ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

The New Zealand government remains unwilling to support Palestinian statehood recognition at the United Nations General Assembly.

This is a disgraceful position which gives support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and seriously undermines our standing. Of the 193 states of the UN, 157 have now provided statehood recognition. New Zealand is not one of them.

The purpose of this opinion piece is to highlight the troubling lack of transparency in how the government deliberates on its foreign policy choices.

Government decisions and calculations on foreign policy are being made behind closed doors with limited public scrutiny, unlike other areas of policy, where at least a modicum of transparency occurs.

The government has, over the past two years, exceeded itself in obscuring the process it goes through, without explaining its approach to the question of Palestine.

New Zealand still inconceivably lauds the impossible goal of a two-state solution, the hallmark of successive governments’ foreign policy positions on the question of Palestine, but does everything to not bring about its realisation.

To try to understand the basis for New Zealand’s approach to Gaza and the risks generated by the government’s lack of direct action against Israel, I placed an Official Information Request (OIA) with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Winston Peters. I requested copies of advice that had been received on New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Plausible case against Israel
My initial OIA request was placed in January 2024, after the International Court of Justice had determined there was a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. At that point, about 27,000 people in Gaza had been killed, mainly women and children. My request was denied.

I put the same OIA request to the minister in June 2025. By this time, nearly 63,000 people had been killed by Israel. At the time of my second request there was abundant evidence reported by UN agencies of Israel’s tactics. Again, my request for information was denied.

I appealed the refusal by the minister of foreign affairs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reviewed the case and accepted that the minister of foreign affairs was within his right to refuse to provide the material.

The basis for the decision was that the advice given to the minister was subject to legal professional privilege, and that the right to protect legally privileged advice was not outweighed by the public interest in gaining access to that advice.

The refusal by the minister and the Ombudsman to make the advice available is deeply worrying. Although I am not questioning the importance of protecting legal professional privilege, I cannot imagine an example that could be more pressing in terms of “public interest” than the complicity of nation states in genocide.

Indeed, the threshold of legal professional privilege was never meant to be absolute. Parliament, in designing the OIA regime, had this in mind when it deemed that legal professional privilege could, under exceptional circumstances, be outweighed by the public interest.

The Office of the Ombudsman has ruled in the past that legal professional privilege is not an absolute; it accepted that legal advice received by the Ministry of Health on embryo research had to be released, for example, as it was in the public interest to do so, even though it was legally privileged.

Puzzling statement
The Ombudsman concludes his response to my request with the puzzling statement that the “general public interest in accountability and transparency in government decision-making on this issue is best reflected in the decisions made after considering the legal advice, rather than what is contained in the legal advice.”

The point I was trying to clarify is whether the government is acting in a manner that reflects the advice it has received. If it has received advice that New Zealand must take particular steps to fulfil its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and the government has chosen to ignore that advice, then surely New Zealanders have a right to know.

The content of the advice is extremely relevant: it would identify any contradictions between the advice the government received and its actions. Through public access to such information, governments can be held to account for the decisions they make.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, concluded on September 16 that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four out of the five underlying acts of genocide. Illegal settlers have been let loose in the West Bank under the protection of the Israeli army to harass and kill local Palestinians and occupy further areas of Palestinian land.

At the UN General Assembly, the New Zealand government took a stance that is squarely in support of the Israeli genocide, also supported by the United States. International law clearly forbids the act of genocide, in Gaza as much as anywhere else, including the attacks on Palestinian civilians living under occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 2015-16, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the illegality of Israel’s actions in the Occupied West Bank, with the intention of supporting a Palestinian state. New Zealand’s recent posture at the General Assembly undermines this principled precedent.

That New Zealand could not bring itself to offer the olive branch of statehood recognition is morally repugnant and severely damages our standing in the international community. The New Zealand public has the right to demand transparency in its government’s decision-making.

The advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister cannot be hidden behind the veil of legal professional privilege.

John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Madang MP Bryan Kramer, who held the police, justice and later immigration portfolios in the outgoing givernment, is no stranger to publicity stunts.

Yesterday, he “ambushed” Chief Ombudsman Richard Pagen in the State Function Room of the National Parliament during the new MPs’ induction process.

Last week, the Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi had announced the appointment of a leadership tribunal to investigate allegations of misconduct in office against Kramer.

As Pagen was speaking to the new MPs on their roles and responsibilities and the work of the Ombudsman Commission, Kramer found it an opportune time to pick a “verbal spat’ with Pagen.

After Pagen had finished his presentation, Kramer asked several questions that “pickled” the integrity and reputation of Pagen and the Ombudsman Commission.

Kramer told Pagen that the commission had lost many leadership tribunal cases and that his [Pagen’s] own integrity was also in question when a staff member had raised allegations against him and he was still holding office.

The Chief Ombudsman told Kramer that he was at the Parliament induction programme to talk to collective Members of Parliament and not to debate with him.

‘I don’t want to argue’
“Member for Madang, I’m addressing a crop of leaders and I don’t want to argue with you. Do not raise conflict of interest questions here. Your leadership (tribunal) is coming,” he told Kramer.

Pagen said he was not appointed to be a “briefcase carrier” but to perform his constitutional duties and he performed his duty without fear or favour.

“We are here to work with the leaders. If you fear us then, it is because you have done something wrong,” he said.

The Chief Ombudsman said that as a constitutional office holder his job was not to “carry a whip around” and hunt for leaders to be punished.

He said he made sure that there were prima facie cases to refer members of Parliament to the Leadership Tribunal and so far four cases had been thrown out.

“I have done my job to refer people. We are not here to fight anyone. We are here to support service delivery for the 9 million [people in the country]. We are technical people here to give you advice,” he said.

Pagen said they were there to help make sure the leaders perform their duties of serving the people honestly and transparently.

MPs told to be ‘transparent’
In a separate news story, the Post-Courier reports that Pagen urged MPs to be transparent and not to be involved in actions that would question their integrity and of the office they occupied.

Pagen told new MPs and those who were continuing that the office they held now was for the people and their position must not be demeaned by their actions.

He said the integrity of the office and the position they occupied as leaders must be maintained at all times.

“The integrity of the country must also be preserved,” Pagen said.

“We must not use the office for personal gain.

“In the Melanesian society, we have come from a wider family connection and relations and it is essential that the relationship does not creep into the office.”

Jeffrey Elapa is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s Ombudsman Luamanuvao Katalaina Sapolu says the human rights effects from the covid-19 pandemic have been catastrophic.

She has just submitted Samoa’s eighth State of Human Rights Report to Parliament.

Luamanuvao said that over the past two years families had lost loved ones, businesses suffered, unemployment rates increased, and freedom of movement was restricted.

She said there had also been a grave impact on children’s right to education, and the right to health continues to be challenged with resources stretched to the maximum.

But she said human rights principles continued to play an important role in addressing discrimination and inequality and providing inclusion of everyone in the prevention of, and recovery from covid-19.

The report provided an analysis of the impact of the pandemic and government measures on the rights and freedoms of Samoans, especially on the most vulnerable groups.

The report also included recommendations for the government to ensure its covid-19 measures were consistent with the constitution, domestic laws, and policies safeguarding human rights, as well as Samoa’s international human rights obligations.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Deputy Prime Minister Davis Steven has been tasked to set boundaries on the terms of reference and set a timeframe to complete Papua New Guinea’s proposed Commission of Inquiry into the UBS Loan Report. Video: EMTV News

By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says he will resign from office if found guilty of improper conduct in securing the controversial K4 billion (NZ$1.8 billion) UBS – Union Bank of Switzerland – loan five years ago.

He said during question time in Parliament yesterday that he was open to total scrutiny but insisted all other players, including private lawyers, accountants, Oil Search, Kumul Petroleum Holdings Limited, and all members named in the report, including former prime minister Peter O’Neill, would be open to the commission of inquiry.

Marape said the Australian Security Commission would be asked to provide information on the loan while the UBS commission of inquiry would act as a precursor to what the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC), would eventually be and would continue as a buffer for corruption into the future.

READ MORE: PNG leadership rivals O’Neill, Marape both implicated in UBS loan saga

The then government of Peter O’Neill had borrowed A$1.239 billion (K4bn) from the Australian branch of UBS to buy 149,390,244 Oil Search Limited shares in 2014.

“The UBS report that was furnished in this House and emanates from the Ombudsman Commission was more geared towards establishing the culpability of leadership breaches in the context of those of us who held offices in relation to our subscription to the Leadership Code of conduct,” he said.

“When I made the announcement in response to the tabling of this report, it was my humble opinion that a greater cry was out there. While the focus was on those of us that hold leadership the offices pertaining to the subscription of Leadership Code, the UBS saga extends beyond leadership breach and culpability that relates to the leadership, a greater step back and a dive into the entire UBS saga in the first instance.

“The OC report is one that has come out for the benefit of the public and Parliament and for the benefit in the instance for the OC to pick on and expand beyond just a report, and see those of us implicated and breach of the leadership code and for them to initiate individual proceedings in this manner,” Marape said.

Terms of reference
“The COI (commission of inquiry) must be established to fully ascertain whether there are other corruptions involved in the entire saga, an inquiry will be set up on the earliest I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General to bring into Cabinet at the earliest a paper that will entail the inquiry start, when it will terminate and what the boundaries of the Terms of Reference of the inquiry.

“The investigations will not stop at the leadership level and that involves some of us including the former prime minister, in the process of UBS our country lost money and lost in the billions and we need to know exactly how much we lost.

“Oil Search will be asked to answer several questions including what happened to the 10.01 per cent of shares the country should have a share in, with KPHL asked on their involvement in the UBS loan as well.

“The former PM made a suggestion that the UBS saga predates even as to when UBS took place, it might be correct it may not be correct, the question of corruption the question of the possibility of corruption doesn’t only entail leadership breaches, but goes beyond this one to fully ascertain what has transpired.

“And in the name of giving honest sincere answers to the public who demand accurate information on what has taken place.”

Marape said the commission “must be established to fully ascertain whether there are other corruptions involved in the entire saga because the question is whether there is corruption in the UBS transaction”.

He added the inquiry “must establish who are the middlemen, the nation talks about corruption.

Leadership breach?
”We need to establish not only Leadership Code breach but entire criminality in it if there was any criminal offence conducted by anyone”.

“Money flowed from UBS to purchase of Oil Search shares, what happened beyond the Oil Search share, did PNG government spend any money it? The nation deserves greater scrutiny instead of just leadership scrutiny, how much did we lose in the process and revenue that was meant to support the budget of 2014-2016 if we did lose it, the inquiry must ascertain and establish exactly how much we lost,” Marape said.

“We want this to be concluded at the earliest and questions must be framed to make up the terms of reference when it is established.”

Miriam Zarriga is a reporter with the PNG Post-Courier.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

Political fallout from a controversial loan taken on by Papua New Guinea’s government five years ago could hinder rather than help attempts to remove Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

O’Neill and other leading officials have been referred by the Ombudsman Commission to a Leadership Tribunal over a US$1.2 billion loan his government took on from Swiss-based investment bank UBS in 2014.

The ombudman’s report, which was completed last December but only handed to the Parliament Speaker, Job Pomat, late last month, is yet to be tabled in the house.

READ MORE: UBS loan to PNG may have breached 15 laws

LISTEN: The controversial loan saga on RNZ Dateline Pacific

However, the report has been published at a time when the parliamentary opposition, bolstered by recent defections from the government, is planning for a vote of no confidence against the prime minister later this month.

The UBS loan was nominally taken for the state to buy a 10 percent stake in oil and gas producer Oil Search, a major player in PNG’s burgeoning petroleum sector.

In last week’s heated Parliament debate the prime minister said it was imperative for the state to regain Oil Search shares.

These were earlier lost after being mortgaged by PNG’s Sir Michael Somare government in 2009 as it sought finance from the United Arab Emirates-based International Petroleum Investment Company to gain equity in the country’s first LNG gas project.

‘Strategic investment’
“The Treasury officials said the Oil Search investment is a strategic investment to government,” O’Neill explained in Parliament last week.

“So the company decided to offer the government of Papua New Guinea at a special issue so we can secure the 10 percent. Why? Because Oil Search, even today, is the biggest company in PNG, is the biggest taxpayer in PNG.

However, the report reveals that the Ombudsman found the prime minister failed to present the government’s proposal on the borrowing of a loan, from UBS’ Australia branch, in Parliament for debate and approval as required by the constitution.

O’Neill was found to have misled the cabinet into approving the loan, among other irregularities. But he was not alone.

The commission’s findings also implicate the former Finance Minister, James Marape, who was found to have signed off the loan’s approval as minister despite knowledge of irregularities and “that his actions were improper”.

According to the opposition’s justice spokesman, Kerenga Kua, the deal and O’Neill’s lead role in pushing it through were very suspicious. He said the greatest transgression in the deal was its commercial injustice.

“In the end we only held that share for about twelve months before it was foreclosed by UBS and sold. So you see we don’t have those shares in our hands any more, because the state fell into default on that loan arrangement.”

Stock price fell
PNG was forced to sell its Oil Search shares when the stock price fell sharply, incurring a big loss. On the other hand, UBS profited around US$83 million in fees, interest and trading revenue from the deal.

Kua said the financial professionals involved in arranging the huge loan must have known the transaction was bound to fail for PNG.

“They would have seen this as a scam, a real professional scam. Because everybody knew of the state’s financial vulnerability, and its lack of cash flow to pay for that loan,” Kua said.

“Yet they created a monster, so that within a matter of months it would fall into default, and then you foreclose on the asset, cover yourself. But what are the people of PNG left with? Nothing, except a debt of 3 billion kina [NZ$1.4 billion].”

But an issue over which the opposition has been attacking O’Neill for years is now proving problematic for the MP seeking to replace the prime minister.

Marape, who resigned last month as minister and left the ruling party, has emerged as the opposition’s choice for alternative prime minister in a motion of confidence against O’Neill which it lodged last week.

But along with other officials, including Government Chief Secretary Isaac Lupari, Treasury Secretary Dairi Vele, and the Central Bank Governor Loi Bakani, Marape has also been referred by the Ombudsman Commission for investigation under the leadership code over the UBS loan. This undermines his own recent attacks on the prime minister.

Questions unsuccessful
Standing on opposite sides of the Parliament chamber for the first time last week, Marape questioned the prime minister about the loan process. The questions were unsuccessful because the prime minister was able to remind Marape that he was also involved in those decisions himself.

While it remains to be seen whether O’Neill, Marape and others will face the Leadership Tribunal, the opposition continues to portray the prime minister as the lead transgressor in the UBS saga and other controversies.

The former Health Minister, Sir Puka Temu, who also left the government last month, has portrayed the prime minister as exerting too much control on state departments, overriding the authority of ministers.

“I resigned because I saw things were not working well. There were a lot of corrupt practices and there were governance processes from agencies and bodies of the state that the leaders did not support,” Sir Puka said.

O’Neill has denied any wrongdoing, characterising the investigation as politically motivated, and part of a “dirty game” by the opposition as it tries to lure support to change the government.

He has indicated that the issue would be the subject of a judicial review.

Although he was a member of the last Somare government in its later stages, O’Neill has placed blame with that regime for placing PNG in a weak position when it sought finance in Abu Dhabi for the LNG Project.

Country ‘mortgaged’
“When they borrowed that money, when the mortgaged not only Oil Search, but they borrowed every state-owned entity of this country,” O’Neill explained.

“So if we wanted to sell one of the planes in Air Niugini, we had to ask the permission of the Arabs. If we wanted to sell one of the buildings in any of the SOEs, we had to ask the Arabs. So literally, we were mortgaged to the Arabs.”

But Kua said the O’Neill government’s purchase of Oil Search shares under the controversial UBS loan was a far more shoddy deal than the IPIC transaction.

“The IPIC transaction led to PNG owning 19.26 percent in the PNG LNG Project. That equity is still there and annually we are receiving over a billion kina in revenue from that project,” he explained.

The UBS loan was opposed from an early stage by the then Treasurer Don Polye, who ultimately refused to sign off on the deal before resigning in protest.

Polye insisted that the loan required parliamentary approval, warning that taking the loan on would break the country’s official debt ceiling.

The former Kandep MP was also not involved in the negotiations with Oil Search on the purchase of the shares.

‘Cup of coffee’
According to the Ombudsman report, the agreement to buy the shares was reached “over a cup of coffee” in a swanky Port Moresby hotel when O’Neill and Vele met with Oil Search’s managing director Peter Botten and its board chair, Gerea Aopi.

The government’s purchase of the Oil Search shares allowed the company to buy a stake in the Elk Antelope gas field in PNG’s Gulf province. This resource is being developed by French company Total SA to be the second major LNG project in PNG.

The Papua LNG Project agreement was signed by Total and the government last month.

However, the agreement immediately preceded the exodus from O’Neill’s ruling party, and was cited as a causal factor in the move by several of the MPs who resigned, including  Marape.

Warning that interests of provinces and landowners were not being protected, the MPs lamented that promised equity and royalty benefits from PNG’s first big LNG gas project, based in Marape’s province, had still not transpired, 10 years after that project agreement.

Meanwhile, the Chief Ombudsman, Richard Pagen, says the commission submitted its final UBS report to the Parliament Speaker, Job Pomat, on April 30.

Asserting that the commission has jurisdiction over the prime minister’s office, Pagen said the Speaker must table the report within 8 sitting days of receiving it.

Public interest
However, he added that the commission decided to publish the report as it considered it a matter of public interest

Only one day of Parliament sitting has lapsed since the handover of the report. That was last Tuesday, May 7, the same day the opposition lodged its motion of no confidence, when Pomat adjourned parliament until May 28.

PNG’s Attorney-General has filed a Supreme Court application to which could yet delay the confidence vote against the prime minister proceeding.

Opposition MPs say they’re confident that the vote will go ahead. The group is not likely to change Marape’s nomination as alternative prime minister, but his involvement in the UBS loan may yet count against him.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A Papua New Guinea opposition MP has filed a criminal complaint against the Electoral Commissioner for alleged misdeeds in last year’s general election.

Madang Open’s Bryan Kramer yesterday filed a formal complaint about Commissioner Patilias Gamato with the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate.

Kramer’s complaint focuses on the election in the provincial seat of Southern Highlands.

He said Gamato’s premature declaration of a result was an act of electoral fraud that must not be allowed to be “swept under the carpet”.

One of the most controversial results in an election hampered with irregularities, it sparked deadly violence among supporters of rival candidates in the province.

Tensions have lingered, and a court ruling in June which upheld Southern Highlands provincial governor William Powi’s election triggered a rampage by protesters who torched an airplane, courthouse and the governor’s residence.

Kramer has filed a similar complaint with the Ombudsman Commission.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz