New Zealand academics call for AI office as fears grow

New Zealand academics have called for a national AI office or institute as debate grows over whether countries should slow artificial intelligence development. The comments come amid rising international concern over AI safety and governance.

Researchers in computing and law said a global pact to restrain AI progress would be difficult to secure. They argued New Zealand should instead focus on domestic oversight, clearer regulation and a stronger voice in international discussions. They also pointed to immediate harms, including deepfakes, discrimination and the effect of AI systems on public trust.

Global limits

Dr Andrew Lensen, senior lecturer in artificial intelligence at the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Victoria University of Wellington, said a worldwide agreement was desirable but unlikely under current conditions.

"I would love to see a global agreement to slow AI development, but it's really hard to see in the current geopolitical environment. Climate change is an existential risk, but the Paris Agreement's aim of keeping temperatures from rising beyond 1.5C was not met. We have seen success on issues like the ozone layer through the Montreal Protocol, but that was in a situation where there was a clear alternative and the economic cost of action was much less significant.

The closest analogue in AI is probably the Bletchley Declaration and the 2024 Seoul and 2025 Paris AI summits, but, a bit like the COP climate conferences, they do not seem to have delivered the systemic change we need.

I'm not advocating giving up, of course. The best way for New Zealand to push for change would be to re-establish our moral and ethical leadership in this space and band together with other middle powers, as suggested by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos this year."

Dr Kevin Shedlock, lecturer at the School of Engineering and Computer Science at Victoria University of Wellington, took a similar view.

"International communities are mobilising to push back on artificial intelligence. However, I think the cat is out of the bag, and turning back the clock is unachievable. As a society, we must be proactive in confronting this technology in ways that help our communities rather than mine community or national knowledge-based systems.

This will require paying attention during the development of legislation, new standards and new technologies. As trusted experts, our nation's academics will provide important direction for this to occur."

Dr Cassandra Mudgway, senior lecturer above the bar at the Faculty of Law at the University of Canterbury, said efforts to slow cutting-edge AI models should not distract from regulating harm already caused by existing tools.

"I think there is a useful distinction between slowing the development of AI models and regulating the harms that AI systems are already enabling.

A global agreement to slow AI development would be difficult to achieve. There are strong commercial and geopolitical incentives for companies and states to keep developing more capable systems, particularly where AI capability is treated as a strategic advantage. But we have managed to make agreements in similarly charged climates before, including international agreements to limit nuclear technology.

I would also be cautious about making frontier model development the centre of the AI safety conversation. People are already experiencing serious harms from generative AI. Sexualised deepfakes are one example. We are seeing technology used to create sexualised material depicting people without their consent, with women and girls disproportionately targeted. Those harms do not depend on AI reaching some future level of capability. They are already here."

New Zealand stance

The academics described New Zealand as both a heavy user of AI products and a country marked by unease about them. They said that combination could shape a more cautious national approach than in larger markets competing to build advanced systems.

"We are a real mixed bag. Some numbers from AI providers like Anthropic suggest we are among the highest users of AI tools like Claude in the world, but survey after survey has shown that we are also among the most distrusting and worried about AI globally.

I see our distrust and worry as a good thing, not a bad one. There are many good uses of AI technology, but if it is used naively, for AI's sake, there is a real risk of unintended consequences and unnecessary costs and resource use. We cannot compete to build these huge models, so positioning ourselves as critical and responsible adopters would be a much better plan."

Shedlock said New Zealand was behind on AI infrastructure, but argued the country could still shape debate in areas such as explainability, trust and the obligations arising from Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

"New Zealand continues to lag in adopting AI infrastructure, which will create further environmental challenges for Aotearoa.

The idea of explainable AI systems will continue to be highly debated, given the level of impact this technology will have on our nation. This is an area in which New Zealand could be a future leader. It speaks directly to trust in the AI ecosystem during the development of these technologies and raises questions specific to New Zealand.

For example, what are our Tiriti o Waitangi commitments, and how will Māori be affected by or benefit from this technology, given the current and past grievances and trust issues between the government and Māori communities?"

Mudgway said New Zealand could not treat AI harm as a distant issue because the same products used elsewhere are already available domestically.

"New Zealand is part of the same AI ecosystem as the rest of the world. The products are available here, people are using them here, and harms arising from those systems can occur here regardless of where the company behind the technology is based.

From my perspective, one concern is that AI regulation can still be discussed quite abstractly. We should be paying much closer attention to what these systems are already enabling."

Call for office

Several experts argued that New Zealand lacks the institutional machinery now found in other countries. They said a government-led body could coordinate universities, industry, civil society and public agencies while also representing New Zealand in international discussions on AI safety and governance.

Professor Alistair Knott of the Centre for Data Science and AI at Victoria University of Wellington said the gap was becoming harder to justify as AI policy work moved into formal national institutions abroad.

"To participate properly in the global conversation about AI capability and AI safety, the New Zealand government needs an Office for AI.

AI technologies are obviously advancing at a rapid pace. As AI systems improve to human level and beyond, it is increasingly important that New Zealand participates in the international conversation about how best to assess and govern these technologies. This is certainly something New Zealand needs to do with other countries. The tech companies pushing AI products are multinational, so the discussion about how to oversee their products must also be multinational.

These discussions must be organised and resourced. Other countries have created institutional support for this work by establishing dedicated offices that can coordinate efforts from relevant groups around the country. The UK has an AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, which performs a similar role outside government. Australia recently set up an Office of AI. Canada, Singapore and Japan also have AI safety institutes. New Zealand does not, despite increasingly urgent calls. We should set up a government-led AI office as soon as possible.

A nationally resourced AI office in New Zealand would achieve two related things. First, it would coordinate work happening within the country across universities, industry, the public sector and civil society, so relevant voices can be heard as the situation develops. Second, it could serve as an interface with international conversations, so New Zealand's position can be heard internationally. Increasingly, these conversations take place through the AI institutes of different countries. Without a national institute of our own, our voices will not be heard.

To make the right choices as AI advances, we need efficient conversations, both nationally and internationally. Setting up a national AI office in New Zealand will help create both."

Lensen made a similar case for a dedicated institution, saying it would help New Zealand address harms already visible as well as risks that may emerge later.

"Setting up an AI institute, like we see in Australia and elsewhere, would make us much better prepared to tackle AI harms, both existing and emerging or existential ones. Such an institute would have a mandate to oversee and govern the use of AI in New Zealand so the benefits are prioritised for us rather than for big tech. We cannot directly control what happens overseas, but we can show much stronger leadership and governance at home, which would also get us involved in conversations on the global stage. At the moment, we're looking like the odd one out."

Mudgway said the debate should not lose sight of people already affected by AI-generated abuse and the question of who should be held responsible.

"The question is ultimately about responsibility. Who is making these systems? Who is deploying them? What do they know about the ways their products are being used? And what should the law require them to do about foreseeable harms? Those are questions we can answer now, without waiting to see what the next generation of AI looks like."