As a small, innovative nation we have the potential to adopt and adapt to new technologies much more quickly than other countries, but only if we're smart about it.
Government's understanding of technology is critical - but it can be challenging for lawmakers to keep pace with the rapid progress of development.
Last week the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee met for a hearing on the Land Transport Amendment Bill.
Part of the debate centred on the rapid growth of ride sharing technology like Uber, and the challenges that poses to existing taxi-centric regulation.
Uber's general manager, Richard Menzies, was in Parliament calling for less restrictive regulations which would allow Uber to operate lawfully in New Zealand.
The hope is that the Land Transport Amendment Bill will help modernise the sector by overhauling key areas of transport law, making travelling safer and more efficient for everybody.
There are of course issues that need to be debated - the requirement for Uber drivers to hold a passenger endorsement for instance - but sadly what became apparent in last week's meeting was that the majority of MPs there had no real idea what Uber does.
This lack of fundamental understanding meant that a meeting designed to discuss regulation of an online transportation company turned into time wasted with uninformed questions.
Our MPs can't be experts in everything - without specialised training, however, the risk is that these knowledge gaps will widen as the pace of change continues to increase.
A similar story played out this week across the water, as Fiji's prime minister launched what news reports are calling the country's first multi-billion dollar joint venture.
The venture - an app called Instacharge - claims to be able to recharge your phone's battery by storing excess power in the app and letting you access it when your battery is running low.
As an engineer with a strong understanding of lithium ion batteries and smartphone technology, I'm quite sure that you can't store charge in an app - I fear that the Fijian Government might be in for a bit of a shock!
This week Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister's chief science adviser, released the second in a three-part series of papers on risk and decision-making. In it he takes a close look at concepts of risk perception, conscious and unconscious bias, and other factors that can shape individual and societal responses to multiple types of risk.
As individuals I don't think we have yet come to grips with what is ethical or high risk around new technology, let alone formed a clear view as to what some of our laws should be.
With technology now available that can tell you your genome from a mailed-in saliva sample, big questions are facing New Zealand as to how private medical data can be collected and shared, and even who owns information about an individual's DNA.
The legality and ethics surrounding many other technologies - self-driving cars, drones, robots, etc - will similarly pose challenging questions.
Professor Shaun Hendy, director of Te Punaha Matatini, has been calling for New Zealand to establish a Parliamentary Commission for Science.
Perhaps this needs to go one step further and include a body focused on current and future technology, ensuring that the public and Parliament are well advised by technology experts around the rapid new developments in the tech sector.
If nothing else this week has highlighted that - in order to ensure the best outcomes - governments need a deeper understanding of new technologies and their applications.
The pace of change is accelerating, and our decision-making needs to be able to keep up.