MinterEllisonRuddWatts

Send us your feedback
Technology partners Tom Maasland and Kate Cruickshank host our special three-episode series of Tech Suite, marking New Zealand Techweek26.
In this final episode, Tom Maasland is joined by, Chelsea Gordon, the Legal Lead of MinterEllison Australia's AI Advisory practice to discuss how organisations should approach AI governance to navigate the evolving risks and opportunities of AI adoption.
[01:15] Tom and Chelsea explain why strong governance is essential in a fast moving AI landscape. Drawing on historical analogies, they illustrate how good governance doesn’t slow innovation but instead enables it to be safer, more effective and ultimately faster.
[03:40] Chelsea and Tom consider the differences in regulatory approaches to AI between jurisdictions, and what lessons New Zealand can take from Australia’s approach. Chelsea explains by way of a healthcare use case, how clearer regulatory positions can actually speed up adoption by reducing uncertainty.
[07:04] They discuss recent shifts in Australia’s approach to AI transparency, including a move away from mandatory transparency requirements towards more voluntary frameworks. Chelsea outlines the current obligations applying to government entities in Australia, contrasting these with expectations for non government organisations.
[08:38] Chelsea mentions Australia’s cautious public sentiment toward AI, observing that while trust in this type of technology is gradually improving, it remains highly brand dependent. She also highlights the risk that employees may turn to unsanctioned AI tools if organisations do not provide approved and trusted alternatives.
[11:52] Tom and Chelsea examine how organisational AI governance conversations have evolved over time, which Chelsea noting the biggest shifts she has observed; AI is now recognised as a board-level strategic issue, governance is understood as an ongoing process rather than a one-time exercise, and AI literacy is steadily improving, though agents and emerging technologies mean frameworks must keep evolving.
[16:43] Chelsea talks through the key elements of a robust governance framework, such as named accountability, multidisciplinary teams, risk categorisation, a strong AI register, and clear guidance for staff, emphasising that the framework must be built to flex as the technology changes.
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 4 May, 2026.
 
Please contact Tom Maasland, Chelsea Gordon or our Technology team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.
 
Additional resources 
Chelsea Gordon - AI Advisory Legal Lead, Sydney - MinterEllison
Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 – Parliament of Australia
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
Technology partners Tom Maasland and Kate Cruickshank host this special three-episode series of Tech Suite, marking New Zealand Techweek26.
In this second episode, Kate Cruickshank is joined by John-Daniel (JD) Trask, co founder and CEO of software solutions company Raygun and agentic AI automation platform Autohive, to discuss how to drive tech-led productivity growth in New Zealand.
[00:59] Kate and JD discuss why New Zealand’s long standing productivity challenge isn’t necessarily about lacking access to technology, but about cultural settings, mindset, and execution. JD argues the real gap lies between having the tech tools available and fundamentally rethinking how work gets done using those tools.
[02:32] JD explains that AI is changing the “physics” of organisations, requiring a fundamental rethink of structures, roles, and information flows, far beyond a simple efficiency uplift.
[04:03] They consider why companies that succeed with AI take a hands on, AI native approach early, embrace experimentation, and avoid the fear of making mistakes. JD explains why starting small now is preferable and why focusing on “hero projects” can create unnecessary risk.
[07:07] Kate and JD discuss Raygun’s decision to pause business as usual for a week to immerse the whole company in AI experimentation, noting that through building real agents and automating disliked tasks, teams developed confidence, identified use cases, and created grassroots momentum for AI adoption.
[10:00] JD discusses how AI driven productivity compounded over time, culminating in a dramatic increase in output by 2025. These experiences led to the creation of Autohive, designed to move teams beyond individual AI tools toward shared agents, with greater visibility, return on investment tracking, and enterprise ready AI processes.
[13:21] Kate queries how global approaches to AI regulation are shaping innovation and they discuss whether New Zealand’s lighter touch settings have helped or hindered companies scaling AI internationally.
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 11 May 2026.
 
Please contact Kate Cruickshank or our Technology team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.
 
Additional resources
Autohive
Raygun
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
Technology partners Tom Maasland and Kate Cruickshank host this special three-episode series of Tech Suite, marking New Zealand Techweek26. They will explore how the Techweek26 pillars; foundations, growth, and governance are shaping New Zealand's tech ecosystem.
In this opening episode, Tom Maasland is joined by Susana Tomaz, Programme Lead for Day of AI Aotearoa New Zealand and Director of Futures and AI Strategy at Westlake Girls' High School, for a compelling conversation on the foundational role education plays in building New Zealand's AI capability.
[00:30] Tom and Susana reflect on Tech New Zealand’s Tech and Innovation Manifesto 2026 and it’s call to strengthen foundations to unlock future productivity, growth, and high value jobs in the tech sector and how education sits at the very heart of New Zealand’s AI capability and this call to action.
[02:28] Susana shares her learnings from classrooms, school leadership, and global AI initiatives, highlighting that while students are already using AI extensively, adoption without structured capability, ethical grounding, and consistency creates real risks.
[03:56] They discuss how New Zealand compares internationally on AI in education, with Susana explaining why countries like Singapore and Australia are ahead due to planned, strategic, system level frameworks, and how New Zealand risks falling behind without similar governance in place.
[06:47] Susana considers what New Zealand is doing well, including strong engagement from school leaders and encouraging uptake in the Day of AI Aotearoa programme, while also warning that a lack of national governance and support structures could create inequity and an AI divide between educational institutions.
[09:46] Tom talks about the broader innovation ecosystem, linking education to New Zealand tech success stories such as Halter and Rocket Lab.  They consider how fear, uncertainty, and inconsistent guidance around AI can stifle creativity, experimentation, and talent retention.
[15:49] The episode closes with Susana outlining some immediate government actions she believes are needed, making the case for adopting foundational AI literacy programmes such as the Day of AI Aotearoa across all NZ schools, while building the governance frameworks required for a consistent and equitable systems approach.
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 5 May, 2026.
 
Please contact Tom Maasland or our Technology team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.
 
Additional resources
Susana Tomaz | LinkedIn
Tech New Zealand Tech & Innovation Manifesto 2026 - Tech New Zealand
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Partner Gillian Service and Senior Associate Joshua Kimpton explore New Zealand’s employment law change and how it borrows from concepts in Australia. They are joined by MinterEllison Sydney Partner Gordon Williams to draw on insights from the Australian market.
[00:04] Gillian is joined by Joshua in Auckland and Gordon from Sydney to provide an Australian perspective. Joshua outlines the core features of the new legislation, including the NZD200,000 specified remuneration threshold and the statutory mechanism for future annual increases.
[02:28] Gillian highlights the limited change to good faith obligations, explaining where employers are released from consultation requirements and where broader good faith duties still apply.
[03:45] Gordon shares Australia’s long standing experience with a high income threshold, noting how it operates in practice and why unfair dismissal remains a key risk consideration for employers.
[06:18] The discussion turns to alternative claims such as adverse action and general protections, with Gordon explaining how employees often pursue these claims when unfair dismissal is unavailable.
[11:27] Gillian and Gordon explore how employers manage termination risk for high income employees, including performance management, restructures, and negotiated exits.
[15:37] Gordon explains how Australia sets and updates its high income threshold, what counts toward earnings, and where grey areas can arise, particularly around benefits and part time work.
[19:33] The conversation compares New Zealand’s ability to contract back into the personal grievance regime with Australia’s system and considers how market dynamics and recruitment pressures may influence employer choices
[24:59] The episode concludes with reflections on policies, Privacy Act requests, documentation risks, and the ongoing importance of good faith under the new high-income threshold regime. 
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 19 March 2026.
 
Please contact Gillian Service, Joshua Kimpton or our Employment team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here. 
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode of the Election 2026 podcast series, Solicitor Michael O’Brien is joined by Partner Briony Davies and Senior Associate Mark Calderwood to discuss the rules and risks around government advertising in an election year. Their discussion explores why government funded advertising attracts heightened scrutiny during election periods, how it differs from political advertising, where the relevant rules come from, and why drawing the line between legitimate public information and electioneering can be difficult in practice.
[01:08] Mark explains why government advertising matters in an election context, referencing the 2006 Auditor General’s report into pre-election advertising and the ongoing sensitivity around taxpayer funded communications that may border on electioneering.
[02:37] Briony discusses the fine line between government advertising and political advertising, particularly in an election year, and why crossing that line can attract legal and public scrutiny. She highlights recent examples of controversial government advertising.
[04:37] Mark outlines the distinction between election advertisements and government advertisements and introduces the long standing Cabinet Office guidance on government advertising that continues to apply across modern advertising platforms. The guidance is focused on advertising by government and Parliament, rather than political parties or election advertising, which will be addressed in future episodes in the series.
[07:00] Briony explains where the rules come from, identifying three main sources of public funding for advertising; departmental funding, parliamentary funding, and ministerial office funding. She notes departmental advertising and the requirement for political neutrality, including the role of Public Service Commission guidance and Cabinet Office guidelines.
[09:00] Mark explains rules and risks relating to advertising by government departments, including the limits imposed by codes of conduct and the expectation that public funds are not used for political purposes. He discusses why these rules exist, highlighting concerns about public trust, transparency, and the risk of unfair electoral advantage for incumbent governments.
[11:33] Michael asks Briony and Mark about historical pledge card controversies, illustrating the long standing tension between parliamentary communication and electioneering. They outline when government advertising is appropriate, including informing the public about policies and services, advising of rights and obligations, and encouraging behaviours in the public interest.
[15:39] Mark and Briony explain what should be avoided in government advertising, including emotive slogans, politically charged language, and messaging aligned with party branding. They identify election year dynamics, explaining why the pre-election period requires heightened caution and restraint in advertising activity.
[18:38] Michael asks when election-related caution is likely to kick in. Mark and Briony discuss the three month pre-election period convention, when government advertising is typically scaled back, and why there is often less need for policy focused advertising during that time.
[20:21] Michael asks about different rules relating to publicity being published by MPs using parliamentary fudning. Mark and Briony explain parliamentary advertising, outlining key rules under the Speaker’s Directions, including the requirement that advertising be for a parliamentary purpose and not amount to electioneering.
[22:33] The ho
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts