AI Training To Boost Public Sector Productivity
Press Release – New Zealand Government
Across the public sector, AI offers a real opportunity to improve decision-making and deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders, says Ms Collins.
Minister for Digitising Government
Minister for the Public Service
New artificial intelligence (AI) training will increase the uptake of AI and boost productivity in the public service, Digitising Government and Public Service Minister Judith Collins says.
'Across the public sector, AI offers a real opportunity to improve decision-making and deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders,' says Ms Collins.
'I want public service leaders to embrace AI and support their teams to use it safely and effectively.
'That's why the Government Chief Digital Officer (GCDO) and the Public Service Commission's Leadership Development Centre have partnered to develop two new AI training programmes.
A three-part AI Masterclass series is now available to senior leaders to improve the understanding of and use of AI within agencies. These sessions will cover core AI concepts and key decision-making considerations.
The all-of-government AI Foundational Development Programme starts this month for general public service users.
Around 50 participants from 10 agencies will be upskilled in basic AI concepts and present their own ideas for the use of AI. This will create a pipeline of agency-specific AI applications to improve productivity, cost efficiency and customer experience.
The five-week online course will be piloted from 26 May to 30 June and be repeated throughout the year. Material from these sessions will be published on the LDC: Public Service Core Learning Hub.
'This initiative will enable greater use of AI in the public service, enhancing both the speed and quality of service delivery for Kiwis,' Ms Collins says.
'Government agencies are already seeing promising results and this training will build on them to transform the way our government serves New Zealanders.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Ruth Richardson's state honour is a slap in the face for the poor
The architect of 1991's 'mother of all budgets', who was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the King's Birthday honours this week, did immense damage to the country's poorest and most vulnerable, writes Max Rashbrooke. In the early 1990s, two Porirua preschoolers burned to death when their state house was set alight by a candle their family had begun using after the power was cut off. They had been forced to this extremity by a National government that, obsessed by 'market forces', had decided to remove their housing subsidy and require them to pay market rents instead. This sharp rise in costs had left them unable to pay their power bill; hence the candle. Labour MP Graham Kelly caused an uproar in parliament when he attributed these deaths to National's policies – but even allowing for imponderable factors, like whether a candle falls over or not, he was in the broadest sense right. Policies that target the poor always have consequences in the end. And no one targeted the poor harder than Ruth Richardson, who on Monday was made a Companion to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Alongside the market-rent reforms, Richardson is most notorious for the 1991 'mother of all budgets', which cut the benefits of some of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders by up to one-quarter. In a move familiar throughout history, she decided that the burden of tackling New Zealand's (admittedly severe) budget deficit was to fall disproportionately on the poor, rather than those better able to bear it. The result was immediate: a doubling of the number of those living in the most extreme poverty – that is, on less than 40% of the typical income – from 4% in 1990 to 8% two years later. Most policies are much slower to show their effects; Richardson is among a select few who can claim to have doubled poverty overnight. The effects of this stark rise, quite apart from the pain and misery inflicted on families, have spread right throughout New Zealand. Food banks used to be virtually unknown in this country; in the 1990s they became commonplace. Unable to afford to heat their homes, or indeed pay the rent, multiple families began living under one roof, enduring the cold or huddling together for warmth. Mould and damp proliferated. Diseases like rheumatic fever, long since eliminated in other developed nations, flourished in these conditions, wrecking childhoods and ending lives prematurely. A sharp uptick in the hospitalisations of children for medical conditions – from 50 per 1,000 to 70 per 1,000 – began in 1992, just after Richardson's budget. While she was not, of course, the sole author of these misfortunes, she undoubtedly wrote much of the script. Child poverty leaves scars that later affluence never really erases. Children born into hardship have, in adulthood, twice the rate of heart conditions of those born into wealth. They also have far lower reading scores and educational results. Quite apart from being devastating in their own right, these deficits create colossal financial costs: the annual bill from child poverty in this country is estimated at anywhere between $12 billion and $21 billion. This is particularly ironic because Richardson's legacy on the right is one of financial rectitude: she is seen, in particular, as the author of the 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which aimed to improve the transparency and long-term management of the government's accounts. But not only is this relatively small beer compared to the appalling damage poverty inflicts on people's lives, the long-term economic costs of increased hardship are an example of massive financial irresponsibility. Not that Richardson has ever been able to acknowledge as much. Interviewed by the academic Andrew Dean a decade ago, she denied her policies had resulted in any wider harm: 'Over time, was there a social cost? No, there was a social benefit.' That, then, is the person the New Zealand state decided to honour this week: someone who not only did immense damage to the country's poorest but is also quite disconnected from the realities of that harm. The puzzle is less – as some commentators suggested – that it took so long for her to be recognised, but rather that she has been recognised at all. Maybe, though, we should not be surprised. Over in the UK, a similar strategy of slashing government budgets and benefit payments took place under the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024. This austerity cut access to the social services on which ordinary people rely, reduced ambulance services, and sparked poverty-related 'deaths of despair'. All up, it is conservatively estimated by researchers to have caused 190,000 preventable deaths. The man most responsible for this social devastation, former chancellor George Osborne, nonetheless occupies a gilded position in British life, having moved smoothly into editing the Evening Standard newspaper and pontificating on global politics. Inflicting misery on the poor is, in short, socially acceptable as long as it is clothed in the classic establishment rhetoric of taking 'difficult' choices, 'balancing' the books and fiscal 'responsibility'. The poor may be, as the Christians say, always with us, but that does not guarantee that their lives will ever be accorded the proper respect.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
What is the future for the Waitangi Tribunal?
Now that the Treaty Principles Bill has been consigned to the bin some who want to keep up the conversation about sovereignty and rangatiratanga (Māori self-determination), are refocusing on the Waitangi Tribunal. On the one hand are those who believe the tribunal should be remade to have the power to make decisions which are binding on the government. This would make the tribunal the highest power in New Zealand, above Parliament. (Incidentally, King Charles may well have concerns if Parliament attempts to cede its authority). On the other hand there are those who say the tribunal has done its job and should be dismantled. One of the earliest documents in our history was the Treaty. This document was intended to provide for a peaceful society by, among other things, describing Queen Victoria as in charge, reserving to each tribe their lands, other possessions and their rangatiratanga. This was interpreted for many years as leaving each Māori tribe authority over their own affairs and assets and that Queen Victoria was generally in charge over all. The Waitangi Tribunal came into being in 1975. Its purpose was to make recommendations on claims relating to the application of the principles of the Treaty. For that purpose it is to determine what the Treaty means and whether certain matters are inconsistent with these principles. It costs around $21 million per annum to run. For most of us this tribunal was set up to right the wrongs perpetrated on Māori by the Crown confiscating lands and other possessions. For many years it has had widespread support from New Zealanders. The law establishing the tribunal specifically denies jurisdiction in regard to any Bill that has been introduced to Parliament, unless Parliament has resolved to refer it to the tribunal. As historical land claims are coming to an end, the publicised work of the tribunal has been taken up with making comment about a wide variety of issues, with a focus on the choices government might make. For example the tribunal has spent some years looking into health. The tribunal made a finding that "the health system has not addressed Māori health inequities in a Treaty-compliant way, and this is in part why Māori health inequities have persisted". When the government disestablished the recently established Māori Health Authority the tribunal found that the Crown prejudiced Māori by not engaging with them over the scrapping of the authority. The Waitangi Tribunal has also been conducting a long-standing inquiry into a variety of claims relating to freshwater. Giving evidence to this inquiry The New Zealand Māori Council in 2018 pushed for a water commission to be appointed (rather than elected) made up of 50% Māori to control all water in New Zealand. A lawyer representing over a dozen hapu and iwi said the way the Crown had managed freshwater and left Māori out of the process was similar to theft. This year the tribunal has found that the Treaty Principles Bill breached Treaty principles by failing to guarantee rangatiratanga. When it looked into the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill it found that, if it were enacted, this Bill would be of constitutional significance, as it seeks to influence the way Parliament makes law and therefore it is inherently relevant to Māori. A potted version of the history could be described as thus. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the Crown and various Māori tribes in New Zealand. This gave Queen Victoria overall control of New Zealand. Each tribe was guaranteed to keep ownership of their own land and possessions and to have internal control of their own affairs. Every citizen in New Zealand had the protection of the Crown. In 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to deal with legitimate grievances over confiscation of land and other possessions. It was expanded in 1985 in relation to historical claims. The tribunal has now interpreted its role as making pronouncements over any proposed legislation. It seems to have decided that all legislation can and would affect Māori, and if Māori could become part of a group who become or remain disadvantaged the law proposed is a breach of Treaty obligations. In our society, which now has many more than just British and Māori subjects, how can we best move forward? Will we continue with the tribunal with a focus on Māori to the exclusion of other priorities for government support hoping this will remain viable? Will we elevate the Waitangi Tribunal to make it the supreme decision-maker in New Zealand over all things which could possibly touch on the lives of Māori? Or might it be better to decide once the tribunal finishes its historic claims it is time to close it down, possibly replacing its role of critiquing government policies as they may affect Māori with a cheaper option? The challenge we have is to try to weave the Treaty and whatever arrangements we have around it with the primary duty of a stable democratic country to look after its most vulnerable without fear or favour. One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. Like Tolkien said. hcalvert@ • Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Momona cheese makes judges smile
Cheeses on display at the Otago A and P Society winter show, in Dunedin. — Otago Witness, 9.6.1925 Ponga frond claim staked The Otago Winter Show was continued yesterday, and there was a good attendance throughout the day and evening. Yesterday's admission takings amounted to £342. The Taieri and Peninsula Milk Supply Company offered a challenge cup, valued at 15 guineas, for a cheese grading competition, open to bona fide cheese-factory managers. The cheese was graded by Government officials, and the particulars of points allocated lodged with the secretary. The cup was awarded to the competitor whose grading card was the nearest to the points allocated by the Government graders. On this occasion J.G. Wilson, third assistant at Momona Dairy Factory, won with 98 points. Wellington, June 4: At a meeting of the New Zealand Football Association to-night the Secretary reported that he had written to the New Zealand Rugby Union stating: "The association has no desire to use the title 'All Blacks,' and considers that as you represent the original holders of such a title you should now have the role right to use it. My council does, however, feel that the fern leaf, being the national emblem of New Zealand, should be worn by any person or persons representing New Zealand bodies in any field of sport. The uniform is a black jersey with a silver fern leaf, white knickers, black stockings, and black cap with a silver fern leaf. Our colours, black or white, have been in use for 30 years, and we contend we are entitled to use them for all time." Intermediates explained Mr J. Caughley, Director of Education, addressed members of the School Committees' Association last evening on the subject of Junior High Schools. There was no English-speaking country that had not adopted the principle that primary education should finish at 12 years and higher education commence at 12 and proceed onwards; it was remarkable that New Zealand was the last to adopt this principle. At about the age of 12 boys and girls were entering upon that period which was described as adolescence. They were becoming youths and maidens. . Boys and girls at about that age should be learning the elements of the subject they were going to take up later on. To those taught in their teens it became tedious, whereas taken at an earlier age it became easier and more agreeable. We should not wait till 13 or 14 years of age before commencing. It was too great a jump to tackle all at once. The junior high school would mean that the primary school course would end at about the Fourth Standard. Three schools in Auckland had had their Fifth Standards cut off to form the Kowhai School, and the head masters had reported that the work in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Standards had never been better. The remaining pupils were getting just as good education as ever. This form of high school had been such a success that there had been pressure to secure more. There was a junior high school at Matamata now. Instead of having 60 pupils with two teachers the school how had 180 pupils from nine adjacent schools with five teachers. That school was working very satisfactorily. At Northcote there was a system with only three schools. In the smaller country districts he did not see how the scheme could be carried out, but there were places in Otago whore there could be a type of junior high school if arrangement could be made for collecting the children. — ODT, 5.6.1925 Compiled by Peter Dowden
