If We Could Understand What They’re Doing
Published: 1 November 2025 | Version: v1.0
Imagine if every bill introduced in Parliament came with a scaffold—not just a title and a clause, but a decomposable overlay that told us:
• 🧭 Why this bill exists
• 🧶 Who asked for it
• 🧩 What alternatives were considered
• 🧠 What laws already exist
• 🎯 What outcome it’s trying to achieve
• 🔁 How it will be reviewed or recalibrated
Because in a digital world, we can’t implement grey logic. We can’t code ambiguity. We need logic, scaffolds, and traceable intent.
⚠️ The Real Frustration: Vague Laws in a Digital Age
🧠 1. Digital Systems Require Binary Logic
You can’t code “interpretation” into payroll software or civic dashboards.
Systems need decomposable rules: If X, then Y. Not Maybe, depending on context.
📉 2. Vague Laws Create Delivery Drift
The Holidays Act is a prime example—ambiguous definitions of “entitlement,” “average weekly earnings,” and “otherwise working day” led to years of miscalculations.
Agencies spent millions on audits, rewrites, and legal advice—because the law couldn’t be implemented cleanly.
🧩 3. Citizens Aren’t Lawyers
Most people don’t have the time, training, or resources to interpret legislative nuance.
When laws are vague, they create fear, confusion, and inequity—especially for small businesses, educators, and community leaders.
📜 It Could Look Like This:
A Refusal-Coded Bill Template (Speculative Draft)
Date Introduced: 1 November 2025
Version: v1.0 – Initial Draft
Title: The Digital Safety and Whānau Support Bill
Intent: To protect tamariki from digital harm and support whānau navigating online exposure
Consultation: Shaped through kōrero with parents, iwi, educators, and youth advocates.
Toolset: Age verification, digital literacy programs, platform audits, whānau dashboards.
Alternatives Considered: Blanket bans (rejected), parental control apps (deferred), industry-led gating (included).
Legislative Context: Builds on the Harmful Digital Communications Act and Privacy Act. This bill extends protections without duplicating existing provisions.
Outcome Logic: Measured by reduction in harm, increased whānau engagement, platform compliance.
Review Clause: 12-month milestone with opt-in feedback and amendment pathways.
Amendment Logic and Civic Memory:
This bill is designed to be amendable. Future lawmakers can trace its original intent, community scaffolds, and constraints (e.g., technologies like deepfakes were not yet mainstream). If new risks emerge, this framework allows for targeted updates without full rewrites.
Versioning ensures that each amendment is traceable, with archived rationale and consultation overlays.
🧠 Why This Matters—Now and 20 Years From Now
Because when someone asks “Don’t we already have a law for this?”, they should be able to find it.
They should be able to see what it was trying to do, what was considered, and whether it simply needs an amendment—not a full rewrite.
Because when someone asks “Why did they write this?”, they should be able to trace the civic grief, the community kōrero, and the constraints of the time.
Much like deepfakes didn’t exist when laws protecting against porn were written—context matters. Memory matters.
🖥️ Templates as Civic Infrastructure
Refusal-coded templates aren’t just about clarity—they’re about digital consistency, searchability, and enforceability.
• Fields can be mandatory or optional, forcing drafters to clarify intent, consultation, and outcome logic.
• Templates can be digitally captured, making legislation searchable, comparable, and auditable.
• Over time, these templates could feed into public dashboards—showing:
• What the bill set out to do
• What tools were deployed
• What outcomes have been achieved
• What amendments have been made—and why
Imagine a dashboard that shows, in plain language, what each law has delivered since it passed. Not just what it said—but what it did. That’s how we build trust. That’s how we show people what they’re paying for.
🧭 Civic Dashboard Prototype
Bill: The Digital Safety and Whānau Support Act
Introduced: 1 November 2025
Version: v1.0
Review Milestone: 1 November 2026
🎯 Outcome Tracking
📉 Reduction in Harm
Metric: Reported incidents of online harm among under-16s
• Source: Netsafe, school counsellor reports, police referrals
• Baseline (2025): 3,200 incidents/year
• Current (2026): 2,450 incidents/year
• Change: ↓ 23.4%
• Status: 🟢 On track
🧑🤝🧑 Increased Whānau Engagement
Metric: Uptake of whānau digital literacy tools and dashboard logins
• Source: Ministry of Education, community hub analytics
• Baseline (2025): 12% of eligible whānau engaged
• Current (2026): 38% engaged
• Change: ↑ 216%
• Status: 🟢 Surpassed target
🧩 Platform Compliance
Metric: Platforms implementing age verification and design audits
• Source: DIA audits, platform self-reporting, NGO watchdogs
• Baseline (2025): 2 of 10 major platforms compliant
• Current (2026): 7 of 10 compliant
• Change: ↑ 250%
• Status: 🟡 Partial compliance
🔁 Amendment Pathways
• Community Feedback Portal: 1,200 submissions logged
• Suggested Amendments:
• Expand protections to under-18s
• Include AI-generated content filters
• Improve dashboard accessibility for low-literacy users
🧠 Legislative Memory
• Original Intent: Protect tamariki, support whānau, hold platforms accountable
• Constraints at Introduction:
• Deepfake tech not yet mainstream
• Limited platform cooperation
• Low baseline digital literacy
This isn’t about telling MPs what to do. It’s about modeling what civic clarity could look like—if we refused vague mandates and built legislation that lands with outcome logic, community scaffolds, and decomposable delivery.
Legislation should be legible—not just now, but for future generations.
A refusal-coded template becomes a civic archive. A digital scaffold. A traceable map of intent, context, and recalibration.
These are the voyages of Random Circuits, boldly entering the arena of ideas that disrupt, challenge, and transform.
