The Ministry for Pacific Peoples (MPP) repeatedly warned its minister that replacing the traditional population-wide survey with administrative data would have negative consequences for data on Pasifika communities.

They cautioned that this change would undercount Pacific people and lead to poor policy decisions, yet the changes proceeded.

In records obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) by PMN News, Pacific Minister Dr Shane Reti was advised in February that the alteration to data-collection methods would have adverse effects on information relating to Pacific people.

• READ MORE: Other NZ Census reports

Reti was warned that this could lead to flawed decisions based on that data.

Despite these warnings, the government announced in June that it would replace the conventional paper-based census with a new approach that relies on administrative data, supported by a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection. The new system is set to begin in 20230.

Reti, who is also the Minister of Statistics, says the new approach aims to save time and money.

“Relying solely on a nationwide census day is no longer financially viable. In 2013, the census cost $104 million. In 2023, costs had risen astronomically to $325 million and the next was expected to come in at $400 million over five years,” Reti says.

“Despite the unsustainable and escalating costs, successive censuses have been beset with issues or failed to meet expectations.”

Data expert concerns
The response letter from the MPP expressed concerns raised by data experts who believe the reforms could further degrade data quality for Pacific people.

“Administrative data are largely based on who can access services and are therefore known to undercount Pacific peoples,” the letter states.

The MPP stresses that the proposed changes by Stats NZ are likely to further damage the quality of data on Pacific people, households, and populations.

It pointed out that Pacific people have unique family characteristics and public service needs that are not adequately captured in administrative data.

The letter goes on to say that the transformation could shift the burden of data compliance and costs to other government agencies, which may not be well-equipped to manage these changes.

It also warned that costs associated with collecting population data might increase rather than decrease due to the new approach.

In a statement to PMN News, a spokesman for Reti defended the changes, saying, “By using information already collected by the government, we will deliver more relevant, useful and timely data to help inform quality planning and decision making, which will deliver benefits for Pacific communities.”

PMN News video report.

Working with communities
Alongside the new annual sample survey, Stats NZ plans to work with communities, including Pacific people, to develop tailored solutions, such as targeted surveys, that address their specific data needs.

Administrative data will also be improved to include variables such as ethnicity, age distribution (younger and older people), and new immigrants to New Zealand.

Advancements will be made in other areas, such as languages spoken, housing quality, and family data.

“Data accuracy, detail, and coverage will improve over time, as admin data improvements are implemented, and more data is collected through the annual survey and tailored data collection solutions.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ and with PMN permission.

ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

The New Zealand government remains unwilling to support Palestinian statehood recognition at the United Nations General Assembly.

This is a disgraceful position which gives support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and seriously undermines our standing. Of the 193 states of the UN, 157 have now provided statehood recognition. New Zealand is not one of them.

The purpose of this opinion piece is to highlight the troubling lack of transparency in how the government deliberates on its foreign policy choices.

• READ MORE: As delegates walk out in protest, Netanyahu tells UN Israel must ‘finish job’ in Gaza

Government decisions and calculations on foreign policy are being made behind closed doors with limited public scrutiny, unlike other areas of policy, where at least a modicum of transparency occurs.

The government has, over the past two years, exceeded itself in obscuring the process it goes through, without explaining its approach to the question of Palestine.

New Zealand still inconceivably lauds the impossible goal of a two-state solution, the hallmark of successive governments’ foreign policy positions on the question of Palestine, but does everything to not bring about its realisation.

To try to understand the basis for New Zealand’s approach to Gaza and the risks generated by the government’s lack of direct action against Israel, I placed an Official Information Request (OIA) with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Winston Peters. I requested copies of advice that had been received on New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Plausible case against Israel
My initial OIA request was placed in January 2024, after the International Court of Justice had determined there was a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. At that point, about 27,000 people in Gaza had been killed, mainly women and children. My request was denied.

I put the same OIA request to the minister in June 2025. By this time, nearly 63,000 people had been killed by Israel. At the time of my second request there was abundant evidence reported by UN agencies of Israel’s tactics. Again, my request for information was denied.

I appealed the refusal by the minister of foreign affairs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reviewed the case and accepted that the minister of foreign affairs was within his right to refuse to provide the material.

The basis for the decision was that the advice given to the minister was subject to legal professional privilege, and that the right to protect legally privileged advice was not outweighed by the public interest in gaining access to that advice.

The refusal by the minister and the Ombudsman to make the advice available is deeply worrying. Although I am not questioning the importance of protecting legal professional privilege, I cannot imagine an example that could be more pressing in terms of “public interest” than the complicity of nation states in genocide.

Indeed, the threshold of legal professional privilege was never meant to be absolute. Parliament, in designing the OIA regime, had this in mind when it deemed that legal professional privilege could, under exceptional circumstances, be outweighed by the public interest.

The Office of the Ombudsman has ruled in the past that legal professional privilege is not an absolute; it accepted that legal advice received by the Ministry of Health on embryo research had to be released, for example, as it was in the public interest to do so, even though it was legally privileged.

Puzzling statement
The Ombudsman concludes his response to my request with the puzzling statement that the “general public interest in accountability and transparency in government decision-making on this issue is best reflected in the decisions made after considering the legal advice, rather than what is contained in the legal advice.”

The point I was trying to clarify is whether the government is acting in a manner that reflects the advice it has received. If it has received advice that New Zealand must take particular steps to fulfil its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and the government has chosen to ignore that advice, then surely New Zealanders have a right to know.

The content of the advice is extremely relevant: it would identify any contradictions between the advice the government received and its actions. Through public access to such information, governments can be held to account for the decisions they make.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, concluded on September 16 that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four out of the five underlying acts of genocide. Illegal settlers have been let loose in the West Bank under the protection of the Israeli army to harass and kill local Palestinians and occupy further areas of Palestinian land.

At the UN General Assembly, the New Zealand government took a stance that is squarely in support of the Israeli genocide, also supported by the United States. International law clearly forbids the act of genocide, in Gaza as much as anywhere else, including the attacks on Palestinian civilians living under occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 2015-16, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the illegality of Israel’s actions in the Occupied West Bank, with the intention of supporting a Palestinian state. New Zealand’s recent posture at the General Assembly undermines this principled precedent.

That New Zealand could not bring itself to offer the olive branch of statehood recognition is morally repugnant and severely damages our standing in the international community. The New Zealand public has the right to demand transparency in its government’s decision-making.

The advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister cannot be hidden behind the veil of legal professional privilege.

John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) is not considering recruiting personnel from across the Pacific as talk continues of Australia doing so for its Defence Force (ADF).

In response to a question from The Australian at the National Press Club in Canberra about Australia’s plans to potentially recruit from the Pacific Islands into the ADF, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said he “would like to see it happen”.

“Whether Australia does it or not depends on your own policies. We will not push it.”

• READ MORE: Other Pacific defence policy reports

RNZ Pacific asked the NZDF under the Official Information Act (OIA) for all correspondence sent and received regarding any discussion on recruiting from the Pacific, along with other related questions.

The OIA request was declined as the information did not exist.

“Defence Recruiting has not and is not considering deliberate recruiting action from across the Pacific,” the response from the NZDF said.

Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James said citizenship needed to be a prerequisite to Pacific recruitment.

Australian citizen
“Even a New Zealander serving in the Australian military has to become an Australian citizen,” James said.

“They can start off being an Australian resident, but they’ve got to be on the path to citizenship.

”They’ve got to be capable of getting permanent residency in Australia and citizenship.

“And then you’ve got to tackle the moral problem — it’s pretty hard to ask foreigners to fight for your country when your own people won’t do it.”

James said he thought people might be “jumping at hairs” at Rabuka’s comments.

Unlike Samoa’s acting prime minister, who has voiced concern over a brain drain, both Papua New Guinea and Fiji have made it clear they have people to spare.

Ross Thompson, a managing director at People In, the largest approved employer in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility Scheme, said if the recruitment drive does go ahead, PNG nationals would return home with a wider skill set.

‘Brain gain, not drain’
“This would be a brain gain, rather than be a drain on PNG.”

He’s spoken with people in PNG who welcome the proposal.

”PNG, its population is over 10 million . . . We’re proposing from PNG around 1000 could be recruited every year.”

Minister Rabuka joked Fiji could plug Australia’s personnel hole on its own.

“If it’s open [to recruiting Fijians] . . . [we will offer] the whole lot . . . 5000,” he said, while noting that Fiji was able to easily fill its quota under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme.

“The villages are emptying out into the cities. What we would like to do is to reduce those who are ending up in settlements in the cities and not working, giving way to crime and becoming first victims to the sale of drugs and AIDS and HIV from frequently used or commonly used needles.”

Thompson was also a captain in the Queen’s Gurkha Engineers of the British Army and said he was proud to have served alongside Fijians.

Honour serving
“I had the honour to serve with a number of Fijians while deployed overseas; they’re fantastic soldiers.

“This is something that’s been going on since the Second World War and it’s a big part of the British Army.”

From a recruitment perspective, he said PNG and Fiji would be a good starting point before extending to any other Pacific nations.

”PNG has a strong history with the Australian Defence Force. There’s a number of programmes that are currently ongoing, on shared military exercises, there’s PNG officers that are serving in the ADF now, or on secondment to the ADF.

“So I think those two countries are definitely good to look up from a pilot perspective.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government’s unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people.

The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is “genocide” which is being committed by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza.

It is hard to argue with the conclusion genocide is happening, given the tragic images being portrayed across social and increasingly mainstream media.

• READ MORE: Other articles by John Hobbs
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented Israel’s assault on Gaza war as pitting “the sons of light” against “the sons of darkness”. And promised the victory of Judeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism.

A real encouragement to his military there should be no-holds barred in exercising indiscriminate destruction over the people of Gaza.

Given this background, one wonders what the nature of the advice being provided by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister entails?

Does the ministry fail to see the destruction and brutal killing of a huge proportion of the civilian people of Gaza? And if they see it, are they saying as much to the minister?

Cloak of ‘diplomatic language’
Or is the advice so nuanced in the cloak of “diplomatic language” it effectively says nothing and is crafted in a way which gives the minister ultimate freedom to make his own political choices.

The advice of the officials becomes a reflection of what the minister is looking for — namely, a foreign policy approach that gives him enough freedom to support the Israeli government and at the same time be in step with its closest ally, the United States.

The problem is there is no transparency around the decision-making process, so it is impossible to tell how decisions are being made.

I placed an Official Information Act request with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2024 seeking advice received by the minister on New Zealand’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The request was refused because while the advice did exist, it fell outside the timeline indicated by my request.

It was emphasised if I were to put in a further request for the advice, it was unlikely to be released.

They then advised releasing the information would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand and the international relations of the government of New Zealand, and withholding it was necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

Public interest vital
It is hard to imagine how the release of such information might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or that the legal issues could override the public interest.

It could not be more important for New Zealanders to understand the basis for New Zealand’s foreign policy choices.

New Zealand is a contracting party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under the convention, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they [the contracting parties] undertake to prevent and punish”.

Furthermore: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. (Article 5).

Accordingly, New Zealand must play an active part in its prevention and put in place effective penalties. Chlöe Swarbrick’s private member’s Bill to impose sanctions is one mechanism to do this.

In response to its two-month blockade of food, water and medical supplies to Gaza, and international pressure, Israel has agreed to allow a trickle of food to enter Gaza.

However, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to avert famine. Understandably, Israel’s response has been criticised by most of the international community, including New Zealand.

Carefully worded statement
In a carefully worded statement, signed by a collective of European countries, together with New Zealand and Australia, it is requested that Israel allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza, an immediate return to ceasefire and a return of the hostages.

Radio New Zealand interviewed the Foreign Minister Winston Peters to better understand the New Zealand position.

Peters reiterated his previous statements, expressing Israel’s actions of withholding food as “intolerable” but when asked about putting in place concrete sanctions he stated any such action was a “long, long way off”, without explaining why.

New Zealand must be clear about its foreign policy position, not hide behind diplomatic and insincere rhetoric and exercise courage by sanctioning Israel as it has done with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

As a minimum, it must honour its responsibilities under the Convention on Genocide and, not least, to offer hope and support for the utterly powerless and vulnerable Palestinian people before it is too late.

John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

After Warner Bros Discovery top brass broke the bad news to staff on Wednesday, Newshub at 6 that night became a news event in itself.

RNZ MEDIAWATCH: By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

After Warner Bros Discovery top brass broke the bad news to staff on Wednesday, Newshub at 6 that night became a news event in itself.

In her report, political reporter Amelia Wade reminded viewers more than 30 years of TV news and current affairs — spanning the entire period of commercial TV here — could come to an end in June.

Before TV3 launched in 1989, state-owned TVNZ had been the only game in town.

But for most of its recent history, TV3’s parent company MediaWorks was owned by private equity funds and it was hamstrung with debts.

There were periodic financial emergencies too which seemed to signal the end.

In 2015, the boss Mark Weldon axed the current affairs shows Campbell Live and 3D and replaced them with ones that didn’t pull in more viewers or pull up many trees with their reporting.

“Reports of our death at 6pm have been greatly exaggerated”, host Hilary Barry responded to reports 3 News might be for the chop the following year.

But Weldon persuaded the owners to stump up a significant sum to launch Newshub instead.

When the huge global company Discovery bought MediaWorks loss-making TV channels in December 2020, many in the media were pleased a major media outfit was now in charge.

Using the Official Information Act, Newsroom later reported the Overseas Investment Office fast tracked Discovery’s application and sought no guarantees of a commitment to local news.

The 2021 mega-merger in the US that turned it into “Warner Bros Discovery” excited The Spinoff founder Duncan Grieve.

“Tova O’Brien breaking stories on CNN NZ at 6pm, before an evening of local reality TV souped up by global budgets and distribution — with major sports and drama rights for good measure,” was one scenario.

“It could also swing the other way, with the New Zealand linear asset seen as too small and obscure,” he warned.

After losses including a $35 million one last year, the owners now “propose” to slice out the entire on-screen and online news operation. New Zealand could lose more than 15 percent of its full-time journalists in one go.

Beginning of the end?

“Oh, the irony, right? When those so-called ‘vulture funds’ had it, the operation still continued, albeit always run on the smell of an oily rag. Then a big media organisation was the one which axed it,” long-serving TV3 current affairs journalist Eugene Bingham told Mediawatch.

“I’ve been around long enough to see death by a thousand cuts over the years. But this was a moment we’ll look back on as a watershed moment in democracy and journalism,” Bingham said.

Former MediaWorks executive Andrew Szusterman told RNZ’s Morning Report the next day this decision would also ripple out to local drama and entertainment.

“We’re going to start to see how this is going to impact the production sector. Irrevocably, possibly,” said Szusterman, now the chief executive at production company South Pacific Pictures.

Does Newshub’s demise also kill off Three?

There’s been no shortage of people this week pointing out the appetite for TV news — and linear TV in general — is not what it was. That’s the main reason for the ad revenue slump cited by WBD.

Some who do tune in to Three (and WBD’s other channels) for The Block, Married at First Sight and free movies may not miss the news shows from June 30. So maybe Three will be fine?

“The loss of the newsroom represents the loss of the ability to respond to any event in real time. That is the heart and soul of a traditional TV broadcaster,” Hal Crawford — chief news officer at MediaWorks (and effectively Newshub’s boss) until early 2020 — told Mediawatch.

“When the Queen dies you can send a team to London, you can have someone in the studio talking about it, you can interact in a way that makes people feel like it is alive and a real human entity.”

Channels without the live element news brings are effectively just “content databases”, Crawford told Mediawatch.

“News is the one programme that runs 365 days a year . . . which the schedule is going to rely on to lead into prime time. So the rest of your schedule is going to dwindle. Ratings are gonna fall off and everything is going to go to pieces.

“It really is going to dwindle as a cultural entity in New Zealand because you’re not going to be able to justify the funding from NZ on Air if you aren’t getting audiences. It’s hard for me to see a way out of Three basically going away as a cultural force in New Zealand.”

But TV-style news and current affairs is also now being done online.

After Eugene Bingham’s TV3 show 3D was axed in 2016, four members formed the Stuff Circuit investigative team. Its video documentary productions won awards until it was axed by Stuff late last year.

“Of course, there have been changes in viewing habits . . .  but there’s still a reason that the ‘1’ and the ‘3’ on remotes around the country are worn down. Hundreds of thousands of people at six o’clock flip the channel. Without a TV bulletin there, doesn’t (Three) just become like Bravo, where there’s just programmes running and you either switch on or you don’t?”

In the end, journalists have to confront the fact that not quite enough people these days care about what they do — including executives at media companies, politicians not inclined to intervene and members of the public.

Most New Zealanders are happy to use services like Netflix or Google search or Facebook that carry news and local content but contribute almost nothing to it.

“But I don’t think people quite understand the depth of the problem facing media and the implications. That certainly came through to me watching the broadcasting minister saying, well, people can still watch programmes like Sky for news,” Bingham said.

The National Party went into the last election without a media or broadcasting policy or any specific manifesto commitments.

What should/could the government do?

While Wednesday’s announcement shocked the 300-odd staff, the local chief executive Glen Kyne — close to tears on Newshub at 6 —  told Newshub’s Michael Morrah he had known about the possibility since January.

The government also got a heads-up earlier this week.

Media minister Melissa Lee told reporters WBD made no requests for help, prompting Glen Kyne to tell Newshub WBD did ask both the current and previous government for assistance, such as a reduction in the multi-million dollar fee paid to state-owned transmission company Kordia.

Lee later clarified her comment but was firm that the government had no role to play because this was a case of a private company taking action because “their business model actually wasn’t working.”

On Morning Report, Andrew Szusterman disagreed.

“Channels 7,9 and 10, SBS, ABC, and Fox in Australia all run news services. I don’t think their government would let the last commercial free-to-air news broadcaster just walk away. The fact the broadcasting minister hasn’t fronted . . .  it’s quite shameless,” he told RNZ’s Morning Report.

Stuff’s Tova O’Brien — who famously turned on her former employer MediaWorks on air in real time last year when it closed Today FM — called the minister’s response “cold and tone-deaf” and accused the government of a “glib shrug”.

That was partly because Lee’s first response to the Newshub announcement was to tell reporters: “There’s Sky as well, there’s a whole lot of other media about.”

Sky contracts Newshub to produce its 5.30pm free-to-air news bulletin — and Sky subscribers won’t find any locally-made news on Sky TV’s pay channels.

Lee should have known that. She was a programme-maker before she was an MP and was National’s spokesperson on broadcasting for years in opposition.

Lee declined all interview requests this week — including from Mediawatch — but did tell reporters at Parliament: “I wasn’t as articulate as I could have been. But I am taking this seriously.”

The PM told Stuff he is expecting an update at Cabinet on Monday. The media will be watching that space with pens and cameras poised.

There is legislation currently before a select committee which could compel the big online tech platforms to pay local producers of news for it.

In opposition, Lee opposed it and called it “literally a shakedown” in Parliament. (This weekend Facebook’s owner Meta announced it would not do any more deals with media under Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, prompting a likely confrontation with the government there.)

“The government’s position on this will obviously take into account these latest developments in terms of the wider media landscape. This government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sector sustainability, while still preserving the independence of a fourth estate and avoiding market interference,” Lee said in Parliament on Thursday when questioned.

The government already heavily intervenes in the market by overseeing the state-owned broadcasters and agencies — including TVNZ — and putting over a quarter of a billion dollars every year onto broadcasting, programmes and other content.

The former government also put $80 million over two years into Māori media content, partly in the expectation there might also be a new public media entity to broadcast it.

In 2019, Hal Crawford — boss of Newshub at the time — declared the New Zealand news media is broken.

His chief executive also urged the government to intervene. AM show host Duncan Garner switched the studio lights off as an on-air stunt.

Crawford is now a digital media consultant based in his native Australia. The broadcasting funding agency in NZ On Air hired him in 2021 to review its own spending of public money on the media.

“It’s not a good idea for governments to knee jerk and sponsor particular commercial companies in some sort of bailout,” he said.

“To give money to the people who are in financially the worst position is the most ineffective and unfair use of public money that I can think of. If the market is telling you that something isn’t wanted and needed, you have to listen to that.

“But it doesn’t mean that you have to always listen to the market and do things that have never been done before.”

He cites the Public Interest Journalism Fund which put $55 million into new content and created new jobs for cash-strapped news media companies.

Crawford’s fact-finding report on the planned PIJF in 2021 records media managers feared cuts and possible closures to come.

“Many of our interviewees believed that if an organisation could show that cuts were imminent, they should be able to apply for funded roles under the PIJF. Many saw the dangers in this non-incremental funding, but argued for exceptions in extreme circumstances. Although these arguments are compelling, Funding could evaporate quickly trying to keep the newsrooms of big commercial companies afloat if this became the primary aim of the fund.”

“Around the world and in New Zealand, there’s ample evidence that public funding of journalism is becoming more essential. There has to be a way there, because what we’re seeing with the the planned closure of Newshub is the end result of the factors that we’ve known about for at least a decade,” Crawford told Mediawatch.

“Direct subsidy from the government to a commercial newsroom isn’t going to work. The government has to find a way to sensibly finance news and structure it so that it doesn’t become a political football.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

A Tongan RSE worker, whose case sparked an independent review of Immigration New Zealand’s “out-of-hours compliance visit” practices, is still on edge.

Pacific community members have compared the actions to the infamous “Dawn Raids”.

Keni Malie’s lawyer, Soane Foliaki, said his client’s case should have ended such exercises.

• READ MORE: Ponsonby march highlights Dawn Raids pain and overstayer uncertainty

However, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) Immigration Compliance and Investigations team has only temporarily suspended “out-of-hours compliance visits” to residential addresses.

“At least until this work is completed,” MBIE Immigration Investigations and Compliance General Manager Steve Watson said.

He said the visits would not resume until new standard operating procedures came into effect and staff had been fully trained in the new procedures.

It is uncertain how these new procedures will be different, and what this will mean for migrant workers.

Detained in front of wife, family
In the early hours on April 19 this year immigration officials showed up at Keni Malie’s residence and detained him in front of his wife and children. He was then taken away and shortly after served with a deportation order.

“Four children were in the house, with three sleeping downstairs and at least one woken up by the activity,” the independent review states.

Malie’s lawyer broke the story to the media, out of desperation. The story gained traction and following a public outcry, Immigration New Zealand admitted this was not a one-off incident.

Keni Malie has since been granted a temporary visa while he and his lawyer work though his residency application but he said he was still nervous about it.

Malie explained in Tongan, as his lawyer translated:

“The hardest thing for me was trying to make sure that I can put a loaf of bread on the table for my children. I hope for the day that I can feel secure and get residence,” Malie said.

Immigration New Zealand has confirmed it has been conducting out-of-hours compliance visits — known as “Dawn Raids” — for the past eight years.

Figures released under the Official Information Act show Pacific community members were the third highest after Indian and Chinese nationals of the total number of people located, between July 1, 2015, and May 2, 2023.

Out of 95 out-of-hours compliance visits, which in some cases multiple people were found, 51 were Chinese, 25 Indian and 17 Pacific.

There was one from the USA and one person from Great Britain on the list.

MBIE reviews
An independent review of what Pasifika community leaders have called MBIE’s Dawn Raids-style visits has now been completed.

The review was led by Mike Heron.

Leaders and members of the Pacific, Indian and Chinese communities were interviewed, along with immigration lawyers and advisers and representatives.

One of the reasons given for this review was that the raids of the 1970s were a “racist application of New Zealand’s law”.

“Immigration officials and police officers entered homes of Pacific people, dragged them from their beds, often using dogs and in front of their children. They were brought before the courts, often barefoot, or in their pyjamas, and ultimately deported,” Heron report reads.

Tongan community leaders were outraged to find out Keni Malie, who is Tongan, went through what they see as a similar trauma.

According to the report, Malie was in New Zealand as an RSE worker when he did not turn up to work because he was getting married.

Added to ‘process list’
After being stopped by police for driving without a licence, Crime Stoppers were also sent a notification for another issue. He was then added to Immigration’s National Prioritisation Process list.

In the Immigration Officers’ view, their “compliance visit” to Malie was carried out reasonably and respectfully.

“They stressed that the operation was calm, respectful and did not require any use of force,” the review states.

But his lawyer, Soane Foliaki disagrees that it was “respectful”.

“In the dark of the night they were back at it, you know, without any consideration? Why did the Prime Minister apologise?” Foliaki said.

To him this was reminiscent of the Dawn Raids. Something the former Prime Minister had only just apologised for.

An INZ spokesperson told RNZ Pacific at a Pacific community event earlier this year that in some cases officers sit down with a cup of tea to build rapport with overstayers.

Trauma for community
“I want to again acknowledge the impact the Dawn Raids of the 1970s had on the Pacific community and that the trauma from those remains today,” MBIE’s Steve Watson said.

We know we have more to do as we learn from the past to shape the future. This continues to be at the centre of our thinking as we move forward,” he said.

Lawyer Soane Foliaki who has been fighting for justice for 30 years still has hope, hope for his client and hope that there will be change.

“We always felt that New Zealand was always a decent country, they’ll always give us a fair go. This is also our home here,” Foliaki said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

New Zealand’s Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, has given government agency media teams a well-deserved kick up the fundamental over some of their dealings with journalists.

Last week he released his report Ready or not? Thematic OIA compliance and practice in 2022. It is highly critical of the way the teams handle some media requests for information. Incredibly, many did not see such requests as falling under the Official Information Act.

The 66-page report revisits 12 government agencies that were investigated by his predecessor in 2015 and it picks out media teams for particular scrutiny.

• READ MORE: Other Gavin Ellis commentaries

“Most of the agencies I investigated have a Media Team responsible for handling information requests from the news media. These Media Teams operate separately from centralised OIA Teams, which typically process information requests from the public.

“While separating requests in this way is not unreasonable in itself, I am concerned that some of the practices associated with this method of request handling has helped to create a false perception that media requests are not OIA requests and, as a result, that agencies do not need to adhere to OIA obligations when handling them.”

The Ombudsman’s report states unequivocally that media information requests are OIA requests, with the core legislative obligations that those confer.

Some excellent service
As one might expect, there were examples of excellent service provided by media teams. He singled out the Ministry of Health Manatū Hauora and the Public Service Commission Te Kawa Mataaho.

The former was praised for its information handling during the pandemic, while the latter’s performance should be a given — it is the lead agency on implementation of the government’s commitments under the international Open Government Partnership.

However, he didn’t mince words over some of the actions of media teams: “In most of the agencies I investigated, I saw evidence of breaches of the law.”

Given some of Peter Boshier’s other findings, that conclusion should not come as a surprise.

“I was deeply concerned to find that the responses from some agencies to my investigation suggested they did not consider that media information requests fall under the OIA. As a result, it had become embedded in the culture and practice of staff in some Media Teams to refuse information without providing a valid reason under the OIA.

“Those staff considered that the OIA did not apply to their actions and decisions on information requests from the media—in stark contrast to their counterparts in OIA Teams operating in the same agency.”

When he gave the agencies a preliminary assessment of this aspect of their operations, one replied that “placing the constraints of the OIA over the work of the ministry’s media team will add a layer of formality over those relationships and despite the best endeavours of staff, will add to the time required to respond.”

Another said it would affect relationships with the media.

Misperceptions a problem
The Ombudsman disagrees with that assessment. And he went further, saying the perception that the OIA did not apply to media information requests was “simply incorrect”. He saw the misperception as the cause of media teams operating contrary to the law.

He called on the leaders of errant agencies to take immediate responsibility for a cultural shift within media teams and ensure policy, practice, and process changes were made to ensure compliance with the law.

The most common breaches have been failure to give reasons for refusing to give information, and failure to acknowledge a right of appeal to the Ombudsman.

He found distinct types of breaches of the requirement to give reasons for refusal:

• The agency acknowledged that information was being refused, but the reason given for refusal was not a valid one under the OIA, e.g. “That information is not centrally located’ and “We’re unable to provide that information within the given timeframe”.
• No information was given and it was not acknowledged there had been a refusal.
• The agency responded with general information but did not actually answer the question, and it was not acknowledged there had been a refusal.

The investigation revealed a curious relationship between media teams and an agency’s OIA team.

Media teams used a “triaging system” to determine when it was more appropriate for the OIA Team to handle the request. The 12 agencies’ media teams “triaged” requests in a broadly similar manner. Where the request could be answered by the media team within the requester’s specified timeframe — typically a matter of hours or days, to accommodate media deadlines — it would be answered by the media team.

Lack of clarity
If the request could not be answered within the timeframe specified by the requester because it was complex, voluminous, or if it was anticipated that withholding grounds may apply, the media team typically advised the requester that their request would need to be handled by the agency’s OIA team.

Some media teams would tell the requester that their request “would need to be an OIA” without making it clear whether they had forwarded the request on, or whether the requester would need to resubmit their request.

“This language and the practice of separating requests in this way is problematic,” the Ombudsman said, “because it helps propagate the misapprehension that quick turnaround ‘media requests’ are distinct from other information requests. It also implies that the OIA does not apply to them, while ‘formal’ OIA requests ‘must’ go through a regimented, multi-stage process which invariably takes the maximum statutory time limit (20 working days).”

The report is couched in measured terms but I cannot help but feel this two-tiered system is a weapon used against the media. Twenty working days is as good as a refusal in the fast moving world of digital daily news. Peter Boshier acknowledges as much in his report.

“Where requested information cannot be provided in a matter of days, but the journalist finds it untenable to wait up to 20 working days, there is rarely a middle ground; the request is sometimes abandoned by the requester­. It is here that Media Teams’ commitment to responding in only hours or days may be a double-edged sword: when Media Teams cannot reply within the media’s specified timeframe, the request may not get answered at all.

Few agencies I investigated have effective mechanisms in place for providing information ‘without undue delay’, or under urgency if it falls outside the media’s requested timeframe. This ‘now or never’ approach to media information requests reinforces the false perception that the OIA requires a separate process for handling ‘formal’ information requests, and it creates a potential gap in the provision of information which is of great concern to me and does not serve the public interest.”

And he concedes that the two-tiered system fuels perceptions that the Official Information. Act is used as a shield by delaying or frustrating requests for information. However, he denies that the Act itself is at fault. It does not prescribe the processes to be followed, “and an agency’s OIA process can be as agile, flexible and swift as the agency is prepared to make it.”

Loopholes to be exploited
He is absolutely right. What he does not acknowledge, however, is the fact that the sometimes loosely-defined and voluminous reasons for refusing information that are contained in the legislation send a signal to agencies and their employees that there are loopholes to be exploited.

And even outside the OIA there are pressures that work against its spirit. For example, the Ombudsman notes that agencies employ a blanket approach to responses sent to ministers ‘for your information’ under the No Surprises Principle. Even when no input is required from the minister, the material is usually sent three to five days before it is due to be sent to the requester.

The Ombudsman puts it rather delicately — “[It] may lead to the perception that input from the Minister is being sought by the agency that might alter the decision planned for release” — but I read that as saying nothing contentious is released without political approval.

Throughout the report there are sensible and workable solutions to the problem that the Ombudsman has uncovered. Training, policy guidelines and culture change led from the top are all ways in which the spirit of the OIA can be met.

And media teams can start obeying the law.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

The “sorry saga” of former Breakfast celebrated host Kamahl Santamaria’s abrupt departure from Television New Zealand last month has created a political headache for the public broadcaster, says the country’s leading daily newspaper.

The New Zealand Herald said in an editorial in its Sunday edition this was “much more than celebrity tattle”.

Santamaria, 42, a New Zealand journalist who had arrived back in Auckland in April to take on this role after a stellar 16-year career as a news and current affairs anchor at global broadcaster Al Jazeera, abruptly quit TVNZ last month and then went to ground.

• READ MORE: From Middle East to middle New Zealand: Kamahl Santamaria on joining Breakfast
• Kamahl Santamaria quits Breakfast a month into the job
• Santamaria’s spectacular fall from grace
• Stuff want more TVNZ blood for Santamaria blood
• Behind the tears for Shireen, more evidence of Israel’s daily crimes with impunity
• Other Kamahl Santamaria reports

In a profile of the broadcaster on April 27 — the week before Santamaria appeared on his new programme, The Spinoff’s editor-at-large Tony Manhire went beyond the “Mr Serious” image:

“Over the course of those 16 years, the first of which was before the [Al Jazeera English] channel went to air, Santamaria found himself surrounded in the desert city [Doha] by a cluster of other New Zealanders; Anita McNaught, Elizabeth Puranam, Tania Page, Charlotte Bellis and dozens of others behind the scenes who became known as AJE’s ‘Kiwi mafia’.”

The Herald editorial tried to put the controversy in perspective.

“First and foremost, it should always be remembered there are real people who have been affected by what has taken place,” it said, pointing out that Santamaria had been taking over hosting TVNZ’s morning current affairs show after veteran broadcaster John Campbell had left.

“But, after just 31 days on the job, he mysteriously resigned.

“Despite TVNZ saying his disappearance was due to a ‘family emergency’, The Herald spoke with a number of women who claimed to have received questionable messages from him.

“A number of emails sent internally to TVNZ staff about Santamaria’s departure were then leaked to The Herald. One email outlined plans for a review of the state broadcaster’s recruitment processes after the abrupt resignation.”

Middle East angle
According to The Herald, the sequence of events not only called into question TVNZ’s recruitment processes, “but also the response to managing complaints, and the manner in which the state broadcaster responds to questions of public interest”.

The TVNZ controversy was also a headache for Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi at a time when he was trying to “merge RNZ and TVNZ into a non-profit ‘public media entity’ as a multi-platform public service provider capable of fulfilling its cultural and civil remit into the 21st century”.

Meanwhile, said the newspaper, it had been revealed last month that “five Radio New Zealand employees have been accused of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct or sexism in the last five years”.

Three of them had left the broadcaster as a result and the other two people were no longer working for RNZ at the time the allegations were raised with management.

No changes had been made to RNZ’s sexual harassment policy as a result of the complaints, according to information released to The Herald in an Official Information Act application.

“Media organisations, including ours,” noted The Herald, “have struggled to maintain ideal working environments at times. The mix of rolling deadlines, pressures of live news reporting, and vigorous personalities can amount to a brew of tension and manifest sometimes in unacceptable behaviour.

“Other industries will have their own examples and challenges but we all must accept our responsibilities and failings and strive to be better,” the newspaper said.

“But the circumstances at TVNZ give rise to such a raft of concerns, Minister Faafoi needs to insist on full disclosure of what has taken place, and what will be done about it.”

At least one news commentary and current affairs site, The Daily Blog, has offered a different explanation to the Breakfast controversy: “One version of what happened was Santamaria cursing the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and Israel for the assassination of his former Al Jazeera colleague, Shireen Abu Akleh.”

Tokelau’s controversial helicopter buy was part of at least one major Samoan airline deal, along with plans for the establishment of a luxury hotel on the remote New Zealand-administered territory.

In February, then Foreign Minister Murray McCully slammed Tokelau over the purchase of two helicopters that he described as “extravagances”, and later said they represented “a breakdown in Tokelau’s governance”.

David Nicholson, New Zealand’s​ Administrator for the territory, also imposed restrictions on Tokelau’s capital spending and has since carried out a review into the helicopters which found government officials behind the purchases did not have the authority to make them.

Documents obtained by Asia Pacific Report under the Official Information Act confirm earlier revelations that the helicopters, which will now be sold off, were part of an “interim air service”, with the end goal of establishing runways on Tokelau.

Last October, a Tokelau “senior public servant”, whose name was redacted, advised the NZ Civil Aviation Authority (NZCAA) that Tokelau was exploring a fixed-wing air service between Samoa and Tokelau.

According to the public servant, Polynesian Airlines, which is co-owned by the Samoan government, would be functioning as the service operator, made possible through a “partnership arrangement” with private Samoan tourism company, Grey Investment Group (GIG).

It is unclear whether the public servant is one of the two who were suspended pending an investigation by Tokelau’s government into their role in the helicopter purchases.

Commercial deal
A document from February last year, composed by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) official, reveals Tokelau’s bilateral team advised MFAT of a proposal made by a hotelier, whose name was redacted, for a commercial deal involving “operating a helicopter service from Apia to Tokelau”.

Its purpose would be to deliver tourists “to a proposed high end hotel in Tokelau”.

The chairman of GIG is Alan Grey, son of famous proprietor Aggie Grey and who holds several senior government and corporate positions in Samoa, including a directorship of Polynesian Airlines.

GIG has an extensive portfolio of investments, including several high end hotels and resorts across the Pacific, and Alan Grey is also chairman of the Samoa Hotel Association.

Polynesian Airlines and GIG have not responded to requests for comment.

The arrangement with Polynesian Airlines was mentioned as early as September in email correspondence between NZCAA and MFAT officials.

It was also described in a January meeting between David Nicholson, several MFAT and NZCAA officials, and Tokelau’s Chief Technical Helicopter Adviser and Financial Adviser.  

‘Logistical support’
Polynesian Airlines was “providing logistical support” to Tokelau, “including hangar space and access to fuelling facilities”, according to notes from the meeting.

However, earlier documents reveal Polynesian Airlines was not the only Samoan company that expressed interest in a fixed-wing air service to Tokelau.

In a November email, which had its recipients redacted but includes a “minister”, then High Commissioner to Tuvalu Linda Te Puni said she had “heard about a number of proposals for helicopter services and a seaplane service involving Talofa airways with possibly a Japanese company”.

In another email later that month and this time addressed to multiple NZCAA officials, Te Puni confirmed Tokelau was in discussions with Talofa Airways.

In October, a representative for the airline advised NZCAA of the logistics of future flights to and landings on Tokelau, after NZCAA requested the information so that it could determine the relevant rules for aircraft operation in Tokelau.

Following earlier statements from Ulu-o-Tokelau Siopili Perez and former Foreign Minister Murray McCully that the helicopters would be sold off, a chain of emails starting from late February show those plans are now under way.

A number of discussions between CAA and MFAT officials detailed the logistics of selling or contracting out the two helicopters to recover their initial cost.

March correspondence between NZCAA and MFAT officials revealed Administrator David Nicholson had “been approached” by Hawker Pacific, an Auckland-based aviation provider, with the intention of it acting as a sales agent for the helicopters.

• Tokelau suspends two officials following helicopter row review
  

One of the Cook Islands’ top broadcasters and newspapers want government heads of ministries and ministers to be more transparent and accountable to the public.

Radio Cook Islands talkback host and interviewer Tony Hakahoro says HOMs “absolutely have a duty to the public, they are working  for government voted by the people and are working on behalf of the people – they should be responding to matters of public concern”.

He says ever since starting his radio programme almost a year ago, it’s become “so clear senior government officials are very, very reluctant to be interviewed”.

Hakahoro believes this could have a lot to do with job security. Because of this, he says some HOMs “have difficulty admitting there are problems, discussing issues in an open forum in an honest way”.

“Whenever there are issues in their ministries they should front up and honestly explain to the community what is going on – the same applies to minister because it’s the people who put them there and people deserve to know’.

Hakahoro raised Immigration issues during a programme last week saying he wanted to interview Principal Immigration officer Kairangi Samuela on these. She declined the interview.

The talkback host says people have a right to know how a New Zealand citizen of Tonga descent was permitted entry into the country without a return ticket.

Homeless man
The man was homeless and is said to have developed mental issues and was subsequently taken in by a local family.

He says the PIO should also explain to the public how a Fijian national is serving a six-year jail sentence at Arorangi Prison for raping a 12-year old girl – “why hasn’t he been deported”.

“Here we are wanting to deport this Samoan sportsman who has been convicted of a less serious crime, while a foreign rapist is in our jail courtesy of the Cook Islands taxpayer.

“I want to ask Immigration what is their policy in relation to these cases and how some are being treated very differently to others.”

Hakahoro also refers to the Pacific Schooners scandal and how officials and ministers were “in denial right from day one”.

“I’ve found the Office of the Prime Minister, especially the prime minister himself, to be very reluctant to be interviewed and that’s probably a combination of not wanting to front up and never being here.

“Face up to our people and be honest with our people”, urges Hakahoro.

“Once you start dodging questions, avoiding interviews, then more and more of our people start getting suspicious and start asking questions”.

Right to ask
He adds the public and media have every right to ask questions of government when there are suspected dodgy dealings and poor administration.

Matariki FM radio host William Framhein says his experiences with officials evading questions ‘is no different to what Tony is saying but furthermore if you put written questions to them you get the silent treatment, viz no response’.

“Those that have come on radio are also pretty good at dodging the question the PM and (minister) Mark Brown are good at it”, says Framhein.

“I don’t know how some of these guys can lie to our people”.

Publisher George Pitt who writes colourful pieces for the Herald promises, “if heads of ministries are going to duck and dive refusing to converse with the media they will be named then bombarded with the processes that will yield withheld information – the OIA (Official Information Act)”.

Pitt says getting information out of government officials isn’t a problem he has at present and he’s found those spoken to be “cooperative”. He attributes this to years developing media good will.

Reporters are increasingly being forced to request responses to questions under the Official Information Act.

Slow process
Most say this is usually a slow process as HOMs will delay responding until the 20-days limit is reached.

Hakahoro says the prime minister and Mark Brown keep saying the government has ‘no secrets’ but the refusal of HOMs to be transparent to the media and public suggests otherwise.

Cook Islands News publisher John Woods says his experience after 10 years of editing the country’s daily is that “bureaucrats get no training or enlightening in the art of communication and the politicians set a terrible example because they  start out not even believing in the public’s right to know”.

“Also I’ve seen next to no real reporting or journalism by radio and television here, other than plagiarising of our news stories in order to beat up superficial electronic media controversy to the point where the daily press alone is virtually the only practitioners of hardball journalism,” Woods said.

—