scholarly journals The Citizen and the Automated State: Exploring the Implications of Algorithmic Decision-making in the New Zealand Public Sector

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
David Smith
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Privacy Act ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Regulatory Model ◽  
Effective Use

<p>Algorithms increasingly influence how the state treats its citizens. This thesis examines how the New Zealand public sector’s use of algorithms in decision-making brings benefits, but also invites risks of discrimination, bias, intrusion into privacy and unfair decision-making.  This thesis’s central conclusion is that these risks require a new response. New Zealand currently has a patchwork of existing protections which provide some deterrent against poor algorithmic decision-making. The Privacy Act 1993, Official Information Act 1982, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Human Rights Act 1993 and applicable administrative law principles can provide remedies and correct agencies’ poor behaviour in certain cases. But important gaps remain. This thesis examines these protections to show that they do not adequately stem cumulative and systemic harms, and suffer from important practical drawbacks. They do not provide the sound preventative framework that is needed; that is, one which ensures good public sector practice.  This thesis proposes a new regulatory model for public sector use of algorithms. It argues that a key element of any effective regulatory response is the use of “algorithmic impact assessments”. These assessments would mitigate potential risks, and legitimise proportionate public sector use, of algorithms. It is also proposed that an independent regulator complements these assessments by issuing guidance, undertaking algorithm audits, and ensuring political accountability through annual reporting to Parliament. Agencies would have new obligations to disclose how and when algorithms are used in decision-making. Meanwhile, citizens would gain an enhanced right to reasons for algorithmic decisions affecting them and a right to human review. Together these measures would establish a model which would safeguard responsible and effective use of algorithms in New Zealand’s public sector.</p>

scholarly journals The Citizen and the Automated State: Exploring the Implications of Algorithmic Decision-making in the New Zealand Public Sector

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
David Smith
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Privacy Act ◽  
Annual Reporting ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Regulatory Model ◽  
Effective Use

<p>Algorithms increasingly influence how the state treats its citizens. This thesis examines how the New Zealand public sector’s use of algorithms in decision-making brings benefits, but also invites risks of discrimination, bias, intrusion into privacy and unfair decision-making.  This thesis’s central conclusion is that these risks require a new response. New Zealand currently has a patchwork of existing protections which provide some deterrent against poor algorithmic decision-making. The Privacy Act 1993, Official Information Act 1982, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Human Rights Act 1993 and applicable administrative law principles can provide remedies and correct agencies’ poor behaviour in certain cases. But important gaps remain. This thesis examines these protections to show that they do not adequately stem cumulative and systemic harms, and suffer from important practical drawbacks. They do not provide the sound preventative framework that is needed; that is, one which ensures good public sector practice.  This thesis proposes a new regulatory model for public sector use of algorithms. It argues that a key element of any effective regulatory response is the use of “algorithmic impact assessments”. These assessments would mitigate potential risks, and legitimise proportionate public sector use, of algorithms. It is also proposed that an independent regulator complements these assessments by issuing guidance, undertaking algorithm audits, and ensuring political accountability through annual reporting to Parliament. Agencies would have new obligations to disclose how and when algorithms are used in decision-making. Meanwhile, citizens would gain an enhanced right to reasons for algorithmic decisions affecting them and a right to human review. Together these measures would establish a model which would safeguard responsible and effective use of algorithms in New Zealand’s public sector.</p>

Cross-fertilisation of Constitutional Ideas

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Butler
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

This chapter discusses the New Zealand courts' jurisprudence in regard to the interpretative provisions — sections 4, 5, and 6 — of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. It not only gives an overview of the relevant New Zealand case law but also compares the courts' approaches to those of their UK counterparts, in particular the UK Supreme Court (formerly, the House of Lords) in regard to section 3 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998. It is argued that the perceived difference in the approaches can be explained by different contexts rather than different methodology. The chapter thereby questions the view held in New Zealand that the UK courts, and especially the Supreme Court, are more activist than the New Zealand courts.

The Prospective (Ir)Relevance of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act: A Comparative Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedict Coxon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract This article suggests that the power conferred on United Kingdom courts by section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UKHRA) is legitimate as a matter of the interpretation of that provision. It sets out a contextual approach to the interpretation of section 3(1) consistent with general principles of statutory interpretation. This differs from most analyses of this provision, whether comparative or jurisdiction-specific, which tend to use constitutional theory as the framework for analysis. The article adopts a comparative perspective, applying the same approach to section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). It concludes that the approach of New Zealand courts to section 6 is also correct as a matter of the interpretation of that provision. The different approaches of United Kingdom and New Zealand courts to these equivalent provisions is explained by a number of important differences between the UKHRA and NZBORA; including especially the context in which each statute falls to be interpreted. Some implications of this analysis for the development of the principle of legality in the United Kingdom in the event of repeal of section 3(1) of the UKHRA are briefly identified.

scholarly journals Evolving Role of the Courts: Constitutional Review of Legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Charlotte Connell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Orthodox View

<p>The constitutional landscape in New Zealand has undergone significant change over the last 20-35 years to improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making in the three branches of government. While most of these changes are a direct result of legislation, the constitutional role of the court has also been evolving and has seen the development of judicial review of the substance of the law for consistency with the New Zealand constitution. The orthodox view of the constitution is heavily critical of judicial, or constitutional, review of legislation by the courts and considers it to be an illegitimate encroachment on the domain of Parliament. This paper explores the legitimacy of constitutional review of legislation by the courts, specifically constitutional review of legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act). To be legitimate, constitutional review by the courts must have both legal authority and be performed consistently with the constitution. This paper observes that s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act has been employed by the courts, without interference from Parliament, to review legislation for consistency with that Act and that the courts use the purposive approach to interpretation and the proportionality analysis to perform such review consistently with the constitution. Finally, the paper explores whether the developing jurisdiction of constitutional review necessitates a new paradigm to define the constitutional relationship between the courts and Parliament because the orthodox view of New Zealand's constitution is no longer supportable as the definitive position</p>

scholarly journals The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Victorian Charter) was enacted 16 years after the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). Like the NZBORA and the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), the Victorian Charter is an ordinary act of Parliament which seeks to preserve parliamentary sovereignty by limiting the courts’ ability to strike down legislation. The Victorian Charter drew heavily upon the experience of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Victorian Charter expressly adopts some aspects of the NZBORA and the HRA (such as the interpretative rule), rejects other aspects (such as the ability to obtain damages for breach), but also includes some provisions that are quite different from either the NZBORA or the HRA. 

scholarly journals Collaboration in the process of legislative lobbying: A study of a disabled peoples organisation lobbying for change in New Zealand 1989-1993

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Ruane
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
The Political ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act

<p>This thesis examines lobbying from the disabled people’s organisation Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) NZ from 1989 until 1993. It explores how the organisation conducted lobbying activities with respect to two pieces of New Zealand legislation with constitutional significance: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.  This thesis places the plight of minority groups within the political process squarely under the research microscope and asks: what factors explain the different outcomes to the DPA’s lobbying efforts to the Bill of Rights in 1990 and the Human Rights Act in 1993?  More specifically it examines the DPA’s decision to collaborate with the New Zealand Aids Foundation (AF) during the 1993 Human Rights Act campaign. Collaboration with the AF was a controversial decision that resulted in heated discussions within DPA. Some members were concerned about the political risks of aligning with the AF. DPA leadership however saw a possibility for broad human rights legislation, and took the decision to collaborate. They were convinced that collaboration would bring benefits in the form of greater resources, access to Parliament and better relationships with the media which would all lead to an enhanced capacity to make the case to the public.  The thesis argues that by working with the AF, DPA was able to change its lobbying narrative from one solely focussed upon disability rights to one that broadened out to broader human rights protections. DPA was not positioning itself as a minority group arguing for narrow exceptions to existing legislation, a tactic it had pursued in previous campaigns. The campaign proved successful, gaining support from MP’s, as the Human Rights Act was perceived to have public support.  The thesis also shows that to understand DPA’s successful strategy it needs to be seen in the context of a failed effort from a previous campaign. DPA’s campaign to lobby for the 1993 Human Rights Act began from the point of an unsuccessful fight to have disability rights included in the 1990 Bill of Rights. DPA was, in effect, ‘locked in’ to fighting the 1993 campaign from that point.</p>

scholarly journals Evolving Role of the Courts: Constitutional Review of Legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Charlotte Connell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Orthodox View

<p>The constitutional landscape in New Zealand has undergone significant change over the last 20-35 years to improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making in the three branches of government. While most of these changes are a direct result of legislation, the constitutional role of the court has also been evolving and has seen the development of judicial review of the substance of the law for consistency with the New Zealand constitution. The orthodox view of the constitution is heavily critical of judicial, or constitutional, review of legislation by the courts and considers it to be an illegitimate encroachment on the domain of Parliament. This paper explores the legitimacy of constitutional review of legislation by the courts, specifically constitutional review of legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act). To be legitimate, constitutional review by the courts must have both legal authority and be performed consistently with the constitution. This paper observes that s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act has been employed by the courts, without interference from Parliament, to review legislation for consistency with that Act and that the courts use the purposive approach to interpretation and the proportionality analysis to perform such review consistently with the constitution. Finally, the paper explores whether the developing jurisdiction of constitutional review necessitates a new paradigm to define the constitutional relationship between the courts and Parliament because the orthodox view of New Zealand's constitution is no longer supportable as the definitive position</p>

scholarly journals The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: going beyond declarations

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Hickman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Cultural Pressures

The process of capturing and entrenching fundamental rights remains very much a live one in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In both countries there is pressure to move on from the current bill of rights legislation: the UK Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). While the two jurisdictions are subject to quite different political and cultural pressures, there remains a great deal of scope for exchange of ideas and experiences. 

scholarly journals Collaboration in the process of legislative lobbying: A study of a disabled peoples organisation lobbying for change in New Zealand 1989-1993

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicholas Ruane
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Disabled Persons ◽  
The Political ◽  
Disability Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act

<p>This thesis examines lobbying from the disabled people’s organisation Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) NZ from 1989 until 1993. It explores how the organisation conducted lobbying activities with respect to two pieces of New Zealand legislation with constitutional significance: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.  This thesis places the plight of minority groups within the political process squarely under the research microscope and asks: what factors explain the different outcomes to the DPA’s lobbying efforts to the Bill of Rights in 1990 and the Human Rights Act in 1993?  More specifically it examines the DPA’s decision to collaborate with the New Zealand Aids Foundation (AF) during the 1993 Human Rights Act campaign. Collaboration with the AF was a controversial decision that resulted in heated discussions within DPA. Some members were concerned about the political risks of aligning with the AF. DPA leadership however saw a possibility for broad human rights legislation, and took the decision to collaborate. They were convinced that collaboration would bring benefits in the form of greater resources, access to Parliament and better relationships with the media which would all lead to an enhanced capacity to make the case to the public.  The thesis argues that by working with the AF, DPA was able to change its lobbying narrative from one solely focussed upon disability rights to one that broadened out to broader human rights protections. DPA was not positioning itself as a minority group arguing for narrow exceptions to existing legislation, a tactic it had pursued in previous campaigns. The campaign proved successful, gaining support from MP’s, as the Human Rights Act was perceived to have public support.  The thesis also shows that to understand DPA’s successful strategy it needs to be seen in the context of a failed effort from a previous campaign. DPA’s campaign to lobby for the 1993 Human Rights Act began from the point of an unsuccessful fight to have disability rights included in the 1990 Bill of Rights. DPA was, in effect, ‘locked in’ to fighting the 1993 campaign from that point.</p>

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document