Category: MIL-OSI

Source: New Zealand Government

Applications have opened for a $30 million fund for projects that will enhance the resilience of New Zealand’s coastal shipping connections and help boost economic growth, Associate Transport Minister James Meager has announced.

The Coastal Shipping Resilience Fund was established through the Government Policy Statement on land transport. Funding will be allocated through a contestable process, with the criteria’s scope confirmed today.

“The coastal shipping sector is vulnerable to natural hazard risks. Disruption to the sector could worsen New Zealand’s supply chain and economic performance,” Mr Meager says.

“This long-term investment is crucial to ensuring we as a nation can get our goods to market, which is vital to growing the economy. Economic growth means more jobs, higher incomes and better public services for all Kiwis.”

The fund will be used to invest in a small number of landmark projects, to support assets and facilities with a long lifespan well beyond the three-year funding period.

This could include strengthening wharves and jetties, improving access routes to and from ports, or upgrading freight handling equipment.

Preference will be given to applications which include co-investment.

Mr Meager says the fund will also consider requests from sectors that support the resilience of the wider coastal shipping sector through, for example, energy and fuel, navigation aids, or the training of seafarers. 

“Coastal shipping plays an important role in New Zealand’s freight network. It provides a safe and low emitting way of transporting large, heavy cargo such as shipping containers – along with cement and aggregate used in building new infrastructure.

“It is also a lifeline when natural disaster strikes, as demonstrated following Cyclone Gabrielle when coastal shipping provided critical services to Tairāwhiti. The fund will ensure those benefits can continue.

“The fund will enhance the coastal shipping sector’s ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from disruptive events that would otherwise undermine our coastal freight connections.”

Source: New Zealand Police

Attributable to Inspector Nicky Cooney, Eastern Bay of Plenty Area Commander:

Bay of Plenty Police are urging motorcyclists to ensure they’re wearing appropriate safety gear before going for a ride, after recent crashes in the region.

We are seeing more instances where riders are not wearing the correct protective equipment, including a helmet.

No Police officer wants to knock on somebody’s door to tell them their loved one has been seriously injured or killed, so we’re asking riders to take all the necessary steps to ensure their safety.

Ensure your safety gear, including your helmet, is properly fitted. This could be the difference between walking away from an accident or not.

If you’re riding with friends, ensure everyone is riding safely and has all the correct equipment on before you go. Dangerous behaviour on the road that can be seen as ‘fun’ can have serious consequences.

More safe riding tips can be found here – Safe riding tips | NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.

ENDS

Issued by the Police Media Centre

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government is stepping up support for rural New Zealand with a $4 million Rural Wellbeing Fund to expand investment in community-based initiatives, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay announced today at Fieldays.
“The establishment of this fund is a result of advocacy by Federated Farmers Chair, Wayne Langford, who has been a long-time champion of rural wellbeing and mental health,” Mr McClay says. 
The contestable fund to drive rural health and community resilience will prioritise initiatives that have strong local backing and secure co-funding from industry or regional partners. It will support new and existing initiatives like Surfing for Farmers, Farmstrong, NZ Young Farmers, FirstMate and many more.
A five-member panel with representation from the primary sector will be established to assess project applications. Projects must demonstrate strong local delivery, provide clear benefits to rural people, and ability to attract co-investment from industry and sector partners.
“We’re backing the people on the ground who are already doing great work—this fund is about scaling up, reaching further, and removing barriers for rural communities to lead their own wellbeing efforts,” Mr McClay says.
This fund brings the Government’s total investment in rural resilience and mental health to more than $11 million over the next four years.
“This package is about ensuring the farmers and growers who generate our export income, create jobs, and sustain our regions have the support they need to thrive,” Mr McClay says.
“When rural New Zealand is well, New Zealand does well,” Mr McClay says.
In addition to the Rural Wellbeing Fund, the Government has confirmed:

$6 million over four years for Rural Support Trusts across the country;
An extra $1 million in 2025 for frontline rural mental wellbeing services;
$400,000 in grants for A&P shows that foster rural connection and pride; and
$250,000 to support the expanded outreach work of Rural Women New Zealand in 2025/26.

Expressions of interests for project funding are now open. For more information, visit www.mpi.govt.nz.

Source: Privacy Commissioner

This guidance aims to help agencies respond appropriately to requests for personal information about children and young people.  The guidance covers:

• Information Privacy Principle 6 (IPP 6) of the Privacy Act 2020.
• Who can make an IPP 6 request for information about a child or young person.
• Requests made by parents, legal guardians or other caregivers, including:
  • when a parent, legal guardian or caregiver is acting as a representative of the child or young person.
  • whether the Privacy Act 2020 or the Official Information Act 1982 applies
  • what other laws may apply.
• Requests made by a Lawyer for the Child.
• Responsibilities of an agency before giving access to personal information.
• Requests made by other agencies.
• Applying the guidance in practice- some examples.

Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 6 

The Privacy Act applies to any individual regardless of age.  A child or young person has the same privacy rights as an adult but sometimes needs the assistance of another person to exercise those rights. 

One of those rights is a person’s right to ask for information about themselves, set out in IPP 6. 

An agency must respond to the requester within 20 working days and usually has to provide the information, unless one of the refusal grounds applies. 

Read more general information about responding to IPP 6 requests.

Information covered in this guidance

Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 333 KB).

Who can make an IPP 6 request about children and young people?

An IPP 6 request may be made by the child or young person themselves or their representative. A representative is a person who is lawfully acting on the child or young person’s behalf.

Information requests from parents, legal guardians or caregivers

The Privacy Act does not provide an automatic right of access by a parent, legal guardian, or caregiver to their child’s personal information. 
Assessing and processing a request from a parent, legal guardian or caregiver is a two-step process:

1. Determine whether the parent, legal guardian or caregiver is a representative.
2. If yes, then determine whether any of the refusal grounds apply. 

In most cases, a parent or legal guardian can be considered a representative, particularly where the child is too young or otherwise not able to act on their own behalf. Where a caregiver is making the request, determining whether they are a representative may not be so clear cut as they won’t have the same legal status as a parent or legal guardian. 

The circumstances will be different for each request, so it is important that an agency considers each request on a case-by-case basis before deciding whether the parent, legal guardian or caregiver is acting as a representative of the child or young person. 

Step 1: When is a parent, legal guardian or caregiver a representative?

For the purposes of IPP 6, a parent, legal guardian or caregiver may be considered representative of the child where:

• the child is too young or otherwise not able to act on their own behalf, or
• an older child or young person has authorised them to make the request on their behalf. 

Before determining that a parent, legal guardian or caregiver is a representative, agencies should consider:

• The age and maturity of the child and whether they are capable of understanding and exercising their rights under the Privacy Act.
• Any court orders relating to parental access or responsibility (e.g. protection orders, custody and guardianship orders).
• Whether, based on what is known to the agency, it is (or isn’t) likely to be in the best interests of the child or young person for the parent, legal guardian or caregiver requesting the information to be able to exercise their child’s Privacy Act rights on their behalf. 

Where there is a family breakdown of some sort such as family harm, a custody or guardianship dispute or where the child is or has experienced abuse, the best interests of the child or young person should be a primary consideration. When determining whether it is in the best interests of the child or young person agencies should consider:

• the interests of the parent, legal guardian, caregiver and the child or young person are no longer the same or are in conflict, and/or disclosing the information to the parent/legal guardian would go against the child’s interests.
• whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the child or young person does not or would not wish the information to be disclosed.

If any of the factors above exist, an agency may determine that a parent, guardian or caregiver is not acting as representative of the child or young person and the request does not fall under the Privacy Act. 

Where a parent, guardian or caregiver is not a representative you can consider the request under the Official Information Act (see table below).  

Non-custodial parents

A non-custodial parent is the parent who doesn’t live with their child most of the time. Non-custodial parents with guardianship rights still have legal rights and responsibilities, ensuring they can maintain a relationship with their child.  A non-custodial parent has guardianship rights if they meet the test in section 17 of the Care of Children Act 2004 (or are otherwise appointed by the Court). 

A non-custodial parent with guardianship rights can exercise their child’s privacy rights in the same way the custodial parent can, taking the wishes of the child into account if expressed or known (for older children or young people). 

Where an agency receives an information request from a non-custodial parent with guardianship rights, it should follow the same process for managing a request from a custodial parent or other legal guardian.

Step 2: Decision to release or refuse the request

A representative does not have automatic access to a child or young person’s personal information. An agency still needs to consider whether any of the refusal grounds apply in the circumstances. 

In situations where parents are separated, agencies do not need the consent of the other parent (either custodial or non-custodial) to disclose information about the child or young person. However, agencies should consider whether the child or young person’s personal information also reveals personal information about the other parent (e.g., the other parent’s home address or contact details where there is a protection order in place). 

Read more general information about refusal grounds: Office of the Privacy Commissioner | Principle 6 – Access to personal information. 

When a request for information should be managed as an Official Information Act request

The Official Information Act (OIA) enables an individual to make a request for ‘official information’ (certain information held by public sector agencies). Official information can include personal information about other people, including children and young people. 

Where the person requesting the information isn’t the child or young person or a representative, the request should be considered under the OIA. 

The following table can help you determine which Act may apply depending on the specific circumstances of the request:

Individual making request	Purpose of request	Applicable Act
Child/young person – capable of making their own request.	Their own personal information	Privacy Act
Parent/legal guardian/caregiver of child/young person who is too young or not capable of exercising their rights. (Parent/legal guardian/caregiver probably a representative)	Personal information about the child or young person	Privacy Act, unless there are circumstances which suggest the Parent/Legal Guardian/caregiver is not acting on their behalf or in their best interests, then the request should be processed under the OIA
Parent/legal guardian/caregiver of older child or young person capable of making their own request with the older child/young person’s authorisation to make the request on their behalf. (Parent/legal guardian/caregiver probably a representative)	Personal information about the older child or young person	Privacy Act, unless there are circumstances which suggest the Parent/Legal Guardian/caregiver is not acting on their behalf or in their best interests, then the request should be processed under the OIA
Parent/legal guardian/caregiver of older child capable of making their own request where the older child/young person has made it clear they do not authorise the requestor to make the request on their behalf.(Parent/legal guardian/caregiver is not a representative)	Personal information about the older child or young person	Part 2 OIA/LGOIMA.
All other cases where a parent/legal guardian/caregiver of child/young person is determined not to be a representative.	Personal information about the child or young person	Part 2 OIA/LGOIMA. Subject to eligibility requirements in the OIA (s 12(1)), but not the LGOIMA

Other laws that may apply

Agencies should also consider whether any other laws may apply to requests made by parents, legal guardians or caregivers and proactive disclosures of children and young person’s information. These laws include:

• The Health Act 1956 and the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) regulate access to “health information” held by a “health agency”. Under the HIPC, parents or guardians of children under 16 years are legally defined as their ‘representatives’, whose access requests are treated as though made by the child themselves. 
  As with any information privacy request, these requests may be refused in certain circumstances (Rule 11(4) HIPC). 
• Section 103 of the Education and Training Act 2020 says that principals should tell parents about matters affecting their child’s progress through school or relationships with others. 
• Under IPP 11 of the Privacy Act 2020, an agency may disclose personal information to a third party if it believes there are reasonable grounds that one of the exceptions in IPP 11 applies. 

For example, this could be when the child or young person authorises the disclosure (IPP11(1)(c)) or where disclosure to parents is one of (or is directly related to) the purposes for which an agency obtained the information (IPP11(1)(a)). 

However, unlike IPP 6 and the OIA, IPP 11 does not give a right to access or request information. IPP 11 gives an agency discretion to disclose personal information where that agency considers it is necessary to do so (rather than legally being required to respond to a request for the information). Whether an exception applies will depend on the circumstances.

Information requests from Lawyer for the Child

A Lawyer for the Child is a specialist lawyer appointed by the Family Court to represent the interests of the child or young person in Family Court proceedings involving custody or guardianship disputes, or situations of family harm.

To fulfil their responsibilities, the Lawyer for the Child often needs information about the child or young person held by agencies such as a school or healthcare provider. When making a request for information, the Lawyer for the Child will be acting as a representative for the child or young person.

The Lawyer for the Child should provide evidence of their appointment and brief from the Family Court. (A Lawyer for the Child is appointed by Court Minute and receives their brief by letter from the Court.) If it not clear whether the requestor is acting as the Lawyer for the Child, you should ask them to provide evidence of their appointment before you provide access to any personal information.

Responsibilities of an agency before giving access to personal information

Providing access to personal information to an unauthorised person can cause serious harm to an individual and be a form of notifiable privacy breach – where the personal information is about children and young people the harm can be long lasting and significant.

When providing access to personal information under IPP 6, the agency must (Section 57 of the Privacy Act 2020): 

• be satisfied of the identity of the requestor (e.g. the child or young person or the representative)
• not provide access to the information if the agency has reasonable grounds to believe that the request is being made under the threat of physical or mental harm (coercion)
• ensure that the information intended for the requestor (or their representative) is provided to the right person.

You may need to request additional information from the requestor to satisfy these requirements of the Privacy Act. 

Confirming a requestor’s identity

Where additional information is required to confirm a requestor’s identity the agency should inform the requestor what information is required and why. Agencies must also ensure that any identification documentation requested is securely destroyed once confirmation of the requestor’s identity has been made. 

Where a decision has been made to grant access to personal information, agencies should confirm with the requestor (or their representative) the method in which they would like to receive the information and double check email, or postal addresses are correct.

Read more about how you can confirm someone’s identity.

Information requests from other agencies

Where a request for information about a child or young person is made by another agency other laws may apply. These include:

• Section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act permits Child Welfare and Protection Agencies to request and share information about children and young people for specified purposes. 
• Section 20 of the Family Violence Act permits Family Violence Agencies to request and share information about individuals who have been subject to family harm for specified purposes.
• Any law that requires the information to be provided to the requestor e.g. section 66 Oranga Tamariki Act, section 11 Social Security Act, section 17 Tax Administration Act.

Where requests for information are made under one of these laws an agency cannot refuse the request under one of the IPP 11 refusal grounds (or a withholding ground under the OIA). An agency should assess the request and decide whether to share the requested information in line with the law under which the request was made. 

Examples

See examples of how this guidance is applied in practice.

Download a copy of this guidance (opens to PDF, 333 KB).

Source: New Zealand Government

Good evening,
It’s a real privilege to be here with you tonight, among people who play such a vital role in the wellbeing of our animals, our communities, and our economy.

Veterinarians are essential to New Zealand. Upholding our global reputation for world-leading animal welfare standards, something we are known for and proud of.
Let’s not forget, we are a country with one of the highest rates of companion animal ownership in the world, and large parts of our economy rely on production animals.

Our food and fibre sector is the backbone of this country, making up 10% of our GDP and supporting around 360,000 jobs. In the year to April 2025, dairy exports brought in $26.8 billion, and meat exports $9.7 billion. None of this would be possible without the work of our veterinarians.

You are essential to the success of our animal-based industries. You’re not just treating animals; you’re enabling our trade, our economy, and our reputation.

You make market access possible, protect the health and welfare status of our animals, and serve as trusted advisors on farms—the first line of defence in our surveillance programmes. Those of you working at MPI ensure our compliance with international standards, manage disease control and quarantine, and give markets confidence in our systems.

Take our biosecurity system, one of the best in the world. This system, which helps us detect threats like Mycoplasma bovis early, relies on your vigilance, expertise, and commitment. Without vets, we don’t maintain those crucial disease-free statuses, and without those, we don’t trade. It’s that simple.

Looking ahead, climate change and sustainability are rising priorities, not just here but for our trading partners too. Veterinarians, with your deep understanding of the interconnectedness of animals, humans, and the environment, are uniquely placed to be a part of this conversation, and I believe your insights are key.

As a government, we absolutely recognise your value. That’s why, back in 2009, we established the Veterinary Bonding Scheme. Since then, it has helped 483 graduate vets into rural practice, where they are most needed. Each year, over 30 new graduates join the scheme, and in 2024, we saw the highest intake yet: 35.

We’re continuing to listen to the profession to hear what you need. Just this April, I announced a change to the regulations allowing trained non-veterinarians, under a vet’s authorisation, to perform subgingival dental procedures on cats and dogs.

As a farmer, I know how stretched vets are, and I also know how skilled our veterinary nurses are. This change gives them the legal protection to put those skills to use, meaning better dental care for our pets, allowing vets to focus on more complex cases, and overall, providing better service for pet owners.
I want to sincerely thank the New Zealand Veterinary Association, particularly the Companion Animal Veterinarians Branch, for your work with MPI to develop this regulation. Your advocacy and collaboration, alongside other industry voices, have made a real difference.
Thank you for everything you do to keep our animals well, safeguard our biosecurity, and protect our food safety systems.
And finally, a massive congratulations to the eight award winners we’re celebrating tonight. Your excellence lifts the whole profession. And as I know a few of you I am looking forward to congratulating you in person.
 

Source: New Zealand Government

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has taken part in two major international events in Nice, France this week, focused on Pacific resilience, prosperity and security. 
The sixth Pacific-France Summit, hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron, took place in Nice overnight. 
“The Summit brought together Pacific countries for discussions with France on regional stability, economic development and climate resilience,” Mr Peters says. 
“New Zealand welcomes this opportunity for Pacific Islands Forum members to discuss our priorities with France.
“France is a long-standing partner in the Pacific, and we value its support in securing the prosperity and stability of the region during a period of heightened global complexity.” 
While in Nice, Mr Peters also attended the third United Nations Ocean Conference.
“As a maritime state with one of the world’s largest and most biodiverse marine areas, New Zealand strongly supports a rules-based international system that secures the conservation and sustainable use of our oceans,” Mr Peters says.
“This is especially important for ensuring a resilient and healthy Blue Pacific. We will continue to work with our partners in the region to advance our shared priorities.”
At the conference, New Zealand re-emphasised its commitment to support Pacific partners in their efforts to enhance science-based ocean management and ensure their fisheries are sustainable and climate-resilient.
While in Nice, Mr Peters also held bilateral meetings with leaders and Ministers from Chile, France, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Singapore, United Kingdom, and Viet Nam.
The Foreign Minister has now travelled to Rome for high-level bilateral talks with the Italian Government, before heading to Jakarta.

Source: New Zealand Government

New Zealand has joined Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway in placing travel bans on two extremist Israeli politicians, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.

 The bans will prevent Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir from travelling to New Zealand.

 “Our action today is not against the Israeli people, who suffered immeasurably on October 7 and who have continued to suffer through Hamas’ ongoing refusal to release all hostages.  Nor is it designed to sanction the wider Israeli government.

 “Rather, the travel bans are targeted at two individuals who are using their leadership positions to actively undermine peace and security and remove prospects for a two-state solution.

 “New Zealand is a long-standing supporter of the two-state solution. Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have severely and deliberately undermined that by personally advocating for the annexation of Palestinian land and the expansion of illegal settlements, while inciting violence and forced displacement.

“New Zealand’s consistent and historic position has been that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are a violation of international law. Settlements and associated violence undermine the prospects for a viable two-state solution.”

 Today’s targeted sanctions are consistent with New Zealand’s approach to other foreign policy issues, Mr Peters says.

 “New Zealand has also targeted travel bans on politicians and military leaders advocating violence or undermining democracy in other countries in the past, including Russia, Belarus and Myanmar.”

 The international community is overwhelmingly in favour of a future Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, Mr Peters says.

 “The crisis in Gaza has made returning to a meaningful political process all the more urgent. New Zealand will continue to advocate for an end to the current conflict and an urgent restart of the Middle East Peace Process.”

Source: New Zealand Government

6th Pacific-France Summit
Intervention by New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rt Hon Winston Peters
Nice, France, Tuesday 10 June 2025
Thank you, President Macron, for convening this meeting today, the sixth Pacific-France Summit. We were privileged to have also been at the second Pacific-France Summit, during the Presidency of Jacques Chirac, in Paris in 2006. Many of the issues raised two decades ago have been raised again today. 
Our region faces unique threats to its security and stability. Humanitarian and environmental challenges and increasing geostrategic competition are bringing heightened complexity and risk. In this environment, it is important that we come together to share experiences and perspectives, and to find the best way forward as a region. 
Working alongside likeminded partners like France is important and we recognise France’s long-standing commitment to the Pacific and the contribution it makes to regional stability. This includes the unique role France plays supporting the economic development and security of French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna. 
We value working with France on humanitarian assistance and disaster response through the FRANZ mechanism, most recently used after the Vanuatu earthquake. We also welcome France joining New Zealand and Australia in supporting the Pacific Humanitarian Warehouse Programme, an important Pacific priority.   
It is important that partners’ engagement with our region advances our region’s priorities, is consistent with established regional practices, and supports Pacific institutions – including the Forum as the preeminent regional body. This is the best way to support regional stability in the Pacific. 
Over 60 percent of New Zealand’s development support goes toward Pacific priorities. This includes a pledge of NZ$20 million to the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF). This initiative is a clear priority for Pacific leaders. We encourage France to support the PRF and our officials would be entirely happy to share our thinking. 
We welcome the important steps we, as a Forum, have taken this year to improve how our region engages with Forum Dialogue Partners. We hope these reforms, which will tier Partners according to their support for Pacific priorities, will be in place by the time leaders meet in Honiara, leading to even more productive exchanges with important partners such as France. 
As partners engage with our region, it is important that they do so in a manner that is transparent and supportive of good governance. Not all partners take this approach. Some ask Pacific partners not to publish agreements or avoid the Forum Secretariat when organising regional engagements.  
As we face external pushes into our region to coerce, cajole and constrain, we must stand together as a region – always remembering that we are strongest when we act collectively to confront security and strategic challenges.  
The Forum plays a critical role in helping us to form a cohesive approach, resolve differences, bolster regional development and security, and use our collective voice to hold bigger countries to account.  
We welcome France’s efforts to engage with the full Forum and Secretariat. Notwithstanding the longstanding Forum membership agreement that we engage as a complete group, not all partners have followed this model in recent meetings.  We encourage all to follow France’s example.  
Our ability to come together in our uniquely Pacific way is one of our greatest assets. We welcome France’s engagement with the Forum Secretariat to organise this important meeting today.
Thank you.
 

Source: New Zealand Police

Police are responding to a crash involving several cars on the Southwestern motorway, Wesley, this evening.

The crash was reported to Police at 6.35pm.

There are no reports of any injuries, but the crash is causing significant traffic congestion.

Motorists are asked to take alternative routes where possible, or delay travel.

Motorists are also urged to watch their speed and following distances in the current wet weather.

ENDS

Issued by Police Media Centre. 

Source: New Zealand Police

Police are appealing for information after an unattended kayak was found on Lake Te Anau late Tuesday afternoon (10 June).

The red and white kayak was located floating upside down, with paddle, a stainless-steel flask and some fishing tackle nearby.

Police hope the kayaker made it ashore and returned home without alerting anyone of their mishap.

Police urge anyone who recognises the kayak or has failed to return home from fishing on Lake Te Anau today to contact Police, quote event number P062824240.

ENDS