By Phil Goff

Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

Withdrew satellite imaging
It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

Silence condoning Trump
By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

Question central to validity, ethics
“The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fijian bus drivers and bus checkers wake up early in the morning to serve the public so it is disappointing to see school students harassing and bullying them, says the bus operators industry group.

Fiji Bus Operators Association general secretary Rohit Latchan said he was responding to a recent video on social media involving a high school student threatening a bus checker.

Latchan also pleaded with parents and teachers to teach students respect towards everyone, especially bus drivers and checkers.

“People should realise that bus drivers and checkers are also humans,” Latchan said.

“They’re providing service to the public, especially to students.

“I am pleading with parents and teachers to respect and appreciate bus drivers and checkers. There is no need for abuse or threats.

“Driving all day is not an easy job. We don’t want our drivers to get hurt.”

Closed fist threat
The video shows the student threatening a bus driver and a bus checker saying, ‘Au sega ni rerevaki kemudrau’ (I am not afraid of you) after he got on board with a closed fist.

Although it is unclear what caused the incident, many found the issue of a young student challenging adults alarming.

Acting Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chew said the matter had been directed to the Central Deputy Police Commissioner for investigations and a team would visit the school tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Education Secretary Selina Kuruleca said all necessary processes had been followed, including informing parents and the Child Protection Services.

“We again request parents to remind their children on the importance of proper behaviour at all times,” Kuruleca said.

“Even though the student was responding to some earlier incident by the driver, he could have reported the incident to the police instead of this swearing and threatening behaviour.

“The student is undergoing counselling at the moment.”

Temalesi Vono is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Five weeks on from Christmas Eve, I think most of us are still a bit stunned at what has happened in Fiji.

A new government came to power in dramatic circumstances.

It took not one but two Sodelpa management board meetings to change it, with razor-thin margins.

The same drama extended into Parliament.

There was definitely a bump in the road when the military openly expressed concern about the speed of change.

But that was navigated smoothly.

One other thing stood on a razor-thin margin.

Nobody in Fiji should forget it.

‘Rule of law’
A little thing called “rule of law”.

In a Fiji Times column last week, I tried to capture the idea of this.

First, the idea that the law is more important than everyone, including the government.

But second, the idea that the law is more than just rules and regulations which restrict us.

Rule of law means also that the government is bound to respect ordinary people’s rights and freedoms.

That rule of law was seriously at risk under the FijiFirst government.

Things had gotten to the point where, using bullying and fear, unafraid of the courts or any other institution which might restrain it, the FijiFirst government just did what it wanted.

In its last year of power, the only restraint on FijiFirst was the fact that an election was coming.

Turned on opponents
Had it won that election, FijiFirst would have turned its guns on the only opponents it had left — the opposition political parties, the independent news media and the few non-government organisations that continued to criticise it.

Fiji would have fallen firmly into that growing group of countries now called “democratic dictatorships” — places which have elections and the other trappings of democracy, but which in truth severely restrict the democratic rights and freedoms of their people.

Four key officials holding important constitutional positions — the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrections and the Supervisor of Elections — have been suspended inside of four weeks.

That tells us one of two things.

Either the new government is particularly vengeful.

Or there are complaints against these officials that date back to the FijiFirst party’s time in power and which are only now coming to light.

After all, they’ve hardly had time to offend us under the new government.

And if these are in fact complaints about things which happened long ago, we must ask — why were they not actioned under the FijiFirst government?

No one dared complain
Or was fear of the government so pervasive that no one dared to complain against these officials — and the complaints are only being made now?

We need to know about these complaints.

Yes, each of these officials is innocent until proven otherwise.

But they are public officials, occupying some of the most powerful and critical positions in the country.

The decisions they make concern our most basic rights and freedoms — whether or not we spend a night in a cell, whether (and when) we will get a ruling on our employment dispute, or whether we are able to vote.

So we, the public, have a right to know what they are accused of.

What has changed?

The overwhelming sentiment for most of us — at least those around me — is a new sense of freedom.

Doesn’t change things
For many of us, that does not really change things from day to day.

Not everyone has the compelling urge to air their opinions on everything (in newspaper columns or elsewhere).

But it is simply the fact that if you want to rant about something on Facebook, you’re not worrying about what the government will think.

Most of us, day to day, are not worrying about whether we will be unfairly held for 48 hours in a jail cell.

Yet only two years ago in the covid crisis, the police were doing that to hundreds of people.

We are not worrying about whether we will be arrested for saying something which will “cause public alarm”.

Yet, every time an NGO or opposition political party leader issued a public statement in the last 10 years, this was a constant worry.

But much of the real damage done was at the next level down — the level where ordinary people like us want to get things done.

This week I met a small group of distinguished doctors.

Climate of fear
I heard with some amazement about the climate of fear which predominated in the Ministry of Health.

Criticism was not permitted.

In November last year, the permanent Secretary for Health publicly told politicians to “leave the Health Ministry alone”.

Nobody, he said, should talk about it.

Nobody should “undermine” it — because it was on the cusp of great things.

One senior medical specialist who famously criticised the state of our hospitals in The Fiji Times was immediately banned from entering them.

This was hardly a hardship — he was only volunteering his skills for free.

But what about all the patients who he was looking after?

He recounted to me, with some wonder the bureaucratic memo-writing process that is now being followed to bring him back.

Cash and volunteers
The International Women’s Association has cash and volunteers ready to improve women’s and children’s health at CWM Hospital.

We are talking about basic things, like hot water and decrepit bathrooms.

How do you run hospital wards without hot water?

IWA’s mistake was to make these deficiencies public on social media.

So the Health Ministry stopped talking to IWA.

Only with the change of government is IWA allowed to openly communicate with the Ministry of Health about what it wants to do — instead of whispers to officials on their gmail accounts.

For years, I have marvelled at the stupidity of the edicts issued from Ministry of Education headquarters.

Schools may not fund-raise without permission.

Schools may not invite speakers to their school assemblies without permission.

Schools may not run extracurricular classes for students without their permission.

‘In name of equality’
The policy seems to be “in the name of equality, we must all be equally dumbed down”.

As the Education Ministry pursued the government’s mad obsession with our “secular state”, schools owned by religious bodies cannot choose their own school heads, even if they pay for them and save the government money.

Education and health are critical issues for all of us.

The government can’t deliver everything.

Governments by nature are unwieldy, bureaucratic and slow (sometimes for good reason, because they have to carefully manage public funds and follow other laws).

So people have to get involved.

Get involved

We also have to get involved on a wide swathe of other issues such as poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, crime and economic opportunities.

Criticism not welcome
These are all things which, for the past 15 years, we were told, the government had under control — like “never before”.

Our input — and certainly our criticism — were not welcome.

Let’s be clear about our new government.

We might be glad that it’s there.

And we should never take for granted the rights and freedoms it has restored to us and the refreshing new attitude it brings after 15 years.

But soon the honeymoon will end, the shine will come off and we will all have to get down to the work (which never ends) of solving our deep social and economic problems.

The expectations on the new government are huge.

Everybody wants every problem to be solved and every complaint to be answered.

We want every crook who has received an unfair benefit to be (as we now always seem to say) “taken to task”.

Same huge debt
The new government has the same huge debt, the same shortage of cash and the same lack of resources the old government did.

It can move some money around and change some priorities — but it can never solve every problem.

But a government that is prepared to tolerate criticism has at least one advantage over one that is not.

It can hear from real people about where the real problems are.

That’s why freedom of expression is not just a nice thing to have.

It’s actually important to tell us what is going on.

This government, like the old one, will gradually become more complacent and unresponsive as it becomes burdened with the ordinary business of administration.

And that is why every democracy — at least every real one — prizes freedom.

Freedom to march
Freedom for people to criticise, to march in the street, to take the government to court, without being punished for it.

These are some of the tools we use to hold the government to account, to remind the politicians that it is about us, not them, and to embarrass the politicians into action.

But just as important is the responsibility on us not just to talk — but also to act.

Our new freedom also means freedom to get involved.

What are the things that are important to us?

Is it health?

Education?

Child poverty?

Prison reform?

Our local environment?

So what will we do?

Don’t take it for granted
We don’t need to be part of some official committee or NGO to fight for the things that are important to us.

We don’t need the government’s permission to hold a public forum to talk about problems and solutions.

After 15 years we need to be able to say to our leaders: “We’re in charge here. This is what we want. You work for us.”

They won’t always listen — but that’s what freedom is.

It was a close-run thing on Christmas Eve — but freedom is what we got.

So let’s not take it for granted.

Let’s use it.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer who is fairly free with his opinions. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) has knocked-back an attempt by one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest universities to axe more than 100 staff.

The Auckland University of Technology planned to make 170 academic staff redundant, but the ERA has now ruled that its process was flawed and breached the collective agreement.

Now the school may need to walk back its dismissals, and start all over again.

ERA said AUT had called for voluntary redundancies too early, before the institution had even decided which positions to cull.

The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) is celebrating the ruling as a win. However, AUT says the union and the university have interpreted the decision differently and it would be seeking clarification.

Lawyer Peter Cranney, in an email to members of the TEU yesterday, said the ERA was considering a compliance order that would require AUT to withdraw all the notices it had already issued.

“Although a compliance order is discretionary, the [ERA] authority has indicated it will not decline the granting of the order it needed,” he wrote.

“The parties will now have three days to consider the matter; and if a compliance order is necessary, the AUT will need to comply within five days.”

Cranney said any compliance order would be issued by Friday.

Trust difficult to rebuild, says union organiser
TEU organiser Jill Jones said the decision meant people at risk of losing their jobs no longer were.

“It’s great because what it does show is our collective agreement has been respected by the Employment Relations Authority,” Jones told RNZ Morning Report.

But although staff members were “absolutely” thrilled with the decision of the ERA, there was a breakdown of trust with their employer and it would be difficult to rebuild it.

“Its been a long, hard road for these staff members. They’ve paid a very large price.

“These are members that really, really care about their students and the high price that they’ve paid for this bungled redundancy is that lots of things have happened.

“It’s felt as if, to them, it’s been a very callous and uncaring process and it’s going to be difficult to come back from that.”

With issues of trust and many staff feeling targeted and bullied, AUT had a “very big job” ahead to rebuild that trust, she said.

Frances* was one of the unlucky 170 to receive a redundancy letter.

“This level of disruption and instability in our lives is just crippling,” she said.

The ERA decision had not brought much comfort.

“It’s kind of a double-edged sword,” she said. “I’m really happy that we’ve seen some justice be recognised through the court system, but I don’t know what’s going to happen next.”

Frances expected AUT to withdraw her notice of dismissal, but did not expect a happy ending.

“I’m not deluded, they’re still going to come for me I’m sure, but they’ll have to start from scratch and do it properly,” she said.

“That’s all we ask, that this is done properly.”

Poor handling of the situation had destroyed staff morale, she said.

“For three months, I’ve been feeling disengaged, demotivated, angry, upset, waiting, waiting, waiting for this letter,” she said.

“This whole process has been about targeting, humiliating, and bullying people.”

AUT seeks clarification of ‘complex findings’
An AUT spokesperson said the findings were legally complex and it regretted that a “procedural issue” highlighted had made staff more uncertain.

“Although the ERA has published its findings, it has not issued orders.

“AUT’s view of these findings differs from that of the TEU. AUT is endeavouring to clarify and resolve the issue promptly.

“Given the differing views between the parties it will therefore be necessary to return to the ERA tomorrow for clarification on some aspects.”

AUT said ERA’s findings found no bad faith in how it had acted — and AUT had formed a differing view of the collective agreement.

“The ERA has noted that AUT should have identified the specific positions potentially declared surplus and, at this point, written to offer voluntary redundancy to the people in these specified positions.

“Following clarification of the procedural issue we will write to those impacted by the decision to confirm the way forward.”

* Name changed to protect identity. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Māori, Pasifika, Asian, as well as disabled and bisexual employees, are disproportionately affected by bullying and harassment in workplaces in Aotearoa New Zealand, according to new research out today.

More than a third of respondents to a Human Rights Commission survey say they have experienced some form of harassment at work in the past five years.

In the report, Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Harassment in Aotearoa New Zealand, 39 percent of people said they had been racially harassed at work.

Also, 30 percent reported being sexually harassed and 20 percent bullied.

Māori, Pacific Peoples, and Asian workers, as well as disabled workers, and bisexual workers were disproportionately affected.

The nationwide study found that 24 percent of those who reported being mistreated, raised a formal complaint.

Researchers said the 2500 workers involved in the survey in May and June provided a representative picture of the population.

‘Disappointed’ in the harassment
Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo told RNZ Morning Report she was disappointed to see a “high prevalence” of racial harassment in the workplace.

She said the study looked at different industries.

“Healthcare seems to be the one that goes right across in terms of high prevalence of racial harassment, sexual harassment and bullying.

“In healthcare, you’ve got huge power dynamic. So the majority of people who perpetrate these behaviours occupy a more senior role to the victim. In those really hierarchical occupations, there’s a high risk of abuse of power.”

More young people reported being harassed in the hospitality and accommodation industry.

“It depends on the industry. It’s insane in terms for men [in] construction, manufacturing, communications … for women [it is] the health sector, and the public sector generally,” Sumeo said.

“This is real and it’s a shared suffering,” and it was important for people facing these circumstances to know that they were not exaggerating, she said.

‘No definition’ in laws
“We don’t have a definition of bullying in our laws at the moment and it’s really important that we have that. So myself, the Human Rights Commission, the unions and others are calling on government to ratify our ILO 190, which gives us the ability to identify and then we can allocate resources.”

She also called on the government to look at compensation laws “in terms of recognition and compensation and support to go to people who are suffering bullying and sexual harassment and racial harassment”.

Read the Experiences of Workplace Bullying and Harassment in Aotearoa New Zealand report.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Aotearoa New Zealand’s ruling Labour’s caucus has unanimously decided to suspend Hamilton West MP Dr Gaurav Sharma effective immediately in the wake of allegations of bullying of and by MPs.

This morning, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s office confirmed the meeting to discuss allegations of bullying raised by Hamilton West MP Gaurav Sharma would take place this afternoon.

The meeting addressed Dr Sharma’s status within the party after he took his concerns to the media rather than usual party processes for dealing with disputes.

Dr Sharma has complained, however, that using those mechanisms have got him nowhere, saying he had tried dealing with the concerns through the party whip’s office and Parliamentary Service for the past year and a half.

He was not at the caucus meeting this afternoon.

“I note that he did find the time to talk to media,” Ardern said.

“Caucus has determined suspension is the most appropriate response to the repeated breaches of trust from Gaurav over recent days.

No longer in caucus
“This means Gaurav will continue as the MP for Hamilton West and be expected to be present at Parliament. However, he will no longer participate in any caucus events or activities unless caucus’ permission is granted.”

Dr Sharma was emailed, phoned, and text messaged to try to get him to attend the meeting today, she said.

Watch the conference 

Labour’s unanimous decision to suspend MP Dr Sharma. Video: RNZ News

Ardern said she called and tried to message him after the meeting this afternoon, as have others, and she hoped this was not the first he had heard of his suspension.

“We have made efforts to convey this information to him directly.”

The whips directly engaged with Dr Sharma on whether he would attend, she said.

“Originally a range of options were sent and they didn’t receive a response. They then proposed a time and they were told at that time that no, at that time Gaurav had a specific event.

“They then advised that we would set a meeting time at a time that suited Gaurav today, he advised that nearer to 3[pm] would suit so whips suggested 2.30, we then at that point didn’t receive any further engagement.”

All of Labour’s MPs were invited to attend today, she said.

Labour’s caucus has unanimously decided to suspend MP Gaurav Sharma effective immediately https://t.co/qogiWItoxG

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) August 16, 2022

Decision unanimous
She said the decision was unanimous, and the team was clear that to function as a political party in a place where open debate and dialogue was key, members needed to be able to trust their colleagues.

“You need to feel you can speak openly and freely. That sense of trust has been broken by repeated breaches of our caucus rules over the last five days and that made the decision very clear,” she said.

Ardern and party leadership have continued to refer to the allegations — which in particular accuse former whip Kieran McAnulty of bullying and gaslighting — as an employment concern between Dr Sharma and the staff in his office.

RNZ has sought comment from McAnulty repeatedly but he has not responded.

Ardern said, based on the documents she has reviewed, the Labour whip’s office and Parliamentary Service began working with Dr Sharma to address concerns raised about his staff management. He was then asked to work with a mentor, which he objected to.

“Finally agreement was reached at the end of last year. Further issues were later raised by additional staff members including those in his direct employment, This resulted in another pause on hirinig and again coaching, mentoring and temporary staff in the meantime.

“Gaurav again objected to this intervention and the need for his future hiring of staff or undertakings on his part. A protracted process ensued.”

No other concerns
Ardern said she still had heard no concerns raised by any other MPs about McAnulty.

She said she did not recall Dr Sharma ever raising his concerns with her and she had gone through records of events and text messages after hearing about his concerns last week.

“I have not gone through everything but from what I can see he is a member who I’ve had less engagement with than most, that is fair to say … he’s never raised the issue directly with me, and that is an expectation I would have because it’s set out in our rules.

“First if there’s an issue you go to the whips. If you’re unable to get resolution you go to either the Labour leader or to someone the Labour leader nominates. And if it’s still unresolved you go to caucus. That didn’t happen.

“He did raise them with my chief-of-staff at the end of last year. He told me about that and he also told me the resolution that was reached between them and I’ve seen the messages that demonstrate that. Neither of us heard anything after that until the events that led to this.”

After he published his column in The New Zealand Herald last Thursday, she called him and he did not pick up, she said. She then sent a text to ask about his welfare, rather than relitigating issues.

“I received one message in response, I won’t go into the details on that but it was essentially setting out his perspective on these issues.”

Bullying not widespread problem
She has consistently refused suggestions that bullying is a widespread problem within the party.

One of his allegations was found to have no basis, she said, but he has continued to make them.

“I am equally concerned that staff members have been implicated by the level of detail that’s been shared … we considered whether or not for transparency we should release some of the communications to demonstrate our perspective on what has occurred here but again that runs the risk of exposing staff.”

She said Dr Sharma’s status would be reviewed in December, to allow a chance for a return to caucus if trust with him was able to be restored.

“But in making the decision to suspend, caucus were clear that the team retains the right to revisit the decision at any time if the rules continue to be broken. To be clear, the caucus’ decision was squarely focused on actions over the last few days. What gave rise to those actions also deserves some reflection.”

Ardern said there were grounds for expulsion under the caucus rules, but the team wanted to send a message that while their trust had been lost and they considered the situation very egregious, they were a team that wanted to give second chances.

“If he does that there’s a pathway back, if he doesn’t then he will be expelled.”

She said the exact date in December for revisiting the decision had not been decided upon.

Options at that time could include continued suspension, a return to caucus, or expulsion. At this point, the possibility of sending a letter to the Speaker to request his removal from Parliament under the waka jumping law has not been discussed.

Informal caucus meeting last night
As the meeting started this afternoon, Dr Sharma contacted RNZ claiming an earlier meeting involving some Labour MPs was held last night, without his knowledge.

Ardern said the outcome today was not predetermined at a meeting last night. She said one of the issues of misconduct was that Sharma had been sharing the contents of meetings publicly, which meant people felt they were unable to raise questions or discuss issues.

The reason Sharma was not informed of the meeting last night was “because people did not feel they could have an open conversation with him”.

Sharma claimed he had an image sent to him, a screenshot of the meeting.

“You’d note that probably if someone were deliberately sharing that message it would be more likely a gallery view,” Ardern said.

“I also knew who took that screenshot, it was intended they were trying to capture something else on their phone, the meeting was occurring in the corner at the same time, they accidentally sent it to someone they shouldn’t.

“What they sent was a screenshot of the conversation trying to set a caucus meeting time, it just so happened that they were multitasking … they’re somewhat embarrassed over the situation.”

The meeting last night was not a formal caucus meeting, she said, and she was also clear there would not be a predetermined outcome.

“Natural justice is very important to our team.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The last 10 days has seen the entire media focus (aside from the ubiquitous concern for the All Black prospects in a rugby test and then the fate of coach Ian Foster) has been on allegations of bullying by new opposition National MP Sam Uffindell and bullying of first term Labour government MP Gaurav Sharma.

Sam Uffindell’s future is still up in the air while Dr Sharma’s political career has resembled a meteorite — a brief, bright burn.

Meanwhile, over this time we were visited by US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who was on a whirlwind visit through the Pacific which the US has just rediscovered after finding China has been courting our Pacific neighbours.

Sherman was here to remind us the US fought in the Pacific 75 years ago, that it is ready to fight here again (on the side of “democracy” and “freedom” of course) and probably assessing when best for the US to launch a destabilising campaign against Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, who has had the audacity, from the US point of view, to sign a development agreement with China.

There is a host of good, hard questions that should have been put to Sherman by our journalists but alas there is nothing of substance anywhere.

Here for example is RNZ’s Morning Report interview with Sherman.

Calling it a “soft” interview doesn’t describe it well — “cringing embarrassment” would be better.

Full of talking points
Sherman was full of US talking points such as the importance of the “[US] rules-based international order developed after World War II” and “no country should decide the political future of another country or bend that country to their political will”.

Just read that last Sherman quote again. She is aiming at China but probably three quarters of humanity have experienced precisely that interference at the hands, guns, banks and bombs of the US since World War II — democracies included.

RNZ let it all go unchallenged. The US is already on the record as saying they will “not sit by” and allow China to get a foothold in the Solomon Islands or the Pacific.

Why wasn’t Sherman interrogated on this? Why weren’t hard questions asked? The danger signs for our corner of the world are everywhere — but invisible to RNZ.

Instead the hard questions were saved for the hapless thug Uffindell and those responsible for Dr Sharma’s meteoric career.

Aotearoa New Zealand got closest to an independent foreign policy in the mid-1980s but there seems no journalistic memory. Instead of asking about US intentions in the Pacific and suggesting that New Zealanders don’t want to see superpower rivalry on our doorstep, RNZ simply asks what are the prospects of New Zealand joining the AUKUS alliance (Australia, the UK and the US who are joining forces to arm Australia with nuclear submarines to counter China)

Meanwhile, Aotearoa New Zealand moves insidiously closer to the US military.

Here in Christchurch, protests will accompany the Rocket Lab presence at the 2022 Aerospace Summit.

In case anyone hasn’t caught up with developments, Rocket Lab is now majority owned by the US military and has launched numerous rockets for direct military purposes.

The protest will have some hard questions for Peter Beck — don’t expect them from the news media.

John Minto is a political activist and commentator. This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australia is accused of using “diplomatic strong-arm tactics” to water down outcomes in Pacific climate negotiations and “buy silence” on climate change, a new report has revealed.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s report, Australia: Pacific Bully and International Outcast, reveals that the Australian government uses “bullying tactics” in regional negotiations on climate change, according to former Pacific Island leaders interviewed as part of the study.

The leaders include former Kiribati President Anote Tong and former Prime Minister of Tuvalu Bikenibeu Paeniu.

Australia’s aid to the Pacific has been “greenwashed”, with some of the largest and most expensive “climate adaptation” projects having no link to climate change or contributing to increase the climate resilience of Pacific peoples.

The Australian government’s climate position harms its international relations and economy with Australia’s export markets for coal and gas shrinking as major trading partners such as Japan and South Korea commit to net-zero emissions, says the report, published coinciding with the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

The report draws on dozens of interviews with present and former Pacific leaders, Australian diplomats and academics to expose the hardline tactics used by Australia to thwart stronger regional action on climate change and to shift focus away from Australia’s responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The report also uncovers the greenwashing of Australian aid in the Pacific, finding that millions of aid dollars have been given to “climate adaptation” projects that do not have any link to climate change.

Australian standing damaged
Greenpeace Australia Pacific researcher and international relations expert Dr Alex Edney-Browne said the investigation showed Australia’s international standing had been damaged by its climate obstruction.

“Australia has lost its once-respected position in the Pacific and now has a reputation for bullying and strong-arm diplomatic tactics to thwart regional climate action,” she said.

“Pacific Island leaders are some of the world’s strongest climate advocates, but Australia has brazenly tried to buy their silence through aid with strings attached.

“Morrison’s last-minute commitment at COP26 this week to increase regional climate finance by $500 milion, via bilateral agreements, simply won’t cut it. Given the level of greenwashing going on in Australia’s foreign aid to the Pacific as revealed in this report, there is also no guarantee that this money will go where it’s needed to increase the climate resiliency of Pacific peoples,” she said.

“Australia has a history of using bilateral aid as a way of gaining leverage over Pacific island countries. It would be nice to see Australia being a good international citizen and showing support for multilateral climate finance such as the UN’s Green Climate Fund. It refuses to do so.

“Australia must make a serious effort on climate change, which is threatening the very survival of Pacific nations. That means ruling out any new coal or gas projects, ending the billions in subsidies given to the fossil fuel industry and committing to a science-based target to cut emissions by 75 percent this decade to bring it up to speed with our regional neighbours and trading partners.”

Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister, said Australia’s climate policy was already hurting the country’s diplomatic standing.

‘Reputation for decency’
“A country’s reputation for decency in these matters does really, really matter… Australia’s credibility in all sorts of ways depends on our being seen to be responsible, good international citizens and Australia is putting that reputation very much at risk on the climate front,” he said.

Anote Tong, former President of Kiribati, said Australia had not acted in the spirit of mutual respect in its dealings with the Pacific on climate change.

“I cannot read into the minds of Australian leaders but it’s always been my hope that we would treat each other with mutual respect, but I’m not sure this has always been the case,” he said.

“But we should be partners in every respect and not when it is convenient to one party but not the other, for example on climate change. We expect Australia to be stepping forward because climate change is very important for us and we’re meant to be part of this family. It had always been my expectation, my hope, that Australia would provide the leadership we desperately need on climate change.”

Dr Matt McDonald, associate professor of International Relations at University of Queensland, refers to Australia’s climate policies as a “perfect storm”, with serious repercussions for the country’s regional and international relations if these policies remain weak by comparison with similar developed countries.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group of male students attacked the media covering a harassment protest by female students at the University of Papua New Guinea today.

The rowdy group said they did not want the media to report on an issue of sexual and physical harassment by males, claiming it was an “internal matter”.

Media personnel were made aware of the protest that was to take place on campus.

They showed up to capture what the female student protesters wanted to address about the continuous harassment by some male students.

After the female students had marched from the Games Village into the university’s Forum square, a group of rowdy male students also entered the area and charged angrily at journalists, cameramen and photographers, demanding that they leave.

Members of the governing University Council were present, but were outnumbered and were unable to contain the clash as it escalated.

The frustrated male students said the media did not need to be there to cover an issue that could be solved internally.

Media personnel were unharmed.

The PNG Media Council is expected to release a statement condemning the attack.

Jemimah Sukbat is a reporter for Loop PNG.

The UPNG protest meeting today. Video: Michael Kabuni

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A senior academic staff member at the Auckland University of Technology wants the vice-chancellor to resign following a scathing report into bullying.

The independent review heard more than 200 complaints of bullying and found evidence of sexual harassment by eight former staff.

It said some employees had been so severely affected they had been forced to take stress or sick leave, and had cried during interviews.

The independent review, commissioned by AUT, was prepared by Kate Davenport QC.

The staff member quoted on RNZ Morning Report, who RNZ agreed not to name, said there was a culture of bullying at the university.

“When I was enquiring about the head of another school, and who that person was, and you know, just out of curiosity really, and the answer I got from one person was, ‘oh that person’s all right, she’s very easy to shout down’.

“Meaning that if you have a disagreement with that person, if you raise your voice they back off.”

Culture affected decision-making
The culture had also affected wider decision-making, said the staff member, because senior leadership were used to ignoring problems.

That had become evident when the university announced it would restructure the academic year into shorter course blocks because of covid.

This was despite early warnings the changes would not work.

“You can’t do block courses when you have a whole load of people, how can I put it? A whole load of people already signed up to do a course.

“Then you’re going to change, their weekly courses to block, there will be too many timetable clashes for this to be marginally practical.”

Despite these early concerns being raised by staff, the university went ahead before backtracking amid a student outcry, said the staff member.

Bullying had been highlighted in a number of past surveys, but AUT had ignored them “so it isn’t coming out now, it’s been happening for quite a long time,” they said.

“You don’t get a working culture this impregnated with a bullying managerial style overnight. It takes a few years to develop.”

Accountability needed
The staff member said the only way AUT would ever change its culture would be to ensure some level of accountability.

“And the people that are at the top, that have been ignoring this for so long probably need to be stood down or replaced…”

“I would say that includes the vice-chancellor, I would say that includes a number of people in human resources that have ignored complaints, and I would also think that many of the deans would need to be looked at.”

In a statement released with the report, AUT Vice-Chancellor Derek McCormack said he and the university’s council accepted the findings.

“In response to these findings, on behalf of the university and personally, I want to apologise to all those past and present who have been subjected to bullying or other forms of harassment,” he said.

“As a university, we should have done better and my commitment as vice-chancellor is that we will do better starting today.”

‘Systemic problem’
AUT economics professor Rhema Vaithianathan, a spokesperson for Stop Sexual Harassment on Campus (SSHOC), said the report held no-one to account.

Dr Vaithianathan said there were women at the university at the moment feeling bullied because of harassment complaints they had tried to prosecute in the past.

“So this ‘lets move on, it’s a new day, it’s a new system’ doesn’t wash when people feel like they haven’t had justice.

“People who right now, today, feel they haven’t had justice first need to have justice, and then we can move on to a more just system.”

The report said badly-performing staff were moved to other roles, promoted or “moved sideways” rather than the university tackling their problems.

“The fact that eight people have left is no comfort to us because we represent all universities in the country and we feel that the solution cannot lie in individual universities getting rid of people,” Vaithianathan said.

“I do think there is a systemic problem.”

A national independent body commissioned to hear complaints, both from university students and staff, document them and follow up on those, was sorely needed, she said.

RNZ has approached AUT for further comment.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Bougainville’s retiring president says some candidates are bullying or offering inducements to buy their way into the new parliament.

John Momis first raised his concerns while speaking during Papua New Guinea’s 45th anniversary celebrations on Wednesday.

Momis praised the success of PNG’s constitution, and contrasted this with the way some in Bougainville were flouting the Bougainville constitution.

He said these people were not respecting the rule of law which was the essence of democracy.

Momis said some candidates had used a variety of tactics, including money inducements, to frighten people into submission.

“Because, I guess, because we have a very weak police, rule of law is a very real problem in Bougainville,” he said.

“Especially this year when you don’t have international observers here for the elections, it’s quite clear that some people were more or less forcing people to vote for them, or using all types of propaganda to get people, to scare them into submission.”

Momis, who is due to finish his 10 years as Bougainville’s president in the coming week, said some parties, including his own, were preparing demands for vote recounts.

The election count was this week extended by nine days with the Electoral Commissioner, George Manu, saying there were about 30 percent more voters and candidates than in the last poll.

Manu hoped to finish the count on Tuesday or Wednesday, with the writs to be returned to the Speaker next week on September 24.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Philip Cass

Tonga’s tourist authorities will wipe the former Miss Heilala, Kalo Funganitao, from the records in retaliation for her speech at this year’s crowning ceremony.

The committee’s decision comes a day after the Heilala Festival Committee and the Tonga Tourist Association issued a statement acknowledging Funganitao’s work in promoting Tonga during the past year.

Funganitao spoke out during the crowning ceremony about how she had been bullied since being crowned and what she said was the lack of support over the issue.

READ MORE: Anger as Tongan beauty queen’s bullying claim speech disrupted

As Kaniva News reported earlier this week, the committee said they did not condone any form of bullying.

The Tonga Tourist Association Executive Committee said yesterday Funganitao had not fulfilled the requirements of her position and all records of her reign would be removed.

“It is regrettable that as an ambassador of Tonga Miss Funganitao has not fulfilled her duties and obligations,” the committee said in a statement.

“She failed to properly hand over her reign to the newly chosen Miss Heilala 2019-2020. “

The committee said Miss Funganitao voluntarily gave up her crown and sash when she placed them on the podium and walked off the stage during the final night of the competition.

She did not crown her successor on the night

“Due to the removal of Miss Funganitao as Miss Heilala 2018 – 2019 the committee has concluded that Miss Lupe Vete who was the first runner up of the Miss Heilala Pageant 2018 – 2019 competition be recognised as the Miss Heilala for 2018 – 2019 and all future records will reflect this.”

End pageants
Funganitao’s speech and the furore following it has become a global story, with The Guardian newspaper reporting yesterday:“Tonga is in uproar after its annual beauty pageant was marred by accusations of bullying, backstabbing and racism, prompting calls by women’s rights leaders for the pageant industry to be abandoned altogether.”

Co-ordinator of Tonga’ Ma’a Fafine Moe Famili, Betty Blake, told Radio New Zealand the event should be reviewed.

She said it highlighted a wider issue with people in power trying to cope with young women.

“There’s a power struggle and there’s a cry from this young woman to be heard. I think beauty pageants have had their day.”

Philip Cass is an editorial adviser for Kaniva Tonga and a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The survey, from November last year, says that only 13 per cent of New Zealanders ‘would speak highly of Parliament’ and only 7 per cent ‘would speak highly of MPs’. Furthermore, only 27 per cent of the public say they trust Parliament. For plenty of other statistics about how poorly the country thinks of our foremost democratic institution, see: Survey of the New Zealand public.

The point is that the public generally has a very negative attitude to Parliament, being aware of the toxicity of how politics operates in this country. And today’s bullying report, authored by Debbie Francis, is only going to reinforce the belief that there is a major problem, particularly with MP behaviour.

The report emphasises this bad behaviour is a serious problem for democracy. It points out: “Many of those who contributed to this Review drew a direct link between the culture and behaviours within the parliamentary workplace and the healthy and productive functioning of New Zealand’s democracy during a time of great challenge.”

One parliamentary staff member is quoted about the lack of political leadership: “Never has there been a moment in history when we most needed our leaders to engage constructively on the existential and profoundly complex issues that threaten the planet – climate change, nativism and economic inequality being just a few.” You can read the whole report here: Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace.

Overall, a particularly ugly picture is painted, and this is best reported on by Andrea Vance – the journalist who has followed this topic more closely than any other – see: Parliament a toxic workplace with systematic bullying problem – Francis Review. She reports, “Parliament is a toxic workplace with a systematic bullying and harassment problem, a sweeping new review has confirmed.”

MPs come out of the report very badly. For example, the review reports the view of staff that MPs are “treated like gods” with a “master servant relationship”. Debbie Francis “described hearing about unreasonably aggressive behaviour, language or gestures, that staff found intimidating and threatening. There was frequent shouting, abusive calls or texts, character assassination – like one staffer who was ‘constantly’ told they were stupid.”

Lucy Bennett has also summed up some of the statistics from the report describing the life of parliamentary staff: “Of the more than 1000 respondents, 29 per cent had experienced some form of bullying or harassment from either an MP or a manager, 30 per cent from peers and 24 per cent from a member of the public. Some 56 per cent had experienced destructive gossip, 47 per cent demeaning language, 53 per cent a lack of co-operation and support and 41 per cent aggressive behaviour” – see: Francis review into harmful behaviour in Parliament released.

There was a particularly gendered nature to a lot of the harassment. Bennett reports: “Sexist behaviour was prevalent, Francis found, with 60 per cent of those interviewed saying they had experienced offensive remarks, comments, jokes and gestures that were sexist. Some 35 per cent had experienced the same but of a sexual nature. The report also said that sexual harassment and sexual violence were likely to be under-reported.”

There are plenty of examples in the report of bad behaviour by politicians. For example, Anna Whyte reports the view of one staffer: “This workplace is so ridiculously demanding that only 24-year-olds and older people can survive in here and then only with self-medication. Anyone sane or with a family just gets out” – see: Bullying and harassment widespread in Parliament, report finds.

Of course, it’s hard to know how representative such examples are. But Whyte also quotes Debbie Francis saying she was not “cherry picking stories about a bad day or an off-coloured joke.” Instead, there was a clear picture “of a small number of Members whose behaviours fall well outside the normal range to be expected in a workplace”.

A number of MPs are apparently identified – but not named – in the report as being particularly toxic to work with. These MPs are apparently well-known within Parliament, with one staffer saying: “Everyone will give you the same list. It’s well known but there’s a conspiracy of silence about these few.” Likewise, another staffer said: “The few who are various shades of shits… and everybody knows who they are, and no-one every challenges them… at least obviously or effectively.”

All political parties and all MPs will now be looked at with suspicion. “How well do you treat your staff?” might very well be asked of all MPs. This report certainly doesn’t give clearance to any MPs, but instead says that some of them are very bad. Which ones will now be speculated on.

The staff involved have also been given anonymity in the report. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t going to see any current or former parliamentary staff standing up publicly to condemn behaviours or even particular politicians or parties.

On Twitter, a number of former staffers have posted to give their support for the report – for example, two former Green Party workers. Jack McDonald (@tautokai) has tweeted: “As a former parliamentary staffer for four years and my team’s staff rep on our management committee, this absolutely aligns with my experiences. Parliament is a toxic place for staffers to work and I’m so glad to no longer be there.”

And Asher Wilson-Goldman (@AsherGoldman): “As a former parliamentary staffer and union delegate for parliamentary staff (though I left just before the scope of this review began) I’m really glad this stuff is out in the open now. Looking forward to reading the recommendations.”

Finally, one of the most interesting commentaries on the report comes from blogger No Right Turn, who is particularly unimpressed that the badly-behaving MPs are not being outed: “The report of course refuses to name those MPs, meaning that the independent reviewer is effectively part of this conspiracy of silence as well. Which is not acceptable. Naming names is the first step towards accountability, and that needs to happen if anything is to change” – see: A toxic workplace.

And he has a theory about what might be contributing to the toxic nature of parliamentary working conditions: “it’s worth noting that both of the publicly-identified parliamentary bullies (Jami-Lee Ross and Meka Whaitiri) previously served as member-support staff, meaning their bullying behaviour may have been institutionalised into them. Its rather like intergenerational child-abuse: today’s abusive MP’s were normalised to abusive habits by their past exposure to a toxic, abusive institution.”

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Advocacy groups have called on children and young people to defeat the “ultimate supervillain” – silence – to help end violence in and around schools.

The Holy Trinity Primary School students’ superheroes will be entered in this global competition organised by UNICEF and Comics Uniting Nations.

During the workshop at Holy Trinity Primary School, UNICEF Pacific ambassador Pita Taufatofua said: “Every child in Fiji, in the Pacific islands and throughout the world, has the right to go to school and feel safe.

“Superhero” Love Walker. Image: UNICEF

“Let’s talk about the kind of superpowers that your superhero might have that will help every child feel safe in school.”

The students also had the chance to work with Tui Ledua, from Kanalevu Animation and Illustration.

“How will we create a superhero to prevent bullying?” Ledua told the students.

-Partners-

He responded to the students’ ideas on the characteristics his superhero should have and brought this character to life right in front of their eyes, a superhero complete with a sasa broom to be used as a magic wand to create a peaceful world.

Silencing children
Silence is a supernatural character that uses its powers to stop children from speaking up and taking action against violence in and around schools.

Children and young people aged 25 years and under have been invited to design their own comic superhero that will defeat Silence and help keep children safe in school.

UNICEF Pacific representative Sheldon Yett said: “From fighting and bullying to sexual harassment and corporal punishment, violence in and around schools can have devastating, long-term consequences for children.”

The Silence superhero comic contest will encourage children and young people in
Fiji and around the world to be part of UNICEF’s global campaign to shed light on and spark action to #ENDviolence in schools through the creative medium of comic design.

The top submissions in the contest will be chosen after the closing date on October 25 by a special panel of judges, including comic artist Gabriel Picolo and last year’s comic contest winner Sathviga “Sona” Sridhar.

The public will then have the opportunity to vote online for their favourite comic hero between November 16 and 25.

The winner will be announced in December and will work with a professional team to turn their winning idea into a full-length comic book. Their comic will be presented to World Leaders at the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development at the United Nations in July 2019, as well as distributed to schools and children worldwide.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz