Keith Rankin, 23 October 2026 – The financial lobby tells us ad nauseum that we are all living longer, and that – if not already retired – we had better all save like crazy. (Note, by the way, that the cost of retirement is the resources that go into supporting retired people whether their money comes from a pension or from drawing down private savings. The biggest ‘burden’ is a country’s affluent retired, who draw resources away from everyone else.)

The other day I saw this on YouTube: Why Australians were so thin in the 1970s. The people shown would have been born between 1930 and 1955. One reason for ‘thinness’ not mentioned in the video is that people smoked more then; but Australasians born between 1930 and 1955 probably did not smoke as much as those who served in the world wars.

Putting the smoking issue aside, we note that the high life expectancy statistics for Australians and New Zealanders for the last fifteen years relate to the death rates of the people depicted in that video.

We know that people of subsequent generations have been more prone to obesity, and to type-two diabetes. I note from my own experience in 1976 (the only time that I was in the United States) that I was constantly aware that that country had a significant obesity problem compared to the countries I was familiar with (then, I was familiar with New Zealand, United Kingdom, and West Europe). And I note that official life expectancy in the United States today is three years less than New Zealand; and four years less than Australia.

One important but understated statistic from the Covid19 pandemic was the significant increased risk of death, worldwide, of people with diabetes comorbidity.

I heard this on RNZ this morning: Porirua research highlights scale of type 2 diabetes epidemic. We may add there is almost certainly a mental health epidemic which impacts on the same demographic discussed in that radio report; and which may to some extent be caused by poor physical health.

If we combine this very evident prime-age health deterioration with the Easterlin demographic hypothesis (which explains why relatively over-populated generations face worse life outcomes due to higher competition from both peers and the preceding generation) we can only conclude that people born between 1960 and 1975, and also people born between 1985 and 2000 are likely to die on average at significantly lower ages than people born in the 1930s and 1940s.

New Zealand has a particularly large demographic spike of ‘millennials’; ‘baby-blippers’ born between 1987 and 1997, augmented by immigration. The generation born from 1960 to 1975 is also very ‘numerically abundant’.

New Zealand’s healthcare system is today facing a substantially increased number of people in their seventies and eighties. But these are relatively healthy people. And who, in large part, have substantial capacity to spend on private healthcare. These represent a primary ‘concertina’, or compression of demand.

What New Zealand is facing is a demographic concertina effect – a concertina effect of morbidity which will lead to increased premature mortality – whereby people currently aged 50 to 65 (and there are many of them) are already placing unexpectedly high demands on New Zealand’s health care system; significantly higher than would be predicted by past age-specific death rates.

But that’s still only the third of it. A third compression is coming from those born either side of 1990; people in their thirties and early forties today who represent a significant demographic spike. The healthiest of these are our many overseas-born residents who were born around 1990. I fear that our New Zealand-born ‘millennial’ population – born in the late 1980s and early 1990s – will prove to be very much at the wrong end of this concertina.

The life expectancy statistics which we rely on are derived from past mortality, especially from people who were young in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet the concept of life expectancy is a conceptualisation of the future. We have no idea how long today’s younger people will live for. But there are some very worrying portents; today’s 35 year-olds missed out in the infectious diseases which centuries-ago took many young people. Rather they await onset of the more chronic conditions of twenty-first century middle-age; many are not in good shape to meet these challenges.

Too many peak-age adults – alive today – experience sedentary work and commuting, inadequate incomes, quality-compromised and barely affordable housing, private debt, time poverty, social isolation, and unhealthy imported diets. We have more varieties of foods available to us today; though the predominant experience is more food, much of it very fast. Quantity trumps quality; the reckoning is only starting to show in our healthcare and end-of-life statistics.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/22/new-caledonia-pro-independence-leaders-boycott-eu-critical-minerals-deal/

COMMENTARY: By Stefan Armbruster

Israel voted against all UN resolutions concerning decolonisation of the six Pacific territories at the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Decolonisation — C-24) meeting last week.

Decolonisation has been a founding principle of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) since its establishment in 1971.

The announcement by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar that it has become a PIF partner on social media earlier this week has stirred controversy.

• READ MORE: Israel’s relationship with Pacific is ‘biblical, ageless, real’, says Fiji deputy PM
• NZ’s foreign policy obligation to confront Israel’s Gaza genocide
• ‘Please explain’, Palestine Forum tells NZ over Israeli-Pacific Islands Forum ‘partnership’
• ‘Serious questions to answer’ – Labour slams Luxon over Israel’s Pacific Islands Forum move
• Israel joins Pacific Islands Forum as development partner
• Other Gaza genocide reports

As well as voting against decolonisation on October 15, Israel — along with the US — were the only countries to oppose all resolutions at the Fourth Committee including:

• reporting obligations for administering powers;
• dissemination of decolonisation information;
• economic activities affecting territorial peoples;
• education and training opportunities; and
• implementation of the UN Declaration on decolonisation.

At the same meeting, the US explicitly called for the abolition of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation’s mandate. Israel did not address the committee.

On October 20, Sa’ar posted on social media that the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa had told him Pacific leaders accepted the country as a Forum Partner at PIFLM in Palau last month.

Another diplomatic achievement: Israel joins the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) as a Forum Partner.

The Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Baron Divavesi Waqa, has informed me that Israel has been accepted as a Forum Partner, following a decision at the meeting of the Forum’s member state leaders in Palau.

This follows my visit to Fiji in June, where I met with the Secretary General and presented Israel’s request to join the Forum.

Strengthening ties with the Pacific Island nations is one of my objectives. Earlier this year, I opened Israel’s Embassy in Fiji, which also serves nine other Pacific Island nations, all friendly to Israel.
Under the current government, three of these countries, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Nauru, have opened embassies in Jerusalem.

As a Forum Partner, Israel will participate in a framework for cooperation in areas of mutual interest, based on regional priorities and Israel’s expertise in water management, desalination, agriculture, tackling climate change, innovation and sustainable development.

Israel and the Forum will also develop a joint action plan setting out practical areas of cooperation and a mechanism to monitor progress.

— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) October 20, 2026

There was no mention of Israeli or any other country’s partner status in this year’s 55th PIFLM Communique and there has been no subsequent statement from the PIF secretariat.

On the PIF Review of the Regional Architecture and partner status, the Communique said, “leaders further agreed that the Secretary General would communicate the decision to Partners in line with the endorsed communication approach”.

PIF’s last status update on Israel was a meeting with ambassadors and its international aid agency Mashav on October 18, with no mention of its partner status.

“The criteria for PIF Dialogue Partners, which must be met by countries at the time of admission and then continuously adhered to, are:

• demonstratable commitment to advancing the vision and priorities of the Leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum;
• long-term forward commitment to the Pacific region as demonstrated through foreign policy commitments, engagement strategies, diplomatic missions and engagement with regional organisations, and transparency in declaring economic, political, and strategic interests in engaging in the region; and
• shared interests and common positions on international issues and a commitment to using global networks and membership of international organisations to support Forum priorities.”

Six of the 17 non-self governing territories on the UN decolonisation list are in the Pacific —  American Samoa, French Polynesia (Mā’ohi Nui), Guam, New Caledonia (Kanaky), Pitcairn and Tokelau.

Pacific leaders at PIFLM in 1981 passed a resolution “reaffirming their belief in the principles of self-determination and independence applying to non self-governing Pacific Island countries, including the French territories”.

In 1991, the PIF leaders Communique under the heading “Decolonisation” stated they “again reaffirmed the importance of the universal realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and the principles and practices of the United Nations pertaining thereto.”

The UN recognises the Occupied Palestinian Territories (West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) under the framework of belligerent occupation and international humanitarian law not the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.

Stefan Armbruster is a freelance journalist covering Pacific regional issues.

• Video and transcript of the Fourth Committee meeting via UN Web TV.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/22/israel-votes-against-decolonisation-for-pacific-at-un-then-says-it-has-become-pif-partner/

RNZ Pacific reporters

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/22/israels-relationship-with-pacific-is-biblical-ageless-real-says-fiji-deputy-pm/

COMMENTARY: By John Hobbs

New Zealand is failing its responsibilities towards the Palestinian people; a people who are dying from the actions of Israel.

Its responsibilities to hold Israel to account are laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. States are obliged to prevent and punish the commission of genocide.

This does not require that genocide actually occurs, the obligation is to act to prevent genocide. It is a prior obligation designed to ensure that genocide never exists.

• READ MORE: ‘Serious questions to answer’ – Labour slams Luxon over Israel’s Pacific Islands Forum move
• Gaza mass killing documentary a warning of global dystopian future — David Robie
• Other Gaza genocide reports

New Zealand’s lack of support for South Africa’s petition to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention and its unwillingness to mirror the sanctions imposed on Russia following it’s invasion of Ukraine, are two examples of inaction.

New Zealand’s passivity reflects other influences, particularly those of the US.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters says as much in his recent speech to the NZ Institute of International Affairs: “An independent foreign policy can never be unidirectional. The left and a large section of the media, they define us acting independently only when we are disagreeing with the Americans.’’

New Zealand, and the US, unlike the UK, Canada and Australia, have not formally recognised the independent and sovereign State of Palestine. Peters curiously argues this reflects an expression of New Zealand’s independence, asserting this doesn’t foreclose alignments with countries such as the US.

Unquestioned alignment with US
New Zealand’s unquestioned alignment with the US is occurring in spite of US agreement to provide a $2.8 billion arms package to Israel.

A movie, now showing in New Zealand, American Doctor adds another dimension to the cruelty occurring in Gaza. It focuses on the work of three American doctors — Perlmutter (Jewish); Thaer Ahmad (Muslim of Palestinian descent); and Feroze Sidhwa (son of Zoroastrian parents.)

American Doctor – a new film.          Video: Democracy Now!

It is harrowing but essential viewing and brings an immediacy to the situation.

The suffering Perlmutter and his colleagues have seen in Gaza hospitals since Israel launched its retaliation for the October 2023 Hamas attack forms the core of the movie. The movie begins with the shredded bodies of tiny children lying on a medical bench – the result of US-made bombs employed by the IDF in Gaza.

The movie documents images of the Israeli military deliberately targeting civilians, hospitals, and hospital staff.

Dr Sidhwa comments:  “People feel like they have to have a PhD in this topic to understand it, or to discuss it sensibly. The question isn’t how well you know Arab-Israeli history.

“The question is: Do you or do you not support the murder of children? Do you or do you not support the torture of physicians? Do you or do you not support the bombing of hospitals?’’

Puzzling NZ not influenced by UK
It is puzzling that New Zealand has not been influenced by one of its closest allies, the UK, when its Foreign Secretary Edward Miliband, says: “The Palestinian people’s suffering is a stain on the conscience of the world. We call out ethnic cleansing by the settler terrorists in the West Bank.

“We call out the evidence of war crimes in Gaza. We call out Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.’’

Miliband accepts that the UK has a responsibility to do everything to end the occupation. Hence its decision to ban trade with all illegal settlements.

Such moves by the UK represent a sea change in the struggle to end Israel’s occupation and its programme of annexation of Palestinian land. New Zealand must be part of this change.

So what would a principled New Zealand foreign policy look like on Palestine?

It needs to be put on a firm foundation of the rule of law — stand with South Africa in its case against Israel at the ICJ, support the equal rights of Palestinians to self-determination with statehood recognition being a small step in this direction.

Impose sanctions against the State of Israel (not just against the illegal settler colonial settlements.) Scrutinise Israeli passport carrying arrivals into New Zealand to ensure they have not been part of the IDF acts in Gaza and the the West Bank.

Foreign policy isn’t something New Zealand voters prioritise.

Shameful NZ record on Gaza
New Zealand’s shameful record on Gaza, however, should be top of mind going into the election.

While the government has failed in its response to the horror of Gaza, undermining our standing in the international community, three political parties — Greens, Labour, and Te Pāti Māori — are articulating an approach to Palestine grounded in a morally defensible foreign policy.

All support statehood recognition of Palestine, the imposition of sanctions on Israel and joining South Africa at the ICJ. Labour will require the NZ Superfund and ACC to divest from holdings in companies on the UN list of companies operating in the Occupied Territories.

Whatever shape the next government takes it must shift its approach to one which upholds international law and supports the people of Palestine as their survival in their homeland is in peril.

New Zealanders and our political parties must act and be part of the global momentum to end the brutality in Gaza, to reverse the illegal occupation of the West Bank, support Palestinian self-determination and hold Israel to account.

To do otherwise represents a moral failure as citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand and it will severely damage our reputation among many of our traditional allies, trading partners, and the international community.

John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/21/nzs-foreign-policy-obligation-to-confront-israels-gaza-genocide/

Asia Pacific Report

A leading Palestine advocacy group in New Zealand has given the government a “please explain” message after news reports that the Pacific islands Forum (PIF), the region’s main political body, have admitted Israel as a sectoral partner.

According to 1News, the decision was made under a new two-tier partnership model, with Israel engaging at ministerial rather than leaders’ level.

The Forum Secretariat had not publicly announced the decision when the report was published.

• READ MORE: ‘Serious questions to answer’ – Labour slams Luxon over Israel’s Pacific Islands Forum move
• Israel approved as second-tier partner in Pacific Islands Forum
• Israel joins Pacific Islands Forum as development partner
• Other Israel and the Pacific reports

New Zealand, along with Australia, is one of 18 members of the Forum and will host next year’s Leaders’ Summit.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted on an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and Tel Aviv is widely condemned for its genocide in the besieged Palestinian enclave of Gaza with at least 75,000 people killed.

Both Netanyahu and New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon face elections within the next few weeks.

Four questions
Palestine Forum chair of New Zealand Maher Nazzal has called on Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters to answer four questions:

• What position did New Zealand take on Israel’s application?;
• What advice did the Government receive on the diplomatic, legal and human rights implications?;
• Did New Zealand raise Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories during its consideration?; and
• What safeguards will ensure the partnership does not undermine the Forum’s commitments to human rights, peace and self-determination?

“These are reasonable questions, and New Zealanders are entitled to clear, public answers,” Nazzal said.

“Cooperation cannot replace accountability.”

Israel has signalled interest in cooperating with Pacific states on water, agriculture, climate adaptation and innovation.

“These matter to Pacific communities. But technical cooperation must not shield any state from scrutiny under international law,” Nazzal said.

‘Consistent principles’
“PFNZ respects the sovereign right of Pacific nations to make their own diplomatic decisions. Our concern is not with the people of Israel, or with cooperation that genuinely benefits the Pacific.

“It is with consistent principles and meaningful accountability, whichever state is involved.”

Nazzal said Pacific peoples understood what land, identity and self-determination meant. That was why the Palestinian experience of displacement and occupation resonated across the region.

“PFNZ urges the government to show that its commitment to a rules-based order applies consistently, and encourages Pacific civil society and communities across Aotearoa to engage in informed discussion,” he said.

“The question is not only who may join a regional forum. It is whether the principles that guide that forum are upheld consistently.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/21/please-explain-palestine-forum-tells-nz-over-israeli-pacific-islands-forum-partnership/

By Kaya Selby of RNZ Pacific

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has “serious questions to answer” over Israel becoming a partner of the region’s main political decision-making institution, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson says.

Israel has joined the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) as a development partner, the Israeli Foreign Ministry announced in a statement on Wednesday.

A number of Pacific governments have been forging closer ties with Israel’s government at the same time that its standing in the international community has dropped to a new low.

• READ MORE: Israel joins Pacific Islands Forum as development partner
• Other Israel and the Pacific reports

The Israeli government has been widely accused of violating international law with its devastating military attack on Gaza and attacks on four other Middle Eastern countries over the past two years.

Luxon stated earlier this month that his Israel counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to New Zealand, after the International Criminal Court’s recent decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and others in his cabinet.

He said Israel’s entry to the PIF ecosystem was ultimately a decision for the Forum, but noted its partnership status would be “lower tier”.

The New Zealand leader attended the meeting in Palau last month when PIF leaders decided to recognise Israel as a new partner.

‘Warm Pacific welcome’
ACT leader David Seymour extended “a warm Pacific welcome” to Israel after it was accepted as a partner state.

“Another democratic country in the Pacific Islands Forum is a good thing — possibly a bit geographically challenged. But then we’ve had Britain try and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so it seems geography is no barrier these days.”

However, Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson Vanushi Walters said if her party were in government, it would have opposed Israel’s inclusion in the PIF.

“Christopher Luxon has said that he would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he came to New Zealand,” she said.

“He has serious questions to answer on how this situation has come about and what steps New Zealand took to object.”

New Zealand has issued a travel ban targeting some Israeli leaders. But in terms of who from Israel would be attending the PIF summit in New Zealand next year, Luxon said it was more on an official level, rather than leader level.

Tel Aviv has stepped up its diplomatic focus on the Pacific over the last few years, gaining support from a number of Pacific countries in the process.

With its new PIF status, Israel will be obliged to engage actively with the region on development priorities in the areas such as water management, desalination, agriculture and climate change adaptation.

“Israel will participate in the Forum’s Sectoral Partnership Stream, enabling focused cooperation in areas of mutual interest,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry said.

It also referred to a more wide-ranging agreement between Israel and the PIF that would set out key goals, and a mechanism to measure their progress.

The PIF Secretariat itself has not issued a formal statement.

In recent times, three Pacific countries have announced they would open embassies in Jerusalem — Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Naoero, and other Pacific nations are considering following suit.

They are among just a handful of countries that recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, in spite of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and subsequent international consensus that foreign embassies in Jerusalem are considered a violation of international law.

Samoan government released a statement last night highlighting Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa (La’auli) Leuatea Schmidt’s reflections from his past visit. La’auli wants to open the embassy as soon as possible and they are looking forward to it.

“The Prime Minister spoke about some of his greatest memories in Israel and one is when he was walking through the old city and seeing an abundance of fruits used to make juice which he said was amazing,” the Samoan government said in a statement on Tuesday night.

A play for recognition
Sione Tekiteki, a former PIF advisor and now law lecturer at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), told RNZ’s Midday Report that Israel was seeking to use the Pacific as a means of legitimising itself — using the affection it has won in the region.

“They are obviously tied. The strategic aspect here is gaining formal recognition through the Forum, which elevates it’s status beyond bilateral relationships,” he said.

In June, Fiji hammered out an agreement for Israel to open an embassy in Suva, which would service nine Pacific countries.

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who is subject to multiple complaints at the ICC in relation to Gaza, landed in Fiji last June, and was welcomed by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka — who himself was deployed in the Golan Heights in his military days.

Rabuka, while sharing a kava bowl with Sa’ar, told him “we will always be with you”.

Most recently, Naoero opened a Jerusalem embassy within days of withdrawing from the ICC. Its government boasted about its record of voting in tow with Israel at the United Nations.

Most recently, Naoero opened a Jerusalem embassy within days of withdrawing from the ICC, a move applauded by the Trump administration.

The Naoero government press office has not responded to questions on whether this decision had to do with active ICC charges laid against Israeli leaders.

How will Israel participate in the Pacific?
Tekiteki said in the decision to grant membership — made in Palau at last month’s PIF leaders summit — partners were considered in their totality, “as opposed to having specific conversations around specific countries”.

The nature of Israel’s diplomacy in the region has been described by Israel officials as a “sharing of expertise”, rather than a traditional aid relationship.

Israeli firms have established themselves in several Pacific countries, and Pacific nationals are provided opportunities to travel to Israel to study and work.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel told RNZ Pacific last year that they do not measure their friendship with the region by the amount spend on aid — which is relatively minor.

“Israel is not a major economical power that has a lot of money to spend, especially during times of war,” she said, adding that Israel had no plans to increase support in monetary terms.

“It’s not about the amount of money that we can invest but the quality and the things and how it affects the people.”

Haskel visited Papua New Guinea and Fiji a year ago. Her country agreed to provide for cybersecurity services in Fiji, with representatives from defence contractor Elbit, also part of her visiting delegation.

On the same trip, Haskel suggested that Fiji could deploy army personnel to the Gaza strip, where it is currently carrying out a devastating long-term military campaign against Palestinians.

This came before a formal request by the United States to Fiji in December for troops to join a UN-authorised International Stabilisation Force in Gaza — which Fiji has given no formal response to.

As for PIF itself, Tekieki said New Zealand, as next year’s hosts, would have to make some hard decisions around Israel’s participation.

“Israel is a sectoral partner … it is still unclear whether, moving forward, sectoral partners would be invited into the PIF leaders meeting, or whether those dialogues would be held at ministerial level.”

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/21/serious-questions-to-answer-labour-slams-luxon-over-israels-pacific-islands-forum-move/

Keith Rankin, 21 October 2026 – On the Multi-Party Debate on 13 October (TVNZ), the first question asked by Tova O’Brien was to Qiulae Wong, about the policy for a Citizens Income (aka Universal Basic Income; UBI). In particular, Ms O’Brien asked whether it was appropriate for high earners such as millionaires to receive this payment, which is proposed to be $373 per week. Ms Wong partially fluffed her lines, by not saying that, for a millionaire, much of the weekly $373 tax credit would be offset by higher income tax on higher income earners.

A better-designed UBI would have people currently on the top marginal rate of income tax not receiving any income above what they receive already. The point is that these people already receive a weekly UBI of $402, courtesy of an average income tax rate which is significantly lower than their 39% marginal rate of income tax.

(If Christopher Luxon looked carefully, he would see that, by his concept of ‘beneficiary’, high earners such as himself are already beneficiaries. All taxpayers in just about every jurisdiction receive tax concessions, through the graduations of the tax scale. It is not a ‘bad’ thing to be a beneficiary; by definition it is ‘good’. If he receives any interest or company dividends, then he is a beneficiary.)

Opportunity’s proposed income tax scale should be controversial, but is rarely mentioned in debates or interviews. Opportunity proposes to eliminate the 10.5% and 17.5% lower rates of tax; and replace the 30% rate with a 28% rate, and the 33% rate with a 34% rate. They would also bring down the current $78,100 threshold to $50,000 and raise the current $180,000 threshold for the 39% top rate to $200,000.

It is not clear why they wish to do this tinkering with the income tax scale. And there are some important problems with the way that Opportunity combines its income tax scale with its Citizens Income. More about that below.

Nobody ever seems to ask Opportunity spokespersons about their income tax policy; critics and supporters alike seem to be only interested in their ‘wealth tax’ policy.

A simple Basic Universal Income (BUI), aka Negative Income Tax

The simplest way to initiate desperately overdue income tax reform is to drop the 10.5% and 17.5% lower rates of income tax, and replace them with a BUI of $150 per week; a negative income tax – or, in technical language, a refundable tax credit. (This amount is too low to be called a Universal Basic Income.)

(Or, we could be a little more ambitious, and remove the 10.5%, 17.5% and 30% lower rates of income tax, and offset them with a BUI of $195 per week.)

With this BUI negative income tax proposal, everyone earning $53,500 or more, would experience zero change; only the labelling of their benefit would change. Likewise beneficiaries would experience zero change, because the first $150 of their benefit would be relabelled, as their basic universal income. (However beneficiaries could never suffer a loss of this $150 BUI benefit component, whatever restrictions or conditions or reductions might be imposed on their benefit.)

That’s it, in a nutshell. A full monetisation of the benefits arising from those tax rates at the lower end of the scale.

Would there be a fiscal cost? Yes, but not a big fiscal cost.

And there would be two types of significant fiscal advantage. The first type would be a substantial reduction in the case workload of MSD (Ministry of Social Development), both in having fewer future cases, and in cases generally becoming less complex to administer.

The second type of advantage would be an equitable stimulus. This would represent the fiscal stimulus generally associated with tax cuts, though the beneficiaries of this stimulus would be those low income people who presently ‘fall through the cracks’; for example, students who don’t qualify for a student allowance, and domestic partners (eg spouses) who presently have minimal income of their own but don’t qualify for income assistance because their household ‘breadwinners’ are employed or self-employed. This would be a much more efficient stimulatory tax cut than the types of tax cuts we are used to; this would channel the money towards the poorer rather than the richer individuals in society.

Such a BUI of $150 per week could never be claimed as a ‘licence to loaf’; the amount is too low. A low universal income would facilitate labour supply rather than inhibit it. Jobseekers would not be completely out-of-pocket, nor subject to cruel conditions to retain their benefits; they would be able to focus on job-seeking – or training – instead of benefit compliance.

Further, almost all of this stimulatory negative income tax would be spent. So it would quickly generate new fiscal revenue, first as GST (goods and services tax) and then as income tax.

If Opportunity was offering this BUI as a first stage of tax reform, I reckon they would be at 20% plus in this week’s political polls. It’s a policy which is almost impossible to criticise. And, using the neoliberal framing of the BUI as a tax credit rather than a welfare benefit, there would be no new beneficiaries created by the policy. (We note that former National and Act leader Don Brash favoured something along these lines – probably closer to the $195 option rather than the $150 option – in 2020 when he spoke at a TOP political meeting in Grey Lynn. Brash is not a ‘communist’!)

I recommend that Opportunity actively promotes this option as an immediate transitional step – it’s now too late for them to make it a coalition ‘bottom line’ – on their way to further tax-benefit reform. As it stands now, the BUI represents an important missed opportunity.

This BUI not only represents an equitable and affordable tax-cut stimulus – less radical than what Labour was promising in 1935 – but also represents a new policy lever. Future fiscal stimulus – when required – could be easily achieved by raising the BUI amount a little. That would be far more equitable – and efficient as a non-inflationary stimulus – than any of the tax cuts that have been implemented in New Zealand in our lifetimes.

(And a BUI is liberal, especially in its NIT framing. This is not a left-wing policy; it is a policy that favours stimulus through private rather than public spending. This policy remains agnostic with regard to public-sector spending. The BUI is ‘distribution’ – a small social dividend – rather than ‘redistribution’.)

Combining a $150 BUI with Opportunity’s proposed income tax scale

A non-beneficiary today receiving zero income would be $150 per week better off.

A non-beneficiary receiving $15,600 before tax would be $97.50 better off. Currently, these are people largely dependent on a student-loan living allowance or on a domestic partner.

A person earning $50,000 – ie a fulltime minimum wage, and also the threshold for Opportunity’s 34% tax – would be $28 per week better off.

A person earning $78,100 – ie threshold income for the present 33% tax rate – would be $2 per week worse off. A person earning $180,000 – ie threshold income for the present 39% tax rate – would be $21.59 per week worse off. A person earning $1,000,000 – ie threshold income for an income millionaire – would be $2.36 per week worse off. This negative income tax policy would not be providing high income earners with additional disposable income.

My recommendation is that Opportunity immediately recognises the virtue of a $150 weekly BUI. If asked by Tova O’Brien or Paddy Gower why a millionaire should get this, Qiulae Wong would be able to say that the millionaire would actually face a weekly tax increase of two dollars!

She could then go on to say that the remainder of the Citizens Income – $373-$150 equals $223 – would be a longer term project, a UBI, to be financed through a wealth tax fund which the millionaires should be sustaining.

Creating a Universal Basic Income

If we are to ‘go all the way’ and create a UBI in New Zealand, the easiest way to do that would be to eliminate the 10.5%, 17.5%, 30%, and 33% concessionary marginal rates of income tax. That would yield a weekly UBI of $402.36, to be funded principally (but not only) by the removal of those concessionary tax rates, leaving a flat rate of income tax of 39%.

A UBI – payable to all tax-residents aged over 18 – would be sufficient to fully replace most categories of social security benefit, and to substantially replace the remaining categories. The remaining categories could easily be handled by Inland Revenue, which already pays out tax credits. This would mean that the Work and Income branch of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) could be abolished; something attractive to neoliberals but not to those neoconservatives who favour the state exerting some control over poor people’s lives.

We note that, in a world which is substantially productivity-enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI), a UBI is essential to ensuring the economic sustainability of that world. While the argument for a UBI applies to the full range of productive societies, the present presence of AI raises the urgency of the public discussion. Nobody can honestly contemplate the advocacy of AI as a productivity-enhancing tool without advocating at minimum a BUI.

Note re the age of entitlement to a UBI, and proposals to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds

We note that there are various age-definitions for an adult. Presently 16-year-olds can leave school, and can get married. But most other criteria for adulthood focus on age 18.

If we do enfranchise 16- and 17-year-olds in the near future, this will raise questions about things like the drinking age and the age for military service; and the upper age limit for family tax credits presently paid on behalf of children.

Advocacy for a BUI or a UBI would need to factor in whether these should be payable to people aged 16 and 17; if so, clearly instead of present family tax credit payments such as ‘working-for-families’.

My general preference is to leave the ages as they are at present, with the focus on age 18. This keeps the whole ‘negative income tax’ issue more simple to negotiate. But it could mean that 16- and 17-year-old workers could only receive a BUI if they were no longer at secondary school and not ‘earning’ a family tax credit for their parent.

I favour restricting a BUI or UBI to people who have (or ‘would have’) completed five years at secondary school. Thus, anyone who entered Year 9 at secondary school in 2022 could become eligible for a UBI from 1 December 2026. Though there might be exceptional reasons for commencing payments at a slightly younger age.

Citizens’ Income excludes Denizens

The Opportunity Party’s Citizen’s Income would exclude many New Zealand tax residents. Indeed the use of the word ‘citizen’ becomes problematic in that it has different definitions in different contexts.

The present New Zealand labour force is unusual – in both domestic history and contemporary political geography – in that so many workers are either recent permanent residents or on temporary work visas.

A policy to raise income taxes – by removing the lower steps on the tax scale, as both Opportunity and myself require – could have substantial unintended consequences if the offsetting tax credit (BUI, UBI, CI) is not payable to these two ‘non-citizen’ categories of New Zealand taxpayers. Some people who Opportunity would exclude from a Citizens’ Income are eligible to vote in next month’s general election. These people – plus the many denizen tax-residents who drive our buses and work as nurses – could face substantial uncompensated tax increases.

The straightforward solution is to tax all tax-residents on the same basis (with the partial exception of persons aged under 18, as noted above). Even if there is a heightened fiscal cost, there is a greater benefit in having a workforce which is not some form of denizen underclass, unable to contribute as consumers, and unable to contribute to global wellbeing through their remittances to their countries of origin.

There’s also a logical problem. Imagine a world in which all countries have an income tax scale which offers at least a Basic Universal Income. Then, all workers – all economic citizens – in the world should have access to some level of BUI; but in practice people who are citizens of one country but denizens of another would miss out. My view is that the BUI should be paid by their country of tax-residency rather than their country of formal citizenship. (We note that there are something like 500,000 denizens of Australia who are citizens only of New Zealand.)

Finally

A Universal Income is also a Negative Income Tax, becoming a tax credit for those with incomes at the lower end of the income scale, and a tax concession for those higher up the income scale. A Basic Universal Income is an insufficient ‘social dividend’ in that it cannot be an adequate income to live on (except for a few ascetics) without other private or public means of support. This would seem to be the minimum social-income guarantee in any liberal society.

A Universal basic Income is generally understood as a universal income sufficient to support individual subsistence; it is a UI which meets an ‘adequacy’ criterion, just as New Zealand Superannuation – a UBI for seniors – has to meet such a criterion.

It is possible to criticise a UBI on the grounds that it disincentivises ‘working for a living’; although there are good arguments that its incentives for economic contribution to society outweigh its disincentives. It is not possible to criticise a BUI using this ‘labour-supply’ argument, however; it’s simply too basic. A BUI is a complement to paid work, not a substitute. (So is a UBI, I would argue, though this argument is less clearcut; New Zealand Superannuation is clearly a complement to labour force participation.)

A liberal Opportunity Party should have both BUI and UBI ‘on its books’; the BUI for immediate implementation, and the UBI as an aspiration in conjunction with additional streams of public revenue. (We note that, in a society with increasing productivity, a BUI can be expected to morph into a UBI.)

And Opportunity should be clear that by ‘Citizen’ they neither mean ‘passport-holder’ nor only persons who have been in the country for at least five years. Think of the denizens whose labour contributes so much to New Zealand.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin, 19 October 2026 – On Wednesday’s leaders debate (about 1 hour in), we got this question: “Should New Zealand join the EU?” Chris Hipkins said “yes”, if such membership was on offer. Luxon was more equivocal, though not dismissive. Overall there was remarkably little on international affairs (at a time when we may or may not be in World War Three), and no commentary afterwards. Hipkins’ Europhiliac answer disappeared into the crevices of the ‘elephant in the room’, possibly because much of New Zealand’s elite commentariat is Euro-supremacist at heart though not willing to come out as anti-Asian. Best to tiptoe.

(In that tiny segment of the ‘debate’ on foreign relations, there was some anti-Iranian sentiment relating to the IRGC, followed by strong pro-Ukraine sentiment. There was also irresponsible talk that China might invade Taiwan in or after 2028. Hipkins spoke about maintaining “peace in the Taiwan Strait”. Hipkins claims to favour a “morality-based” foreign policy on Ukraine and on China re Taiwan; this is code for favouring ‘good versus evil’ belligerent narrative over geopolitical realism. We are presented with a scenario of China, for no reason, suddenly deciding to invade the big island of Taiwan – no mention of the little islands of Taiwan such as those in Xiamen Harbour. And just as we face the relentless though unfounded presumption that Russia wants to conquer Europe.)

While the Euro-West is burning (literally) – and the rule of Macron, Merz, and Starmer became democratically untenable because of their prioritisation of Russophobia and Judeophilia over their own national wellbeing – the Euro-West establishment (ie their parties equivalent to National and Labour) are waging a rhetorical war against Near Asia (Russia and Iran) and Far Asia (China and North Korea); and are sacrificing Ukraine to a nasty unwinnable death-sprial against Russia. There is no moral dimension to this. Even if the Asian powers are as evil as the Euro-West elites say they are, the potential consequences to the inhabitants of the contested Eurasian lands – lands populated by Orthodox Christian Slavs and Muslim Arabs – and the innocent Global South are catastrophic.

(We may imagine a Sino-Mexican arrangement to install Asian troops and missiles ‘south of the [United States] border’. And if Mexican militias started firing Chinese drones at ‘Gulf of America’ oil refineries. No American president could tolerate that.)

So why would New Zealand – increasingly an Asian country in demography as well as physical geography, and all the better for that – want to align itself with a dying Euro-West; an increasingly inconsequential geopolity that’s “completely lost the plot” to repurpose a phrase from our leader who (despite wanting to assist Ukraine in its project of national suicide) clearly understands that New Zealand would be utterly marooned in the world if detached from Asia?

Robert Muldoon successfully pivoted New Zealand away from Europe towards Asia in the 1970s and 1980s. Subsequent governments – especially National governments – further embraced that pivot. It’s largely been from 2020 that New Zealand elites have turned away, sentimentally, from Asia; and reactionaries have emerged from the woodwork. That may be because of – rather than despite – the accelerated post-2022 populating of Aotearoa New Zealand with people of Asian ancestry, especially among those under 50 years-old and among New Zealand’s new born.

I have little doubt that New Zealand has become a more racist country this decade than it was in the previous five decades. But New Zealand doesn’t remotely compare with Israel and Ukraine as racist countries. Just try doing a Google search ‘Ukraine football racism’ to get a sense of racism in that Luxon-loving country. (One appalling new example of open anglo-supremacist racism in New Zealand is this YouTube channel The Anglo-Saxon. See this egregiously racist example of advocacy for tactical/strategic voting: Let me change your mind about the New Zealand Election 2026.)

Two of the three most ego-driven politicians in the world today are the leaders of Israel and Ukraine; and neither of these two men cares in the slightest bit about the impact of their behaviour on the wider world. These are failed nations which the European Union remains staunchly allied to, and promotes through nefarious geopolitics. EU countries – themselves perpetrators of many historic genocides – continue to look the other way despite their complicity in the most malicious televised genocide ever.

It is interesting to see how, in the present televised French protests and riots (including the dramatic footage of the burning of the Limoges town hall), it is clear that non-peaceful rioters have undermined the narrative of the students just wanting better schools. Indeed, the claim that parties with violent insurrectionist agendas have taken over these protests is uncontroversial. While there have been no deaths so far (except one case of cardiac arrest), Google AI tells me that “more than 500 police officers, firefighters, and paramedics were injured during the violent demonstrations and fires”. Violent demonstrations are riots, not demonstrations. New Zealand saw peaceful demonstrations in 1981; no police were injured, so all the violence then was perpetrated by the police.

In Iran there was an event in January 2026, similar to France though two orders of magnitude larger. About 220 police and security personnel were killed during those events, and perhaps 30,000 others – a mix of rioters, protesters and bystanders. The argument that what was initially a simple peaceful protest was hijacked by people sponsored by Mossad and the like was at least as strong as the argument relating to the hijacking of the French school protests. This extremely violent event – violence from both sides, but not all of both sides – was used as a pretext for Israel and America to wage an offensive and illegal war and campaign of assassination on Iran, despite it having all the appearances of a set-up; as similar events in Iran in 1953 are now clearly documented to have been a setup.

We demonise Iran by demonising the IRGC because Iranian political bosses are so difficult to demonise. (Effectively the Euro-world gaslights the Iranian leadership; just as Othello was gaslit in that famous Shakespearian tragedy. Everyone in New Zealand knows the name of the Russian president. Very few New Zealanders know the name of the Iranian president; a reformist who was democratically elected in July 2024, survived the assassinations, and who has near-fully liberalised the street-culture of Iran. The Iranian dress-code liberalised as quickly as the New Zealand Parliamentary dress-code!)

The 500-year European imperial project of world-domination is in its death throes. Why would we in New Zealand want to rejoin it? We are increasingly exposed to silly narratives about the geopolitical ambitions of China, Iran, and Russia; and it may not be long before such narratives extend towards gaslighting our near-neighbour Indonesia which is aligned geopolitically to its Asian co-BRICS. New Zealand needs to embrace Asia, for security and prosperity. When Europeans came to Asia they were long seen as barbarians, and that’s increasingly what they’re seen as today. (By 2050, people with only European ancestry will be about five percent of the world’s population.)

The elitist European retro-liberal project has today descended into one of murder-suicide-manslaughter; murderous intent towards Russia through a military stalemate, suicide of Ukraine, collateral manslaughter of non-combatants by making the world a less habitable place. Europe is facing its most embarrassing period in world history since the Dark Ages.

On balance, and given their support for a dying European project, I would have to label the Hipkins-led Labour Party as eurosupremacist, as believers in the moral (and possibly intellectual) superiority of western Europeans. (Indeed we saw this during the Covid19 pandemic and the general disrespect the government showed for resident workers without permanent residence – denizens, of which New Zealand has many – whether stuck in New Zealand or stuck outside of New Zealand); and on balance Hipkins too – and Luxon – given their overt support for EU foreign policy. Euro-Kiwis became particularly sympathetic to Ukraine in and around 2022 precisely because they looked and talked like us; we easily identified with them. We saw ‘us’ when we looked at them on our screens.

When we look at ourselves in the mirror, too many of us still see Europe. However, Europe is – literally – the antipodes! Nevertheless, Asia is our lifeline. Or our deathline if we choose to go that way in a decreasingly secure world.

References

The general talk among the realist academic community is that the world is safer now, because the Euro-American ‘unipolar moment’ has been defeated – note past tense – and that the important political and academic discussions are about the present – not future – construction of a constructive multipolar world, and whether Europe can or will play any serious part in this future world order. There is clear understanding though, that Europe – especially with the support of a likeminded future retro-liberal United States administration – can still do a lot of preventative harm to the creation of a post-Europe world order. The United States has the serious means to flail about like a diminished madman. And, of course, however the multipolar order evolves, the United States will necessarily be one of its several poles.

I particularly recommend the analyses of these three international public intellectuals, all of whom made their reputations in the 1990s, and all born between 1945 and 1955: David Gibbs, Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer. See the following:

Jeffrey Sachs: Europe as a Frontline in a Multipolar World? Glenn Diesen

The Real Death of the West | Prof. David Gibbs; Neutrality Studies, Kyoto.

John Mearsheimer: Russia’s Existential War & the Rise of a Post-Western World Glenn Diesen

Will China Attack Taiwan? | Ask The Professor; John Mearsheimer

I would also recommend the two ‘peacemongers’: Swiss academic Pascal Lottaz (including at Kyoto) and British diplomat Ian Proud. Here is some of their work, along with some other presentations at the recent peace symposium in Kyoto.

Is Ukraine Europe’s Colony? | Why It Should Have Chosen Neutrality, with Pascal Lottaz, from The Peacemonger.

British Ex-Diplomat Detained for Peace Efforts, Reaching out to Russia | Ian Proud; Neutrality Studies.

Ukraine War Narrative COLLAPSES. Europe Starts Panicking | Ian Proud; Neutrality Studies.

The REAL Reason Europe Destroyed Itself | Dr. Ulrike Guérot; Neutrality Studies, Kyoto.

Europe’s Mass-Psychosis Getting WORSE | Prof. Mattias Desmet; Neutrality Studies, Kyoto.

Putin’s India Deal SHOCKS USA | Prof. Anuradha Chenoy; Neutrality Studies, Kyoto.

Ex-Foreign Minister EXPOSES NATO’s Dirty Tricks | Evarist Bartolo; Neutrality Studies, Kyoto.

Why China is NOT Scared of the USA | Zhang WeiWei; Neutrality Studies, Istanbul.

And note this re the Ukrainian insider-sceptic Iuliia Mendel:

Russia is Crushing Ukraine’s Capacity to Fight / Iuliia Mendel, from Daniel Davis / Deep Dive.

On the other side of the argument, here is Radosław Sikorski interviewed by Al Jazeera. Note his playing of the Munich card with his references to “pocket Chamberlains”; and his disparaging “payroll” reference to Gerhard Schroeder, former Chancellor of Germany, once compared to Tony Blair though not anymore. And here is the recent Berlin Briefing Special which mentions New Zealand.

Radosław Sikorski: Fear of Ukraine war spillover | Talk to Al Jazeera

Former German Economy Minister Habeck: Russia is still the biggest threat, Berlin Briefing.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Keith Rankin, 16 October 2026 – The two charts here show New Zealand’s immigration and emigration for this century. While the data was collected monthly, these data are annual ‘rolling averages”.

Age 25-to-34

The first chart shows people aged 25-to-34. On immigration, we see a general pattern of around 30,000 immigrants in this age range during the 2000s. The uptick began in 2013 and ‘stabilised’ at around 45,000 in the late 2010s. This immigration did not drive the housing bubble of 2012 to 2017, but it did place big pressure on the private rental market. While immigration stopped increasing in 2016, it remained at historically high levels, and significantly ahead of emigration.

There was another burst of immigration in 2019. The point with the circle represents the year to January 2020, meaning the last 12-month period which was not influenced by the Covid19 pandemic. The subsequent peak included people returning to New Zealand ahead of their pre-Covid intentions.

Post-Covid, the big catch-up immigration – which included New Zealanders stuck overseas during the pandemic – was short-lived. The New Zealand economy started to ‘tank’ at the end of 2023, though there were signs earlier that year that all was not well. Nevertheless immigrants in this age group continued to exceed emigrants, despite record-high emigration in 2024 and 2025. The most recent data shows signs of a weak recovery in New Zealand, though emigration continues to exceed the highs of 2011 and 2012.

On emigration, in the late 2010s we see emigration at a time when more opportunities were opening up overseas, and when parents of this age group were cashing in on their property-boom capital gains. For adult children, home was leaving them. Australian property prices were then competitive for arriving New Zealanders.

A number of emigrants in 2024 and 2025 will have been immigrants a year or two earlier. Or immigrants around five years earlier, having gained their New Zealand citizenship. (We should note that, to some extent, the acquisition of a New Zealand passport represents an opportunity to emigrate; especially an opportunity for working-age New Zealand residents to settle in Australia. If New Zealand ever passes a law allowing only citizens to vote in elections, the overseas vote in New Zealand elections would become proportionately higher than at present; indeed significantly so, given the proportion of tax-payers in New Zealand who do not have New Zealand passports.)

Age 35-to-49

Looking at older adults, many of these being people with children, we see the same patterns; though with lower numbers. There was less overseas emigration in the 2010s than in the 2000s; though there had been much North Island to South Island migration in the 2010s, coincident with international immigration peaks hitting New Zealand’s North Island.

Again we see a substantial flow of post-pandemic emigration; a flow that is not tapering off for older adults, many of whom have children. Families seeking greener pastures.

Finally

These age-specific data do not show the pattern of specifically trans-Tasman migration. Though we do know that this is the biggest component of emigration; indeed an even bigger component these days, given the heightened geopolitical risks of living further afield.

What we can expect in the immediate future is continued immigration and emigration at persistently higher levels than took place before 2011. The transformation from Aotearoa being a Euro-centric nation to being an Asia-Pacific-focused country will probably only abate when Aotearoa New Zealand (the North Island in particular) becomes categorically a country of mostly non-Europeans. New Zealanders with full European ancestry will become as much ‘ethnics’ – to use that pejorative word – as any other New Zealanders.

About the writer:

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

By Kaya Selby of RNZ Pacific

This story was first published on

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/21/israel-joins-pacific-islands-forum-as-development-partner/

Wendy Bacon investigates the Israel lobbyists, PR people and astroturfers behind the Combat Antisemitism Movement targeting local councils and the Bondi Royal Commission. Michael West Media.

INVESTIGATION: By Wendy Bacon

Australia’s Commonwealth and NSW governments are supporting a national local government conference organised by the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), whose Israel-based CEO was head of the IDF’s social media unit.

The IDF is widely accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by international bodies such as the United Nations, human rights organisations, and legal investigators.

The key goal of CAM, which operates in 40 countries, is to enforce the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism across all fields and levels of government;

a definition which restricts criticism of Israel.

• READ MORE: Other Wendy Bacon reports
• Other Bondi Royal Commission reports

CAM’s global headquarters are in Kansas, with CEO Sacha Roytman running the show from Tel Aviv. Chairman of its board of advisors, Natan Sharansky, was Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.

In a submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Roytman accused this publication of attacks on the CAM Summit and its organisers, among other unsubstantiated claims and imputations of antisemitism.

The submission went on to claim that “the publications that attacked the event” did not contact CAM beforehand.

This is false. In line with standard journalistic procedure, Michael West Media tried to contact CAM on multiple occasions and sent questions prior to publication of the story to its chief executive, Sacha Roytman, which received no response. Here are the questions:

MWM also tried to contact CAM organiser Justine Williams by LinkedIn and another organiser by phone on more than one occasion.

Further, we also endeavoured to contact chairman of the board of advisers, David Gonski, who is co-chairing this year’s conference. Having been directed to UNSW Media for a response, we sent questions to UNSW Media and UNSW Media did not respond.

The lead author of CAM’s submission to the Royal Commission is Sacha Roytman — a Belgian communications expert who made Aliyah to Israel in 2004.

The second author is Israeli Yigal Nissel, who is currently CAM’s executive director in Australia. In 2015, he was sent to Australia as an”’emissary” for the Jewish National Fund (JNF Australia). He returned to Israel and has been working for the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Antisemitism’s Mosaic Project until he returned to Australia to work for CAM.

Planning for the last Australian CAM conference became public in January 2025 when the then Deputy CEO of CAM, Yigal Nissel, published a story, “From Paradise to Peril,” in the Jerusalem Post, stating,

“Thousands of [Australian] extremists, spanning the radical left, the far right, and parts of the Muslim community, seized on the conflict in the Middle East as a pretext to unleash their latent antisemitism.”

As reported here last year, Nissel, who was based in Israel, announced that a CAM conference of hundreds of mayors would address the problem. Previously, Nissel was the Israeli “emissary” to the Australian branch of the Jewish National Fund (JNF).

Envoy Jillian Segal to co-host
The conference will kick off with messages of support from the Commonwealth and NSW governments. The first speaker is Alex Ryvchin, co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australia Jewry (ECAJ), who labelled thousands of Australians who marched for Palestine last weekend as “obsessive, extreme and hateful”.

The conference follows the initial CAM Local Mayors’ Summit held on the Gold Coast last September. This year’s event will be held in Sydney on November 26 and 27 at a location that has not been publicised.

It will be co-hosted by the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal and delivered in partnership with Waverley Council.

This week Segal addressed a meeting of the global network of Special Envoys supported by the World Jewish Congress calling for the enforcement of her National Plan at an international legal. CAM is a “trusted US State Department partner” within the Special Envoy network.

Pro-Israel conference sponsors include ECAJ, the Dor Foundation and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, which last week received a grant of $100,000 from the NSW government to contribute to the conference.

Sheina Gutnick, whose father died in the Bondi massacre, was appointed CAM’s public affairs officer in March and since then has been the public face of CAM. She told the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that she has been the victim of many antisemitic attacks since then.

Labor backing council campaign
Recently, she has been collecting supportive videos from councillors and MPs, including the federal Minister for Local Government Kirsty McBain, who urged CAM to “take back Bondi”. McBain is not attending the conference.

Two Labor mayors, the Inner West’s Darcy Byrne and Bayside’s Christina Curry, are speaking at the conference. Lord Mayor Clover Moore will not attend, which is scarcely surprising given that CAM organised a rally at which Moore was attacked as a terrorist sympathiser because she joined last year’s March for Humanity.

The City of Sydney told MWM that the Labor Deputy Mayor Ollie Arkins will attend. While it presents a bipartisan image, CAM is being driven, both internationally and in Australia, by some influential conservative Zionists with a right wing agenda.

The players behind CAM
CAM Australia claims that its activities are funded by its Australian partners but MWM has been unable to find any business name, company or charity which accounts for its finances. There is a board of CAM Australia which is chaired by the hugely influential businessman David Gonski.

We sent questions to CAM including asking which entity the board governed but got no acknowledgement or reply.

Gonski is close to Jillian Segal and heads the Special Envoy’s Education task-force. He was recruited to CAM by Yigal Nissel who was moved to CAM from his job at the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Antisemitism and sent to Australia to help organise CAM’s first conference. He was dispatched back to Australia this year to head CAM in Australia.

Alex Polson is CAM’s senior advisor. He was originally a national officer of the Australasian Union of Jewish students. After that for eight years he was an advisor to Liberal ministers and MPs.

PRs, astroturfers and lobbyists
In early 2024, Polson established his boutique advisory and investment company DBK. DBK registered the name Better Councils and Polson was the key Liberal organiser of the major parties’ “Put the Greens Last” astroturfing campaign for “Better Councils”, and its successor for the Federal election “Better Australia”. (ALP member Sophie Calland was the Labor end of Better Australia.)

Bipartisan Better Australia raised at least $1.3 million (with no donors disclosed) much of which must have been spent on its slick electoral materials. For this, Better Australia partnered with strategic communications company Agenda C.

Agenda C was established by strategist Carrington Brigham in 2019. Earlier, Brigham developed his skills working under Yaron Finkelstein at Crosby Textor, known for its role in conservative electoral wins in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Finkelstein was a founding member of NSW Liberal Friends of Israel and played a powerful role in the Morrison government as the PM’s personal private secretary. After the Coalition defeat in 2024, Finkelstein worked for NSW Premier Dominic Perrotet and then founded Society Advisory Pty Ltd, which has been granted a $200,000 contract to advise Special Envoy Jillilan Segal until April 2027.

Trickery claims
Polson and Brigham worked together on the  Better Australia campaign. Finkelstein attended a meeting where campaign materials and a detailed campaign strategy were discussed with Labor party members of Better Australia. Everyone listed as present was a committed pro-Israel Zionist — but the campaign messages were

“Don’t be Tricked by Teals” and “Put the Greens Last”.

Agenda C claimed its campaign successfully defended four major seats and won back another four.

Brigham celebrated when his friend Tim Wilson narrowly defeated Teal Zoe Daniel in Goldstein after his campaign branded her as untrustworthy.

With the success of Better Australia behind them, Alex Polson and his DBK consultancy again linked up with Brigham and Agenda C for the CAM’s first conference. Polson and Brigham both signed the media release for the conference, along with a PR person in the US.

Agenda C aimed to deliver a “fully integrated, multi-channel strategy that positioned the summit as a credible, necessary platform for national leadership.”

Agenda C and CAM continue to work together, partnering on exclusive polling for The Sunday Telegraph about levels of fear in Australia, which was featured in a piece promoting the CAM conference.

CAM’s political agenda
The 2026 conference programme promotes CAM as being all about interfaith, inclusive and sharing cultural approaches. Everyone is expected to commit to goals in the final session.

There are no speakers from Jewish, Palestinian or other human rights organisations that favour broad anti-racism strategies and do not accept that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism (unlike CAM).

CAM’s actual political agenda is clarified in its submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, which was published on the commission’s website in mid-September.

The CAM submission has four authors — the first is CEO Roytman and the second is CAM’s Australia CEO Nissel. Nowhere is it mentioned that Roytman is in Israel or that Nissel is on leave from an organisation that partners with the Israeli state. The other authors are Polson and Gutnick.

Despite their “grassroots” talk, CAM’s agenda is a top down one.

CAM wants the Royal Commission to recommend training police to enforce IHRA as it is doing in several US states where CAM trains police in “evolving forms of antisemitism”.

It favours passing laws which prohibit posting online material viewed by CAM as antisemitic. It wants a National Local Government Partnership Against Antisemitism and for Social Cohesion, delivered through Australian Local Government Association LGAs built on CAM’s Action Plan’s four pillars.

Even by Zionist standards, CAM’s version of IHRA is wide. A symbols document that they distributed to conference attendees last year is attached to their submission. It takes in everyday symbols like “keffiyehs” and “watermelons” and a broad range of pro-Palestinian slogans.

In the submission, CAM attacks union and activist campaigners who wrote letters (including one to Darcy Byrne signed by 700 people) urging a boycott of last year’s conference.

They accuse them of intimidation, harassment and antisemitism — for example by referring to a Zionist Lobby or Israeli propaganda. It asks the Royal Commission to conclude that the albeit peaceful action of critics demonstrates the need for a Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

Peace protesters ‘to blame’
CAM blames peaceful protesters for costing them thousands of dollars and forcing them to bring in a counter-terrorism squad.

One of these protesters was Jewish anti-Zionist Veronica Sherman. Sherman told MWM that she was one of about five people who “travelled independently from around Australia to protest outside the conference …

“nothing about us could be described as intimidating.”

“Even the cops told me how surprised they were at how few protestors there were because they had been told there would be hundreds if not thousands. Which explained why there was such a heavy police presence. Including helicopters,” she said.

Protesting is a “basic Australian and democratic right. It’s important that Australians know that the Zionists don’t represent all Jews which is one of the reasons I flew up to hold a banner peacefully outside the venue”.

Pressure and complaints
Recently Polson exercised his democratic right to write on behalf of CAM to the organiser of an event at the University of Tasmania at which Nick Hanna, co-founder of the Civil Defence Legal Centre and lawyer at Hanna Legal was delivering the keynote address.

CAM claimed that Hanna had produced an antisemitic video and asked the university to reconsider its invitation. The university rejected CAM’s argument and said the event would go ahead. Hobart Synagogue, which is supporting the CAM conference, then wrote a letter complaining that while Hanna sounds “calm and reasonable” he is “extremely dangerous” for its Jewish community.

In releasing his video about this behind the scenes pressure, Hanna says it showed that people can resist pressure and win.

Polson has high hopes for the November conference, hoping that it will “scale a national movement already underway”.

But MWM hears applications to attend the conference, which this year costs $600 without accommodation, are slow — and a new campaign to discourage councillors from attending has just begun.

Detailed questions for this story were put to CAM, Polson and Waverley Council but we received no reply or acknowledgement.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/20/israelis-mislead-australias-royal-commission-into-antisemitism/

Asia Pacific Report

The New Zealand government must turn concern for besieged Palestinians into urgent, practical action, says a Palestinian advocacy group.

The Palestine Forum of New Zealand has called on the government to take “immediate diplomatic and financial action” following the UN World Food Programme’s announcement that 500,000 Palestinians in Gaza will lose their monthly food assistance because of lack of funds.

“This is not an abstract budget issue. It is a decision that will affect the daily survival of hundreds of thousands of people who have endured years of war, displacement, destruction and deprivation,” said Palestine Forum chair Maher Nazzal in a statement.

• READ MORE: Gaza malnutrition and starvation at ‘catastrophic’ levels: Health Ministry
• Other Gaza genocide reports

He said the World Food Programme had warned that its assistance was being severely reduced just as winter approached.

“Food rations are being halved, cash assistance is being cut, and the provision of hot meals is being reduced,” he said.

Meanwhile, about 1.4 million people in Gaza continue to face crisis-level food insecurity or worse.

“No family should be left wondering where their next meal will come from because the international community has failed to fund humanitarian assistance,” Nazzal said.

What the Palestine Forum seeks
The Palestine Forum of New Zealand has called on the New Zealand government to:

• Provide urgent additional humanitarian funding for the World Food Programme and trusted humanitarian organisations delivering food, clean water, medical care and essential supplies to Palestinians in Gaza;
• Mobilise international support by working with like-minded governments to close the WFP’s funding gap and ensure that humanitarian assistance is sustained rather than progressively reduced;
• Use New Zealand’s diplomatic influence to press Israel to ensure the safe, rapid and sustained entry and distribution of sufficient humanitarian aid throughout Gaza, without arbitrary restrictions or obstruction;
• Demand full implementation of the ceasefire and protection of civilians, alongside compliance with international humanitarian law and the removal of barriers preventing Palestinians from accessing essential supplies; and
• Adopt a sustained humanitarian response, with transparent commitments and regular public reporting on New Zealand’s contributions and diplomatic efforts to address the crisis in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory.

“New Zealand cannot resolve this crisis alone, but it can make a meaningful contribution,” said Nazzal. “It can provide funding, mobilise other countries and use its diplomatic relationships to press for action.

He said the international community must not “allow a fragile improvement in food security to be reversed because humanitarian funding has fallen short”.

Humanitarian assistance needed to be based on need, “not donor fatigue or shifting political attention”.

“Palestinians in Gaza are not statistics. They are human beings, families, children and older people who deserve food, safety and dignity,” Nazzal said.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/20/palestine-forum-calls-for-nz-action-as-500000-palestinians-in-gaza-face-winter-food-aid-cuts/

Exposing autocracy from military-ruled Fiji to democratic Samoa, journalist Shalveen Chand has faced cell blocks, state censorship and physical assaults for holding Pacific powers accountable. Now joining the Cook Islands News as senior journalist, Chand brings a relentless commitment to press freedom, warning that democracy collapses when watchdogs are silenced.

COMMENTARY: By Shalveen Chand

I have encountered two types of dictators in the Pacific. The first was in my home nation when a military leader overthrew the government at gunpoint and ruled with an iron fist, his rule spanning from 2006 to 2014.

The second is a democratically elected leader whose rule highlighted the blatant lack of accountability and transparency. His grab for power literally defines the phrase “absolute power absolutely corrupts”.

There is definitely a difference in how Fiji’s Voreqe Bainimarama and Samoa’s Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt have come to be in power, but what makes them similar is the blatant disregard for accountability and transparency — the “my way or the highway” attitude — sacking of people who do not agree with their goals, disregard for the rule of law and, above all, media censorship and attacks on journalists.

• READ MORE: RSF calls on Samoan PM to lift ‘unacceptable’ ban on Samoa Observer
• Other Shalveen Chand media freedom reports

Bainimarama was clear and deliberate about restricting media freedom. He set up censors in newsrooms who would stop the publishing of articles that would be deemed anti-government and later enacted the draconian media law that governed media in Fiji.

That law, repealed in 2023 by the current Fijian government, led to the persecution of journalists and the self-censorship mentality that is still practised in some newsrooms in the country.

Laauli, on the other hand, made a promising start when he was elected prime minister in Samoa in September 2025. In his first press conference, he made a promise to be transparent and accountable. A promise that he never intended to keep, which has now resulted in the banning of Samoa’s only independent publication, Samoa Observer, from government events, government officials not being accountable to the media, bullying and assault on journalists, including on me in front of his house.

This intimidation was among the reasons I left Samoa and my job there to join Cook Islands News as a senior journalist.

Serious breaches
There have been serious breaches of due process, including in top-level government appointments. It is worrying when merit is no longer a requirement to hold a top civil service position. Nepotism is rife, and his own children are acting as if the nation were the family business.

This was seen a few weeks ago when Laauli’s son snatched a camera off a reporter and deleted photos, saying it was against the law to photograph his father. Last time it was checked, no such laws existed.

While Bainimarama used guns and the might of the military, Laauli uses a new tool: social media. Fake accounts carry out his propaganda and target journalists and their families with attacks. My toddler and wife have often been victims of these attacks, even though my spouse’s political allegiance is with Laauli.

Yes, she’s Samoan, and she occasionally reminds me of how “Sleeping with the Enemy” can be viewed in a whole new context. But I am thankful that despite being critical of the media, she has always stood up for me whenever I have been targeted, either physically or on social media.

People have approached and questioned me on why I was against their prime minister. It is hard to make some people understand that it was no personal attack on the leader but a journalistic attempt to keep him honest, accountable and transparent. Many times, these physical confrontations have been met with my personal bodyguard, my wife, willing to throw a few combinations like David Tua.

Similar attacks have been levelled against journalists who were part of the newsroom I managed in Samoa. Their families and children were targeted and sometimes maligned to their worst.

One of the things that sadden me the most is how the rule of law has been compromised in Samoa. Corruption was already rife; however, when you add in a leader who believes he is above the law, the rule of law starts becoming non-existent. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has dubbed Laauli as the “Trump of the Pacific”, and his behaviour often mirrors that of the American president.

Judiciary independent
Thankfully, one of the arms of the Samoan government, the judiciary, remains uncorrupted and has stood as the final wall in the attack against the rule of law, media freedom and the rights of citizens.

However, the judiciary is powerless when the enforcement agency does not do its work. Such was the case when I was assaulted outside Laauli’s house by a relative of his. A police complaint filed on 14 November 2025, the day of the incident, has not moved forward because the police officers who witnessed the assault do not want to give a statement for fear of retribution or losing their jobs.

I clearly remember the attack. The demeanour of the prime minister’s relative and his henchman gave away what they were going to do next as they rushed outside to where I was standing on the roadside. I came to drop off a camera lens for my journalist, who was trying to get comments from Laauli. The newly elected Samoan leader had just spent several weeks in New Zealand on a medical trip without communicating with the people of Samoa after photoshopped images of him were published by the Samoan government.

The two men rushed towards me. Their body language and aggression had been something that I had experienced during Fiji media’s dark days when the nation was under the control of the military junta. The haunting assaults and bullying by the security forces, and then having to spend a few nights in a police cell for highlighting a miscarriage of justice, came rushing back.

I braced for impact and told myself not to retaliate. The relative of the prime minister shoved me twice, trying to force me into my car. This was followed by him pushing the car door at least three times in my face. While he carried on, his short and fat henchman, probably another relative of the prime minister, held me by the collar and threw a few slaps.

A police officer aided the two relatives as well, shoving me into the car while throwing punches to my abdomen. All this was witnessed by at least six other police officers, my young journalist and a senior travel writer from the British Broadcasting Corporation. The words of the journalists were not enough to lead to any formal charges — instead, the young journalist was charged with criminal trespass.

This was the start of Laauli’s restriction on free and independent media who were trying to hold him accountable and get him to talk. This has now led to the continued ban on Samoa Observer and attacks on its journalists.

Many hoodwinked
It was also surprising that there were people who still support the Samoan leader’s actions. Many are hoodwinked by the social media propaganda. This was reflected when Samoa slumped to 59 out of 180 in the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index.

There are still a lot of people who do not realise that freedom of the press is a right and that a government should not interfere with this freedom or censor media critical of state power. For years, freedom of the press has been an essential part of democracy. A democracy cannot exist when people’s voices are stifled.

A free press fights for the truth, whether it is Fiji, Samoa or the Cook Islands. A free press uncovers the truth. A free press holds power accountable.

Many entities can benefit from the truth staying hidden, including governments. One of the free press’ main missions is to serve as a watchdog on power. The press is the bridge between the people and powerful entities. If the press is not free but instead beholden to power, it simply serves as an extension of that power.

As I begin a new chapter with the Cook Islands News, I hope that the weight currently being accorded to media freedom and accountability in this nation only improves. This is one of the best ways a government can serve its people.

Shalveen Chand is a former editor of the Samoa Observer and now works for Cook Islands News as senior journalist. This article is republished from the CIN with permission.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/19/holding-power-accountable-a-pacific-journalists-journey-through-assaults-and-censorship/

By Kelvin Anthony of RNZ Pacific

Fiji’s constitutional reform process has brought the question of who is or can be a “Fijian” back to the fore.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government has begun the public consultation process on the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill 2026 in its efforts to replace the 2013 Constitution — a document widely criticised as being imposed on the country by the previous Bainimarama administration.

Public consultations on Rabuka’s bill started last week, two days after the country marked its 56th independence anniversary. It was tabled by the government earlier this month and passed its second reading for the Fijian people to give their feedback.

• READ MORE: ‘Respect the people’ – Fiji coalition clash over Rabuka’s fast-tracked constitutional referendum
• Other Fiji constitution reports

However, the consultations last week spotlighted why ethnic anxieties remain one of the most sensitive issues in the country, even four coups and four constitutions later.

Local media widely reported on submissions made by ordinary Fijian citizens as well as community and national leaders.

A large cross-section of society remains divided about who should be called a “Fijian”, as well as the role of traditional chiefs in Fiji’s governance and politics and whether Fiji should be a Christian or secular state.

These three pillars are the defining features of the 2013 Constitution, but also remain issues that were not debated during the FijiFirst administration’s time in power.

Equal national identity
One prominent political figure with a minor party declared that the iTaukei (Indigenous) people faced a “technical genocide” because Voreqe Bainimarama’s government created an equal national identity which made all citizens “Fijians”.

Some want the Great Council of Chiefs (or the Bose Levu Vakaturaga) — another Indigenous institution that was removed by Bainimarama and has no constitutional legitimacy under the current constitution — to be given its rightful place in Fiji’s governance framework.

Submissions from Fijians of Indian descent have also been equally staunch, calling for several elements of the 2013 Constitution to remain, including keeping “Fijian” as a shared national identity for all citizens.

Fiji’s population is made up of two main ethnic groups: the iTaukei and the Indo-Fijians. While the Indigenous Fijians own 90 percent of all land, the economic power, historically, has stayed in the hands of Indo-Fijians, mostly a handful of families.

The bread-and-butter issues, like the cost of living, lack of meaningful employment opportunities, and access to housing, affect all communities, but the Indigenous population is more affected, despite being resource-rich.

But constitutional reform and the question of who is a “Fijian” have enveloped much of the political debate under Rabuka’s coalition, after initial gains in human rights protections and opening up civic space for people with opposing views to be able to express themselves without fear — something which was not possible during the Bainimarama-era.

Unity call on social media
Fiji’s Deputy Speaker Lenora Qereqeretabua urged unity on social media over the weekend: “We need less division and more understanding. We are all Fijians,” she wrote.

The process, which is branded by its opponents as “rushed”, is expected to wrap up ahead of the next Parliament session in the first week of November for the bill’s third reading. If it passes, Fiji is set to hold its first national referendum on December 9.

Rabuka has received flak for announcing the referendum date prematurely.

For his part, the prime minister, who is the chair of the special parliamentary committee on the bill, has defended the constitutional reform process, downplaying concerns about it being rushed or lacking democratic principles.

He continues to urge the Fijian people to constructively participate in the process aimed at discarding a constitution that was “not accepted by the people”.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/19/who-is-a-fijian-constitution-reform-reignites-identity-debate/