Cost of living data released by Stats NZ today shows that working people are being left behind, said NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi President Sandra Grey.
“Data released by Stats NZ today showed that the cost of living rose at its fastest rate for 18 months. 68% of workers across the economy are currently facing another year of real terms pay cuts under this government”
“80% of items measured in the CPI basket saw prices rise. Food prices rose 4.3%, electricity prices rose 12.2%, and gas prices rose 16.2%. Working people are struggling to afford the basics.”
“Minimum wage workers are now facing a third straight year of real terms cuts to their income. The lowest-paid workers in the country are paying the price for this Government’s economic mismanagement.
“National keeps promising opportunities for New Zealanders but they’re only delivering for the wealthy. When last measured, annual household inflation was running 2.7 times faster for the lowest income New Zealanders than for the highest income earners.”
“Working people need wage increases, not tax cuts. The Government may be celebrating the economy improving, but working people aren’t feeling any relief. Its time the government stopped leaving workers behind,” said Grey
Please attribute to Senior Sergeant Carl Fowlie, Waitematā North Police:
The search for a missing man is resuming at the Mahurangi River after he was swept away by water on Wednesday.
Additional resource is being deployed into the area today as water levels have continued to subside overnight.
Police Search and Rescue is deployed into the area carrying out ground-based searching around the banks of the river.
They are being supported by 17 Land Search and Rescue members as well as a water rescue crew from Fire and Emergency.
A Police drone is also carrying out aerial searches.
Police is continuing to support the man’s family through this difficult time.
We thank all other agencies who have been called upon in recent days for their assistance. Everyone involved in this operation is focused on locating the man on behalf of his family.
Crews continue to make steady progress at the Goldsmith slip site (the first from the Ōpōtiki side and potentially largest – approx. 110 metres high and up to 60 metres wide), with an additional 40 tonne digger on the way to boost clearing efforts.
Contractors have managed to get over the slip by digger and are now in a position to obtain on‑the‑ground information about conditions ahead of the main blockage.
Rob Service, NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Controller SH2 Waioweka Gorge Response and Recovery says the scale and complexity of the slips in the Gorge mean progress won’t be instant, but that teams are working every hour they safely can to push through.
“Getting an additional digger on site is a big step in helping us tackle the major blockages.
“Conditions on the ground are changing day by day, especially after last night’s weather. Safety has to come first, which is why our teams are assessing the Gorge carefully before pushing ahead from the Gisborne side.”
A second container, which was in position from previous maintenance works before the weather event hit, is equipped with Starlink and cameras. This will ensure contractors have reliable communications as they move deeper into the Gorge.
Clearance work will continue in a “leap‑frog” style – crews rapidly clearing smaller slips while the larger digger tackles the major blockages.
Last night’s heavy rain caused flooding at the Gisborne entrance to the Gorge, preventing crews from accessing the site. The water has now receded, and teams are assessing conditions to confirm whether it is safe to proceed.
The landscape has changed significantly overnight, and a fresh geotechnical assessment may be required before work can resume.
Current expectations are that clearing efforts from the Gisborne side will restart early Friday, 23 January, pending safety clearance.
“We know how important this connection is for people and freight. Our crews are committed to restoring access as quickly as possible, and we’ll keep everyone updated as we make progress,” says Mr Service.
SH2 south of Gisborne is the only open route, however long detours are required. There is a significant increase in traffic on SH2 south of Gisborne, with high volumes of vehicles continuing through to Bayview. Drivers are reminded to drive to the conditions, allow extra time, and remain patient.
Travellers should delay travel where possible. People are encouraged to check the NZTA Journey Planner for up-to-date information before travelling.
Associate Education Minister David Seymour has welcomed provisional Term 4 attendance data, which shows attendance rates were higher than any Term 4 since 2022.
Provisional data shows in Term 4 2025, 57.3% of students attended school regularly. This was an increase from 56.4% in Term 4 2024.
“This data shows attendance rates are rising again under this Government,” Mr Seymour says.
“In Term 4 2022 regular attendance was at 48.7%. In Term 4 2025 about 150,000 more students attended school regularly than in 2022. Kiwi students are showing up to school more, and parents are pushing them to attend. Those students and parents should be proud.
“When the Government takes attendance seriously, so do schools, parents, and students. It’s important we continue to drive the change in attitude towards attendance.”
Central and East Auckland was the region with the highest regular attendance rate at 62.5%. This was followed by Otago/Southland at 62.4%, and North and West Auckland and Canterbury/Chatham Islands, both at 61.7%.
“Attendance rates are back on a steady upward trajectory. This is a good start, but there is still work to be done. I expect attendance to continue rising as the roll out of our attendance initiatives continues,” Mr Seymour says.
“Soon every school will have developed and implemented their own attendance management plan (AMP). It means there are escalating responses for declining attendance.”
Some examples of how interventions could work are:
5 days absent: The school to get in touch with parents/guardians to determine reasons for absence and set expectations.
10 days absent: School leadership meets with parents/guardian and the student to identify barriers to attendance and develop plans to address this.
15 days absent: Escalating the response to an Attendance Service Provider. If absence escalates beyond this point (or for cases of non-enrolment) prosecution of parents becomes a possibility.
“Taking time out at the end of term does just as much damage as low attendance throughout the term. Using the Daily Attendance Dashboard, we can calculate an average daily attendance rate of 86.4% for the first ten weeks of the term, for the last week of the term it is only 68.1%. The dataset is smaller for the final week because not all schools were open, but the low average shows that across-the-board attendance was not a priority. Missing the last week of school would result in a response as part of the school’s attendance management plan,” Mr Seymour says.
“Frontline attendance services are now more accountable, better at effectively managing cases, and data-driven in their responses. They have access to a new case management system, better data monitoring, and their contracts will be more closely monitored. Budget 2025 included $140 million of additional funding to improve attendance over the next four years.
“Attending school is the first step towards achieving positive educational outcomes. Positive educational outcomes lead to better health, higher incomes, better job stability and greater participation within communities. These are opportunities that every student deserves.”
Please attribute the following to Senior Sergeant Matt Prendergast, Taranaki Road Policing:
Following up complaints of dangerous driving on Monday 19 January, Police have arrested one driver, seized and impounded two vehicles, and issued several infringement notices.
The complaints were made to Police around late morning and early afternoon, and shortly after, a large convoy of vehicles made their way through New Plymouth to Bell Block for a tangi.
At the time, the numbers of motorists were such that Police were unable to respond and take enforcement action safely.
Police have since reviewed video footage of the driving complaints and have now held the offending drivers to account.
Enquiries are still ongoing to identify other illegal activity involved during or around the tangi.
While the Police respect the right of people to grieve, it should not be in such a manner that causes disruption, annoyance and frustration to the public.
We are disappointed that this group choose to express themselves in this way with little consideration for other people.
Police always encourage safe driving behaviour: keep a safe speed and distance, and drive without impairment or distraction.
If you are witnessing dangerous driving behaviour, please pull over and call Police on 111.
You can also report non-emergencies or matters after the fact by calling Police on 105.
Please attribute to Superintendent Shanan Gray, Counties Manukau District Commander:
A motorcyclist has died following a crash on the Southern Motorway near Ōtara on Thursday night.
At the time, a Police motorways unit was carrying out radar speed detection on southbound lanes of State Highway 1 near Mt Wellington.
At around 11.15pm, the unit has detected a motorcycle travelling south at high speed.
Police signaled it to stop, however it continued travelling at high speed.
The unit has not pursued the motorcycle and came to a stop at the side of the motorway.
A short time later, the unit moved off and continued travelling south when it has been flagged down by the driver of an attenuator truck, after the motorcycle had collided into the rear of his vehicle just north of the East Tamaki Road off-ramp.
Sadly, the male rider has sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene.
A full closure of southbound lanes of State Highway 1 was put in place and traffic was diverted off the motorway.
Overnight, a scene examination was carried out and the man’s body has been removed.
The lanes reopened shortly before 5am.
Support is being put in place for our officers who were working last night.
An investigation is now underway into the fatal crash, and as standard procedure the Independent Police Conduct Authority will be notified of the incident.
Formal identification procedures will need to be carried out and support will be put in place for the man’s next of kin.
Four new community based forensic step-down beds will open ahead of schedule in March thanks to the partnership between Ember Services Limited and Health NZ, Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey announced today.
“Opening more mental health beds is a commitment made by the government in its Mental Health Plan to deliver faster access to support,” Mr Doocey says.
“Budget 2025 funded two new community based step-down forensic beds in Waikato every year for the next four years as part of a wider $51M program to improve access to specialist forensic services.
“I’ve listened to the frontline, both patients and mental health professionals, and asked for the funding of eight new beds to be brought forward over two years, not the four years originally intended.
“These new beds will be backed by community wraparound support teams and funding to attract and retain specialist staff.
“I have always said patient and public safety must be paramount. By gradually reintegrating people who are transitioning out of inpatient forensic care, we can help more people return to the community safely.
“Community based step-down beds free up inpatient beds for people who really need them and form part of a step-by-step care system, allowing patients to move gradually from higher support to less supervision. These beds also ensure continuity of care, help reduce the risk of relapse and re-hospitalisation, and enable greater participation in rehabilitation programmes.
“Today’s announcement of new community based step-down forensic beds will increase bed capacity on top of the new 10 bed acute forensic inpatient facility in Waikato.
“This package is part of our broader mental health plan to deliver faster access to support, more frontline workers, and a better crisis response.”
Note to editors:
Announcements around the four remaining step-down beds will be made in due course.
Favourite naturing destination Karangahake Gorge remains closed, with Department of Conservation (DOC) staff still working to assess the scale of damage.
DOC Tauranga Operations Manager John Sutton says much of Bay of Plenty is still in response mode, and people are just starting to assess the damage.
“I urge people to check your destinations and choose safe options this weekend; I think our emergency services have enough on their plates.”
Significant amounts of water have gone through some popular locations, and DOC staff need time to make sure it’s safe for people to return.
“Karangahake Gorge has been particularly hard hit, you might have seen videos of water rushing through the tunnel of the Windows Walk. It’ll take some time to get the tracks and facilities to a condition where people can safely visit,” says John Sutton.
“Dickey Flat Campsite at the southern end of Karangahake Gorge is closed until further notice, and this isn’t a booked site, so we’re really asking people to use common sense and check access and conditions before they head out.”
Matatā Campsite, closer to Whakatāne, is closed until 27 January, and booked visitors have been informed.
Although other DOC tracks across Bay of Plenty may not be formally closed, be alert to the possibility of landslides, washouts, or downed trees. Damage should be reported to DOC via 0800 DOC HOT (0800 362 468).
“Stay safe this weekend, and we look forward to welcoming you back into these spaces when we can,” says John Sutton.
Visit www.doc.govt.nz to see alerts on tracks, huts, and campsites.
The Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster, spoke at the IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals) Australia New Zealand Summit on 3 December 2025. Read his full keynote speech below.
Introduction
As always, it’s a privilege to be here this morning to talk about the focus of my Office, now and in the future, in protecting individuals’ right to privacy of personal information – and in helping organisations to do privacy well.
I have had a number of opportunities recently to meet with fellow Privacy Commissioners and heads of data protection agencies, and it seems we are all facing similar challenges and opportunities … including very existential ones like the nature of privacy regulation.
Are we meant to be modern regulators, smart regulators, risk-based regulators, outcome- or performance-based regulators, customer-centric regulators … the list goes on.
I am quite happy to be a reasonable regulator … and this morning I want to talk about what that has meant for the New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner this year, and for our future work and direction.
As always, though, I’d like to start with a bit of an overview of the state of privacy in New Zealand – it provides you all with useful context.
OPC Privacy Survey 2025
And let’s start with some headline results from our 2025 privacy survey – it’s available on our website privacy.org.nz:
49% are more concerned about privacy issues over the last few years.
Looking at that another way, 66% agreed that protecting personal privacy is a major concern.
67% would consider changing service providers if they heard they had poor privacy and security practices
67% concerned about the privacy of children, including when they use social media
62% concerned about government agencies or businesses using AI to make decisions about them, using their personal information
77% think the Privacy Commissioner should have the power to ask a Court to issue a large fine for a serious privacy breach that an agency had caused either intentionally or due to negligence
77% think the Privacy Commissioner should have the power to audit the privacy practices of a business or government agency
65% are willing to see an increased use of privacy intrusive technology if it reduces theft
64% are willing to see an increased use of privacy intrusive technology if it increases personal safety, and
82% agreed they want more control and choice over the collection and use of their personal information.
As with me, I am sure these results prompt a number of questions in your minds, including:
How damaging to an organisation could a personal information privacy breach be, in terms of lost trust and confidence and lost customers – and given that, what are the tools, tips and techniques for avoiding – or at least responding well – to a privacy breach?
How can we best balance public good goals around things like public safety, and privacy? and
How can agencies lift their games in terms of providing assurance to citizens and customers that their right to privacy is being taken seriously?
The challenge of lifting our games becomes all the more real if you look at the stats in our latest Annual Report for the 2024/25 year.
“Privacy complaints are up 21% from 2023/24, which was also a record year.
And the number of serious privacy breaches notified by organisations rose 43% this year.
In addition to doing our best to respond to these individual complaints, and individual agency breach notifications, over the last year we have focused on what we call our one-to-many activities, including:
Developing and then issuing a Biometric Processing Privacy Code to ensure clarity and a legal framework around the automated use of biometric technologies.
We found that the live Facial Recognition Technology model trialled by one of our major supermarket chains, Foodstuffs North Island, was compliant with the Privacy Act 2020.
Te Ranga Tautiaki, our Māori Reference Panel, was established this year. We are now fortunate to work with a group of experts who bring a te ao Māori, or Māori world view, perspective to our work.
We’ve prepared comprehensive guidance on sharing information to protect the wellbeing and safety of children and young people.
And of course, Privacy Week 2025 was a highlight for us. More than 8,500 viewers watched 21 free webinar options with topics like AI, children’s privacy, and Māori data sovereignty.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
And what about my Office? Where to next for New Zealand’s privacy regulator?
As some of you will have heard me say before, my Office’s purpose is ensuring that privacy is a core focus for organisations, in order to protect the privacy of individuals, enable agencies to achieve their own objectives, and safeguard a free and democratic society.
This year, we set ourselves three key areas of strategic focus.
First, provide guidance, and develop processes, to support the implementation of legislative and regulatory privacy initiatives.
In particular, the Privacy Amendment Bill introduced that new notification requirement for agencies, the Customer and Product Data Bill established new rights for individuals to share their data in specified sectors, and the Biometric Processing Privacy Code clarified and strengthened protections around the use of biometric technologies.
Our work, particularly through preparing and promulgating guidance, provided agencies with the confidence to meet the new requirements.
Second, engage with agencies to build their privacy capability and empower New Zealanders to assert their privacy rights.
We worked to develop the capability of agencies to do privacy well through the promulgation of our guidance (such as Poupou Matatapu – Doing Privacy Well), and working directly with selected agencies on projects that had a significant privacy impact (such as the facial recognition technology inquiry we ran alongside the FRT trial run by one of New Zealand’s biggest supermarket chains, Foodstuffs North Island).
Third, focus our activities on the technological and digital innovations being adopted by organisations and businesses.
In New Zealand the public and private sectors – to greater or lesser extents – are adopting innovative technologies to help them achieve their objectives.
Our Office as the privacy regulator has needed to understand and respond to these changes, such as the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence tools and the retail sector’s use of technology to respond to theft and safety issues.
We have also continued to advocate for a specific set of amendments to ensure that New Zealand’s Privacy Act is fit-for-purpose in the digital age.
Next year is the year we need to develop and sign-off on our updated medium-term strategy – in the jargon of the New Zealand public management system, our next Statement of Intent.
For me, the drive will be to ensure we find and maintain a good balance between compliance and expectations-setting activities.
I’m not thinking of moving away from our current purpose statement, but we have an opportunity to refresh and refocus our strategic objectives.
While this conversation is still going on, my own view is that I want a New Zealand privacy regulator that:
provides ideas, advice and guidance to government and agencies, to promote and protect individual privacy,
holds agencies accountable for protecting individuals’ right to privacy of personal information,
takes a te ao Māori perspective on privacy, incorporating tikanga – or Māori custom – where appropriate, and
advocates for a society which gives people freedom and autonomy to speak, think and act without unnecessary surveillance and monitoring.
Now, that’s what I think, but if you – as a member of the privacy ecosystem – have a burning sense that my Office should be focusing on, or working on, something else, please get in touch and share your thoughts.
Surveillance
Talking of areas of current focus, it goes without saying that we are all going about our lives at a time of increased surveillance.
And when I refer to surveillance, I mean both business surveillance and state surveillance.
As noted earlier, two major areas of focus in New Zealand have been the FSNI supermarket trial of the use of facial recognition technology, or FRT, and our parallel Inquiry into the trial, and the Biometric Processing Privacy Code issued by my Office.
It’s probably useful to note at this point that, unlike other parts of the world, New Zealand’s privacy law does not depend on consent as the primary authority for collecting, using, and disclosing personal information.
Consent certainly has a role, but the main driver is the legitimate business purpose of the holder of the information.
Our overall finding was that the live FRT operating model deployed by FSNI during the trial complied with the Privacy Act.
There are several key features of FSNI’s operational model that enabled us to come to this conclusion, and I think it’s important that I outline some of the key ones to you all today:
A clear and limited purpose: FSNI focused the use of the technology on identifying people who had committed serious harmful behaviour in the stores in the recent past.
The system was effective to address that purpose.
Fit for purpose technology: FSNI chose a technology product that had been proved to work at a high-quality level “in the wild”.
Immediate deletion of most images: Images that did not trigger a match against the store’s “watchlist” (the image database of people of interest) were deleted almost instantaneously.
“Watchlists” were generally of reasonable quality and carefully controlled: Staff were not permitted to add images of children or young people under 18, elderly people, or people with known mental health conditions.
Accuracy levels were acceptable, once adjusted in response to problems: FSNI learned from some misidentification incidents, and instructed staff not to consider intervening unless the match level was at least 92.5%.
Alerts were checked by two trained staff.
There was a reasonable degree of transparency that the FRT trial was operating: Stores had clear signage at the entrance alerting customers that the trial was operating, with more signs in store.
There was no apparent bias or discrimination in how discretion was exercised.
Processes for requests and complaints: People who considered that they had been misidentified or wrongly enrolled on a watchlist were able to make complaints, and have information corrected or removed if a mistake was found.
Security processes were in place to protect information: Only authorised people had access to the information on the system, and to the security room in which the equipment was stored.
And, stores demonstrated an awareness and regard for privacy.
While the trial model complied with the Privacy Act overall, our Inquiry identified further improvements that would need to be addressed before FSNI considered using FRT permanently or expanding it into additional supermarkets.
A few months after that Inquiry report, after what has been a long and considered process, I issued the Biometric Processing Privacy Code 2025.
The Code sets out specific privacy rules for organisations using biometrics.
The aim of the new rules is to allow for beneficial uses of biometrics, while minimising the risks for people’s privacy and society as a whole.
The Code will help make sure agencies implementing biometric technologies are doing it safely, and in a way that is proportionate.
In addition to the usual requirements from the Privacy Act, the Code strengthens and clarifies the requirements on agencies to:
assess the effectiveness and proportionality of using biometrics – is it fit for the circumstances
adopt safeguards to reduce privacy risk; and
tell people a biometric system is in use, before or when their biometric information is collected.
The Code also limits some particularly intrusive uses of biometric technologies like using them to predict people’s emotions or infer information like ethnicity or sex, or other information protected under the Human Rights Act.
My Office believes having biometric-specific guardrails will help agencies deploy these tools safely, using the right tool for the job and protecting people’s privacy rights as they do it.
Guidance has also been issued to support the Code.
The guidance is very detailed and explains how we see the Code working in practice.
It also sets out examples so agencies planning to use biometrics can better understand their obligations.
Our bottom line is that biometrics should only be used if they are necessary, effective and proportionate; the key thing to make sure of is that the benefits outweigh the privacy risks.
Issues around surveillance by public sector agencies have also been to the fore in New Zealand this year.
It’s no secret that we have been engaged in extensive dialogue with the New Zealand Police on the collection of personal information in various ways … and this is only intensifying with the recent discussions and advocacy around the use of body-worn cameras by police officers.
You might be interested to know what positions I and my Office have taken around the broader issues … in the words of the great Australian rock philosophers, the Angels, “I keep no secrets from you”.
In summary:
The act of recording people in public places, for ongoing use and retention in databases, can have a potential chilling effect on people’s civil and political rights.
While individuals can be observed in public places, they do not automatically waive all their privacy rights; the right to privacy includes the right to be left alone by state agencies unless there is a reasonable justification for the public surveillance.
The principles of proportionality and necessity, which are fundamental to the social licence of our democratic institutions, are critically important.
When Police are photographing people, they can do so when either there is a specific statutory authorisation, or there is full compliance with the information privacy principles.
When turning their minds to their reasons for collection of personal information using photography, officers must be able to connect this to a policing function or purpose.
Any risk of indiscriminate collection would be highly concerning; there must be a threshold that means collected information is of reasonable relevance to a policing function.
I remain concerned about any ability for Police to use information for an unknown possible or potential future use.
The combined effect of the Privacy Act and Bill of Rights Act ensures that there are effective safeguards to limit indiscriminate collection and retention of information, or the inappropriate surveillance of individuals or particular groups.
The applicable legislative framework must set limits for the retention, use and destruction of material captured for general Police intelligence gathering, and include appropriate checks and balances.
Now, before anyone says “that’s just the sort of stuff you’d expect a civil liberties privacy regulator to say”, I do want to make the point again that I see myself as a reasonable regulator.
For example, this year we grappled with another issue around how do we balance important uses of personal information, with strong protections for people’s privacy?
In August 2025, following some work by my Office, emergency services got access to device location information (DLI), a new way to find and help people when they cannot call our emergency number 111 (for example if they’re injured or lost).
That’s a great outcome, and it’s one enabled by the Privacy Act.
In New Zealand, what has happened up until this change is that when someone in need did call our emergency number, 111, their network provider could often send information about their location to emergency services (ambulance services, Fire and Emergency, and New Zealand Police).
This sharing of information is enabled by the Telecommunications Information Privacy Code, a legal instrument issued by the Privacy Commissioner under the Privacy Act.
Schedule 4 of that Code sets out the rules that enable emergency services to get this location information quickly, as well as privacy safeguards that keep it safe.
The Privacy Commissioner added Schedule 4 to the Code in 2017, following public consultation on the options, risks, and benefits of this sharing.
Now, the Code also enables the new device location information service, or DLI.
Sometimes there are emergencies where people need urgent help but cannot call 111, such as search and rescue situations.
Use of DLI can help in these situations, but it also involves an intrusion on privacy, particularly when the person is not calling 111 themselves.
That means it’s important there are strong safeguards around when the information is collected and how it is used.
The rules in Schedule 4 of the Code set out strict safeguards for the use of DLI by emergency responders.
These safeguards include:
Sharing is limited to specific agencies: Police, Fire and Emergency, ambulance services, and organisations involved in search and rescue operations.
The threshold to use DLI is high. An emergency service provider can only request DLI if they believe it will enable them to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of the individual concerned.
Before they use DLI, an emergency service provider needs to check it relates to the right person.
A person whose DLI is collected must be notified unless this would create a safety risk. This notification will be by a text message to the individual. This may be sent to the person at the time or later on.
All disclosures of DLI to emergency services must be logged, and the disclosure log must be reported to the Privacy Commissioner every three months.
DLI is not about collecting new information on people’s location, or about tracking individual devices.
It’s about getting information that network providers already hold to emergency services quickly, with good safeguards, where this helps to prevent or lessen a serious threat to someone’s life or health.
At my Office, we often talk about good privacy practices being “how to, not don’t do”.
We think that the story of device location information is a useful example of this, and we’ll be keeping an eye on it to make sure that the goal of upholding New Zealanders’ privacy is met, as it rolls out in practice.
Principled-based regulation
Linked with this focus on surveillance, one of the narratives we are currently dealing with is that – to avoid privacy regulation getting ‘in the way’ (God forbid we let privacy get in the way!) – there needs to be clear and unambiguous rules which, if you follow from A to B to C, you can then do whatever you want, without being pinged by the privacy regulator.
I have a few thoughts on that.
First, you cannot legislate or regulate for every situation or scenario; regulatory flexibility that allows principles to be applied to a particular fact situation seems to make a lot of sense.
And you can’t give a regulatory hall pass to everyone; some will inevitably undertake an activity that is harmful to privacy, and does not pass the test in terms of careful stewardship of personal information – whether through poor planning and implementation, or deliberately.
Far better to go through a process which tests your ideas and plans against a set of carefully specified principles.
For example, in New Zealand, the Privacy Act, Biometrics Code and associated guidance provide a flexible and pragmatic model appropriate for regulating information sharing and FRT in the retail sector.
We’ll be working with retailers, industry bodies, and business associations as they look to use biometric systems or share information, responding to their experience and requests for guidance or feedback as they arise.
This education, awareness and capability building strategy is our standard approach to supporting agencies to comply with new regulatory requirements – as evidenced by our approach to the introduction of the 2020 Act changes.
I appreciate that there will always be a call for more certainty, for rules that apply exactly to a particular organisation’s circumstances, but I think that it would be unwise to take a completely prescriptive approach, particularly because of the need for different approaches across different contexts.
Prescription risks baking in rules that are unduly restrictive for one organisation, or unjustifiably permissive for others.
In both cases, prescriptive rules, particularly in legislation, are difficult to change, requiring political will and significant time and resourcing to do so.
Getting these wrong may have other consequences – for example, for the social licence for new technology use in our countries more broadly.
Further, in a shifting technological landscape, it may be difficult to create rules for a particular kind of technology that are suitably future proofed.
On the other hand, a principles-based approach provides flexibility, allowing multiple ways to comply with the law, as long as agencies can justify their decisions.
Privacy Officers and the privacy ecosystem: telling your story
Before I wrap up, and while acknowledging the many and varied members of the privacy ecosystem here today – law firms, consultants, academics, advocates and others – I want to direct a few comments at privacy officers – those of you who are part of privacy teams, or perhaps the sole person, in government agencies, NGOs, big corporates, medium sized companies, and other regulated agencies.
In New Zealand privacy officers have, of course, a special statutory role and status in privacy legislation – but, whatever your status, you are the people who have “doing privacy stuff in my organisation” in your job descriptions.
I would like to think that, in your day to day work, you are forming alliances not just with your legal team colleagues, but also with those who – in their own way – care deeply about the value of doing privacy well, and the cost of doing it badly … the marketing people, the tech people, the public relations people.
I would also like to think that, in recent years, due to the growing importance given to privacy and the protection of personal information, your jobs and your mission has become a little easier in your agencies.
But, I suspect that, within your organisations – as I find with my role in seeking to bring about real and needed change – there is still what I call “the resistance that lurks behind the mask of willingness”.
All too often, privacy is seen on the cost or liability side of the ledger, and not the income or asset side.
Many of you will have heard me talk about privacy being just good business,
Agency senior managers and boards may feel differently about the value of privacy if they face a multi-million dollar financial penalty for not keeping personal data safe.
They may feel that any privacy-related activity designed to protect against unauthorised disclosure of personal information is worth it, if it means not having to set aside tens of millions of dollars for customer remediation following a data breach, as Latitude Financial did.
And even if they are small, business owners may agree that it’s worth investing in cyber security when they find out from you that that the average self-reported cost of a cybercrime to a small business is over $50,000.
And no one wants to lose customers after all the effort that’s gone into wooing them to your organisation.
But the 2024 Cisco global Consumer Privacy Survey found that more than 75% of consumers said they would not purchase from an organisation that they did not trust with their data.
And what about the tech-savvy generation? – well, Cisco found that almost half of consumers aged 25-34 have switched companies or providers over their data policies or data-sharing practices – they’re not just thinking about it; they’re doing it.
These are all stories to tell … and there are so many more, including case notes and reviews on privacy regulator websites.
Be ready to answer the question “what’s the gain? … what’s the gain from this organisation doing privacy well?”
So, next time you’re in the lift with the chief executive, or the company owner, and they ask you, “who are you?”
You could say “I’m Michael and I’m part of the privacy team” … that’s fine.
But you could also say “I’m Michael and my focus is building and keeping customer trust and confidence in our organisation, and ensuring we’re seen as a safe and trusted place to do business as with.”
My challenge to you, my challenge to myself, is that we all need to be the best privacy story tellers that we can be.
With clean up and rescue efforts underway in storm-damaged parts of the country, WorkSafe is urging workers to be aware of the risks associated with the aftermath of extreme weather events.
Many areas of the country are grappling with flooding, slips, downed power lines, debris and waterlogged ground.
WorkSafe’s Acting Northern Regional Manager Jason Gibson says workers need to be aware of how those changes can affect them.
“For floodwater, silt and debris there’s a high risk it’s contaminated with things like farm run-off, sewage and chemicals which can make you sick. For workers involved in the clean up, they need to take precautions like wearing appropriate PPE .”
He says there’s also an increased risk of outbreaks of the water-borne disease leptospirosis and if workers feel unsafe, they need to speak up.
There are also risks posed by households without power using portable generators and gas barbeques.
“These should be used in a well-ventilated place so exhaust gases can escape safely – we don’t want people breathing them in,” says Jason Gibson.
“The last thing we want is to have incidents and injuries in the aftermath of this serious weather event. We have a lot of guidance available on our website designed to keep people safe and get everyone home in one piece.”
If the work is not necessary, postpone it until conditions improve.
Always assume that debris, flood water and silt is contaminated and stay away from it, or if you do need to work with it then wear appropriate PPE.
Minimise the risk of exposure to leptospirosis by washing your hands thoroughly and wearing PPE.
Never use portable LPG stoves in a confined space and allow good ventilation for generators.
Even if you know the land very well, waterlogged ground can be very unstable. Ensure you’re using the correct vehicle to move around, especially on farms.
Make a plan to check in if out on a job, in case you run into trouble.
If comms are down, have an alternative means of communication.
Always assume downed power lines are live – stay away from them.
If you notice things aren’t working when the power comes back on, get an electrician to check it out.
Ensure fatigue is managed – businesses should monitor how long employees work, the sort of jobs they carry out and the conditions they’re working in.
The Minister of Social Development and Employment Hon Louise Upston has kicked off the new year meeting with Timaru employers and encouraging them to hire jobseekers in the first instance.
The Minister is reminding companies how the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can support their businesses by helping them get staff with the right skills and who are the right fit.
MSD’s Timaru Business After 5 event was an opportunity to talk more about how MSD and local employers can work together to meet workforce needs.
Minister Upston said it was good to see a strong relationship between major employer Fonterra and MSD. The MSD team had worked at both a national and regional level to understand and meet Fonterra’s workforce needs.
“I’ve been pleased to see MSD build trust and confidence with local employers by understanding their business, and their goals and workplace culture to find a match with local job seekers.”
“Every person and every business is different. MSD will take the time to learn what matters, connecting with local and ready-to-work talent, from the country’s largest pool of job seekers.”
“Recruitment isn’t just about filling a role — it’s about unlocking potential and creating lasting opportunities. Partnering with MSD helps businesses succeed while achieving employment goals.”
“In MSD’s Southern region, 81 percent of people receiving Jobseeker Support for less than a year have previous work experience, and around 47 percent have worked in moderately to highly skilled jobs. This shows MSD has people ready to start work now.
Employers of any size or industry are encouraged to get in touch with MSD. They’re available to connect you with the right people.” Louise Upston says.
Police are appealing for witnesses of an assault in Nelson earlier this month, to come forward.
On Saturday 10 January, Police received a report that a person had been assaulted the night before [Friday 9 January], around 11pm, on Collingwood Street.
The victim sustained serious injuries and is understandably very shaken by the incident.
Police are wanting to speak with a man and a woman who potentially witnessed the assault and tried to help the victim.
If this was you, or if you have any information that can assist Police in our enquiries, please contact 105, either online or over the phone, and reference file number 260110/8205.
Update: 22 January 2026 – Consultation opens on South Island speed limit changes
Public consultation is now open on proposed speed limit changes on sections of state highways in Canterbury, Southland and on the West Coast (see more in the December release below).
From today, people can view the various proposals and have their say in short surveys here:
We encourage all those with an interest in these speed limits to have their say.
19 December 2025 – Speed limit changes proposed
Targeted speed limit changes are being proposed on state highways across the South Island after community concerns were raised about safety.
Next month, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) will open public consultations for people to have their say on these proposed changes in Canterbury, on the West Coast and in Southland.
The proposed speed limit changes include the following:
State Highway 1 (SH1) at both ends of Temuka, South Canterbury – northern section 70km/h to 50km/h, southern section 80km/h to 60km/h.
SH1 south of Amberley (North Canterbury) – 80km/h to 60km/h.
SH1 south of Rolleston (near Christchurch) – 100km/h to 80km/h.
SH75 north of Halswell (Christchurch) – 60km/h to 50km/h.
SH73 Kirwee and Sheffield (Central Canterbury) – 70km/h to 50km/h.
SH67 and SH67A Westport south including Buller Bridge (West Coast) – 100km/h to 60km/h.
SH7 at Blacks Point (West Coast) – 70km/h to 60km/h.
Introduction of Intersection Speed Zones* on SH1 at Norwood and SH73 at Waddington (Central Canterbury), and SH6 at Five Rivers (Southland) – 100km/h to 100/60km/h variable.
*Intersection Speed Zones (ISZs) feature electronic signage thattemporarily lower the speed limit when a vehicle approaches to turn from or onto a side road.
“These proposed changes are highly targeted, covering just 12 kilometres of the South Island’s 5000km state highway network, but they will make a real difference where it matters most,” says NZTA director of regional relationships for the central and lower South Island, James Caygill.
“We’re focused on saving lives and reducing serious injuries without adding unnecessary delays for drivers.”
Each proposal meets the requirements of the Government’s Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024, which mandates six weeks of public consultation before decisions are finalised. New limits will become legally enforceable once signs are installed and uncovered.
NZTA’s targeted approach to state highway speed management under the 2024 Rule prioritises:
Schools Variable Speed Limits (VSLs)
ISZs for high-risk rural intersections
Speed changes and new speed limits needed for projects and seasonal speed limits
A small number of community requests that meet strict criteria.
Visit below for more information, including how to suggest a speed change. This website will be updated with full consultation details and feedback options for the proposed changes above, in late January 2026.
Search efforts are ongoing across the Bay of Plenty as emergency services work to rescue people in slips the region.
Bay of Plenty District Commander, Superintendent Tim Anderson says two rescue operations are concurrently running at Mount Maunganui and Welcome Bay Road.
“Police, alongside Fire and Emergency New Zealand are working to locate and rescue people trapped in a landslide that came down off Mount Maunganui at 9:30am today.
“Work is also continuing to locate two people that are unaccounted for after a slip came down towards properties on Welcome Bay Road overnight.”
Members of the Mount Maunganui campsite have been evacuated and directed to the nearby Surf Club.
Police are urging members of the public to avoid the Mount to allow emergency services to have the space to work safely.
“The last thing we need is rubberneckers in the area.”
A number of roads around the Bay of Plenty remain closed, people are advised to not travel unless it is absolutely necessary to.
Superintendent Anderson commends the bravery shown by staff responding to these events described as ‘one in 100 years events.’
“We have already seen countless examples over the last 24 hours of Police staff putting their lives at risk to protect members of the public through evacuations.
“A number of additional staff were rostered to work overnight to assist with evacuations and our emergency response.
“This community is a very tight-knit community, and now more than ever, we need to band together to support one another.
“Police are offering ongoing support to those impacted by the weather, and will continue to provide necessary support for the community.”
We’re asking people to reach out to anyone they know in the Bay of Plenty to ensure they are safe and well.
If you cannot get hold of somebody, or are worried about them, you can contact Police via 105, either over the phone or online at 105.police.govt.nz
You can also visit the Police website here to make a report if you cannot get hold of somebody, or report yourself safe if you are in an impacted area.
If you or anybody else is in a life-threatening situation, please call 111.
Police have arrested 18 people as part of Operation Thor, a targeted operation focused on burglary, theft, vehicle crime, firearms offending and drug activity in the Feilding area.
Over the last two months, Police have carried out a series of search warrants and enquiries and as a result, several arrests have been made, stolen property recovered as well as firearms, ammunition and drugs seized.
The operation, led by Sergeant Mike Linton, was launched in response to a rise in offending and information from the community about repeat criminal behaviour across the Feilding area.
Sergeant Linton says Operation Thor is about preventing harm and targeting those causing harm in our town and wider community.
“Our focus as a team is on identifying offenders who are driving crime in Feilding and disrupting that behaviour,” he says.
“This operation shows what can be achieved when crime is reported and Police work closely with the community. This is just the beginning, and we will continue to target and focus on those causing harm and offending here.”
Several male and females aged between 18-30 are facing a range of charges including burglary, theft, unlawful possession of firearms, possession of drugs and further charges are likely as enquiries continue.”
Police will continue working on Operation Thor and hold those to account who offend in our community.
Police encourage anyone with information about crime in their area to contact Police on 105 or report anonymously via Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.
DOC manages dozens of popular visitor sites across the Coromandel Peninsula, including numerous campsites, tracks and the world-renowned Mautohe Cathedral Cove.
It is unclear what impact this week’s weather event has had on DOC’s sites, and with significant transport network issues DOC staff have not been able to carry out inspections to determine the scale of damage.
DOC’s Coromandel Operations Manager Nick Kelly says the idyllic north Coromandel campsites at Port Jackson, Stony Bay, Fantail Bay, Fletcher Bay and Waikawau have been closed immediately until assessments can be carried out.
“Customers with bookings for those four sites will be refunded or rebooked,” Nick says.
“Kauaeranga, Broken Hills and Wentworth campsites and the Pinnacles Hut in southern Coromandel are also closed for tonight (22 January) and will be reassessed in the morning. Bookings for the hut for 22 January are being refunded or rebooked.”
DOC staff instructed visitors at Pinnacles Hut and Kauaeranga Valley to self-evacuate on Wednesday 21 January. The track to Pinnacles Hut will need to be assessed by DOC staff before the hut is reopened.
Nick acknowledges the decision to cancel bookings and close the campsites will disappoint and frustrate some customers, but it is the right thing to do as Coromandel response services and national agencies work on the clean-up.
The popular track to Mautohe Cathedral Cove was closed on Tuesday and will not reopen for Auckland Anniversary Weekend as DOC staff cannot safely access it to undertake inspections. Visitors should not use the track.
Nick says Mautohe Cathedral Cove’s geology means slips, landslides and rockfall can occur several days after a rain event – a risk DOC must manage to ensure visitor safety.
Although other DOC tracks across Coromandel are not formally closed, anyone planning a walk on a track should be alert to the possibility of landslides, washouts, or downed trees. Damage should be reported to DOC via 0800 DOC HOT (0800 362 468).
“The scale of damage across DOC’s wider network of tracks in Coromandel remains unknown,” Nick says. “We will likely need several days to undertake inspections, assess, and plan for any repairs needed.”
People visiting DOC sites are urged to exercise caution and reconsider their plans given the Peninsula has been saturated by rain and will need several days to clean up.
Visitors should check the DOC website for alerts on tracks or facilities – these alerts will publicise closures as needed following inspections. People are also urged to check websites and social media channels for Thames Coromandel District Council, Hauraki District Council and NZTA.
NATURE LOOKS DIFFERENT FROM HERE
Nature isn’t scenery. Nature is a society that we rely on for everything, every day. It’s behind our identity and our way of life.