Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: Radio New Zealand

Warning: This story contains references to suicide

• Ministry of Social Development publishes online names of five people making compensation claims for sexual abuse in state care
• Their lawyer says the privacy breach is the worst of its kind
• The documents were taken down late last week but Google AI summaries still included information from them for days
• MSD issues unreserved apology.

The names of five people seeking compensation for sexual abuse in state care were published online in a privacy breach by the Ministry of Social Development.

The ministry has removed the link to documents naming the five, but Google searches of the names were still bringing up the MSD information in the search engine’s AI summary yesterday morning.

The ministry has apologised and says the breach was due to human error.

Breach found by chance

Wellington human rights lawyer Lydia Oosterhoff was searching online last week for an RNZ story when she discovered an Official Information Act request from her firm, Cooper Legal, on the MSD website.

In the published information she was shocked to find that the names of five clients weren’t redacted.

“These are five people who are seeking redress for serious sexual and physical abuse that they were subjected to by the state while in state care,” she said.

“In the scheme of things I cannot think of a more serious privacy breach. This is clearly identifiable that these five people are seeking redress and this is on the internet, accessible by everyone.”

One of the five in particular felt ashamed because of the abuse he suffered.

Oosterhoff worried information linking him to a redress claim was still available on Google’s AI summary when his name was searched yesterday.

“It wouldn’t be hard to figure out that he is taking a claim with MSD about serious sexual and physical abuse.

“So anyone who was to Google that young man [yesterday] morning would be able to figure that out.

“And I can tell you that if he finds that out or if he even Googled himself there is a real, real, real risk that this young man is going to take his own life.”

‘Over my dead body’ – lawyer shocked by MSD proposal

Oosterhoff alerted MSD to the breach on Friday morning.

“Obviously, they were quite distressed,” she said.

“I mean, who wouldn’t be? But they said, ‘Oh, we’ll just reach out to these people and let them know and apologise.’

“I said, ‘Over my dead body you will.’ These are some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable people.”

Cooper Legal and MSD would instead need to come up with a plan to tell the five people about the error in a sensitive manner, especially for the client who had suicidal thoughts, she said.

“If someone from MSD was just to randomly call him up and say, “Oh look, sorry, we published your details on a website to say you’re asking for redress,’ I have a real concern this young man would seriously harm himself.”

MSD has apologised unreservedly.

Its general manager for ministerial and executive services, Anna Graham, said Cooper Legal alerted it to the breach on Friday morning.

“The information was immediately removed from our website,” she said.

“We know the OIA was only viewed three times in the period between publication on 20 August and the time it was removed from our website.

“We have taken a precautionary approach and have notified the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We have also let the Office of the Ombudsman know.”

Graham said MSD was working closely with Cooper Legal to contact the people affected to apologise directly to them.

“The privacy breach was a human error on our part. We take our responsibility to protect people’s privacy very seriously. We apologise unreservedly for this breach.”

Oosterhoff though said it took hours for the Official Information Act documents to be removed from the website.

She also disputes that they were only viewed three times, saying she knew of more than three people who saw it.

RNZ viewed the information on two separate devices.

Oosterhoff said she’d only had a brief email from the ministry since Friday.

AI presents new challenge

The AI summaries still visible for days after the document were removed from MSD’s website are a complicating factor.

Victoria University programme director of artificial intelligence Dr Andrew Lensen said fixing such an issue would depend on how Google had used the documents.

“One option is that they might have used it to train their model directly, in which case it can be quite challenging to potentially remove that because it might be baked into the model,” he said.

“Probably more likely is that they’re doing what we call retrieval augmented generation, which is when the model makes a summary it can find other documents that are online, so they almost to a live search.

“Then based on that it will incorporate that into its response.”

Lensen said that option was more likely, and that if that were the case the information should disappear from Google searches in days or weeks.

By yesterday afternoon it appeared to have gone.

“This is indicative of a bigger issue, where we have documents that have been ingested by these companies and then summarised and made public,” Lensen said.

“And of course those AI summaries themselves can be unreliable sometimes.”

Oosterhoff still can’t make sense of how the error happened.

“When I saw it I was shocked. I was flabbergasted,” she said.

“How on earth could someone not have stopped and said, ‘Wait, these are five names of people [and] literally the most sensitive information about them.’

“This is information about severe abuse that they were subjected to and that they are asking for a tiny little bit of money to recognise this from the state.

“Did not one person say, ‘Wait, we should not be publishing these people’s names online?'”

She said she would be seeking compensation for the five people.

She also worried about possible effects on future legal action connected to the five people, and said the episode reflected poorly on MSD, especially after findings from the Royal Commission brought to light the poor attitude to abuse survivors from government agencies.

Where to get help:

• Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason.
• Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357.
• Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.
• Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202.
• Samaritans: 0800 726 666.
• Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@youthline.co.nz.
• What’s Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds.
• Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, and English.
• Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254.
• Healthline: 0800 611 116.
• Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155.
• OUTLine: 0800 688 5463.

If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

Sexual Violence

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Mayors of city and district councils would take over the duties of regional councils, in a coalition proposal pitched as the biggest shake-up of local government in three decades.

The mayors would form 11 Combined Territories Boards (CTBs), which would meet regularly and – on top of handling the business of regional councils – would tasked with coming up with a “Regional Reorganisation Plan” for reorganising how their councils are structured in the long term.

The CTBs would also have responsibility under the government’s RMA reforms for developing the region-wide spatial plan chapter, and a national environment plan chapter, to be included in combined regional plans.

The changes are now out for consultation, which remains open until 20 February, with the resulting legislation expected to be introduced mid-next year and passed in 2027.

Local Government Minister Simon Watts and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced the moves on Tuesday, releasing the details at 5pm to avoid spooking the markets due to regional councils’ ownership of port companies around the country.

“Local government is meant to serve communities, not confuse them, but right now the system is tangled in duplication, disagreements and decisions that defy common sense,” Bishop said.

He said he expected the changes would put “downward pressure” on rates.

“The government’s belief is that local government has lost the social license and that New Zealanders have lost faith in local government – this is borne out by the fact that over half don’t bother to vote in local elections.”

He said it was clear to many the current structure was no longer fit for purpose, and the “status quo is not an option”.

Bishop said he could not guarantee the current elected regional councillors would stay in those roles for their full three-year term, only saying “it’s an option”.

“I think most New Zealanders, fair minded people, look at our current local government system and say we need change,” he said.

The government’s impending replacement of the Resource Management Act would mean a reduced role for regional councils, he said, with fewer plans and fewer consents – and presented a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to “reset” the structure of local government.

“Change is hard, and actually this government was elected to make tough decisions.”

Mayors would likely have a set number of votes on these boards based on population, but adjusted to ensure smaller communities still had a voice – although this was one of multiple options proposed.

A discussion document released alongside the decision gave three options for filling out the Combined Territories Boards with Crown Commissioners, to ensure the system “works in practice” by giving the government a stronger role.

These included:

• Observer only – the Crown Commissioner has no vote
• Veto power – the Crown Commissioner can override CTB decisions
• Majority vote – the Crown Commissioner has more than half the votes on the CTB with the remaining votes distributed among mayors

Watts said a “fair and balanced voting system” would ensure both regional and urban interests were represented in decisions about land and water.

The change would mean more efficient services, greater accountability, and smarter use of ratepayer funds, he said.

“This is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It is a framework for regions to design what works best for them with clear expectations that the outcome must be better than what exists today… crucially, it is also not about centralising power. This is about empowering local leaders to lead their own reform.”

“It’s not a power grab,” Bishop said. “This is about making local government fit for purpose.”

As well as taking on the roles of Regional Councils, the boards would have two years from establishment to produce their Regional Reorganisation Plans (RRPs) which would then be assessed against “clear national criteria” before approval by the Local Government Minister.

“Importantly, ministerial approval does not bypass community input,” the discussion document said. “Public consultation by the CTB is required before any plan is finalised.”

The document said the alternative would be to hold a referendum which were “costly and slow” and typically had low voter turnout and a tendency to favour the status quo.

New Zealand has 11 regional councils tasked with resource management including flood protection and air quality, public transport, pest control, civil defence and more.

They were set up as part of the 1989 local government reforms to replace more than 700 local boards and the roles of the former county councils.

The regional councils are separate from the 67 “territorial” authorities – city and district councils – which handle roads, water services, waste and recycling collection, parks and libraries, public safety bylaws.

New Zealand also has six unitary authorities which combine the powers and responsibilities of both a regional council and a territorial authority.

Bishop said the reorganisation plans may end up leading to more unitary authorities. He said there was a “strong lobby” for having more unitary authorities, and many in the local government sector had been calling for local mayors to simply be given the responsibilities of regional councils.

Watts said the changes were “absolutely” consistent with National’s rhetoric around localism and devolution, as the different layers of local governments were often in competition with each other and it would instead mean more streamlined services and more accountability.

Treaty of Waitangi settlement obligations would be carried over.

Existing unitary authorities would have the opportunity to also produce Reorganisation Plans, but would not be required to.

Regional and district boundaries would remain unchanged, at least until further decisions were made under the RRPs.

However, some districts like Rotorua and Taupō have populations in more than one region – so the government proposes two options:

• to either have those areas “adopted” into a neighbouring district, with an option to have those districts able to vote on which neighbouring mayor would represent them
• give these districts a voting share in each of the regional groups they are covered by, with proportionate votes and possibly with local ward councillors to represent them instead of the mayor

The discussion document also noted regional constituencies “including Māori constituencies and general constituencies, would no longer exist”.

“This is because regional councillors themselves would be replaced by the mayors in the region … the mayor of the city or district council would represent voters from the Māori and general rolls.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Another group of West Auckland homeowners – including young families and a single mum – have been blindsided by the council telling them that front and backyards of their newbuilds do not meet resource consent requirements, more than a year after they purchased the homes.

Faced with a much delayed council inspection and a liquidated developer, owners say they have been unfairly left to pay thousands for the landscaping work that should’ve been done when the homes were sold.

Auckland Council said its environmental monitoring team was stretched and struggling to keep up with the increasing workload from housing intensification.

It was unable to tell RNZ how much backlog of sold properties with unclosed resource consents it was dealing with, after a declined OIA request and multiple follow ups.

Since RNZ’s reporting on a group of new homeowners in Massey, who said they were misled into buying homes with unclosed resource consents, more homeowners in similar situations are speaking up.

Ten townhouses on Purapura Lane in a Kumeu development do not have the fences, or trees in the original resource consent plans. Where there was meant to be soil and plantings, there is concrete and live cables underneath.

The developer – Treasure North Limited – owes more than $1.6 million to creditors, and RNZ has not been able to reach them after an unsuccessful attempt trying to reach them through their liquidator and doorknocking director Qingmiao Liu’s address.

Auckland Council said it issued an abatement notice to the developer in late 2023, and had followed up five times.

Four families who are affected told RNZ that none of their lawyers or real estate agents warned them about the abatement notice or the unclosed Resource Consent, and agents had told them they could do what they wanted with the front and back of their homes.

Owners feel let down by the developer, agents, lawyers and council

Christine O’Conner, who purchased her home in early 2024, said she was shocked to be told by council last month that her house did not comply with its resource consent.

The mum of three was first told that her deck – which came with the house – was not the correct dimensions, and that she needed to replace an area of concrete in front of her home with soil and trees,

“There’s live cables under a slab that the environmental monitoring unit are telling us to rip up,” she said.

O’Connor said the council backtracked five days later, saying that she doesn’t need to make the changes and that they’ll let her meet the requirements, only to revert back a few days later to say that she still needs to make the changes.

O’Connor said she does not have the money for the work needed, or to take legal actions against anyone.

“I’m a single mum, I don’t have the funds to go up against a real estate agent, a liquidated developer or a lawyer, like to me it’s just in the too hard basket, I just want to get something resolved with the council,” she said.

“I think that they need to look at each property individually and say well we’ve actually done our landscaping, which actually fits quite nicely into the environment, well lets just stick to that,” she added.

Since RNZ’s queries to Auckland Council, O’Connor has received another email this week saying she and her neighbours no longer needed to replace the concrete area.

The email said after consulting an engineering specialist to review her concerns about the electrical cables beneath the concrete area, they’ve decided that the concrete are area can remain in place across the 10 homes.

O’Connor said she bought her property based on it being completed, and did not understand why the law allows the homes to be sold in the first place.

“Why should a developer sell a property when there’s an abatement notice, they shouldn’t be allowed to do that , how’s that fair for people that are purchasing a property, how do we know there’s issues with the developer, it’s absolutely disgusting, this country needs to… there needs to be something sorted,” she said.

The current Resource Management Act (RMA) does not stop a property being sold while an unresolved abatement notice is in place.

Properties can also be legally sold without having passed council’s final inspection for resource consent compliance.

O’Connor’s neighbour Dhruval Gosai, who also purchased on Purapura Lane more than a year ago, had done her own landscaping, but estimated it would cost her more than $10,000 to make changes to meet consent standards.

“We are a young couple, who are hardly earning anything, and we are just paying our mortgages… there’s no way we can pay,” she said.

Gosai said she felt deceived by the developer, and ripped off by her lawyer and her real estate agent who failed to disclose the unclosed consent.

She said the council’s environmental officer has told her that if she asked more questions, they will need to charge her for their time.

“Councils and environmental officers are being paid for what they’re doing – they just need to do their jobs, this need to be paid by council not customers,” she said.

Auckland Council said the RMA allowed them to recover reasonable costs of monitoring resource consents, and that it was not covered by general rates because they relate to activities that benefit individual property owners.

It said monitoring officers typically charge $198 per hour.

Gosai said this experience has made her lose confidence in New Zealand and the council.

“I think New Zealand is not even a developing country, that’s what I feel now by Auckland Council.

“I’m basically from India, so India is one of the developing countries, by the looks of it, when we are buying house back in our country, we know what we’re doing actually, and we know how councils in India work, but Auckland Council is shit,” she said.

Auckland Council admits inspection delay but says resources are limited

Auckland Council environmental monitoring manager Robert Laulala said he understood the frustration, but that he had limited tools and staffing to work with.

“Our priority is ensuring compliance and protecting the environment, but current legislation limits the tools available to us,

“We continue to use every option within the law and advocate for stronger enforcement powers to hold developers accountable.

He said in the Kumeu case, the developer failed to advise the council when works were completed, which was a key step in triggering the final inspection.

“Without this notification, the council is unaware that the site is ready for sign off,” he said.

Earlier Laulala told RNZ it could take anywhere between a month to seven months for the final resource consent checks to be done after the building is complete.

However RNZ has been sent news tips from owners who have been sent abatement notices three years after they purchased their homes.

RNZ has sent an OIA requesting data on the average number of days it takes for homes to have their final Resource Consent inspection signed off after the builds are completed, and the backlog of homes that have been waiting for sign-off for more than a year.

RNZ has also requested how many non-compliance with resource consent notices the council has issued for new builds this year.

Auckland Council declined the request after more than 20 working days, saying it could not provide the information without substantial collation.

It also declined when RNZ asked if any figures could be provided to show the extent of the backlog of unclosed consents on sold homes.

“Developers hold the responsibility for closing out resource consents, so the council does not track this process, and is not required to,” Laulala said in a statement.

Laulala said they’ll continue to talk to developers and the real estate industry about the issues.

Local MP wants to see pragmatic work-around

Northwest Auckland MP Chris Penk said the problem with unclosed resource consents had been a long-standing area of difficulty.

Penk said he hoped council can be more accommodating towards homeowners, in terms of the consent requirements and timelines.

“If there are ways they can find to be pragmatic, and not impose strict deadlines in accordance with the current law, then that will give people breathing space until we can sort out this whole area,” he said.

Penk said council needed to be wary of the irresponsible developers.

“The sooner that we can crack down on them from a regulatory point of view, but also in terms of council, you know, being suitably cautious about approving any further applications, the better off everyone will be, including the good operators in the system at the moment,” he said

Resource Management Minister Chris Bishop said he could not comment on the experience of the Kumeu owners, as these were “private sales agreements”.

When asked if he would considered making changes to the RMA to put more pressure on developers to close resource consents before they sell, he said work to replace the RMA 1991 will intend to have a greater focus on compliance and enforcement.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A Bay of Plenty kiwifruit worker remains in hospital following a workplace accident yesterday.

Riverlock Packhouse General Manager Blair Simm says the worker was injured while undertaking a routine plant cleaning process.

They were airlifted to Waikato Hospital in a serious condition.

The packhouse, near Ōpōtiki, is not operating today.

The company is working with authorities and Mr Simm says it is focused on supporting the injured staff member, their family and the wider Riverlock team.

Worksafe is investigating the accident.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand