Letters to the Editor: Bills, butter and the DCC
Mayor Radich has been the most accommodating and supportive mayor toward councillors since 2010, encouraging everyone to have their say, at length at the council table. His two predecessors pushed their own agendas and controlled the narrative at huge cost to the ratepayer.
Since the start of Mayor Radich's term as mayor, councillors who were aligned with and fond of the previous mayor sprayed their venom wide and far, taking potshots at Mayor Radich at every opportunity. Two of his running mates during the election turned on him immediately after the election.
To top this off, two councillors have tried to interfere with the operational part of the council, which has been extremely disruptive.
Councils are facing unprecedented challenges with rising infrastructure costs and a lack of funding support from central government. This means they need to make decisions to pull back on spending. The recent DCC's long-term plan process shows that the majority of this council doesn't care about rising debt and rates increases. Mayor Radich, deputy mayor Lucas and a few councillors tried hard to keep this expenditure to a minimum, but were out voted by the spendthrifts looking for selected votes in the upcoming election.
Mayor Radich has worked tirelessly to perform his role and lead this council. He has achieved a number of things he set out to do. Focused councils attention on vital infrastructure including retaining ownership of our water assets, driving the South Dunedin flood mitigation works, and saving the one-way system. But due to alternative views of his elected critics, things like controlling council debt and reducing rates increases still need to be done.
That is what Mayor Radich stands for, and will achieve, if supportive people are elected with the same desire.
Bill Acklin
Dunedin city councillor No photo ops
The compelling arguments against gold mining by Santana of Suzie Keith, Jonathan West, and latterly Matthew Sole (Not inevitable ODT 13.6.25) need to be heeded.
High gold prices are touted as the reason for the fast-track applications by this and other gold mining companies, without doing a cost-benefit analysis of all impacts, financial and environmental, on the other side of the ledger.
High gold prices are now a very good reason to recycle the approximately 98,000 tonnes of e-waste per year that end up in our landfills. As well as gold, copper and silver can also be recovered. It is perverse to continue wasting hard-won precious metals and rare earths by dumping them. However, recycling doesn't make for good photo opportunities.
Chris Henderson
Lumsden Stop the Bill
The Regulatory Standards Bill has to be stopped in its tracks.
Slyly disguised as a watchdog on legislation it has the potential to destroy democracy in New Zealand and replace it with an oligarchy determined to protect property rights over public good.
It proposes to elevate the Minister of Regulation (David Seymour) to the most powerful position in Parliament by allowing him to hand-pick a committee of five to seven like-minded members to examine both new and retrospective legislation against conformity with their cynical, monetarist ideology.
If Christopher Luxon supports this Bill he is no friend to the New Zealand public and deserves to give up his status as prime minister to the leader of a party which received 8.64% of the vote in the last election. But we don't deserve this threat to our fragile egalitarian society.
Islay Little
Dunedin Bugger the shareholders, we want our butter
Does charity begin at home? It appears not.
I, like everyone else, am angry at the ridiculous prices we have to pay for dairy products, especially given the vast amount we produce here.
We are told prices are linked to ''international dairy markets''. Why? I don't care how much a slab of butter is in Korea or the cost of a block of cheese in Dubai.
Big dairy producers here would view the domestic market as being minuscule compared to overseas markets.
That's fine. If for argument's sake the local market was say 1.5%, then these conglomerates should be forced to sell that percentage of their product at a much cheaper, maybe just break-even price to New Zealanders.
I know (but care little) about shareholders and it may be that we are at the mercy of overseas countries who may own swathes of land and product here .
It is not selfish to ask why are we not looking after ourselves first.
Graham Bulman
Roslyn Praise given to ODT opinion contributors
How lucky we are to have thinkers and writers of the calibre of your correspondents Metiria Stanton Turei, John Drummond and Sir Ian Taylor (there are others).
Their recent pieces in the ODT on the relevance of Te Tiriti (30.5-25) , climate change (17.5.25) and the Regulatory Standards Bill (12.5.25) had me saying ''Yes'' more than once as I read them.
In response to their opinion pieces, these writers are often critcised, sniped at or personally attacked by some ODT readers for their inclusive, humanitarian perspectives, so I thought that a little praise for their time and effort was due. Please know that your clever use of metaphor, humour or just doing the fact checking is appreciated and enjoyed.
Bruce Cull
Queensberry On the other hand
I would like to comment on the letter of Frances Anderson (ODT 11.5.25) in which they vehemently support the opinion piece of Metiria Stanton Turei, which strongly supported the Te Pāti Māori members of Parliament in their disgraceful behaviour, which has resulted in a ban from attending Parliament.
They were particularly aggrieved by my suggestion that Metiria Stanton Turei and other Māori activists should attempt to ''grapple with the darker aspects of Māori culture'' instead of putting their energies into race baiting.
For this I was informed that I was bullying their current identity group.
As an example, one of the darker aspects of Māori culture is the heavily disproportionate, seemingly routine murder, committed by whānau and or associates, on defenceless children.
The likes of Metiria Stanton Turei and her activist friends find this an uncomfortable truth, and instead of trying to find a solution within Māoridom, they choose to put their energies into attempting to divide the country along racial lines.
Dave Tackney
Fairfield
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
a day 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
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Green shoots ahead for party: Swarbrick
After a turbulent beginning to this Parliament, Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick tells ODT political editor Mike Houlahan it is only up from here. "Forged in fire, mate," a chipper Chloe Swarbrick says as she summarises the first half of the parliamentary term from a Green Party perspective. And then some. For a start, she is sitting in the ODT offices speaking as her party's co-leader — a role she did not have at the start of the current Parliament, although many expected she would eventually rise to it. However, Ms Swarbrick replacing the now retired James Shaw was the least troublesome of the many travails which have beset the Greens. The sudden death of Fa'anānā Efeso Collins last February was followed soon after by the prolonged and messy expulsion of former MP Darleen Tana. Then her replacement, Benjamin Doyle, was placed under the blowtorch by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. And last but not least, for much of this Ms Swarbrick was the solo leader of her party; Marama Davidson requiring time off for breast cancer treatment. "That, unfortunately, is part of being in such a snow globe of public pressure, with the spotlights on. It's not unusual to have circumstances in workplaces where things go awry, but you add to that the level of public scrutiny, which is absolutely due," Ms Swarbrick said. "I knew that, sitting around the caucus table, we had a group of people who were dedicated to a cause that was bigger than something that any one of us could create by ourselves, so I always felt like the team was working together and prioritising that bigger picture. "But in terms of the personal reflections on it all, I mean, like, I didn't really intend to be a politician, I protested so hard, I raged against the machine so hard, but I got inside the machine somehow, right? "What I take from that is, yeah, the way that we tend to conceptualise of leadership is, you know, putting somebody at the top of the pecking order and going, 'That person's going to make all the decisions and have all the glory and all the other things', and the responsibility, obviously, is on the flip side of that coin. "But I've always felt really grounded in a team that I know has my back." It is not unusual for the Green Party to feel out of step with its parliamentary colleagues — an accusation the governing parties are happy to widen out to include the entire country. It has felt more stark than usual this term though, as its MPs have been assailed as being luddite opponents of progress for questioning the need for economic growth and the requirement for natural resources to be dug up to fuel it. While many of those attacks have come from National, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's gentle urging that the Greens back the fast-track legislation are nowhere near as stinging as Mr Peters adorning the Greens' recently released alternative budget with a Soviet-era hammer and sickle or his NZ First colleague Shane Jones' exhortations to the Greens to not worry about moths or Freddy the Frog and push ahead with mining. If there is such a thing as a philosophic debate in the New Zealand Parliament, these two parties are having it. It can even be intellectual listening once the sloganeering is stripped away from it. "What they are saying is pretty boring, and it misses the mark in terms of the real debate that New Zealanders expect of the people who occupy positions of power to be having," Ms Swarbrick said. "That's part of the reason that we are currently all across the country touring the Green budget and talking to people directly about the things that matter to them, as opposed to waiting for it to be mediated, whether that be through the headlines that we manage to grab or otherwise. "Honestly, the experience of sitting in our chamber of Parliament, particularly under the tenor of toxicity that this government is ushered in, is so far removed from the reality that you experience and you talk to with New Zealanders up and down this country when you're actually on the ground and outside of those walls." The building blocks at the foundation of what will be the Green policy platform for the 2026 election are contained within that alternative budget. It is a beguiling document, opening with pledges of free community healthcare and dental treatment, full funding a new Dunedin hospital, publicly funded early childhood education, free school lunches, a guaranteed income for all, climate action, healthy oceans, a resurgent Jobs for Nature scheme, and a green jobs industrial strategy. But then comes the method of paying for it all — essentially making corporations, and those individuals at the apex of the existing progressive tax system, pay more through introducing a wealth tax (a long-standing Greens policy), an extra tax band at the top end, and hiking business tax. Despite Ms Swarbrick's immediate assertion that 91% of New Zealanders would pay less income tax under her party's plan, it is these revenue-gathering methods that stand her party accused of promoting communism. "Yes, the top 3%, the wealthiest 3% in this country, will pay the wealth tax," she said. "But in doing so, that unlocks the resources which are currently being bound up in unproductive uses, i.e., the likes of property speculation. It also addresses some of the unfairness in our tax system, which the 2023 IRD High Wealth Individuals Report showcased, where the wealthiest 311 households pay an effective tax rate less than half of the average New Zealander. "We currently have a situation where half a million New Zealanders are using food banks every single month; 191 New Zealanders, the majority of them of working age, are leaving the country every single day. "We do not arrest that issue with half measures." The next election is about a year away and, unlike some previous electoral cycles, the Greens have cause to be optimistic. The Greens' polling has held relatively steady — from a record election result high of 11.6%, its current average rating across all public polls is 10.4% — and its caucus now has a more settled look about it. Its southern rookie MPs, Scott Willis and Francisco Hernandez, have performed well and are helping to give the Greens a wider geographic representation than in recent years. It is also doing well in the House, thanks in no small part to the work of the impressively forensic Lawrence Xu-Nan. With three electorate seats and 15 MPs, Ms Swarbrick is adamant the Greens have great potential to grow that vote still further. "I think you're seeing the rise of meaningful progressive platforms like, for example, Zohran Mamdani in New York, who has unified people on the basis of material needs being met," she said. "That stuff is winning. That is a winning formula. And that is the formula that we are going to consistently keep rolling out. "We are talking to people about what really matters, not just poking holes and critiquing, but putting forward those productive solutions, but also mobilising people. "We do things a little bit differently and we are a little bit different, and we try and reflect what modern Aotearoa New Zealand looks like. "Hopefully that means that more people can see themselves in that so-called House of Representatives by virtue of us being there."
Scoop
2 days 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."
