Ombudsman warns humans need to make final call on redactions made by an AI bot

Thursday, 2 April 2026

The Ombudsman’s office says weighing up whether information is redacted or provided to the public needs to be done by a human, not an AI tool.

The comments follow plans from the New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) which is looking at introducing an AI software that could assist with automatically identifying and redacting anything protected by legal professional privilege or that is commercially sensitive.

Any system would require council staff checks and confirmation redactions were correct, the council told The Post.

The Official Information Act (OIA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) are two laws which allow the public to ask central and local government agencies for information. .

Read more:

• BSA claims jurisdiction to cover complaint about Sean Plunket’s The Platform

• $110k dog fight: Council defends legal bill over off-leash walking decision

• Peters' ‘promising’ visit to the Cook Islands, will it mend a rift in the realm?

Under those acts information was sometimes partially released which meant sections of the documents requested were blacked out or redacted due to legal reasons.

This was often due to commercial sensitivity or private details but there were a range of other reasons information could be redacted.

Recently NPDC put out a tender for an “AI-based document redaction tool”.

The Post followed up with the council about the software, and its risk and integrity manager Liesa Patel said if it was introduced it would be used to speed up its procedures.

“We are seeing a growing number of large and complex official information requests and are looking at ways to streamline the process so that requesters get information as quickly as possible.”

Patel said the council was exploring tools that could assist with automatically identifying and redacting anything protected by legal professional privilege, or which was commercially sensitive.

“Any system we use would still involve council staff reviewing, checking and confirming that all redactions are correct and meet the requirements of the act.”

The Ombudsman is an independent office which has the ability to investigate Government agencies and can check whether redactions made under the LGOIMA and OIA are fair.

An Ombudsman spokesperson told The Post the handling of information requests which included weighing up the need to withhold information “inevitably required human judgment”.

“Human review of any relevant decision making, and good record keeping of what has been done, should be built into the process.

“AI is a tool and, like any other tool, should be deployed with thought and care.”

The spokesperson said AI may help meet one of the purposes of the act which was to increase the availability of information.

“This is because it may save time, free up resources and make the information available to a requester more quickly.”

AI was being used by some agencies to search, retrieve and summarise but the Ombudsman was not aware of any agencies using it to make decisions on information requests, they said.

The Public Service Commission sets the standards for government agencies.

It told The Post that it was also not aware of redaction tools being used for OIA and LGOIMA requests but emphasised it was essential that human oversight and decision-making remained integral to any process which involved AI.

“This ensures that critical decisions (particularly those affecting individuals) are reviewed, validated, and informed by human judgment and expertise, safeguarding transparency and public trust.”