Around 10 cows killed after vehicle crashes into herd outside Palmerston North
RNZ / REECE BAKER
*A previous version of this story stated around 20 cows had been killed. A later police update clarified that 10 died and four have been injured.
Police say 10 cows have died, and four have been injured after a vehicle crashed into a herd outside of Palmerston North on Friday night.
Emergency services received reports of a collision between a vehicle and a herd of cows on Napier Road, SH3, near Ashurst around 8.30pm.
The driver of the vehicle suffered moderate injuries.
Both lanes were blocked, and diversions were put in place while the road was cleared.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
8 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Supermarket pricing errors to be wary of
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them. Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials. But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the act. It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets. Dodgy multibuy A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. Different pricing Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. Confusing Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80? Mismatches Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. "One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. "The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado." Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job. "But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said. "We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. "Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. "If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate." Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur". "When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product." Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
Otago Daily Times
8 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Four common supermarket price errors to look out for
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them. Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials. But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the act. It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets. Dodgy multibuy A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. Different pricing Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. Confusing Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80? Mismatches Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. "One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. "The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado." Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job. "But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said. "We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. "Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. "If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate." Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur". "When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product." Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Submissions for bill criminalising migrant exploitation set to close
Several high-profile cases of migrant exploitation have been uncovered in Auckland in recent years. Photo: RNZ / Blessen Tom Public submissions for a bill that seeks to criminalise migrant exploitation close on Monday. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford introduced the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill on 7 April, proposing several amendments relating to offences, penalties and proceedings, among others. The bill passed its first reading on 24 June and was referred to the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Introducing the bill in Parliament, Stanford outlined 10 amendments the bill sought to make in the Immigration Act 2009, noting its focus on tackling migrant exploitation. "The bill addresses a gap in New Zealand's migrant exploitation settings by creating a new offence, which is to knowingly seek or receive a monetary premium for an offer of employment," Stanford said. "Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation and it causes real harm. Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars," she said. "Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer," she said. "This change makes it even clearer that this behaviour is not tolerated in New Zealand. It will enable us to prosecute more instances of migrant exploitation and hold exploitative behaviour to account." The bill proposes inserting a new section in the Immigration Act 2009 that creates a new offence. "It will be an offence for an employment-related person to knowingly seek or receive a premium in respect of the employment or potential employment in New Zealand of a victim," the draft bill reads. "New section 351A(1) applies before the victim starts work in New Zealand and whether or not they actually start work in New Zealand." Under the proposed section, a person is defined as a victim if they are domiciled in New Zealand or based overseas and fall within the category of an unlawful worker, a temporary entry class visa holder, a potential temporary entry class visa holder or a potential residence class visa holder. If approved, section 351A would make it an offence to charge premiums for employment, irrespective of whether a worker has started employment. At present, the offence only captures situations in which people are actively working in New Zealand and where the employer is the one charging the premium. The proposed bill widens the scope to include a potential employer, agent or any person involved in the recruitment of a victim. The penalty for the new offence will be imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, a fine not exceeding $100,000 or both. Arunjeev Singh, general secretary of the New Zealand Forum for Immigration Professionals, criticised some of the bill's content, arguing it gave "unfettered power" to immigration officers and went beyond the relationship of an employer and employee. Other immigration advisors told RNZ they questioned whether such legislation could be enforced in another jurisdiction if passed into law.
