Police Commissioner Richard Chambers welcomed seven new Patrol Dog Teams during their graduation at the Police Dog Training Centre (DTC) in Trentham, Upper Hutt today.
The teams celebrated the occasion in a ceremony hosted by New Zealand Police in front of whānau and friends, and members of the Police Executive.
Commissioner Chambers acknowledged the celebration of fine police officers and dogs, and the achievement of graduation, marking the end of weeks of demanding training, perseverance and patience to become an operational team.
“It is wonderful to see you taking the next step and achieving your goals in your policing careers.
“To family and friends, it is wonderful to have you here and for your support of your handlers. They rely on the support you provide.”
It was the first patrol dog graduation for Superintendent Sam Keats as Director of the Royal New Zealand Police College, where he called on the handlers to rise to the challenge of being a handler.
“For our frontline you represent confidence, they feel more courageous when you are beside them.
“You lift, you build, and you give strength and confidence to others”
Four of the seven graduates are first-time dog handlers, with the patrol dog teams heading to Northland, Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Central, Tasman, and Canterbury Districts.
Constable Levi Bent is heading back to Bay of Plenty with Police Dog ‘Zig’. “Growing up on a dairy farm and working with farm dogs made me want to become a handler. I saw the success the dog section had in policing and that was something I wanted to be a part of.
“I like the fact we can harness the energy of these dogs that have amazing abilities and put it into a context where it helps our communities and keeps people safe. Zig likes the fact he gets a chicken nugget or two as an after-shift snack.”
Tasman bound Senior Constable Dan Waluszewski with Police Dog ‘Banksy’ says, “I was a professional cyclist, and being a dog handler is like cycling, not everything goes right, but you overcome challenges and build resilience.
“Banksy is my fourth operational dog, and every single one of them has been different. Dogs are a representation of a person and have different personalities, Banksy is my cheekiest and loudest.”
Inspector Todd Southall, National Coordinator Police Dogs, says “To all seven handlers, you can be very proud of your achievements and the fact you and your dog are graduating today.”
Inspector Todd Southall also acknowledged the team behind the scenes, who make the section successful and ensure the handlers and dogs are frontline ready.
“Our leaders, district trainers, and our DTC trainers and kennels, they are all part of helping get these handlers and dogs hit the road running on day one.”
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre
Watch out for our Ten One story coming soon with more images and stories from this graduation.
Sebastian Marinkovich was walking his two dogs, a retriever/labrador cross and a German shepherd/Siberian husky cross, on Kina Beach near Motueka on the afternoon of 7 September 2024. The beach is a designated dog exercise area.
The off-lead dogs spotted a kekeno and ran off uncontrolled, attacking the animal and causing wounds to its neck and head. The attack continued for about 30 minutes, despite the owner being nearby.
A member of the public saw the incident and called the Police, who went to the beach and talked to Marinkovich. He said by the time he got to the seal it was badly injured and he thought it was more humane to let the dogs continue their attack so the seal’s suffering would end sooner.
The case was transferred to DOC, which prosecuted Marinkovich under the Dog Control Act. Appearing in Nelson District Court on Thursday afternoon, Marinkovich was sentenced to a $2000 fine and orders were made for destruction of both dogs.
DOC Biodiversity Ranger Dirk de Vries says its unacceptable for someone to allow their dogs to do this to protected native wildlife.
“This case is especially confronting because of how long the attack went on for, and the fact the owner made a decision not to intervene and allowed the dogs to continue,” Dirk says.
“We know no dog owner wants their pet to attack kekeno or other native wildlife, but it’s the owner’s responsibility to keep their dog under control, even in unleashed dog exercise areas.
“Ideally dog owners would not get into a scenario in which their dog is attacking native wildlife in the first place. If you’re at the beach or out naturing, keep your dog under effective control, stay alert and watch for wildlife, and if you think there is wildlife in the area, put your dog on a lead.
“If your dog does attack wildlife, you need to step in and get your dog away from the wildlife immediately, and then call DOC on 0800 DOC HOT (0800 362 468).”
In the five years between 9 September 2020 and 12 August, DOC recorded 75 incidents of dogs attacking, killing or harassing seals or sea lions.
Dirk says any dog, even small or docile ones, can attack protected wildlife – it’s not just untrained or aggressive dogs.
Under the Dog Control Act it’s a serious offence to own a dog which attacks protected wildlife. The maximum penalty for owning a dog that attacks and kills protected wildlife is three years in prison, or a $20,000 fine. The Act also says the dog will be destroyed.
“DOC investigates all reported incidents of dogs attacking or harassing wildlife,” says Dirk.
“The public can help us by reporting any incident involving a dog attacking wildlife by calling 0800 DOC HOT.”
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.
“A child’s safety and wellbeing comes first,” is the Privacy Commissioner’s message to front-line workers after today’s announcement that the Government is working to better respond to child abuse.
“There is no legislative barrier to information sharing where there is a safety or wellbeing concern for a child.
“The Privacy Act does not stand in the way of protecting children from harm”, says the Commissioner.
Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster was commenting on recommendation 7 of the Dame Karen Poutasi Review 2022, following the Government’s announcement today that all recommendations from the review have now been accepted.
Recommendation 7 talks about information sharing and raising awareness of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which provides a legal framework to share information about children and young people for wellbeing and safety concerns. While the law is clear, in practice people sometimes worry about falling foul of the Privacy Act.
Under the Privacy Act an organisation may generally only disclose personal information for the purpose for which it was originally collected or obtained, or for a good reason set out in the privacy principles. However, other Acts can allow personal information to be shared for specific reasons and a child suffering harm is a good example of when that is appropriate.
“People working with children will have legal protection from liability when they share information because they’re concerned about risk to a child’s safety or wellbeing; unless they share in bad faith,” says Mr Webster.
“Section 66C of the Oranga Tamariki Act is clear about when and why information can be shared and to who.
More broadly, section 15 of the Oranga Tamariki Act allows any person to raise concerns that a child or young person has been or is likely to be harmed, abused or neglected, either with Oranga Tamariki or with the Police. Reports of concerns by members of the public are also protected from legal liability, as long as the reports are not made in bad faith. This is under section 16 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.
“As Privacy Commissioner, it’s my job to help protect people’s information, but that absolutely does not get in the way of making sure children are safe and that the relevant agencies have the information they need to protect New Zealand’s children,” said Mr Webster.
“Being clear about what can and what can’t be shared is very important to us and our mahi.
“It’s important the personal information of children is managed with particular care. Good privacy practices help ensure you are sharing the right information, at the right time, with the right people. This ensures the protection of children’s wellbeing and safety is prioritised in a privacy protective way. But if it’s urgent to share information to avoid risk of harm to children, this should be the first priority.”
“It is important people working with children know they can share information about risks to a child’s wellbeing or safety with other agencies or people who are in a position to help keep that child safe. The information sharing regime in the Oranga Tamariki Act enables this – the Privacy Act is not a barrier”, Mr Webster says. The value of the Privacy Act is to help agencies keep that information safe, not to prevent agencies from sharing it when they need to.
Anyone with concerns for the safety of children should contact Oranga Tamariki and/or Police.
Any agency with questions about sharing information to protect children from harm can contact the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
“My thanks to the Police Association for giving me the opportunity to address your annual conference on the subject of body-worn cameras and, in particular, the privacy implications of the use of this technology.
I am of course aware that the Police Commissioner has tasked senior staff with exploring options over the next twelve months for equipping frontline officers with cameras, and that he has said that there are a range of legal, privacy, and operational issues that need to be addressed as part of that work.
My Office will be involved in that work, so, today, in discussing the use of body-worn cameras by Police, I will necessarily keep my remarks at the broader level of privacy principles and policies that need to be carefully worked through before moving to implement such a significant initiative.
Just to note, I’m not here today to give legal advice, and not here to formally sign off on the use of body-worn cameras by the Police.
Context
But before I do share some thoughts around the use of cameras, I want to place the use of this technology within the broader context of the state of privacy in New Zealand.”
In doing that, I want to emphasise that 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.
It’s fair to say that when I talk about what I see as the sometimes-precarious state of privacy in New Zealand, and express concerns about the various risks to privacy, people often say to me “well, you would say that, wouldn’t you; you’re the Privacy Commissioner!” … apparently, I’m sort of like the technology fun police!
So, given that, I do want to share with you all some survey results from my Office’s 2025 Privacy Survey.
Remember, it’s not what I think; it’s what people out there – the citizens of New Zealand – are thinking.
A few highlights from the survey results:
47% of those surveyed are concerned about their individual privacy and the protection of their personal information
67% are concerned about the privacy of children
62% are concerned about government agencies or businesses using AI to make decisions about them, using their personal information
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
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 and
82% agree 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, includin
How can organisations lift their games in terms of providing assurance to kiwis that their right to privacy is being taken seriously?
How damaging could a personal information privacy breach be, in terms of lost trust and confidence – and given that, are organisations doing enough to avoid – or at least respond well to – a privacy breach?
How can we best balance public good goals around things like public safety, and privacy?
And, how does this play into the increasing amount of discussion in privacy circles and elsewhere around the concept of social licence?
Social licence has been defined as “a community’s perception of acceptability of a business or organisation, and its operations.”
You might have the legal right and might to do something, but have you got widespread community buy-in?
So, for example, if we are thinking about the use of body-worn cameras, the path of social licence might move through what some authors on social licence have seen as a series of boundaries:
from acceptance – yes, as a citizen, I agree you have the ability to use body-worn cameras;
to approval – over time you’ve demonstrated to me that you’re credible in how you are using body-worn cameras in a privacy protective manner;
to identification – I trust you, and your use of body-worn cameras is good for me and good for you.
As you would expect, building and maintaining this social licence requires significant effort.
Our recent interactions with Police
I’m conscious that my Office has, in relatively recent times, had a number of interactions with the Police and, more broadly, in relation to law and order policy and responses to retail crime.
Examples include:
I thought it might be useful to remind everyone of some of the key positions my Office has taken in relation to those matters that involved the collection of personal information – not least, because when it comes to body-worn cameras, we are of course talking about the collection of personal information.
In summary:
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.
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.
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 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.
The principles of proportionality and necessity, which are fundamental to the social licence of our democratic institutions, are critically important.
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.
The Privacy Act and body-worn cameras
Let’s turn now to the privacy regulatory framework operating here in New Zealand, and what it might mean for the use of body-worn cameras.
The Privacy Act is concerned with personal information.
Personal information is any information that tells us something about a specific identifiable person.
All sorts of things can contain personal information, including notes, emails, photos and scans and, of course, audio and visual recordings.
The 13 Information Privacy Principles – or IPPs – are at the heart of the Privacy Act.
They establish the obligations and safeguards for collecting, using, and sharing personal information.
Key concepts within the IPPs include agencies being required to have a lawful purpose to collect personal information, to store the information with security safeguards and only as long as necessary, and use and disclose the information for the purpose it was collected – albeit, with some exceptions.
Individuals are provided with protections relating to fairness and transparency, and rights to request access and correct personal information held by agencies.
Importantly, in today’s context, the IPPs are technology neutral and flexible enough to apply to a range of different contexts and to new technologies.
The public interest is integrated in the Privacy Act through exceptions to the IPPs, including through enabling the use and disclosure of information for law enforcement purposes.
The Privacy Act has been described as a “how to”, not a “don’t do”, regulatory framework.
At a broad level, then, what do organisations need to do to operate in a manner that is lawful when seen through the lens of the Privacy Act?
Organisations need to take reasonable steps to ensure individuals are aware of the fact that personal information is being collected, and how it will be used.
The information collected must be for a specific, legitimate purpose and you should be told what that purpose that is.
Organisations can generally only use your information for the reason they collected it.
Information won’t be shared, except in certain circumstances, which are outlined in the Privacy Act.
Organisations must have safeguards in place to keep your information secure and protect it from loss, misuse, or unauthorised access.
You can ask any organisation to provide the information they have about you.
You can ask any business or organisation to correct any information it holds about you that you think is wrong, incomplete, or misleading.
Body-worn cameras
So, given all this, what are the general principles and policies that are critical to an assessment of the use of body-worn cameras?
In answering this question, as with many initiatives, New Zealand has the ability to benefit not just from our own experiences of working within the Privacy Act framework, but also from the experiences of other countries whose police forces use body-worn cameras, and who operate them within their privacy frameworks.
At the outset, we should acknowledge that body-worn camera technology poses serious implications for individuals’ right to privacy.
Recording individuals’ actions and conversations is inherently privacy intrusive.
Addressing those privacy considerations can allow an appropriate balance to be achieved between the needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of individuals.
An organisation thinking of using this sort of technology needs to identify its lawful basis for collecting personal information using the technology.
There must be a demonstrable operational need that a body-worn camera programme is designed to address.
The cameras should meet the test of being an effective solution to the operational needs that have been identified.
Any identified privacy intrusion must be minimised to the extent possible and offset by significant and definable benefits.
A comprehensive analysis would also include a consideration of whether any less-privacy intrusive measures would achieve the same objective.
A privacy impact assessment or PIA is a tool used by organisations to help them identify and assess the privacy risks arising from their collection, use or handling of personal information.
A PIA will also propose ways to mitigate or minimise these risks.
A PIA can be particularly useful when an organisation is considering introducing a new policy or operating system, or when making changes to an existing process.
So, in the case of body-worn cameras, those preparing the PIA can work up a use case, or multiple use cases, for cameras, to enable themselves to work through the Privacy Act obligations.
Noting my earlier comments on social licence, I’m of the view that with something as significant as body-worn cameras, a PIA should also include a plan for consulting and engaging with the community on what is proposed.
A PIA might also introduce the idea of conducting a pilot or trial of the use of this technology.
And employee privacy should also be taken into account.
Transparency and openness are also key to building social licence.
This suggests that there should be reasonable efforts made to raise public awareness that officers are equipped with cameras, and that people’s actions and words may be recorded when they interact with, or are near, officers.
I know that the question of access to camera footage is a much-discussed topic, both here and overseas.
Any camera proposal will need to work through the relevant law – both the Privacy Act, and the Official Information Act.
Under the Privacy Act, people have a right to ask for access to their personal information.
In most cases people must be given their information, but sometimes there may be good reasons to refuse access.
One of the key issues which can be worked through in a PIA will be the question of continuous versus intermittent recording – whether the cameras should record continuously or whether officers should have the discretion or duty to turn them off and on, and under what circumstances.
My observation of overseas experience is that, from an accountability perspective, continuous recording may be preferable because it captures an unedited recording of an officer’s actions, and the officer cannot be accused of manipulating recordings for his or her own benefit.
However, from a privacy perspective, collecting less personal information is always the preferred option.
If it is decided, because of the identified purpose for the use of the technology, to proceed with an approach involving continuous recording, then what will be critical is policies and controls on retention and use to ensure proportionality, and to mitigate the impact on privacy – along with clear operational thresholds and discretion for officers to turn cameras off in some sensitive situations.
But, as I said earlier, these are the sorts of challenging issues that need to be fully explored in a PIA.
A PIA should also address the need to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, the recording of innocent bystanders, or innocuous interactions with the public.
I acknowledge that that won’t be possible all the time, and so setting and implementing limited and appropriate retention periods, and restricting access to recordings databases to a need-to-know basis, will help address privacy concerns.
On this access point, my Office has noticed that unauthorised employee browsing is increasingly becoming a source of privacy breaches – and I’m sure we’ve all seen stories about this in the media.
So, the issue of proper safeguards, retention, destruction and storage of camera recordings is one that also deserves careful consideration and investment – in both technical systems, and also in training and reinforcing an appropriate culture.
Overseas, steps to safeguard recordings include encrypting them and storing them on a secure server, restricting access to recordings on a need to know basis, having edit-proof video and audio, and implementing audit trails to provide assurance that recordings have not been modified or accessed inappropriately.
Returning to the theme of data minimisation, under the Privacy Act, an organisation must not keep personal information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used – in short, don’t keep personal information for longer than is necessary.
Indefinite retention is incompatible with the Privacy Act.
Setting and respecting access limits and retention periods will limit any opportunities for inappropriate disclosure or misuse of the information, including the potential for monitoring individuals without an authorised basis or good reason.
When a retention period is up, recordings need to be disposed of in a secure manner in accordance with agreed policies and law.
The governance of all this is of fundamental importance; as with all aspects of a body-worn camera system, there should be systems in place to ensure that safeguarding, retention and destruction policies are respected.
Use of body-worn cameras in New Zealand
So, what does this all mean for any proposed use of body-worn cameras in New Zealand?
The use of body-worn cameras is becoming an increasing feature of those who work in certain areas – we will be hearing about the Department of Corrections’ experience later – but people here may have seen them in use by council staff, by fisheries inspectors, and by bailiffs.
My Office has had a long-standing position on their use.
It is quite possible to use body-worn cameras within the Privacy Act regulatory framework.
I appreciate that there might be some operational difficulties or regulatory challenges to be overcome, but they can be successfully worked through.
As my earlier comments reinforce, it’s important that you define exactly what you are going to use the cameras for – and, therefore, how they will not be used.
Information Privacy Principle 1 in the Privacy Act is quite clear: you can only collect personal information if it is for a lawful purpose connected with a function or an activity of an agency, and the information is necessary for that purpose.
The purpose question is critical – this is not about untethered intelligence gathering or recording – and clearly defining the purpose for collection is an important step in minimising the unnecessary collection of personal information.
Once you are clear on your purpose, it will also be clear that to achieve this purpose there will be some personal information that you will not need to collect – such as private conversations between passing members of the public.
Organisations using body-worn cameras also need to think about how the wearer can retain some privacy – is the camera able to be turned off during breaks, or personal conversation?
My starting point would also be that the cameras should not be used to monitor the officer’s own performance or working hours, as there are less intrusive ways to achieve this.
Since the cameras will capture personal information about the wearers as well as the general public, both should be adequately notified about what information will be collected and what will be done with it.
Developing a user guide for officers will help ensure that they are aware when the camera needs to operate, and how to use the cameras appropriately.
I’m not going to run through every possible scenario now, but, for example, if an abusive situation arises, the guide might state that officer should tell people that they are being filmed and that the recording may be used as evidence.
Other matters to consider include how audio/visual material will be stored securely, and how long it will be retained.
How such material is used once captured will also need careful thought; for example, if images or audio are shared with the public for the purposes of identifying someone, other persons in the image should be obscured.
Some of these are matters or questions that come with significant resourcing implications – privacy issues are of course only some of the matters that will need to be considered.
Conclusion
As I wrap up my comments, I want to acknowledge something that is a day-to-day reality for the members of the Police Association: we all live in what has become an increasingly fractious and fractured world.
And it’s a world where personal data – including visual and audio data – has significant value – and that is seeing governments and businesses reach for solutions that have both known and unknown consequences for privacy.
At the same time, privacy regulators and human rights advocates are, in their own way, and under their own legislation, working to maintain our civil and political rights.
As we all go about our respective roles, let us all please remember that our ability as citizens to make our own decisions as to what we want to keep private – to exercise our own agency – gives us the space and freedom to exercise our other civil and political rights:
the reasons behind why our voting is by secret ballot,
what we decide to share about ourselves when seeking a rental property or a job,
the views we express to only those we trust to share them with,
the groups or causes we belong to,
and so it goes on.
If our citizens lose their own agency over their personal information, they risk losing more than that.
The right to privacy, and living in a free and democratic society, are precious taonga.
It is for this reason that I am absolutely focused on the need to re-frame the language of privacy, and protecting and respecting personal information, in New Zealand.
We need to break what I call the false dichotomy narrative … that we live in a world of either/or … that you can either have public safety, or privacy … that you can either have law and order, or maintain a right to privacy … that you can either have technological innovation, or privacy … that you can either embrace AI within your organisation, or protect and respect personal information.
In the language we use … in addressing complex public policy problems … in developing new operational strategies, we need to own and communicate that it’s not an either/or – but that it’s an “and”, or a “while”.
It’s keeping people safe while protecting individuals’ privacy rights.
It’s implementing new technology, while giving people confidence it’s being done fairly and in a manner that protects and respects privacy.
It’s rolling out data collection initiatives and ensuring personal information is kept safe and secure.
It’s doing privacy well.
As discussions on initiatives like body-worn cameras progress, my Office will be focused on ensuring that New Zealanders can have trust and confidence in the way their personal information is collected, stored, used and shared … for the benefit of all.
HONG KONG SAR – Media OutReach Newswire – 16 October 2025 – Super Property Pro (SPP), a PropTech company dedicated to empowering real estate professionals through digital innovation, has officially launched its new Cloud-Based Real Estate Agent System.
The Super Property Pro (SPP) cloud-based property management system enables real estate agents to update listings anytime, streamline workflows, and close deals faster.
Designed specifically for small and medium-sized property agencies, the system focuses on “process simplification and faster deal closing,” helping agents move beyond outdated desktop systems and manual record-keeping. The platform delivers an integrated, data-driven solution that enhances operational efficiency, ensures real-time market awareness, and helps agents win clients with speed and confidence.
Breaking Free from Legacy Systems
Traditional real estate agencies often struggle with disorganized data, delayed transaction updates, and lack of analytical insights, leading to missed opportunities and reduced service quality.
The new SPP system includes an Integrated Company Listing Manager, enabling agents to instantly access, update, and manage property listings—including photos, videos, digital brochures, floor plans, and client records—from any device. It also features a Comprehensive Transaction Database that tracks every property sale and lease in detail, giving agents reliable data to make faster and smarter business decisions.
Stay Ahead of the Market
SPP’s platform automatically updates secondary market listings and district-wide transaction records every day, giving agents real-time visibility into market trends and pricing. Agents can also access first-hand property project data, including unit availability charts and project details, enabling them to share up-to-date information with clients and build stronger credibility.
Multi-Functional Platform for Modern Agents
Built for the way today’s agents work, Super Property Pro (SPP) combines multiple tools within a single cloud ecosystem—available on both desktop and mobile app versions. Agents can easily create and edit digital brochures and customized property proposals with integrated floor plans and district maps, enhancing presentation quality. Through SPP’s partnership with hse777.com, agents can enjoy free online property listings, maximizing exposure. In addition, the platform allows agencies to build their own branded company websites, strengthening online presence and expanding digital reach to younger homebuyers.
Intelligent, Secure and Reliable
Beyond its robust feature set, SPP also delivers a highly optimized user experience. Its intelligent workflow automation improves productivity and reduces human error, while real-time data synchronization ensures all property and market information is always current. With multi-layer cloud security protection, the platform guarantees data safety and prevents unauthorized access. Available across desktop and mobile interfaces, SPP enables agents to work seamlessly anytime, anywhere—delivering an efficient, convenient, and professional operational experience.
Business Expansion Made Easy
SPP not only centralizes property management but also helps agencies establish online storefronts to meet growing consumer demand for digital property searches. Agents can showcase listings, interact with prospects, and share personalized recommendations directly online. The system supports multiple property categories, including residential, commercial, retail, village houses, and parking spaces—ensuring flexible listing management and stronger market competitiveness.
Proven Results and Industry Adoption
Early adopters of Super Property Pro (SPP) have reported significant productivity gains—saving over 50% of administrative time while improving internal coordination and data accessibility. Agents also highlighted that real-time market updates allow them to respond to client inquiries faster and close deals more effectively.
Road users should prepare for delays as critical safety work at the Nevis Bluff, on State Highway 6 between Cromwell and Queenstown, gets underway later this month.
Work on the spring/summer programme at the bluff is scheduled to take place over four weeks starting Tuesday 28 October, with the last day expected to be Friday 21 November. Work will be carried out between 8am and 5pm on weekdays, subject to weather conditions.
“People driving on SH6 between Cromwell and Queenstown during these times should build in about 10 minutes of extra travel time as delays will be inevitable while the work is carried out,” says Peter Standring, Maintenance Contract Manager for New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) in Central Otago.
“We know these delays can be frustrating, but we’re asking people to be patient and to understand that this work is necessary to ensure the safety of road users, which is our number one concern.”
There will also be up to five days where closures of up to an hour will be necessary for blasting work on a rock feature that has deteriorated over the winter period. Road users will be given as much advance notice about these blast closure days and times as possible.
The work at Nevis Bluff is part of an ongoing monitoring and management programme by NZTA, which is continuously monitoring movement and changes on the geologically complex bluff. Abseilers working over the rocky schist faces release rock, loosened by ongoing erosion that is hazardous to highway users below, in a controlled way when there is no traffic on the highway.
Stay up to date with conditions and maintenance on the state highways our Journey Planner site.
The Government is delivering on its commitment to lift student achievement, with new curriculum updates, resources, and assessments rolling out from Term 4, Education Minister Erica Stanford says.
“We’re introducing a clear curriculum, consistent ways of teaching, and more effective ways to monitor student progression and achievement. We want to ensure teachers have the right settings to support more young people to thrive,” Ms Stanford says.
The updated learning areas for English and Mathematics Years 0 to 10 will be available from 20 October, ahead of being required for use in Term 1 of 2026. All other learning areas will be released from 28 October.
“We’ve heard from the sector and we’ve listened – timelines have been updated to provide schools with more time to plan and progress their implementation. The implementation of all other learning areas (Social Sciences, Science, Health and Physical Education, the Arts, Technology, Learning Languages) will be rephased and introduced in two stages in 2027 and 2028.
“We’re listening to principals’ and teachers’ needs and supporting teachers with the tools and training they need to deliver brilliant teaching of the basics.
From next year, high quality maths resources delivered for Years 0-8 will be extended to Year 9 and 10 in digital format. Teachers will be provided with professional learning and development and resources to support the implementation of the revised maths curriculum.
New requirements are also being introduced to assess against the new curricula for English. From the start of 2026, the use of the Phonics Check will be required.
“Parents will know how well their children are doing and know that they’re getting extra support if they need it.”
Requirements for twice-yearly assessment of Year 3-8 students in Reading, Writing, and Maths using specified tools will also be required.
The tools are:
SMART (the new Student Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Tool), which will be available for use from the start of 2026
PATs (Progressive Achievement Tests)
e-asTTle, for 2026 only
“Student achievement is at the heart of the education reforms we are introducing, driven by six priority areas, that are grounded in evidence and ambitious for our young people. Our work programme will continue to drive that,” Ms Stanford says.
KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA – Media OutReach Newswire – 16 October 2025 – The Kuala Lumpur Sustainability Summit (KLSS) 2025 continued its momentum on the second day, following the launch on Tuesday by YB Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani, Minister of Plantation and Commodities and Acting Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability.
The summit is jointly organised by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability (NRES) and the Ministry of Economy (KE) and led by the Malaysian Green Technology and Climate Change Corporation (MGTC) and Pusat SDG Negara. The summit attracted top management and C-suite leaders from government bodies, think tanks, corporations, SMEs, civil society organisations, and academia.
In his opening address, YB Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani highlighted that the summit has been crafted as a broader architecture to support regional resilience and global relevance. The insights, innovations and institutional partnerships that emerge over the two days must be translated into action across the ASEAN community and beyond.
High-Level Policy Addresses Reinforcing Malaysia’s Commitment to Sustainability
The summit featured high-level policy addresses that reinforce the government’s commitment to sustainable, inclusive, and resilient national growth.
YB Dato’ Hajjah Hanifah Hajar Taib, Deputy Minister of Economy, emphasised the government’s commitment to embedding sustainable development across national policies for long-term resilience and inclusivity.
YBhg. Datuk Dr. Ching Thoo a/l Kim, Secretary General of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability, spoke on the importance of empowering local communities and strengthening collaboration between public and private sectors to build a climate-resilient future.
YBhg. Dato’ Ts. V. Valluvan Veloo, Deputy Secretary General (Macro), Ministry of Economy, delivered the policy focus “Building Malaysia’s Next Economy Towards 2030 and Beyond,” outlining the government’s strategy to future-proof Malaysia’s economy through green innovation, digital integration, and equitable growth.
Day One Highlights: Global Collaboration and Homegrown Innovation
Day one of KLSS 2025 brought together leading voices shaping the global sustainability agenda. H.E. Selwin Charles Hart, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General on Climate Action and Just Transition, underscored the importance of regional collaboration and shared responsibility in achieving climate resilience and just transition goals.
From Malaysia, Ms. Izlyn Ramli, Chief Executive Officer of Maybank Foundation, highlighted how partnerships between financial institutions and communities are driving innovation and inclusive green growth. Together, these perspectives set the tone for the summit’s focus on collective innovation and actionable pathways towards a more sustainable ASEAN.
Day Two Highlights: Translating Ambition into Action
Day two opened with a session led by Eric Kane, Global Head of ESG Research, Bloomberg Intelligence, setting the stage for practical discussions on driving sustainability through cross-sector collaboration and innovation.
This was followed by the MGTC x Bloomberg Series Fireside Dialogue, “Engineering Sustainability: Delivering Impact at Scale,” featuring Mr. Saiful Adib Abdul Munaff, Acting Group Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of MGTC. He underscored the importance of translating corporate sustainability ambitions into measurable and scalable impact for Malaysia’s green economy.
The day continued with a series of thought-provoking discussions that explored the nation’s green transition across industries – from corporate climate action and digital transformation to decarbonising Malaysia’s maritime sector. The Local Spotlight on Circular Economy showcased how homegrown innovation and circular solutions are reshaping sustainable resource management.
Day two of the summit concluded with Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs, President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), delivering his message: “This Decade Decides.” His remarks underscored the urgency of immediate climate action and the unprecedented opportunity before Malaysia to lead regional decarbonisation efforts.
Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Climate Resilience: A National Call to Action
A key highlight was the formal unveiling of the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on Climate Resilience, which signifies the regional commitment in Malaysia’s national context, uniting government, business, and communities in a shared effort to strengthen climate adaptation, enhance resilience, and accelerate practical action on the ground. It invites all sectors to align with this vision, reaffirming that Malaysia’s path to sustainability must be collective, inclusive, and enduring.
Hashtag: #KLSS
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
Five arrests have been made and drugs seized as Police target drug dealing in Ōpōtiki.
Four search warrants were carried out on Wednesday 15 September, at Ōpōtiki addresses believed to be involved in the sale or supply of controlled drugs.
Drugs and evidence of drug dealing were seized and five people arrested.
Of serious concern is the dealing from one address where children and young people were present and implicated in the supply of cannabis.
Superintendent Tim Anderson says Police will continue these operations to disrupt the sale and supply of drugs to the community.
“I’m very proud of our Police officers across Ōpōtiki and Eastern Bay of Plenty who do not and will not tolerate the harm caused from drug dealers in our communities,” he says.
A woman, 47, who was on bail for selling controlled drugs was arrested again for possession of cannabis and methamphetamine and for breaching her bail conditions not to be in possession of controlled drugs. She is due to appear in the Ōpōtiki District Court today 16 October.
A man, 59, was charged with possession for the purpose of supplying cannabis and is due to appear in Ōpōtiki District Court on 23 October.
A man, 26, was charged with possession of ammunition and further charges are likely in relation to drug offending. He is due to appear in Ōpōtiki District Court on 23 October.
A youth, 17, was also charged with possession of controlled drugs for the purpose of supply. He is due to appear before the Ōpōtiki Youth Court on 13 November.
A man, 39, was charged with two offences in relation to displaying prohibited gang insignia. He is due to appear in Ōpōtiki District Court on 23 October.
Evidence in relation to an ongoing motorbike disorder in town was also discovered and separate enquiries continue into that.
Superintendent Tim Anderson says he’s very thankful to members of the community who report this type of offending to Police.
“Please keep it up,” he says. “It really does make our communities much safer places to live, work and play.”
Police are committed to reducing drug related harm in our communities by targeting those who gain money through supplying drugs with the potential to cause serious harm into our communities.
If you have any information that may assist Police in identifying and locating suppliers of drugs into the community, please contact Police on 105 or online via https://www.police.govt.nz/use-105.
Alternatively, you can report information anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
The New Zealand Practice Guidelines for Opioid Substitution Treatment provide clinical and procedural guidance for specialist services and primary health care providers who deliver opioid substitution treatment (OST). They are issued by the Director-General under section 24A(8) of Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and reflect our collective commitment to delivering high-quality, evidence-informed equitable care.
These updated guidelines incorporate significant developments in OST provision. They strengthen the emphasis on people’s rights, empowering people to make decisions and support recovery. They reflect legislative changes which enable nurse practitioners, designated nurse prescribers and pharmacist prescribers to provide OST, and allow for signature exempt prescriptions and extended supply periods through electronic systems. The guidelines also offer updated clinical advice on buprenorphine induction, pregnancy care, transitions from methadone, and the use of long-acting injectable formulations.
