The introduction of automated decision-making (ADM) in New Zealand’s welfare system has raised significant concerns among legal experts and social service organizations. In 2022, the ministry finalized Ministerial standards for ADM. These standards were intended to simplify welfare administrative processes while promoting the principles of transparency and accountability. Civil rights advocates fear that this technology will contribute to dangerous miscalculations and result in penalizing the innocent. They’re calling it an Australian-style Robodebt scheme.
In 2022, MSD used ADM to issue an automatic winter energy subsidy to more than 858,000 individuals. This streamlined approach saved the equivalent of nearly 600 full-time employees working for eight weeks on the project. The New Zealand government has launched this trial as part of a broader effort to lower reliance on Jobseeker payments. They want to push all able-bodied beneficiaries on to work by 2030. Now the ministry is increasing the use of ADM to review welfare benefits renewals. Yet fears over accuracy and bias are increasingly mounting.
The Role of Automated Decision-Making
Automated decision-making is an umbrella term for many different computerized systems that help or replace human judgment through algorithms and rules-based processes. The ostensible benefit of the technology is increased efficiency and a diminished burden on human welfare administrators. Its use in particularly sensitive areas such as welfare opens up grave ethical questions. Can these systems really understand the nuance of human situations?
Critics firmly point out that automated systems cannot produce the ideal evaluative judgement in recognizing what a person needs at any given time. “It is unclear how automated systems are intended to accurately and appropriately operate where evaluative judgement is required,” a concerned observer stated.
In addition, it’s difficult for the mindless wand to be aware of or navigate the intricacies families experience in their unique situations. A source emphasized, “It actually takes human oversight to be able to understand the context and the complexities of where families are coming from.” Absent such oversight, we run the risk of further alienating our most vulnerable populations.
Concerns from Legal Experts and Advocacy Groups
Legal experts and advocacy groups alike are raising the alarm against the Social Security Amendment Bill. This bill includes sweeping provisions that would outlaw the use of ADM. The New Zealand Law Society recently called for more transparency in the use of automated systems. They too want to see greater accountability in determining eligibility for welfare programs.
Melissa Gill from MSD reassured critics by stating, “MSD’s ADM Standard includes additional requirements for the use of complex algorithms.” She further elaborated that these requirements ensure more robust oversight while algorithms are being developed and trained. They center privacy, human rights, and ethical considerations in design before deployment.
Even with these guarantees in place, the Salvation Army has expressed concern about increased automation. They pointed to previous episodes where miscalculations hurt clients’ negatively experienced clients’ losses. Ana Ika, an advocate for social justice, remarked, “Introducing additional layers on top of the complexities that are already there in the welfare system will just push people more into hardship.”
Government’s Position on Welfare Reform
The New Zealand government is firmly committed to changing the direction of its welfare system. As part of this work, they have committed to supporting 50,000 more Australians through Jobseeker payments into jobs by 2030. Then Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upton underscored the importance of getting beneficiaries who could work working. She challenged them all to make the necessary moves to go back to work.
“It’s important that beneficiaries who can work are taking reasonable steps to re-enter the workforce or remain work-ready, and that consequences exist for those who don’t,” Upton stated. Critics say the legislation would do more to erect barriers than improve access to jobs.
Melissa Gill reiterated that “Any decision to decline a benefit will always be made by a staff member,” assuring that there are no plans to change this protocol in light of ADM implementation. Skeptics have long raised alarms over automated systems. They fear that over-reliance on these technologies can erode human discretion and introduce inequitable outcomes for recipients.
