‘Absolutely no justification': Senior Minister Erica Stanford sent official briefings to personal email account
'I am very relaxed about it. The reality is ... she has received unsolicited emails, she has had printing issues, she's had tech issues. She has made changes subsequently. '
But Labour leader Chris Hipkins – the author of that particular part of the 2023 Cabinet Manual that covers personal email and phone use – said technology at Parliament had improved dramatically in recent years and there was 'absolutely no justification' for Stanford's actions.
'As Prime Minister, I changed the Cabinet Manual guidance around the use of personal email accounts to make it clear that ministers shouldn't be doing that.
'The technology in Parliament has improved dramatically in the last few years. There is no longer a need to use personal email accounts, for example, to print documents. The technology is now all fully mobile.'
In 2023, a new section was added to the Cabinet Manual to clarify whether ministers can use their personal email and phone numbers.
In Labour's first term, former minister Clare Curran admitted to conducting some ministerial business using a Gmail account.
It currently sets out rules for using a personal email account while a minister.
The new section reads:
'Ministers should not use their personal email account or phone number to conduct ministerial business.
'Where the use of a personal account or phone number for ministerial business is unavoidable (for example, when ministers are travelling and/or have issues accessing their ministerial account) it is important that:
(a) information is protected from unauthorised access, use, and disclosure and that classified and personal information is handled appropriately;
(b) the minister's office and officials have ready access to relevant information;
(c) timely responses can be made to requests for access to that information, for example, under the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 2020; and
(d) accurate records can be preserved of ministerial decision-making in line with the Public Records Act 2005 (see also paragraph 8.104).'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
National makes economic pitch after Trump tariffs setback
Analysis: It's the economy, stupid. If the 10-minute cost of living sermon delivered by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis on Monday left any doubts about where National sees its re-election hopes living (or dying), they were dispelled at the party's annual conference on Saturday. With just four hours open to the media, a full hour was set aside for a not-so-pithily titled session on 'growing the economy to reduce the cost of living for all New Zealanders' – the same time allocated to health, education, law and order, and rural issues combined. Two of Luxon's more reliable performers, Willis and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, led the session alongside Tourism Minister Louise Upston in a further sign of the importance placed by the party on assuring members and the wider public they, rather than Labour, are best placed to look after the bottom line. It was a message hammered by Luxon during his own address to the party faithful in Christchurch, saying the fiscal conditions the coalition had inherited from the last Labour government were 'the worst in a generation'. 'The national debt had tripled, inflation hit a thirty-year high, homeowners were crushed by a surge in interest rates, and critical growth industries like agriculture and energy were under constant siege.' While the Government had made progress, many New Zealanders were still struggling to keep up with the cost of living, the Prime Minister conceded. The solution, at least in part? According to Luxon, 'we have to say yes to letting it happen'. 'We can't afford to leave any stone unturned, shut down whole sectors, or just sit around and hope that conditions will improve.' That was the argument behind the policy centrepiece of his speech – a loosening of the rules around granting permits (or concessions, as they are formally known) for commercial activities on Department of Conservation land, while also introducing a charge for foreign tourists at four locations where they made up more than 80 percent of all visitors: Cathedral Cove, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Sound, and Mount Cook. Exactly how the latter element will be put into practice remains somewhat uncertain: 'We have to organise and sort out how that's going to work, but there are ways and means to do that,' Conservation Minister Tama Potaka told journalists, with the four chosen sites functioning as a trial before any wider rollout. Senior ministers Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop led National's defence on its handling of the economy. Photo: Sam Sachdeva The changes to concessions on conservation land attracted criticism from Forest and Bird, which claimed they would 'make it easier to sell off or commercially exploit these areas'. That is an argument unlikely to win favour with the current coalition, as demonstrated by Bishop channelling his inner Shane Jones as he promised the Government's resource management reforms would make it easier to build new wind farms (among other projects). 'We've got the best wind in the world, and we spent years arguing about how we could build wind farms that don't result in the death of just one bird or one lizard, one snail.' It is clear he views the replacement of the much maligned Resource Management Act as a legacy-defining moment for himself and the coalition, emphasising the billions of dollars in compliance costs in the coming decades that could be eradicated with successful reforms. 'That's why I don't get a lot of sleep. That's what keeps me up at night, worrying about it, because we have got to get it right.' As David Parker found, however, such lofty ambitions can swiftly be undone by a political successor, and National will need to find a faster economic fix if it is to be in government long enough for any RMA reforms to bear fruit. One such 'quick win' – the decision to ban surcharges on in-store card payments – has not proved universally popular, with one delegate questioning National's claim to be the party of small business. 'Under [Sir John] Key, we got Mondayisation [of public holidays]. Under Cindy [Dame Jacinda Ardern], we got Matariki, more recently, an extra percent in KiwiSaver, sick days gone from five to 10 days, and now you're looking at getting rid of merchant fees. 'Now the interchange fee is only part of it, so I think we need to reassess that.' Another party member, who worked with small businesses run by migrants and refugees, said many were struggling to pay wages, rent and other costs in the current environment. In return, Willis offered sympathy – 'man oh man, it has been a tough time to be a small business in New Zealand' – but also indicated there was little room for new state support. 'We know where growth and prosperity comes from, and it doesn't actually come from the Government saying, 'I'll write you a cheque. It comes from the Government saying, 'I'll get out of the way and I'll make sure that business people can go and invest and do things and make things and hire people'.' An economic boost could be around the corner, she suggested, with more households due to move onto lower interest rates for their mortgages and free up money to pump back into the economy. That is certainly possible, but there is one rather large complicating factor: the impact of United States President Donald Trump's tariffs. While the Reserve Bank has indicated the tariffs are unlikely to have an inflationary impact on the New Zealand economy, it has also noted household spending and business investment are both significantly hampered by economic uncertainty such as that attached to the Trump tariffs. Friday's unpleasant surprise that New Zealand exports would face a 15 percent tariff into the US, rather than the 10 percent announced back in April, has led the Government to take a slightly more assertive approach to what Luxon labelled a 'rather late decision' from the Trump administration. Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay told the audience he had spoken to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Saturday morning, and was dispatching his 'top trade diplomat' – Vangelis Vitalis – to Washington DC next week for talks. It seems difficult to see Greer or Trump making an exception for New Zealand, however, given 15 percent is the new 'floor' for any country that does not buy more from the US than it sends in the other direction. As Luxon noted, every other country is dealing with the same challenging environment and must forge ahead regardless; any self-pity would risk being seen as hypocrisy, anyway, given he and his ministers have hardly offered Labour any credit for the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on its economic performance in government. 'We can navigate some pretty choppy seas to get to the destination we want to get to, but for that to happen, you've got to have the right people with the hands on the tiller, which is us,' the Prime Minister said. Luxon was at pains to emphasise the coalition was only halfway into its term, with 'a lot of work to do as a government' – but next year's election is creeping ever closer, and he will need some luck to come his way if the economy is to be a trump card rather than a Trump-addled drag on National's vote in 2026.
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The NZ economy is still sick, doubts are growing about the Govt prescription
Are these the right antibiotics? Are the antibiotics making me feel sick? I do feel a little better I think. But it's taking longer than I expected. Maybe I should see the doctor again. Or am I just being impatient? Ugh, so much uncertainty. Hopefully, those who've tuned in for a fresh read on the state of the economy can see where this is going. Never let a metaphor go by, I say! Anyway, here's me and the New Zealand economy, both sick in the midst of a miserable wet winter and worrying about whether our recoveries have stalled. A run of negative data has knocked the wind out of the nation's sails. The bad vibes are being pushed along by a strong political current. Both the left and right are telling us that the Government has prescribed the wrong medicine. The left blames the Government for cutting spending into a downturn. The logic is pretty simple. Any good Keynesian will tell you, when demand in the private sector falls, that's the time for the Government to come to the party. Borrow a bit more, don't slash and burn civil service, hire more teachers and nurses, build more stuff ... it won't be inflationary because it won't be crowding out private sector competition, which is in recession. The trouble is, we're still in the aftermath of the last big spend-up, which went on too long. Labour's stimulus, once we got through the initial Covid shock, did clash with a private sector boom and exacerbated inflation. That muddied the political narrative. It made it inevitable that the incoming centre-right coalition would cut back despite the extra damage that would do to economic growth. In the context of using fiscal policy to drive economic prosperity, you can make a good case that successive governments have got things completely arse about face. You'd expect this argument from the left. But Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are being savaged even more aggressively from their right flank. The monetarists, the supply-side guys, the neo-liberals, (whatever you want to call them) are berating the Government for not dealing with the national debt and Crown deficit by administering a Rogernomics-style reboot of the whole economy. I doubt that would make the current downturn any more pleasant, but they argue it couldn't be much worse. And the payoff would be longer-term gains as the economy found a more productive and financially secure baseline. Both arguments can be compelling and, if nothing else, add to the concern that the current strategy of subtle market-oriented tweaks risks underdelivering on all sides. But through all of this gloom, one thing we need to remember is that most economists still believe the foundations of recovery are in place. Step back a bit from the mess of ugly recent economic data – the second quarter sucked, we get it! What are we actually experiencing? The labour market is tough. Unemployment is rising, and new job creation is almost non-existent. But this is not a surprise. In fact, while economists do get things wrong, they've been forecasting unemployment to be about where it is now for more than a year. We know it's one of the last pieces of data to turn in any recovery. Unfortunately, it is now overlapping with an unwanted and unexpected spike in inflation. Like a jump scare in the final scene of a horror movie, food prices (with rates and power, and insurance) have conspired to pause Reserve Bank rate cuts and rattled our faith in the recovery. Then there are tariffs and global unrest and all of that. It's not really surprising that it all feels bleak. So it's a bit ironic to be writing an optimistic take on the economy, especially given the rough week stuck at home that I've just had. My view wouldn't have been so upbeat if I hadn't been woken from my sick bed on Friday morning by a text from investment bank HSBC's Australian head of communications. He was asking how far away I was from my scheduled meeting with their global chief economist, Janet Henry and and Australia-New Zealand chief economist Paul Bloxham. Oops ... I was a long way away. But they kindly let me Zoom in later, and I'm very glad I did. As anyone with Australian cousins will know, sometimes it's healthy to be slapped in the face with a slightly condescending, external view of the New Zealand condition. Bloxham told me his forecasts currently make him one of the gloomiest economists on Australian growth. However, he's one of the most positive on New Zealand growth. Last year, New Zealand had the single largest contraction of any economy in the developed world, Bloxham points out. That inevitably comes with a hangover. But if you believe in the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy, which he does, there is no reason to assume the cycle won't turn. 'I suspect why I'm a little bit more upbeat than others is I sit in Sydney and watch it from the outside and go: hey, you've got two big forces at work that are set to continue to lift growth and give you a recovery.' No prizes for guessing those two forces – falling interest rates and booming agricultural commodity prices. The money flowing into the rural economy must eventually flow through to the cities and lift growth, Bloxham says. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (my words, not his). We've had a big downswing, which means we're due a pretty big upswing to get back to trend, he says. And we've got monetary policy and the terms of trade in place to drive that cyclical upswing. 'All cycles look different. We always ask the same question going through: oh, it's not quite happening as quickly as we thought. 'The question you ask yourself is: is that because it's not working? Is it that interest rates aren't going to have the same effect? That a positive-terms-of-trade shock won't have the same effect? Or are things just a bit different this time around?' Great question. And look, the sun's finally out and I think my head's clearing. Time to go for a walk and ponder it all. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
RNZ News
17 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
