RETURN TO ALL
While democratic systems formally rest on principles of equality and representation, the practical reality has often been quite different. For much of modern democratic history, “having the ear of government” was a scarce and unevenly distributed resource. Influence clustered around those with proximity to power, institutional standing, financial capacity, and the expertise needed to navigate complex policy environments.
Artificial intelligence is beginning to disrupt that model. It is doing so quietly, not by rewriting democratic rules or formal processes, but by lowering the practical barriers that have long limited who could participate effectively in policy-making.
Influence requires more than opinion. It depends on understanding policy settings, framing arguments in ways decision-makers can use, marshalling evidence, responding within tight consultation windows, and sustaining engagement over time. Historically, these tasks demanded specialist knowledge and significant resources. They were the domain of policy teams, professional lobbyists, or external consultants.
AI now performs many of these functions at speed and at low cost. Community organisations, advocacy groups, small businesses, and individuals can analyse legislation, track regulatory developments, draft submissions and policy briefs, and test the implications of proposed reforms. Relationships, credibility, and standing still matter, and always will. But tasks that previously depended on teams of policy analysts or external consultants can increasingly be undertaken by individuals with knowledge and access to the right tools. This shifts power away from institutional gatekeepers and towards those with lived experience, practical insight, or emerging perspectives.
The impact is most visible in consultation processes, and it is measurable. In New Zealand, the scale of public submissions has increased dramatically in just a few years. Where 10,000 to 20,000 submissions were once considered exceptionally high, recent processes have seen numbers that would previously have been unthinkable. The recent Treaty Principles Bill attracted more than 300,000 submissions. Compare that to the prior 3-year parliamentary term that received some 200,000 submissions in total, or the term prior which received only 100,000 submissions.
This growth is not limited to headline-grabbing issues. Even narrow or technical consultations now attract levels of engagement that would once have been rare. A recent census-related consultation, for example, received several hundred submissions within a short timeframe, indicating broader participation across policy areas of varying public profile.
These figures point to a wider shift. Democratic engagement is expanding not only in volume, but in the diversity of participants. Social media and digital engagement can now cost-effectively drive awareness. Tools powered by large language models help people interpret dense policy documents, identify the issues that matter most to them, and produce coherent, targeted submissions. What once took days of research can now be done in hours. What once required specialist intermediaries can now be achieved with widely accessible tools.
Governments are having to adapt. In New Zealand and other jurisdictions, AI is already being trialled to help process, summarise, and categorise submissions at scale. These tools are becoming essential in managing volumes that traditional workflows were never designed to handle.
There are risks. AI can amplify misinformation, generate volume without insight, and strain institutional capacity. Democratised access does not automatically produce wiser outcomes. Governments will need to refine how they assess input, prioritising substance over polish and maintaining human judgement at the centre of decision-making.
Even so, the direction of travel is clear. AI is redistributing access to influence by lowering entry costs and reducing reliance on intermediaries. It does not flatten power entirely, but it reshapes it — offering a real opportunity to strengthen democratic practice and broaden whose voices are heard in the policy process.