Source: New Zealand Police
Motorists are advised to take alternative routes due to a blockage on the Geraldine-Fairlie Highway on the Skipton Bridge following a crash this evening.
Police were alerted to the single vehicle crash around 9.35pm.
One person has received moderate injuries in relation to the crash.
The road will remain closed for some time.
ENDS.
Issued by Police Media Centre
Source: New Zealand Transport Agency
A minor increase in journey times and some queuing at peak times can be expected for people travelling on SH22 as an inherent result of the new traffic lights, which are necessary to allow for safer and more efficient movements into and out of Great South Road.
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Regional Manager Transport Services, Stephen Collett says the signalisation of the intersection has been a necessary traffic mitigation ahead of future construction work on the SH1 Papakura to Drury project, when the Drury northbound off-ramp will be closed for an extended period. The temporary signalisation in its current lane layout will remain until the future four-laning of SH22 between Jesmond Road and Drury Interchange as part of the SH22 Drury upgrade project, which also requires traffic lights at the SH22 intersections with Great South Road and Jesmond Road.
The expected commissioning (turning on) of the traffic lights in April had been paused to allow the system to gather real time traffic flow data, which revealed that current traffic flows on SH22 were higher than those used to design the signalisation of the intersection. A review of the design was then undertaken to confirm it was optimal for its temporary arrangement, which recommended two additional improvements to further mitigate potential peak hour queuing on SH22 following closure of the ramp, specifically in the southbound direction. Those recommended additions were to add a left turn slip lane from SH22 into Great South Road and to extend the length of the two-lane southbound exit of SH22 from the intersection, where the two lanes merge back into one.
These two recommendations will be implemented by NZTA and further works will begin in July when the designs have been finalised. In the meantime, NZTA will commission the traffic lights to improve the overall safety of the intersection beyond that provided by the temporary traffic management measures currently in place. Activating the lights will also reduce the cost of temporary traffic management required to implement the additional improvements.
“Great South Road is already a busy route that experiences safety and congestion issues at the intersection with SH22. With our construction activities ramping up on SH1, even before the closure of the northbound off-ramp more people may choose to use Great South Road for their travel, increasing existing pressures on the intersection,” Mr Collett says.
“When the lights are activated and as people become accustomed to the new signals, the Auckland Transport Operations Centre will monitor the intersection to ensure no safety issues arise. We thank everyone for their patience while we have taken the time to ensure the operation of these temporary traffic lights will be optimal for the period they will be in service.”
People are also reminded that the intersection of Victoria Street with SH22 (beside Drury Interchange) is currently closed to realign the street directly opposite Mercer Street. Following that realignment, the intersection will also be signalised as a required traffic mitigation ahead of the future demolition and rebuild of the Bremner Road bridge across SH1. These traffic lights are expected to be installed and operational near the end of this year.
Source: New Zealand Police
Motorists are advised of traffic disruption following a two-vehicle crash on Prebensen Drive, near Ford Road and Severn Street, at around 4.50pm.
No serious injuries have been reported.
The road remains partly blocked while emergency services and contractors clear the scene.
Motorists are advised to take an alternate route and expect delays.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media
Source: New Zealand Government
[Keynote speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) national conference, Takina Convention Centre, Wellington]
Good afternoon.
National Chair of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Dr James Kember, Executive Director Dr Hamish McDougall, members of the Diplomatic Corps, distinguished guests.
It is a pleasure to speak here today at the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs’ Annual Conference.
The NZIIA contributes to, and facilitates, discussion and debate about New Zealand’s foreign policy, and we thank you for hosting us.
In May last year, it was the NZIIA that hosted us in Parliament for a speech that addressed the challenges we face in a more fractious world and outlined how the Coalition Government was bringing more energy, more urgency and a sharper focus to our foreign policy.
Just over a year later, we thought we’d reflect on the Government’s Foreign Policy Reset, where progress has been made, and the foreign policy themes we have accentuated in the year since we last spoke to you.
This is also the time for a clear-eyed appraisal of New Zealand’s strategic circumstances, and the sharply deteriorating international outlook, as evidenced by the protracted illegal war in Ukraine and in the catastrophic escalation of the conflict in the Middle East.
Twenty-five years ago, New Zealand enjoyed a world that was becoming more open, more democratic, and more free. Trade liberalisation was gathering pace. Effective multilateralism helped underpin a liberal- oriented international rules-based system.
Turning to the world of today – and looking out to tomorrow – the changes are stark. Uncertainty is now pervasive across the globe. We face an international operating environment under serious strain, one that poses complex challenges while exposing structural weaknesses in that operating environment.
While geography remains a constant, distance is no buffer. There is no opting out from the geopolitical realities we face. So, this is a timely reminder of what is at stake, and why our foreign policy matters for all New Zealanders.
Foreign policy can often be perceived as far removed from New Zealanders’ daily lives. But recognising how our foreign and trade policy underpins New Zealanders’ security and prosperity is crucial to the open and mature national conversation we must continue to have in our vibrant democracy.
While operating for the most part quietly and in the background, our foreign and trade policy helps deliver outcomes that matter for all of us.
From the export dollars our farmers and manufacturers earn in key markets and helping to remove barriers for our exporters.
So while foreign and trade policy may seem abstract, how we act in the world matters for New Zealanders every day.
This fundamental link between how we advance our interests abroad, and our security and prosperity at home, is why the Coalition Government prioritises foreign policy as a crucial instrument to achieve both. That, after all, is how we maintain support from the taxpayers who underwrite our efforts.
This demands being present, engaged, and explaining ourselves. There remains no substitute for in-person diplomacy, relationship building, and educating the public about the choices we face.
Now, our critics complain that we are leading a radical repositioning of our foreign policy. But only in one very narrow and important respect are they right. We have radically increased the tempo of our diplomacy, in recognition of our predecessors’ torpor, but also because of the sheer magnitude of the challenges we face.
Since being sworn into office in November 2023, we have visited 46 countries, several more than once, met with well over 100 Presidents, Prime Ministers, Deputy Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers, and had over 400 political engagements.
Through this engagement we are better informed about the world around us, as are counterparts about New Zealand’s foreign policy perspectives and the values that underpin them.
And we continue the important duty of communicating New Zealand’s foreign policy priorities to the public and explaining the nature of our changing strategic circumstances and the choices that flow from them.
We push ourselves to work harder, and explain ourselves better, because New Zealand has understood these past 80 years, that as a small state geographically isolated from the great landmasses of Asia, Europe and the Americas, only through the conduct of a highly active foreign policy can we advance our national interests, defend our region, and make it more prosperous.
Foreign Policy Reset: Progress
Distinguished guests, in our speech to you last year we outlined the six priorities that form the Government’s foreign policy reset. Today’s speech is an opportunity to recap the ambition that Cabinet set out and highlight key areas of effort and progress.
First, we are significantly increasing our focus and resources applied to South and Southeast Asia.
With 34 outward Prime Ministerial and Ministerial visits to the region since February 2024 – advancing new business and investment opportunities, while expanding defence and security cooperation, and upgrading a range of key relationships – we are investing in the wider region, commensurate with its strategic and economic significance.
In 2025, we have upgraded our Viet Nam relationship to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, and we are working hard to similarly achieve upgrades in our ASEAN and Singapore relationships.
It was a pleasure to again visit India last month, and to contribute to this important and growing relationship, including welcoming the negotiations underway towards a comprehensive free trade agreement.
Complementing this investment in South and Southeast Asia, the Government also remains focused on the depth and breadth of our important relationships across North Asia. Our bilateral relationship with China is New Zealand’s largest trade relationship. It’s proven mutually beneficial and significant for both countries. The relationship is supported by regular people exchange, including political dialogue, business, education and tourism links. And we are pleased that with the Prime Minister visiting China this week we will have completed reciprocal visits between our respective counterparts over the past two years.
Our long-standing political connections enable frank and comprehensive discussions on areas of disagreement, including those that stem from our different histories and different systems. Indeed, it is a sign of healthy relationships that we can and do express disagreement on important issues.
Japan and Korea are two likeminded democracies in the Indo-Pacific, who view the region and the world in the same way we do and are increasingly central to achieving our interests.
Second, we are renewing and reinvigorating meaningful engagement with traditional and likeminded partners.
Our circumstances underscore the importance of an even deeper strategic partnership with Australia as well as other partners with which we share a deep history and enduring interests.
Consultations with Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong in Adelaide last month highlighted that New Zealand has no closer or more important partner that Australia, our one formal ally, with whom we share interests across the full expanse of regional and international issues.
We have grown the important partnership with the United Kingdom, including advancing trade opportunities and reiterating our shared commitment to tackling international security challenges.
Similarly, enhanced engagement with the European Union and its member states is a significant focus for New Zealand.
The change in the US Administration in January has inevitably generated changes in the priorities and direction of US foreign policy. But the significance of the US’ continued role in the security and stability in the Indo-Pacific and as an essential economic partner remains, and this continues to be the focus of our engagement, including during discussions with Secretary Rubio in Washington and Admiral Paparo, Commander of US INDOPACOM in Honolulu.
Third, we are sustaining a deeper focus on the Pacific, working in collaboration with Pacific Leaders to protect and advance our interconnected security, economic, social and environmental interests.
In a more complex global environment, coming together as a region is even more important. Which is why Pacific regionalism sits at the core of our Pacific approach, with the Pacific Islands Forum at its centre.
We will always be members of the same Pacific family. A series of cross-party Parliamentary delegations into the region, alongside our exhaustive travel around Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia, have demonstrated that New Zealand’s commitment to the region spans the political spectrum and is foundational to who we are as a country.
Our Pacific-focused International Development Cooperation programme – reshaped to achieve more impact by doing fewer, bigger, projects better – is helping to build climate and economic resilience, strengthen governance and security, and to lift heath, education and connectivity.
Fourth, we are targeting our multilateral engagement on priority global and transboundary issues, working to defend and preserve core principles of international law that underpin our security and prosperity.
Respect for the UN Charter principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition on the use of force is essential to avoid a return to a world where the exercise of hard power reigns supreme.
Where these principles are flagrantly violated, such as in Russia’s continued illegal invasion of Ukraine, we must stand against such aggression and lend our efforts to achieving a just and sustainable peace.
New Zealand’s response to the Israel-Hamas conflict is also grounded in upholding international law, including international humanitarian law.
While the multilateral system has served us all well for many decades, it most certainly is not without flaws. We recognise that defending, strengthening, and modernising the rules-based system also means supporting reform of multilateral institutions.
We actively support efforts to make these institutions more responsive, efficient and effective to ensure they are focused on making a difference for our citizens, and we feel an urgency around necessary reform.
Fifth, we are supporting new groupings that advance and defend our interests and capabilities.
The relationship between the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) countries – Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand – is an example of this new support.
Deeper political-level engagement between NATO and the IP4, begun by predecessor governments, has allowed us to raise the profile of shared strategic challenges in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific, and to drive enhanced cooperation on priority areas including cyber, artificial intelligence, and defence capability.
This effort will be given further momentum next week, when the Prime Minister travels to The Hague for engagements with fellow IP4 partners and NATO countries, during the NATO Summit.
And sixth, we are working hard to advance the Government’s goal of seriously lifting New Zealand’s export value over the next decade.
This means harnessing every potential gain from our trade and economic agenda; promoting New Zealand as a place to do business; and creating opportunities for our world-class exporters.
This Government has conducted eleven successful trade missions, as we work towards the target of 20 missions involving New Zealand businesses during this Parliamentary term.
New trade agreements concluded with the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf Cooperation Council will open doors and provide greater certainty as well as create more chances for our exporters to grow and diversify their businesses.
As will our efforts to leverage and expand existing trade agreements – such as through the United Kingdom’s accession last year to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
Mid-term reflections
In recent speeches we have outlined that the priorities identified in the foreign policy reset are underpinned by three key concepts:
In fashioning foreign policy responses, the realist tendency is to err on the side of prudence. That is, we are careful in what we say, and when and how we say it.
We leave it to the small cabal of ill-informed critics of our foreign policy approach to shout impotently at clouds. They are good at that. Take AUKUS. In our speech to the NZIIA last year we were candid about what AUKUS Pillar 2 was, why the Ardern/Hipkins Governments launched work on it, and we laid out the necessary pre-conditions for participation.
A year on, there is nothing new to report, which you might think says something about the current dynamic, but still critics insist dark clouds have formed around our independent foreign policy. Their arguments were ill-informed and rubbish then. They’re ill-informed and rubbish now.
We said we would update New Zealanders on Pillar 2 when there was something new to say. And we will.
In conditions of great uncertainty and disorder, such as we are currently experiencing, prudence is a both a logical and necessary guiding principle for a small state like New Zealand.
We see our responsibility to the New Zealand people, in conducting foreign policy, as making cool-headed calculations of the country’s own strengths and weaknesses as we fashion our responses to events large or small that impact upon New Zealand’s interests.
For a small state like New Zealand, the role of diplomacy is a crucial instrument of our foreign policy. In our complex geostrategic environment never has effective diplomacy been more needed.
Summing up our wide foreign policy discussions in our National Statement to the United Nations last year, we said it has never been more apparent just how much diplomacy and the tools of statecraft matter in our troubled world.
Since war and instability is everyone’s calamity, diplomacy is the business of us all. We have observed that at this moment in time the ability to talk with, rather than at, each other has never been more needed.
Those who share our values, and even those who do not, gain from understanding each other’s position, even when we cannot agree. From understanding comes opportunity and from diplomacy comes compromise, the building block of better relations between nations. We said we need more diplomacy, more engagement, more compromise.
As Churchill also said in his later years, “meeting jaw-to-jaw is better than war.”
The inherent tensions and imbalances in the global order – between the desire for a rules-based order that protects small states against aggression, and the unjustified exercise of power by certain Great Powers – have only grown over the last past eight decades.
Yet small states matter now as much as they did then. New Zealand holds the foundational belief that all states are equal and that our voices matter as much as more powerful states. Adopting a prudential approach to our diplomacy also means not reacting to everything that happens around us.
In closing, it’s fitting to return to the broad theme of the event – New Zealand’s foreign policy in a contested world.
The outlook is challenging, to say the least, and we – government and public alike – must grapple with the reality of the fraught strategic circumstances that New Zealand faces.
We have many friends in the world, but no-one owes New Zealand a living. It is incumbent upon us to chart our course, assert our priorities, cultivate our partnerships, and pursue our interests with the vigour we have injected into our diplomatic efforts these past 18 months.
Amidst serious challenges and risk, there are also opportunities. Realising these means that we must continue to bring energy, urgency and a sharper focus to our foreign policy.
Through the Foreign Policy Reset, we are focused on doing exactly that and ensuring that we continue to deliver security and prosperity for all New Zealanders.
Thank you
Source: New Zealand Police
Police have charged a teenager after alleged interference in the murder investigation of 15-year-old Kaea Karauria.
The girl was taken into custody on 16 June, after Police investigating Kaea’s death learned that a witness had been approached and allegedly threatened.
Detective Inspector Dave de Lange said the alleged incident occurred on 12 May, a day after the fight in which Kaea was killed. Police learned of the approach on 6 June, while conducting follow-up enquiries.
The teen has been charged with wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice, and will reappear in the Hastings Youth Court next month.
Detective Inspector de Lange said any form of witness tampering was treated seriously.
“When a witness is threatened, or attempts are made to sabotage an investigation, Police will act without hesitation. This should be a warning to anyone who contemplates interfering with justice.”
Detective Inspector de Lange encouraged anyone with information about the incident to contact Police.
“Kaea deserves justice, as does his family, so if you can help please talk to us,” he says.
Footage of the incident can be uploaded here
Information can also be reported online, or by calling 105 and referencing the file number 250511/1317.
Information can also be provided anonymously to Crime Stoppers on 0800 555 111.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre
Source: Privacy Commissioner
Rule 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) allows you to disclose health information if it is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious threat to the life or health of any person, or public health or safety (the serious threat exception). In each case, there are requirements that must be met for the serious threat exception to apply. If another piece of legislation requires or allows you to share the health information in question you should rely on that legislation rather than Rule 11.
Authorisation means that the person whose health information it is has agreed that you can share the information. Authorisation can also be given by the individual’s representative if the individual is dead or unable to exercise their rights under the HIPC (e.g. due to a cognitive impairment which impacts decision making or very young age).
You should give the person as much information as possible about what information you will share, who you will share it with, and why.
If you receive authorisation, then you can share the information under Rule 11(1)(b), which permits disclosure when it is authorised by the individual or their representative.
If you don’t have authorisation, go to step 2.
For the serious threat to life and health exception to apply, you need to have reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable or not practicable to get authorisation from the individual concerned. For example, if you have reasonable grounds to believe that seeking authorisation could increase the threat.
If it is reasonable for you to seek authorisation, you need to do so. If you ask for authorisation, but the individual does not authorise you to disclose the information, you need to consider why it was not given and whether it is appropriate to continue through the steps.
If it is not reasonably practical to seek authorisation, go to step 3.
The serious threat exception applies to serious threats to:
When considering whether there is a serious threat, you need to use your clinical judgement to assess the likelihood of the threat occurring, the seriousness of the threat and the harm that could eventuate, and the imminence of the threat.
If the threat does not meet the “serious threat” threshold, you cannot rely on this exception.
If there is a serious threat, continue to step 4.
You can only disclose health information under the serious threat exception if you are sharing the information with someone who can help lessen or prevent the threat.
You can share only as much information as is needed to prevent or lessen the threat. You should record your decision making about who to share with and how much information to share.
The case note: Police were right to disclose mental health information is an example of how the serious threat exception could work in practice.
Download the content on this page in one document (opens to PDF, 350KB).
Source: Privacy Commissioner
The health sector is increasingly providing community-based health services. Read our Health on the Road guide: how to keep health information safe while working in the community (opens to PDF, 174KB), which aims to help you keep health information secure while you’re off-site or on the road.
Rule 5 of the Health Information Privacy Code requires health agencies to keep health information safe. The focus of rule 5 is whether a health agency has taken reasonable steps to keep information safe.
When deciding what steps are reasonable, you should consider:
Health agencies are responsible for developing a security policy and making sure their employees know about it.
Agencies should do everything they reasonably can to protect the health information they have and make it difficult for someone to misuse it. This means designing security systems and policies in anticipation that theft or break-ins may occur.
Read about the ‘serious threat to life or health’ exception in the HIPC.
When you travel off-site, only take the information you need to complete your work. Whenever you take any health information off-site, you’re exposing it to more risk than if you’d left it in the office, hospital, or clinic.
We often hear of bags or laptops stolen from cars. Check:
To ensure information is not lost or left behind in transit, eg in taxis, public transport or other vehicles, consider:
How will you secure the health information once you’ve reached your destination? If you’re taking the information to another health agency or facility, that may be relatively easy to do.
Community care workers sometimes need to take health information home with them. For instance, you may store information on a USB flash drive, or you may have clinical images stored on a personal mobile device. Devices like these are easy to transport and are also easy to accidentally misplace.
If your agency or employer allows you to take health information home, you should discuss with your agency or employer what additional security measures can be put in place to help you.
If your agency or employer doesn’t have a security policy for health information stored offsite, you should raise that with them so they can develop one.
You may have a choice between taking physical documents off-site or operating off-site with an electronic device such as a laptop, smartphone, notepad or external hard drive.
Unless your agency or employer has a policy that specifically permits the use of personal devices, you should not use a personal device to access health information. The security you use on your device needs to be at least as good as the security you use at work:
Keeping information secure is an essential step in maintaining the trust of patients and clients. There can be direct consequences for the person or people whose information is lost, and for your agency or employer.
Further, if you fail to take appropriate steps to keep health information secure while you’re off-site, you could face disciplinary action, by your employer and/or through a professional standards body. There may be consequences for your professional registration. Your agency or employer could face reputational damage, or someone could make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.
It’s important to be upfront if something goes wrong. Most agencies and employers accept that mistakes can happen and would prefer that staff let them know so that shortcomings can be addressed appropriately. Similarly, most patients will be more likely to be understanding and willing to listen if you’ve made efforts to address the problem quickly and transparently.
If you find yourself dealing with a situation where health information has been stolen or lost, there are four key steps to take:
New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA), Clinical images and the use of personal mobile devices, 2016 (opens to PDF, 280KB).
Source: Privacy Commissioner
In 2021, a government agency mailed a client’s health information to the wrong address. The agency had the correct street but had misidentified the house number.
The agency had the incorrect address in its systems as the verified address for the client, because a staff member had misheard the street number they said and verified the incorrect address in the agency’s systems. The agency said it had taken steps to verify the address, and so it did not consider it had erred.
The client was not satisfied with this response and complained to the agency. Further enquiries showed that the agency had the client’s correct address details at the time the information was sent to the wrong address but had not updated their file.
The client asked for compensation, but the agency said it did not consider the breach had caused significant emotional harm, because the information that had been sent was “relatively generic.”
However, the client said that their previous experiences meant that the harm of the information being sent to the wrong address was greater for them than it might have been for someone else. The client lodged an application for review of the agency’s decision. The agency was directed by the reviewer to obtain an external opinion on the emotional harm suffered by the client. This independent opinion said the breach had caused significant emotional harm and had exacerbated the client’s pre-existing conditions. Following this, the agency made a compensation offer to the client, however it miscommunicated how long the client had to consider and accept the offer. The client had lost trust in the agency by this point and was not willing to negotiate with the agency directly.
The client asked our Office to assist, advising that they would like to meet with the agency to discuss how the privacy breach had impacted them and to further attempt to resolve the complaint.
This complaint raised issues under rules 5 and 8 of the Health Information Privacy Code 2020 (the Code).
Rule 5 requires agencies that hold health information to ensure that the information is protected by reasonable safeguards to protect against loss, misuse or unauthorised
disclosure.
Rule 8 requires agencies to take reasonable steps to ensure that information is accurate, up to date, complete, relevant and not misleading before using or disclosing that information.
This was a case where the agency accepted it had breached its client’s privacy, but it didn’t fully understand the harm the breach had caused the client. Further, the relationship between the agency and its client had broken down, such that they weren’t able to resolve the matter between them directly.
We focus on resolving complaints where possible, and instead of investigating we decided to explore a settlement under section 77 of the Privacy Act.
Section 77 provides for the Commissioner to use best endeavours to settle the complaint without an investigation. An investigation may or may not follow if the Commissioner is unable to secure a settlement.
We facilitated a conciliation meeting between the agency, the client and the client’s psychologist, who attended as the client’s support person, and was able to help the client articulate the harm the privacy breach had caused them. It was clear that the breach had exacerbated pre-existing mental health conditions and caused a significant impact on the emotional state and the life of the client.
At the meeting, the agency did a good job of hearing the complainant’s concerns. Its representatives provided the client with a heartfelt apology. The client thanked the
representatives and said it was the first time that they felt the agency had listened and understood how they felt. The conciliation meeting ended with both parties agreeing to settle the matter.
As part of this resolution, the agency agreed to pay financial compensation, that was more than twice the amount offered previously. The agency also agreed to pay for ongoing psychological treatment to help the client to recover from the interference with their privacy.
The matter was settled, and we closed our file.
When agencies are considering whether harm has been suffered by a complainant, it is essential that it seeks to understand the actual impact on the client, not what they think the impact should be without having lived that individual’s life experiences. What might not affect one person, can have a significant impact on another.
Additionally, it is critical that agencies take responsibility for errors from the outset and put things right early. In this instance, the complaint could have been resolved far earlier if the agency had accepted what had gone wrong earlier, and if it had considered the information it already had, in the form of the independent opinion about the harm the client had experienced.
Instead, the agency’s management of the breach and the subsequent complaint led to a further breakdown in the relationship between the parties, and this meant the matter wasn’t able to be resolved without our Office’s assistance. However, when the parties came to the conciliation with a genuine desire to hear the other and with an intention to resolve the matter and move forward, we were able to facilitate a conversation that allowed that to happen, and both sides to get closure.
Source: New Zealand Police
Police are seeking witnesses to the events leading up to a crash on Edmund Road, Rotorua on Sunday 15 June at about 2.15pm at a designated pedestrian crossing.
Rotorua Police is investigating after a motorcyclist overtook a stationary vehicle waiting for a pedestrian to cross, and then struck the pedestrian who was on the crossing at the time.
The rider then performed a U-turn, rode back towards the crossing, but did not stop or check on the victim. The rider then fled the scene.
The 24-year-old sight and hearing-impaired victim was injured and flown to Waikato Hospital where he remains in a critical condition.
Acting Detective Senior Sergeant Phil Wilkinson of the Rotorua Police is calling on any witnesses to come forward.
“Police have a large team who are currently in the early stages of gathering evidence surrounding the circumstances of the crash, and what led to it happening,” he says.
“Police have obtained CCTV footage of the motorcycle shortly after the crash showing the motorcycle turning left onto Clayton Road and travelling in the direction of Gem Street.
“We would like the rider to do the right thing – come forward and speak to us about what happened.
Someone will know who this rider is and police are appealing to those people to act on their conscience and contact us.
The family of the injured man are understandably upset about this incident and are urging people to come forward.
Police are wanting to hear from any other witnesses to the crash, and we ask them to contact us as soon as possible,” Detective Senior Sergeant Wilkinson says.
We are appealing to anyone who recognises the motorcycle and or the rider pictured to come forward to Police online or call 105 using the file reference number 250615/1168.
ENDS
Issued by Police Media Centre.
Source: New Zealand Police
Canterbury Police are wanting to speak with the man in this photo, as we believe he can assist with our enquiries into an incident on New Brighton Pier at about 3:40pm on Saturday 14 June.
The man has a distinctive hat and bike.
If you have any information that could help our enquiries, please update us online now or call 105.
Please use the reference number 250614/8679.
ENDS
Issued by the Police Media Centre.