FBI setting up permanent office in Wellington
Tags:
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Investigation underway following fatal motorbike crash in South Auckland's Pukekohe
Police had tried to pull the rider over shortly before they were found dead. (File photo) Photo: RNZ / Richard Tindiller One person has died following a motorbike crash in Auckland's Pukekohe, and a police investigation has been launched. Counties Manukau District Commander, Superintendent Shanan Gray said police had been looking for a stolen motorbike in the area when officers saw the bike travelling along Helvetia Rd at 12.20pm on Friday. The officer did a U-turn and attempted to get the motorbike to stop, but Gray said before they had turned on their lights and sirens the motorbike sped off at speed. They then lost sight of the bike. A short time later another officer found the bike crashed on McShane St. The rider was found dead at the scene. A scene examination was underway and the road was closed, Gray said. "There is now an investigation underway, which will work to establish all the facts surrounding this tragic incident." The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) would also be notified. "We are also working to support those affected and their families as well as our staff who were involved," Gray said. "As part of our investigation, we are seeking information from witnesses who may have been in the area at the time, or prior to this incident occurring." Anyone with information should contact police online now or call 105 and use the reference number P063348335. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Councillors tired of being ‘beaten up' and blamed by central government
The South Wairarapa District Council doesn't want to be "the whipping boy" of central government. Photo: LDR / Emily Ireland Councils feel "beaten up" and blamed for problems outside their control as tensions rise between them and central government. South Wairarapa councillor Colin Olds made the remarks after councils were once again in the firing line of central government. In a statement yesterday, Local Government Minister Simon Watts said some households were getting frustrated by unfair rate hikes during the cost-of-living crisis. It followed comments at the recent Local Government NZ (LGNZ) conference, where Watts compared councils to children and suggested that letting them do what they wanted might lead to bad choices. Olds, who attended the conference, told his colleagues and LGNZ representatives that he was disappointed that councils continued to get "beaten up by central government" over things that were out of their control. Councils had defended rising rates as they were dealing with increased infrastructure costs, unfunded mandates, insurance, and inflation. LGNZ chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene said tensions between local and central government were "a challenge", and that councils bore the impact of frequent changes to government policy. "We all know that in opposition, parties are really strong localists and in government they tend to be much greater centralists and much more likely to want to constrain and tell you what to do and tell you how badly you are doing to deflect some of the challenges they are facing," she said. LGNZ chief advisor Ranjani Ponnuchetty said governments of all persuasions "need a natural enemy". "It's extremely unfortunate that we are here now and somehow seem to be that focal point at this point in time. "No matter the government, no one will take the blame. "No government will ever accept responsibility for the consequences of anything." In response to the comments made at the South Wairarapa meeting, Watts said when it came to spending, the government had been clear that councils needed to prioritise the basics - essential services like roading, water, infrastructure, and rubbish. "There are different councils in different positions across the country - some councils have signalled through their annual plans quite significant increases in rates, and others have not. "The bottom line and most important outcome is ensuring ratepayers get value from money for the service that they pay for. "That's also why we're working at pace on a potential rates capping model to save people money. "Cost of living is the number one issue many New Zealanders are facing right now and we're committed to providing relief - I intend to bring options to Cabinet later this year for consideration." Meanwhile, councillor Alistair Plimmer said the only way forward to fix the "mess" was a complete rewrite of the Local Government Act, instead of continuous tweaks that could result in "a dog's breakfast". He said the Local Government Act was not fit-for purpose, and took no account of the realities of small rural councils. He urged LGNZ to take matters into their own hands and do the rewrite themselves to make it "fit for the next century". "If you don't do it, who is going to?" he asked LGNZ representatives at this week's council meeting. "There is no incentive for central government to do this. They like the whipping boy." Freeman-Greene agreed with Plimmer that the Act was "out of date" and "complex". "It's been added to and amended from, and is continuously tweaked," she said. "We need an Act that is fit-for-purpose and future focused and clear. "Ideally, also supported across the house so that we are not flip-flopping between different intents of what your role is." At the recent LGNZ conference, councils passed a remit calling for a review of the current functions and governance arrangements of local government. - LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
The royal commission recommended abolishing time limits on abuse cases – a year on, nothing has changed
By Zoë Prebble of Under New Zealand law, people generally have six years from the time a harm occurs to bring a civil claim. (File photo) Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi Among the 138 recommendations of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry's final report to parliament was a clear call: remove the legal time limits that prevent survivors of historic abuse from seeking justice in civil court. That report - Whanaketia - Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light - was published on July 24 last year. One year on, the government has yet to act. Without that reform, survivors of historic abuse remain vulnerable to being turned away by the legal system - not because their experiences aren't credible, but because the law still treats them as being out of time. The royal commission heard from thousands of survivors of childhood abuse in the care of state and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999. What stood out was how often that harm was made worse by silence, disbelief and legal systems that failed to respond. Under New Zealand law, people generally have six years from the time a harm occurs to bring a civil claim. That limit is set out in the Limitation Act 2010 for events after 2011, and in the Limitation Act 1950 for events before that. For survivors of historic abuse, particularly childhood abuse, that six-year window rarely reflects how trauma actually works. Survivors often take decades to feel sufficiently safe and supported to come forward and name what happened to them. The 1950 law allowed limitation periods to be paused if a claimant was under a "disability" - a legal term meaning they were either a child or, in the language of the time, of "unsound mind". In practice, this meant the six-year clock usually didn't start for children until they reached adulthood. The 2010 law clarified this by explicitly saying the limitation period for children begins at 18. It also introduced a new "incapacitated" exception, allowing the clock to pause for adults who are unable to make decisions or take legal action because of trauma or other conditions. But in practice it's a narrow doorway. Courts require survivors to prove not just trauma, but a high legal incapacity threshold. This means that even when the abuse is acknowledged, and even when survivors have strong evidence, civil cases are often barred. The bar is not that the harm didn't happen, but that it happened "too long ago". In 2019, former Air Force servicewoman Mariya Taylor brought a civil claim against the sergeant who had sexually abused her in the 1980s while both were stationed at the Whenuapai base. The court accepted the abuse had occurred. But because Taylor was not legally considered "disabled" by trauma, and the six-year window had closed, her case was struck out under the Limitation Act 1950. Adding insult to injury, she was ordered to pay costs to her abuser. At 18, Taylor had entered a rigid military hierarchy where power and discipline made reporting abuse nearly impossible. Her case shows how limitation periods can block even well-evidenced claims, and how institutional dynamics such as silence, shame and obedience often delay disclosure. These same patterns were pivotal to the royal commission's findings. Australia has taken a markedly different approach. In line with the final report of its own Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017, every state and territory removed civil limitation periods for survivors of childhood abuse. Survivors can now bring civil claims regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. In landmark case in 2023, GLJ v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore, the High Court of Australia rejected a request to shut down proceedings even though the alleged abuser and other witnesses had died. The court said the case could still go ahead using available evidence. The GLJ decision is important for New Zealand courts. It shows that while removing time bars doesn't guarantee victory for survivors, it does give them the chance to be heard. Removing time limits for civil claims involving historic abuse, as the royal commission recommended, is now overdue. A first step would be for the government to clearly commit to amending the Limitation Act 2010 to exclude claims of historic abuse - especially child sexual abuse - from the six-year deadline. This would bring New Zealand into line with Australia and recognise what we now know about the delayed nature of disclosure, trauma and institutional silence. It would also honour the spirit of the royal commission's work. As courts and commissions have recognised, removing limitation periods doesn't guarantee a win for survivors. But it does mean they're at least allowed to try. For years, survivors have been told they've spoken too late. Reforming limitation laws won't undo the harm they suffered. But it will show their testimony matters, and that justice delayed does not have to mean justice denied. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
