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.
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.
Step 1: Have you received authorisation to share this information?
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.
Step 2: Is it reasonably practical to seek authorisation?
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.
Step 3: Is there a serious threat to the life or health of a person?
The serious threat exception applies to serious threats to:
The life or health of the person whose information it is.
The life or health of any other person.
Public health or public safety.
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.
Step 4: Is the disclosure to someone who can help lessen or prevent the threat?
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.
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:
the sensitivity of the health information
how a security measure will impact on your ability to carry out your functions, and
the likely consequences if the health information is lost or stolen.
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.
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.
On the go
We often hear of bags or laptops stolen from cars. Check:
Is this health information something you should be leaving in your car?
If you have to leave health information in your car, can you put it out of sight, for instance, in a locked glovebox or in the boot?
To ensure information is not lost or left behind in transit, eg in taxis, public transport or other vehicles, consider:
Have you taken steps to remind yourself to take the health information with you when you stop on your journey?
Once you get there
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.
Some workers may have access to a password-protected lockable mobile device, or even a lockable file box.
Health information might be made available to you in a different way, for instance, by setting up remote access to your work computer.
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.
Security for electronic information
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:
Secure the device – set a strong password, passcode or pattern lock on the device. Is the security software up to date? Are there firewalls and current antivirus software in place and up to date?
Secure health information on the device – find out if you can use password protection on certain documents or if you can encrypt the information.
Why does this matter?
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.
What if something does go wrong?
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:
Containment – prevent the situation from worsening.
Evaluation – evaluate the potential harm that may be caused.
Notification – decide whether the seriousness of the situation requires you to notify people who may be affected.
Prevention – learn the lessons and reduce the chances of a repeat.
Checklist
Do I need everything I’m planning to take? (If not, leave it behind!)
What are my safest choices in accessing the health information on a job?
What can I do to make sure the health information I take off-site is safe and secure (to prevent accidental loss or theft)?
Is there anything else I can do to make sure the health information remains safe while I am off-site?
When I get to my destination, how will I store the health information safely?
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.
The Rules Applying to this case
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.
OPC’s approach
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.
Commentary
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.
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.
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.
Associate Education Minister David Seymour has today announced an Early Childhood Education (ECE) Funding Review to ensure the funding system is simple, fair, and gets value for money.
Mr Seymour has established an ECE Funding Review Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG), chaired by Linda Meade to carry out this review. It will report on it’s findings this time next year.
“No money is being taken away and any findings by the MAG will be at least financially neutral,” Mr Seymour says.
“ECE funding should be used effectively to keep costs for families down. Vote Education spends approximately $2.7 billion on ECE. We need to make sure this funding is going as far as it can and prioritising the right things.
“The MAG members bring a range of early learning and business expertise which will be key to the review.”
The group will be chaired by Linda Meade who has a mixture of economics and real experience in the sector. She is the perfect chair for this review.
“The ECE funding system should provide the best return on investment for taxpayers. This means providing families with accessible and affordable services which facilitate parents returning to the work force and give kids a great start in life,” Mr Seymour says.
“There is huge demand for ECEs from families across New Zealand, however numbers show supply isn’t keeping up. That is why we are committed to making changes which will allow the industry to expand and provide more high-quality services for families and their children.
“The funding system is too complicated. It confuses families, providers struggle to forecast financial sustainability, and parents take time off work when they can’t access care.
“We want to be certain that taxpayer money is being used effectively. For example, we don’t know if the ‘one size fits all’ funding approach in ECE works for parents who don’t have traditional working arrangements or consistent patterns of child attendance. These parents are often the most disadvantaged.
“The review will be wide ranging, though some things are excluded. The policy benefits of 20 Hours ECE will and FamilyBoost will be preserved. Please find the review terms of reference attached.
“The review will compliment other work we are doing in the ECE sector. Changes made by the ECE Sector Review to modernise and simplify ECE are also underway. By the end of next year ECE providers will also be governed by a regulatory system which ensures regulations are focused on what matters, child safety.
“In the meantime, recent amendments to the pay parity opt-in scheme aim to provide some cost relief to ECE services.”
Notes to editors:
Linda Meade (Chair): Brings a deep understanding of social sector infrastructure, particularly in Early Childhood Education as a co-founder of a family owned ECE centre since 2008. She brings expertise in investment strategy, governance and funding system design, developed through her work experience in New Zealand and overseas. Linda is a co-owner of Daisies Early Education & Care Centre and is the Managing Director of Kalimena Advisory, which she founded following almost three decades working at PwC and Deloitte, where she was the lead partner in New Zealand for Deloitte Access Economics.
Simon Laube: Provides extensive knowledge of the early learning sector and brings skills and expertise in policy development, government engagement, and sector advocacy. He is the Chief Executive of the Early Childhood Council (ECC), a membership organisation of more than 1,500 ECE centres across New Zealand.
Melissa Glew: Offers skills in strategic planning, property oversight, and resource optimisation, and brings understanding of financial and operational management in the ECE sector. She is the Chief Financial Officer at the Auckland Kindergarten Association, which educates approximately 10,000 children annually across 108 kindergartens and 4 KiNZ centres.
Kelly Seaburg: Provides strong understanding of ECE and literacy, with skills in centre leadership and educational resource development. She is currently Director of New Shoots Children’s Centre (Sunnynook and Miniland) and is a member of the Ministry of Education’s Early Childhood Advisory Committee (ECAC).
Dr. Kane Meissel: Brings in-depth knowledge of educational research, with much of his work focusing on improving educational experiences from early childhood into early adulthood. He has made significant contributions to research in these areas. He is an Associate Professor in educational psychology at the University of Auckland, holding a Ph.D. in the same field.
Dr. Michael Fletcher: Brings skills in the design and application of social policy and welfare systems, specifically in economic analysis, policy advice, and research on family and employment issues. He is an Adjunct Research Fellow in the School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, has previously been a special advisor for the Welfare Expert Advisory Group and worked as a policy advisor for the Ministry of Social Development.
Kylie Eagle: Brings extensive experience in business, people and performance, and communication. She is currently the Chief People Officer at Fletcher Building.
The Government’s focus on restoring performance and accountability in the health system is delivering real outcomes for patients, Health Minister Simeon Brown says.
“The latest quarterly results show clear progress in putting patients first and delivering access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders,” Mr Brown says.
In the latest quarter, from January to March, key improvements include:
Shorter emergency department stays: 74.2 per cent of patients were admitted, discharged, or transferred within six hours, up from 70.1 per cent last year.
Childhood immunisations: 79.3 per cent of 24-month-olds fully immunised, up from 76.9 per cent last year.
Faster cancer treatment: 84.6 per cent of patients starting treatment within 31 days, up from 83 per cent last year.
Fewer people waiting for elective procedures: The number of patients waiting has dropped by 1,891, between January and March 2025.
“These results reflect meaningful progress for patients across the country. While there is still more work to do to shorten emergency department stays, increase childhood immunisations, and speed up access to cancer treatment, this is a step in the right direction. Restoring performance and accountability takes time, and we remain focused on continuing to deliver improvements.”
While the percentage of patients waiting longer than four months for elective procedures and first specialist assessments increased, Health New Zealand continued to deliver increased care for patients.
“In the last quarter alone, more than 48,000 elective procedures and 167,000 first specialist assessments were completed. That’s thousands of New Zealanders getting back to work, returning to everyday life, and regaining their quality of life.
“Waitlists for elective procedures have dropped, meaning fewer people are waiting for care and more patients are being seen. This marks a meaningful step toward a patient-focused health system.
“There is more work to do, which is why we are delivering the Elective Boost. Between February and May, Elective Boost has delivered over 9,500 additional elective procedures, with the majority being for patients who have been waiting longer than four months.
“Progress is also being made on first specialist assessments, with 102 per cent of planned volumes delivered in the year to March 2025. That means more patients being seen.”
Mr Brown says the Government remains committed to building on this momentum, driving further improvements, and making the system more responsive to patients.
“Backed by our record $30 billion investment into health each year, we are prioritising key services, supporting patients, and driving better outcomes.
“After years of decline, our health system is being rebuilt around patients. These improvements mean shorter stays in emergency departments, more children protected through timely immunisations, faster access to cancer treatment, and fewer people waiting for an elective procedure when every day counts.
“By measuring what matters and holding the system accountable, we are putting patients first and supporting our frontline healthcare workers to deliver access to timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders,” Mr Brown says.
The derelict and unsafe Gordon Wilson Flats in Wellington will lose its protected heritage status and become eligible for demolition through an amendment to the Resource Management Act (RMA) in the coming weeks, RMA Reform and Housing Minister Chris Bishop says.
“The Gordon Wilson Flats were used as social housing until 2012, when an engineer’s report showed the building was so unsafe that large slabs of the concrete exterior could come off in an earthquake or even a strong wind. The building has sat vacant since then, becoming more dangerous and more of an eyesore every year,” Mr Bishop says.
“The Gordon Wilson Flats are currently listed as heritage protected in the Wellington City District Plan, making it nearly impossible for anyone to get a resource consent to demolish them or alter them.
“There has been attempt after attempt to deal with the Gordon Wilson Flats since 2012, all of which have failed. The Flats sit as an ugly scar on the Wellington skyline, emblematic of a failed planning system that prioritises preservation of heritage, no matter the economic cost.
“Cities shouldn’t be museums. The Wellington City Council wants the Gordon Wilson flats demolished, the University (the current owner) wants them demolished, and the people of Wellington want them demolished too.
“The Government is not prepared to let the situation continue any longer.
“Cabinet has agreed to enable the demolition of Gordon Wilson Flats by amending the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which has recently been reported back to Parliament.
“The amendment will remove the Flats’ protected heritage status and will make its demolition a permitted activity under the RMA. This means the building can finally be demolished, without a resource consent.
“The amendments will not apply to any other heritage-protected buildings around the country. The Gordon Wilson Flats have been singled out because the building is owned by a public institution – Victoria University – and because that owner, the council and the community all want it gone.
“I know many Wellingtonians will be relieved to know the Gordon Wilson Flats’ days of heritage protection are numbered, and that it is unlikely to mar our beautiful city’s skyline for too much longer.
The Amendment Paper to the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill will be introduced during the Bill’s Committee of the Whole House stage, between its second and third readings. The Bill is expected to pass into law in the middle of 2025.
“The Bill also contains wider amendments to allow councils to de-list heritage buildings in their district plans faster and more easily. The wider issue of heritage protection is also being actively considered as part of the government’s replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act, expected to be introduced later in the year.”
Note to Editor:
Victoria University may choose to demolish the Gordon Wilson Flats following the enactment of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. While they would not need a resource consent for the demolition, they would still need a demolition consent under the Building Act 2004 to ensure appropriate management of matters such as handling and disposing of hazardous building materials and controlling silt runoff, excess noise and dust generated by the demolition.