The Solomon Islands Prime Minister is refusing to convene Parliament next week amid a takeover bid by government defectors who have joined forces with the opposition.

Jeremiah Manele is not expected to convene Parliament until May or June and maintains the government is continuing to function despite the political “crisis”.

Manele has been in power less than two years and has already faced two leadership challenges.

Now his former Foreign Minister, and fellow party member, Peter Shanel Agovaka, has been recruited by a breakaway group of MPs who want to form a new government.

In a statement, the opposition Leader’s office claimed the defection of 19 government ministers and backbenchers to the opposition and independent ranks has left Manele running a minority government.

Agovoka told RNZ Pacific on Tuesday that a change of government, led by the People’s First Party (PFP) would see him replace Manele.

“I feel it’s time for me, representing central Guadalcanal, to take up the challenge to lead our country,” he said.

New coalition agreement
The statement said 27 MPs signed a new coalition government agreement on Tuesday and have filed a motion of no confidence in Manele and his Ownership, Unity and Responsibility (OUR) Party.

The Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation reports the notice was signed by the former Deputy Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for South Vella La Vella, Frederick Kologeto.

It reports that the notice was received on Monday.

The motion can be moved and debated once a seven-day notice period ends, and when the Prime Minister convenes Parliament.

Government House has confirmed receiving a petition from opposition MPs for the Governor-General to order an extraordinary sitting of Parliament to debate the motion.

The opposition needs at least 26 MPs to vote in favour of the motion for it to pass. If successful an election for a new Prime Minister is then held by secret ballot.

The PFP, joined by the official opposition, have petitioned for an extraordinary sitting of Parliament.

‘Signals serious crisis’
“When such a significant number of sitting members, including ministers, abandon their own coalition, it signals a government in serious crisis,” the statement said.

“These decisions were not made lightly, they reflect deep frustrations over internal divisions, lack of trust, and growing concerns that the government has lost its sense of direction and purpose.”

The statement said the mass exodus raised urgent constitutional and governance questions.

“Can a government that has lost the confidence of 19 of its own members continue to claim legitimacy? Can it effectively govern while grappling with internal collapse?,” the statement said.

“What is unfolding is not just a reshuffling of numbers; it is a rejection of leadership that has failed to unite, failed to listen, and failed to deliver.”

The breakaway group took part in a highly-publicised photo shoot yesterday as a sign of solidarity.

Agovoka said previously that the 12-member PFP had the numbers to form a new government with the opposition and independent MPs, but the situation was “fluid”.

“There is a critical motion that should be dealt with immediately … we’ll just hope that our number, which is 27, holds,” he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has hinted that the country may “hold its first-ever referendum” following a landmark Supreme Court opinion aimed at amending the 2013 Constitution.

On Friday, the nation’s highest court ruled that thresholds for constitutional amendments should be lowered — requiring only a two-thirds majority in parliament and a simple majority of voters in a referendum.

The ruling followed a three-day hearing in August, after Rabuka’s Cabinet, in June, had sought clarification on making changes to parts of the Constitution.

Submissions came from the State, seven political parties, the Fiji Law Society, and the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Rabuka said that the Supreme Court’s opinion established a “clear and democratic pathway” for his government’s constitutional reform efforts.

“This opinion provides clarity on matters of constitutional law and governance. It will now go before Cabinet for further deliberation, after which I, as Head of Government, will announce the way forward,” he said in a statement.

However, the Fiji Labour Party, while welcoming the Supreme Court’s opinion, expressed concerns over the lowering of the current “75 percent double super majority requirement” to amend the constitution.

Fijians of Indian descent make up just over 32 percent of Fiji’s total population.

Indo-Fijians ‘particularly vulnerable’
Labour leader and former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said that the Indo-Fijian community felt “particularly vulnerable” due to the nation’s race-based political tensions, which have resulted in four coups.

He noted that the coalition’s “unwillingness to spell out the constitutional changes it was contemplating” had made Indo-Fijians “apprehensive”.

“It is for this reason that Labour had submitted that constitutional changes should be left to political negotiations with a view to achieving consensus, and stability,” he added.

But Rabuka dismissed Chaudhry’s concerns on Monday, saying that his “argument does not stand”.

“In a referendum, every community is part of the decision. Indo-Fijians, like all other minority groups, vote as equal citizens,” he said.

He said that any government wanting to change the constitution would need support from the whole nation.

“This forces proposals to be fair, broad, and inclusive. Discriminatory ideas would never survive such a test.”

‘Generalised statements’ criticised
Rabuka said Chaudhry should refrain from making “generalised statements”, adding that he does not have the mandate to speak for all Indo-Fijians.

“Chaudhry says change should only come through political negotiations and consensus. But that usually means a few leaders making deals in closed rooms. That gives a small group of politicians’ veto power over the entire country, blocking needed changes and leaving Fiji stuck,” he said.

“A referendum is the opposite of backroom politics. It is open, transparent, and gives the final say to the people themselves. That is real democracy. That is what the Coalition Government welcomes entirely.”

While Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party wanted the 2013 Constitution thrown out and replaced with the previous 1997 Constitution, he said the former Prime Minister should “move past the old style of politics and recognise that Fiji may now hold its first-ever referendum”.

“That would be a historic step, one that strengthens democracy for every community, not weakens it.

“As your Prime Minister, I give my assurance to all Fijians that this process belongs to you.”

When Voreqe Bainimarama walked out of Parliament after his government lost by a single vote on Christmas Eve in December 2022, he told reporters who swarmed around him in the capital, Suva: “This is democracy and this is my legacy [the] 2013 Constitution.”

Visibly shellshocked
His most trusted ally Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, looking visibly shellshocked at FijiFirst’s loss of power, said at the time: “We hope that the new government will adhere to the rule of law.”

Sayed-Khaiyum is widely viewed as the architect of the 2013 Constitution, although he disputes that claim.

Critics of the document, which is the country’s fourth constitution, argue that it was imposed by the Bainimarama administration

Meanwhile, the country’s chiefs want the 2013 Constitution gone. In May, the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) unanimously rejected the document as “restricting a lot of work for the iTaukei (indigenous Fijians)”.

Following the Supreme Court opinion, the head of of GCC told local media that the 2013 Constitution lacked cultural legitimacy and undermined Fiji’s democratic capacity.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been ejected from Parliament’s debating chamber and told to leave for the rest of the week after a fiery speech about the war in Gaza.

The incident occured during an urgent debate this afternoon which was called after the coalition government’s announcement that it would come to a formal decision in September over whether to recognise the state of Palestine.

As Swarbrick came to the end of her contribution, she challenged coalition MPs to back her member’s bill allowing New Zealand to apply sanctions on Israel “for its war crimes”.

Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick asked to leave Parliament after Gaza speech   Video: Parliament TV

“If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history,” Swarbrick said.

Almost immediately, Speaker Gerry Brownlee condemned the remark as “completely unacceptable” and demanded she “withdraw it and apologise”.

Swarbrick shot back a curt — “no” — prompting Brownlee to order her out of the chamber for the remainder of the week.

“Happily,” Swarbrick said, as she rose to leave.

Green Party whip Ricardo Menéndez March later stood to question the severity of punishment, saying Parliament’s rules suggested Swarbrick should be barred for no more than a day.

Brownlee later clarified that Swarbrick could come back to the debating chamber on Wednesday, but only if she agreed to withdraw and apologise.

“If she doesn’t, then she’ll be leaving the House again,” he said.

“I’m not going to sit in this chair and tolerate a member standing on her feet . . .  and saying that other members of this House are spineless.”

‘What the hell is the point?’ — Swarbrick
Speaking outside the debating chamber, Swarbrick described the ruling as “ridiculous” and the punishment excessive.

“As far as the robust debate goes in that place, I think that was pretty mild in the context of the war crimes that are currently unfolding.”

She drew a comparison with comments made by former prime minister Sir John Key in 2015 when he challenged the opposition to “get some guts”.

Swarbrick said she was tired and angry at the massacre of human beings.

“What the hell is the point of everything that we do if the people in my place, in my job don’t do their job?” she said.

“If we allow other human beings to be just mercilessly slaughtered, to be shot while waiting for food aid, what hope is there for humanity?”

Swarbrick was not the only MP to run afoul of the Speaker during today’s debate.

Earlier, Labour MP Damien O’Connor was told to either exit the chamber or apologise after interjecting while Foreign Minister Winston Peters was speaking. O’Connor stood and left.

Brownlee also demanded ACT MP Simon Court say sorry — which he did — after Court accused Swarbrick of “hallucinating outrage”.

Government urges caution, opposition demands action
In his speech, Court said any recognition of a Palestinian state must be conditional on all Israeli hostages being returned and Hamas being disarmed and dismantled.

“Security must come before politics,” he said.

No National MPs spoke during the urgent debate.

Peters — who is also NZ First leader — told MPs the matter of Palestinian statehood was not a straightforward or clear-cut issue.

“There are strong opinions on both sides,” he said. “That is why we are approaching this issue carefully, judiciously and calmly.”

Peters also took umbrage with the opposition’s complaints, pointing out Labour never moved on the matter when it was in government.

In a 10 minute speech, Labour foreign affairs spokesperson Peeni Henare said New Zealand was being left behind as the coalition walked into a “sunset of denial”.

“How many more people will suffer and how many more people will die?”

‘Despicable’ justifications
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told MPs it was “despicable” to hear the justifications for another month’s delay.

“What will be left? Rubble? Martyred spirits? What is that you want to have left in a month’s time?” she said. “I have never been more ashamed to be in the House than I am today.”

In her speech, Swarbrick told MPs libraries of evidence demonstrated that the events unfolding in Palestine were “ethnic cleansing… apartheid [and]… genocide”.

“We are a laggard, we are an outlier,” she said. “We are one of the very few countries in the world who so far refuse to acknowledge the absolute bare minimum.”

Earlier, during Parliament’s Question Time, ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour objected to Swarbrick having a Palestinian scarf, or keffiyeh, draped across her seat.

“I invite you to consider what this House might look like if everybody who had an interest in a global conflict started adorning their seats with symbols of one side or another of a conflict,” he said.

“I think that would bring the House into disrepute and no member should be allowed to do such a thing.”

Brownlee said Seymour raised a good point, only for Swarbrick to then wrap the scarf around her neck.

“Oh, here we go,” he said. “Well, stay warm. We’ll move on now.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process — this time for foreign investment in New Zealand.

But it has had almost no public scrutiny.

If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close tomorrow.

A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 “to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely”.

There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments — especially in forestry.

A three-step test
Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator — the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ — 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.

If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.

Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, would require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.

These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.

Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.

If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.

Inadequate regulatory process
Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.

Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.

Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.

The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.

A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.

The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.

Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations.

There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement.

No ‘benefit to NZ’ test
While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.

Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.

Repeal of the “special forestry test” — which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions — means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked.

There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.

The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.

It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore.

Locked in forever?
Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.

A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.

However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question.

As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.

But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.

Dr Jane Kelsey is emeritus professor of law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues.

Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” consistent with the central government’s expectations.

The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.

Associate Education Minister David Seymour said fostering students’ ability to debate ideas is an essential part of universities’ educational mission.

“Despite being required by the Education Act and the Bill of Rights Act to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression, there is a growing trend of universities deplatforming speakers and cancelling events where they might be perceived as controversial or offensive,” he said.

“That’s why the National/ACT coalition agreement committed to introduce protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech to ensure universities perform their role as the critic and conscience of society.”

Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills Penny Simmonds said freedom of speech was fundamental to the concept of academic freedom.

“Universities should promote diversity of opinion and encourage students to explore new ideas and perspectives. This includes enabling them to hear from invited speakers with a range of viewpoints.”

It is expected the changes will take effect by the end of next year, after which universities will have six months to develop a statement and get it approved.

Aside from the fact that the free speech legislation for universities is a waste of time (and seemingly ideologically inconsistent with the anti-regulation stance of the government), this line from the RNZ article is both hilarious and worrying pic.twitter.com/aOoPa0ZPc5

— Quintin Jane (@RealQuintinJane) December 19, 2024

Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington said the important issue of free speech had been a dominant topic throughout the year.

It believed a policy it had come up with would align with the intent of the criteria laid out by the government today.

However, the Greens are among critics, saying the government’s changes will add fuel to the political fires of disinformation, and put teachers and students in the firing line.

Labour says universities should be left to make decisions on free speech themselves.

‘A heavy-handed approach’
The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said proposed rules could do more harm than good.

They have been been welcomed by the Free Speech Union, which said academic freedom was “under threat”, but the TEU said there was no problem to solve.

TEU president Sandra Grey said the move seemed to be aimed at ensuring people could spread disinformation on university campuses.

“I think one of the major concerns is that you might get universities opening up the space that is for academic and rigorous debate and saying it’s okay we can have climate deniers, we can have people who believe in creationism coming into our campuses and speaking about it as though it were scientific, as though it was rigorously defendable when in fact we know some of these questions . . .  have been settled,” she said.

Grey said academics who expressed views on campus could expect them to be debated, but that was part and parcel of working at a university and not an attack on their freedom of speech.

“There isn’t actually a problem. I do think universities, all the staff who work there, the students, understand that they’re covered by all of their requirements for freedom of speech that other citizens are.

“So it feels like we’ve got a heavy-handed approach from a government that apparently is anti-regulation but is now going to put in place the whole lot of requirements on a community that just doesn’t need it.”

Some topics ‘suppressed’

Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said freedom of speech was under threat in universities.

“We’ve supported academics . . .  where they feel that they have been unfairly disadvantaged simply for holding a different opinion to some of their peers. Of course, that is also an addition to the explicit calls for people to be cancelled, to be unemployed,” he said.

Ayling said some academics were afraid to express their views and there was also a problem with “compelled speech”.

“Forcing certain references on particularly ideological issues. There’s questions around race, gender, international conflicts, covid-19, these are all questions that we’ve found have been suppressed and also there’s the aspect of self-censorship,” he said.

“As we have and alongside partners looked into this more and more, it seems that many people in the academy exist in a culture of fear.”

University committed to differing viewpoints
Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington is committed to hearing a range of different viewpoints on its campuses, vice-chancellor Professor Nic Smith says.

Free speech had been an important issue during 2024, and the university had arrived at a policy that covered both freedom of speech and academic freedom.

By consulting widely, there was now a shared understanding of “foundational principles”, and its policy would be in place early in the new year.

“We believe this policy aligns with the intent of the criteria [from the government] as we understand them. It recognises the strength of our diverse university community and affirms that this diversity makes us stronger,” Professor Smith said.

“At the same time, it acknowledges that within any diverse community, individuals will inevitably encounter ideas they disagree with-sometimes strongly.

“Finding value in these disagreements is something universities are very good at: listening to different points of view in the spirit of advancing understanding and learning that can ultimately help us live and work better together.”

The university believed in hearing a range of views from staff, rather than adopting a single institutional position.

“The only exception to this principle is on matters that directly affect our core functions as a university.”

‘Stoking fear and division’

Green Party’s spokesperson for Tertiary Education, Francisco Hernadez, said the new policy had nothing to do with free speech.

“This is about polluting our public discourse for political gain.”

Universities played a critical role, providing a platform for informed and reasoned debate.

“Our universities should be able to decide who is given a platform on their campuses, not David Seymour. These changes risk turning our universities into hostile environments unsafe for marginalised communities.

“Misinformation, disinformation, and rhetoric that inflames hatred towards certain groups has no place in our society, let alone our universities. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but it is not a licence to harm.”

Hernandez said universities should be trusted to ensure the balance was struck between academic freedom and a duty of care.

“Today’s announcement has also come with a high dose of unintended irony.

“David Seymour is speaking out of both sides of his mouth by on the one hand claiming to support freedom of speech, but on the other looking to limit the ability universities have to take stances on issues, like the war in Gaza for example.

“This is an Orwellian attempt to limit discourse to the confines of the government’s agenda. This is about stoking fear and division for political gain.”

Labour’s Associate Education (Tertiary) spokesperson Deborah Russell responded: “One of the core legislated functions of universities in this country is to be a critic and conscience of society. That means continuing to speak truth to power, even if those in power don’t like it.”

“Nowhere should be a platform for hate speech. I am certain universities can make these decisions themselves.”

‘Expectations clarified’ – university
The University of Auckland said in a statement the announcement of planned legislation changes would help “to clarify government expectations in this area”.

“The university has a longstanding commitment to maintaining freedom of expression and academic freedom on our campuses, and in recent years has worked closely with [the university’s] senate and council to review, revise and consult on an updated Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy.

“This is expected to return to senate and council for further discussion in early 2025 and will take into account the proposed new legislation.”

The university described the nature of the work as “complex”.

“While New Zealand universities have obligations under law to protect freedom of expression, academic freedom and their role as ‘critic and conscience of society’, as the proposed legislation appreciates, this is balanced against other important policies and codes.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australian constitutional law expert Professor Anthony Regan believes Fiji’s Coalition government came into power “by the skin of its teeth”.

In the face of that, he believes it is not an option to leave the 2013 Constitution “as it is!”

Professor Regan spoke at the Fiji National University’s (FNU) Vice-Chancellor’s Leadership Seminar in Nasinu on Thursday, on “Constitutional Change in Fiji: Looking to the Future”.

He has voiced caution about the stability of the 2013 Constitution.

“Do you leave it as it is now and say it’s too difficult to change? That’s an option,” he said.

“And you might say that’s OK because the new regime is a fair and thoughtful regime and will act only fairly.

“That may be true, but every government is subject to temptations when there are pressures.”

He spoke about what he terms a pretty bad electoral system designed to keep people in power.

The Coalition government got in by the skin of its teeth in the face of that system.

The system, he argued, designed to favour certain parties, increased the risk of a less favourable government gaining power in the future.

And this, he warned, could cause problems in the future.

“There’s no guarantee that a good outcome will come in every future election and then, if a government that had far less good intent came to power, it’s got the authority to do all the things we have talked about.”

These included overriding human rights and stacking accountability institutions.

He believes the recent Parliamentary remuneration debacle has added a new layer of complexity to the challenges we face as a nation.

He believes, with the added majority in the House, it may be possible to get the 75 percent majority needed to amend the constitution.

He has also suggested possible ways to move on reforms.

He suggested amending electoral legislation, and factored in compulsory voting to raise voter turnout and possibly inch out support for constitutional reforms.

Change though, as the good professor notes, will definitely need support and a united front.

That will mean awareness campaigns designed to raise the level of understanding of any need for reforms and encourage participation.

That will mean taking the message out to the masses, and encouraging them to buy into any bid to make changes.

That isn’t going to be a walk in the park either.

Professor Regan’s opinions will no doubt stimulate discussions on this important topic and encourage people to consider whether it is important enough for them to participate.

So we have what he considers a constitution that is vulnerable to potential abuse by future governments if it is left like this.

And in the face of that sits the need for us all to carefully consider what we must do moving forward. We have layers of complexities as we mentioned above, and major challenges that will need careful consideration and discussions!

Republished from The Sunday Times on 4 August 2024 under the original headline “By the skin of its teeth” with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In 2023, a near-record 173,000 non-New Zealand citizens migrated to the country.

The changes to the work visa scheme include introducing an English language requirement for migrants applying for low-skilled jobs.

A number of construction roles will also no longer be added to the green-light list due to less demand, and the franchisee accreditation category will be disestablished.

Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said the changes focus on using the local labour market first, while still attracting high-skill migrants where there are skill shortages.

“Getting our immigration settings right is critical to this government’s plan to rebuild the economy,” she said today in a statement.

“The government is focused on attracting and retaining the highly skilled migrants such as secondary teachers, where there is a skill shortage. At the same time we need to ensure that New Zealanders are put to the front of the line for jobs where there are no skills shortages.”

‘Understanding rights’
She said having an English language requirement would mean migrants “will be better able to understand their rights or raise concerns about an employer early”.

“These changes are the start of a more comprehensive work programme to create a smarter immigration system that manages net migration, responds to our changing economic context, attracts top talent, revitalises international education, is self-funding and sustainable, and better manages risk.”

The changes are immediate, applying from today or tomorrow, April 8.

The full list of changes to the AEWV scheme can be found on the Immigration website.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Aotearoa New Zealand coalition government leaders have rejected allegations they are degrading tino rangatiratanga, saying the proposed Treaty Principles Bill will not “delegitimise” Māori.

The criticism was levelled by protesters at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds today.

The leaders of National, ACT and NZ First faced a confronting reception, with the crowd booing NZ First’s Winston Peters and drowning out ACT’s David Seymour.

Waitangi highlights. Video: RNZ News

But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said there was “genuinely a sense of unity” and asked people to look beyond the “drama” of the protests and find common ground.

Ahead of the government’s arrival at the treaty grounds, veteran activist Tāme Iti led a hīkoi to the meeting house. The crowd carried white flags and chanted “honour Te Tiriti”.

A pōwhiri followed, with the biggest challenge reserved for Seymour, the leader of the ACT party and main proponent of the Treaty Principles Bill.

He faced a kāhui (group) of kaiwero, while Peters and Prime Minister Luxon were each challenged by one kaiwero.

Seymour then had his speech drowned out with a waiata before a protester walked onto the ātea and was stopped by security.

Seymour called for his opponents to “start talking about ideas and stop attacking people”.

‘Get some manners’
Peters was booed during his speech but quickly fired back.

“You tell me whoever said we’re getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi. Stop the crap,” he said.

“Get some manners . . .  get an education.”

Among the protesters was Eru Kingi-Kapa, who told RNZ the government’s kōrero was degrading to the tino rangatiratanga of te ao Māori.

Seymour knocked back the allegations, saying ACT had a “long history” of allowing people to self-determine.

“We believe in tino rangatiratanga, perhaps more so than anyone.”

The coalition was devolving decision-making power to Māori, and it was the previous Labour government that “centralised everything”, such as Te Pūkenga, taking power away from Māori, he said.

Seymour described the pōwhiri as “pretty fiery”, but said, “I give as good as I get”.

Ahead of the government’s arrival at the treaty grounds, veteran activist Tāme Iti led a hīkoi to the meeting house. The crowd carried white flags and chanted “honour Te Tiriti”.

IN PICTURES | Politicians from National, NZ First and ACT have been welcomed onto Waitangi Marae – with the fiercest challenge reserved for David Seymour.

Here are some of the best moments caught on camera.

📷 RNZ / Angus Dreaver
🔗 https://t.co/vON5JZLvW2 pic.twitter.com/viLoaTpFSk

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 5, 2024

“I don’t believe anything our government is doing is delegitimising a personal choice many people make to be Māori,” he said.

“If you choose to accentuate that part of your whakapapa, [you’re] entitled to do that.”

Jones said the government was funding wānanga and marae throughout the country: “None of that delegitimises Māori.”

However, the government was “opening up a debate” on the principles of the Treaty and how they were applied in New Zealand’s increasingly multicultural society, he said.

“We need to ensure, as this debate goes forward, we have a long-term view to the best interests of all Kiwis.”

Jones said he would take an active role in that debate.

He said some of the protesters were “unnecessarily rude”, but he understood where they were coming from.

“Young people . . . I was young once. Out in the hot sun, you can get carried away.”

National won’t support Treaty Principles Bill
Luxon used his speech to reflect on Aotearoa’s history, before talking about his vision for Aotearoa in 2040.

The promises of the Treaty were not upheld, he said.

“Every nation’s past isn’t perfect. But no other country has attempted to right its wrongs.”

Speaking to media, he said National had “no intention, no commitment” to support ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond the first reading.

There would also no referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi, he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific peoples joined with tangata whenua at the weekend, calling on the Aotearoa New Zealand government to uphold indigenous principles and language.

Twelve thousand people attended the unity hui at Tuurangawaewae Marae on Saturday, called by the Kiingitanga to discuss what is being seen as anti-Māori actions by the new coalition government.

Former Minister for Pacific Peoples Aupito William Sio was a panel speaker, saying it was “an absolute privilege to support and participate in this vital work”.

“It is right for Maori to lead this conversation and not politicians, as the political timeline is short-term while Maori perspectives are long-term and intergenerational.”

Aupito said these conversations were not just limited to Māori peoples, but needed to be held within strong leadership structures.

“This is the right time to have a conversation on nationhood and identity, and using indigenous knowledge and cultural intelligence and frameworks is better than using Pakeha frameworks that have often been the source of pain, harm and colonisation.”

Aupito was also asked to light one of the fires representing the mauri, or spirit of the words shared — the wind then carrying the message across the country.

‘Privilege to light fire’
“It was a privilege to be asked to light a fire as a symbol of Pacific people’s support and for the spirit of the event to now spread among the Pacific communities throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.”

In his speech, Kiingi Tuheitia Pootatau said the political message had been heard around the world.

“We’ve sent a strong message, and that message has been heard around the world . . .  our time is now, kotahitanga (unity) is the way.”

Auckland union organiser Teisa Unga said Pacific communities needed to look back on the shared history with New Zealand to understand shared ties with tangata whenua.

“We’ve grown up, and because we haven’t been taught our history, we actually don’t know the road map of where we are right now and we have this sense of amnesia.

“We need to look back and actually remember who we are, where we come from, and then that’ll start igniting a fire that we need to take it back to the culture and Te Tiriti, remembering that that was there first.”

Tongan community leader Pakilau Manase Lua said it was disappointing that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was not there to hear the concerns of Māori iwi.

‘Unfortunate that PM’s not here’
“It’s unfortunate that he’s not here — in saying that, we’ve got Waitangi coming up, and what was said here probably will be repeated at Waitangi.

“The atmosphere here was still a little bit charged, with some quite heavy topics that are being discussed, but it’s been amazing.”

Mana Moana programme director Dr Karlo Mila said she was impressed by the clear intentions laid out by different cross sections of iwi.

“What was quite amazing for me, was to see different hapu and iwi come forth with really, really clear resolutions about what they wanted to put forward so that they could get some kind of unity around it, there was a lot of coherency in their messages.

“It felt like a real moment in history for all the provocations that are coming from the new government.”

This week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will aim to reassure Māori leaders about the coalition government’s actions at the annual Ratana gathering, where both he and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters are expected to speak.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s fired Education Minister Aseri Radrodro rebuffed three letters from the Prime Minister and legal advice from the Solicitor-General that led to his sacking as a cabinet minister, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka revealed yesterday.

Rabuka also said he wrote twice to the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) leader Viliame Gavoka and met him once to discuss Radrodro’s non-compliance to his directives to reappoint members of the Fiji National University Council who he had sacked.

“I requested honourable Gavoka to urge the SODELPA Management Board to consider taking action to ensure the unlawful decisions outlined above, are rescinded, as it could invite serious legal consequences for the Coalition Government,” said Rabuka.

He added that Radrodro would cease to be minister from today.

“Honourable Radrodro may attend his former office to remove his personal items and honourable Gavoka may request him for a handover-briefing on his return from official travel.”

Rabuka had announced the sacking of Radrodro for “insubordination and disobedience” via social media platform Facebook.

RNZ Pacific reports that Fiji’s three-party coalition government is at risk of collapse after just over 12 months in power following the dismissal of Radrodo, with calls for Rabuka to step down as prime minister.

Radrodro — who is one of three MPs from the kingmaker party, Sodelpa — told local media the sacking came as a surprise, saying he only received a letter of his dismissal after it had been announced on social media.

He told local media he was not sure if he remained an MP.

However, the Cabinet and Parliament are two separate institutions independent of each other and Radrodro remains a parliamentarian.

According to the Standing Orders, only Parliament can remove an MP either for disciplinary reasons through a process in Parliament as provided for in the Constitution or in any law or if an MP Member is expelled by his/her party, or he/she resigns from the party, under which the party formally informs the Speaker of such a resignation or expulsion.

Temalesi Vono is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission. This article is also republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Waikato Tainui estimate at least 10,000 people have been welcomed onto Tūrangawaewae marae to participate in an Aotearoa New Zealand national hui called by Kiingi Tuuheitia.

Kiingi Tuuheitia extended the invite last month after iwi leaders highlighted the need for a unified response to coalition government policy impacting Māori and the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The iwi say it is the largest contingent of people they have welcomed since the tangi of Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu in 2006.

A flood of people during the pōwhiri saw groups dispersed to the riverside and a series of overflow marquees all fitted with large screens, water, seating and shade.

Iwi representatives from across the country have spoken on the pae with some composing waiata and haka specifically related to the coalition government and the hui.

Taiha Molyneux, RNZ’s Māori news editor writes that this is the first of a series of national Hui A Iwi touch point and a reference for Māori for many many years to come.

Kiingitanga chief-of-staff Ngira Simmonds said Ngāruawāhia was buzzing with activity.

“It’s quite logistical magic to pull this off, and there are several marae involved in not only the hui itself, but the night before.

“Seven of our marae will be hosting some of the iwi that will be coming from a long distance, so it’s a big undertaking.”

Simmonds said: “This hui will probably be a touch point and a reference for Māori for many many years to come, we will all be able to say that at this time in this place we all agreed to this, and what we all know is there is power in kotahitanga.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has played down criticism he is leading an administration that practices nepotism and favouritism.

The Rabuka-led three-party coalition government has been accused of rewarding loyalists with top positions in state-backed institutions and organisations.

There are some Fijians who claim Rabuka’s coalition is walking the same path as the previous FijiFirst government, which was also accused of rewarding party supporters with government jobs and contracts when it was in power from 2014 to 2022.

But Rabuka, while not categorically denying the accusations, said the opinions of detractors did not worry him.

“[My reaction is] that I should not worry about that,” Rabuka told RNZ Pacific at Bau Island following the conclusion of the first meeting of the Great Council of Chiefs.

He said criticism received by his government was healthy and a part of democracy.

“It is a good thing that people speak out [about good governance concerns].”

‘Can they do better?’
“What I can say, or all I can say is ‘can they do better?’” he added, pointing out if his critics were good enough to offer a better alternative.

But the country’s former attorney-general and economy minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has alleged Rabuka’s government has been offering people unfair advantage on the basis of “political allegiance”.

Speaking to local media outside a Suva courthouse on Tuesday, Sayed-Khaiyum said former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s FijiFirst-made appointments to government boards and institutions were due to “their capability or the capacity to assist”.

“We have people being appointed on boards not because of what they know, what they can contribute but who they are, who they know, whose political allegiance they have,” he claimed.

“When we [FijiFirst] appointed people to boards it was all about those institutions, those bodies started making revenue, start collecting revenue, start paying dividends to the government.”

He gave the example of Airports Fiji Limited, a government commercial company, paying more than F$40 million in dividends to government which he said was “unprecedented” when it happened before the covid pandemic.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed Rabuka’s government was rewarding individuals based on the political connections they had rather than on merit.

“So, people are now being appointed to those positions not because of their capability or the capacity to assist but over who they are, which political parties they belong to, what province they come from, what ethnicity they are, who they know, [or] whether they were failed [political] candidates or not.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

History unfolded live at the Vodafone Arena at Laucala Bay in Suva yesterday when the Methodist Church of Fiji and Rotuma and descendants of the Girmitya exchanged apologies and forgiveness in a solemn church service marking the fourth day of the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations.

An emotional Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, fought back tears as he sought forgiveness for the hurt and pain inflicted on Fijians of Indian origin during the colonial era and the political upheavals of 1987 and 2000.

“I am not making this confession as Prime Minister of Fiji, as I do not hold the government accountable for my actions of 1987,” he said.

“I do not claim to be making this confession on behalf of the vanua of Navatu, I am not Tui Navatu and I am just a member of the Yavusa Navatu of Cakaudrove.

“But I make this confession on behalf of all those that took part with me in the military coup of May 14, 1987.

“We confess our wrongdoings, we confess that we have hurt so many of our people in Fiji, particularly those of our Indo-Fijian communities at that time and among them were sons and daughters of those that were indentured as labourer from India between 1879 and 1960.”

Rabuka said they had every right to be angry about what was done to them.

‘I ask for your forgiveness’
“I stand here to confess and ask for your forgiveness. I have made our confession to some who were affected by our deeds in 1987.

“To those I did not reach, I hope [this is] coming through for us here, please forgive us.

“As you forgive, you release us and you are released. You are released from hatred and from your anger and we begin to feel the peace of God coming to our beings and our lives.”

In an emotional response, former prime minister and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry said it was a great day for the nation and worth celebrating.

It would go down well in history and everyone must build on it.

“I am deeply honoured by this gesture. Prime Minister Rabuka, I also accept your apology. In your personal capacity you apologised,” he said.

“I accept the apologies of the Turaga na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba, Marama Roko Tui Dreketi and the Tui Cakau. Thank you very much for your magnanimity.

“I think the spirit is there now, that we can all work together, may God bless Fiji.”

‘One nation of different beliefs’
Fiji Times journalist Navnesh Reddy reports that on Saturday Prime Minister Rabuka spoke at the Western Girmit Day Remembrance Celebration held at Churchill Park in Lautoka.

“Today I am wearing the Hindu salusalu and have accepted the ‘tika’ on my forehead because we are now one nation of different beliefs.

“We are now one nation of different cultures and rather than offend the young student who put that on me, I accept it because my custom now is acceptance and to co-exist harmoniously.”

Rabuka said that as the nation moved forward, there was a need to create more awareness on how Fijians could overcome their differences.

“The underlying theme of the new Girmit Day holiday is about unity and I believe we all — the descendants of the Girmitya, the indigenous people and the chiefs — [must] live in harmony and we have to lay that foundation now.

“Our children need to know that we cannot build a new future by relying on our vision and beliefs from the past.”

He also acknowledged the organisers for putting together a programme that envisaged what the Coalition government believed in.

“This morning we came together and worshipped in three different religions and heard prayers from the Pundit, Reverend, and also the Imam.

“This is a very special time for Fiji because we are now coming together as a nation to observe the first public holiday to acknowledge and honour the Girmitya of India, who came to Fiji between 1879 to 1916.”

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji’s Coalition government strongly believes that addressing the country’s priorities head-on is the cornerstone to building a progressive and prosperous nation for future generations, says Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Speaking at the National Economic Summit 2023 in Suva today, Rabuka said the event was an opportunity for Fiji to take stock, make necessary changes, and move forward decisively.

The last summit was held 15 years ago.

Rabuka said the meeting would address daunting challenges faced by Fiji, including unsustainable national debt levels, geopolitical and global economic uncertainties, and the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, particularly on small island developing economies like Fiji.

“As a Small Island Developing State, we are vulnerable to such events which are beyond our control,” he said at the Grand Pacific Hotel.

“It is critical that we must make timely adjustments so that we can cope and be able to survive in the global trading environment.

“We have just been through one of the world’s worst pandemics of modern times, with covid-19. It affected the whole world.

Russian-Ukrainian war
“The Russian-Ukrainian war in Europe made our efforts to recover from the pandemic more challenging, particularly due to the supply-chain issues. We must address these challenges collectively through this summit, and craft solutions together as a nation.”

Rabuka, wearing an Adam Smith tie, referenced the renowned economist’s 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, and urged those implementing the summit’s outcomes to be mindful of Smith’s principles of free market and capital formation for economic growth.

The Prime Minister also noted a need to strengthen laws and institutions, as well as restore investor confidence and improve the business environment while protecting the country’s natural resources.

“We need to rebuild our infrastructure which has been neglected, and most importantly look at ways to ease the burden of the high cost of living for our people,” he said.

“We need to strengthen the private sector which we so glibly call the ‘engine of growth’. It is important to promote trade and build the confidence of the private sector.”

Strengthening multilateral and bilateral relations with Fiji’s trading and development partners was also a key point raised by Rabuka as he shared that the findings and recommendations from the summit would contribute to the formulation of the national budget and “our National Development Plan”.

“Reshaping our future means more than just promoting economic growth and development.

Brighter future
“A brighter future for our nation requires our communities to be united and move away from divisions,” he said.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad said plenary sessions had been organised to set the scene for more detailed discussions on macroeconomic management, key growth sectors, governance and reforms and human development.

“We have an intense two days ahead of us. We are putting special focus on critical issues such as water resource management, transport, energy and technology.

“We are also casting a wider net over rural and outer islands development, land and marine-based economic activities and indigenous participation in business.

“There are 32 specific subject areas for discussion,” Professor Prasad said.

It is understood each summit participant has been allocated a thematic working group with a communique expected to be issued at the conclusion of the event tomorrow.

Viliame Tawanakoro is a final-year journalism student at USP’s Laucala Campus. He is also the 2023 student editor for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publication. USP Journalism collaborates with Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Fiji government has announced it will repeal the controversial Media Industry Development Act 2010.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said cabinet had approved the tabling of a bill to repeal the Act “as a whole.”

“The decision is pursuant to the People’s Coalition Government’s commitment to the growth and development of a strong and independent news media in the country,” said Rabuka in his post-cabinet meeting update.

“It has been said that ‘media freedom and freedom of expression is the oxygen of democracy’,” he said.

“These fundamental freedoms are integral to enable the people to hold their government accountable.

“I am proud to stand here today to make this announcement, which was key to our electoral platform, and a demand that I heard echoed in all parts of the country that I visited,” he added.

The announcement comes just days after Rabuka’s government introduced a new draft legislation to replace the act.

Strongly opposed
The move to replace the 2010 media law with a new one was strongly opposed during public consultations by local journalists and media organisations.

They said there was no need for new legislation to control the media and called for a “total repeal” of the existing regulation.

The country’s Deputy Prime Minister, Manoa Kamikamica, told RNZ Pacific last Friday that there were areas of concern that local stakeholders had raised during the consultation session of the proposed new bill.

“We hear what the industry is saying, we will make some assessments and then make a final decision,” he said.

But Rabuka’s announcement today means that the decision has been made.

RNZ Pacific has contacted the Fijian Media Association for comment.

‘Good decision’ but investment needed
University of the South Pacific head of journalism programme Associate Professor Shailendra Singh said the announcement was expected.

Dr Singh said repealing the punitive legislation was a core election platform promise of the three challenger parties which are now in power.

“This is a good decision because the Fijian media and other stakeholders were not sufficiently consulted when the decree was promulgated in June 2010.”

But he said while getting rid of the media act was welcomed, the coalition was working on a new legislation and “we have to wait and see what that looks like”.

“The media act was dead in the water or redundant before the change in government. The new government could not have implemented it after coming to power, having criticised it and campaigned against it in their election campaign,” he said.

“Repealing the act removes the fear factor prevalent in the sector for nearly 13 years now.”

Dr Singh said the government had committed to the growth and development of a strong news media.

Public good investment
But that, he said, would require more than the repeal of the act.

“[Improving standards] will require some financial investments by the state since media organisations are struggling financially due to the digital disruption followed by covid.”

He said among the many challenges, the media industry was struggling to retain staff.

“So incentives like government scholarships specifically in the media sector could be one way of helping out.

“Media is a public good and like any public good government should invest in it for the benefit of the public.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz