Latest news with #RegulatoryStandardsBill
NZ Herald
14 hours ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Luxon vs Milei: Contrasting economic reforms in NZ and Argentina
Argentina's situation was dire. When Milei took office, inflation was running above 200%. The economy was in recession, foreign reserves were nearly exhausted and the country was once again dependent on an IMF bailout – its ninth default. New Zealand's inflation stood at 4.7%. The economy had contracted, debt was rising and Treasury projected years of deficits. Neither leader holds a parliamentary majority. Luxon heads a three-party coalition. Milei's Libertarian party has no majority in Congress. Both face resistance from entrenched bureaucracies, militant unions, the political class and a mostly hostile media. Once, New Zealand and Argentina shared similar roles – pastoral producers for Britain – and both were among the world's wealthiest nations after World War II. Since then, New Zealand has declined slowly. Argentina fell off a cliff. Luxon favours incremental change through '90-day action plans'. Milei has pursued radical reform that makes Roger Douglas look like a moderate. Despite National's rhetoric, government spending and borrowing are still increasing. In contrast, Argentina has balanced its primary budget before interest payment. New Zealand has 81 portfolios, 28 ministers and 43 core public organisations. Nicola Willis has ruled out abolishing any ministries, saying it would be 'too expensive'. Instead, two new ministries have been created. Milei has abolished 10 – including the ministries for Women, Youth and Culture – reducing Argentina to just eight ministries for 45 million people. Argentina has lifted many foreign investment restrictions. We are still debating the OECD's most restrictive regime. We've set up a Ministry for Regulation that cut red tape for barbers. Meanwhile, the modest Regulatory Standards Bill – limited to publishing non-binding reports – faces hysterical opposition. In his first 100 days, Milei unleashed sweeping deregulation. While our Reserve Bank Governor is on a short-term contract, Milei has declared central bank independence and announced plans to abolish it altogether in favour of the US dollar. There are now 16,000 more civil servants than when National last held office. Image / Jacques Steenkamp, BusinessDesk In New Zealand, there are more than 16,000 more civil servants than when National last held office. In Argentina, the public sector has shed approximately 48,000 staff. Employment is increasing, with 245,000 jobs created in the informal economy, albeit with lesser conditions. Our GDP growth is 0.3%. The IMF expects Argentina's economy to grow 7% this year – a rate New Zealand has never achieved. Our inflation is 2.1%, though food prices have risen 4.6% in the past year. In Argentina, annual inflation has dropped to around 118%, and monthly inflation has fallen from 25% to 2.4%. We run structural deficits. Argentina has a small primary fiscal surplus. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is rising. Argentina's is falling. In New Zealand, the Ministry of Housing reports homelessness is increasing. In Argentina, Milei has not denied the social cost has been high: rising poverty, wage erosion, pensioner protests. Milei says that curing a century of economic mismanagement requires short-term pain for long-term gain. It appears he is correct. Extreme poverty has dropped from 18% to around 8%. Our Treasury projects unbroken deficits – an unsustainable path. The OECD says that if Argentina stays its course, it will achieve sustained growth above the Latin American average. Politically, both leaders face protests. In New Zealand, the latest Taxpayers' Union–Curia poll has Luxon statistically tied with Hipkins at 19.7%. Sir John Key warns National faces a difficult re-election. In Argentina, Milei is a polarising figure. No New Zealand politician has his approval rating, between 47% and 54% the highest of any politician. His party is forecast to gain seats in next year's midterms. Commentators credit Milei's popularity to courage and clarity. He's a trained economist and a believer in markets. At Davos, Milei said: 'The state is not the solution; it is the problem … Don't be afraid of freedom. Trust in the superior morality of free markets.' We have no idea what Luxon believes. Nicola Willis has said she's no Ruth Richardson, preferring Bill English as her model. But English followed Michael Cullen, who delivered nine straight surpluses and created KiwiSaver and the Super Fund. English enacted no major reform. He failed to lift productivity or tackle our structural problems. Tinkering won't fix the problems this Government inherited. What Luxon and Willis have yet to grasp is that small change that solves nothing only prolongs controversy. High-quality reform ends the debate. Milei is popular not just because his reforms are needed but for his stand against corruption and the political class. Twenty years ago, I spoke in Buenos Aires about New Zealand's reforms. The Argentinians were incredulous. They said such reforms would never work in Argentina. To those who now say Argentina's reforms would never work here, I say the same thing: 'Yes, they can.'
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Business
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: The ‘war' on NZ values
For some time now, various environmental non-governmental organisations have been talking about a 'war on nature' in New Zealand. Many initiatives highlight the gravity of what's at stake – the 'Fast Track' Act, the Regulatory Standards bill; proposed amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry, and National Directions under the Resource Management Act affecting forests, fresh water and soils; the radical rewriting of the Resource Management Act, the removal of regulatory powers from local councils and talk about the abolition of regional councils; and the defunding of environmental groups and initiatives. The way these measures work is often deliberately opaque. Most New Zealanders do not realise that under the Regulatory Standards Bill, for instance, the oft-touted appeal to freedom for 'persons' under this bill is as much (or even more) about freedom for corporations as it is for individuals, since under the law, corporations are treated as legal 'persons.' Under the tangled weave of amendments to the Overseas Investment Act, international corporations are given relatively unfettered access to exploit natural resources in New Zealand, whether in mining, forestry or building infrastructure, even in our most prized and/or vulnerable landscapes and seascapes. These amendments work together with the 'Fast-track Approvals' Act, the Regulatory Standards Bill, proposed amendments to national directions under the Resource Management Act, the radical rewriting of the Resource Management Act and many other measures to reduce restraints on harmful extractive activities. At the same time, many international corporations use the infrastructure paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers, pay little or no tax, expatriate their profits, exit when their activities cease to be profitable and too often leave behind costly and lasting damage (e.g. oil exploration, mining and industrial forestry) for ratepayers and taxpayers to pay for. How is that supposed to generate long-term prosperity for New Zealand, and New Zealanders? These and other new legislative and regulatory measures give local corporations similar, relatively unfettered rights, even if they inflict lasting damage on local communities and the environments they live in. How does that square with the PM's launch last month of a new '100% Pure New Zealand' tourism campaign? An insistence on economic calculation is a two-edged sword. If Fonterra, for instance, insists on charging international prices for butter and other produce to other New Zealanders, then by the same logic, other New Zealanders should have the right to charge Fonterra for the damage they cause to rivers, lakes and aquifers; the harm to citizens' health, safety and enjoyment; and their contributions to New Zealand's carbon and biodiversity global debts. That's not happening, though. So wealth flows out of the country, or into the pockets of relatively limited number of local shareholders, directors and chief executives, while waterways, landscapes and the climate are wrecked, and other citizens experience a reduced quality of life and an increased cost of living. In order to achieve these one-way flows of wealth, there's been a barrage of measures that diminish accountability to the electorate. Not surprisingly, some are now also talking about a 'war on democracy' in New Zealand. This is epitomised by the way the proportional principle that underpins MMP has been undermined during coalition negotiations, with large numbers of measures with little or no electoral support signed off without public scrutiny, followed by a blitzkrieg of legislation aimed at exhausting parliamentary and public opposition. This 'war on democracy' includes the overuse of urgency in Parliament to enact measures with as little debate as possible; the undue influence of lobby groups and party funders; the debasement of select committee processes; the silencing of public servants and attempts to harness them to ideological agendas instead of the public interest; the use of Parliamentary Service-employed political staff to attack individual critics; attacks on universities and the rule of law; the undermining of local government while centralising executive power; and to cap it all, unheralded and unwanted changes to electoral processes that are likely to disenfranchise large numbers of voters. Many MPs seem to have forgotten who pays their salaries, and the job they've been hired to do in Parliament – i.e, to serve the interests of all New Zealanders, faithfully and well. That applies to all MPs, whether in government or opposition. At times, the fight against a barrage of harmful legislation is left to voluntary organisations and individual citizens with limited resources, when that is the primary responsibility of opposition MPs. Democracy in New Zealand is staggering under these assaults. This begs the question, does this add up to a 'war on New Zealand' and New Zealanders? Whose interests are being served by the current legislative agenda? Unheralded amendments to the Pay Equity Act, passed under urgency and aimed at constraining the incomes of low paid (mostly) female workers; a host of measures that reduce incomes, increase precarity and worsen working conditions for many; the loss of access to affordable housing, reliable and affordable childcare and healthcare, and the ability to put food on the table; increases in unemployment, homelessness and child poverty; the failure to give citizens the assurance that if they are disabled, ill, out of work or hit by disaster through no fault of their own, they will be supported, and that they can afford a reasonable retirement – all raise questions about how New Zealand is being governed at present. No wonder so many New Zealanders are leaving the country to look for a brighter future. There can be no worse indictment against any government. These are heartland issues, I think, that cut across the political spectrum. A love of our country, its heritage and landscapes, a belief in democracy and a fair deal for all, and a desire for a good future for our children and grandchildren is not the preserve of any one political party in New Zealand. A widespread sense of frustration and helplessness is not helped by the fragmentation of the debate, with those who want a healthy environment, a vibrant local democracy, a more equitable society and a Parliament that's dedicated to the public interest heading in slightly different directions. The loss of journalistic depth and independence in public media, and the use of algorithms and bots in social media to alienate and divide people make matters worse. A 'war on reality,' truth and evidence uses misinformation, slurs and 'double speak' to confuse attempts at resistance that are already uncoordinated and siloed. Yet at the same time, huge, spontaneous surges of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill, both provoking unprecedented numbers of submissions, suggest that many New Zealanders are eager to reclaim democracy in this country. Very few are willing to see fringe political parties, lobby groups and think tanks decide their future. There are some brilliant younger leaders waiting in the wings, and some are already in Parliament. If some of them reached across the aisles and agreed to tackle these challenges together, that might make a difference. One thing's for sure – party politics is not working well for New Zealand at present. Outside Parliament, there are also impressive younger leaders. What's needed is a banner under which Kiwis can come together to restore the accountability of the executive to Parliament, and to the people of this country. Perhaps a non-partisan Civic Assembly would be useful, with leaders and attendees from the wider community coming together to address key challenges to democracy in New Zealand, and devise strategies to tackle them. These challenges might include democracy and Parliament; democracy and the media; democracy and Te Tiriti; democracy and the environment; and democracy and inequality, for instance. Or a series of such meetings, in different locations? Any other ideas? In any case, something must happen, and soon. Democracy in this country is at a turning point. New Zealanders who value their democratic freedoms need to come together across different spheres of influence to talk, think and plan; step away from the abyss; and act to make a positive difference.
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Labour's Chris Hipkins questions MMP system, seeks balance in power
'But, I differ a bit from the current Government in the sense that while I respect the important constituencies the smaller parties represent, and I also respect that we compete with them for votes too, I don't think under MMP the smaller parties should call all of the shots. 'I still think the bigger parties have a mandate to reflect the view of a much larger section of the electorate, and so I do think under MMP you need to keep proportionality in mind. 'Yes, there should be some concessions and some trade-offs to the other parties to form a government. But that doesn't mean that you should be doing things that you specifically told the electorate before the election that you weren't going to do. 'The Treaty Principles Bill is a good example. The Regulatory Standards Bill. Some of these things that no one knew they were voting for at the last election, and now they're being inflicted on them. I don't think that's the spirit of MMP or democracy,' he said. Talk of introducing a Capital Gains Tax has been the bugbear of successive governments. In the 2010s, Sir John Key ruled out a CGT while the then-Labour leader Phil Goff made it the centrepiece of his party's tax policy. Fast-forward to Dame Jacinda Ardern ruling out ever implementing one while she was Prime Minister. Enter, Hipkins, who carried the message through the 2023 election. Luxon's then the one to 'rule it out' while he's in rule. When it comes to Election 2026, Hipkins said Labour will have a 'different tax policy' to the one they had at the last election. He stopped short of confirming whether that means the reintroduction of a CGT, but did say he'll announce it by the end of the year. 'Because I think it is important, that is a big policy area. People want to know where they stand. 'In New Zealand, I think we've placed far too much emphasis on buying and selling houses amongst ourselves, pushing up the price so that potentially a whole generation of homeowners is being shut out of the housing market,' he said. Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon during a leaders' debate in 2023 and they will already be planning for another battle in 2026. Photo / TVNZ The Labour Party is yet to release any policy announcements for next year's election, but Hipkins said that's for good reason. He wants to make sure they'll be able to deliver on promises made. 'I think one of the valid criticisms of us last time we were in opposition was that we had some really good ideas, but we hadn't worked through the details of exactly how would we do that. Then, when we got into government, we found that some of the things that we'd said we were going to do, very well intentioned, we didn't have a clear plan for how we would do it. 'I think the same thing has happened to this Government. They've made promises with no plan on how they're actually going to do it, and I don't want to be in that position,' he said. In May, Act Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour, referred to Hipkins as 'poo Midas'. It was after NZ First leader Winston Peters 'permanently' ruled out working with Hipkins in any future government coalition. 'This guy's got the opposite of the Midas touch. I think they call him a 'poo Midas',' Seymour said. Hipkins said he's all for a bit of humour in politics, a 'little bit of a sledge' now and then, where it's funny. But the latest jabs from those at the top don't have him laughing. 'They're not very funny, and they're also not very good at it. So, I think they should just stick to actually doing what people ask them to do, you know, New Zealanders wanted them to fix the cost of living crisis,' he said. Listen to the full episode to hear more from Chris Hipkins about the possibility of free dental and whether we should 'tax the rich'. The Front Page is a daily news podcast from the New Zealand Herald, available to listen to every weekday from 5am. The podcast is presented by Chelsea Daniels, an Auckland-based journalist with a background in world news and crime/justice reporting who joined NZME in 2016. You can follow the podcast at iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Politics
- 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
5 days ago
- Politics
- 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."
