A group of students from West Papua, the Melanesian Pacific region in Indonesia, are fearful about their futures in New Zealand after their scholarships were cut off.

A group of about 40 students have been studying at different tertiary institutions in New Zealand, but in December received a letter from the provincial government of Papua saying their living allowances, travel and study fees were stopping and they had to return home because their studies had not met expectations.

Auckland-based West Papua student Laurens Ikinia is part of a group advocating for the students. He said some students had gone home, but about 25 remained at Auckland, Waikato and Canterbury universities, as well as Palmerston North polytech UCOL and the tertiary institution IPU New Zealand.

“The reason the government used was because we were not making any progress on our studies. We have actually requested from the provincial government about how did they come up with that?

“All the students on the list are halfway through completing their studies. All the information they put in is completely wrong.”

Ikinia said the letter had been a shock and many of the students were uncertain about whether they could stay in New Zealand.

Many were struggling without the scholarship, unable to focus on their studies and “mentally and emotionally unstable”.

Plea for help
The group had asked Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and the Green Party for help.

Roy Towolom, 21, came to New Zealand in 2016 from Tolikara and attended Awatapu College in Palmerston North.

He is one of 11 Papuan students in his carpentry course at UCOL and he has about a week left before he completes his studies. UCOL and his church have been supporting him since his living allowance stopped.

Towolom said the affected students were confused about being asked to leave and the government letter did not make sense and was out of date.

“It was pretty shocking. There was no specific reason why the funds were cut. We didn’t know what the reason was.”

His student visa expires next month, but he wants to stay in New Zealand and is thinking about becoming a builder. He hopes to get a work visa.

Run by provincial government
A spokesperson for the Indonesian Embassy said the scholarship programme in New Zealand was run by the provincial government of Papua and 593 students were receiving the scholarship.

The decision to repatriate some Papuan students overseas was “based on evaluation regarding academic performance, the time allocation of the relevant scholarships”.

“It is also important to highlight that only those who have exceeded the allocated time of the scholarship and those who cannot meet the academic requirements are being recalled.”

The spokesperson said most scholarship recipients had been studying in New Zealand since 2015 and were yet to finish their tertiary education as planned.

“The decision to repatriate certain students does not impact on those students who remain on track with regards to their studies abroad.

“The assessment is also conducted to ensure that other eligible students from Papua province also obtain the same opportunity in pursuing their studies.”

The embassy had been in contact with the affected students.

Encouraged to leave ‘voluntarily’
A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Faafoi said students who did not meet requirements to stay in New Zealand would be encouraged to leave voluntarily.

None of the students were at risk of being deported and Immigration New Zealand had discussed the situation with them.

“Students who do not meet requirements to stay in New Zealand will be encouraged to depart voluntarily.”

The Papuan provincial government would cover their repatriation costs, the spokesperson said.

A UCOL spokesperson said the institution was supporting the 15 students at UCOL with living costs.

The University of Canterbury’s international partnership and support manager Monique van Veen said the university’s student care team was working with the affected students.

“It has definitely created hardship and stress for these scholars. We have been in touch with Education New Zealand to let them know what’s going on.”

A spokesperson for the University of Waikato said they were unable to comment due to privacy reasons.

IPU and the University of Auckland did not respond to a request for comment.

The Papuan provincial government has been contacted for comment.

George Heagney is a Stuff reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A movement dedicated to peaceful self-determination among indigenous groups in the Pacific is the latest group in Aotearoa to add support for struggling Papuan students caught in Aotearoa New Zealand after an abrupt cancellation of their scholarships.

About 70 Papuan students are currently in New Zealand but more than half have been negatively impacted on by the sudden removal of their Indonesian government scholarships earlier this year.

Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand has added its voice to media academics, church groups, community groups such as the Whānau Hub, and Green and Labour MPs in appealing for special case visas to be granted for the almost 40 students still stuck in the country trying to complete their qualifications.

It has also donated $1000 to the students fundraising campaign to assist with their living and accommodation costs while appeals have been made to some educational institutions to waive tuition fees.

A Pax Christi group met with a delegation of the Papuan students at the Friends’ House in Auckland last week.

“The 40 or so students across several institutions who are the object of our concern have been suddenly faced with the cancellation of their scholarships awarded by the Indonesian government,” said Pax Christi spokesperson Kevin McBride in an appeal to Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi this month.

He said efforts by the International Alliance of Papuan Student Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) and other relevant bodies to address their plight had been unsuccessful.

‘Perilous situations’
This had left many of them in “perilous situations” over the status of their visas and their ability to complete their qualifications.

Professor David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and a specialist Pacific journalism educator for the past 30 years, is also one of the people who have appealed for special case visas for the students.

In a letter late last month to the minister, he said the students had been “unfairly treated” by the abrupt cancellation of their Indonesian scholarships.

He described it as an “unprecedented action” and that they were Melanesian students and ought to be “considered as Pacific Islanders” for completing their studies in New Zealand.

In an earlier open letter to the minister, Dr Robie said Papuan students studying in Australia and New Zealand faced “tough and stressful challenges apart from the language barrier”.

McBride said that in this Asia-Pacific region of the world, a predominant basis for division was colonisation and the effects of colonisation.

“Over many years, members of our Pax Christi section have been able to visit West Papua and to work with the mainly church-based groups there intent in improving the capacity of their people to play a significant role in the development of their nation,” he said.

Assistance with education
“Often this involves assisting them to gain educational qualifications in overseas countries and helping them cope with problems associated with that process.”

Pax Christi had been able to strengthen relationships and understanding.

“We have been hosting seminars and dialogue with sympathetic groups here in Aotearoa and across the international Pax Christi movement, which includes an Indonesian section,” McBride said.

Laurens Ikinia, a 26-year-old Papuan postgraduate communications student and the media spokesperson of IAPSAO, welcomed the assistance from Pax Christi and other groups and thanked New Zealand for its generosity.

“We are determined to finish our studies if we can,” he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

West Papuan students stranded in Aotearoa New Zealand by an abrupt cancellation of their Indonesian government scholarships earlier this year while trying to complete their degrees and diplomas can breathe more easily with the latest news.

It is understood they have been told by Immigration New Zealand that they will not be deported while New Zealand is considering their plight.

After weeks of advocacy by Green MPs, an immigration team will now be formed to assess the future needs of the students.

“The Green Party has been calling on the government to do its part to support the indigenous communities of West Papua and we’re pleased that action is being taken,” said Teanau Tuiono, Green Party spokesperson for Pacific Peoples.

Tuiono — along with Papuan student spokesperson Laurens Ikinia, Professor David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report, and opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad, a former academic at the University of the South Pacific — addressed a seminar about the issue at the Whānau Community Hub in Auckland yesterday.

Ikinia welcomed the news that none of the Papuan students would be deported and praised the community support that they were receiving in New Zealand.

“Dozens of West Papuan students are facing hardship and the prospect of not being able to finish their studies due to the cancellation of their scholarship by the Indonesian government,’ Tuiono said in a statement.

Requested urgent action
“We wrote to [Immigration Minister Kris] Faafoi asking him to act urgently to issue new visas for the students of West Papua.

“We are pleased that government agencies are taking action to assess the needs of the West Papuan students and ideally grant them renewed visas for them to remain in Aotearoa.

“West Papuans are indigenous peoples who have been occupied by Indonesia. As a Pacific nation and signatory of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples we have a responsibility to support West Papuans and their struggle for self-determination.

“Supporting students to come to Aotearoa to study and to stay is a tangible way we can do our part to support the people of West Papua,” Tuiono said.

Dr Robie published an open letter in Asia Pacific Report yesterday appealing for help from the minister for the 34 students in New Zealand, ranging from masters degree and diploma students to one high school student.

“They must finish their studies here in New Zealand because returning home to a low wage economy, high unemployment, the ravages of the covid-19 pandemic, and an insurgency war for independence will ruin their education prospects,” he said.

“Papuan students studying in Australia and New Zealand face tough and stressful challenges apart from the language barrier.”

The open letter added:

“Minister Faafoi, surely New Zealand can open its arms and embrace the Papuan students, offering them humanitarian assistance, first through extended visas, and second helping out with their financial plight.”

Alarming human rights abuses
Ricardo Menéndez March, Green Party spokesperson for immigration said:

“The ongoing alarming reports of human rights abuses in West Papua, mean the students could have been forced to return to their homelands without the security and tools they need to support their communities”

“The government has shown us that where there is political will we can guarantee certainty and security for temporary visa holders.

“The prompt issuing of the Ukraine Special Visa and the renewal of up to 19,500 working holiday visas demonstrate there are levers the Minister of Immigration can pull to guarantee a safe pathway to remain in Aotearoa for students from West Papua.

“We are calling on the government to guarantee replacement visas for the West Papuan students and to explore setting up a scholarship fund to do our part supporting indigenous peoples in the Pacific,” said Menéndez March.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Kia ora Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi

It is unconscionable. A bewildering and grossly unfair crisis for 34 young Papuan students – 25 male and 9 female – the hope for the future of the West Papua region, the Melanesian half of Papua New Guinea island ruled by Indonesia.

They were part of a cohort of 93 Papuan students studying in Aotearoa New Zealand on local provincial autonomy government scholarships, preparing for their careers, and learning or improving their English along the way. They were also making Pacific friendships and contacts.

They were fast becoming a “bridge” to New Zealand. Ambassadors for their people.

And then it all changed. Suddenly through no fault of their own, 41 of them were told out of the blue their scholarships were being cancelled and they had to return home.

Their funds were cut with no warning. Many of them had accommodation bills to pay, university fees to cover and other student survival debts.

They were abandoned by their own government, some of them being close to completing their degrees of diplomas. Appeals to both the provincial governments in Papua and the central government in Jakarta – even to President Joko Widodo — were ignored.

Yes, it is unconscionable.

New Zealand help?
Surely New Zealand can respond to this Pacific plea for help?

Asia Pacific Report first published a story about the plight of these students back on January 27. Since then many stories have been written about the students’ struggle to complete their qualifications, including Māori Television, Newsroom, Tagata Pasifika, RNZ Pacific, and Wairarapa Times-Age, and Tabloid Jubi, Cendrawasi Pos and Suara Papua in Papua.

An interview by Laurens Ikinia with Tagata Pasifika last month.   Video: Sunpix

They must finish their studies here in New Zealand because returning home to a low wage economy, high unemployment, the ravages of the covid-19 pandemic, and an insurgency war for independence will ruin their education prospects.

Papuan students studying in Australia and New Zealand face tough and stressful challenges apart from the language barrier. As Yamin Kogoya, a Brisbane-based West Papuan commentator, says from first-hand experience:

“Papuan students abroad face many difficulties, including culture shock and adjustments, along with anxiety due to the deaths of their family members back in West Papua, which take a toll on their study.

“As well as inconsistencies and delays in Jakarta’s handling of funds, corruption, harassment, and intimidation also contribute to this crisis.”

At present, out of 17 students currently studying at the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) in Palmerston North, only 10 are able to attend classes. Seven students cannot attend because of their visa status and tuition fees which have not been paid.

Yesterday Teanau Tuiono was interviewed on @TeAo_Official to speak on the scholarship funding cut impacting Western Papuan students in Aotearoa. @teanau_tuiono provides great context for all those wanting to learn about this issue and how to help!https://t.co/P92j1ORrwQ

— Te Mātāwaka (@Te_Matawaka) March 23, 2022

Five students at AUT
At Auckland University of Technology, out of five students studying there, one is doing a masters degree, four are studying for diplomas and one is not enrolled because the government has not paid tuition fees.

Out of the 41 recalled students, the visas for some of them have already expired while others are expiring this month.

Of the 34 students still in New Zealand and determined to complete their studies, the breakdown is understood to be as follows:

UCOL Palmerston North – 15
Institute of the Pacific United (IPU) New Zealand – 6
AUT University – 4
Ardmore Flying School – 2
Waikato University – 2
Canterbury University – 1
Massey University – 1
Unitec – 1
Victoria University – 1
Awatapu College – 1

The students have rallied and are working hard to try to rescue their situation as they are optimistic about completing their studies. The Green Party has taken up advocacy on their behalf.

The Papuans are communicating with the NZ International Students Association, NZ Students Union and NZ Pasifika Students.

Community groups such as the Whānau Hub in Mt Roskill, Auckland, have assisted with food and living funds. A givealittle page has been set up for relief and has raised more than $6500 so far.

But far more is needed, and an urgent extension of their student visas is a must.

‘Grateful for support’
“We’re so grateful to all Kiwis across the country for their generous support for us at our time of desperate need,” says communication coordinator Laurens Ikinia of the International Alliance of Papuan Students Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) and who is a postgraduate student at AUT.

“We’re also grateful to all the tertiary institutions and universities for understanding the plight of the West Papuan students.”

Papuan students are speaking today on the issue at a Pacific “media lunch” in a double billing along with Fiji’s opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad at the Whānau Community Centre in Auckland’s Mt Roskill.

Just last Monday, many worried parents and families of students affected by this sudden change of scholarship policy gathered to meet Papua Governor Lukas Enembe in Jayapura to plead their case.

Hopefully, Indonesian Ambassador Fientje Maritje Suebu, ironically also a Papuan, will read this appeal too. The situation is an embarrassment for Indonesia at a time when the republic is trying to foster a better image with our Pacific neighbours.

Minister Faafoi, surely New Zealand can open its arms and embrace the Papuan students, offering them humanitarian assistance, first through extended visas, and second helping out with their financial plight.

Waaa waaa waaa.

Dr David Robie
Editor
Asia Pacific Report

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The proposal for a new entity to replace Television New Zealand and RNZ has two fundamental flaws that must be fixed if it is to gain the public’s trust.

The first flaw is the assumption that an existing legal structure — the Autonomous Crown Entity — is an appropriate form of governance. The second is that it has provided inadequate protection from political interference. The two issues are related.

Let me say at the outset that I support the restructuring of public service media. It is an idea whose time has come. It is an opportunity to create, almost from the ground up, a public organisation designed to live up to a digital incarnation of BBC-founder Lord Reith’s dictum that public media should inform, educate and entertain (now, however, in a creative and clever mix).

My concern lies in the need for this new entity to demonstrate from the outset that it will be free-standing and free from influence. By treating its formation little differently from a stock-standard Autonomous Crown Entity (ACE) into which existing organisations are dropped, the government is sending the wrong signals. From Day One (i.e., right now) it needs to be treated very much as a special case.

Let’s not lose sight of what is possible here: The creation of a ground-breaking structure that can set new standards for public service media in the digital age – if it is born out of independent thinking, creativity, and wisdom.

And let’s not forget why it is vital that it succeed in that aim. Public trust in the institutions of democracy and a free society are being systematically undermined. We need to look no further than the darkly manipulated “protest” in front of Parliament.

Stirrers wanted the prime minister and journalists lynched and violent “protesters” set fires and threw paving bricks at police. They were supported throughout by a much wider social media narrative that neither politicians nor the media could be trusted.

Public trust in media eroding
Public trust in media is already on the way down. AUT’s Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy polled trust in media last year and found it had declined across all four industry-wide metrics it had measured in 2020. RNZ and TVNZ remain the most trusted brands but both declined year-on-year. So, too, did all media included in the previous survey.

There is a real need for media institutions in which the public has trust and the JMaD studies point to public service media being at the pinnacle of that structure.

I have no doubt that the Minister of Broadcasting and Media, Kris Faafoi, is well-intentioned. As a former journalist he is only too well aware of the importance of trust and of the need to protect, nurture and champion media independence. Whether his cabinet colleagues have the same set of imperatives is harder to judge.

However, the restructuring requires a longer view than what might happen around the cabinet table over the next few months. We need to be concerned that the structure which emerges is not only fit for purpose now, but will endure for decades and be capable of withstanding winds of political change that on a global scale are showing more negative than positive signs.

In other words, it must be robust enough to survive not only known risks but also some conceivable unknowns: We had a Robert Muldoon, so could we have a Donald Trump?

Unfortunately, the announcement last week provides a less-than-reassuring beginning. The cabinet go-ahead was sparse on structural and operational detail. It did speak of a charter and proposed legislation that will contain a much-vaunted guarantee of editorial independence from ministerial control. However, that is undermined by other planned moves and much of the potential damage could be done even before the new structure is up and running.

Significantly, control of the governance of the implementation phase of the restructuring is one area of the cabinet paper and supporting documents in which there is real detail. Absence of detail elsewhere is explained away by saying these are matters for the Establishment Board to decide.

Seen as the architect
The draft terms of reference for the Establishment Board state it will be responsible for overseeing the detailed organisational design of the new entity and the transition to the new structure. In other words, it is to be seen as the architect. That was certainly the inference in Kris Faaoi’s announcement last week.

Yet the Establishment Board is precisely where the Minister (and his Cabinet colleagues) and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage have a potentially high level of influence.

The Establishment Board is expected to stay aligned to any cabinet decisions and is responsible for ensuring it “progresses government policy” and meets the minister’s objectives.

All members (up to nine) are to be appointed by the minister, who will also appoint the chair. The minister can terminate any member’s term before the expiry date and there is no requirement for him to state cause.

The board will not have its own staff but may ask the Ministry for Culture and Heritage – which will provide the secretariat — to appoint people to provide specialist or technical advice. MCH will also procure other services on the board’s behalf and its chief executive will decide what functions it will delegate to the board. Meanwhile MCH will continue to provide advice directly to the minister.

The Establishment Board will, according to the terms of reference, operate on a consensus basis — not a majority vote — and where it can’t reach consensus “the chair will advise the minister of the difference of opinion”. That begs the question: Does the minister effectively have a deciding vote?

He certainly has a tight hold on what the Establishment Board says in public. The section in the terms of reference relating to the Establishment Board’s relationship with the minister is devoted almost entirely to public statements. There can be “no surprises” (no surprise there) and the chair is the sole spokesperson.

The minister is to be informed of any public comment “either prior to, or as soon as possible after comment is made”, and all press releases must be sent to the minister in advance.

Multiple avenues for influence 
All of this suggests to me that both the minister and the ministry have multiple avenues through which they can influence the way the new structure is put together.

I freely admit there is good reason for liaison. For example, the early activity of the board will take place while the entity’s empowering Act and other law changes are working their way through the legislative process. The board’s thinking on the new entity should be reflected in that legislation and, if it isn’t, we might question why it is not.

However, there are equally good reasons why the Establishment Board should be seen to be independent. If the minister deflected questions on detail by saying they were matters for the Establishment Board, then let it be so.

The way it now stands, it looks (as my betting old dad would say) as though the government is trying to have a quid each way. Hedging bets is not a good way to begin the trust-building process.

Step one in that process should be an unequivocal statement from the minister that the Establishment Board does, in fact, have autonomy and, so long as its actions support the aims of the new entity, it will not be subject to ministerial or ministry direction. It should also have the power to appoint its own advisors.

Then there is the new entity itself. I was frankly surprised that work by a Chief Executives Working Party (to which I was an advisor), a Business Study group, and then a Business Case Governance Group did not produce a unique structure for what will be a unique organisation. Specifically, I expected to see the strongest recommendations for iron-clad protections, and I expected to see such protections accepted by cabinet. That hasn’t happened…yet.

Instead, cabinet has accepted the option of an Autonomous Crown Entity with a traditional minister-appointed board, with two board members appointed in consultation with the Minister for Māori Development. The only aspects that separate it from a stock-standard ACE is a charter (to which I’ll return) and a section that protects the entity’s editorial independence. As it stands, that section is less prescriptive that either the Television New Zealand Act or the Radio New Zealand Act.

Statement of good intentions
Cabinet has approved what is titled a “proposed basis for charter structure” that is little more than a statement of good intentions. Admittedly, no charter should be so detailed that it limits initiative or the ability to respond to changed circumstances.

However, what is missing from this document is an overarching statement that the organisation as a whole will be predicated on autonomy and independence. Instead there is a clause stating that the organisation itself should “demonstrate editorial independence”.

Also missing — or among the 12 redacted sections of the cabinet paper relating to financial implications — is how the new entity will be protected from the cudgel that governments here and elsewhere have used to bring recalcitrant public broadcasters to heel. That big stick is control of the purse-strings.

It is vital that there be some certainty of funding, both for operational reasons and to demonstrate to the public that the entity doesn’t kowtow to government in order to pay the bills.

We do not know what the core level of public funding will be, the term over which it will be paid, and who will set it. Funding, of course, is ultimately in Parliament’s hands and, as we’re talking taxpayer money, that is as it should be. However, it still needs protecting in some way from a vengeful ruling party – and here I want you to think forward to that Trump figure in our possible future. Multi-year funding, for example, is a pre-requisite.

There is still time to put right the governance shortfalls in the proposal.

The first step should be for the government to accept the need for an additional tier of governance that sits, effectively, above the board. Not to second-guess it, but to ensure that it meets the spirit of the charter under which the entity will operate, to review proposed budgets and Crown appropriations, and to act as a shield against external interference from government, the ministry or elsewhere.

Why Guardians are needed
The entity needs Guardians. RNZ’s board is described as guardians but they are effectively the equivalent of company directors (even if they are absolved from the need to turn a profit). The new entity will need something more akin to the Guardians of Lakes Manapouri, Monowai, and Te Anau that were established by Norman Kirk to protect those waters against detrimental effects from the hydro power scheme.

The Guardians of Public Media should, however, differ from that precedent in several fundamental ways.

First, they should not be appointed by a minister but by Parliament. In fact, the board of the entity should be similarly appointed, as is the case with a number of European public service media.

Second, they should produce an annual report, made not to a minister but to Parliament. It should include a judgement on funding adequacy and a review of the entity’s relationship with the minister, the ministry, and government as a whole.

This annual report should replace the proposed yearly review by at least four government departments, but not annual reports to Parliament by the entity itself.

The cabinet paper proposes a five-yearly review of the charter by Parliament. That can be read as a review by the politicians in power. Therefore any parliamentary review should be preceded by a Guardian review of the charter’s fitness for purpose and it is that review that should go to the House. That way, if a ruling party wants to mess unilaterally with the charter, it will be seen for what it is. In addition, each year the guardians should review performance against charter objectives, separate from any assessment by the entity itself.

They should also act as a bulwark against interference in decisions relating to any content produced or disseminated, and that is not limited to news. A shiver still runs down the spines of old broadcasters at the mention of Robert Muldoon’s undoubted role in the decision in 1980 not to screen the drama Death of a Princess to avoid upsetting the Saudi government.

More protection for news
News and current affairs, however, require more protection and guarantees of autonomy than other forms of programming. That was not apparent in the documents released last week. There must be explicit prohibitions — in legislation and in the charter — on both external and internal interference in news operations. A minister is not the sole potential source of pressure. Officials, board members, commercial staff, and management of the entity must be held at arm’s length.

Legislation should also preclude the chief executive from also holding the position of editor-in-chief. Paul Thompson holds both positions at RNZ and has done so without controversy, but the new entity will be both much larger and will be a hybrid of commercial and non-commercial functions.

I believe all of the entity’s news and current affairs functions and decision-making, including the position of editor-in-chief, must be kept within that department if autonomy and independence are to be seen to be real.

Details missing from last week’s announcement and document release created frustration but there may be a brighter side. If the detail has yet to be worked out, there is still time for Kris Faafoi, his cabinet colleagues, his ministry, and the Establishment Board to get it right.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications – covering both editorial and management roles – that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a blog called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

• Read the full Gavin Ellis article here:

Fundamental flaws in public media plans call for big fixes

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Hate speech will become a criminal offence in New Zealand and anyone convicted could face harsher punishment under proposed legislative changes.

The government has today released for public consultation its long-awaited plan for the laws governing hate speech.

The plan is part of the government’s work to strengthen social cohesion, in response to the Royal Commission of inquiry into the Christchurch mosque terror attack.

Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said yesterday that abusive or threatening speech that incites can divide communities.

“Building social cohesion, inclusion and valuing diversity can also be a powerful means of countering the actions of those who seek to spread or entrench discrimination and hatred,” he said.

Protecting free speech and protecting people from hate speech would require careful consideration and a wide range of input, Faafoi said.

That would mean anyone who “intentionally stirs up, maintains or normalises hatred against a protected group” by being “threatening, abusive or insulting, including by inciting violence” would break the law.

The punishment for hate speech offences could also increase — from up to three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $7000, to up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000.

The groups protected from hate speech could also grow – the government is considering changing the language and widening the incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act.

It has not yet decided which groups will be added. That is expected to happen following public consultation.

It is currently only an offence to use speech that will “excite hostility” or “bring into contempt” a person or group on the grounds of their colour, race or ethnicity. Gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability are not protected grounds.

The government is proposing several changes to the civil provision of the Human Rights Act, including making it illegal to incite others to discriminate against a protected group.

Protection from discrimination
It also wants to amend the Human Rights Act to ensure trans, gender-diverse and intersex people are protected from discrimination.

The proposed changes were recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terror attack on 15 March 2019, which found hate crime and hate speech were not adequately dealt with.

“The current laws do not appropriately recognise the culpability of hate-motivated offending, nor do they provide a workable mechanism to deal with hate speech.”

The Ministry of Social Development will simultaneously consult with the public about what can be done to make New Zealand more socially cohesive.

Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who is leading the social cohesion programme, told a media conference today the government wanted to build from existing Māori-Crown values.

“We are not starting from scratch,” she said. “We are generally regarded as a country with a high level of social cohesion and we’ve seen that as our team of 5 million has largely come together to rally around both in the aftermath of March 15 and also during the covid-19 lockdown.”

However, she said there were underlying vulnerabilities that New Zealand needed to address as the country grew in diversity and that this effort would be grounded in the values of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Māori-Crown relationship.

Ethnic programme
She said the government had accepted in principle all 44 recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch mosque attacks and had made progress on implementing those. Subsequent hui with ethnic groups had fed into the government’s response, she added.

“We’ve set up an ethnic communities graduate programme to provide a pathway into the public service for skilled graduates from ethic communities and also as one way to inject that broader cultural competence into government agencies, including the intelligence agencies.

“And the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities will come into effect next week and will take the place of the Office for Ethnic Communities.”

Radhakrishnan said the programme had a broader reach than ethnicity and that others who feel marginalised were being included.

She said the government wanted input from the public on how the programme can be forwarded.

Public submissions open today and close on August 6. The government’s discussion document includes steps on how to submissions.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz