Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: New Zealand Police

An officer patrolling the roads in Waiuku earlier this week got more than he bargained for after pulling over a motorist using his phone while driving.

Counties Manukau South Area Prevention Manager, Inspector Matt Hoyes, says the driver was signalled to stop on Kent Street after he was spotted using his cellphone while driving.

“While speaking to the man the officer has noticed a strong smell of cannabis coming from the vehicle.

“A search of the vehicle has then located eight bags of cannabis, weighing more than two kilograms, in the passengers footwell as well as a significant amount of cash.”

Inspector Hoyes says a knife was also located in the man’s pocket.

The 24-year-old man will reappear in Pukekohe District Court on 30 July charged with possession for supply of cannabis, possession of a knife in a public place and failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search.

“In the interest of road safety, the man was also issued with an infringement for using his mobile phone while driving.

“This is yet another example of great Police work and keeping our community safe by removing these harmful substances from our streets.”

ENDS.

Holly McKay/NZ Police

Source: New Zealand Government

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has announced Hamish Cooper as New Zealand’s next High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. “New Zealand’s relationship with the UK is one of our most important. “Mr Cooper is one of New Zealand’s most senior and experienced diplomats and is eminently well-qualified to take on this significant role,” Mr Peters says.Over his 40-year career at the Ministry, Mr Cooper has held several important roles including as New Zealand’s Ambassador to Japan, Russia, and Türkiye. He will take up the role in September.

Source: New Zealand Government

Transport Minister Chris Bishop is encouraging New Zealanders to have their say in public consultation that begins today on increasing speed limits for SH1 Transmission Gully and Raumati Straights to 110km/h.

“Boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and this proposal supports that outcome by reducing travel times and increasing efficiency on this vital route between Wellington and the lower and central North Island,” Mr Bishop says.  

“With around 22,000 vehicles using the road daily, it provides important regional resilience and a safe, modern, reliable route for all road users. Transmission Gully is one of the first Roads of National Significance (RoNS) announced by the former National Government in 2009 and is the main gateway to Wellington. 

“Transmission Gully was designed and constructed to a high safety standard. This is reflected in the low crash numbers on the road since opening in 2022. It has safety features that greatly reduce the risk of death or serious injury in a crash, like two lanes in each direction, and flexible median barrier between opposing lanes. Since opening, there have been over 150 barrier strikes but no deaths

“Along with Transmission Gully, the NZ Transport Agency will also be consulting on Raumati Straights, which connects Transmission Gully with Kāpiti Expressway.  By consulting on this section now, we can finalise a decision on appropriate speed limits quicker, ahead of possible safety improvements on the section. 

“This is all part of the Coalition Government’s agenda to deliver the infrastructure needed to grow the economy, reduce travel times and increase the productivity of our transport network. We’re committed to providing state highways that help people get where they need to go quickly and safely.”  

Consultation on raising the speed limit for SH1 Transmission Gully and Raumati Straights to 110km/h begins on Friday 30 May and will last six weeks.  You can find more on the NZTA website here: . 

Source: New Zealand Police

Please attribute to Detective Sergeant Brian McKinney, Gore CIB

Gore Police are continuing to investigate a suspicious house fire in Waikaia last year.

Just after midnight on Wednesday 21 February 2024, emergency services were called to the fire on Elswick Street.

The investigation team have now identified a vehicle of interest, and we’re keen to know more about its movements around the time of the fire.

The vehicle is a red BMW Z3 convertible, like the one pictured, which was seen leaving the Waikaia township at speed around the time of the fire. On that same night, the vehicle was also observed travelling towards the Riversdale area, again at speed.

We would like to speak to anyone who has information about this vehicle, or one matching the description. Additionally, if anyone has any footage of this vehicle in the area around 21 February 2024.

If you have any information that could assist, please contact Police via 105 either over the phone or online.

Reference file number 240222/8704.

Information can also be provided anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre

Source: Green Party

The Government is quietly leaving some of our poorest families hundreds of dollars worse off, ignoring warnings that changes to the accommodation supplement and public housing subsidies will disproportionately target disabled, older, Māori, Pasifika, and young people.

“This is a stealth cut, pushed through with no acknowledgement of the harm it will cause,” says the Green Party’s spokesperson for Housing, Ricardo Menéndez March.

“Housing is a human right. We can build an Aotearoa in which everyone has what they need, and nobody is left behind. 

“Instead, the Government hoped we wouldn’t notice that, hidden under headlines about KiwiSaver and Best Start changes, lies a major policy shift that will leave 13,200 families worse off by $100, even up to $200 per week*. 

“Changes to how the Accommodation Supplement is calculated means that income from boarders–which previously were partially exempt because the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) understood these boarders were often family members–now fully counts against eligibility.

“MSD flagged early on that increased hardship was expected to be experienced by disabled people, young people, older New Zealanders and Māori and Pasifika peoples.

“People who receive the accommodation supplement, by definition, already have unaffordable rents. $100 or $200 a week may not feel much for a Prime Minister out of touch with reality, but for thousands of families it’s a lifeline that allows them to keep a roof over their head, put food on the table and pay their bills.

“MSD also noted that any ‘savings’ were likely overstated**, as costs were simply going to be shifted to emergency housing and hardship grants. 

“Poverty is a political choice this coalition is repeatedly choosing. Once again, we see the wellbeing of thousands sacrificed in the name of superficial savings and cowardly games of political hot potato,” says Ricardo Menéndez March.

• *An estimated 13,200 households will be affected (7,000 on accommodation supplement, 6,200 on public housing subsidies). On average, the 7,000 households with boarders receiving the Accommodation Supplement will be $100/week worse off, and people with 3 boarders would be $202/week worse off. Affected households receiving public housing subsidies would see an average increase of $132/week to the cost of their rent. (Page 21 of the report)

•  **The Government is saving $150m over four years by stripping support (Accommodation Supplement + Income Related Rent Subsidy) from around 13,200 households who have boarders. MSD has told the Government that the savings are likely to be overestimated (page 7 and bottom of page 15 of the report). This is due to people needing hardship assistance, emergency housing, etc as a result of these changes creating costs for other parts of the system.

Source: New Zealand Government

Associate Education Minister David Seymour has today announced that the Government is going to take a firmer approach to school attendance.

The Ministry of Education is ready to pursue prosecutions of parents who repeatedly refuse to ensure their children attend school.

“The Ministry of Education is proactively contacting Attendance Service providers and schools to ensure parents who repeatedly refuse to send their children to school are referred to the Ministry,” Mr Seymour says.

“Prosecution is a reality for parents who refuse to send their children to school and ignore supports to ensure their children are in class and learning.

The Ministry will not prosecute parents of students who are absent because of chronic illness or health conditions associated with a disability, or who are genuinely engaging with a school and the supports offered.  

“Last year I directed the Ministry to exercise its powers and take a more active role in prosecutions to make them viable. I encourage school leaders to seek that support when all other measures have failed” Mr Seymour says.  

“Although we are facing an attendance crisis, green shoots are present, and we need to keep building on them. In every term in 2024 attendance improved on the same term in 2023.

“I expect this momentum to continue as phases of our attendance action plan come into force. For example, it will be mandatory for schools to have their own attendance management plan, aligned with the Stepped Attendance Response (STAR) (STAR) in place by Term 1 of 2026.

“The basic premise of the STAR is that no child is left behind. The STAR clarifies the roles and responsibilities that school leadership, boards, parents and the Ministry have in supporting students to attend school. 

“Around 10% of students are absent for 15 days or more in a school term. Students in that bracket would trigger the ‘red light’ in the general framework. At this point, prosecution would be considered a valid intervention. This means every day at school is important, and interventions will follow if absences build up.

“Attending school is the first step towards achieving positive educational outcomes. Positive educational outcomes lead to better health, higher incomes, better job stability and greater participation within communities. These are opportunities that every student deserves.”

Source: Auckland Council

A new Development Contributions Policy has today been adopted by Auckland Council’s Governing Body.

The policy ensures the cost of growth-related infrastructure is fairly shared between developers and ratepayers.

The Contributions Policy 2025 enables the council to recover development contributions from those undertaking development. The policy supports a 30-year plan for growth-related infrastructure in the investment priority areas in Auckland.

Auckland Council Mayor Wayne Brown said council had a rational debate and sorted this one out fairly fast.

“At the end of it, growth pays for growth; developers must pay their fair share of the cost of infrastructure,” said Mayor Brown. “Auckland ratepayers shouldn’t be expected to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost of growth, especially during times when households are struggling. 

“Given there are often complaints on both sides of this, and we received over 300 pages of robust advice to support our decisions, I’m confident we have landed in the right place. 

“This is a very significant policy for council, one that enables approximately $10 billion of investment in priority areas across Auckland. We’re doing what we need to support growth in the right places, within the constraints in front of us.” 

Matching pace and scale of growth

Auckland Council financial strategy general manager Michael Burns said the council is grateful for feedback on the policy, as it has helped inform a final policy that will enable infrastructure investment to match the pace and scale of Auckland’s growth.

“This is a complex but significant piece of policy that ultimately affects both current and future Aucklanders. It ensures the cost of new infrastructure is fairly shared between developers and ratepayers, and the council appreciates the feedback from a range of stakeholders that has helped get the balance right,” says Mr Burns.

“The new policy is informed by our long-term plan adopted last year and also supports a 30-year, $10.3 billion infrastructure investment programme in parts of Auckland where significant growth is expected and delivers quality urban environments.”

At today’s Governing Body, councillors endorsed a 30-year programme of infrastructure investment required to support the expected development in the identified Investment Priority Areas in Auckland, and adopted the new Contributions Policy 2025 – the two collectively enabling strategic infrastructure investment across Auckland.

The plans help meet the needs of Auckland’s forecast population growth, as 200,000 more Aucklanders are expected by 2034 and a further 400,000 by 2054. The contributions policy helps fund stormwater, transport, parks and community facilities in new and existing developments.

The 30-year programme focuses on investment in the Inner Northwest (Redhills, Westgate and Whenuapai), Drury, Māngere, Mount Roskill and Tāmaki.

The proposed contributions policy was revised following feedback during consultation and takes account of updated information on project requirements, developer and central government plans.

“Auckland has experienced substantial growth in the last decade and that is expected to continue. The scale of growth means the council needs to plan now for the investment required to support that growth and to plan how it will be funded,” says Mr Burns.

Investment priority areas

The increased investment the council is committing to is reflected in an increased development contributions price in some areas. This is particularly so in investment priority areas – Inner Northwest, Tamaki, Mt Roskill, Mangere and Drury – where the scale of growth requires aligned funding.

Some feedback suggested that it would be fairer for development contribution prices to increase over time rather than remain flat. The council has considered this and agreed that, while still recovering the full costs of infrastructure over time, prices should start lower and increase at 2 per cent annually. This ensures earlier developers pay a similar cost, in real terms, as those who develop later on.

On average, development contributions in the investment priority areas, paid in the 2025/2026 financial year, will be $48,000. This is down from the $68,000 that was consulted on.

Development contributions across the rest of Auckland (outside of investment priority areas) will remain on average $20,000 per household equivalent for the 2025/2026 year, less than the $32,000 that was consulted on.

The policy will come into effect on 1 July 2025.

For more information, visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/developmentcontributions

– ends –

Further information

What is the new pricing for development contributions?
Development contributions pricing will vary depending on a range of factors, including location, timing and investment levels by area.

Within the period of the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, areas outside of investment priority areas will see a $8.9 billion capital investment, with $1.5 billion from development contribution at $20,000 on average (per household unit equivalent).  

Over a 30-year period, there is a $10.3 billion of capital investment in the investment priority areas, with $4.8 billion recovered from development contributions at $48,000 on average (per household unit equivalent).  

The table below shows the development contribution prices.

Development contribution costs

	Previous 2022 policy (average cost per household unit equivalent)	Consultation proposal (average cost per household unit equivalent)	New 2025 policy (average cost per household unit in 2026 financial year increasing by 2 per cent each year)
Inner Northwest	$25,000	$98,000	$72,000
Tāmaki	$31,000	$119,000	$71,000 (with a stormwater connection)$51,000 (without a stormwater connection)
Mt Roskill	$20,000	$52,000	$33,000
Māngere	$18,000	$29,000	$27,000
Drury	$70,000	$83,000	$64,000
Elsewhere in the Auckland region	$20,000	$32,000	$20,000

Source: New Zealand Government

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters has completed a historic visit to Nepal, the first by a New Zealand Foreign Minister to the country.  
Mr Peters’ visit coincided with the 72nd anniversary of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay’s summit of Sagarmāthā / Mount Everest. 
“The relationship between Nepal and New Zealand, forged by Tenzing Norgay and Ed Hillary in May 1953, is undoubtedly special,” Mr Peters says.
“It has been an honour to pay tribute to our countries’ pioneering heroes – and to discuss how best New Zealand and Nepal can best cooperate in the second quarter of the 21st Century.” While in Nepal, Mr Peters met President Ramchandra Paudel, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli and Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba.  
“New Zealand and Nepal have a shared interest in regional and global security,” Mr Peters says. 
“We discussed current regional and global challenges of mutual interest.“Nepal is notably the largest troop contributor to UN peacekeeping globally. We discussed New Zealand’s strong commitment to multilateralism and our mutual interest in working with likeminded countries to strengthen the rules-based international system.“We also discussed the importance of improved air connections to facilitate trade and people-to-people connections. Our goal is to have an Air Services Agreement between New Zealand and Nepal in place in the near future.”During his visit to Nepal, Mr Peters announced a NZ$1.8 million partnership with the Himalayan Trust to deliver quality education in the Solukhumbu District over five years. Mr Peters met Alexander Hillary, General Manager of the Himalayan Trust (and Sir Edmund’s grandson), and visited Khumiung School and Khunde Hospital, which Sir Edmund helped establish. “It was a privilege to meet with the resilient and welcoming people of the Everest region and with members of the Himalayan Trust on the anniversary of Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay’s historic achievement,” Mr Peters says.Mr Peters departs Nepal for India today for the final stop in his ongoing four-country tour.

Source: Privacy Commissioner

Question

Answer

What is a non-OneDrive example of where content stores are risky? 

Shared file servers, Dropbox, and email inboxes are all non-OneDrive examples. From a governance standpoint, personal OneDrive should be treated as temporary storage for drafts, not for long-term collaboration.

Wouldn’t AI assess value (also) based on date and on words like ‘draft’? Can it be told to e.g disregard a doc with ‘confidential’ in the title or filename?

Yes, AI can be trained to factor in metadata like document age or certain keywords. But this approach is limited and unreliable on its own. A much safer and more robust method is to apply sensitivity labels and metadata rules that formally control how content is handled. For example, Microsoft 365 tools allow you to restrict AI access based on classification, file type, or protection labels – making it much easier to enforce privacy at scale.

For your recruitment example, what about the situation where we ‘keep a CV on file for future opportunities’? Is that not really a realistic thing to do? 

It’s a common practice, but it needs to be done with care. You should define a retention period (e.g. 12 months), communicate this to applicants, and allow them to request deletion after the recruitment process. Also consider legal hold requirements, in case the process is challenged. Ideally, this is built into your recruitment case file template with the default settings pre-applied but flexible for roles like a Chief Executive.

How does one get buy-in from leadership to prioritise these strategies?

Focus on risk. Identify the highest-risk content (e.g. HR, contracts, or customer data), quantify the potential fallout of a breach, and show how practical steps can reduce exposure. You could use this session’s video or invite an external review to present findings. Often, a short, high level assessment is enough to spark action, especially when linked to regulatory or reputational risk.

Is Teams not safe? Is SharePoint safer to collaborate internally with staff?

They work together. Teams stores files in SharePoint and OneDrive behind the scenes. Both can be made safe with the right setup: applying retention rules, sensitivity labels, metadata, and access controls. What matters is structure. For example, a recruitment team site can be tightly scoped with the right protections, so that only authorised people can access specific content and only for as long as it’s needed.

Love the approach to start with high-risk areas for labelling etc. HR, Legal – where else should we start? 

Start with areas that handle high-stakes personal or sensitive data. This often includes customer service (names, addresses, complaints), regulatory consultations, and internal incident management. The key is to understand what information is created and used as part of your core business processes and to apply structured governance there first.

So AI can really access anything on OneDrive or Teams? Is this just within the organisation or external as well? Otherwise, why would anyone even use these platforms if they are so unsecure? 

AI like Microsoft Copilot can only access what the individual user has permission to see – it doesn’t open up content to the outside world.But not all AI tools are created equal. If you’re using a third-party tool (like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude), and it’s trained on your inputs, there’s a much higher risk. Always confirm the scope, access, and data use policies of any AI platform you’re considering.

Do you think the large number of apps and programs teams (sometime multiple to communicate across) use is exposing organisations to greater risk?

Absolutely. Every new app increases your attack surface. But this isn’t just a Microsoft problem, the pre-Teams world was full of risky, unstructured tools too. The strength of Microsoft 365 lies in its potential to consolidate and govern information. The challenge is to use it well: with structured Teams templates, sensible defaults, and good training. Done right, it can significantly reduce risk.

Thanks Sarah. Do you do any other lectures or information sessions? It’s great to get this wide view and ideas about where to start and how to progress.

Yes! We have recorded sessions available on our website, and we’re running upcoming workshops (June–August) on managing “high-stakes content” – covering privacy, confidentiality, and governance in practice. Let us know if you’d like an invitation.

Thanks for the presentation Sarah. What is an IPC Workspace? 

It depends. Privacy Officers bring the compliance lens. IT provides the tools. HR, Finance, or Operations may own the business processes. Often, the best results come from collaboration across roles – sometimes led by a CISO, or through a digital transformation project. We’re often asked to create a scoping report first – identifying key risks and recommending a practical, cross-functional way forward.

What do you think about using AI to help you to manage your content e.g., highlight risk, old info, differing information etc.

There’s real promise here, especially in auto classifying content or flagging risk patterns. But you need to ensure the AI only sees your data and doesn’t feed it back into public training sets. We’re working with AI to assist classification and retention. That said, good design still matters. When workspaces are built with clear rules and defaults, risk is reduced without relying solely on AI.

I also wonder about why we don’t explicitly reference commercial sensitivity in privacy conversations. Do these have different considerations?

It’s a great point. While commercial sensitivity isn’t covered under the Privacy Act, the governance techniques are the same: structured storage, restricted access, retention rules, and labelling. These protect business secrets just as effectively as personal information.

(Would) one of the risks for using AI would be misinformation and manipulation?

Definitely. Especially when AI pulls from poor-quality or untrusted sources – or if it mixes draft and final content. That’s why it’s critical to structure what AI can access and ensure human review remains part of the workflow. At this point in time, AI should be helpful, not authoritative.

Thanks Sarah, I was at the 7th Data conference, IM only got mentioned once when it came to AI… just the once, be good to get this message in front of that crowd if you can.

Agreed!!!

Source: New Zealand Parliament –

The objective of the bill is to improve timeliness in New Zealand’s courts by maximising judicial resources. It aims to ensure that judicial time is focused on the most critical tasks and decisions.

The bill would amend the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Coroners Act 2006. It would:

• increase by two the number of High Court Judges that could be appointed, from 55 to 57
• make procedural amendments to minimise the volume of proceedings that abuse the process of the courts
• reduce duplication at the pre-trial stage and maximise the use of judicial and court resources
• allow appeals to the Court of Appeals relating to District Court decisions to be heard by a court at the appropriate level
• enable coroners to close an inquiry if it were no longer appropriate to conduct an inquiry because of new information or changed circumstances.

Tell the Justice Committee what you think

Make a submission on the bill by 1pm on Wednesday 25 June 2025.

 

For more details about the bill:

ENDS

For media enquiries contact:

Justice Committee staff

04 817 9520 / justice@parliament.govt.nz