MPs are harmful to digital communications

Written By: - Date published: 8:23 am, September 11th, 2015 - 21 comments
Categories: blogs, law, Media, Social issues, social media lolz, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, uncategorized, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

As anticipated, what is the first complaint at this site under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015? Not from some poor kid being stalked and cyber-bullied by the classmates. But by an adult trying to stifle legitimate criticism and analysis of what they wrote and distributed digitally.

I’m not going to point to the post that the complainant found offensive except to say that it was from 2011, or the complainant, or what they wrote in their complaint. However I will publish the majority of my reply to forestall similar attempts to misuse this Act. Much of this post and the comments related to it will be used to make a page defining the requirements for future complainants.

In essence the complainant had wanted me to remove a post years ago. I refused because I considered both the post and the comments to be a fair opinion rather than being “offensive”. The complainant now considers that the post and comments are covered under Harmful Communications Act passed in July 2nd 2015, but more on the retrospective aspects later..

They also demanded that if I did not take the page down, that I would be required to provide them with the details of the author under section 2(4a) – presumably section 24(1) and (2) something…

As is usual with most people who are lousy with actually reading the legislation, they skipped the sections of the Act that deal with their obligations.

My first response will quoted in sections below.

However you have not complied with most of the provisions of s24(3) of the Harmful Communications Act 2015 in your compliant. Therefore I am not passing this on the author.

You have not identified the exact location of the content under s24(3)(c). There are currently nearly 17 thousand posts on site and nearly a million comments. So an exact URL from the site is needed to locate anything.

This refers to the act stating  “(3) A notice of complaint must—” ..  ” (c) sufficiently enable the specific content to be readily located;”.

One of my most disliked annoyances running this site is that the vexatious complainants are seldom specific about what they are complaining about. What do they expect us to do? Instantly know everything written on the site about their ‘brilliant’ ego?

EVERY post and comment on this site has a unique persistent address. It is easily accessible by clicking a date or right clicking and copying the link. But even if that is beyond people’s abilities, giving the title and date time of a post and the date time and handle of an author does the same thing. People who are actually interested in getting us to review material give us those details.  Those who aren’t serious do not.

Similarly (my correction from the email)

You have not quoted the specific content, nor shown why it is unlawful, not nor why it breaches communication principles and not shown how it caused harm under s24(3)(b).

In the act section 24 (3)(b) says “A notice of complaint must—” .. “state the specific content, and explain why the complainant considers that the specific content—” … “(i) is unlawful; or” .. “(ii) breaches 1 or more communication principles and has caused harm;”.

There is a strong reason why the act was quite specific in this. Vexatious complaints are a pain and such complainants are fond of not being precise. People who are not being vexatious in their complaints go to considerable lengths to point to exactly which sections of post(s) and/or comment(s) they have issues with. They will quote them and state exactly why they have a problem with what they quote. They do not expect content providers to make judgements based on nothing specific. That is unfair to those who make comments and posts. Instead they explain the level of harm.

It doesn’t matter to me who people are or what their politics are. If I can see anything that I think violates legal standards, then it gets torn out of the site and I impose excessive penalties on whoever put us at risk. If I think the balance of harm from our posts in the search engines for individuals is excessive, then I will make it so it doesn’t show up there. This has happened a number of times during the 8 year history of this site for complainants as diverse as Mike Moore to Ian Wishart.

But people who make vague and non-specific allegations really just annoy me. If they cannot do more than say that they find comments and posts “offensive” without defining why, then in all probability they are too damn lazy to look at what the post or comment was actually saying, and why we hadn’t already dealt with it. That was the case with this complainant.

But the section 24 “safe habour” provision has a basic flaw in it.

And you have not stated what personal information I can forward to the author (assuming I can still find him) under s24(3)(d). Merely pointing to the post would reveal personal information like your name and position.

The act says “(3)(d) A notice of complaint must—” … “state whether the complainant consents to personal information that identifies the complainant being released to the author;”. This is a particular problem with this Act for people running sites. If we want to conform to the requirements of section 24(2) requires that we inform the author of the complaint…

(a) the online content host must, as soon as practicable but no later than 48 hours after receiving a notice of complaint,—

(i)  provide the author of the specific content with a copy of the notice of complaint, altered to conceal personal information that identifies the complainant if the host has received confirmation that the complainant does not consent to the host providing that information to the author; and<

(ii)  notify the author that the author may submit a counter-notice to the host within 48 hours after receiving that notification:

In ANY case that I have ever had to deal with on this site, telling an author of a comment or a post about what was complained about will invariably give away personal information about the complainant. The basic detail required to do a counter-notice like what comment or post is a reference to the post or comment. Since only the “victim” is allowed to make the complaint directly or indirectly by an approved agency, any reference to a post or comment will identify them.

Section 24(3)(d) makes a total arse of Section 24(2) and makes it completely ineffective. It looks like it was written by a legal idiot with no working experience of the net. In my view that makes the whole of section 24 “safe harbour” completely useless unless the “victim” gives explicit consent to pass the URL of the comment or post to the author.

I will be demanding that anyone asking for consideration under it, explicitly states that the post or comment link may be passed to the author before I will even consider looking at section 24. I’d suggest that any author who does not get an effective address of the context of a post/comment from any online content host under section 24 refuses to allow the removal and demands more information to allow them to make an informed decision. Most people on the social net write thousands of words every month. Authors of posts usually write more. Having full context is everything.

Your contention that Section 24 is required of me is incorrect. See section 23. It merely offers me more protection than I had previously if and only if I choose to exercise it.

And let me tell you that in the political blogs there is  strong incentive to not put down or modify posts and comments down simply because people had their egos bruised. Politicians and their servants are walking egos and in a permanent state of bruise. But they also make decisions that affect us all, and especially the effects of choices on taxation and the use of taxation. Public interest demands that they must be held accountable. So must the people who comment or opine on areas that are within the areas of public interest.

Furthermore it is hard to see how this act can retroactively apply to material that was written long before the relevant sections of act came into force on July 2nd this year. That would violate the purpose of the Act in s3. It would also violate section 22 as the content was posted years before the act came into force.

This particular complainant needs to understand one basic legal principle. Legislation is seldom retroactive. If it is, then that is explicit in the Act. But not in this Act.

Section 3 says “The purpose of this Act is to— (a) deter, prevent, and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications; and (b) provide victims of harmful digital communications with a quick and efficient means of redress.”. That is clearly orientated to current and future actions.

And it also states in “22 (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim;” (my italics). That is a verb, an action, and certainly not indicative of material posted years ago.

Think about it! There are decades of material on the net. Not to mention that sites like Papers Past are bringing centuries of material  online as digital content. Imagine the effect of litigants seeking to get articles in the Auckland Star about our civil war in the 1860s and 1870s removed because they offended some descendant.

Not to mention that I consider that post was justified as opinion under the Bill of Rights, is not unlawful under any laws, and I have told you all of this before. In my view it also does not violate any of the principles under the act.

I would suggest that you talk to an approved agency to prevent you repeating your abysmal ignorance of the contents of the act, however I do not believe one has been appointed yet.

But try NetSafe as they are probably gearing up for handing this act for juveniles. The content of your email makes me think that would be an appropiate legal level for you to start at.

Unsurprisingly, suggesting the complainant might be somewhat juvenile did not impress the complainant. But I’m not that interested in being nice to people who waste my time.

However it is my opinion that this act was to protect juveniles, not adults with bruised egos. It was also clearly that of the MP’s (see second reading) that this Act was meant to be about the young.

That they didn’t write it that way means that it is likely to be mainly used by people like this complainant. Those who have pulled up for their actions, criticised for them, have suffered little harm except to their ego, and are merely going to try to use this act vexatiously to try to salve that.

In my view, Netsafe should not be the only “approved agency” as is likely to happen. Their focus is entirely on kids. Unless I am much mistaken, most of the work from this act will come from adults that Netsafe has no expertise or mission to deal with. Certainly we have few people writing on this site that would be in a demographic that they appear to cater for. 

Besides, I like the people in Netsafe doing their specific tasks. I’d hate to put them on the receiving end of my sarcasm when they disturb me at work with a 48 hour deadline talking about legal matters that they don’t understand and with inadequate information for me to make a decision on.

We will need more than one agency because we’re going to get complaints from across the demographic ranges, but with a high proportion being legally illiterate adults. So to make this act credible, we’re going to need a approved adult agency as well, preferably staffed by criminal lawyers and the brighter ex-cops. They’re less likely to waste our time with vague and unsubstantiated accusations that do have not basis in any law. That a complainant’s pride is bruised isn’t a factor in our public debate.

I think that MPs made some serious mistakes in this particular law because they thought it was all going to be about the kiddies. I have news for them. It isn’t and this particular complainant is going to be the start of

21 comments on “MPs are harmful to digital communications ”

  1. dv 1

    Come on Lpent Give
    Who was It?

    [lprent: Don’t speculate or badger – it is a fast way to get a ban. Concentrate on the content in the post.

    However I should have probably have pointed out that wasn’t a politician. I’d have been less circumspect if it was. ]

    • Lanthanide 1.1

      Thanks Lyn, my first question is whether it was a politician or not; the headline somewhat suggests that it is. It’s not until the very end that it becomes clearer you’re blaming MPs for poorly written law, rather than blaming an MP for trying to use it.

      • lprent 1.1.1

        I often have this habit of leaving the explanation for the title to the end. I want to know if critics have actually read my post.

  2. Ad 2

    Lyn I am guessing you are not a theist but there is a special place in my heaven for you. The amount of protection you afford me, and the editorial oversight, make this an important expressive outlet for me.

  3. Wait are you saying our current parliament/government/executive passed a badly thought out and poorly written piece of legislation and then failed to provide any support to help people through the process? Say it ain’t so! It is almost as though they don’t actually care about the stuff they put in place and only want to have convenient sounding press releases that they get to stand up and say that they are doing helpful stuff before moving on to something else, like a holiday on some pacific island, and never ever thinking about the topic ever again…

    The whole bill was a sham and had no actual thought on actual behaviour as it was written by people who apparently had only heard of the net through vague cave drawings. The digital copyright act is the same

    [lprent: I added the missing ‘a’. ]

    • lprent 3.1

      Surprisingly I have limited issues with the Act or its intent. I have considerable numbers of issues with it’s implementation.

      For instance with that stupid and irritating problem with not being allowed to pass personal information without permission, and the act not explicitly saying that the link to the offending posts or comments must be passed to an author.

      The intent of the Act was that they’d take time to get the approved agency(ies) up and running. I have no real problem with that simply because MPs and their servants have no frigging idea about the net (most of them are what I call technophobes) and don’t have any hands on experience in running sites.

      I figured that they opened up sections 22-25 (the “safe harbour” provisions) so that they’d get some kind of reported history. Since I am expecting more than 50% of the complaints to vexatious ones to be by adults and by the most worst of them, I intend to publicize selected details of complaints and decisions on this site.

      This should provide some relevant information for the minister, but more importantly for the potential approved agencies and the district courts.

      A 48 hour limit without a approved agency in place does mean that complainants will have to be as precise in the information as ever that they provide between now and 2017 if they want me to lift a finger. I’m not a mind-reader, so statements that assume I am one , when the sole information is “Your site has made a defamatory statement about me” being my favorite, will usually get the sharp edge of my educational instincts.

      I’m also not interested in getting into an extended dialogue with complainants to obtain the required information. After all this isn’t a job. It is a hobby that interferes with the work I get paid for.

      Once an agency gets approved, then it should provide some information about what I expect them to do. Much of that is that they MUST conform to the act, and since those individuals do get paid for that task of getting the information required under the Act, I will have no hesitation in giving them publicly highlighting the waste of public monies if they screw up as well as pointing out their deficiencies before judges.

      Similarly if I feel that agencies have been underfunded or badly supported by the ministry, I will donate them the same attention.

      I’m sure that this will be the approach used by all of the political blogs and probably many of the other online media. It is going to be a hard role.

      • Paul Campbell 3.1.1

        Why can’t you simply publish all such correspondance – make it a site policy – Streisand effect and all that – that should cut down on the vexacious complainants and reduce your work load

  4. DH 4

    Interesting post, thanks lprent.

    I’m still digesting the implications, I’m thinking it might make the law retroactive. The original act may have been performed before the law was written but being on the web I’d think it is still being published so it could be subject to a take-down demand or further action. I’m assuming the Standard would be viewed as a publisher under defamation law at least, correct?

    It may be that publishers will end up needing to start restricting the ability to search their archives.

    • Wonderpup 4.1

      Archives occurred to me too. Not the publicly facing ones, but the ones being made by the Internet Archive, or various public bodies who are allowed under legislation to swipe a copy of your site and pop it away for future research. Which is a Good Thing.

      Are they obligated to redact stuff found ‘offensive’, or will they keep it, hidden away in a dark archive for the edification and entertainment of future generations?

    • Instauration 4.2

      DH
      ” I’d think it is still being published so it could be subject to a take-down demand or further action.”
      Lyn’s italicisation of the word “posts” (verb) is the differentiator.
      POSTS is a verb of currency – “POSTED” has a tense of “before” and is therefore retrospective.
      Yes POSTS (plural noun) persist and are published – but only GET (what has been) will reveal them.

  5. AmaKiwi 5

    Dictatorship is a cancer in the body politic.

    • Anne 5.1

      As one of the “technophobes” I’m not going to pretend I understand the full implications of Iprent’s post, but it appears to me someone is trying to use a piece of recently passed legislation to shut down critical opinion on this website. It smacks of a sense of entitlement and revenge because some criticisms were made about either their political/social viewpoints or an aspect of their behaviour.

      Not a politician but most likely a former ‘servant’ of a politician?

      [lprent: Definite speculation and ignored. ]

  6. Nessalt 6

    Harmful digital communications should be limited to maliciousness, either intent or actual harm. Way to go Amy. not sarcastically, Amy has a long way to go. can’t believe she beat jacinda with policy wins like this

    • Tracey 6.1

      this was collins deeply ironic levislation. the highest profile bully in the nation bring in laws against bullying… if its retrospective… collins herself might need to get nervous

  7. NZJester 7

    The problem with a lot of these laws is they a being written by people experienced with written communications, but lack knowledge of modern electronic communication standards.
    It is equivalent to asking an experienced car driver who has never driven a truck to write up instructions on driving a truck safely.

    So many new things are happening in the digital world to that need looking at for legal protections. I saw a story recently about a case of cyber flashing in August of this year. How well does that law cover that sort of potential problem?
    The woman involved accidentally left the Airdrop feature of her iPhone switched on after using it previously to send photos to another iPhone user. While she was on a train a picture appeared on her screen of a man’s penis. Someone on that train who could see her and spotted her phone was left open was sending her pictures.
    A lot of these cyber laws that come into play are rushed into place after things like these happen in real life.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33889225

  8. adam 8

    Thanks Iprent, reading you post just made me very depressed. I agreed with you when you first looked at this law, and I’m agreeing with you now – what a detestable piece of legislative offal national have put on the table.

    When all it would have took, was the prosecution of some very naughty boys, and the shaming of their parents, and this issue would have been dealt with.

    Instead of going after the Roast Busters, we get this dribble, and all the after affects.

    One last comment, Iprent you have blasted me in the past. And quite frankly, I never take it personally when you, or anyone else does. It’s the nature of the medium we operate in. And I’m here for a debate, not tiddlywinks – Thanks Jonathan Ionatana Falefasa “Tana” Umaga

    Simple answer to people who can’t handle robust debate. Don’t!

    Let me phrase that another way, just keep your opinions to yourself, and don’t say a word. Then no one will will say anything to you, so you can not get upset.

  9. Tim 9

    You’re a bloody legend for keeping this site up and running in the first place Iprent, let alone defending it from the trolls and vexatious complainants. Keep up the good work. Also I will not take offence and use the harmful digital communications act against you if and when you delete this post for low content.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Anzac Commemorative Address – NZ National Service, Chunuk Bair
    Distinguished guests -   It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders.   Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 hours ago
  • Anzac Commemorative Address – Dawn Service, Gallipoli, Türkiye
    Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia.   Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • PM announces changes to portfolios
    Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New catch limits for unique fishery areas
    Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Minister welcomes hydrogen milestone
    Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • Urgent changes to system through first RMA Amendment Bill
    The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Overseas decommissioning models considered
    Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Release of North Island Severe Weather Event Inquiry
    Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell has today released the Report of the Government Inquiry into the response to the North Island Severe Weather Events. “The report shows that New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit-for-purpose and there are some significant gaps we need to address,” Mr Mitchell ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Justice Minister to attend Human Rights Council
    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is today travelling to Europe where he’ll update the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Government’s work to restore law and order.  “Attending the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva provides us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Patterson reopens world’s largest wool scouring facility
    Associate Agriculture Minister, Mark Patterson, formally reopened the world’s largest wool processing facility today in Awatoto, Napier, following a $50 million rebuild and refurbishment project. “The reopening of this facility will significantly lift the economic opportunities available to New Zealand’s wool sector, which already accounts for 20 per cent of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Speech to the Southland Otago Regional Engineering Collective Summit, 18 April 2024
    Hon Andrew Bayly, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing  At the Southland Otago Regional Engineering Collective (SOREC) Summit, 18 April, Dunedin    Ngā mihi nui, Ko Andrew Bayly aho, Ko Whanganui aho    Good Afternoon and thank you for inviting me to open your summit today.    I am delighted ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government to introduce revised Three Strikes law
    The Government is delivering on its commitment to bring back the Three Strikes legislation, Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee announced today. “Our Government is committed to restoring law and order and enforcing appropriate consequences on criminals. We are making it clear that repeat serious violent or sexual offending is not ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New diplomatic appointments
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has today announced four new diplomatic appointments for New Zealand’s overseas missions.   “Our diplomats have a vital role in maintaining and protecting New Zealand’s interests around the world,” Mr Peters says.    “I am pleased to announce the appointment of these senior diplomats from the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Humanitarian support for Ethiopia and Somalia
    New Zealand is contributing NZ$7 million to support communities affected by severe food insecurity and other urgent humanitarian needs in Ethiopia and Somalia, Foreign Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters announced today.   “Over 21 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance across Ethiopia, with a further 6.9 million people ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Arts Minister congratulates Mataaho Collective
    Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage Paul Goldsmith is congratulating Mataaho Collective for winning the Golden Lion for best participant in the main exhibition at the Venice Biennale. "Congratulations to the Mataaho Collective for winning one of the world's most prestigious art prizes at the Venice Biennale.  “It is good ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Supporting better financial outcomes for Kiwis
    The Government is reforming financial services to improve access to home loans and other lending, and strengthen customer protections, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly and Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced today. “Our coalition Government is committed to rebuilding the economy and making life simpler by cutting red tape. We are ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Trade relationship with China remains strong
    “China remains a strong commercial opportunity for Kiwi exporters as Chinese businesses and consumers continue to value our high-quality safe produce,” Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay says.   Mr McClay has returned to New Zealand following visits to Beijing, Harbin and Shanghai where he met ministers, governors and mayors and engaged in trade and agricultural events with the New ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • PM’s South East Asia mission does the business
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has completed a successful trip to Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, deepening relationships and capitalising on opportunities. Mr Luxon was accompanied by a business delegation and says the choice of countries represents the priority the New Zealand Government places on South East Asia, and our relationships in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • $41m to support clean energy in South East Asia
    New Zealand is demonstrating its commitment to reducing global greenhouse emissions, and supporting clean energy transition in South East Asia, through a contribution of NZ$41 million (US$25 million) in climate finance to the Asian Development Bank (ADB)-led Energy Transition Mechanism (ETM). Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Minister releases Fast-track stakeholder list
    The Government is today releasing a list of organisations who received letters about the Fast-track applications process, says RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop. “Recently Ministers and agencies have received a series of OIA requests for a list of organisations to whom I wrote with information on applying to have a ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Judicial appointments announced
    Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Wellington Barrister David Jonathan Boldt as a Judge of the High Court, and the Honourable Justice Matthew Palmer as a Judge of the Court of Appeal. Justice Boldt graduated with an LLB from Victoria University of Wellington in 1990, and also holds ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Education Minister heads to major teaching summit in Singapore
    Education Minister Erica Stanford will lead the New Zealand delegation at the 2024 International Summit on the Teaching Profession (ISTP) held in Singapore. The delegation includes representatives from the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) Te Wehengarua and the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) Te Riu Roa.  The summit is co-hosted ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Value of stopbank project proven during cyclone
    A stopbank upgrade project in Tairawhiti partly funded by the Government has increased flood resilience for around 7000ha of residential and horticultural land so far, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones today attended a dawn service in Gisborne to mark the end of the first stage of the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Anzac commemorations, Türkiye relationship focus of visit
    Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters will represent the Government at Anzac Day commemorations on the Gallipoli Peninsula next week and engage with senior representatives of the Turkish government in Istanbul.    “The Gallipoli campaign is a defining event in our history. It will be a privilege to share the occasion ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Minister to Europe for OECD meeting, Anzac Day
    Science, Innovation and Technology and Defence Minister Judith Collins will next week attend the OECD Science and Technology Ministerial conference in Paris and Anzac Day commemorations in Belgium. “Science, innovation and technology have a major role to play in rebuilding our economy and achieving better health, environmental and social outcomes ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Comprehensive Partnership the goal for NZ and the Philippines
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon held a bilateral meeting today with the President of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos Jr.  The Prime Minister was accompanied by MP Paulo Garcia, the first Filipino to be elected to a legislature outside the Philippines. During today’s meeting, Prime Minister Luxon and President Marcos Jr discussed opportunities to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government commits $20m to Westport flood protection
    The Government has announced that $20 million in funding will be made available to Westport to fund much needed flood protection around the town. This measure will significantly improve the resilience of the community, says Local Government Minister Simeon Brown. “The Westport community has already been allocated almost $3 million ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Taupō takes pole position
    The Government is proud to support the first ever Repco Supercars Championship event in Taupō as up to 70,000 motorsport fans attend the Taupō International Motorsport Park this weekend, says Economic Development Minister Melissa Lee. “Anticipation for the ITM Taupō Super400 is huge, with tickets and accommodation selling out weeks ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Cost of living support for low-income homeowners
    Local Government Minister Simeon Brown has announced an increase to the Rates Rebate Scheme, putting money back into the pockets of low-income homeowners.  “The coalition Government is committed to bringing down the cost of living for New Zealanders. That includes targeted support for those Kiwis who are doing things tough, such ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government backing mussel spat project
    The Coalition Government is investing in a project to boost survival rates of New Zealand mussels and grow the industry, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones has announced. “This project seeks to increase the resilience of our mussels and significantly boost the sector’s productivity,” Mr Jones says. “The project - ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government focused on getting people into work
    Benefit figures released today underscore the importance of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy and have 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support, Social Development and Employment Minister Louise Upston says. “Benefit numbers are still significantly higher than when National was last in government, when there was about 70,000 fewer ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Clean energy key driver to reducing emissions
    The Government’s commitment to doubling New Zealand’s renewable energy capacity is backed by new data showing that clean energy has helped the country reach its lowest annual gross emissions since 1999, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. New Zealand’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990-2022) published today, shows gross emissions fell ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Earthquake-prone buildings review brought forward
    The Government is bringing the earthquake-prone building review forward, with work to start immediately, and extending the deadline for remediations by four years, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “Our Government is focused on rebuilding the economy. A key part of our plan is to cut red tape that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Thailand and NZ to agree to Strategic Partnership
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and his Thai counterpart, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, have today agreed that New Zealand and the Kingdom of Thailand will upgrade the bilateral relationship to a Strategic Partnership by 2026. “New Zealand and Thailand have a lot to offer each other. We have a strong mutual desire to build ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government consults on extending coastal permits for ports
    RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Transport Minister Simeon Brown have today announced the Coalition Government’s intention to extend port coastal permits for a further 20 years, providing port operators with certainty to continue their operations. “The introduction of the Resource Management Act in 1991 required ports to obtain coastal ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Inflation coming down, but more work to do
    Today’s announcement that inflation is down to 4 per cent is encouraging news for Kiwis, but there is more work to be done - underlining the importance of the Government’s plan to get the economy back on track, acting Finance Minister Chris Bishop says. “Inflation is now at 4 per ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • School attendance restored as a priority in health advice
    Refreshed health guidance released today will help parents and schools make informed decisions about whether their child needs to be in school, addressing one of the key issues affecting school attendance, says Associate Education Minister David Seymour. In recent years, consistently across all school terms, short-term illness or medical reasons ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Unnecessary bureaucracy cut in oceans sector
    Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones is streamlining high-level oceans management while maintaining a focus on supporting the sector’s role in the export-led recovery of the economy. “I am working to realise the untapped potential of our fishing and aquaculture sector. To achieve that we need to be smarter with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Patterson promoting NZ’s wool sector at International Congress
    Associate Agriculture Minister Mark Patterson is speaking at the International Wool Textile Organisation Congress in Adelaide, promoting New Zealand wool, and outlining the coalition Government’s support for the revitalisation the sector.    "New Zealand’s wool exports reached $400 million in the year to 30 June 2023, and the coalition Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Removing red tape to help early learners thrive
    The Government is making legislative changes to make it easier for new early learning services to be established, and for existing services to operate, Associate Education Minister David Seymour says. The changes involve repealing the network approval provisions that apply when someone wants to establish a new early learning service, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-04-25T14:11:48+00:00