Anne Salmond: New Zealanders deserve better
It's not every day that you're targeted in an online 'Victim of the Day' trolling campaign authorised by an Acting Prime Minister, and delivered via the Parliamentary Service from the Beehive, for writing a Newsroom article about the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Or that the same Acting Prime Minister attacks you on Breakfast TV, accusing you of misinformation and having described a New Zealand government as Nazis.
It's been surreal – reminiscent of George Orwell's imaginary Oceania in 1984, with Big Brother and his 'thought police' (think tanks?) with their 'doublethink' slogans – 'Truth is Falsehood,' 'Inequality is freedom'.
Or since I'm a woman, maybe Margaret Attwood's Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale, with its tales of female oppression and its hidden motto of resistance, carved on the closet floor -'Nolite te bastardes carborundorum'- 'Don't let the bastards grind you down.'
That's what my brothers and my sister said when I phoned during a family gathering recently.
And those 25,000 citizens who signed an Action Station petition protesting against the 'Victim of the Day' campaign, asking the Prime Minister to call the Acting Prime Minister to account, said much the same thing.
Rather than a barrage of hate mail, there's been a stream of messages of support and encouragement, and strangers coming up and asking 'Are you all right?'
The radical disjuncture between the tactics adopted by some politicians and the expectations that New Zealanders have of their leaders is dismaying, but at the same time, a sign of hope.
It seems that those who use the tactics of verbal bullying and intimidation to try and silence critics, or to divide and rule are misjudging their audience, or most of them. This is not Orwell's Oceania or Attwood's Gilead – not yet, at least; and these tactics are more likely to backfire and damage their own credibility.
Across the board, many Kiwis are disenchanted with the political class in New Zealand and their top-down ways, the radical zig-zagging from 'left' to 'right,' the rush to cancel the projects of the last administration, and the self-serving lobbying and elite capture.
In their tit-for-tat exchanges, too many politicians are forgetting the 'middle ground' inhabited by most New Zealanders, who want governance that is honest, respectful and competent, and relatively consistent through time.
In the past, responsible leaders have worked to build cross-party consensus on key matters including climate change, Te Tiriti and the need for a healthy environment.
Divisive tactics including climate denial, 'Iwi vs. Kiwi' politics and a disdain for 'Freddy the Frog' work against the national interest, making it harder for New Zealanders to agree on long-term strategies that give us a chance of a prosperous, peaceful future.
Measures like changes to the Pay Equity Act put the boot into people who are already struggling. From the 'politics of kindness' we've switched to an empathy bypass, making radical inequality even worse in New Zealand.
At present, many Kiwis feel that the occupants of the Beehive need reining in. The executive has seized too much power, both within government and beyond it. At the same time, fringe parties are allowed to run riot, imposing unpopular measures on the electorate without their consent.
Some politicians seem to regard themselves as a higher form of life, looking down on the populace, berating us and telling us what to do, rather than listening. As a result, many voters feel disenchanted and resentful.
My recent experience may be a case in point, when minor politicians assume power beyond their capacity to wield it wisely. With public displays of bullying and abusive behaviour, they authorise others to do the same.
New Zealanders deserve better. Law-making has become shoddy, rushed and peremptory, often serving the interests of particular elites rather than the public interest. Serious constitutional reform is needed.
At present, the constant use of urgency, the degradation of select committees, the overreach by minor parties and the debates over the Regulatory Standards Bill and the attempted treaty principles bill make this urgent, and imperative.
According to the Cabinet Manual 'there is no statutory provision that constitutes the office of Prime Minister or defines its role.' That needs to change. The current mantra that a coalition agreement overrides the clearly expressed will of the people, in the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, for instance, is deeply undemocratic.
A Prime Minister should be required to uphold democratic conventions in New Zealand, and their constitutional duties defined more precisely, so it's clear what's expected. Otherwise, as they say, 'Rot starts from the head of the fish' – which in te ao Māori, is in Wellington.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
32 minutes ago
- 1News
Te Pāti Māori, Greens outraged at 'marginalising' passport changes
Te Pāti Māori says the Government's changes to passports are an attempt to whitewash the national identity. The Government confirmed on Friday that 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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." Not 'a positive vision' - Greens Green MP Benjamin Doyle. (Source: Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle said the move is not what New Zealanders need from the government. ADVERTISEMENT "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.
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Voting should be made easier, not more difficult
Vivien Fergusson, Mt Eden. Seymour's style David Seymour may not physically resemble Donald Trump, but his insulting, dismissive attitude towards those unlikely to support his party is strikingly Trumpian. Last month Seymour personally attacked eminent scholars who opposed his Regulatory Standards Bill, labelling them individually as 'victim of the day'. This week he calls New Zealanders who do not enrol to vote well before election day 'dropkicks'. The Act Party is the tail that wags this dog of a coalition and Seymour's divisive methods threaten our democracy in the same way as Trump's behaviour has brought the United States democracy into disrepute. Andrea Dawe, Sandringham. Food safety If Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard signs off on proposal P1055 by food authority FSANZ to redefine gene edited foods as 'Non-GMO', it will be a betrayal of consumers' basic right to know what we are eating. The minister says that removing tracing and labelling of GE food will make food cheaper, but the promise rings hollow. New Zealanders are paying record prices for butter because other countries are willing to pay more for quality products. How does taking away labelling of GE food and the right to choose change that? Jon Carapiet, Sandringham. Price of butter If 'Nicky no butter' sounds more annoying than 'Nicky no boats', Nicola Willis enigmatically reminded us she wasn't an expert on pricing at Fonterra but ... the price of butter is expected to fall. Really, how would she know? Funnily enough I thought her only expertise was in English literature not financial stuff. If 80% of the price is global pricing and 15% is GST then how can the 5% be even significant from retailers like supermarkets? More like a dropkick's chance of landing in a cow pat in 'footy' terms. Willis is an 'expert' at disguising the truth. Let's be honest it's her forte - not playing footy. The Nats are proud of how fast they've satiated the farming lobby shopping list of requests. Nine of 12 ticked off in half a term. Hasn't she done well. They're not going to put downward pressure on the local butter price any time soon. How idiotic you think they are claiming they would actually bring down the cost of living? Buttering up farmers is in a Nat's nature. Butter literally lubricates the electoral process. All you 'dropkicks' that don't vote know that. Steve Russell, Hillcrest. The real cost of food The angst over the increased food prices exposes the social expectation – something akin to a divine right – that food must be cheap. In New Zealand there is an unreasonable argument that because we have a strong agricultural sector then, somehow, we deserve cheap – even subsidised – food. In one of his last papers, renowned geographer, the late Professor Tony Allan (of King's College, London) persuasively argued that the price of food does not cover the true cost of food production. All political ideologies, Allan says, 'have imposed a system in which farmers deliver food at well below its real cost'. As a result, the price of food fails to cover costs incurred by the environment and public health. These costs, in economic speak, are 'externalised' outside the food price and are ultimately paid by the taxpayer. When we demand 'cheap food', we are selfishly saying that it's okay for the real cost of food to be borne elsewhere. Whether that is borne by farmers not being able to cover their input costs or tolerating environmental degradation or having poorer public health due to an inadequate diet. Don't be fooled; cheap food is a misnomer. We all pay the real cost of food – one way or another. Dr Murray Boardman, Dunedin. Passport changes I read with interest the decision to list English first on New Zealand passports, ahead of te reo Māori. This seems like a return to common sense. Wasn't it established some time ago that English should take precedence on official documents and government department signage to reduce confusion and ensure clarity for the majority? While te reo Māori is an important part of our heritage and deserves recognition, it is simply not widely understood — either within New Zealand or overseas. There is certainly room for Māori language to be included, but not as the primary language on key documents like passports, which are used internationally. English has long served as the clear, functional language for nearly all New Zealanders and for global communication. Unfortunately, some of the recent language and policy changes seem to complicate matters rather than make everyday life easier. It's worth asking: what is actually being achieved by introducing such confusion into areas where clarity is essential? Alan Walker, St Heliers. Vape regulations I cannot believe that a Government with the power to pass laws without due process has thrown themselves prostrate before the might of the vape industry and dropped the 2023 vaping regulations. This retraction as the 'best way to resolve the legal case' taken by Mason Corporation against them smells rotten. Casey Costello used the argument that the regulations were based on limited evidence to justify their withdrawal. I would have thought regularly sucking something into your lungs that is not meant to be there is sufficient, until evidence can be supplied to confirm or not the safety of these devices. Alan Johnson, Papatoetoe. Climate reparations The historic statement by the International Court of Justice that countries are obliged by international law to tackle climate change, and warning that failing to do so could open the door for reparations, will result in joy for all those who have been spending their lives protesting unsuccessfully for action. It will also see fear for governments and corporations who have been deliberately misleading us about the biggest issue of our time. Does this mean that protesters will not have to wave their placards to get action on climate issues, probably not, but they will be able to threaten court action as well and climate criminals will be well advised to listen. However, it's unlikely that they will be held accountable as countries have not ceded sovereignty to any UN agency's which means we are relying on moral pressure, and that may not work. The invasion of Ukraine was a shock to Western nations and illustrated the need to reform the UN Security Council and the first step is to remove the power of veto. NZ could take a leadership role in this as we are vulnerable in all areas, perhaps we could offer to cede some sovereignty to the United Nations if they provide protection from all large countries, who will not be named. Dennis Worley, Birkenhead. Why Putin? Why would one want to make a film about Putin with a list of war crimes as long as your arm and the murder of his critics along the way? It is bound to bring every sadistic man and his dog out of the woodwork and would be better off - much as the case of Adolf Hitler - best forgotten, and for that reason is bound to be a flop. If the powers to be that make movies were serious about making money which they clearly aren't, why not a film about the life of Donald Trump which would be a guaranteed box office sell out. Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay. A quick word The court ruling found that nations have a legal responsibility to aggressively reduce their emissions, and that failing to do so would open the way for impacted nations to seek reparations. It specifically lists the production, use, exploration and subsidies of fossil fuels— both current and historic. Our continued, bipartisan failure to address our responsibility to our neighbours and our grandchildren now will have financial implications. We must act immediately to meet our Nationally Determined Commitment (NDC) to limit temperatures to less than 1.5C above preindustrial levels. Ian Swney, Morrinsville. Wellington councils are considering forming another Super City like Auckland. Can't they see from Auckland's experience it doesn't work and just turns into a huge unwieldy monster that chews up ratepayers' money for no results. Then it splits itself into subdivisions like Auckland Transport (AT), Watercare etc who run their own little fiefdoms and answer to no one and embark on their own pet projects. Don't say you weren't warned. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki. We are told that the proposed changes to voter registration will speed up the result of the election. Please remind me how long it took for the 2023 coalition agreement. Gregory Cave, NZ
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
How And Why Artificial Intelligence Is Being Used To Process Your Submissions To Politicians
Explainer - The public likes to have their say. Tens of thousands of public submissions come in every year to bills before Parliament and to local government entities. With large-scale campaigns and website submission forms, the ability to speak out is easier than ever - but that's causing a problem on the other end of the system, where planners and politicians can struggle to keep up. Artificial intelligence has increasingly been drafted to go over public submissions. Some have applauded the technology's ability to process data quicker than humans, while others fear the human touch may be getting lost in the shuffle. What exactly does AI processing of public submissions mean, how does it work, and are everyone's views getting a fair shake in the process? Here's a breakdown of it all. First, how do public submissions work? It's a chance for people to get their voice heard in local and national government. People can make submissions to both their local councils and to Parliament. Submissions can be made to local councils on things like planning and urban development, while the public can make submissions to Parliament select committees on upcoming bills. Submissions have been sky-high in recent months, where the Treaty Principles Bill received more than 300,000 submissions, while the Regulatory Standards Bill which is now before Parliament also has had huge interest. Final submission numbers on that have not been released, but even the early discussion on the proposed bill at the end of last year received about 23,000 submissions. Dr David Wilson, Clerk of the House of Representatives who oversees the business of Parliament's rules and procedures, said public input is at a high. "The Treaty Principles Bill had more submissions than the last two parliaments combined," he said. At one point submission numbers were so large the website suffered technical difficulties. Wilson said the number of submissions does put a strain on resources in Parliament. "If that is the sorts of volumes we're going to see on more and more bills, the days of human beings being able to deal with them in a sort of reasonable time will be past." When submissions come to Parliament, staff of the Office of the Clerk first process them to make sure they are relevant to the bill and not defamatory or insulting before they go on to select committees. Select committees then process and consider feedback before making possible changes to a bill ahead of a final vote on it. "It's great that the public want to engage with Parliament and see the value in making their thoughts known even in such volumes," Wilson said. "I think people understand that no individual MP could read 300,000 submissions. We can't create more time for MPs to read them." Eddie Clark, a senior lecturer in public law at Victoria University of Wellington who is critical of AI use in public submissions, noted that large numbers of submissions have been processed before AI became widely available, such as the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill in 2021 which received more than 100,000 entries. "So it is possible for very large numbers of submissions to be actually read and processed by actual human staff. What was required was time and resource, and in my opinion the denial of both is a reason the huge number of submissions has become such a problem several times over the last couple of years." Enter artificial intelligence This is where artificial intelligence is starting to come in - both in local and national government, where it's being used to help process, sort and analyse public input. The Office of the Clerk does not use AI in processing submissions, but it's up to the individual committee overseeing the bill to decide whether to do so when the bills come to their end, Wilson said. For instance, it's been used along the way for the Regulatory Standards Bill. "Committees make their own individual decisions; they don't have any central guidelines around it at the moment." Wilson said the Office of the Clerk is looking at how it might use AI in the future, but is being cautious and "not rushing into it". "I still think ultimately we need to have human decision makers but AI has capacity to do things more quickly than people can - such as flagging submissions that are irrelevant or defamatory. Most submissions are absolutely fine." AI processing has been taken up by local councils, too. In Nelson, the city council worked with local firm the AI Factory to process submissions to their long term plan, Group Manager for Strategy and Communications Nicky McDonald said. "We used the tool to analyse views on issues, including numbers for/against, and to provide us with a summary of views which we then used when writing the first draft of our deliberations report to council. "This report went through multiple iterations as we edited it, but AI was able to give us a starting point which we then developed into a final draft." Xinyu Fu, a senior lecturer in environmental planning at the University of Waikato, organised a pilot project with Hamilton City Council analysing thousands of public submissions on planning proposals. "A lot of them are facing stresses on analysing public submissions," he said of local planners. "Planners spend a lot of time going through those public submissions and those are very laborious work." What exactly are they using AI to do? Prompts - instructions, questions and information put into generative AI - are used to direct it. In Hamilton, Fu's research paper explained that "we tasked ChatGPT with extracting five key elements from public feedback: 1) political stance (support, opposition, or unspecified), 2) reasons from submitters, 3) decisions sought by submitters, 4) sentiment of the submission (positive, negative, or neutral), and 5) relevant planning topics." "AI models are sensitive to prompt phrasing so a slight change in prompt may result in changes in its responses," Fu said. With the Regulatory Standards Bill, public feedback on the discussion document last year drew 22,821 submissions. (The feedback to the select committee on the bill itself is still being processed and is confidential until the Finance and Select Committee releases that information.) In a summary of submissions, the Ministry for Regulation said that all submissions on the then-proposed bill were analysed using a Large Language Model (LLM) AI, and it worked with the independent research organisation Public Voice. "All emails and Citizen Space submissions (a digital tool that submits an online form) were assigned a preliminary classification by Public Voice using a LLM that followed a logic model created by the Ministry, analysing it and classifying it as supporting, partially supporting, opposing the bill or unclear on its stance." The majority of submissions on the proposed bill were analysed by AI. However, the summary also said that in a qualitative analysis sample, 939 of those 22,821 submissions were examined by Ministry for Regulation staff to "analyse the themes raised in submissions and feedback on specific policy proposals." That process "involved several staff across the Ministry manually reviewing the sample of submissions (both email and Citizen space submissions) and applying thematic tags." Another 605 submissions were also looked at separately. Submissions made in te reo Māori were translated. "Our approach was carefully designed to reflect all submissions in the final analysis, noting there were many similar points made across most of the submissions," the ministry's deputy chief executive Andrew Royle told Newsroom. How much human scrutiny is applied to the process? Can the AI avoid a bias? "As a rule of thumb, having humans in the loop will be the best practice - humans in charge and AI as a co-pilot," Fu said. "The risk is very high if we completely rely on AI to do the work. To put simply, such biases are generally embedded in our institutions as well as the information humans generated, and these biases are then input into the model to train. Then they become inherent to the model. Because AI systems are black boxes, it is uncertain and unclear about the nature and degree of these biases." Nelson Council's McDonald said they were transparent about how they were using AI. "Every submission form included a statement saying we'd be trialling AI to help speed up submission processing and reduce the resource burden on staff. "We intentionally ensured there was always a (sceptical!) human in the loop sense checking the tool's outputs. Staff (and elected members) read every submission and we had processes to check AI responses." Fu said there are differences in how AI approaches looking at thousands of public submissions. "AI is really good at consistency (if instructed properly) whereas humans are likely to miss things due to fatigue, boredom, or bias towards particular viewpoints (humans are biased too). "AI can do things much faster than humans, and AI's work can be more transparent if designed well because you can ask AI to document its processes and responses for later review and replication. On the downside, humans excel in knowing about the contexts, while AI knows little about the local contexts and backgrounds." Is there a risk that people's voices aren't being heard? "I absolutely think that a regular practice of AI analysis of submissions risks undermining people's confidence in the democratic process and thus the legitimacy of government," Victoria University's Clark said. He said there was a need for more options for people to consult on legislation. He noted in the case of the Regulatory Standards Bill, the pre-legislative consultation was conducted mostly over the holiday period from mid-November to mid-January. This "leads to people seeing the Select Committee stage as their only real chance to comment, incentivising mass submissions expressing simple opposition or support", Clark said. "Giving people a chance to be heard throughout the process, not just at Select Committee, could help deal with the problem. There is a reason the legislative process is generally slow and deliberate, and derailing that good, democratic process has consequences. In my opinion the glut of submissions at the Select Committee stage is one of them." Labour MP Duncan Webb spoke out about the government's use of AI on the Regulatory Standards Bill submissions, writing on social media site BlueSky that it "turns out democracy under this government is real people making submissions and computers reading them". When contacted by RNZ, Webb said he is not opposed to the use of AI, but concerned about how it is used in the democratic process. "New Zealanders who take the time to share their views deserve more than a computer reading their submission. "AI can help with sorting large volumes of submissions, but it can't replace the value of reading someone's views, like the handwritten letter from an 85-year-old or a bundle of colourful drawings from school kids. These submissions often reflect deeply held experiences and emotions, and politicians need to read them." However, Fu said that in local government planning the use of AI in analysis could give staff more time to work with local and underrepresented communities. "Planning has become very reactive," he said. "If we can use AI planners then planners can actually do better work because otherwise they're overwhelmed." A lot of the submissions made on local planning tend to be by developers, Fu said. He said planners could use the time to reach out to communities whose voices aren't heard as often in public submissions, including Māori. What about privacy? When it comes to privacy, public submissions are already just that - public. All submissions sent to select committees become public and are posted on Parliament's website and become part of the permanent parliamentary record - they can only be removed in exceptional circumstances by the Clerk of the House. "They know their submission will become public," Wilson said of submissions. "Our staff are going to read it, officials will read it." "The main privacy concern is about people's contact details - they are always separated from submissions now." Contact information is removed from public submissions before they are posted publicly but Wilson said privacy is one reason to be cautious of the use of AI in analysing them. "We want to make sure we've got a key set of principles and some business rules in place," Wilson said. The government unveiled its first national AI strategy earlier this month mostly aimed at economic growth, "unlocking innovation, productivity, and smarter decision-making across New Zealand" and responsible AI guidance for businesses "to overcome concerns about ethics and complexity." In Nelson, McDonald said they also considered privacy issues. "The submissions, numbering 1505, were redacted of all personal data before they were processed to ensure there were no privacy issues - this is something we would do anyway, before all submissions are uploaded to the Council website for public view." Where should AI not be used? Most agree AI should never be making decisions on policy, however. "What I don't think I can do - and I wouldn't trust it to do anyway - is make judgements," Wilson said. "Nobody's going to predict what's going to happen next month in the AI space because it's evolving so rapidly," Fu said, noting that hyperbole over AI is everywhere at the moment. "We're still in that hype space ... I think we need to start thinking about the responsible use." And for some, there's still a question as to whether the technological advances of AI might be leaving something behind. "In short, democracy takes money and time," Clark said. "Trying to avoid the necessary costs of democratic infrastructure has consequences, and while I understand why the hard-working people in our underfunded and rushed systems might see AI as helpful in these circumstances, in my opinion it will not solve the underlying issue and could unintentionally undermine people's faith in a democracy that cares about their voices."
