DOIA 2122 1447 John Luke response COMBINED.pdf

10 March 2022

DOIA 2122-0571

John Luke
[FYI request #18242 email]

Dear John

Thank  you  for  your  email  of  19  January  2022  requesting  the  following  information  under  the  Official
Information Act 1982 (the Act):

“2122-1175
Ministerial Oversight Group on State Sector Employment Relations meeting on 29
September 2021
2122-1299
MSWG-Officials Meeting
2122-1328
Tourism Electronic Card Transactions (TECTs) – August 2021
2122-0870
Copyright  Tribunal:  Cabinet  paper  to  progress  appointments  and
reappointments”

On 14 December 2021, the Ministry extended the timeframe to respond to your request in accordance
with section 15A(1)(b) of the Act, as consultations necessary to make a decision on the request were
such that a proper response could not reasonably be made within the original time limit.

Please find the documents within the scope of your request attached, with some information withheld
under the following sections of the Act:

−  9(2)(a), to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons;
−  9(2)(b)(ii), to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely
unreasonably  to  prejudice  the  commercial  position of  the  person who supplied  or  who  is  the
subject of the information;
−  9(2)(ba)(i),  to  protect  information  which  is  subject  to  an  obligation  of  confidence,  where  the
making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information,
or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should
continue to be supplied;
−  9(2)(f)(iv),  to  maintain  the  constitutional  conventions  for  the  time  being  which  protect  the
confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers of the Crown and officials;
−  9(2)(h), to maintain legal professional privilege;
−  9(2)(j), to enable a Minister of the Crown or any public service agency or organisation holding the
information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

I do not consider that the withholding of this information is outweighed by public interest considerations
in making the information available.

Labour, Science and Enterprise
15 Stout Street, PO Box 1473, Wellington 6140 New Zealand
E [email address]

T +64 4 472 0030
W www.mbie.govt.nz

You have the right to seek investigation and review of this decision by the Ombudsman, in accordance
with section 28(3) of the Act. The relevant details can be found at: www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or
by free phone to 0800 802 602.

Yours sincerely

Lesley McConnell
Director, Group Operations

BRIEFING
Copyright Tribunal: Cabinet paper to progress appointments and
reappointments
Date:
6 September 2021
Priority:
Medium
Security
In Confidence
Tracking
2122 - 0870
classification:
number:
Minister
Action sought
Deadline
Hon Dr David Clark
Agree to progress the appointments 15 September 2021
Minister of Commerce and
of Wi Pere Mita as Chair and Paul
Consumer Affairs
Johns as a member, and the
reappointments of Peter Dengate
Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir as
members, of the Copyright Tribunal.
Note that, in order to be considered
at the APH meeting on Wednesday,
29 September 2021, the Cabinet
paper will need to be lodged by
10.00am on Thursday, 23
September 2021.
Contact for telephone discussion (if required)
Name
Position
Telephone
1st contact
Manager, Appointments
Paul Metcalf
s 9(2)(a)


and Governance
Advisor, Board
Leanne Hay
Appointments and
04 830 7256
Governance
The following departments/agencies have been consulted
Associate Minister of Justice, Hon Minister Sio, MBIE Corporate Governance and Intellectual
Policy, MOJ Justice Services and Tribunals.
Minister’s office to complete:
Approved
Declined
Noted
Needs change
RELEASED UNDER THE
Seen
Overtaken by Events
See Minister’s Notes
Withdrawn
Comments
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

BRIEFING
Copyright Tribunal: Cabinet paper to progress appointments and
reappointments
Date:
6 September 2021
Priority:
Medium
Security
In Confidence
Tracking
2122 - 0870
classification:
number:
Purpose
To provide you with a draft Cabinet Appointments and Honours (APH) Committee paper to
progress the appointments of Wi Pere Mita as Chair and Paul Johns as a member, and the
reappointments of Peter Dengate Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir as members, of the Copyright
Tribunal.
Recommended action
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) recommends that you:
a
Agree to progress the appointments of Wi Pere Mita as Chair and Paul Johns as a member,
and the reappointments of Peter Dengate Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir as members, of the
Copyright Tribunal.
Agree / Disagree
b
Note that, in order to be considered at the APH meeting on Wednesday, 29 September
2021, the Cabinet paper will need to be lodged by 10.00am on Thursday, 23 September
2021.
Noted
Paul Metcalf
Hon Dr David Clark
Manager, Appointments and Governance
Minister of Commerce and Consumer
Labour, Science and Enterprise, MBIE
Affairs
..... / ...... / ......
..... / ...... / ......
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122 - 0870
In Confidence
1

Background
1.
The Copyright Tribunal (the Tribunal) is a statutory body established under section 205 of the
Copyright Act 1994 (the Act). The Tribunal resolves disputes between licensing bodies, or
proposed licensing bodies, and those who hold, or seek to hold, licenses in respect of
copyright works. Following amendments to the Act in 2011, the Tribunal can also hear
applications and make awards in respect of claims for breach of copyright, as a result of
peer-to-peer file sharing technology over the internet.
2.
Under section 206 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal consists of a Chairperson and at least two, but
no more than five, other persons. Members are appointed for up to five years and can be
reappointed.
3.
The Chairperson of the Tribunal is appointed by the Governor-General on the
recommendation of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, as the responsible
Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Justice. The other members are appointed by
the Governor-General on the recommendation of the responsible Minister.
You  recently  made  appointment  and  reappointment  decisions  for  the
Board
4.
The terms of the current Chairperson, Professor Susan Frankel, and two members, Sarah
Bacon and Paul Sumpter, expired in 2019. Professor Frankel, Ms Bacon and Mr Sumpter are
not seeking reappointment, however they have agreed to remain on the Tribunal until the
process to appoint their replacements is completed.
5.
You have agreed to recommend the appointment of Wi Pere Mita as Chair for a term of five
years, and Paul Johns as a member, for a term of four years, to the Tribunal [briefing 2122-
0449 refers]. You have previously agreed to recommend the reappointment of Peter Dengate
Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir to the Tribunal for terms of five years [briefing 2021-1953
refers].
6.
s 9(2)(a)

We will
provide you with further advice on our recommendation for a replacement Deputy Chair,
along with advice on her replacement, once the new Chair of the Tribunal is appointed.
Next steps
7.
A draft Cabinet paper outlining your intention to recommend the appointments of Wi Pere
Mita and Paul Johns, and the reappointments of Peter Dengate Thrush and Sarah-Jane
Weir, is attached as Annex One. The accompanying Organisation Form and Candidate CV
Forms are attached as Annex Two.
8.
Subject to your approval, the attached Cabinet paper and forms would need to be submitted
to the Cabinet office by 10.00am on Thursday, 23 September 2021 to ensure the proposal is
RELEASED UNDER THE
included on the agenda for the Cabinet Appointments and Honours (APH) Committee
meeting on Wednesday, 29 September 2021.
9.
Speaking notes to support your appearance at the APH Committee meeting are attached as
Annex Three.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122 - 0870
In Confidence
2

Annexes
Annex One:   Draft Cabinet paper to progress appointments and reappointments to the Copyright
Tribunal
Annex Two:   Organisation Form and Candidate CV Forms
Annex Three:  Speaking notes for APH meeting: Summary of proposed appointments and
reappointments to the Copyright Tribunal
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122 - 0870
In Confidence
3

Annex One: Draft Cabinet paper to progress appointments and
reappointments to the Copyright Tribunal
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122 - 0870
In Confidence
4

In Confidence
Office of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Chair, Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee
COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL: APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS
Proposal
1
This paper outlines my intention to:
1.1
recommend that the Governor-General appoints Wi Pere Mita as Chair
and member of the Copyright Tribunal for a five year term from the
date of appointment
1.2
recommend that the Governor-General appoints Paul Johns as a
member of the Copyright Tribunal for a term of four years from the date
of appointment
1.3
recommend that the Governor-General reappoints Peter Dengate
Thrush as a member of the Copyright Tribunal for a five year term from
the date of reappointment
1.4
recommend that the Governor-General reappoints Sarah-Jane Weir as
a member of the Copyright Tribunal for a five year term from the date
of reappointment.
Background
2
The Copyright Tribunal (the Tribunal) is a statutory body established under
section 205 of the Copyright Act 1994 (the Act). The Tribunal resolves
disputes between licensing bodies, or proposed licensing bodies, and those
who hold, or seek to hold, licenses in respect of copyright works. Following
amendments to the Act in 2011, the Tribunal can also hear applications and
make awards in respect of claims for breach of copyright, as a result of peer-
to-peer file sharing technology over the internet.
3
Under section 206 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal consists of a Chairperson and at
least two, but no more than five, other persons. Members are appointed for up
to five years and can be reappointed.
RELEASED UNDER THE
4
The Chairperson of the Tribunal is appointed by the Governor-General on the
recommendation of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, as the
responsible Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Justice. The other
members are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of
the responsible Minister.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 19821

5
The Tribunal currently consists of a Chair and five members. A list of the
current Tribunal membership is attached.
Comment
6
I intend to recommend that the Governor-General appoints Wi Pere Mita as
Chair of the Copyright Tribunal to replace outgoing Chair Professor Susan
Frankel, for a term of five years, commencing on the date of appointment.
7
I also intend to recommend that the Governor-General appoints Paul Johns
as a member of the Copyright Tribunal to replace outgoing member Paul
Sumpter, for a term of four years, commencing on the date of appointment.
8
I intend to recommend that the Governor-General reappoints Peter Dengate
Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir as members of the Copyright Tribunal for terms
of five years, commencing on the date of reappointment.
Wi Pere Mita
9
Wi Pere Mita is a practising lawyer, consultant and accredited mediator who
has appeared before most Courts, Tribunals and Authorities in New Zealand.
Mr Mita has extensive experience in most areas of intellectual property,
including copyright, from protection and maintenance through to enforcement.
He has represented and advised music recording artists and labels,
publishers, authors of literary works, public broadcasters and producers
(television and radio), performing artists and arts organisations, collecting
agencies, museums, iwi, local and central government, not-for-profit
organisations and commercial entities.
Paul Johns
10
Paul Johns is a barrister and solicitor. He is currently the Head of Dispute
Resolution at Baldwins Intellectual Property, one of New Zealand’s leading
intellectual property specialist firms. Mr Johns has specialised in intellectual
property, including copyright matters, throughout his legal career of nearly 20
years. As a lawyer, Mr Johns has significant experience in interpreting
legislation, including advocating certain interpretations on behalf of clients in
hearings before courts and tribunals ranging from the Court of Appeal to
Assistant Commissioners of Trademarks and Patents.
Peter Dengate Thrush
11
Peter Dengate Thrush is a barrister and solicitor, and patent attorney,
specialising in internet, intellectual property and technology cases. He is the
RELEASED UNDER THE
managing partner at McCabe & Co patent attorneys and lawyers. Mr Dengate
Thrush spent most of his early career at Baldwins where he became partner
and oversaw many designs and implementations of projects and ideas. He
also spent 15 years practising as a barrister from chambers.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 19822

Sarah-Jane Weir
12
Sarah-Jane Weir has over twenty years of experience as a qualified lawyer in
New Zealand and Europe, predominantly in corporate and commercial
advisory work, with a sub-specialty in advising technology, electronics and
telecommunications businesses. Ms Weir has an in-depth understanding of
the Copyright Act and Copyright Tribunal responsibilities. She has
coordinated intellectual property work at Anderson Lloyd and holds a Masters
of Intellectual Property Law.
Criteria for appointment
For the Chairperson role:
13
In line with the previous Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’
direction, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment carried out a
search process to identify Chairperson candidates with the following attributes
(in addition to the criteria for the member role below):
13.1  A barrister or solicitor of the High Court with at least seven years’
practice, whether or not he or she holds or has held judicial office.
13.2  An understanding of judicial processes, or experience in either
conventional judging or another tribunal position.
13.3  Knowledge of, or experience in, intellectual property law (especially
copyright).
For the member role:
14
In line with the previous Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’
direction, MBIE carried out a search process to identify candidates for the
member roles with the following attributes:
14.1  Relevant academic or copyright background, preferably in law,
economics, commerce, or public administration.
14.2  Experience in or the ability to interpret legislation (experience in judicial
or tribunal procedures may be an advantage).
14.3  Understanding of copyright issues, or experience in a sector involving
works of copyright (such as the creative arts, publishing or audio-visual
services).
14.4  Ability to assess economic evidence, or an understanding of the
RELEASED UNDER THE
economic implications affecting copyright works and their owners and
users.
14.5  Knowledge of the regulatory settings in New Zealand relating to
copyright licensing, or copyright disputes, and familiarity with various
approaches taken by relevant overseas jurisdictions.
14.6  Familiarity with the operation of the internet and related technology.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 19823

15
I consider that Wi Pere Mita and Paul Johns meet the above criteria for
appointment.
16
I consider that Peter Dengate Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir have specific
skills and experience which will continue to be of value to the Copyright
Tribunal.
Representativeness of reappointment
17
I am satisfied that the appointments of Mr Mita and Mr Johns, and the
reappointments of Peter Dengate Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir, will provide
for a well-balanced Tribunal in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and geographic
representation, and an appropriate mix of skills and experience.
Remuneration
18
The Board is classified as a Group 2 Level 1 Governance Board under the
Cabinet Fees Framework. The fee for the Chair is s 9(2)(a)
, and the fees
for members are s 9(2)(a)
. These fees are consistent with the Fees
Framework.
Appointment process and consultation
19
I can confirm that an appropriate process has been followed in selecting the
proposed appointees, in terms of the Public Service Commission’s
appointment guidelines. The appointment process included a public call for
applications. Nominations were also sought from the Ministry for Women, the
Ministry for Ethnic Communities, Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry for Pacific
Peoples and the Office for Disability Issues.
20
In accordance with Section 206 (2A and 2B) the Chairperson of the Tribunal
shall be appointed by the Governor General on my recommendation after
consultation with the Minister of Justice. I can confirm that agreement has
been sought from the Associate Minister of Justice Hon Minister Sio, who
holds this delegation, for this proposed appointment.
Conflicts of interest
21
I can confirm that appropriate enquiries concerning conflicts of interest have
been carried out, in accordance with the Public Service Commission
appointment guidelines, to identify any conflict of interest that could
reasonably be identified.
22
s 9(2)(ba)(i)

RELEASED UNDER THE

23
s 9(2)(ba)(i)

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 19824

24
s 9(2)(ba)(i)

25
The Copyright Tribunal has no formal policy for managing conflicts of interest,
but the same principles that exist around conflicts of interest for courts or
tribunals apply for the Copyright Tribunal. As quasi-judicial officers, members
of the Tribunal would recuse themselves if any conflict existed.
Recommendation
26
It is recommended that the Committee note my intention to:
26.1  recommend that the Governor-General appoints Wi Pere Mita as Chair
of the Copyright Tribunal for a term of five years from the date of
appointment
26.2  recommend that the Governor-General appoints Paul Johns as a
member of the Copyright Tribunal for a term of four years from the date
of appointment
26.3  recommend that the Governor-General reappoints Peter Dengate
Thrush as a member of the Copyright Tribunal for a term of five years
from the date of reappointment
26.4  recommend that the Governor-General reappoint Sarah-Jane Weir as
a member of the Copyright Tribunal for a term of five years from the
date of reappointment.
Authorised for lodgement
Hon Dr David Clark
Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 19825

Annex Two: Organisation Form and Candidate CV Forms
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122 - 0870
In Confidence
5

APH Organisation Form
All sections must be completed.
Organisation and Responsible Portfolio
Copyright Tribunal
Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Brief Outline of the Functions and Responsibilities of the Organisation
The Copyright Tribunal is a statutory body established under section 205 of the Copyright Act 1994.
The Tribunal resolves disputes between licensing bodies, or proposed licensing bodies, and those who
hold or seek to hold licenses in respect of copyright works. The Tribunal also hears applications and
makes awards in respect of claims for breach of copyright as a result of file sharing over the internet.
Under section 206(1) of the Act, the Tribunal consists of a Chairperson and at least two, but not more
than five, other persons. The Chairperson of the Tribunal is appointed by the Governor-General on the
recommendation of the responsible Minister made after consultation with the Minister of Justice; and
shall be a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of not less than seven years’ practice, whether or not
the barrister or solicitor holds or has held judicial office. The other members are appointed by the
Governor-General on the recommendation of the responsible Minister.
Current Membership
Name
Gender
Region
Ethnicities
Date of
Expiry date
Identity*
(and Iwi if
original
of present
applicable)
appointment
term
s 9(2)(a)
s 9(2)(a)
Professor Susan
Wellington
18/08/2008
17/08/2019
(Susy) Frankel
(Chair)
Mrs Sarah Bacon
Wellington
31/01/2014
01/02/2019
Mr Paul Sumpter
Auckland
06/07/2004
05/07/2019
Miss Sarah-Jane Weir
Nelson
27/03/2014
26/03/2019
Mr Peter Dengate
Wellington
01/03/2010
28/02/2020
RELEASED UNDER THE
Thrush
Ms Jane Megan
Waiheke
01/08/2012
06/11/2021
Glover
Island
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
Proposals for conflict
s 9(2)(ba)(i)

management

(if applicable)

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
3

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
The Candidate
Name*
Wi Pere MITA
(family name in upper
case; include title if
appropriate)
Address
s 9(2)(a)

Ethnicity(s)
s 9(2)(
a)
Age range*
s 9(2)
(a)
s 9(2)(a)
Gender*
Current or most recent
 Laidlaw Consultants Limited, Managing Director (2015 –
Employment*
present)
(specify position and
 Aotearoa Kapa Haka Limited, Te Matatini Society
employer, include years)
Incorporated, Head of Legal and Operations (2016 –
present) – contract
Government board
 New Zealand Police, Māori Advisory Board Member (2017
appointments held*
– present)
(current and previous,
include years)
Private and/or voluntary  Current
sector board
 Trust Tairāwhiti Limited, Director (2021 – present)
appointments held*
o
Audit and Risk Committee
(current and previous,
 Prime SPV Limited, Director (2021 – present)
include years
 Te Runanganui o Ngāti Porou (Toitu Ngāti Porou Trustee
Limited), Director (2021 – present)
o
People and Policy Committee
 Resolution Institute, Director (2020 – present)
o
Chair, Māori Caucus
 SkyCity Entertainment Group (Auckland Community
Trust), Trustee (2019 – present)
 Laidlaw Consultants Ltd, Director and Shareholder (2015 –
RELEASED UNDER THE
present)
 Community Law Centres o Aotearoa Inc (2012 - present)
o
Co-Chair, Māori Caucus
Past
 Eventfinda Stadium, Director (2019 – present)
 20/20 Trust, Trustee (2019)
 Crescendo o Aotearoa, Trustee (2019 – 2021)
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
4

I N C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
 Te Kapa Haka o Te Whanau a Kai incorporated, Advisory
Board of Trustees (2018 – 2021)
 s 9(2)(a)

 Māori Justice Network, Convener – Executive Board (2014
– 2021)
 s 9(2)(a)

 Ngā Takere Nui o Ngā Wakā Inc, Executive Board Chair
(2012 – 2015)
 Auckland District Law Society, Public Issues Committee
Member (2014 – 2015)
 Waikato Māori Law Students’ Assoc, Chair (2011 – 2012)
 Te Manawa Maurea Inc, Governance Advisory Board (2007
– 2014)
Qualifications and
Qualifications
experience
 Bachelor of Laws, University of Waikato (2011)
(include significant work
 Bachelor of Arts, University of Waikato (2011)
history and community
 Professional Legal Studies, College of Law New
involvement)
Zealand (2012)
Memberships
 Institute of Directors, Member (2019)
 Barrister & Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand
(2012)
 Resolution Institute NZ, Professional Member (2016)
Use further pages, if required.
Date: 26 / 8 / 2021
Ethnicity, age and gender information is collected for statistical collation by the State Services
Commission, Ministry for Women, and Office of Ethnic Communities.
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N C O N F I D E N C E
5

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
The Candidate
Name*
Paul JOHNS
(family name in upper
case; include title if
appropriate)
Address
s 9(2)(a)

Ethnicity(s)
s 9(2)(
a)
Age range*
s 9(2)(a)

Gender*
s 9(2)(a)
Current or most recent
 AJ Park (2020* - present): Principal and Practice Group
Employment*
Leader - Litigation and Commercial.
(specify position and
employer, include years)
*Joined AJ Park when it acquired former employer
Baldwins, where Mr Johns was Head of Litigation (2015 –
2020)
Government board
appointments held*
 None
(current and previous,
include years)
Private and/or voluntary  
None
sector board
appointments held*
(current and previous,
include years
Qualifications and
Qualifications
experience
 Bachelor of Laws (Hons) Otago University (2000)
(include significant work
 Bachelor of Science, Otago University (2000)
history and community
involvement)
Awards
RELEASED UNDER THE
 University of Otago Award in Law (1999)
Professional
 Approved to practise on own account (2019)
 Admitted to the Supreme Court of New South Wales
(2014)
 Attended NZLS Litigation Skills course (2011)
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
7

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
 Admitted to the Supreme Court of England and Wales
(2008)
 Admitted to the High Court of New Zealand (2001)
Use further pages, if required.
Date:  26 / 8 / 2021
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
8

I N C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
s 9(2)(ba)(i)
Possible conflicts of
interest*
Proposals for conflict
management
(if applicable)
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N C O N F I D E N C E
10

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
The Candidate
Name*
Peter Charles DENGATE THRUSH
(family name in upper
case; include title if
appropriate)
Address
s 9(2)(a)

Ethnicity(s)
s 9(2)(a)
Age range*
s 9(2)(a)

Gender*
s 9(2)(a)

Current or most recent
 Partner, McCabe & Co Patent Attorneys and Lawyers (self-
Employment*
employed 1980- present)
(specify position and
employer, include years)
Government board
 Chair, Electricity Rulings Panel (2008 – 2020)
appointments held*
 Member, Copyright Tribunal (2010 – present)
(current and previous,
include years)
Private and/or
Current:
voluntary sector board
 Independent Chair, Gaming Machine Association NZ
appointments held*
 Board, Paycasso Verify Ltd
(current and previous,
 Board, Dot Kiwi Ltd
include years
 Advisory Board, Electronic Markets
 Chair, Liz Dengate Thrush Foundation
Past:
 Chairman TLDH Ltd
 Chairman, Board of Directors, ICANN, Inc.
 Managing Director, Brain Fuel Limited
RELEASED UNDER THE
 Chairman of the Internet Society of New Zealand Inc.
(InternetNZ)
 Chair of APTLD (the Asia Pacific Association of national
registry managers)
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
11

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
Qualifications and
Experience
experience
 Managing Partner McCabe and Co (present)
(include significant
 Barrister from chambers (1995 – 2020)
work history and
 Baldwin Son & Carey (1980 – 1995)
community
involvement)
Mr Dengate Thrush practiced for many years as a barrister sole
(practicing from chambers) specialising in intellectual and
industrial property, information technology, internet and
competition causes.  He is currently in his 41st year of legal
practice. Mr Dengate Thrush is a New Zealand and Australian
Registered Patent Attorney, a
New Zealand barrister and solicitor, and a former foreign associate
member of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers
Association, and the American Bar Association. He is admitted to
practice in Victoria, Australia.
Mr Dengate Thrush is one of the few experts in New Zealand on
“internet law” as a specialist topic, including the application of
existing law to the Internet, and the development of new laws to
deal with, for example, the liability of ISPs for defamation or other
content. He served on ICANN’s Working Group A, which
developed the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) for
clashes between generic domain names and trademarks.
Qualifications
 BSC in Zoology and Geology, Victoria University (1980)
 Bachelor of Laws, Victoria University (1980)
 Barrister and Solicitor (1982)
 Registered patent attorney (1984)
Use further pages, if required.
Date: 01/08/2021
Ethnicity, age and gender information is collected for statistical collation by the State Services
Commission, Ministry for Women, and Office of Ethnic Communities.
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
12

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
Candidate CV Form
Sections with * must be completed.
This form should be completed by, or in consultation with, the candidate where possible.
Name*
Sarah-Jane Ellen WEIR
(family name in upper
case; include title if
appropriate)
The Position
Organisation/Entity*
Copyright Tribunal
Position *
Member
(chair/member etc.)
Term*
Five Years
Payment*
s 9(2)(a)

(per day /per year)
How the Candidate Meets the Needs of the Position
Skills and attributes the
Ms Weir brings over twenty three years of experience as a
candidate will bring to
qualified lawyer in New Zealand and Europe, predominantly in
the position*
corporate and commercial advisory work, with a sub-specialty
(e.g. business skills,
in advising technology, electronics and telecommunications
community involvement,  businesses.
cultural awareness,
Ms Weir has an in-depth understanding of the Copyright Act
regional perspective – as
and Copyright Tribunal responsibilities. She coordinated
relevant to the needs of
intellectual property work at Anderson Lloyd and holds a
the position)
Masters of Intellectual Property Law.
Ms Weir has served as a member of the Copyright Tribunal
since 2014, and has experience with various tribunals and
disciplinary committees.
s 9(2)(ba)(i)
Possible conflicts of
RELEASED UNDER THE
interest*
Proposals for conflict
management
(if applicable)
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
13

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
The Candidate
Name*
Sarah-Jane Ellen WEIR
(family name in upper
case; include title if
appropriate)
Address
s 9(2)(a)


Ethnicity(s)
s 9(2)(a)

Age range*
s 9(2)
(a)
Gender*
s 9(2)(
a)
Current or most recent
 Independent consultant lawyer (2012 – present)
Employment*
 Partner, Anderson Lloyd (2005 – 2012)
(specify position and
 Head of the Corporate and Commercial department,
employer, include years)
Anderson Lloyd (2007 – 2011)
 Legal advisor and contract manager, Phillips Electronics
UK Limited (1993 – 1998)
 Solicitor, Phillips Fox (1990 – 1993)
Government board
 Member of the Copyright Tribunal (March 2014 - present)
appointments held*
Member of the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee
(current and previous,
(2020 – present)
include years)
Private and/or
 Director, Network Tasman Limited (electricity lines
voluntary sector board
company) (2013 – present)
appointments held*
 Trustee, Cawthron Trust Board (2016 – present)
(current and previous,
 Councillor, Institute of Directors National Council, (2017 –
include years
present)
 Director, Nelson Regional Development Agency Ltd
(2018 – present)
 Trustee, Care Foundation (Nelson Health Charitable
Trust)
RELEASED UNDER THE
 Independent Chair, Nelson Bays Primary Health
Organisation Trust (2020 – present)
 Director, Nelmac Limited (facilities management, amenity
horticulture and infrastructure services to councils in
Tasman and Marlborough region) (2010 – 2020)
 Chair, Fresh FM (community access radio station run by
the Tasman Broadcasting Trust) (2006 – 2015)
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
14

I N   C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
Honorary solicitor, The Art and Industry Biennial Trust (2004
– 2012)
Qualifications and
Qualifications
experience
(include significant
 LLB, Canterbury University (1990)
work history and
 Barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand:
community
1990, and admitted as solicitor in England and Wales
involvement)
(1997).
 Masters in intellectual property law, Melbourne University
(2004).
 Participated in the Institute of Directors programme
“mentoring for diversity” which identifies women ready
for large/listed company boards (2013).
 Chartered Fellow, Institute of Directors.
 Past Member, New Zealand Law Society Commercial and
Business Law Committee.
 Nelson Law Standards Committee, Member (2014-2017)
 Previous member of New Zealand Law Society Electronic
Commerce sub-committee.
 Co-author, LexisNexis, Electronic Business and
Technology Law.
Experience
Independent consultant lawyer with experience in corporate
and commercial law and intellectual property law.
Experienced director/governor for a range of organisations,
including public and community assets, with particular
strength in stakeholder interests and complex problem solving.
Experienced tribunal/disciplinary committee member, used to
working with complex facts and as a colloborative decision
maker.
Executive-level experience through on-going day-to-day
management of her own business and team.
Exposure to a variety of sectors and specialist experience
including:
 Infrastrucutre providers – familiarity with the issues of
major utility and infrastructure providers and the
regulatory environment within which they operate.
 In-depth understanding of regulatory compliance.
 Data protection and privacy experience as well as ICT
RELEASED UNDER THE
advisory.
 Managed Anderson Lloyd’s clients’ intellectual property
needs. Including working with clients regarding their
branding strategies, registering and defending trade marks,
copyright matters such as publishing contracts,
documenting intellectual property ownership, education
and licensing.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N   C O N F I D E N C E
15

I N C O N F I D E N C E
CO (19) 4
 Involvement since 1993 in the information technology
sector:cloud computing, technology acquisition, licensing,
commercialisation and sales. Acted for entities from large
public sector clients to small start-ups regarding their
information technology strategies, from commercialisation
to acquisiation and outsourcing.
 Over 15 years acting for biotechnoogy companies with
onshore and offshore assets. Advice included contract
manufacture, capital raising, intellectual property and
structuring.
 Not-for-profit formation of many charitable structures and
advice regarding appropriate governance and compliance.
Use further pages, if required.
Date: 01/08/2021
Ethnicity, age and gender information is collected for statistical collation by the State Services
Commission, Ministry for Women, and Office of Ethnic Communities.
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
I N C O N F I D E N C E
16

Annex Three: Speaking notes for APH meeting: Summary of proposed
appointments and reappointments to the Copyright Tribunal
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122 - 0870
In Confidence
6

Speaking notes for APH Meeting: Summary of proposed
appointments and reappointments to the Copyright Tribunal
Purpose
  This note provides you with speaking notes for the Cabinet Appointments and
Honours Committee (APH) on Wednesday, 29 September 2021, where you are
informing the Committee of your intention to recommend to the Governor-
General the appointments of Wi Pere Mita as Chair and Paul Johns as a
member, and the reappoints of Peter Dengate Thrush and
Sarah-Jane Weir as members, of the Copyright Tribunal.
Speaking notes
Introduction
  The Copyright Tribunal (the Tribunal) is a statutory body established under
section 205 of the Copyright Act 1994 (the Act). The Tribunal resolves disputes
between licensing bodies, or proposed licensing bodies, and those who hold, or
seek to hold, licenses in respect of copyright works. Following amendments to
the Act in 2011, the Tribunal can also hear applications and make awards in
respect of claims for breach of copyright, as a result of peer-to-peer file sharing
technology over the internet.
  The Tribunal currently consists of a Chair and five members.
  The Chairperson of the Tribunal is appointed by the Governor-General on my
recommendation, as the responsible Minister, after consultation with the Minister
of Justice. I can confirm I have consulted with the Associate Minister of Justice,
to whom this appointment is delegated to.
  The other members are appointed by the Governor-General on my
recommendation.
RELEASED UNDER THE
  I intend to recommend that the Governor-General appoints Wi Pere Mita as
Chair of the Copyright Tribunal to replace outgoing Chair Professor Susan
Frankel, for a term of five years, commencing on the date of appointment.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

  I also intend to recommend that the Governor-General appoints Paul Johns as a
member of the Copyright Tribunal to replace outgoing member Paul Sumpter, for
a term of four years, commencing on the date of appointment.
  I intend to recommend that the Governor-General reappoints Peter Dengate
Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir for terms of five year, as members of the Copyright
Tribunal.
Wi Pere Mita
  Wi Pere Mita is a practising lawyer, consultant and accredited mediator having
appeared before most Courts, Tribunals and Authorities in New Zealand. Mr Mita
has extensive experience in most areas of intellectual property, including
copyright, from protection and maintenance through to enforcement. He has
represented and advised music recording artists and labels, publishers, authors
of literary works, public broadcasters and producers (television and radio),
performing artists and arts organisations, collecting agencies, museums, iwi,
local and central government, not-for-profit and commercial entities.
Paul Johns
  Paul Johns is a barrister and solicitor. He is currently the Head of Dispute
Resolution at Baldwins Intellectual Property, one of New Zealand’s leading
intellectual property specialist firms. Mr Johns has specialised in intellectual
property, including copyright, throughout his legal career of nearly 20 years. As a
lawyer, Mr Johns has significant experience in interpreting legislation, including
advocating certain interpretations on behalf of clients in hearings before courts
and tribunals ranging from the Court of Appeal to Assistant Commissioners of
Trademarks and Patents.
Peter Dengate Thrush
  Peter Dengate Thrush is a barrister and solicitor, and patent attorney,
RELEASED UNDER THE
specialising in Internet, intellectual property and technology cases. He is the
managing partner at McCabe & Co patent attorneys and lawyers and is also a
company director.  Mr Dengate Thrush spent most of his early career at
Baldwins where he became partner and oversaw many designs and
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

implementations of projects and ideas. He practiced as a barrister from
chambers between 1995 and 2020.
Sarah-Jane Weir
  Sarah-Jane Weir has over twenty years of experience as a qualified lawyer in
New Zealand and Europe, predominantly in corporate and commercial advisory
work, with a sub-specialty in advising technology, electronics and
telecommunications businesses. She has a strong understanding of the
Copyright Act and Copyright Tribunal responsibilities, and coordinated Anderson
Lloyd’s intellectual property work. Ms Weir has extensive knowledge of
technology law and holds a Masters of Intellectual Property Law.
Criteria for appointment
  I can confirm that the proposed appointment of Mr Mita as Chair of the
Copyright Tribunal meets the criteria for appointment as set out in Section
206(2)(b) of the Copyright Act 1994.
  I can confirm that Mr Johns’ appointment as a member of the Copyright
Tribunal meets the criteria as set out in the Draft Cabinet Paper (para 18).
Terms of appointment
  I intend to recommend that the Governor-General appoints Mr Mita for a term
of five years, and Mr Johns for a term of four years. I also intend to
recommend that the Governor-General reappoints Mr Dengate Thrush and
Ms Weir for terms of five years.
Appointment process and consultation
  I can confirm that an appropriate process has been followed in selecting the
proposed appointees, in terms of the Public Service Commission’s
appointment guidelines.
  I am satisfied that the appointments of Mr Mita and Mr Johns, and the
RELEASED UNDER THE
reappointments of Peter Dengate Thrush and Sarah-Jane Weir, will provide
for a well-balanced Tribunal in terms of gender, age, ethnicity and geographic
representation, and an appropriate mix of skills and experience.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

AIDE MEMOIRE
Ministerial Oversight Group on State Sector Employment Relations
meeting on 29 September 2021
Date:
28 September 2021
Priority:
Medium
Security
In Confidence
Tracking
2122-1175
classification:
number:
Purpose
To provide talking points for the next meeting of the Ministerial Oversight Group on State Sector
Employment Relations (MOGSSER) on 29 September 2021, 3.30pm – 4.00pm.

Tracy Mears
Manager, Employment Relations Policy
Labour, Science and Enterprise group, MBIE
28 / 9 / 21
Background
1.
Two items on the MOGSSER agenda are relevant to your portfolio:
  Item 3: Update on Public Sector Employer Representation in Fair Pay Agreement
Bargaining, which you are leading.
9(2)(h), 9(2)(j)
Item  3:  Update  on  Public  Sector  Employer  Representation  in  Fair  Pay
Agreement Bargaining
2.
The purpose of this item is to update interested Ministers on decisions you have made about
public sector employer representation in the Fair Pay Agreement system, most relevantly:
  Public Service Commissioner (PSC) will represent the public and education services in
bargaining, and the Chief Executive of HealthNZ will represent HealthNZ.
RELEASED UNDER THE
  The three non-public service departments (Parliamentary Counsel Office, Police, New
Zealand Defence Force) can represent themselves, or can ask PSC to represent them.
  Other state service agencies may use the main representation option of being
represented by an incorporated society (eg an employer association), or may ask PSC
to represent them.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1175
In Confidence
2

3.
You may also wish to proactively mention two other possible issues you have agreed to not
address at this stage, and explain that you’ve chosen to prioritise getting the Bill introduced
as early as possible:
  Representation of legislature agencies
  The risk that terms set in an FPA may curtail agencies’ abilities to perform critical
functions
Talking points for item 3
Representation for the public sector
  The FPA system requires incorporated societies (eg industry bodies) to represent
employers in bargaining, because it would be unworkable to allow each employer to sit
directly on the bargaining side.
  Public sector employers are a bit different. The Public Service Commissioner will represent
public and education service employers (delegating as needed) and the new HealthNZ will
represent itself as public health service employer.
  This recognises the unique accountabilities owed by the public service as employers.
  I’ve decided that Parliamentary Counsel Office, Police and New Zealand Defence Force
should be able to represent themselves as bargaining parties.
  That’s because they maintain a degree of independence from the Public Service
Commissioner as non-public service departments.
  However there may be situations where they may prefer to ask PSC to represent them in
FPA bargaining, for example if they only have a few employees in coverage.
  Similarly, other state service agencies may feel that PSC better understands their
perspective, and may want PSC to represent them instead of a private sector industry
body.
  The Public Service Act al ows state service agencies outside the public service to ask PSC
for help in bargaining. PSC can decide whether or not to do so.
  I plan to have consistency of treatment with the Public Service Act, and enable that
flexibility in the FPA system too: state service agencies can ask for representation.
9(2)(f)(iv)
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1175
In Confidence
3

9(2)(f)(iv)
 I’m open to hearing more about these concerns, but I’m focussed on getting the Bill
introduced as early as I can, so if any changes are needed to address this issue I’m
expecting they would happen at Select Committee.
9(2)(h), 9(2)(j)
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1175
In Confidence
4

9(2)(h), 9(2)(j)
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1175
In Confidence
5

EVENT BRIEFING
Joint Ministers meeting with the Māori Spectrum Working Group -
progressing a Māori-Crown agreement on interests in spectrum
Date:
11 October 2021
Priority:
High
Security classification:  In Confidence
Tracking number:
2122-1299

Action sought

Action sought
Deadline
Hon Grant Robertson
Read this briefing before your meeting with the
11 October 2021
Minister of Finance
Māori Spectrum Working Group.

Hon Kelvin Davis
Read this briefing before your meeting with the
11 October 2021
Minister of Māori
Māori Spectrum Working Group.
Crown Relations: Te
Arawhiti
Hon Dr David Clark
Read this briefing before your meeting with the
11 October 2021
Minister for the Digital  Māori Spectrum Working Group.
Economy and
Communications
Hon Willie Jackson
Read this briefing before your meeting with the
11 October 2021
Minister of Māori
Māori Spectrum Working Group.
Development

Contact for telephone discussion (if required)
Name
Position
Telephone
1st contact
Manager, Radio
Len Starling
Spectrum Policy &
04 462 4221
s 9(2)(a)


Planning
Policy Advisor, Radio
Ceara Nicolls
Spectrum Policy &
04 901 8486

Planning

The following departments/agencies have been consulted
Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Arawhiti
RELEASED UNDER THE
Minister’s office to complete:
Approved
Declined

Noted
Needs change

Seen
Overtaken by Events

See Minister’s Notes
Withdrawn
Comments

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

EVENT BRIEFING
Joint Ministers meeting with the Māori Spectrum Working Group -
progressing a Māori-Crown agreement on interests in spectrum
Date:
11 October 2021
Priority:
High
Security
In Confidence

  Tracking
2122-1299
classification:
number:
Purpose
Ministers have agreed to meet with the Māori Spectrum Working Group on Wednesday 13 October
2021 at 9:30 am via Zoom, to discuss progress towards an enduring agreement on Māori interests
in spectrum.
This briefing provides background information, a suggested agenda and speaking points for the
meeting.
Recommendations
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment recommends that you:
a  Read this briefing before your meeting with the Māori Spectrum Working Group.
Noted

Len Starling
Hon Kelvin Davis
Manager, Radio Spectrum Policy & Planning  Minister of Māori Crown Relations: Te
Digital Communications and Transformation,
Arawhiti
MBIE

11 October 2021
..... / ...... / ......

Hon Grant Robertson
Hon Dr David Clark
Minister of Finance
Minister for the Digital Economy and
Communications
..... / ...... / ......
..... / ...... / ......

RELEASED UNDER THE

Hon Willie Jackson
Minister of Māori Development
..... / ...... / ......

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
1

Meeting details
1.
The Minister of Finance, Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti, the Minister for
Māori Development, and the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications are
meeting with the Māori Spectrum Working Group (MSWG) on 13 October 2021 between 9:30
and 10:30am, via Zoom, to discuss progress towards an enduring agreement on Māori
interests in radio spectrum.
2.
This meeting will be the first between Ministers and the MSWG since Cabinet signalled its
position on key elements of an enduring agreement [ref CBC-21-MIN-0091], and asked
Minister Clark to bring back a draft agreement for them to consider before the end of the
year.
3.
The meeting is an opportunity for Ministers to hear the MSWG’s response to Cabinet’s
position on the key elements of the agreement, and agree what work needs to be carried out
in order to progress to signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
4.
This briefing provides some background context for the meeting, as well as a meeting
agenda and suggested talking points (refer pages 5-6).
5.
The members of the MSWG who are expected to attend are:
•
Brent Reihana - New Zealand Māori Council
•
Piripi Walker - Nga Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo (the Wel ington Māori Language Board)
•
Anaru Robb - Nga Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo (the Wel ington Māori Language Board)
•
Daphne Luke - Te Huarahi Tika Trust
•
Haami Piripi – Iwi Chairs Forum
•
Antony Royal – Technical expert & Chief Executive of the Interim Māori Spectrum
Commission (IMSC)
•
Robyn Kamira – Technical expert
Background
An enduring agreement on spectrum
6.
Māori and the Crown both seek an enduring agreement that recognises ongoing Māori
interests in spectrum. Previous engagement at each new allocation of commercial spectrum
has been on an ad-hoc basis.
7.
An agreement could be a means to achieve broader outcomes that benefit Māori and
Aotearoa. In particular, the Crown and Māori both consider there are economic and social
benefits to increased Māori participation in the digital economy. Māori consider that spectrum
is a key part of an overall strategy for greater Māori participation in, and benefit from,
RELEASED UNDER THE
connectivity and the digital world.
8.
In December 2019, Cabinet agreed to allocate short-term rights to a portion of unused
spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band to enable early implementation of 5G networks [DEV-19-MIN-
0329]. At the same time, Cabinet agreed to give the MSWG, at no cost, a quarter of this
spectrum. This short term allocation was made with ‘without prejudice’ to the long term
agreement [DEV-19-MIN-0329 refers].
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
2

9.
The MSWG has also received $3.15 mil ion of Crown funding ($650,000 from the Ka Hao
fund, $500,000 from TPK and MBIE departmental funding and $2 mil ion from Vote Māori
Development) to establish an interim spectrum-holding organisation, and to execute a work
programme to develop Māori capability and to engage with Māori more broadly on interests
in spectrum. A further $5.7 mil ion over two years was commit ed in Budget 20211. (Total
$8.9 million).
10.  The MSWG work programme is intended to act as a stepping stone towards an enduring
agreement on spectrum. Māori technical and management capability in spectrum is intended
to be advanced through research and development, and tests of potential uses of spectrum,
particularly in rural communities.
Cabinet’s position on key elements of an agreement
11.  In September 2021, Cabinet agreed in principle to the key elements of an agreement with
Māori on spectrum that includes [ref CBC-21-MIN-0091]:
•  an ongoing allocation of spectrum to the Māori spectrum entity, at no cost;
•  a role for Māori in spectrum policy making;
•  new funding for the Māori spectrum entity to provide spectrum policy advice;
•  establishment of a permanent Māori Spectrum Commission to give effect to the
agreement;
•  the transfer of the balance of the Ka Hao Māori Digital Technology Fund to the Māori
spectrum entity;
•  that the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications wil  retain the option to
seek additional funding for the Māori spectrum entity to deliver initiatives that
contribute to Crown objectives, subject to final agreement by Cabinet;
12.  The MSWG has been made aware of this Cabinet discussion and has now prepared a
response. This is attached as Annex 1.
Considerations regarding MSWG’s response to Cabinet’s position
13.  This note covers key points we understand the MSWG would like to discuss. The MSWG’s
written response arrived at the point this briefing was being finalised. It is apparent that there
is a significant gap between the Crown’s preliminary offerings and the MSWG position but
officials have not had a chance to analyse the differences in full.
Ongoing allocation of spectrum at no cost
14.  Cabinet has indicated comfort with an ongoing allocation of spectrum to the Māori spectrum
RELEASED UNDER THE
entity, with the Cabinet paper suggesting this be a 20 percent allocation of commercial
spectrum.


1 A funding agreement for this has yet to be signed.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
3

15.  The Working Group has stated that a taonga-based argument would see Māori seek 100 per
cent of spectrum in this agreement. However, they acknowledge this is not practical,


ss 9(2)(ba)(i) and s(9)(2)(b)(ii) OIA
16.
ss 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA


17.  Officials suggested that 20 percent would balance the responsibility of the Crown to allow
current network operators to provide high quality services with Māori aspirations for an
allocation of spectrum that is usable2 and could generate a significant income for the entity. It
was also be a proportion compatible with Treaty Settlements. The two examples that may be
comparable are:
•  The Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 (Crown accepted an
obligation to provide iwi with 20 per cent of the value of all marine aquaculture
space).
•  The Māori Fisheries Act 2004 (20 per cent of quota for any new Quota Management
System stocks is allocated to Māori fisheries).
18.  Both of these examples are outcomes of a Waitangi Tribunal settlement process where the
Crown has accepted there is an Article Two right to a resource. However, the Crown has not
accepted that spectrum is taonga and subject to Article Two rights, and the spectrum
agreement is not intended to be a settlement of any Waitangi Tribunal claim. Rather, the
Crown is acknowledging that Māori have an economic development interest in the spectrum
and is intending to address that interest in a way that benefits Māori and Aotearoa.
19.  MSWG regards the negotiations over spectrum as occurring in a ‘new era' of Māori-Crown
relations and disagrees with government’s benchmarking against Treaty settlements from
nearly 20 years ago.
20.  If a percentage above 20 is chosen, it may create pressure to review the settlements noted
above, unless the Crown has clear reasoning to explain why this case is different. However,
if Ministers wish, there are ways to enhance the value of the spectrum allocated to Māori
without increasing the 20 percent value, as follows:
•
The portion of 20 percent is a medium term target, with the expectation of “overs”
and “unders” in any specific allocation3.  It appears it wil  be possible for the first
allocation (of 3.5 GHz spectrum) to be an “over” of 25 percent, without adversely
impacting on the service the mobile network operators can provide.
•
There is ‘spare’ spectrum that has been retained for various reasons by the Crown
after previous commercial spectrum allocations. This includes spectrum in the 1.8,
2.1 and 2.3 GHz bands. These bands are currently used for 4G, 3G and 4G
respectively, and wil  be repurposed for 5G (or even 6G) in future.  Some of this
RELEASED UNDER THE
‘spare’ spectrum could be allocated to the MSWG without impacting on the target


2 Technologies often require a minimum amount of spectrum to operate. If Māori are allocated a portion of spectrum
that is too small, there is a risk that this spectrum will not be commercially valuable.
3 Wireless technologies typically operate in fixed increments (eg 10 MHz steps) so it may not be efficient to allocate
exactly 20% in every case (eg if 90 MHz of spectrum is available and the technology increment is 10 MHz, a 20% share
[18 MHz] would result in some unusable spectrum. Rounding up to 20 MHz [22.2%] would be more sensible.)
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
4

for future commercial allocations.  (For example, the spare spectrum in the 2.1 GHz
band is worth $14 mil ion4.)
21.  If Ministers are open to increasing the value of the spectrum component of the offer we
recommend you ask Officials to work with the MSWG to come up with a proposal to add to
the initial spectrum holdings that wil  be granted to the MSWG.
Need for legislation
22.  The MSWG considers that, to ensure that the Māori-Crown agreement is enduring, it is
important to establish a permanent Māori spectrum entity and give effect to the other
commitments in the agreement through legislation. They want the Commission to be a highly
autonomous entity, by-Māori-for-Māori.
23.  Subject to further work, it appears likely that the Commission wil  need to be a statutory entity
to ensure appropriate definition of functions, governance and beneficiaries. Establishing an
entity through legislation will require significant policy work, particularly on representation and
mandate. Officials recommend that this work be done after the initial MOU is signed.
However, to ensure clarity about intentions the MOU would include the high level
agreements and principles that would be used when developing the legislation.
Long term sustainability
24.  MSWG have indicated concern that the permanent Commission has enough resources to
achieve long-term viability, and see this as essential to an ongoing agreement. MSWG have
indicated they intend for the Commission to be self-sustaining in the long-term.
25.  Through initial funding agreements and Budget 2021, $8.9 mil ion is available to the interim
entity.
26.  Officials note that valuable spectrum resources are being offered and that, with application of
some commercial skills, these should be sufficient to generate a significant revenue stream
in the medium to long-term. However, there is a judgement call to be made as to what
amount of seed funding is necessary to establish the Commission on a strong footing. We
suggest Ministers ask how much additional funding the MSWG believe is needed and what
this funding would be used for.
Role in broader policy work
27.  The MSWG is asking to have a significant role in policy work such as the work on digital
inclusion and equity.
28.  There are a number of other government initiatives and work streams aimed at improving
digital inclusion and equity. The permanent Māori Spectrum Commission may come to
achieve a significant level of policy capability, and be able to make an impact on these
matters in future. However, in its current state this group has a significant immediate
challenge to develop its core spectrum activities. It also has yet to establish a mandate to
represent others on topics beyond the spectrum claim.

RELEASED UNDER THE
29.  Ministers may therefore wish to consider whether to commit to a specific role for the MSWG
in this work, or whether they would prefer that the Commission ‘get some runs on the board’
in their core role before staking their claim to a wider role.


4 At the rate that spectrum in this band was sold to the mobile networks.
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
5

Annotated agenda
Agenda Item
Talking points
Karakia/Opening
Minister Davis lead
9:30 – 9:35 am

1.Welcome/Introductions
Minister Clark
9:35 – 9:40 am
•  I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that this

meeting is another significant milestone in our combined
efforts to reach an enduring agreement, so thank-you to
everyone for your hard mahi in getting us to this stage.
•  As you know, in September of this year I took an item to
Cabinet seeking to progress work towards an enduring
agreement on spectrum.
•  Cabinet has indicated their comfort with an agreement on
spectrum that includes the following elements:
o  an ongoing allocation of spectrum to the Māori
spectrum entity, at no cost;
o  a role for Māori in spectrum policy making;
o  new funding for the Māori spectrum entity to provide
spectrum policy advice;
o  establishment of a permanent Māori Spectrum
Commission to give effect to the agreement;
o  the transfer of the balance of the Ka Hao Māori
Digital Technology Fund to the Māori spectrum
entity;
•  Cabinet has invited me to bring back a finalised agreement
before the end of 2021. This meeting is a great opportunity
for us to keep the momentum going and make further
progress. I’d like to use this meeting to identify where we
stil  have divergent views and to agree the work that we
need to conclude an agreement.
•  Ministers have got your letter outlining MSWG’s response to
Cabinet’s of ers but I suggest that you start by giving us a
summary of your key points.
2. MSWG response
MSWG to speak to their paper
09:40 – 10:00 am
(Suggested responses and fol ow-up below)
RELEASED UNDER THE

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
6

4. Discussion on key focus
Minister Clark
areas to progress
agreement/next steps
Amount of spectrum
10:00 – 10:20 am
•  Cabinet is not looking to set new precedents in terms of

percentage allocation of a resource. However, we are
open to discussing other options for allocation of
additional spectrum to Māori, for example, the allocation
of spare spectrum from previous auctions.
•  We also note that in the first commercial spectrum
allocation (3.5 GHz) we are likely to be able to provide
Māori with more than 20%.
•  We ask you to work with officials to come up with a firm
proposal on these matters
Need for legislation
•  While we see the argument for legislation for a
permanent commission, it is not practical to have the
legislation agreed by Cabinet as part of the MOU.
•  Instead we could commit to some high level principles in
the MOU that can be used to guide later work on the form
of the entity.
Sustainability
•  How much additional funding do MSWG believe is
needed from the Crown for the Permanent Commission
to be viable long term?
•  What would this funding be used for?
Broader policy role
•  Ministers are seeing this agreement as one of several
things they are doing to support Māori aspirations in the
digital economy. Not everything wil  be achieved through
a spectrum agreement or the MSWG.
•  What role do MSWG see the permanent Commission
playing in the wider work on digital inclusion and equity,
and in what way does MSWG believe it is suited for that
role?
•  What further resources would the permanent
Commission require if it were to have an impact on digital
inclusion and equity?
Close of meeting
Minister Davis
10:25 pm
RELEASED UNDER THE

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
7

Annex 1: Memo from the Interim Māori Spectrum Commission
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1299
In Confidence
8

To Ministers:
Hon Dr David Clark, Hon Kelvin Davis, Hon Wil ie Jackson, Hon Grant Robertson
From: Māori Spectrum Working Group (MSWG)
Date: Monday 11 October 2021

E ngā rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa.
We are writing to set forth the position agreed to by national Māori organisations, claimants
(Wai 2224) on Māori interests in spectrum under the Treaty of Waitangi, and Māori
stakeholders in spectrum (Māori Spectrum Working Group, MSWG) prior to our hui with
Ministers on Wednesday 13 October 2021.
We are seeking to arrive at an agreement that supports MSWG and Crown shared
outcomes, provides for a sustainable and enduring solution, and provides for sufficient
spectrum and support for Māori to be confident that success wil  be achieved.
We have been heartened since 2018 by Government support for negotiations and
engagement, by the initial spectrum allocations and funding through to the 22/23 year to
support the establishment of the Māori Spectrum Commission (MSC), skil s, capability and
innovation development, and by the agreement of both sides to continue with
engagement with Iwi/Māori.
1.  INTRODUCTION
This paper provides information to help progress negotiation discussions with Ministers prior
to reporting back to Iwi/Māori in November. It presents information and a negotiation
package (‘the package’) for discussion that:
•  supports MSWG and Crown shared outcomes
•  provides for a sustainable and enduring solution
•  provides a package that the MSWG can be confident that Iwi/Māori can support
2.  OUR ACHIEVEMENTS SO FAR
Despite recent global challenges, we have achieved the fol owing together:
1.  Government support for negotiations and engagement as follows:
a)  Initial funding through to the 22/23 year to support the establishment of the
Māori Spectrum Commission (MSC), skil s, capability and innovation
development, and engagement with Iwi/Māori.
b)  MBIE staff to assist with information and negotiations discussions.
RELEASED UNDER THE
2.  MSWG and its operational arm the IMSC (Interim Māori Spectrum Commission):
a)  Two national hui (despite Covid lockdowns) and extensive engagement.
b)  Regular presentations at the Iwi Chairs Forum, and Iwi chairs mandate.

CONFIDENTIAL   |   Whārangi 1
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

c)  Māori Spectrum Innovation Platform blueprint that includes a structure,
network, relationships, equipment, and expertise for use cases and a testbed
for new technologies. It connects government agencies, industry, academics,
and Māori in a single supported technical environment.
d)  A mobile 5G network design for testing ready to implement post-Covid.
e)  A tailored process for granting radio spectrum licences, already tested.
f)  A technical and radio engineer support process for Māori businesses and
organisations to apply for, and use spectrum licences, already tested.
g)  Independent economic report on priorities and value propositions (see later)
h)  Several independent reports on trends and scenario planning for spectrum
bands and management (see later)
i)  Several partnership and planning discussions with Iwi/Māori organisations,
WISPs, and other providers for use cases focusing on agritech, aquatech,
alternative land uses, forestry, climate change, and more.
j)  Several partnership and planning discussions with local and international
companies including MNOs, Tier 1 and 2 equipment suppliers, rural
connectivity providers, and use case providers.
k)  Several Government agencies and academic institutes providing (or planning
to) digital equity and tech innovation programmes for Māori.
3.  Together, MSWG/IMSC and Crown have agreed:
a)  As a bare minimum proposition, the package wil  include:
i.
Al ocation of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band
ii.
A mechanism for allocation of future spectrum
iii.
A col aborative process for developing spectrum policy
iv.
Short-term support for the establishment of the MSC
b)  In addition, and outside the negotiation package, we are pleased that the
Crown and MSWG agree to transfer the Ka Hao Fund to IMSC/MSC.
3.  OUTCOMES WE ARE SEEKING
1.  We have shared outcomes with the Crown particularly in Māori economic
development and Covid economic recovery. They include a commitment to:
a)  develop Māori capability in telecommunications and several adjacent digital
technologies (i.e., Internet of Things, Machine Learning & Artificial Intel igence,
Edge Computing, Data analytics).
b)  develop use cases for economic impact in the regions and rural sector.
RELEASED UNDER THE
c)  support innovation that can be leveraged for export.
d)  drive wider economic impact for the country.

CONFIDENTIAL   |   Whārangi 2
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

2.  Māori require a legislated agreement that wil  withstand election-cycles and enable
certainty and long-term strategic planning.
3.  It includes an enduring entity and mechanisms to manage spectrum, that help Māori
innovate, build capability, and contribute to both the Māori and wider economy.
4.  Māori are exploring models for col ective & equitable decision-making, benefit and
leverage for Iwi/Māori that allows for critical, strategic partnerships with Māori,
Crown, and MNOs (Mobile Network Operators including Spark, Vodafone and
2degrees).
5.  The IMSC has blueprinted a Māori Spectrum Innovation Platform that centres
Iwi/Māori in the telecommunications sector, grows the skil s pipeline, and facilitates
partnerships with government agencies (R&D, trade & enterprise support), industry
partners (expertise, equipment, infrastructure), and Māori partners (primary sector
and use cases, R&D). It can be activated immediately and is scheduled to begin
after Covid factors are resolved, probably in 2022.
6.  A fundamental component of sustainability is ensuring we have financial resources
that allow the MSWG/IMSC/MSC to plan ahead. To achieve sustainability either we
would rely on the government to permanently fund the MSC, or we would agree to
a set of arrangements that positions the MSC for future financial independence and
sustainability.
4.  ECONOMIC FINDINGS
A recent commissioned report outlines factors to assist us to meet our economic outcomes.
It finds:
1.  The overarching outcome is to enable the MSC, with Government as partner, to
broaden the benefits of new technologies while impacting the Māori and wider
economy.
2.  The quantity, scarcity, combination, and placement of spectrum is key to creating
critical strategic partnerships with MNOs who have the necessary infrastructure,
capacity, and know-how to help the MSC decisively meet its economic outcomes.
3.  Only the large MNOs have the capacity and capability to assist the MSC with use
cases, skil s, and capability objectives, that then lead to economic outcomes.
4.  Only the large MNOs have the expertise (or access to it), capacity and capability to
help the MSC assist future Māori licence holders, and support use cases to achieve
research and development goals, while also allowing for scale and deployment. This
particularly applies to large Iwi asset holders (e.g., forests, farms, aquaculture,
energy).
5.  The structure of the MSC wil  determine the success of the economic outcomes. An
equitable model that enables shared decision-making and the distribution of
opportunity and benefit to Iwi/Māori across the board is recommended.
RELEASED UNDER THE
6.  The appropriate negotiation package wil  enable MSC, in partnership with the
Government, to leapfrog Māori to advanced stages of technological development.

CONFIDENTIAL   |   Whārangi 3
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

7.  Further, to be relevant in the sector, the MSC wil  need to build its capability at speed
and to demonstrate to the sector and Iwi/Māori that it is an innovator that can
respond strongly to sector trends and disruptions.
8.  Solutions to long-standing causes of disparities and barriers to socio-economic
development, such as the tyranny of distance, can be alleviated through the MSCs
outcomes that lead to improved land use technologies, access to healthcare,
education/training, and remote working enabling people to ‘return’ to the regions.
5.  SPECTRUM FINDINGS
Recent commissioned reports and scenario planning outline factors that wil  assist the MSC
to meet its outcomes. The reports find:
1.  The quantity, scarcity, combination, and placement of spectrum is key to creating
critical strategic partnerships with MNOs who have the necessary infrastructure,
capacity, and know-how to help the MSC decisively meet its economic outcomes.
2.  If the spectrum configuration is appropriate, the MSC wil  be wel -positioned to
partner and achieve the outcomes it seeks. If not, the MSC wil  face compounding
challenges that wil  disrupt its ability to progress and create programmes that help it
decisively meet its economic outcomes.
6.  NEGOTIATION ELEMENTS DISCUSSED TO DATE
The range of negotiation elements discussed to date include:
a)  A spectrum allocation model to Māori, applied to the 3.5 GHz band and future
commercial allocations (the definition of commercial is yet to be agreed).
b)  Access to unallocated spectrum.
c)  The establishment of a permanent entity, the Māori Spectrum Commission (MSC)
including its own governance model.
d)  A legislated agreement to ensure an enduring arrangement.
e)  Government support for the establishment of the MSC.
f)  Ensuring the package and financial support leads to long term sustainability.
g)  A col aborative spectrum policy development model.
h)  The concept of a “kickstart” to accelerate entry into the telecommunications sector.
i)  New models of spectrum allocation (specifically 600 MHz for rural communities).
Separately, we have also agreed the transfer of Ka Hao to the IMSC/MSC.
7.  PIVOTAL NEGOTIATION ELEMENTS
RELEASED UNDER THE
The commissioned reports and analyses identify three pivotal negotiation elements that are
central to the MSC’s success in meeting the outcomes described in this paper:

CONFIDENTIAL   |   Whārangi 4
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

ss 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
1.  A minimum of
of the 3.5 GHz band with optimal placement that positions the
MSC as a viable partner to a Tier 1 MNO, international partners, and larger asset
holding Iwi/Māori partners. This is also the baseline for a commercial proposition,
leading to financial sustainability and independence from the Government for
ongoing financial support.
2.  A legislated agreement that includes and secures an enduring arrangement,
spectrum, and legal mechanisms.
3.  A minimum of $25m establishment funds for the first five years, to allow the MSC to
build and bed in its partnerships, establish a skil s pipeline for Māori, meet its
commercial imperatives, offer “skin in the game” for innovation projects and
partners that benefit Iwi/Māori, and recruit and develop the best team.
8.  THE NEGOTIATION PACKAGE
As a result of the work so far, we have a sound understanding of what it wil  take to
concretely meet the outcomes we share with the Crown.
We request the Ministers agree to:
1.  Provide for legislation (enduring arrangement, spectrum, and legal mechanisms).
ss 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
2.  Al ocate
in 3.5 GHz band & leverageable placement (a 20 year right).
3.  Al ocate spectrum in 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 2300 MHz bands.
ss 9(2)(ba)(i) and 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA
4.  A minimum of
of all new band allocations to Māori.
5.  Re-license bands to Māori where an allocation has not yet been made.
6.  A governance model (including influence at senior leadership and Minister level
decisions, visibility of strategies & proposed work programmes and policies, etc).
7.  Provide funds for sustainability, leverage and to attract the right team, $25m.
8.  Al ocate 5-year funds for assisting the Government as per its request, for joint
initiatives in Digital Equity and Digital Technologies Transformation Plans and
programmes, $200m building on its Māori Spectrum Innovation Platform.
9.  OTHER SPECTRUM NEGOTIATION PACKAGE CONSIDERATIONS
EXPLORE THE 600 MHz BAND
The MSWG understands that planning has commenced for the availability of the 600 MHz
band, and that this is contingent on Te Mātāwai agreeing to relocate its Spectrum
Management Rights. This band, like the 700 MHz band, is particularly useful for 5G
deployment in rural areas.
The IMSC and Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) have discussed developing a new model
RELEASED UNDER THE
for the ful  spectrum allocation in the 600 MHz band. If it is passed to the MSC then the MSC,
CIP and MNO(s) wil  partner to more efficiently allocate spectrum in rural areas, benefitting
both Māori and farmers.

CONFIDENTIAL   |   Whārangi 5
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

We recommend MBIE undertake a joint investigation with MSWG/IMSC and CIP, to explore a
new model of spectrum allocation in the 600 MHz band.
EXPLORE A KICKSTART AND/OR VENTURE INVESTMENT FUND $20M
The MSWG proposes a “kickstart” which, like previous precedents (such as the Aotearoa
Fisheries Commission – Te Ohu Kaimoana), allows Māori to enter the sector immediately with
access to capital, skil s, infrastructure, and capability. This may include shares in a wel -
established telecommunication-related company, for example, or other options that give
immediate access to a commercially viable company, skil s, and capability.
We recommend MBIE undertake a joint investigation with MSWG/IMSC to explore a
“kickstart” approach.
10. KA HAO: BUILDING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY
External to the negotiation package, but in parallel, the MSWG and Crown have agreed to
transfer the Ka Hao Fund to the IMSC/MSC. This is wel  received by the MSWG.
We have reviewed the report undertaken by Ernst Young and agree with several
recommendations to improve outcomes. We intend to act and expand on these including
responding to their recommendation for support for more mature Māori-owned companies
which require access to capital and research funding.
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Ministers agree to:
1.  The elements proposed in section The Negotiation Package.
2.  Respond to each of the elements identified in section Other Spectrum Negotiation
Package Considerations.

Signed:

Piripi Walker for MSWG
Antony Royal for IMSC

RELEASED UNDER THE

CONFIDENTIAL   |   Whārangi 6
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

AIDE MEMOIRE
Title
Date:
14 October 2021
Priority:
Low
Security
In Confidence
Tracking
2122-1328
classification:
number:

Information for Minister(s)
Hon Stuart Nash
Minister of Tourism

Contact for telephone discussion (if required)
Name
Position
Telephone
1st contact
Manager, Tourism Team,
Amapola Generosa
+64 4 901 3832
✓
Evidence and Insights

Swati Khurana
Analyst
s 9(2)(a) OIA

The following departments/agencies have been consulted
MBIE Tourism Branch

Minister’s office to complete:
Approved
Declined

Noted
Needs change

Seen
Overtaken by Events

See Minister’s Notes
Withdrawn


Comments

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

AIDE MEMOIRE
Title
Date:
14 October 2021
Priority:
Low
Security
In Confidence
Tracking
2122-1328
classification:
number:
Purpose
This Aide Memoire provides you with a summary of the Tourism Electronic Card Transaction
(TECT) release for August 2021. It includes a focus on the five communities that were identified as
part of the Tourism Communities: Support, Recovery and Re-set Plan.

Amapola Generosa
Manager, Tourism, Evidence and Insights
Digital, Data & Insights Group, MBIE
14 / 10 / 2021

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1328
In Confidence
2

Background
1.
The tourism electronic card transactions (TECTs) estimate monthly tourism spending at a
regional level in New Zealand for both the international and domestic markets. The latest
TECT data for August 2021 was released on 7 October.
2.
The TECTs only include card spending and not any other forms of spend (e.g. cash, online
etc.). This means that dollar spend figures are only partial measures of tourism spend.
Therefore, this document focuses on comparison figures such as percentage changes
instead.
3.
You requested a high-level summary of current trends in the TECTs, as well as an additional
focus on the five communities identified as targets in the Tourism Communities: Support,
Recovery and Re-set Plan.
s 9(2)(f)(iv) OIA

4.
Please note, TECT territorial authority level data (as shown in Table 1 and Table 2) is only
available at the annual level, not monthly. This is due to confidentiality rules that apply at this
level.
5.
Also note that domestic and international figures are not able to be added together. This is
because, due to the different proportions electronic card transactions represent in each
market, adding them together will overestimate one market and underestimate the other.

Tourism  electronic  card  transaction  data  for  August  2021  has  been
released
Domestic TECT spending in the year-ended August 2021 was up 27% from 2020
6.
Domestic TECT spend increased by 27% in the year-ended August 2021 compared to the
year-ended August 2020. It also increased 17% compared to pre-COVID levels in the year-
ended August 2019.
7.
Alert Level 4 (AL4) was in place nationally from 18 August 2021. This result in monthly
domestic TECT spend in August 2021 falling to about half the amount of July 2021.
8.
Monthly domestic TECT spend for August 2021 was down 19% on August 2020 and 21% on
August 2019. As Auckland was in AL3 for a large part of August 2020, the fall was not as big
as it would have been if New Zealand were in AL1 in 2020.
9.
As expected due to border closures, international spend in the year-ended August 2021 was
down on previous years. Spending decreased 64% compared to 2020 and 72% compared to
2019.
10.  However, monthly international spend in August 2021 saw a 2% increase on August 2020.
Domestic  spend  increase  has  offset  some  of  the  fall  in  international
RELEASED UNDER THE
spending in the five targeted communities
The five targeted communities saw some of the largest falls in international TECT spend in the last
year
11.  Five communities (Kaikōura District, Mackenzie District, Queenstown-Lakes District,
Southland District and Westland District) were identified as targets in the Tourism
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1328
In Confidence
3

Communities: Support, Recovery and Re-set Plan. These communities were identified
because of the high dependence on international tourism in their local economies.
12.  These five communities had some of the greatest falls in international TECT spend in the
country. In the year-ended August 2021, of these five communities, Westland had the
steepest decline, when compared to the same period for 2020 (down 94%) and 2019 (down
96%). Table 2 shows the other communities also saw decreases of around 90%.
13.  Other districts, including large cities such as Auckland, Christchurch City and Wellington City,
showed smaller declines in international TECT spend, when compared to both 2020 and
2019.
Some of the fall in international TECT spend in the five targeted communities was offset by
increases in domestic TECT spend
14.  The five communities did however see some of the highest increases in domestic TECT
spend in the country. In the year-ended August 2021, of these five communities, Southland
District saw the highest increase compared to the same period for 2020 (up 55%). Table 1
shows the other communities also saw large increases in the same periods.
15.  Other districts saw smaller increases in domestic TECT spend, when compared to both 2020
and 2019.
16.  These increases in domestic TECT spend for the five communities helped to offset some of
the fall in international spend. However, due to their high reliance on international tourism,
they are likely to have seen higher falls in tourism spend overall.

Table 1: Percentage change in domestic tourism electronic card spend for the year to August 2021 compared to previous
years
TA
Percent change in
Percent change in
domestic spend from
domestic spend from
Year to August-2020
Year to August-2019
New Zealand
26.7%
17.2%
Kaikōura District
40.9%
38 .1%
Mackenzie District
34.1%
41.8%
Queenstown-Lakes District
50.2%
58.3%
Southland District
54.9%
36.9%
Westland District
48.6%
41.0%
Auckland
20.9%
4.9%
Christchurch City
32.4%
26.1%
Wellington City
24.1%
2.1%

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1328
In Confidence
4

Table 2: Percentage change in international tourism electronic card spend for the year to August 2021 compared to
previous years
TA
Percent change in
Percent change in
international spend
international spend
from Year to August-
from Year to August-
2020
2019
New Zealand
-64.1%
-71.9%
Kaikōura District
-90.9%
-92.1%
Mackenzie District
-92.9%
-94.5%
Queenstown-Lakes District
-81.3%
-87.8%
Southland District
-92.6%
-94.6%
Westland District
-94.3%
-96.0%
Auckland
-53.4%
-63.3%
Christchurch City
-61.0%
-68.3%
Wellington City
-62.3%
-71.2%

Annexes
Annex One: TECT summary spreadsheet

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1328
In Confidence
5

Annex One: TECT summary spreadsheet

RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982
2122-1328
In Confidence
6

August-2021  Region Summary Table
Data Source: Tourism Electronic Card Transations (TECTs), Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
Annual International
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
August-2021
August-2021
Annual domestic spend
REGION
domestic spend from
International spend  domestic spend from  International spend
spend year to  August-
domestic spend from
International spend from  domestic spend from  International spend from
domestic spend
International spend
year to  August-2021
August-2020
from  August-2020
August-2019
from  August-2019
2021
Year to  August-2020
Year to  August-2020
Year to  August-2019
Year to  August-2019
New Zealand
$565m
$55m
-19%
2%
-21%
-74%
$11,164m
$915m
27%
-64%
17%
-72%
Auckland
$111m
$22m
21%
23%
-32%
-68%
$2,098m
$368m
21%
-53%
5%
-63%
Bay of Plenty
$47m
$3m
-24%
-10%
-21%
-68%
$1,014m
$52m
25%
-66%
18%
-74%
Canterbury
$75m
$6m
-28%
-9%
-19%
-73%
$1,467m
$110m
29%
-68%
23%
-74%
Gisborne
$3m
$0m
-25%
-32%
-17%
-33%
$83m
$5m
30%
-41%
27%
-41%
Hawke's Bay
$18m
$1m
-28%
-2%
-17%
-42%
$406m
$21m
30%
-55%
26%
-60%
Manawatu-Whanganui
$36m
$2m
-26%
12%
-27%
-53%
$631m
$24m
20%
-49%
12%
-57%
Marlborough
$9m
$0m
-15%
-17%
6%
-61%
$188m
$9m
45%
-78%
36%
-80%
Nelson
$6m
$1m
-31%
-26%
-24%
-42%
$143m
$12m
39%
-65%
24%
-67%
Northland
$25m
$1m
-19%
-31%
-12%
-47%
$562m
$29m
30%
-63%
25%
-66%
Otago
$80m
$6m
-23%
8%
1%
-91%
$1,263m
$96m
37%
-79%
35%
-86%
Southland
$13m
$1m
-23%
-32%
-13%
-79%
$258m
$12m
28%
-80%
18%
-84%
Taranaki
$11m
$1m
-23%
-1%
-20%
-49%
$238m
$14m
24%
-41%
15%
-48%
Tasman
$4m
$0m
-23%
-28%
-7%
-57%
$138m
$7m
51%
-77%
39%
-80%
Waikato
$67m
$4m
-24%
-17%
-23%
-64%
$1,475m
$61m
24%
-65%
17%
-71%
Wel ington
$55m
$6m
-25%
-4%
-29%
-63%
$1,049m
$89m
22%
-55%
6%
-64%
West Coast
$6m
$0m
-35%
-18%
-7%
-91%
$152m
$5m
45%
-92%
42%
-94%
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

August-2021  RTO Summary Table
Data Source: Tourism Electronic Card Transations (TECTs), Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Percent change in
August-2021
August-2021
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
Annual domestic
Percent change in
Percent change in
Percent change in
RTO
Annual International spend
International spend
domestic
International
domestic spend
International spend from
domestic spend
International spend
spend year to
domestic spend from
domestic spend from
International spend from
year to  August-2021
from Year to  August-
spend
spend
from  August-2020
August-2020
from  August-2019
from  August-2019
August-2021
Year to  August-2020
Year to  August-2019
Year to  August-2019
2020
New Zealand
$565m
$55m
-19%
2%
-21%
-74%
$11,164m
$915m
27%
-64%
17%
-72%
Auckland Tourism, Events and Econo
$ m
11ic
1  D
m evelopment
$  (
2 A
2 T
mEED)
21%
23%
-32%
-68%
$2,098m
$368m
21%
-53%
5%
-63%
Central Economic Development Agenc
$ y
1  5(C
mEDA)
$1m
-29%
24%
-28%
-27%
$296m
$13m
21%
-16%
11%
-24%
ChristchurchNZ
$49m
$6m
-27%
-9%
-23%
-68%
$975m
$95m
29%
-61%
23%
-68%
Destination Clutha
$2m
$0m
-14%
35%
-12%
-52%
$36m
$1m
23%
-75%
6%
-78%
Destination Coromandel
$13m
$0m
-25%
-19%
-16%
-62%
$373m
$8m
26%
-77%
23%
-79%
Destination Great Lake Taupo
$16m
$1m
-30%
-25%
-20%
-78%
$356m
$14m
30%
-76%
29%
-80%
Destination Kaikoura
$2m
$0m
-42%
-38%
-14%
-89%
$54m
$2m
41%
-91%
38%
-92%
Destination Marlborough
$9m
$0m
-15%
-17%
6%
-61%
$188m
$9m
45%
-78%
36%
-80%
Destination Queenstown
$37m
$3m
-22%
12%
10%
-94%
$539m
$56m
53%
-82%
57%
-88%
Destination Rotorua
$15m
$1m
-19%
10%
-28%
-83%
$315m
$16m
20%
-81%
10%
-87%
Destination Wairarapa
$7m
$0m
-34%
-13%
-17%
-38%
$153m
$5m
24%
-52%
22%
-54%
Development West Coast
$6m
$0m
-35%
-18%
-7%
-91%
$152m
$5m
45%
-92%
42%
-94%
Enterprise Dunedin
$19m
$1m
-31%
-8%
-25%
-59%
$366m
$21m
19%
-63%
9%
-69%
Great South
$10m
$0m
-22%
-31%
-15%
-55%
$191m
$9m
21%
-49%
12%
-50%
Hamilton & Waikato Tourism
$35m
$2m
-22%
-14%
-27%
-57%
$690m
$37m
21%
-52%
9%
-60%
Hawke's Bay Tourism
$18m
$1m
-28%
-2%
-17%
-42%
$406m
$21m
30%
-55%
26%
-60%
Hurunui Tourism
$5m
$0m
-31%
-13%
-9%
-69%
$97m
$3m
40%
-72%
32%
-77%
Lake Wanaka Tourism
$17m
$1m
-17%
22%
42%
-88%
$203m
$14m
42%
-77%
61%
-84%
Mackenzie Region
$5m
$0m
-34%
7%
9%
-96%
$78m
$3m
34%
-93%
42%
-95%
Nelson Regional Development Agency
$  1(N
0 R
m DA)
$1m
-27%
-26%
-17%
-48%
$281m
$19m
44%
-71%
31%
-73%
Northland Inc
$25m
$1m
-19%
-31%
-12%
-47%
$562m
$29m
30%
-63%
25%
-66%
Not elsewhere classified
$14m
$0m
-24%
-4%
-7%
-52%
$251m
$5m
27%
-54%
22%
-61%
Tourism Bay of Plenty
$28m
$2m
-26%
-19%
-23%
-42%
$641m
$35m
24%
-46%
17%
-49%
Tourism Central Otago
$5m
$0m
-21%
-12%
-12%
-79%
$118m
$4m
30%
-74%
20%
-79%
Tourism Waitaki
$5m
$0m
-25%
-21%
-14%
-83%
$96m
$2m
23%
-81%
17%
-84%
Trust Tairawhiti
$4m
$0m
-22%
-32%
-12%
-33%
$107m
$6m
31%
-43%
30%
-43%
Venture Taranaki
$11m
$1m
-23%
-1%
-20%
-49%
$238m
$14m
24%
-41%
15%
-48%
Venture Timaru
$9m
$0m
-23%
8%
-14%
-54%
$156m
$4m
18%
-67%
14%
-70%
Visit Fiordland
$1m
$0m
-35%
-34%
-11%
-96%
$37m
$2m
72%
-94%
44%
-96%
Visit Ruapehu
$8m
$0m
-21%
-9%
-33%
-81%
$88m
$3m
22%
-82%
17%
-87%
Visit Southland
$1m
$0m
-21%
-35%
-2%
-73%
$30m
$1m
38%
-81%
28%
-84%
Visit Whanganui
$5m
$0m
-25%
26%
-13%
-22%
$98m
$4m
20%
-38%
15%
-41%
Wel ington Regional Economic Develo
$ p
4 m
8 e
m nt Agency (W
$ R
5 E
mDA)
-24%
-4%
-30%
-64%
$896m
$84m
22%
-55%
4%
-65%
RELEASED UNDER THE
OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982