First published in Column Eight on the 9th June, 1993.
Two rumours are doing the rounds. One has it that a computer
programmer, hoping to promote his software, recently sent a programme entitled,
‘Make Your Own Speeches,’ to the Beehive. One of the queen bees, Jenny, desperate for
help with her speech-making, threw it in her compatible and got a real buzz out
of it.
The other rumour has Mike
Moore secretly faxing his speeches out to all the other offices in the
Beehive in the hope that someone, somewhere, will listen to him. Queen Jenny,
being ultra-busy, grabs one of these and makes it the basis for her National
Party conference speech.
I suspect that latter rumour has Moore basis in reality,
since a typical piece of Moore impromptu was: ‘I don’t make promises, and those
I make, I keep.’ (Huh?)
Jenny’s conference speech went much further into cloud
cuckoo land: ‘We should not flinch from breaking the surcharge promise…to take the
tough decisions to allow New Zealand to make more money, pay more tax and
provide a better welfare society. Some people want social justice to come from
socialism. I want it to come from opportunity.’
Lots of rhetoric and not much reality.
Maybe this is foot-in-the-mouth month. An Australian
linguist recently claimed the New Zealand accent was rapidly changing. Why? Because,
when we New Zealanders saw Britain joining the Common Market, we lost
confidence in our Britishicity. Collectively we’ve instinctively felt
that we’d better start sound like New Zealanders. Huh?
According to this linguist, if you’d asked an Aussie twenty
years ago what a New Zealander sounded like he would probably have said ‘no
different.’ This linguist is obviously a baby boomer. One Kiwi member of my
family clearly remembers Australians laughing at her Kiwi accent as long ago as
the 1940s.
The spoutings of the Experts (the Spurts?) is a plague upon
all our houses. Not only do we have our own New Zealand variety –
parliamentarians – but an endless stream of overseas Spurts who manage to make
New Zealand a target for their roustabout sayings.
Fr
Robert Sirico (yes, I asked who?, too), came here on a whistle-stop tour
(or a mission from Michigan), to tell New Zealanders what to do about their
economic situation, and to discredit clergy criticism of the Government. Maybe
he’d also received one of Mike Moore’s speeches.
Fr Sirico, from Michigan, tells us that our domestic purposes
benefit subsidies divorce. To take the financial considerations out of divorce
we should scrap the benefit. A ‘free market free of government intervention’ wouldn’t
pick up the pieces, says Fr Sirico. ‘The church must assume the role of the
state in providing support for the needy.’
I thought the church was already having to do this – and barely
keeping up with the overflow.
There are days when I think it’s the way I read the papers:
do these aforementioned people only appear not to be making any sense? Are their
words misrepresented, or placed out of context?
Sometimes when reading the news I feel like citoyen of
Nancy who has been caught failing to wear his seatbelt while driving. He has a
choice of punishments – a 150 franc fine (c’est irritable!), or a
carnival-like trip in a car that rolls over and over (c’est magnifique!)
Trying to grasp some of the statements by those personages
listed above leaves my head in the same state as the rolled-over Frenchman: Dizzy
a la Gillespie.
Or alternatively, reading the news is sometimes like trying
to read in the bus on winter nights. Citibus now appears to be saving power:
the internal lights are so dim you can hardly see the bell-pull.
Or worse, it’s like trying to figure out whether the graffiti
on a billboard in Cumberland St is the beginning of a theological statement, or
the end of a philosophical one.
With the enigmatic simplicity of a speech-writing computer
program, the writer has writ: ‘I AM.’

From the French road safety campaign recommending
that men should drive like women....
This historic moment took place in 1993 when New Zealand
computer programmer and satirist Simon Kember created a software program called
‘The Politician’ (sometimes referred to as the Automatic Speech Writer) and
distributed it to members of the New Zealand Parliament.
The 1993 Speech-Writing Software
Long before the advent of modern generative AI like
ChatGPT, Kember coded a text-generation algorithm using a specialized
vocabulary. By selecting certain parameters, the software would automatically
string together political buzzwords, policy platitudes, and rhetorical filler
to generate complete, grammatically correct—yet entirely hollow—parliamentary
speeches.
Public Reception and Parliament's Reaction
Kember designed the program as a satirical critique of
the repetitive, focus-grouped, and formulaic language used by contemporary
politicians.
- The
Distribution: Kember sent floppy disks containing the program
directly to various MPs across the political spectrum.
- The
Irony: While intended as pure mockery, several parliamentarians
and their staffers reportedly admitted that the program was surprisingly
accurate and hilariously indistinguishable from real political rhetoric.
This 1993 stunt remains a legendary piece of early New
Zealand computing history, demonstrating that the anxiety—and humor—surrounding
automated political speechwriting began decades before the modern AI boom.
I’m not sure why I thought Jenny Shipley’s quoted speech was particularly unsound: compared to those we hear from the minor parties these days (the Greens at the moment are suggesting nationalising all supermarkets) it makes enough sense to sound feasible.
‘This scenario was a highly effective road safety
campaign rather than a literal ‘pay or go to jail’ criminal punishment.
In Nancy, France, local police and road safety
authorities utilized a rollover simulator (known in France as a voiture
tonneau). Drivers caught without a seatbelt were given a creative ultimatum:
they could either pay the standard 150-franc fine or agree to
experience the rollover simulator to understand why the law existed.
- The
Ultimatum: Instead of simply writing a ticket, officers gave
unbelted drivers a choice. If they chose the simulator, they would get
inside a modified, secured car cabin that safely but aggressively rotated
360 degrees on an axis.
- The
Goal: The exercise was designed to vividly demonstrate the
violent forces of a crash. Experiencing how difficult it was to stay
positioned—even at a slow, controlled rotation—convinced many drivers that
they would be severely injured or thrown from the vehicle in a real
accident.
- The
Outcome: Most drivers chose the simulator over paying the fine,
and the shocking physical experience proved far more memorable and
educational than a standard traffic ticket.’







