Three Nouméa municipal policemen are now facing a prosecution after a disturbing video was posted in a Facebook neighbourhood watch group, allegedly implicating them in acts of severe violence against a Kanak man they had just arrested.

The municipal police officers are not part of the French security forces that have been sent to restore law and order, RNZ Pacific understands.

Initial investigations established that the violence took place on at 6th Kilometre, on the night of May 25-26, and that it “followed the arrest of several persons suspected of a theft attempt”, Nouméa Public Prosecutor Yves Dupas said in a statement yesterday.

The incident was captured in a brief video, later posted on social networks, being shared hundreds of times and going viral.

“It is the management of municipal police themselves who have signalled this to us”, Dupas said.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office said it had verified the authenticity of the short footage which depicted a “representative of the security forces striking a violent foot kick to the head of a person sitting on the ground after he was arrested”.

On the same video, the other two officers, all equipped with riot gear, are seen to be standing by, surrounding the victim.

Dupas said a formal inquiry was now underway against the three municipal police officers who were now facing charges of “violence from a person entrusted with public authority and failure to assist a person in peril”.

“This case will be treated with every expected severity, being related to presumed facts of illegitimate violence on the part of officers entrusted with a mission of administrative and judicial police”, the statement said.

It added that “this is the first case being treated for this type of act since the beginning of civil unrest in New Caledonia” and further stressed that law enforcement agencies deployed on the ground have displayed “professionalism” in the “difficult management of the law enforcement operations carried out”.

“The victim remains to be approached by investigators in order to undergo medical examination and assess his current health condition.”

The announcement was made as part of the French High Commissioner Louis Le Franc during his daily update on the situation.

“As a follow-up to the end of the state of emergency since Tuesday, 28 May, 2024, the ban on the platform TikTok has been lifted,” a statement said.

The ban was announced on May 15 in what was then described as an attempt to block contacts between rioting groups in the French Pacific territory.

It had since then been widely contested as a breach of human rights.

Doubts had also been expressed on how effective the measure could have been, with other platforms (such as Facebook, WhatsApp or Viber) remaining accessible and the fact that the ban on Tiktok could be easily dodged with VPN tools.

World Cup 1998 winner Karembeu ‘in mourning’
Earlier this week, former footballer and 1998 World Cup champion Christian Karembeu made a surprise revelation saying two members of his family had been shot dead during the riots.

Speaking to French radio Europe 1 on Monday, Karembeu said: “I have lost members of my family, that’s why I remained silent (until now), because I am in mourning.”

“Two members of my family have been shot with a bullet in the head. These are snipers. The word is strong but they have been assassinated and we hope investigations will be made on these murders”, the Kanak footballer said, adding the victims were his nephew and his niece.

Karembeu’s career involves 53 tests for the French national football team, one world cup victory (1998), playing for prestigious European clubs such as Nantes, Sampdoria, and Real Madrid (where he won two Champions League titles), Olympiakos, Servette, and Bastia.

He is now a strategic advisor and ambassador for Greek club Olympiakos.

Reacting to Karembeu’s announcements, Chief Prosecutor Dupas told public broadcaster NC la Première on Tuesday he believed Karembeu was referring to the two Kanak people who were killed earlier this month in Nouméa’s industrial zone of Ducos.

“I do not know what his family kinship relation is with those two victims who were assassinated in Ducos,” he said.

“But concerning these facts, an investigation is underway, it has gotten pretty far already, one (European) company manager has been arrested and remains in custody. The Justice is processing all the facts, crimes, committed.”

“We have, among the civilian victims, four persons of the Kanak community and it is a possibility that some of those could be related to Christian Karembeu”, he said.

Asked on a possibly higher number of fatalities, he stressed the death toll so far remained at seven.

“We have not received any other complaint regarding people shooting civilians”, he maintained, while encouraging members of the public who would be aware of other fatal incidents to come forward and contact his office.

“We arrived in our car, I saw the roadblock, I barely had time to reverse and go back and they started to shoot. About 10 times,” the unidentified witness said, showing two bullet holes on his car.

“I have lodged a complaint for murder attempt and now the investigation is ongoing,” he said.

Two other Kanaks said the following day, on May 16, while in the streets of their neighbourhood, they were shot at by balaclava-clad passengers of two driving by pick-up trucks.

“We started to run and that’s when we heard the first gunshots. My little brother managed to take shelter at a neighbour’s home, and I went on running with the 4WD behind me. When I arrived at my family’s home, I jumped into the garden and that’s when I heard a second gunshot”, he told La Première.

“We never thought this would happen to us”.

Dupas said another, wider investigation, was underway since May 17 in order to identify “those who are pulling the ropes and who led the “planning and committing of attacks that have hit New Caledonia”.

“This means anyone, whatever his/her level of implication, whether order-givers or just actors”.

Latest update
The state of emergency was lifted on Tuesday in New Caledonia following an announcement from French President Emmanuel Macron, who was in New Caledonia on a 17-hour visit last Thursday.

The end of the state of emergency was described by Macron as being part of the “commitments” he made while meeting representatives of New Caledonia’s pro-independence movement last week and to allow leaders to spread the message to people to lift roadblocks and barricades and “loosen the grip”.

However, a dusk-to-dawn (6pm to 6am) curfew remains in place, including a ban on public meetings, the sale of alcohol and the possession and transportation of firearms and ammunition, French High Commissioner Louis Le France said yesterday.

An estimated 3500 security forces (police, gendarmes and special riot squads) remain on the ground.

Taxis have announced they were now resuming service, but bus services remain closed because “too many roads remain impracticable”.

High Commissioner Le Franc said that since the unrest began on May 13, a total of 535 people had been arrested, 136 security forces (police and gendarmes) had been injured and the death toll remained at seven (including two gendarmes, four indigenous Kanaks and one person of European ascent).

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Today, In this the eleventh episode of A View from Afar for 2023, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and journalist Selwyn Manning will examine how the post-World War II liberal internationalist system is being challenged by a fluid constellation of global and regional powers to influence the shape of an emerging new world order.

And Paul and Selwyn will also assess how this massive shift in geopolitic demarcations is forming, relatively quickly, into a world of bipolarity where on one side we have a multipolar constellation of states, and on the other the traditional western liberal democracies.

The catalyst behind this rapidly forming bipolarity is conflict.

And, most recently, it is clear, that the Israel-Hamas war – and the atrocities committed initially by Hamas and more lately by Israel forces – is driving the world toward a transitional moment.

It appears, that what is emerging from the current multipolar system –  and think here the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court among many other global bodies – is a situation that is not merely new-and-old Great Powers competing as nation-states.

But rather, what we see are groupings of fluid constellations of powers competing as blocs to influence the shape of what is to come.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn will discuss and describe what is now evident, and sketch out what will likely emerge.

Of course, as mentioned, the Israel-Hamas war lays bare any claims of morality and exposes the hypocrisies of all sides in conflicts.

In particular the Hamas-Israel war exposes the west – led by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Europe – to an argument that the west is morally moribund as it continues its colonial/post colonial attitudes of support of Israel as the latter commits an apparent disproportionate-defence offensive against Palestine’s peoples.

The argument appears to carry weight, especially as this western axis sustains its support for Israel’s war machine even while, on international humanitarian law grounds, the atrocities being committed against Palestine’s civilian population are morally indefensible and potentially legally enforceable as war crimes.

For example; retribution for the atrocities and despicable crimes committed by Hamas against defenceless Israeli citizens does not remove culpability for the State of Israel as it delivers on an apparent intention to annihilate Hamas and all people – children, the elderly, all innocents – who may surround them.

Duty of care is not excused even if civilians are used as “human shields”, and at this juncture, it is not clear, whether that cited justification is founded on truth.

This is the position of what was once an authoritarian axis.

But what has formed is a multipolar-constellation that supports the Palestinian cause on postcolonial, Global South, and solidarity grounds.

The Questions:

So if all of this carnage is the catalyst for a new world order, what comes next?

Will we see the emergence of a parallel global institutional structure that develops as a counter-balance to the west’s post-WWII world order?

Has the west’s leading power lost its moral authority through its support for a war machine that has caused the deaths of over 10,000 people of innocent disposition, while itself refuses to be a signatory member state to the International Criminal Court and its principles of global justice?

And as such, has the west ceded persuasive moral authority to the rising constellation of once authoritarian-states that dominate the opposing bloc?

And does the west, as a consequence, find itself powerless to counter the migration of moderate independent states that are repelled by the immorality of the west’s arguments, laid bare by the Hamas-Israel war?

*******

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.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse whether the sun is setting on former United States President Donald Trump and Trumpism in general.

Specifically, they examine how numerous law suits and federal investigations are eroding Trump’s credibility and the power behind what was once a president of populism and who was seemingly untouchable.

Our questions include:

What is the most damning of allegations?

How serious was the apparent breach of classified and top secret information? And, does this reflect a wider corruption within the United States’ security intelligence agencies?

What can we expect next from the FBI investigation and the US Department of Justice?

And politically, Donald Trump seems to have a firm grip on the Republican Party. His loyalists seem to be winning the GOP primaries and lining up a field of Trumpist candidates for this year’s mid-term elections.

But recent polls in the United States show how dominating the primaries does not necessarily mean Trump’s preferred candidates will take the state legislatures, and indeed the US Congress by storm.

Have US voters had enough of the ultra-conservatism, the controversy, the chaos and alleged illegalities that define Trumpism?

Despite US President Joe Biden having low approval ratings in a raft of US polls, will the Democrats hold onto power in the US Senate later this year?

And finally, what does all of this mean for Trump himself as he eyes whether to push forward as the GOP’s leading nominee and potentially the presumptive candidate for president of the United States?

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

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

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

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

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

Political Roundup: Another trial over secret political donations

Allegations of political corruption are once again at the heart of a new High Court trial this week. The trial follows straight on from the “not guilty” verdict for those running the New Zealand First Foundation. And this latest trial is once again about whether wealthy businesspeople and political parties have conspired to get around the laws designed to make big donations transparent to the public.

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) allege, once again, that large donations were given to politicians in ways that breach the Crimes Act. As with the New Zealand First Foundation trial, the prosecution says the public has been “kept in the dark” about the role of big money in politics.

In this trial the donations in question were to the Labour and National parties, and amongst the seven defendants are various businesspeople and three people who at the time represented New Zealand’s two main parties. New Zealand’s biggest political parties are effectively in the dock, via Jami-Lee Ross (who was a National MP at the time, and responsible for fundraising), and two Labour Party people who have name suppression, one of whom is also a parliamentary employee.

Background to the trial

This trial has only come about due to the meltdown in the National Party in 2018, when then National MP Jami-Lee Ross fell out with then leader Simon Bridges. Ross alleged that “Simon Bridges is a corrupt politician”, and released explosive audio recordings of conversations with Bridges about fundraising. He then took the information to the Police, but it was Ross who ended up being charged after the SFO investigated.

The three others charged in relation to these donations are Yikun Zhang, Colin Zheng, and Joe Zheng. Yikun Zhang is a very wealthy property developer who moved to New Zealand from China in about 2000, and the SFO says he is the source of large donations to National. Colin and Joe Zheng are twins alleged to have helped facilitate the donations of about $200,000, which were never public disclosed.

It then transpired that Zhang had also donated to the Labour Party. He was involved in a series of donations to Labour relating to artwork the party had auctioned at fundraising events. The SFO investigated, and again charged Zhang and the  Zhengs. Three other individuals have also been charged in relationship to these Labour donations, two of whom are from the Labour Party. All three have name suppression.

Zhang was given a Queen’s Birthday honour in 2018, being made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to New Zealand-China relations and the Chinese community. Politicians from both National and Labour lobbied to get him the prestigious honour.

Four years later, the charges against the donors and those alleged to have helped facilitate the donations on behalf of National and Labour are being heard in the High Court of Auckland. Because the three people on the donor side are the same – Zhang and the Zhengs – the two trials are being held together.

The SFO alleges that the Labour and National fundraising operations both used similar techniques to allow the large donations to remain undisclosed to the public. The Electoral Act states that political parties must declare donations over the threshold of $15,000 from any one individual per year. According to the SFO, in both of these cases very large donations over this threshold were split into smaller donations and funnelled to the parties from a number of individuals recruited to be what they call “sham donors”. The “real donor” according to the SFO is actually Zhang.

What we have learnt so far: Labour’s donations

The prosecution case regarding the Labour-related donations is being heard first. The SFO allege that “sham auctions” to sell art and other valuable items were used to disguise donations to the Labour Party.

The prosecution argues that in March 2017 Zhang attended one of the fundraising events and agreed to purchase five paintings for a total of $60,000. But payment was subsequently split into five transfers to the Labour Party from five different individuals. The SFO say the artworks were subsequently all found to be hanging in Zhang’s house.

According to the case against Zhang, one of the defendants with name suppression was one of the people used to funnel the money into the Labour Party as a “sham donor” and he also recruited four others to be “sham donors”. This person later “played an active role in the cover-up” according to the prosecution.

Two other people from within the Labour Party – a man and a woman – both with name suppression, also allegedly helped facilitate the payments, and the woman allegedly aided the cover-up.

The court heard yesterday about how a Labour Party activist was asked by two of the defendants to open a bank account into which the art donations could be funnelled.

Later in the year, in September, Zhang attended another Labour fundraiser, and brought two further artworks and an imperial robe for $100,000. This had been donated to the Labour Party, but the $100,000 is allegedly much lower than its real value of $300,000, meaning Zhang’s payment to Labour cannot be classified as a donation, since he gave the party less than it was worth. Hence this transaction isn’t being prosecuted.

In terms of the non-disclosure of the payments for the artwork, Zhang blames the Labour Party, saying it was their mistake and it was their responsibility to declare it, not his. The prosecution allege that both sides had some responsibility, and that on the Labour side a “cover-up” occurred when the party launched their own investigation in the wake of the Jami-Lee Ross allegations about National donations.

What we have learnt so far: National’s donations

Two months after Zhang first gave donations to Labour, he met with then National MP Jami-Lee Ross in May 2017. Ross was National’s designated “bagman” for collecting donations, and for liaising with the Chinese New Zealand community.

At a dinner with Ross, the prosecution alleges that Zhang agreed to make a donation, but to do this in a way that wouldn’t be disclosed to the public. Ross also arranged for Zhang to meet with then leader Simon Bridges.

Subsequently, about $200,000 was given to National, allegedly all from Zhang, but split into smaller donations from different individuals. The first part of this was a $100,000 in the form of eight different smaller payments of about $14,000 each in June 2017.

Subsequently in June 2018, according to the prosecution, Zhang gave another $100,050 to National, relating to profits from the export of 480 boxes of wine to China. This was also transferred to National in the form of seven separate donations. The SFO has traced the money being shifted to the “sham donor” bank accounts from Zhang’s sister ($50,000) and father ($98,000) using an online site called I.E.

This money was eventually deposited into the National Party’s bank account in the Botany electorate, for which Ross was the electorate MP. Ross then provided the names of the alleged “sham donors” to the National Party General Secretary for their records. The prosecution alleges that Ross did this despite knowing that the “real donor” was Zhang.

It’s not yet clear how strong the prosecution’s evidence is for this. They have put forward evidence of a message from Colin Zheng to Ross agreeing that “they will all follow the law” followed with a smiling face emoji. There are also communications from Colin Zheng to the “sham donors” explaining why they were being used to facilitate the payments because Zhang couldn’t make one large donation because “registration would be required”.

However, Zhang’s lawyers dispute this, maintaining that neither of the two $100,000 gifts were “donated by him or on his behalf”.

The prosecution also say that they have audio recordings that Ross made of conversations with Bridges, in which Ross states the donations made to National have not been made legally. Talking about a $100,000 donation from Zhang, Ross tells Bridges: “That donation has not been declared properly… those donations have not been handled in a way that’s in accordance with the Electoral Act.” In another covert recording, Ross tells his leader: “I was asked to be involved in significant donations and Chinese interests that haven’t been declared properly.”

The prosecution says the audio recordings indicate Ross had “knowing involvement in the deception”. But Ross’ lawyers deny that he helped them, and point to the fact that Zhang had already used donation-splitting techniques in his dealings with Labour earlier in that year, so it clearly wasn’t Ross that introduced the idea to them. Furthermore, Ross has claimed that it was Simon Bridges who asked him to handle these donations.

Political impact of the trial

The trial has the potential to have a much bigger political impact than the NZ First Foundation trial. It involves New Zealand’s two biggest political parties, both of whom are still in Parliament, unlike New Zealand First. Along the way, there are going to be significant revelations about the relationship between money and politics in New Zealand.

The trial is also large in scale. It is expected to go for ten weeks, and involves 20 lawyers, including six QCs.

The prosecution is calling 54 witnesses, including some of New Zealand’s best-known political figures. These include cabinet ministers Andrew Little and Michael Wood, the Prime Minister’s chief press secretary Andrew Campbell, the former National leader Simon Bridges, National’s general manager Greg Hamilton, former Labour Party president Nigel Haworth, New Zealand’s ambassador to Jakarta Trevor Matheson, and corporate lobbyists and former Labour Party officials Andrew Kirton and Hayden Munro.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern will inevitably be a part of the court discussions, as many of those involved in the case are close to her. What’s more, she attended at least one of the fundraising auctions where Zhang purchased art. Inevitably the question will arise as to why so many politicians are allowed to have an active role in soliciting and collecting donations to their party organisations.

There also might even be international links, with some suggestion already made that a defendant will be accused of being an “operative” of a foreign government attempting to influence the Labour and National parties. One of the defence lawyers has commented on this, warning such evidence would be “inflammatory” and cause “irretrievable damage”.

Notably, before the trial began, Yikun Zhang put out a media statement saying he was not a member of the Chinese Communist Party and had renounced his Chinese citizenship.

A critical focus on how governments award royal honours is also likely. It’s long been suspected that parties in government hand out the gongs to their supporters, including financial ones. In this case, there will be evidence provided that Jami-Lee Ross encouraged other National MPs to lobby for Zhang to receive his honour. It is already known that then Labour and National party presidents Nigel Haworth and Peter Goodfellow lobbied for this, as well as Labour’s Auckland mayor Phil Goff.

The prosecution allege the behind the scenes machinations of this honours decision drove the donation cover-up. They suggest that the motivation behind keeping Zhang’s large donations to both parties secret was that the public shouldn’t be able to connect the two things, lest they came to the conclusion that a “Cash for honours” takes place here.

Inevitably the trial will also kickstart further debate about fundraising and electoral rules. There is just so much in this trial that is likely to show not just that the current laws are entirely inadequate, but also that the Government’s current reform efforts on political finance have been designed in a way that is not up to the necessary job of cleaning up New Zealand politics.

Further reading on political donations

Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Alleged art buyer: ‘I’d rather burn money than donate to Labour’
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Labour Party volunteer asked to open bank account connected to ‘sham’ auction
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): SFO reveals more covert recordings of Ross and Bridges
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): ‘Sham donors’ and ‘fairy dust’ on opening day of donations fraud trial
RNZ: Crown opens case over donations to Labour, National
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Paintings, wine, cover-ups and a royal honour – Crown’s case in party donations trial
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Trio accused in Labour Party donations case continue to seek suppression ahead of trial
Lucy Thomson (Newshub): High Court trial over Labour, National donations begins
Maria Slade (NBR): Scheme of ‘sham donors’ set up to deceive, Crown says (paywalled)
Catrin Owen (Stuff): Trio accused in Labour Party donations case continue to seek suppression ahead of trial
Sam Hurley (Herald): Labour and National donations trial: Spy allegations and damage to ‘stellar’ reputation cited as reasons for accused’s secrecy
——
Graeme Edgeler (Spinoff): How to close the donation loopholes exposed by the NZ First Foundation judgment
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Government ‘taking a close look’ at law after NZ First Foundation case opens donations ‘loophole’
Anneke Smith (RNZ): Govt seeks advice on changing party donation laws
Anneke Smith (RNZ): Call to change political donation law after NZ First Foundation case
Newstalk: NZ First donations: Defendant reacts to the not-guilty verdict

Other items of interest and importance today

GREEN PARTY
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Green Party MP Teanau Tuiono ‘considering’ a tilt at co-leadership
Audrey Young (Herald): Jacinda Ardern’s mistaken insistence with James Shaw’s Climate Change role (paywalled)
ODT: Editorial – Green battle confused
Nandor Tanczos (Daily Blog): Greens leaders must learn from leadership vote
Gareth Hughes (Spinoff): The Greens’ leadership tumult was 50 years in the making
Pat O’Dea (Daily Blog): Dear James
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): Tu Ingrate Vireta! Stabbing The Green Caesar
Liam Hehir (Blue Review): The upside of a post-Shaw Green Party
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Greens leadership challenge: Teanau Tuiono doing a lot of thinking, James Shaw wants to know how to do better
Thomas Manch and Laura Walters (Stuff): Green Party MP Teanau Tuiono considering co-leadership bid
Anna Whyte (1News): Shaw acknowledges ‘dissatisfaction’ of Green party members
Russell Palmer (RNZ): A firm maybe: Greens’ Teanau Tuiono reflects on leadership
Brent Edwards (NBR): Pragmatism vs principle: the Green Party’s dilemma (paywalled)
Morgan Godfery (Stuff): Shaw ‘a good guy’, but compromises put him at odds with party base
Peter Dunne: “Only the Impotent are Pure”
Irra Lee (1News): Rival MP praises Shaw as the ‘sanest’ amid Greens leadership saga
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): The Green conundrum: Sit with the power brokers or hustle from the sidelines?
Damien Venuto (Herald): Why Labour will be watching Greens leadership stoush closely
Herald: Editorial: Bumpy approach to next year’s general election (paywalled)
No Right Turn: The Greens, the media, and democracy
Michael Neilson (Herald): Green Party co-leadership race: Chlöe Swarbrick says she is ‘not in the running’ to replace James Shaw
Brigitte Morten (NBR): Blindsided James Shaw rejection really bid for stronger activism (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Green Party coup: Winners, losers & predictions
Mike Houlahan and Grant Miller (ODT): Dunedin Greens to revisit leadership views
RNZ: Chloe Swarbrick rules out bid to be Greens co-leader
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Soul-searching for Shaw and would-be mutineers
Richard Harman: How the Greens are changing and why Shaw may be losing support (paywalled)
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): What the heck is wrong with the Green Party?
1News: Candidates who could replace Shaw as Greens co-leader stay silent
The Standard: James Shaw and the Green Party co-leadership
David Farrar (Patreon): Why Chloe should have stood (paywalled)
Michael Neilson (Herald): Green Party co-leader battle: James Shaw current sole contender as Elizabeth Kerekere pulls out
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Greens’ Dr Elizabeth Kerekere not running for vacant co-leader spot
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Green Party MP Elizabeth Kerekere isn’t running for party co-leadership
Whatitiri Te Wake (Māori TV): Former Greens chief of staff says the leadership spat is ‘shocking but healthy’
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Green Party fights over plot to oust James Shaw, and the long run plan to install his replacement (paywalled)
Luke Malpass (Stuff): James Shaw likely to co-lead again, but worth remembering lessons form Green School fiasco
Amelia Wade and Imogen Wells (Newshub): Dr Elizabeth Kerekere emerges as potential Greens leadership contender
Bernard Hickey (Interest): Shaw’s ejection exposes Green rift
Jayden Holmes (Today FM): Former Green Party leader ‘never believed’ in James Shaw
Brent Edwards (NBR): James Shaw quietly confident about regaining Green co-leadership (paywalled)

ECONOMY, INEQUALITY, COST OF LIVING AND IMMIGRATION
Class and Race (Daily Blog): We are still getting things the wrong way round
Daniel Smith (Stuff): Workers who don’t receive salary bump face a ‘virtual pay cut’
Julia Gabel (Herald): Soaring cost of living hits many New Zealanders hard, study shows
Esther Taunton (Stuff): Cost of living: Survey finds financial strain taking a toll on Kiwis’ wellbeing
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Carmel Sepuloni receives review into Working for Families, but some worried focus is not on poverty
Bernard Hickey (Interest): Why Covid windfall taxes make sense
Bernard Hickey (Spinoff): Reserve Bank facing consequences of printing ‘tidal wave of cash’
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): David Seymour: Govt shouldn’t have backstopped the RBNZ’s money printing programme (paywalled)
Richard Harman: Did Orr get it wrong? (paywalled)
Molly Swift (Newshub): Small business wages see largest rise on record to near inflation rate – Xero
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Inflation: How much is really the Reserve Bank’s fault?
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Political fight over Reserve Bank interest rates and cost of living heats up
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Criticism of Reserve Bank’s Māori engagement ‘racist’
Chris Schulz (Spinoff): Feeling sad? Depressed? Angry? Sore? Inflation could be to blame
Richard Prebble (Herald): Why will inflation end in recession? Because it always does (paywalled)
Geraden Cann (Stuff): Fuel retailers are making massive margins – should we have a windfall tax?
Cushla Norman (1News): Fact-checking claims about inflation
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): When Reserve Bank Governors are openly disagreeing, you know there’s a problem
John Weekes (Herald): Labour crisis: ‘Severe’ talent shortage as job candidate numbers fall on both sides of Tasman (paywalled)
AAP: Reserve Bank admits inflation ‘regret’ as it reviews Covid response
Dita De Boni (NBR): Corporate profits muddy the fight against recession (paywalled)
Rebecca Stevenson (Interest): Business is booming for New Zealand’s cartel buster- but will it make any difference for consumers?
RNZ: Former Reserve Bank governor criticises central banks’ performance during pandemic
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Reserve Bank will learn from remit, policy review: Orr (paywalled)
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Crown starts recapitalising the Reserve Bank to the tune of $8.8 billion (paywalled)
Helen Harvey (Stuff): As cost of living increases, more people are needing the help of food banks
Brenda Harwood (ODT): Foodbanks under increasing pressure
Duncan Garner (NBR): 100,000 workers on dole and work ready – yeah right! (paywalled)
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Scepticism over Immigration NZ’s faster residence visa promise

NATIONAL
Julie Johnston (Newsroom): Judith Collins’ deputy chief: The real story behind Nick Smith’s resignation
Stuff: Editorial – In the shadow of Captain Hindsight
Claire Trevett (Herald): Labour’s Grant Robertson pillories Christopher Luxon as a cheap, knock-off John Key after Te Puke to Hawaii travels
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Unforced errors hurting Christopher Luxon and the Greens (paywalled)
Steven Cowan: Where in the world is Christopher Luxon?
Jacqui Van Der Kaay (Democracy Project): Te Puke is not Hawaii
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Luxon’s gaffe, Shaw dumped as co-leader, economic woes evident
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Here’s why Aloha Luxon’s Hawaii holiday is so politically damaging
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Christopher Luxon’s social media suggested he was in Te Puke – he was actually overseas on holiday
1News: Luxon defends holiday in Hawaii despite Te Puke social media post
Liam Hehir (Blue Review): Dear National Party delegates…
Thomas Manch (Stuff): National Party MP Ian McKelvie will stand down at 2023 election
1News: Two National MPs to retire ahead of next election
Greg Presland (The Standard): The inside story of National’s civil war

PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS
Audrey Young (Herald): Who will replace Jacinda Ardern? Whispers begin about the next Labour leader contest (paywalled)
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): The consultancy machine needs repairing – but who will do it?
Imogen Wells (Newshub): Government’s billion dollar spend on consultants under attack from National
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Guess who’s back, back again, Winston’s back, tell a friend
Mike Hosking (Herald): It’s the size of the mess that counts (paywalled)
Michael Bassett: The gradual collapse of Jacinda’s New Zealand
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): The Māori Party is where 2023 election will be won or lost
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): The Government are digging a deeper financial hole
Michael Bassett (The Platform): We are experiencing the worst government of my lifetime

Political Roundup: Labour wants to be tough on crime – and tough on the causes of crime

The Labour Government has managed to get one major issue right this week, at least in an electoral sense. The Government has been under pressure to deal with escalating public concerns about crime and gang activity.

On Wednesday the newly appointed law and order duo of Chris Hipkins and Kiri Allan announced new measures to crack down on gangs. The package was perfectly pitched as a “sensible” middle-of-the-road approach between the liberals on the left and the conservatives on the right.

The measures included additional search and seizure powers for police, increased penalties for gun crime (especially drive-by shootings), and the banning of “significant” cash payments for luxury items such as boats, watches and cars.

Electorally, this announcement will probably work well for Labour, neutralising a challenging issue for the Government. And it’s important to grasp how much difficulty the Labour Government has found itself in with the current law and order concerns. They have needed to respond in a way that doesn’t alienate either side of the liberal-conservative spectrum too much, but also finds some buy-in from both camps.

Answering the demands for action on law and order

For most of this year, the Government has been strangely inactive on law and order issues. But doing nothing was no longer an option. Opposition politicians and media figures had pushed the issue of gang criminality to the top of the public agenda, and Labour looked very weak. So feeble, in fact, that Ardern was forced to sack the Police Minister and bring in a more effective Justice Minister.

This weakness wasn’t just a result of tubthumping from National and Act politicians, but also due to a very real increase in gang activity and some increases in crime, especially in parts of Auckland. Gang membership numbers have apparently increased by 2000 since 2017, to 7722 members according to officials – especially because of deportations of gang members from Australia.

But there are also other factors. Crime has generally been on the increase in many countries around the world, especially after countries have come out of covid lockdowns and are facing all sorts of social dislocation. One expert, police negotiator Lance Burdett, is reported as saying there’s been “a 30 to 35 per cent escalation in violence globally.”

It was therefore untenable for Labour not to respond to the heightened concerns about crime. And not just to do so to satisfy law and order populists on the right, but also to satisfy those living in working class communities suffering the impacts of crime. Labour could not neglect the concerns of a voter base so crucial to their re-election next year.

After all, a recent opinion survey by Ipsos showed that the public now views National as the party most capable of managing the crime/law issue. This poll also showed that law and order was ranked as the fifth-most important issue facing New Zealand, after many years of lower concern.

Satisfying liberal views on law and order

Liberals, especially on the political left, are much less enamoured by politicians taking a tough approach on law and order, and especially towards gangs. There’s a view that hard-line policing and judicial orientations to crime is just populist opportunism. The argument is also made that tough policies often don’t actually work in reducing crime.

In contrast, liberal voices want governments to acknowledge that tackling gangs requires a sophisticated approach. In particular, it means taking a preventative approach to crime, with the argument that the sources of crime are usually based in social dysfunction which therefore needs addressing. Governments need to reduce economic inequality and poverty, and make sure the various needs of citizens such as housing, healthcare, and education are sufficiently met.

Many from within and around gangs also make some similar arguments. This week, Denis O’Reilly of Black Power argued that gangs “are symptoms of much deeper problems, many of which stem from our history as a country” and that they “arise from colonialism, neoliberalism, and socioeconomic inequality”. He therefore argues in favour of “depoliticising” the issue and having more “korero” on the issues.

Similarly, the Mongrel Mob’s Harry Tam came out this week to say that the answer to the gang problem was for the Government to give more support to gang mediation efforts.

Tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime

The Labour Government therefore has faced a quandary over the need to show that they are taking gangs seriously without entirely abandoning their liberal credentials. If the Government had merely adopted National’s policy prescriptions on gangs, it would have led to severe criticisms from liberals and party activists.

Facing a similar problem in the 1990s, the British Labour Party leader Tony Blair simply adopted the campaigning slogan that his party would be “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. Once elected, it turned out that the focus was more on the former part of the equation. But the gimmick largely worked – it sent a message that law and order liberals and conservatives could both embrace.

This week, the law and order ministerial duo effectively did the same thing. Their announcement on Wednesday started with an emphasis on the crackdown, and then followed up with details aimed at a liberal constituency to indicate the Government hadn’t turned populist and reactionary.

Police Minister Chris Hipkins stated firmly that “We want to hit gangs where it hurts”. And Justice Minister Kiri Allan followed this line, pledging they would be “Hitting them where it hurts. We’re going after guns, vehicles and cash.”

Then with the soundbites out of the way, Hipkins argued that the growth of gangs was “complex” and the Government was determined to get “underneath it”. He said: “We need to engage young people in constructive activities. If we give young people something useful to do, it can keep them out of trouble.”

Allan also added that although they were empowering the police to take on the gangs, “we also are acutely aware that the best tool we have is prevention” and promised a focus on early intervention, rehabilitation and reintegration as “the most effective route to sustained and long-term prevention”.

According to one news report, “Allan said people did not become gang members overnight and it was due to a range of socio-economic factors, family ties and a desire for a place of belonging.” She promised that she would make future announcements in the youth justice sector.

Sociologist and gangs researcher Jarrod Gilbert gave credit to this focus by the Government: “Both the ministers of justice and police who launched these proposed new laws talked about the need to see the gangs in a broader context and seek preventative approaches.”

Gilbert has praised the ministers for not going too hard-line, saying on Breakfast TV that Hipkins and Allan “have actually managed to stay fairly true to themselves in the sense that they haven’t responded with deeply political measures… rather than effective policy or legislation.” He also credited them with showing a “willingness to look at the drivers of gang membership.”

Criticism from National and the Greens

Labour has mostly been receiving good press from their announcement. But there’s also been condemnation from political rivals.

From a liberal perspective, the Greens’ Justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman has condemned the new measures: “It’s a knee-jerk reaction not based on evidence. They will not address the underlying causes of offending”. She says the empowering of police will lead to racist outcomes: “Māori and Pasifika, who are already inappropriately targeted by police, will be harassed and will have police coming into their homes.”

From a conservative perspective, the National Party has welcomed the tougher elements of the package, but overall said that the Government hasn’t gone far enough. Leader Christopher Luxon has claimed “Nothing in this proposal will be scaring gangs at all.”

None of these criticisms will bother Labour much. Quite the opposite, perhaps – if anything, the criticisms from the left and right will help to bolster Labour’s preferred narrative that they have taken a sensible middle path, avoiding the extremes. Therefore, this might finally be a case where Labour’s centrist strategy is actually working this year. They might not be able to entirely win the debate over law and order, but they have effectively neutralised what was becoming their biggest electoral vulnerability.

Further reading on law and order

Jarrod Gilbert (Herald): Government’s law change a political response – but the right one (paywalled)
James Halpin and Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Gang policy also puts street racers in the crosshairs. Who else could be caught up?
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Gang crackdown: National, Greens unimpressed, expert approves ‘measured’ approach
John MacDonald (Herald): Gang crackdown more likely to be a let-down
Damien Venuto (Herald): Will the Government’s law changes make a difference in the fight on gangs?
Denis O’Reilly (Herald): ‘Wicked problems’ with gangs can’t be solved by proposed omnibus Amendment Bill
Cira Olivier (Herald): Bay of Plenty Mongrel Mob members say new laws targeting gangs won’t effect change
Luke Kirkness (Herald): The new legislation to tackle gangs and intimidating behaviour misses the mark (paywalled)
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Lifetime Black Power member Denis O’Reilly ‘disappointed’ at Government’s ‘shallow’ gang package, but Police Association supportive
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government’s gang package: National, ACT want more action, Greens concerned new police powers ‘attack’ on rights
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Mongrel Mob spokesperson sees Government crackdown on gangs as ‘PR stunt’
James Halpin, Glenn McConnell and Melanie Earley (Stuff): Government plans to expand search warrants in crackdown on gang violence
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government’s gang crackdown: New seizure powers to police, new offence to tackle drive-by shootings
Aaron Hendry (1News): Why being tough on crime won’t help
Richard Prebble (Herald): Gangs and crime – ‘gesture politics’ and what the Government is getting wrong on law and order (paywalled)
1News: Govt’s anti-gang proposals well targeted – expert
Brad Lewis (Today FM): Police Minister Chris Hipkins standing by decision not to ban gang patches
Vita Molyneux (Herald): Gang lifestyle no longer ‘Once Were Warriors’ says Justice Minister Kiri Allan
Anna Whyte (1News): Gangs crackdown: Suite of new rules released by government
Herald: Bid to crackdown on gangs: Chris Hipkins and Kiri Allan announce new laws
Jarrod Gilbert (Herald): New Zealand faces a significant crime issue, and it’s not gangs (paywalled)
Adam Hollingworth (Newshub): National accuses Labour of letting criminals operate with impunity as assaults on police rise
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Judicial conduct: The curious case of the disappearing judge
1News: New drug testing tool to be rolled out for frontline police
Joanne Naish (Stuff): Unlawful $3.41m Pike River payout came from an insurance company

Other items of interest and importance this week

HEALTH
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): ‘Our crisis is now and our Prime Minister is too proud to admit it’
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): Nurses’ organisation asks health minister to focus on health crisis instead of putdowns
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Andrew Little slammed for ‘just not helpful’ comments accusing NZ Nurses Organisation of ‘sitting in Wellington’
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Andrew Little explains why he’s refusing to say health system in ‘crisis’ in tense AM interview
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Andrew Little is burying his head in sand over refusal to acknowledge health sector
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): One in three New Zealanders borrow money to pay medical bills, survey finds
Rachel Smalley (NBR): Simple but clever plan ignored by Health ministry (paywalled)
Tina Morrison (Stuff): Private healthcare benefits when public falls short
Jayden Holmes (Today FM): Health NZ Chair – ‘There is no use just running around shoving sticking plasters on things’
Chris Hobson (Stuff): Who the hell would want to work in healthcare?
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Andrew Little refuses to call buckling health system ‘crisis’ as figures reveal big jump in reports of understaffing causing safety risks
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): GPs say govt funding model broken as primary healthcare struggles under the strain
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): ‘It will break many’: doctors’ survey paints clear picture of workforce crisis
Morgane Solignac (Stuff): ‘It’s as hard to hire a doctor than [it is] a manufacturer,’ says labour group
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Andrew Little’s bad week
Jennifer Eder (Stuff): Surgery waiting list delays mean people waiting since last September only being seen now
Waatea News: Doctors feel broken as system reaches crisis point
Waatea News: Pressure on hospitals unprecedented

COVID
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Let’s not do lockdown again
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Bring back the Alert Level system
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): Covid ‘advice’ should not be fear-mongering
Adam Pearse (Herald): Govt’s mask and test push face uphill battle
Jamie Morton (Herald): Q&A: What Omicron wave means for NZ’s Long Covid risk
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Is our current mask approach still the correct one
Craig McCulloch (RNZ): Masks need to be mandated in most indoor settings to prevent really grim winter – Baker
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Government reveals three new COVID-19 strategies, but Michael Bakers wants masks mandated more indoors

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: PACIFIC AND CHINA
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): I hope Jacinda Ardern’s having a good time in Fiji
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Pacific strategy set as questions linger
Michael Neilson (Herald): Why US power play in the Pacific could ‘backfire’ and hurt NZ (paywalled)
ODT: Editorial – Upping the ante in the Pacific
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Seeds of strategic conflict sprouting in Pacific
Sharon Brettkelly (RNZ): Superpowers cast big shadow on Pacific forum
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Withdrawal from the Pacific Islands Forum is least of Kiribati’s problems
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): Pacific Islands Forum a chance for New Zealand to reset strategy, says academic
Aupito William Sio (Herald): Why NZ’s role in Pacific is vital for nation and planet
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Mahuta says 2050 Strategy will keep Pacific connected, free and safe
Waatea News: Māori vulnerable to Pacific China fall-out

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: GENERAL
Matthew Hooton (Herald): PM Jacinda Ardern’s foreign policy lacks coherent message (paywalled)
Brigitte Morten (NBR): Trans-Tasman trip offers hope of cross-country accord (paywalled)
Robert G Patman (Herald): New Zealand and the Post-Johnson era in the UK (paywalled)
Serena Kelly (The Conversation): A trade deal with the EU makes sense for NZ, but what’s in it for Europe? Symbolically, a lot

LABOUR SHORTAGES AND MIGRATION
Damien Venuto (Herald): ‘$90k the new $70k’: NZ workers have 20,000 incentives to quit (paywalled)
William Hewett (Stuff): Cost of Living: MYOB poll shows more than 1 million Kiwis actively considering leaving NZ
Tess McClure (The Guardian): 100% pure rip-off? New Zealand voted second-worst place to move to
Siobhan Downes (Stuff): New Zealand ranked second-worst place in the world for expats, according to survey
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): Australia and NZ are both touting a residency ‘fast track’ – but how fast are we talking? (paywalled)
Richard Harman: The big migration has begun; NZers leave for Australia (paywalled)

ECONOMY
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): We may not have recession this year, but it will feel like it, Infometrics warns
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): ‘Hold on for six to 12 months’: Things will be looking better this time next year, economist says
Matthew Martin (Stuff): Cost of living ‘ripping the social fabric out of towns like Tokoroa’
Andy Fyers (BusinessDesk): Five charts that hint at a recession in NZ (paywalled)
Richard Harman: Only tourists coming back will avoid recession (paywalled)
Tony Alexander (One Roof): Businesses are going to fail – but who’s to blame?
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): Households will pay for 9% structural increase in electricity prices (paywalled)
Anne Gibson (Herald): Inside Kiwi billionaire Graeme Hart’s expanding empire (paywalled)
George Block (Herald): Royalty, rich-listers and private jets, inside the resurgent NZ luxury tourism market (paywalled)
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): The iwi in the thick of the property game

HOUSING
Dileepa Fonseka (Stuff): Building more houses, faster – the Government project to drastically shorten the amount of time it takes to build a house
Vic Crockford (Newsroom): To solve our housing crisis, let’s learn from what’s already working
Brigitte Morten (Stuff): Why is the Government talking up its spectacular failure on housing?
Steven Joyce (Herald): Motel generation deserves better — fast (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Government faces 60-year debt blowout after building costs explode
Emma Bernard (Herald): Homelessness for older people now a ‘critical issue’ in Whanganui
Brent Edwards (NBR): No definitive date for when State house waiting list will fall (paywalled)
Greg Hurrell (BusinessDesk): Kāinga Ora faces 60 years of unmanageable debt, Megan Woods warned (paywalled)
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Megan Woods not ruling out cuts to funding for housing for disabled people
Stephen Forbes (Newstalk): Auckland trust struggling to provide homes for families after Govt funding cuts
Esther Taunton (Stuff): Half of Kāinga Ora homes still not up to healthy homes standard
Felix Desmarais (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua needs emergency housing for at least five more years, says council boss in ‘stark reality check’
Michael Neilson (Herald): Housing Minister hits back at criticism over ‘slow’ building programme
RNZ: House prices nationally drop 3.4% in June quarter, QV data shows
Tina Law (Stuff): ‘Unfair’ two-tiered social rental scheme sees Christchurch tenants paying different rents
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Health NZ facing unique challenges over Wellington Hospital works
Ben van Bruggen (Stuff): Finding a way through our urban housing dilemma
Damien Venuto (Herald): Villa wars explained – Will intensification cause Auckland to lose its ‘special character’?

GOVERNMENT
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): Performative caring
Tova O’Brien (Today FM): Will #resignjacinda prove to be true?
Andrea Vance (Stuff): In a labour crisis, the Government has no trouble staffing the bloated Wellington bureaucracy
Peter Dunne: Our winter of Discontent
Bill Ralston (Listener/Herald): The Labour Government’s dead wood is dragging it down (paywalled)
Jo Moir (Newsroom): The minister for all things rural
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): PM Jacinda Ardern asked what it’s like to be ‘more popular’ overseas than in NZ during tense interview
Anna Whyte (1News): Recent ‘minor’ Cabinet reshuffle triggers change for 29 staff
Duncan Garner (NBR): Steve is desperate, Prime Minister – can you help? (paywalled)
The Standard: How Can Labour Win in 2023?
Mike Hosking (Newstalk): Govt is more and more out of touch from the real world
Steve Braunias (Herald): The secret diary of The Anti-Ardernists (paywalled)

POLITICAL DONATIONS
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Who are New Zealand’s biggest political donors?
Max Rashbrooke and Lisa Marriott (The Conversation): ‘They’re nice to me, I’m nice to them’: new research sheds light on what motivates political party donors in New Zealand
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Donors have ‘greater access to politicians than the rest of us would enjoy,’ researcher says
Sam Hurley (Herald): NZ First Foundation case: Accused argues elections at risk if named as courtroom suppression battle continues
RNZ: NZ First Foundation case: Pair lose bid for continuing name suppression
Bob Jones: Funding political parties

PARLIAMENT AND ELECTIONS
Thomas Manch (Stuff): ACT Party leader David Seymour wants apology over Māori Party joke
William Hewett (Newshub): ACT Leader David Seymour slams Te Pāti Māori for ‘threatening violence’ in jokes about him
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act leader David Seymour says Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi’s joke a step too far
David Farrar: Roy Morgan poll June 2022
Azaria Howell (Salient): Members of Green Party youth wing set to hold vote of no-confidence in co-leader James Shaw
Steven Cowan: If James Shaw is shown the door, then why isn’t Marama Davidson?
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Seymour’s swipe at Luxon’s National Party
Jane Clifton (Listener/Herald): Christopher Luxon was wrong to muzzle Simon O’Connor over abortion stance (paywalled)
1News: Luxon defends comments calling NZ businesses ‘soft’

CULTURE WARS
Chris Trotter: Rumours of [Civil] War
Simon Wilson (Herald): David Seymour stoking the fires of a culture war (paywalled)
David Seymour (Herald): Debating one-person-one-vote is not being a racist (paywalled)
Morgan Godfery (Stuff): The Māori Health Authority isn’t separatist. It’s necessary
Chris Trotter: Defending Dame Lynley

EXTREMISM CENTRE
Chris Trotter (Daily Blog): The Strange case of the de-selected professor
David Fisher (Herald): PM’s terrorism, extremism expert Prof Richard Jackson hired then dropped (paywalled)
Karl du Fresne: The intriguing circumstances in which Joanna Kidman was appointed to show us the way against hatred and extremism

VOTING AGE
Zarina Hewlett (Today FM): Two Sides: Should 16-year-olds have the right to vote?
Christina Huang (1News): Voting age case to be heard by Supreme Court
Brent Edwards (NBR): Political parties keep keen eye on Supreme Court voting age case (paywalled)
Stuff: Supreme Court hearing minimum voting age case
Herald: Make it 16 campaign hearing begins in Supreme Court today
Jonathan Mitchell (NBR): Supreme Court hears Make It 16 arguments (paywalled)
Catherine Hubbard (Stuff): Leading environmental researcher calls for votes for youth

ACT PARTY
Chris Trotter (Interest): David Seymour enlists history in ACT’s struggle for power
Audrey Young (Herald): Act Party’s 25 years in Parliament – the best and worst (paywalled)
Peter Dunne (Newsroom): ACT must remember it won’t be the star of the show
Brent Edwards (NBR): The problems Act poses for National Party (paywalled)
Toby Manhire (Spinoff): David Seymour’s 100-day gauntlet and the return of devil-beast politics
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act leader David Seymour switches tactics as National’s Christopher Luxon hits his polling (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): Act’s first 100 days plan: David Seymour on what he’d want in a National-Act government
RNZ: David Seymour promises ‘full investigation’ into Labour’s handling of Covid-19 if ACT forms next Government
Giles Dexter (RNZ): ‘Prepare like we’re going to win’ – Inside ACT’s annual conference
RNZ: Inside ACT’s annual conference: ‘Laundry list’ of reversals, digs at National, Covid response investigation
1News: Seymour criticises National, releases plan to reverse Labour policies

TE PATI MĀORI
Sandra Conchie (Herald): Māori Party president likens inequality among Māori as being ‘enslaved’
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): Te Pāti Māori focuses on ‘decolonising and reindiginising’ Aotearoa at Rotorua conference
1News: ‘Dawn of a new era’ theme of Te Pati Māori conference
Waatea News: Younger interest in Pāti Māori AGM

CHILDCARE PROTECTION AND ORANGA TAMARIKI
Fleur Te Aho (Herald): The promise of a Māori-led transformation of Oranga Tamariki is lacking in new bill
Claire Breen (The Conversation): Changes to the way Oranga Tamariki is monitored risk weakening children’s rights and protections – what should be done?
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Kelvin Davis on the hunt for government departments failing vulnerable children
Ryan McLean (Stuff): Objective independent oversight of Oranga Tamariki, children’s agencies overdue
ODT: Editorial – Oranga Tamariki Bill delay needed
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Carmel Sepiloni’s Q&A interview on gagging Children’s Commissioner’s Oranga Tamariki Oversight isn’t good enough
Newshub: Oranga Tamariki oversight: Carmel Sepuloni defends controversial move in AM interview

EDUCATION
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Questions over whether mega-polytech will be ready
Mike Mather (Stuff): Damning report reveals financial meltdown at new mega polytech Te Pūkenga
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Polytech merger mess ‘just gets messier’, National’s Penny Simmonds (paywalled)
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Why the mega-polytech mess is so politically dangerous for Labour (paywalled)

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse how it is now clear atrocities committed against Ukrainian civilians is widespread, appears systematic, and may be coldly planned by Russian leaders as troops withdraw toward the east. But can justice be achieved?

The crimes committed in Ukraine could be defined by four categories:

• War crimes (which includes the targeting of civilians),
• Crimes against humanity (which crosses a scale because it is systematic and essentially focusses on individuals),
• Genocide (where groups are targeted),
• Crime of aggression (which is the waging of an illegal war).

This week, Professor of Law, Philippe Sands, of the University College London told PBS: “In the present circumstances where Russia has waged a war that is manifestly illegal, it is plain to me that the crime of aggression has been perpetrated. And, the significance of that crime is it is the only one with any degree of certainty that it reaches the top-table, Mr Putin, Mr Lavrov, the Defence Minister, senior military, senior intelligence, senior political leaders.

“With all the other crimes, the challenge that you have got is linking the terrible images that we have just seen with the leadership at the top. And, that can be very difficult.”

Professor Sands has joined around 100 others, including former leaders around the world, calling for a Special Criminal Tribunal, that would sit alongside the ICC in The Hague, and investigate in parallel the crime of aggression. (Ref. 14:31 PBS April 4, 2022, https://youtu.be/TbX8Wl4HEh4 )

Professor of Law, Yvonne McDermott Rees, of the University of Swansea told DW News: “Let’s say, theoretically we have a trial before the International Criminal Court, the ICC seeks to prosecute those who are deemed most responsible.

“And there are a number of modes of liability set out in statute of the International Criminal Court. These include ordering, inducing, soliciting these crimes to be committed. But importantly, in the case of Vladimir Putin, there is superior responsibility.” (Ref. DW, April 5, 2022, https://youtu.be/1xIOw21BUgc )

But as Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss; it is challenging in the extreme to bring a leader of a nuclear power to justice.

QUESTIONS:

• Were the atrocities identified a deliberate, systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian populations and culture?
• Were they crimes committed by troops so as to cover their retreat, by killing and leaving dead Ukrainians behind, so that the Ukrainian armed forces were forced to stop and to attend to them?
• What of enforcement capability, where authoritarian leaders will oppose any attempt to bring anyone but the lowest level “rogue” personnel to justice. Is it satisfactory if recourse and prosecution becomes a mostly Western (mostly European) affair?

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

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

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

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

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

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse how it is now clear atrocities committed against Ukrainian civilians is widespread, appears systematic, and may be coldly planned by Russian leaders as troops withdraw toward the east. But can justice be achieved?

The crimes committed in Ukraine could be defined by four categories:

• War crimes (which includes the targeting of civilians),
• Crimes against humanity (which crosses a scale because it is systematic and essentially focusses on individuals),
• Genocide (where groups are targeted),
• Crime of aggression (which is the waging of an illegal war).

This week, Professor of Law, Philippe Sands, of the University College London told PBS: “In the present circumstances where Russia has waged a war that is manifestly illegal, it is plain to me that the crime of aggression has been perpetrated. And, the significance of that crime is it is the only one with any degree of certainty that it reaches the top-table, Mr Putin, Mr Lavrov, the Defence Minister, senior military, senior intelligence, senior political leaders.

“With all the other crimes, the challenge that you have got is linking the terrible images that we have just seen with the leadership at the top. And, that can be very difficult.”

Professor Sands has joined around 100 others, including former leaders around the world, calling for a Special Criminal Tribunal, that would sit alongside the ICC in The Hague, and investigate in parallel the crime of aggression. (Ref. 14:31 PBS April 4, 2022, https://youtu.be/TbX8Wl4HEh4 )

Professor of Law, Yvonne McDermott Rees, of the University of Swansea told DW News: “Let’s say, theoretically we have a trial before the International Criminal Court, the ICC seeks to prosecute those who are deemed most responsible.

“And there are a number of modes of liability set out in statute of the International Criminal Court. These include ordering, inducing, soliciting these crimes to be committed. But importantly, in the case of Vladimir Putin, there is superior responsibility.” (Ref. DW, April 5, 2022, https://youtu.be/1xIOw21BUgc )

But as Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss; it is challenging in the extreme to bring a leader of a nuclear power to justice.

QUESTIONS:

• Were the atrocities identified a deliberate, systematic attempt to erase Ukrainian populations and culture?
• Were they crimes committed by troops so as to cover their retreat, by killing and leaving dead Ukrainians behind, so that the Ukrainian armed forces were forced to stop and to attend to them?
• What of enforcement capability, where authoritarian leaders will oppose any attempt to bring anyone but the lowest level “rogue” personnel to justice. Is it satisfactory if recourse and prosecution becomes a mostly Western (mostly European) affair?

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

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

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

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

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

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

A draft security cooperation agreement between China and Solomon Islands has been leaked on social media.

The unverified document includes seven articles, which discuss the scope of cooperation between both nations.

Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security senior lecturer Dr Anna Powles has seen the agreement on social media.

She told RNZ Pacific that the document is presented as a draft: “It doesn’t have any dates, nor is it signed.

“There are still questions around its authenticity but if it is authentic, it raises some serious questions and if it’s not authentic then it also provides some interesting insights into the way in which the geopolitical dynamic is playing out domestically in the Solomon Islands,” she said.

Dr Powles said that the draft document includes a request between the Solomon Islands government and China to send armed police personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces to the Solomon Islands.

“Now that raises a lot of questions obviously, what is the distinction between police and armed police, and who are the other law enforcement and armed forces that are referred to in the agreement.

‘Maintaining social order’
“It also talks about what kind of tasks that a Chinese contingent would be involved in such as maintaining social order, it’s not clear what that means, it also talks about providing assistance on other tasks and it’s also unclear what those other tasks would be.”

Dr Powles points out that the agreement refers to protecting lives and property, humanitarian assistance and disaster response.

In February, a team of Chinese police officers began working in Solomon Islands. This was two months after the Solomons government accepted Beijing’s offer to help restore law and order following anti-government riots in November 2021.

Dr Powles believes that if the draft agreement is authentic, then the deployment was a natural extension of the document.

The document also contains some concerning provisions which allow China to send ships to the Solomon’s “according to its needs”.

“The agreement states that China may, according to its own needs and with the consent of the Solomon Islands government make ship visits to the Solomons and carry out logistical replenishment and stopover and transition in the Solomons.”

She said that such provisions would need to be clarified as it was unclear what “China’s own needs” refer to.

Concerns over ‘strategic interests’
Are those strategic interests for instance? If so, that would raise a number of concerns. Particularly as to what would happen if China’s interests cut across the interests of the Solomon Islands or of its key regional partners such as Australia or Papua New Guinea.

“And it also suggests that logistical support would be provided for ship visits in the Solomon Islands and suggests that perhaps China could seek to establish a logistical supply base in Solomon Islands to support those ship visits.

The document does not specify what types of ships, but Dr Powles said “we could safely assume that they are referring to the People’s Liberation Army Naval (PLAN) ships.”

“In the Pacific, we have seen PLAN ship visits to the region. China has a strong interest in maritime issues and in the Pacific maritime domain. And so that probably is not surprising and there have been long-standing concerns and very public long-standing concerns about the potential for increased ship visits for China increasing its engagement in the Pacific maritime domain and potential implications that may have for a potential base to support those ship visits.”

Dr Powles also drew attention to one particular provision of the agreement, which raised alarm bells with respect to the control of information around security cooperation.

That provision stated that information between the Solomon Islands and China could only be released on mutual agreement by both parties.

“And that suggests that there would be the intent to control public information, to control media briefings, to control what access media has to information about security arrangements between the two countries.

“We can be legitimately concerned about lack of transparency about a degree around this agreement,” she said.

Solomon Islands switched allegiances from Taiwan to China in 2019.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep dive into the big picture that hangs over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That big picture has many aspects to it, and as such any resolution to the atrocities being committed in Ukraine will likely be weighed against what is a challenge to the International law and rules-based order.

In a previous episode in this series, Paul Buchanan and I examined how the world was transitioning into a democracies versus authoritarian bipolarity. (ref. EveningReport.nz)

This episode continues in that theme, but digs down into how descendent powers, or nations, tend to create or become entrenched in wars, and how Russia, in 2022, fits this pattern. And, there are comparisons to global western powers too, which we will draw on.

But in this episode we go further. We examine how transitional international moments, conflict as a systems regulator, can move to counter Russia.

In 2022, the United Nations security council, due to the P5 nations having veto powers, appears no longer fit for purpose. A UN-led multilateral response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unlikely.

The UN general assembly appears frustrated by Russia’s refusal to acknowledge the combined insistence of the UNGA that it cease its war against Ukraine.

Against this backdrop, NATO, at this juncture, cannot directly defend Ukrainians as Ukraine was not able to become a NATO member state before Russia invaded its territory.

Sometimes rules and law provide security and stability in the world. And sometimes, as we have seen in 2022, it permits conflict to burn on.

As we will discuss, the global rules-based order is fast changing in 2022. And as such, this underscores a need to re-set the international system.

But what can be done to stop people from being killed in this unprovoked war – a war that in many ways illustrates a wider war between democracies and authoritarians, as the world transitions toward a new bipolarity.

And, if a global order reset is needed, what would that reset look like?

These are huge challenges that require sensible analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

A View from Afar – In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and Manning examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and will consider New Zealand’s:

• Security and terror laws
• Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
• Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

Buchanan and Manning also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

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

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

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

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

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

A View from Afar – LIVE @ MIDDAY Thursday: In this week’s podcast, Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss: three areas that have been relied on to protect New Zealanders from terror-styled attacks; legal measures designed to protect communities from danger and even protect individuals from themselves and why they failed.

The background to this episode is the tragic, terrifying, attacks that were committed against unarmed innocent people at West Auckland’s LynnMall Countdown supermarket, by Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen.

The attacks occurred last Friday, September 3, 2021. It ended with the hospitalisation of seven people, and, the death of Mr Samsudeen who was fatally shot by special tactics Police officers during his attempt to kill and injure as many people as he could.

Immediately after, the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the nation that the dead man was a terrorist and that she herself, the Police, and the courts were all aware of how dangerous he was and had been seeking to protect New Zealand from this man.

Within days of the attacks, we learned, that Mr Samsudeen was a troubled man with psychologists describing him as angry, capable of carrying out his threats, and displaying varying degrees of mental illness and disorder.

Mr Samsudeen was a refugee who sought asylum here in New Zealand after experiencing, through his formative years, civil war and ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka, who, at around 20 years of age, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa and then sought asylum.

He was eventually granted refugee status, and since then spent years in prison on various charges and convictions – largely involving the possession of terrorist propaganda seeded on the internet by ISIS, and, threats showing intent to commit terrorist acts against New Zealanders.

In this week’s episode, Paul Buchanan and I will examine questions as to whether this tragedy could have been prevented and will consider New Zealand’s:

• Security and terror laws
• Deportation laws involving those with refugee status
• Mental Health Act and whether this was available to the authorities.

We will also analyse whether it is necessary for the New Zealand Government to move to tighten New Zealand’s terrorism security laws. And, if it does, how the intended new laws compare to other Five Eyes member countries.

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

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

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

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

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

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

The tragic terrorist attack at an Auckland shopping mall on Friday has led to a lot of debate about how it could have been prevented. It turns out authorities were well aware of Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen’s severe mental health problems and his capacity for violent extremism if not dealt with appropriately.

Much of the initial debate has been about why Samsudeen wasn’t deported or incarcerated. In the last day, however, the conversation has shifted to questions about how Corrections and Police handled Samsudeen over the last few years. There are allegations that these government agencies failed to provide the necessary and potentially vital services of rehabilitation and deradicalisation, which may have significantly reduced the risks of Samsudeen developing into a violent extremist.

The must-read piece on this is by Australian criminologist Clarke Jones, who was involved in the judicial proceedings around Samsudeen, and argues that at an early stage he was capable of being diverted from going down the ISIS-route. Jones, who is expert in de-radicalising Islamic extremists, believes authorities failed to take seriously the need for Samsudeen’s rehabilitation – see: I assessed the Auckland terrorist – our approach to extremism has to change.

Here’s Jones’ main point: “During Samsudeen’s trial in 2018, his legal team and I offered to run a bespoke, community-led intervention program to support Samsudeen in his transition out of prison, with one of its aims to alter his extreme views. The program, which has been successfully applied in the past with Muslim youth transiting out of prison, was accepted by the crown as the best and most appropriate way forward. Nonetheless, the police opted for a different approach to the crown, instead choosing surveillance and monitoring over rehabilitation.”

The Muslim community is also aghast that authorities passed up their offer to rehabilitate Samsudeen. The New Zealand Muslim Association explained today that they took a proposal to the Corrections agency to develop a formal programme, but the government department turned it down, essentially in favour of an easier option – see Anneke Smith’s Muslim leader ‘baffled’ Corrections passed up rehabilitation offer for LynnMall terrorist.

The same article reports that the Muslim Association were astonished that Corrections then chose this year to release Samsudeen into a small mosque without the necessary resources to deal adequately with him. According to the Association president Ikhlaq Kashkari, Corrections made an odd decision to send Samsudeen to the Glen Eden Masjid e Bilal mosque: “We’re a large organisation. We have skills, capabilities, people and resources to support something like this but we wanted to make sure it’s done properly. I have no idea how on earth they managed to talk this small Islamic centre, who were basically renting a property, to take him on board… I know the person that runs it used to work in the prison on behalf of Muslim community chaplains, a service provided to prisons, but that’s about it. Their skills, resources and capabilities beyond that is very, very limited.”

The Prime Minister is backing Corrections’ decisions. Jacinda Ardern has responded: “I’m confident agencies did everything within their power to keep the community safe” – see Edward O’Driscoll’s New Lynn attack: Community leaders say Corrections shouldn’t have housed supermarket terrorist in mosque. This article also reports that Police supported Corrections’ decision to send Samsudeen to the Glen Eden mosque.

The PM is reported in another article stating that all avenues around housing and rehabilitation were explored, but she admits that official reviews are needed to fully answer questions about this – see Thomas Manch’s PM says reviews will provide answers on terrorist’s management, as questions mount.

This article also possibly sheds further light on why Corrections rejected the Muslim Association’s offer of a rehabilitation programme – because such a programme would have required providing resources, as well as agreeing to a “terms of reference” setting out responsibilities not just for the association but for the government agency. Corrections has also explained that you can’t force rehabilitation on an individual who is unwilling.

Thomas Manch has also written a must-read background on Samsudeen’s life in Sri Lanka and then New Zealand, pointing out the severe mental health problems he developed over the years – see: The terrorist was a ‘highly damaged’ refugee, and efforts to help him failed. According to Manch, these details “raise questions about how the Government handled a psychologically damaged man who was readily captured by the extremist Isis propaganda.”

Manch cites criminologist Clarke Jones saying that he observed back in 2018 that Samsudeen was still redeemable: “At that stage, it was still manageable”, “There was definitely quite a lot of room for rehabilitation”, and “if they’d addressed his mental health needs then we might not have been in this situation now.” But Jones points out that the programme never got the “go-ahead” as “the police appeared to have little appetite for a community-led programme.”

Jones is also cited by Katie Todd in her article, Missed opportunities to deradicalise LynnMall attacker, says criminologist. Commenting on the fact that authorities chose to use surveillance and monitoring rather than rehabilitation, Jones says: “I would say that we haven’t got the balance right. In this case, there was too much focus on the counter terrorism or counter violent extremism narrative, rather than actually getting to the core of what was wrong with Mr Samsudeen.”

The terrorist’s family are also cited in the article, with his brother arguing that Samsudeen would sometimes listen to them when they challenged the ideological path he was going down. His brother also says: “The prisons and the situation was hard on him and he did not have any support. He told us he was assaulted there.”

Columnist Donna Miles has also asked some important questions about rehabilitation, and especially how and why Samsudeen became radicalised: “Why was this rehabilitation programme not effective? It has been reported that he refused the psychological assessment which was part of the programme. Did the police’s independent decision to put the attacker under constant surveillance have any impact on his rehabilitation?” – see: We must be careful not to fall into the terrorism trap.

Similarly, Jehan Casinader argues: “Friday’s incident should spur us to deeply examine the causes of radicalisation, and invest more money in efforts to deradicalise those who have already been identified by authorities” – see: ‘He’s not one of us’: Jehan Casinader responds to terror attack.

Casinader relays how he investigated the case of another refugee involved in a criminal act in New Zealand, finding: “Despite carrying significant trauma, she did not receive appropriate mental health support or rehabilitation, and became isolated and increasingly desperate in the lead-up to her offending.” He argues prevention is more effective than managing an offender: “There’s no point spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on detention and surveillance if state agencies are unable to provide culturally-responsive treatment for an individual at high risk of offending.”

As part of Samsudeen’s community supervision sentence he was required to undergo a psychological assessment this year. He apparently refused, but Corrections has been reluctant to answer questions on this – most importantly on why he was then allowed to continue with his community sentence. But today Charlotte Cook reports that the department “looked at charging him for the lack of engagement with both a private and Corrections psychologist, but was told it was not sufficient enough to be considered a breach of his conditions” – see: LynnMall attack: Terrorist threw faeces, assaulted staff – Corrections.

In this article, Correction’s national commissioner Rachel Leota is said to be “confident that Community Corrections staff were using every lawful avenue available to monitor, assess, mitigate, and manage his risk.”

Finally, there have been questions raised about whether Samsudeen’s mental health issues should be the subject of any public debate at all. The Mental Health Foundation suggests that his psychological condition should not be seen as part of the explanation for what has occurred. For more on this, see Lincoln Tan’s Terrorist couldn’t be detained under Mental Health Act after he refused psychological assessment: Legal expert.

The Lokataru Legal and Human Rights Foundation says there are two problems with the Indonesian police which have developed during the era of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s administration.

These two problems are “politicisation” and “police professionalism”.

“Perhaps it’s still the same as the problem before, particularly during the era of Jokowi’s administration. One of the problems is the politicisation of the police and the second is the problem of police professionalism,” said Lokataru executive director Haris Azhar during a Setroom virtual presentation broadcast by CNN Indonesia.

Azhar said the police today were a result of the democratisation of Indonesia since 1998 and there should have been institutional improvements in the police as an institution.

In the process of their development, however, the police had now become a political tool of those in power.

This was reflected by the different legal treatment afforded to groups who were pro and against the government or those in power.

“Law enforcement is discriminative, targeting groups outside of the power holders. Even if there are reports of cases from outside those in power, it doesn’t automatically mean that they will be followed up. There have been many cases like this, particularly in the lead up to elections,” he said.

Politicisation related to professionalism
Azhar said that this politicisation was also related to police professionalism.

“Because of politicisation in the end they’re not professional. But in the context of law enforcement, providing security, I think we can find a pattern. I’ve long been advocating police affairs,” he said.

Based on his advocacy work, he has found cases which are only dealt with after there is an order from above or it has gone viral on social media.

Not only this, Azhar has also come across cases where investigators ask those making reports for money so that the case would be dealt with quickly.

On the other hand, he has also found police who do work professionally.

“So this [lack of] professionalism is not just the disturbed face of the police in the eyes of the public, but they also betray other officers within the police,” he said.

Speaking on the same broadcast, the head of the National Police headquarters information bureau public relations division (Karopenmas) Brigadier-General Awi Setiyono did not deny that police officers committed violations.

Trying to improve
He said, however, that the police were endeavoring to improve.

“God willing, on the matters raised by Haris related to the handling of cases which have to wait for an order, I think we’re getting there, the police are getting better. We already have monitoring instruments, control functions,” he said.

Setiyono said that the existence of unprofessional police officers was because of the mentality of officers who were easily seduced.

“This goes back to the mentality of personnel, it’s true also that there have been temptations. And up until now on that kind of thing we have never compromised. If we straighten it out, there are many reserve players with us,” he said.

Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was “Lokataru Ungkap 2 Masalah Polisi di Era Jokowi”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As New Zealand approaches the end of its strictest lockdown period, a debate has begun about whether it was legal in the first place. This is important because people are being prosecuted for breaching the lockdown. Naturally, lawyers are getting involved, so things are going to get technical.

Some lawyers tend to speak in hyperbolic terms about the “rule of law”. Invariably, they will go back to 1297, because the Magna Carta of that year – obtained as a concession by the landed gentry of England from the king – required that imprisonment be regulated by law. That provision of English law still applies in New Zealand. Its modern consequence is that public officials, whether the police or the director general of health, can only detain us if they act within statutory powers.

A more recent declaration of principle is found in section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which says, “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.”

When judges interpret other laws, they must try to make sure that the Bill of Rights is met. So if a statute contains a power of detention, it will be construed that it does not allow arbitrary detention unless parliament has been clear that it does not mind arbitrariness.

At a broad-brush level, there are three main legal questions. Was there detention? If so, was there a law in place that allowed detention? And did the law allow arbitrary detention? Let’s look at those three key questions in turn – and why this debate could all come down to the week between March 26 and April 3, 2020.

Read more: We may well be able to eliminate coronavirus, but we’ll probably never eradicate it. Here’s the difference

Was lockdown a form of detention?

Detention is a step up from restrictions on freedom of movement (also protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act). And an important question is when do we cross the legal threshold from restriction to detention? This is significant because of the protections in international human rights law, which the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is designed to secure. At the international level, it is made clear that wrongful detention requires compensation.

Various courts and international human rights bodies have examined where to draw the line. In essence, they have decided that “detention” does not require being put under lock and key.

Rather, it turns on whether the restrictions are more intense than mere restrictions on freedom of movement. This includes house arrest accompanied by limited movements outside. This supports the view that anyone other than essential workers was “detained” at level 4 and possibly most people at level 3.

Read more: As NZ goes into lockdown, authorities have new powers to make sure people obey the rules

Was there a law allowing NZ to detain people in lockdown?

This question requires a legalistic review. The lockdown rested on directives from the director general of health (presumably drafted by government lawyers, who are the ones who should face any criticism should the lockdown prove to be open to legal challenge).

Under section 70 of the Health Act 1956, the director general can issue directives with various aims. One power is to close premises and prevent people congregating in public places. This was used at the outset of the lockdown, but the directive did not specify house arrest and it is difficult to see that this power would allow that.

If the courts agree that people were placed in detention, government lawyers may have an uphill struggle to show that the law used allowed this.

Another section 70 power of the director general is to require isolation and quarantine. This more obviously allows detention, but a directive under this power was not issued until April 3. It made the house arrest scenario clear.

But a separate question is whether the directive can cover all people or whether individual orders have to be made. Given that people can be infectious without symptoms, the public health basis for group detention is fairly strong. In addition, the Health Act powers can be contrasted to powers to quarantine under the Tuberculosis Act 1948, which required an individualised court order.

So, assuming detention, there are good arguments that it was not based in law until April 3. Even after that date there is the third question: was it arbitrary?

Read more: The psychology of lockdown suggests sticking to rules gets harder the longer it continues

Did NZ allow arbitrary detention in lockdown?

Many cases have discussed the meaning of arbitrariness, but the core idea is that detention must be the last step – namely, that other options are inadequate. This will depend on the evidence as to the state of knowledge about COVID-19 when the lockdown was imposed.

Importantly, the government has a duty to protect lives, and pandemic situations can be very dangerous, particularly for vulnerable people – as has been demonstrated in New Zealand, and more so in countries that took a lax approach.

Summarising this, first there are good arguments that most of New Zealand was in detention. The government seems to have a good prospect of showing that this was not arbitrary, given the risks of the disease spreading and causing death and misery.

But there is a clear problem with a failure to use the proper law from midnight on March 25, when level 4 lockdown began, until April 3.

This is not just an academic question. People were arrested, prosecuted and in some cases imprisoned for breaching the lockdown rules.

If the lockdown was not lawful until part-way through, people arrested in the week between March 26 and April 3 should not have been. And if, despite the strong arguments of the government, the lockdown was arbitrary, even arrests after April 3 will have been improper. Those people will have a pretty clear claim for unlawful detention and compensation, despite their selfish actions.

– ref. Was New Zealand’s coronavirus lockdown legal? One week might make all the difference – https://theconversation.com/was-new-zealands-coronavirus-lockdown-legal-one-week-might-make-all-the-difference-138203

Is the National Party off the hook over the Serious Fraud Office donations prosecution? That’s what the party is claiming, pointing out that no National official or MP has been charged.

But of course, there was a National MP involved – albeit one no longer with the party – and he is being prosecuted. In fact, at the time of the alleged offending, Jami-Lee Ross held the very senior role of Party Whip and was known to be close to Bridges. There is also no escaping the fact that the dodgy donations were made to and accepted by the National Party.

News yesterday that Jami-Lee Ross is one of the four going to trial should be a major embarrassment for National. For a very good account of what occurred yesterday, see Sam Hurley’s Jami-Lee Ross speaks out about his ‘outrageous’ SFO charges after name suppression lifts.

In terms of Ross’ surprise charge by the Serious Fraud Office, it’s worth reading Claire Trevett’s very good column today: Jami-Lee Ross SFO charges – blowing the whistle on NZ politics’ greatest own goal (paywalled).

Here’s her succinct summary: “Ross was revealed as one of four men charged by the Serious Fraud Office for alleged involvement in two donations to the National Party which had been broken up into smaller amounts to avoid disclosure. Rarely has anybody been both hero and zero at the same time. In this saga, Ross himself was the heroic whistleblower – it was he who exposed an alleged $100,000 donations rort within the National Party. That was an attempt to discredit Bridges. Instead, Ross is now in court charged with that alleged rort himself – although he has been quick to claim he is innocent and a ‘scapegoat’ for the National Party.”

Trevett nicely backgrounds how Ross came to be charged: “It was yet another twist in one of the most dramatic episodes New Zealand’s Parliament has witnessed, which began in October 2018 when Ross, full of rage, mounted a scathing attack on Bridges’ integrity. He claimed Bridges had ‘directed’ that a donation be split into smaller parts to avoid disclosure. Bridges denied it and Ross delivered an audio recording of a phone call with Bridges that proved nothing at all other than that the donation was talked about. It was Ross too who delivered papers to the police station, the media trailing him through Wellington’s streets as he went, the white knight of justice.”

She says that National should be worried: “In the court of public opinion, the entire story is a rank one for the National Party – regardless of whether they are in the dock. However it is spun, and whoever is involved, it is not a good look for the party. It fuels suspicion… National has a lot more to lose and this will now plague it in an election year, including potentially damaging evidence from those charged. Ross himself has said he will produce evidence as to whodunit”.

National is still arguing that the charges and the donations procured by Ross have little or nothing to do with them. MP Paul Goldsmith even went on TV this morning and said this about the scandal: “We’re watching it closely but it’s not relating directly to us”.

The attempts by National to distance themselves from Ross’ actions are rejected by blogger Martyn Bradbury who says: “Jami-Lee Ross is theirs, they’re responsible for him despite all their deceitful manipulations pretending he’s some rogue lone wolf” – see: Consider the distance National are pretending exists between them and Jami-Lee Ross.

Bradbury argues that Ross “joined National early & rose through the ranks because of the dark skill set they are now damning him for. His head kicker schtick and House of Cards ethics were crafted by the National Party hierarchy who saw talent in his Stormtrooper ways. He became a whip, he was a bag man for the boss, he was muscle for political kneecappings.”

He believes the court trial will end badly for National: “The JLR charges by the SFO are the worst outcome for National. It means the bloody thing won’t die now and could possibly play out in Court during the election. That’s a lot of air time for JLR to endlessly claim Simon is corrupt and release the rest of his hidden evidence.”

Electoral law expert Andrew Geddis said some similar things on RNZ’s Morning Report today: “One of the persons that has been charged is Jami-Lee Ross, who was Chief Whip under Simon Bridges, and was for a while their party ‘bagman’ in Auckland, whose job was to go around raising very big sums of money from particularly the Chinese community to fund the party business. And one two occasions, according to the Serious Fraud Office, he did so unlawfully. Now, how closely voters want to tie Jami-Lee Ross – who was a National Party MP – to the existing party, well, I guess that’s what we are going to be discussing” – see: National Party can’t separate itself from fraud charges against Jami-Lee Ross – expert.

He also suggests that the trial is unlikely to take place before the election – although “that doesn’t of course stop Jami-Lee Ross continuing to speak out if he so wishes”.

Geddis also wrote last month – when the SFO first announced their decision to charge four individuals – speculating on whether this might damage National. He suggesting it would depend on “the degree of culpability that the public assigns to National for being associated with this sort of allegedly unlawful behaviour. Will National be seen as complicit in the alleged offending, or a victim of it?” – see: A political donations powderkeg: on SFO criminal charges and the National Party.

He argued that “the fact no charges may have been laid against them does not necessarily mean that Bridges and the National Party can claim to be completely blameless in this matter.”

And he outlined why he’s not surprised that no National officials, or the party leader, have been charged: “For Bridges to be charged, he pretty much would have to had explicitly told donors something like, ‘I want you to give my party this money in this illegal way.’ Now, much as I know that plenty of inner-city, kombucha drinking liberal types like to hate on our Simon, no political party leader would be that stupid. Not even Simon Bridges. And the National Party secretary’s legal responsibility really amounts to little more than receiving and recording donations, before passing on limited information about those donations to the Electoral Commission. When doing so, he’s entitled to simply rely on what he’s told by donors to the party without having to try and independently verify that it is the truth.”

Some of these questions are also raised briefly in today’s Dominion Post editorial: “More importantly for voters in 2020, it will be hard for Bridges to plausibly claim he had nothing to do with the donations. He too is under pressure” – see: Songs, jokes and serious fraud in New Zealand politics.

National and Bridges are very lucky that this scandal has only fully hit the courts amidst controversy over the NZ First Foundation donations, as the public might be less inclined to follow the detail or see this behaviour as particularly unique.

And due to its own predicament, NZ First is unable to lead the charge against National in their usual manner. Labour and the Greens are also somewhat hamstrung, given that they have chosen not to take a hard line against NZ First over their donations scandal.

The quietness of National’s rivals is already being noted. RNZ says: “Even leaders of other parties like NZ First’s Winston Peters and Green co-leader James Shaw were reluctant to pass comment. ‘You hear of the sub judice rule? Well start observing it,’ Peters said to reporters. Shaw said he couldn’t comment on the particulars of the case, because it is part of a judicial process” – see: National Party donations case: ‘I am now being painted as the scapegoat’ – Jami-Lee Ross.

This will leave most of the debate to commentators and bloggers. And Labour Party blogger Greg Presland has sarcastically mocked Bridges’ apparent pleas of innocence in regard to the scandal – see: National has nothing to be afraid of.

Here’s his list of how little Bridges supposedly knows about what has gone on: “Simon Bridges himself had no idea what was happening. He has not met Zhang Yikun or Colin Zheng or had dinner at their home. He was not told that they wanted to make a $100,000 donation to the National Party. He was not told by Jami-Lee Ross that the money had been paid. He was not going to spend the money on attack ads. He was not aware that the money had been paid into the National Party Botany account. He was not told that the donation would be made by multiple people belonging to one association. He was not aware that the expectation behind the donation was having two Chinese MPs. He did not know that the donation was carved up into non declarable little pieces and transmitted to head office. Colin Zheng has not put his name forward for National’s candidate’s school.”

And even National-aligned blogger David Farrar admits the case is “very embarrassing for National” – see: SFO files charges in National Party donations case. He says: “Even though the party presumably (if correct the charges are against the donors only) did nothing wrong (in fact HQ insisted on getting details for each donor, and verifying they were eligible to donate), it is still a bad look to have charges laid in relation to a donation to you. At a minimum the party should, once the legal issues are dealt with, refund the donation.”

Finally, there are still questions about the twists and turns regarding the name suppression originally granted to the four men, which was lifted yesterday. For an interesting discussion by a journalist involved in this saga, see Barry Soper’s If Jami-Lee Ross didn’t want name suppression why did his lawyers threaten me?