On Tuesday morning, I attended a breakfast in New Zealand’s Parliament. The latest report from NZIER, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, to Xero, the online accounting software company, “Going Digital in 2025,” was unveiled.

There was much excitement about the potential for digital transformation to invigorate the economy. New Zealand’s businesses have long struggled to produce more value from the same labour and capital inputs.

The report’s headline figures were good enough to make any finance minister listen, especially in Budget week. It claimed that accelerated digitalisation, with artificial intelligence as a crucial component, could inject up to NZ$8.6 billion into New Zealand’s GDP.

The highlighted returns for small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of the New Zealand economy, were impressive. For every dollar invested in digital tools, there are apparently $2.40 to $3.10 in returns.

There is a substantial opportunity here, and as a tech geek, I love it. Still, my enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about our cultural readiness to seize it.

Even as the benefits were being explained, my mind turned to a recently released KPMG study, “Trust, Attitudes and Use of Artificial Intelligence: A Global Study 2025.” The study was focused less on potential gains than on society’s readiness to pursue them.

For countries like ours, it paints a picture characterised not by opportunity and ambition than by hesitation and fear.

On both sides of the Tasman, a striking scepticism towards technology prevails. Only 34 percent of New Zealanders trust AI systems, compared to a global average of 46 percent. For Australians, it is 36 percent.

More tellingly, only 31 percent of Kiwis believe AI’s benefits outweigh its risks. That figure is 30 percent in Australia – the lowest in the survey.

With such scepticism, it is no wonder there is a significant public demand for AI regulation, too. In New Zealand, 81 percent of the population supports this, while in Australia, 77 percent are in favour.

These figures are startling for countries that pride themselves on a pioneering spirit and individualist ethos. They belong more in the bureaucratic hallways of Brussels than in societies once built on frontier ingenuity and self-reliance.

This Australasian AI apprehension contrasts with a more embracing attitude in emerging economies. The same KPMG study reveals that nations like India and Nigeria exhibit significantly higher trust, adoption rates, and AI literacy. In these countries, there is a clear sense that AI is a direct route to progress – a tool to leapfrog developmental stages.

Poorer nations appear driven by an urgent hunger for development. Unfortunately, that ambition seems to be lacking in New Zealand and Australia. Perhaps decades of relative prosperity have made us too complacent.

I see our “Tall Poppy Syndrome” at work here, too. This peculiarly Australasian habit of cutting down those who stand out shapes our response to technology in subtle ways. Organisations that attempt to pioneer AI adoption often face heightened scrutiny, with both success and failure attracting criticism rather than constructive engagement.

Policy approaches do differ across the Tasman. New Zealand’s “light-touch” regulatory stance contrasts with Australia’s more direct intervention. The Australian government’s AI Adopt Centres offer grants of up to $5 million to encourage SMEs to embrace artificial intelligence. Wellington has stayed largely on the sidelines.

Despite these different tactics, the results look remarkably similar. Research indicates that AI adoption rates in both countries trail comparable economies by a significant margin. Policy tweaks, it seems, have failed to overcome deeper cultural barriers.

An OECD report on AI adoption, published this month, highlights more practical obstacles. Their research emphasises two critical findings: a severe shortage of AI talent across both countries and a pronounced disconnect between boardroom AI enthusiasm and shop-floor implementation.

This pattern creates a vicious cycle that appears consistently across the business landscape. People distrust what they do not understand, which prevents them from engaging with AI tools. Without hands-on experience, understanding never develops – and distrust persists.

Breaking this cycle requires more than government programmes or corporate mandates. Successful AI adoption typically involves an element of cultural change. Experience shows that starting small with targeted applications, then gradually expanding as staff confidence grows through positive, tangible results, often yields the best outcomes.

The most successful organisations treat AI adoption as a cultural challenge first and a technical problem second. They focus on building trust through transparency, demonstrating clear benefits to individual workers, and creating safe spaces for experimentation.

Policy alone will not solve our productivity challenges. Unless we address our cultural aversion to technological risk-taking, we will continue to lag countries with far fewer resources but greater ambition.

When it comes to succeeding in the age of AI, having good policies is one thing. But perhaps just as important is having an open mind, being ambitious, wishing to try new things, being willing to be changed by them – and wanting to succeed.

The billions in potential economic gains highlighted in reports like the one presented at Parliament are achievable.

However, they will only materialise if we address the real barrier to progress: not in our systems, but in our collective mindset.

To read the full article on The Australian, click here.