Category: Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A group of abuse survivors is boycotting an apology by the Marist Brothers in Auckland, while another is set to protest outside.

They say survivors have been blocked from speaking at the event and that the “so-called apology” is immoral and fraudulent.

But there are others who want to hear the “long overdue” apology and hope the organisation will finally properly acknowledge what happened – and the cover up that followed.

Marist Star, the brothers’ organisation, was set to make a formal apology in Auckland on Saturday to survivors of abuse at the hands of brothers in New Zealand.

The group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests is holding an counterevent in Hawke’s Bay – tying ribbons to remember and honour survivors.

A spokesperson and survivor Christopher Longhurst said he was denied the chance to speak for two minutes at the apology.

That was despite Marist saying survivors could speak, he said.

He said it was an immoral event by a group that had consistently fought against survivors being acknowledged and heard.

“Their apology, lets be honest, is a public relations apology to make it seem like they are being accountable.”

Murray Heasley is a spokesperson for Network for Survivors of Abuse in Faith Based Institutions, which has dozens of members who were assaulted by Marist Brothers.

He said the “so-called” apology was completely unacceptable.

The brothers were controlling the format – and Heasley’s group also had a survivor who was denied the chance to briefly speak, Heasley said.

The group was also angry that Fijians who had been preyed upon by New Zealand Marist Brothers were getting a lot less financial compensation than people in Aotearoa, he said.

They had been were told to take up the problem with the organisation in Fiji but it was New Zealand-based brothers who had harmed them, so they should be the ones to make sure they got proper redress, he said.

Heasley understood why the apology was important to some of the survivors.

“What we have an objection to is the fact this is not a public apology that’s got any real meaning. It’s performative,” he said.

A long wait for sorry

But survivor Frances Tagaloa would be attending with friends and family.

“My whānau being there is quite important to me because they have experienced the impacts of abuse – lifelong impacts for me,” she said.

She was anxious ahead of the “long overdue” apology.

It was 24 years in making after she complained to the organisation in 2002 ago about abuse she suffered in the 1970s from aged five to seven.

Marist needed to go beyond apologising for the abuse itself, but also for the way they had responded to survivors, she said,

“Which was often secrecy or coverup or deflection or protection, protecting their own reputation or the institution rather than helping the survivor,” she said.

She wanted specifics from Saturday, she said.

She wanted Marist to name the different kinds of abuse the brothers inflicted – sexual, physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual, she said.

And they should name the venues – so that survivors, even those who had not come forward, might know they were not alone.

Even though it was important to her to hear the apology, she respected the decision of the survivors who did not want to attend.

The Marist Brothers had apologised many times during the Royal Commission into Abuse in State Care but those had been very hollow, she said

So she understood the reluctance and scepticism that some people felt.

“For me, I need to hear a genuine and respectful apology and if I don’t hear that I will let them know.”

Marist response

The Marist Star organisation said it understood why some would feel the apology was not enough or would question its meaning.

The perspectives were important and reflected the depth of hurt, a spokesperson said.

“For others, however, this moment may offer a step towards acknowledgement and healing,” the organisation said in a statement.

A survivors committee had helped shaped the apology, and survivors whose emails they had were invited to provide input, the spokesperson said.

Five survivors would speak at the event, despite a large number asking to.

“Unfortunately, it has not been possible to accommodate all requests, with care, safety, and the purpose of the apology being key considerations,” the spokesperson said.

“Survivors have been offered the opportunity to share written testimonies, which will be respectfully displayed on the day.”

The apology would also be streamed online at the Marist Star website.

Where to get help:

• Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason.
• Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357.
• Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.
• Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202.
• Samaritans: 0800 726 666.
• Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@youthline.co.nz.
• What’s Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds.
• Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, and English.
• Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254.
• Healthline: 0800 611 116.
• Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155.
• OUTLine: 0800 688 5463.

If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

The South Island is in for a double dose of heavy rain as back-to-back storms lash New Zealand.

MetService has issued a heavy rain warning for the Buller, Gray and Westland Districts, Tasman District northwest of Motueka, Ranges of Nelson and Marlborough between Nelson City and the Awatere River, Nelson Lakes National Park, and the headwaters of the Canterbury lakes and rivers about and south of Arthurs Pass National Park.

“We’ve had some heavy rain in the ranges of the Tasman District and Westland on Thursday,” Metservice meteorologist David Miller said.

“And heavy rain is expected to continue in these areas right up until Friday evening.”

On Thursday, some rain gauges in the South Island recorded in the vicinity of 100-130 millimetres in a 24-hour period, Miller said.

For the ranges of Westland District the total rainfall from Thursday through Saturday was expected to reach 500-600 millimetres.

A strong wind warning had also been issued for Taranaki, Wellington, Marlborough southeast of the Awatere River, and Canterbury High Country – with winds gusting between 120-140 km/h in exposed places.

Miller said there was a low risk that the orange-level wind and rain warnings would be upgraded to a more severe red-level warning.

“But an orange warning is still an event to take seriously,” he said.

“There could well be rising streams and rivers, surface flooding, slips, and dangerous driving conditions in these areas, so care does need to be taken.”

The strong winds were also expected to drive heavy swell into some marine areas. Combined waves of 4-5 metres were expected for the west coast on Friday, rising above 6 metres in the south Saturday and spreading to most areas of the country exposed to the south on Sunday.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Social media giant Meta is expanding its protections for New Zealand teenagers, giving parents extra controls over what their children see online.

Teen Accounts on Instagram, Facebook and Messenger feature built-in restrictions on content, as well as time limit reminders and ways for parents to monitor their teen’s chats.

Meta vice president and global head of safety Antigone Davis had been in New Zealand in February to showcase the feature.

It comes as the government mulls banning social media for under 16-year-olds, as well as a landmark US case where Meta was found liable for designing platforms in a way that can be intentionally addictive and harmful to young people.

The company was tried alongside Google, with each company ordered to pay millions in damages.

Meta said teens would not be able to follow accounts found to regularly share age-inappropriate content or that have inappropriate names.

The expanded protections showed teens content similar to what would be in an age-appropriate movie by default.

“Just like you might see some suggestive content or hear some strong language in a movie rated for ages 13 plus, teens may occasionally see something like that on Instagram, but we’re going to keep doing all we can to keep those instances as rare as possible,” a spokesperson said.

“We recognise no system is perfect, and we’re committed to improving over time. “

A Limited Content setting was also included, aimed to be stricter on content, Meta said.

“It will also remove teens’ ability to see, leave, or receive comments under posts.

“The new Limited Content setting is designed to give parents more control over what their teen sees on Instagram.

“We hope this update reassures parents that we’re working to show teens safe, age-appropriate content on Instagram by default, while also giving them more ways to shape their teens’ experience.”

The new features would be implemented on Instagram Teen Accounts, as well as Facebook and Messenger Teen Accounts globally.

“Teens on Facebook and Messenger in New Zealand will start to be defaulted into the updated 13+ setting this week, and the Limited Content setting will become available later this year.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Is New Zealand about to get its own version of a law that caused uproar in New South Wales, clashes in Sydney’s streets and that has now been thrown out?

The Law Society here is worried the Policing Amendment Bill which is making its way through Parliament with strong police backing will clamp down on political protest.

“It’s a clear parallel,” said Timothy Roberts, president of the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties.

There is evidence behind the concern – the Independent Police Conduct Authority last year found police exhibited a lot of uncertainty and inconsistency about the limits of lawful protest and what the restrictions should be, and called for explicit laws to protect protesters’ rights.

But the government on Wednesday said: “Our police have a strong, long-standing track record of upholding civil liberties and human rights.”

Last month New South Wales’ top court threw out a law enacted after the Bondi Beach terror attack.

The public assembly restriction declaration or PARD scheme expanded police powers to restrict protests in certain areas.

In such a zone in Sydney in February, police clashed with people protesting the visit of Israel’s president.

The city’s mayor Clover Moore said, “Seeing the unrestrained force used to impose those demarcations was disturbing.”

Roberts said the new law had a lot to do with it.

“The police were completely inflexible. So they could have released the crowd to march on from the area peaceably. But because of the political pressure, the legislative framework, they didn’t.

“And that inflexibility led to some really serious violence,” Roberts told RNZ.

Like Roberts, Samantha Lee saw parallels between the PARD and the New Zealand bill. Lee is assistant principal lawyer at Redfern Legal Centre which is working to get criminal charges against Sydney protesters dismissed.

“What the court found is that this executive power is a breach of the constitution in terms of the political freedom of communication and that what it was really doing is stopping the right to protest,” Lee said.

“Protesting has a long history in Australia, as it does there in New Zealand. And the court did say a lot about that, that police should not remove a person’s ability to bring governments to account, even if they’re protesting against against matters that the police don’t like,” Lee said.

The NSW law was rushed in. The New Zealand bill was hurriedly drafted without public consultation.

Police Minister Mark Mitchell said he was open to feedback on any bill, “which is exactly why it goes through the select committee process so New Zealanders can have their say and ensure that it’s fit for purpose”.

The bill’s first part would expand police intelligence-gathering powers; its second part would expand their powers to declare areas off-limits ahead of time in case of imminent public disorder. It would extend the power beyond roads to many public places, and add an instant $1000 infringement fee for someone who entered or did not leave a zone, plus adding a new offence of failing to give police identifying details.

Most reporting has focused on the first part.

The Law Society is pushing the select committee to amend both parts of the bill.

“The difficulties in enforcement and the desirability of ‘closing’ a space are acknowledged, as is the prospect that disturbances may involve other areas (parks etc, other public spaces such as river beds) which are not roads,” it said.

“Against this, however, there are also valid concerns regarding the risks of undue expansion, in that political protests involving disorder may lead to closure of roads and accessible places, and thus prohibitions on entry and potential arrests.”

The bill made “vague” references to “public safety objectives” that could trigger closure, risking “creep in their use into the field of legitimate protest”, the society said.

Paul Rishworth KC helped write its submission.

“It needs to be reconsidered as to how it all applies to public protest,” Rishworth said.

“An example would be that if a protest of some sort is happening or is planned for the following day, and there is either actual counter-protest or the threat of counter-protest, that might be seen as producing disorder or likely to produce disorder, then that might be a reason for closing it down.”

There were existing powers police had to deal with boy racers, he added.

The bill was not a direct parallel with PARD but was in the same universe, and at the very least should be amended to require regular reporting back by police on how they were using the new powers, Rishworth said.

Also, the Law Society wanted preconditions on closures to be added, and the infringement offences removed since the offence of obstruction already existed.

However, Police Association president Steve Watt rejected that part two went too far.

“What it’s aimed to do is increase public safety around those public places where disorder and other events like boy racers might tend to congregate,” said Watt.

“The police are, you know, extremely well-versed when it comes to lawful protests from members of the public.

“I can’t see police using this law as a method of shutting down lawful protests.”

Mitchell said the bill as a whole was about “reinstating police’s ability to lawfully collect and record information to keep communities safe, not introducing new powers”.

“I’ve seen the concerns raised and will consider any sensible changes which improve clarity, but my focus is on restoring the tools police need to keep Kiwis safe.”

Police consulted about part one of the bill with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, but not about part two.

The bill’s regulatory impact statement talked about police working through the issues as they implemented it.

Last year, after a two-year investigation, the Independent Police Conduct Authority found both the law, and police practices and understanding, were lacking around protesters’ rights.

It called for explicit legislation to protect them.

“Without such a legislative regime, the preservation of fundamental rights is likely to come under increasing threat,” it said.

Documents attached to the policing bill did not mention the IPCA investigation. The authority declined to comment while the bill was before Parliament.

The bill sees the IPCA and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner as the main watchdogs over how police used it.

However, the authority recently told MPs it lacked resources, and the Commissioner has put out several statements opposing the bill, saying the level of oversight was inadequate.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A major report highlighting the risks of climate change to almost every facet of New Zealand life is a “big wake-up call”, climate researchers say.

One is calling for a war-time approach to climate adaptation, saying partisanship must be removed from crucial decisions about costs.

The Climate Change Commission’s national risk assessment, released on Thursday, highlighted what it said were the 10 biggest climate-related risks for the country.

Threats to buildings, road and rail, and the country’s “degraded” water infrastructure were all on the list, but it also included social and community wellbeing, emergency management, funding and decision-making.

There were “extreme” shortfalls in policy for many of the risks, and too much money was being spent reacting to events instead of building resilience, the commission said.

Earth Sciences New Zealand principal climate scientist Nick Cradock-Henry said since the previous risk assessment was published in 2020, the urgency of the climate risk was now clear.

“The speed and scale, the speed of onset of these risks, is increasing almost in real time,” he said.

“We’re having extreme weather events from once every few years to almost monthly – that is a dramatic acceleration in just a few years.”

Risks that had previously been hypothetical, like insurance retreat, were now a reality in some places, Cradock-Henry said.

“We are seeing already then in the absence of a comprehensive strategy to deal with climate change, insurers are waking up to the fact that there’s no plan.

“There is increasing exposure and there is an unwillingness in the part of insurers to bear the costs of that.”

Responding to the report’s release, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said adaptation to climate change was “a key priority” for the government.

“That’s why last year we released a National Adaptation Framework and are progressing a range of work across the planning system, emergency management, and local government to give us an enduring system that prepares New Zealand for the impacts of climate change, while keeping costs to our society as low as possible,” he said.

The commission’s report would help the government to “better understand the urgency and severity of climate risks so we can sequence and prioritise action”.

Cradock-Henry said the government’s framework was “skeletal” and local councils needed much more clarity and support.

“They are on the front lines of managing this and they are under-resourced and are in many ways essentially flying blind,” he said.

“We need a Climate Adaptation Bill.”

University of Canterbury political science professor Bronwyn Hayward said the report had been released at the “worst time politically”.

“We’re going into a highly partisan election, we’ve got a rushed ultimatum to local government for restructuring, we’re restructuring the key agencies that are responsible for delivering responses to risk, particularly the Ministry for the Environment, and all of this almost chaotic change is really putting at risk our ability to move thoughtfully, inclusively, and transparently in not just planning, but actually implementing action.”

Politicking needed to be put aside so that lasting decisions could be made about how to share the costs of adaptation.

“We’ve seen it occasionally at times of great crisis,” she said.

“In World War II, we actually had ministers that were appointed from the opposition as well as from government. During Covid, we had a select committee that was led by the opposition.”

In the meantime, there was no “coherent plan”.

“We’re leaving individuals to respond to risk and to inform themselves, and we’re dealing with events as if they are one-off emergencies each time that we face them.”

Climate Prescience director and researcher Nathaneal Melia said from a scientific perspective, the report was “a big wake-up call” but likely still underplayed the risks.

It should be treating the massive costs to the economy and society from the North Island weather events in 2023 as the current “best worst-case scenario”.

“Come, say, 10 years’ time, you’re going to get another event like that, that’s going to be worse. And then the one 10 years day the line is going to be worse than that,” he said.

“So, are our systems robust enough to cope with these ‘black swan’ events that are coming?”

The government now has two years to respond to the risk report with a new adaptation plan.

Climate Change minister Simon Watts has previously said that no decisions about cost-sharing will be made until the next term of government.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand