Experts claim that corporate employees in Southeast Asia are neglecting cybersecurity rules due to their love for football, leading to an increase in fraud cases.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA – Media OutReach Newswire – 3 July 2026 – The 2026 Malaysia AI Innovation and Development Exchange Forum and the launch of Omirol, Southeast Asia’s first native AIGC creation ecosystem platform, were successfully held in Kuala Lumpur. The event was jointly organized by FSBM Holdings Berhad, a Bursa Malaysia-listed company, and MOCHI MEDIA SDN. BHD. Through keynote speeches, panel discussions, Omirol showcases and MOU signing ceremonies, the forum explored the current development, challenges and future trends of the AIGC industry in Southeast Asia, while providing a platform for regional exchange and cooperation.

The event was officially supported by Malaysia’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). Deputy Secretary-General (Technology Development) Puan Norsham binti Abdul Latip attended the event and delivered a keynote address, noting that Malaysia is actively supporting innovation in the local digital content industry. She stated that the launch of Omirol, as Southeast Asia’s first native AIGC creation ecosystem platform, demonstrates Malaysia’s leading position in technological innovation in the region. By integrating mature international industrial resources to support the rapid development of local enterprises, technologies and talent, Omirol is highly aligned with Malaysia’s strategic direction in advancing artificial intelligence, the digital economy and the cultural and creative industries, while also offering a new practical pathway for deepening China–Malaysia digital economy cooperation. The event brought together nearly 300 guests, including representatives from BytePlus Malaysia, Vision Tech Singapore, IBM Malaysia, TusStar Malaysia, Telekom Malaysia, Xiamen Airlines, xFusion Technologies Malaysia, Solution Group, China Mobile Malaysia and the Chinese Film Association of Malaysia, etc.

Strategic Partnerships to Build a Regional AIGC Ecosystem

One of the forum’s major highlights was the signing of strategic cooperation agreements between Omirol AI and six organizations, including the Southeast Asia Research Center for Humanities(SEARCH), TAR UMT (Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology), the animated feature film “Nanyang Volunteers”, ZIVO AI and Do Drama. The collaborations cover AI education, content marketing, production, distribution, and ecosystem development.

Among them, the strategic partnership with China’s V-Valley – Malanshan Video Cultural & Creative Industrial Park marked the most significant milestone. Ms. Zhou Jing, Vice Chairman of the Malanshan Global Expansion Alliance and Chairman of Fuhui Media Group, attended the forum in Kuala Lumpur to deliver a keynote speech and sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The agreement officially establishes a long-term strategic partnership between China’s national-level digital cultural industry cluster and Southeast Asia’s first native AIGC ecosystem platform. Both parties will collaborate across digital content creation, AI talent development, industrial resource sharing, and international cultural exchange to accelerate the coordinated development of the China–Malaysia digital creative industry.

Building an Open and Sustainable AI Ecosystem

During her keynote speech, Ms. Zhou Jing noted that Malanshan has rapidly evolved from a leading video content industrial park into one of China’s most important hubs for the integration of digital content and artificial intelligence. The recently established Malanshan Global Expansion Alliance brings together over 30 leading Chinese organizations, including Mango TV, Central South Publishing & Media Group, Hunan International Channel, CBG Tianze, AI technology companies, and international communication institutions, forming a comprehensive ecosystem covering content production, AI technologies, international distribution, and cross-border services. She emphasized that the future competition in AI will not simply be about who owns the most advanced technology, but about who can build an open, collaborative, and sustainable industry ecosystem. With a population exceeding 700 million and rich cultural diversity, Southeast Asia represents one of the world’s fastest-growing digital content markets and an important strategic destination for China’s cultural and creative industries.

Six Key Areas of Collaboration

According to the signed Memorandum of Understanding, Omirol AI and Malanshan will jointly promote practical cooperation across six major initiatives:

1. China–Malaysia AIGC Joint Training Academy
   Develop AI filmmaking and digital content creation programs with Malaysian universities such as TAR UMT by leveraging Malanshan’s educational resources and industry expertise.
2. Cross-border Licensed IP Resource Library
   Establish a shared IP ecosystem covering film, animation, tourism, cultural heritage, and digital assets to support AI-generated short dramas, animation, and creative productions.
3. Technology Integration and AI Infrastructure
   Connect leading Chinese AIGC technologies with the Omirol AI platform, enabling collaboration in computing power, AI models, and content generation technologies to improve production efficiency.
4. Global Content Distribution Network
   Expand international distribution channels for original Omirol AI content while supporting the localization and commercialization of premium Chinese digital content across Southeast Asia.
5. China–Malaysia AI Short Drama Competition
   Jointly organize an international AI short drama competition, accompanied by incubation programs and funding initiatives to cultivate globally competitive Southeast Asian IP.
6. Industry Collaboration & Investment Platform
   Establish regular China–Malaysia AI industry matchmaking events to promote technology exchange, global AIGC OPC community, project collaboration, and cross-border investment between enterprises from both countries.

Omirol AI: Building Southeast Asia’s Native AIGC Creaation Ecosystem

Speaking at the signing ceremony, Ms. Joyin He Jiaying, Founder and CEO of Omirol AI, said:

“Omirol is built to be the infrastructure of Southeast Asia. Our vision goes beyond providing AI tools—we aim to build an open ecosystem connecting creators, universities, enterprises, and industry resources, empowering Southeast Asia to become one of the world’s leading hubs for digital content innovation.” She added that Omirol AI has already integrated with China’s ‘LaiShu Processing’ pilot infrastructure in Shantou and is exploring collaboration with Inspur Information (Shantou) to significantly reduce token costs for Southeast Asian users.

Combined with the joint China–Malaysia technical team established together with FSBM and Malanshan’s mature AIGC industry resources, Omirol AI aims to deliver a fully localized, one-stop

AIGC ecosystem tailored to creators, businesses, and educational institutions across Southeast Asia.

A New Model for Cross-border AI Industry Collaboration

As the global AIGC industry shifts from competition in individual technologies to competition between complete ecosystems, integrated capabilities in AI platforms, content creation, IP commercialization, talent cultivation, and international distribution are becoming the key drivers of long-term competitiveness. Industry observers believe this partnership represents more than a business collaboration—it marks the first systematic integration of China’s mature digital content industry with Southeast Asia’s emerging AI innovation ecosystem. By combining technology, content, talent, and industrial collaboration, China and Malaysia are jointly pioneering a scalable model for international AIGC cooperation that could become a benchmark for the future development of Southeast Asia’s digital creative economy.

Event Video：https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CpLCytXn1/
Event Post: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19C1wQyTLL/

Hashtag: #Omirol

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

Appointment reinforces the hospital’s commitment to clinical excellence, strategic growth and delivering exceptional patient care.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

Source: Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA)

PSNA says the shift of the Israeli embassy into the Fisher Funds building in Wellington has concerned other tenants in the office high rise.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa is citing the Wellington Post front-page article which reported only some occupants of the 13-storey site had been told that Israel was moving in.

PSNA spokesperson Rinad Tamimi says the building’s owner was obviously trying to keep the arrival of the embassy a secret until it was too late to object.

“It’s pretty obvious why.  The Fisher Funds building is owned by Prime Property Group, which is controlled by rich-lister and former Israeli Defence Force major, Eyal Aharoni.”

“He’s looking after his own.”

Tamimi says the solution to the embassy location concern was the New Zealand government could expel the ambassador and his staff.

“We broke off diplomatic relations when it was discovered Israel’s Mossad spy agency had been getting fake New Zealand passports.  So, there is a precedent.”

“It all comes down to the fact that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.  It’s the world’s worst atrocity of this century and shamefully its ongoing perpetrators are flying their flag over our capital city,” Tamimi says.

“At this very moment, Israel is firing on the Sumud Flotilla trying to bring aid to Gaza and kidnapping and assaulting New Zealand citizens on that convoy.”

“Our ministers are shaking hands with the people who represent this illegal violence in international waters.”

Tamimi says though Fisher Funds does not own the building it operates out of, it must have powers as the holder of naming rights.

“If Fisher Funds’ CEO was to represent its KiwiSaver stakeholder interests, then he would tell Aharoni to find somewhere else for the Israelis to go to.”

“But since the CEO is an ex-minister of the National Party – Simon Power – then the head of Fisher Fund appears to part of the problem and not the solution.”

Rinad Tamimi

National Spokesperson

PSNA

MIL OSI

The FBI could get hold of masses of personal information about New Zealanders, a lawyer has warned MPs.

The Justice Select Committee has been hearing submissions on the Policing Amendment Bill, which would extend police powers to gather intelligence and give them expanded powers to close down public places in case of actual or anticipated disorder.

But Lloyd Gallagher – from the Law Association’s technology and law committee – told MPs on Monday that the bill had too few protections around the data, especially with the spread of AI.

“With the collaboration that we’re now doing with the FBI etc internationally, we run a risk of that information no longer being able to be within our control,” said Gallagher.

“Once it’s in the US’s hands under the Patriot Act etc, there’s a massive amount of risk of that data being put into databases and miscommunicated.”

The government has said the bill would restore police powers rather than giving them new ones.

But most of the groups that appeared at the select committee rejected that and laid out fears this was police “over-reach” – that the Bill was too vague and broad; set few limits on collecting data or what the personal information could then be used for; and that it would undermine trust in police, especially among Māori and Pasifika.

“The Bill’s intelligence-gathering powers will have a far greater impact on the privacy interests of the community at large than any other kind of information-gathering power currently available to law enforcement agencies,” Nick Chisnall KC of the Law Society told MPs.

Thomas Beagle listed technologies the Council for Civil Liberties believed police would deploy much more if the bill passed – facial recognition, automated number plate recognition, drones, live surveillance and gate analytics.

“Everything’s allowed by this Bill.

“There are really no limits,” Beagle said. He said there was also no oversight or appeal rights for people targeted.

“The Bill embodies the view police will never misuse or abuse their powers.”

Retail NZ and the Police Association spoke up in support of the Bill’s two parts.

Retail NZ cited rising violence in stores, and the Police Association’s Steve Watt said it gave clarity and the right tools.

“Police will actually have a firmer idea of what and where they can do things as we progress into the future,” said Watt.

The Bill’s second part – which would introduce infringements and arrest powers when places were declared off-limits – would help keep people safe, Watt said.

But prison reformer Cosmo Jeffrey said the Bill lacked a framework to control how police used or retained people’s data – including their photographs, which could be used over and again in facial recognition systems.

He had been in Twizel on his Ducati recently when a patrol officer pulled him over, Jeffrey said.

“He asked for my licence. Within seconds he brought up my history, started talking about something that happened 25 years ago and I was left standing there wondering, ‘Haven’t I done time, shouldn’t I be allowed to get on with my life?’.

“And I’m just wary of collecting information on people that can be called up in seconds and used against them.”

The Bill was put together under time pressure and without public consultation, the documents allied to it said. The consultation of agencies such as the Justice Ministry and Te Puni Kokiri suggested more safeguards.

Māori were not consulted, even though the Bill was designed to give police “certainty” to take images of people in public again. A widespread practice before a 2020-22 investigation ruled it was unlawful and had especially targeted rangatahi.

Shaymaa Arif – from BIPOC Legal Collective Aotearoa – told the committee they must insist on the systemic oversight lacking from the Bill, “before another generation of tamariki end up in a database”.

“The people that are most impacted and affected by this bill are not in this room with us,” Arif said. “They are Māori teenagers, they are children of colour, they are whānau at Friday prayers.”

Police would combine the intelligence gathering and expanded closure powers to turn public gatherings into surveillance areas using facial recognition, she warned.

Anjum Rahman said the Bill was a push towards a US-style over-securitisation that had not worked to prevent gun violence over there, and would not work here. The over-securitisation of New Zealand mosques after the March 2019 did not make them safer, because a shooter could simply target people as they left, she said.

The “powers in this Bill will make that worse” and target political protesters, while other initiatives could build societal trust, she said.

Several submitters questioned why the Bill was so vague in not defining the “functions” and “activities” that police could use to justify taking photos or videos, or for the first time without a warrant being able to gather intelligence in a private place that was not related to why they were there in the first place.

It was “just bad law” to leave it up to junior officers to decide for themselves whether what they were doing was justified on the grounds the intel might come in useful even if only in future, said Craig Clarke of Community Law Centres Aotearoa.

Year 13 Wellington High student Miro Thomas Ireson asked the committee to at least require police to use dedicated surveillance devices and not their Apple iPhones, which he believed might expose people’s data to America’s Cloud and Patriot Acts.

John Gregson of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists called for an across-government assessment of how the Bill combined with move-on orders would impact the most vulnerable people. Mentally ill people would fall foul by behaving like they were resisting the officers who got to make the call on cementing their biometric data into the state system, he said.

Specific safeguards needed to be added, plus a full Te Tiriti assessment done.

However, as it stood, the Bill had “zero protections for tamariki”, he said.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Fire and Emergency has turned down a request to help one of the United States’ top two urban search and rescue teams.

The USA-02 team in Los Angeles county wanted a specific expert to mentor them for one or two weeks a year ahead of a big test in 2029.

“A great honour,” said the manager who got the request last November.

USA-02 came to Christchurch’s aid after the 2011 earthquake and was part of US efforts to help here after Cyclone Gabrielle.

The 60 or so internationally-mandated USAR teams routinely help each other out with training – and help out other countries after disasters.

The international body called INSARAG said FENZ has a strong record for doing that.

But in this case, emails seen by RNZ showed FENZ turned down the US State Department in March.

The agency said it had to prioritise New Zealand and the Pacific.

“The issue was solely one of timing and organisational readiness,” Ken Cooper, national manager of response capability, said in an internal email last month.

However, Chris Lind, the expert the US wanted, emailed Cooper in March: “This represents a lost opportunity to grow our people and our teams for the better, at no cost to the organisation – particularly valuable in a fiscally constrained environment.”

USAR operations manager Glenn Hudson handled the initial request and called the rejection “short sighted” – the emails showed he had urged top management to quickly OK Lind going before some other agency got asked; it was a chance “to put FENZ and NZ Inc branding on the world stage”.

‘We’d love to have Chris’

RNZ understands it sometimes happens that mentor requests between countries are turned down, but not usually.

The Americans had specifically wanted Lind who they had worked with “extensively” including during Gabrielle in 2023, and noted how they had a big joint exercise coming up in May 2026 and “we’d love to have Chris there if he’s able to join us”.

The request added the sweetener for a second expert to come along each year with Lind, adding as usual with travel and accommodation expenses – but not salaries – paid.

They would have worked to help USA-02 pass its next five-yearly test to be reclassified to United Nations standards in 2029 – the gold standard for earthquake and landslide rescues. It is one of just two American teams classified this way. FENZ provided a mentor to help USA-01 pass in 2022 (NZL-01 who led at the fatal Mt Maunganui landslide this year passed their latest big test in 2024).

When RNZ began making inquiries, Fire and Emergency said it would not be proceeding with the mentor proposal.

“New Zealand’s current strategic focus is on developing and supporting capability across the Pacific nations, which requires us to prioritise our people and resources accordingly,” it said in a statement.

It did not agree to an interview.

Hudson played a key role marshalling USAR forces at Mt Maunganui.

In the emails, he told Cooper the LA county job would give personnel significant exposure to the international rescue environment at virtually no cost.

Later, he labelled the time taken to decide on it “embarrassing”, the lack of follow-up “another example of … poor leadership” and the decision itself “short-sighted”.

“I had hoped that Chris’s involvement would both reinforce and strengthen relationships with our partners, including the US and INSARAG,” he wrote.

INSARAG – the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group in Geneva – said it was a bilateral matter.

“It’s not our business to impose anything on them or to comment on their decisions.”

But it added that FENZ had made a “significant… and lasting contribution” to search and rescue internationally down the years.

FENZ is tied up in a contentious and months-long delayed restructuring that included a proposal to change top USAR – urban search and rescue – jobs.

‘We’ve got some very good friends’

USA-02 provided some of the 600 rescue workers from six countries that Christchurch relied on after the February 2011 quake.

“We’ve got some very good friends,” Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said at the time.

The US ambassador echoed this in 2023 when a dozen technical experts were sent here after Cyclone Gabrielle: “When disaster strikes we are there for one another.”

FENZ reports talk of the “breadth and range” of its USAR capability and how they could be deployed worldwide “at a moment’s notice”.

NZL-01 rescued people after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan. In 2023, 49 INSARAG teams led the search for thousands of people buried under rubble in Türkiye and Syria. Others went to Beirut after the port explosion in 2020, to the Indian ocean tsunami in 2004 and the 2015 Nepal quake.

INSARAG’s Sebastian Rhodes Stampa in Geneva told RNZ that Fire and Emergency’s record was strong.

“This includes supporting classifications or reclassifications for multiple teams over the years within the Asia-Pacific Region and as far away as Europe and the USA,” he said.

After the 2016 Kaikōura quake it led development of a new coordination and management system since adopted by teams globally.

‘I see the writing on the wall’

Hudson had urged Cooper for a quick OK when the request landed on November 25 from Robert Chapman at the State Department’s office of international disaster operations.

It was a “great honour”, Hudson had immediately told Chapman.

He told Cooper “should we deny this request we would be missing out” on FENZ staff development.

But by January and February there had been no decision.

“I am personally sorry this has taken so long,” Hudson told Chapman. He’d had trouble “getting this request across the line” and now he was stepping back while it was referred upwards to a FENZ deputy chief executive, understood to be Megan Stiffler.

“Standing by,” replied Chapman.

On March 17 Chapman wrote that he had not heard back. “Nothing from Megan … pretty sure I see the writing on the wall here, but it would be helpful for me to get it in writing so I can take it back up my chain.”

A few hours later, he got the thumbs down, Hudson writing, “We have looked at all workloads… and our current restructure will rely heavily on his [Lind’s] input developing USAR capability within New Zealand and with our Pacific partners.”

But an hour earlier an upset Hudson had emailed Cooper that FENZ was going to miss out on free and valuable development and strategic benefits.

In addition, he was in the “embarrassing” position of having told the State Department it would hear from FENZ leadership. “When I spoke to them today … I had to quickly make excuses for the lack of communication from the DCE.”

Lind also said the delay was frustrating and left the State Department hanging.

But he accepted the decision and would carry on, as he had always advocated being capable “within our own backyard in the first instance”, Lind wrote.

‘Prioritise our people and resources’

Cooper rejected that the decision was shortsighted or the process showed poor leadership.

FENZ had had options to work with the US without making the mentor opportunity specific to one person at the outset.

“This option was fully considered and supported by the DCE and you were asked to communicate that offer to the US state department,” he emailed Hudson and Lind.

RNZ understands it would be unusual if one country asked for someone by name as a mentor, for the other country to go ahead offering someone else.

Cooper said there was no guarantee of direct leadership engagement in a set timeframe and the process “does not warrant undermining comments”.

FENZ told RNZ it was all about focus: “It is important that we remain focused on the challenges and priorities we are facing organisationally and within the region.

It had “always been, and remains, supportive of opportunities and continues its active participation in INSARAG. We hope to continue work with our US counterparts to look at ways in which we can offer guidance and supportive.”

RNZ approached the US embassy for comment.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

When there is a Cabinet reshuffle, I tend to feel a little sorry for fresh ministers who get elevated up the rankings and landed with a big new job, or three.

A new ministry to run may be a dream realised. But for an MP who is conscientious or self-aware, it’s surely also a terrifying responsibility. So, how do they manage that transition, and how are ministers assisted and guided into their new roles?

The House asked a newish minister, recently further elevated, who has a reputation for being both competent and conscientious. Here is the edited conversation.

Chris Penk (National, MP for Kaipara ki Maharangi), is Minister of Defence, Space, the GCSB and SIS, Building and Construction, Veterans, and Associate Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. He admits it’s a lot but professes to “enjoy it all”.

Learning on the job

How did you transition to becoming a minister?

A certain amount of it is learning on the job. For a very new member of Parliament becoming a minister probably is a challenge because they are learning two new jobs all at once.

Operating in Parliament, you’re aware of what ministers do, and you’re aware of the need for different skills, knowledge, and experience that you simply don’t have to have until such time as you reach that particular role.

As an MP, you’re contributing but you’re not really in charge of anything.

The reality is, it’s not the case that you’re making decisions on an individual basis as an MP. However, as a minister, there are decisions you make. Yes, government decisions are made almost by definition with Cabinet collective responsibility, but you propose things as a minister to your ministerial colleagues. (You don’t always get them across the line, by the way). And then there are statutory powers that the minister has to make in a particular area.

[Note: Legislation often delegates ongoing powers and specific decisions to individual ministers.]

A lot of people come to Parliament having never really been the boss of anything. You were a partner in a law firm and you’d been an officer in the Navy.

I’d been in charge of a couple of quite small teams, and so I had at least that experience, and whereas some people come to this place without having been in a leadership role and possibly find it difficult when they are asked to make a decision and every eye around the table is on you, waiting for you to pronounce as to your decision.

Conversely, colleagues who come in who have been used to being in decision-making roles, and [then] they don’t get much decision-making power, at least until they become a minister.

So when you became a minister you have to learn a lot of new rules before you actually have an enormous stack of papers land on your desk.

The papers come pretty well from day one. But yes, the briefings do as well, in terms of how to conduct your role. And some of it is just the mechanics of what the Cabinet Manual says about, you know, decision making, disclosures of interest, different rules for declaring gifts.

So, the rules of the game are different and you do need to get your head around that, but you also have to move very quickly to be able to do your job from day one. So the information flows, the decisions are needed.

[It can be much harder] if there’s a change of government. Inevitably, you have a large number of new ministers, and [issues requiring decisions will have built up], and suddenly you’re right in the deep end.

You would have a lot of decisions to make all at once and a lot of catching up to do, and a whole lot of people who maybe hadn’t done it before, and so no one much to mentor you either.

Usually, even in a new government, there will be some colleagues who have been ministers before. Coming in 2023, we had the benefit of former ministers from previous National administrations to talk to the new National ministers about how things work, and we had the ability to ask any [political] questions that wouldn’t have been appropriate [to ask] of the Cabinet Office.

You were already busy with building and construction, and veterans. But you’ve added a stack of extra portfolios. What happens when you take on new roles? Are there briefings, people to meet, places to visit? How do you get your head around it?

You do have to prioritise a bit. The inevitable elements are a BIM (Briefing to Incoming Minister) for each new portfolio, even if you’re transitioning from associate minister to minister.

The BIM sets out what’s within your control from a government point of view, but also the state of the sector more generally. In defence that was pointing out the shape of the Defence Force, the state of that, and also an update of upcoming decisions needed to keep the show on the road.

Also there’s the outside world in which one interacts. For example in building and construction, there are a couple of government-adjacent bodies, but also there’s a whole private sector of builders and other tradies who you need to be interacting with. Otherwise you can get the view only from the Beehive and not out in the real world. So all that is necessary as quickly as possible coming into a new role.

The team, the ministry, and the papers

We’re in your office in the Beehive. People might picture a vast team of helpers guiding you. But you haven’t got a big team, have you? Ministerial offices are small, especially as an international comparison.

Yeah, I think we’ve got a team that is appropriately small on the political side of things, so to speak. So in my role, I have one press secretary, one ministerial advisor, an SPS (someone who runs the office) and one person on the front desk. Between us, we do a lot.

There are the agencies or ministries themselves, but crucially, there’s a role which is halfway-between, which is what we call a private secretary, but you might call a secondi, or from a Defence point of view, they call a mil-sec (Military Secretary). That’s someone who comes from their agency to work in your ministerial office in the Beehive, and they provide a vital link between the agency and the minister and his or her team.

Yeah, a minister will have two or three of them for each of the departments or ministries or groups that they’re responsible for, right?

I’ve usually had only one private secretary for each of my portfolios until now. I’ve got one in the building and construction portfolio, but there are more in defence because they cover the Defence Force itself, also there’s Veterans (with different responsibilities and a lot of different work that needs to be done there), and there’s the Ministry of Defence, which is different again.

Those people help keep you apprised, but when the people with lots of brass on their shoulders turned up for meetings you must have felt a bit like a wee hamster; desperately sprinting, trying not to be the only guy in the room that didn’t know what was going on.

Yeah, that’s right. It’s literally the top brass in the room when it comes to defence.

[I have] a little bit of a defence background, but seeing these very senior figures coming in, it is an interesting, different way to operate and it’s very humbling to be their champion inside the Beehive and to be responsible for getting across the line, the things that they need to do their job safely and well.

You end up inevitably working closely with people, and the degree of trust personally between chief executives and ministers, I think, is really important if you’re to be successful in your role.

They run the department, and you are their champion, their front person, in a governorship role, right?

That’s right, but also you have to avoid appearing as though you’re captured [co-opted], and of course, avoid actually being captured. It’s not my role simply to do the things [an agency] wants to be done; but to understand, respect and acknowledge the importance of the work they do, and to represent that well, and to go into bat for them (consistent with the government’s aims), is the balance that every minister needs to try to strike.

Every ministry has a list of things they desperately want. But you’re between that rock and the hard place (the finance minister). You have to make difficult calls, I suppose.

It can seem very much like that. A classic of the genre, of course, is Yes Minister, or for modern audiences, Utopia is a brilliant documentary (as opposed to comedy). Just to echo that famous characterisation. But I think, all satire aside, I think there’s a genuine but healthy tension that needs to be struck between the … public sector … on the one hand, and the elected members of the Government.

The continuity and the stewardship of the public sector functions are important, but at the same time it’s important that the minister is able to represent not only the wishes of the government, but the people of New Zealand.

Ministries give their ministers copious briefings. How do you stay afloat? [Lists of ministerial briefings are often proactively released. The most recent examples from Defence include a very busy May 2024.]

Yeah, there’s a huge amount of information. The trick is to understand what’s most important; and to weigh that which is urgent with that which is important. Part of that is just judgement that you develop.

I think also you need a degree of trust in the government agencies, and in your staff, to highlight the things that are most worthy of your limited attention. But also, if you’ve got background or experience in a particular area, then you can make some of those value judgements yourself.

Having been a lawyer and also a naval officer, there are aspects of the role on which I’ve got a bit of a head start. I speak the language to some extent. I don’t know some other areas of the Defence Force so well, but then again, in my day job as MP for Kaipara ki Maharangi, the Whenuapai Airbase is within that so I’ve had a bit of interaction with the Air Force over time. So it’s all grist to the mill.

But on the other hand, coming into an area fresh, sometimes enables you to ask questions as an outsider with fresh eyes in a way that actually is helpful and quite healthy.

The fuller, audio version of this conversation is available at the link near the top of the article.

RNZ’s The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament’s Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

LOS ANGELES, US – Newsaktuell – 7 May 2026 – The newly released 2026 Berggruen Governance Index (BGI) paints a mixed picture of global governance heading into a future of mounting shocks, finding widespread gains in public-goods provision from 2000 to 2023 even as democratic accountability edged down and state capacity showed little overall improvement.

The BGI, presented Wednesday by an international group of governance scholars, analyses measurable benchmarks of democratic accountability across 145 countries.

On a 100-point scale, the global score for democratic accountability slipped slightly from 65 in 2000 to 64 in 2023, the most recent data used in the project. The wave of democratisation observed in the closing decades of the last century has stalled in the last 15 years. Democratic accountability fell in 54 countries while it improved in 48 countries.

Yet the BGI — a collaborative project of the Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Berlin’s Hertie School and the Berggruen Institute, a think tank headquartered in Los Angeles — captures remarkably widespread growth in provision of public goods.

Encompassing healthcare, education, infrastructure, environmental sustainability and conditions to foster employment and rising prosperity, public goods improved in 135 of the countries studied, while declining slightly in just four. The global average jumped from 58 to 69 points from 2000 to 2023.

The third component of what the BGI authors refer to as the “governance triangle” is state capacity, defined as the ability to tax, borrow and spend, control territory, operate scrupulous, competent bureaucracies and administer predictable rule of law. The index finds the global average ticking up from 48 to 49 points; 56 countries had increased state capacity while 57 declined.

“What does it tell us about the world ahead?” Prof. Helmut K. Anheier, a Luskin School sociologist and BGI principal investigator, asked during the public release of the 2026 BGI on the UCLA campus.

“Countries are not really improving in their governance performance in significant ways. … We’re not really having forward-looking investment in governance capacity. There is considerable inertia.”

The largest improvements across all three BGI components occurred in Gambia, which the report groups with “low-capacity developing states.” These states score low across the board, particularly in the provision of public goods. This cluster constitutes the poorest countries with the least developed economies, which face the most serious challenges.

“They have the greatest exposure to likely future crises, whether it’s global warming, whether it’s a new pandemic, whether it’s another financial crisis, whether it’s the impact of AI,” Anheier said. “And they have the least capacity to respond to it.”

Bhutan, Georgia, Iraq and Tunisia — which make up the remaining top five countries with the largest improvements in the BGI — are classified as “capacity-constrained states.” They tend to be middle-income with struggling democracies. These countries score higher across the board than the low-capacity developing states, but their state capacity tends to lag compared to public goods and democratic accountability.

The capacity-constrained states risk falling into “a cycle that erodes the institutions they have built,” Anheier said.

“Consolidated democratic states”, a cluster of most of the world’s richest countries, which score highly in all three BGI components, have to confront domestic complacency. Further, in the United States and some others, “political dysfunction” is leaving mounting problems unaddressed and risking erosion of state capacity, Anheier said.

At the other end of the spectrum, the country with the farthest fall on the BGI since 2000 is Nicaragua. Second from last is Venezuela, followed by Hong Kong, Hungary and Turkey. The rest of the bottom 10 are Russia, Iran, Poland, El Salvador and Belarus.

Since 2023, which is the last year of data available for the study, Poland and Hungary have both seen government changes via election, despite serious democratic backsliding. Both had fallen out of the group of “consolidated democratic states” by 2023 and moved into the capacity constrained cluster.

The other eight countries at the bottom of the list are all places that once had some semblance of competitive elections, but by now have little or no remaining pretense of democracy. They are grouped by the authors among the “authoritarian and hybrid states”, which have by far the lowest democratic accountability but outperform even some struggling democracies in delivering public goods.

These regimes have tended toward faster economic growth in the period observed. But that seeming prosperity, typically fueled by extractive industries or overreliance on exports, masks “serious institutional weaknesses in these countries, including divided elites,” Anheier said.

Relatively few countries — 21 of the 145 — changed enough for better or worse to be classified in a new group by the end of the 23-year study period.

“Movement between them is rare, but this is largely what we should expect,” said Stella Ghervas, a UCLA historian on a panel of experts who discussed the BGI findings Wednesday. “Government systems are not created in a moment. They evolve over long periods of time.”

Local conditions shaping governance in each country can rarely be quickly reset through political will or even external shocks, Joseph C. Saraceno, a Luskin School data scientist and BGI co-author, said Wednesday.

“Despite all the talk of major transformations happening in global affairs, the underlying configuration of governance simply doesn’t appear to change very much,” Saraceno said. “We use the term inertia to describe this reoccurring pattern. In other words, the structures of global governance are resistant to movement as the conditions beneath them are quite sticky: political economies, demographics, resource endowments. These are deeply layered, and they push each country toward the world that it already inhabits.”

But the challenges lurking around the world may not wait for the slow and difficult processes of political change and development to catch up.

“With the few exceptions of those countries in the consolidated democratic world,” Anheier said, “the great majority of the countries in the world is ill-prepared for the future.”

The full report, ‘ 2026 Berggruen Governance Index – The Four Worlds of Governance’, can be viewed and downloaded from the website of the UCLA’s Luskin School.

Frank Fuhrig, DNA

—————————————————-

This text and the accompanying material (photos and graphics) are an offer from the Democracy News Alliance, a close co-operation between Agence France-Presse (AFP, France), Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA, Italy), The Canadian Press (CP, Canada), Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa, Germany) and PA Media (PA, UK). All recipients can use this material without the need for a separate subscription agreement with one or more of the participating agencies. This includes the recipient’s right to publish the material in own products.

The DNA content is an independent journalistic service that operates separately from the other services of the participating agencies. It is produced by editorial units that are not involved in the production of the agencies’ main news services. Nevertheless, the editorial standards of the agencies and their assurance of completely independent, impartial and unbiased reporting also apply here.

The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.

– Published and distributed with permission of Media-Outreach.com.

New Zealand’s top spies will be weighing cutting the US out of some intelligence it shares with other Five Eyes partners, a former CIA head of counterintelligence has told RNZ.

Susan Miller had a long career in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including as its head of counterintelligence. She worked under the first Trump administration, but has since retired from the agency and seen her security clearance cut off by Trump in retribution for leading a probe into the Russian influence campaign during the 2016 US Presidential election.

Miller spoke with RNZ for a new podcast, The Agency, which has just been released in partnership with Bird of Paradise Productions. The podcast examines New Zealand’s close links with the CIA through the story of a Kiwi spy who spent six years in cover for the US agency.

Miller, who described New Zealand’s intelligence community as “righteous”, said she was certain they would be weighing how much could be shared with the US under Trump.

“I’m not going to be in that room when the Five Eyes, minus America, probably sit down and say, what do we do? Do we share Russia with him? Do we? Do we even claim that we’re allies anymore when he’s doing this? What do we do? And that’s what I think is probably going on.”

It was likely they would conclude: “We can’t share everything with this guy,” she said.

“I can’t trust him, and maybe they can on some China things and things like that, but when he’s acting like this … I would think that your leadership right now would be, at a minimum, thinking to themselves, wait a minute. I might not want to share this Russian information with this ambassador here, because he’s a Trump appointee.”

Late last year the UK stopped sharing intelligence with the US about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it was concerned about getting bound up in potentially illegal military strikes on the boats.

Miller said she was saddened that the intelligence sharing relationship had to be curtailed but cautioned against backing out of the Five Eyes arrangement completely.

“We’re always very focused on our relationship with Five Eyes and our joint things that we do on hard targets, whether it’s terrorism or China or, you know, name something else that comes up in the day … It’s super important that we have this and I would ask them to stay as long as they can and do what they are doing, keep that door open. Don’t completely break off from us.”

During her time with the CIA, Miller said she met with then-Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern as well as senior counterparts here to discuss China.

“Your team there, it’s a very small group that works in your intelligence service. They are righteous. I mean, these guys are super smart,” Miller said.

Listen now to all six episodes of The Agency, via Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.

In the podcast, the minister formerly in charge of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies, Andrew Little, agreed the agencies were likely to be thinking about “current conditions”.

“I think given their obligations under the New Zealand legislation – which is they’ve got to act independently, and they have to think carefully about their own legal and human rights obligations before sharing intelligence – I’d be surprised if they weren’t actively considering how they share intelligence and the current conditions.”

The “general sentiment and moves which undermine democracy” were “a cause for worry”, Little said.

“But I’m equally confident that the Five Eyes relationship will endure through that and without agencies like ours, and indeed, the other partners, compromising their principles, their requirement to respect democracy and freedom of expression and all those sorts of things. I think the Five Eyes arrangement will survive.”

A spokesman for the SIS said: “Whilst the global environment continues to be dynamic, the Five Eyes intelligence sharing partnership continues to function largely as it always has, and our relationships with our Five Eyes counterparts remains strong and enduring, regardless of political change within partner administrations.”

The Five Eyes was a “valued partnership”, with significant benefits to New Zealand.

“There are robust policies and processes in place to ensure that any cooperation New Zealand does with its Five Eyes partners, including the US, is consistent with New Zealand’s policy and legal framework, including human rights obligations.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

A briefing shows former Defence Minister Judith Collins met US defence technology powerhouse Palantir in February on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference to talk about an ongoing “partnership”.

Palantir had become the go-to tech company for the Pentagon and its AI technology had been key for targeting missiles in the war in Iran.

But the government here on Wednesday said the NZ Defence Force had “no existing plans” to use the company’s emerging technologies.

Collins’ meeting was revealed in a one-page briefing released under the Official Information Act to AUT law lecturer Dr Marco de Jong.

Collins met Palantir’s international president Laurence Lee, a former senior official in the UK’s defence and intelligence agencies.

The meeting on 13 February was an “informal discussion”, her office told RNZ on Wednesday.

The briefing to her ahead of the meeting suggested two “key messages” from Collins – who is also space and spy agency minister – to Lee.

The first was blanked out while the second said: “I acknowledge the importance of an ongoing effective partnership.

“Do you see any upcoming opportunities of interest for New Zealand in new technologies and emerging capabilities in this sector.” [sic]

Several paragraphs of ‘background’ were blanked out.

Collins’ office passed questions about the partnership with Palantir on to Chris Penk who was taking over her portfolios soon. She did not address what if any “opportunities” she discussed with Lee.

Penk on Wednesday told RNZ, “The New Zealand Defence Force has no existing plans to use Palantir in the emerging technologies space.

“The NZDF uses Palantir as an analytics platform to aid with planning. The Government’s ongoing partnership with Palantir is led by the GCSB.”

Emerging technologies featured in the Defence Capability Plan to spend $12 billion by 2029.

The Palantir meeting did not appear in Collins’ ministerial diary because individual meetings overseas often changed so were not recorded, her office said.

Palantir’s Maven draws up strike lists

The US and Israel launched surprise airstrikes on Iran on 28 February.

Many of the thousands of targets hit were selected from a list produced by Palantir’s technology called Maven “after it analyzed information from drones, satellite imagery and other sources”, the New York Times reported.

On 21 March, Reuters reported that Maven was being adopted by the Pentagon as a “core US military system”.

Another report a few days ago by Defense Scoop said Maven would become the “cornerstone” of a fused network of battlefield sensors and weapons cross air, land, sea and space.

The network was called Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control or CJADC2, where “Combined” stands for US partners and allies. The NZ Defence Force had been helping build the network.

For instance, the NZDF had been helping plan the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise, RIMPAC 2026, where tech would be tested under Project Overmatch, the US navy’s core contribution to CJADC2, a navy report said.

Collins meets Amazon

At Munich, Collins also met with cloud computing giants Amazon Web Services (AWS) and with German multinational SAP, a separate 80-page briefing showed.

It said SAP’s latest “suite” of defence and security products “represents a timely and essential upgrade for the NZDF that will improve our organisational readiness and interoperability”.

It also said public agencies were increasingly using Amazon – they spent $16 million with it last year – and though the NZDF’s partner was Microsoft, “this does not preclude the use of other suppliers, including AWS”.

Collins met with another Pentagon favourite, drone-and-software-maker Anduril, last July as Defence began work on its new capability plan. Drones were key to it, however defence leaders told MPs recently that most vital in future would be the data-synthesising software behind defensive and offensive weaponry.

Last month the Pentagon consolidated its AI projects with Anduril into a 10-year contract worth up to $34b.

Palantir’s partnership with the US government has been widely reported for years, especially since the firm co-founded in 2004 by NZ citizen Peter Thiel – who helped bring vice president JD Vance to power – in 2017 turned its powerful surveillance technologies to data crunching for the Pentagon.

Much less information was publicly available about the NZ-Palantir partnership. It was reported in 2018 the US firm got a contract in 2012 with the Defence Force covering software, hardware and training 100 staff. Its hardware was still in use by NZDF in 2024, an annual review showed. During Covid, Palantir pitched its pandemic-tracking software to the Ministry of Health.

The defence ministry last month told de Jong its strategic leadership team had not had any meetings in the last year with Palantir, or with Anduril, or with other major defence contractors L3 Harris and Hirtenberger, or with NZ drone maker Syos.

Maven and the network for US partners including NZ

Maven was central to Palantir’s fortunes and the firm and the Pentagon liked to show off online what it could do, outmatching the work of thousands of military analysts.

With NATO last year also acquiring the platform, critics have voiced fears the speed and scale of its target analysis would take the place of critical thinking.

Palantir said in 2024 that Maven provided the cloud infrastructure, software capabilities and AI that powered some CJADC2 initiatives.

The NZDF takes part in experiments and testing run in parallel by the US navy, army and air force’s CJADC2 projects.

New Zealand and its Five Eyes intelligence partners signed up 18 months ago to the US navy’s Project Overmatch.

Overmatch had been setting up a new US-based Cooperative Project Office that NZ personnel were expected to help man, alongside a “coalition lab” for testing shared tech, the navy reported.

“The coalition network enables resilient communication and network connectivity amongst the ‘Five Eyes’ (FVEY) in a distributed environment to close kill-chains and enable long-range fires,” it said.

The US Marines recently set up their own CJADC2 project, Project Dynamis.

The NZDF was embracing emerging tech underwritten by a much expanded budget at the same time its core partners Australia, the UK and the US had streamlined sharing military tech between themselves, and as US President Donald Trump had been issuing directives to speed up arms transfers and trade under ‘America First’ policies.

Many militaries were stressing the need for speed like never before.

Defence’s annual review to Parliament last month said, “There was a need to move to a different ‘risk appetite’ to keep up with quickly evolving technology, placing a higher value on speed of delivery” even if this involved a “fast fail, rather than be slow to act and left behind”.

The NZDF had $26m set aside to boost this including adding to its badly depleted workforce.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Fifty years ago, the trial of Bill Sutch on charges of breaching the Official Secrets Act rocked the nation. Historian Sarah Gaitanos says evidence that was withheld from court gives us an insight into his work as an alleged agent of the KGB. That evidence is published here for the first time.

Bill Sutch could be extremely persuasive. An influential and self-assured intellectual, he could give an impressive account of himself.

In his many books his accounts of his epic solo trek in 1932, around the Arctic Ocean, across the Soviet Union and over the mountains of Afghanistan into India became more extravagant with every telling. Publishers, readers, even his wife Shirley Smith, believed them. Decades after his death, Smith was shocked to discover that it was mostly a fantasy.

Sutch had spent only two weeks in Russia. But that trip – and those two weeks in Soviet Russia – was nevertheless the start of a true story that culminated in his arrest in 1974.

In February 1975, Dr Bill Sutch was tried under the Official Secrets Act. The Act dealt with what was loosely known as spying and wrongful disclosure of communication of official information for a purpose that prejudiced the safety or interests of the state. Sutch, it was said, had been using his position of influence close to the government to gather sensitive information and pass it on to the Soviet Union – an enemy of the state in the Cold War era.

Sutch had been a senior economist in the public service, head of the Department of Industries and Commerce until his forced retirement. Since then he had worked as a consultant. He was an influential public speaker and author with a devoted following.

Over five decades since his trial, accounts of the circumstances surrounding the case have diverged depending on who is telling the story. Those who hold that Bill Sutch was a patriot who would never have betrayed his country shrug off the evidence that he was a KGB agent and point to the lack of evidence of what he was actually doing for Soviet intelligence.

But two documents that NZSIS officers found in Sutch’s office safe do provide direct insight into his activities and relationship with the KGB.

Both written in 1970, the first is a report with classified information on a Cabinet decision about Japanese fishing rights in the Pacific. It shows that Sutch, though no longer a public servant, had access to top level sensitive information. His report, apparently prepared for his KGB handler at the time, gave the Soviet Union an edge in their negotiations for fishing rights in New Zealand waters, potentially compromising the New Zealand Government’s efforts to police their relations with the USSR.

The second – the focus of this article – is a document made up of six short profiles of senior civil servants. It shows a different aspect of the role of a KGB agent.

Attorney General Sir Martyn Finlay, who had the responsibility of deciding whether the case should proceed to court, would later acknowledge that the profiles had ‘tipped the scales’ in his decision to prosecute Dr Sutch, adding that their ‘possible effects in one way or another’, had caused him the greatest anxiety.

This raises intriguing questions. The prosecution went to lengths to determine how to present them in the trial but in the event they were kept secret. The profiles remained classified until 2008 and have not been published until now.

Listen now to The Agency, a new podcast detailing the story of a Kiwi spy who was close to the Sutch case before spending six years in cover for the CIA

I came to the Bill Sutch story as the biographer of his wife (human rights campaigner and trailblazing lawyer) Shirley Smith. Sutch and Smith were married for over 30 years and after his death in 1975, she spent another 30 years defending his reputation. In private, she was more circumspect.

I examined her marriage, her responses to revelations about her husband that continued to emerge, her agonizing doubts and confusion, what she knew and didn’t know about his activities. She would say that her husband didn’t let the truth get in the way of a good story but decades after his death she was still discovering how far he had deceived her. Her discovery of letters Sutch sent to his mother revealed the simpler truth of his travels as a younger man.

She had been shocked, too, to learn of Sutch’s arrest on the night of 26 September, 1974 after agents picked him up on the way to a meeting with Dmitri Razgovorov, First Secretary of the USSR Embassy in Wellington.

The two had been observed meeting in obviously clandestine circumstances, following standard spy craft procedures known as ‘Moscow rules’.

After he was brought in, Detective Colin Lines urged Sutch to come clean and get ‘off the hook’ with the Russians. Sutch at one point asked what would happen to him if he did?

The primary purpose of the joint operation between Police and Security Service was to get Sutch’s cooperation, but Sutch refused to talk to anyone from the SIS and the police had not been sufficiently briefed as to how the matter would be hushed up. In return for his full co-operation, a full and frank account of his association with the Russians, Sutch was to be given immunity. He would have received the knighthood he longed for. His public reputation would have been left intact.

Not knowing this, Lines could only reply to Sutch that it would be a better outcome for him. Sutch considered this before replying that there was no hook.

This testimony, along with evidence of Security Service surveillance of Sutch’s clandestine meetings with Razgovorov, was presented in court.

Whether or not the jury would have returned a different verdict had the report on Japanese fishing rights and the profiles been presented as evidence, one cannot say. Sutch cut a frail figure in court and there was little desire to see him sent to jail. (He would die of liver cancer months later.) According to Smith, a juror told her that they wanted to acquit him and realised they didn’t have to give a reason.

While his acquittal did not end public debate, the profiles were kept out of the discussion until former Attorney General Sir Martyn Finlay was interviewed about them almost 20 years later. What exactly they contained was still not disclosed.

To recap, the profiles refer to a document found in a file labelled ‘Foreign Affairs’ in the safe in Sutch’s office. The document was headed ‘Memo for File’, dated 20 October 1970, and was made up of short pen portraits describing the personal experiences, aptitudes and ambitions of six civil servants, their interests and relationships with their wives.

In four of the six, their attitude towards the Soviet Union is indicated.

The subjects were Tom Larkin and Charles Craw of Foreign Affairs, Geoff Easterbrook-Smith, Geoff Datson and Harold Holden of Industries and Commerce, and Jack Lewin, Department of Statistics. Lewin was Sutch’s closest friend. None of these men were ever suspected of spying for the Soviet Union.

You can read the profiles at the bottom of this article, along with the accompanying SIS analysis.

The SIS analyst who examined the subject, written style, nature and scope of the comments concluded that they were written by a single author, a man with a ‘good working knowledge of Foreign Affairs and Industries and Commerce personnel, and of I & C departmental activities and postings reaching many years back.’

The author wrote familiarly about his subjects as if they were inferior to him. It was noted that Sutch’s background of employment, his general status and degree of influence over the years, fitted him for the part.

The profiles seemed to have been intended for a third person who had asked for information of this sort, the analyst concluded. The first five men were all dealt with in a similar way while the comments on Lewin were more specific.

The analyst wrote a hypothetical brief that the author might have been given:

Prepare brief notes on some of the more senior offices in Industries & Commerce and Foreign affairs Depts. known to you, who hold liberal left-wing political views. I attach a list of points to be covered in your consideration of the men. At the same time, include some comments on LEWIN with respect to his political views, his relationship to the NZ Labour Party and his family interests.

1 Age

2 present job/special expertise

3 Overseas postings

4 Experience and ability

5 Political views (general)

6 Political views during youth

7 Attitude to Soviet Union

8 Intelligence/intellectual ability

9 Interests/hobbies

10 Wife’s attitudes

11 Openness/talkativeness

12 Response to socials/dinners/parties

13 Vulnerabilities/weaknesses/ambitions

The analyst prepared this brief without reference to the Canadian Royal Commission Report of 27 June 1946 (the Gouzenko Report) which outlined criteria Soviet military intelligence used for recruiting agents, based on a document provided by GRU defector, Igor Gouzenko.

Subsequently the analyst studied that report and compared the similarities. He concluded that the ‘memo for file’ was written by Dr Sutch for a trained Russian Intelligence Officer seeking personality information on senior officers in the New Zealand Government Service, specifically in areas where they would expect to have access to classified information and to travel abroad on Government postings.

Crucially, this could then be used by the Soviets for recruitment.

The profiles offer the kind of information that enables an intelligence officer to assess a target: an individual’s likely career path, how to make a friendly approach based on mutual interest, vulnerabilities that might offer leverage, and so on.

The recruitment of foreign government officials is highly prized by intelligence agencies because it allows access not simply to information, but also to people elsewhere in the hierarchy. If the target is recruited in place and remains well placed, the connection can remain open and fruitful over many years.

Intelligence and defence officials are prime targets; after them, foreign affairs.

The profiles were therefore seen as significant supplementary evidence. The Crown Counsels, Solicitor General Richard Savage and Paul Neazor, decided early on to call an expert witness who could explain the methods and information targets of Soviet intelligence agencies. They considered calling a New Zealand intelligence officer to give such evidence, then decided it would be preferable to call an officer from another Service. They approached MI5 but the British were unhappy about one of their officers appearing in court in New Zealand.

Reverting to their original proposal, on 20 December, the prosecution gave preliminary notice of their intention to call additional evidence along with an officer of the New Zealand Service to explain it.

When Bungay showed the profiles to Sutch, he denied all knowledge of them and said they must have been a plant. Smith later told him that wouldn’t sound likely.

Sutch’s former sister-in-law Gladys Brown, who had been his typist in 1970, told police that she hadn’t typed them and didn’t know anything about them but according to an unsent letter to Martyn Finlay among Smith’s papers, Brown confirmed that they were typed on the office typewriter. An SIS search for the typewriter was unsuccessful. It left a question as to whether all of this would amount to evidence in the law.

The decision not to present the profiles in the trial surprised Finlay. He later asked for an explanation. Neazor wrote on 21 July 1975 that it was decided ‘there could be an argument about its probative value not sufficiently outweighing its prejudicial effect, and that it was not of sufficient value to the case as framed to warrant the diversion it would cause.’

The ‘diversion’ resonates with Finlay’s later comment about their ‘possible effects in one way or another’ that caused him such anxiety. They possibly had political repercussions in mind.

The report on the Japanese fishing rights was also not given in evidence. And at the last minute before the trial, the judge decided that cryptic entries from Sutch’s diaries that recorded times and places of clandestine meetings with his handler for years before 1974 were inadmissible because they predated the time-frame of the charge.

All this evidence was analysed by Chief Ombudsman Sir Guy Powles in his [https://www.nzsis.govt.nz/assets/NZSIS-Documents/News-supporting/SutchOmbudsmanReport.pdf

investigation of NZSIS after the Sutch trial], following allegations against them. He found the allegations were without foundation but noted that Sutch’s association with the Russians had lasted for a period of years before his meeting with Razgovorov on April 18, 1974.

Other circumstantial evidence that came to public attention was the wealth Sutch had accumulated, exceeding anything he could have earned legitimately in his career as a public servant, a consultant or as an author (even if his claim that his book Poverty and Progress sold 100,000 copies was true).

Attempts to put a figure on Sutch’s wealth have been based on some of his properties and holdings in New Zealand but not overseas. Smith discovered only in the late 1980s that his estate included a property in the Bahamas. His various overseas funds that could not be known include those in his Swiss bank account.

Sutch’s attempt to hide his wealth was made public after his death when the New Zealand Gazette named him as an evader of taxes estimated at $47,241 between 1966 and 1974, the second highest for any individual among about 650. His undisclosed income during that period was estimated to be about $100,000.

The first evidence that the package Sutch gave Razgovorov in Holloway Road on the 26 September 1974 had reached the Soviet Embassy came from Moscow after the Cold War was over. In 1993, New Zealand journalist Geoff Chapple tracked down Alexei Makarov, who had been Chargé d’Affaires of the Soviet Embassy in Wellington in 1974.

Makarov decided that with the breakup of the USSR and its secret police he had nothing to fear from giving his account of the Sutch affair. He recalled the circumstances of how he received the package of KGB material that Sutch had given to Razgovorov.

Makarov tracked down Razgovorov, who was living in retirement in Moscow. Besides recalling his meeting with Sutch in Holloway Road and how he delivered the package to his driver, Razgovorov told Makarov that he had ‘inherited’ Sutch from the KGB officer he had replaced in Wellington.

In 2014, evidence emerged from the Mitrokhin Archive in Cambridge, England, that Dr Sutch had been recruited to the Soviet intelligence service in 1950.

The Mitrokhin Archive comprises notes of KGB foreign intelligence files hand-copied secretly by archivist Vasili Mitrokhin, who had spent most of his working life in the KGB foreign intelligence archives. Disillusioned by the Soviet system and sympathetic towards dissidents, his chance came to do something in 1972 when he was given the job of overseeing the transfer of KGB foreign intelligence archives to new headquarters.

Mitrokhin secretly wrote summaries of the files, smuggled them out of the building and hid them under the floor in his villa. Over the ten years it took to complete the transfer, he accumulated six trunks of material.

In 1992 Mitrokhin approached British MI6, who then arranged for him, his family and his archive to be brought to the United Kingdom. As copies of original documents, the files have no direct evidential value, but their value in terms of intelligence proved immense. They include the following short entry under a codename: ‘Maori’ – Englishman, born 1907, New Zealand citizen, doctor of philosophy, former high-level bureaucrat in government service, retired in 1965, recruited in 1950, contact with him via Drozhzhin.

The biographical detail fits Sutch exactly and an extensive search proved it fitted him uniquely. After establishing the identity, the significant information is ‘recruited in 1950’.

‘Recruited’ in Russian has a specific meaning in Soviet intelligence, signifying that the subject knows, is tasked and will respond. Mitrokhin later published a KGB dictionary in which he defined ‘agent recruitment’ as ‘the covert involvement as agents of individuals who have opportunities to carry out intelligence tasks at the present time or in the future’.

Transactions were formally recorded. From the moment a KGB agent was on the payroll, he was ‘on the hook’.

Mitrokhin’s entry was written in the early 1970s, before Sutch’s arrest and trial. Mitrokhin names Drozhzhin as Sutch’s contact, confirming Razgovorov’s claim that he had inherited Sutch from his predecessor.

Yuri Timofeyevich Drozhzhin, First Secretary at the USSR Legation and the leading Soviet Intelligence officer in Wellington before Razgovorov, was regarded as a master spy. The pen portraits were written by Sutch for him.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Listen now to The Agency, a new podcast detailing the story of a Kiwi spy who was close to the Sutch case before spending six years in cover for the CIA

Kit Bennetts, who was born and raised in Masterton, was recruited in Wellington by the CIA Chief of Station at the US Embassy in 1979. At the time he was working for New Zealand’s SIS.

He shared details of his work in hours of interviews for a new podcast, The Agency, released by RNZ and Bird of Paradise.

In the podcast, Bennetts reveals how he worked on behalf of the CIA “belly-to-belly” with a senior Soviet official, trying to funnel “dead-end technology” into the system of America’s Cold War rival.

See photos and video from the series below.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

A New Zealander has revealed details of a years-long stint spying for America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Cold War.

Kit Bennetts, who was born and raised in Masterton, was recruited in Wellington by the CIA Chief of Station at the US Embassy in 1979. At the time he was working for New Zealand’s SIS.

He shared details of his work in hours of interviews for a new podcast, The Agency, which is released by RNZ and Bird of Paradise today.

In the podcast, Bennetts reveals how he worked on behalf of the CIA “belly-to-belly” with a senior Soviet official, trying to funnel “dead-end technology” into the system of America’s Cold War rival.

“I was working in cover, undeclared, targeting Soviet intelligence officers and East European intelligence officers,” Bennetts says.

“I got successful against a couple of Soviets and a couple of east Europeans, and I became friendly with them and that’s where it developed from.”

What was initially expected to be a two-year stint turned into six-and-a-half years operating in cover for the CIA overseas. He reflects on times when he knew he was in grave danger but carried on regardless.

“I don’t think I slept much, because I knew that if this was going to happen, it wouldn’t matter if I was walking around with an M16, they would have got me.”

Listen now to The Agency, a new podcast detailing the story of a Kiwi spy who was close to the Sutch case before spending six years in cover for the CIA

New details in the Bill Sutch spy case

The first episode of The Agency touches on Kit Bennetts’ involvement in the country’s most notorious spy scandal, the arrest – and subsequent trial – of Dr Bill Sutch in 1975/6.

Sutch was found not guilty but subsequent evidence has emerged over the decades about his connections to the Soviet Union. RNZ is today publishing details from evidence that was not presented to the jury in Sutch’s trial.

A series of pen portraits of six civil servants were found by the SIS in Sutch’s office. The existence of these profiles has previously been reported but not what they actually said. They offer an insight into the methods and sources used by Soviet intelligence to recruit and run agents.

“They were pretty nasty sort of pen portraits of people who were essentially his [Sutch’s] friends, who he was lining up to take over from him,” Bennetts says.

RNZ has obtained the profiles and published them, together with an analysis by historian Sarah Gaitanos.

Trump, Five Eyes and re-evaluating NZ’s place

The six-part series also explores New Zealand’s ties with the US, via the Five Eyes alliance, which includes intelligence sharing.

Experts, including from within senior levels of the US Government, give a range of views on the ongoing risk – and value – of that alliance. The unpredictability of the current US administration, under President Donald Trump, is a cause for concern but there is widespread agreement on the enduring value to New Zealand of participation in the group.

Andrew Little, the minister in charge of the intelligence agencies in the last Labour Government, tells the podcast there continue to be “exchanges” of personnel between the Five Eyes partners.

“The Five Eyes partners in particular, work closely together, more so than pretty much any other group of intelligence agencies anywhere in the world. … New Zealand’s relationship with each of the Five Eyes partners, UK, US, Australia and Canada, is particularly close.”

In a statement, an SIS spokesman said relationships with overseas intelligence and security partners – particularly within the Five Eyes – are vital to New Zealand’s national security.

“As you would expect, NZSIS does have a small number of staff posted offshore in liaison roles.”

How to listen

The Agency follows on from The Service, another Cold War espionage co-production between Bird of Paradise and RNZ, about a raid on the Czechoslovakian embassy in Wellington by the SIS and MI6.

The series epilogue of The Service also discussed another raid that had taken place as a joint operation – this time between the SIS and CIA, in the early 1990s; the target was the Iranian embassy in Island Bay. Sources within the New Zealand intelligence community have subsequently suggested the wider aim of the operation was to enable US monitoring of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The first two episodes of The Agency are available now on all podcast platforms, and via the RNZ podcast player. Subsequent episodes will be released this Friday and next Tuesday.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

By Holmes Lybrand, Evan Perez, Katelyn Polantz, Kara Scannell, CNN

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who President Donald Trump tapped to serve as the interim head of the Justice Department, managed the day-to-day operations of the department over the past year, often taking a more public-facing role when Pam Bondi was in hot water with White House officials.

Early in the administration, in fact, the White House told the now-former attorney general she could not appear on Fox News for a time amid fallout over the Justice Department’s handling of making parts of the documents related to Jeffrey Epstein public. Blanche appeared in her absence, helming the administration’s defense over the drawn-out Epstein debacle.

Blanche was Trump’s defense attorney across several criminal cases the then-former president faced following his first term in office, one of several members of Trump’s legal team given key DOJ or judiciary posts.

When Blanche took the deputy attorney general position, his experience as a former prosecutor and as a lawyer at a large law firm in New York was seen by career officials as an encouraging sign that the department’s institutional norms would be protected, something that did not bear out.

Swaths of DOJ and FBI officials who worked on 6 January or Trump-related cases have been removed, attempts have been made to prosecute the president’s political enemies, and the cloud of the Epstein files continues to hang over the department.

As deputy attorney general, and while he has served in parrying attacks related to Epstein and beyond, Blanche faced blistering criticism after his interview last year with Epstein’s co-conspirator and business partner Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her role trafficking girls for Epstein, was upgraded to a minimum-security prison camp. In December, Blanche said the Bureau of Prisons made the decision to move Maxwell, adding that “she was suffering numerous and numerous threats against her life.”

Blanche also came under criticism because he hadn’t asked about documents congressional Democrats had subpoenaed from the Epstein estate.

“When I interviewed Maxwell, law enforcement didn’t have the materials Epstein’s estate hid for years and only just provided to Congress,” Blanche said in a post on X, responding to Trump critic George Conway.

Thursday (all times local), Blanche on Fox News said Epstein didn’t have anything to do with Bondi’s removal and also sought to bat down conspiracy theories around Epstein – including the idea that he was a spy – marking his continued desire to move past the issue.

“I think that to the extent that the Epstein files was a part of the past year of this Justice Department, it should not be a part of anything going forward,” Blanche said.

“I’m not sure you totally get what people feel about that,” Fox News host Jesse Watters said later on Blanche’s responses to Epstein-related questions.

Fighting Trump’s perceived political enemies

At the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, Blanche boasted about what he saw as one major success of the past year: ousting political enemies from the department.

Every DOJ employee – including FBI agents – who worked on investigations or cases around Trump following his first term had been fired, resigned, or took early retirement, Blanche said, adding that the number amounted to “over 200” people.

“There is not a single man or woman at the Department of Justice who had anything to do with those prosecutions,” Blanche said.

Blanche’s continued work as Trump’s personal attorney also translated into adopting some of the language of the president’s MAGA allies and publicly clashing with Trump critics.

Blanche defended Bondi after she was fired Thursday.

“As President Trump said today, the attorney general made our country safe again,” Blanche said on Fox News, hours after the announcement. “And she is a friend, and she did a great job in the first year of this administration.”

The new head of the Justice Department said he understood the frustration and desire to go after Trump’s political enemies when pressed on the issue and the failure to prosecute those individuals. Blanche noted that he was Trump’s defense attorney in multiple criminal cases following Trump’s first term.

“I had a firsthand accounting of what happened,” Blanche said. “Yes, I understand it. The American people understand it, and I know that the American people expect that it will never happen again, and we take that seriously.”

Blanche in meetings flashes a dry sense of humor but is also known to quickly lash out in anger when his frustrations boil over, associates say. At the Justice Department, he often led meetings, even those that the attorney general was supposed to be in charge of, an indication that he wielded the day-to-day power at the department.

Trump is considering replacing Bondi with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, according to sources, though others may also be on the short list. The former congressman could face harsh probing from senators over his very limited legal experience as well as his defense of Trump during his first impeachment hearings in late 2019.

In the trenches with Trump

Blanche was one of Trump’s lawyers for the New York hush-money case as well as the two federal cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith over Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his retention of classified material after leaving office.

He is the only administration official who sat beside and guided Trump while his freedom was on the line during the criminal trial involving hush money payments in New York. While Trump was convicted, Blanche’s legal maneuvering resulted in Trump’s sentencing being postponed until after the election, all but ensuring that Trump would avoid serving any prison time.

The Trump defense team also won at the Supreme Court expanded protections from criminal prosecution for the president, in the 6 January case, just before Trump retook the presidency. He and his team also convinced a Trump-appointed judge in Florida to throw out the classified documents charges.

More recently, the Justice Department supported the same judge, Aileen Cannon, burying part of the special counsel’s final report on that investigation into Trump and others.

Beyond Epstein, Blanche has also faced criticism over public comments he made regarding the wrongfully deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, comments that led to Blanche nearly having to testify about his oversight of the case in Tennessee against Abrego Garcia.

During his confirmation hearing last year for deputy attorney general, Blanche declined to say if he would recuse himself from Justice Department efforts to re-examine the prior work of federal prosecutors on the Trump cases – cases in which Blanche represented Trump.

Blanche responded to questions about conflicts of interest by saying he would not violate his ethical obligations.

Previous Justice Departments attempted to maintain distance from political winds and the president’s direct wishes, and recusals were common when a department lawyer had previously been on the defense side of an investigation. That wall was most evident when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation around Trump’s 2016 political campaign.

Yet Blanche has continued to attack the prosecutions of Trump, now from inside the Department.

“Jack Smith is a proven liar, consistent with these fake accusations from his failed vendetta against the President,” Blanche wrote on social media last week regarding the former Justice Department special counsel who had secured two indictments against Trump in 2023. Both were dismissed before trial.

“There is absolutely zero proof of wrongdoing,” Blanche added, echoing the same position he had taken in court while opposite the Justice Department.

– CNN

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Chris Penk and Penny Simmonds have been promoted to Cabinet, as the prime minister reshuffles his ministerial lineup.

The reshuffle also sees first-term MPs Cameron Brewer and Mike Butterick made ministers outside Cabinet.

The changes were necessitated by the upcoming retirement of Judith Collins, as well as Dr Shane Reti’s decision to stand down at the election.

Collins’ defence, space, and GCSB and NZSIS portfolios have been given to Penk, Paul Goldsmith takes on responsibility for the public service and digitising government, and Chris Bishop picks up the attorney-general role.

Bishop’s position as Leader of the House has been given to Louise Upston.

Bishop, who was also National’s campaign chair, was widely tipped to lose some ministerial portfolios to ease his workload to free him up for the campaign. Instead, it is the role of campaign chair that he has had to relinquish, to Simeon Brown.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said Bishop had a “massive workload” with housing, transport, infrastructure, RMA reform, and his new attorney-general role, and losing the campaign chair was a consequence of that.

Luxon said the two had a “very positive conversation” and he “absolutely” trusted Bishop.

“He’s key to our team, he’s a critical part of our senior leadership group,” he said.

Luxon denied it was anything to do with rumours Bishop was running the numbers against him last year.

“I think you’re really overthinking this,” Luxon said.

He said Brown was equally capable of chairing the campaign, as part of his “brains trust” which included Bishop, Upston, Goldsmith, and Finance Minister Nicola Willis.

Simmonds takes up Reti’s science, innovation, and technology portfolio, and his universities role has been disestablished to make Simmonds the minister for tertiary education.

She had previously been minister for vocational education, as well as environment. The latter has been given to Nicola Grigg, who remains outside Cabinet.

Goldsmith also becomes the new minister for Pacific Peoples, with Luxon admitting National did not have Pacific representation.

“I freely admit we don’t have a Pasifika person in our National Party team and in our Cabinet. That’s something that we’re working very hard on. As I’ve said to you before, we need to make sure we continue to work as we go to 2026 on the campaign on getting great candidates from the Pasifika world.”

Brewer, who has been chairing Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee (a weighty role which often leads to a ministerial promotion) has been made minister of commerce and consumer affairs and minister for small business and manufacturing, while Butterick will become minister for land information.

Luxon said he wanted to make a “super small business minister” role by giving Brewer the two roles, while Butterick was a “natural leader” of National’s rural MPs.

Brewer would also take over supermarket reforms, as the previous Commerce and Consumer Affairs minister Scott Simpson had a conflict which had led to Willis taking responsibility.

Other changes include Brown picking up the energy portfolio from Simon Watts, who in turn takes over Brown’s minister for Auckland role.

Luxon said the past few weeks had underlined how important energy security was, and so was giving the role to a “senior” minister.

He said he had not lost confidence in Watts.

Luxon acknowledged Collins and Reti’s departures.

“New Zealand is better for Judith and Shane deciding to enter public service and I am grateful to count them both as friends. On behalf of the government and the National Party, I wish them all the best for their futures outside Parliament.”

Matt Doocey remains in Cabinet, and has not picked up any portfolios other than his existing mental health role.

He had been the sole South Island representative in Cabinet, but that has now doubled with Simmonds’ addition.

The changes come into effect on Tuesday, 7 April.

Luxon had not reshuffled his lineup since January 2025, other than to promote Scott Simpson to a role outside Cabinet following Andrew Bayly’s resignation.

The reshuffle applies to National Party ministers only, meaning ACT’s Brooke van Velden will continue in her portfolios despite her decision to retire from Parliament at the election.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Chris Penk and Penny Simmonds have been promoted to Cabinet, as the prime minister reshuffles his ministerial lineup.

The reshuffle also sees first-term MPs Cameron Brewer and Mike Butterick made ministers outside Cabinet.

The changes were necessitated by the upcoming retirement of Judith Collins, as well as Dr Shane Reti’s decision to stand down at the election.

Collins’ defence, space, and GCSB and NZSIS portfolios have been given to Penk, Paul Goldsmith takes on responsibility for the public service and digitising government, and Chris Bishop picks up the Attorney-General role.

Bishop’s position as Leader of the House has been given to Louise Upston.

Simmonds takes up Reti’s science, innovation, and technology portfolio, and his universities role has been disestablished to make Simmonds the minister for tertiary education.

She had previously been minister for vocational education, as well as environment. The latter has been given to Nicola Grigg, who remains outside Cabinet.

Brewer, who has been chairing Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee (a weighty role which often leads to a ministerial promotion) has been made minister of commerce and consumer affairs and minister for small business and manufacturing, while Butterick will become minister for Land Information.

Other changes include Simeon Brown picking up the energy portfolio from Simon Watts, who in turn takes over Brown’s minister for Auckland role.

Prime minister Christopher Luxon said the past few weeks had underline how important energy security was, and so was giving the role to a “senior” minister.

Luxon acknowledged Collins and Reti’s departures.

“New Zealand is better for Judith and Shane deciding to enter public service and I am grateful to count them both as friends. On behalf of the government and the National Party, I wish them all the best for their futures outside Parliament.”

The changes come into effect on Tuesday, 7 April.

Luxon had not reshuffled his lineup since January 2025, other than to promote Scott Simpson to a role outside Cabinet following Andrew Bayly’s resignation.

The reshuffle applies to National Party ministers only, meaning ACT’s Brooke van Velden will continue in her portfolios despite her decision to retire from Parliament at the election.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has announced a refreshed ministerial lineup to continue fixing the basics and protecting New Zealand’s future.

“New Zealanders are facing economic challenges brought on by conflict in the Middle East and its effect on fuel supply across the world,” says Christopher Luxon.

“Having a strong ministerial team with real-world experience to deliver our response is crucial. Today’s reshuffle reflects that and brings in new talent.

“Having successfully delivered significant reforms from outside Cabinet, Chris Penk will now join Cabinet, picking up the Defence, GCSB and NZSIS, and Space portfolios. Chris’ time in the NZDF leaves him well placed to lead the work our Government has done in raising the status and capability of our armed forces.

“Penny Simmonds also joins Cabinet with responsibility for Tertiary Education and Science, Innovation and Technology. Penny has successfully delivered reforms to the vocational education sector, also from outside Cabinet, and will bring her extensive governance experience to her new portfolios.

“The past few weeks have underlined how important energy security is and as such I will be elevating the Energy portfolio to senior minister Simeon Brown.

“Chris Bishop becomes Attorney-General and Paul Goldsmith takes responsibility for the Public Service and Digitising Government, and Pacific Peoples portfolios.

“Louise Upston will become Leader of the House and Simon Watts will be Minister for Auckland.

“Nicola Grigg becomes Minister for the Environment and Scott Simpson becomes Minister of Statistics and Deputy Leader of the House. 

“Joining as a Minister outside Cabinet, Cameron Brewer becomes Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and Small Business and Manufacturing, and Associate Minister of Immigration. Mike Butterick becomes Minister for Land Information and Associate Minister of Agriculture.

“Finally, I acknowledge the public service of Judith Collins and Shane Reti who, between them, have dedicated almost 40 years to representing their communities in Parliament.

“Judith was first elected in 2002 and since then, has held numerous different ministerial portfolios and served as Leader of the Opposition. This term, she has delivered the Defence Capability Plan, advanced New Zealand’s space industry and modernised of our public service.

“In Shane’s 12 years in Parliament, he has served as Deputy Leader of the Opposition and has delivered key reforms as a minister, including improving the commerciality of our science sector to boost incomes and create jobs. He has also played a key role in projects that will benefit New Zealanders for generations, like the third medical school and expanded cancer screening.  

“I would also like to acknowledge the staff who have supported Judith and Shane throughout their time here.

“New Zealand is better for Judith and Shane deciding to enter public service and I am grateful to count them both as friends. On behalf of the Government and the National Party, I wish them all the best for their futures outside Parliament.”

These changes will come into effect on Tuesday 7 April.

MIL OSI

NEW YORK, April 01, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Hall Chadwick Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: HCACU) (“HCAC”) and REEcycle Holdings, Inc. (“REEcycle”) today announced the execution of a non-binding Letter of Intent (“LOI”) for a proposed de-SPAC business combination.

The proposed transaction values REEcycle at approximately US$600 million, assuming no redemptions by HCAC public shareholders, with REEcycle existing shareholders expected to roll 100% of their equity into the combined publicly listed entity. The transaction is expected to include a minimum US$50 million PIPE financing at US$10.00 per share, providing committed capital at closing and supporting the execution of REEcycle’s near-term growth strategy.

The transaction comes at a pivotal time for U.S. critical minerals policy. China currently controls an estimated 90% of rare earth separation and processing and ~93% of permanent magnet manufacturing globally.¹ In response, the U.S. Government, through Department of Defense and Department of Energy initiatives, has committed billions of dollars to strengthening domestic critical mineral supply chains, including rare earth processing.² REEcycle has been awarded and is drawing upon US$5.1 million of Defense Production Act funding, supporting the advancement of its domestic rare earth processing capabilities.

REEcycle is advancing a technology-led solution to rare earth supply constraints. Its proprietary recycling process extracts and separates rare earth elements from end-of-life electronics and industrial products, offering a faster, lower-capex and scalable alternative to traditional mining. This approach enables near-term domestic supply while reducing exposure to geopolitical disruption.

The global rare earth market was valued at approximately US$19 billion in 2025 and is projected to reach ~US$36.7 billion by 2034, with recycling expected to grow at an accelerated rate as demand for domestically sourced materials increases.³

REEcycle’s Executive Chairman and largest shareholder is Mick McMullen, a highly respected mining executive with over 30 years of leadership experience across global mining and capital markets. He is best known for his tenure as President and CEO of Detour Gold Corporation, where he grew the company’s market capitalisation from C$2.1 billion to C$4.9 billion in nine months, culminating in its acquisition by Kirkland Lake Gold.⁴ His investment in REEcycle reflects strong conviction in recycling-led onshoring.

“We are addressing a critical U.S. supply gap with a faster and more capital-efficient solution than traditional mining, scalable across the U.S. and globally. This is both a technology opportunity and a national security priority.”

— Mick McMullen, Executive Chairman, REEcycle Holdings

Hall Chadwick Acquisition Corp. raised US$207 million in its Nasdaq IPO in November 2025 and is focused on transactions in critical minerals and industrial technology sectors.

“REEcycle represents a rare combination of proprietary technology, experienced leadership, and direct alignment with U.S. critical minerals strategy. We see this as a platform capable of becoming a meaningful domestic supplier, and we are excited to bring that opportunity to public investors.”

— Alex Bono, CEO, Hall Chadwick Acquisition Corp.

Exclusivity

The parties have agreed to a 60-day exclusivity period to undertake due diligence and negotiate a definitive Business Combination Agreement.

Non-Binding Letter of Intent

The LOI is non-binding and subject to the execution of definitive agreements, completion of due diligence, required approvals, and customary closing conditions. There can be no assurance that a transaction will be completed.

Important Information

This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding the proposed business combination, including expected structure, financing, timing and benefits. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially, including the ability to execute definitive agreements, obtain approvals, satisfy closing conditions and maintain listing status. This press release does not constitute an offer or solicitation of securities. In connection with the proposed transaction, HCAC intends to file a registration statement on Form S-4 with the SEC. Investors are urged to review these materials when available at www.sec.gov. No obligation is undertaken to update forward-looking statements except as required by law.

1 CSIS, “China Rare Earth Restrictions,” 2025.
2 U.S. State Dept., “Critical Minerals Fact Sheet,” 2026.
3 Grand Research Store, “Rare Earth Market Report,” 2025
4 Globe and Mail, “Kirkland–Detour Gold deal,” 2019; Business Wire, “Kirkland Lake Gold acquisition,” 2019.

– Published by The MIL Network

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) spy agency has taken six times longer than it should have to address questions about lax cyber security identified in a Treasury report.

The report last year mentioned that government data was “being managed or held by unvetted third parties”.

It gave no details, so RNZ sought them.

Director-general Andrew Clark apologised for taking 120 working days to respond, instead of the statutory 20 under the Official Information Act (OIA).

He then refused to answer virtually all of the dozen questions.

Clark said they had to keep incidents and vulnerabilities confidential or people would not share with them, and they needed that information to counter threats.

The Treasury report said government agencies had continued to raise concerns about the security of third-party vendors’ products and services, including poor security controls and unpatched software.

“Some agencies reported that vendors had offshored some services without their prior approval, meaning government data was being managed or held by unvetted third parties,” said the quarterly investment report for the three months to December 2024. Such reports are released publicly many months after they are done.

New Zealand’s small size as a market was biting it, the report suggested.

“Agencies assess that poor service delivery is likely driven by lower competition and less resourcing for comparably smaller contracts in New Zealand versus larger markets,” it said, under the title ‘Other emerging … issues’.

“Low competition, coupled with poor service delivery from some vendors, has also led to high reliance by many Government agencies on the same few vendors, which creates risk to service delivery across the public sector should those vendors suffer a cyber security incident or event.”

Many government agencies had become increasingly reliant on cloud-computing services from US Big Tech companies.

RNZ asked the GCSB, National Cyber Security Centre and Internal Affairs who the problem vendors were. Clark in his response would not name them or say anything about them.

“Providing this information would likely have commercial implications for these vendors” so that was refused on the grounds of unreasonably prejudicing someone’s position.

What about the government agencies that had raised the alarm?

“I am refusing those parts of your request where you have asked for information that has been provided to the GCSB in confidence by agencies,” was the reply, otherwise it might prejudice the supply of such info in future.

The unvetted third parties were not disclosed, and neither were the risks to service delivery that Treasury had told ministers were in play.

The risks information was refused on the grounds the GCSB “does not hold this information in the manner or format you have requested”.

Work was underway on digital investment and procurement, Clark said.

Asked what measures were taken, he said the National Cyber Security Centre provided a range of advice, and they had recently developed “minimum cyber security standards” to focus on the basics and encourage good practices.

The subsequent three quarterly reports after this one did not mention the threat again.

But other weaknesses did come up in them, and in one case Treasury was called out for them, in the latest quarterly report, to September 2025.

It said many data and digital projects did not include information relating to cyber security management or improvement.

It went on to fault the Treasury’s investment management system because it did not recognise the ongoing cost of cyber security, “making it difficult” to upgrade old systems and move away from on-site hardware to ‘as-a-service’ tech “which we know deliver better security results”.

“The current financing rules and settings around capital and operating expenditure are preventing agencies from modernising and improving their cyber security.”

Agencies’ approach to procuring IT systems or services was called “outdated and fragmented” by the government chief digital officer in the September quarterly report, six years after Treasury told the public sector to take an all-of-government approach to try to cut the IT upgrade bill of multi-billions of dollars.

The long wait for the response to the OIA request was put down by the GCSB to consultation and the “volume of information requested” by RNZ.

Most of Clark’s three-page response was taken up outlining the grounds for refusing the information.

RNZ asked for any report that focused on the threat, but did not get one.

Clark apologised for the wait.

“Our response … did not meet the statutory deadline and I do apologise for that. Thank you for your patience while we completed our response.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

By Aaron Blake, CNN

Analysis – Top Trump administration officials testified publicly on Thursday (NZT) for the first time since the launch of the Iran war three weeks ago.

Officials including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where they were pressed on the administration’s often-confusing and contradictory claims about the Iran war and the underlying intelligence.

The testimony came a day after the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, became the highest-profile Trump administration official to resign over the war. Kent did so while suggesting the administration had lied about Iran posing an imminent threat.

Here’s what to know from Wednesday’s hearing:

Intel officials contradicted or failed to back up Trump’s biggest claims about the war

The biggest question going into the hearing was what these officials would say about the Trump administration’s many dubious claims about the Iran war. These officials see the intelligence after all, and they were testifying under penalty of perjury.

Wednesday (local time), they repeatedly either contradicted Trump and the administration’s claims or failed to back them up.

On Iran’s nuclear program, Trump has stated that Iran had “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program” after his June strikes on that program, and he said in his State of the Union address last month that they were “starting it all over.”

White House adviser Steve Witkoff went further, saying Iran was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.” And the White House has cited an “imminent nuclear threat” posed by Iran.

But Gabbard in her prepared opening statement told a far different tale.

“As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer (in June), Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated,” she said. “There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.”

Gabbard notably did not read this portion of her opening statement. When pressed on why, she said it was because her “time was running long.”

When asked by Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia whether that remained the assessment of the intelligence community, she said, “Yes.”

Also in his State of the Union address, Trump claimed Iran was building intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that would “soon reach the United States of America.”

But that’s not what US intelligence has said. And Gabbard in her prepared statement reiterated a previous assessment that Iran “could use” existing technology “to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM before 2035 should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.” Gabbard said that assessment would be updated in light of the current war.

When Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton of Arkansas cited other analysts’ estimates that Iran could have had an ICBM “to threaten the United States in as few as six months,” Ratcliffe declined to put a date range on it.

Ratcliffe instead said Cotton was right to be concerned, and that “if left unimpeded … they would have the ability to range missiles to the continental US.”

But he did not echo the six-month timeframe – or Trump’s claim that it could be “soon.”

And lastly, Gabbard also would not back up Trump’s claim this week that no experts had predicted Iran would respond to being attacked by attacking its Gulf neighbours. In fact, Iran has spoken publicly about that possibility, and it was no secret.

When Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon asked about Trump’s claim, Gabbard avoided directly answering the question.

When pressed by Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia, Gabbard said she wasn’t “aware of those remarks” and declined to say whether she briefed Trump on the possibility – citing “internal conversations.”

The very mixed signals on Iran as an ‘imminent’ threat

Perhaps the central issue is a more subjective one – whether Iran posed an “imminent” threat that warranted going to war.

The Trump administration has offered a series of different reasons why that was the case, many of which haven’t withstood scrutiny.

Kent in his resignation letter said Iran did not pose such an imminent threat. And afterward Gabbard – who before joining the administration strongly opposed war with Iran – issued a carefully worded statement in which she didn’t pass judgement on the claim herself. She instead cast it as Trump’s call to decide whether the threat was “imminent.”

But that in and of itself was remarkable – Trump’s own DNI declining to call the threat “imminent,” in the judgement of herself or the intel community.

The hearing didn’t provide too much evidence that the intelligence showed an imminent threat.

The testimony about Iran’s nuclear intentions and ICBM program didn’t suggest those were imminent threats.

When asked by Ossoff whether the intelligence showed an “imminent nuclear threat,” Gabbard responded, “The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the president.”

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard maintained.

Ossoff rejected Gabbard’s stance, saying making such independent determinations was in fact the job of the intelligence community.

In his own comments, Ratcliffe reflected on Iranian-backed attacks on Americans in the region and said it has long posed an “immediate” threat.

“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time and posed an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.

Ratcliffe was also asked about whether he disagreed with Kent about Iran’s capabilities, and he said, “I do.”

But the exchange largely focused not on Iranian attacks on the US homeland, but rather attacks on Americans in the Middle East, including via Iran’s proxy groups.

And none of the witnesses described Iran as an “imminent” threat to the United States, in their own words.

Democrats didn’t dwell on Kent

While Kent’s resignation was major news, the Democrats on the committee declined to lean too hard on his account.

Warner brought up Kent’s claim about there being no imminent threat early in the hearing. Later, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas asked Ratcliffe about whether he disagreed with Kent.

But the hearing didn’t get into the nitty-gritty of Kent’s claims, including his meeting before he resigned with Gabbard and Vice President JD Vance, both of whom have also been reluctant to vocally support the Iran war.

So why did Kent get short shrift?

Part of the reason could be that Democrats were wary of aligning themselves too much with him. Kent has a history of associating with extremists on the right, and his resignation letter accused Israel of being behind not just the Iran war, but also the Iraq war and the Syrian civil war.

Trump’s allies have criticised the political left for leaning so heavily on Kent’s account.

Democrats on Wednesday seemed to reason that they could get at the crux of Kent’s resignation without invoking him personally.

Gabbard provides little clarity on Fulton County search

It’s not as current an issue as the Iran war, but Gabbard’s presence at an FBI search of a Fulton County, Georgia, elections office two months ago raised more than a few eyebrows. And given concerns about the Trump administration’s activities vis-à-vis the 2026 midterm elections, it’s likely we’ll hear more about it.

The administration struggled mightily to explain why Gabbard, whose purview generally involves foreign threats, was present at the search. The search itself was controversial, too, given the affidavit used to get the search warrant recycled a series of dubious and debunked claims about the 2020 election.

Gabbard initially said Trump sent her. But then the White House distanced itself, with Trump saying Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent Gabbard (“she went at Pam’s insistence”) and that he didn’t even know why Gabbard was there. Then Gabbard claimed both Trump and Bondi had sent her, but Bondi declined to confirm it.

The situation remained clear as mud after Wednesday’s (local time) hearing.

Gabbard reiterated that she was at the Fulton County search “at the request of the president.”

Gabbard declined to say how Trump conveyed this request to her, but she said he asked her to “help oversee” the search.

But when Warner pressed her on why Trump would be involved or even aware of an FBI search, Gabbard suggested it was possible Trump wasn’t aware of the details behind the search.

– CNN

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

17 Mar 2026, 09:00

It’s great to be here today to:

• share some observations, from my perspective as Privacy Commissioner, about the place of cyber security in the minds of decision-makers, organisations, and the everyday person in the street, and
• talk about the linkages between privacy, stewardship of personal information, and cyber security.

But, before I get into that – a pop quiz …

Who said, less than a month ago, “It’s a reason why I have been advocating very strongly that we need to strengthen our cyber security laws here in NZ and also make sure that we are not laid back … I think in 2026 sometimes our New Zealand business environment has been way too laid back, and not taking the risks and the threats seriously enough.”

Yes, that was Prime Minister Chris Luxon.

And who said, again less than a month ago, “digital threats are growing and New Zealand must strengthen its defences … Every New Zealander who provides data to a government agency, or to a company contracted by one, is entitled to the same standard of care. When that data is breached, it is a violation of trust … We could improve incentives for entities holding New Zealanders’ data. We could increase penalties for hackers and scammers. We should also question whether it is even reasonable to demand New Zealanders provide sensitive information or digital identification for everyday activities.”

Yes, that was Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour.

Now, like a lot of organisations, at my work we subscribe to a media alerts service, for media and other stories about privacy and related matters – including cyber. I arrived at work a week ago, the morning email from the service had just popped into my in-box … no privacy breach stories this time … but every story was a cyber one … every story!

‘NZ cyber strategy criticised as least bold in Five Eyes‘ … ‘Kordia releases latest cyber report‘ … ‘Expanding ransomware reach intensifies sector-wide cyber exposure‘ … ‘Rising sophisticated cyber-attacks aimed at advisors‘ … and ‘Increased DoS and brute force activity.’  

One morning’s worth of media stories on one day!

It seems that the public policy and media spotlights have swung their beams of light on to you.

You have to wonder, given this sort of political, public, and media interest, if we are on the cusp of cyber security leaving the wings, and coming to centre stage.

The question is, are we ready – and if we are, what are we going to do next?

Surveys and attitudes to cyber security

It’s always instructive to take ourselves out of our busy day to day context, and see how other organisations, and even other countries, are seeing cyber-security, and cyber threats.

Each year the Institute of Directors conducts a Directors’ Sentiment Survey and publishes the results with some commentary.  

In the 2025 report, the IoD noted, and I quote, that:

“Technology epitomises this shift from curiosity to commitment. Six in ten boards are now working with management on how AI and automation can lift productivity – the second-highest result since records began. Digital oversight has re-entered the mainstream, no longer the preserve of tech committees or early adopters. But the enthusiasm is tempered by uneven assurance: cyber vigilance has plateaued, with the proportion of boards discussing risk or receiving breach reporting barely moving in three years. In effect, boards are accelerating innovation without upgrading the brakes.”

While 57.2% of directors said their board discusses cyber risks, this figure has softened slightly from 2024, which was 62.2%. 

Likewise, 55.2% of boards report receiving comprehensive data breach or cyber-risk reporting, largely unchanged for three years after a sharp rise in 2023. 

Privacy and data protection show similar stagnation; 57.2% of directors said their board regularly reviews privacy risks, a figure largely unchanged from 2024.

Internet NZ’s recent survey results show New Zealanders continue to have concerns in the data space.

65% of those surveyed were extremely concerned or very concerned about the security of personal data.

Kordia have just released their 2026 NZ Business Cyber Security Report.

Some key take outs from that:

• 44% of large businesses were subjected to a cyber attack or incident in the past 12 months
• 17% of cyber incidents resulted in personal information being accessed or stolen
• 61% of businesses impacted by a cyber incident suffered a serious business disruption
• 30% of businesses surveyed said they lacked confidence that they could recover from a major cyber-attack.
• 25% said they had no cyber security awareness or training programme for their employees, and
• Around half had not practiced their incident response plans.

That’s not a brilliant picture.

Hence, the International Telecommunication Union’s global cybersecurity index last year ranked New Zealand in the third of five tiers, as an ‘establishing’ nation along side the likes of Kiribati and Myanmar.

The heightened cyber security risk environment has seen countries like Australia and Singapore among others, implement new cyber security legislation.

New regulatory frameworks are also increasingly being backed up with tools and manuals to support businesses to aim for and stay on the right side of the regulatory line.

And that is something the New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner is also focused on.

Privacy and cyber security

It’s clear that there are many linkages between privacy and cyber security – and I want to begin by acknowledging that while my focus is on the stewardship of personal information, those working in cyber security are concerned about keeping all information – personal, financial, commercial, legal, marketing, the list goes on – safe and secure from harm. 

Some of you here today will of course be working in or managing the IT/IS/cyber teams in organisations, ensuring systems are hardened against cyber-attack, and that your work colleagues engage in cyber smart practices.

Some of you will be advisors, providing organisations with advice on the latest developments in cyber threats and defences. 

Some of you will be involved in research and development, seeking to get ahead of the cyber criminals and threat actors in the never-ending cyber war we all seem to be engaged in these days.

And some – like my Office – are focused on the risks to personal information.

My focus is making privacy a core focus for your agencies – in order to protect New Zealanders from harm, to enable organisations to achieve their own objectives, and to safeguard our free and democratic society.  

And when things go wrong – when there’s a serious privacy breach which might see personal information exfiltrated, or deliberately corrupted – we ask questions about what happened and why, and  – if it’s needed – we can hold agencies to account. 

Security of information and IT infrastructure is a critical component of a robust privacy programme. 

Both security and privacy staff must work together to identify external and internal risks, and to ensure that security is prioritised and resourced accordingly.

The Privacy Act 2020 is built around 13 privacy principles that govern how agencies (organisations and businesses) can collect, store, use and share personal information. 

The Privacy Act makes sure that:

• you know when your information is being collected
• your information is used and shared appropriately
• your information is kept safe and secure
• you can get access to your information.

As many of you will know, Principle 5 is concerned with storage and security of information.

It states that organisations must ensure there are safeguards in place, that are reasonable in the circumstances, to prevent loss, misuse or disclosure of personal information.

There are a number of different aspects to consider, including physical security, electronic security, operational security, security during transmission and during destruction.

What steps are appropriate will depend entirely on the circumstances, including:

• How sensitive is the personal information involved?
• What are you using the personal information for?
• What security measures are available, and how will using these measures impact on your agency’s functions?
• What might the consequences be for the individual if the information is not kept secure?

I thought you might be interested to get a sense of the state of play with privacy breaches in New Zealand.

So, this morning, I have the latest breaking stats and news for you.

• In the most recent quarter, 61% of serious privacy breaches were due to intentional or malicious activity, and 36% were due to human error … the days of most breaches being due to an email whoopsie seem to be long gone.
• For the reporting year to date, 21% were unauthorised access breaches (including ransomware), and 28% were unauthorised sharing or employee browsing.  

Employee browsing

Can I take the opportunity to touch on an increasingly serious privacy risk: that is, employee browsing.

The greatest threat to your workplace information security could be sitting in the office next to you at work.

Employee browsing or the unauthorised access and misuse of personal information is becoming one of the most common privacy breaches.

NZ is a small place, and there’s a good chance a familiar name will crop up in a database or on a file at work, and it can prove very tempting for some to have a look.

In some circumstances employees look up information and then pass it on for the explicit purpose of causing harm of some sort.

If your business or organisation holds sensitive personal information that your customers or clients would really, really not want to be revealed to someone else, like a violent former partner, or revealed to the public if someone happens to be a bit of a celebrity – then your organisation’s employees will, one day, come under pressure from others to access and hand over that information.

Attempts will be made to coerce, bribe, blackmail or threaten employees to access and misuse the personal information the organisation holds.  

So, my question for you is, has your organisation invested in the systems, regular database audit checks, employee induction processes, and so on, to deter and, if it happens, identify unauthorised access and misuse of personal information? 

Poupou Matatapu 

See our free online privacy toolkit.

Of course, my Office doesn’t always want to occupy the space of the privacy “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff”; increasingly, our focus is on working with people like you to “build the fence at the top”.

As I think I mentioned at last year’s conference, Poupou Matatapu is guidance on our website to help New Zealand agencies do privacy well – you can find it at privacy.org.nz.

It sets our expectations about what good privacy practice looks like and then helps organisations toward achieving that.

One of the components of this guidance focuses on security and internal access controls.  

The obligation to keep information safe and secure applies to information that is held by the organisation (for example, in on-premises servers) and information that is held on the organisation’s behalf by a service provider (for example, a cloud-based data storage provider). 

Remember, organisations are liable under the Privacy Act for the personal information stored and processed on their behalf.

The most effective strategy is having a well-thought-out security plan for all personal information you hold.

At a high level, this component of Poupou Matatapu describes key security controls across three areas – physical, technical, and organisational.

These controls are not exhaustive and are continually evolving. 

Organisations need to ensure that they update their knowledge on security risks, including seeking advice from external experts where necessary, and implement all reasonable security safeguards in a timely way.

I don’t need to tell this audience that there’s a world of cyber security guidance and standards out there. 

Providing security and IT advice is not a core function of my Office, so, in our guidance, we have provided links to advice and resources from other authoritative sources, such as NCSC, and others.

But, of course, like you, I have seen commentary around how to assess whether an organisation had reasonable security safeguards in place at the time of a security or privacy incident.

Reasonable security safeguards are those that are proportionate to an organisation’s role, scale, and risk exposure.

They reflect recognised national expectations at the time the safeguards were implemented and operating prior to the breach. 

This approach does not require best-in-class or exhaustive controls, instead focusing on intent, decision-making, and proportionality.

It anchors reasonableness in nationally recognised frameworks, uses well-understood national standards like the NCSC Minimum Cyber Security Standards as a defensible baseline, and applies sectoral-specific standards – such as those applying to the health sector – as contextual overlays.

This approach provides a clear basis for determining whether reasonable security safeguards were in place at a given point in time.

The other day I was reminded of a comment from Misti Landtroop, the NZ country manager for cybersecurity company Palo Alto Networks.

She said that many cyber breaches were preventable, with things like security culture, level of knowledge, and willingness to invest, all factors that left organisations vulnerable to cyber-attack.
Organisations also make mistakes because they either don’t understand the value of privacy, or don’t care. 

Sometimes privacy is as easy as just ensuring your IT systems are up to scratch and making sure you’ve thought about access, have got the permissions set correctly, and have tested them.

For example, a while back the UK Information Commissioner issued a 4.4million pound fine to a company which, in the Commissioner’s view, failed to follow up on the original alert about some suspicious activity, used outdated software systems and protocols, and had a lack of adequate staff training and insufficient risk assessments – all of which ultimately left them vulnerable to a cyber-attack.

The Commissioner commented at the time: “The biggest cyber risk businesses face is not from hackers outside of their company, but from complacency within their company.  If your business doesn’t regularly monitor for suspicious activity in its systems, and fails to act on warnings, or doesn’t update software, and fails to provide training to staff, you can expect a similar fine from my Office.”

From my perspective, and reflecting on all this commentary, since taking up my role I have made it clear that agencies need to keep front of mind that, in the case of a cyber security incident resulting in a data privacy breach, one of the first questions I will ask is “has the agency undertaken all reasonable security safeguards” to protect the personal information under their care.  

Health sector

Turning to the cyber elephant in the room, recent events in NZ would suggest that one sector which is well and truly facing some cyber security challenges, is the health sector.

Just a reminder: on 22 February, MediMap — a private portal used by aged-care homes, hospices, disability services and community health providers to coordinate prescriptions and record medication histories — was taken offline after it was discovered that some patient records had been tampered with by an unauthorized actor. 

MediMap’s early investigations identified changes to fields including names, birthdates, assigned prescriber, and location of care and resident status, with some living patients incorrectly marked as “deceased.”

This event was unsettling not only because of the direct impact on individuals and clinical operations, but also because it followed another high-profile breach —the Manage My Health breach in late 2025, which involved the exfiltration of hundreds of thousands of medical documents. 

One of New Zealand’s leading privacy commentators, Daimhin Warner, commented at the time:

“Taken together, these events suggest a broader pattern of cyber risk in health tech that goes beyond isolated vendor errors.”

“Several key themes are starting to emerge. First is the need for clarity of expectations. What baseline technical and organizational safeguards should be required for systems handling highly sensitive health information? Mandatory controls — for example, multifactor authentication, encryption at rest and in transit, regular independent security audits and incident response obligations — could help raise the floor of protection.”

“Second is making sure the health sector understands who is really accountable for ensuring these baseline safeguards are in place. It is alarmingly clear from these recent breaches that many organizations in the health sector do not fully understand their accountabilities and responsibilities.”

Daimhin Warner notes that the recent publication of the National Cyber Security Strategy has occurred at a time when some of the government agencies tasked with cyber security are making it clear that New Zealand has a long way to go before we can say our standards and approach meet international good practice.

And by the same token, then, we have a long way to go before we can assure New Zealanders, whoever they are … customers, clients, citizens … that their privacy is being protected and respected.

GCSB Director-General Andrew Clark said recently that “unfortunately, there are … pockets, including in our critical infrastructure, where cybersecurity is barely meeting that foundational level that we would expect.”

AI

And of course, AI is only making the challenge facing the cyber security industry even harder.

Reports show increasingly that AI agents are supercharging cyber-attacks by industrialising the scale of them.  

In the Internet NZ survey I referred to earlier, 59% of those surveyed were very or extremely concerned about the use of AI to violate privacy.

And the Kordia survey found that a quarter of medium to large businesses now rank staff misuse of AI among their biggest cyber challenges, and that attacks involving AI-related vulnerabilities have more than doubled year on year.

Director-General Clark also noted that while smaller organisations might not meet the critical infrastructure description, many still hold a lot of sensitive personal information that needs protection.

So, no matter the sector, and no matter the size, there are questions we all need to be asking, and expectations that need to be met, in today’s increasingly super-charged threat environment: 

From where I sit, those expectations include:

• Security controls are specific to the type and sensitivity of information held across the organisation, rather than a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
  Regular auditing of systems is undertaken to ensure appropriate access.
• An organisation follows industry guidelines and security standards relevant to its business context.
• There is a remediation plan for managing and/or replacing legacy systems (where necessary).
• Identified risks are proactively managed – for example, by incorporating them into the organisation’s risk and assurance reporting processes to ensure visibility, and
  Organisational controls – policies, procedures, and decisions – are regularly reviewed and fit for purpose.

Conclusion

People of cyber … at this time in New Zealand’s history you face your greatest challenge, and your greatest opportunity.

It’s your time to shine!

MIL OSI

Thirty-six years on, mystery still lingers at Boston’s Gardner Museum.

In the early morning hours of 18 March 1990, two men dressed as police officers talked their way into the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Within minutes, they had overpowered the security guards, duct taping and handcuffing them, and set about stripping the walls of treasures that may never be seen again.

The thieves moved between galleries, unbuttered by security who were still duct taped at the entrance. They triggered motion sensors and proceeded to cut canvases from their frames. By the time they left, 81 minutes after they arrived, they carried with them 13 works now valued at more than US$1 billion, names such as Rembrandt, Vermeer, Manet, and Degas.

Other masterpieces went ignored. Works Titian and Michelangelo remained hung untouched, leaving investigators to wonder whether this was a targeted theft or simply a hurried snatch and grab. Whatever the motive, the result was the same: thirteen irreplaceable works gone, their empty frames hanging to this day in the museum’s Dutch Room.

Few know the case better than retired FBI agent Geoffrey Kelly, who spent 22 years interviewing hoaxers, chasing whispers and tracking rumours of Vermeer and Rembrandt masterpieces reportedly seen in darkened warehouses or in private vaults. His book, Thirteen Perfect Fugitives, is a true crime detective story.

The former Special Agent told First Up the reason the case fascinated the public was the audacious nature of the robbery.

“About 1.24 in the morning, on a Sunday morning right after St Patrick’s Day had ended, which is a big deal in Boston, these two subjects dressed as Boston police officers bluffed their way into the museum by claiming they were responding to a disturbance, and the guard – against protocol, let them in.”

For the FBI, the heist has become both legend and burden. Declared the largest property crime in United States history, the case has led agents through Boston’s criminal underground, across international smuggling channels, and down countless dead ends.

Kelly said that didn’t mean there weren’t suspects. Two men from Boston were identified.

“They were part of a bigger crew. It was an organised crime crew out of a section of Boston called Dorchester, and I’m confident they committed this robbery because they wanted to steal Rembrandts and hold on to them as a bargaining chip.

“In Massachusetts there had been a few instances in the previous two decades where subjects had stolen Rembrandts from museums in a effort to leverage their return in exchange for getting leniency on pending criminal sentences.”

Unfortunately for the suspects, and for investigators, both men died within a year of the robbery.

“One was violently murdered, and the other died under some very suspicious circumstances which, as you can imagine, can have a chilling effect on efforts to recover the artwork and might prevent somebody with information coming forward after seeing what happened to the subjects.”

Kelly said there were theories about where the art works went. “We were able to track some of the pieces up into Maine, down to Connecticut and down to Philadelphia but from there the trail went cold and that’s kind of where we were looking when it was time for my retirement two years ago.

“I think it’s quite possible the pieces have been split up and right now they’re waiting somewhere, waiting to be apprehended and our job is to find them.”

A US$10m reward remains on the table for information leading to full recovery.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand