Jump to-
Recent key developments in MAKE│NZ
•Next in the line is another of our fresh faces for the board, a well-known figure in Canterbury manufacturing, Jody Tuckwell – Operations Manager at AW Frasers:
Can you share a quick summary of your background in manufacturing and what got you interested in the field?
I began my engineering journey at 16, leaving school to take up an apprenticeship with a precision engineering company on the south coast of the UK. We specialised in high-end yacht componentry and defence manufacturing — a challenging but rewarding environment that taught me the value of precision, grit, and continuous learning.
While most of my peers chose the traditional academic route, I decided to earn while I learned. It meant long days on the tools and even longer evenings earning extra credits, but nearly 30 years later, I’ve never looked back.
The skills I’ve developed along the way have opened doors around the world — allowing me to experience some of the finest engineering principles, manufacturing processes, and cutting-edge machinery firsthand. More importantly, that journey has introduced me to incredible people who’ve shaped not only my career but the person I’ve become today.
What got you interested in joining the MAKE│NZ board?
Canterbury’s manufacturing and engineering community is home to some of the sharpest minds in the country. I’m passionate about connecting with like-minded people — not only to continue learning from others, but also to share the knowledge and experience I’ve gained over my career.
For me, joining the MAKE│NZ Board is about strengthening those connections, encouraging collaboration, and helping to lift the capability of our industry as a whole. If I can play even a small part in supporting others to grow or succeed, that’s something I’d be proud to contribute to.
What do you think is the biggest opportunity—or challenge—for manufacturing in the next 5 years?
Everyone’s talking about the so-called “brain drain” and “skills shortage” in manufacturing — and while there’s truth to some of that, I think we’re overlooking something bigger.
For anyone who loves making things, we’re living in the most exciting era yet. Technology has democratised creation — giving almost anyone, of any age, the tools to take an idea from concept to production.
The real question for the next five years isn’t just how we fill skill gaps, but how the very shape of manufacturing might evolve. Will large-scale plants continue to dominate, or are we heading toward a future where micro-manufacturing — powered by advanced 3D printing and digital design — becomes part of every home or small business?
Either way, it’s a future full of opportunity for those willing to adapt and innovate.
If you could offer one piece of advice to emerging leaders in manufacturing, what would it be?
Stay grounded. Leadership in manufacturing means wearing many hats, and the moment you stop listening to those around you is the moment you lose touch with reality.
At the same time, don’t forget to invest in yourself. Seek professional leadership coaching and development — not because you need to “know it all,” but because the better equipped you are, the more effectively you can support your team.
And remember: the true mark of a great leader is creating an environment where you eventually make yourself redundant — because you’ve built capable, confident people who can carry the torch forward.
Outside of manufacturing, what’s something you’re passionate about that people might not know?
Outside of manufacturing, I’m passionate about community projects and conservation. Living on Banks Peninsula, I’ve had the privilege of working with the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust to place part of our previous property under a protected bush covenant — helping to safeguard native biodiversity for the future.
My wife and I continue to support regeneration efforts around Little River, and I’m also involved with the Little River Railway Trust, helping to preserve the area’s heritage through restoration work on the old railway station and rolling stock.
For me, it’s about giving back — helping to protect the environment and history of a place that means a lot to our community.
•We’re looking at restarting our Women in Manufacturing group!
A space for women at all levels of their manufacturing journey, from team lead to owner operator, a chance to learn together from each other. Maybe you’re looking for some advice on how to manage a shift, or you’re looking to help support emerging leaders grow? Well, this will be a great opportunity to connect and share.
Our first meeting will be on the 12th of November as an opportunity to learn what women in manufacturing need and how we can help them grow.
If you’re a woman passionate about manufacturing, or you know someone who is, get in touch to be on the list for the official invite that will be sent out shortly (sabine@makenz.org).
•A while back, we ran a weekly contest where we asked a quiz question, accompanied by an AI-generated image. As a one-off, here’s another quiz, except this time the image is the question:
Answers to dieter@makenz.org
Recent key developments in New Zealand
•At a recent board meeting, we asked our directors about their most pressing problems in their respective manufacturing businesses for which they expected government to make a major contribution toward the fix. Two areas stood out: (1) utilities – secure supplies of energy (with a low carbon footprint) at a cost that doesn’t impede their competitive positioning in international markets. (2) Help with upskilling the existing workforce and ensuring that a sufficient number of appropriately-trained industry entrants are available on an on-going basis in New Zealand. Number 2 was clearly the top priority for most.
Also last week, In a lengthy interview with Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie on 9-to-noon, Kathryn Ryan covered well-trodden ground when she talked about the need for improved productivity in New Zealand, and the role of skills development in that. Rennie, on his part [17:30 into the audio clip], talked about the need “for our young people to be well-educated, so they can get those high-paying jobs” and [22:35 into the clip] “Skills development is really important … at the end of the day, the quality of our human capital is the most important thing …we’ve had, essentially, 50 years of poor productivity growth and turning to turn things around, we’re not going to see a step-change in the next three to five years. It’s around about getting a lot of things right [skills development being one of them], and keeping it right for a long time, and that’s what you see in successful other countries.”
So, we have a clear expression from industry about what it needs, and a clear recognition from the government’s top economic advisor that what industry is asking for is indeed what the country needs: Developing a highly-skilled workforce, executed as a long-term strategy. Which means it will require a consistent pursuit of the right approach over multiple election cycles, whatever the political outcome of each cycle. What we’ve had so far is two cycles of a largely unsuccessful reform, followed by two-thirds of a cycle of roll-back, with a replacement approach that has yet to demonstrate that it will work … In the meantime, manufacturers largely import the skills they need, because they can’t find it locally.
What has mostly been forgotten by now is what started the reforms in the Vocational Education and Training [VET] sector, which were primarily dealing with the situation of our polytechs, in the first place. It was financial strain. A memo written by the TEC [Tertiary Education Commission] to the Minister of Education in August 2018, contained these findings: “Overall, the ITP [Institutes of Technology & Polytechnics] sector is in a poor financial position … The sector’s financial performance is likely to decline further in 2019 and beyond … the existing sector arrangements are not viable, and the funding arrangements for the ITP sector, which are mostly based on student enrolments, expose the ITPs in particular to the business cycle. This in turn means that access to relevant programmes is more immediately at risk, particularly in regions.”
The memo also mentions the root cause for the sector’s poor financial position: “Demand for places at ITPs is counter-cyclical to the economy, and ITPs are largely dependent on tuition subsidies and student fees, which historically decline at this point in the cycle. Base funding for the sector was removed in 2010 (with the funding instead bundled into volume- based funding)”.
While there were and still are many other good reasons to improve the performance of New Zealand’s VET system, we need to keep in mind that a lack of political will to adequately resource the VET system was a key driver for the ‘reforms’ started in 2019, and financial considerations are still the overriding drivers of government policy in the VET sector today.
So much for the policy question. What do the numbers say? One key set of statistics deals with ‘transition’ – where do young people go when they leave school. The answer to that will ultimately determine how many people manufacturing will be able to ‘capture’ in the future:
The steady rise in the number of school leavers not engaging in any form of tertiary education or training was briefly halted by the introduction of the ‘Fees Free’ policy in 2018, and there was a small decline again in 2024. Yet, at above 40%, that number is well above the OECD average. Where do these young people go?
How does New Zealand compare to the other OECD countries?
Above the OECD average for the 15-19 age group, but well below for the next cohort:
When it comes to NEETs, New Zealand is sitting close to the OECD average:
•Recently, the Labour Party announced its New Zealand Future Fund Initiative, the aim of which is to “invest in infrastructure and innovative Kiwi business to create good, secure jobs and give people a reason to stay and build their future here, at home.”
While scarce on detail so far, the new fund would “sit alongside – and separate from – the New Zealand Super Fund … It will be independently governed by the Guardians of the New Zealand Super Fund.” It looks like the fund will be able to invest in commercial operations, including “high-tech start-ups”. Other potential investment opportunities mentioned are “clean energy, sustainable production, creative industries, digital technology.”
The question is – if you own a manufacturing operation that might fit any of the above criteria, how likely would you be to seek or welcome an equity stake managed by the new Fund?
If you are interested in the Guardians of the New Zealand Super Fund, who would be your eventual equity partner, you can find their list here.
Recent key developments in the World
•We’ll keep readers updated on developments in the on-going deterioration of what we used to refer to as a global regime of free trade. It was never completely free globally, but over the past ten years we have seen a steady increase in cases where the rules of free trade, and fair trade, have been flaunted openly. New Zealand manufacturers are not a primary target of such measures, but we’re seeing collateral damage occurring already.
Today’s example is about Nexperia. Nexperia, a Chinese-owned electronics / semiconductor manufacturer has its headquarters in the Netherlands and over 12,500 employees across Europe, Asia, and the United States. Recently, the company was caught in the dragnet set up by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the US Department of Commerce. The BIS controls the export, re-export, and transfer of U.S.-origin chips, software, and manufacturing equipment to foreign entities or destinations via an Entity List that includes foreign firms and organisations considered threats to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests – Huawei being a prominent example. Transactions involving these entities require a specific export license, which is often denied.
These restrictions – primarily aimed at China – were introduced well before the current administration came into power, for a detailed account see here. In January 2025, the BIS introduced major updates to export controls that significantly expanded restrictions on advanced semiconductors, AI chips, and related technologies, with a focus on blocking sensitive technology diffusion to China, Russia, and other countries of concern. These changes tightened licensing requirements, expanded due diligence duties, and, for the first time, introduced controls on AI model weights and connected-vehicle systems.
A month earlier, in December 2024, the BIS had already added many new entities to its Entity List – predominantly 140 companies in China but also in other Asian countries. Included was Chinese semiconductor manufacturer Wingtech Technology Co, Ltd and its subsidiaries. Wingtech ranks among the global top 3 suppliers of discrete semiconductors and logic devices. The company’s revenue for Q3/2025 was reported to be USD603m.
Wingtech had acquired Dutch semiconductor manufacturer Nexperia in 2018; the company had originally been spun out of Phillips in 2006. On the occasion of its parent company being included in the Entity List, a Nexperia spokesperson clarified in December 2024 that BIS restrictions “do not apply to Nexperia or its subsidiaries. Nexperia will comply with the U.S. restrictions as these apply to its interactions with Wingtech.”
This exemption for Nexperia was removed when, on September 30, 2025, the BIS announced that it had “issued a new rule that closes a significant loophole in restricted party lists – strengthening the export control regime overall. Under today’s rule, any entity that is at least 50 percent owned by one or more entities on the Entity List or the Military End-User (MEU) List will itself automatically be subject to Entity List/MEU List restrictions … For too long, loopholes have enabled exports that undermine American national security and foreign policy interests. Under this Administration, BIS is closing the loopholes and ensuring that export controls work as intended.”
On the same day, and without any reference to the BIS decision, the Dutch government announced that it had invoked a 1952 law – The Goods Availability Act (Wet beschikbaarheid goederen) to intervene in Nexperia’s business by removing its Chinese CEO, Zhang Xuezheng, from office and appointing Nexperia’s CFO, a German citizen, as Acting CEO. The Goods Availability Act is a 1952 Dutch framework law that grants the government powers to secure the availability of essential goods during a national emergency. It had never been invoked before. The Dutch government quoted “recent and acute signals of serious governance shortcomings and actions within Nexperia. These signals posed a threat to the continuity and safeguarding on Dutch and European soil of crucial technological knowledge and capabilities. Losing these capabilities could pose a risk to Dutch and European economic security. Nexperia produces, among other things, chips used in the European automotive industry and in consumer electronics.”
The Chinese government didn’t take long to react. On 4 October 2025, China’s Ministry of Commerce banned exports of components and finished goods containing Nexperia‑made chips from Chinese plants or subcontractors. This effectively blocked global distribution of an estimated 80 percent of Nexperia‑linked assemblies, creating a sudden shortfall in critical automotive and industrial semiconductors. The Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the Netherlands of “abusing the notion of national security”.
Nexperia supplies roughly10–15 percent of global automotive power semiconductors, particularly MOSFETs and diodes essential for electronic control units, battery systems, and safety electronics. While car companies are scrambling to secure replacements for alternative suppliers, and production lines haven’t been stopped just yet, the ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association) warns that it “is deeply concerned by potential significant disruption to European vehicle manufacturing if the interruption of Nexperia chips supplies cannot be immediately resolved.”
Why is this story worth telling? Because it illustrates the fatal flaw in governments wilfully interfering in highly evolved and complex supply chain relationships. Do we think that the BIS officials had any idea about the impact of their decisions on the global automotive manufacturing industry when they added Wingtech to the Entity List in December 2024 and removed Nexperia’s exemption from the restrictions imposed by being a listed entity in September 2025? Did the Dutch government really believe its interference with the shareholder rights of Wingtech would be accepted by the Chinese government without a strong response?
This is but one example of many recently where government interference in commercial trade relationships has resulted in supply disruptions and cost increases. Such interference often also leads to an exchange of measures and countermeasures aggravating the situation.
Finally, if you want to hear from two wise men on this topic, follow the links here and here.
Meanwhile, back at home (in the US):
From KPMG’s September Tariff Pulse Survey that captured perspectives from 300 U.S.-based C-suite and business leaders representing organizations with an annual revenue of $1 billion or more.
•To end on a positive note, let’s look at something Porsche’s engineers have come up with. It’s a typical example of a significant innovation that would probably fail to excite people who are not involved in manufacturing.
The problem: Lightweight construction is becoming increasingly important in car manufacturing because safety technology, electronics, and increasing demands of comfort tend to increase the weight of vehicles. Carbon fibre is the answer for ‘trophy components’ in high-end models, but in many cases polypropylene used in the interior to reduce weight. It is comparatively inexpensive, easy to process, and can also be recycled relatively well. But it also has disadvantages: “Rigidity and heat resistance do not count among the positive properties of polypropylene,” explains Michael Johann, Porsche’s Specialist Project Manager for Body System Development. “Glass fibre is typically added to improve it.” This glass-fibre-reinforced plastic is called PP-GFx. Many components of Porsche vehicles are made of it.
The solution: In search of a better option, Porsche’s engineers came up with the idea of adding a small amount of carbon fibre tape embedded in a thin polypropylene film to achieve significant improvements in the structural rigidity of polypropylene-based components, as shown here for the luggage compartment of Porsche’s Taycan model:
The result: a 66 percent higher compressive force was required to achieve the same maximum permissible deflection—and the luggage tray was, at the same time, 15 percent lighter than the series-production luggage tray made from just PP-GFx.
Not only that, the new technology can be implemented without major changes in manufacturing technology:
Porsche’s experts managed to develop a production process using conventional automated injection moulding machines. “The tapes are inserted into the forming tools by means of a handling device and attached to either the top or the bottom of the component using vacuum channels,” explains Mr. Johann. “In principle, new machines or processes are not required, which is extremely advantageous for production costs.”
Porsche is using this technology in their cars, but the double of weight reduction and increasing structural strength without a major increase in cost will have potential applications beyond the automotive industry.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.