NZ Engine

Source: New Zealand Government

The Government has released the latest Homelessness Insights Report and announced a series of actions to reduce the number of people living without shelter, including sleeping rough in New Zealand, Housing Minister Chris Bishop and Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka say.

“Homelessness is a problem New Zealand has grappled with for a long time. It is a symptom of a dysfunctional housing market and is exacerbated during challenging economic times,” Mr Bishop says.

“Census data shows an ongoing trend of increasing homelessness, with 4,122 people living without shelter in 2013, 3,624 people in 2018 and 4,965 in 2023.

“The 2018 to 2023 period showed a 37% increase of people living without shelter despite the large-scale use of Emergency Housing costing well over $1 billion across that period.

“The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s latest Homelessness Insights Report confirms what frontline organisations like the Auckland City Mission and Salvation Army have been saying: there are too many people in housing need.

“Accurate numbers are difficult to pin down – people without shelter often move around and may avoid engaging with government services – but it’s clear we have a real problem.

“The Government takes this seriously. At present, over $550 million is spent annually across a range of programmes run by multiple agencies, including Transitional Housing, Housing First, Rapid Rehousing and many other support services.”

“All New Zealanders deserve a warm, dry place to stay, and the Government is determined to make progress on this long-running challenge for New Zealand,” Mr Potaka says.

“In the short-term, we’ve asked officials for advice on further targeted interventions to provide help and support to those living without shelter, including rough sleepers. We’ve asked for recommendations around better utilisation of existing programmes and existing services, and we are also open to new ideas that will make an enduring difference. 

“We’ve made it clear that officials should engage with frontline providers such as the Auckland City Mission, The Wise Group and the Salvation Army, among others, because they are the organisations working at the frontline of this problem. 

“We will not be returning to the previous government’s large-scale emergency housing model, which cost over $1 million a day at its peak and was a social disaster. New Zealanders – including people sleeping rough – deserve better than that.

“The Government has an existing review under way of housing support services. There are hundreds of contracts for these services, and the system is complicated and often duplicative. Our aim is to make the system simpler, more effective, and reduce duplication. We want to fund what works.

“We’re also looking at how to better support people leaving residential support programmes or prison. Stable housing is critical to successful reintegration and reducing reoffending.”

“Our long-term focus is on fixing the fundamentals of our housing market: freeing up land, removing planning barriers, improving infrastructure funding, and giving councils stronger incentives to support housing growth,” Mr Bishop says.

“Next year we’ll replace the RMA with a new planning system that makes it easier to build the housing and infrastructure New Zealand needs.

“We’re also looking at ways to improve the social housing system to ensure it delivers the right homes, in the right places, for the right people. The Government has recently changed Kāinga Ora’s funding settings to enable the agency to build more one-bedroom units. About 50 per cent of people on the Housing Register require a one-bedroom unit, but they only make up about 12 per cent of Kāinga Ora’s housing stock.

“Homelessness is complex and there are no easy answers, but we’re determined to take meaningful actions – like our Priority One policy which has seen more than 2,100 children and their families moved from emergency housing motels into homes.”

Note to editors:

The report is available on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s website.

Source: NZ Ministry for Primary Industries

Source: New Zealand Government

Tēnā koutou katoa. Good morning everyone and thank you for the warm welcome.
It’s a pleasure to be here today at the Biogas Bridge Forum, surrounded by innovators, industry leaders, and passionate advocates for a more sustainable energy future.

Source: New Zealand Government

Legislation regulating ground-based space infrastructure to deter foreign interference and protect New Zealand’s national interests has passed all stages under urgency in Parliament, Space Minister Judith Collins says.

“The Outer Space High Altitude Activities Amendment Bill is a significant milestone and enhances New Zealand’s national security with immediate effect,” Ms Collins says.

“It supports New Zealand’s interest in the safe, secure and responsible use of space and stop any attempts by foreign entities that do not share our values or interests.

“Ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand plays a vital role in supporting global satellite operations and space activities, but without regulation, it can also pose risks to national security, and other national interests.

“The global space sector continues to push the boundaries of satellite technology, space communications and orbital operations. As this sector evolves, so too must our regulatory settings.

“From 29 July, when the legislation takes effect, ground-based space infrastructure such as satellite tracking stations and telemetry systems will be subject to appropriate oversight and safeguards.

“While all in-scope operators will be treated as having a transitional authorisation from the end of July, as the Minister for Space I will be able to vary, suspend or revoke these authorisations on national security grounds.”

MBIE will be the administrator, backed with enforcement powers and able to take action to stop malicious activity. 

Regulations will be developed later this year setting out further requirements for ground-based space infrastructure authorisation, under which operators will need to implement security and due diligence systems.

A transition period for operators to implement the necessary systems for successful registration will apply until the regulations come into force in the first half of next year. 

“This system helps maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a trusted and capable space-faring nation, one that takes its responsibilities seriously and is prepared to manage the risks and opportunities of space activity,” Ms Collins said.

Information about the ground-based space infrastructure regulatory regime is available on the MBIE website.

Notes to Editors

From 29 July 2025:

• Anyone operating ground-based space infrastructure (GBSI) for certain activities, such as communicating with satellites or tracking space objects, will be considered to hold a transitional authorisation.
• When seeking authorisation, applicants will need to confirm with MBIE as the regulator that they have appropriate protective security arrangements in place, and due diligence systems to assess any partners they provide GBSI services to, such as customers or research collaborators.
• The Minister for Space can decline applications if they are not satisfied the authorisation is in the interests of national security.
• The Minister for Space will have the power to vary, suspend or revoke authorisations, where national security concerns arise.
• Following the entry into force of regulations next year the Minister for Space’s power to vary, suspend or revoke authorisations will expand to include national interest considerations beyond national security.
• Enforcement officers will be able to inspect facilities, assess security arrangements and, where necessary in the national interest, the Minister will be able to issue disposal orders requiring a person to divest their interest in GBSI.

Source: Privacy Commissioner

21 Jul 2025, 09:00

What happened

A finance business received a phone call from a person claiming to be an existing customer. They knew the name, date of birth and address of the customer and were able to mislead customer centre staff at the finance business. They obtained further personal information about the customer, accessed their account, and made changes to their password settings. 

The customer noticed their account had been changed and contacted the finance business, which took steps to protect the customer’s account by applying warning notes on the account. Yet the other person was able to bypass these protections multiple times, make further changes to the customer’s information and used their account for unauthorised transactions. 

The customer repeatedly said someone was accessing their account, and both using and making changes to their personal information. The finance business did not identify these concerns as privacy issues and only focussed on the fraud aspect of the customer’s concerns. 

The affected customer raised a complaint with OPC.

Relevant privacy concerns

This matter raised several concerns under the Privacy Act 2020:

1. Principle 5 states agencies must ensure there are safeguards in place that are reasonable in the circumstances to prevent loss, misuse or disclosure of personal information.
2. Principle 8 states that agencies must check before using or disclosing personal information that it is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant and not misleading.
3. Principle 11 states that an organisation may generally only disclose personal information for the purpose for which it was originally collected. Sometimes other reasons for disclosure are allowed, such as disclosure, where an individual has consented to their information being shared or disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious threat to a person’s safety.
4. Section 114 requires agencies to notify the Privacy Commissioner as soon as practicable after becoming aware of a notifiable privacy breach. 

Our complaint investigation

We investigated the complaint and formed a preliminary view that the finance business had breached principles 5, 8, and 11. On that basis, we worked with the complainant and the finance business to resolve the issue, with the finance business taking steps to protect the complainant’s account and agreed to financial compensation for the emotional harm caused by the breach. 

Although the specific complaint was resolved, we had wider concerns about the finance business’s privacy practices and so the matter was referred to our Compliance and Enforcement Team for review.  

Compliance review into the privacy breach

On reviewing the matter, we identified that the finance business’s actions amounted to a notifiable privacy breach. As the agency had failed to report it to OPC, the requirements of the Privacy Act were not met. 

We raised concerns about the limited customer verification steps to confirm the customer. This deficiency allowed the individual to obtain more details about the customer’s account and make several changes to the initial settings. 

We also identified a failure to follow internal procedures by staff to verify the additional security placed on the customer’s account. This failure led to missing multiple times the additional password and warning notes that were place on that account. 

A lack of understanding the overlap between fraud incidents and privacy breach incidents as well as unclear privacy incident management plans led the finance business to miss its statutory obligation for reporting this privacy breach incident to OPC. They were of the belief that because the individual already had details of the customer obtained elsewhere it was not a privacy matter and as the unauthorised transactions were reimbursed there was no harm caused to the customer.  

In this case, the unauthorised access to sensitive financial information created a high likelihood of harm for the customer, not only financial but also emotional harm due to the significant stress the customer experienced after seeing their account was bypassed multiple times. We determined the finance business breached the Privacy Act. 

Compliance response

We considered our compliance options for the breaches of the Privacy Act using our Compliance and Enforcement Regulatory Action Framework.

In this case, the finance business engaged productively with both OPC and the affected individual. We took into consideration its willingness to learn and acknowledgement that it failed to comply with the Privacy Act. They immediately took steps to improve its processes in relation to customer verification checks as well as conducting privacy training for all staff.

We instructed the finance business to meet its statutory obligation and notify the privacy breach incident to OPC as well as review its privacy breach management plans and share the reviewed documents with OPC.

Conclusion

Fraud is a growing problem in the finance industry, and it raises significant privacy concerns, primarily due to the sensitive nature of financial information and the potential for privacy breaches. These breaches can compromise customer information, leading to financial loss, reputational damage, emotional harm, stress, anxiety and violation of privacy.

Finance businesses such as banks and lending institutions are common targets for fraud and often hold large volumes of sensitive personal information. In some cases, staff may inadvertently disclose personal information in response to fraudulent requests, potentially breaching the Privacy Act.

This incident highlights the importance of robust identity verification in high-risk sectors and compliance with statutory obligations under the Privacy Act. 

Resources available

Source: Privacy Commissioner

21 Jul 2025, 09:00

When people provide personal information to an agency, they trust that their information will be used only for legitimate purposes. However, there are cases where employees misuse this information, breaching both the organisation’s code of conduct and the Privacy Act.

Our office saw one such case where an enforcement officer collected contact details of an individual who was lawfully being questioned. The officer copied this information into their personal phone and made unsolicited calls and messages of a bullying, sexual preference and harassment nature. The individual was left highly distressed by this behaviour which prompted them to place a complaint with the agency concerned. 

The agency undertook appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the affected individual and reported the incident as a notifiable privacy breach to OPC. The agency conducted an internal investigation and undertook to prevent future incidents of this nature by updating its internal policies and procedures. While dealing with the agency that reported this incident, valuable insights came light that are relevant to all agencies, and especially those undertaking an enforcement role in our society.

Breach of the Privacy Act

Using personal information collected by an agency for personal reasons, especially in a harassing or inappropriate manner, raises concerns under the Privacy Act 2020. 

Our office considered the agency’s actions breached principle 10 of the Privacy Act 2020. 

Principle 10 states agencies must not use personal information for purposes other than for which it was collected. There are certain situations when an exception to principle 10 applies – but using an individual’s contact details to ask inappropriate questions while being in a position of power is not one of them. The agency had an obligation to ensure the information collected from the individual was only used for lawful enforcement purposes. As the enforcement officer collected the contact details while carrying out work for the agency, the agency was ultimately responsible for their actions.

In this situation, the officer took advantage of their position of power being in an enforcement role, making it harder for the affected person to stand up for their rights. That power imbalance makes it especially critical for agencies working in this space to make extra effort to ensure staff understand and follow all code of conduct and privacy policy requirements. 

Agencies must take proactive steps to prevent such incidents, including:

• Limiting employee access to customer data based on job necessity
• Having regular training on data privacy and privacy laws and ethical conduct
• Establishing confidential channels for people and employees to report misuse of personal information
• Ensuring internal policies align with the Privacy Act 2020 and taking immediate steps when breaches of this nature happen.
• And most importantly, having assurance checks in place as standard practice to ensure these requirements are met by staff.

We do note, most enforcement agencies have strict data handling policies and codes of conduct that prohibit employees accessing or using the personal information they collect for anything other than their lawful purposes. We recommend agencies ensure employees are aware of the policies through ongoing training and communication.

What people can do when facing this type of situation

Enforcement officers are in a position of authority. The inherent power imbalance between enforcement officers and individuals can lead to situations where officers entrusted with authority may abuse their position. This is why individuals have privacy rights around interactions they might have with enforcement agencies. 

It is important individuals understand their rights; you can find guidance about privacy rights here. Individuals should query behaviour if it is perceived to be outside the scope of the interaction e.g., an enforcement officer should not ask personal questions about whether you are dating someone or your sexual preference, which is what happened in this case.

Below are some tips you could consider:

• Ask questions – agencies are required to take steps when collecting your personal information, including why they are collecting it and whether you must share it with them. If you are unsure, you should ask the agency to clarify why they need information from you.
• Limit information sharing – only provide the necessary details required for the lawful activity and be cautious about where the personal information is stored
• Monitor communications – if an employee contacts you inappropriately, keep records of the messages as evidence
• Seek legal advice if you are concerned an agency has acted inappropriately or unlawfully.
• Report misuse – immediately notify the agency concerned of the misbehaviour, if necessary, report the incident to OPC.

Employees who engage in this type of behaviour can face consequences

Misuse of personal information by employees is a serious breach of privacy that can result in legal, professional and reputational consequences. Employees engaging in this type of behaviour create risk to the agency they work for but also can face professional damage and harm their own career prospects, making it difficult to secure future employment.

Sending inappropriate messages to an individual in your employment capacity can be considered harassment.  It could also result in criminal prosecution, civil litigation, or complaints to regulatory authorities. It can also lead to termination of employment, as it breaks trust and exposes the organisation to legal risk.

Conclusion

OPC expects organisations to have strict privacy and information policies outlining how personal information is collected, used, stored and disclosed. These policies are critical for ensuring transparency, as well as for informing individuals about their rights regarding their personal information and how agencies handle it. Privacy is a fundamental right and violating it has a real-world repercussion.

Source: New Zealand Government

It’s been nearly six months since the Fast-track Approvals system opened for business, and updated statistics show the one-stop shop is on track to make it quicker and easier to build the projects New Zealand needs for economic growth, RMA Reform and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop and Regional Development Minister Shane Jones say. 

“The Fast-track Approvals Act, part of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First, was signed into law just before Christmas and opened for project applications on 7 February this year,” Mr Bishop says.

“The Act helps cut through the tangle of red and green tape and the jumble of approvals processes that has, until now, held New Zealand back from much-needed economic growth.

“In Fast-track’s first six months, more than 50 projects have made applications. We expect the first eight projects to have completed the full end-to-end Fast-track process including final consent decisions by the end of this year.”

Projects before Expert Panels

“The Fast-track Approvals Act contains a list of 149 projects which, from 7 February, have been able to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for consideration by an expert panel. The expert panels consider each application, decide whether or not each project receives approval, and attach any necessary conditions to those approvals,” Mr Bishop says.

“Since 7 February when the Fast-track one-stop shop approvals regime officially opened for project applications, we’ve seen good progress for a range of applications for projects that, if approved, will help address our infrastructure deficit, housing crisis, and energy shortage, instead of tying essential projects up in knots for years at a time as so often happens under the RMA.

“Eight projects are now before expert panels for consideration, with the first expert panels’ final decisions expected by mid-September this year. These projects, if approved, will contribute billions of dollars to New Zealand’s economy and create thousands of jobs.”

Projects before the Panel Convenor

“The Panel Convenor will shortly establish expert panels for a further six projects that have lodged substantive applications,” Mr Jones says. 

“Projects currently before the Panel Convenor include expansions to Kings Quarry and Drury Quarry. These quarries provide much-needed aggregate which supports the construction of major infrastructure projects. 

“It is heartening to see applications for mining and quarrying projects working their way through the system.”

Project referrals

“Projects not listed in the Act can also apply for referral into the Fast-track process,” Mr Bishop says.

“These applications go first to me as Infrastructure Minister for consideration, which includes inviting written comments from the Minister for the Environment and any other Ministers with relevant portfolios, before deciding whether to refer the project for Fast-track.

“To date I have referred seven projects to the Fast-track process, meaning they can now submit substantive applications to the EPA. 

“The latest three referrals are Stage 2 of the Auckland Surf Park community which would include a large artificial intelligence data centre, a residential development of about 400 homes, and a village centre; the Waitākere District Court’s new courthouse project; and The Point Mission Bay which would see 252 new retirement homes and amenities for residents and visitors.

“Other projects have also applied to me for referral into Fast-track, including from the renewable energy, housing and infrastructure sectors. 16 of these applications are under consideration or being circulated to other Ministers for feedback. Decisions will be made in due course.”

Note to editor:

Fast-track project statuses to date:

Expert Panels are currently considering:

• Bledisloe North wharf and Fergusson North Berth Extension
• Delmore (residential)
• Maitahi Village (residential)     
• Milldale (residential development)
• Tekapo Power Scheme (power scheme consent renewal)
• Waihi North (mining extension)
• Drury Metropolitan centre
• Sunfield (residential development) 

Panel Convener will shortly appoint panels for: 

• Drury Quarry
• King’s Quarry extension
• Rangitoopuni (residential and retirement units)
• Ryans Road (industrial subdivision).
• Stella Passage (wharf extension and related work)
• Taranaki VTM (seabed mining) 

Six projects have been ‘referred’ into the Fast-track process by the Minister for Infrastructure:

• Auckland Surf Park
• Waitākere District Court – New Courthouse Project
• The Point Mission Bay (retirement village)
• Ashbourne (residential and retirement units)
• Ayrburn Screen Hub
• Gordonton Country Estate Development
• Grampians Solar Project

Source: NZ Department of Conservation

Date:  23 July 2025

“It’s fabulous to see so many people getting out into nature and making the most of conservation areas and facilities like campsites, huts and tracks,” says DOC Heritage and Visitors Director Catherine Wilson.

“Huts and campsite fees ensure people make a fair contribution when they stay in these places and help keep facilities available into the future.”

DOC today released its summer visitor insights report looking at the busiest months to identify visitor needs and any issues. DOC’s visitor insights reports inform staff about who’s getting out in nature, where they are going and how they rate their experiences. This helps DOC’s management approaches, particularly at busy sites says Catherine.

“Landscapes and scenery remain top attractions for international visitors and short walks are still the most popular outdoor activity across the board.  

“Over summer, international visitor numbers were back to 93 percent of pre-COVID figures with more than 50 percent heading to a national park during their visit.”

“Fiordland and Aoraki Mount Cook are the two most popular national parks and are on the itineraries of more than 20 percent of international tourists.

“Almost 75 percent of international visitors enjoy walks or tramps during their time in New Zealand and 99 percent rated New Zealand’s natural scenery as good or very good.”

DOC’s bookings data shows between December 2024 and February 2025, nearly 60,000 people did a Great Walk, 60 percent of whom were New Zealanders. For bookable DOC facilities other than the Great Walks, more than 450,000 bednights* were booked at campsites and 70,000 in huts over this period.

Coastal areas and marine reserves were popular with New Zealanders, with Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve in Auckland top of DOC’s most-visited destinations.

“Sadly, there was also persistent illegal fishing or collecting shellfish in marine reserves with 101 confirmed offences and 79 infringements between October 2024 to March 2025,” says Catherine.

Te Whanganui-o-Hei (Cathedral Cove), Horoirangi (near Cable Bay), and Long Bay-Okura (Auckland) were the marine reserves which saw the highest number of offences.

“Marine reserves are vital for protecting our precious marine wildlife as well as ensuring fish stocks into the future,” says Catherine.

“This behaviour is truly disappointing, and we’ve seen wider issues across the country this summer. This includes dogs attacking wildlife, people driving through endangered river-bird colonies and irresponsible camping harming vulnerable natural areas like alpine wetlands.”

“Nature is at the core of our wealth and wellbeing in New Zealand and we harm it at our peril.

“It’s heartening to see recent DOC research shows 92 percent of New Zealanders agree nature is an important part of our national identity.”

Tourism on public conservation land is worth $3.4 billion each year and supports around 2000 tourism businesses.  

The summer report looks at information from a range of sources including from the International Visitor Survey, DOC’s visitor surveys and bookings data.

View the full report: Understanding 2024/25 visitor activity (PDF, 3,971K)

Contact

Source: NZ Department of Conservation

Ranger Project Lead Iain Graham describes the moments leading to the monumental rediscovery of kiwi pukupuku in the West Coast wilderness.

Kiwi pukupuku found only in predator free sanctuaries?

Up until now, we believed kiwi pukupuku/little spotted kiwi had gone extinct from mainland New Zealand. Our smallest kiwi is particularly vulnerable to introduced predators, and the last known sighting of a kiwi pukupuku on the mainland was in 1978. In the years since, despite targeted searching, we haven’t found any others.

We also thought all remaining kiwi pukupuku descended from five transferred to Kapiti Island from South Westland in 1912. The descendants of these birds now spread across several predator-free islands and sanctuaries.

Then, back in April, I received an email from a hunter we contracted for tahr control in the Adams Wilderness Area on the West Coast. The email included a short, blurry video of a kiwi looking for its next meal in a bed of fallen Dracophyllum leaves.

That video changed everything.

Finding a kiwi

A weather window opened for us in early May, and kiwi conservation dog Brew and I packed our bags for a week in the scrub to see if we could track down this mystery bird. Brew isn’t great at packing though, so I helped her out.

Brew is kiwi certified under DOC’s Air New Zealand-supported Conservation Dogs Programme, so she has a highly qualified nose for sniffing out our national bird. It’s rough country, and my job was trying to keep up with Brew through all the thick alpine scrub we were contending with. While Brew located kiwi scat (poo!), I was listening out. In the early hours, I heard a pair of kiwi duetting.

Oh, I thought, there’s two of them!

What followed was two days of increasing frustration as Brew and I followed the calls, only to find our progress constantly blocked by geographic features. On day three, Brew dragged me up a spur near where we had marked the calls, and locked on a small hole in the side of a bank. This was the sign I had been waiting for.

Brew looked on expectantly as I attempted to retrieve the kiwi, only to discover it must have snuck out another entrance. After Brew stared judgingly into my soul, radiating ‘I did my part’ energy, she huffed, put her nose down, and took off down the hill again.

Plan B, stakeout.

It was time for a kiwi stakeout. This sounds more fun than it is; we patiently sit outside a burrow entrance and wait for the bird to exit (in this case after blocking the other exit). There’s no noise and no movement, so it becomes a true battle of patience. These stakeouts can end in minutes or hours, and with either success or failure.

I found a comfortable position in front of the burrow, wearing every layer of clothes I had with me, and sat there for 6 hours. Then, hearing a male calling not far down the hill, I realised he had somehow beat me at the patience game. Alright, I thought. No luck tonight, but tomorrow is another day.

Tomorrow was also the last chance to find these birds before we flew out. Unfortunately, with the day came the rain. Brew and I were cooped up in our tent while the rain passed – as heavy rain prevents handling kiwi.

The final chance

The rain stopped at about 4pm. This would be our last chance to get hands on a bird not seen in the area in half a century, so luckily there was no pressure. That night we headed to the same area, this time deciding not to rely on a kiwi being in the burrow.

Suddenly, a call came from above me, less than 10 metres away. This time it was the female and, instinct kicking in, my light came on and I darted up the hill towards her. She was still calling as I pushed through some flax and caught her in my torch beam. She clearly wasn’t expecting my kind of company; she stopped calling and hesitated, just long enough for me to dive towards her and get a hand around her ankles. Facedown on the damp forest floor, I finally exhaled.

Gotcha!

After all that, she sat quietly in my lap as I put a transmitter onto her, collected some pin feathers for DNA analysis, took some morphometric measurements, and snapped a couple of photos. She looked to be an old battler; right eye missing, left eye clouded by a cataract, and missing the nail from her middle toe. Otherwise, she seemed to be in good condition and, as I released her, she sauntered away into the darkness, seemingly unfazed by her close encounter with me.

It’s a kiwi pukupuku!

We know kiwi pukupuku can interbreed with other species, but mixed genetics wouldn’t preserve the unique species history and adaptation. So we were really hoping this girl was a real, purebred kiwi pukupuku. It took a little while for the genetic analysis to come through, and felt like much longer. But when the results came in, the team was euphoric. Clean match. For the first time in nearly 50 years, we’d located a wild, pure kiwi pukupuku on the New Zealand mainland.

Questions and the future

The find is just the beginning, and now the real work begins. We’re still gathering information, and the questions keep mounting. How many are there? How have they survived? What does this mean for the future of kiwi pukupuku?

Regardless, we’re thrilled to be working with Kāti Māhaki on future protection and management of these precious birds.

Source: Maritime New Zealand

Last month we issued a new guide for the Marine Protection Rules Part 170: Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships. This guide explains what vessel owners, operators, and skippers need to do to comply with Part 170 rule requirements.