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.
Attributable to Inspector Simon De Wit, Acting Wairarapa Area Commander:
Police will maintain a highly visible presence in Masterton on Friday in response to a gang-related funeral scheduled to occur in the area.
We anticipate an influx of gang members travelling into Masterton from across the Wairarapa and other regions to attend the event.
Police have been clear in communicating expectations, ensuring there is no threatening or intimidating behaviour, and that gang insignia is not worn or displayed in any public place in breach of current legislation.
Officers will be actively monitoring the situation and will respond swiftly to any issues that arise. Any reports of unlawful behaviour will be dealt with appropriately.
We encourage anyone who witnesses illegal activity to contact Police immediately on 111. Non urgent matters can be reported via 105, either online or by phone.
Associate Health Minister David Seymour welcomes public consultation on Pharmac’s proposal to fund Trikafta and Alyftrek for children with cystic fibrosis, regardless of their age.
Pharmac’s proposal, if feedback is positive, will be effective from 1 April 2026.
The proposal includes:
funding access to Trikafta for all children with eligible diagnosis (currently only funded for children 6 years and older)
funding access to Kalydeco for everyone with eligible diagnosis
funding access to a new treatment, Alyftrek
“Pharmac is now consulting the public on this proposal. It includes funding Trikafta and Alyftrek for children of all ages with cystic fibrosis. The proposal has had significant support from the cystic fibrosis community, so we are expecting positive feedback,” Mr Seymour says.
“Trikafta and Alyftrek would be funded for all age groups. Doctors would be able to use their clinical judgement to prescribe either of these medicines to any patient who would benefit.
“These treatments are lifechanging for Kiwis living with cystic fibrosis and their families. If approved, this proposal would give children access to these lifechanging treatments as soon as clinically appropriate. Cystic fibrosis can cause harm very early in life, so waiting to meet age-based eligibility criteria is not an option.
“In 2023 Pharmac funded Trikafta for children with cystic fibrosis who were 6 years or older in 2023. This left out children under 6 years old with cystic fibrosis. Parents had to choose; wait until children were old enough, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for treatment privately, or move overseas.
“This has been made possible through Pharmac’s commitment to working with the cystic fibrosis community. It is a great example of what is possible when Pharmac works alongside patients.
“We’re making the system work better for the people it serves. When people can access their medicines easily, they stay healthier for longer. It also reduces pressure on other parts of the health system.
“Now Pharmac wants to hear from people with cystic fibrosis, their family, healthcare professionals, advocacy groups, and other interested people.”
Pharmac is proposing to fund new treatment options for people living with cystic fibrosis with eligible mutations, including young children, from 1 April 2026.
The proposal includes:
widening access to Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor) and Kalydeco (ivacaftor) for all people with eligible mutations,
funding a new treatment, Alyftrek (vanzacaftor/tezacaftor/deutivacaftor).
Around 35 people are expected to benefit in the first year, increasing to 47 people after five years.
“Trikafta has already changed the lives of hundreds of New Zealanders with cystic fibrosis,” says Pharmac’s Director Pharmaceuticals, Adrienne Martin.
“Since we funded it in 2023 for people aged 6 years and above, over 400 people have benefitted. We are now proposing to fund Trikafta for more people so it can be used as soon as clinically appropriate, regardless of age.”
Cystic fibrosis is a long‑term condition that affects around 500 New Zealanders, including children. There is no cure, and people with the condition often have shorter lives.
“Cystic fibrosis starts causing harm very early in life. Funding these medicines for all age groups would help more young children with Cystic fibrosis live longer, healthier lives,” says Martin. “It would also mean children could begin treatment as soon as clinically appropriate, giving families greater peace of mind.”
Currently, Trikafta has Medsafe regulatory approval for use in people aged two years and older, and Alyftrek for children aged six and older.
“Funding these treatments would also benefit the health system,” says Martin. “People wouldn’t need to visit the hospital as often and they’d need less treatment.”
Pharmac is seeking feedback on the proposal from people with cystic fibrosis, their whānau, healthcare professionals, advocacy groups, and other interested people.
“Your feedback will help us make sure the proposal is workable, and improves access to treatment,” says Martin.
Consultation closes at 5pm, Wednesday 11 February 2026. Feedback can be submitted through the online form. All feedback received before the closing date will be considered before a decision is made.
All three medicines are CFTR modulators. CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) proteins play a key role in cystic fibrosis. For people with cystic fibrosis, these proteins do not work as well as they should, causing thick, sticky mucus to build up in the body.
These medicines work by helping the faulty CFTR protein function more normally, which makes the mucus thinner and less sticky. This helps reduce the damage caused by cystic fibrosis and improves overall health.
Trikafta combines three active ingredients (elexacaftor, tezacaftor, ivacaftor) to target the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis. It improves lung function, helps people gain weight, and reduces the risk of hospitalisation.
Kalydeco (ivacaftor) works for people with specific mutations by improving how the CFTR protein functions, helping to clear mucus and reduce symptoms.
Alyftrek (vanzacaftor/tezacaftor/deutivacaftor) is a newer CFTR modulator that works in a similar way to Trikafta, helping people with eligible mutations who may not respond to other treatments.
These medicines do not cure cystic fibrosis, but they treat the underlying cause and can help people live longer, healthier lives.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on January 24, 2026.
‘Thank God’ – parents of PNG conjoined twins grateful they defied medical advice By Margot Staunton, RNZ Pacific senior journalist The parents of rare conjoined twins say doctors in Papua New Guinea told them to take the boys home as they were beyond hope. “Thank God we [defied them] and we are where we are,” the boys’ dad Kevin Mitiam, who is also a twin, said in Tok
Federal government’s crackdown on free speech affects all Australians ANALYSIS: By Paul Gregoire Australia’s two federal combating antisemitism bills, the New South Wales laws providing the means to shutdown street protests and move on stationary public assemblies, along with the envoy’s plan to combat antisemitism and the Royal Commission into the same prejudice, have all been set in place following two ISIS-fuelled killers murdering
OpenAI will put ads in ChatGPT. This opens a new door for dangerous influence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raffaele F Ciriello, Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney OpenAI, The Conversation OpenAI has announced plans to introduce advertising in ChatGPT in the United States. Ads will appear on the free version and the low-cost Go tier, but not for Pro, Business, or Enterprise
The Mount Maunganui tragedy reminds us landslides are NZ’s deadliest natural hazard Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Brook, Professor of Applied Geology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Getty Images The tragic events in the Bay of Plenty this week are a stark reminder that landslides remain the deadliest of the many natural hazards New Zealand faces. On Thursday morning, a large landslide
Tokelau airport project scrapped despite multi-million dollar design By Kaya Selby, RNZ Pacific journalist New Zealand has scrapped a project to build an airport in Tokelau after sinking NZ$3 million into the design phase. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade told RNZ Pacific that the Tokelau government had been advised of their decision. Tokelau is completely inaccessible by plane,
The parents of rare conjoined twins say doctors in Papua New Guinea told them to take the boys home as they were beyond hope.
“Thank God we [defied them] and we are where we are,” the boys’ dad Kevin Mitiam, who is also a twin, said in Tok Pisin.
Tom and Sawong — who were fused at the lower abdomen — had unplanned emergency surgery to divide them at Sydney Children’s Hospital on December 7.
The surgery was brought forward as Tom, the weaker twin, was deteriorating rapidly. A large multi-disciplinary team took seven hours to separate the boys but Tom died soon after he was detached from his brother.
The team spent a further five hours working on Sawong, who is doing well and could return home by the end of February.
“The Port Moresby General Hospital paediatrician team told us [twice] to go back home, that there was no hope for them,” their mum Fetima said in Tok Pisin.
“We were even told not to trust Jurgen Ruh [the family’s spokesperson] because they said he was giving us false hope.
“I am happy and I laugh when I see my baby Sawong and think about that advice,” she said.
“I am full of hope, I cuddle him and talk to him every day, as he grows.”
Hospital response RNZ Pacific has asked Port Moresby General Hospital for a response.
The two-month-olds were medivacced from Port Moresby to Sydney on December 4, following medical advice that they undergo urgent surgery.
The move followed weeks of tense wrangling over the viability of separating them, which country would accept the case and perform the operation, and how it would be financed.
The boys shared a liver, bladder and parts of their gastrointestinal tract, but had their owns limbs and genitals.
They also had partial spina bifida — a neural tube defect that affects the development of a newborn’s spine and spinal cord. Tom also had a congenital heart defect, one kidney and malformed lungs.
Doctors at Port Moresby General Hospital initially explored the possibility of transferring the twins to Sydney, but the plans fell through when funding from a charity was pulled.
The hospital later made a u-turn and advised the couple to stay in PNG or face the death of either one or both of the boys.
Final decision The Medical Director, Dr Kone Sobi, said previously that multiple discussions led to their final decision, and added: “The underlying thing is that both twins present with significant congenital anomalies and we feel that even with care and treatment in a highly specialised unit, the chances of survival are very very slim.
“In fact the prognosis is extremely bad and the twin’s future is unpredictable.”
Manolos Aviation pilot Jurgen Ruh with Sawong at Sydney Children’s Hospital. Ruh flew Sawong and his conjoined twin Tom to Port Moresby General Hospital from their home in remote Morobe Province after they were born. Image: Jurgen Ruh/Manolo Aviation/RNZ
Ruh told RNZ Pacific on Thursday that although Sawong remained in intensive care, monitored constantly by a specialist nurse, he was “strong and doing well”.
He was no longer on a ventilator, did not need supplementary oxygen and was gaining about 50 grams a day in weight, he said.
“The hose fitting on his nose is simply to monitor his breathing and to assist a little with extra pressure in his lungs.
“Doctors have now closed up a hole in his stomach with stretched skin and he is improving every day, but it will be another month or so before he is released, possibly by the end of February.
“Occasionally Sawong gives the biggest smile on earth; he is just happy with what he has.”
100 days old The hospital recently celebrated Sawong reaching 100 days old with a simple but touching celebration.
“It threw a little party for Sawong, his parents and all the staff who have been part of his journey. Fetima cut a frozen cheesecake on his behalf,” Ruh said.
A massive funeral for Tom was held a month ago at the Mega Church in Hillsong, Sydney.
The family are expected to scatter his ashes after they return home to their remote village in PNG’s Morobe Province.
While the complex surgery was a success, the results were bittersweet for the parents.
“I thought it was amazing, after the surgery a nurse gave Tom to them and they spent hours just cuddling him,” Ruh previously told RNZ Pacific.
The parents had been through a “rollercoaster” of emotions since the twins were born on October 9.
“They had accepted that they would lose Tom and there’s been many tears shed along the way,” he said previously.
Funding search Ruh said last month that at one stage during negotiations the Sydney Children’s Hospital requested A$2 million to do the operation, but funds and guarantees could not be found.
RNZ Pacific understands that the parents had approached the PNG government for funding, but Ruh would not confirm this.
The ABC had reported that the hospital had asked for payment before the twins were transferred from PNG; however Ruh said as far as he knew no money had changed hands.
When asked how it was financed he said: “It’s a mixture of funding which took too long to organise.
“It should never have taken eight weeks to get the twins separated, it should have happened in eight days, but no referral pathway [to a foreign hospital] exists,” Ruh said.
He laid the blame on the PNG health system, and said babies born prematurely or with birth defects were lost in the system.
“It was a very disappointing ride we had, in terms of overall support from Port Moresby General Hospital. Then there were delays in getting them to Australia.
“We were exploring faster options, but we did not have any support.”
Private hospital The boys were eventually moved from the public hospital to Paradise Private Hospital in Port Moresby, which provided them with free care.
The family felt the twins would be “safer” and have less chance of cross-infection from other babies, particularly of malaria.
A multi-disciplinary team from Sydney Children’s Hospital flew to Port Moresby on November 21 to assess the twins, amid growing public pressure in Australia and PNG.
At that point the boys only had a combined weight of 2.9kg, and Tom was relying on Sawong to keep him alive.
Sawong (left) and Tom while they were being treated in Port Moresby General Hospital’s neonatal unit last year. Image: Port Moresby General Hospital/RNZ
In a letter to doctors in PNG, the Sydney team said surgery was in fact feasible although Tom was not expected to survive it.
“The reason for the early separation is that Sawong is working hard to support Tom,” the letter said.
Urgent transfer The team had recommended the twins be urgently transferred in a specialised aircraft with intensive care facilities plus medical and nursing personnel.
The boys underwent multiple investigations at Sydney Children’s Hospital, including an MRI and CT scan to define their anatomy and vascular supply.
“Before the surgery, the medical team [in Sydney] said it was a miracle that Tom had survived for two months,” Ruh said previously.
A huge team including liver surgeons, colorectal surgeons and urologists, specialised cardiac anaesthetists, cardiologists, neonatologists and interventional radiologists were involved in the surgery, supported by a large team of nursing and allied staff.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Australia’s two federal combating antisemitism bills, the New South Wales laws providing the means to shutdown street protests and move on stationary public assemblies, along with the envoy’s plan to combat antisemitism and the Royal Commission into the same prejudice, have all been set in place following two ISIS-fuelled killers murdering 15 people at Bondi Beach six weeks ago.
While some of these measures were drafted in a hurry immediately post-Bondi in a theatrical attempt to prevent what had already occurred, much of the “combating antisemitism” smorgasbord of laws that serve to clamp down on free speech and the right to political communication in general, appear to have been waiting in the wings for the right political moment to enact.
These dramatic changes that have been foisted upon the country’s public square have been central to a broad campaign that the Zionist lobby has been progressing both locally and throughout the Western world, which is difficult to pin down as most of this advocating takes place behind closed doors, while when featured in the media, these positions are increasingly reflected as the norm.
A key outcome of the doctrine of Zionism is the displacement and genociding of Palestinians. And it is these truths, and the fact that the Gaza genocide is in progress, that make it necessary to progress the lobby’s agenda right now.
But while the Albanese government is implementing the envoy’s plan and a Royal Commission into antisemitism, which both include a definition of antisemitism that serves to block criticism of Israel at the behest of the lobby, the scope of the federal hate laws further reveal desperate Labor and Liberal parties attempting to shore up power in the face of a drastically shifting political climate.
McCarthyite Zionism While the Israel lobby has long been understood to have an excessive influence upon the US political establishment, the sway of the Zionist lobby in Australia had not been common knowledge among the broader public until Gaza, as over the past 26 months of the mass slaughter and starvation programme, the lobby’s propaganda machine has been actioned in an attempt to hide this.
As the internet filled with footage of Israeli state actors perpetrating horrific acts in the Gaza Strip in late 2023, the Australian public sphere became a place to attack constituents for speaking out about this worst atrocity since the genociding of Jewish people during the Second World War, and the key way to silence these critics was to charge them with antisemitism — the hate that stoked the Holocaust.
The central target of the local Zionist lobby has been the Palestine solidarity movement, which has been a loud secular voice sprung from a diverse constituency.
Yet, federal and state Labor leaders have been labelling these people, who have been calling for an end to the practice of exterminating humans to obtain land, as outright antisemites and further implied they’re somewhat terroristic.
According to US professors Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler, the Israeli state and the Zionist lobby commenced framing criticism of Israel as antisemitic in the late 1960s.
This idea is predicated upon Israel being a Jewish state. It denies the fact that many Jewish people globally don’t adhere to the doctrine of Zionism. And it rests on a flimsy link that only holds because of the force of the lobbyists.
This had appeared to be spurred by the moral panic around antisemitism, however it has since come to light that the envoy programme exists across the Western world, with the first US envoy appointed in 2004.
At its heart, the plan inserts the IHRA definition of antisemitism that blocks criticism of Israel into every level of Australian government and all its institutions. Further aspects involve the monitoring of tertiary institutions and the media for antisemitism or rather, anti-Israel sentiment.
The IHRA working definition of antisemitism comprises of two lines and 11 examples of hatred towards Jewish people, seven of which involve criticising Israel.
The body that produced it has never officially adopted it. However, as one of its drafters has been warning over the past decade, the Zionist lobby has been weaponising the definition to silence anti-Israel criticism globally.
The determination to hold a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is the result of an all-pervasive campaign to see it established post-Bondi massacre, with the suggested reason being to understand how such a terrorist action was able to come to fruition.
Further moral panic However, the criminal case against one shooter rules this out, so the inquiry will likely serve to stoke further moral panic.
So, the blanket ban on protests, or the public assembly restriction declaration regime rolled out post-Bondi, can be understood as not only placating the Zionist lobby, via the silencing of Palestine solidarity rallies on Gadigal land in the Sydney CBD, but it’s also as a continuation of the closing of the public sphere.
The 50 pages of hate crime laws the Albanese government whipped out of its back pocket last week, appeared so broad that the suggestion is the measures were in the works long before the antisemitic attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025.
ASIO boss Mike Burgess hinted at a need for these last year, so as to stamp out groups, like the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network and Islamic group Hitz ut Tahrir, as they had both been understood to be hovering just beneath the threshold of criminal activity.
But further, these laws sitting on the books could likely be used by a future “true blue” führer, so that their opposition can be eradicated on taking office.
The fallacy of necessitated free speech denial NSW premier Chris Minns’ favoured mantra over the period of the Gaza genocide — or the rise in antisemitism in Australia if one is being “politically correct” — has been along the lines of “the reason NSW does not have free speech protections like they do in the United States, is that this state has a multicultural society and therefore, divergent voices must be tempered”. Yet, this is a lie.
During the 1890s drafting of the Australian Constitution, those involved determined not to enshrine rights in the founding document, as it might result in discriminatory laws already on the books that specifically applied to First Nations people and Chinese people becoming invalid, former High Court Justice Micheal Kirby has noted on occasion.
The premier is not only progressing this line when the moral panic around antisemitism is in full flight, but he is also suggesting that the right to free speech should not be protected in NSW, over and over again, after NSW MP Jenny Leong introduced the Human Rights Bill 2025 last October, which seeks to protect free speech, or “freedom of opinion and expression”, among other rights.
The failure to protect free speech in this country was initially about maintaining power when attempting to establish an ethnostate. But the ongoing denial of rights protections since Australia embraced multiculturalism commencing in the 1970s, has really been about politicians maintaining power, and not an attempt to save various ethnic groups living here from annihilating each other.
The idea progressed by Minns is that the broad free speech protections in the United States, which are contained in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, would be a problem in our community because it is multicultural.
However, while the US has traditionally been understood to have been a melting pot of different ethnicities, what is operating as societies in both countries today are based upon multiethnicities, and they’re pretty much the same.
The progression of the “combating antisemitism” laws and policies right now is all about placating the Zionist lobby, while Israel takes as many pounds of flesh as it desires upon occupied Palestinian territory, in order to prevent the ongoing mass civil society outcry over this ethnic cleansing, the mass starvation and mass murder, along with the genocidal tactics that are ongoing in the Gaza Strip.
Yet, the federal listing of prohibited hate group regime also provides the ability to the major parties to criminalise their political opponents as hate groups — think, the Greens — at a point in time when the long-term capture of holding government office by the majors is now under threat.
The tragic events in the Bay of Plenty this week are a stark reminder that landslides remain the deadliest of the many natural hazards New Zealand faces.
On Thursday morning, a large landslide swept through the Mount Maunganui Beachside Holiday Park at the base of Mauao, triggering a major rescue and recovery operation that will continue through the weekend.
Hours earlier, two people were killed when a separate landslide struck a home in the Tauranga suburb of Welcome Bay. As of Friday evening, six people remain missing at Mount Maunganui.
These events occurred at the tail end of a weak La Niña cycle, which typically brings wetter conditions to northern New Zealand. At the same time, unusually warm sea-surface temperatures have been loading the atmosphere with extra moisture, helping to fuel heavier downpours.
In parts of northern New Zealand, more than 200 millimetres of rain fell within 24 hours in the lead-up to last week’s events – well above the typical thresholds known to trigger landslides.
Regions such as the Bay of Plenty, Coromandel, Northland and Tairāwhiti are especially vulnerable to intense rainfall, which weakens surface soils and the highly weathered rock beneath them, allowing shallow landslides to detach and flow downslope.
Most landslides in New Zealand are triggered by heavy rainfall, through a complex interplay of intrinsic factors – such as slope angle, soil and rock strength, and vegetation cover – and extrinsic factors, including rainfall intensity and how wet the ground already is from prior rainfall when a storm arrives.
Much of this risk is invisible, accumulating quietly beneath the surface until a sudden collapse occurs.
This helps explain why landslides have long proved so dangerous. Since written records began in 1843, they have been responsible for more deaths than earthquakes and volcanic eruptions combined.
Much of New Zealand’s steep, geologically young landscape is pockmarked by the evidence of millions of past landslides, most occurring on pasture and remote areas, far from people.
When landscapes tell a story
At Mount Maunganui, the shape of the land itself tells a story. The surrounding hill slopes are riddled with the scars of past landslides, revealing a landscape that has been repeatedly reshaped by slope failure over time.
New high-resolution mapping now allows scientists to see this in unprecedented detail. A 2024 LiDAR-derived digital elevation model, which effectively strips away vegetation to reveal the bare land surface, shows numerous landslide features across the slopes.
Many cluster along the coastal cliffs, but two particularly large ancient landslides can be seen directly above the holiday park.
A high-resolution elevation map of Mauao and surrounding land at Mount Maunganui, drawn from Land Information New Zealand data, showing landslide features. Two ancient landslides, or paleolandslides, above the campground site are labelled L1 and L2. Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND
These older slips left behind prominent head scarps – steep, crescent-shaped breaks in the hillside – indicating where large volumes of material once detached and flowed downslope onto flatter ground below.
Subsurface evidence reinforces this picture. A geotechnical investigation carried out in 2000, near the northern end of the campground’s toilet block, found a 0.7 metre layer of colluvium – loose debris deposited by earlier landslides and erosion – buried beneath the surface.
In other words, the site itself sits atop the remnants of past slope failures.
This image provides two views of the slopes above the campground at Mauao (Mount Maunganui). On the left (A) is a 2023 aerial photo showing the steep hillside and the location of earlier ground testing. On the right (B) is a detailed elevation map revealing two ancient landslides (L1 and L2) hidden in the landscape. The star marks the approximate starting point of the January 22 landslide. Author provided, CC BY-NC-ND
The January 22 landslide appears to have initiated in the narrow zone between the two earlier slips. This is a particularly vulnerable position: when neighbouring landslides occur, the remaining wedge of land between them can lose lateral support, becoming unstable, like a rocky headland jutting out from a cliff face.
Over long timescales, this kind of progressive slope collapse is a normal part of landscape evolution. But when it unfolds in populated areas, it can turn an ancient geological process into a human disaster.
From prediction to prevention
Predicting how far a landslide will travel, and which areas it might inundate, is critically important – but it remains an inexact science.
At its simplest, this can involve rough rules of thumb that estimate how far a landslide is likely to run based on slope height and angle. More sophisticated approaches use advanced computer models, such as Rapid Mass Movement Simulation (RAMMS) which simulate how landslide material might flow across the landscape.
These models were used, for example, to assess landslide risk at Muriwai, Auckland, following Cyclone Gabrielle.
By adjusting inputs such as rainfall intensity and soil properties, scientists can explore a range of possible scenarios, generating estimates of how far future landslides could travel, how deep the debris might be, and which properties could be affected.
The results can then be translated into landslide hazard maps, showing areas of higher and lower risk under different rainfall conditions. These maps are not predictions of exactly what will happen, but they provide crucial guidance for land-use planning, emergency management and public awareness.
New Zealand has made major progress in mapping floodplains, and most councils now provide publicly accessible flood hazard maps that influence building rules and help communities understand their exposure.
In the future, developing similarly detailed and widely available maps for landslide hazards would be a logical – potentially life-saving – next step.
Martin Brook receives funding from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tu Ake.
OpenAI has announced plans to introduce advertising in ChatGPT in the United States. Ads will appear on the free version and the low-cost Go tier, but not for Pro, Business, or Enterprise subscribers.
The company says ads will be clearly separated from chatbot responses and will not influence outputs. It has also pledged not to sell user conversations, to let users turn off personalised ads, and to avoid ads for users under 18 or around sensitive topics such as health and politics.
Still, the move has raised concerns among some users. The key question is whether OpenAI’s voluntary safeguards will hold once advertising becomes central to its business.
Why ads in AI were always likely
We’ve seen this before. Fifteen years ago, social media platforms struggled to turn vast audiences into profit.
The breakthrough came with targeted advertising: tailoring ads to what users search for, click on, and pay attention to. This model became the dominant revenue source for Google and Facebook, reshaping their services so they maximised user engagement.
Large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) is extremely expensive. Training and running advanced models requires vast data centres, specialised chips, and constant engineering. Despite rapid user growth, many AI firms still operate at a loss. OpenAI alone expects to burn US$115 billion over the next five years.
Only a few companies can absorb these costs. For most AI providers, a scalable revenue model is urgent and targeted advertising is the obvious answer. It remains the most reliable way to profit from large audiences.
What history teaches us about OpenAI’s promises
OpenAI says it will keep ads separate from answers and protect user privacy. These assurances may sound comforting, but, for now, they rest on vague and easily reinterpreted commitments.
The company proposes not to show ads “near sensitive or regulated topics like health, mental health or politics”, yet offers little clarity about what counts as “sensitive,” how broadly “health” will be defined, or who decides where the boundaries lie.
Most real-world conversations with AI will sit outside these narrow categories. So far OpenAI has not provided any details on which advertising categories will be included or excluded. However, if no restrictions were placed on the content of the ads, it’s easy to picture that a user asking “how to wind down after a stressful day” might be shown alcohol delivery ads. A query about “fun weekend ideas” could surface gambling promotions.
These products are linked to recognised health and social harms. Placed beside personalised guidance at the moment of decision-making, such ads can steer behaviour in subtle but powerful ways, even when no explicit health issue is discussed.
Similar promises about guardrails marked the early years of social media. History shows how self-regulation weakens under commercial pressure, ultimately benefiting companies while leaving users exposed to harm.
Advertising incentives have a long record of undermining the public interest. The Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed how personal data collected for ads could be repurposed for political influence. The “Facebook files” revealed that Meta knew its platforms were causing serious harms, including to teenage mental health, but resisted changes that threatened advertising revenue.
More recent investigations show Meta continues to generate revenue from scam and fraudulent ads even after being warned about their harms.
Why chatbots raise the stakes
Chatbots are not merely another social media feed. People use them in intimate, personal ways for advice, emotional support and private reflection. These interactions feel discreet and non-judgmental, and often prompt disclosures people would not make publicly.
That trust amplifies persuasion in ways social media does not. People seek help and make decisions when they consult chatbots. Even with formal separation from responses, ads appear in a private, conversational setting rather than a public feed.
Messages placed beside personalised guidance – about products, lifestyle choices, finances or politics – are likely to be more influential than the same ads seen while browsing.
As OpenAI positions ChatGPT as a “super assistant” for everything from finances to health, the line between advice and persuasion blurs.
For scammers and autocrats, the appeal of a more powerful propaganda tool is clear. For AI providers, the financial incentives to accommodate them will be hard to resist.
The root problem is a structural conflict of interest. Advertising models reward platforms for maximising engagement, yet the content that best sustains attention is often misleading, emotionally charged or harmful to health.
This is why voluntary restraint by online platforms has repeatedly failed.
Is there a better way forward?
One option is to treat AI as digital public infrastructure: these are essential systems designed to serve the public rather than maximise advertising revenue.
This need not exclude private firms. It requires at least one high-quality public option, democratically overseen – akin to public broadcasters alongside commercial media.
Elements of this model already exist. Switzerland developed the publicly funded AI system Apertus through its universities and national supercomputing centre. It is open source, compliant with European AI law, and free from advertising.
Australia could go further. Alongside building our own AI tools, regulators could impose clear rules on commercial providers: mandating transparency, banning health-harming or political advertising, and enforcing penalties – including shutdowns – for serious breaches.
Advertising did not corrupt social media overnight. It slowly changed incentives until public harm became the collateral damage of private profit. Bringing it into conversational AI risks repeating the mistake, this time in systems people trust far more deeply.
The key question is not technical but political: should AI serve the public, or advertisers and investors?
Raffaele F Ciriello is a voluntary, temporary member of the eSafety Commissioner’s Parent Advisory Group, advising on caregiver and youth responses to Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age laws. This article draws on his independent research.
Kathryn Backholer is Vice President (Policy) at the Public Health Association of Australia. She receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, UNICEF, The Ian Potter Foundation, The National Heart Foundation, VicHealth, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, QUIT, the .auDA Foundation and the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety for work related to the health-harms of online advertising.