The minutes for each meeting of the Data Ethics Advisory Group from 2026, grouped by date, are summarised here.
Meeting summaries from 2019 to 2022
Members: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Andrew Sporle, Jonathan Godfrey, Jonathan Kilgour, Russell Craig, Will Koning
Apologies: Kate O’Connor
Attendees: Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI), Stats NZ
Presenter: New Zealand Transport Agency representatives
Meeting opening and standing items
The Chair noted the apologies. A member excused themselves from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
DEAG discussed the ethical considerations associated with connected vehicle technology, including Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS). It was noted that these systems enable communication between vehicles, road infrastructure and other road users, with the potential to improve road safety and traffic flow.
The presenter explained that international studies indicate connected vehicle technology could help mitigate crashes and support safer transport outcomes. They added that, while no related policies had yet been developed in New Zealand, the discussion was intended to seek early ethical guidance as international adoption increases. It was clarified that Connected and Automated Vehicles were not in scope.
DEAG members acknowledged the potential public benefits of the technology, including improved safety for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and vulnerable road users. Members also noted the importance of considering infrastructure-to-vehicle communication and comparable use cases, such as railway crossings.
Members emphasised that privacy, consent, transparency and public trust would be central to any future use of connected vehicle data. They raised concerns about the potential to identify individuals by combining multiple datasets, such as vehicle, cellphone or licence plate information, and highlighted the need to manage risks of government surveillance or unintended secondary use.
DEAG advised that any future approach should clearly define the purpose, limits and safeguards for data collection and use. Members supported principles such as collecting only what is necessary, using de-identified information where possible, ensuring data is ‘as open as possible and as closed as necessary’, and providing clear justification for decisions and actions.
Members also discussed the need to build and maintain social licence. This includes meaningful public consultation, informed consent, transparent communication about benefits and risks, and proactive guardrails to prevent function creep, such as use of the technology for purposes beyond safety.
Māori data considerations and personal data sovereignty were identified as important areas for further work. Members advised that the technology should not be mandatory in the New Zealand context, while noting that broad public participation might be needed to realise safety benefits.
DEAG recommended beginning with a ‘worst case scenario’ assessment to identify what could go wrong, then developing legal, policy and technical safeguards to prevent unacceptable outcomes. Members also suggested learning from existing safeguards in other data contexts, including the governance of secondary use of administrative data.
The presenter noted there was no government commitment to progress the technology at the time. DEAG offered further support to help NZTA consider how connected vehicle technology could be explored in a way that protects privacy, supports public trust and enables innovation with confidence.
The meeting ended with a karakia.
Members: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Jonathan Godfrey, Jonathan Kilgour, Kate O’Connor, Russell Craig, Will Koning
Apologies: Andrew Sporle
Presenters: Stats NZ representatives
Meeting opening and standing items
The Chair noted the apologies.
CDEI noted that work, which started last year, had focused on creating a data ethics framework centred on human values to enhance ethical decision-making, act as a connecter to other established frameworks (e.g., Ngā Tikanga Paihere), and to provide accessible upskilling, engagement and transparency. Presenters sought DEAG’s feedback on the framework before presenting it to the Stats NZ Strategic Governance Board for their approval in late May.
Presenters noted some data ethics harms:
The DEAG members reflected on the Data Futures Work NZ and its current relevance and usability. They discussed how this framework could stay relevant long-term, being an ongoing conversation, rather than one and done.
CDEI provided an overview of the HVDE framework on how data collection and use might impact individuals and communities, helping organisations to pause, question and discuss in order to surface ethical impacts early and make them more visible. They noted the framework was focused on developing guidance shaped by a set of human values, designed to be wide rather than deep, to enable uplift to ethical capability, removal of silos and ethical use of data.
CDEI presented the core six values that uphold the framework (including what they encapsulate), which cross- reference to other guidance (e.g., DPUP, Ngā Tikanga Paihere) and each other:
CDEI and DEAG discussed that values could be toggled, but making clear when they are applied with careful judgement. DEAG advised being practical about values in different contexts as some might have more weight than others.
DEAG supported the framework, raising the need for a balanced approach to honouring individual and collective worldviews to avoid weaponizing of processes.
CDEI noted that some practical steps to introduce the HVDE framework had already been taken at Stats NZ, however, a structural approach to rolling out the framework would still be needed to create a baseline of ethical literacy by:
DEAG advised asking if legislation or government policy required to be unethical, noting the framework would structurally address issues for targeted communities with importance of involving their authorities. DEAG noted a learning system would be needed to address gaps and enable feedback loops, as well as support from the data ethics authorities. DEAG advised that the framework was ready to be implemented, suggesting inclusion of case studies and looking at relevant jurisdictions.
The meeting ended with a karakia.
Advisory Group Members: Professor Colin Simpson (Chair), Andrew Sporle, Russell Craig, Kate O’Connor, Will Koning, Jonathan Kilgour
Apologies: Jonathan Godfrey
Attendees: Social Investment Agency, Stats NZ
Facilitators: Stats NZ representatives
The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation facilitated a workshop with the Data Ethics Advisory Group (DEAG) and the Social Investment Agency (SIA) to explore ethical considerations across the social investment approach. Participants discussed the importance of doing good while doing no harm, how to build genuine partnerships with communities, support informed consent, and ensure people understand how their data will be used. The group highlighted the importance of trust, transparency, and social licence throughout commissioning, data collection, analysis, and use of insights.
Across the stages of the social investment approach, participants identified areas where ethical guidance and support would be valuable. These included improving transparency about data use and quality, addressing potential bias, and ensuring communities are involved in shaping measurements and interpreting findings. The workshop also highlighted the value of independent peer review and evaluation to strengthen trust and quality.
The group emphasised a need for learning systems that support safe, transparent, and adaptable approaches. This included involving service users in oversight, publishing insights safely, creating feedback loops to improve practice over time, and driving system change. DEAG members discussed ways they could support this work, including linking SIA with experts to assist with peer review and evaluation.