The strategy document says NZ’s use of Artificial Intelligence “shows promise but requires acceleration,” and that the government’s role includes reducing barriers, providing regulatory guidance, building capability, and ensuring responsible adoption.
The document itself was also “written with the assistance of AI.”
The SMC asked experts to comment.
Dr Collin Bjork, Senior Lecturer in Communication at Massey University, comments:
“This announcement makes plain the government’s full-throated support for AI investment across all sectors (especially medical, agriculture, and education) due to its perceived economic benefits, which are almost certainly overblown, and some clearly expressed FOMO. But other than adding their voices to the AI hype train, this government announcement is a bit of a ‘nothing burger’ on multiple levels.
“On one level, it’s a nothing burger because the government promises very little in the way of new policies or investments around AI. Instead, they largely point to existing investments and policies that were already in the works and that they believe will help with AI uptake.
“On another level, it’s a nothing burger because it articulates no practical steps to ensure AI safety and ethics because the government prefers instead to take a “light touch” that relies on existing legislation rather than new regulation. But the problem is that a chunk of our existing legislation is out of date. While other countries have passed media legislation to regulate the Silicon Valley tech giants, Aotearoa New Zealand is behind in this area. And many of these same tech giants are also the largest players in AI.
“This announcement maintains the AI status quo. And the status quo isn’t good enough yet. Kiwis would benefit from coupling strategic investment with critical regulation. But we don’t need the empty carbs of more AI hype.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Karaitiana Taiuru (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Toa), AI and Tech Governor at Taiuru & Associates and Director at the Institute of AI Governance, comments:
“While “Te Tiriti” does not specifically have its own headings in the strategy documents, throughout the documents are tens of references to Māori and Māori Data, tikanga, cultural considerations and actions. There are also case studies of Māori AI businesses. Overall, these all equate to the principles of Te Tiriti and offer a fair and representative consideration of Māori with AI.
“Research reflects that most big tech and many smaller NZ tech companies are adopting Tiriti and Māori views already, as are about 50% of government agencies in relation to AI and Data.
“In addition to the strategy documents, we must also consider that StatsNZ are guided by ‘The Data and Statistics Act 2022‘ which has a Tiriti clause, noting that StatsNZ have an agreement with Iwi Leaders Forum Data Group for data consultation, as does the Department of Internal Affairs, and that both departments have committed millions of dollars to partnerships.
“As well as Te Tiriti, there are also many other legal instruments to protect Māori rights – it’s not unusual for them to be left out of legislation or strategies, but they still exist and provide protection for Māori rights when it comes to AI and data.”
Conflicts of interest: Chair of the Kāhui Māori at the AI Forum.
Associate Professor Adrian Clark, School of Product Design, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The national AI strategy provides a sensible approach towards increasing adoption of AI in the New Zealand private sector, focusing on the application of AI technology within key economic sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, education and business rather than trying to compete with large technology companies in foundational AI. I agree with this approach in the Generative AI space, however I believe NZ can still compete internationally in non-generative AI research.
“Beyond economic initiatives, the strategy presents several NZ case studies in driving AI innovation, including some where New Zealand is uniquely positioned to be a world leader. For example, Te Hiku Media and KIWA Digital are utilising AI technology for Indigenous Language Preservation through speech recognition and media localisation respectively, and Manatū Taonga’s “Amplify” strategy highlights the importance of protecting the creative and cultural sectors from AI-related threats.
“The largest, and perhaps most significant, part of the strategy discusses barriers to AI adoption in NZ and how the government is planning to address them. These barriers include widespread concerns such as ethical and responsible use of AI and replacement of humans in the workforce, however I felt the response to these concerns would have benefited from more detail.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have a grant application under consideration to research AI in education.”
Dr Andrew Lensen, Senior Lecturer/Programme Director of Artificial Intelligence, Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“As expected, the Government’s AI Strategy is heavy on economic growth opportunities but worryingly light on the ethical and societal issues of AI. The Strategy takes a “light-touch and principles-based approach”, all but ruling out new legislation for managing the risks of AI. The Strategy suggests that new legislation is unnecessary, which I, and many other AI researchers, disagree with. Having “Principles” is not nearly sufficient to reduce AI-induced harm, bias, and inequity—we need clear legislation and well-resourced enforcement mechanisms to ensure AI does not further harm New Zealanders.
“The AI Strategy does not mention The Treaty of Waitangi—not even once. Māori face unique risks from AI, with most modern AI systems being sourced from overseas Western contexts, which have been designed with Western values in mind. Consider, for example, a healthcare AI system sourced from the USA—how can there be no guidance in the AI Strategy about the need to validate and refine such systems for the unique demographics of our society?
“This AI Strategy sets a dangerous path forward for New Zealand, with an attitude of economic growth above social good.”
Conflict of interest statement: “In addition to my substantive academic role, I am co-director of LensenMcGavin AI.”