Advertise with us
DOWNUNDERVOICESAustralia · New Zealand · World
Back to New Zealand
New Zealand

11 August 2026

Red Fox tavern murder: Pair whose convictions were quashed seek costs from Crown

Downunder Voices Newsroom

Source reporting: rnz.co.nz

FacebookEmail
Red Fox tavern murder: Pair whose convictions were quashed seek costs from Crown

Last month, the Supreme Court acquitted James Wilson and Mark Hoggart after deliberating for two years, finding there was no reliable evidence to prove they were at the scene of the crime.

About this report

Downunder Voices provides an independently written summary and community perspective based on information published by the original source. The original publisher remains responsible for its reporting.

Join our community

Follow Downunder Voices

Join thousands of readers following news and community stories from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific.

Follow on FacebookSubmit your story

More from New Zealand

View category

Read Next

View latest
2.4 million Afghan girls denied secondary school — a loss for a generationCommunity

12 August 2026

2.4 million Afghan girls denied secondary school — a loss for a generation

UNESCO’s warning that 2.4 million Afghan girls are barred from secondary education is not an abstract figure. It marks the real‑time erasure of opportunity for millions of young women, with consequences that will ripple through families and economies. The international agency says the number could rise to four million by 2030 unless the Taliban reverses course, and it warns of lasting social and economic damage.The scale of exclusion is staggering. Secondary education is a hinge point: it dramatically broadens future options for employment, civic participation and health outcomes. Denying millions of girls that step compounds disadvantage across society and narrows the talent pool available for recovery and development. UNESCO frames the loss as carrying multi‑generational costs — a sober reminder that education policies are not just moral matters but economic ones.The moral imperative is clear. But the practical challenge for international actors and humanitarian organisations is how to respond when the authority controlling territory resists the very idea of girls in school. UNESCO’s statement is a public call to attention; it also raises a policy dilemma. Direct pressure on the de facto authorities may have limited effect. Yet inaction lets exclusion calcify into permanent disadvantage, particularly for the poorest families who lack the private means to bypass bans.The reasonable response has several elements that don’t depend on fabricating a quick political fix. First, increase support for creative, low‑profile education delivery where it can be done safely: community learning centres, remote and digital programmes adapted to local constraints, and scholarships that help girls continue studies where possible. Second, sustain donor funding for health and livelihood programmes that reduce the economic pressures driving early withdrawal from school. Third, keep international diplomacy and reporting focused: UNESCO’s figures should remain in public view so that the scale of exclusion cannot be normalised or forgotten.The stakes extend beyond Afghanistan. When a state prevents a large cohort of girls from secondary education, the global community loses potential teachers, health workers, entrepreneurs and leaders. The UNESCO numbers demand more than expressions of concern. They require coordinated, practical measures to keep learning alive in the face of ruthless policy — and an insistence that a future built without half its population educated is no future at all.

Community angle

UNESCO’s figure that 2.4 million Afghan girls are barred from secondary school matters because it signals a large, rising loss of future workers, leaders and parents whose exclusion has social and economic consequences.

Source: Al Jazeera EnglishOriginal source
Slashing the code won’t fix Australia’s housing fairness problemAustralia

12 August 2026

Slashing the code won’t fix Australia’s housing fairness problem

The Coalition’s pitch to rip up most of the National Construction Code and speed up housebuilding is dressed as a practical fix for a national emergency. But the live political coverage shows the proposal comes bundled with plans to cut net migration sharply — and arrives at a moment when big banks are reporting bumper profits. That mix raises a simple question: who will actually benefit if construction standards are radically pared back and migration is re‑engineered as a supply‑side lever?The Coalition has promised to simplify the construction code to speed housing builds and has floated reductions so extreme as to be described in coverage as “shredding” most of the existing code. Other reporting notes a goal of collapsing the code from more than 2,000 pages to around 80. Supporters say lighter regulations will cut costs and accelerate supply. Critics warn of serious trade‑offs: lower standards risk poor quality housing, and faster building does not automatically make homes affordable to people locked out of the market.The same day these policy debates were prominent, the Commonwealth Bank was singled out in coverage as posting record cash earnings. That contrast is politically combustible. When major lenders and corporations post bumper returns while average Australians face rental pressure and barriers to home ownership, proposals that focus solely on deregulation look like a transfer of risk and responsibility from market actors to ordinary households.The public policy questions are plain and narrow. First, will rolling back technical and safety rules genuinely bring down delivery costs enough to change prices for renters and buyers — or will savings be captured by developers and financiers? Second, how will governments ensure that faster construction doesn’t produce a surge in poorly built, short‑lived homes that cost tenants and owners in the long run? Third, can migration targets be used responsibly to tackle housing shortages without masking underlying failures in planning, social housing investment and tenancy protections?Any responsible response should start by tracking outcomes, not just promises. If the aim is more affordable homes, governments must measure who benefits from each policy change: long‑term buyers, short‑term investors, renters on low incomes or banks. They should guard basic standards that protect health and safety, and insist on transparency from developers and lenders about how cost reductions are passed on — if at all.The Coalition is right to push for faster delivery where red tape truly stalls projects. But sweeping cuts to the fabric of the construction code and supply management through migration targets risk becoming headline fixes that dodge the harder work: adequate social housing, tenant protections, and a planning system that aligns new supply with real local need. Unless those issues are tackled, Australians will keep watching corporate balance sheets grow while homes remain out of reach for many.

Community angle

Proposals to shred most of the construction code and cut migration touch everyday life because they could change the quality, availability and affordability of housing while major banks post record profits.

Source: Guardian Australia PoliticsOriginal source