Technical bulletin: Occupational divers under training – trainee divers

Source:

This technical bulletin provides guidance about the work trainee divers may undertake while under direct supervision during occupational diving operations.

Introduction

WorkSafe New Zealand requires applicants to provide dive logs to support their Certificate of Competence (CoC) application.

WorkSafe has recently seen an increase in divers submitting dive logs that indicate a need to make clear the distinction between a ‘diver under training’ and a ‘diver working without a CoC’.

This technical bulletin clarifies recommendations for divers who do not hold a current CoC as an occupational diver, but who are doing training dives while at work.

Background

The Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 (the Regulations) require occupational divers working for a Person Conducting or Undertaking a Business (PCBU) to hold a CoC in the category in which they are diving. The CoC is issued by WorkSafe.

The Regulations have a provision allowing workers to undertake training to become the holder of a CoC, but require diving ‘under the direct supervision’ of another diver who holds a CoC for that category of diving.

WorkSafe defines direct supervision as being ‘within reach or contact at all times to ensure immediate assistance can be provided if necessary’.

When is a diver under training?

If a diver does not hold a current CoC, they must be under the direct supervision of a current CoC holder while diving is taking place. In this case they are considered a ‘trainee diver’.

As with all trainees in the workplace, supervision is required because they do not yet meet the necessary level of competency to operate independently in the workplace. For divers, this level of supervision is higher than expected in other workplaces.

Students undertaking formal instruction on a diving course (for example, Australian Diver Accreditation Scheme, Professional Association of Diving Instructors, and Science Diving New Zealand) are not working and do not require a CoC under the Regulations providing all the diving is in accordance with the course syllabus and supervised by a suitably qualified trainer holding a CoC.

But if they begin work tasks outside of their dive course (for example, leading dives, taking samples, fixing nets, cleaning aquariums or being a safety diver) they are considered to be working and will be seen as requiring a CoC.

What sort of training can be undertaken?

While the Regulations allow for employees to train to become a holder of a CoC, the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) requires a PCBU to ensure the reasonable safety of all workers, including those under training.

Before conducting any trainee diving, a PCBU must ensure that the minimum diver level pre-requisite competency has been met, and the trainee divers are competent to learn the specific tasks required for that category of CoC. This includes the use of the diver’s breathing equipment and any hazardous powered tools – both of which should be taught in a formal diving course before use in any workplace.

As trainee divers are learning, PCBUs must also consider both the environment and duration of the training as well as competency levels. Dive sites should be assessed to be of low risk, close to appropriate surface and emergency support and in an environment where the focus is on the work skills being taught, not the hazards of the actual dive site. Remote and isolated sites are not recommended.

Further, being a ‘trainee diver’ should be time limited to ensure the diver has an expectation of how long it will take to achieve competency in the assigned work skills and be able to be assessed for all the skills learnt. Most trainee divers should be able to effectively show competency within a few weeks or months, depending upon the complexity of diving and skills required. In any case the trainee period should be limited to six months at maximum, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

What is not considered training?

A trainee diver cannot fill the role of a standby diver – any standby diver must be able to immediately come to the working diver’s assistance, and as such must already hold a suitable CoC. Performing the role of a standby diver is not considered training.

Even though a trainee diver may be considered the CoC diver’s ‘buddy’ when diving, they cannot be counted as an extra ‘working diver’. Doing so without having separate direct supervision may not be considered training and could indicate the diver is working without a CoC.

Dive logging as a trainee diver

It is expected practice that trainee divers log any supervised dives as training dives to achieve a competency requirement or qualification. This practice is clearly undertaken in a formal course environment and should be replicated by all divers under training.

All normal dive log details should be recorded (such as date, location, depth and time) along with details of their supervising diver, other divers in the team as well as the competencies and activities being undertaken. The logs of training dives should then be submitted as part of their CoC application.

Any dives not directly supervised are not considered training or suitable recent experience for the trainee diver and could indicate that the diver may have been working without a CoC.

Medicals for trainee divers

The Regulations require that occupational divers be ‘medically fit’. Due to the health and exposure risks associated with occupational diving, any trainee diver should be medically assessed and hold a diving medical clearance prior to undertaking any training dives under supervision.

Recommendations

The competency requirements for the relevant categories of CoC are the minimum standards for an occupational diver in the respective sectors. Sometimes a risk assessment will identify additional competencies that divers may require.

WorkSafe recommends:

  • A trainee diver must be under direct supervision of a suitable CoC holder when underwater.
  • A trainee diver should hold a suitable medical clearance for occupational diving and have the minimum pre-requisite diving qualifications required to apply for a CoC in that category of diving before starting in-water training.
  • Training should only be conducted with appropriate controls for the safety of both the trainee and supervising diver.
  • Training sites should be assessed as suitable for the trainee diver and with adequate surface and emergency support.
  • At no time should a trainee diver be using any diver’s breathing equipment or hazardous powered tools unless qualified from, or as part of, a formal training program.
  • All training dives should be logged as such with appropriate details included.
  • Employers should aim to achieve the competency requirements in a timely manner with minimal delay. Divers should not be operating as divers-in-training for an extended period.

Further information

WorkSafe occupational diving guidance

Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995(external link)

Providing information, training, instruction or supervision for workers

Acknowledgement

This technical bulletin has been developed in consultation with the Diving Industry Advisory Group (DIAG).

Download

Technical bulletin: Occupational divers under training – trainee divers (PDF 164 KB)

Subbies deserve safety at work too

Source:

A forestry subcontractor was failed by poor risk management from the two businesses above him, both of which have been sentenced for their inaction.

39-year-old Misha Tremel was killed while manually felling trees on a small block at Clevedon in June 2022. The qualified tree feller had been brought in by Turoa Logging Limited, which was harvesting 7,800 tonnes of pine on behalf of the forest managers Pulley Contracting Limited.

Some of the trees being manually cut by Mr Tremel were windthrown, meaning they had been bent and damaged by wind. WorkSafe and the forestry industry strongly recommend that such trees are harvested using machines.

WorkSafe’s investigation found Turoa Logging had not properly reassessed its harvesting plan after nearby trees were cut by machinery and had not ensured safe felling practices were followed. Pulley Contracting did not do enough to identify the ongoing risks to workers and should have been auditing Turoa Logging more thoroughly.

“Businesses must manage their risks and cannot contract their way out of responsibility. Contractors on smaller sites like this are owed the same level of care as those in large-scale operations,” says WorkSafe’s area investigation manager, Paul West.

Mr Tremel was a much-loved husband and father who was originally from Ukraine. His death continues to be a shattering loss for his young family to process.

“Businesses must consult, cooperate and coordinate as part of a contracting chain. WorkSafe recommends health and safety is always built into contract management,” says Paul West.

Forestry had the highest fatality rate of any sector in 2024, with 16.58 deaths per 100,000 workers. Under its new strategy, WorkSafe is turning about 15 percent of its targeted frontline activity to the forestry sector because of the high rate of harm, particularly for Maōri.

WorkSafe’s role is to influence businesses to meet their responsibilities and keep people healthy and safe. When they do not, we will take action.

Read more about health and safety obligations in contracting

Background

  • Turoa Logging Limited and Pulley Contracting Limited were sentenced at Manukau District Court on 4 March 2025.
  • Both companies were ordered to pay a combined total of $335,680 in fines and reparation
  • Both companies were charged under sections 36(1)(a), 48(1) and (2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015:
    • Being a PCBU having a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers who work for the PCBU, while the workers were at work in the business or undertaking, did fail to comply with that duty, and that failure exposed workers to a risk of death or serious injury.
  • The maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding $1.5 million.

Media contact details

For more information you can contact our Media Team using our media request form. Alternatively:

Email: media@worksafe.govt.nz

High hazards newsletter – February 2025

Source:

Welcome to the sixth WorkSafe High Hazards newsletter where we’re covering:

  • Update from the Chief Inspector
  • Industry alerts – floating roof tank corrosion, critical fastener material selection
  • What we’re seeing – RPE failures, machine guarding failures
  • Lock out/tag out system safety minute
  • Forklifts in hazardous areas
  • Flixborough – 50 years on
  • High hazards notifiable incidents – quarterly data
  • Incidents in the news

Read the full newsletter(external link)

Advisory: Police exercise at Mānawa Bay is now live

Source:

Police can advise that a planned training exercise at Mānawa Bay, near Auckland Airport is now under way.

The public are reminded that they may see tactical Police staff and other emergency services outside the centre.

There is no cause for alarm.

This exercise is taking place outside of Mānawa Bay’s operating hours.

Mānawa Bay and its car park are closed to the general public.

Police will issue a further advisory once the exercise is completed.

ENDS

Jarred Williamson/NZ Police

Unexplained death, Feilding

Source:

Police were called to an address on Campbell Street in Feilding at around 12.50pm today, after a person was found deceased at the property.

The death is being treated as unexplained at this time.

A scene guard has been put in place overnight and a scene examination will take place tomorrow.

We know the police presence will be unsettling for Campbell Street residents, however we want to reassure them there is no cause for alarm.
 

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre. 

Taxpayers’ Union request to schools

Source:

“This is an incredibly busy time for schools with exams looming. staffing appointments in a particularly tight job market and end of year awards and planning for the start of 2025 in full progress,” says Kate Gainsford, Chair of the Secondary Principals’ Council.
“Principals and staff have loads of work to get through in the time left before the start of 2025 and gathering information for a tiny lobby group appears to be pretty wasteful of government resources.”
Kate Gainsford said many principals were disappointed to receive such a request in this day and age. “Te Reo Māori is an official language in Aotearoa New Zealand and tikanga is a very significant part of ensuring that schools are welcoming, comfortable places for ākonga Māori and their whānau, and all young people growing up in New Zealand.
“Schools have worked hard over many years to meet Te Tiriti partnership responsibilities so that all students can be given the opportunity to learn te reo Māori and tikanga – it is part and parcel of being a good Te Tiriti partner.
“The OIA request asks schools to set aside their usual work so they can do research for the lobby group but provides no clarification about their motivation or what they are seeking to shed light on for what public good.”

Last modified on Tuesday, 29 October 2024 11:56

School property changes welcomed – with some concerns

Source:

“We have been waiting for the release of the report and recommendations for some time, so it’s great that schools have some certainty at last. It’s good to see the concerns of many schools reflected in the report.

“We are pleased that a Functioning Chief Executive (FCE) unit is being set up to prioritise school property – there is a tremendous amount of catching up to do and hopefully the FCE will mean this will happen at pace.”

However, principals were concerned about the Government’s intention to consider options for a new model that separated school property policy from operational delivery.

“Property functions must have a clear and close connection and integration with other planning and resourcing decisions affecting schools. This is crucial – the further away from the public service an entity becomes, and the more that it focuses on commercial efficiencies, the higher the risk that it misses the required integration with other planning and resourcing affecting schools. A good example of this is roll growth as a result of immigration.”

Kate Gainsford urged the Minister of Education to take into account principals’ and school boards’ knowledge and understanding of the complexity of schools’ needs, in designing a new model for school property.

“This will ensure that the new entity is truly responsive to schools’ needs, and can provide property solutions that will meet those needs. Property functions need to reflect the changing demands of what education looks like.

“For instance, while principals are happy with simplified and streamlined processes and buildings, school facilities cover a more complex set of needs than simple, modular relocatable units can generally meet on their own. These include: specialist teaching spaces, especially for technology; safe management of the movement of large numbers of people; air quality; professional workspaces; extra-curricular activities; and community expectations around schools as a hub for their communities.”

Kate Gainsford said the Secondary Principals’ Council looked forward to working with the Government on the implementation of the review recommendations. “I think we all agree that school property is a valuable public asset and should be well managed, planned for and maintained by the public service for the public good.”

Last modified on Friday, 4 October 2024 14:17

Partnering to plant trees on Crown-owned land: Request for Information

Source: police-emblem-97

Updates

17 March 2025 – Submissions have closed

The request for information (RFI) closed on 28 February. We received 85 submissions.

Information from the RFI process will help us understand what would make potential partnerships viable, and the conditions under which offers might be made.

Officials from across the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, and Land Information New Zealand will analyse the information and provide advice to ministers.

Ministers will then decide what opportunities there are and what next steps will be and will make public announcements later this year.

7 February 2025 – Information about Crown-owned land added

See the request for information documents

23 January 2025 – Updated question and answers, and map added

See the request for information documents

Background to this Request for Information

The Government wants to explore partnership opportunities to afforest (plant native or exotic trees) or promote native forest regeneration on Crown-owned land (excluding National Parks) that has low farming value and low conservation value.

This will:

  • contribute to climate change targets
  • spur economic growth through a thriving forestry and wood processing sector
  • improve native biodiversity and water quality.

Agencies involved 

  • Ministry for Primary Industries.
  • Land Information New Zealand.
  • Department of Conservation.
  • Ministry for the Environment.

We sought your feedback

We opened this Request for Information (RFI) to gauge interest in the proposal and understand what would make afforesting Crown-owned land an attractive and viable opportunity.

We asked to hear your views on:

  • opportunities for afforestation
  • conditions and contractual arrangements that would enable you to undertake afforestation
  • barriers to afforestation and what government could do to help overcome these.

Information documents

Overview: Partnering to plant trees on Crown-owned land [PDF, 609 KB]

Questions and answers about partnering to plant trees on Crown-owned land [PDF, 320 KB]

Indicative land map (high resolution) [PDF, 1.2 MB]

Publicly available information about Crown-owned land [PDF, 302 KB]

Afforestation on Crown-owned land – Cabinet paper [PDF, 1.1 MB]

Next steps after submissions close

We’ll advise interested parties of next steps in 2025.

We intend to progress with any partnership opportunities as soon as practicable. Your responses will help shape the Government’s decisions on possible opportunities and decide next steps as well as informing the commercial strategy moving forwards.

Where partnerships can be progressed under current law they will be taken forward as soon as practicable. In these circumstances, we anticipate that a second round of commercial negotiations on a site-by-site basis with interested parties may take place in 2025.

Where partners are looking for the Government to make changes to existing policy to support partnerships – such as changes to law – this will be subject to further advice from officials and decision-making by Cabinet in 2025. Any proposed changes to legislation would likely be advanced though usual parliamentary processes, including public consultation.

Responses are public information

Your response will be used by the Ministry for Primary Industries, Land Information New Zealand, Department of Conservation, and the Ministry for the Environment for their internal purposes and in advising ministers.

Note that all, part, or a summary of your response to the request for information may be published on this website.

People can also ask for copies of responses under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The OIA says we must make the response available unless we have good reason for withholding it. Those reasons are detailed in sections 6 and 9 of the OIA.

If you think there are grounds to withhold specific information from publication, make this clear in your response or contact us, and we will take this into account when deciding whether to release the information. Reasons may include that your response discloses information that would unreasonably prejudice your commercial position or personal information.  Any decision we make to withhold information can be reviewed by the Ombudsman, who may direct us to release it.

All information provided will be held by the relevant Government agency in accordance with the Privacy Act.

Disclaimer

This process is not in any way binding, nor is it:

  • a consideration of disposal of the land for the purpose of Part 9 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 or any other Claims Settlement Act, or
  • for lessees, an application under the Land Act 1948 or the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998, or
  • an invitation, tender, or other action under section 17ZG(2)(a) Conservation Act 1987 to make an application for a concession. Your response will not be treated as an application for a concession. 

Participating in this process does not create a contract or any other legal relationship between you and the Crown. There is no obligation on the Crown to accept or advance your response.

Proposed changes to the import health standard for importing stored plant products for human consumption

Source: police-emblem-97

Have your say

From 10 December 2024 to 20 February 2025, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) invites comment on proposed changes to the stored plant products for human consumption import health standard.

The short code for the import health standard is “SPP.Human.IHS”.

The proposed amendments seek to:

  1. update requirements for importing legumes in soup mix of retail packets up to 1 kg
  2. add South Korea to the list of countries that have no requirements for packaged rice (up to 25 kg).

Full details of the proposed changes are in the risk management proposal document.

Consultation document

Risk management proposal: amendment to the SPP.Human.IHS [PDF, 301 KB]

Related document: the current IHS

Stored Plant Products for Human Consumption (SPP.Human.IHS) [PDF, 613 KB]

Making your submission

Email your feedback on the draft by 5pm on 20 February 2025 to PlantImports@mpi.govt.nz

Make sure you include in your submission:

  • the title of the consultation document in the subject line of your email
  • your name and title (if applicable)
  • your organisation’s name (if you’re submitting on behalf of an organisation)
  • your contact details (for example, phone number, address, and email).

While we prefer email, you can send your submission by post to:

Plant Products, Biosecurity Import and Export Standards Directorate
Ministry for Primary Industries
PO Box 2526
Wellington 6140
New Zealand.

All submissions received by the closing date will be considered before the amended IHS is issued. MPI may hold late submissions on file for consideration when the issued IHS is next revised or reviewed.

Next steps

After we have considered all submissions there is a 10-day period which provides submitters with the opportunity to examine any changes to the IHS which have resulted from consultation. An independent review (under section 24 of the Biosecurity Act 1993) may be requested in this period if a submitter considers scientific evidence they raised during their submission has not received sufficient consideration. If there is no review, the IHS becomes final after 10 days.

Find out more about the process

Submissions are public information

Note that all, part, or a summary of your submission may be published on this website. Most often this happens when we issue a document that reviews the submissions received.

People can also ask for copies of submissions under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The OIA says we must make the content of submissions available unless we have good reason for withholding it. Those reasons are detailed in sections 6 and 9 of the OIA.

If you think there are grounds to withhold specific information from publication, make this clear in your submission or contact us. Reasons may include that it discloses commercially sensitive or personal information. However, any decision MPI makes to withhold details can be reviewed by the Ombudsman, who may direct us to release it.

Official Information Act 1982 – NZ Legislation

Legal background

MPI must consult with interested parties in accordance with section 23 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act) and MPI’s consultation policy before issuing or amending (other than of minor or urgent nature) IHS under sections 24A and 24B of the Act.

An IHS specifies import requirements that must be met either in the country of origin or of export, or during transit, before biosecurity clearance can be given for the goods to enter New Zealand. MPI must ensure that these requirements are technically justified and provide an appropriate level of biosecurity protection

Review of sustainability measures for fisheries – April 2025 round

Source: police-emblem-97

Updates 

26 March 2025 – Submissions and advice papers released

We have released the submissions and advice papers for rock lobster and Pacific bluefin tuna.

Rock lobster

Public submissions received for rock lobster stocks as part of the 2025 April sustainability round [PDF, 11 MB]

Advice paper: Review of sustainability measures for rock lobster in CRA 7 (Otago) and CRA 2 (Hauraki Gulf, Coromandel, and Bay of Plenty) [PDF, 4.1 MB]

Pacific bluefin tuna

Public submissions received for Pacific bluefin tuna as part of the 2025 April sustainability round [PDF, 5.1 MB]

Advice paper: Review of sustainability measures for Pacific bluefin tuna (TOR 1) for 2025 [PDF, 9.1 MB]

25 March 2025 – Minister’s decisions released for rock lobster

Following consultation, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has made decisions on sustainability measures for the CRA 2 (Hauraki Gulf, Coromandel, and Bay of Plenty) and CRA 7 (Otago) rock lobster fisheries.

We have released:

  • the minister’s decision letter, which provides further details and reasons for each of the decisions
  • summaries of the decisions for each stock.

The decision letter – Minister for Oceans and Fisheries [PDF, 440 KB]

Fisheries New Zealand’s advice for these rock lobster stocks and the submissions received during public consultation will be released soon.

Summary table of the minister’s decisions

Species

Stock/area

Summary of decisions

Rock lobster / kōura

CRA 7 – Otago

  • Increase the TAC from 134.5 tonnes to 137.5 tonnes.
  • Increase the allowance for all other mortality caused by fishing from 8 tonnes to 11 tonnes.
  • Retain the allowances for customary and recreational fishing at 10 tonnes and 5 tonnes, respectively .
  • Retain the TACC at 111.5 tonnes.

CRA 2 – Hauraki Gulf, Coromandel, and Bay of Plenty

  • Close the inner Hauraki Gulf to commercial and recreational rock lobster fishing. This encompasses waters south of a straight line extending from the southern boundary of the Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve to Port Jackson Bay, top of the Coromandel Peninsula (refer to the map below this table).
  • Retain the TAC at 173 tonnes.
  • Retain the allowance for all other mortality caused by fishing at 42.5 tonnes.
  • Retain the allowances for customary and recreational fishing at 16.5 tonnes and 34 tonnes, respectively.
  • Retain the TACC at 80 tonnes.

Area of closure in CRA 2

Map showing closure to parts of the Hauraki Gulf for spiny rock lobster


3 March 2025 – Minister’s decisions released for Pacific bluefin tuna

Following consultation, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries has made decisions on sustainability measures for Pacific bluefin tuna (TOR) as part of the 2025 April sustainability round.

This announcement is for Pacific bluefin tuna (TOR) only – the minister’s decisions for spiny rock lobster stocks will be announced later in March.

We have released:

  • a summary of the decisions for TOR
  • the minister’s decision letter

Fisheries New Zealand’s advice paper for TOR and the submissions received during public consultation will be released in the coming weeks.

Decision letter

The minister’s decision letter provides further details and reasons for his decision.

Summary table of the minister’s decisions for Pacific bluefin tuna

Species

Stock/area

Change

Decision summary

Pacific bluefin tuna

TOR 1 – all of New Zealand

TAC ↑

From 1 March 2025 to 30 September 2025:

  • increase the TAC from 145 tonnes to 229 tonnes
  • generate 84 tonnes of additional ACE

For the new fishing year beginning 1 October 2025:

  • increase the TAC from 145 tonnes to 235.5 tonnes
  • increase the allowance for recreational fishing from 25 tonnes to 30 tonnes
  • increase the TACC from 116 tonnes to 200 tonnes
  • increase the allowance for customary fishing from 0.5 tonnes to 2 tonnes

Update – 7 February 2025

Updated document fixing an email error

Fisheries New Zealand has noted an error in the email address for submissions in the summary document for the review of the Hauraki Gulf/Bay of Plenty spiny rock lobster fishery (CRA 2). The document was updated to correct the error and the email address on the document has been updated to FMSubmissions@mpi.govt.nz

This may have affected a small number of submitters, who would have received a bounce-back email at the time noting the email address was invalid. Fisheries New Zealand apologises for any inconvenience this may have caused and accepted submissions from those affected until 5pm on Wednesday 12 February 2025.

Consultation background

Fisheries New Zealand sought feedback on proposed changes to sustainability measures for 2 rock lobster stocks and Pacific bluefin tuna as part of the 2025 April sustainability round. We invited feedback from tangata whenua, stakeholders, and the public on these proposed changes.

What was proposed?

Fisheries New Zealand reviews catch limits for selected stocks twice a year. This is consistent with the purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 to allow for sustainable utilisation.

Fisheries New Zealand reviewed catch limits and allowances, and spatial management measures for:

  • spiny rock lobster (CRA 2) – Bay of Plenty.

We also reviewed catch limits and allowances for:

  • spiny rock lobster and pacific bluefin tuna (CRA 7 and TOR 1) – Otago.

All the proposals in this round were assessed:

  • in the context of the relevant statutory requirements
  • using the best available information, including the latest scientific information on the status of the stocks and tangata whenua and stakeholder input.

Full details were provided in the consultation documents.

Table: Summary of the proposals and consultation documents

Supporting document

Information on the interpretation and application of the statutory considerations relevant to TAC decisions was provided in the legal appendix.

Legal appendix [PDF, 387 KB]

Related information

Fisheries Act 1996 – NZ Legislation

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – NZ Legislation

About the Quota Management System (QMS)

The Harvest Strategy Standard 

Operational Guidelines for New Zealand’s Harvest Strategy Standard [PDF, 843 KB]

The Deemed Values Guidelines [PDF, 896 KB]

Glossary of relevant terms 

National Fisheries Plan for deepwater and middle-depth fisheries [PDF, 1.4 MB]

Regional plan provisions and policy statements [PDF, 324 KB]

National Inshore Finfish Fisheries Plan [PDF, 10 MB]

Submissions are public information

Note that all, part, or a summary of your submission may be published on this website. Most often this happens when we issue a document that reviews the submissions received.

People can also ask for copies of submissions under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The OIA says we must make the content of submissions available unless we have good reason for withholding it. Those reasons are detailed in sections 6 and 9 of the OIA.

If you think there are grounds to withhold specific information from publication, make this clear in your submission or contact us. Reasons may include that it discloses commercially sensitive or personal information. However, any decision MPI makes to withhold details can be reviewed by the Ombudsman, who may direct us to release it.

Official Information Act 1982 – NZ Legislation