logo
Post-Budget Speech To Auckland Business Chamber

Post-Budget Speech To Auckland Business Chamber

Scoop27-05-2025

Speech – New Zealand Government
The Chamber is the peak body for the Auckland business sector, where so many of our countrys businesses are based.
Minister of Finance
It's a pleasure to be invited here today by the Auckland Chamber for my first post-Budget speech.
The Chamber is the peak body for the Auckland business sector, where so many of our country's businesses are based.
Our Government backs business-friendly policies because, ultimately, business success underpins our success as a nation.
I am going to talk to you today about the Budget's business growth measures.
Thriving businesses deliver the growth, jobs and incomes that New Zealanders need to get ahead.
One of those thriving businesses is hosting us right here.
If you'll pardon the pun, I reckon that Recorp is the can manufacturing company with the can-do attitude.
I admire the scale of your ambition to eliminate the use of single use plastic bottles in New Zealand by 2030.
My congratulations to you Bruce Parton and your team, and also to Rob Fyfe whose vision and commitment helped get this company up and running.
One of Recorp's critical points of difference is the quality of its manufacturing equipment.
You invested heavily at the outset in the technology that enables you to accurately tailor orders to match customer requirements, regardless of size.
You have set an example for other new Kiwi businesses. Many are following it, but it's a challenge for others.
We know that capital investment is a key to business success. So often, it's the piece that gives companies the edge over competitors at home and overseas.
One of the things I hear from business leaders is the difficulty many Kiwi businesses face raising capital to invest in the equipment and other assets they need to succeed.
Lack of good quality capital has become a barrier to growth.
This Government has acted to lower that barrier.
The Investment Boost tax incentive announced in the Budget gives businesses an adrenalin boost to invest in the new productive assets they need to succeed.
I'm really proud that we've managed to incorporate this exciting new initiative in the Budget.
I expect almost all of you will have heard something about Investment Boost in recent days.
You may even have heard our critics say in the media that it won't make much difference.
Well, our MPs have been out since the Budget was delivered and what they've heard is that Investment Boost will be a game-changer for many Kiwi businesses.
Like the manufacturer now planning a $70 million capital expansion over the next two years to install a fully automated plant.
Like the chicken farmer now planning to raise his investment in upgrades and new assets from $12 million to $18 million over the next 12 months. He said this was the 'best news for our sector in a long time'.
Like the caterer with a new kitchen to fit out, who says they will be 'thousands and thousands better off'.
Like Robbie Smith, owner of Stevenson and Taylor, the large Hawke's Bay agricultural machinery business. He has already seen a jump in sales since the announcement, with one customer purchasing two tractors. He said: 'This initiative is great news for local businesses.'
Like Pic's Peanut Butter Chief Executive Aimee McCammon, who thinks Investment Boost will be 'super helpful' for the many small to medium-sized businesses like hers that are running on old kit.
Or like Chartered Accountants New Zealand country head Peter Vial who says the announcement was more generous than expected and will significantly increase productivity and growth
He says: 'New Zealand's poor productivity is not due to poor work ethic or laziness, but rather a lack of capital investment in equipment, machinery and technology. The Investment Boost tax incentive strikes at the heart of this.'
I couldn't agree more.
Then there's the semi-retired accountant who was inundated with calls on the Friday morning after the Budget from clients looking to take advantage of Investment Boost.
He said: 'It is a long time since I have seen a reaction like this to the Budget.'
I'm going to talk more about Investment Boost soon – how it works, with some examples of the savings it offers.
But I'd like to start by putting a bit of context around the Budget, and why we've taken the approach we have.
The Budget is a responsible Budget for uncertain times.
I've been calling it the no-BS Budget.
We've levelled with Kiwis about the challenges we face as a nation.
No rainbows or unicorns. No lolly scrambles. Just straight talk, and responsible actions.
We inherited a country with its bank account run down and the credit card maxed out.
Thanks to the previous Government's refusal to turn off the spending tap after Covid, public debt ballooned from just 18.6 per cent of GDP in 2019 to 41.7 per cent in 2024, just five years later.
We've slipped back to the bad old days of the eighties and nineties, when debt servicing was among the biggest government spending items.
Today, about one dollar in every 15 of the Government's operating spending goes to paying the interest bill on our borrowings.
Our political opponents say that's all good. Other countries have higher debt, so we can just borrow and spend more to get ourselves out of trouble.
That kind of talk ignores the reality that New Zealand's economy is different to many of those other more highly indebted economies.
We are small, isolated and heavily reliant on overseas trade. We have very limited ability to influence the global financial and trading conditions that affect our livelihood.
This audience needs no reminding of how unstable and unpredictable the world trading environment is right now.
Further, we are a country that's vulnerable to sudden, costly shocks.
One day another big earthquake, cyclone, pandemic or biosecurity breach is going to hit us. Recovering from events like those is even harder if there's nothing left in the kitty to pay for it.
The good news is that the economic recovery is under way.
Inflation is down and is forecast to stay within the 1 to 3 per cent target band.
Interest rates are down, and forecast to fall further.
The Budget forecasts GDP to rise to healthy rates of around 3 per cent in each of the next two years.
Wages are forecast to grow faster than the inflation rate, making wage earners better off, on average, in real terms.
The Budget also forecasts that 240,000 more people will be in work over the forecast period to mid-2029.
Many New Zealanders may not be feeling better off now, but over time they will – provided we stay the course.
The recovery remains fragile. Global uncertainty has caused Treasury to peg back its forecasts, especially in the near term.
The recovery isn't in danger, but it is likely to be slower than previously forecast.
As a government, we're talking straight with New Zealanders about the way ahead.
About getting public debt under control and nurturing the economic recovery now under way.
About carefully managing the public purse. Making sure we're using taxpayer dollars to pay for the must-haves, rather than the nice to haves.
About doing nothing to put the economic recovery at risk – because a growing economy is the route to higher living standards for everyone.
But we're also clear that the no-BS Budget doesn't mean penny-pinching across the board.
We get that New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living. The Budget responds with some carefully targeted help, including rates relief for more SuperGold Card holders, 12-month prescriptions to save the cost of repeats, better targeting Working for Families to low and middle-income earners, and continuing funding for food banks.
We're also investing more in health, education, law and order and other frontline public services.
We've done that while also finding room to invest in business success.
The Budget demonstrates that we truly can walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's about hope grounded in reality.
That we can continue to invest in the things that matter, while staying on a debt reduction and economic growth track.
That we can reduce government spending as a share of the economy and return the government's books to balance.
We've done it despite reducing our operating allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion a year.
That's the lowest allowance in a decade. The adjustment was made to keep government spending on a tight track, recognising changing forecasts due to the uncertain economic conditions.
Despite the smaller discretionary kitty, we've still been able to deliver $5 billion in new spending and $1.7 billion for the Investment Boost tax incentive that I talked about earlier.
That's because most of the spending increase is funded by savings.
We've been able to find $5.3 billion in savings through reprioritising and cost reductions across government.
Half the savings come from changes to the pay equity regime.
To be clear, I am absolutely committed to pay equity. But we have to be sure that future settlements stick to fixing pay discrepancies between occupations that are based only on sex-based discrimination, and not for other reasons.
Otherwise, pay equity negotiations simply become a surrogate for a normal wage bargaining round.
Even our political opponents are starting to realise that the previous pay equity regime was simply out of control. The scale of settlements coming at us would have limited our ability to invest in health, education and the other public services that the women – and men – of New Zealand rely on.
We've also put another $1.8 billion towards investment in health and education infrastructure like hospitals and schools.
And we're putting $1.7 billion into what I believe is the single most important policy in this year's Budget – the Investment Boost tax incentive that I talked about earlier.
Investment Boost is available right now to every business represented in this room.
Businesses large and small – manufacturers like Recorp, farmers, tradies, whoever.
It's for all those businesses that are keeping their heads above water but need a bit of help to get beyond that, by getting their hands on the productive assets they need to grow.
Assets like machinery, tools, equipment, technology, vehicles and industrial buildings.
Investment Boost applies to new assets purchased by New Zealand businesses. It can also apply to second-hand assets imported from overseas.
It excludes land, residential buildings, and assets already in use in New Zealand.
There's no cap on the value of new investments. All businesses, regardless of size, are eligible.
It allows you to immediately deduct 20 per cent of the cost of a new asset from your taxable income, on top of depreciation.
That means a much lower tax bill in the year of purchase. The remaining book value is depreciated at normal rates.
Since a dollar now is more valuable than a dollar in future, the cashflow from investments is more attractive and the after-tax returns are better.
It means that more investment opportunities stack up financially, so more investments will be made.
Let's look at an example.
A manufacturer – let's call it Green Kiwi – wants to invest in a new environmental test chamber, at a cost of $200,000.
Before Investment Boost, the company could claim an annual depreciation deduction of 10.5 per cent. That would reduce Green Kiwi's taxable income by $21,000 a year over its useful life.
With Investment Boost, it can now also claim 20 per cent of the value of the asset – that's $40,000 – in the year of purchase, as well as the standard depreciation on the remaining 80 per cent of its value
Together, these deductions reduce the company's taxable income in that year by $56,800.
This translates to an additional $10,000 off the company's tax bill that year.
That's $10,000 more that Green Kiwi has to reinvest in the assets it needs to grow.
Another example. Farmer Brown gets a woolshed built for $150,000. The extra deductions he gets under Investment Boost mean his tax bill will be $8,274 less than it would otherwise have been, meaning more to invest in shearing equipment in his new shed.
And another one. Pam the plumber buys a ute for $60,000. Investment Boost gives her $2906 more than she would otherwise have had to buy new tools.
Over the next 20 years, Investment Boost is expected to lift New Zealand's capital stock by 1.6 per cent, leading to wages rising by 1.5 per cent and GDP by 1 per cent.
These are estimates, not precise values. But officials estimate that roughly half those benefits will be achieved in the first five years.
The Government did consider reducing the company tax rate as an alternative to Investment Boost. But dollar for dollar, Investment Boost raises investment more than a company tax rate reduction as it only applies to new investments, not those made in the past.
The other advantage of Investment Boost is that the benefits are expected to flow to workers.
Inland Revenue's Regulatory Impact Statement states that 'the majority of the increase in national income from Investment Boost would flow to workers. This increase would come from a combination of higher wages and higher employment. We therefore expect that the benefits of Investment Boost will be spread broadly across a wide range of New Zealanders.'
There you have it. Ultimately, all workers benefit from Investment Boost.
There's a number of other business growth initiatives in this Budget.
We're setting up a new agency, Invest New Zealand, to attract global capital, business and talent to this country. An experienced advisory group chaired by Rob Morrison, has been appointed to support its establishment.
We're changing our thin capitalisation tax rules to encourage foreign investment in our infrastructure. We're consulting now on the details of that.
We're allowing employee share schemes to defer their tax liability, to help start-ups and unlisted companies to compete for and retain talent.
We're re-prioritising our science and technology funding towards growth-promoting investment in areas like gene technology. We want our researchers to focus on real-world problems and innovations that can be commercialised.
And we're supporting our highly successful film and television sector by increasing the screen production rebate to just over a billion dollars across this year and the next four years.
We don't subsidise business as a rule, but when it comes to the screen industry, a rebate is the price of entry to the game.
Over the last decade overseas production companies have invested $7.5 billion in New Zealand. We simply wouldn't get that kind of investment in future without continuing the rebate.
We're also replacing the much-maligned Resource Management Act to unlock investment and growth across the country. You'll be hearing more about that in the months ahead.
No doubt you have heard about the changes to KiwiSaver, which the media has focused pretty heavily on.
Essentially, we are raising the default employee and matching employer contribution rate from 3 to 4 per cent over the next three years. To ensure the scheme's sustainability, we are also reducing the government contribution by half, to just over $260 a year.
We're also extending the government contribution to 16- and 17-year-olds, to foster the savings habit, but removing it altogether for people earning more than $180,000 a year, because they don't need it.
I acknowledge that change impacts on employers. But to allow time to adjust, we are phasing it in over the next three years, and we are not making the new rate compulsory – employees can choose to opt back down to a three per cent contribution if they wish.
The changes are designed to lift our retirement savings rates which, frankly, are too low, especially when compared with other countries like Australia.
Higher retirement savings deliver big benefits for individuals and for the country. Our financial institutions have a larger pool of capital to invest back in the economy, and the pressure on Government to financially support retired New Zealanders is eased.
To finish, I want to touch on where this Budget takes us.
Our decisions mean we are on track to bend the debt curve downwards without applying a blowtorch to public services.
We are taking a deliberate, medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation.
This is far from austerity, as some commentators have claimed. In fact, it is what you do to avoid austerity.
There's no doubt that balancing the books is challenging.
Some would do it with higher taxes; we are doing it by controlling growth in spending.
We're saying to New Zealanders: we're about no BS, just straight talk about the choices we face as a country.
Thank you.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Crackdown on $15b supermarket giants' opaque pricing ‘doesn't go far enough'
Crackdown on $15b supermarket giants' opaque pricing ‘doesn't go far enough'

Newsroom

time24 minutes ago

  • Newsroom

Crackdown on $15b supermarket giants' opaque pricing ‘doesn't go far enough'

Analysis: A Government attempt to break open supermarkets' chokehold on grocery wholesale 'hasn't worked as intended', the Commerce Commission admits. That may be an understatement. According to the general manager of the family-owned Night 'n Day grocery chain, it's failed dismally. Foodstuffs and Woolworths sold only $7 million of groceries to smaller retailers through the regulated 'fair price' wholesale scheme last year, Matthew Lane says. Night 'n Day wants to offer competitive grocery prices. It's grown from one corner store in Dunedin to a nationwide chain of 52 grocery and convenience stores. Lane says it's the third-biggest grocery chain in New Zealand, after the two big players – but it's not even close to being able to break the duopoly's market control. One of the biggest challenges for smaller retailers is accessing grocery supplies at a good price. Many dairy owners are forced to queue at the checkouts of the big supermarkets to buy their supplies at retail prices, then mark up those prices further to turn a dollar. To help address that, the previous government applied some arm-twisting, to get the big chains to open up their wholesale operations to smaller competitors. Finance Minister Nicola Willis now says she's turning her attention to the supermarket sector, and all options are on the table, including breaking up the big companies – either forcing them to divest some of their stores, or separating their wholesale and retail businesses. In a dramatic development on Thursday morning, Grocery Commissioner Pierre van Heerden has given the two big chains just 12 months to clean shop – or face regulation. Lane welcomes the preliminary findings from the commission's wholesale supply inquiry, recommending the major supermarkets expand their wholesale product range and pass on promotional funding to allow other retailers to access lower prices. Last year, as an example, Foodstuffs had sold just $1.3m worth of goods through the scheme. It approved only 41 wholesale customers to purchase from its wholesale service – and Night 'n Day was not one of them. So Lane's also cautiously supportive of Government attempts to woo one of the big foreign supermarket brands like German-owned discount grocer Aldi to these shores – but he says ministers should be looking closer to home. 'They shouldn't put all their eggs in one basket,' he says. 'If we can develop grocery competition locally, well, I think that's actually a better result for all parties – especially opening the door to someone that's already established in the market. 'We can control our destiny. We're here in the market, and we're wanting to grow.' The grocery commissioner says the current grocery market is not serving Kiwi consumers well. 'The status quo lets a few major players set the rules for the rest of the industry which is negatively impacting consumers, new and expanding competitors, and small suppliers.' Van Heerden criticises Foodstuffs, Woolworths, and some of the large national and multinational suppliers, whose significant market share allows them to influence the settings of the market. His draft report proposes to change the Grocery Supply Code to stop the supermarkets imposing a confusing array of charges on suppliers – they're typically forced to pick up the tab for supermarket costs like stocking shelves, setting up displays, and promoting their products. Van Heerden also wants to eradicate the $5b in rebates, discounts and promotional payments paid by the big suppliers to the supermarkets, to put their products 'on special'. 'Competing retailers can't negotiate similar levels of support due to their weaker buying power. 'Consumers lose out because prices jump around more. This can mean the average price is more expensive and it's harder for consumers to assess the value of products.' New Zealand cooperative Foodstuffs is the country's biggest player, with more than 500 Pak'nSave, New World, Four Square and Liquorland stores, as well as wholesalers Gilmours and Trents. It's at war with the Commerce Commission, taking court action to challenge millions of dollars of fines for anti-competitive land covenants, and to overturn the commission's ban on it merging its North Island and South Island businesses. Spokesperson Stefan Herrick says a well-functioning market must support efficient, productive outcomes – and that includes ensuring retailers can negotiate fairly to deliver value at the checkout. The co-op takes its obligations under the new Grocery Supply Code seriously, he says. Any supplier who has an issue should complain through the appropriate channel. 'In our view, the current code has already effectively set the 'rules of engagement' with suppliers. We regularly survey our suppliers to ensure we are working as partners, listening, and constantly improving.' Australian-owned Woolworths NZ, which has more than 185 stores and also franchises 70 SuperValue and FreshChoice stores, has mostly taken a more conciliatory approach. Interim managing director Pieter de Wet says wholesale is a new and fast-evolving area for the company. 'In just three years we've developed a business which provides grocery products to more than 100 retail sites and we have over 60 customers using our service to provide more choices for shoppers,' he says. 'We're working closely with suppliers and wholesale customers.' Both chains say they'll take time to read the draft documents issued by the Commerce Commission in detail, and promise to work constructively with the commission through the submission process.

What was Chris Bishop thinking? An earnest attempt to figure it out
What was Chris Bishop thinking? An earnest attempt to figure it out

The Spinoff

time37 minutes ago

  • The Spinoff

What was Chris Bishop thinking? An earnest attempt to figure it out

It's an objectively crazy way to behave. But I kind of get it, writes Duncan Greive. This time last week, Chris Bishop was having an awesome day. A massive NZ music fan, heading to the big awards show – a great night ahead of him. I saw him there, standing alongside his colleague Paul Goldsmith, next to the bar during the intermission. Bishop looked like he was having an excellent time, though to be fair everyone did – the awards are huge and informal and a great night out. As we now know, the fun wouldn't last for Bishop. Within a couple of hours he'd muttered derisively during a performance by Stan Walker and had a confrontation with Don McGlashan, a singer and songwriter so universally beloved that both Newstalk ZB and RNZ, which agree on very little, describe him as a national treasure. By the following day, Bishop's comments had become the biggest news story to emerge from the awards in years, and Bishop no doubt deeply regrets not keeping his opinions to himself. In the week since, he has stood by his statements on the night but acknowledged, both to media and to the prime minister, that he 'should have kept my thoughts to myself'. Bishop confirmed to RNZ that he'd said something about 'performative acclaim' during Walker's performance and referred to it as 'a load of crap'. It was poor timing. It was also just plain wrong. Walker's performance was one of the highlights of the night, a soaring ballad (he is becoming New Zealand's Celine Dion – a huge compliment, to be clear) which really took flight when the room filled with supporters waving Toitū te Tiriti flags, prompting an outpouring from the room. This seems an open and shut case, and I'm not here to defend Bishop – that would be almost as foolish as his behaviour – but there are mitigating circumstances which feel material to the current public prosecution. 1. Toitū te Tiriti is a complex organisation Stuff political editor Luke Malpass once adroitly observed that the Green Party likely scoop up a non-trivial proportion of its votes from people who feel a general dread about the climate and environment, and feel marginally better by giving the party their vote, and don't look much deeper into the policy platform or what they most emphasise. There's a similar phenomenon at work with Toitū te Tiriti. It's both a phrase and an organisation, a sentiment and closely allied with a specific parliamentary party. The phrase is well-supported, with more than seven in 10 New Zealanders endorsing the idea of 'harmonious race relations through honouring te Tiriti', according to polling by the Human Rights Commission earlier this year. At a guess, Bishop is one of them, as among the most prominent and unambiguous members of the liberal wing of the National Party. However, Toitū te Tiriti is also an organisation, one which achieved an awe-inspiring level of support during the hīkoi mō te Tiriti earlier this year. The organisation created a vast, countrywide response to both the Treaty principles bill and what supporters perceive as a large number of policies which go against the spirit of te Tiriti. But while the support for that general idea is broad and will necessarily include voters for a number of parties, the organisation Toitū te Tiriti has deep ties to Te Pāti Māori, most notably through one of its key organisers, Eru Kapa-Kingi, a teaching fellow at the University of Auckland who stood unsuccessfully for parliament in the 2023 election on Te Pāti Māori's list. Supporting the phrase is one thing, supporting the organisation another, and knowing how to practically apply it across society and politics is, to put it mildly, complicated. This is likely what Chris Bishop was trying and failing to express in the moment. 2. Arts and culture has a near total lack of representation for right wing politics Labour's Willie Jackson is not wrong in his statement on the Chris Bishop affair. 'Look around the world, people have been doing that for years. Whether it's Bob Marley, Bono, whatever, it's been happening, it's not like something new. He should talk to his Shihad heroes, 'cause the lead singer there's got pretty good politics too.' The phrase 'good politics' is telling there, but likely to be something the vast bulk of the music awards crowd endorses. I am old enough to have been to music awards since Helen Clark was prime minister. She received cheers and appeared on stage, with (mostly) undivided affection from the crowd. Over the years the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick and Jacinda Ardern, before and after their elevation to party leadership, have been largely lauded while in attendance. One notable exception was Homebrew's Tom Scott, who condemned Ardern for not visiting Ihumātao during the occupation – essentially a criticism of a centre left prime minister from the left, asking for a more explicitly leftist position. Bishop is manifestly a very genuine fan of New Zealand music. He regularly goes to shows, buys t-shirts, advocates for it whenever he can. He attended multiple dates on the final Shihad tour. He is its most prominent and present champion within the National party, perhaps the biggest fan the party has ever had. He will also not be unaware of the general politics of not only musicians, but arts and culture makers and workers more broadly. But he shows up and attempts to present an acceptable face of a party and a broader worldview which is anathema to many fans and almost all makers in the rooms he frequents. Where culture and politics collide What likely boiled over in Bishop is the tension which is always present and rarely voiced in these discussions. Music, TV, film, arts and culture in New Zealand receives a significant amount of support from central and local government. It's not enough, and it's not a huge amount compared to some other countries. But it comes from all taxpayers and ratepayers, which naturally includes many people who hold differing political views. Who might believe in toitū te Tiriti (the sentiment), but not the particular ambitions and ties of Toitū te Tiriti (the advocacy organisation) as a microcosm of the broader goal. So Jackson is right, music has always been political. And Bishop was wrong: neither Walker's performance nor the emotional heft of the arrival of the Toitū te Tiriti flags and supporters in the room was 'a load of crap'. It was the undeniable emotional heart of the evening. But the Aotearoa Music Awards are publicly funded, and streamed on both TVNZ and RNZ. To have something so close to a party political moment within them would rankle those who don't share those politics. To put it another way, imagine Groundswell or Family First, neither of which are as party aligned as Toitū te Tiriti, showing up and the reception they would receive. It's part of an increasingly explicit and party political alignment of our cultural figures, particularly in these fractious times, where performers can feel contemptuous of the views of those who are elected to represent them. While arts funding does wax and wane according to different governments, the idea that it should exist has endured for decades. When it goes beyond statements to specific party-aligned organisations, the bipartisan support for such funding might become more contested. Not to mention its broad appeal, inside and outside of parliament.

Expert Commentary: NZ Privacy Commissioner Provides Clarity For Retailers On Facial Recognition Technology
Expert Commentary: NZ Privacy Commissioner Provides Clarity For Retailers On Facial Recognition Technology

Scoop

timean hour ago

  • Scoop

Expert Commentary: NZ Privacy Commissioner Provides Clarity For Retailers On Facial Recognition Technology

Nicholas Dynon is Brand Strategy & Innovation Director at Optic Security Group. He is a certified security risk professional and counter terrorism practitioner. 'The inquiry report found that the live facial recognition technology (FRT) model trialed by Foodstuffs North Island Limited (FSNI) in 25 of its supermarkets complied with New Zealand's Privacy Act. While the Privacy Commissioner assessed the level of privacy intrusion as high due to every shopper's face data being collected, the privacy safeguards in the trial reduced it to an acceptable level. 'The outcome has been met with strong and immediate political support, with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith lauding the result as 'great news' and stating that he now expects the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime to 'continue to look at this technology as an option to be used more widely". 'The outcome also provides some much-needed clarity for retailers – and other organisations – who have held back on considering FRT as a potential solution to their security issues due to the fear of ending up on the wrong side of privacy legislation. But it's not a green light. 'The Privacy Commissioner has highlighted several changes that FSNI needs to make in order to make its trial permanent or to expand it to more stores. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) has also set out nine key expectations for organisations that are considering using FRT. 'Compliant FRT deployment is about more than just the technology itself. Factors such as identifying and assessing the specific purpose for which you want to use FRT, maintaining watchlists, protecting the system from misuse and information breach, communications to customers, staffing and training, customer interventions, incident response, managing enquiries and complaints, and maintaining and monitoring the system, are all critical to compliance – and they involve significant research, planning, testing, and careful implementation. "At the same time, retailers should be aware that the results of an OPC survey published just weeks ago demonstrate that many New Zealanders are not supportive of the use of FRT in retail stores. 'The survey of over 1,200 New Zealanders found that 41% of respondents are 'concerned' or 'very concerned' about the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in retail stores to identify individuals. A total of 25% are neutral on the topic, 31% are either not so concerned or not concerned at all, and 3% are unsure. 49% of Maori respondents indicated concern over FRT in retail. 'For retailers considering FRT, this means not only ensuring all the privacy legislation boxes are ticked but also taking a step back and asking whether FRT is the most appropriate solution to your security problem. 'Inappropriate FRT deployment exposes an organisation not only to legal risk but also to significant reputational risk. Engaging with trusted experts to understand the privacy dimensions and factors influencing social licence to operate this emerging technology are critical."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store