NZ's First National AI Strategy Released
The strategy document says NZ's use of Artificial Intelligence 'shows promise but requires acceleration,' and that the government's role includes reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capability, and ensuring responsible adoption.
The document itself was also 'written with the assistance of AI.'
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Dr Collin Bjork, Senior Lecturer in Communication at Massey University, comments:
'This announcement makes plain the government's full-throated support for AI investment across all sectors (especially medical, agriculture, and education) due to its perceived economic benefits, which are almost certainly overblown, and some clearly expressed FOMO. But other than adding their voices to the AI hype train, this government announcement is a bit of a 'nothing burger' on multiple levels.
'On one level, it's a nothing burger because the government promises very little in the way of new policies or investments around AI. Instead, they largely point to existing investments and policies that were already in the works and that they believe will help with AI uptake.
'On another level, it's a nothing burger because it articulates no practical steps to ensure AI safety and ethics because the government prefers instead to take a 'light touch' that relies on existing legislation rather than new regulation. But the problem is that a chunk of our existing legislation is out of date. While other countries have passed media legislation to regulate the Silicon Valley tech giants, Aotearoa New Zealand is behind in this area. And many of these same tech giants are also the largest players in AI.
'This announcement maintains the AI status quo. And the status quo isn't good enough yet. Kiwis would benefit from coupling strategic investment with critical regulation. But we don't need the empty carbs of more AI hype.'
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Karaitiana Taiuru (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Toa), AI and Tech Governor at Taiuru & Associates and Director at the Institute of AI Governance, comments:
'While 'Te Tiriti' does not specifically have its own headings in the strategy documents, throughout the documents are tens of references to Māori and Māori Data, tikanga, cultural considerations and actions. There are also case studies of Māori AI businesses. Overall, these all equate to the principles of Te Tiriti and offer a fair and representative consideration of Māori with AI.
'Research reflects that most big tech and many smaller NZ tech companies are adopting Tiriti and Māori views already, as are about 50% of government agencies in relation to AI and Data.
'In addition to the strategy documents, we must also consider that StatsNZ are guided by ' The Data and Statistics Act 2022 ' which has a Tiriti clause, noting that StatsNZ have an agreement with Iwi Leaders Forum Data Group for data consultation, as does the Department of Internal Affairs, and that both departments have committed millions of dollars to partnerships.
'As well as Te Tiriti, there are also many other legal instruments to protect Māori rights – it's not unusual for them to be left out of legislation or strategies, but they still exist and provide protection for Māori rights when it comes to AI and data.'
Conflicts of interest: Chair of the Kāhui Māori at the AI Forum.
Associate Professor Adrian Clark, School of Product Design, University of Canterbury, comments:
'The national AI strategy provides a sensible approach towards increasing adoption of AI in the New Zealand private sector, focusing on the application of AI technology within key economic sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, education and business rather than trying to compete with large technology companies in foundational AI. I agree with this approach in the Generative AI space, however I believe NZ can still compete internationally in non-generative AI research.
'Beyond economic initiatives, the strategy presents several NZ case studies in driving AI innovation, including some where New Zealand is uniquely positioned to be a world leader. For example, Te Hiku Media and KIWA Digital are utilising AI technology for Indigenous Language Preservation through speech recognition and media localisation respectively, and Manatū Taonga's 'Amplify' strategy highlights the importance of protecting the creative and cultural sectors from AI-related threats.
'The largest, and perhaps most significant, part of the strategy discusses barriers to AI adoption in NZ and how the government is planning to address them. These barriers include widespread concerns such as ethical and responsible use of AI and replacement of humans in the workforce, however I felt the response to these concerns would have benefited from more detail.'
Conflict of interest statement: 'I have a grant application under consideration to research AI in education.'
Dr Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer/Programme Director of Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
'As expected, the Government's AI Strategy is heavy on economic growth opportunities but worryingly light on the ethical and societal issues of AI. The Strategy takes a 'light-touch and principles-based approach', all but ruling out new legislation for managing the risks of AI. The Strategy suggests that new legislation is unnecessary, which I, and many other AI researchers, disagree with. Having 'Principles' is not nearly sufficient to reduce AI-induced harm, bias, and inequity—we need clear legislation and well-resourced enforcement mechanisms to ensure AI does not further harm New Zealanders.
'The AI Strategy does not mention The Treaty of Waitangi—not even once. Māori face unique risks from AI, with most modern AI systems being sourced from overseas Western contexts, which have been designed with Western values in mind. Consider, for example, a healthcare AI system sourced from the USA—how can there be no guidance in the AI Strategy about the need to validate and refine such systems for the unique demographics of our society?
'This AI Strategy sets a dangerous path forward for New Zealand, with an attitude of economic growth above social good.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Is there anything we can actually do to bring down butter prices?
The alarming rise of butter prices has become a real source of frustration for New Zealand consumers, as well as a topic of political recrimination, writes Lincoln University professor of agricultural economics Alan Renwick. The issue has become so serious that Miles Hurrell, chief executive of dairy co-operative Fonterra, was summoned to meetings with the government and opposition parties this week. After meeting Hurrell, Finance Minister Nicola Willis appeared to place some of the blame for the high price of butter on supermarkets rather than on the dairy giant. According to Stats NZ, butter prices rose by 46.5% in the year to June and are now 120% higher than a decade ago. The average price for a 500g block is NZ$8.60, with some local brands costing over $10. But solving the problem is not a matter of waving a magic economic wand. Several factors influence butter prices, few of which can be altered directly by government policy. ADVERTISEMENT And the question remains – would we want to? Proposals such as reducing exports to boost domestic supply, or cutting goods and services tax (GST) on dairy products, all carry consequences. A key factor driving butter prices in New Zealand is that 95% of the country's dairy production is exported. Limited domestic supply and strong global demand have pushed up prices for a range of commodities – not just milk, but beef as well. These increases are reflected in local retail prices. Another contributing factor is rising costs along the supply chain. At the farm level, producers are receiving record prices for dairy. But this comes at a time when input costs have also increased significantly. It is not all profit. Weighing the options Finance Minister Nicola Willis. (Source: Getty) Before changing rules around dairy exports, the government must weigh the broader consequences. ADVERTISEMENT On the one hand, high milk prices benefit 'NZ Inc'. The dairy sector accounts for 25% of exports and employs 55,000 New Zealanders. When farmers do well, the wider rural economy benefits – with flow-on effects for the country as a whole. On the other hand, there is the ongoing challenge of domestic food security. Many people cannot afford basic groceries and foodbank use is rising. So how can New Zealand maintain a food system that benefits from exports while also supporting struggling domestic consumers? One option is to remove GST from food. Other countries exempt dairy products from such taxes in an effort to make staples more affordable. This idea has been repeatedly reviewed and rejected – including by the 2018 Tax Working Group. In 2024, it was estimated that removing GST could cost the government between $3.3bn and $3.9bn, with only modest benefits for the average household. Fonterra or supermarkets? File photo. (Source: ADVERTISEMENT Another route would be to examine Fonterra's dominance in the supply chain. There are advantages to having a strong global player. And it is not in the national interest for the company to incur losses on domestic sales. Still, the structure of the market may warrant scrutiny. For a long time there were just two main suppliers of processed dairy products – Fonterra and Goodman Fielder – and two main retailers – Foodstuffs and Woolworths. This set up reduced the need to compete on prices. While there is arguably more competition in manufacturing sector now, supermarkets are still under scrutiny and have long faced criticism for a lack of competition. The opaque nature of the profit margins across the supply chain also fuels suspicion. Consumers know what they pay at the checkout and what farmers receive. But the rest is less clear. This lack of transparency invites speculation about who benefits from soaring prices. In the end, though, the government may not need to act at all. As economists like to say: 'Nothing cures high prices like high prices.' While demand for butter is relatively inelastic, there comes a point at which consumers reduce their purchases or seek alternatives. International buyers will also push back – and falling global demand may redirect more supply to domestic markets. High prices also act as a signal to producers across the globe to increase production, which could happen relatively quickly if there are favourable climatic and other conditions. ADVERTISEMENT We only need to look back to 2014, when the price of dairy dropped by 48% over the course of 12 months due to reduced demand and increased supply, to see how quickly the situation can change. Alan Renwick is a professor of agricultural economics at New Zealand's Lincoln University. This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons Licence.
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Te Pāti Māori, Greens outraged at 'marginalising' passport changes
Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Te Pāti Māori says the government's changes to passports are an attempt to whitewash the national identity. The government confirmed on Friday New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text. The new look won't start being rolled out until the end of 2027. Since 2021, passports have had "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above New Zealand Passport. Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden said the positioning of text on passports will change to reflect the government's commitment to using English first. She said the redesign - which would be unveiled later this year - was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport-holders. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the change diminishes the visibility of tangata whenua. "Our passport is not just a travel document, it's a statement of who we are as a nation. So, the stripping down of te reo Māori, or marginalising our indigenous identity, reflects this government's sad obsession with erasing Te Tiriti o Waitangi and dragging us back to a monocultural past," she said. Ngarewa-Packer said the move undermined Aotearoa's reputation as a leading nation in recognising indigenous rights. "Restoring our reo took a long time. I mean imagine doing this in Ireland, imagine doing this to the Welsh. This was hard fought for. It's not re-ordering of words, the reformatting is deliberately done to undermine the mana [and] to sideline us tangata whenua." Benjamin Doyle Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle said the move is not what New Zealanders need from the government. "We are seeing day by day, the rights and dignities of minority communities being stripped away while they leave the majority of New Zealanders suffering under the government's current decisions," Doyle said. "This is not a positive vision for Aotearoa, this is not a positive step towards unifying kotahitanga and it's not benefiting anyone. Really, its just dog-whistling politics. It's the tail wagging the dog." The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori - without costing taxpayers". The change comes as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulates that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also includes an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand.
Otago Daily Times
11 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Boost in job satisfaction, health: four-day work week benefits
Working less could give us more, a new study suggests. Four-day work weeks without a reduction in income are found to boost workers' job satisfaction and physical and mental health, driven by enhanced work performance, lower levels of fatigue and fewer sleep problems, new research suggests. The findings, published in Nature Human Behaviour, highlight the potential for organisations and policymakers to improve employee well-being by re-evaluating workplace hours. Initiatives that reduce working hours — such as a six-hour workday or a 20% reduction in working time — have recently been trialled around the world. For example, the 4 Day Week Global initiative has run trials in many countries, with participation from about 375 companies, to understand how a shortened work week — without a reduction in pay — can result in a better working environment. To test the effects of the four-day work week (with no reduction in worker pay) intervention, Wen Fan, Juliet Schor and colleagues conducted six-month trials that involved 2896 employees across 141 organisations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the USA. Using survey data, they compared work- and health-related indicators (including burnout, job satisfaction, mental and physical health) before and after the intervention. They also compared these outcomes with those from 285 employees at 12 companies that did not trial the intervention. Fan and colleagues found that after the four-day work week intervention, there was a reduction in average working hours of about five hours per week. Employees with a reduction of eight hours or more per work week self-reported experiencing larger reductions in burnout and improvements in job satisfaction and mental health, as compared with those at companies that maintained a five-day workweek. Similar, though smaller, effects were observed among employees with between one and four hour and five and seven hour reductions in their work week. These benefits were partially explained by a reduced number of sleeping problems and levels of fatigue, and improved individual work ability. The authors suggest that shorter work weeks and reduced working hours without a reduction in salary can help to improve job satisfaction and worker health. They note that a key limitation of the study was companies self-selecting to participate, and resulted in a sample that consists predominantly of smaller companies from English-speaking countries. — Science Media Centre
