Where does education sit in your local candidates’ positions on AI? Have you asked?
In my first post, I suggested a way of reading the headlines: ask what has actually been committed to, by whom, and how it would be verified. This post applies the same test to governments. Statements are cheap, but institutions cost money and staff, and somebody has to be accountable for them. So rather than listening to what leaders say about AI, we should look at what they’ve built.
What others are building
Across the ditch, Australia established an Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in July 2026, to coordinate a national framework and lead mandatory standards, with enabling legislation planned for early 2027. That’s a different body from its AI Safety Institute, which sits in the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and monitors and tests frontier models. One sets policy and the other builds technical understanding, and the two work together. Australia’s framework also names education among the areas it will coordinate, which is more than most.
Australia isn’t alone. The UK has its AI Security Institute and the EU has its AI Office. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Canada and France joined Australia, the UK, the US and the EU as founding members of an International Network of AI Safety Institutes. These bodies differ in form and power, and I’m not claiming any of them is perfect. The point is that these governments decided someone should be paid to look.
The United States is the interesting exception, and the picture there isn’t simple. It chaired that network’s launch, and its president now calls the fears a hoax. Yet Congress is negotiating bipartisan bills on frontier risk, so even there the argument is far from settled.
Where New Zealand sits
New Zealand has so far stayed on the sidelines. The 2025 AI Strategy focuses more on reducing barriers to adoption than on regulation, and the Prime Minister’s recent message has been that we’re missing a big opportunity by adopting too slowly. He has also said the opportunities outweigh the dangers, while acknowledging the need for oversight and talking about working with like-minded partners on regulatory frameworks. That’s a considered position, and it isn’t the same as having no view – but not the position I’d be taking. It’s light-touch, and it leaves us with few structures for convening the kind of expertise other countries are gathering.
With the election on 7 November, I’ve been scanning what the various parties are starting to offer here and how they differ:
- Labour would establish an Office of AI within DPMC to coordinate New Zealand’s approach, set standards for responsible use and plan for workforce effects. It would also expand the scope of an online safety regulator.
- The Greens have called for a one-year moratorium on new AI data centres until proper rules are in place. The Prime Minister has said such a moratorium would send the wrong message to investors.
- National relies on the AI Strategy and existing public service frameworks rather than a new body.
- Te Pāti Māori has taken a firm stance that any use of AI must be guided by tikanga and Māori data sovereignty.
- ACT and NZ First appear to have no comprehensive AI policy of their own at this stage.
You don’t have to agree with any of these. What matters is that they reflect very different answers to a basic question: who, if anyone, is charged with looking into our national response?
Why this matters to us
An office or an institute may be a useful start point, but it isn’t a cure. It could be set up and never look at education at all. That’s the risk for us. Without doubt we need guard rails and policy to guide responsible use. But these alone will not be effective without a concerted effort to ensure our population is well enough informed and educated to ensure we keep ourselves safe and not relying on externally mandated ‘rules’.
Education is a huge part of a country’s future and a small part of most national AI conversations, and unless someone in our sector speaks up, we’ll be a footnote in whatever framework emerges.
Whoever forms the next government, the sector should be asking to be part of the conversation from the start, not consulted at the end. That means principals’ and teachers’ associations, boards, and the people who work with young people every day. Other countries are gathering experts to work out what they must do. We should be making sure educators are among them.
Something to think about
- Where does education sit in your local candidates’ positions on AI? Have you asked them?
- How are you keeping yourself informed about these issues – and your staff, parents, community?
In the final post, I’ll turn to the part of this conversation I think matters most: the children in our schools, and the decisions we’re making about them right now.
Further Reading:
- Reading the headlines – Part 1 in this series
- Lead like a wayfinder – and AI policy framework for education leaders and school boards
- AI, Education and the future we choose – a post based on webinar with Rebecca Winthrop, introducing the notion of a ‘pre-mortem’
