NZ can't afford to be careless with its AI strategy
As far as national-level policy goes, the document is severely lacking. One of the main culprits is prominently displayed at the end of Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Shane Reti's foreword: 'This document was written with the assistance of AI.' For those with some experience of AI, this language is generally recognised to be a precursor to fairly unexceptional outputs.
The minister's commitment to walking the talk on AI, as he says, could have been seen as admirable if the resulting output was not so clumsy, and did not carry so many of the hallmarks of AI-generated content.
To be blunt, the document is poorly written, badly structured, and under-researched. It cites eight documents in total, half of which are produced by industry – an amount of research suitable for a first year university student. It makes no effort to integrate arguments or sources critical of AI, nor does it provide any balanced assessment.
This same carelessness is exhibited in the web version of the document which has scarcely been edited, and includes a number of errors like 'gnerative AI' as opposed to generative AI. It also contains very little actual strategy or targets. It reads more like a dossier from Meta, Open AI or Anthropic and is filled with just as much industry language.
In short, it is entirely unsuitable to be the defining strategic document to guide New Zealand's engagement with what it accurately defines as 'one of the most significant technological opportunities of our time'. Especially not in a global climate where there is an ever-growing appreciation for the potential harms of AI, as seen in the growing number of class actions in the United States, or resources like the AI Incident Database. AI harm and job displacement are very real and important problems. Yet, in the Strategy for AI they are described as dystopian scenarios being used by the media to compound uncertainty.
The problem is not necessarily that AI was used to assist the production of the document, it is the extent to which it was used, and how. AI has a number of useful applications such as spellchecking, assisting with structure, and providing counter-points which can help further flesh out your writing. However, it is inappropriate to use generative AI to produce national-level policy.
What is particularly alarming is that anyone with a ChatGPT licence and about a minute of spare time could very easily produce a document similar in content, tone and structure to the government's strategy.
Thankfully bad policy can be improved, and hopefully this will be eventually. But, by far the most damning aspect of the strategy is the underlying notion that generative AI should have a key role in developing policy in New Zealand. There is an unappealing hubris in thinking that New Zealand's public servants, many of whom are phenomenally skilled, deeply caring, and out of work, could be replaced or meaningfully augmented by such a ham-handed and poorly thought out application of generative AI.
Unfortunately, it is likely that the strategy's fast and efficient rollout will be seen by the Government as a success regardless of the quality of the output. This will no doubt embolden it to continue to use generative AI as an aid in the production of policy in future. This is a real cause for concern, as it could be used to justify even more cuts to the public service and further undermine the function of our democracy.
Use of generative AI in the development of policy also raises fundamental questions as to what our public service is and should be. It would seem imprudent to employ our public servants on the basis of their care, knowledge, expertise and diligence and then require them to delegate their work to generative AI. A public service defined solely by the pace at which they can deliver, as opposed to the quality of that delivery, is at best antithetical to the goals of good government.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Who Benefits From Outsourcing Planned Surgery: Follow The Funding
I still remember metaphorically sitting at the knee of legendary union leader Bill Andersen while listening to him opine pearls of wisdom. The most important question, when assessing a particular proposal or initiative, was 'who benefits?' This was the opening paragraph of my column published in Newsroom on 13 June: Who benefits? Follow the money. Levering off the expression 'follow the money' popularised by the film 'All the President's Men' about the Watergate scandal which brought down United States President Richard Nixon in 1974, and in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand's health system, I argued that: It is becoming increasingly clear that Government funding decisions are strongly oriented towards the for-profit private health sector rather than addressing the critical needs of our health system. I discussed this with specific reference to outsourcing (privatising) elective or planned (non-acute) surgery, public private partnerships, and funding urgent care facilities. My conclusion was: Following the funding will confirm whether or not the Government changes direction for the good of the public and their health system. The answer lies with who benefits. Benefitting private health insurers and telehealth providers Since my column was published further reporting has reinforced my conclusion that the Government's health focus is on benefiting the for-profit private health sector and enhancing privatisation. On 19 June Radio New Zealand health reporter Ruth Hill revealed on Morning Report that from 1 July taxpayers would foot the bill for cancer drugs administered in private facilities for private patients: Private health insurers benefit from publicly funding cancer drugs for private patients. This amounts to a 12-month subsidy to private health insurers while at the same time leaving the vast majority of New Zealanders who don't have private health insurance missing out. The decision is a conscious government action to benefit the for-profit private health sector instead of investing in the public hospital oncology workforce (specialists and nurses) with the objective of enabling people can get free care there. Meanwhile, NZ Doctor journalist Steve Forbes in a paywalled article (3 July) reported concerns over how 'extravagant' funding gives telehealth providers a huge advantage over general practices in the Government's new Online GP Care service. This service provides telehealth for casual patients who are not enrolled in a general practice. The rate paid to telehealth providers for casual unenrolled patients is similar to the funding rate paid to general practices for their enrolled patients through capitation. The General Practice Owners Association (GenPro) convincingly argues that telehealth providers should be paid the same (much lower) casual rate that is paid to general practices for casual unenrolled patients. GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers succinctly explains the differential this way: A [telehealth] provider offering the new online medical service would receive $65 for a consultation with a 14-year-old casual non-enrolled patient whose caregiver holds a Community Services Card. In contrast, a general practice would only receive $20.45. The Government's favouritism towards private telehealth providers has reinforced the view among many general practices that instead of seeing telehealth as an aid or enabler for GPs, it is seen as an alternative. Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery Back on 13 May Radio New Zealand investigative reporter Anusha Bradley had covered on Morning Report Health New Zealand's (Te Whatu Ora) intention to privatise planned surgery waitlists by outsourcing them to private hospitals on two to three-year contracts, along with extending the working hours of doctors in public hospitals: Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery. Expecting public hospital specialists (and nurses) to work longer hours in evenings and on weekends and public holidays on more complex planned cases enables private hospitals to 'cherry pick' the less complex high volume (ie, revenue generating) cases. Bradley reported Nelson Hospital based surgeon Ros Pochin, Chair of the New Zealand Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons questioning what surgeons might be able to do this extended hours' work. In her words: Most surgeons already work long hours, including evenings and weekends. There are some surgeons who work purely privately, but most work privately and publicly so there isn't a cache of private surgeons sitting there twiddling their thumbs in the evenings and weekends who can suddenly call in. She added that most surgeons were already working long hours, including after-hours: There's only 800 of us in the country. We already work out-of-hours, as we all do on call. I'm about to start a week of continuous on-call myself, which I'll do 81 hours straight day and night. And so we get very little time off as it is. Outsourcing is essentially an admission that we have not got an adequately funded and resourced health system. Interestingly Health Minister Simeon Brown chose to ignore Health New Zealand advice that outsourcing to private hospitals was more expensive than expanding public hospital. Health New Zealand also advised the health minister that outsourced operations could only be delivered if there were senior clinical staff available, 'whilst ensuring Health NZ remains able to safely manage the clinical workload of our public hospitals'. Further, he was warned of the risk that private hospital capacity would be 'insufficient' due to workforce availability. Particularly important is the advice Brown received from the Chair of his Health Workforce and System Efficiencies Committee, Middlemore Hospital general surgeon Andrew Connolly: It is vital those establishing contracts recognise there are clinical obligations and responsibilities in the public sector that must not be weakened by outsourcing. Health New Zealand must consider such risks in the contracting process. Connolly is now the deputy chair of the newly appointed board of Health New Zealand. This will be interesting. His advice to the health minister became even more imperative following Brown's subsequent decision discussed below. Privatising planned surgery morphs into public-private partnerships The above-mentioned outsourcing reported by Anusha Bradley, including the warnings ignored by Simeon Brown, was trumped by the Minister's subsequent decision that private hospital contracts would be almost permanent – 10 year contracts which are longer than the terms for public service chief executive appointments. These 10-year contracts for cherry-picked surgery has rightly been called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) by economist Brian Easton in a column published by Pundit on 4 July: PPPs based in private hospitals. PPPs enable in varying ways for private partners to maximise profit opportunities in the design, construction and operation of health facilities. These PPP opportunities have been quickly recognised by private investors as reported by Hamish McNeilly in The Post (5 July): PPPs encourage private investors change plans. The investors undisclosed company had resource consent granted to build private student accommodation in Dunedin. Now they have changed their plans by seeking to build a new private hospital instead. The only way these PPPs by another name can maximise private profits will be for the crisis-ridden rundown public hospitals to be even further rundown. This includes growing the private hospital specialist workforce at the expense of the public hospital specialist workforce. Non-evidence based decision-making On 17 June Treasury received the following request under the Official Information Act: I would appreciate any Treasury papers on the proposal that HNZ should outsource treatment to private hospitals on ten year contracts. I am especially interested in how they will impact on the government's fiscal position. On 9 July Treasury responded: I am refusing your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. Given that the information requested would have been recent, not historical, it is obvious that Treasury's advice was neither sought nor provided. The only information received by the health minister from his official advisers (Health New Zealand and his expert committee) was apprehensive at best. Responsibility for this poor and risky decision-making rests solely and squarely on Health Minister Simeon Brown and his government colleagues. Ideology, not evidence based, has prevailed – again! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Fewer Jobs, Opportunities In Regions Under National
The Government's changes to training in our regions will see jobs lost and fewer training opportunities. 'The whole point of Te Pukenga was to make the polytechnic sector more financially viable and ensure more training opportunities and employment in our regions,' Labour tertiary education spokesperson Shanan Halbert said. 'The changes announced today will only return the polytechnic sector to a model that was never financially viable – and the result will be major job losses in local areas. 'Toi Ohomai's Tokoroa campus could close, which is huge for a town that has also just lost its mill. WIT had proposed more job cuts as of Friday to business and hospitality. NorthTec, EIT and Ucol have been forced to propose further cuts as a result of the Government's proposals already. 'This Government could have simply addressed some of the issues Te Pukenga had, without disestablishing it, and avoided all the expense and uncertainly this has had on staff and students. 'The Minister is refusing to say how much this will cost and is ignoring advice on the risks of her proposal to the financial viability of polytechnics. Penny Simmonds couldn't even guarantee when asked this afternoon if they would all still be operational in two years' time. 'This is a sector that supports training for the kinds of jobs our regions need to fill skill gaps and boost local businesses and the economy. This Government is taking our regions backwards,' Shanan Halbert said.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Hutt City Council Chief Executive Releases Pre-Election Report
Hutt City Council has published its 2025 Pre-Election Report ahead of the local elections in October. Chief Executive Jo Miller said that while the report is a statutory requirement, it also serves as an opportunity to widely share the challenges and opportunities facing the Lower Hutt. Hutt City Council's pre-election report makes it clear there are a number of challenges and significant work ahead. The Long Term Plan includes a $2.8 billion investment for infrastructure through to 2034 - most of which is going directly into water and transport. "We are starting work on Te Wai Takamori o Te Awa Kairangi (RiverLink) - a combined $1.5 billion investment in partnership with the Government and Greater Wellington Regional Council. This is the largest project ever delivered in the city's history," says Jo Miller. "At the same time, we are working to set up a new regional water entity from 1 July 2026." Miller says there are exciting projects ahead but also real pressures. "The incoming Council will need to make some hard calls. Our costs are rising and there is a need to look carefully at what is being spent and why - and how we can improve our performance in a way that doesn't add significant costs to ratepayers. "The current form of local government is not sustainable beyond the medium term given the scale of the financial challenges councils across the country are facing. As water reform and changes to the planning system via the Resource Management Act arrive, important discussions are starting to occur on amalgamation options for councils in the Wellington region." In response to some of the challenges facing local government, Hutt City Council is already using innovation to boost performance and find efficiencies with the use of technology, particularly Generative AI. Use of AI tools has saved tens of thousands of hours of staff time. Work is now ongoing to build on these improvements and leverage recent investment in modern digital tools. As part of our wider work exploring how AI can help us connect more effectively with our community, Hutt City Council has created a new podcast series unpacking the Pre-Election Report. Narrated by an AI version of Chief Executive Jo Miller's voice, the short episodes aim to make the report's insights more accessible and easier to engage with. "Within our increasing use of AI, I suggested that we do something innovative and deliver New Zealand's first AI podcast highlighting the pre-election report. It's not only a way to showcase AI use, it actually makes the content more accessible to more of our community - like the visually impaired." People interested in standing for Council or just keen to learn more about how the city is run, are encouraged to read the Pre-Election Report. It includes lots of useful information, graphs and data. It also lists other documents you can read if you want more detail. Key election dates: 4 July: Candidate nominations opened. By 19 October: Declaration of final election results.
