Sexual violence rates against NZ teens exceed global average, study reveals
The study found significant differences between countries and regions. The US and UK rates for men were around 16%, versus almost 22% in New Zealand.
Montenegro and Mongolia had particularly low rates, and the Solomon Islands and Cote d'Ivoire, high.
'The prevalence... is extremely high for both females and males across the globe,' said the researchers, noting these were probably underestimates given the difficulties getting data.
'An overwhelmingly high proportion of survivors first experienced sexual violence during childhood, revealing a narrow yet sensitive window that should be targeted in future prevention efforts.'
They reviewed three global epidemiological databases.
New Zealand's high rates were despite the Government spending $70 million on a 25-year plan launched in 2021 to combat sexual and family violence.
Reports on the plan, Te Aorerekura, found rates of sexual abuse of girls may have gone back up recently.
The researchers said the rates showed routine surveillance was vital, and that survivors needed more government-funded support 'for the rest of their lives'.
The second phase – with far fewer targets, after the first phase had too many, the Government said – includes a review of the $1.3 billion spent on family and sexual violence services and contracts.
'We're focused on doing a smaller number of things, but doing them more effectively,' said the minister responsible for the plan, Karen Chhour.
Community health professor Janet Fanslow at the University of Auckland told the Science Media Centre the study 'should not be allowed to sit on a shelf somewhere' but be a catalyst for investment.
'It is no longer sufficient to take a piecemeal approach hoping that individual parts of the system will eventually join up,' she said.
A primary objective of Te Aorerekura for four years had been to join up the efforts of about a dozen government agencies. Last year's review found a very spotty outcome.
Dr Rachel Roskvist, a forensic medical examiner and expert in sexual assault and non-fatal strangulation and suffocation, said comprehensive relationship and sexuality education was needed.
'What is not seen in this work is the prevalence among transgender, gender fluid, non-binary or intersex individuals, groups known to be at risk for sexual violence.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
27 minutes ago
- Scoop
Cure Kids Urges Support For Red Nose Day Following Health Research Budget Cuts
With New Zealand's health system under pressure and the science research sector recently facing significant funding cuts, Cure Kids is calling on New Zealanders to support lifesaving child health research this Red Nose Day. New Zealand researchers warn that these cuts could place further strain on an already pressured health system, risking skilled researchers moving overseas, leaving child health research and other critical areas underfunded and at risk. 'Research is critical to our health system preforming better and delivering high-quality care' says Professor Stuart Dalziel, Cure Kids Chair of Child Health Research, at the University of Auckland and a Paediatric Emergency Specialist. 'New Zealand has world-leading paediatric researchers, whose research, funded by Cure Kids, makes a real difference to thousands of children each year and provides economic return for the community. For example, every $1 invested by Cure Kids in cot death research resulted in a $12 return to the community, in addition to the many hundreds of lives saved.' 'Our tamariki are our most precious taonga. We need to strive as a country to ensure they reach their maximum health.' Amid this climate, Cure Kids has re-opened its annual funding round to support high-impact research projects tackling New Zealand's most urgent child healthissues. Last year, this enabled a wide range of research – from improving surgical outcomes for rheumatic heart disease, to tackling youth mental health and addiction through more accessible services. 'Cure Kids remains committed to backing researchers who are pushing boundaries and tackling the biggest challenges facing our tamariki,' says Cure Kids CEO, Frances Soutter. 'Securing donations in this economic climate is challenging, but we continue to fund child health research to ensure bold ideas with the potential to save lives don't fall through the cracks. Every dollar raised this Red Nose Day helps fund New Zealand research so breakthroughs in child health can happen.' As New Zealand's largest charitable funder of child health research, Cure Kids is currently funding 40 research projects across Aotearoa, including a new drug that could reduce disability in newborns who suffer oxygen deprivation at birth, and a first of its kind national study into autism prevalence and healthcare access. The long-term impact of Cure Kids funded research is evident in a 2018 project led by neonatologist Dr Max Berry, which has helped transform care for extremely premature babies. Her findings showed that babies born as early as 23 or 24 weeks, once considered the edge of viability, can survive and go on to lead healthy lives. The study has since informed clinical practice nationwide and improved outcomes for hundreds of New Zealand's most vulnerable babies. But Soutter says this progress is only possible with consistent support from generous donors. 'Throughout our 54-year history, we've seen thousands of children's lives saved, extended or improved thanks to the research we help fund. None of that can happen without the generosity from New Zealanders.' 'Cure Kids funding plays a critical role in ensuring we can keep advancing treatments for conditions like childhood cancers, asthma, and other life-threatening paediatric conditions.' For families like the Holecliffes, Cure Kids has been lifechanging. When their daughter Lucca was just 16 months old, she was diagnosed with an extremely rare and aggressive cancer, Epithelioid Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Sarcoma. With limited global cases and no standard treatment plan, her prognosis was uncertain. Following urgent surgery, Lucca was introduced to oncologist Dr Andy Wood, whose return to New Zealand was made possible thanks to Cure Kids. Dr Wood recommended a pioneering treatment that helped shrink the tumour and avoid the harsher side effects of traditional chemotherapy. 'Without Cure Kids backing Andy's research, Lucca wouldn't be here today,' says mum, Jordanna Holecliffe. 'They gave us hope at the worst time in our lives.' Now 10, Lucca is thriving and proudly serves as a Cure Kids ambassador. She and her family are dedicated to helping others by encouraging New Zealanders to get behind Red Nose Day this year. Red Nose Day takes place on Friday, 25 July, with fundraising events happening across the country. You can donate online, or at Briscoes and Rebel Sport stores nation wide. Every dollar raised goes directly to child health researchers working on projects that make a tangible difference in the lives of Kiwi kids. About Cure Kids Cure Kids is New Zealand's largest charitable funder of child health research. Over its 54 year history, it has invested more than $70 million into projects that aim to improve the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of serious health conditions affecting children. Cure Kids is currently supporting around $12 million in research across 40 projects. Learn more at
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Experts Urge Fix As Government Expands Failing Lunch Scheme To Primary Schools
Underprivileged primary school children are about to suffer the same poor service as their intermediate and secondary school peers, with the Government's announcement today that primary schools are transitioning to the cut price, revised Ka Ora Ka Ako - Healthy School Lunches programme. The revised version of the school lunch programme, rolled out to secondary and full primary schools in January 2025, saw the Government partner with national consortium the School Lunch Collective to achieve drastic reductions in the programme cost. The new version of the programme is being plagued by a multitude of problems, including delivery of unsafe and unpalatable food, massive wastage of uneaten meals and packaging, and the nutritional quality of the lunches plummeting. Nutrition experts found the government-funded school lunches are failing nutrition standards. The new lunches now provide only about half the energy recommended for a school lunch. Despite all providers being contractually obliged to meet the Ministry of Education's Nutrition Standards, none of the 13 meals provided by School Lunch Collective that were examined by nutrition experts met them. This means the lunches are no longer healthy - despite the programme being named the Healthy School Lunches programme. This is hardly surprising, given the School Lunch Collective members, Libelle and Compass, were failing to consistently deliver good quality lunches under the previous funding model, when they were receiving nearly three times the funding per lunch. "It's not a cost saving if it's not delivering the nutrition our most disadvantaged children need to succeed at school. Under the previous model, schools could choose how they provided lunches to their tamariki, with many walking away from Compass and Libelle to either do it themselves or work with local community businesses. Tamariki got better food for less cost. Our growing teenagers are now getting less to eat and being told to be grateful for it", says Professor Lisa Te Morenga, Health Coalition co-chair and Massey University researcher. "This Government has prioritised productivity, but hungry, undernourished children cannot learn effectively nor be productive. More than a quarter of children in Aotearoa face poverty and food insecurity - this programme is designed to help those kids. These children are our future workforce; we need to invest in them", says Professor Te Morenga. "I'm extremely angry and disappointed this government continues to ignore our voices and our evidence of the success of locally provided lunches. Instead, they want to remove what's working to save a few dollars - at the expense of our tamariki. We need to be investing in our tamariki and their future, says Seletute Mila, Tumuaki/Principal of Arakura School. "The changes to Ka Ora, Ka Ako have set back the progress schools were making in helping New Zealand's disadvantaged children. The programme must be fixed now- by being appropriately valued for the potential it has to lift our most disadvantaged children out of poverty and to lead healthy, productive lives. This benefits us all. We are calling for this current mean and draconian model to be abandoned. Raise the funding and give communities the flexibility to provide the best nutritious food they can for their tamariki," says Professor Te Morenga. More information Reports from schools across Aotearoa reveal serious failures in the revised programme, including: Unsafe food: The NZ Food Safety Authority is investigating concerns, as reported by BusinessDesk. Lack of allergy-friendly meals: Students with allergies are left without safe options, as reported by BusinessDesk. Waste and inefficiency: Unappealing meals are going uneaten, and previous systems to redistribute food to students or charities are no longer happening. Excess rubbish: The new system generates more landfill waste than before. Poor nutrition: The lack of fruit likely means lower fibre intake. Lack of transparency: Schools and families don't know the actual nutritional value of meals. Halal concerns: No clear process ensures meals meet halal dietary needs. Late or missing deliveries: Many schools report meals not arriving on time. Repetitive and insufficient portions: Meals lack variety and are often too small. No direct communication: Schools can no longer work directly with suppliers. No student feedback: Tamariki have no way to voice concerns about their meals.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
Study Slams Family Court's Reliance On 'Junk' Research
The Family Court is basing decisions on 'junk' evidence and putting children's futures at risk, according to a new journal article. You might imagine the expert evidence heard in the Family Court, such as what's provided by court psychologists, would stand up to scrutiny… not so, according to a scathing new journal article. The study suggests judges, lawyers and psychologists in New Zealand's Family Court are routinely accepting 'junk' evidence to support critical decisions about children's lives. University of Auckland law scholar Associate Professor Carrie Leonetti reviewed 29 Family Court judgements under the New Zealand Care of Children Act in which court professionals claimed to be citing academic research to support their decisions. Her investigation finds they frequently cited material that was not academic research, instead relying on online content, unpublished handouts, and presentations from conferences or legal training sessions. "Clinical psychologists, often working without specialised forensic training, are presenting evidence that would not withstand academic scrutiny," she says. "I'm shocked at how judges never go … 'but but but'… and ask some questions. We need to define what's real, what isn't, what's reliable, and what's not.' New Zealand's Evidence Act 2006 and the High Court Rules require expert witnesses to base their recommendations on evidence that's within their area of expertise and generally accepted within a scientific field and specify the literature they rely on. Yet Leonetti's paper details breaches of these requirements – including experts opining outside their area of expertise, misrepresenting research, and failing to qualify sweeping claims. Examples include statements like "almost all disclosures of sexual abuse by children whose parents have separated are false" or "studies show that all children are better off in shared care" – broad claims Leonetti says are based on misrepresented or misunderstood literature. "The Court's reliance on a small, fringe collection of writings from conferences, trainings, and legal journals rather than peer-reviewed science publications is dangerous and unjust." Associate Professor Carrie LeonettiAuckland Law School Leonetti's paper, published in the Indiana Health Law Review, says some professionals referenced controversial or discredited theories while omitting landmark studies like research into Adverse Childhood Experiences, which shows the long-term traumatic impact of exposure to family violence in childhood. She says Family Court judges, lawyers, and psychologists frequently misrepresent or misuse academic literature, dismissing evidence they disagree with and cherry-picking non-peer-reviewed material to support pre-existing views. The paper also identifies what Leonetti dubs "Family Court favourites" – a small number of obscure authors and articles cited disproportionately by court professionals, regardless of their academic significance. "The Court's reliance on a small, fringe collection of writings from conferences, trainings, and legal journals rather than peer-reviewed science publications is dangerous and unjust." She also highlights the high cost of accessing peer-reviewed scientific publications and the rise of "predatory" academic journals. "Since the 2000s, thousands of online journals with little to no peer review have emerged, making it difficult for non-experts to identify scientifically valid research." This erosion of the meaning of academic publication, says Leonetti, has made it harder for non-experts, such as judges, lawyers, and court psychologists, to 'separate the wheat from the chaff when deciding which literature warrants consideration and which is the functional equivalent of self-publication. "These courts are essentially making life-changing decisions about children's futures based on what amounts to professional folklore rather than scientific evidence." The study recommends broad reform, including forensic training for clinical psychologists, enhanced mechanisms for accessing rigorous, peer-reviewed research and comprehensive training for court personnel in understanding peer-reviewed research. "For a start, court psychologists should have forensic training. Much of the 'research' they reference isn't drawn from academic journals or subjected to rigorous peer review. It's often recycled evidence that's been put forward by paid expert witnesses abroad, particularly in the US where poorly regulated expert evidence is highly monetised.' "Then there's the issue of judges accepting this in court, not questioning the author, the name of the journal, whether it's peer-reviewed... simply not looking into things further." Judges shouldn't allow psychologists (or lawyers for the child or themselves) to make blanket statements relating to "the literature" or "research" or "studies showing", says Leonetti. "Any psychologist or other expert who cannot describe in detail, provide copies of, and explain the application of academic research on which their opinions are based lacks the qualification to offer expert forensic evidence."
