelligence about some of the decisions being made. But we have this sort of hierarchical, very centralized decision making apparatus which is being shown up to basically not really big sets for purpose in you know, in what really in the next you know, two to three years, we're going to see AI just deployed throughout our entire economy and potentially drive you know, complete automation of pretty much all cognitive work. Anything that is done in front of a computer screen will be you know, arguably some of the stuff that I'm seeing will be the doable by an AI agent within one or two years. And so how are we preparing to take advantage of that change? And then also where's the conversation nationally as a different topic, but about what happens when people are disestablished from their roles by AI technology. So, you know, how are we going to work towards some kind of fair transition to a post AI labor market?

Well and this and this again goes back to that question of transparency, right, So there are lots of if you could see the source code, if you could see the architecture, if the actual applications were in GET in a GET repository where people could download them and contribute to them, I just I just feel that there'd be more collective intelligence about some of the decisions being made. But we have this sort of hierarchical, very centralized decision making apparatus which is being shown up to basically not really big sets for purpose in you know, in what really in the next you know, two to three years, we're going to see AI just deployed throughout our entire economy and potentially drive you know, complete automation of pretty much all cognitive work. Anything that is done in front of a computer screen will be you know, arguably some of the stuff that I'm seeing will be the doable by an AI agent within one or two years. And so how are we preparing to take advantage of that change? And then also where's the conversation nationally as a different topic, but about what happens when people are disestablished from their roles by AI technology. So, you know, how are we going to work towards some kind of fair transition to a post AI labor market?

Yeah, and you go into in your book, you know, the concept that has been discussed about a universal basic income and things like that, which is happening that discussion and trials off it in places like Scandinavia. But on that transparency issue, Paul, as you've mentioned, you think, you know, blockchain is very amenable to that goal. We haven't really seen any experimentation in government. We've got Treasury, Reserve Bank rather looking at the concept of a central bank digital currency. They've put quite a long time frame on that. Nothing as much is going to happen, And is there anything obvious to you where this sort of technology with things like smart contracts, you know, that automation of the handshaking between government departments that can sometimes take a long time and be very bureaucratic. Any obvious areas that you could apply that sort of technology to.

Yeah, and you go into in your book, you know, the concept that has been discussed about a universal basic income and things like that, which is happening that discussion and trials off it in places like Scandinavia. But on that transparency issue, Paul, as you've mentioned, you think, you know, blockchain is very amenable to that goal. We haven't really seen any experimentation in government. We've got Treasury, Reserve Bank rather looking at the concept of a central bank digital currency. They've put quite a long time frame on that. Nothing as much is going to happen, And is there anything obvious to you where this sort of technology with things like smart contracts, you know, that automation of the handshaking between government departments that can sometimes take a long time and be very bureaucratic. Any obvious areas that you could apply that sort of technology to.

Yeah, Look, I think for me, the standout candidate is how we manage identities and people's identities with it across all the government departments. I think blockchain technologies lend itself very well to that sort of stuff, and just protecting people's most private information. I think that is going to be increasingly important given the future that BENC is coming with AIS, because you know, if you think hackers are bad, now imagine them under seeing the power Amazon to do what they're doing. It'll be horrific, and frankly, the security companies aren't built to deal with that. So I think identity is certainly first and foremost for me, but also things like, you know, even just how we run our democracy, information and voting. There are already several governments out there not South Korea is one of them who are voting using blockchain technology help to feed up accounts, but also gets through the photo fraud which was a big topic.

Yeah, Look, I think for me, the standout candidate is how we manage identities and people's identities with it across all the government departments. I think blockchain technologies lend itself very well to that sort of stuff, and just protecting people's most private information. I think that is going to be increasingly important given the future that BENC is coming with AIS, because you know, if you think hackers are bad, now imagine them under seeing the power Amazon to do what they're doing. It'll be horrific, and frankly, the security companies aren't built to deal with that. So I think identity is certainly first and foremost for me, but also things like, you know, even just how we run our democracy, information and voting. There are already several governments out there not South Korea is one of them who are voting using blockchain technology help to feed up accounts, but also gets through the photo fraud which was a big topic.

In America again. So there are there are really.

In America again. So there are there are really.

Simple, you know, from our point of view, simple technologies that can be extended into that space. And you know, with the consumer data right and all of that stuff rolling through, like we think there's we need to have something that's not fit for yesterday, which is kind of possibly where we're going to end up. We need something that's going to be fit for this world where you've got ali agents doing what it's doing. And I think that touches on your point, Rob, But the people making the decisions probably looking backwards, not forwards, because it's hard to keep up.

Simple, you know, from our point of view, simple technologies that can be extended into that space. And you know, with the consumer data right and all of that stuff rolling through, like we think there's we need to have something that's not fit for yesterday, which is kind of possibly where we're going to end up. We need something that's going to be fit for this world where you've got ali agents doing what it's doing. And I think that touches on your point, Rob, But the people making the decisions probably looking backwards, not forwards, because it's hard to keep up.

There is one point of view, Paul. Just to follow on from that thought, you know, it's easy to get depressed about that just when you think about the chances or how you would get this sort of decision making made properly from the center the other viewers that it won't be Let's forget about it. Let's accept that in fact, this is going to bubble up from what people do at a more micro level in individual companies and businesses and bits of operation, and eventually the people at the top will be dragged along to understanding it. And may well, I think that's happening in health. In health technology, it's been much more widely applied out in community and private enterprise health organizations. I see it happening a little bit in fintech as well, and I think perhaps it will bubble up from outside rather than be taken as a kind of a digital program. The moment you get these big government agencies sometimes seems to squash things rather than promoting them.

There is one point of view, Paul. Just to follow on from that thought, you know, it's easy to get depressed about that just when you think about the chances or how you would get this sort of decision making made properly from the center the other viewers that it won't be Let's forget about it. Let's accept that in fact, this is going to bubble up from what people do at a more micro level in individual companies and businesses and bits of operation, and eventually the people at the top will be dragged along to understanding it. And may well, I think that's happening in health. In health technology, it's been much more widely applied out in community and private enterprise health organizations. I see it happening a little bit in fintech as well, and I think perhaps it will bubble up from outside rather than be taken as a kind of a digital program. The moment you get these big government agencies sometimes seems to squash things rather than promoting them.

I was really inspired by the work that ald retained it in Taiwan when she was a government Digital Minister, and that does zero interitative that she led there, which was really allowing all citizens to basically contribute to governments. To government I to open, complete transparency on the source code. And to the point about voting systems, you know, we have a system where you put a thick on a piece of paper once every three years to elect are representative and so much more. They were invented. They deployed a system based on pollus which drives towards consensus rather than adversarial politics. And so it was really interesting almost the gamification of political decision making through crowd sourcing and much more wide participation. So again, all of these are just innovations that are are available to be used and can be deployed. We have, but because of the funding structures that none of it, none of it happens at all.

I was really inspired by the work that ald retained it in Taiwan when she was a government Digital Minister, and that does zero interitative that she led there, which was really allowing all citizens to basically contribute to governments. To government I to open, complete transparency on the source code. And to the point about voting systems, you know, we have a system where you put a thick on a piece of paper once every three years to elect are representative and so much more. They were invented. They deployed a system based on pollus which drives towards consensus rather than adversarial politics. And so it was really interesting almost the gamification of political decision making through crowd sourcing and much more wide participation. So again, all of these are just innovations that are are available to be used and can be deployed. We have, but because of the funding structures that none of it, none of it happens at all.

I just want to wrap up with, ideally, hopefully an idea from each of you about what we could do now given that we you know, we're very fiscally constrained at the moment. We have a government with a growth mindset. They say they're very sort of tech friendly, but the bottom line is everything. Ben, for instance, you have suggested we need some sort of agency or group within government that takes a view across government on technology investment. If we don't have that, we're going to continue to have the siloed approach to investing in the infrastructure that could underpin a lot of the stuff that will ultimately make government more efficient and equitable.

I just want to wrap up with, ideally, hopefully an idea from each of you about what we could do now given that we you know, we're very fiscally constrained at the moment. We have a government with a growth mindset. They say they're very sort of tech friendly, but the bottom line is everything. Ben, for instance, you have suggested we need some sort of agency or group within government that takes a view across government on technology investment. If we don't have that, we're going to continue to have the siloed approach to investing in the infrastructure that could underpin a lot of the stuff that will ultimately make government more efficient and equitable.

Yeah. And whether that's a centralized government department in the traditional mold, I would push back on. I think working towards more decentralized collaborative initiatives just to make progress, I think would probably be a better idea than establishing yet another department in the bureaucracy. I think to basically pull it apart and enable and that will involve funding some kind of decentralized innovation model that gets applied and addresses the concerns around risk and so create maybe an innovation sandbox opportunity. But you know as soon as you create a slope that people will walk downhill. And so to basically create an environment where innovation that gets deployed into government services is there's a really clear pass for that. I think a decentralized model is probably the better way to do that.

Yeah. And whether that's a centralized government department in the traditional mold, I would push back on. I think working towards more decentralized collaborative initiatives just to make progress, I think would probably be a better idea than establishing yet another department in the bureaucracy. I think to basically pull it apart and enable and that will involve funding some kind of decentralized innovation model that gets applied and addresses the concerns around risk and so create maybe an innovation sandbox opportunity. But you know as soon as you create a slope that people will walk downhill. And so to basically create an environment where innovation that gets deployed into government services is there's a really clear pass for that. I think a decentralized model is probably the better way to do that.

Paul, from your perspective, We've got an amazing community here of blockchain developers. I'm doing sort of gaming applications, fintech applications. What would you like to see sort of brought to bear on these problems facing government?

Paul, from your perspective, We've got an amazing community here of blockchain developers. I'm doing sort of gaming applications, fintech applications. What would you like to see sort of brought to bear on these problems facing government?

So I've got kind of a two face response. So I think we should come up with a vision. So Singapore is a country without a lot of resources, and it's innovated into finance because that was a natural place to do it. And I think, you know our days are relying on commodity driven economy is probably done. So I think if we can lean into a vision as a government that says we want to be tech vest and truly mean it, not just the talking, but truly mean it. And then you know, I think Rob's point. You know, there's a whole bunch of very clever, smart, nimble stetups in New Zealand, and I think if we can get Central to buy into supporting those businesses adopting their technology for the greater good as well as supporting them to export, I think that would be a really good outcome climper nation as well as our central government services.

So I've got kind of a two face response. So I think we should come up with a vision. So Singapore is a country without a lot of resources, and it's innovated into finance because that was a natural place to do it. And I think, you know our days are relying on commodity driven economy is probably done. So I think if we can lean into a vision as a government that says we want to be tech vest and truly mean it, not just the talking, but truly mean it. And then you know, I think Rob's point. You know, there's a whole bunch of very clever, smart, nimble stetups in New Zealand, and I think if we can get Central to buy into supporting those businesses adopting their technology for the greater good as well as supporting them to export, I think that would be a really good outcome climper nation as well as our central government services.

And last word for you, Rob, what would you really like to see and what do you think we could achieve? Having been through the inferno of working at in the health sector and seeing firsthand after coming from sky City and the likes you know that have a very much a profit incentive to be efficient and to automate as much as possible and that sort of thing. What would you like to see and what do you think could be achievable in terms of tackling you know that the waste and the inefficiency in health and other government departments.

And last word for you, Rob, what would you really like to see and what do you think we could achieve? Having been through the inferno of working at in the health sector and seeing firsthand after coming from sky City and the likes you know that have a very much a profit incentive to be efficient and to automate as much as possible and that sort of thing. What would you like to see and what do you think could be achievable in terms of tackling you know that the waste and the inefficiency in health and other government departments.

I think the key here is innovation, and I think at the moment in New Zealand we think about innovation in the wrong way. We think about it at kind of the institutional and in vesta level, or perhaps at the private equity level. What change needs is to have the government being able to think much more in a venture capital mode about how it gets things moving, how it encourages good ideas that are coming up and gets them impluented at a smaller level. They don't have to find these big macro solutions to things. The solutions probably are very disaggregated, so you might as well approach them in that way. So that really comes back around, I think to what Ben and Paul have both been saying. We just need I don't want to set up another agency either, but we just need to create the scope where our focus is on encouraging innovation, which is of its nature usually pretty small when it starts, and you have to be prepared to take risks with that. The idea that the big money coming in from offshore is going to do this then or the next thing, I think it's a complete cul de sac. It's going to take us nowhere. So that's the key thing.

I think the key here is innovation, and I think at the moment in New Zealand we think about innovation in the wrong way. We think about it at kind of the institutional and in vesta level, or perhaps at the private equity level. What change needs is to have the government being able to think much more in a venture capital mode about how it gets things moving, how it encourages good ideas that are coming up and gets them impluented at a smaller level. They don't have to find these big macro solutions to things. The solutions probably are very disaggregated, so you might as well approach them in that way. So that really comes back around, I think to what Ben and Paul have both been saying. We just need I don't want to set up another agency either, but we just need to create the scope where our focus is on encouraging innovation, which is of its nature usually pretty small when it starts, and you have to be prepared to take risks with that. The idea that the big money coming in from offshore is going to do this then or the next thing, I think it's a complete cul de sac. It's going to take us nowhere. So that's the key thing.

Okay, lots of great ideas there, and the Doge machine will roll on in the US and we'll keep an eye on that, and we'll keep an eye on what's going on in government. But thanks so much, for all those great ideas. We'll put show notes up on the website linking to Ben's book and Paul's work with the hackathon and everything else. So thanks so much guys for coming on the Business of Tech.

Okay, lots of great ideas there, and the Doge machine will roll on in the US and we'll keep an eye on that, and we'll keep an eye on what's going on in government. But thanks so much, for all those great ideas. We'll put show notes up on the website linking to Ben's book and Paul's work with the hackathon and everything else. So thanks so much guys for coming on the Business of Tech.

Thank you, Thank you Peter.

Thank you, Thank you Peter.

Thanks starving us.

Thanks starving us.

So there you have some really great ideas there really about the potential role of decentralized technology and collaboration. But also, as Rob said, it's about people as well, and it's about strategy, having a firm plan of what you actually want to achieve, rather than just taking the hatchet to government spending for ideological reasons. So hopefully it's something that the government here will increasingly do do this in an evidence based way. We've got Judith Collins as the Minister for digitizing government. She wants more efficiency, she wants better customer service in government. There are ways to do that leveraging really good technology. So hopefully she's got some good ideas out of this as well. But let me know what you think in the comments on my LinkedIn post. Show notes are also in the podcast section at Business deesk dot co dot nz. Lots of links related to this week's episode. Now you can stream the podcast on iHeartRadio or your favorite podcast app. Get in touch with your ideas for upcoming topics and guests. Just email me. I'm Peter at Peter Griffin dot co dot nz or I'm really easy to find on LinkedIn and I'd love to hear from you. Next week, I talk to Carmen Visselik under a Velocity Global about growing tech trade with India. Kamen is doing significant business with banks in India and was under Prime Minister's recent trade delegation to India. She has some sage advice for tech and digital companies trying to tap into the vast Indian market that's dropping next Thursday. Till then, have a great week.