evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand — a Voluntary Government-Wide Commitment, Independently Reviewed

New Zealand · Wellington · See the New Zealand profile · See the Wellington profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 74% 47/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Launched 28 July 2020 by Stats NZ with 21 founding agencies, the Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand grew to 28 signatories by its Sept 2022 independent review — which found broad support for its principles but rated implementation 'OK, could do better.'

21
Founding signatory agencies (28 July 2020)
28
Signatory agencies at independent review (September 2022)
24
Practical improvements recommended (September 2022)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Stats NZ (Statistics New Zealand)
Period
2020–present
Keywords
digital government, AI governance, public sector ethics, policy design

Context

The Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand was launched on 28 July 2020 by then-Minister of Statistics Hon James Shaw, led by Stats NZ, as a voluntary, government-wide commitment on the use of algorithms in public decision-making. Twenty-one agencies signed at launch, including the Department of Corrections, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Justice, Inland Revenue, Oranga Tamariki and the New Zealand Defence Force.

Objectives

Get signatory agencies to explain how decisions are informed by algorithms, embed a Te Ao Maori perspective, and operate algorithms 'in a fair, ethical, and transparent way.'

Activities

By the charter's independent review, published September 2022, signatories had grown to 28 agencies, including the New Zealand Police.

Results

The review found 'almost universal support' for the charter's principles, but rated implementation 'OK, could do better.' It reported that most agencies feel there is a gap between the charter's high-level principles and concrete compliance practice; that citizens have 'very little opportunity' for individual recourse on algorithm-informed decisions; and that agencies identified 'a lack of a clear oversight body' and had resorted to self-monitoring. It recommended establishing a dedicated oversight function alongside 24 practical improvements.

Conclusions

As a voluntary, non-legislative charter, it remains an early, high-profile case of public-sector AI governance - but its own independent review shows the gap between signing a set of principles and having the institutional machinery to enforce them.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years)
Staffing & skills
Stats NZ charter secretariat, Participating agency staff across 28 signatory agencies

Conditions for success

  • Voluntary but government-wide sign-on across a broad range of agencies
  • An independent review mechanism to surface implementation gaps
  • Embedding a defined cultural framework (Te Ao Maori perspective) into commitments

Common failure modes

  • Gap between high-level principles and concrete compliance practice, per the review's own participating agencies
  • 'Very little opportunity' for individual recourse on algorithm-informed decisions
  • Lack of a clear oversight body, leading agencies to self-monitor
  • Capability gaps for evaluating bias and ensuring effective human oversight

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful