Law Change Better Protecting Children's Rights In Sexual Violence Cases Welcomed
The Victims of Sexual Violence Bill amends the law so that children under the age of 12 cannot be questioned about whether they consented to sex.
'It was wrong that this provision was still in our law, so I'm pleased the Government led work to change this. It's positive too, that there was support from many parties across Parliament for this change. When it comes to children and their rights, the best thing the Government and Parliament can do is to work together, putting children first. This is a good example of this,' says Dr Achmad.
The Chief Children's Commissioner says that better protections for victims of sexual violence have been a long time coming.
'I've had the privilege of meeting with children and young people throughout New Zealand who are victim-survivors of sexual violence, and they talk to me about the systemic change that's needed to protect their rights and help them heal.
'While there's still much more to do, so that no child experiences sexual violence of any form, I strongly welcome the changes passed last night. They are important steps towards strengthening the rights of children and young people in court processes.
'I acknowledge the immense courage of victims, especially mokopuna survivors of sexual assault, who shared their lived experience to help shape the legislation,' she says.
'The changes to the law that recognise that mokopuna cannot consent to abuse, and that they should not be questioned or challenged about whether they consented to sex, are crucial to keeping them safe from re-traumatisation.'
In its submission to Parliament on the Bill, Mana Mokopuna – Children and Young People's Commission supported the Bill's overarching goal to amend the Crimes Act 1961 to give victim survivors of sexual assault more agency in court processes.
'I also advocated for stronger protections for mokopuna aged 12-16 years in these court processes, and training and education for the legal sector and judiciary to ensure they apply the legislation as intended,' says Dr Achmad.
'I hope that the changes passed last night signal continued commitment and action to recognise the rights and wellbeing of children and young people in all court processes affecting them.
'Supporting mokopuna to have agency in these processes and to be recognised as the children that they are is so important – both upholding their rights and in ensuring they can begin their healing journey,' she says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
31 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Marsden Fund says it was given only a day's notice of further funding cuts
Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti said public good science was still being supported, and the government would have more options to reinvest in the future. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi A decades-old fund dedicated to blue-skies research says it was given a day's notice of further funding cuts and told to keep quiet about it until the government made it public. The Marsden Fund, which backs fundamental research - science for the sake of knowledge - is among three contestable funds to lose millions to help set up the new Institute for Advanced Technology . Scientists said slashing funding for such research could have significant unintended consequences for innovation and warned the Prime Minister as such in a letter earlier this month. The cuts come amid a long-awaited review into the sector - final recommendations were delivered to the Science Minister three months ago, but are yet to be made public - and after the government announced the biggest overhaul of the science system in decades , to "ensure a system that generates maximum value for the economy". The reforms so far have seen the dissolution of science commercialisation arm, Callaghan Innovation, and merger of the six Crown Research Institutes into three mega science entities or Public Research Organisations (PROs) plus a fourth dedicated to advanced technology. Callaghan Innovation was dissolved in the government's overhaul of the science sector. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) said of the $231 million earmarked for the Institute for Advanced Technology over the next four years, more than half - $150.4m - was to be reallocated from within the science, innovation, and technology portfolio. MBIE's general manager of technology and innovation Dean Ford said it represented a shift in priorities towards emerging technologies that could be commercialised. "The majority of this funding will continue to go into science - but into new areas of research that have significant potential, where New Zealand is developing greater capability." Science Minister Shane Reti said organisations affected by the reallocated funding for the Institute for Advanced Technology, were advised ahead of the public announcement on 18 July. From July 2028, the Endeavour Fund, which provided funding for university researchers, will have its funding cut by $13.5m, and the Health and Research Council will lose $11.5m. While the Marsden Fund will have its funding slashed by a one-off $15m. Just over $24m has been found in the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation's operations across 2027-29, $18m from the New to R&D Grant for three years from 2025, and $3m is being reprioritised from 'contract management' over the next three years from July 2026. MBIE said $37.5m has also been found from within the Strategic Science Investment Fund from contracts which are coming to an end over the next three years, and $21.6m has been reprioritised from unallocated National Science Challenge funding. The remaining $80m will support the parts of Callaghan Innovation that are being retained. The changes are in addition to the $212m repurposed from research and innovation funds in Budget 2025 to support the overhaul of the science system. In a statement the Royal Society, which administered the Marsden Fund, said it learned of the $15m funding cut the day before the Institute for Advanced Technology was announced. "The Royal Society Te Apārangi received a letter from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on the afternoon of Friday 18 July 2025, confirming a phonecall the previous evening. "The letter advised that the Marsden Fund will be reduced by a further $15 million in the 2028/29 year, in addition to the reductions already announced in the Government's 2025 Budget in May. "Separately, MBIE requested that this information be treated in strict confidence until the government publicly released it." A briefing to the Science Minister regarding the funding for the Institute was made public on MBIE's website on 6 August . The society said the $15m reallocation "effectively doubles the reductions already announced in this year's budget, amounting to a cut of about 29 percent over the 3 years from 2026/27 to 2028/29". President of the Fund professor Jane Harding said the cuts to fundamental research were likely to have "significant unintended consequences" and "will undermine the long-term potential of the new Institute". "The Society is very concerned that cuts to funding for the fundamental research supported by the Marsden Fund will undermine the long-term potential of the new Institute and other parts of the sector that apply early stage research, by significantly reducing the pipeline of knowledge at the new-discovery end of the process. "This may have important unintended consequences for New Zealand in the long term." The cuts follow a government directive last year, that saw the Marsden Fund abandon support for social science and humanities research and direct at least half of its investments to research with economic potential. A spokesperson for the Health and Research Council said it's too early to know how the loss of $11.5m per year from July 2028 - a 10 percent reduction to its investment fund - and the almost $600,000 cut to its operational budget from next July, will impact the council's work. The Association of Scientists said it's "extremely concerned" by the reprioritisation of funds and says the cuts on top of Budget 2025 mean "our major research funds are in extremely bad shape". Co-president Lucy Stewart said the reduced contract management funding likely meant there would be jobs lost at funders such as the Royal Society and MBIE. Reti said "the government has made it clear on several occasions that we want publicly funded research to focus on solving real world problems that can be commercialised". He said public good science was continuing to be supported, and the government would have more options to reinvest in the future, "with the economic gains that can be made through commercialising research and advanced technologies". Meanwhile, the final report of Sir Peter Gluckman's review of the science system is yet to be made public following its delivery to the Science Minister at the end of April. The long-awaited report was the second part of the Science System Advisory Group's review of the sector, and would include recommendations on the system's funding. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
Robertson trashes Cunliffe
Things were not looking good for David Shearer in 2013. He was a conviction politician, and not a fan of political games. His media and public performances were not improving and arguably getting worse. I was there to help manage the party, and I was not succeeding either. There was even more chatter among the media that his days might be numbered. This came to a head on August 20 when he and his office decided that a good way to highlight changes to fisheries regulations that would harm recreational fishers would be to bring two dead snapper into the House. David was an experienced fisherman and he felt he could connect with voters on this issue. The opposite effect occurred — a dead man walking held up dead fish in Parliament. It was not instant, but that was the turning point. There were further rumbles, and eventually a story broke that a coup was about to be mounted. As deputy, I dug in and tried to identify who had spoken to the media; I even went as far as getting Caucus members to sign a pledge that it was not them, which they all signed! Eventually some of David's frontbench came forward to say that they had lost confidence. It was in some ways unfair: Labour's polling was higher than it had been in 2011. But this group could no longer see how David could lead us to victory and felt he would struggle in a campaign. By this stage my own relationship with David wasn't great either. I felt he wasn't listening to my advice, and he in turn felt that I was not fully supportive of him. Looking back, I think both of these things were partly true. I was never disloyal to David, but I probably was not as full throated as I could have been in my endorsement of him. As Whip, Chippy [Chris Hipkins] let David know that there was the possibility of a no-confidence motion coming forward. He told David he thought it could be defeated and it was still possible to stare down those who were seeking to have him removed. I recall a conversation one evening when I told David I backed him but that he needed to show that he really wanted the role. The next day, David called a media conference to announce his resignation. I don't have many regrets in politics, but one I do have is that I did not attend that press conference. I wanted to go, but I knew that the media would immediately ask if I was in the running to replace him and I did not want to be a distraction. But not showing up made me look disloyal. Once again we were in the spiral of a leadership contest. This time the choice to run was easier. I felt more prepared and, crucially, I knew that David Cunliffe was going to push hard to win. Just three days after David Shearer's resignation, I announced my run with concurrent interviews on the two 6pm news channels. TV3 led with the story. Their headline would become one of the features of the contest: 'Is New Zealand ready for its first gay Prime Minister?' In the interview I expressed the view that I did not think New Zealanders cared too much about my private life and were much more interested in the policies I would promote. In reality, I knew it was likely to be an issue and one that might be too tough to get past. David Cunliffe and I were joined by Shane Jones in the contest. I was pretty convinced that I would have the majority support among the Caucus: they were the people who knew us best, and there was a strong feeling that David was not the one to lead Labour to a win in the 2014 election. I got organised, gathered some of those closest to me — Jacinda, Phil Twyford, Megan Woods and Kris Faafoi, among others — and formed a campaign team. This was the first leadership contest to be run under the new rules. Twelve meetings were organised across the country, and we candidates hit the road to convince party members to vote for us. This proved a double-edged sword for the party. It meant we got a lot of media coverage, but it also meant most of that coverage was about our divisions, not about why we would be a better government. Over the course of the roadshows, we got used to each other's style and stump speech. Shane's was colourful, full of anecdote and florid phrasing, often harking back to the First and Fourth Labour Governments for inspiration. David's was a life story that highlighted his left-wing credentials and ended every night with the same phrase: 'My name is David Cunliffe and I am ready to lead.' My speech was an attempt to take the work of the Fifth Labour Government to the next stage. I harked back to the values of the Labour Party around work, opportunity and equality, and put them into modern contexts with issues like climate change and the digital economy. I found that it landed pretty well most nights. But the cloud of my sexuality loomed large. After the meeting in Christchurch, which I felt I had 'won', a gay couple I knew a little came up to congratulate me on my performance. Then they stunned me by saying, 'But we are not going to vote for you.' I was speechless as they went on to say, 'We just don't think New Zealanders will vote for a gay Prime Minister.' Hearing this from a gay couple was hard to take. Meanwhile, I got wind of a Labour stalwart from the West Coast who was openly going to branch meetings to push the line that the party could not have a gay leader. I called him up to ask what was going on. He was a bit remorseful and then said that he had been asked by someone in David's campaign to do this. I was incensed. I called David, who denied all knowledge of it. From my perspective, this did not ring true, especially after a former Labour Party staffer went on TV and said pretty much the same thing. In fairness to David, he did stand her down from his campaign. The same problem existed in the union movement. I had strong support from the Service Workers Union, thanks to my close links with them in Wellington. But I did not have the same connections with others. One leader of an affiliated union went to his members and explicitly ruled me out as a candidate because I was gay. It was an uphill battle, and in fairness David's line about his experience and readiness to lead was a factor as well. He had been an MP for nine years longer than me, and this mattered to members. I was hoping against hope when the results came in. In the end, David scored a decisive victory. I had won the Caucus vote, but he had prevailed among the members and the unions. I was upset — for myself, of course, but also for the party. I had an inkling of the chaos and calamity that was about to occur, but even I did not realise just how bad it would get. * The 2014 campaign proved one of my theories of politics — about the commodity of political oxygen. Political junkies have an endless interest in the machinations of politics. The general public do not. They can take on only so many issues or stories before switching off. In 2014 the Internet Mana Party gained only 1.42 percent of the vote. The presence of Kim Dotcom and his outrageous claims, however, gathered a huge amount of attention. They sucked up the available political oxygen for the Opposition, and we struggled to register with voters. When we did it was for the wrong reasons. David Cunliffe had a habit of putting his foot in his mouth. Most famously in this campaign it was his comment that he was 'sorry for being a man'. He also found numerous ways to lose focus on his message. A major misstep came at the Press debate in Christchurch where John Key confronted him with detailed questions on Labour's capital gains tax policy and whether it would impact the family home. David had been one of the architects of the policy during Labour's first term, and knew that it would not, but for some reason he was unable to answer. His behaviour was erratic as well. The next day I was undertaking visits with him in Christchurch. He and I were doing a lunch event with the local business community. It was classic David. He spoke well and cogently to a less-than-friendly audience. When we got to question time, he seemed distracted. At one point a question was put to me as the Economic Development spokesperson. David excused himself, saying he needed to take a phone call. And he never came back. I answered a couple more questions before the host called the whole thing off. I went outside to find David in his car. His press secretary was standing outside and gave me a pained look. I'd had enough and left him to it. On election night, Labour slumped to its worst result since 1922, with 24 percent of the vote. You would not have known it from David's speech that night. It was as if he had grabbed the wrong speech on the way out the door and was doing his victory one, not his concession. It was embarrassing. A mildly abbreviated chapter taken from Anything Could Happen: A memoir by Grant Robertson (Allen & Unwin, $39.99) available in bookstores nationwide. ReadingRoom is devoting the rest of the week to coverage of the former finance minister's book. Tomorrow: parliamentarians answer the question, 'Was David Cunliffe really as bad as Ardern and Robertson make him out to be? What did you make of him?'
Newsroom
2 hours ago
- Newsroom
City of No Sales: What's wrong with Auckland?
Auckland's been labelled the City of Fails after its annual State of the City report which highlighted glaring issues with the city's economy, productivity, innovation, education and more. Its flagging GDP, city sprawl, reliance on cars, a lack of walkability … the condemnation goes on. But it wasn't just this one report. Other issues have been regularly highlighted this year – the sudden increase in homelessness; endless road works and construction from the City Rail Link development; gaping holes where CBD developments have just stopped, the cranes in cold storage. All this while the South Island and rural communities are showing sparks of coming out of recession in a post-Covid era. It's a tale of two different economic recoveries. The Detail looks at what's wrong with Auckland, what's right and what needs to be done to make it better. The CEO of the Auckland Business Chamber, Simon Bridges, has been pushing the Government to come to the aid of the city, where he's seeing the results of weak economic growth, a lack of investment and flagging retail trade. He says he's tried to put politics aside but yes, it's possible his former job as leader of the National Party has helped his advocacy. 'I think central government is listening,' he says. 'I think what we need to see now is just a bit of urgent action. If you think about Auckland, we've had several years of difficulty and you might say well, what's several more months? But the reality is even if things do get a bit better next year, there's a lot of pain out there. 'I've put forward some ideas of things that could be done, but I don't have a monopoly on the answers. Ultimately what we want to see happen is stuff that is going to improve the sentiment and get some spending happening, because if Auckland was a business it would be a business with a cashflow issue.' So far the Government hasn't raced in to help with any short-term stimulus. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he would 'keep looking at what we can do' but 'Auckland-specific stimulus thing is quite difficult to do … I don't know how you'd go about doing that.' Bridges has given him a bunch of ideas, including relaxing visa requirements for Asian tourists to make it easier for them to come here, encouraging international students and letting Mayor Wayne Brown have his bed levy as a way of increasing council income and bidding for more big events to come to the city. 'We're not rich enough that we don't need that money swilling around at a time when in Auckland at least, hotel rates – occupancy and so on – is very bad. Worse than last year actually.' There are some bright lights on the horizon, including the scheduled opening next year of the long-awaited City Rail Link, and the International Convention Centre. However the infrastructure pipeline behind that is looking bleak, especially with government moves to cap rates rises, block councils from using other methods to raise money, and now the introduction of some hasty rules telling councils what they should focus on and how they should behave. The Local Government (Systems Improvement) Amendment Bill, which councils have just four weeks to submit on, tells them to stick to core services like roads, rubbish and water, and get rid of nice-to-haves like spending on cultural, community and environmental things – things the city is measured on internationally. North Shore resident Hayden Donnell is a senior writer for the Spinoff. He thinks the city is improving, and can list a raft of places in the CBD where it's lively, pedestrian-friendly and full of great cafes and restaurants. Donnell talks to The Detail about the good and the bad, including beaches, buses and bad planning rules. 'I think we probably are a little bit negative about Auckland,' he says. 'Maybe we do undersell the fact that we have this beautiful natural environment, there's a lot of places that are going really well. 'At the same time I think it's true … there are lots of areas where we could improve, where the rest of the world has caught up with this thing called 'walkable areas' and 'pedestrian malls' … that kind of vibrant shopping that you can go to Europe and experience doesn't really happen here to the same extent. 'But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're very fortunate.' Something Aucklanders do have is Auckland FC, which has lit the city up with it's nearly all-conquering ways this year breaking A-League crowd records in its debut season. The director of Auckland Football is Terry McFlynn, who grew up in a little village in south Derry, Northern Ireland. He's lived in Perth, Sydney and London. Now he lives in Auckland. 'There's a lot of people that take a lot of pride in Auckland as a city and want to see it progress, and want to see a vibrant city, which I believe it is. 'I think the restaurants and bars and that lifestyle that Auckland can give around the viaduct and down by the harbour … you know it's second to none in the whole world in my opinion.' Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here. You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
