Dear Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to the US "Management of Individuals’ Neural Data Act of 2025" (MIND Act), introduced in the US Senate on or around 24 September 2025 by Senators Maria Cantwell, Chuck Schumer, and Edward Markey. This bill directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish privacy standards for neural data collected via neurotechnology (e.g., brain-computer interfaces), emphasizing consent, transparency, security, and prohibitions on unauthorized government collection of brain activity data.

The MIND Act arises amid growing concerns over the privacy risks of emerging technologies that interface with the human brain, potentially including wireless-enabled devices. In a New Zealand context, this raises questions about alignment with our Privacy Act 2020, digital innovation strategies, and oversight of radiofrequency (RFR)/electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures under standards like NZS 2772.1:1999, particularly as neurotech may intersect with 5G/smart meter ecosystems.

Please provide:

Any internal briefings, Cabinet papers, or policy advice generated by MBIE (or interagency correspondence with the Privacy Commissioner, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, or Electricity Authority) since 1 January 2024 regarding the MIND Act, including:

Assessments of its implications for NZ privacy laws or neurotechnology regulation.
Discussions on adopting similar safeguards for neural data in NZ (e.g., consent requirements for BCI data collection).

Records of any public-sector-funded research grants, funding calls, or reports commissioned by MBIE aimed at investigating privacy risks, health effects, or ethical standards for neural data collection via neurotech, including recipients, abstracts, and final reports (2015–2025).

Any advice papers or risk evaluations on the integration of neural data technologies with existing NZ infrastructure (e.g., smart meters, 5G networks), including cost-benefit analyses or comparative risks to consumer privacy and health.

Copies of correspondence between MBIE and US counterparts (e.g., FTC, Senate Commerce Committee) or international bodies (e.g., OECD, Five Eyes partners) relating to the MIND Act or global neural data governance.

If any part of this information is withheld, please state the exact grounds under the OIA (specifying the subsection) and explain the public interest test applied under section 9(1). Please respond electronically within the statutory timeframe.

This request is made in the public interest to promote transparency on how NZ is preparing for neurotechnology's privacy challenges, especially given the MIND Act's focus on protecting brain data from exploitation.

Kind regards.
Spencer Jones

Subject: Follow-Up on OIA Ref DOIA-REQ-0021771 – Request for Search Details and Reconsideration (NZ Government Acknowledgment of US MIND Act and Neural Data Privacy Policy)

Kia ora Iain Southall and Ministerial Services Team,

Thank you for your response dated 9 October 2025 to my Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request of 26 September 2025 (Ref: DOIA-REQ-0021771). I appreciate the prompt reply but am writing to seek clarification and reconsideration of the refusal under s 18(e), as I believe the search may not have captured all relevant records given the established neurotechnology ecosystem in New Zealand.

As outlined in my request, the MIND Act addresses privacy risks in neural data collection via brain-computer interfaces (BCI) and neurotech, with implications for NZ’s Privacy Act 2020, digital strategies, and EMF oversight (e.g., NZS 2772.1:1999). While the Act is recent, related discussions on neural data ethics, health risks, and infrastructure integration (e.g., 5G/smart meters) appear active across NZ sectors, suggesting MBIE—as lead on innovation policy—may hold indirect records such as:
• Policy scans or briefings on BCI privacy (e.g., via interagency work with the Privacy Commissioner or Ministry of Health).
• Funding oversight for neurotech research (e.g., grants via Callaghan Innovation, 2015–2025).
• International correspondence on global neural governance (e.g., OECD AI principles or Five Eyes tech ethics).

For instance:
• Universities like Auckland (CoNECT Centre), Canterbury (Neural Engineering Group), Otago (Neuroscience Programme), and AUT (Rehabilitation Innovation Centre) conduct BCI research, often with public funding.
• Government ethics approvals (Health and Disability Ethics Committees) cover BCI data collection for rehab.
• Businesses like Neurotech International, Exsurgo Neuro, and Omniscient Neurotechnology commercialize neural data tools.
• Recent media (e.g., RNZ on neurotech privacy risks; Neuralink’s NZ trial plans) underscores public interest.

Under OIA s 18(e), agencies must demonstrate “reasonable efforts” to locate records. To assess this, please provide:
1. Details of the search process (e.g., keywords used, databases/emails/databases searched, teams consulted, including interagency referrals to Privacy Commissioner, Ministry of Health, or Electricity Authority).
2. Confirmation of any transfers considered under s 14 (e.g., to Health NZ for ethics docs or Privacy Commissioner for data safeguards).
3. If no records exist, a brief statement on MBIE’s awareness of the above NZ neurotech activity and any planned policy response to MIND Act-like issues.

This information is in the public interest to ensure transparency on emerging privacy challenges, as per OIA s 4. If records are found upon review, please release them promptly. Otherwise, I will seek an Ombudsman investigation under s 28.

I look forward to your response within 10 working days.

Kind regards,
Spencer Jones