Source: Radio New Zealand
Iconic New Zealand act Split Enz will now kick off their Forever Enz Tour at Hamilton’s Claudelands Arena.
Split Enz.
Radlab
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: Radio New Zealand
By law South Australian politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads. Here, we have the Advertising Standards Authority and the Media Council, but neither have the force of a criminal penalty behind them. RNZ
In South Australia, by law, politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads.
You might think that it would be normal that politicians don’t lie in their election ads, and that this would be an unnecessary rule.
But redundant or not, commentators say the fact that they check themselves before sending out their official messaging has helped turn the heat down during election campaigns.
The law is popular with voters and has been praised internationally as a tool for regulating political speech, but it’s also been criticised as labour-intensive to police, and something that has become weaponised by political parties.
It only governs advertising, not statements, what’s said on the campaign trail or on social media.
In New Zealand our watchdog over political advertising is the same body that governs all advertising – the Advertising Standards Authority. It doesn’t have the force of criminal penalties behind it, but it is a mechanism to have false information removed.
If there is a complaint, that board will often make a decision within 48 – 72 hours, and if it finds the message incorrect, it will be taken down. The ASA is the referee in this area, and all parties so far abide by it.
The subject of electoral law is a specialty topic for political commentator David Farrar. He says there is actually a law in New Zealand governing truth in politics, but it’s much wider – although it only applies for the 48 hours before an election. It’s section 199A of the Electoral Act.
“It actually can apply to anyone in New Zealand who states something false which could influence the election,” he says.
“It basically says it’s a corrupt practice – so that means you can go to jail for what’s a criminal offence – to make a knowingly false statement within 48 hours of an election, designed to influence the election.”
The law’s been in place for several decades and Farrar says it reflects a time before the news cycle was sped up, and before advance voting came in, so it’s pretty out of date.
“It’s from the days if you pop out say, a pamphlet to every household on the Friday before an election and there was something false in there, back in the old days there’d be no way to correct that. It would be too late and then you might have an election outcome that got decided on false information. Now, my view is, that’s not the case today.”
He says these days, it would be questioned on social media within 10 minutes, and reported on by media within an hour.
“It’s still on the books – Parliament hasn’t removed it – I don’t think there’s ever been a prosecution under it, but I do recall Winston [Peters] threatening me with it around 20 years ago for something – which was accurate by the way – that I published on my blog on a Friday before the election.”
Farrar says where it gets interesting though, is the question of what is actually false.
That’s a point also emphasised by Tim Hurdle, a political consultant and long-time political campaign manager who ran Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s campaign, and the National Party’s campaign in 2020.
“Even with numbers you get into the old quote, ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ because people look at base years; they can stretch out over what, quarters or months; or they can decide to use a real or nominal number when it comes to economic numbers … those tricks are as old as the hills. They’re used by every political party.
“I don’t think you can necessarily determine it’s an incorrect method – it’s the choice of the person who’s using them.
“But often if they are used in an almost farcical way then they will get called out, but generally they may be technically true or correct and pass some sort of legal test, but are they actually credible with the public is actually the ultimate political test.”
Mostly though, Hurdle points out that politicians don’t want to be caught out in a lie – because it hands their opposition a weapon with which they can attack.
The editor of The Post, Tracy Watkins, says New Zealand has self-regulation and laws which oversee not just political advertising but the broader advertising environment.
“The basis of those is that something has to be factually correct and truthful,” she says.
“Definitely the South Australian [law] does seem to be a much more robust law in that it’s got very strong powers to enforce, and to fine, and to order take-downs and things; but the Advertising Standards Authority I think operates under a self-regulatory regime, same as the Media Council.
“But there’s quite a lot of power in that, because under that sort of regime the media organisations have to agree that the referee’s word is final, and they have to abide by what the referee has said, and to a certain extent everyone benefits from that, even though sometimes we disagree.”
Watkins says we don’t necessarily need a new law to deal with lying.
“I think we’ve got enough guardrails in place to deal with that.”
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: Radio New Zealand
RNZ / Quin Tauetau
New Zealanders living in rural areas say they’re being left out of the government’s fuel support package, warning it excludes people already under pressure from rising costs.
Almost 150,000 families with children will receive an extra $50 a week to help offset soaring petrol prices created by the war in Iran.
The payment would be delivered through the in-work tax credit, meaning only low-to-middle-income workers with children are eligible.
For some, that left a growing gap.
Rochelle* lives in the small rural community of Tapora, north of Auckland, where public transport is almost non-existent and driving is unavoidable.
She commutes more than an hour each way for work and also travels to care for vulnerable people in the community.
She said the rising cost of fuel was starting to bite.
“In a week I’d budget around $120 to $150 to fill my tank, but now it’s more like $200 plus. We’re kind of okay for now, but if it goes on much longer it’s going to get really hard.
“I also work as a carer, and [the government] has stopped funding the travel time to get to clients. When you’re in a remote community and fuel is going up, it’s really, really tough. I think a lot of carers are going to struggle, especially when some people you’re helping live an hour away.”
Without reliable transport alternatives, she said there was little choice but to keep driving.
“The nearest bus stop is about 40 kilometres away. There is a bus in Wellsford, but getting there is the issue. So for us, driving isn’t optional, it’s just part of life.”
Rochelle was not eligible for the government’s fuel support because she didn’t have children.
She said the impact went beyond her own budget.
“If you’re having to drive for work, especially in caring roles, and there’s no support for that anymore, it’s going to affect the people who rely on that care.
“There are people in the community who are older and vulnerable, and it might reduce the amount of help they’re getting because carers simply can’t afford to get there.”
She believed the support should be broader.
“I understand helping families, but I think they need to look wider than that. There are pensioners out here already on really tight budgets, and they’re going to have to choose between things like food, petrol, or going to the doctor.
“The government needs to think about those people too, because they won’t ask for help, they’ll just struggle along.”
AFP or licensors
In the small community of Shannon, in the Horowhenua District, Douglas*, 42, was also missing out.
After finishing a contract late last year, he had been applying for jobs for months without success.
“I’ve sent off probably around 300 CVs. Every time I tailor my cover letter, research the company, spend hours on each application. I’ve applied for everything, even roles like fast food or cashier jobs, and I’ve been turned down for being overqualified.
“Now I’m down to double digits in my bank account and I’m really starting to stress.”
Because his partner earned above the threshold and they had no children, he was not eligible for Jobseeker support or the fuel payment.
“We’ve gone from two incomes to one, and it was a real smack in the face hearing that some families will get $50 a week, but people like me get nothing.
“I’m unemployed, I can’t get assistance, and I can’t even afford to fill up my tank to go to interviews that I’m applying for.”
Living in a semi-rural area, he said public transport was not an option.
“There’s no buses where we live. We pay rates towards buses in nearby towns, but they don’t come through here.
“If I want to use public transport, I have to drive to another town first, which defeats the purpose. Logistically, it just doesn’t work.”
He said fuel costs were shaping daily decisions.
“I used to spend about $120 a week on fuel commuting. Now I’m rationing everything I do. I’m getting to the point where I might have to turn down interviews because I won’t be able to afford to get there.”
Douglas believed the government’s response had fallen short.
“It honestly felt like a smack in the face. It feels like [the government] waited until things got really bad before doing anything, and then the response was to help a small percentage of people and tell everyone else to just deal with it.
“This is going to affect everything, food prices, supply chains, everyday life. It’s not just petrol, it flows through the whole economy, and I don’t think the response matches how serious this is,” he said.
*RNZ has agreed not to use the surnames of both people featured in this story.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: Radio New Zealand
Briscoes Group is halfway through a year-long trial which began in September 2025. RNZ
Facial recognition technology (FRT) trials are underway in 18 Briscoes and Rebel Sports stores across the North Island, the country’s fourth big retailer to have announced a move to adopt or test it.
Foodstuffs’ separate chains in the South Island and North Island have deployed it permanently in 28 supermarkets, and hardware giant Bunnings is about to test it.
Briscoes Group is already halfway through a year-long trial which began in September 2025, outlined on its website.
“A thorough process is in place to ensure we do not negatively impact customers,” it told RNZ.
Retailers use FRT to create a biometric template of every shopper’s face, then check it against a watchlist of known risky people. Images that do not match are deleted quickly, they say.
Proponents say retail violence is growing and the tech makes stores safer.
In the UK, the ongoing debate about FRT in stores has also been about its use to combat shoplifting: “So much theft is driven by addiction – cameras alone won’t solve that,” a police outreach worker told the BBC.
Asked by RNZ if Briscoes anticipated the tech would cut down on theft, it said removing violent people from stores “as a byproduct, may reduce the loss”.
“However, this was not the reason for the FRT trial, this is about the safety of our team members and customers.”
Briscoes is using a system that Auckland company Auror launched in NZ last September.
Auror said in an email to the sector earlier this month: “In New Zealand, leading retailers are already operating ASR (Auror Subject Recognition), building practical experience with governance frameworks, community engagement, and day-to-day controls that maintain trust while protecting teams.”
It declined to identify which retailers when RNZ asked.
Bunnings and Briscoes were among 11 big box retailers and supermarkets that signed a statement in June 2025 supporting facial recognition to “protect workers and customers” following the Privacy Commissioner giving a cautious tick of approval to the Foodstuffs trial.
Of the others who signed, The Warehouse Group, Farmers, Mitre 10, Woolworths, Spark, and One NZ said they were not currently using FRT. Michael Hill Jewellers did not respond to a request for comment.
Bunnings and Briscoes were among 11 big box retailers and supermarkets that signed a statement supporting facial recognition to “protect workers and customers”. RNZ / Richard Tindiller
Bunnings is about to begin its own trial in two Hamilton stores, Te Rapa and Hamilton South, in April.
“The FRT system is calibrated to an accuracy level of 93 percent – meaning only matches with an accuracy rating of 93 percent will trigger an alert,” it said online. In Australia it uses a system from Hitachi.
Foodstuffs North Island is using FRT in 15 Pak’nSave stores and 10 New Worlds.
Foodstuffs South Island has deployed it in three Christchurch stores, where a trial ended in January.
“Only people who have previously been violent, threatening or aggressive in our stores are entered into the FR watchlist,” the South Island chain said on its website.
It told RNZ on Wednesday: “We’re taking this step by step. The stores in the trial were picked for a reason – they’ve got solid reporting processes, experienced teams and they’ve been dealing with threatening and harmful behaviour, so they’re well-placed to see if this makes a difference on the shop floor.
“We’re still working through the results, and any call on adding new stores will come down to what’s actually working, how it stacks up from a privacy point of view and whether stores have the right systems and know-how to use it properly.”
The four big retail groups all said only trained staff used the system. They all said they had done privacy impact assessments and engaged with the privacy commissioner.
Bunnings recently had what observers considered a partial win against a challenge in Australia to its use of FRT.
Auror, perhaps not surprisingly, saw it that way: “In Australia, the recent Bunnings appeal decision has opened the door to exploring how FRT can be used in retail settings for the purpose of crime prevention and safety. This decision gives retailers greater confidence,” said the company, which last September said it had only recently become comfortable that the tech was accurate enough in identifying people that it should begin offering it to retailers.
Bunnings on its website said in New Zealand it had engaged a Māori digital sovereignty expert to align with tikanga Māori and also got independent research to understand what New Zealanders think about FRT.
Briscoes said it let customers know about the trial with signs on the store doors.
Only people who posed a risk to team members and customer safety were uploaded to its watchlist, it said in a statement. That comprised customers who offended against staff or were threatening physically or verbally aggressive, and any known to carry weapons.
The system was not linked to police. Instead, a manager would call police to remove someone, but not approach the person themselves for safety’s sake.
Staffers were grateful for it, Briscoes said.
“We will consider any future deployment based on the reduction of harmful events across the full trial period.”
Rule three of the recently finalised national biometric code said companies using FRT must tell people it is being collected and why, say how long data is retained for and make it clear how they can complain or access and correct any of their biometric data that is held.
Auror said its system allowed retailers to focus only on known high-harm offenders, and had multiple points where humans intervened, but with strict access controls.
“It does not allow retailers to retain data of regular shoppers, it reduces bias by prohibiting the collection of sensitive characteristics, and ensures data is not shared between organisations.”
Auror also operated an automated number plate recognition system for stores that generated over 10,000 reports of potential theft or assault or similar crimes to police a month. But it did not provide police access to FRT information, it said.
Following Bunnings’ announcement, Massey University marketing professor Bodo Lang warned a botched rollout of facial recognition technology could be costly for retailers – and said a business should signal its intention well before implementation.
Bodo Lang. University of Auckland
“Many, many companies spend tens of thousands, or sometimes tens of millions of dollars in advertising to build their brand and get people in the store.
“So the last thing you want to do as a business is to violate consumer trust and I think by front-footing the issue, providing transparent information, you can avoid any erosion of trust.”
He believed most people would accept it in retail as a “necessary evil” but such support could be easily lost.
“I think the public opinion would swing hard against it if they had a sense, a perception, an inkling that this might also be used for other purposes.”
Assurances it was for “one purpose, and one purpose only”, was therefore key to public buy-in.
Security consultant Nicholas Dynon said New Zealand was a laggard on research into how people felt about the tech, with just some data from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on public attitudes towards privacy, including FRT.
“So we do have some numbers – but they are very limited and they are general,” said Dynon, who wrote ‘Licence to Operate’ for the National Security Journal about public buy-in of FRT.
“What we don’t have is that sort of objective peer-reviewed understanding of how the public in New Zealand feels about FRT.”
Research in other countries showed acceptance varied depending on the environment, and that it had low rates of social licence in retail, compared to, say, at airports, he said.
Dynon also called into question the justification often used for deploying facial recognition, that retail violence was on the up and up.
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
123RF
Advocates fear hepatitis C and HIV cases may rise in the South Island as some users are reluctant about a new needle exchange service.
A new provider of needle exchange services – Te Waipounamu Collective – took over from the DISC Trust last October.
DISC Trust national harm reduction lead Jason George said he was deeply concerned at the number of people saying they or others were now reusing or sharing needles due to difficulties getting equipment.
“Over the past few months we have heard from the community that an unprecedented wave around the re-use and even sharing is going on,” he said.
However, Te Waipounamu Collective held no such concerns and said the number of people using the service had not dropped since taking over the contracts. Health New Zealand supported that view.
But George, involved with needle exchanges for 20 years, said people were reusing and sharing needles to avoid engaging with the new service.
“It is really, really concerning. We are deeply concerned for the community,” he said.
“We are seeing in the Pacific reports of an HIV outbreak in Fiji among people injecting drugs there. They are our neighbours in the Pacific and we have seasonal workers come to New Zealand.
“Whilst New Zealand has had a low prevalence of HIV in the injecting community, the risk we could suddenly find ourselves dealing with an HIV outbreak is significant.”
Jason George, the national harm reduction lead for DISC Trust, says an increasing number of intravenous drug users are sharing and reusing needles. Rachel Graham / RNZ
Hepatitis C was much more prevalent in the injecting community and any sharing of equipment increased the risk of transmission, he said.
The DISC Trust was no longer funded for needle exchange equipment, but still provided some items from its own money.
People were still using its services in Christchurch and Dunedin, and the trust was keeping note of the reasons given for not moving to the new service, George said.
Almost 450 responses gathered between October and January were analysed and compiled in a report by University of Otago research fellow Dr Geoff Noller.
Noller said key reasons included problems accessing the new locations and a lack of trust in the new providers, particularly in Christchurch.
The new Christchurch location also provided other services, including general health services and drug rehabilitation, which had discouraged some IV drug users, he said.
“You’ve got recovery programmes going on and other people are there for recovery programmes. People are there for other reasons. Whereas at the Roger Wright (needle exchange), Disc Trust, the whole point was to focus on and service the needs of people who inject drugs,” Noller said.
There had been 49 reports of people reusing equipment and eight reports of people saying they or others were sharing needles rather than using the new service, he said.
A Christchurch intravenous drug user, who did not want to be identified, said she had been put off the new location because it also offered other health services and she feared who might see her there.
“The old system was a flawless experience for the clients and in the new one, in comparison, it just doesn’t work well. Now I’m really likely to find they just don’t have what I need.”
On one occasion she felt very uncomfortable when she went to the He Waka Tapu site to return used injecting equipment and there was a gala day with lots of children, the woman said.
“It just didn’t feel right.”
She could now only get reduced supplies of needles from the DISC Trust, and she feared many in the community would be reusing and sharing needles if they were also having trouble getting new equipment.
A Dunedin intravenous drug user, who asked only to be called CJ, said she knew many people who refused to go to the new service because of its indiscreet location in the central city.
She now got equipment for a number of people because she was one of the only people who would go in, and even she does not like going at certain times of day, CJ said.
“Its totally putting them off. So I can only imagine what is happening is that the hep C and HIV diseases will go up because people will be reusing their equipment and sharing their equipment,” she said.
He Waka Tapu was the lead provider for Te Waipounamu Collective. Chief executive Toni Tinirau said they saw plenty of people who loved the new service.
Tinirau accepted some would be reluctant to make a change and the collective had made some tweaks to encourage new visitors to its service, such as improving signage, she said.
There had been no drop in the number of people using the service compared to before the collective took over, Tinirau said.
There had always been some IV drug users reusing or sharing equipment, she said. She did not believe it had increased since the change in provider.
“I think that is something we are all very concerned about and actively working to make sure we have access and equity for all. [Needle exchange options are] spread now through more sites than it was prior. There are more choices to receive free equipment, so you don’t have to come on site.”
Tinirau believed there was reluctance from some users due to it being perceived as a Māori service, but once people came to the site they were reassured all were welcome, she said.
The collective was also looking at other options, including online ordering and delivery, and had just signed a lease for a new central Christchurch dedicated needle exchange site, Tinirau said.
Health New Zealand said it had no concerns about the new sites or the potential for an increase in blood-borne disease and needle-use injuries.
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
Fire and Emergency is urging residents in storm-affected areas to be ready to evacuate if necessary, following a night of heavy rain.
A red weather warning remains in place for Northland east of Kaikohe from Doubtless Bay to Whangārei, with the worst of the downpours expected to hit on Thursday afternoon.
Marae in the region have been opened for those in need of support, and Fire and Emergency has deployed 19 specialist rescue personnel to Northland and Auckland.
MetService said the heaviest rain and largest volumes were likely to be in the upper North Island, from Northland to western Bay of Plenty.
Downpours, flooding, and slips were also possible on Thursday and Friday.
Fire and Emergency assistant national commander Ken Cooper warned residents in upper parts of Northland to be ready in case the situation deteriorated.
“For that upper part of Northland, the intelligence we’ve got is there’s a large amount of rainfall over a very short period of time. I would certainly advise people to be prepared, if they’re in low lying areas or near rivers, be prepared to move.”
Cooper said anyone concerned about a risk to life or property should call 111.
Northland Civil Defence expected the worst of the rain to hit the northeast coast on Thursday night.
In a post on social media, it warned residents not to go into flood water, to avoid unnecessary travel, and to be aware of slips.
“Leave immediately if you notice cracks in the ground, leaning trees or power poles, unusual sounds, or sudden changes in streams,” it said.
Follow the latest updates in our live blog above.
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
Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson is looking after the bill. RNZ / Mark Papalii
The ACT Party is claiming the government’s proposed ban on surcharges for contactless and credit card payments is dead, but the minister responsible insists it is still being worked on.
The Commerce and Consumer Affairs minister, National’s Scott Simpson, introduced legislation last year to ban in-store card surcharges, so shoppers would not be penalised for their choice of payment.
The ban was expected to be in place by May.
Now, ACT is essentially pulling the pin on the legislation, with leader David Seymour calling it “bad economics,” and ACT did not support it.
“It’s dead. It was always bad economics. It was obviously appealing to take away a fee that a lot of customers hate, but if it only puts that fee on to the small business, it’s not actually a win. It’s just a shift, and often carried by people that can’t afford it at all,” he said.
Seymour said the problem with the ban was if the retailer had to absorb the charge, then they would have to raise prices, and people who paid by cash or eftpos would not be able to avoid that extra cost.
“All policies should be judged by outcomes rather than intentions. It was a good intention to give customers a break from an annoying fee, but if the outcome was putting it on to small businesses, then it was never going to be a good idea. And I would say, always judge policies by their outcomes.”
Retail NZ opposed a ban, warning businesses would likely to have to increase their costs elsewhere to recover the payment costs.
Carolyn Young Supplied
Chief executive Carolyn Young said she was “delighted” the bill appeared not to be progressing.
“It’s really clear that it’s actually not going to proceed anywhere in this term. We’ve had confirmation of that from the ACT Party, and without the support across the coalition it won’t proceed, it won’t be able to get passed,” she said.
“I’m sure that the government in an election year, with all of these other pressures that are on the economy in the world right now, they won’t want to be presenting something to the House that’s not going to pass.”
Young said Retail NZ was pleased the government had listened to retailers in not progressing the bill.
But Simpson said Retail NZ was wrong.
“No further decisions have been made on the ban on surcharges,” he said.
“We know Kiwis are sick of facing excessive surcharges. We are working through aspects of the policy, including monitoring whether reduced interchange fees have been passed on to customers.”
Simpson said there would be more to say “in due course.”
Seymour maintained the bill “clearly doesn’t have support” from two of the three coalition parties, after New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said it was “going nowhere” in February.
“And so I think that’s the end of it,” Seymour said.
“I think it’s pretty clear that this is bad economics, bad for small business, and it doesn’t have support.”
ACT leader David Seymour RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Last month, RNZ reported that progress appeared to have stalled on the bill, although Simpson had said at the time he was “hopeful” the ban would be in place by May, as promised.
At the time, the Prime Minister said the government was taking “a breather” on the policy while it understood all of the implications.
Consumer NZ, which said businesses’ costs associated with accepting card payments had reduced since December, had urged the government to press ahead.
ACT had supported the bill through its first reading, but during the Select Committee stage its MP Parmjeet Parmar suggested that businesses could keep surcharges if they offered a free alternative like eftpos or cash.
Young said the ban was a “simplistic solution to a complex area,” and while consumers had a choice now to pay by a method that did not incur a cost, such as cash or EFTPOS, a ban would lead to prices going up and everybody paying more.
“A blanket surcharge ban was not a palatable solution for any retailer. Our members told us that they would increase prices because in this economic environment, they couldn’t continue to absorb any further prices.”
She said in the past ten years, contactless and credit payments had risen from around 40 percent of transactions to 71 percent, and they incurred higher costs than eftpos, which was free to consumers and merchants.
“You’ve got a big change in the way people are paying, and a big change in the cost it is to retailers. The Commerce Commission, ideally, would have an opportunity now to be able to go away and do a full consultation, understand the landscape, and work out what is the fairest solution for both retail and consumers. And that’s what we would support happening going forward.”
The bill currently awaits its second reading, four months after the Finance and Expenditure Committee presented its report.
It sat 19th on Wednesday’s Order Paper, the list of bills currently before the House.
Without ACT or New Zealand First, National would need support from the opposition to pass the legislation.
The Green Party opposed it at its first reading.
While Labour supported it through first reading, it submitted a differing view in the Select Committee report as it did not support “adding costs to small businesses,” and wanted to put forward some amendments in the Committee of the Whole House stage.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: Radio New Zealand
RNZ
Health NZ (HNZ) says staff have been caught using free AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini to write clinical notes, a move it says could result in formal disciplinary action.
A memo seen by RNZ was sent this week from a senior manager to all Mental Health and Addiction Services staff in the Rotorua Lakes district, reminding them not to use tools like ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini in their work.
“It has come to my attention that there has been instances where it appears that AI (artificial intelligence) drafting tools have been used to prepare clinical notes,” it says.
“The use of free AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) for clinical purposes is strictly prohibited due to data security, privacy and accountability concerns. You are also not allowed to use AI tools to draft notes and then transcribing it to handwritten or typed notes, even if you anonymise the patient information.”
Doing so could result in formal disciplinary action, it said.
According to the HNZ-wide AI policy, any AI tools must be registered with the Health NZ National Artificial Intelligence and Algorithm Expert
Advisory Group (NAIAEAG) – this would include Heidi, an AI scribe tool being rolled out across EDs.
Sonny Taite, HNZ director of digital innovation and AI, said free AI tools presented risks to data security, privacy and accountability, and “any possible exemptions are assessed case by case”.
“As with any new process in healthcare, we are working with our clinicians on new ways of working and this is an ongoing process.”
HNZ did not answer questions about how many instances there had been of staff using unapproved AI software, or whether anyone had been disciplined.
Fleur Fitzsimons, national secretary for the Public Service Association, which represents many health and addiction service workers, said clinical staff were turning to AI tools because of the “enormous pressure” they were under.
A memo which opened by threatening formal disciplinary action was the wrong approach, she said.
“It’s a warning shot that will make staff afraid to ask questions or seek help.”
HNZ should be investing in proper training and approved tools, she said.
“Let’s not forget that HNZ has been cutting the very teams responsible for digital systems and IT support. If staff are improvising with free tools, HNZ needs to examine why that is the case, not simply threatening staff with a breach of the Code of Conduct.”
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
Pia Vlok of the Wellington Phoenix shoots. photosport
The Wellington Phoenix women have suffered a blow in their A-League Premiership hopes.
The Phoenix have been beaten 2-1 by the Central Coast Mariners in Gosford.
The reigning champion Mariners scored both of their goals before Phoenix midfielder Macey Fraser scored a spectacular free kick in second-half stoppage time.
The result leaves Wellington six points behind leaders Melbourne City with just two rounds remaining.
Bev Priestman made one change to the XI which started Friday’s 3-1 win over Sydney FC with Mackenzie Anthony replacing fellow American forward Makala Woods, who was named amongst the substitutes alongside a returning Fraser.
Eliza Familton scored after 58 minutes and Izzy Gomez added the second for the home side in the 83rd minute.
It was the Mariners sixth win over the Phoenix from six games.
Phoenix keeper Victoria Esson admits it was a tough night.
“They (Central Coast) moved the ball around tonight they made our lives difficult and they scored two great goals,” Esson said after the game.
Esson admits their main focus is the play-offs.
“We’ve just got to take it week by week, in this league anything can happen our hopes and dreams are still alive to move forward and finish top six.”
The Phoenix play Western Sydney Wanderers at home on Sunday, then Adelaide United away in their last two games.
Melbourne City have 37 points, the Phoenix 31, Canberra and Adelaide 30, Central Coast 26 and Melbourne Victory 25.
The top six clubs qualify for the play-offs.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
Source: Radio New Zealand
By law South Australian politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads. Here, we have the Advertising Standards Authority and the Media Council, but neither have the force of a criminal penalty behind them. RNZ
In South Australia, by law, politicians aren’t allowed to lie in their election ads.
You might think that it would be normal that politicians don’t lie in their election ads, and that this would be an unnecessary rule.
But redundant or not, commentators say the fact that they check themselves before sending out their official messaging has helped turn the heat down during election campaigns.
The law is popular with voters and has been praised internationally as a tool for regulating political speech, but it’s also been criticised as labour-intensive to police, and something that has become weaponised by political parties.
It only governs advertising, not statements, what’s said on the campaign trail or on social media.
In New Zealand our watchdog over political advertising is the same body that governs all advertising – the Advertising Standards Authority. It doesn’t have the force of criminal penalties behind it, but it is a mechanism to have false information removed.
If there is a complaint, that board will often make a decision within 48 – 72 hours, and if it finds the message incorrect, it will be taken down. The ASA is the referee in this area, and all parties so far abide by it.
The subject of electoral law is a specialty topic for political commentator David Farrar. He says there is actually a law in New Zealand governing truth in politics, but it’s much wider – although it only applies for the 48 hours before an election. It’s section 199A of the Electoral Act.
“It actually can apply to anyone in New Zealand who states something false which could influence the election,” he says.
“It basically says it’s a corrupt practice – so that means you can go to jail for what’s a criminal offence – to make a knowingly false statement within 48 hours of an election, designed to influence the election.”
The law’s been in place for several decades and Farrar says it reflects a time before the news cycle was sped up, and before advance voting came in, so it’s pretty out of date.
“It’s from the days if you pop out say, a pamphlet to every household on the Friday before an election and there was something false in there, back in the old days there’d be no way to correct that. It would be too late and then you might have an election outcome that got decided on false information. Now, my view is, that’s not the case today.”
He says these days, it would be questioned on social media within 10 minutes, and reported on by media within an hour.
“It’s still on the books – Parliament hasn’t removed it – I don’t think there’s ever been a prosecution under it, but I do recall Winston [Peters] threatening me with it around 20 years ago for something – which was accurate by the way – that I published on my blog on a Friday before the election.”
Farrar says where it gets interesting though, is the question of what is actually false.
That’s a point also emphasised by Tim Hurdle, a political consultant and long-time political campaign manager who ran Auckland mayor Wayne Brown’s campaign, and the National Party’s campaign in 2020.
“Even with numbers you get into the old quote, ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ because people look at base years; they can stretch out over what, quarters or months; or they can decide to use a real or nominal number when it comes to economic numbers … those tricks are as old as the hills. They’re used by every political party.
“I don’t think you can necessarily determine it’s an incorrect method – it’s the choice of the person who’s using them.
“But often if they are used in an almost farcical way then they will get called out, but generally they may be technically true or correct and pass some sort of legal test, but are they actually credible with the public is actually the ultimate political test.”
Mostly though, Hurdle points out that politicians don’t want to be caught out in a lie – because it hands their opposition a weapon with which they can attack.
The editor of The Post, Tracy Watkins, says New Zealand has self-regulation and laws which oversee not just political advertising but the broader advertising environment.
“The basis of those is that something has to be factually correct and truthful,” she says.
“Definitely the South Australian [law] does seem to be a much more robust law in that it’s got very strong powers to enforce, and to fine, and to order take-downs and things; but the Advertising Standards Authority I think operates under a self-regulatory regime, same as the Media Council.
“But there’s quite a lot of power in that, because under that sort of regime the media organisations have to agree that the referee’s word is final, and they have to abide by what the referee has said, and to a certain extent everyone benefits from that, even though sometimes we disagree.”
Watkins says we don’t necessarily need a new law to deal with lying.
“I think we’ve got enough guardrails in place to deal with that.”
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand