Govt's AI strategy is all hype and no vision
In his foreword to the recently released Strategy, Reti states: 'Until now, New Zealand was the only OECD country that had not published an AI strategy'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
Just as NZ began collecting meaningful data on rainbow communities, census changes threaten their visibility
By Lori Leigh and Brodie Fraser of Rainbow communities had been invisible in the census since its inception in 1851. Photo: AFP/ Allison Dinner New Zealand's 2023 census was the first to collect data on gender identity and sexual orientation, showing one in 20 adults identify as LGBTQIA+. But just as reports from this more inclusive census are being released, Minister of Statistics Shane Reti announced a change to existing administrative data collected by government departments as part of their normal business, scrapping a 150-year history of the census. Currently, there are no sources of administrative data that include adequate rainbow demographic markers such as sexual orientation, gender, transgender experience or variations of sex characteristics. Without high-quality data, the policy reforms needed to address underserved and historically marginalised populations become harder to make. How can we create evidence-based policy with no evidence? The slogan of the 2023 census was "tatau tātou - all of us count". Rainbow communities had been invisible in the census since its inception in 1851. The 2023 Census was a watershed moment, born out of decades of determined activism and advocacy from the community. For us, as housing and homelessness researchers, it was particularly important to finally have whole-of-population data about rates of homelessness among LGBTQIA+ communities . Data on housing showed rainbow communities pay higher rents, live in mouldier housing and move more frequently than non-rainbow communities. Adding LGBTQIA+ data to the census meant we were the first country in the world to have such data on the housing experiences of these communities. We were applauded internationally by colleagues who have long been wanting similar homelessness and rainbow data from their own national censuses. This data will be a great advocacy tool, but it is bittersweet that we will never have such information again. There is a nearly 50-year history of various community movements, from boycotts to activism, chronicling the queer struggle to be appropriately counted in the census. In 1981, a group of Wellington lesbians held a "dykecott" of the New Zealand census to protest their exclusion. This included sending blank census forms to the Human Rights Commission with various explanations essentially saying "no rights, no responsibilities." Then, in the 1990s, the Wellington City Council's lesbian and gay advisory group came together to lobby Stats NZ about the need for inclusive census data. In 1996, census forms were changed to be able to count same-sex partners. In 2002, the former editor of the New Zealand LGBTQIA+ magazine Express Victor van Wetering went so far as to lodge a formal complaint against Stats NZ, stating the agency was in clear breach of the Human Rights Act. He alleged it was failing to meet its statutory requirements. Advocacy continued throughout the 2000s and 2010s, and in 2018, Stats NZ released their statistical standards for measuring sexual orientation. The possibility of inclusive census data started to become more of a reality. The decision to halt the census as we know it means there will be no longitudinal comparative data for rainbow communities. Just as the community has been allowed out of the statistical closet, people will be put back in. It had long been argued that accuracy of rainbow data would improve over subsequent censuses. Now we will never know what developments might have emerged. Community advocates and the Human Rights Commission continued to raise the lack of rainbow data collection at the population level. In 2020, the Human Rights Commission released a report which found New Zealand's data collection processes fail to accurately count the country's rainbow community members. Stats NZ had already started significant work to evaluate and update their sex and gender identity standards. Weeks after the report, the agency committed to what would become the 2023 census. Rainbow community groups applauded, felt finally listened to and called the shift a major win. This sense of pride continues as reports and data are released from the census. Research and survey data consistently show rainbow communities in Aotearoa New Zealand experience multiple forms of discrimination. This includes violence, family rejection, bullying and social exclusion. These experiences contribute to disproportionately high rates of serious negative outcomes such as suicidality, health inequities, homelessness and substance use. Despite this, we continue to lack data comparing the experiences of rainbow communities with those of the general population. As a result, health and social disparities affecting LGBTQIA+ people are systematically under-recognised in government strategies and across health and social service systems. Efforts to address these inequities are also frequently under-resourced and inadequately prioritised. Former government statistician Len Cook said: "There is no time over the past 50 years when the scope and quality of population statistics has been of such importance in public life in Aotearoa New Zealand as now." Scrapping the census is a cost-cutting exercise. But what is the real cost of losing data and which communities will disproportionately bear this cost? The decision renders LGBTQIA+ people, once again, invisible. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Newsroom
Govt's AI strategy is all hype and no vision
Opinion: What have we learned about the future of artificial intelligence in New Zealand now that Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology Dr Shane Reti has released 'New Zealand's Strategy for Artificial Intelligence: Investing with confidence'? In his foreword to the recently released Strategy, Reti states: 'Until now, New Zealand was the only OECD country that had not published an AI strategy'.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
Political cosyism behind 3rd medical school decision-making
On 21 May I was introduced to two new words (always a moment of light excitement for me) by Dr Bryce Edwards, Director of the newly established Integrity Institute which publishes regular Integrity Briefings. On this occasion the new word was 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism': Chumocracy and cosyism. He was referring to the work of Auckland University Professor of Economics Robert MacCulloch who was calling out 'soft corruption' by political and business elites in Aotearoa New Zealand. His focus included government, banks, big business and the rightwing 'thinktank' New Zealand Initiative. Such was the strength and persistence of the hostile response from these elites that he felt sufficiently pressured to close his website. The core of MacCulloch's argument is that New Zealand is run by a 'chumocracy' of elites who are connected by what he calls 'cosyism'. Third medical school announcement These were the words that I began to think about after absorbing the announcement by Health Minister Simeon Brown and Universities Minister Shane Reti early in the afternoon of 21 July that it was proceeding with the proposed third medical school at Waikato University: Official announcement. Later that the same day I was interviewed about the decision on Radio New Zealand's The Panel where my main focus was on the poor process which was likely to lead to an eventual poor outcome: Medical school decision based on poor process. Nearly two years earlier I had outlined my concerns about the Waikato University proposal in an article published by BusinessDesk (26 August 2023): Third medical school caution. What is the third medical school The new medical school is to provide a four-year medical degree for students who already are graduates with a non-medical degree to work as general practitioners (or as other rural doctors) in regional and rural areas. The medical degree at the existing two medical schools, Auckland and Otago, is five years. The advocated expectation is that the proposed Waikato Medical School will be graduating 120 doctors a year once it is up and running. With its opening scheduled for 2028 the first graduates should start working as general practitioners or other rural doctors at the earliest in 2037. This gap comprises both the time at the medical school and the time as resident (junior) doctors in training. Last year the Ministry of Health commissioned a report which advised that that Waikato's teaching model would be similar to the model in Wollongong University, south of Sydney. Reportedly 45% of the latter's graduates become GPs of which around 30% proceeded to work in rural areas. In 2017 the Auckland and Otago medical schools had proposed that they be allowed to jointly establish a new joint 'school of rural medicine'. However, while the previous Labour-led government and Ministry of Health was favourably disposed to this initiative, progress was understandably impeded by the Covid-19 pandemic. In a memo to then Health Minister Shane Reti in September last year, Treasury recommended that Auckland and Otago Medical Schools be asked to present a counter-factual argument to the Waikato proposal. However, it appears that no such invitation was made. Analysis by the Integrity Institute The best commentary I have seen on this decision has come from Bryce Edwards in another Integrity Briefing published the same day as the Government's announcement and after my The Panel interview (21 July): Costly case study in policy capture. Edwards also drew upon the excellent investigative work of Radio New Zealand's Guyan Espinar. Consistent with his above-mentioned piece on 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' he describes the decision as: … not, at its core, a decision about health policy. It is a decision about political power, influence, and the erosion of good process. This project serves as a textbook case study of policy capture, where the interests of a well-connected institution, amplified by high-powered lobbyists, have overridden expert advice, fiscal prudence, and superior alternatives. Later in his piece he adds: This lack of transparency and due process is antithetical to good governance. The entire Waikato med school saga has unfolded via secret contracts, private lobbying meetings, and politically wired relationships – all largely hidden from the public until journalists and watchdogs pried it into the light. Backing this up Edwards draws upon many questionable process features including: Waikato Vice-Chancellor Professor Neil Quigley working 'hand-in-glove' in 'partisan coordination' with Shane Reti before the last election and promising the proposed school would be 'a 'present' to a future National government'. Waikato University helping pay for the National party's campaign announcement of the medical school plan (about $5,000). Government officials seeing 'red flags' in the proposal including alarm bells ringing from Treasury, the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry of Education warning of bloated costs, duplication risks and logistical hurdles. The use of two of the most well-connected lobbyists: initially former Labour senior adviser Neale Jones and more substantially former National cabinet minister Steven Joyce. Joyce's firm was paid about $1 million over three years by Waikato for 'consultancy' (le, leveraging his political influence). Questionable procurement in the way Waikato University hired Joyce leading to a public 'scolding' by the Auditor-General John Ryan. Ignoring the arguably better alternative of expanding the existing Auckland and Otago medical schools which were already running rural immersion schemes and satellite programs geared toward rural health. Edwards does not hold back: At its core, the Waikato medical school saga is an illustration of how not to make public policy. The process has failed every basic test of transparency, public accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. A public university and eager politicians cooked up a major spending initiative as a political favour, greased by lobbyists and implemented via dubious means. The normal checks and balances – open procurement, independent policy analysis, genuine stakeholder consultation – were subverted or ignored. It's the kind of deal that breeds public cynicism in politics, the sense that big decisions are made on behalf of the powerful or the connected, not the public. Further: By greenlighting this project in July 2025, ministers have signalled that political paybacks matter more than prudent spending. They have effectively rewarded a campaign of lobbying and pressure that sidestepped the usual contest of ideas. That sets a horrible precedent. It tells every other vested interest: hire the right insiders, make the right donations or deals, and you too can get the government to write a big cheque, officials' advice be damned. And: The Waikato medical school greenlight might be a political win for a few, but it's a loss for New Zealand's standards of governance. It undermines confidence that our health investments are made wisely and fairly. And it should prompt some soul-searching in Wellington: if this is how we make big decisions now, what does that say about who really runs the country? Unconvincing contrary views There have been contrary analyses supporting the Government's decision which I find unconvincing. Luke Malpass, Stuff Political, Business & Economics Editor and formerly holding a leadership role in the New Zealand Initiative expressed a negative view of current medical schools describing them emotively, but without substantiation, as a 'duopoly'. Writing in The Post (22 July; paywalled) in a flaky critique he dismisses those critical of the process, presumably including Bryce Edwards, as 'weird': Flaky rather than investigative. Two days later Waikato University ethics professor and philosopher Nick Algar wrote a paywalled opinion piece in The Post abstractly arguing that those critical of the Government's were guilty of 'sloppy thinking'. This reminded me of the expression 'pot calling the kettle black': Sloppy thinking in the debate over Waikato medical school | The Post Sloppy analysis of 'sloppy thinking'. He also reminded me of Oscar Wilde on philosophy although without the latter's famous and infamous wit: 'My philosophy? I'm always right and you are wrong.' The last word Let's leave the last word to the action of the Government in releasing its redacted 'cabinet business case' material at 6.45pm last Friday as reported by the Otago Daily Times the following day: Politically expedient timing of third medical school case. This timing has been a common practice of successive governments recognising that this is the most difficult time for media scrutiny before it is taken over by other news. If the difficult to substantiate claim of $50 million savings per year stood up to rigorous scrutiny it would have been released at a time convenient for media scrutiny. But 'chumocracy' and 'cosyism' necessitated otherwise. 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.
