An edited image resembling a news announcement with Christopher Luxon at a podium, overlaid with fake text about a financial program in New Zealand. Various unrelated newspaper clippings are visible in the background.
Christopher Luxon* promoting a financial scam on Facebook

PoliticsApril 14, 2025

The proliferation of Facebook scam ads continues, now starring Christopher Luxon

An edited image resembling a news announcement with Christopher Luxon at a podium, overlaid with fake text about a financial program in New Zealand. Various unrelated newspaper clippings are visible in the background.
Christopher Luxon* promoting a financial scam on Facebook

Meta is doing nothing to combat scams on its platforms, but what about the government? Dylan Reeve searches for someone in charge.

In August last year I outlined my dystopian descent into the world of Facebook scam advertising and the seemingly futile attempt to combat them. Reaching out to Meta directly was fruitless, and reporting the ads using their built in tools seemed to do nothing. 

Now, eight months later I’m happy to report — nothing.

There doesn’t seem to have been any meaningful change.

My reports, when I can be bothered making them, are still mostly met with a cheery “nothing to see here” response, and the barrage of ads keeps coming. 

My collection of scam ads — ads that I have personally seen and screenshotted while browsing Facebook on my desktop PC — now stands at more than 320 items.

I don’t capture every scam ad I see. I don’t even use Facebook every day.

But most days when I do visit the site I’m confronted with a wide variety of fraudulent claims promising me money, spruiking fake products or making dramatic health claims. Many of the ads feature familiar faces — Taika Waititi, Peter Jackson, Ashley Bloomfield, Elon Musk, Miriama Kamo, Jack Tame, Christopher Luxon… the list goes on. 

Many users probably just zone the ads out and ignore them, like the many legitimate ads they see every day. Some people probably don’t even see them thanks to the ad blockers they run in their web browser. But for a small number of Facebook users, these ads are the first step in a horrible journey that might see them losing hundreds of thousands of dollars

So when I saw yet another ad exploiting the likenesses of well known New Zealanders in an effort to lure more victims, I decided to dig in again. 

The ad followed a familiar narrative, suggesting that some celebrity had let slip on a live interview the secret to limitless wealth. Sometimes they’re in trouble with the police for doing so, but in this case Miriama Kamo had apparently let the cat out of the bag a little early.

The ad features a video — which would start playing automatically for many mobile users — in which Miriama Kamo is being interviewed by Anika Moa. The AI-manipulated video has Moa interviewing Kamo about a previously secret project that could “transform citizens’ financial lives, offering a guaranteed income of over $45,000 New Zealand dollars per month”.

The video, complete with Stuff branding — perhaps ironic given the publisher’s recent three-part series about online scams —  goes on to explain that Kamo’s whistle-blowing prompted a response from prime minister Christopher Luxon, after which he appears on screen assuring New Zealanders that the platform is safe, reliable and guaranteed by the government. 

I reported the ad to Facebook and, as usual, a week later they let me know that they “use a combination of technology and human reviewers to process reports and identify content that goes against our Advertising Standards. In this case, we did not remove the ad you reported.”

As I write this today, the advertiser is still running versions of this ad, as well as a similar one targeting Indonesian users. 

Three digital ad previews feature the same woman gesturing with her hands while presenting. Each ad includes a green "Active" label, a sponsorship tag from "ElementarySky," and varying text overlays in different languages.
Scam ads featuring Miriama Kamo currently active on Facebook

So I decided I wanted to hear from the protagonists of this fraudulent financial miracle. 

“The first time I realised the scale of the problem was when I was presented as selling weight loss gummies!” For Miriama Kamo it’s not a new experience finding herself as the unwilling face of some scam ad on Facebook or Instagram. By the time we spoke on the phone it felt old hat to the nationally recognisable TV journalist.

“It does start to feel a bit hopeless,” Kamo mused. She’s reported ads herself, and encouraged others to do so. She has even tried to reach Meta directly about the issue, but hasn’t seen anything change. “I don’t want it to seem like I don’t care, because I really do. But I’m starting to feel a little lost – I don’t know what I can do about it.”

The latest ad, featuring Kamo in conversation with Anika Moa, felt like an escalation. “That is probably the most convincing one I’ve seen so far, although thankfully I’ve not had much engagement from people asking me about it,” she says of the AI-generated clip. “It’s probably the most sophisticated one, where they’ve got aspects of my voice down pretty good.”

While this ad doesn’t seem to have made a big splash, at least amongst those inclined to reach out to Kamo, other ads using her image have clearly been effective, as she’s frequently featured.

Composite image showing various headlines featuring Miriama Kamo. Headlines reference sensational announcements, shocks to the public, and loss of citizenship. Images include police presence and media coverage.
A collection of scam ads featuring Miriama Kamo

“It was actually quite amazing how many people have been fooled. Even an ‘auntie’ of mine said ‘I’ve spent the money but haven’t received anything’ I had to say no no no, you’ve been scammed,” Kamo recounted of one of the fake products marketed with her image. But it wasn’t an isolated event. “I’ve had hundreds of messages from people saying anything from ‘this is fake, isn’t it?’ to the other end which was ‘I’ve spent money on this and you haven’t sent my product yet.’”

At this point Kamo feels helpless about it all. “I urge people to report the ads. But I urge them in the knowledge that it’s not really going to do anything,” she says. Her optimism about Meta’s ability, or willingness, to tackle the problem is non-existent. “I have very little faith in Facebook. Zero, actually. I don’t think Facebook gives a toss at all.”

Of course there were other people’s images being used in the video that started me on this journey. 

While I don’t have Christopher Luxon’s personal contact details in my phone, I do have details for his press office, so I sent off an email — optimistically I asked to speak to the PM personally on the matter, but knowing that was unlikely I also threw in some specific questions about the issue of the PM’s image being appropriated by scammers, and who ought to be doing what about it. 

A triptych of online advertisements. The first shows prime minister Chris Luxon and an ATM filled with money, the second features a worried Jack Tame with text about a career scandal, and the third depicts Toby Manhire suggesting something scandalous
Chris Luxon, Jack Tame and Toby Manhire have all been used to promote scams on Facebook

I had the same question I’ve always had about this issue, namely: If Meta is seemingly unable, or unwilling, to tackle this issue, who in government is responsible for taking them to task on that?

For the prime minister’s office, the question is especially pointed, as his image is being used to promote scams. If he is unable to personally take Meta to task on the matter, there must be some agency or minister that can do it on his behalf? Can scammers really just be allowed to continue using the name and likeness of the prime minister, and exploit the authority and trust of the government in order to promote fraud?

Unfortunately I couldn’t get more than a simple emailed statement, to be attributed to “a spokesperson for the prime minister”, which said: “Online scams are a growing problem in New Zealand and overseas. As technology becomes more sophisticated, unfortunately, so do scams, and thousands of Kiwis are caught up each year. It is distressing for anyone who falls victim to a scam.”

It concluded with: “The prime minister would never endorse a particular investment.”

‘Hutt Valley, Kāpiti, down to the south coast. Our Wellington coverage is powered by members.’
Joel MacManus
— Wellington editor

While Luxon’s office said they did “flag” scams featuring his likeness that they were made aware of, they didn’t elaborate on who they flagged them with. 

As for a minister in charge of finding the answers, the government announced in November that Andrew Bayly, in his role as minister of commerce and consumer affairs, would lead efforts to better tackle the growing issue of online scams. However it was a little unclear once Andrew Bayly stepped down from his ministerial portfolio what would become of that effort. 

The answer was revealed last Wednesday when Bayly’s replacement, Scott Simpson, announced the outcome of a second anti-scam roundtable between industry stakeholders and the government.  A decision had been made about what would be done… but Simpson wouldn’t actually say what it was, telling The Post, “I don’t want to go into detail at the moment because I need to brief my parliamentary and cabinet colleagues.”

While Simpson wouldn’t say, The Post suggested it would be a non-governmental organisation run by the banks — possibly through their “Get Verified” entity that was established to implement “confirmation of payee” for bank transfers.

With no details forthcoming, I can only speculate, but if The Post’s reporting is correct, then it seems that the new entity might possibly operate in a similar way to Netsafe — as an external entity authorised by legislation to take reports from the public and pursue whatever actions the government deems suitable.

Being led by the banking sector suggests a focus on the direct financial transaction parts of online scams, however many scams deliberately avoid using traditional financial institutions, and there remains plenty of opportunity to have a meaningful impact closer to the root of the problem, with the proliferation of scam ads like those so often found on Facebook and Instagram.

Reached by email, Scott Simpson said, “I am taking my responsibility as lead anti-scam minister seriously.” He confirmed that he’d had discussions with Meta and other platforms about the issue, adding, “I have heard from Meta and Apple about the steps they are taking to stop scams and fraud on their platforms.”

‘Become a member to help us deliver news and features that matter most to Aotearoa.’
Lyric Waiwiri-Smith
— Politics reporter

As for the future, Simpson pointed across the Tasman, saying, “I have also reiterated to the digital platforms that I would like to see them agree to an industry scam code, like the one they have agreed to in Australia.”

Whether these efforts will have a meaningful impact remains to be seen. In the meantime it seems likely that people like Anika Moa, Miriama Kamo and Christopher Luxon should expect to keep seeing themselves being used as the bait to attract new scam victims. 

Keep going!
Shane Jones holding a printed document and pointing his finger. Dead fish and net behind him.
Shane Jones announcing the proposed changes in February 2025.

PoliticsApril 11, 2025

‘Scam’ or ‘efficiency’? The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act, explained

Shane Jones holding a printed document and pointing his finger. Dead fish and net behind him.
Shane Jones announcing the proposed changes in February 2025.

Submissions close today on proposed reforms that would mark the most significant shakeup of fisheries in decades. Here’s what you need to know.

On February 12, oceans and fisheries minister Shane Jones held up a wagging finger and a shiny, plastic-comb-bound document as Wellington’s downtown seagulls squawked overhead. Among a throng of media and fishery sector executives, he announced a proposal to make changes to the Fisheries Act – changes that he said would be the most significant reforms in decades. This act is the primary way that our wild-caught fisheries, which generated more than $1.6 billion in export revenue in 2024 and employ about 9,000 people, are regulated. Its main purpose is to manage commercial fisheries while ensuring sustainability.

Jones touted the changes as an acknowledgement that “red tape” needed to be cut to “improve responsiveness, efficiency and certainty” and that the industry needed protection from being “charged on TikTok”. While the proposed changes were welcomed by industry, responses from opposition parties, scientists and advocacy groups have been mixed. While the most significant changes proposed pertain to the Quota Management System, which controls how much of each fish species can be caught each year, media attention has largely focused on privacy measures relating to the footage captured by cameras on fishing vessels. The strongest public reaction has been from LegaSea, a recreational fishers’ advocacy group, which has called the proposed changes a “scam”. Meanwhile, groups like the Environmental Defence Society are sharing their formal legalese submissions. A phrase that repeatedly comes up is “no supporting evidence”.

The government is currently seeking feedback on the proposed changes, with submissions closing at 5pm this Friday. If you can’t be arsed reading that document that Jones was waving around underneath the seagulls, here are its main points. 

Changes in how catch limits are decided

Under the Quota Management System, the government sets total allowable catch limits for 642 fish species. This limit is split into customary Māori fishing, recreational fishing and commercial fishing. The proposal document says there is now better-quality and more frequent data through reporting by fishers, onboard cameras and fisheries observers, which means decisions on catch limits can be more responsive, efficient and certain. It proposes the minister be allowed to approve up to five years’ worth of catch limits through one decision, with year-on-year increases. Currently, the minister decides on one annual catch limit at a time. 

In a webinar on Monday, Environmental Defence Society (EDS) solicitor Tracey Turner said the society supported the intent of these proposed amendments because the current process for adjusting catch limits is lengthy and resource intensive. However, she said the proposed process had “inadequate safeguards” and there wasn’t enough information to support adjustments. She suggested more investment in fisheries science and stock assessments was needed.

a crayfish underwater with a human diver watching it
Crayfish are an increasingly rare sight in the Hauraki Gulf (Image: Rochelle Potter)

Another proposal is to streamline management procedures for certain fish stocks, with  pre-agreed procedures for how and when catch limits could be adjusted that would bypass the current high-level review each year. When monitoring showed a certain level of biomass (fish in the sea), catch limits could be adjusted accordingly. 

The Environmental Defence Society is not supporting this proposal. On Monday, Turner said that when a similar approach was used to manage rock lobster, the fisheries data used turned out not to be a reliable indicator of abundance. Even as their numbers were declining, the fisheries data did not show a reduction, and so rock lobster were over-fished.

Greater recognition of socio-economic factors when setting or altering catch limits

The proposal says that social, cultural and economic factors have been considered alongside biological matters since the introduction of the Fisheries Act in 1996. For example, biologically speaking it may be better to set a limit of zero for a year to allow a fish population to recover, but because people’s livelihoods and diets depend on this fish, fishing has been allowed to continue at lower levels for a few years. The proposed amendment is to change the wording to reflect the inherent trade-off when deciding the level of fishing and time to rebuild population.

The Environmental Defence Society did not support this proposed change either, with Turner saying the change would “create risk that monetary impacts, that are always more easily quantified, would be given more weight in decision making”.

a big steel boat with lots of fishing gear on it
A long-liner fishing boat in the Cook Strait in 1988 (Photo: Phillip Capper via Wikimedia).

More recognition of non-regulatory sustainability measures

The proposal document puts forward two options to clarify the minister’s ability to consider non-regulatory (voluntary) sustainability measures when deciding on changes to regulations like setting catch limits. Option one is to provide the minister with discretion to recognise any non-regulatory measure, meaning they could choose to take them into account or not. Option two is that the minister must consider ACE (annual catch entitlement) shelving (when quota owners reduce their catch of a stock) and catch spreading (when fishers agree to gather fish from a specific area). 

The document says that while non-regulatory measures can be helpful and lower administrative burden on the government, they are risky as they can’t be actively enforced. It says the effectiveness of some measures is uncertain. For the EDS, this was also a no.

the stern of a boat with huge containers full of dead fish
Commercial fishing in action (Photo: NZ Fishing Guild)

Increasing how much of a quota can be carried forward

At the moment, if a fisher does not catch their full entitlement in a year, they can carry forward up to 10% (for most fish species) of their allocation into the next year. Option one is a proposal to increase this to 15%. Option two is to grant the same increase but only in exceptional

circumstances (for example storm events). The EDS submission said there was no supporting evidence for these changes, and they did not adequately consider the impacts on species and ecosystems.

Greater protection for on-board camera footage

At the moment, footage from fishing vessel on-board cameras is subject to release under the Official Information Act, meaning members of the public can request it. The document says there are fisher concerns about the potential for commercially sensitive information to be released and legal fishing activity used to negatively impact industry reputation. There are two options presented here. The first is to check processes with the ombudsman to make sure obligations are being met. The second is to exempt the footage from the OIA, meaning that footage would not be able to be requested. 

This second option, which fisheries minister Shane Jones has said he favours, has generated opposition. WWF-New Zealand’s Kayla Kingdon-Bebb told The Post, “Greater transparency and accuracy in the reporting of protected species bycatch and non-target discards is incredibly important to ensure the sustainability of our marine resources now and into the future.” LegaSea’s Sam Woolford added, “How can we take this proposal to limit transparency seriously?”

the dolphins swimming
Introducing on-board cameras resulted in a nearly 700% increase in reported dolphin captures (Photo: Pablo Heimplatz via Unsplash)

Amendments to the scope of on-board cameras

At the moment two types of fishing vessels are excluded from monitoring cameras: deepwater trawl vessels over 32 metres long or that exclusively target scampi, because observers are considered a more efficient way of monitoring; and small set net vessels (less than 8 metres in length) because they have very limited on-board electronics and dry space. The proposed changes would also exclude bottom longline vessels over 31 metres long, because they have fisheries observers; set net vessels using the mothership and tender models and all vessels less than 8 metres as it is not currently possible to install cameras on these. Not developing bespoke solutions would save costs.

Clarifying camera use requirements

At the moment, cameras must be active for fishing activities including the taking, return, abandonment, processing, sorting and transportation connected with monitored fishing, as well as while measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate fishing-related mortality were being carried out. The proposed changes seek to clarify that. Option one proposes that cameras operate port-to-port. – meaning cameras would operate continuously from when a vessel left port or entered a fishing area, to when they returned to port or left the area. Option two proposes that cameras be active when conducting a fishing event using an in-scope method, sorting, processing or returning to the sea any fish taken during a fishing event using in-scope methods and transiting to, from and between fishing locations when using in-scope methods.

In a written submission provided to The Spinoff, the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) opposed option two, on the grounds that there are strong public interest considerations that apply to the footage, including promoting transparency and accountability. The group is particularly concerned that option two would prevent researchers from accessing footage for research purposes. ELI does not believe that exempting the footage from the OIA is necessary to address privacy concerns.

Landing and returning fish

This part of the proposed changes is about fish that fishers catch unintentionally (bycatch). In 2022 the act was amended to tighten when fish can be returned (thrown back into the sea) to encourage commercial fishers to minimise bycatch. At the moment, the minister can permit that fish be thrown back only if there’s an acceptable likelihood of survival, if keeping it will damage the rest of the catch, if it is damaged or if the return is for biological, ecosystem or management purposes (eg. if a lobster is carrying eggs).

The proposal suggests that new, more effective monitoring, particularly with cameras, gives an opportunity to consider more flexible rules, so suggests amending the act to allow returns, dead or alive, as long as they are monitored by on-board cameras or observers. Because the returns would be observed, they could be considered and counted for the fishers’ annual catch entitlement.

dead snapper on sand
In 2024, a power outage led to a commercial fishing boat losing catch that subsequently washed up in Auckland (Photo: LegaSea)

EDS’s main concern with these amendments is a lack of incentive to minimise or avoid bycatch. They believe that reforms should incentivise improved selectivity – ie encourage fishers to use methods that target only certain fish. They also question whether on-board camera footage is good enough to verify fisher reporting. 

What’s next?

After the consultation closes on Friday, submissions will be reviewed by the Ministry of Primary Industries. Then the policy will be refined, key stakeholders will be consulted, a Regulatory Impact Analysis will be conducted and the updated policy proposal will be presented to the minister. If the minister is happy, he will then take it to cabinet and then the legislation will be drafted and introduced to parliament. In the announcement in February, Shane Jones said he expected the legislation to be passed before the 2026 election.

Politics