They wouldn't be trialling their technology, they would be trialling the New Zealand Government.
From Christchurch on Thursday, New Zealand's ACT leader David Seymour proposed reshaping his country's relationship with emerging technology — not through deregulation, but through deliberate, structured invitation. By formalising a permanent pathway for companies to trial driverless vehicles, agricultural drones, AI, and cultivated food under temporary regulatory suspension, Seymour is asking whether a small nation at the edge of the world can become a first mover by choosing openness over caution. The proposal reflects a tension as old as governance itself: the balance between protecting people from the unknown and allowing the unknown to become known.
- New Zealand risks being left behind as the US, Japan, and the UK actively court technology companies that New Zealand's slow, unpredictable regulatory machinery is quietly turning away.
- A single agricultural drone certification — costing up to $2,000 and taking over a year — has become a symbol of the institutional friction that compounds across every emerging sector.
- Uber told Seymour plainly: they wouldn't be trialling their driverless cars in New Zealand, they would be trialling the New Zealand Government — and if it fails the test, they move on.
- Seymour's 'Innovation Trials' framework would replace ad-hoc exemptions with a published, predictable standing offer — a front door any company worldwide could walk through.
- The Civil Aviation Authority's decision to place a proposed drone trial on a two-year work programme illustrates precisely the institutional inertia the proposal is designed to overcome.
- The framework's success depends on whether agencies across government will move at the speed innovation demands, and whether oversight can keep pace without becoming the very barrier it replaces.
David Seymour arrived in Christchurch on Thursday with a proposal to fundamentally reframe how New Zealand engages with emerging technology. As ACT leader and Minister for Regulation, he wants to establish 'Innovation Trials' — a permanent, published pathway allowing companies anywhere in the world to temporarily suspend regulatory requirements while testing driverless cars, agricultural drones, AI systems, and cell-cultivated food. The idea is to replace unpredictable, case-by-case exemptions with something companies can rely on: a front door, not a back door.
The model has precedent. The UK's financial regulator pioneered the regulatory sandbox concept in 2016, and dozens of countries have since followed. New Zealand's own Financial Markets Authority already runs a fintech pilot. Seymour's ambition is to scale that logic across the entire economy — and to do it before competitive anxiety becomes competitive irrelevance.
His case rests on concrete examples of friction. Agricultural drones heavier than 25 kilograms require certification costing up to $2,000 and taking more than a year. When the Ministry for Regulation proposed suspending the weight limit on defined farmland as a trial, the Civil Aviation Authority placed it on a two-year work programme. Seymour's response was pointed: in two years, new technology will have moved the frontier again, leaving Kiwi farmers further behind.
The stakes are larger than agriculture. In a conversation with Uber about driverless vehicles, the company's message was unambiguous — they would be trialling the New Zealand Government as much as the roads. If the process is too slow or opaque, they test elsewhere. Seymour sees Innovation Trials as a way to attract investment across AI, fintech, precision agriculture, and cultivated food — industries worth billions that are actively searching for somewhere to land.
The deeper question is whether the government can build a framework that is genuinely open without becoming genuinely reckless — one that collects meaningful safety data while moving at the speed that makes the invitation worth accepting in the first place.
David Seymour stood in Christchurch on Thursday with a pitch that amounts to a fundamental reframing of how New Zealand approaches new technology. The ACT leader and Minister for Regulation wants to transform the country into a deliberate testing ground for emerging innovations—driverless cars, agricultural drones, AI systems, cell-cultivated food—by creating a permanent pathway for companies to temporarily suspend regulatory requirements.
The mechanism he's proposing is called "Innovation Trials." Rather than treating regulatory exemptions as favors granted case-by-case when someone applies enough pressure, Seymour wants them to become a standing offer: a published, predictable process that any company anywhere in the world can access. "A front door for innovation, not a back door," he said. The model isn't new. The United Kingdom's financial regulator pioneered what's known as a regulatory sandbox in 2016, and dozens of countries have since adopted variations. New Zealand's own Financial Markets Authority is already running a fintech sandbox pilot. What Seymour is proposing is to scale and systematize the approach across the economy.
The urgency behind the pitch is competitive anxiety. Seymour argues that New Zealand has fallen behind countries like the US, Japan, and the UK in attracting technology companies willing to test their innovations. When international firms look at New Zealand, he said, they see the same regulatory machinery they're trying to escape. The country's slow processes are actively deterring investment. He pointed to a concrete example: the Civil Aviation Authority's rules on agricultural drones. Farmers cannot legally fly drones heavier than 25 kilograms without certification—a process that costs up to $2,000 and takes more than a year. The Ministry for Regulation identified this as an ideal candidate for a trial, proposing to suspend the weight limit on defined farmland while collecting data. The CAA, however, added it to a two-year work programme. "In two years, there will almost certainly be new technology which puts Kiwi farmers even further behind the 8-ball," Seymour said.
The stakes extend beyond agriculture. Seymour recounted a conversation with Uber about bringing driverless cars to New Zealand. The company's message was blunt: they wouldn't be trialling their technology, they would be trialling the New Zealand Government. The implication was clear—if the regulatory process is too slow or unpredictable, they'll test elsewhere. Innovation Trials could theoretically accelerate clinical trials, improve access to new medical treatments, and attract investment in artificial intelligence, digital finance, precision agriculture, and cultivated food. These are industries worth billions, Seymour said, and they're all looking for somewhere to land.
The proposal hinges on a particular vision of government's role: not as a gatekeeper protecting against risk, but as an enabler stepping aside to let companies prove what their technology can do. Seymour framed it as essential to lifting wages and productivity, and to getting closer to the technology frontier that prosperity depends on. "We need to stop hoping they choose New Zealand, and go and get them," he said. The question now is whether the government can build a framework that attracts global innovation while maintaining enough oversight to ensure safety and collect meaningful data—and whether other agencies like the Civil Aviation Authority will move at the speed Seymour envisions.
Notable Quotes
A front door for innovation, not a back door.— David Seymour, on making regulatory exemptions a published, permanent pathway rather than ad-hoc favors
Right now they look at New Zealand and see the same slow regulatory machinery they're trying to escape.— David Seymour, on why international tech companies are not choosing New Zealand as a testing ground
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Seymour think New Zealand is losing this race? What's actually stopping companies from testing here now?
The regulatory process is too slow and unpredictable. A drone certification takes over a year and costs $2,000. When Uber looked at driverless cars, they essentially said the New Zealand Government itself was the obstacle, not the technology. Companies have other options—they'll go where they can move faster.
But isn't there a reason those rules exist? Doesn't slowing things down protect people?
That's the tension Seymour is trying to resolve. He's not saying eliminate safety rules. He's saying create a defined space where you can test under supervision, collect data, and learn whether the rules actually need to exist as written. The UK did this with fintech. It worked.
What would actually change if this passed?
Companies could apply for a published, predictable pathway to bypass specific regulations in specific regions for a set time. Right now it's ad-hoc—you have to lobby a minister. This would be a front door, not a back door. The CAA's two-year drone programme could become a six-month trial instead.
And if something goes wrong during a trial? A driverless car crashes, or a drone injures someone?
That's the design question. You're collecting data under regulator supervision. You're not just letting companies do whatever they want. But yes, there's risk. The bet is that the risk of staying slow and uncompetitive is bigger than the risk of moving faster.
Who benefits most from this?
International tech companies looking for a place to test. Farmers who want to use heavier drones. Patients waiting for access to new medical treatments. The industries Seymour named—AI, fintech, cultivated food—are worth billions. If New Zealand becomes known as the place where you can test, investment follows.
What's the catch?
You need regulators willing to move at this speed, and you need to actually learn from the trials. If you just rubber-stamp exemptions without collecting data, you've just deregulated. The whole thing only works if it's genuinely time-limited and evidence-based.