Submissions Show Overwhelming Opposition To RSB
'It couldn't be clearer that by a huge proportion, New Zealanders do not want this Bill passed,' says the Green Party's Regulation Spokesperson, Francisco Hernandez.
'Christopher Luxon and his Cabinet should see the writing on the wall here, listen to the people of New Zealand and put a stop to this deeply unpopular legislation.
'An emphatic 87% of submitters opposed the bill, and only 9% were for it. What's the point of all that consultation if it's going to be ignored anyway?
'After all those hours, all that engagement, all those expert submissions, to go ahead and pass this legislation shows this government's lack of interest in listening to expertise and experience. It's also hugely wasteful.
'Where are Seymour's yellow tape scissors now? Likely dulled by all the cuts being made to crucial public services.
'This Bill risks causing deep divisions, not least because of constitutionally significant ramifications for Te Tiriti o Waitangi and for Aotearoa, which is why the Waitangi Tribunal has warned it is a violation of the Treaty.
'As lawmakers we must listen to the overwhelming evidence, the mass of public opinion and expert advice. Stop this Bill now,' says Francisco Hernandez.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
40 minutes ago
- RNZ News
NZ PM to be a no-show at the Cook Islands 60th celebrations
It's been confirmed New Zealand's prime minister Christopher Luxon will not be travelling to the Cook Islands for its 60th Constitution celebrations next month.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
NZ's AI strategy: ‘light touch' regulation and business opportunities
The Government's AI strategy confirms the country is taking a light-touch approach to AI regulation. This will provide reassurance to businesses looking to embrace the benefits of AI, while also reminding businesses of their governance responsibilities and the need to ensure compliance with existing legal frameworks. The AI strategy follows recent guidance for the public sector, discussed in our previous article. Alongside the AI strategy, the Government has also issued a note entitled 'Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses'. In this article, we explore the key takeaways for New Zealand businesses and next steps. Key takeaways The AI strategy has been developed following a Cabinet decision in July 2024 committing to a strategic approach. The paper recognised a clear strategic direction would 'clear the path for AI to deliver better outcomes for people in New Zealand'. The new strategy seeks to achieve this in various ways: Regulatory clarity and light touch legislation The strategy notes uncertainty about how existing laws apply to AI may result in 'a cautious approach to AI implementation until regulatory clarity improves'. As a result, it confirms New Zealand is taking a light touch and 'principles-based' approach to AI policy. It helpfully identifies New Zealand has existing regulatory frameworks (e.g., privacy, consumer protection, human rights) which are largely principles-based and technology-neutral, and which can be updated if needed to enable AI innovation. This is a pragmatic and positive approach we expect will provide reassurance to businesses exploring the adoption of AI, and will avoid some of the challenges created by detailed standalone legislation such as the EU's AI Act (as discussed in our prior commentary here). Adoption focus The strategy outlines New Zealand's deliberate focus on AI adoption rather than development. That recognises the economic challenge and significant investment required for creating foundational AI. This approach is intended to 'more rapidly realise productivity benefits across the economy without waiting for local AI development to mature'. Upskilling the workforce It identifies that New Zealand faces a shortage of AI expertise across several sectors. The paper notes New Zealand universities are helping to bridge the gap by building a 'future-ready' workforce through specialised programmes, and notes the Government's investment in tuition, STEM, and youth support to boost enrolment and career pathways. In addition, the new 'Responsible AI Guidance' offers a valuable framework to help businesses adopt AI responsibly and effectively. The guidance encourages organisations to clearly define their purpose for using AI, prepare thorough stakeholder engagement and safe testing, and align AI objectives with internal policies. It also recommends building strong governance structures and ensuring compliance with existing regulations. The guidance emphasises the importance of high-quality, unbiased data and cautions against using AI in areas where human judgment is essential. What does this mean for your business? The strategy will provide reassurance to businesses seeking to adopt AI systems, and the Responsible AI Guidance offers a helpful consolidated roadmap. In practice, however, the application of the recommendations can be complex and businesses should start thinking early about the implications of the Government's announcement and how they can respond to the new guidance. We summarise below what we see as the key takeaways and next steps: Clarify your AI purpose: Define what you want AI to achieve in your organisation and ensure the intended use is lawful and aligned with your business goals. Prepare for adoption: This should include identifying current processes that are inefficient and could benefit from AI, engaging with stakeholders for input, and testing solutions in controlled environments like AI sandboxes. Build internal capability: Set up dedicated teams to identify the business's AI objectives and values, develop internal principles to guide the responsible and ethical use of AI, and develop consistent principles and terminology across the business. Establish governance frameworks: Form a governance team to oversee risk, compliance, and regulatory alignment, and maintain transparent communication with stakeholders to build trust. Ensure data quality and ethical use: Use clean, unbiased data to train AI systems, and avoid deploying AI in areas where human judgment is critical to protect individuals' rights and wellbeing. In addition, given the Government's light-touch regulatory approach and preference for relying on existing legal frameworks, it will be critical for businesses to ensure they are familiar with how current laws will apply to the new technology. That should include in particular ensuring that:
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Using principles and the making of laws
Where principles and law-making meet. Photo: ODT files What are we to make of the various principles we have been hearing about recently: a principle of neutrality that is supposed to support the principle of free speech; a principle of tolerance; three principles in the Treaty Principles Bill; the Waitangi Tribunal's Treaty principles; and the principles of the Act New Zealand party. Some try to live by the principle of moderation in all things, others by the 10 pre-eminent biblical principles. Many would apply the principle of equality as equal pay for equal work. Then there are the principles of human rights and indigenous rights. It would seem that a majority of people write and speak of principles as if they are infallible statements to be read off verbatim — and that is usually the intention. It was United States psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who formally reinforced a belief that acting in accordance with universal principles is the highest level of moral development. But since 1958, Kohlberg's claim has been thoroughly criticised, especially for being more characteristic of a male way of thinking about the world, contrary to a caring approach. Kohlberg's claim also presupposes that universal principles override particular facts and feelings which are fundamental to moral, legal and scientific considerations. In this short space, I aim to pour doubt on uncritical confidence in the wide use of principles to steer decision-making. To do that, I would like to consider two basic characteristics of principles that such use tends to run slipshod over. They amount to an inescapable interplay of faith and reason. The first characteristic of principles is that they are expressions of beliefs. Belief is another way of looking at faith commitment, irrespective of what that commitment might be anchored in: a deity, tradition, philosophical ideology or a particular interpretation of nature. We necessarily put our trust in principles in order to guide us in decision-making because there never is access to all the facts and feelings surrounding any particular matter. However, the irony here is that although principled thinking is a key tool in rational thought, it is also essentially founded on belief that cannot be fully justified. Principles are adopted in faith. Where then do principles come from? Being beliefs, they have no observable physical existence as objects or behaviours. They exist merely as ideas, even as very useful ideas. So we always need to ask, "whose ideas?" People usually invent principles to exert power and dominate, forcing others to bend to their way of thinking — what they consider "right". Therefore, we always also need to ask, "on whose authority?" and "will I accept or challenge that authority?" Like assumptions and other beliefs, principles are not a suitable basis for discussion. Unless they are widely held, they are divisive. The idea that overarching principles can act as a check on all other principles illustrates the reality that they are designed to constrain and prevent open discussion and promote conformity. On the other hand, some other overarching principles, such as the twin principles of love God and love thy neighbour, can promote wide open inclusive discussion. It is well to acknowledge that some people presume universal principles actually do exist, somewhere out there, or within the human psyche; a core suite of affirmations about what is right and wrong (moral knowledge) that all of humanity can comprehend. Unfortunately, cultures and individuals continually disagree about which principles count because there is no aspect of reality against which to verify them. Yet, as biological beings inhabiting a global environment, the principle of interdependence is hard to beat. A second characteristic of principles that also brings into question their usefulness, is that they are generalisations. This means that they result from reflection on a host of particular situations. The important point here is that it is nonsense to suppose that generalisations, such as principles, will apply in all relevant situations. Exceptions are the rule. When considering how to legislate, act or adjudicate in a situation, particular facts and feelings are crucial. The relative importance of generalisations and particulars in discussion and decision-making is disputed territory. While some believe in the supposed authority of a generalisation (a principle or law), others believe in the supposed authority that the particulars of a case provide. Alternatively, consider scientific principles and their applicability. It is often pointed out that science cannot to be trusted because scientific knowledge keeps on changing. This happens because scientific generalisations (principles and laws) are based not on beliefs as much as they are based on data sets (grassroots information, so-called facts) which keep on changing due to new observations about a changing world, and are more often than not, generated by new technologies. A good example is the recent article in Nature that discusses the use of satellite imagery and Argo floats instead of random sampling, to determine the saltiness of the Southern Ocean. This has provided a new understanding of sea ice melting. Here, there is a fit between particulars and generalisations which the use of principles per se cannot provide. I leave the following chicken and egg conundrum: do particular observations of objects and behaviours come first, or the generalisations generated by many such observations? In any case, the solution is not straightforward, and more so when we realise, as British historian Agnes Arber brought to our attention in 1954 in The Mind and the Eye, that the observer's mind brings generalisations and ideologies to observation through their eyes. Principled thinking is then, fraught with difficulty. The introduction of overarching principles as proposed by the Regulatory Standards Bill is, according to this analysis, a serious step backwards into denial of the status of such principles as power-mongering beliefs. Such a check on existing and new legislation by overarching principles is an unnecessary, if not mischievous, rationalisation. There are so many issues in health, education, corrections, welfare and the environment that elected members can surely troubleshoot through robust discussion with a commitment to co-operative non-partisan governance, without entertaining the Act party's divisive, road-blocking principles. • Ron Adams is a former teacher of ethics and theology in Dunedin.
