The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
, (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori
A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses.
But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it.
The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed.
Seymour this week told RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner, that figure reflected "bots" generating "fake" submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to "online campaigns" that generate "non-representative samples" that don't reflect public opinion.
Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year.
Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy?
Submission tools used across the political spectrum
Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process.
The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual.
Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be "pretty difficult".
"You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard."
The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said.
"You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions."
The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission.
He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original.
"The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value."
Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form.
"It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission."
However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission.
"The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that."
But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said.
"For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times."
But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission.
"Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic," he said.
"It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar."
AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points.
"Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised," Williams said.
'Every single case on its merits'
Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible.
"When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing," he said.
"But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits."
Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously.
"The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you.
"To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
18 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
MPs scrutinise the cream cheese latte, among other things
Another Scrutiny Week is done and dusted, although some ministers and ministries came under more scrutiny than others. Take Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson, for example. Under the benign and avuncular chairmanship of Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson, the biggest tension of Mr Patterson's appearance before the primary production select committee came even before proceedings began, from the revelation there was such a thing as a cream cheese latte. It would be fair to say this discovery divided MPs' opinions as much as the likes of the Treaty Principles Bill — and not down party lines either. The Taieri New Zealand First list MP's appearance was primarily with his Minister for Rural Communities hat on, although no appearance anywhere by Mr Patterson would be complete without a mention or two of wool. Of which, more shortly. Mr Patterson's opening remarks emphasised rural communities is not a Cinderella enterprise set up to keep a backbencher busy: last year it reviewed more than 120 Cabinet papers to advise how decisions might impact country folk, as well as engaging directly and regularly with 12 other ministries. Mr Patterson — a farmer himself — said the four main issues he had focused his team on were health, education, connectivity and law and order. Now, it can be argued they are almost everyone's four main areas, but not everyone lives up the road from a school, down the road from a medical centre, has ultra-fast broadband or is within minutes of a police station. "Rural communities is not all about agriculture, it is about the needs of about 860,000 people," Mr Patterson said. Wellbeing — in particular mental wellbeing — was a focus of Mr Patterson's presentation. In the recent Budget the Rural Wellbeing Fund received an extra $2 million to double its funding over the next four years, and the government also committed $3m to Rural Support Trusts. "They have proven their worth, not just during adverse events but also managing farmers facing mental health issues ... there is a real issue with isolation and the issues that come with that," Mr Patterson said. "The trusts have credibility and are well led, we have confidence in them ... a lot of this is driven by volunteers, it is genuine peer-to-peer, farmers talking to farmers. That's their secret sauce and it is us leaning into that and saying you have something here that works, what can we do to help it?" The previous week Mr Patterson, along with almost every MP, had been at the annual Field Days event in Hamilton. There he got to push many things, not the least of which was wool — he and Finance Minister Nicola Willis were there as the not at all coincidental announcement was made by Kainga Ora that it had signed a deal for wool carpets to be supplied to state houses. A week later, Mr Patterson was keen to stress this was likely to be only the start — which was music to the ears of committee members like Mr Anderson, who until entering politics was a sheep farmer. "There are 130 procurement arms in government so there is significant ability to be able to leverage government procurement to assist the wool industry," Mr Patterson said. Scrutiny Week is an innovation of this Parliament and in the run-up to last week's hearings each select committee released a report as to how members thought it was going. The primary production committee noted it had spent eight hours on estimates hearings in 2024-25, and under the previous regime it heard from the relevant ministers and officials for just four hours. Even more impressive was the amount of time spent on annual reviews — up from four hours to 13-14. "Our committee has enjoyed the opportunity Scrutiny Weeks provide to dedicate time to hearing from ministers or entities, with that being the only focus for the week," the report said. "It has meant that we get to drill down on particular matters of concern, current issues, and spending without having to squeeze this in around normal business. Being able to focus on scrutiny, and take our time with hearings, has made the process less challenging than the previous approach of scheduling scrutiny hearings within normal meeting times." So far so good, but not everyone was happy. Opposition MPs — some of whom seem to feel that scrutiny was invented just for them — have complained (and not just on primary production) that they are not getting enough time for supplementary questions. Although not endorsing the idea, the committee suggested consideration be given to having an Opposition MP become its chairperson for scrutiny hearings could help avoid that perception. The social services and community committee (chaired by National Southland MP Joseph Mooney) reported in a similar vein, saying it had also increased its time on scrutiny, but warning its workload was already considerable so it had not been feasible to double that allocation of time. The report also noted that while Mr Mooney had allocated the majority of questions to non-government MPs, "some of us consider that a culture shift is still needed to honour the Opposition's role in leading scrutiny of the executive". The committee resolved to "continue to reflect on this over the parliamentary term," although good luck coming up with a definitive answer. The general tenor of all the reports was in similar vein: great concept but needs some tweaking, which seems a fair call. Anything that obliges the government to fully explain what it is up, to to the people who put them there, is welcome accountability — but it only means something if the level of questioning actually makes someone accountable. In the meantime, cream cheese latte anyone?
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
PM's Intervention To Kill Simon Watts' Ute Tax 2.0 Welcomed By Taxpayers
The Taxpayers' Union is welcoming the Prime Minister's intervention to rule out the Inland Revenue Department's proposal to apply Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) to all utes worth $80,000 or more and other work vehicles — a plan directed by Climate Change and Revenue Minister Simon Watts. In response to media comment issued by the Prime Minister's Office last night, Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said: 'Simon Watts was pushing a new Ute Tax, without his Cabinet colleagues or the public even knowing. Had it gone ahead, farmers and tradies would have been slammed with thousands of dollars in additional tax each year – not just once like Labour's Ute Tax, but every year.' 'The documents are crystal clear. IRD was instructed by Minister Watts to proceed with and consult with the tax industry on the implementation of a new FBT regime that would capture work vehicles, regardless of how they're actually used. This was a massive tax hike by stealth.' "As far as we can tell, the Revenue Minister didn't consult with any taxpayer, business, or farming groups, despite work having been done on this for nearly a year. Had he bothered to engage, the unfairness and political risk would have been obvious. That lapse saw the Government facing backlash because it was tax boffins who blew the whistle and it took everyone by surprise. Minister Watts should learn the lesson." 'Within hours of our campaign launch yesterday, the National Party was in damage control. Within six hours, the PM's team overruled Watts and confirmed the policy would not proceed.' The Taxpayers' Union yesterday revealed documents showing that IRD had been working on changes to remove the logbook exemption for work vehicles and impose FBT on the assumed private use of double cab utes. According to IRD's own estimates, the tax grab would have cost farmers, tradies and other ute owners $100 million per year. 'We give credit to the Prime Minister and his office for stepping in quickly and pulling the handbreak.' says Mr Williams. 'This is a clear win for taxpayers and proof that grassroots pressure works. We thank the thousands of Kiwis who used our online tool to email National MPs and demand the Ute Tax 2.0 be scrapped."
