Paul and Selwyn will deep dive into the battle to control a narrative, waged by all sides in a polarised combative world, and how modern mainstream media institutions, like Radio New Zealand, fall vulnerable in the absence of robust all-sides-considered analysis and debate.

In this episode, Paul and Selwyn will analyse how fourth Estate bias, propaganda, and conflict-force fact-vacuums are the challenge of our times in this disinformation age.

Upon this context, Paul and Selwyn will consider:

* Why Is the Radio New Zealand sub-editor pro-RU-content debacle symptomatic of a fact-vacuum environment?

* Why is all media vulnerable to disinformation in the absence of robust NATO-Ukraine-Russia analysis?

* What are the unspoken of ‘big picture’ shifts in Russian Federation / Global South relations?

LINKS and REFERENCES:

• https://KiwiPolitico.com
• https://www.dekoder.org/de/person/ekaterina-schulmann-0
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/media/180
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/news-extras/story/2018893905/rnz-editorial-audit
• https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/491788/nz-entering-ukraine-conflict-at-whim-of-govt-former-labour-general-secretary
• https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/02/25/russia-ends-nowhere-they-say
• https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-russian-elites-think-putins-war-is-doomed-to-fail

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: 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.

It would not be surprising if this faith is slightly eroded as a result of the fiasco over how Treasury handled the so-called Budget “hack” – when the Police were called in, and a panic started over the notion that New Zealand government agencies might be losing a war in a serious and criminal cyber-attack. The whole episode was bewildering.

The release of the report from the official investigation was supposed to resolve the issue. It was hoped that it would clarify, once and for all, the disturbing question of whether the senior public servant earning about $670,000/year had been incompetent or whether he had misled the public. And it was supposed to lead to some sort of closure, allowing the public to feel that accountability had been achieved.

However, the report released on Thursday – a day that was notable for being both Gabriel Makhlouf’s last day of work and also the time that a Cabinet reshuffle announcement was expected – was less than clear in its outcome.

On the one hand, the report clearly identifies that Makhlouf erred, providing numerous criticisms of how he handled the situation. The public record now shows that the Treasury boss acted “unreasonably” in coming out with alarmist and inaccurate explanations for how Budget secrets had come into the Opposition’s hands.

For the best news coverage on this, see Derek Cheng’s Gabriel Makhlouf responds: ‘My honesty and integrity are not in question’. This discusses the State Services Commission (SSC) report on the whole scandal, and details how the Treasury was actually well aware that the Budget leak had probably come from their own website, and that Makhlouf was informed of this before he went nuclear with his inflammatory public statements.

This article also makes it clear that the SSC boss Peter Hughes is completely condemning of Makhlouf’s actions. Hughes is reported saying, “It was a clumsy response to a serious issue and is not what I expect of an experienced chief executive.”

Hughes also told journalists that he had high expectations of government department bosses: “When things go wrong, I don’t want ducking, diving, running for cover, spinning. I want people to stand up, own it, fix it, learn from it and be accountable.”

However, the main problem is that the SSC has chosen not to take the issue further. No sanction or penalty was imposed on Makhlouf. This lack of reprimand is discussed by Newsroom’s Sam Sachdeva who asks “why don’t the State Services Commissioner’s actions regarding Gabriel Makhlouf match that ethos” of high standards? – see: Makhlouf falls short – so why the shortage of SSC action?. He concludes “While the SSC report is clear, it is the response to those findings where it feels like Hughes has fallen short.”

Hughes explains that a formal reprimand of Makhlouf was out of the question because he was leaving his job anyhow. Hughes believes it would have only been symbolic, and therefore “meaningless and cynical”. To this, Sachdeva replies: “but it seems just as cynical to deliver a tongue lashing for inappropriate behaviour yet stop short of doing anything tangible to register that impropriety. Does failing to register an official caution now set a precedent for any SSC employees who find themselves in a similar situation?”

Herald political editor Audrey Young also takes issue with Makhlouf’s lack of leadership and his failure to take responsibility for what he’d done wrong. On reading the report, she says: “what is clear is that there were more than sufficient grounds for Makhlouf to have offered his resignation” – see: A case of good faith butt-covering by the head of Treasury (paywalled).

So why did the Treasury boss act so badly in this? Here’s Young’s explanation: “One is left to surmise that he believed admissions of failure and responsibility might impact on his new job than protestations that he acted in good faith at all times. It appears a clear case of good faith butt-covering”. And she takes issue with the report describing Makhlouf as having acted in “good faith”, suggesting this could simply mean that he was acting “sincerely” out of self-interest.

The most scathing critique of the scandal comes from veteran political journalist John Armstrong who suggests that the New Zealand public service now has an accountability problem: “So just where exactly does the buck now stop in the separate, but interconnected worlds of politics and the public service? If your regard for accountability is as similarly bankrupt as seems to have been the case with Gabriel Makhlouf, the now (thankfully) former boss of the Treasury, then the answer is that the buck never stops at your door” – see: Gabriel Makhlouf’s refusal to resign over ‘Budget hack’ saga sets a truly awful example.

Armstrong describes Makhlouf’s actions over the whole episode as panicking, wreaking havoc, “bungling and blundering”, and resulting in a “spectacular gaffe” which has overshadowed everything else in his career. Armstrong says what he did was “inexcusable”.

Makhlouf did put out a statement on the same day as the report was published, in which he showed scant contrition, instead suggesting exoneration. On this, Armstrong is highly critical: “Makhlouf’s parting gesture was to instead issue a brief statement in which he belatedly apologised ‘that Budget information was not kept secure’. That offering was very carefully worded. It might have been an apology. It was not an acceptance of responsibility.”

Armstrong’s problem isn’t just with Makhlouf, but with the SSC – the government agency tasked with ensuring the integrity of the public service. He concludes his piece by saying: “Faced with Makhlouf’s refusal to be accountable for the mess, Hughes should have fired him. Failing that, Hughes should have formally reprimanded Makhlouf. The State Services Commissioner acknowledged the inherent symbolism of such a reprimand. His decision not to issue one is just plain wrong.”

Long-time critic of public service standards, economist Michael Reddell, has been outraged by how the SSC has handled the scandal. Reddell focuses on why no one else in Treasury or in the SSC were apparently helping Makhlouf and preventing him making his endless mistakes: “it was Makhlouf’s job to lead the organisation above the embarrassment and to do the right thing. He simply didn’t do that, and no one else –  in his department or elsewhere in the public sector (the very top tier of public servants) – was willing or able to stop him. Where, for example, was his employer –  Peter Hughes” – see: The SSC on Makhlouf.

Reddell says “We – citizens – deserve much better. We deserve more answers from SSC themselves.” The answers don’t appear to be in the report. And he’s highly critical of Hughes for so publicly and effusively praising Makhlouf at his farewell party, just a week or so before the damning report was published.

According to Reddell, Hughes praised Makhlouf as “authentic and straight up” as well as being “calm and unflappable”. In Reddell’s view, “In no conceivable universe (except perhaps some parallel one inhabited by SSC) could Makhlouf during that Budget episode be said to have displayed ‘calm and unflappable’ leadership. Had he done so, there’d have been no inquiry. And the inquiry report demonstrates just how far from calm and unflappable Makhlouf’s conduct appears to have been, and how little ‘strong leadership’ and ‘personal integrity’ has been on display.”

In the end, according to Reddell, the SSC seems to have shown their tolerance for Makhlouf’s very poor performance. And there’s a suggestion that the close relationships between the top echelons have simply helped protect him: “What message does that send? That really severe misjudgement by one of the most senior public servants in the end doesn’t matter that much, cos’ he’s a good bloke?”

Of course, there was always a chance that the whole scandal would prevent Makhlouf from taking up his new job as the next governor of Ireland’s central bank, but Derek Cheng has confirmed that Gabriel Makhlouf’s job in Ireland appears to be safe.

Cheng also confirms that right up until the end, the top public servant has also refused to make himself accountable to the public via media interviews: “Makhlouf has repeatedly refused any interviews since May 29, the day before Budget day, and again refused interviews yesterday, his last day of work at the Treasury.”

Finally, Maklouf’s replacement has now been announced: Australian economist and academic Caralee McLiesh. Most, but not all, are impressed. Victoria University of Wellington’s Simon Chapple puts the argument against employing, once again, a non-New Zealander for this crucial role – see: Public sector pick carries disheartening message. And for a reply from one of Chapple’s colleagues, see Jeroen Van Der Heijden’s Treasury pick carries risk of tall poppy paradox.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

As a political commentator, I’ve never experienced anything like it – the phone calls and email requests for interviews from international media have been constant. Broadcasters and journalists all want to discuss the Christchurch terrorist attack and the aftermath. But mostly they want to discuss Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

There is a huge fascination with who she is, what she is about, and how she has managed the events following the attacks on Muslims in Christchurch two weeks ago. For example, yesterday, I spent two hours talking to a German journalist who had flown over here specifically to write a major profile on Ardern for readers in that country.

The strong consensus – both here and abroad – is that Ardern has demonstrated extraordinarily impressive leadership since the terrorist atrocities. Numerous commentaries have celebrated her emotional and empathetic response, combined with her strength and “steeliness” in taking decisive action on matters such as gun control and victim support, her correctness in labelling the murders as “terrorism”, and her ability to project and foster unity (when there is a tendency towards division, even from many of her own supporters).

Below are some of the more interesting articles published in response to Ardern’s handling of the terrorist attacks.

One of the first important international articles praising Ardern’s performance was by academic and Washington Post foreign affairs writer, Ishaan Tharoor – see: The world is watching New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern. In this, he outlined the Prime Minister’s previous progressive credentials, which had “burnished her image as a global feminist icon”, and painted her handling of the Christchurch situation as a continuation of this trend.

Also in the Washington Post, Anna Fifield has written a good overall account of the global reaction – see: New Zealand’s prime minister receives worldwide praise for her response to the mosque shootings.

Writing in India, Ahamad Fuwad puts together a list of seven reasons Ardern’s leadership since the atrocity has been a success – see: How to deal with tragedy: New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern sets an example for world leaders, emerges as liberal mascot.

Writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, Nick O’Malley and Deborah Snow labelled Ardern’s leadership as: A masterclass from New Zealand in responding to terror. They asserted Ardern’s achievements: “If there had been quiet criticism in some circles that she was an inexperienced leader with as much stardust as substance, that has now been put to rest. Ardern has been a commanding figure of poise, compassion and strength, a textbook example to other world leaders about how to respond in the face of mass casualty terrorist attacks.”

I’m quoted in this article, on the strategic nature of Ardern’s careful leadership: “Firstly, she seeks to ensure that the division the gunman sought to sow between New Zealand Muslims and the greater community does not take hold. Secondly, she wants to head off the potential for a culture war inside her country, with elements of the left seeking to identify racism in New Zealand society as the cause of the attack and sections of the right using it to impugn immigration or the Islamic community itself. Thirdly Ardern – no doubt on the advice of police and intelligence agencies – has security implications in mind… By positioning New Zealand itself as the victim of the attack as well as its Muslim community, and by demonstrating unity with that community, Ardern is intent on reducing the potential for revenge attacks.”

Writing on this last point, the Guardian’s Jonathan Powell praises Ardern, saying she has “almost single-handedly managed to avoid the attacks becoming a cause of further tit-for-tat violence around the world” – see: If Jacinda Ardern was in No 10, imagine how different Brexit would be.

Powell’s column compares Ardern and Theresa May, saying both are having “to lead as their countries confront one of the greatest man-made crises they have ever faced.” He imagines a scenario in which the countries have swapped leaders: “If the United Kingdom had been led by Ardern we might still have had Brexit, but we would not have ended up with this national humiliation, a divided society and an imperilled economy. If May had been prime minister of New Zealand at her robotic worst, God knows what would have happened after the massacres.”

Ardern’s very high level of emotional intelligence is cited by Powell as the key strength that has allowed her to triumph. And he explains the importance of this quality for leaders dealing with national tragedies: “That is the sort of intelligence a leader needs. They must be able to understand what people feel and channel it, as Blair did at the time of Princess Diana’s death. Ardern managed that brilliantly in the way she expressed the grief of the people of New Zealand about the mass-murder in the mosques.”

Jamila Rizvi, the editor of Future Women magazine discusses whether Ardern’s “typically feminine behaviour” has served her and New Zealand so well – see: Jacinda Ardern just proved typically ‘feminine’ behaviour is powerful.

Rizvi suggests that Ardern is leading in a very different way to her counterparts, throwing away the “traditional script for a world leader reacting to a terrorist attack on home soil”, which is normally about “power and retribution”. As well as pointing out that Ardern has focused on the victims instead of the perpetrator, and put her energy into fostering unity rather than division, she says Ardern is outwardly-focused, rather than trying to get people to concentrate on her: “Instead, she listens. She comforts not by instruction but by making space for the thoughts and feelings of others.”

And politicians everywhere, male and female, could learn from this: “Authenticity and compassion go beyond gender, or race, or religion, or next week’s polling numbers. Authenticity is an atheist leader donning hijab without thinking about the ‘optics’, but simply because it’s the right and respectful thing to do.”

This leads onto perhaps one of the best international pieces about Ardern’s leadership – Rosa Silverman’s Ardern shows the leadership the world has been missing.

First, Silverman outlines how she sees Ardern’s leadership over this period: “infused with emotional intelligence and warmth, she has thrown her arms around a grieving nation and is visibly striving, with every fibre of her being, to heal its still open wounds. This is what leadership looks like. Sometimes you have to see it up close to understand what it is you have been missing. Ardern has walked hand-in-hand with those affected by the horror – literally, but also figuratively. She has pressed her face against theirs, presenting to the world the most powerful image of unity we could hope a politician might give.”

Silverman also contrasts the New Zealand Prime Minister with Theresa May: “When Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, was confronted with a moment like this – the death of 72 people in the Grenfell Tower fire of June 2017 – her response was precisely the opposite: cold, stilted, detached. She projected none of Ardern’s conviction. She did not even meet with survivors the first time she visited the site. Here was a situation crying out for leadership, which our leader was ill-equipped to offer.”

Other world leaders are also being unfavourably compared to Ardern. The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore said “We have seen the qualities that define leadership in such a way that it is clear she is a lioness and that to call so many of our current leaders donkeys is a disservice to hardworking donkeys the world over” – see: Jacinda Ardern is showing the world what real leadership is: sympathy, love and integrity.

As with many such international pieces, this article seized on Ardern’s smackdown of US President Donald Trump: “Asked directly whether she agreed with Donald Trump that rightwing terrorism was not growing, she answered clearly: ‘No.’ How could the US help? ‘Sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.’ Sympathy and love, what kind of leader talks like that in a world where to be tough is to build walls and imprison children or, on our own shores, elevate intransigence and prevarication to new heights?”

In the international media, Ardern is once again being positioned as the “anti-Trump”, and the Financial Times’ Jamie Smyth elaborates on this saying her recent leadership has “cemented her reputation globally as a standard bearer for progressive politics” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s ‘solace and steel’ seen uniting New Zealand.

This article also emphasises that she “confounded domestic critics by displaying a toughness that some doubted she had, publicly criticising Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan for attempting to exploit the attacks ahead of the country’s upcoming election.”

All of these actions and words have led to many suggestions that Ardern should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. For the best discussion of this, see Stephanie Mitchell’s International petition pushes for Jacinda Ardern to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s no doubt that Ardern’s moral mandate and authority has been enhanced in the last two weeks. Even critics and opponents have been full of praise for her. See, for example, 1News’ Judith Collins praises Jacinda Ardern’s handling of Christchurch attack, showing respect by wearing headscarf.

Rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton has expressed his huge admiration for Ardern’s performance and has even compared her to his own political heroes: “For the Prime Minister, it is as if all her past life has been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. In the last week Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated the empathy of Ronald Reagan after the Challenger disaster and the steely resolve of Margaret Thatcher after the Brighton hotel bombing. Consequently, New Zealand will heal faster than it may have otherwise” – see: After Christchurch, Ardern’s moment has come.

As a result, he says, “the political context has changed. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to use her new-found ascendancy to act decisively across a range of issues. If she really believes in a CGT, for example, she can now be more assertive in demanding Winston Peters fall into line. Similarly, she need no longer defend failing programmes like KiwiBuild but has more freedom to replace them.”

This doesn’t mean that there are no criticisms of Ardern at all, and some are now starting to emerge, as reported by Tracy Watkins in her column, Will Jacinda Ardern keep her ‘halo’ once domestic realities resume?

This mainly covers a column this week in The Australian newspaper, in which economist Judith Sloan criticises the “deification” of the New Zealand prime minister while “selectively” ignoring failures of leadership – such as allowing only a relatively small increase in refugees, and very little progress on the flagship KiwiBuild housing programme. You can see Sloan’s critique of Ardern here: Remove the halo and Ardern is ordinary.

Watkins herself notes that such questions “will only get louder” and politics will return to usual for Ardern: “Once the realities of domestic politics intrude – and they have already, after a week-long political truce – those expectations may run far ahead of what Ardern can realistically deliver.”

Finally, there has been one particular photograph of Jacinda Ardern that has stood out in the aftermath of the Christchurch atrocities – a poignant image of a sorrowful leader in mourning behind coloured-glass. The story behind the image is also very interesting – see Glen McConnell’s Face of empathy: Jacinda Ardern photo resonates with the world after terror attack.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Jacinda Ardern has led the way in how she’s responded to the Christchurch terrorist atrocity. The prime minister has emphasised the need to come together and to not allow the actions of a terrorist to divide New Zealand any further. She has laid the blame for Friday’s massacre firmly at the feet of the perpetrator, rejecting the idea that his beliefs are representative of New Zealanders (while at the same time signalling to people in this country that as a society we must question and challenge attitudes and structures that contribute to intolerance and hatred).

Ardern has won praise from across the political spectrum for her measured, compassionate approach. Others have not been so conciliatory, and the search for answers as to why the attack took place will be a difficult process, with many causes being singled out for blame.

My column on Tuesday dealt with the question of whether our political leaders have, in some part, played a role in increasing hate or intolerance – see: Politicians’ words under scrutiny after Christchurch terror attacks. Similarly, Hamish Rutherford addressed this issue in his article, Mainstream political policy may offer a home for racist views. And in Parliament yesterday Green MP Golriz Ghahraman challenged her fellow parliamentarians over having “fanned the flames of division” in the past.

There is a danger in going too carelessly down this path, however. In fact, caution is advisable. If the blame-game becomes too toxic then, not only will it become counterproductive to the search for answers, but it will poison New Zealand politics and society (something the terrorist seemed very keen to do). Knee-jerk levelling of blame has the potential to be divisive, precisely at a time when unity and harmony is required (and mostly being achieved).

In two now notorious examples of finger-pointing internationally, Australian senator Fraser Anning blamed the terrorist attacks on Muslims themselves, while in the US Chelsea Clinton copped the blame due to a recent statement she made opposing antisemitism.

At home, targets for blame have ranged from politicians, intelligence services, rightwing and leftwing commentators (everyone from Mike Hosking to Chris Trotter), free-speech advocates, firearm sellers, social media and the prejudice of the New Zealand public, but rarely is evidence offered to support the contention of culpability for this atrocity.

Debates over all of these issues, and many more, need to be had. We need answers for why this attack took place. And we must address the fact that racism and religious intolerance is a daily reality in New Zealand.

But caution is also needed. It’s worth taking heed of the warning issued by Kenan Malik, one of Britain’s leading leftwing public intellectuals, who wrote immediately in the wake of the Christchurch attacks that “the dead deserve better” than a rush into “name-calling and invective” – see his short Guardian column, Do not let raw anger cloud our judgment after Christchurch.

Malik argues that debate and examination is absolutely necessary: “The issues raised by the barbarous terror are many and urgent – the rise of the far right and how to combat it; how mainstream commentators talk of Muslims and immigration and whiteness; the boundaries of free speech; the regulation of social media. And so on. I will no doubt have my say on these issues in the coming days.”

However, this does not seem to be occurring in a healthy, productive manner: “What has been depressing, though, has been the way that much of the discussion has degenerated into name-calling and invective. The dead of Christchurch have seemingly become a stage on which every contemporary debate from Brexit to the politics of identity is played out. The rawness of anger inevitably clouds judgment.”

He concludes by saying, “To say that the dead deserve better is to say that we should be better in the way we engage with the living, with each other. And we should.”

Another British commentator, Maajid Nawaz, who is a Muslim and a former parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats, writes in even stronger terms that “Radical Islamists and radical leftists have seized on the Christchurch tragedy to push their own hateful agendas” – see his column from The Times newspaper: The New Zealand mosque massacre blame game is out of control.

Nawaz argues that this type of politicisation risks falling into the “trap” that the terrorist set to create division, chaos, and to pit the political left against the political right. He also fears the blame-game will lead to a shutting down of debate.

Nawaz is worth reading at length: “In my youth, as an angry 15-year-old Muslim witnessing the Bosnia genocide, I once succumbed to this temptation and promoted extreme Islamism myself for a few years. I know what giving in to hate feels like, and I know the lasting damage it can cause. But that is exactly the reaction that extremists want, and exactly why it must be resisted with all our might. So it is with no surprise that I noticed, a mere day after 50 of my fellow Muslims were so publicly and tragically killed, while the blood was still wet and the bodies remained unburied, that the ideologues had circled like vultures. Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target.”

In another column, Nawaz argues, “Now is not the time to settle political scores. Now is the time to reflect, reach out and respond with mercy from a position of moral authority” – see: New Zealand shootings: Muslims are fearful and hurting but we must not give in to hate.

Also in Britain, Claire Fox has written that “One of the most distasteful aspects of this was the casual way that within hours of the outrage, various conservative commentators were being openly named as indirectly responsible for the New Zealand massacre” – see her column in The Telegraph: Why I am so disturbed by how the Christchurch massacre is being used for political point-scoring (paywalled).

Fox says that there’s nothing wrong with debate and analysis, but this should not be motivated by pre-existing political agendas: “Don’t get me wrong: I don’t expect a moratorium on politics as we mourn. I am political and appreciate that we want to make sense of what seems such a senseless act, especially as the killer himself framed his actions in a rambling ‘political manifesto’. But a rush to use the event to push one’s own political agenda surely displays bad faith.”

After condemning the “white supremacism” behind the terrorism as well as “scaremongering about refugees” and other xenophobic ills, Fox implores that our responses don’t just lead to the suppression of debate and ideas: “I also hate the tendency to use a massacre to slander opponents or demand particular opinions are censored. Whatever comes from the New Zealand atrocity, we should be better than that. After all, the underlying message of the terrorist was that he intended to fracture political debate and divide opinion to cause a toxic virus of hostility. Let’s make sure he doesn’t succeed.”

Similar points are made by Brendan O’Neill at the Spiked-Online website. He himself points the finger at various political commentators and activists: “The blame game they’ve been playing in the aftermath of the racist mass murder in New Zealand has been ghoulish and deeply disturbing. The bodies of the 50 murdered Muslims were barely cold before various observers, activists and leftists were naming and shaming those people who they think ‘laid the ground’ for this atrocity. And it apparently includes everyone from alt-right agitators to any mainstream newspaper columnist who has raised so much as a peep of criticism about radical Islam” – see: New Zealand’s ghoulish opportunists.

Writing for The Australian, columnist Janet Albrechtsen suggested that Fraser Anning was far from the only political actor exploiting the tragedy for their own “narrow-minded, illiberal political agendas” – see: Be wary of blame and let’s not shut down debate (paywalled).

Albrechtsen argued that rightwing voices were being unfairly targeted, and political freedoms threatened: “Those playing blame games with politics are trying to paint as mainstream what happens on the fringes of politics. That attempt to tar the centre-Right with the lunacy of the far-Right is wicked, politically driven and wrong in fact. Working in reverse, the blame-gamers are also trying to present entirely legitimate debates about immigration, integration, the self-evident clash of cultures and the rise of political Islam as fringe discussions that must be shut down. The day after terrorist attacks in Christchurch, an editor at The Saturday Paper called for laws to ‘penalise media outlets, and figures that consistently promote fear and hatred’ and ‘robust laws against the spread of hate speech’.”

Here in New Zealand, Herald columnist Jon Stokes also observes that in the wake of the terrorist atrocity, “There is a move to shut down the voices and ideas of others, to try to homogenise ideas and perspectives” – see: Ideas should be challenged not shut down.

Stokes argues against suppressing too much of the information about the terrorist event and even the terrorist himself, and he also says that we need wider and healthier political debate in general: “The evil unleashed on Friday, March 15 showed me that those silenced or suppressed voices will always find a home, and an outlet to ensure they are heard. The way forward is light, not darkness, it is away with anonymity and facelessness. It is a time of ownership of our ideas and views, and embracing tolerance and understanding.”

Writing today, Karl du Fresne finds it difficult to reconcile two very different narratives that have emerged about New Zealand and the terrorist attacks. On the one hand “New Zealand reacted with a genuine and overwhelming outpouring of shock, grief and anguish”, but according to an “alternative narrative, we are a hateful nation of racists, white supremacists and Islamophobes” – see: Some would paint us as a nation of hateful racists – that’s not the real NZ.

Certainly, there are politicians and activists elsewhere who will attempt to paint a picture of hate in New Zealand for their own ends – something we are seeing in Turkey at the moment.

In this regard, it’s worth reading the views of Massey University’s Rouben Azizian, who is a professor in the Centre of Defence and Security Study: “It is very dangerous when they use this rhetoric of us against them and them against us. They have to be very careful because they can indeed incite the feelings of a clash of civilisations, when this is a clash involving one idiot, a crazy, brainwashed person against innocent Muslim people” – see Rob Mitchell’s Christchurch shooting: Erdogan comments endanger bond built on blood and battle.

Finally, there’s a case to be made that finger-pointing is almost entirely redundant given that there was a sole terrorist involved, and he was “not one of us”, echoing Jacinda Ardern’s “This is not us” refrain. The case is put by Chris Trotter, who says “What happened at the Linwood and Al Noor mosques was horrific, but it wasn’t our doing. As we begin the long journey towards recovery, it is vitally important that we keep that fact squarely before us. New Zealand is a good place. New Zealanders are good people. We are not responsible for Brenton Tarrant’s dreadful crime. This is not us” – see: What Happened Here?

Debate about the role of corporate lobbying in New Zealand’s political process continues in 2019. Political commentator and newly-declared lobbyist Mike Williams was at the centre of a minor dispute over the influence of lobbyists in New Zealand last week.

The debate arose out of story on RNZ’s Checkpoint about the battle over Lime scooters on the streets of Auckland, in which it was revealed that Williams, who is a former Labour Party president, now mostly known as a political commentator, had been hired by the US-scooter company to help negotiate with the New Zealand politicians and officials regulating transport issues in this country. You can see this here: Lime told to prove safety of e-scooters, or remove them.

According to RNZ, “former Labour Party president and lobbyist Mike Williams had smoothed the way for the Lime roll out. Mr Williams confirmed to Checkpoint that he was paid by Lime to introduce their representatives to Auckland Transport staff and another key contact – Transport Minister Phil Twyford.” The chair of the Auckland Transport Agency, Lester Levy, is interviewed about this, responding that “I’m quite uncomfortable with many aspects of this”.

Subsequently, the Herald’s Chris Keall asked for comment on Williams lobbying role, and I responded that it should “alarm anyone with an interest in defending democracy and good political processes in New Zealand” – see: Mike Williams’ lobbying work for Lime alarming: academic.

My argument is this: “It seems that Williams has many different roles in New Zealand politics, and we now know that one of these roles involves working for corporate interests – and that company has clearly benefitted from Williams’ insider knowledge and contacts, which it now appears he is using to make money out of”.

I outline how this type of activity is seriously frowned upon in other parts of the world, as unfair and bad for the political process: “In many democracies, they call this the ‘revolving door’ of influence – whereby political insiders shift easily between government jobs or positions and lobbying work in the private sector. It’s seen to cause serious inequalities of power – because lobbyists and their clients are able to get more influence and power due to their connections and backgrounds. They can easily get ‘behind the scenes’ in ways that ordinary people can’t.”

On Thursday Newstalk ZB broadcaster Mike Hosking responded in one of his “Mike’s minute” videos, colourfully suggesting that I was over-reacting: “settle down Bryce, you sound like you have a sieve on your head, and you think the aliens are coming” – see: Supposed conflicts of interest in the limelight.

Hosking argues that New Zealand is “one of the most clean, clear, and uncorrupted economies in the world” and that “What we really need to be worried about is the quality of decision-making. No matter who rings who, who sets up meetings with whoever, the real issue is: are the decisions good, honest and sensible?”

For Hosking, arguments over conflicts of interest are too esoteric, and we must accept there will always be powerful political players shifting between roles: “Bryce has been reading too many conspiracy theories, he’s too wrapped up in the cloistered world of academia, and its many weird and wonder fantastical theories about how life is supposed to be operating versus how it really operates. There are Mike Williams type figures all over business and politics – and always have been. Politicians who go to the private sector, do they have a conflict of interest? Former prime ministers on boards, from Jim Bolger, to Sir Michael Cullen, to Dame Jenny Shipley, to Sir John Key – do they have a conflict of interest?  Former government press secretaries who move into the corporate world with their contacts and knowledge – do they have a conflict of interest?”

Well, yes, they do have potential conflicts of interests, actually. And I’ve written extensively about problems with former politicians, political commentators and journalists being involved in lobbying. Columns over the last year include: Vested interests in political commentary, The Government’s revolving door for lobbyists, Unfettered lobbyists under suspicion, and The stealthy power of lobbying in New Zealand.

One of the main points of these columns is how conflicts of interest are not fleeting, but enduring – just because an individual leaves one position of influence before going onto another doesn’t mean that conflicts of interest suddenly dissolve. And, furthermore, the lobbying problems can be worse when they involve opinion leaders in the media, and especially if these aren’t thoroughly declared.

Of course, Hosking is no stranger to complaints about conflicts of interest, and it’s likely this has influenced his view on lobbying. Back in 2012 Hosking was revealed to have received $48,000 from Auckland’s SkyCity Casino, during which time he wrote articles defending the company. And in 2013 he was the master of ceremonies for Prime Minister John Key’s state of the nation speech, which he strongly endorsed.

Hosking’s 2019 views on lobbying are reminiscent of those expressed last year by the Herald’s John Roughan in the wake of the controversy over then-Broadcasting Minister Clare Curran holding an undeclared and inappropriate meeting with RNZ’s Carol Hirschfeld, both of whom lost their jobs over the matter because of concerns about political process. Roughan responded to the controversy by declaring this an example of “intimate democracy” working well – see: Lobbying today oils the wheels of power for the better.

Roughan argues that politicians “in this country they are not corrupt” and the intimate working relationship of business, politicians and lobbyists “means people in powerful or influential roles get to know each other and can work with those whose professionalism, skills and judgment they respect”.

He argues that such an intimate and efficient democracy “could be undermined by” those arguing for “monastic purity”, especially “political academics who work in just such a rarefied environment, dealing with written research and theoretical propositions rather than people outside their bubble”. He worries that this “feeds the crude suspicion that any confidential meeting with a minister must be a conspiracy against the public interest.”

Roughan and Hosking’s worries about the public becoming suspicious of lobbyists is probably far too late. There is clearly a public discomfort building about inequality of power in politics, and about insiders having their fingers in too many pies.
Many countries (Australia, Canada, France, US, Denmark, Austria, France, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Taiwan and Hungary) have compulsory registers of lobbyists, while others (UK, Germany and the EU) have voluntary registers and are under pressure to make them compulsory. New Zealand simply has no formal mechanisms for transparency.

It doesn’t mean that the likes of Mike Williams can’t be both paid lobbyists and political commentators, but unless they declare these roles or are outed by other media, the public simply never knows. Do listeners know when they listen to Williams on RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon programme that he is also a corporate lobbyist? Would they benefit from knowing this and who he is lobbying on behalf of?

It’s the conflicts of interests we don’t find out about that are the bigger problem, and if he and RNZ won’t declare these sorts of interests, then New Zealand, like many other countries, needs to make sure that information is available.

Of course, there will always be political insiders who have crucial positions inside the democratic establishment, who then leverage their former positions, knowledge and contacts in the future as lobbyists. This shouldn’t necessarily be prevented. But some transparency wouldn’t go amiss. Knowing more about how central some lobbyist-commentators are to the political process is useful to understanding how modern democracy works.

It also worth noting that the politician who is responsible for providing lobbyists with free access to Parliament, Speaker Trevor Mallard, also climbed into the Mike Williams controversy a few days ago. Mallard, who is a former colleague of Williams, published a number of aggressive tweets defending Williams and strongly admonishing my position.

This earned a rebuke from Tau Henare that in his role as Speaker Mallard ought to stand above the fray. And the Herald’s Chris Keall, who wrote the original piece covering the controversy said: “Our of order, Mr Speaker. More transparency is always better. @bryce_edwards’ reference to a register of lobbying activity (as in the US and many other countries) will appeal to anyone who wants to know who’s greasing govt wheels for Lime, big pharma, Fonterra etc etc”.

Continued doubts about the role of lobby groups and corporates in the public process have been raised in a number of recent media articles. On Friday, for example, it was revealed that the New Zealand China Council, which is mostly funded by government departments, also receives resources from the national airline: “A lobby group focused on keeping New Zealand onside with China has received more than $1.5 million in taxpayer funding since 2016 and gets ‘travel funding’ from Air New Zealand to fly regularly to China” – see: John Anthony’s Air New Zealand gives handouts to taxpayer funded lobby group New Zealand China Council.

In terms of the current debate over capital gains tax proposals, there is also a suspicion that wealthy lobby groups have an unfair advantage in defeating the ideas – see Damien Venuto’s How lobby groups stole the capital gains tax debate.

In this article, Massey University public relations specialist Chris Galloway is quoted: “A problem with public relations more generally is that the people who can afford to pay for its services tend to be the business elite… Your average community group might use PR techniques but doesn’t have the money to pay for expert advice. The danger of it is that the people with the deepest pockets get the most say.”

There are ongoing suspicions, too, about the influence of “film heavyweight Sir Peter Jackson” on the political process. Last year Jackson managed to get the Government “to reject official advice recommending surging taxpayer support for the sector be curbed” – see Matt Nippert’s recent article: PM Jacinda Ardern canned film subsidy curbs after meeting Peter Jackson.

And a prominent lobby group has also been in the news because it’s partially funded by British American Tobacco: “A right-wing lobbying group which has railed against cigarette tax increases and plain packaging laws in New Zealand counts a tobacco giant among its corporate funders. The NZ Taxpayers’ Union has not disclosed its financial support from tobacco companies in its reports or press releases, with one public health academic calling on it to be more transparent about its donors” – see Sam Sachdeva’s Taxpayers’ Union backed by tobacco giant.

Sachdeva labels it an “egregious lack of transparency”, especially for an organisation whose motto is “lower taxes, less waste, more transparency” – see: Tobacco ties undermine Taxpayers’ Union. But he believes that the revelation will damage the organisation: “With the Taxpayers’ Union digging in over the secrecy of its donors, media and the public will struggle to take its work at face value when there could be industry money funding (at least in part) any piece of research. While only time will tell, its credibility may have suffered fatal damage.”

Earlier this year, the NBR ran a three-part series on lobbyists by journalist Nathan Smith, involving interviews with three leading participants in the industry. The most interesting was former Labour Party Chief of Staff, Neale Jones who now works as a lobbyist helping business deal with the Labour-led Government – see: Lobbying is a key ingredient in democracy, Hawker Britton says (paywalled). See my Political Roundup outlining the problems with Jones working at a very senior level in Labour one week and for a lobbying firm the next here: The rise of the hyper-partisan lobbyists in Wellington.

As to the “revolving door” issue of whether there needs to be a “cooling down” period for politicians and senior officials like Jones before they take up lobbying jobs in the private sector, Jones isn’t keen, because “people need to make a living and have jobs and, when you’ve worked in Parliament, there are only so many places you can work afterward.” The article comments that this is “because the status quo seems to be working for him”.

Overall, Jones speaks very favourably about the role of the lobbying business in democracy, and points out: “lobbying represents a crucial gear in the machinery of democracy as it improves access to lawmakers for those hoping to both keep them honest and offer their opinion on proposed regulations or legislation. The government doesn’t always understand business and business doesn’t always understand the government”. And the role is crucial, because “Often, a small change in legislation will have millions of dollars of impact on a business.”

According to another new lobbyist, Holly Bennett, who has shifted from working under the previous National Government to advising business interests, the power of her contacts are vital, and business shouldn’t “under-rate personal contact” with politicians. The article reports: “Bennett says without her time spent working in the Ministry of Justice and other ministerial services, she wouldn’t have the access to MPs her clients need” – see: Lobbying is about navigating a ‘vast bureaucracy,’ says Holly Bennett (paywalled).

Finally, for the latest academic research into lobbying and its regulation in New Zealand, see: Grease or sand in the wheels of democracy? The market for lobbying in New Zealand by Thomas Anderson and Simon Chapple of Victoria University of Wellington. They examine who currently is doing the lobbying, and conclude that there is a need “to shine a brighter light on a currently shadowy industry which has significant long-term potential to corrode the integrity of the democratic process.”

by Dr Bryce Edwards.

Jacinda Ardern has just arrived in Davos for the World Economic Forum, where she is promoting her Government’s “economics of kindness” approach to other world leaders and elites. Her message is in line with the fact that her Labour-led administration was elected on the basis of dealing with New Zealand’s severe inequality and associated social ills. 

It is early days, but stories and evidence continue to come out to suggest that little has changed under the new government and, for some, life may be getting worse. The latest is a report from Oxfam which paints an extreme picture of economic inequality in this country.

Here are the statistics on uneven wealth distribution in New Zealand:
• The top 5% has more wealth (45% of wealth) than the bottom 90% (42% of wealth)
• The top 10% of the population has more wealth (58% of wealth) than the bottom 90% (42% of wealth)
• The top 1% of the population has more wealth (26% of wealth) than the bottom 70% (18% of wealth)
• The top 1% of the population has 25% of all wealth in NZ

For more on this, see TVNZ’s report, Oxfam report shows rich Kiwis getting richer as poorest ‘miss out’. The article reports Oxfam’s Executive Director Rachael Le Mesurier on the ill social effects of this wealth inequality: “We know inequality is harmful for us all. It perpetuates poverty, erodes trust, fuels crime, makes us unhappy, negates economic growth, and robs opportunity from the poorest – including shortening their lives.”

Oxfam is calling on the Government to make “brave” changes to address this inequality. Le Mesurier is also reported by RNZ as believing “It was time the government stepped up and took action to reduce inequality in New Zealand” – see: The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer – new research. She claims: “There are a suite of tools that governments have that they can bring in place to reduce the size of this gap.”

The report also draws attention to those at the very top of the wealth scale – New Zealand’s two billionaires: “The research revealed that New Zealand’s two wealthiest men, Graeme Hart and Richard Chandler, increased their collective wealth by $1.1 billion between 2017 to 2018.” Apparently, “In that same period, the poorest 50 percent of New Zealanders saw their collective wealth decrease by $1.3b.”

But economist Eric Crampton is questioning the methodology of the report, suggesting that the supposed worsening of wealth inequality in the Oxfam report really just comes down to global currency movements. He says that, actually, the evidence “shows we all got poorer (and wealth inequality dropped), but that it’s mostly changes in exchange rates” – see: Oxfam – again.

Crampton – who heads the rightwing think tank, the New Zealand Initiative – complains about some of the media reporting of wealth statistics, and he suggests some alternative headlines, such as: “New Zealand is poorer (but it’s mostly currency movements)” and “All things considered, we’re pretty wealthy”.

Other signs of inequality

The Oxfam report isn’t the only evidence that paints a damning picture of the state of wealth distribution in New Zealand. Just before Christmas, Statistics New Zealand released its Household Net Worth survey, which also suggested worsening inequality. This suggested that over the last three years the wealthiest 20 percent of New Zealand households have increased their net worth by $394,000, while the bottom 40 percent has seen no increase in wealth at all.

For the best news coverage of this, see Zane Small and Jamie Ensor’s Inequality: New Zealand’s rich getting richer while poor remain static. The report quotes Statistics NZ labour market and households senior manager Jason Attewell saying “Household net worth in New Zealand is concentrated in the top 20 percent of Kiwi households surveyed in the past year. That group collectively holds about 70 percent of total household net worth”.

The report was also expertly analysed by inequality researcher Max Rashbrooke of Victoria University of Wellington, who compared the figures to other similar countries: “Our wealthiest individuals have a greater share of total assets than do their counterparts in Australia, Canada and even the UK, traditionally regarded as a country with deep class divisions. In the English-speaking world, only the US, where the wealthiest tenth have 79 percent of all assets, is significantly more unequal” – see: How can NZ close the gap between rich and poor?

Rashbrooke examines the myth that the wealthy have created their fortunes themselves: “much of their increase in wealth has come from rising property values – and sitting on an asset appreciating in value hardly counts as tough labour. To some extent those fortunes will have also been generated through luck, help from family and friends, and the use of collectively funded infrastructure such as schools, roads and broadband.”

And he concludes that, for the rest of us, “there is clearly something wrong with our economic settings when so many individuals, despite working hard, cannot build up a decent wealth stake.”

Other signs of poverty

There have been plenty of reports over the last month that suggest a crisis situation for those at the bottom of the wealth heap. For example, many charities have been reporting record demand for their services. See, for example, Mei Heron’s report, Salvation Army says this has been the toughest Christmas on record for Kiwi families.

Here’s the key part: “The Salvation Army says it has been the toughest Christmas on record for Kiwi families with almost 16,000 children needing emergency aid. Across New Zealand it has handed out more than 14,000 food parcels and other charities’ are experiencing similar increases for help.”

Last week, the Ministry of Social Development also declared that there has been record demand for emergency grants – see Derek Cheng’s Emergency grants skyrocket due to ‘housing crisis’ – Minister. Apparently, “Welfare payments for emergency housing have skyrocketed almost 200 per cent over the last year, while hardship payments for food have risen 38 per cent.”

Pressure on the Labour-led Government

Some commentators are viewing the revelations about inequality as a sign that the new Government is failing to prioritise their promises to fix this problem. According to leftwing blogger Steven Cowan: “The latest Oxfam report on economic inequality contradicts the Minister of Finance’s claim that we are all enjoying a sense of shared prosperity” – see: The Economy of the one percent.

Cowan also wonders if less attention is now being placed on shocking inequality figures due to the change of government: “The chattering class – the liberal intelligentsia – have also chosen not to talk about the Oxfam report. While they never hesitated to attack John Key and his government for its abysmal record on tackling poverty and inequality, Jacinda Ardern has largely escaped criticism. The hypocrisy is all too evident.”

Similarly, documentary-maker Bryan Bruce has drawn attention to news such as “In Canterbury the Central Mission report demand for food has gone up 44% since last year” and suggests that the Government is too complacent. The problem, he sees, is that the Finance Minister has an “approach to running the nation’s economy is barely distinguishable from that of Bill English or Michael Cullen” – see: Hunger is the measure of our Economy.

And the No Right Turn blogger also pressures the Government to make some radical changes to fix the problem: “New Zealand’s two richest men increased their wealth by only slightly less than was stolen from the poorest 50% of us. Which is exactly the sort of sh*t Labour was elected to put a stop to… So Labour, are you going to do this? Or is your entire pitch – government for the many, not the few – a lie?” – see: Time for redistribution.

However, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has responded to criticism about inequality to outline some of the progress already made by the Government: “An increase in income tax, GST, inheritance tax, changes to the taxation of the family home or the land under it and the adequacy of the personal tax system and its interaction with the transfer system were outside the scope of the review. The government was working hard to reduce poverty and inequality, having introduced a number of measures to lift incomes and living standards, such as the Families Package which lifted the incomes of more than 384,000 families by $75 a week, and a winter energy payment” – see Tom Hunt’s Tax more: Oxfam calls for wealth tax to tackle growing inequality.

Finally, why aren’t New Zealanders’ revolting about the state of economic inequality in this country? For an excellent discussion of this by Max Rashbrooke, see Debrin Foxcroft’s The French are rioting, but they have it better than Kiwis. The article also quotes veteran activist John Minto, who is optimistic about inequality revolts coming to New Zealand: “I think our time is coming… We are surrounded everywhere by market failure that’s not being expressed by National or Labour. A reservoir of anger is building up and when it goes it’s going to take everybody by surprise.”