The road from Beijing to Taiwan no longer seems impossible.

Nothing appears to prevent Moscow — should it decide — from abducting the Ukrainian president from the heart of Kyiv.

There is no longer any real immunity protecting political leadership anywhere, including Iranian leaders. The reason is not international chaos.

The reason is Gaza.

Gaza: The moment of great exposure
Gaza is not a passing war, nor a limited regional conflict.

Gaza is the moment when the international system collapsed entirely.

In Gaza, the following fell:

• International law;
• The concept of sovereignty;
• The neutrality of international institutions; and
• The claim of Western values

A people were annihilated before the eyes of the world. Hospitals, schools, and United Nations facilities were destroyed. Children were killed. Starvation was used as a weapon.

And yet — no one was held accountable.

When the killer walks free in Gaza
Israel’s impunity in Gaza was not a detail; it was a dangerous precedent. A clear message reached every capital:

Do whatever you want, as long as you are protected by the United States. From that moment, red lines collapsed:

• Sovereignty was no longer protected;
• Leaders lost immunity;
• Agreements lost meaning; and
• International courts lost relevance

If the annihilation of a besieged city is possible, what prevents the kidnapping of a president, the assassination of a leader, or the toppling of an entire state?

America: From guardian of order to sponsor of crime
The United States is no longer a mediator or even a biased partner.

It has become the political guarantor of crime. It has:

• Provided cover;
• Supplied weapons;
• Used the veto;
• Obstructed accountability; and
• And legitimised extermination

Then it has continued speaking of “international order” and “human rights” as if Gaza had never happened.

The end of the illusion of immunity
After Gaza, one truth has become clear to every world leader:

• The United Nations does not protect;
• Conventions do not save;
• International law does not shield;
• The only immunity that remains today is power; and
• Those who do not possess it are potential targets.

This is why China is recalculating, Russia deals with law pragmatically, Iran understands that Western guarantees are an illusion, and many states are stepping out from under the American cloak.

Gaza was not the exception. It was the official declaration of the collapse of the global order.

In the age of American–Israeli thuggery:

• Sovereignty has fallen;
• Law has died;
• Power has become the only source of legitimacy; and
• Those without power are denied the right to live.

Sameer Barghouthi is an emeritus professor at Al-Quds University, Jerusalem, Palestine. This article was first published by Qatar Tribune.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has confirmed that his Finance Minister — and one of three deputies — has resigned after being charged by the country’s anti-corruption watchdog.

Local media first reported that Professor Biman Prasad, the man in charge of government finances, had been charged with corruption-related offences under Fiji’s political party laws and was expected to resign.

According to local media reports, Dr Prasad was charged with allegedly failing to declare his directorship in hotel ventures as required under the Political Parties Act.

The development came less than a week after the resignation of co-Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica, who is also facing corruption charges.

“Today, I received Biman Prasad’s formal notification of his resignation from Cabinet and as Deputy Prime Minister. He will remain a member of Parliament and caucus. His resignation follows the formal charges being laid against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC),” Rabuka said in a video statement released by the Fiji government yesterday afternoon.

Dr Prasad, who is the leader of the National Federation Party, has served as a cabinet member since 24 December 2022. He was responsible for finance, strategic planning, national development and statistics portfolios.

Rabuka told fijivillage.com that he believed the cases against his two deputies would not be resolved quickly, and that “it may take some portfolio management and reshuffling”.

‘Shortest possible time’
However, in a statement last evening, Dr Prasad said he intended to “deal with this charge in the shortest possible time and in accordance with proper legal process”.

“My lawyers are dealing with this expeditiously,” he said.

He said Rabuka had “assured me of his personal support while I do so”.

“One thing I have learned in 11 years of political leadership is that it involves many challenges, often from unexpected places,” he said.

“This is just one more of those challenges to be dealt with calmly, patiently, and as swiftly as possible.”

Rabuka has appointed an MP from his ruling People’s Alliance Party to take over the ministerial portfolios that Dr Prasad and Kamikamica had been overseeing.

Kamikamica is being charged with perjury and giving false information to a public servant, while the details of the charges against Dr Prasad have yet to be made public by FICAC.

‘Political and institutional chaos’ – Labour Party
The Fiji Labour Party says the latest developments is a sign of “a total breakdown of leadership” under Rabuka.

“Fiji Labour Party notes with deep concern the ongoing political and institutional chaos gripping the coalition government,” it said in a statement.

“Instead of confronting the crisis head-on, the Prime Minister has chosen to downplay the gravity of the situation, pretending that everything remains ‘under control’.

“The truth is quite the opposite — the coalition is collapsing under the weight of its own hypocrisy, infighting, and betrayal,” it said.

The party added the government is “in free fall” and the country needs “renewal, not recycled politics”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Pacific connection with the United States is “more important than ever”, says Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters after rounding up the Hawai’i leg of his Pacific trip.

Peters said common strategic interests of the US and New Zealand were underlined while in the state.

“Our Pacific links with the United States are more important than ever,” Peters said.

“New Zealand’s partnership with the United States remains one of our most long standing and important, particularly when seen in the light of our joint interests in the Pacific and the evolving security environment.”

The Deputy Prime Minister has led a delegation made up of cross-party MPs, who are heading to Fiji for a brief overnight stop, before heading to Vanuatu.

Peters said the stop in Honolulu allowed for an exchange of ideas and the role New Zealand can play in working with regional partners in the region.

“We have long advocated for the importance of an active and engaged United States in the Indo-Pacific, and this time in Honolulu allowed us to continue to make that case.”

Approaching Trump ‘right way’
The delegation met with Hawai’i’s Governor Josh Green, who confirmed with him that New Zealand was approaching US President Donald Trump in the “right way”.

“The fact is, this is a massively Democrat state. But nevertheless, they deal with Washington very, very well, and privately, we have got an inside confirmation that our approach is right.

“Be very careful, these things are very important, words matter and be ultra-cautious. All those things were confirmed by the governor.”

Governor Green told reporters he had spent time with Trump and talked to the US administration all the time.

“I can’t guarantee that they will bend their policies, but I try to be very rational for the good of our state, in our region, and it seems to be so far working,” he said.

He said the US and New Zealand were close allies.

“So having these additional connections with the political leadership and people from the community and business leaders, it helps us, because as we move forward in somewhat uncertain times, having more friends helps.”

At the East-West Center in Honolulu, Peters said New Zealand and the United States had not always seen eye-to-eye and “US Presidents have not always been popular back home”.

“My view of the strategic partnership between New Zealand and the United States is this: we each have the right, indeed the imperative, to pursue our own foreign policies, driven by our own sense of national interest.”

The delegation also met the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Samuel Paparo, the interim president of the East-West Center Dr James Scott, and Hawai’i-based representatives for Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Of the international intelligence information that comes to Australian agencies from the Five Eyes, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we have the colonisation of our intelligence agencies These agencies dominate the advice to ministers, writes John Menadue.

INTERVIEW: John Menadue talks with Michael Lester

Michael Lester: Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.

Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.

As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.

And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.

These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.

John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.

ML: You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?

JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.

We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.

ML: So you made a real contribution through this and you’ve given the opportunity for so many expert, experienced, independent voices to commentate on public policy issues of great importance, not least vis-a-vis, might I say, mainstream media treatment of a lot of these issues. This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?

JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.

It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.

But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.

It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.

It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.

ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?

JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.

And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.

But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.

Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.

Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.

We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.

ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?

JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.

Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.

Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.

One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.

But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.

The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.

The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.

ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?

JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.

But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.

Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China.  It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.

I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.

China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.

America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.

But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.

But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.

The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.

We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.

ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?

JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.

Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.

It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.

Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.

Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.

ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.

John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.

Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?

JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.

For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.

Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.

Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.

But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.

ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?

JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.

It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.

And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.

My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.

For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.

Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.

But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.

These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.

In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.

The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.

Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.

Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.

Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.

And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.

When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.

But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.

ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.

You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?

JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.

And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.

These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.

China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.

Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.

ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?

JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.

The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.

I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.

I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.

We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.

Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.

ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?

JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.

ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?

JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.

We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.

They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.

I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.

ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.

Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.

JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.

John Menadue, founder and publisher of  Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission. 

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Outspoken MP Chlöe Swarbrick will be the Green Party’s new co-leader alongside Marama Davidson, as climate change specialist James Shaw steps down.

Last month, Shaw said he would be stepping down from his duties as co-leader in March.

Dunedin-based activist and conservationist Alex Foulkes had put his hand up too for the role but announced on Sunday that he had conceded defeat. Swarbrick received 169 votes from party delegates, Foulkes received no votes.

Speaking to media today, Swarbrick, the MP for Auckland Central, thanked both Davidson — who could not be at the conference because she had covid-19 — and Shaw.

She said the Greens were a party that would speak for all voices in New Zealand, and believed it could make changes for the better of all in New Zealand, sharing finite resources “justly and equitably” as well as protecting the environment.

“We know our environment is not an endless resource to keep drawing from — we know there is enough to go around.”

She said the Green Party “care a lot about whakapapa”, and described Shaw as a “giant” whose shoulders the Green Party stands upon.

‘No-one stands alone’
“We know as the late great Efeso Collins put it, that: ‘No-one stands alone, no-one succeeds alone, and no-one suffers alone’.

“James Shaw is one of those giants who have contributed decades to our movement, his enduring legacy of the Zero Carbon Act and establishing the Independent Climate Change Commission will hold this and all future governments to account on the scientific non-negotiables of a liveable planet.

Greens elect Chloë Swarbrick as new co-leader. Video: RNZ News

“We can take world-leading climate action that also improves people’s lives. We can provide a guaranteed minimum income for all, we can protect our oceans, we can have functional public transport, we can invest properly in our public services and housing, education and health-care, if we have the political courage to implement the tax system to do so.

“And the Greens have that political courage.”

Swarbrick also praised Davidson: “I have been inspired by her strength, the clarity of her conviction and her embodiment of our Green values every single day . . . ”

Swarbrick criticised the government’s 100-day plan and said, as Green co-leader, she was equally as comfortable marching in the streets as she was in Parliament.

“The Greens’ see you, we hear you and we will represent you in the halls of power.”

Democracy can work better
Change would “require human cooperation on a scale we have never seen before”, she said: “Democracy can work better for all of us.

“Politics belongs to those who show up, and we need everyday people to not leave politics to the politicians or we’ll get what we’ve got”.

The Greens were concerned about a drift to the right side of politics in New Zealand, she said.

Change would not come “from top down vested interest”, she said.

“Legacy politics is not working to serve people and the planet.”

Swarbrick said both the “red and blue” parties were tying up votes in a duopoly, and not serving voters effectively: “I believe we are the leading voice on the left.”

In a statement earlier today, Swarbrick thanked the party’s members and reiterated the Greens’ vision for the future.

Decent life for all
“Aotearoa can be a place where everyone has what they need to live a decent life, and our natural world is restored and protected, on a foundation honouring te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the Greens’ vision, and one we work to see realised every single day.”

Shaw said there was no-one else he would rather take his place as co-leader than Swarbrick.

“Ever since I first sat down to coffee with her after her mayoral campaign in 2016 she has struck me as a remarkable leader with an extraordinary belief in the power of people to make a difference.

“Her passion and strength is second to none, and alongside Marama, will lead the Greens to make even more of a difference in the future.”

Davidson said it was fantastic to be have Swarbrick by her side, leading their biggest caucus.

“Chlöe is an incredible MP, colleague, and friend. She has proven time and time again her unique ability to mobilise communities to push for the change Aotearoa needs,” Davidson said in a statement.

“It has never been more important for there to be a strong voice for an Aotearoa that works for everyone, where everyone is supported to live good lives, in warm dry homes, and where we take bold action to cut pollution and protect native wildlife,” she said.

‘Fighting for the future’
“Chlöe and I will be in communities up and down Aotearoa working with people to build an unprecedented grassroots movement fighting for the future Aotearoa deserves.”

Foulkes, who admitted defeat in the co-leadership race, congratulated Swarbrick and said she would do an incredible job.

“I am confident Chlöe and Marama will lead the party from strength to strength.

“I have enjoyed the debate with Chlöe and the party members and would like to commend and thank the party staff for the efficient organisation of the election and the members for their engagement and respectful, intelligent, and thoughtful questions throughout this process.”

He described her as “one of the most talented politicians in Aotearoa New Zealand”, and said he never expected to win against her.

“Indeed, someone suggested to me that I had more chance of spotting the fabled South-Island kokako than winning this election.”

However, he said his goal in contesting was to discuss and debate policies. Last month, he put forward a radical manifesto, outlining his vision.

Who is Chlöe Swarbrick?
Ranked third on the party list, the Auckland Central MP appeared to be the popular choice from when Shaw made his announcement.

After losing the mayoral race in 2016, she joined the Green Party.

Winning the Auckland Central seat in 2020 and becoming the country’s youngest MP in 42 years, she has proven her popularity from early on.

She is the first Green MP ever to hold on to a seat for more than one term after winning again in the 2023 elections.

Swarbrick denied leadership ambitions in 2022, when more than 25 percent of delegates at the party’s annual general meeting voted to reopen Shaw’s position.

She has regularly registered in preferred prime minister polls ahead of the party’s co-leaders.

Last year, she had to apologise to Parliament a week after saying in the debating chamber Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had lied — a breach of parliamentary rules.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As New Zealand’s former climate change minister James Shaw prepares to step down from the Green Party’s co-leadership role, the space has opened for a new contender.

Speaking after today’s announcement, co-leader Marama Davidson refused to guarantee she too would not step down before the election but said she would stay on for at least the next 12 months.

Numbering 15 MPs, the team is its largest ever but also largely inexperienced. Among the mix in the co-leadership possibilities is the party’s first MP with a Pasifika whakapapa — Teanau Tuiono.

Shaw announced earlier today he would be stepping down as Green Party co-leader in March.

“It has been the privilege of my lifetime to serve as New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister for the last six years and as Green Party co-leader for nearly nine,” Shaw said in a statement.

“I’m very proud of what the Green Party has achieved over the last eight years.”

He said he would remain in Parliament to support his Members Bill, which would insert a new clause into the Bill of Rights Act stating that everyone has a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

The bill was introduced to Parliament in December and is yet to have its first reading.

He said the Greens had become party of government, with ministers, for the first time and had made political history by increasing its support at the end of each of our two terms — “a feat no other government support partner had achieved”.

Following Shaw’s exit from Parliament, two-thirds will be fresh-faced first-timers and just Davidson and Julie Anne Genter will have any experience of sitting in opposition.

So who are some potential contenders for the leadership?

Chlöe Swarbrick (Auckland Central MP):
Ranked third on the party list, the Auckland Central MP appears to be the popular choice.

After losing the mayoral race in 2016, she joined the Green Party.

Winning the Auckland Central seat in 2020 and becoming the country’s youngest MP in 42 years, she has proven her popularity from early on.

She is the first Green MP ever to hold on to a seat for more than one term after winning again in the 2023 elections.

Swarbrick denied leadership ambitions in 2022, when more than 25 percent of delegates at the party’s annual general meeting voted to reopen Shaw’s position.

Still, she commands the highest profile of all Green MPs, regularly registering in preferred prime minister polls ahead of the party’s co-leaders.

Recently, she had to apologise to Parliament a week after saying in the debating chamber Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had lied — a breach of the rules.

If selected for the co-leadership, the 29-year-old would also become the youngest to co-lead the party.

Teanau Tuiono (List MP):
Teanau Tuiono (Ngāpuhi and Ngāi Takoto) moved to the fifth ranking on the party’s list after Jan Logie and Eugenie Sage retired in the 2023 elections.

As the party’s candidate Palmerston North, he became a list Member of Parliament — the party’s first MP with Pasifika whakapapa – in the 2020 general elections. And again was re-elected as a list MP in 2023.

He spoke of how he believed swearing allegiance to the Queen was outdated, and said that it should be to Te Tiriti o Waitangi instead.

In 2022, as Shaw battled to keep his co-leadership role, Tuiono publicly contemplated contesting.

Last year, his Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill was introduced in Parliament. The bill would restore the right to New Zealand citizenship for people from Western Samoa who were born between 1924 and 1949 — a right promised to them and found owed them by New Zealand’s then highest court.

In December, Tuiono was appointed as the third assistant speaker — the first Green Party MP to become a member on the speaker team.

He recently expressed concern over the lack of Pasifika voices in the government.

Julie Anne Genter (Rongotai MP):
The MP for Rongotai currently stands in the fourth rank on the list. Since 2011, she has been elected to each Parliament while on the party’s list.

In 2017, Genter put her name forward for the Mount Albert byelection, but she came in second after Jacinda Ardern.

Genter served as the minister for women, associate minister for health and associate minister for transport from 2017 to 2020.

The Ombudsman twice investigated a letter she sent to then Transport Minister Phil Twyford during pre-consultation on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving indicative package draft Cabinet paper.

National had accused her of convincing Twyford to push back construction of a second Mount Victoria tunnel for at least a decade.

After the next transport minister released the letter in full, Genter said she stood by her comments and that the contents clearly reflected the Green party’s position.

Much like Swarbrick, Genter was not interested in contesting for the party’s leadership in 2022.

Rules and voting
Nominations will open on 31 January and close on 14 February.

Members will attend local meetings and vote, with a new co-leader to be announced on March 10.

Each branch is entitled to a certain number of votes proportionate to the number of members who live in that electorate.

The party’s rules were changed in 2022, removing the requirement for a male co-leader. Instead, members voted to mandate one female leader and one leader of any gender. One leader must also be Māori.

As Davidson meets both the female and Māori criteria, the vacancy can be filled by any Green member, in or out of Parliament.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Chris Hipkins says the opportunity to become Prime Minister of Aotearoa New Zealand is the biggest privilege of his life and his eyes are wide open for the challenges that lie ahead.

Hipkins began a media briefing today by saying: “I can confirm that I have put my name forward to be the next leader of the New Zealand Labour Party and therefore the next Prime Minister of New Zealand.

“I am absolutely humbled and honoured,” Hipkins said about the Labour Party caucus choosing him. He was the only nominee to succeed Jacinda Ardern who announced her resignation this week after almost completing two terms as prime minister.

“There is still a bit to go in this process. There is still a meeting tomorrow and a vote, and I don’t want to get too far ahead of that.

“I do want to thank them for the way the process has been handled. I do think we’re an incredibly strong team. We have gone through this process with unity and we will continue to do that.”

At 44, one of the group of strong young — but highly experienced — leaders in the ruling Labour Party, Chris Hipkins was the stand out choice to lead the party into the election on October 14.

The face of NZ’s covid-19 pandemic response from November 2020 onwards, he is currently serving as Minister of Education, Minister of Police, Minister for the Public Service and Leader of the House.

‘Incredibly optimistic’
Hipkins said he was “incredibly optimistic about New Zealand’s future”.

“I am really looking forward to the job. I am feeling energised and enthusiastic and I am looking forward to getting to the work.

“It’s a big day for a boy from the Hutt,” he told reporters.

Labour’s Chris Hipkins addresses the nation.         Video: RNZ New

“It’s an enormous privilege. It’s also an enormous responsibility and the weight of that responsibility is still sinking in.”

Hipkins said he would avoid comments on positions or policies today, because the process was not yet finished and he was not confirmed as Prime Minister yet.

Asked if Labour can win the election, Hipkins simply says, “Yes.”

He would not address speculation about who his deputy prime minister would be at this time.

Challenging situations
“I thoroughly enjoyed being a minister in Jacinda Ardern’s Cabinet. I think the New Zealand public have seen the work I have done.”

He said he had dealt with some challenging situations and he made mistakes from time to time.

Addressing the journalist Charlotte Bellis MIQ case, in which he disclosed some of her personal details, Hipkins said he had apologised to her and considered the case closed.

“There is nowhere else in the world that I would want to live and want to be raising my kids” than New Zealand, he said. The country was navigating economic turbulence but would come through it.

“The vast bulk of New Zealanders are very proud about what we achieved around covid,” Hipkins says.

“Yes, there’s a vocal minority that would like to rewrite history but actually I think New Zealand as a country would be proud of what we achieved through covid.”

“I acknowledge that the lockdown in Auckland was really hard,” he said.

“I think hopefully New Zealanders know me as someone who is up front, doesn’t mind admitting when they’ve made a mistake, and can laugh at themselves.”

‘I don’t intend to lose’
Asked if he would stay on as opposition leader if Labour loses the October election, Hipkins said: “I don’t intend to lose.”

“I am here to make sure that New Zealanders who go out there and work hard to make a better life for their famlies can succeed and do so. … That’s what Labour has always stood for and it’s absolutely why I’m in politics.”

He said there was already a reshuffle coming. He had a lot of conversations with his parliamentary colleagues about the position once Ardern resigned and he was very interested in keeping a consensus.

Asked about Ardern being “burned out”, Hipkins said: “I’ve had a good summer break, I’ve absolutely come back energised and refreshed and ready to get into it.”

Asked for a little detail about himself, he said: “I grew up in the Hutt, my parents came from relatively humble beginnings and worked really hard to give a good life to my brother and I.

“I like to cycle, I like to garden. Maybe I don’t have the best fashion sense in Parliament … but I am who I am.”

Asked about the abuse on social media that has been highlighted in the wake of Ardern’s resignation, he said: “I think there has been an escalation of vitriol and some politicians have been a subject of that more than others.”

‘Intolerable’ abuse
He calling some of the abuse Ardern had faced “intolerable”.

“I go into this job with my eyes wide open of knowing what I’ve stepped into.”

“No one’s perfect, and I don’t pretend to be,” Hipkins said.

“Jacinda Ardern has been an incredible Prime Minister for New Zealand. She was the leader for New Zealand at the time that we needed it,” he says, citing her many challenges.

“Jacinda provided calm, reassured leadership which I hope to continue to do. We are different people, though, and I hope that people will see that.”

Hipkins said that if Grant Robertson was happy to stay as finance minister, he was more than welcome to remain.

Asked if he was willing to be called “Prime Minister Chippy,” he said, “people will call me what they call me”.

Pivotal role
Hipkins said the Māori caucus would continue to play a pivotal role in government.

“I’ve got an amazing team to work with and I intend to absolutely make the most of that.

“It is the biggest responsibility and it is the biggest privilege of my life. All of the experiences that I’ve had in my life have contributed to this point.”

Asked if he believed he’d be prime minister one day, Hipkins said, “I don’t really believe in destiny in politics. I actually believe in hard work.”

Hipkins said he had talked to Ardern since the result became clear, and he would be sitting down with her soon as they needed to work out details of the transfer of power.

“I’ve had a lot of messages from my constituency. They’re happy to have the first PM from the Hutt I think for generations.”

Hipkins has also spoken to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

“There are so many messages on my phone,” he said.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Aotearoa New Zealand has become hugely polarised and it is little wonder Jacinda Ardern has decided to call it a day, says Helen Clark.

The former New Zealand prime minister and Labour Party leader is no stranger to the ups and downs of politics. However, she said current politicians faced vitriol 24/7 thanks to social media.

She said Aotearoa was seeing some of the worst elements of US politics.

Clark, who is in Switzerland at present, said she awoke to find she had received dozens of messages on her phone and was stunned, but, after a moment of reflection, not surprised by Ardern’s decision.

“I’ve seen the public pressures of vitriol and mouthing against Jacinda in a very, very unfair way and at some point, as she said, you’re human, at some point you don’t have any gas left in the tank, and she’s made the call that is absolutely right for her and her family.”

While Clark faced a huge amount of unpleasant criticism during her nine years as prime minister, she told RNZ Morning Report social media had given it more licence.

“The amount of anonymous trolling and venomous commentary is absolutely ghastly.

‘Anti-vaxxers . . . extreme language’
“I was going through the responses to the tweet I put up and the hate brigade is out in force — the anti-vaxxers, the people calling Jacinda a dictator, really just extreme and absurd language.”

In Clark’s time, talkback radio was the dominant outlet for people to express hateful views, but there was not the “24-hour trolling and viciousness on social media”.

Clark said she considered herself lucky to have led the country before the advent of social media which had made the role so much tougher.

She believed Ardern may have had an enjoyable summer and would have seriously considered if she could continue in the face of the antagonism she was experiencing.

The Waitangi Day barbecue had been cancelled late last year for security reasons and demonstrated the level of pressure the prime minister faced, Clark said.

Ardern’s programme could not be announced in advance because of the risk of “these militia-shouting crowds turn up”, she said.

“We haven’t experienced this in New Zealand for the most part. We’ve become very polarised. We’ve taken on a lot of the worst aspects of American politics, I think.

‘Time for society to reflect’
“So I think it is time to reflect as a society how we’re letting ourselves be so divided and polarised by this.”

Clark said normally mild-mannered people were proclaiming vicious views and the country did not used to be like this.

The covid-19 pandemic and the need for vaccinations had been a huge factor in the dissemination of extreme views.

Clark recalled going to school with a boy who had a withered leg, the result of polio, and there was a general acceptance of the need for vaccinations.

“It has been extraordinary to see this deterioration of basic science.”

She was not prepared to say publicly who should take over as Labour leader, but she was in no doubt there were well-qualified candidates within the caucus.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Well, no one saw that coming. For those in New Zealand relieved that Christmas was over because it means politics resumes, this week held the promise of a cabinet reshuffle, the possible unveiling of some meaty new policy and — if we were really lucky — the announcement of the date of this year’s general election.

We got the last of these (it will be on October 14). What we also got, however, was the announcement that in three weeks’ time one of the most popular — and powerful — prime ministers in recent New Zealand history will be stepping down.

It isn’t difficult to divine why Jacinda Ardern has reached her decision. As she herself put it:

I believe that leading a country is the most privileged job anyone could ever have but also one of the more challenging. You cannot and should not do it unless you have a full tank plus a bit in reserve for those unexpected challenges.

She has had more than her fair share of such challenges: a domestic terror attack in Christchurch, a major natural disaster at Whakaari-White Island, a global pandemic and, most recently, a cost-of-living crisis.

On top of that, of course, she has had to chart a way through the usual slate of policy issues that have bedevilled governments for decades in this country, including the cost of housing, child poverty, inequality and the climate crisis.

Clearly, the Ardern tank is empty.

But it isn’t just about the policy. Along with other women politicians, Ardern faces a constant barrage of online and in-person abuse — from anti-vaxxers, misogynists and sundry others who simply don’t like her.

As others with direct experience of this have written, the deterioration in civic discourse in New Zealand has been profound and disturbing, especially since the violent occupation of the parliamentary precinct in early 2022.

🔴 #BREAKING: New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will not seek re-election and has revealed the date she will stand down https://t.co/UET5ZoszD1 #Newshub pic.twitter.com/fPAROdI5l2

— Newshub (@NewshubNZ) January 19, 2023

Ardern has spent the past two years right on the frontline of this sort of toxicity. This has taken a toll — on her, on her family, on those close to her — and has played a part in her decision.

A tale of two legacies
In time, however, what people will remember most about Ardern’s term in office is the manner of her response to serious crises. She has faced more than any other New Zealand prime minister in recent history and, in the main, has responded with calmness, dignity and clarity.

There are always competing points of view on these matters, of course. But her refusal to engage in the rhetoric of abuse or disparagement (her recent reference in Parliament to an opposition MP as an “arrogant prick” aside), which has become the stock-in-trade of too many elected representatives, has marked her out in a world in which abuse has become normalised in politics.

Critics may deride this as “mere performance”. But politics is — above all else — a matter of controlling the narrative. And for a long time Ardern and her team were very good at this.

That said, there is plenty she hasn’t achieved. She came to power promising transformation, but inequality and poverty remain weeping sores on the body politic.

Her Labour government has not been able to alleviate the chronic shortage of public housing that has existed for many years, and workforces in public health, education and construction face challenges no future government will relish.

No obvious successor
Attention now turns to Labour’s leadership and the party’s caucus vote this Sunday. A majority of 60 percent plus one more vote is required to secure the position, and Labour will be hoping this is what happens.

If not, the party’s constitution requires it to establish an electoral college comprising the caucus (which gets 40 percent of the total vote), the wider party membership (40 percent) and affiliate members (20 percent). This would be time-consuming, potentially divisive and a distraction.

Look for a clear-cut decision to be announced on Sunday.

The other big surprise has been Finance Minister and Ardern’s deputy Grant Robertson ruling himself out of the contest. Many people assumed he was the logical successor, but his decision opens the field wide.

Even including Ardern’s inner circle of David Parker, Chris Hipkins and Megan Woods, the bench is not that deep, and none of the candidates has anything like Ardern’s wattage. The shoes needing filling are on the large side of big.

Australian PM Anthony Albanese said she has “shown the world how to lead with intellect and strength”. https://t.co/Mkg8u82vxL

— Stuff (@NZStuff) January 19, 2023

Mixed news for National
Unsurprisingly, Ardern’s announcement has dominated the news cycle in New Zealand, leaving no room for consideration of another important event this week — the National Party’s first caucus of the year.

One might imagine that on hearing news of Ardern’s resignation there might have been jubilation in some sections of the party. Labour’s polling has been falling for some time now, while support for centre-right parties National and ACT has been climbing.

Ardern is still significantly more popular than National’s leader, Christopher Luxon, and he will likely be quietly pleased he won’t have to face Ardern on the campaign trail. She was good at that stuff; he is still learning.

National will be thinking, too, that some of the support for Labour that is tied to Ardern herself — including the support Labour received in 2020 from people who habitually vote for National — can now be peeled off and brought home.

Wider National heads will counsel caution, however. As the covid years have rolled by, Ardern has become an increasingly polarising figure.

By stepping aside now she gives her party plenty of time to instal a new leadership group that can draw a line under the past three years and focus on the future.

It is far too soon to tell, of course, if the country will buy a new narrative in which Ardern is not the key character. But she is giving Labour every chance of having a decent crack at it.

Leaving on her own terms
Are there broader lessons in all of this for international audiences? Depressingly, perhaps the key one concerns the price paid by elected representatives in these times of polarisation and the normalisation of abuse.

Around the world, women politicians in particular have borne the brunt of the toxicity and there are many who will see in Ardern’s departure a silencing of a woman’s voice.

On the upside, perhaps there are also things to be learned about the exercise of political leadership. Ardern has chosen the time and manner of her leaving — she has not lost the position because of internal ructions or because of an election loss.

Her reputation will be burnished as a result, and if anything it will generate even more political capital for her — although whether or not she chooses to distribute that currency on the international stage remains unclear. But you rather suspect she might at some point.

For now, though, she will be looking forward to walking her child to school and finally being able to marry her long-term partner. After a tumultuous and more-than-testing time in office, that may yet be reward enough.

Dr Richard Shaw is professor of politics, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Anusha Bradley, RNZ News investigative reporter

Within hours of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s shock resignation announcement in Napier, a small crowd gathered outside the city’s conference centre.

Unlike the steady stream of shocked Labour MPs still coming to terms with the news, these folks were celebrating.

“Ding dong the witch is gone,” a placard read.

Online, there have been similar sentiments to be found among groups bitterly opposed to Ardern. The Freedom and Rights Coalition even takes credit for Ardern’s departure in a post on Facebook: “We can now celebrate the departure of this leader of division. We did it!”

The comments on the post are unfit to repeat here.

Entering what would have been her sixth year, Ardern is the longest-serving Labour Prime Minister after Peter Fraser and Helen Clark. But in an emotional speech to her caucus in Napier she revealed she “no longer had enough in the tank” to do the job.

“It’s time,” she said.

“As much as I have taken great joy in this job, I would be giving a disservice to this country and to the Labour Party if I continued, knowing that I just don’t have enough in the tank for another four years.”

Violent abuse
While it wasn’t explicitly stated, it’s hard to imagine the increasingly violent abuse directed at her was not part of the reason.

“It is no surprise to me at all … she could not, not be affected by this,” says Disinformation Project director Kate Hannah.

Ardern probably tops the list for the amount of vitriol endured by any political leader in this country, Hannah believes.

“In the earlier parts of her first term we got sort of commentary about her looks and her lack of perceived experience. The fact that sort of she was, you know, well spoken, and really good at communicating complex issues was kind of a slur against her.”

But in the last two years the misogyny and violence directed towards Ardern has not only increased in volume, but also become more dangerous, says Hannah, who studies online hate speech and disinformation.

“The language and imagery used to talk about the Prime Minister has become more violent, more vulgar, more crude and repetitive.”

According to a recent study, published just before Christmas, which charts the rise of misogynistic language towards female leaders and women in the public sphere, the most prevalent word used to describe the Prime Minister in these circles is “the C word, and the most prevalent visual image is of witchcraft”.

“And this is old data. This is data from the middle of last year. So it’s actually got worse.”

Grim factoid
Another grim factoid from the paper shows the word “Neve” – referring to Ardern’s pre-school daughter — is also on the most prevalent list.

In June, it was revealed the number of threats towards Ardern has almost tripled in the past three years.

Hannah, who herself has been subjected to similar abuse — including death threats — says she presented the paper’s findings to Ardern and a range of MPs late last year.

How did Ardern react?

“As we all do . . . trying to laugh it off and saying the job is more important . . . and you just have to get on with the job,” says Hannah.

But this is no laughing matter, she says. This new virulent brand of misogyny is on the rise and it affects all women.

“The international disinformation, far right, pro-Putin community is incredibly misogynistic.

‘Incredibly abusive’
“It is incredibly abusive and derogatory, and what it does is attempts to reduce a person to their basic self, and in doing so signals to every other person who shares characteristics with that individual who has been targeted that they are equally worthless, equally base, equally loathed.

“So has this purpose of both targeting individually her as a woman, her role as prime minister, and then all women or all people who share some of those characteristics with her,” says Hannah.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s biggest moments.    Video: RNZ News

Massey University senior lecturer Dr Suze Wilson, who studies leadership and has examined the vitriol aimed at Ardern, says even the coining of “Jacindamania”, referring to her meteoric rise in popularity as leader served as an early warning of what was to come.

“As if somehow people were losing their heads to be excited by the prospect of a potential Prime Minister, who was young and female and articulate, through to the last couple of years where it’s become increasingly violent, the kind of abuse to which she’s been subjected.”

While the pandemic has been a factor, research also shows that generally it is becoming more challenging for women to be taken seriously, says Wilson.

“Particularly if they are younger and particularly if they don’t cleave to a masculine style, which Ardern does not.”

Worryingly, misogynistic sentiment is also on the rise globally. The latest Reykjavik Index for leadership tracks views about whether a man or woman would be more suitable to a certain position.

Backwards trend
“The most recent data came out just before Christmas, and it is showing that in some countries for the first time that there was actually some backwards moving trends,” says Wilson.

“It was showing, alarmingly, that it’s particularly among younger men, and those are the ones that are being exposed to the likes of Jordan Petersons and Andrew Tates of the world who are learning from them a really just disrespectful and antagonistic view towards women.”

Wilson says she first started noticing a shift in sentiment towards Ardern during the first 2020 lockdown. But it didn’t come from the dark corners of the anti-vax movement, but on the mainstream business social networking site LinkedIn.

‘”I started seeing people, you know like business leaders, using words like tyrant and dictator to describe the prime minister, and I was kind of quite disturbed by that.

“The fact that they can make those kinds of statements and think that somehow that would be a credible statement, tells you kind of something about the shifting norms of what’s considered an OK way to talk about our prime minister.”

Dr Wilson believes this must have taken its toll on Ardern.

“It’s hard to believe that it wouldn’t affect you, right? I mean, it would affect anybody . . . Having people talk about wanting to hang her, wanting to harm her child, the persistent rumours about her partner. She’s human, of course it’s going to take quite a toll.”

‘Look in the mirror’
Ardern herself has rarely acknowledged the abuse publicly. Wilson can understand why.

“I can understand why she doesn’t want to highlight it, because it would be, perhaps for those that are engaged in that behaviour, some kind of reinforcement that what they’re doing is having an effect.

“But really, they should just look in the mirror and be deeply ashamed of their conduct.”

Hannah says it’s also worrying the violent rhetoric towards the prime minister is now considered the “new normal”.

“This type of language and abuse is now so normalised that it’s very hard to pull back from. When people have become accustomed to using the C word, as the most commonly used word to describe the prime minister, then, you know, I just don’t know how we come back from that in any kind of quick way.”

For some, the issue was so pervasive it defined the way they viewed the announcement of her resignation. A number of public figures referred to it in posts on Twitter:

#PrimeMinister @jacindaardern resigned today. I am not surprised nor do I blame her. Her treatment, the pile on, in the last few months has been disgraceful and embarrassing. All the bullies, the misogynists, the aggrieved. She deserved so much better. A great leader. Thanks PM! pic.twitter.com/7b1AhjBXrW

— Sam Neill (@TwoPaddocks) January 19, 2023

History will judge Jacinda Ardern as a remarkable leader.

She is genuinely kind and has an incredible intellect, she’s made more of a contribution than she will ever appreciate.

I can’t help but feel like we need to find better ways to support women and mothers in politics.

— Fleur Fitzsimons (@FleurFitzsimons) January 19, 2023

Apart from wartime, no New Zealand Prime Minister has faced the challenges Jacinda Ardern has handled. And certainly none has had to govern through the kind of deranged abuse and threat to which she has been subject in the past two years.

— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) January 19, 2023

No matter what you thought of her politics, the sustained personal attacks and hatred levelled at Jacinda was unlike anything I’d seen- from critiques of her motherhood to hysteria and conspiracy theories to threats of violence.

It’s not safe to be a woman in public light

— Mohamed Hassan (@mohamedwashere) January 19, 2023

And on the streets of Auckland, kilometres away from the dwindling crowd outside Napier’s conference centre, an emotional Tessa Williams from Taupō, perhaps summed up the view of those most disturbed by the vitriol Ardern received.

“She’s put up with a lot of really tough stuff. I mean, I was surprised that she has hung in kind of as long as she did,” Williams said.

“It was pretty rough how she’s been treated. Yeah, I think it’s a good decision. It was so hard for her. She did a really good job.

“It’s sad that people were so mean to her.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In a historic first, the Papua New Guinea Parliament has installed Pangu Pati leader and Tari-Pori MP James Marape by a unanimous majority as the country’s ninth Prime Minister.

Immediately, in his address to the House and streamed live to the nation, Marape stuck to his belief in the mantra “Take Back PNG” and his vision to make every Papua New Guinean rich in the “richest black Christian nation on earth”.

While Marape was making his rambling victory speech to the nation, a rousing message filtered through that a second woman had successfully been elected to Parliament.

Kessy Sawang was declared winner of the Rai Coast seat and she joins Central Governor Rufina Peter in Parliament.

Marape was elected unopposed by 97 MPs in the House which included eight opposition MPs, becoming the first Prime Minister to be voted in unopposed since 1975 — the year of independence.

Only his sworn adversary and former PM Peter O’Neill abstained from voting by walking out of the chamber before the vote was taken.

O’Neill later said it was a matter of “conscience” that forced him to walk out the chamber.

Elevated to top job
The first time Marape became Prime Minister was on May 30, 2019, when, through a serious of twists and turns — including instigating a vote of no confidence which forced O’Neill to resign as PM — Marape was elevated to the top post by a parliamentary majority of 10-8, another historic moment in PNG’s oft-times fractured Parliament.

The nine MPs of O’Neill’s People’s National Congress (PNC) party who voted for Marape were: Pomio MP Elias Kapavore, Milne Bay Governor Gordon Wesley, Alotau MP Ricky Morris, Aitape Lumi MP Anderson Mise, Ambunti Drekikir MP Johnson Wapunai, Central Governor Rufina Peter, Ijivitari MP David Arore, Kiriwina-Goodenough Douglas Tomuriesa and Kandrian Gloucester MP Joseph Lelang.

After a slight mix up of the standing orders on the person nominating a PM, East Sepik Governor Allan Bird’s nomination was superseded by Manus Governor Charlie Benjamin and seconded by Western Governor Toboi Yoto.

PNC party leader Peter O’Neill walked out of the chamber as Speaker Job Pomat read out the notice and calling for nominations for Prime Minister.

Marape said that his election was for the people and that “whatever happened yesterday, Pangu would always put the country’s interest first”.

“I seek to anchor my statement on the remarks [made on 30 May 2019]. I wanted Papua New Guinea in the next decade to be a K200 billion (NZ$90 billion) economy.

“I wanted Papua New Guinea to be the Richest Black Christian Nation on Earth. My statement recognised that our political forebears have ushered in political independence in 1975,” he said.

‘Crafted legislation’
“They crafted legislation, built institutions, wrote policies and established relationships to deliver us political independence.”

But Marape’s speech failed to hit home with ordinary Papua New Guineans, leaving the population pondering what to expect in the country reeling from high unemployment, huge law and order issues and rising prices of basic store goods.

As Pangu and its coalition hunker down to prepare their 100-day plan, Papua New Guineans are taking to social media to raise simple questions like “when will our children return safely back to school?”, “a bag of five kilograms of rice is now K20? (NZ$9)”, and “when will the minimum wage of K3.50 (NZ$1.60 an hour) be raised to correspond with the costs of living which has spiked as a result of inflation?”.

Some are venting their anger at the lack of medicines in the biggest referral hospitals in the country — including Port Moresby General Hospital, where patients have to fork out their own money to buy panadol.

Marape continued: “This generation of leaders must deliver economic independence to Papua New Guinea.

“That Pangu has secured the mandate from Papua New Guinea can only mean that our people in the length and breadth of this country support this intention.

“It is my humble privilege to address this house as the Prime Minister. In 2019, I secured the mandate to be Prime Minister on the floor of Parliament.

‘Three very hard years’
“I served for three very hard years with the support of a lot of you.

“Today, I have secured the mandate from the people of Papua New Guinea.

“They have empowered, emboldened, and mandated me and the party to lead to be in government.

“I am privileged to lead a coalition of likeminded leaders to be your government.

“The 2022 national general election brings our country to the cusp of 50 years of nationhood.

“hree years before we turn 50 years old as a nation, Pangu gets a further opportunity to deal with some fundamental issues confronting our country.

‘Fair, healthy, happy society’
“The onus and responsibility now rest on each member of Parliament to rise up to the occasion and renew our commitment to pass on a better Papua New Guinea to the next generation.

“We are consistent with the Vision 2050 on the development phases of our country to be smart, wise, fair, healthy, and a happy society by 2050.

“It aligns nicely in that we are called to deliver economic enablers to fast-track development.

“Fastrack we must, as we do not have the luxury of time to wait around for things to happen at their pace.”

Gorethy Kenneth is a senior journalist with the PNG Post-Courier. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A shellshocked Climate Change Minister James Shaw has been ejected from the New Zealand Greens’ leadership by a minority of party delegates and has yet to decide whether he will fight to stay on.

Thirty-two out of 107 delegates voted at the party’s online annual general meeting today to vacate Shaw’s position, more than the 25 percent threshold necessary under the Greens’ rules.

The vote means any Green Party member can now put their name forward for the role over the next week before another vote within five weeks.

Speaking at Parliament this evening, Shaw said he was “inclined” to stand again, but would first seek feedback from his caucus colleagues and the wider membership.

“This is obviously a bit of a surprise. I’ve got to work through a few things,” Shaw said.

“I still got 70 percent of the delegates supporting me and I’ve had quite a lot of supportive messages in the very brief time that the news has been out. But I do want to take some soundings just to get a proper sense check.”

Shaw said he was still processing the outcome and would spend some time with his family tonight.

Fighting the climate crisis
“It is hard when there is a group that’s organising against you. But… I have been so focused on my job as Minister for Climate Change, doing what we need to do to fight the climate crisis, that I really don’t have a lot of time for factional organising.”

Co-leader Marama Davidson — who was reconfirmed by delegates — said she was personally shocked by the action against Shaw.

“I certainly wasn’t expecting this,” Davidson said. “I feel saddened for my friend, as you would feel for anyone who loses their title and role at this time.”

Davidson, though, declined to give a full-throated endorsement of Shaw staying on, saying she would not pre-empt his decision or the party’s. She did say Shaw had “slogged his guts out” in the role.

“I’m simply here to support the work that James has done to date… we’ve been able to keep our support quite well above our election night support numbers.”

Shaw said he had spoken to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern this afternoon and she had confirmed he would retain his position as Climate Change Minister regardless of the leadership decision.

“This is a temporary blip. It does not have any impact on the work that we’re doing as ministers or the work of our MPs,” Shaw said.

Party caucus meeting
The party caucus would meet as usual on Tuesday morning with no current plans to meet before then.

The Green Party constitution was recently changed meaning Shaw’s position could be filled by a person of any gender.

Shaw was elected to the party’s leadership in 2015 after Russel Norman​ announced his retirement.

Last year, Shaw comfortably defeated a challenge to his co-leadership from activist James Cockle. Then, Shaw received 116 votes to Cockle’s four.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning examine in detail what to expect from the NATO leaders’ summit, which includes addresses from the prime ministers of Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Why is NATO including addresses of NATO partners in this year’s leaders’ summit?

What will the hawks bring to the summit, and what will those of a more moderate and dove persuasion bring to the NATO debate and course ahead?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is expected to participate in the upcoming NATO Leaders Summit, becoming the first New Zealand leader to do so.

NATO’s Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, has invited the leaders of Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand to attend the military alliance’s meeting in Spain held on June 28-30.

Anthony Albanese, Fumio Kishida and Yoon Suk-yeol have already accepted the invitation.

Ardern is expected to participate in a session focused on the Asia-Pacific region and meet with a range of foreign leaders.

While ministers, including Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta, have attended previous NATO meetings, this is the first time New Zealand has been invited to the Leaders Summit.

Stoltenberg said the invitation is a “strong demonstration” of NATO’s “close partnership” with like-minded countries in the Asia Pacific.

NATO will set its strategy for the next decade at the summit and define the security challenges the alliance is facing and what it will do to address them.

‘Strengthened’ defence talks
Leaders will also discuss “strengthened” defence, further support for Ukraine, and Finland and Sweden’s applications for membership.

Otago University professor of politics and international studies Robert Patman said the invitation is significant and “reflects the gravity of the international situation at the moment.”

The invitation has come at a “critical” time in Europe, he said.

“We live in such an interconnected world. We’ve seen in New Zealand how events far away from us, such as transnational terrorism, can impact on our own society…

“We live in a world in which increasingly all states, big and small, are confronted by problems which don’t respect borders.

“There’s a recognition among NATO that although New Zealand and Australia and South Korea and Japan are geographically a long way from NATO, they share a lot in common in terms of values and in their approach to international order.

“So I think that’s probably why, given the dramatic backdrop of the war in Ukraine, that we’ve been invited to NATO.”

At the summit, Ardern will likely want NATO leaders to “reaffirm the importance of a rules-based international order, on which this country critically depends,” Patman said.

Ardern also recently returned from a trip to the United States where she met with US President Joe Biden, and a trip to Singapore and Japan.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It followed Judith Collins’ tumultuous exit as leader last week, after she summarily demoted Bridges last week.

Shellshocked, MPs went into a hastily called caucus the next morning and cast a vote of no confidence in her. Deputy Shane Reti became interim leader and the vote for leader was set down for today.

“It is a tremendous privilege to lead our great party, and I thank my colleagues for the confidence they have placed in me,” Luxon said in a statement shortly after the vote.

Luxon, a former chief executive of Air New Zealand between 2012-2019, also said that he was pleased Nicola Willis had been chosen as his deputy.

“She will do an incredible job and we will be a formidable team.”

They face a National Party reset at a critical when New Zealand has been facing its toughest covid-19 lockdown after initially weathering the first waves of the virus last year.

Evangelical Christian
Luxon, who describes himself as an Evangelical Christian and has expressed his opposition to policies such as abortion and cannabis legalisation, said he had entered politics because he was a problem solver who “gets things done”.

“I have built a career out of reversing the fortunes of under-performing companies and I’ll bring that real-world experience to this role.”

Video: RNZ News

Luxon said he and Willis would be working hard to earn back New Zealanders’ trust and confidence “and deliver for them”.

He also promised that the party would be unified under their leadership.

“We are the new National Party that New Zealand needs.”

Luxon’s main rival, former leader Simon Bridges, tweeted his support for Luxon with just over an hour remaining before this afternoon’s caucus meeting where the party voted on the new leader.

“This morning I met with Chris Luxon and had a great discussion. I am withdrawing from the leadership contest and will be backing Chris. He will make a brilliant National leader and Prime Minister,” he said.

This morning I met with Chris Luxon and had a great discussion. I am withdrawing from the leadership contest and will be backing Chris. He will make a brilliant National leader and Prime Minister.

— Simon Bridges (@simonjbridges) November 30, 2021

Few words for media
“Luxon had few words for the media as he arrived at Parliament this afternoon.

“Great day for the National Party, it’s really wonderful today … I’m looking forward to going to see my caucus colleagues,” he said.

Other National MPs were saying little as they arrived at Parliament throughout the morning and early afternoon.

Covid-19 Response spokesperson Chris Bishop, who had been raised as a possibility in initial speculation about the leadership, also backed Luxon.

“He’s gonna make a great leader of the National Party, he’s gonna make a great prime minister, I can’t wait to serve in his team. It’s an exciting day for New Zealand, big reset moment for the National Party.”

He said Bridges would remain in the party.

“Simon’s gonna be a critical part of the National team going forward, he’s got undoubted political skills, I’m really looking forward to serving with him, he’s gonna make a great whatever role he gets from Christopher Luxon and National just resets now.

Go forward together
“We go forward together and we’re gonna change the government in two years’ time.”

Waimakariri MP Matt Doocey said it would mean a new direction for the party.

“I’m looking for a fresh start and a new vision for the party, and a new vision for the country. I’m looking forward to that, it’s exciting.”

List MP Melissa Lee said she thought Luxon was “very experienced in life”.

“He is very new but the thing is that he’s not daft. He’s a very intelligent man, I think he has led companies before and although it is actually a very different feel, that experience does speak to his life experience and I think he will make a great leader.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz