Category: Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A Citizens Advice Bureau report based on more than 10,000 requests for assistance has revealed what it calls “a growing crisis in welfare support”.

It said people from all walks of life, and all ages and ethnicities, were struggling to meet basic living costs.

The report, which was released on Thursday, said government policy changes such as benefit sanctions, tighter emergency housing criteria and cuts to community services had all exacerbated hardship.

Minister for Social Development Louise Upston acknowledged many New Zealanders were finding things tough, but said the government had been focusing on fixing the basics to begin to ease the cost of living.

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 seven-year-old Hamilton boy who went missing after going to visit his friends has been found safe, his mother says.

His mother on Thursday morning told RNZ he had been returned to his family by a teacher.

Police had earlier issued an ‘amber alert’ after the boy left his home on Anderson Road in Deanwell at 4pm,

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

Record keepers are warning an amendment bill before Parliament will usher in the destruction or loss of vital public evidence such as from military operations overseas.

They also voiced alarm at a parliamentary select committee on Wednesday morning that public records could be privatised, citing the historical case of Ministry of Works records sold years ago to an engineering company, and no longer accessible to people.

Former chief archivist Richard Foy told MPs that three amendments in particular would weaken the Public Records Act and create loopholes.

Their most urgent worry was the move to let an agency such as the Defence Force get an exemption if it was in a multinational force that did its own record keeping, Foy, president of the Archives and Records Association of NZ, said.

“We think that allowing such exemptions risk creating the conditions for unauthorised destruction and loss of evidence.

“So accountability does not stop at the border. We don’t think the Public Records Act should either.”

Foy was a member of the Operation Burnham inquiry panel that castigated the NZDF last year for poor military record keeping about operations in Afghanistan. The Defence Force has since been trying [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/519234/nzdf-urgently-looking-to-move-crucial-information-from-obsolete-systems-documents

to update its information management systems].

Burnham was a strong case of “not necessarily destruction of records, but the poor management of them, and therefore the lack of access to evidence”, Foy said.

The exemption amendment would let the Chief Archivist grant an exemption to a public entity in an “arrangement” with another country or international organisation if they controlled or managed all or part of the record keeping. So, the NZDF in a NATO force or a US-led force could leave it up to NATO or the US.

The archivists’ association also opposed a change to let the minister have a say in destroying public records, Foy added. This would undermine the independence of the chief archivist, who currently had the full say.

As for a third amendment to remove the public status of any records sold, “this single change compromises custody, preservation and public access and risks institutionalising the loss of New Zealand’s public history”, Foy warned the governance and administration committee.

He gave the example from when records were less protected and the functions of the Ministry of Works and Development were privatised in the 1980s.

“Many of its records were sold to Opus. Those records are now largely inaccessible to the public, effectively lost to researchers and to people seeking information under the Official Information Act.

“Public accountability cannot be privatised.”

Records should be assessed by the Chief Archivist and copied if warranted before they were sold, Foy said.

Operation Burnham cited

Chief Ombudsman John Allen warned the best interests of the country could be undermined by introducing an exemption for multinational operations.

He cited Operation Burnham in Afghanistan, too.

“Some records were held by other international parties and, in fact, made it more difficult for NZDF to prove that our military had, in fact, complied with international law because the access to those records, or indeed the knowledge of those records, was not easily retained or understood by NZDF,” Allen told the lawmakers.

The Ombudsman proposed changing the bill to add some guidance to the Chief Archivist – and possibly the minister who the NZDF or other agency could appeal to – on how to exercise their discretion over granting any exemption; and secondly, to specify the agency maintained awareness of which records were being controlled by who.

But as it was the amendment bill was not aligned with the recommendations of the Operation Burnham inquiry, Allen said.

“At the moment, it is completely unwritten, therefore, it is extraordinarily broad, and we are concerned that as a consequence of that, decisions will be made that are not in the long-run in the best interests of this country.”

His office also told MPs the Public Records Act as it stood was very clear that making records accessible was a priority, so any move to make records less accessible should have to be “fleshed out”.

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

Police are cutting back what they tell a privately-run surveillance system about suspects, over concerns about who might see the information.

RNZ inquiries show Customs also wants to use the system, but might be able to see what police are telling retail stores about suspects.

“Customs may become a user of Auror, which may expose police information entered into the retail crime side of the platform,” said an internal memo in March, newly released to RNZ under the Official Information Act.

Police and Customs do not have an agreement to share data through another platform in this manner.

It would be a “significant issue” around security and privacy, the memo from the police’s technology watchdog said.

Police access the system of automated number plate recognition (ANPR) run by Auckland company Auror more than 200,000 times a year.

The widespread police use of ANPR is being legally challenged at the Court of Appeal, which lawyers expect will have wide ramifications for how this – and other surveillance technology – is used.

In official surveys, more New Zealanders say they worry about who can access and use their personal information.

Internal documents show an alarm went up in March at police, especially around officers inputting identifications into Auror of criminal suspects from CCTV images gained from shops through Auror.

“Due to the integrated nature of Auror’s platform, Customs will also have access to the retail crime side of the software,” the March police memo said.

Customs’ view “may include sensitive information such as nomination of offender identities”.

“This raises several concerns for NZ Police, particularly regarding information security and privacy.”

The problem was not just Customs, but also other potential future customers of Auror “with access”, a report said.

‘Police also aimed to reduce the amount of police information on Auror’

Customs has been quietly moving this year towards signing up with Auror.

It told RNZ it ran a trial for a year in 2022-23 to test ANPR within investigations and intelligence gathering, and “recognises the potential benefits… in law enforcement and border security”. It did not yet have a contract.

A police review of Auror usage in July told police to take more care what information they put in to the system.

“Police need to ensure on a case-by-case basis that any information visible to other parties is shared on a lawful basis.”

They did not stop the practice.

“No, police did not stop entering suspect information into Auror platform,” National Criminal Investigation Group director Detective Superintendent Keith Borrell told RNZ this week.

“Instead of ceasing the practice, police provided training and clear communication to police staff to ensure compliance with the Privacy Act Principles.”

This “emphasised that some Auror nominations may contain incorrect details, so thorough accuracy checks are required by police staff”.

“Police also aimed to reduce the amount of police information on Auror while maintaining operational effectiveness,” Borrell said in a statement.

This aligned with recommendations in a report in July.

His group was talking to Customs and Auror to ensure police information was protected.

The March memo said Auror had suggested warning boxes – or blanking out bits of the screen – but that was “likely insufficient”.

“This was never an unresolved issue,” said Borrell on Tuesday. “This approach is proactive and precautionary, not reactive to any breach or failure of Auror platform.”

Police told RNZ no records of any decisions made about this at a senior level existed.

‘It’s a beast’

A few pages of emails released under the OIA showed Customs began asking police for advice about ANPR in February.

“I’m leading Customs project to engage with and develop our ANPR capability, first with Auror, and then all going well SaferCities,” the unidentified Customs staffer wrote on 19 February to Inspector Adrian Ross.

“Suffice to say this has been a rather slow project due to the various risk and public perception concerns held by our chief executive.”

In March, they wrote about a complex security assessment set by Internal Affairs.

“I’m hoping to avoid that if I can as it’s a beast!”

They ended up doing it.

In April they asked police if there was a certain number of searches that constituted “live tracking activity”, because Customs’ lawyers wanted a figure.

“We pushed back on that, had to give staff ownership of their searches, and give them the space to make good decisions without being too prescribed.”

Police officers only live track a few hundred times a year, and it requires special authorisation.

In May 2025 the Customs staffer wrote to police: “I managed to get approval for Auror usage over the line with our Executive Board, so now the hard work begins!”

By August, the staffer was working as “a one-man band, managing the training materials, the contracts”, the standard operating procedures, the privacy impact assessment and all the certification and accreditation.

Public-private bond

Customs told RNZ the 2023 trial showed protocols, restrictions and processes were needed, and it was working on those.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner said it was aware of the matter, but would not comment on it, although it noted the court challenge against police.

For police, sharing suspect identifications is a problem – but not sharing them is also a problem, the reports showed.

“If police staff do not enter suspect nominations in Auror this will impact the ability for the Auror retail community to identify suspects for subsequent and linked offending which currently benefits Police,” said one. If no one was identified through Auror, the police file would get less priority.

The public-private bond over ANPR surveillance extends back over a decade to a police trial and other support for Auror.

But the private side of this has acted to limit what information can be gained about the system, by the media and even at the Court of Appeal level, where a judge in September noted: “We don’t know how pervasive this system is.”

When Customs was asked in 2023 under the OIA – not by RNZ – about its interactions with Auror, it withheld information and several reports including an Auror presentation and an Auror independent privacy review, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity or it getting the information in confidence.

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

Warning: Some images may be distressing.

A Christmas Eve swimming and fishing trip turned to a bloody disaster in 2022, when two women were struck by a spinning boat propeller.

Both were seriously injured and needed hospitalisation.

On Wednesday in the Thames District Court, skipper Travis Whiteman was sentenced and fined for careless operation of a vessel under the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

On 24 December 2022, the two victims, Whiteman, and another friend crossed the Tairua Bar before proceeding out towards the Alderman Islands.

The four young people, aged 21 to 23, consumed food and alcohol that they had all taken on board.

Judge Arthur Tompkins said it was clear Whiteman had been drinking.

A police breath test of Whiteman three hours after the incident occurred returned more than 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, the limit for driving on New Zealand roads. There is no alcohol limit for skippers on the sea in New Zealand.

“During the day, he had drunk a reasonable amount of alcohol – that seems extraordinary,” the judge said.

At one point the two victims went for a swim.

Judge Tompkins said the alcohol-affected Whiteman, not seeing where the victims were, put the boat into reverse and hit the two women with the propeller of the outboard motor.

Both victims have name suppression.

One victim had three permanent scars and said in her victim impact statement she genuinely thought she was going to die from the bleeding on the hour-long trip back to the mainland.

“I find myself wondering how differently things might have gone if help had been called straight away,” she said.

She said she continued to have ongoing psychological effects from the trauma and avoided water-based activities now.

The other victim also spoke of visible scarring and physical, emotional and practical impacts from her injuries.

“Both of us were terrified,” she said.

She said the skipper discarded alcohol bottles from the boat when he should have been calling emergency services.

Whitman’s lawyer said that this point in the victim impact statement was incorrect and ambulances were waiting for the boat to arrive back on the mainland which indicated an emergency call was made. He also questioned the seriousness of the victims’ injuries and raised the fact they had also been drinking.

Judge Tompkins wasn’t having it.

‘That’s coming very close to victim-blaming, Mr Wood,” he responded.

Both victims said Whiteman had shown no remorse or taken any responsibility. He entered a late guilty plea on the morning his judge alone trial was due to begin.

Judge Tompkins said Whiteman was the only one responsible for skippering the boat.

He fined the defendant $3600 for each of the two charges and also ordered him to pay $4000 reparations to each victim.

Waikato Regional Council took the prosecution against Whiteman and compliance manager Patrick Lynch was in the court to hear the sentencing.

“This should have been a fantastic day for those four young people, and it was near tragedy, and completely avoidable,” he said.

Outside the court, the mother of one of the victims said the girls would not have gone on the boat if she had known the skipper would be drinking.

“Boys, drinking, and big boats don’t mix, it should be like cars, no drinking,” she said.

The problem was that in New Zealand there were no rules against drinking while skippering a boat.

“We need to change legislation to make sure that happens, boating and drinking shouldn’t occur,” she said.

Lynch also thought that a change to the legislation was long overdue.

Recreational harbourmaster for Waikato, Hayden Coburn, was also at court and said even if it was not against the law his message to skippers was clear.

“There’s to be no drinking by the person responsible for the vessel and for the crew and their safety on board the vessel,” he said.

And he said that should be for the whole time of the planned trip.

“That’s the preparation before they go out, that’s during the boating, and that’s the follow up.”

Lynch hoped the prosecution served as a warning.

“We want to send a very specific deterrence to this skipper about his behaviour on this occasion, and we want to send a general deterrence to other skippers who are thinking about drinking and skippering,” Lynch said.

In the meantime, the victim’s mother said healing continued for the two young women.

“The girls are recovering but obviously the phycological scars take longer than the physical scars,” she said.

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 family violence specialist says she is regularly contacted by women who say their abusive partner has shared custody of their kids and they wish they never left.

It comes as newly released information reveals officials shelved work to see how families in custody battles could be better screened for domestic violence.

Debbs Murray is a survivor of domestic violence and now heads Eclipse, a service that aims to prevent family violence and train those working in the sector.

She said it breaks her heart to hear from women who say their abusive ex-partners are given unsupervised custody of their children.

“I get emails from women who say I should’ve just stayed because the Family Court has allowed my children to go unsupervised to a known family violence abuser and if I’d stayed at least I would’ve had eyes on.”

Murray said every case in the Family Court needs to be screened for violence, but they are not.

She is often contacted by women who want to have a formal risk assessment conducted by an expert.

“That’s part of why I’m contacted as well, because they want someone anyone to be able to present the risk that they are experiencing into the judicial space.”

Backbone Collective advocates for survivors of domestic violence and received a raft of information from the Ministry of Justice about introducing a formal risk assessment for those embroiled in family law proceedings.

The response showed Family Court Principal Judge Jackie Moran had started the work but it had been shut down at steering committee level in 2023.

A Ministry presentation included in the official information response stated they did not know if people coming to the Family Court have experienced family violence.

Backbone’s manager and co-founder Deborah Mackenzie said that’s a big gap and puts a lot of responsibility on the court-appointed psychologists and lawyers who assess such situations.

“What we know from everything victim survivors and children have shared with Backbone is that the reports they’re giving to Family Court judges often minimise the violence and abuse or they don’t believe protective parents and children when they disclose violence and abuse.”

She said it’s putting some people – mostly women and children – at risk.

“The judiciary are making decisions that force children into unsupervised care and contact with abusive parents as a result.”

Ministry of Justice group manager for commissioning and service improvement Lance Harrison said court staff may identify risk factors informally then refer the participant to a support service that must conduct formal risk assessments.

He said family violence response training is also provided to people working in the courts.

University of Auckland associate professor of law, Carrie Leonetti, said the Family Court accepts evidence of domestic violence only from court-appointed psychologists and lawyers.

“Women go to places like Shine and they go to places like Women’s Refuge and they get an evidence based risk assessment done,” she said.

“That evidence based risk assessment says this child is not safe in the care of the other parent or it is not safe for this person to have shared legal guardianship with the perpetrator it will put them at risk and the Family Court won’t accept the evidence.”

Carrie Leonetti is also a professorial lecturer in law at George Washington University’s domestic violence programme.

At times she is approached to do risk assessments.

“I’ve had women come to me and want to contract, privately, reports from me and I’ve had to say to them they won’t take it in evidence. The court won’t consider anything an expert in domestic violence has to say they won’t even admit the evidence. They only want to hear from their court psychologist.”

She says it is out of keeping with international practice and does not have to be that way.

Leonetti believed it comes down to the Family Court’s interpretation of section 133 of the Care of Children Act – which enables the court to hire psychologist to assess a child’s best interests.

“For years not the Family Court has interpreted section 133 of the Care of Children Act to mean that they won’t take evidence from any psychologists or any social workers or any psychiatrists other than the ones that they appoint and assign to the case.”

Backbone Collective is calling for the Minister of Justice to fund and progress work to ensure victims of family violence are identified and not put at further risk in custody disputes.

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