But this is the first known use of that power by another state agency.
“The ANPR donor cameras in the trial are not being used ‘to spy on mechanics issuing warrants’, nor would they be capable of being used for that purpose,” NZTA told RNZ.
“These cameras are typically located in billboards at urban intersections.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
“The trial is simply looking at the potential for using images gathered by these cameras to be used as proof of the location of a particular vehicle at a point in time.”
An inspector who claimed they had checked a car in Auckland at a certain time could be exposed if the car was spotted at a Christchurch intersection at that time, it said.
It “could be of benefit in supporting investigations into specific cases where fraudulent or illegal activity is suspected”.
A well-connected industry source told RNZ: “Yeah, that has been a bit secret.”
NZTA might not have wanted to tip people off, the source said.
“For the purpose the agency is stating, I don’t have much issue with that, but the way they have gone about it is what alarms me. Especially because it’s third-party [cameras and ANPR system].
“What else might they use them for?”
NZTA Waka Kotahi said it was not using the images in any actual fraud investigations, but only as a test for potential future use.
The test is separate from how the agency is taking over many speed and red-light-runner cameras from police, and replacing some with higher-tech models, which it will own or lease.
A second source active in the industry was appalled by the move.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
“Oh my god,” they said.
“It is part of your right to know the audit process you go through. You can’t sabotage your process because of a trial.”
Months of inquiries by RNZ in 2018 showed up mass deficiencies in NZTA’s oversight of how truck certificates of fitness were being issued. The systems were reviewed and changed.
There have been further reports of inspectors anonymously recounting examples of how they feel they have been subject to unfair targeting by the agency.
“You have got layers and layers of issues here,” said the second source.
“What’s the limit [of surveillance]?”
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
They questioned why the camera sting was even needed when fraud would “show up in paperwork. There will be tons of other evidence that can be used against people”.
Many supermarkets, petrol stations, other businesses and councils have a total of thousands of cameras that link into ANPR software systems run by two Auckland companies – Auror and SaferCities.
The new trial uses SaferCities vGrid system, NZTA said.
Its system covered electronic billboard operators such as LUMO, which had built-in cameras with ANPR software, and CCTV operators including councils, individual businesses and car park operators, the agency said.
Police accessed the vGrid system more than 400,000 times last year.
“NZTA only has access to still images from ANPR donor cameras whose owners have specifically agreed to our usage,” Waka Kotahi told RNZ in the OIA response.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
“Currently, this only includes LUMO and more recently, Hamilton City Council.”
RNZ approached Lumo for comment.
As of 2022, the country had at least 1400 digital billboards and screen-posters, many of them with smart technology and ANPR cameras.
The police tapped the ANPR systems 700,000 times last year.
In October, two District Court judges dismissed legal challenges to the police using them so much without a warrant, though it is expected there will be at least one appeal against that finding.
The fraud camera trial comes at the same time Waka Kotahi is reviewing the WoF-CoF system to reduce how often collectors of old vehicles, and motorhome users, have to get a warrant.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
The agency has been increasing a lot of the fees it charges motorists since 2023. Another batch of rises is due next January that are expected to push up total fees collected by $10m to $264m.
How the camera trial works
Camera footage could be used where it was suspected that WoFs or CoFs had been issued to vehicles which had not been inspected at the time or place recorded by a vehicle inspector, the transport agency said.
It gave a hypothetical scenario to RNZ:
“If NZTA was investigating a vehicle inspector suspected of fraud, and if the inspector had issued a WoF to a vehicle which was recorded as having been inspected at a WoF garage in Auckland at 2pm on July 1, 2025, and we were able to access a still image from a donor camera of the same vehicle driving past a billboard located in Christchurch at 3.30pm on July 1, 2025, this could potentially be used as evidence to prove that the WoF had been issued fraudulently, because the vehicle was not in Auckland at the time of the recorded inspection.”
This would not be a part of regular compliance monitoring, it said.
Regular compliance monitoring included scheduled reviews where compliance officers visited inspection sites, as well as “mystery shopper” activity.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
-RNZ