Adelaide Writers’ Week, a core part of South Australia’s premier cultural event, the Adelaide Festival, has finally been cancelled in its 40th year.

There are own goals. And then there is the board of the Adelaide Festival (ably assisted by referee, Premier Peter Malinauskas). After yesterday’s resignation of chair Tracey Whiting and three further members, the board no longer had a quorum to make any decisions.

The chaos follows last week’s “uninvitation” of Palestinian-Australian sociologist, lawyer and author Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah. Almost 100 authors and presenters (of the 124 in the programme, according to InDailySA) cancelled their attendance in protest.

It was finally cancelled today. The damage is colossal.

• READ MORE: Adelaide Writers’ Week: Well done, Zionists, you killed it
• Adelaide Writers’ Week cancelled after protests over axing of Palestinian author
• Adelaide Writers’ Week director Louise Adler resigns
• Other Adelaide Writers’ week reports

Being one of the most popular and respected writers’ events in Australia, the list of withdrawals includes best-selling local writers Trent Dalton, Helen Garner and Hannah Kent, journalists Sarah Ferguson, Peter Greste and Laura Tingle, as well as international speakers former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, Yanis Varoufakis and Zadie Smith.

Literary luminaries such as Greg Sheridan are among the 30-odd who had yet to cancel. At least publicly. Some planned panel discussions were left with just one participant, and some stage interviews with just a questioner, somewhat stymying the discourse.

But it’s not just writers who are staying away; the main Festival is also seeing significant fallout, with day two of “Tryp”, the music programme, already cancelled because lead acts have said they are no longer coming. Then there are those already signed up and paid for — for events now cancelled, or planned to do so.

Sponsors rattled too
Last year, 362,000 people attended the two events, and according to the SA government’s impact report, they spent over $62 million. The economic impact will be felt not just by the organisers and the state government, but by hotels, restaurants, retailers and cellar doors from Clare Valley to the Padthaway.

At least one sponsor, Mischief Brew, pulled out, with others likely to monitor the situation closely. A low-attendance festival hitting headlines for all the wrong reasons is not an attractive marketing proposition.

Premier Malinauskas in all sorts
The otherwise well-liked SA Premier has perhaps helped the Zionist cause with his vocal support for the decision, but is unlikely to have found much sympathy beyond rusted-on readers of The Advertiser. But perhaps that’s what he was looking for?

The SA state election is in March, too.

Both he and Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis have been caught lying by stating that the Festival removed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman from the 2024 programme at the behest of Dr Abdel-Fattah and 10 others who had written to the board and requested his exclusion because of an article he had written demeaning Palestinians and Arabs.

Notwithstanding the hypocrisy of that request, correspondence from the Festival showed they did not cave in; Friedman withdrew on his own accord.

In an attempt to diminish his earlier comments, Malinauskas has since stated that he had not “directed’ the board to act, but merely voiced “his opinion” in supporting the axing of Dr Abdel-Fattah.

It does, of course, also highlight the double standards of a board that rejected the request for a Jewish participant to be cancelled, for all the right reasons, yet were happy to comply when the target of the complaint was a Palestinian.

What will the board do?
Michael West Media understands that the board members who resigned were all supportive of Louise Adler’s programming decisions and understood the need to review the decision to cancel Dr Abdel-Fattah.

However, with Writers Week still over seven weeks away, it apparently could not be saved. Most of the authors who resigned said they would come if Abdel-Fattah was reinstated.

But as it stands, the board cannot decide anything. The Adelaide Festival is constituted by an Act of Parliament, and board members are appointed by the State Governor at the recommendation of the City of Adelaide and the State Government.

According to the act, the board has to have a maximum of eight members, at least two must be women and two must be men.

After the above was posted, chair Tracey Whiting resigned and also the director Louise Adler, who said in an article in The Guardian explaining her resignation that she “cannot be party to silencing writers”.

The board now has three members, two women and one man, plus a non-voting government observer. No quorum.

In addition, Dr Abdel-Fattah and several of those who have cancelled have engaged lawyers, and (unconfirmed) reports suggest so has Adler.

On Monday afternoon, Adelaide Festival Corporation’s executive director Julian Hobba issued a brief statement saying the situation was “complex and unprecedented”.

We bet it is. Stay tuned.

Kim Wingerei is a businessman turned writer and commentator. He is passionate about free speech, human rights, democracy and the politics of change. Originally from Norway, Kim has lived in Australia for 30 years. Author of ‘Why Democracy is Broken – A Blueprint for Change’.

Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article is republished with permission.

The Media Council of Papua New Guinea (MCPNG) has called on Prime Minister James Marape to stop Telikom PNG silencing and suppressing media personnel.

Telikom PNG, which is 100 percent government-owned, has two key outlets: FM100 radio and EMTV.

Recently, it sacked FM100 talkback host Culligan Tanda after he featured opposition East Sepik Governor Allan Bird on his show, following the most recent vote of no confidence.

• READ MORE: Other PNG media freedom reports

Local media report that Tanda was initially suspended for three weeks without pay on April 22, and subsequently terminated.

MCPNG president Neville Choi said this was just the latest example of media suppression by Telikom PNG going back to 2018.

He said that he himself was sacked in 2019 after EMTV had run a story quoting the former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern saying she would not be riding in one of the PNG government’s luxury Maseratis during an APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) meeting in Port Moresby.

Choi said the story, though correct, was perceived as painting the government of the day in a “negative light”.

‘Free, robust media essential’
He said a “free, robust, and independent media is an essential pillar of democracy”.

“It is the cornerstone of allowing freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.

“Being in a position of power and authority gives no one, especially brown-nosing public servants wanting to score brownie points with the sitting government administration, the right to suppress media workers who are only doing their jobs, and doing it well,” he said.

The council also reminded the management’s of state-owned media organisations, that the Organic Law on the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) defined corrupt conduct by public officials and the dishonest exercising and abuse of official functions.

According to a PNG Haus Bung report, Marape has directed his chief of staff to get to the bottom of the issue.

He has also denied government interference, according to a report by Exeprenuer.

“We don’t get down that low as to editorial content,” Marape was quoted as saying by the the online magazine.

In December, Marape gave “full assurance that my government will not dilute the media’s role.”

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

Survivors of abuse in care arrived at Parliament today to hear the formal apology from the state which oversaw and inflicted harm on children.

Public sector leaders from Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry of Health, New Zealand Police, and Ministry of Education also apologised, as did the public service commissioner and the solicitor-general, at an event preceding Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s national apology in the House.

By the afternoon, many survivors were still trying to absorb what had been said and what it meant, with some saying it was a “PR stunt,” some calling the speeches “hollow” and others not willing to believe the words until they saw action.

• READ MORE: ‘You deserved so much better’ – PM Luxon apologises to survivors of abuse in care
• NZ Speaker reverses journalist bar from abuse apology at Parliament
• Sorry means you don’t do it again — Aaron Smale
  
• Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuse in state care – state response

Abuse in state care — survivor reactions.   Video: RNZ

During his apology, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said many survivors did not want to engage with the current compensation process — but more than 3500 were — and he signalled there would be an extra $32 million funnelled into that system “while we work on the new redress system”.

Opposition leader Chris Hipkins said he formally joined with the government in its apology, saying the day was a significant step forward.

“Today is a hugely important day for all of you, to finally hear what the Crown has failed to give you for all of these years, an apology.”

Ken Clearwater, a long-time advocate for survivors, was at the event, saying he heard some great words but it was about “what action needs to go with it”.

“Everyone’s saying the right things, but if you look at the policies and stuff we have at the moment, that’s not helping our children.”

He believed National, leader of the coalition government, was going to have to change a lot of their policies.

“So we’re apologising for what happened in the past, but the policies are still in place that are making it no different than when we were in the past.

‘Hollow words .. . dangerous’
“To have hollow words at this stage would be, would be pretty dangerous.”

He said there had to be a belief the government would look into things, “but there’s got to be a survivor voice”.

He mentioned Tu Chapman, a survivor who spoke at the event, who pointed out only having five minutes to speak as a survivor at an apology for survivors.

“So once again, the survivor voice is not forefront, and I think that that’s what they’re going to have to look at, is how they get more more of the survivor voice in whatever policies they look at.”

Another survivor, Reihana Tahau, who had been in state care in the 1980s, agreed, saying he found it ironic there was an apology on one hand while the government goes through the process of appealing Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

For him, he said, “that’s the opposite, that’s counterintuitive” because 7AA was helping to stop bringing children into care.

“I can’t understand why they would appeal something that is actually working.

‘Mistrust, systematic trauma’
“And for me, my mistrust and systematic trauma, I can’t help but feeling that they’re not genuine in that, because if they were genuine, they wouldn’t be taking a thing which would potentially set up another generation for trauma.”

He acknowledged the apology was a step in the right direction, but “it still feels like a PR thing”.

“I do find it hard to trust people that read off a paper, because I talk from my heart.”

He said the speech from the prime minister was “part of his job” and he did not know how “authentic that is”.

Another survivor, Nicky, also said it was a “PR stunt”, and would not provide closure.

“This is a PR stunt for the prime minister to look good.”

Ardern thanked
She acknowledged Dame Jacinda Ardern for initiating the apology.

“We’d like to thank her for starting it, but they’ve sat on things, you know, for a quarter of a century we’ve been battling.

“We’re old, we’re broken but we’re still fighting.”

She called specifically for Salvation Army orphanages to be investigated and for their charitable status to be investigated.

“The government paid them to abuse me. We want that money.

“Where did that money go? It didn’t go in our care, it didn’t go in our food, and they worked us like child labour, just like Gloriavale [a small and isolated Christian community located on the West Coast of the South Island].”

Survivors in the room muttered or called out during the speeches, reacting — but saved their strongest reaction for Solicitor-General Una Jagose.

Boos, cries of ‘shame’
As she rose to speak, she was met with boos, and cries of “shame” and “disgrace”. One woman stood and turned her back. Another shouted: “You wanted us dead.”

Another survivor, who listened quietly and intently throughout the proceedings with tears streaming at times, said he wanted to hear what the public sector leaders had to say.

He said what Jagose said needed to be said.

“I’m disappointed, because I’m a lawyer, I’m disappointed that she was howled down and I couldn’t hear all that she said.”

He said he thought Jagose would be used by the government as a scapegoat.

“Us lawyers have to speak for the people we represent, whether they’re good or bad.

“And we shouldn’t be hung drawn and quartered because we’ve been instructed to say something or do something or fight something.”

Clearwater said he could not believe she was there.

‘Nobody wanted her there’
“By the noise there, nobody wanted her there, and so that was a bad choice on the government’s part.”

Tu Chapman spoke on behalf of survivors at the event, and did not think the chief executives should have been at the event apologising.

“It’s like putting the cart before the horse so to speak.”

Chapman was angry the prime minister left before hearing some speeches, saying it was “tokenistic”.

“I think he should have been there to listen to us, so that he could actually, authentically and genuinely apologise to us in the House this afternoon or early this morning.

“And it might have been a little bit more meaningful, because quite right now, it just feels tokenistic.”

Another survivor said the speeches today were “very empty, hollow”.

‘Carbon copy’ speech
He said the prime minister’s speech seemed to be a “carbon copy” of when he had been there for the tabling of the report.

In regards to the solicitor-general, he acknowledged “she was able to take what was getting handed to her and listen to it”.

“She actually took it on and then spoke when she could.”

He said the others seemed to want to get over with the speech fast, “that’s not how you do apologies”.

“You take what’s coming, surely they knew there was going to be some heckling going on.”

His message to the prime minister was not to wait, “take action now”.

Survivors representing mothers and adopted children said they felt they had been missed out of the equation.

More about abuse victims
One acknowledged today was more about abuse victims, but there could be a separate apology for mothers and their children that were “taken from them unlawfully and unwilling”.

“We would like the history of losing our children told in this country.

“I’ve flown from Australia for this and for the few words that were said, I really thought it was pretty poor.”

They want a full inquiry into what happened and an apology.

Another said in regards to the apologies, there were “some people who probably needed a brandy after getting up and speaking and apologising for the departments they worked for”.

“There was one in particular who shouldn’t have been there at all, who shouldn’t represent anybody, let alone the Crown.”

Healing process
Piiata Tiakitai Turi-Heenan said today was needed as part of the healing process for survivors, “this is a start”.

She also did not think the speeches were authentic.

“The words that were authentic came from the survivors themselves.”

She said if the government was looking for answers, they will come from “sitting down with the survivors and sorting everything out with them, rather than around a table with people who have had no experience of surviving”.

On the disruption of the speeches, she said “those were emotions”.

“The focus was on silencing those emotions, but that’s exactly why we are where we are today, because they were silenced in the first place.

“You have permission to not be silent anymore.”

Heart ‘on sleeve’
Another survivor said his heart was “on his sleeve at the moment”.

He had been speaking to various MPs after the event who assured him there was support across the House to make changes.

“I believe they’re sincere, but I’m still, I’m still thinking that I might get let down, but I’m hoping I’m wrong. I’m hoping that it does go ahead.

“Where to for me from here is that I’m gonna keep on doing what I do, until further notice, until I know for a fact, well, this is real.”

Chapman added the journey was only just beginning again for the survivor community.

“Another mechanism for us now is to actually encourage our survivor community to be more intentional about their engagement with the Crown, with ministers, and hold them to account.”

The new redress scheme
The minister in charge of the government response, Erica Stanford, told RNZ Checkpoint the current redress system was not perfect but the announced $32 million of funding to increase capacity and get through claims faster would help.

While some survivors queried why redress could not be addressed sooner, Stanford said nobody expected the government would be able to “turn on a dime” and deliver something straight away.

“We will have something up and running next year,” Stanford said, but she could not commit to an exact date.

Outbursts from survivors during the apology had been expected, Stanford said, due to the amount of “raw emotion” in the room.

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

The high-stress nature of working in politics is increasingly taking a toll on staff and politicians. But an additional threat to the personal wellbeing and safety of politicians resides outside Parliament, and the threat is ubiquitous: online violence against women MPs.

Since her election in 2017, Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman has been subject to persistent online violence.

Ghahraman’s resignation following allegations of shoplifting exposes the toll sustained online violence can have on a person’s mental health.

• READ MORE: New Zealand newsrooms saw the rise of ‘mob censorship’ in 2023, as journalists faced a barrage of abuse
• Analysis shows horrifying extent of abuse sent to women MPs via Twitter
• How misogyny, narcissism and a desperate need for power make men abuse women online

In an interview with Vice in 2018, Ghahraman expressed how the online abuse was overwhelming and questioned how long she would continue in Parliament.

Resigning in 2024, Ghahraman said in a statement:

it is clear to me that my mental health is being badly affected by the stresses relating to my work

and

the best thing for my mental health is to resign as a Member of Parliament.

Ghahraman is not alone in receiving torrents of online abuse. Many other New Zealand women MPs have also been targeted, including former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson, National MP Nicola Willis and Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Words can not only hurt, but they can seriously endanger a person’s wellbeing.

Online violence against women MPs, particularly against women of colour, is a concerning global trend. In an Australian study, women MPs were found to be disproportionately targeted by public threats, particularly facing higher rates of online threats involving sexual violence and racist remarks.

Similar online threats face women MPs in the United Kingdom. Studies show that women of colour receive more intense abuse.

Male politicians are also subject to online violence. But when directed at women the violence frequently exhibits a misogynistic character, encompassing derogatory gender-specific language and menacing sexualised threats, constituting gender-based violence.

Golriz Ghahraman’s exit from politics shows the toll of online bullying on female MPs

Many say it’s become overwhelming, writes @LegallyFeminist (@ucnz).https://t.co/PSsG9OBCii

— The Conversation – Australia + New Zealand (@ConversationEDU) January 19, 2024

Our legal framework is not enough
New Zealand’s current legal framework is not well equipped to respond to the kind of online violence experienced by women MPs like Ghahraman.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 is designed to address online harassment by a single known perpetrator. But the most distressing kind of abuse comes from the sheer number of violent commentators, most of whom are unknown to the victim or intentionally anonymous.

This includes “mob style” attacks, where large numbers of perpetrators coordinate efforts to harass, threaten, or intimidate their target.

Without legal recourse, women MPs have two options — tolerate the torrent of abuse, or resign. Both of these options endanger representative democracy.

Putting up with abuse may mean serious impacts on mental health and personal safety. It may also have a chilling effect on what topics women MPs choose to speak about publicly. Resigning means losing important representation of diverse perspectives, especially from minorities.

Having to tolerate the abuse is a breach of the right to be free from gender-based violence. Being forced to resign because of it also breaches women’s rights to participate in politics. Therefore, the government has duties under international human rights law to prevent, respond and redress online violence against women.

“More than 70 national elections are scheduled for 2024. But one group is likely to be significantly under-represented: women. A major reason is the disproportionate amount of abuse female politicians and candidates receive online.”https://t.co/SuPn36zLb4

— Indo-Pacific Defense FORUM (@IPDefenseForum) January 12, 2024

Steps the government can take
United Nations human rights bodies provide some guidance for measures the government could implement to fulfil their obligations and safeguard women’s human rights online.

As one of the drivers of online violence against women MPs is prevailing patriarchal attitudes, the government’s first step should be to correctly label the behaviour: gender-based violence.

Calling online harassment “trolling” or “cyberbullying” downplays the harm and risks normalising the behaviour. “Gender-based violence” reflects the systemic nature of the abuse.

Secondly, the government should urgently review the Harmful Digital Communication Act. The legislation is now nine years old and should be updated to reflect the harmful online behaviour of the 2020s, such as targeted mob-style attacks.

New Zealand is also now out of step with other countries. Australia, the UK and the European Union have all recently strengthened their laws to tackle harmful online content.

These new laws focus on holding big tech companies accountable and encourage cooperation between the government, online platforms and civil society. Greater collaboration, alongside enforcement mechanisms, is essential to address systemic issues like gender-based violence.

Thirdly, given the increasing scale of online violence, the government should ensure adequate resourcing for police to investigate serious incidents. Resources should also be made available for social media moderation among all MPs and training in online safety.

More than ever, words have the power to break people and democracies. It is now the urgent task of the government to fulfil its legal obligations toward women MPs.

Dr Cassandra Mudgway is senior lecturer in law, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Christopher Luxon and the National Party are on course to form a new government with the ACT Party in Aotearoa New Zealand, with National winning almost 40 percent of the party vote in yesterday’s general election.

National romped far ahead in the party vote in the election and were above 40 percent much of the night, but were falling just below at about 39 percent of the vote with 95 percent of results in the preliminary count as of nearly midnight.

That may mean the party needs New Zealand First to hit the numbers, but with special votes yet to be counted and a number of close electorate races, the final picture is not quite clear.

• READ MORE: Other NZ election reports

Labour was sitting at about 26.5 percent of the party vote, and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins conceded there was no chance he could form a government and that Labour was heading out after six years and two terms in office.

The Green Party was at about 10 percent, ACT at 9 percent, New Zealand First at 6.4 percent and Te Pāti Māori at 2.5 percent with 94 percent of results counted.

Te Pāti Māori was poised to win most of the seven Māori seats with new candidate Hana-Rawhiti Maipi Clarke defeating Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta in the Hauraki-Waikato electorate, ousting the longest serving female MP and at just age 21 becoming the youngest MP in Aotearoa in 170 years.

It is a stunning reversal from 2020’s election, when Labour hit 50 percent of the vote as Jacinda Ardern’s government won a second term and National cratered with 25.6 percent.

One Labour supporter told RNZ that “Labour expected a slap on the wrist. This is a punch in the face.”

‘A new government and a new direction’ – Luxon
Greeting cheering supporters in Auckland, Luxon said the results were a mandate for change.

“You have reached for hope and you have voted for change,” Luxon told supporters. “On the numbers tonight, National will be in a position to lead the next government.”

“My pledge to you is that our government will deliver for every New Zealander, because we will rebuild the economy and deliver tax relief.

“We will bring down the cost of living, we will restore law and order, we will deliver better health care and we will educate our children so that they can grow up to live the lives that they dreamed of.

“That’s what you voted for and that’s what we will deliver.”

A joyous crowd chanted “back on track” as Luxon spoke.

‘I gave it my all, but that was not enough’ – Hipkins
Earlier last night, Labour leader Chris Hipkins conceded that the party had no path to return to power, saying that “the result tonight is not one that any of us wanted”.

Hipkins replaced Jacinda Ardern in January, but he joined other prime ministers like Mike Moore, Jenny Shipley and Bill English in failing to win election in their own right after taking over from another leader mid-term.

“I gave it my all to turn the tide of history, but alas, that was not enough.”

Hipkins struck a defiant note in his speech and promised Labour would remain strong in opposition.

“When the tide comes in big it almost invariably goes out big as well . . . but Labour is still here, it is not going anywhere, and we will get up again as we have done many times before.

“We put people first, we refused to leave people behind, because that is what we do, that is what the Labour Party does.”

Many electorate seats were still too close to call, with only a few hundred votes separating candidates.

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

Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern has received one of the top accolades in today’s King’s Birthday Honours.

Ardern, who was prime minister from September 2017 until January this year, has been appointed a Dame Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

She received the honour for services to the state.

• READ MORE: King’s Birthday Honours: Kiwis recognised for service across fields from business to sport
• Other King’s Birthday Honours reports

Dame Jacinda declined to speak to RNZ about the award, but said in a statement she was “incredibly humbled”.

“I was in two minds about accepting this acknowledgement. So many of the things we went through as a nation over the last five years were about all of us rather than one individual,” Ardern said.

“But I have heard that said by so many Kiwis who I have encouraged to accept an honour over the years. And so for me this a way to say thank you — to my family, to my colleagues, and to the people who supported me to take on the most challenging and rewarding role of my life.”

Ardern’s official citation listed her leadership in response to the March 15 terrorist attacks and the covid-19 pandemic “positioning New Zealand as having one of the lowest covid-19 related death rates in the Western world.”

It noted she had been named top of Fortune Magazine‘s World’s 50 Greatest Leaders in 2021.

The citation also referenced Ardern’s focus on child poverty reduction and listed several policies her government introduced, including free school lunches in some schools.

Ardern was first elected in 2008 and became leader of the Labour Party in 2017. She became prime minister later that year.

Ardern announced her surprise resignation in January, saying she did not have “enough in the tank” to seek re-election.

Since leaving politics in April, Ardern has become New Zealand’s Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call and trustee of Prince William’s Earthshot Prize.

She has also been appointed two fellowships at Harvard University.

In a statement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said Ardern was recognised for leading New Zealand through some of the “greatest challenges” the country has faced in modern times.

“Leading New Zealand’s response to the 2019 terrorist attacks and to the covid-19 pandemic represented periods of intense challenge for our 40th prime minister, during which time I saw first hand that her commitment to New Zealand remained absolute.”

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

Jacinda Ardern’s resignation as prime minister in January was a courageous and pragmatic decision for herself, her family and her party.

Although many said she had done a great job as leader, she rightly reminded us that a great leader is “one who knows when it’s time to go”.

Since hitting stellar heights in mid-2020, Ardern’s Labour Party had dropped significantly in the polls and was trailing the opposition National Party throughout 2022.

• READ MORE: NZ election 2020: Jacinda Ardern promised transformation — instead, the times transformed her
• Anniversary of a landslide: new research reveals what really swung New Zealand’s 2020 ‘covid election’
• Women leaders and coronavirus: look beyond stereotypes to find the secret to their success

The “Jacinda effect” had switched from being a uniting force to a polarising one. With an election coming in October, it was time for a change.

Her decision to stand down was as politically astute and timely as her elevation to leader of the Labour Party in August 2017. After all, Labour is now ahead of National in recent polls.

By the time she gives her valedictory statement to parliament later today, Ardern will have served as an MP for nearly 15 years. While the intervening period has undoubtedly changed her, she remains in many ways the same person she was as a novice backbencher.

In her maiden speech to the House of Representatives in 2008, she expressed the small-town values that got her started:

Some people have asked me whether I am a radical. My answer to that question is very simple: I am from Morrinsville. Where I come from a radical is someone who chooses to drive a Toyota rather than a Holden or a Ford.

She described herself as a social democrat who believed in human rights, social justice, equality and democracy. She spoke especially about work, education, community and the reduction of poverty – child poverty in particular.

All fine aspirations. But back then, Ardern’s Labour Party was looking at nine long years in opposition after Helen Clark’s three-term government lost power.

Unable to break the run National’s John Key enjoyed as prime minister, Labour went through one leader after another while Ardern rose through the ranks.

In mid-2017, despite a mood for change, it still looked like the election wouldn’t go well for Labour, at the time polling down around 25 percent. Then, at the beginning of August, Andrew Little handed leadership of the party to Ardern. With just seven weeks until the election, it was either an inspired move or the ultimate hospital pass.

As history shows, however, Ardern’s elevation immediately energised Labour’s campaign. It also drew international attention to the New Zealand election, as what became known as “Jacindamania” changed the mood on the streets and in the media.

Accidents of history
Critics sometimes labelled Ardern the “accidental prime minister” — a rookie “appointed” by Winston Peters, whose New Zealand First party held the balance of power in post-election negotiations. Conventional wisdom has it that Ardern simply offered Peters a better coalition deal, despite her party having won fewer seats than National.

But Peters gave those critics some more ammunition during a recent TV interview. He appeared to reveal that New Zealand First was forced to choose coalition with Labour when then-National leader Bill English alerted him to a potential leadership coup by Judith Collins.

According to Peters, English had assured him Collins didn’t have the numbers to pull it off. (Collins would eventually become National leader, of course, losing spectacularly to Ardern at the 2020 election.)

This sliding-doors version of events may be conjecture. But Peters can’t have forgotten how Jenny Shipley had rolled previous National leader and prime minister Jim Bolger in 1997.

That ultimately led to the breakup of the National-New Zealand First coalition in which Peters had been deputy prime minister and treasurer.

Perhaps, then, we have Collins to thank for Ardern’s elevation to the top job. We’ll probably never know.

Rise and fall
The “Jacinda effect” wasn’t a flash in the pan, however. Labour’s election support went from 25 percent in 2014 to 37 percent in 2017, and then to an extraordinary 50 percent in 2020. Coming on the back of Ardern’s exemplary leadership through the covid pandemic, it was an unprecedented result under the country’s proportional MMP system.

Her belief in “kindness” as a political force appeared to have been vindicated, if not for long. While New Zealand eventually recorded the world’s lowest excess mortality rate during the pandemic, this success was far from cost-free. In particular, there was a human and political price to pay for the lockdowns and border closures.

Businesses struggled, many New Zealanders abroad couldn’t return, and many resisted the pressure to be vaccinated. No nation escaped unscathed, and in New Zealand resistance to vaccine mandates boiled over on the grounds of parliament in early 2022.

Some protesters were angered by Ardern’s trademark empathy and kindness, which they now perceived as a false front. Due to the extremist elements among the protests, she refused to address them directly.

Ardern’s positive leadership reputation was earned on her responses to tragedies: the Christchurch terror attack, the Whakaari-White Island eruption, and the pandemic. But no sane politician would have welcomed such crises.

Nor were they part of Ardern’s social democratic plan. In fact, they hindered it. She did a lot for child poverty and family incomes, in line with her core values. But those achievements were overshadowed by a pandemic response that upended her government’s fiscal policy.

Promise unfulfilled
So, if catastrophes were the making of Jacinda’s career as prime minister, they were also the breaking of it. From her first campaign speech in August 2017, she had created a sense of promise that her government was ultimately unable to fulfil.

She claimed climate change was her generation’s “nuclear-free moment”, and that a decent, affordable home was everyone’s right. It sounded great, but on both counts progress fell short of expectation and need. Later, she would capitulate on a full capital gains tax to help solve the housing crisis. That allowed coalition partner Peters to claim credit for the backdown.

But it would also be wrong if the lasting narrative was one of failure to deliver. Her government’s Child Poverty Reduction Act now mandates reporting on progress towards poverty targets, bringing the problem into the engine room of fiscal policy. The Healthy School Lunches program helped reduce food insecurity.

Future governments will encounter strong political resistance if they try to rescind those measures.

Even those tireless advocates for children, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), gave Ardern qualified approval following her resignation — although the truce didn’t last long. CPAG was back on the attack when Stats NZ reported “child poverty rates for the year ended June 2022 were unchanged compared with the previous year”.

A complex legacy
In the end, Ardern did not use the single-party majority she won in 2020 to fix the things she had wanted to fix. When her government saw a problem, its default setting was to say “let’s centralise it” — as if that would do. Good social democratic government was sidelined by bureaucratic shakeups in healthcare, education and (before the plan was cancelled) public broadcasting.

An elaborate structural reform of water services became mired in controversy over Māori co-governance and loss of local democratic control. The sixth Labour government’s only potentially historic contribution to the development of New Zealand’s social security system — a proposed unemployment insurance scheme — was quietly shelved after criticism from both left and right.

So, will Ardern be remembered as one the great Labour leaders? To do so would put her in the pantheon of Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser, who achieved so much in social security, healthcare and education, and who led the country through the Second World War.

It would also place her next to Norman Kirk, whose 1972-75 government universalised accident compensation, introduced the domestic purposes benefit, and stood against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

Ardern with baby Neve in 2018, the second prime minister to give birth while in office.
Getty Images

It’s a high bar, but not unreasonable to make the case. Ardern broke through barriers for women, most notably giving birth to her daughter while she held office. She united the country after the mosque shootings, soothing what could have become a divisive moment.

By listening to the scientific evidence and advice about covid, she helped save countless lives.

Ardern will undoubtedly be remembered as one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s outstanding prime ministers. This may not be for reasons of her choosing, though. Once the disaster management is accounted for, there are no major lasting achievements for which her government will be cited in the history books.

What will be remembered is Ardern’s exemplary and highly effective leadership through covid. Yet there is no “kind” pathway through an unkind pandemic.

Nevertheless, Jacinda Ardern is owed gratitude for all that she did — and acknowledgement of all she had to endure — to get her nation through it.

Dr Grant Duncan is associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern has used her valedictory speech to Parliament to ask the House to take the politics out of climate change.

In her speech, Ardern said when she became prime minister she knew she wanted climate change to be “front and centre”.

“I called it our nuclear moment — I believed it then and I believe it still now.

• READ MORE: Jacinda Ardern’s legacy for NZ: Unique covid-19 strategy ‘saved many lives’
• Ex-PM Ardern named Christchurch Call envoy against online violence
• Other Jacinda Ardern articles

“We have seen first hand the reality of our changing environment … when crisis has landed in front of us I have seen the best of this place.”

Ardern said one of the only things she wanted to ask on her departure was for the House to take the politics out of climate change.

Her government had worked to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi by crossing the bridge more often, she said.

That included the creation of the Māori Crown portfolio, growth of te reo Māori, the establishment of the Māori Health Authority and the creation of Matariki — the first national Māori holiday, she said.

‘Not always easy’
“The path we travel as a nation will not always be linear and it won’t always be easy, but I’m glad I was in part of a government that took on the hilly bits.”

One of the hardest things about covid-19 was the unknowns, Ardern said.

“A valedictory is not the time to summarise a pandemic, no one has the time for that type of group therapy.”

Former prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s valedictory speech today. Video: Parliament

Ardern said she remained forever grateful that science was “on our side” and that she was surrounded by wonderful smart compassionate people trying to do the right thing.

She said they did not always get it right but “we went in as a nation with a goal to look after one another and we did”.

Other things, such as a sense of security, were lost along the way and so much of the information swirling around during the pandemic was false, Ardern said.

Ardern described how she tried and failed to convince a protester that they were relying on totally false information.

She said she could not single-handedly pull someone out of a rabbit hole but that perhaps collectively “we could stop them from falling into it in the first place”.

“Debate is critical to a healthy democracy but conspiracy is its nemesis.”

Struggled over mosque attacks
Ardern said she still struggled to talk about the mosque attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, but the Muslim community had humbled her beyond words.

She said she was unsure what the response of one of the survivors of the attack would be when she met him in the immediate aftermath.

“What came next is one of the most profound memories I have of that period, he thanked us. Here was someone who had been through one of the most horrific experiences I could imagine and he thanked New Zealand and expressed gratitude for his home.”

The most significant task for us as a nation was “to live up to the expectations that those experienced it have of us, to deserve their thanks”.

Ardern became emotional at the end of her valedictory speech describing herself as sensitive, somewhat negative, and “a crier and a hugger”.

But said she “would rather be criticised for being a hugger than being heartless”.

She closed her speech telling the House that she hoped she had demonstrated anyone could be a leader.

‘You can lead, just like me’
“You can be anxious, sensitive, kind and wear your heart on your sleeve, you can be a mother or not, you can be an ex-Mormon or not, you can be a nerd, a crier, a hugger — you can be all of these things and not only can you be here, you can lead, just like me.”

Ardern received a standing ovation at the end of her speech, before hugging Finance Minister Grant Robertson (who had been her deputy) and then Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni.

Yesterday, it was announced the former prime minister was taking on two new roles: A voluntary position as Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call and trustee of Prince William’s Earthshot Prize.

Ardern resigned in January saying she no longer had “enough in the tank” to lead the country.

Former prime minister Helen Clark said Ardern would be remembered largely as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwis’ lives.

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

Jacinda Ardern will largely be remembered in Aotearoa New Zealand as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwi lives, according to former prime minister Helen Clark.

And she will also be considered an example of how to govern in the age of social media and endless crises, political experts say, while also achieving more than her critics might give her credit for.

Ardern was set to deliver her valedictory speech later today, having stepped down as prime minister earlier this year after just over five years in the job.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘You can’t help feeling sad about her going’ — Former prime minister Helen Clark
• View of political scientists Dr Bronwyn Hayward and Dr Lara Greaves
• Ex-PM Ardern named Christchurch Call envoy against online violence

“I think that while I’m happy for Jacinda that she’s going to get a life and design what she wants to do and when she wants to do it, you can’t help feeling sad about her going,” Clark, herself a former Labour prime minister, told RNZ Morning Report ahead of Ardern’s speech.

“Leaders like Jacinda don’t come along too often and we’ve lost one.”

Ardern has played down suggestions online vitriol played a part in her decision to stand aside — but acknowledged on Tuesday she hoped her departure would “take a bit of heat out” of the conversation.

Clark said she “fundamentally” believed the hatred got to Ardern, powered by “populism and division” generated by former US President Donald Trump and his supporters.

‘Conspiracies took hold’
“Conspiracies took hold and suddenly you know, as the pandemic wore on here, I think the sort of relentless barrage from America — not, not just through Trump himself and the reporting of him, but through the social media networks — we have the anti-science people, the people who completely distrusted public authority, the QAnon conspiracies and hey, it played out on our Parliament’s front lawn and it still plays out and it’s very, very vitriolic and divisive.

“So I think that that spillover impact was really quite, well, not just unpleasant — it was horrible.”

Researchers have found Ardern was a lightning rod for online hate.

The perpetrator of the 2019 mosque shootings used the internet to connect with and learn from other extremists, which led to Ardern setting up the Christchurch Call movement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

Her post-parliamentary career will include continuing that work, as New Zealand’s Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call, reporting to her replacement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

“The mosque murders was just the most horrible thing to have happen on anyone’s watch, and she rose to the occasion, and I think the international reputation was very much associated with initially the empathy that she showed at that time,” said Clark.

But “one of New Zealand’s darkest days”, as Ardern put it at the time, was not the only near-unparalleled crisis she had to deal with in her time as prime minister.

“The White Island tragedy was another that needed, you know, very empathetic and careful handling. But then comes covid, and there’s no doubt that thousands of people are alive today because of the steps taken, particularly in 2020.

‘Would we have survived?’
“You know, I mean, I’m obviously in the older age group now which is more vulnerable. My father is 101 now and has survived the pandemic. But would we have survived it if it had been allowed to rip through our community, like it was allowed to rip through others?

“I think that there’d be so many New Zealanders not alive today had those steps not been taken.”

Data shows New Zealand has actually experienced negative excess mortality over the past few years — the elimination strategy so successful, fewer Kiwis have died than would have if there was no pandemic.

Former Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said that was “unique, virtually unique around the world”.

Despite that, it was New Zealand’s aggressive approach towards covid-19 in 2020 and 2021 that arguably drove much of the polarisation and online vitriol.

“There’s no doubt that those measures did save lives. They also drove people into frenzied levels of opposition and fear and isolation,” said Clark. “They felt polarised, they felt locked out.”

But she said Ardern bore “very little” responsibility for that.

Political scientist Dr Bronwyn Hayward of the University of Canterbury said Ardern’s Christchurch Call to eliminate extremist content will have a long-lasting impact on not just New Zealand, but the world.

“There’s been a lot made about the fact that she resigned under pressure from the trolls, which is completely missing the point that what she’s saying is that in this era where we’ve got particularly Russian, but also other countries’ bots that are attacking liberal leaders,” Dr Hayward told Morning Report, saying Ardern was the first global leader to “really understand” how what happens online can spill over into the real world.

“She understands that democracies are now under attack, and the front line is your social media, where we’ve got a propaganda war coming internationally.

“So she’s taken a very systemic approach to thinking about how to tackle that, so that in local communities it feels like you’re reeling from Islamophobia, to racism to transphobia, but actually, when we look internationally at what’s happening, naive and quite disaffected groups have been constantly fed this material and she’s taken a systemic approach to it.”

Clark said one of the biggest differences in the world between Ardern’s time as prime minister and her own, was that she did not have to deal with social media.

“I didn’t have a Twitter account, didn’t know what it was really. We had texts, that was about it. We used to have pagers, for heaven’s sake.”

Ardern’s domestic legacy
One of the first things Hipkins did when he took over as prime minister was the “policy bonfire” — but critics have long said the Ardern-led government has had trouble delivering on its promises.

Interviewer Guyon Espiner reminded Clark that her government had brought in long-lasting changes like Working for Families, the NZ Super Fund and Kiwibank — asking her what Ardern could point to.

Clark defended Ardern, saying the coalition arrangement with NZ First in Ardern’s first term slowed any reform agenda she might have had, and then there was covid-19.

“Looking back, there needs to be more recognition that the pandemic blindsided governments, communities, publics around the world. It wasn’t easy.”

Dr Hayward pointed to the ban on new oil and gas exploration and child poverty monitoring, “which before that was ruled as impossible or too difficult”.

Dr Lara Greaves, a political scientist at the University of Auckland, said it was “incredibly hard to really evaluate” Ardern’s legacy outside of covid-19.

“Ultimately … she is the covid-19 prime minister.”

The future
Clark said Ardern would be emotional during her valedictory speech.

“You have very close relationships with colleagues, you have relationships with others of a different kind — with the opposition, with the media, with the public — and you’re walking away, you’re closing the door on it.

“But you know that a new chapter will open, and that life post-politics can be very rewarding. I’ve certainly found it so. I have no doubt that Jacinda will get back into her stride with doing things that she feels are worthwhile for the the general public and worthwhile for her.”

After losing the 2008 election, Clark rose the ranks at the United Nations. She said while that was an option for Ardern, there is plenty of time for the 42-year-old to do other things first.

“I was, you know, 58 when I left being prime minister. And Jacinda’s leaving in her early 40s and she has a young child, so who knows? She may want Neve to grow up with a good old Kiwi upbringing.

“And she may want her, you know, involvement internationally to be more, you know, forays out from New Zealand. That’s for her to decide. I mean, the world’s her oyster, if she chooses to follow that.”

Dr Greaves also pointed to Ardern’s relative youth.

“It seems like she’s going for a period of sort of recovery and reflection and figuring out what to do next. But of course, she’s got another 20 years in her career, at least — the world’s her oyster.”

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

As Jacinda Ardern gets ready to deliver her valedictory speech in the Parliament today, former prime minister Helen Clark says she will largely be remembered as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwis’ lives. https://t.co/LhKPSZulpW

— RNZ (@radionz) April 5, 2023

It has been a decade since The Daily Blog (TDB) came into being informing all and sundry of the political machinations in New Zealand.

Run by the Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury it serves the left of politics.

It had almost five million page views in 2022.

• READ MORE:  How NZ’s Public Interest Journalism Fund can help ‘normalise’ diversity
• Other Daily Blog reports

“We had just under five million page views last year,” Bradbury told Asia Pacific Report.

“We have professor Wayne Hope from the AUT School of Communications; we have associate professor Susan St John from Auckland University, who is a poverty campaigner; John Minto who is a well-known political activist; and we have Mike Treen, a union boss.”

And they also have one of the country’s leading left analysts, Chris Trotter.

“We have anywhere between 10 to 20 bloggers,” Bradbury said.

TBD has been one of the go to blogsites for the political left.

“I think the idea when we set it up in 2013 was to provide an alternative commentary on the leftwing of opinion shapers,” he said.

Bradbury, who studied English at Auckland University and became a journalist on the job, believes debate is essential when discussing politics.

“I think we enjoy robust debate,” he said.

Nor does he blindly carry a candle for the leftwing government of the day even though he professes to belongs to the left.

“I think you have to be critical of everyone in power regardless of whether they are on your side or not,” said Bradbury, who was given his moniker “Bomber” by the Auckland University student newspaper Craccum.

“If you are writing commentary about the politics of the day you have to equally scathing for when the left are in, or the right are in, or you don’t have any credibility.

“We (TBD) are able to talk about things that are going on in politics and that is happening 24-48 hours ahead of the mainstream media; so I think people that are hungry to find out what is going on and have better oversight into the New Zealand political system can? So they come to us before you see it turn up in the mainstream media.”

He believes that journalism must be held to account.

“We have an obligation if you are the Fourth Estate to hold the powerful to account and the most powerful is the government of the day,” said Bradbury.

Public Interest Journalism
He said the government must provide for more investment in Public Interest Journalism (PIJ).

PIJ, a programme which started three years ago and is set to be concluded this year, needed to be continued, Bradbury said.

“I think it is a good start for the problem we have always had in New Zealand which is the market driven model, which is audience based advertising. We have always had too small a population to be able to support good journalism.

“But, there needs to be a lot more investment in public journalism for it to work.”

Nor does he see it, as many perceive it, as the government attempting to purchase favours from the media.

“I don’t see it as the government buying the media, I know that is a common critique that is used and brought up, but I don’t see it as black and white as that,” Bradbury said.

“We need to have public money go into journalism and there needs to be better checks and balances as to how that money is getting out there.

“There is a problem there, but overall I think that you can’t get a well-funded Fourth Estate that critiques the government of the day without having the state invested in that.”

He is advocating for a campaign to promote the benefits of better public interest journalism.

“We need a public service campaign similar to the one we have on our beaches where we have the ‘swim between the flags’ mantra.

“There has to be more public journalism funding to a vastly different group of media players and, by getting that funding they are able to show a little flag and we have a public campaign where we talk about ‘reading between the flags,’ so they know what they are reading is accurate and true.”

TVNZ-RNZ merger
Although the government has now shelved the TVNZ-RNZ merger after five years of work and many millions of dollars, Bradbury said it was only needed to see what was happening out in the public to realise people did not trust mainstream media.

“I think that the reason why we should have the merger is because we need to have a baseline public broadcasting that people can trust,” Bradbury said.

“We have all seen with real horror what happens when a large chunk of your population no longer believes certain agreed truths and we saw that on Parliament lawns last year.

“It is important to have public broadcasting that is trusted and believed because if we don’t have that it is very difficult to find common ground.

The emergence of rightwing radio — The Platform
“What we are seeing is the fracturing of the media world in New Zealand, and there are people who don’t believe in mainstream media anymore; people who have moved away from it and are searching out their own news,” Bradbury said.

“That’s fine as long as those media that are operating adhere to the basic values of journalism and stick to them.”

Jacinda Ardern
In the TBD Bradbury shared an excerpt from a podcast from TDB’s The Working Group which was rated as the best podcast in New Zealand in August last year by the Sunday Star-Times.

Bradbury related a story from January 24 the week that former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had to endure:

“Matt McCarten tells us a story of how at the end of last year, Jacinda and [her preschool daughter] Neve went out for a coffee with a friend of theirs at a cafe just in their private capacity. The way any mum with their daughter does every weekend.

“However, when Jacinda and their friend and Neve had settled down at a table, two people walked into the cafe after learning of Jacinda being in there, and started screaming at Jacinda and Neve telling them how they intended to hurt and kill Neve and Jacinda.”

“No mother should have feral lunatics screaming death threats at them and their child in a cafe.”

— TDB’s The Working Group

The TDB Working Group of 24 January 2023, Matt McCarten at 41m 46s.

“No doubt there was a tsunami of vileness that I don’t think I have seen in my political life that hit Jacinda,” said Bradbury.

“There was danger with forcing her out the way the angry right activists did, but the danger for them was that it was going create a backlash from the political swing voters who are 50+ female, tertiary educated.

“They would have seen the way Jacinda was forced out and they would have been quite angry with that; and we saw that in the first polls which saw Labour jump back up into the lead was a result of a political backlash.”

Radical social media
With the fracturing of media there has now developed radicalism on social media.
“Now we have a level of radicalism at play within social media,” Bradbury said.

“There are some strident leftwing voices and we’ve certainly seen some middle class identity politics and their de-platforming campaign; and we also have very extreme rightwing bloggers who are taking the debate in a very conspiratorial place which is very dangerous and polarising to the political debate in this country.

“We need healthy debate, but is it healthy when people in that debate have nothing but malice and spite to trade and are actually creating problems and not providing any solutions.”

Journalism
Bradbury believes journalism is at a crossroads but its principles must be upheld.

“Journalism is one of the most important careers in a democracy right now, and I bring it back to the misinformation and disinformation we have seen on so many online formats,” Bradbury said of the covid-19 pandemic years.

“If you can’t trust the material you’re reading, and if you have a citizenship that doesn’t know what is true anymore, then the basic standard of your democracy, the entire foundation that we are built on crumbles.

“So journalism is as important now than ever before.

“This is why we need a strong public service, this is no longer a nice-to-have, because I believe journalism is under so much threat because the alternative is voters who don’t know what is real and what is not.”

Roll on the election on October 14 and once again TBD will be at the forefront.

As a postscript, Bradbury was asked how was TBD faring financially.

He laughed before offering: “We get by, we are here for this election, we’ve been around for 10 years and I am always surprised that there is still a need for it.

“I’ll keep blogging as long as there is a readership for it.”

Sri Krishnamuthi is an independent journalist, former editor of the Pacific Media Watch project at the Pacific Media Centre and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has confirmed today what pundits have predicted for weeks: the plan for a public media entity has been scrapped — before they even settled on a name for it.

It is the second time in five years Labour has backed away from its public media policy, leaving RNZ and TVNZ in limbo again — along with less-heralded overhauls of the media.

The assumption the government would drop its plan for a new public media entity to be launched on March 1 was sparked by the then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern last December.

• READ MORE:  Policy purge: TVNZ/RNZ merger scrapped, income insurance and hate speech laws delayed
• Other NZ media policy reports

She signalled reforms diverting ministers from the cost of living and post-Covid recovery would be shelved. She told Newsroom the so-called RNZ/TVNZ was “not number one on the government agenda”.

Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson had already made a mess of explaining the policy in a now-notorious TVNZ interview, which also amplified sideline concerns about possible political influence.

Earlier in the year on Mediawatch, Jackson dismissed criticism of the proposed legislation, some of it coming from strong supporters of public broadcasting.

That came back to bite him last month when the parliamentary committee scrutinising the Bill rewrote important parts of it. Recent opinion polls revealed both low levels of support for the merger and little understanding of it, while rival media lobbyists called the new entity “a monolithic monster bad for the country”.

‘Reprioritised spending’
The formerly non-committal opposition leader declared it, not just bad but mad, repeatedly labeling the policy “insane”.

This year Ardern’s successor, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, also spoke of the urgent need to “reprioritise spending” while recent reporting has almost universally described the merger as “on Chippy’s chopping block”.

Today the axe fell, finally and formally, putting a policy five years in the making out of its misery after millions of dollars and years of effort.

He said RNZ’s funding would increase in the short term “around the $10 million mark” and this could be done before the next Budget process.

RNZ put out a statement welcoming the “clarity” and the prospect of more funding. TVNZ was also “pleased to now have clarity . . . and a clear path forward for TVNZ”.

MediaWorks CEO Cam Wallace said he was pleased but too much had been spent on this proposal “at a time when the industry was dealing with decreasing advertising revenues.”

Watch live: Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has confirmed the TVNZ/RNZ merger will be scrapped https://t.co/tgagvtE68v

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) February 8, 2023

What was the plan anyway – and what went wrong?
When Kris Faafoi took over as Broadcasting Minister in late 2018, Labour junked its previous policy (launched in 2017 by then opposition leader Jacinda Ardern) of boosting RNZ with $38 million a year to become a truly multimedia public media platform — and ignoring TVNZ.

The government — through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage — launched a Strong Public Media policy instead.

Consultants who kicked off the project in 2019 concluded “the status quo is not an option”.

They said TVNZ and RNZ in their current form were not sustainable, given rapid digitally-driven changes in the media.

Covid-19 stalled the policy’s progress, but Cabinet finally agreed in 2021, greenlighting the creation of a new public media entity to replace TVNZ and RNZ.

They insisted it was not merely a merger of the two, but the enabling legislation unveiled last year was effectively just that.

Budget 2022 allocated $109 million a year until 2026 to fund the new entity’s operations, but Kris Faafoi, Willie Jackson and the PM never gave any clarity about what new services the new entity might offer.

They said yet-to-be appointed executives and governors would decide that, not ministers.

Similarly, no-one in charge convincingly addressed the fear that a hyper-commercial culture at TVNZ would clash with the charter-driven, public service MO of RNZ.

The entire process was carried almost entirely behind closed doors — and without a proper business case — until the public and other media agencies got a fortnight to make submissions on the legislation late last year.

So what next?
Effectively it will be business as usual for RNZ and TVNZ — both of which can pause plans to launch things like admin and IT services as a single system less than a month from now.

RNZ will carry on as a fully-funded bonsai-scale (by international standards) public broadcaster operating on radio and online under its existing charter (which is currently under review) with a yet-to-be announced increase in funding.

TVNZ will carry on as a possibly the world’s only commercial state-owned TV company doing news and entertainment online, which dominates the free-to-air TV market, but makes no significant money for the nation.

At all stages of the merger proposal, TVNZ has reassured advertisers it would still be open for their business. (Last year Willie Jackson chided TVNZ for dragging the chain, a claim denied by chief executive Simon Power on Mediawatch).

RNZ’s board, its chair Jim Mather and chief executive Paul Thompson, strongly backed the plan for a new entity from the early stages.

New Zealand on Air was notified last year around $80 million of its budget would be re-allocated to the new entity, forcing it to urgently pull apart its own funding plans and priorities. Today the PM also announced NZoA could expect an increase in funding.

The long-term plan
There is no long-term plan yet — beyond the status quo, which consultants and Cabinet eventually agreed was “not an option”.

But the Broadcasting Minister — who retained his portfolio in the recent reshuffle — has much to confront.

The collapse of the so-called merger goes beyond RNZ and TVNZ into other overhauls that were supposed to run in parallel with the new media entity’s creation.

Willie Jackson is also Minister of Māori Development, overseeing Māori broadcasting. He secured $80m over the past two years in extra funding for programming. But this was tied to a twice-undertaken Māori media sector shift, which was held back for — and meshed-in with — the new public media entity plan.

Jackson is also in charge of the legislative backstop to ensure tech titans Google and Meta cough up for news media content they share, a significant stream of income for under-pressure news outlets for the future.

And then there is the ongoing overhaul of the oversight of the media designed to better “protect Kiwis from harm”.

The media and online content regulation review has been run by the Department of Internal Affairs under Jan Tinetti, recently promoted to other portfolios.

This is supposed to overhaul four separate overlapping pre-digital agencies regulating the media, but is also unlikely to be “bread and butter” business for Labour in 2023.

The public media entity policy has finally been put out of its misery, but there will be consequences for kicking the can down the road again in a public media system that is still operating on 30-year-old foundations and swallowing a sizable budget for limited public returns.

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

On 14 December 2022 German police arrested 25 people over what was called the “Reichsburger plot”. Two days later The Observer published an article by Philip Oltermann posing the question of whether this was a far-right “…sinister plan to overthrow the German state or just a rag-tag revolution?”

Although a long way away from our shores, this bizarre event has implications for New Zealand which should not be ignored. It got me to thinking about the attempted coups by electorally defeated presidents in the United States and Brazil.

This then led on to considering the occupation of Parliament grounds in early 2022 and a recent sighting in a tiny community about seven km away from my home on the Kāpiti Coast.

In the midst of writing this all up, came the unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern last week. Then union leader Robert Reid popped up with a pertinent observation. But first, Germany.

German coup-plotters
Along with 25 other German co-conspirators, one Maximilian Eder was arrested. They were accused of planning to overthrow the state by violent means and install a shadow government headed by a minor German aristocrat.

Few of these coup plotters were well-known public figures. But they included some with a military background, doctors, judges, gourmet chefs and opera singers, a Lower Saxony civil servant at the criminal police office, and “…several of the ragtag bunch of wannabe revolutionaries seemed to have been radicalised in the comfortably well-off, respectable centre of society.”

Eder was a genuine commander of one of Germany’s armoured infantry battalions between 1998 and 2000. He had served in Kosovo and Afghanistan and was a founding member of Germany’s special forces command.

What further rattled Germany’s cage was the inclusion of a former member of the federal parliament from the far-right AfD party. She had knowledge of security arrangements and special access privileges to the complex of parliamentary buildings in the heart of Berlin.

Eccentrics or serious threat?
The plotters’ potential targets included seven members of Germany’s Parliament, including the Foreign Minister, conservative opposition, and two leaders of the governing Social Democrat party.

German police found weapons in 50 of the 150 properties linked to the co-conspirators (there may have been other weapons stashed away elsewhere). This was an insufficient arsenal to overthrow the government of a country with a population of 83 million. However, it was enough to carry out a targeted terror attack killing and maiming many.

The question remains unanswered as to whether these conspirators really did seriously threaten German democracy as it presently exists or were they “…just a  bunch of eccentrics with a hyperactive imagination…”

One of  the difficulties in making this call is that previously the growth of the German far-right had been under-estimated. The relatively recent electoral success of the AfD party was unexpected. Oltermann concluded his interesting article by citing a German terrorism expert who noted that while he didn’t believe the coup-plotters would have overthrown the government, the question that remained was how much damage they would have caused in trying to.

Washington DC and Brasilia
While we await a fuller analysis of the extent to which these coup-plotters were a threat to German democracy, we know enough to make some conclusions, especially in an international context.

The German coup-plotters may have included eccentrics. But their defining characteristic was that they were from that part of the extreme far-right of politics which was prepared to use violence to achieve their objectives.

There are similarities with two actual attempted coups seeking to overturn election results and putting back into power two far-right presidents who were defeated at the polls. These occurred in the respective capitals of the United States (Washington) in January 2001 and Brazil (Brasilia) two years later.

These attempts to put Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro back in power were both far-right led and involved short violent destructive occupations of their parliaments. The major difference was significant high-level military involvement in the attempted Brazilian coup.

Far-right levering off anti-vaccination protests
In February-March 2022 there was an anti-vaccination occupation of New Zealand’s Parliament Grounds. Last February I published a Political Bytes blog on the far-right agenda  in this occupation.

My essential point was that the susceptibility, to say the least, of many of these protesters was fertile territory for far-right leaders to exploit, influence and shape its more violent direction. This was well-highlighted in the excellent Fire & Fury podcast documentary published by Stuff.

Fire & Fury: Who’s driving a violent, misinformed New Zealand – and why?      Video: Stuff

The documentary has come under some peculiar criticism from those who believe it should have given similar or greater blame for the actions of Parliament’s Speaker in trying to dissuade the occupiers from continuing the protest.

However, aside from overstating his impact, this criticism misses the whole point of the documentary. Its focus was on what was behind the occupation and related protests, including the significant far-right influence and support.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of these protests was the far-right Counterspin Media online outlet. It reported the occupation virtually non-stop, quickly becoming the main source of news for the occupiers and their supporters.

Run by local far-right leaders, Counterspin Media relies on a far-right media outlet in the United States for support (Trump confidant Steve Bannon is in its central leadership). From a very small base its viewing numbers have rocketed upwards.

The occupation also accelerated the use of two new terms to designate some people within the far-right – “sovereign citizens” and “sheriffs”. The former believe they are not bound by laws unless they personally consent to them. They carry out violence although this is largely verbal.

The latter, sheriffs, believe they can take the law into their own hands, including apprehending, violence and even execution. In other words, those holding either designation are vigilantes.

Now to Peka Peka
This leads on to the peacefully seaside locality Peka Peka on the Kāpiti Coast of the lower North Island with a population of around 700. As it happens, it is seven km from where I live. I frequently cycle through it and walk dogs on its beautiful beach.

Its name is derived from a native New Zealand bat, the Pekapeka, which represents the interwoven nature of the spirit world and the world of the living — the seen and the unseen.

But following the end of the occupation of Parliament Grounds a small group of occupiers moved on to the land of a supportive local farmer. While numbers have diminished there are still there.

While driving past earlier this month I noticed a conspicuous vehicle parked outside on the road as photographs I took show. The vehicle belongs to Counterspin Media.

The issue at hand was the far-right’s support for the parents of a critically ill baby who tried to deny him access to a life-saving blood transfusion because overwhelmingly donors are vaccinated. They and Counterspin Media have also denied the right of their baby to privacy by breaching a court order for name suppression. [The matter was resolved by the court overruling the parents which enabled a successful transfusion that saved the baby’s life.]

What was particularly relevant to this blog, however, was the fact that the far-right Counterspin Media was present visiting the small group who among them are believed to include sovereign citizens and a sheriff or two.

It is a very long bow to suggest that the occupation of Parliament Grounds was responsible for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s dramatic resignation last week. Nevertheless its ferocity (including intimidation and threats of execution) and duration rattled her government’s cage and confidence.

Many are attributing Arden’s resignation to the volume and viciousness of the personal attacks on her, much of which was misogynous. They are right to make this conclusion but it is much deeper than this. To begin with, had her government been more successful in policy development and implementation or been doing better in the polls, she was less likely to have resigned.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) also came under vicious misogynous attacks but, as she has acknowledged, the attacks on Ardern far exceed those on her. What is the difference? First, social media’s influence in Clark’s time was much less than Ardern’s.

Second, the far-right was politically much less influential than now. We now have far-right governments in countries such as Italy, Poland, Hungary and India. There are strong far-right movements threatening countries like France and Spain. Both the United States and Brazil have had single term far-right presidents.

Germany had a follow-up from the December coup-plotters this week with five more far-right activists arrested for a second alleged coup plot, including kidnapping the health minister, to overthrow the government which The Guardian reported on January 23.

In New Zealand, the far-right’s levering off the anti-vaccination protests has led to an environment of threats through a sense of deluded entitlement, as Stuff reported on January 20, of a magnitude far greater than Clark and her government ever experienced.

Union leader Robert Reid was as close to getting it right as one can get in a Facebook post on January 20. He observed that, on the one hand, unlike the United States and Brazil, New Zealand was able to keep right-wing and fascist mobs from storming their parliaments.

However, on the other hand, in New Zealand they “…scored their first victory of bringing down the political leader of the country. Not a good feeling.”

I agree with Reid but would make the qualification that these far-right influenced and led “mobs” significantly contributed to bringing down a political leader.

Sociopaths and psychopaths
Soon after commencing working for the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists over three decades ago, I asked a leading psychiatrist, Dr Allen Fraser, what was the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths (Dr Fraser was the union’s first elected vice-president and second president).

His response, which I have never forgotten, was to repeat what he advised medical students and doctors-in-training: Sociopaths believe in castles in the sky; psychopaths live in castles in the sky

In other words, while Helen Clark was threatened by sociopaths, Jacinda Ardern was threatened by psychopaths. The transition from the former to the latter was the increasing influence of the far-right.

Robert Reid is right; it is not a good feeling. He is a master of the understatement.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

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

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

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

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘It has been extraordinary to see this deterioration of basic science’ – Former PM Helen Clark
• READ MORE: ‘The shoes needing filling are on the large side of big’ – Jacinda Ardern’s legacy
• The hatred and vitriol NZ’s Jacinda Ardern endured ‘would affect anybody’
• Ardern’s resignation as NZ prime minister a game changer for 2023 general election
• Reaction from around the world
• Other Jacinda Ardern reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: From ‘pretty communist’ to ‘Jabcinda’ – what’s behind the vitriol directed at Jacinda Ardern?
• NZ election 2020: Jacinda Ardern promised transformation — instead, the times transformed her
• Anniversary of a landslide: new research reveals what really swung New Zealand’s 2020 ‘COVID election’
• Other Jacinda Ardern articles

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

Clearly, the Ardern tank is empty.

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

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

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

— Newshub (@NewshubNZ) January 19, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Stuff (@NZStuff) January 19, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Anusha Bradley, RNZ News investigative reporter

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Ardern’s resignation as NZ prime minister a game changer for 2023 general election
• Reaction from around the world
• Other Jacinda Ardern reports

The comments on the post are unfit to repeat here.

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

“It’s time,” she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did Ardern react?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Sam Neill (@TwoPaddocks) January 19, 2023

History will judge Jacinda Ardern as a remarkable leader.

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

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

— Fleur Fitzsimons (@FleurFitzsimons) January 19, 2023

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

— Russell Brown (@publicaddress) January 19, 2023

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

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

— Mohamed Hassan (@mohamedwashere) January 19, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealanders will have a new prime minister by February 7 and will go to the polls on October 14, after two-term Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation today to spend more time with her family.

“For me, it’s time,” she said, speaking from the Labour Party’s retreat. “I just don’t have enough in the tank for another four years.”

Ardern said she would stay on until April as a local MP.

Beyond that, I have no plan. No next steps. All I know is that whatever I do, I will try and find ways to keep working for New Zealand and that I am looking forward to spending time with my family again – arguably, they are the ones that have sacrificed the most out of all of us.

Ardern’s resignation will come as a shock to many New Zealanders, and especially to people overseas — given the international reputation she earned as prime minister over the past five years.

• READ MORE: Labour makes it easier to change leaders, but Jacinda Ardern has no reason to go — yet
• Jacinda Ardern’s defining legacy serving New Zealand during a crisis
• Other Jacinda Ardern articles

But this is less of a surprise for close watchers of New Zealand politics. Back in November 2021, I wrote in The Conversation: “Might Jacinda Ardern stand down?”, after Labour changed its rules to make it easier for the party’s leader to be replaced.

A game changing move before the election
Ardern’s rise to power in 2017 was a game changer in New Zealand politics. Now she’s surprised everyone again with today’s decision to stand down, this could be a game changer for the October election.

Ardern is still higher in the preferred PM polls, ahead of National’s Christopher Luxon. So it’s not imperative for Labour to change their leader.

NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announcing her resignation on 19 January 2023.

But up until this moment, everyone has been picking a likely change in government to a rightwing National/Act coalition later this year.

Now that Labour is starting to trail in the polls, having a refresh of the leadership does not necessarily ruin the party’s chances of winning in October.

The social and economic fallout of the pandemic has been so profound that having a fresh new face could help Labour’s chances.

Former National Prime Minister John Key did a similar thing back in 2016, invoking the same “not enough in the tank” line as Ardern today, when he surprised everyone and stood down, handing over to Bill English.

English and National actually did well in the following year’s election, gaining 44 percent of the vote. It was only because of overall arithmetic that National was unable to form government and that Ardern went on to become prime minister.

With Jacinda Ardern announcing her resignation, who are the frontrunners for Labour leadership? https://t.co/BJgoU2B4qm

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) January 19, 2023

Ardern’s replacement could be known within days
Ardern made herself world famous for her management of the pandemic, and she did an extremely good job as a leader over that period.

But covid-19 also completely derailed her prime ministership, meaning she was stymied in pursuing many of the key social objectives such as child poverty and housing that she would have liked to put more effort into.

I know Ardern personally, and what you see on TV is what you get in real life. She is a genuine person and politician, and you can understand the reasons she has given about wanting more time with her fiancé and daughter.

My sense is that Labour knows who will take over. Front runners to be leader could include Minister of Justice Kiri Allan, who is a rising star and could be the first Māori PM, though she is relatively new to politics. Minister for Education and Leader of the House Chris Hipkins was a high-profile and hard-working MP during COVID, and he and Allan could make a formidable team.

Housing, Energy and Resources Minister Dr Megan Woods is also an experienced and senior member of the party, so could also be in the mix.

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson won’t be contesting the leadership, and Labour caucus has agreed that a vote will happen in three days’ time, on January 22.

A successful candidate will need more than 60 percent of the caucus vote, otherwise the party must go to a primary-style process with the Labour membership, which could be messy, so it will want to avoid that.

Dr Grant Duncan is an associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern resigns: Politicians and New Zealanders pay tribute https://t.co/16B1y6sDV3

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) January 19, 2023

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says her Aotearoa New Zealand government will not back down on advancing Māori issues, even if National frames co-governance as central to the 2023 general election.

“You’ve got to be able to sleep at night, knowing that you’ve done your best and you’ve done what you’ve believed is right,” Ardern told TeAoMaori.news

The Māori Health Authority, Three Waters and Māori seats on councils were achievements Ardern said the government was proud of.

• READ MORE: Other NZ co-governance reports

Ardern said she was “comfortable” the government was doing its best to fulfil obligations under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

“We haven’t been perfect. But I am comfortable with what we’ve tried to do to make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations as the Crown, that we’re fulfilling our Treaty obligations.”

Ardern said the Government was proud of the 6.8 per cent Māoriunemployment rate,although she conceded homeless families living in motels still needed tackling.

“I don’t want anyone living in a motel. I want someone in a warm, dry, safe environment. But I also don’t want people living in cars. And so this has been a transition for us while we build more public housing, and we are,” she said.

Mandate protests
Reflecting on 2022, Ardern conceded it was another tough year, singling out the vaccination mandate protests on Parliament grounds as her biggest challenge.

Ardern said the protests were upsetting for many in Aotearoa who saw vaccination as key to reopening the country.

“For New Zealand, I think it deeply affected people,” Ardern said.

There were moments she thought about talking to the protesters but a previous attempt during a government walkabout with vaccinators that was scuppered by protesters prevented that.

“I did stop and try and have a conversation with the people there. And what became clear to me is that the starting point for that conversation was so different for me, and then that was very hard to cut through,” Ardern said.

“I had a practice in the past of talking to protesters in fact. I remember very early on the DPS [the PM security team] having to learn, that was part of the way that I was going to do the job.”

UN declaration
Ardern was asked about comments from Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson that he would be pumping the brakes on co-governance initiatives set out by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP), signed by the National government in 2010, because several recommendations would not fly with certain Cabinet members.

“Why is it someone in Cabinet is ‘not comfortable’ with co-governance? And should someone be in the Cabinet if they’re not comfortable with co-governance?” Ardern was asked.

“What he’s talking about are some of the thoughts and debate around the UN declaration, the next stages of ensuring that we are doing our bit, as yes, the National government signed us up and then did nothing, and left us to figure out ‘how do we fulfil our obligations?’

“What he’s [Jackson] talking about is through that process, there’s been a lot of ideas. Some of them, we can confidently say, New Zealand already does, othersare challenging. So he’s broadly discussing the next steps.”

Ardern said that as she looked ahead to this year’s election, she had no interest in fighting it on race, saying she would campaign on the government’s record.

“When there’s change… people will sometimes be confronted by that, and it’s our job to try and bring people with us, but that will sometimes be challenging,” Ardern said.

“Our record is growing Māori housing. Our record is growing Māori employment opportunities. Now our record is growing the Māori economy. I will happily campaign on our record.”

Republished from Whakaata Māori. First published in The New Zealand Herald.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered an address to New Zealand’s Parliament today and the government has pledged an additional $3 million of humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Zelensky began with a friendly “kia ora” before saying he would offer New Zealand the opportunity to take the lead in pushing for peace.

“Today, this anti-war coalition has more than 100 countries, those who support the fundamental principle of international law and the UN Charter,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Ukraine reports

“Those who do everything possible to hold Russia’s war criminals accountable.”

He said New Zealand was one of the first countries to support Ukraine against Russia’s aggressive invasion and he recognised New Zealand imposed sanctions.

“Let me offer you one more thing, various dictators and aggressors — they always fail to realise that the strength of the free world is not about someone becoming large or becoming full of missiles but in the fact that everyone knows how to unite and act decisively and make a unique contribution to the common cause.

“Perhaps the time has come for your country to make such a unique contribution.”

President Zelensky’s address to the NZ Parliament today. Video: NZ Parliament TV

Peace plan 10 points
He said this could be one of the 10 points in the plan he laid out at the G19 Summit in Indonesia:

• Radiation and nuclear safety
• Food security
• Energy security
• Release of prisoners and deportees
• Implementation of the UN Charter
• Withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities
• Justice
• Ecocide and the protection of the environment
• Prevention of escalation
• Confirmation of the end of the war

“Each of these points can remove one or another of Russia’s aggression … I propose to convene a special summit in the coming months.”

He called upon New Zealand to support this formula and to start consolidating the world around the eighth point, environmental security, saying many people did not consider the impact of war on the environment and it was one aspect New Zealand society approached wisely.

“You can’t rebuild destroyed nature, just as you can’t rebuild destroyed lives.”

“There’s no true peace where the consequences of war could be there in the form of poisoned groundwater that may destroy normal lives in several countries. There’s no true peace where ecocide has taken place and its consequences have not been neutralised.”

He said to this day, the world had no strong experience in overcoming the destructive impact of war on the environment.

‘We will win’
“We will liberate our land. We will win this war. I am confident that we will return freedom and security to all Ukrainians wherever they live.”

“Ngā mihi, Slava Ukraini (glory to Ukraine).”

Zelensky is just the second head of a foreign government to address Parliament after Australia’s Julia Gillard in 2011.

The Ukrainian leader’s message to New Zealand comes as the government announced new sanctions on Iranian individuals and an entity involved in the manufacture and supply of drones to Russia.

Those sanctioned today include two Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, the Armed Forces General Staff chair Mohammad Hossein Bagheri and drone manufacturer Shahed Aviation Industries.

He has previously spoken to other parliaments, including in the UK, US, European Union, and Australia, appealing for assistance and support in defending Ukraine against Russia’s invasion.

In September, Zelensky addressed world leaders at the United Nations, demanding a special UN tribunal impose “just punishment” on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, including financial penalties and stripping Moscow of its veto power in the Security Council.

Ardern announces further humanitarian aid
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in response thanked him on behalf of New Zealand and said taking the time to speak today was a sacrifice when he was leading his people through a crisis “and one we do not take lightly”.

She hoped he heard loudly and clearly from New Zealand that Ukraine’s was not a forgotten war, and the Parliament on the other side of the world had come together to condemn Russia’s war.

“Our support for Ukraine was not determined by geography, it was not determined by history or by diplomatic ties or relationships — our judgment was a simple one: we asked ourselves the question ‘what if it was us’.”

She also referred to the breach of the international rules-based order and “the misuse of multilateral institutions”.

Running through New Zealand’s commitments to the Ukrainian war effort, she made a further announcement of $3 million of humanitarian aid to Ukraine, through the International Committee of the Red Cross, as the population faces severe hardships over winter.

This would cover items like medical supplies and equipment, power transformers and generators to cope with blackouts, and essential winter items for vulnerable families in Ukraine, like food, water and sanitation and hygiene items.

Ardern acknowledged the plan laid out by Zelensky today, and said the war “must not become a gateway to a more polarised and dangerous world for generations to come”.

Long-term impacts
She acknowledged Zelensky’s urging to counter the long-term impacts of war including with the environment, saying New Zealand had a long history of reconstruction post-conflict.

“That includes remediation such as dealing with unexploded ordinances. We will be with you as you seek peace but we will also be with you as you rebuild.”

She paid a special tribute to Zelensky himself, saying he had been unrelenting in his support of his people and coordinated an international response in support of the rules-based order.

“Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui – slava Ukraini.”

In a statement, Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the new contribution “comes as the Russian military has stepped up its deliberate targeting of critical national infrastructure, further deepening the severe humanitarian crisis caused by the illegal invasion.”

“Russia’s targeting of energy and other civilian infrastructure is deplorable. As Ukraine faces a harsh winter, Putin’s actions have further disrupted electricity supply, and are harming the health, safety and well-being of already vulnerable communities,” the statement said.

The aid is in addition to almost $8m in humanitarian help already provided, and $48m of military spending including on training deployments, donation of surplus equipment, and procurement of weapons and ammunition.

Other party leaders speak
Opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon said it was a great honour and tremendous privilege for the Parliament to hear Zelensky’s address, “and we all appreciate the opportunity to say to you ‘kia kaha’, which in our indigenous Māori language means ‘stay strong’.”

He said for those nations that valued democracy, national sovereignty and borders, and uphold the international rule of law the choice was simple.

“New Zealand is one of those countries. Confronted with brutality or diplomacy, autocracy or democracy, darkness or light, there was nothing to discuss except how to individually and collectively to support Ukraine.”

He said the war was a moral battle that posed an existential threat to Ukraine and it could not lose.

“You have been our generation’s Winston Churchill, and since those Russian tanks crossed Ukraine’s border, you have been unwavering in your determination that Ukraine will win this war that it did not want and it did not start.

“Of all the miscalculations Vladimir Putin has made — and there are many — underestimating your resolve and the impact of the strength of your leadership and the words — your words — would have in rallying Ukraine and the world has perhaps been the biggest.”

He said the death of every single Ukrainian was a tragedy, and the greatest regret of the war would be terrible loss of life that left tens of thousands of families bereft.

Luxon also spoke of the need for a reconstruction programme, because “the loss of homes and communities and critical infrastructure is also incalculable”. He said he could not imagine circumstances where New Zealand was not a part of that effort.

Green Party co-leader James Shaw said Russia’s invasion was “as barbaric as it is illegal”.

“It is apparent that there have been and continues to be a multitude of war crimes perpetuated on the Ukrainian people by the Russian forces.

“Were President Putin to be successful, the temporary violence of war would morph into the permanent violence of subjugation — perhaps even genocide.”

He said he applauded the Ukrainians’ efforts to minimise harm to civilians, however he urged that any future calls for military support come before the Parliament — not just the government.

“As a member of the Green Party I have a fundamental commitment to non-violence … the situation in Ukraine remains impossibly difficult in ways that we in Aotearoa New Zealand cannot possibly imagine.”

He said there were people on every continent still suffering from violence and subjugation, and emphasised the importance of universal human rights.

ACT leader David Seymour said he wanted Zelensky and the Ukrainian people “to know that on the other side of the world people care deeply about your struggle against evil”.

“We understand that a dictator attacking our democracy matters to New Zealand, your people are not just fighting for their lives but for all our freedom and democracy and I want you to know that your leadership and courage inspires us.”

He spoke of the New Zealanders who had gone to fight in Ukraine on their own initiative, and the funds raised for the defenders.

“Our donors were particularly pleased to buy luggage tags made from bits of aluminium from downed Russian jets – what great initiative under fire.”

But his comments also took a more political turn, saying the opposition had pushed for the government to do more.

“More sanctions, more refugee places, more lethal aid, and we’ll keep pushing them from this side of our Parliament and if our government changes before you win the New Zealand government will do a lot more than the $3 million you saw today.

“For now, please let me say that you are right and you are fighting against evil for all our freedom, and we back you not only in word but in deed. Slava Ukraini.”

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said they supported the kōrero of the Green Party.

“We have little to say today, all the teachings have been learnt of former occasions of war,” she said, quoting Te Whiti-o-Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi, the prophets from Taranaki.

“We have been living together quietly, there will be nothing but mate — but death — for generations to come. We are small in numbers but we are strong. We are fighting not for part of peace but for the whole of peace.

“We today have one role, one role only, and that is to fight for peace.”

She said that as at Parihaka, Te Pāti Māori would continue to fight to uphold peace and make sure there was no suffering the young and coming generations could be ashamed of.

She and fellow co-leader Rawiri Waititi, along with other MPs around the House, concluded with a waiata written in World War II.

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

A Pasifika health leader hopes the Royal Commission into the Covid-19 pandemic will look into the equity of the response and resource allocation.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern yesterday announced a Royal Commission into the government’s covid-19 response which will be chaired by Professor Tony Blakely, an epidemiologist working at the University of Melbourne.

He is joined by former National Party MP Hekia Parata, and the previous secretary to Treasury, John Whitehead, as commissioners.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: Pasifika Futures CEO Debbie Sorensen on the Royal Commission and the equity of communities
• NZ announces Royal Commission into government’s covid-19 response
• Domestic violence, isolation hit Pacific women during pandemic, says USP survey

Pasifika Futures chief executive Debbie Sorensen said Pasifika people were essentially left to form their own response during the earlier stages of the pandemic.

That was despite Pasifika people working a large proportion of jobs in MIQ facilities and at the airport and other front line locations, she said.

Many affected Pacific families experienced a great deal of hardship, she said.

It was important for the inquiry to look at the covid-19 response in regards to specific communities, she said.

Slowness of response
“We’re really clear that equity in the response and in the resource allocation is an important consideration.”

One issue was the slowness of the government’s response to both Pacific and Māori communities during the height of the pandemic, she said.

“Advice was provided to the government, you know cabinet papers provided advice on specific responses for our communities and that advice was ignored.”

An important aspect of the inquiry should be reviewing how that advice was given to the government, its response to it and how the government’s sought more information, she said.

The inquiry’s initial scope appeared to be very narrow, but it could be broadened as it went along, Sorensen said.

“The impact on mental health and the ongoing economic burden for our communities is immense — you know we have a whole generation of young people who have not continued their education because they were required to go in to work.”

Sorensen said often young people had to work because they were the only person in their family who had a job at that time due to covid-19.

Mental health demand
The pandemic also increased demand for mental health services which were already under pressure, she said.

Anyone who was unwell unlikely to be able to get an appointment within six to eight months which was shameful, she said.

Sorensen would have preferred the inquiry had been announced earlier, but it was an opportunity to better prepare for the future, she said.

But Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, chief medical officer Dr Rawiri McKree Jansen told Morning Report he had some concerns that the probe into the covid-19 response was coming too soon to gain a full picture.

The pandemic was ongoing and starting the inquiry so early may obstruct a complete view of it, he said.

“I understand that there’s people champing at the bit and [saying] we should’ve done it before but it’s very difficult to do that and adequately learn the lessons.”

Understanding how to get a proper pandemic response was in everyone’s interest, but the pandemic was now still in its third wave, he said.

About to begin
Nevertheless, the inquiry was about to get underway and it could make a large contribution if it was done well, he said.

“I’m sure there will be many Māori communities that want to have voice in the inquiry and you know contribute to a better understanding of how we can manage pandemics really well.

“We’ve had pandemics before and they’ve been absolutely tragic. We’ve got this pandemic and the outcome for us is something like two to two-and-a-half times the rate of hospitalisations and deaths, so Māori communities are fundamentally very interested in bedding in the learnings that we’ve achieved in the pandemic.”

Dr Jansen hoped the inquiry would provide enduring information about managing pandemics with a very clear focus on Māori and how to support the best outcomes for the Māori population.

Inquiry’s goal next pandemic
The head of the Royal Commission said the review needed to put New Zealand in better position to respond next time a pandemic hits.

Professor Blakely said the breadth of experience and skills of the commissioners was welcome, and would help them to cover the wide scope of the Inquiry, ranging from the health response and legislative decisions, to the economic response.

Reviewing the response to the pandemic was a big job, he said.

“There’s already 75 reports done so far, I think about 1700 recommendations from those reports, New Zealand’s not the only country that’s been affected by this cause it’s a global epidemic, so there’s lots of other reports.”

The inquiry panel would have to sit at the top of all that work that had already been done “and pull it altogether from the perspective of Aotearoa New Zealand and what would help best there.

The inquiry needed to make New Zealand was prepared for a pandemic with good testing, good contact tracing and good tools that the Reserve Bank could use to support citizens in the time of a pandemic, Professor Blakely said.

“Our job is to try and create a situation where those tools are as good as possible, there’s frameworks to use when you’ve entered another pandemic, which will occur at some stage we just don’t know when.”

Professor Blakely said he was flying to New Zealand next week and would meet with Hekia Parata and John Whitehead to start thinking about the shape of the inquiry going forward.

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

All mask wearing requirements in Aotearoa New Zealand — except in healthcare and aged care — will be scrapped, and household contacts will no longer need to isolate, the government confirmed today.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Covid-19 Response Dr Ayesha Verrall confirmed cabinet’s decision to scrap the Covid-19 Protection Framework — known as the “traffic light” system — and the majority of related public health restrictions.

The traffic light system will end tonight at 11.59pm.

• READ MORE: Other reports about NZ and the pandemic
• Covid-19 traffic light system, vaccine mandates and most mask requirements to end – the details
• Covid-19 update: 1149 new community cases, 225 hospitalisations and three in ICU
• Today’s covid health statistics

Today’s media briefing.    Video: RNZ News

They said the changes would include:

• Mask-wearing only required in healthcare and aged care: including hospitals, pharmacies, primary care, aged residential and disability-related residential care
• People who test positive for covid-19 must still isolate for seven days, but household contacts no longer required to provided they take a RAT test every day
• All government vaccine mandates to end on 26 September 26
• Removal of all vaccine requirements for incoming travellers and air crew
• Leave support payments to continue
• All New Zealanders over age 65, and Māori over age 50, to get automatic access to covid-19 antiviral drugs if they test positive for Covid-19
• From Tuesday, case and hospitalisation number reporting becomes weekly, not daily

Ardern said it marked a milestone in New Zealand’s response to the virus.

She said people may still be asked to wear a mask in some places but it would be at the discretion of those managing the location, not a government requirement. Vaccination requirements would also be at the discretion of employers.

‘Claim back certainty’
“Cabinet has determined that based on public health advice we are able to remove the traffic light system and with that decision claim back the certainty we have all lost over the last three years,” she said.

“For the first time in two years we can approach summer with the much needed certainty New Zealanders and business need, helping to drive greater economic activity critical to our economic recovery.

She said there was no question the actions of New Zealanders had saved thousands of lives, but the risks were changing.

“When we moved into our first lockdown the objective was simple: To save lives and livelihoods,” Ardern said.

“I’m sure there will be many who over the years will pore over the details of every nation’s response including ours. They’ll certainly measure the outcomes in different ways but when you look at countries of our size and compare them, they’ll find the tragic loss for instance of 15,500 people in Scotland and less than 2000 in New Zealand.

“The most recent health advice now tells us that with the lowest cases and hospitalisations since February, our population well vaccinated, and expanded access to anti-viral medicines, New Zealand is in a position to move forward.”

New Zealand could move on with confidence that its actions had successfully managed cases down, she said.

‘Never to be taken alone’
“This pandemic was never one to be taken on alone, and it never was. And so today I say again to everyone from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

“I know there will be those concerned by the changes made today. I can assure you that we would not make them if we did not believe we were ready but we also need to remember that not everybody experiences covid or its risk — including to our disability community — in the same way.

“That’s why isolating covid cases to protect our most vulnerable is important, and why treatment is too.”

She said she hoped it would be the first summer where the “covid-19 anxiety can start to heal”.

“As a nation, covid has hurt us in many ways but perhaps the one we talk about less than others is the toll it’s taken on everyone’s mental health. I see that toll — I see it in my colleagues, in my community in Tāmaki Makaurau, and especially I see it in our kids.

“I don’t want people’s wellbeing to be the price of covid, but it is going to take a concerted effort from us as government and others for that not to be the case.”

Ardern said one of the byproducts of the pandemic had been that New Zealand now have some of the most advanced mental health tools in the world, and the government had taken a number of steps to improve mental wellbeing support.

Two apps a highlight
This included two apps she highlighted for anyone who may need them: Groove and Habits.

Ardern finished her statement with a line from when New Zealand first went into lockdown: “‘For the next wee while, things will look worse before they look better’. It turned out to be true, things did get worse, things did get hard, but it’s also true that finally they will and can be better”.

Ardern said looking back, decisions were often being made with imperfect information but the decisions were made with the best intentions and she stood by it.

She said the government had been open to the idea of an independent inquiry into the response but was still getting advice about what that would look like.

“We do want to learn from this period and I think you’ll see that we’ve been taking that approach all the way through.”

Asked if it was the end of the covid response, Ardern said she hoped the change would give people huge confidence and optimism.

“We are moving on because this pandemic has moved on.”

The traffic light system used things like gathering limits but that was no longer fit for purpose, she said.

“We don’t need those extraordinary measures, so we won’t use them.”

Right time to remove ‘traffic lights’
Dr Verrall said New Zealand had succeeded in avoiding the devastation caused by the pandemic overseas, and now was the right time to remove the traffic light framework and begin a new approach to managing the virus.

“Together we have got through this with one of the lowest cumulative mortality rates in the world.”

She announced another 40,000 courses of antiviral medication had also been purchased and would be freely available to older New Zealanders.

“Anyone over the age of 65, and Māori and Pacific people over the age of 50, or anyone who meets Pharmac requirements, can access the treatment in the early stages of contracting the virus,” she said.

“This means more than double the number of New Zealanders will be able to access these medicines if they need them than previously.

She acknowledged that lessening the restrictions caused concern to disabled and immune-compromised people.

“I want to reassure those Kiwis that we are making these changes because risks are lower, in fact cases are more than 10 times lower than what they were earlier in the year and we now have layers of protections in place.”

She said the support was not ending and hoped that removing the remaining vaccine mandates would ease the staffing pressures disability services have been under.

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

Deception and political spin crossed new boundaries this week with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, under pressure to explain the housing catastrophe in Rotorua, making the absurd statement:

“Our long-term plan is to get them into sustainable, long-term safe housing. It’s why for instance we’ve worked so hard to now have built 10 percent of all the state houses in New Zealand.”

Meaningless, ludicrous and irrelevant.

• READ MORE: Christopher Luxon denies National government’s actions caused state housing supply issue
• TVNZ’s Sunday showed devastating scenes from Rotorua and the enduring power of TV

Why was she not challenged by journalists on this preposterous statement?

The government has been demolishing state houses almost as fast as it builds them so that the net increase in state houses over the last five years stands at a piddling 1100 per year for a waiting list of 26,664. The waiting list has increased five-fold since Labour came to power in 2017.

Labour is taking us backwards on state housing at a spectacular rate.

And neither is it the fault of the previous National government. Labour has kept the policy settings for state house building the same as applied under National — right down to maintaining the same tough criteria to enable a low-income tenant or family to get on the waiting list.

Largest Labour privatisation since 1980s
The awful reason Labour is demolishing state houses and selling the land is to provide funding for Kainga Ora. The government doesn’t want to borrow to build, which any sensible government would, so it is forcing Kainga Ora to sell land and properties to do this.

It’s the largest privatisation of state assets by Labour since the 1980s.

Where are the journalists to put some simple questions to the Prime Minister?

• Why has Labour allowed the state house waiting list to INCREASE FIVE FOLD (from 5,000 in late 2017 to over 26,000 in 2022) with no effective policy response?
• Why does Labour still think it’s OK to produce just 1,100 net new state houses per year for a state house waiting list of over 26,000? (When Labour came to power there were 63,209 state houses which has increased to just 68,765 by June this year).
• Why are the number of children living in grotty motels STILL INCREASING?
• Why is the number of children living in cars STILL INCREASING?
• Why are the number of children in tents STILL INCREASING?
• Why is Labour still ONLY FUNDING 1600 new IRRS places (for state house and social housing providers combined) each year for the more than 26,000 families on the state house waiting list?
• Why does Labour still think it’s OK to keep the proportion of state house at just 3.6% of total housing stock when it was 5.4 percent in 1990?
• Why has Labour not instigated an industrial-scale state house building programme such as the first Labour government did in the 1930s? (Labour then built 3500 state houses each year – equivalent to 10,000 today on a population basis).
• Why is the government planning to sell 55 to 60 percent of crown land in Auckland to private property developers when we have a housing catastrophe for low-income New Zealanders?

Where are the journalists to expose this prime ministerial spin?

Republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Opinion: Labour MP Dr Gaurav Sharma blows whistle on Parliament bullying, takes aim at officials, party whips
• Other reports on diversity in the NZ Parliament

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

He was not at the caucus meeting this afternoon.

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

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

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

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

Watch the conference 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— RNZ News (@rnz_news) August 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Natural justice is very important to our team.”

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

Only people power can ensure genuine enduring progress on climate and people need to know the truth if they are to act on it. For that reason greenwashing is the enemy of progress on climate and where you stand on greenwashing is the Rubicon of our times.

I have spent decades of my life as a climate activist fighting various deliberate forms of climate science denial propagated by climate polluting companies and their allied political parties, politicians, lobby groups and commentators.

The good news is that we have mostly won that battle. The bad news is that they have a new tactic, greenwashing, which is now a major obstacle to progress on climate change. Greenwashing is when businesses or politicians give a false impression, or spin, on their products or policies to give the impression that they have a positive impact on the environment when they don’t.

We now face a new landscape in which even oil companies claim to be doing their bit for the climate with “carbon offsets” and “2050 net zero goals”. Their aim is to stop real action on climate by making people think it is all under control.

One of the jobs of the government is to sort out the real climate actions from the greenwashing, to hold industry to account. And of course, one of the jobs of the government is to not engage in greenwashing themselves.

The problem with some of the actions of the current Aotearoa New Zealand government is that rather than holding business to account for its greenwashing, on some vital climate issues the government is actually a proponent of greenwashing.

This greenwashing is closely linked to a wrong-headed theory of change which we hear repeatedly from this government — the idea that climate issues can only be solved through consensus, especially consensus with the polluters and their representatives. The idea that we can’t make real policy to cut climate pollution without the consent of the polluters and their representatives is dangerous and inconsistent with the history of making change.

There are fundamental conflicts in the climate policy space — some industries will not accept that they need to cut emissions. The attempt to gloss over these conflicts and seek consensus means the government adopts policies that the polluters will accept, and which consequently do not cut emissions. This policy outcome is then sold to the public as a great victory when in truth it is a defeat — it is greenwashed.

Before getting into the specifics of the problems I want to acknowledge that this government has done some good things on climate. The ban on new oil and gas exploration permits was a win, even though it excluded onshore Taranaki and allowed existing permits to be extended.

The cap on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser was a win, even though it is a very high cap which has yet to be enforced. Greenpeace publicly celebrated these wins and congratulated the government on making these decisions, even while pointing out their limitations.

I tried to provide a transparent assessment of the environmental performance of the Ardern government back in 2020. I spent a decade as Green Party co-leader and I know there are wins and losses in politics and that compromise is a reality of politics in a healthy democracy.

But honestly admitted compromise is one thing, and greenwashing is another.

There will always be arguments as to what is an acceptable political compromise. We need to separate the issue of what is an acceptable compromise to enter government from the issue of greenwashing. Determining what is an acceptable compromise for the Greens to join the Labour government is formally a matter of decision for the Green Party and the Labour Party rather than the climate movement.

People like me are entitled to our views of the compromise, but it is the Green Party and the Labour Party that have to decide if it’s worth it. I am not a member of the Green Party or the Labour Party.

The issue of greenwashing, however, is an issue which is of direct and immediate concern for the wider climate movement. This is because when the government sells their policies as great climate advances, when in reality they are not, it misleads the wider public and the climate movement.

People can think they don’t need to push hard on climate because it is under control, when it is not. We then need to spend our time highlighting and explaining why the claimed win is actually spin, rather than campaigning for meaningful action.

This undermines our ability to get more significant progress on climate policy because the power and leadership to get progress on climate (like all other progressive issues) comes from civil society and if civil society is disarmed by greenwashing then climate policy follows dead end paths, stalls or  stops.

But why is greenwashing the biggest challenge the climate movement faces at the moment. How did we get here?

Goals remain unchanged, but tactics evolve
As I mentioned above, the first thing to understand is that climate policy is unavoidably and irrevocably conflictual, and hence political. That is because on the one hand the enduring overarching goal of big climate polluters in the fossil fuel business and industrial agribusiness is to prevent government regulations that will force them to cut their climate emissions.

While on the other hand the climate movement aims for emission cuts to achieve a stable climate.

This is a fundamental conflict globally, and in Aotearoa, and no amount of pseudo consensus can wish this conflict away.

Big climate polluters believe, rightly, that government regulation and pricing to drive emissions reductions threatens their business models and profitability. Other sectors of the economy, such as IT, can more easily adapt to a low carbon future, but those businesses in the industries like coal and synthetic fertiliser can’t adapt, and they intend to fight efforts to cut emissions all the way.

While their goal of preventing government regulation to force reductions in emissions has remained consistent, their tactics to achieve this goal have changed. And it is understanding the way their tactics have evolved that it becomes clear just how problematic the current government’s climate policies have become.

At the beginning the tactic they used was to deny the compelling weight of scientific evidence supporting the theory of human induced climate change. Climate denial was stock in trade for many right wing parties and agribusiness and oil industry lobby groups from the 1990s through to the 2010s.

But after a while that stopped working so they changed tactics to stressing uncertainty especially in the 2000s. They said climate change might be a thing, but there is so much uncertainty so we shouldn’t do anything about it. They played up the nature of scientific inquiry — that theories are not beyond questioning because they are not religious texts — to emphasise uncertainty and the need for delay. It was really just another form of climate denialism.

Billions spent on climate denialism
The polluting industries spent billions promoting climate denialism and uncertainty in order to block government regulation to cut emissions. They bought politicians, public relations firms and sadly some scientists to promote these ideas to delay action on climate. Their ideas were reproduced widely by the conservative commentariat, and many still are.

I spent many years of my life fighting climate denialism and eventually through the efforts of millions of climate activists we (mostly) won the battle against climate denialism. There are now few major governments or corporations or industry lobby groups that rely on climate denialist arguments to block government regulation to cut emissions.

Straight out climate science deniers have been pushed to the margins like Groundswell or the Act Party.

But the goal of the fossil fuel and agribusiness polluters remains consistent — they still want to stop government regulation to cut emissions — so they need a new tactic. And that tactic is greenwashing.

These days the polluters and their representatives say, “yes climate change is a thing” and “yes we should do something about it and you will be happy to know that we are doing something about it.”

Hence, they argue, there is no need for government regulation. Even though they spent the last 30 years blocking every attempt to reduce emissions and even denying climate science, they argue that they now take it seriously and there is absolutely no need for the government to do anything.

And what they are doing is often nonsense like net carbon zero targets in 2050 or buying offshore carbon credits or an industry controlled pricing mechanism like He Waka Eke Noa, or nitrification inhibitors etc. They don’t actually cut emissions in any significant way.

The purpose of greenwashing may seem relatively retail when it is done by a single company to sell stuff to consumers, but at a systemic level the purpose of greenwashing is to head off government attempts to introduce regulations and pricing that will force emission reductions.

There are of course some corporations and governments taking significant actions to cut emissions, but there are also many corporate and government actions that are just greenwashing.

Separating out the genuine climate actions from greenwashing is something that defines the climate politics of our time. And this is why the approach taken by the New Zealand government is so very problematic. People assume that the Climate Minister, especially a Green Party Climate Minister, will not perpetuate greenwashing, and will call it out, but it has not always been the case with James Shaw, and that makes it all the more insidious.

Government greenwashes the biggest polluter: Agribusiness
Which brings us to the problem with the current New Zealand government climate policy. Climate policy in this country mostly boils down to what you are doing about agribusiness emissions (biogenic agriculture emissions alone are about 50 percent of emissions) and transport (20 percent). The rest matters too but if you aren’t tackling these two then you aren’t tackling climate change.

Transport policy has not been great from a climate perspective but here I want to focus on the bigger problem — agribusiness — particularly intensive dairy.

We have had the same Prime Minister and the same Climate Minister for the nearly five years of this government. There have been a plethora of nice sounding climate announcements — the PM said that climate was her generation’s “nuclear free moment”, we’ve had the so-called Zero Carbon Act, a climate emergency declaration, an independent climate commission established, emissions reductions plans, improved nationally determined targets for reduction, signed the global methane pledge etc.

But there is still no effective government policy to cut emissions from agribusiness, by far the biggest polluter.

The problem is not just that the government is doing virtually nothing to cut emissions from agribusiness, the problem is that it is saying that it is taking climate change seriously.

It is equivalent to the Australian government doing nothing about coal or the Canadian government doing nothing about tar sands oil — all while telling us how seriously they take climate change. This is greenwashing and it is dangerous because many people think climate action is happening.

When the claims of meaningful action are fronted by a “nuclear free-moment” Prime Minister and a Green Party Climate Minister – the general observer could be forgiven for trusting that those claims are true.

The evidence that this government has done very little to cut agribusiness emissions is bountiful but let me focus on just one central area — agriculture and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Taking government at its word
The government repeatedly tells us that the Emissions Trading Scheme is the most important tool to cut emissions. This is debatable but let us take them at their word.

If it is so important then why, 14 years after the ETS began in 2008, is the biggest polluting sector, agribusiness, still exempt from the ETS? For 14 years agribusiness lobbyists and industry groups such as Federated Farmers and Dairy NZ have successfully fought a battle of predatory delay to stop their sector facing a price on emissions, apparently the most important climate tool.

And every government (Clark, Key, Ardern) has given them exactly what they want — perpetual delay.

When the ETS was passed into law in 2008, the Labour government of the day delayed agriculture’s entry until 2013. A bad start.

At the time, myself and many others argued against the delay but the Clark government wouldn’t budge. The John Key-Bill English National government (2008-2017) that followed, delayed agriculture’s entry indefinitely. From the perspective of agribusiness, delaying is winning, and they were winning.

For a moment in 2017/2018 it looked like the newly elected Ardern government might have the courage of its convictions and that the agribusiness lobby would finally lose its battle to stop climate action.

The Labour-NZ First coalition agreement explicitly committed them to support agriculture’s entry into the ETS at 5 percent of its obligations. With NZ First’s vote secured, there was a Parliamentary majority to bring agriculture into the ETS. Finally.

Backed down under pressure
But then in 2019 the Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw backed down to agribusiness pressure and instead of agriculture facing a price on its emissions they adopted an industry proposal — He Waka Eke Noa.

He Waka Eke Noa was a proposal from agribusiness for a joint government-agribusiness initiative looking at pricing agribusiness climate pollution. In effect He Waka Eke Noa handed over to industry the design of the system to price their own pollution. New Zealand agribusiness was beside themselves with joy.

In time it would become clear that it was not just that industry would design the system, but they would design a system that they would control going forward.

And, the target date for starting pricing was 2025. That was two elections away — 2020 and 2023 —  and the chances of the current ministers still being there was remote. And if they did manage to win in 2020 and 2023, it was almost unheard of for a government to win a fourth term in 2026 so anything implemented in 2025 could be easily undone.

He Waka Eke Noa’s timelines left the industry partying. And as for the politicians, none of them were likely to be around to get the blame when nothing happened either.

In one of the defining moments of this government’s climate inaction, Jacinda Ardern and James Shaw stood next to Dairy NZ and Federated Farmers to launch the five year He Waka Eke Noa project, instead of implementing their own policy of immediately putting agriculture into the ETS.

James Shaw celebrated He Waka Eke Noa and went so far as to say “nothing about us without us” —  that is he used the slogan of the disability advocacy movement to infer that the agribusiness sector shouldn’t be regulated without their consent and agreement. That was a real low point I must say.

Predictably, three years of delay later, in 2022, the final report from He Waka Eke Noa was released detailing a complicated system that would cut agribusiness emissions by less than 1 percent. The headline reduction was higher but that is because it included the reductions that are supposed to come from technologies that don’t currently exist (magic bullets), the reductions that result from the unrelated freshwater regulations, and the reductions that come out of the waste sector.

Incidentally agribusiness has been saying those same magic bullets have been just around the corner for the last 20 years. If you strip out reductions projected to come from magic bullets, freshwater regulations and waste, the emissions reductions from the He Waka Eke Noa pricing mechanism are less than 1 percent. In addition, under the proposal industry would control the mechanism for regulating their own pollution — classic industry capture.

From the industry perspective He Waka Eke Noa was designed to stop government regulation i.e. stop agribusiness going into the ETS. Under criticism from Groundswell, both Federated Farmers and DairyNZ touted their achievement in keeping their industry out of the ETS.

The National Party also voiced its support for the final report. The Climate Minister was a little more muted.

Most people listening to the government talk about He Waka Eke Noa would think that it has been a tremendous success — after all doesn’t the government always say it wants consensus on climate? Whereas in fact its sole success has been to delay government regulation of agribusiness climate pollution — by three years so far — and, even if it were implemented, by its own calculations emissions would be reduced by less than 1 percent.

That is what consensus with polluters looks like and that is the corner that Ardern and Shaw have painted themselves into.

The purpose of greenwashing is to make us think industry is finally taking climate seriously and hence there is no need for government regulation, while in reality very little is happening to cut emissions.

He Waka Eke Noa is a perfect example of greenwashing:

• It looks like industry is taking climate change seriously with media coverage of all their hard work;
• The new scheme, if it is implemented, is controlled by industry, so full industry capture;
• The scheme has almost no impact on actually reducing emissions; and
• Even if, god forbid, the government were to reject He Waka Eke Noa and instead revert to putting agribusiness into the ETS when it makes a decision in late 2022, it is too late for that decision to be fully institutionalised before the next election, so it will be easily removed if there is a change of government in 2023 and not so hard even after the 2026 election. Predatory delay has been such a successful tactic so far for the industry, why change now?

The Glasgow target
The decisions by this government not to cut agribusiness emissions created cascading international problems of perception for the New Zealand government when it was required to offer a new target for emissions reductions at the Glasgow climate conference in November 2021.

The government wanted to look good with an ambitious target (known as a Nationally Determined Contribution) but had few policies to actually cut emissions. Other countries were raising doubts about the government’s climate commitment. The ETS was supposed to do the heavy lifting but, as the Climate Commission admitted recently, under current settings the “NZ ETS is likely to deliver mostly new plantation forestry rather than gross emission reductions”.

The answer was to use the potential future purchase of overseas carbon offsets to present a net target that looked ambitious.

The Climate Minister announced with great fanfare that New Zealand would commit to a 50 percent cut in net emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. NZ paraded its 50 percent target around the Glasgow climate conference. It sounds good until you realise not only does the target use tricky accounting to make it look much larger than it is, but that TWO THIRDS of the emissions reductions would come from buying offshore carbon offsets.

Sorry about the shouty capitals but nothing yells “greenwashing” quite like offshore carbon offsetting. Carbon offsets are notoriously corrupt, open to double counting, and are the carbon equivalent of papal indulgences. They are what you do when you don’t have policy to cut emissions but want to look good.

Yet this is the government’s plan to reach our international climate target — greenwashing. The Climate Commission has urged the government to contract the offsets fast: “It is essential that the government secure access to sources of offshore mitigation as soon as possible”. Instead of, you know, actually cutting emissions.

And just to show the government is not without a sense of humour they signed up to the global methane pledge to cut methane emissions — without a plan to cut methane emissions! In fact, in case industry was worried, when Shaw returned from Glasgow he confirmed that the government would not introduce any new policies to cut methane. Moooo.

But what about the giant climate bureaucratic superstructure?
Faced with this evidence of greenwashing on agribusiness and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) some people say “what about the Zero Carbon Act”? That proves they are serious doesn’t it? I think that we do need institutional reform to deal with climate, and I’ve pointed to what we need and some of the problems of the Zero Carbon Act before, but it should not be at the expense of immediate climate action.

Much of the government’s climate policy focus in the last five years has been on building an elaborate climate bureaucratic structure. This began with the years-long process to get cross-party support for the Zero Carbon Act, the years-long process to establish the Climate Commission, then there was the years-long processes to build the carbon budgets and the Emissions Reduction Plan.

These structures and processes do look good but they don’t cut emissions – only regulations and policies that cut emissions actually cut emissions. Now you might argue that over time this bureaucratic superstructure will lead to significant emission reductions, and maybe they will, and maybe they won’t, and maybe they can be improved.

The problem is we don’t have years to wonder and hope. We need to have been tangibly cutting actual emissions for the last five years, and cutting them harder over the next five, if we are to play any part in stalling global climate catastrophe.

Spending five years on not implementing much policy to cut emissions, in order to implement a bureaucratic superstructure that might result in emissions cuts down the road if a future government has the courage to use the climate superstructure to implement the policies that this one has not, is plainly not a serious policy to cut emissions. Just implement the policies.

However, in agriculture, our biggest polluter, there is no ambiguity that this climate policy structure has delivered nothing. The Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) has almost nothing to offer except magical technologies that don’t currently exist. The government’s excuse for offering no serious policy on cutting agribusiness emissions in the ERP is, you guessed it, He Waka Eke Noa. Predictably Federated Farmers really liked the Emission Reduction Plan, because it, you know, didn’t reduce agribusiness emissions!

The 2022-23 Budget that followed the ERP allocated $710 million over four years to agribusiness climate initiatives, but it turns out the money is to look for magic bullets to cut emissions. And some of these magic bullets might be worse — recently $11 million was given to research nitrification inhibitors that kill soil biology in order to cut nitrous oxide emissions following the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers.

Killing our soils is the exact opposite of what we need to do. The money in the ERP comes from ETS revenue paid by others, because agribusiness is not required to pay into the Emissions Trading Scheme. It is a giant subsidy from everyone else to agribusiness to maintain the pretence of climate action.

It seems a big price to pay to maintain the pretence — it would be a lot cheaper just to paint the cows green.

Some might argue that the climate bureaucratic superstructure may not achieve much in reality, but it is not actually harmful. Sure, the argument goes, this elaborate policy superstructure has wasted lots of time and energy which could have gone into policies that would actually cut emissions, but it is harmless enough.

Well, maybe you’d only think that if you haven’t been following the litigation. Crown Law, the government’s lawyers, are using the Zero Carbon Act etc to actually block climate action in the courts. Here are two quick examples.

In the most recent case against the Energy Minister’s decision to issue more onshore oil and gas exploration permits, the Minister’s lawyers argued that the Zero Carbon Act allowed for more oil and gas exploration and so it was fine. This is in spite of the fact that the world already has more oil and gas reserves than can be burnt to stay under the 1.5 degree guidance that is in the Zero Carbon Act.

Previously climate lawyers have been able to argue that the global situation for oil and gas must be taken into account but now, significantly, under the Zero Carbon Act, the Crown argues you can only consider the New Zealand situation. So the Zero Carbon Act is being used to justify oil exploration and protect it from legal attack by climate activists.

And in a previous case against the Climate Commission, James Shaw’s lawyers argued that the 1.5 degree target in the Zero Carbon Act was only “aspirational” and not binding on the government.

Marc Daalder reported it thus:

“Crown Law counsel Polly Higbee told the High Court references to 1.5 degrees [in the Zero Carbon Act] used “broad, aspirational language” and it would be “too prescriptive” to argue that the purpose section placed any actual duty on the Government.”

No actual duty on the government from the 1.5 degree target in the Zero Carbon Act is what Shaw’s lawyers told the court. Outside the court, when speaking to climate activists, Shaw says that the 1.5 degrees target is binding, but in court, where it matters, his lawyers argue it is not.

It’s hard to think of a clearer example of greenwashing. There were many people in the climate movement who worked hard to deliver the Zero Carbon Act and honestly believed it would be a significant tool to cut emissions, rather than defend oil exploration against legal attack.

The final argument for these bland instruments like the Zero Carbon Act is that we need to get broad political elite consensus on climate to get change. History tells us the opposite. To choose just one example which is close to the PM’s heart — nuclear free.

Nuclear free New Zealand was not a result of a consensus process. It was vociferously opposed by the National Party and its many allies — they voted against the legislation and spoke out against it. Nuclear free NZ was not won by reducing our ambitions to what was acceptable to the National Party and the US State Department.

Thousands of peace and environment activists campaigned for it and the Labour government eventually came round to their position, and stood up to provide leadership. There was no political elite consensus. The reason that the National Party never repealed the nuclear free legislation when they returned to government in 1990 was because of its broad support from civil society, support that resulted from civil society campaigners and a Prime Minister willing to fight for the policy (once he finally came round to it).

Introducing vacuous climate legislation that achieves little, in order to get the National Party to vote for it, is pointless, or worse.

Winning the debate on real climate action is the only way to ensure it sticks, and greenwashing undermines that public campaigning.

Conclusion
During the 2017 election campaign I bumped into Jacinda Ardern in Wellington airport and she told me my job at Greenpeace was to hold her government accountable. I respected her for saying that and I agreed with it, and still do. And so that is what I’m doing.

The government has done some good stuff on climate, but on the really big and difficult climate policy issues they are greenwashing. And the greenwashing has disoriented and weakened the climate movement and meant that we are getting much weaker climate policy out of this government than we would otherwise.

And I refer to Ardern rather than Shaw deliberately because there is an uncomfortable political reality that sits behind all this: Jacinda Ardern makes the climate policy in this government and James Shaw presents it. The first rule of politics is to learn how to count — look at the numbers and you will understand this government — Labour has a simple majority and Shaw isn’t even in Cabinet.

James Shaw may like the climate policy, he may not, I don’t know. He may be the architect of crucial bits of it, or not, I don’t know. He is allowed to say he would like to improve the climate policy, but he cannot speak out against it and keep his job. And once you dwell on that hard political truth, all this makes a lot more sense.

It’s not my job or Greenpeace’s job to say whether that is an acceptable position for the Green Party to find itself in, but it is our job to call out greenwash when we see it. We believe that only people power can ensure genuine enduring progress on climate and people need to know the truth if they are to act on it.

For that reason greenwashing is the enemy of progress on climate and where you stand on greenwashing is the Rubicon of our times.

Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa and was co-leader of the Green Party for nine years. He resigned from Parliament as an MP in 2015 to take up the Greenpeace position.

• Petition: Ban synthetic nitrogen fertiliser

New Zealand will provide $15 million to support Samoa with its climate change priorities.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made the announcement in Apia today at a joint press conference with Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa.

“This funding will help build Samoa’s resilience to the impacts of climate change and its transition to a low emissions economy,” Ardern said.

• READ MORE: Samoa and NZ mark unique relationship, PM Fiame Naomi Mata’afa says
• Other NZ and Samoa reports

New Zealand will work with the Samoan government to determine where the funding will go — governance arrangements and opportunities for future investments.

The government is also pledging $12 million to rebuild Apia’s Savalalo Market, a historic market which was destroyed by a fire in 2016.

“The market was renowned as a hub for local crafts and food, run primarily by women small business owners. It is at the heart of Apia’s community and economic life, as well as formerly being a major tourist attraction,” Ardern said.

“We are proud to support the government of Samoa re-establish it.”

Rebuilding the partnership
The request for the money came from Samoa’s government, which will fund the rebuild in partnership with New Zealand. Both Ardern and Fiame have indentified climate change as a key joint issue.

Jacinda Ardern is in Samoa to mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Friendship between New Zealand and Samoa.

Following an ‘ava ceremony and reception on Monday, she attended a flag raising and guard of honour inspection today.

She said at the bilateral a number of issues were discussed in addition to climate change, such as economic resilience, and covid-19.

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

WATCH LIVE – The prime ministers of New Zealand and Samoa, Jacinda Ardern and Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, are speaking to media after bilateral talks today. https://t.co/NtRK7U9EL7

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) August 1, 2022

Addressing media on developments at the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says making sure the region is investing now in initiatives that improve climate resilience is incredibly important.

Ardern is attending the forum alongside Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta.

The funding announced for Pacific crop seeds this afternoon allowed the preservation of the region’s biodiversity, “which is incredibly important to all of us”, Ardern said.

• READ MORE: $10m climate funding to support Pacific seed crops
• More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out as crisis grows
• Pacific Islands Forum ‘on course’ as China issue casts shadow
• Kiribati exit from Pacific forum ‘out of order’, says founding president
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

She said it was important for the region to move away as much as possible from the reliance on fossil fuels.

“The price impacts that has, they’re increasingly becoming unaffordable, but also the fact that offers an opportunity for climate mitigation as well. I expect that will be one of many things that comes through the Pacific Islands Forum.”

Climate change had been top of the agenda at every forum she had been to, Ardern said, and represented a huge security issue in itself.

“All of these things come back to essentially the resilience of our region and our general security as a region as well.”

If others like Australia chose to follow New Zealand on increasing climate change-related spending, that could only be a good thing for all, she said.

“In some cases quite a bit of background work needs to be done on funding some of the initatives … one of the things that has been a barrier has been the inability to progress projects on the ground because of covid.

The media conference.                               Video: RNZ News

“I expect us to be trying to make up for a bit of lost time there, and that goes for aid and development funding across the region.”

There was, for the most part, an absence of legal mechanisms to protect the environment, and New Zealand was keen to play a role in ensuring that was in place, Ardern said.

Uncertainty after leaders withdraw
Uncertainty has been swirling around the forum since Sunday when it was revealed that Kiribati president Taneti Maamau would not attend the gathering and his nation had formally withdrawn from the forum.

China denied claims it was behind Kiribati’s withdrawal.

Asked at a media briefing, the spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, said the claims were groundless.

Wang said China did not interfere in the internal affairs of Pacific Islands countries and hoped to see greater solidarity and closer cooperation among the nations for common development.

Since then there have been fresh defections — Nauru’s President Lionel Aingimea, Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and Marshall Islands President David Kabua.

Ardern said she first discussed the concerns from Micronesian countries about them potentially withdrawing from the forum when they first arose.

“And sought to speak to a number of members from Micronesia to better understand those issues and how we could support resolution and today it was actually a follow-up conversation,” Ardern said.

Potential to move forward
She said the fact the Suva agreement had come forth from a number of members from Micronesia, there was the potential to move forward.

“We have now the potential to agree and to move on collectively, with those new arrangements in place.”

On Kiribati, which revoked its PIF membership, Ardern said she would point to their own sentiments.

“If they were highlighting any vulnerability for them it would be climate-related. You know, they’re suffering significant drought at present and have said that they wish to continue to work with the forum because these issues are so pressing and real and present for them now.

“Do we hope that they’ll come back into the forum formally? Absolutely — and that’s my hope, I think it’s everyone’s hope — but I think we have an agreement now that Micronesian members have broadly indicated their support for. They were at the table in developing it and our hope is over time Kiribati will choose to return…

“I think I imagine all forum members will likely keep up their engagement with Kiribati, and their support for Kiribati. It is an incredibly tough time.”

She said it was disappointing Kiritbati was not there when the 2050 climate strategy is set to be endorsed, “but at the same time they themselves have identified that climate change is an area where they wish to continue to work with the forum”.

‘Unity incredibly important’
“Yes, unity is incredibly important to us and I think we all still aspire to that, but we cannot at the same time halt the progress that needs to be made on working collectively on climate issues.”

Ardern said she met this morning with the president of Palau.

In coming days she expects to meet with Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, and with Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama.

“Obviously we’ve had issues within Micronesia for some time, the Suva agreement on the table, a chance to check in on members from within the region and their satisfaction with the agreement that has been reached.”

Pacific Islands Forum members have also heard from the likes of the World Bank, the Asia Developoment Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

“Very similar themes, reflecting on the war in Ukraine exacerbating energy prices, the impact of inflation, supply chain constraints and of course Covid lockdowns in China and the impact that will have on the region,” Ardern said.

China and the Pacific
Ardern said China was an example of a development partner that had been around the Pacific for decades but had increased its activity and changed the way in which it engaged.

“We’ve, from New Zealand’s perspective, said that there are elements of that — particularly when it comes to the security arrangements of the region — that concern us.

“On the other hand you’ve had the United States who equally have been present and engaged in the region perhaps over the past few years waning in their engagement, and at the behest of many in the region, are now seeking to re-engage again.

“You can see that all of this activity occurring at the same time does mean we have a more contested environment. We’ve got to come back to the principles.”

She said those principles were to prioritise the Pacific, to make sure there was no coercion in play, and avoiding militarisation of the region.

New Zealand had been one of the top contributors to the region for a long, long time but “it’s more than just whether or not you’re a donor in the region”, Ardern said.

“This is our home this is the place we live and it’s who we are, and I’d like to think that the way we do things — the relationship that we build — also sets us apart from other nations”.

New Zealand’s position on the Solomon Islands’ agreement with China was that nations had their own sovereignty to determine their own relationships, she said.

“But security arrangements have wider impacts and that is really what we’re drawing to the attention of the Solomons and equally we have been present there to help support the security needs of the region — and if there have been deficiencies in that I’d like to hear what they were.”

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

The 51st Pacific Forum Leaders (PIF) Meeting starting today has been dealt a major blow after the Kiribati government confirmed it has withdrawn from the forum “with immediate effect”.

RNZ Pacific has seen a copy of a leaked letter, dated July 9, from Kiribati President Taneti Maamau to the forum’s Secretary-General Henry Puna, in which he expresses concerns over the regional body’s leadership, as well as the Suva Agreement signed last month.

According to the leaked communication, Kiribati did not sign up to the now-controversial deal, which was touted to mend the leadership rift and prevent the Micronesian subregion to split from the region’s premier political institution.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

“We established a reform package that contains commitments that deepen trust and political cohesion across our region,” Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama had said after the conclusion of a special two-day meeting with three Micronesian leaders and the leaders of Cook Islands and Samoa in June.

“Fiji fully supports its [Suva Agreement] adoption at the next Pacific Islands Forum,” Bainimarama, also forum chair, said.

But in the letter to Puna, President Maamau states: “There was never a Micronesian Presidents’ Summit (MPS) caucus decision on the PIF reform packages that Kiribati was part of, and particularly an MPS collective decision to return to the PIF.”

The Kiribati president also requested for the forum to push out the date of the leaders convening so it would not coincide with their National Day celebrations. However, this was not considered.

RNZ Pacific understands forum officials are now working behind the scenes to convince the Kiribati government to reconsider its decision and urgently fly them over for the high-level meeting in Fiji’s capital.

RNZ has contacted the Forum Secretariat for comment.

Bringing the ‘family together’
Pacific leaders have attempted to bring the “family together” and resolve the political impasse for months, but there appears to be an apparent fracture within the forum.

Last week, New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who is confirmed to be attending the meeting in Suva headed by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, said the forum was “at the heart of our engagement with the region”.

Mahuta welcomed the Suva Agreement and calling it “the Pacific-led solution that will see Micronesian states represented at the forum this year.”

But the latest turn of events indicates Pacific Forum leaders are scrambling to find a swift resolution ahead of the opening of one of the most significant leaders’ meetings in recent history starting tomorrow.

A diplomatic source close to RNZ Pacific said Puna must address the issues raised by Kiribati as there were concerns about the role of the secretary-general being a matter of “pride”.

The Suva Agreement
Tension between the Micronesian states and the office of the secretary-general of the PIF has been high since the Micronesian candidate for the top job narrowly missed out to Puna.

But the situation had been improving following the High-Level Political Dialogue which resulted in the Suva Agreement on June 6.

The agreement engineered by forum chair Bainimarama was tweaked by PIFS senior officials meeting earlier last week and approved by the Forum Foreign Ministers on Friday to be tabled for sign off at the Leaders Retreat on Thursday.

In the Suva Agreement, the secretary-general’s term is to be extended from three to five years and Puna would continue till 2024.

Then, unlike every other previous secretary-general in recent times, he is to step down without seeking re-election to make way for a Micronesian candidate.

Current Marshallese Ambassador to the United States and dual Palauan citizen Gerald Zackios was the Micronesian state’s nominee to the position of the forum secretary-general at the last vote of the Leaders Retreat in Tuvalu in 2019.

Also in the agreement is the induction of recruitment procedures for the top job to formalise the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” so the job rotates among the three sub-regions.

To ensure equal representation, an additional deputy secretary-general position is to be created and filled by other candidates to ensure each region can be represented all the time in the Forum Secretariat.

Additionally, Micronesia has asked that the Office of the Pacific Ocean Commissioner (OPOC), a position also held by the PIFS secretary-general and housed in Suva, is to be moved to a Micronesian state along with a new forum sub regional office.

The other major CROP agency, the Pacific Community, has a Micronesian regional office in Pohnpei.

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

Pacific Peoples Minister Aupito William Sio will attend the Pacific Islands Forum in Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta’s stead as she recovers from covid-19.

In a statement confirming the move this afternoon Aupito, who is also the Associate Foreign Minister, said he looked forward to the opportunity to talanoa with Pacific Island counterparts at the forum in Fiji next week.

“This will be the first in-person meeting of Forum Foreign Ministers since 2019,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

“It has been challenging to bring all ministers together given the impact of the global pandemic and a number of national elections under way in the Pacific, but this talanoa is essential for our region.”

Mahuta said the forum was at the heart of New Zealand’s engagement with the Pacific, and this meeting came at a “critical time” considering the climate change challenge.

She confirmed over the weekend she had tested positive for covid-19, and would be unable to attend.

Aupito said the response to broader security challenges — including maritime surveillance and illegal fishing — economic resilience, and natural disaster response were also pressing issues that would be discussed.

The Forum will also be attended by heads of state, including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Leaders’ meetings will take place from Monday to Thursday next week, July 11-14.

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

Greenpeace Aotearoa has condemned New Zealand for “standing by” while “deep wounds are inflicted on its Pacific neighbours” by silence over deep sea mining.

Greenpeace’s seabed mining campaigner James Hita made the critical statement today after a dramatic shift at the UN Oceans conference in Lisbon this week when several Pacific governments formed an alliance to oppose deep sea mining in international waters.

The environmental movement said the continued silence from the New Zealand government on the issue was “deafening”.

• READ MORE: Fiji, Palau and Samoa call for deep-sea mining moratorium at UN conference
• France’s Macron says deep-sea mining must not go ahead
• Other deep-sea mining reports

To standing ovations, Fiji and Samoa joined the alliance opposing deep sea mining announced by Palau on Monday.

The following day Tuvalu, Tonga, and Guam announced their support for a halt to deep sea mining and France is now also calling for a legal and robust framework to ban deep sea mining in the high seas.

But so far the New Zealand government has not taken a stance on the issue.

“New Zealand risks standing by while deep wounds are inflicted on its Pacific neighbours if it continues to stay silent on deep sea mining,” James Hita said.

‘Ruthless corporations’
“This move by ruthless corporations to begin deep sea mining in the Pacific is the latest example of colonisation in a region that has already suffered so much from nuclear testing, overfishing and resource extraction by the developed world.

“It’s a sad irony that when French nuclear testing threatened the Pacific, Norman Kirk’s Labour government sent a frigate in protest, but now, when corporate seabed mining threatens the Pacific, Jacinda Ardern’s Labour government does nothing while Macron’s French government speaks out to protect the Pacific.

“New Zealand has a golden opportunity right now to show real solidarity and leadership in the Pacific and we call on Prime Minister Ardern, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta and Minister of Oceans and Fisheries David Parker to seize the day and make us proud.

“To maintain respect in the Pacific, the Ardern government needs to start standing up for the things that matter to the Pacific.

“Palau, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa are all calling for a moratorium on seabed mining but so far the New Zealand government is sitting on its hands,” said Hita.

Deep sea mining is a destructive and untested industry where minerals are sucked up from the ocean floor and waste materials pumped back into the ocean.

A sediment plume smothers marine life, threatening vulnerable ecosystems, fisheries and the people’s way of life.

Ocean floor disruptions
Scientists say that disruptions to the ocean floor may also reduce the ocean’s ability to sequester carbon, adding to the climate crisis.

Without action from governments to stop it, mining of the deep seas in the Pacific could begin as early as mid-2023.

• Greenpeace Aotearoa launched a petition in June calling on the NZ government and Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta to support a ban on deep sea mining in the Pacific and around the world. More than 9000 people have signed.

The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling to throw out Roe v Wade is an issue of relevance to political leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The decision was met with enthusiasm by those opposed to abortion here, including opposition National MP for Tāmaki Simon O’Connor.

Pro-choice groups such as Abortion Rights Aotearoa (ALRANZ) expressed alarm, not only for American women but for what this might signal for New Zealand.

• READ MORE: The end of Roe v Wade would likely embolden global anti-abortion activists and politicians
• Roe v Wade overturned: what abortion access and reproductive rights look like around the world
• US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade – but for abortion opponents, this is just the beginning

This has left opposition leader Christopher Luxon with a dilemma. He found himself caught up in questions that put a spotlight on his pro-life values, politics and integrity.

Luxon’s anti-abortion beliefs are not news. In the days following his election as party leader late last year, when asked to confirm if, from his point of view, abortion was tantamount to murder, he clarified “that’s what a pro-life position is”.

Yet, in recent days, Luxon has repeatedly and emphatically sought to reassure voters National would not pursue a change to this country’s abortion laws should it win government.

Abortion is legal in Aotearoa, decriminalised in 2020 within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act. It’s clear Luxon hopes his assurances will appease those of a pro-choice view, the position of most New Zealanders according to polling in 2019.

Principle and pragmatism in leadership
It has long been argued good leadership is underpinned by strength of character, a clear moral compass and integrity — in other words, consistency between one’s words and actions.

National MP Simon O’Connor has returned to Parliament with an apology to colleagues over a social media post that celebrated the US Supreme Court’s overturning of abortion law.https://t.co/dR4eBM8Z4K

— RNZ (@radionz) June 28, 2022

Whether a leader possesses the prudence to gauge what is a practically wise course of action in a given situation that upholds important values, or simply panders to what is politically safe and expedient, offers insights into their character.

Over time, we can discern if they lean more strongly toward being values-based or if they tend to align with what Machiavelli controversially advised: that to retain power a leader must appear to look good but be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position.

Of course both considerations have some role to play as no one is perfect. We should look for a matter of degree or emphasis. A more strongly Machiavellian orientation is associated with toxic leadership.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has characterised herself as a “pragmatic idealist”. Her track record indicates a willingness to accept considerable political heat in defence of key values.

This is seen, for example, in her sustained advocacy of covid-related health measures such as vaccine mandates and managed isolation, even when doing so was not the politically expedient path to follow.

Luxon’s leadership track record in the public domain is far less extensive. Much remains unknown or untested as to what kind of leader he is. Being leader of the opposition is, of course, a very different role to that of prime minister.

However, in his maiden speech Luxon described his Christian faith as something that anchors him and shapes his values, while also arguing politicians should not seek to force their beliefs on others.

His response to this week’s controversy proves he is willing to set aside his personal values for what is politically expedient. This suggests he is less of an idealist and more a pragmatist.

This may be a relief to the pro-choice lobby, given his anti-abortion beliefs. But if the political calculus changes, what might then happen?

Sums it up really. It is absolutely 100% a woman’s right to choose #AbortionBan #USA pic.twitter.com/JhgS4Txaqz

— Russ (@smiffy2609) June 25, 2022

The matter is not settled
New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems differ from those of the US, but the Supreme Court decision proves it is possible to wind back access to abortion.

Even if Luxon’s current assurance is sincerely intended, it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.

The National Council of Women’s 2021 gender attitudes survey revealed a clear increase in more conservative, anti-egalitarian attitudes. Researchers at The Disinformation Project also found sexist and misogynistic themes feature strongly in the conspiracy-laden disinformation gaining influence in New Zealand.

If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand’s abortion laws.

In such a situation, the right to abortion may not be the only one imperilled. A 2019 survey in the US showed a strong connection between an anti-abortion or “pro-life” stance and more general anti-egalitarian views.

It is clear Luxon is aiming to reassure the public he has no intentions to advance changes to our abortion laws. But his seeming readiness to set aside personal beliefs in favour of what is politically viable also suggests that, if the political landscape changes, so too might his stance.

A broader question arises from this: if a leader is prepared to give up a presumably sincerely held conviction to secure more votes, what other values that matter to voters might they be willing to abandon in pursuit of political power?

Dr Suze Wilson is senior lecturer, School of Management, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

New Zealand and the European Union have struck an historic free trade deal, “unlocking access to one of the world’s biggest and most lucrative markets” after four years of tough negotiating.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and President of the European Union Ursula von der Leyen unveiled the details in Brussels, but it was touch and go as to whether a good enough deal could be agreed.

The negotiations went right to the limit, with Ardern and Trade Minister Damien O’Connor involved in the last phase of the talks, just hours before the official announcement was made.

• READ MORE: Other NZ trade with Europe reports

The agreement — about 14 years in the making — means New Zealand views it as “commercially meaningful” and as worth putting pen to paper.

Ardern said it was a “strategically important and economically beneficial deal that comes at a crucial time in our export led covid-19 recovery”, covering 27 EU member states.

“It delivers tangible gains for exporters into a restrictive agricultural market. It cuts costs and red tape for exporters and opens up new high value market opportunities and increases our economic resilience through diversifying the markets that we can more freely export into,” she said.

By 2035, the value of New Zealand exports to the EU will increase by $1.8 billion a year, which Ardern said was more lucrative than the benefits gained from New Zealand’s recent deal with the United Kingdom.

Eventually duty free
Eventually, 97 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to the EU will be duty-free, and more than 91 percent of tariffs will be removed the day the FTA comes into effect.

There will be immediate tariff elimination for all kiwifruit, wine, onions, apples, mānuka honey and manufactured goods, as well as almost all fish and seafood, and other horticultural products. It will also become easier for a range of service providers to access the EU, including education.

Meat and dairy have always been a tough sell due to the protected European market; once fully implemented this deal will deliver new quota opportunities worth over $600 million in annual export earnings, with an eight-fold increase to the amount of beef able to be sold into Europe. Duty free access for sheep meat has been expanded by 38,000 tonnes each year.

Red meat and dairy will get up to $120 million worth of new annual export revenue on day one of the deal, with estimates of more than $600 million within seven years.

Quotas have been established for butter, cheese, milk powders and protein whey.

The vast bulk of dairy tariffs will be eliminated within seven years, however the current system is a bit trickier. New Zealand had World Trade Organisation quotas for butter and cheese, but exporters couldn’t make use of them as the “in-tariff rates” were so high it was not economic to make use of them.

For example, butter has a 46,000 tonne annual quota, but the tariff rate was 38 percent.

Cheese break through
Under the new deal, of that quota, 36,000 tonnes will have a 5 percent tariff over seven years — once fully in force that is a $258 million benefit each year.

There has been a stop on New Zealand cheese exports to the EU for the last five years, for the same reason.

But under the FTA there will be immediate access through a tariff-free, annual quota of 31,000 tonnes — worth about $187 million each year to the local industry.

Another particular element of the deal is “geographical indications”; names of products that come with a strong connection to a specific area and ones the EU wants protected from use by anyone outside of that region.

For the cheese makers and the cheese lovers — New Zealand will be able to keep using the names gouda, mozzarella, haloumi, brie and camembert.

Feta, beloved to Greece, will be off the table though and producers here will have to find another name in nine years’ time.

Cheese makers will be able to keep using the name “gruyere”, as long as they had been doing so five years before the deal comes into effect; the same with “parmesan”.

Medicines carve out
There has been a carve out for New Zealand medicines and Pharmac, as patent requirements sought by the EU would have made medicines here more expensive by hundreds of millions of dollars a year — New Zealand refused and that is not part of the deal, the only country in the OECD to have that exemption.

Ardern described the deal as “high quality, inclusive and ambitious”, containing “ground-breaking commitments on environment, labour rights and gender equality as foundational parts of a trade and sustainable development chapter”.

“I am pleased that this FTA also includes a dedicated chapter on Māori Trade and Economic Cooperation,” she said.

While Ardern was drumming up support with European leaders at the NATO Summit in Madrid, Trade Minister Damien O’Connor spent the past week in Brussels nailing down the final details.

He said the deal provided “access for products that were previously locked out in the historically difficult to access European market”.

“This agreement delivers on what has been a long-standing objective of successive New Zealand governments — an FTA with the European Union, which will help accelerate New Zealand’s economic recovery at a time of global disruption,” O’Connor said.

‘Solid’ trade agreement
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said it was a “modern and solid” trade agreement.

“With this agreement, we should be able to increase trade between the two of us by 30 percent — that’s a big step”, she said at the media briefing with Ardern.

“Our farmers on both sides will benefit and they will benefit way beyond tariff cuts because we will work together on sustainable food systems.”

The EU is New Zealand’s third largest trading partner.

On the EU side, she said it meant European investment could grow by about 80 percent, a large number of food products geographical indications have been protected, and nearly all tariffs on exports to New Zealand have been eliminated.

It is a different kind of agreement, covering modern digital rules, and “several firsts”, said von der Leyen, for example, “sanctionable commitments” to the Paris Climate Agreement.

“This is the very first time that we take such commitments in a trade deal… and it contains, again, for the first time provisions on fossil fuels,” she said.

“And we show the same ambition on core international labor standards and on gender equality, to advance women’s economic empowerment.

“So this agreement will bring major benefits to our economies, but also to our societies.”

New Zealand and the EU have also signed an agreement for closer co-operation between law enforcement agencies, allowing greater information sharing and collaboration to help disrupt and respond to transnational organised crime, drug trafficking, money laundering, child sexual exploitation, cybercrime, violent extremism, and terrorism.

‘Deeply disappointed’ – Meat Industry Association
Red meat exporters are “extremely disappointed and concerned” with what they describe as a “poor quality” deal struck with the European Union, representing a “missed opportunity” for farmers.

The Meat Industry Association said the deal agreed will see only a “small quota” for New Zealand beef into the EU — 10,000 tonnes into a market that consumes 6.5 million tonnes of beef annually — “far less than the red meat sector’s expectations”, and one that continues to put them at disadvantage in a large market.

“We are extremely disappointed that this agreement does not deliver commercially meaningful access for our exporters, in particular for beef,” said chief executive Sirma Karapeeva of the Industry Association.

“We have been clear from the outset that what we need from an EU-NZ Free Trade Agreement is market access that allows for future growth and opportunity.

“Unfortunately, this outcome maintains small quotas that will continue to constrain our companies’ ability to export to the EU,” she said. “This agreement is not consistent with our expectations and the promise for an ambitious, high quality trade deal.”

Diversification was even more important with the increasing volatility in global markets and a high quality deal was “critical” to helping exporters broaden their access to other markets, said Karapeeva.

“This is a missed opportunity for farmers, exporters and New Zealanders,” she said.

“It will mean our sector will not be able to capture the maximum value for our products, depriving the New Zealand economy of much-needed export revenue at a time when the country is relying on the primary sector to deliver when it matters most.”

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

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s acceptance of an invitation to speak at this week’s NATO leaders’ summit in Madrid has fuelled a narrative that New Zealand’s independent foreign policy is falling victim to a new Cold War.

According to this view, Ardern’s participation is a reward for recently aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with the US and its allies against Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

This narrative claims this shift has been exemplified by sanctions against Putin’s Russia, humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine and public questioning of China’s growing involvement in the Pacific.

• READ MORE: Ukraine war: Nato summit to meet in a world reordered by Russian aggression and Chinese ambition
• Ukraine might be far away, but a security crisis in Europe can still threaten Aotearoa New Zealand
• What New Zealand should win from its trade agreement with post-Brexit Britain

These developments purportedly show American power has forced New Zealand to abandon its preferred strategy of hedging between the two superpowers and instead follow Washington at the expense of its own national interests and the country’s crucial relationship with China.

But this reading of the current international situation and its impact on New Zealand foreign policy is wide of the mark.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s decision to attend the NATO summit in Spain – but to skip the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda – symbolizes the changes she is making to New Zealand foreign policy.https://t.co/r1nX5IEm8V pic.twitter.com/atnitdaTkX

— The Diplomat (@Diplomat_APAC) June 25, 2022

There is no new Cold War
The post-Cold War era is fundamentally different from the period between 1947 and 1989 and its rival global economic systems and competing but comparable alliance systems. Those features simply do not exist in the globalising world of the 21st century.

China’s rise to superpower status has been based on full-blooded participation in the global capitalist economy and its dependence on key markets like America, the European Union and Japan.

At the same time, the Ardern government has distinctive reasons, beyond simply following America’s lead, for opposing Putin’s Ukraine invasion and expressing public reservations about the China-Solomon Islands security deal.

Not reading too much into ⁦@jacindaardern⁩ attendance during NATO Summit. NZ has had dialogue relationship with NATO for 2 decades. I once attended meeting on Afghanistan w/ NATO leaders. Can be consistent with maintaining independent foreign policy: https://t.co/AAVaEbFdRn

— Helen Clark (@HelenClarkNZ) June 25, 2022

Since the Second World War, New Zealand has been a firm supporter of a strengthened international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and embodied in norms such as multilateralism.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. It confirmed what has been clear for much of the post-Cold War era — the UN Security Council is no longer fit for purpose.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pledged to campaign for a reformed Security Council that can more effectively hold aggression in check. The Ardern government believes it has a big stake in helping Kiev defeat Putin’s expansionism.

By framing concerns about China’s “militarisation” of the Pacific region as a possible breach of the 2000 Biketawa Declaration, the Ardern government is seeking to foster local resilience against China’s assertiveness in a region considered as New Zealand’s neighbourhood.

New Zealand’s worldview remains distinctive. It shares many of the concerns of close allies about the threat of authoritarian states to an international rules-based order. But it also rejects the view any great power should enjoy exceptional rights and privileges in the 21st century.

Here New Zealand’s foreign policy parts company with that of its traditional allies. New Zealand not only seeks to defend the international rules-based order, it wants to strengthen it.

New Zealand’s strategic positioning
There are other important strategic and economic reasons for Ardern to make this five-day visit to Europe.

She will have the chance to emphasise to so-called realists within NATO that ceding Ukrainian territory to Putin to bring peace is delusional, only likely to invite more territorial demands from the Kremlin.

China will also loom large in the discussions. Xi Jinping’s regime has diplomatically backed the Kremlin and recently declared Putin’s Ukraine invasion was “legitimate”.

Ardern has said China should not be “pigeonholed” with Moscow. But she will also be mindful a failure to strongly counter Putin’s assault on the rules-based order in Ukraine could increase China’s pressure to incorporate Taiwan, a state with vibrant trade and cultural ties with New Zealand.

Ardern should tell leaders in Madrid the best China strategy at this time is to make sure Putin’s invasion is rebuffed. If Putin’s army is defeated and ejected from Ukraine, it will be a serious blow to Xi’s leadership and could complicate any plans he might have for annexing Taiwan.

Chance to advance bilateral trade talks
The NATO meeting will also facilitate bilateral meetings with European leaders on some crucial trade questions.

In Brussels, Ardern and Trade Minister Damien O’Connor will seek to progress already advanced talks for a New Zealand-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The EU single market remains the world’s largest and most prosperous. It offers New Zealand the prospect of enhanced trade links with an important like-minded partner.

In London, Ardern and O’Connor will meet UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to build on a “gold-standard” New Zealand-UK FTA negotiated earlier this year.

The UK government has applied to join the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP). Ardern may warn Johnson that breaching the EU withdrawal agreement in relation to the Northern Ireland protocols could jeopardise this goal.

Ardern’s participation in the NATO summit and bilateral discussions in Europe at a time of geopolitical uncertainty mirror New Zealand’s key national goals of promoting an international rules-based order and diversifying trade links.

Dr Robert G. Patman is professor of international relations, University of Otago. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade “incredibly upsetting” as New Zealand politicians reacted to the controversial ruling.

Millions of American women have lost the constitutional right to abortion, after the 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision protecting the right to an abortion was overturned yesterday.

Ardern said in a statement that the decision was a loss for women everywhere.

• READ MORE: ‘My body, my choice’: Anger over US Supreme Court abortion ruling
• The US abortion ban is the ex-president’s legacy and he must face prosecution for abuse of power – The Observer editorial
• Other Roe v Wade reports

“Watching the removal of a woman’s fundamental right to make decisions over their own body is incredibly upsetting,” she said.

“Here in New Zealand we recently legislated to decriminalise abortion and treat it as a health rather than criminal issue.

“That change was grounded in the fundamental belief that it’s a woman’s right to choose. People are absolutely entitled to have deeply held convictions on this issue. But those personal beliefs should never rob another from making their own decisions.

“To see that principle now lost in the United States feels like a loss for women everywhere.

‘We need progress … not move backwards’
“When there are so many issues to tackle, so many challenges that face woman and girls, we need progress, not to fight the same fights and move backwards.”

New Zealand decriminalised abortion in 2020.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon previously has said he is against abortion personally, but is not interested in changing New Zealand law.

In a statement last night, he reaffirmed that, saying that abortion laws “laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government”.

Roe v Wade is an issue for the American people who have a different set of constitutional arrangements than us. NZ’s abortion laws were voted on and ultimately settled in the last parliament. These laws will not be relitigated or revisited under a future National government.

— Christopher Luxon (@chrisluxonmp) June 25, 2022

Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta tweeted that it was “draconian” and does not support womens’ right to choose.

The US Supreme Courts overturning of Roe v. Wade Is draconian and does not support the right of women to choice. How can this happen?

— Nanaia Mahuta (@NanaiaMahuta) June 24, 2022

Green Party MP Chlöe Swarbrick blasted the decision, expressing “solidarity with Americans fighting for restoration of their rights to healthcare.”

Prohibiting abortions doesn’t stop abortions. It prevents safe, regulated abortions. It prevents access for those without the resources to travel to areas where abortion is legal.

Solidarity with Americans fighting for restoration of their rights to healthcare.

— Chlöe Swarbrick (@_chloeswarbrick) June 24, 2022

ACT leader David Seymour said that “It may be that this is just returning the question to a state one, but half the states are going back a century in just a few days.”

What’s happening, Twitter? Great question. It may be that this is just returning the question to a State one, but half the States are going back a century in just a few days. pic.twitter.com/BFM0U0wFNB

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) June 24, 2022

Seymour, who supported New Zealand’s Abortion Legislation Bill to decriminalise abortion, said he was deeply concerned for the rights of American women and the future of US politics.

“I think that this will bring about a political earthquake in America. And this is a time when New Zealand really needs America to be focused on trade and security, rather than re-litigating battles of the 1950s.”

‘We cannot be complacent’
Green Party MP Jan Logie did not expect the decision would encourage people to push for changes to the abortion laws in New Zealand.

Logie said she was grateful New Zealand decriminalised abortion in 2020.

“We’ve seen a result of that an increasing number of New Zealanders who recognise the importance of reproductive justice. But this tells us also that we cannot be complacent.”

Logie said she feared the decision would increase the rate of unsafe abortions in the US.

Family Life International’s Michelle Kaufman said she wanted New Zealand’s abortion laws to change.

“I hope one day that we will see an end to abortion, that people will see that it’s the unthinkable choice, that there are better ways.”

Kaufman said abortion was violence and that it did not solve problems.

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

Today’s Matariki celebrations signal the maturing of Aotearoa New Zealand, says Māori leader Sir Pou Temara.

A ceremony attended by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and other dignitaries was held in Wellington to mark the first national public holiday in New Zealand for Matariki.

On a still Wellington morning at Te Papa, the hautapu ceremony was led by Sir Pou Temara and an array of tohunga.

• READ MORE: Matariki falls during a quiet retail season – but NZ businesses should be wary of cashing in
• Matariki: reintroducing the tradition of Māori New Year celebrations
• Other Matariki reports

“Today is a moment in time. This is a moment that future generations will look upon and say this is when we came of age,” Sir Pou said.

Matariki is the start of the Māori New Year Matariki – a time for celebration, remembrance, growth and renewal and events to acknowledge this have been organised across the country.

RNZ is marking Matariki with special programming throughout the day with highlights including a live broadcast of the celebrations from Te Papa hosted by Julian Wilcox and Māni Dunlop and an interview with renowned Māori astronomer Professor Rangi Mātāmua.

‘Unites us under the stars’
Prime Minister Ardern recalled announcing the holiday in Rotorua in September 2020 and the joy that greeted the news, especially among young people.

She said she had witnessed several special moments this week, as people prepared for Matariki, including during her visit yesterday to Wainouimata Intermediate School to watch tamariki stage a performance of the many stories of Matariki.

The prime minister said the public holiday should not divide us by Māori ancestry or other, rather “it unites us under the stars of Aotearoa”.

The thing I’ve liked about the Matariki stars, though I knew them for decades as the Pleiades, is their lovely shimmer, caused by a dust cloud passing between them and us. They can look so different to other constellations. No wonder people have stared at them for millennia. pic.twitter.com/TDvV69pTUE

— JeremyReesnz (@JeremyReesnz) June 23, 2022

“Matariki provides us with a chance to reflect; to think of those we have lost and to prepare and share a sense of hope and optimism for the future.

“I can’t think of a better moment in time for us to take up what Matariki has to offer us as individuals but also as a nation.”

Matariki offered “a space where there is room for us all,” she said.

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

Mānawatia a Matariki mai Heretaunga, ngā mihi o te tau hau e hoa mā pic.twitter.com/QRrbLJk8EY

— Olly McMillan (@oliverwaiapu) June 23, 2022

Jacinda Ardern’s decision to attend the upcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Spain — but to skip the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda — symbolises the changes she is making to New Zealand foreign policy.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) starts today in Kigali, while the NATO summit will be held in Madrid next week.

However, Jacinda Ardern is only attending the NATO summit. She is sending her Foreign Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, to attend the Commonwealth meeting in her place.

• READ MORE: Other articles on China in the Pacific

Ardern is hardly alone with her decision to stay away from CHOGM — so far, only 35 of 54 Commonwealth leaders have sent an RSVP. New Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be among the absentees — deputy Prime Minister (and defence minister) Richard Marles will go instead.

This is despite the fact that this year’s CHOGM is being held during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee year and just over a month before the Commonwealth Games — the grouping’s sporting flagship.

The summit will also be the first CHOGM since 2018, the first CHOGM in Africa since 2007 and the first to be hosted by a “new” Commonwealth member — Rwanda was never a British colony, but voluntarily joined the Commonwealth in 2009.

Indeed, Rwanda’s hosting of the summit this year is not without controversy. Freedom House, a US-based think tank, calls the country ‘not free’, with a ranking of just 22 points out of 100 — placing it firmly in the bottom third of its global rankings, two places ahead of Russia.

‘Pervasive intimidation, torture’
Freedom House says the Rwandan regime — led by authoritarian President Paul Kagame — undertakes ‘pervasive surveillance, intimidation, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents.’

This year’s CHOGM also threatens to be overshadowed by a UK plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Prince Charles, who reportedly called the deal ‘appalling’, will be representing the Queen at the summit in Kigali.

Despite these two red flags, prominent human rights organisations are not calling for a boycott of the event. Rather, they want Commonwealth leaders to draw attention to the problems. Human Rights Watch, for instance, has asked leaders to voice their “grave concern to the [Rwandan] government on its human rights record”.

And, in reference to the UK-Rwanda asylum-seeker deal, Amnesty International wants Commonwealth members to ‘seize the opportunity in Kigali to denounce this inhumane arrangement’.

‘Jacinda Ardern’s invitation to attend the NATO’s 2022 Madrid Summit will also be something of a reward for aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with NATO – and the West generally – over the past few months’ – @GeoffMillerNZ https://t.co/hgkbfp8jO0

— Democracy Project (@Dem_Project) June 19, 2022

Jacinda Ardern’s no-show at CHOGM is probably driven partly by domestic political considerations and timing. This Friday’s inaugural “Matariki” public holiday, which marks the Māori New Year, was a key election campaign pledge by Ardern’s Labour Party in 2020 — and the Prime Minister is scheduled to attend a pre-dawn ceremony on the day.

Outside of the Commonwealth Games, the Commonwealth has a low profile — but it has a lot going for it. Few intergovernmental organisations can rival it for size — with the Commonwealth’s collective population reaching 2.6 billion, only the likes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the United Nations (UN) represent more people.

Strength in representing small states
Moreover, the Commonwealth has a particular strength in representing small states, especially island ones — 25 of the 54 members are classified as Small Island Developing States. This means the Commonwealth can be a particularly useful forum for discussing climate change and environmental issues.

The results have included initiatives such as the Commonwealth Litter Programme, which has made real differences to countries such as Vanuatu in fighting plastic pollution.

The Commonwealth is more than just a talking shop, but the disparate nature of its membership is a major challenge. The Commonwealth includes wealthy, democratic countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK — but also poor, authoritarian ones such as Cameroon, Rwanda and Uganda.

In between, there are also some rich authoritarian members (such as Brunei) and less well-off democracies (such as India)

Of course, there is still great value in an organisation that brings opposing sides together for a robust exchange of views — the new geopolitical faultline between the Global South and North over Ukraine is a case in point. While Western countries — including New Zealand — have provided strong support to Ukraine, most non-Western countries have not followed suit.

It would do Jacinda Ardern good to listen to the rationale that countries such as South Africa and Mozambique might have for not falling in line with the Western position. Countries perhaps learn best when they are not just surrounded by their like-minded friends.

However, in the new Cold War, ideology is back with a vengeance — and many countries are drifting away from pragmatic, inclusive groupings towards more ideologically-driven ones.

Countering Chinese influence
For Australia, this means countering Chinese influence with the reinvigorated “Quad” arrangement (with India, Japan and the US) and AUKUS (with the United Kingdom and the United States); for New Zealand, the Pacific Islands Forum and bilateral meetings with Australia and the United States have taken on greater significance.

All of this explains why Jacinda Ardern has accepted an invitation to attend NATO’s Madrid Summit next week. Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s Secretary General, has recently been at pains to highlight the invitation to the bloc’s “Asia-Pacific partners” – Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

The reason is obvious – on Thursday, Stoltenberg specifically mentioned China as one of the priorities for the meeting, which will set out a new “Strategic Concept” — effectively a blueprint for the future of NATO.

And while NATO’s main focus will remain on security in Europe, last year’s summit in Brussels — held well before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — was noteworthy for making China its main priority.

The summit’s communique made NATO’s position crystal-clear: “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security”.

Jacinda Ardern’s invitation to attend the NATO’s 2022 Madrid Summit will also be something of a reward for aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with NATO — and the West generally — over the past few months.

After all, Ardern has overhauled New Zealand’s foreign policy by introducing sanctions against Russia and sending military equipment and weapons to Ukraine — and by making a symbolic contribution of New Zealand troops to Europe to assist with the war effort.

Security ‘not for free’
But as Stoltenberg likes to say, security “does not come for free” — and the meeting will undoubtedly also serve as an opportunity to put pressure on New Zealand to provide even more assistance. The NATO Secretary-General recently pointed out that there have been “seven consecutive years of rising defence investment across Europe and Canada”.

New Zealand’s military spending shows a remarkably similar trajectory, with spending now at the 1.5% of GDP level– up from 1.1% in 2015, although still well below NATO’s target of 2%.

Like Jacinda Ardern, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will also be a guest of honour at the NATO summit. Anthony Albanese is also travelling to Madrid — and Zelensky has already invited the Australian PM to visit Kyiv.

If he accepts, Albanese would be following in the footsteps of many other NATO country leaders who have travelled to Ukraine in recent weeks, including the UK’s Boris Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz.

And given the focus on Western unity and solidarity in recent months, there is every chance Jacinda Ardern would travel together with Anthony Albanese on any European side-trip to Ukraine — on a joint ANZAC solidarity mission.

Ardern is backing NATO over CHOGM.

She might be choosing Kyiv over Kigali.

Geoffrey Miller is an international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues for Victoria University of Wellington’s Democracy Project. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Other reports on Jacinda Ardern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samoa and China do not have any plans for military ties, Samoa Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa says.

Fiamē — who is on a three-day trip to Aotearoa — is making her first official bilateral trip abroad since becoming leader last year.

Her visit marks 60 years of diplomatic relations between New Zealand and Samoa and the 60th anniversary of Samoa’s independence.

At a media briefing after talks with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern yesterday, Fiamē said: “There are no discussions between Samoa and China on militarisation at all.”

She said the Pacific nations would discuss China’s security proposals at the Pacific Islands Forum due to take place from July 12.

“The issue needs to be considered in the broader context,” she said.

Ardern said there was capability in the region to deal with security issues and they could be addressed together, while stressing that Pacific nations still had the sovereign right to decide their own future.

“We have convergence on our regional priorities,” Fiamē said, adding that Samoa believed in the region taking a collective approach to issues.

She said the anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship signed by the two countries would coincide with Samoa opening its borders fully on August 1.

Watch the media briefing

The talks with Ardern had covered a lot of ground, she said, and the two countries would work together on tourism, education and in other economic areas.

“Targeted assistance from New Zealand has enabled us to open our borders.”

From August 1 flights to Samoa would increase from the current weekly flight for passengers to daily flights by the end of the year.

Her message to Samoans living in New Zealand was that the anniversary celebrations will take place over 12 months so they had plenty of time to come home.

Asked what Samoa required of New Zealand, Fiamē said “she was not in a rush to come up with a shopping list”.

Instead it might be time just to reflect on reprioritising issues while saying climate change and education remained important as well as “building back stronger” after covid-19.

Time for a rethink on RSE scheme
On the subject of seasonal workers, which Samoa has “slowed down”, she said the New Zealand scheme was well run. But there were some concerns and Samoa was noticing the impact of the loss of workers in its own development sectors.

Originally it was intended to send unemployed workers to Australia and Aotearoa for the RSE programme, but now the civil service and the manufacturing sector in Samoa were being hit by experienced employees leaving.

“We need to have a bit more balance,” Fiamē said, adding that the new government wanted to hold new talks with both the Australia and New Zealand governments on the issue.

Referring to the Dawn Raids, Fiamē welcomed Ardern’s formal ceremonial apology last year.

“When we all live together it’s important to settle grievances and differences,” she said.

Ardern said the visit has come at a special time for the two countries, referring to the Treaty of Friendship and Samoa’s 60th anniversary.

She announced the launch of a special fellowship in Fiamē’s name and the New Zealand prime minister’s award plus the start of new sports leaders’ awards with an emphasis on women and girls.

Discussions had covered their shared experiences on Covid-19 with Ardern praising the high vaccination rates among young Samoans.

Climate change had also been discussed and New Zealand will increase funding for Samoa’s plans to tackle it.

Invitation to Ardern
On her arrival at Parliament yesterday morning, Fiamē invited Ardern to Samoa to take part in the independence celebrations next month and she repeated the invitation at the media briefing.

Fiamē’s visit comes ahead of the Pacific Island Forum meeting.

After welcoming Fiamē, Ardern acknowledged the importance of that meeting which will discuss issues like climate change and the current “strategic” situation across the Pacific.

China’s growing presence in the Pacific is among topics sure to be covered by the two leaders during their talks.

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

A New Zealand cabinet reshuffle today was sparked by the departures of Broadcasting Minister Kris Faafoi and the parliamentary Speaker, Trevor Mallard.

Earlier, it was confirmed Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern would announce some “minor” changes to the cabinet line-up.

Ardern confirmed Faafoi had decided to leave Parliament to be with his family as his youngest son started school.

• READ MORE: Other Labour leadership reports

“This was a decision Kris expressed to me at the election. In fact, he had intended to leave 18 months ago but I asked him to give us another year,” she said

“I’m grateful for the significant work he’s undertaken so far this term in resetting our immigration and public broadcasting settings.

“His contribution as a minister has been hugely valuable. He goes with the love and thanks of his colleagues for his contribution over many years and he will be greatly missed. But I know we can never miss him as much as his family already has.

“And I thank him for the gift of his time.”

Trevor Mallard will step down as Speaker of the House in mid-August “as he prepares to take up a diplomatic post in Europe”.

“Trevor has been an MP for 35 years and has held 13 different ministerial portfolios across his career including education, labour and the Rugby World Cup. He has been Speaker for five years and is currently the grandfather of the house.

Ardern said that after the 2020 election, Mallard had mentioned he wanted to “transition out of the role of Speaker over the course of this term to allow someone else the opportunity and to take on new challenges himself”.

Watch the announcement

“He’s worked closely with Adrian Rurawhe as deputy speaker for that purpose and we will be nominating Adrian to replace him in this role.

“We’ll have more to say on the diplomatic posting in the coming months.”

Ardern denied Mallard’s departure was due to recent pressure for him to resign.

Pressure from opposition
All Speakers faced pressure from the opposition but it was not the reason for him leaving, she said.

Mallard’s move would make him the third of five speakers to represent New Zealand abroad, Ardern said.

As widely expected, Poto Williams was stripped of her responsibility for the police portfolio, but will remain in cabinet.

She picks up conservation and disability issues.

“Poto and I both share the view that at this time it’s critical that our focus is on supporting the police, implementing our record investment in the frontline, passing our further gun law reforms and developing additional measures to deal with the current escalation in gang tensions and violence. That focus currently has been lost,” Ardern said.

“Poto is a capable minister and retains my confidence, that’s why she is still in cabinet, but change is required … Chris Hipkins takes over as minister of police.

“He has a degree in criminology and a long interest in working in the youth justice space, which dovetails with his education work.

“Along with the minister for social development and employment, he will co-lead a youth justice ministerial team to focus on the drivers of the spike we have seen in some parts of youth offending recently.”

Ardern said she had a high level of confidence in Hipkins to provide the reset needed in this portfolio — “one where we do have more work to do”.

“To free him up for this area of government focus, a significant part of his education portfolio will move to Jan Tinetti who has played an excellent role as associate education where she brings decades of experience as a teacher and school principal.”

Giving Hipkins the police portfolio did not risk burning him out because a large portion of his daily education responsibilities would be taken over by Tinetti, Ardern said.

Wider changes

• Kiri Allan promoted to Justice Minister, Michael Wood picks up immigration
• Priyanca Radhakrishnan moves into cabinet and gains associate workplace relations and safety
• Kieran McAnulty becomes a minister outside of cabinet with a focus on regional issues, picking up emergency management and racing
• Duncan Webb to take over as chief whip.
• Chris Hipkins takes over police and passes covid-19 response to Dr Ayesha Verrall, who also picks up research, science and innovation
• Dan Rosewarne and Soraya Peke-Mason to replace Faafoi and Mallard from the Labour List
• Meka Whaitiri picks up food safety from Dr Verrall

Ardern said of Allan’s promotion to the justice portfolio and associate finance role, “Kiri is a very capable minister with a big future and this portfolio allocation is a sign of my confidence in her.

“Michael Wood takes on immigration which fits with his workplace relations portfolio and the government’s focus on skills as part of our immigration reset in covid economic recovery. Michael is also a very talented minister.

“Willie Jackson picks up broadcasting, which he comes to with extensive sector knowledge and experience.

“I’ve also made the decision to move Priyanca Radhakrishnan into cabinet, retaining all her current portfolios and picking up associate workplace relations with a focus on migrant exploitation.

“Since becoming a minister outside of cabinet in 2020 she has overseen the establishment of a new Ministry for Ethnic Communities and worked on complex issues like foreign interference and social cohesion.

“Labour whip Kieran McAnulty becomes a minister outside of cabinet with a specific focus on regional issues.”

McAnulty — as well as becoming minister for emergency management — will have an associate transport delegation on regional transport, and an associate local government delegation.

“He will also take on the racing portfolio and use his past whip skills as Deputy Leader of the House, freeing up Minister Wood,” Ardern said.

“One further change is housing where I’m bringing in public housing, building and construction under Megan Woods.

“This government has overseen the largest public-house build for decades as well as a record number of housing consents but there is more to do.”

MPs from around the country dialled into a Labour caucus meeting this morning.

Labour requires a vote be held for new members to join the executive.

Ardern said today was not an “overwhelming reshuffle” but some ministers had been in their roles “for only 18 months” and it was important to give them “stability and ability to deliver in those roles”.

She refuted claims that today’s announcement was a “substantive reshuffle of the entire cabinet; it is not”.

However, she said in the beginning of 2023 she would be looking again.

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

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has delivered the highly regarded Harvard Commencement address, calling out social media as a threat to modern day democracy.

She was also awarded an honorary doctorate from the university.

The Commencement is steeped in history with Ardern’s predecessors including Winston Churchill, JFK, Angela Merkel — and topically for today’s speech — Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Ardern’s US visit

Capping off her day, Ardern confirmed to media afterwards that she would meet US President Joe Biden at the White House on Tuesday (Wednesday NZ time).

She invoked the memory of the late Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to head a democratic government in a Muslim country, and to give birth while in office with Ardern being the second.

Seven months after the two women met Bhutto was assassinated, Ardern said.

‘Path carved still relevant’
“The path she carved as a woman feels as relevant today as it was decades ago, and so too is the message she shared here.

“She said part way through her speech in 1989 the following: ‘We must realise that democracy… can be fragile’.

“… while the reasons that gave rise for her words then were vastly different, they still ring true. Democracy can be fragile.”

Ardern told her audience of thousands that because of the speed of social media, disinformation is creating an ever increasing risk.

Watch the address

The Harvard Commencement address.    Video: RNZ News

“Social media platforms were born offering the promise of connection and reconnection. We logged on in our billions, forming tribes and subtribes.”

While it started as a place to experience “new ways of thinking and to celebrate our difference” it was now often used for neither of those things, she said.

However, just two days after the massacre in a school in Texas that saw 19 students and two teachers killed, the biggest response she got from the audience was when she referred to changes to firearms law.

Standing ovation over guns stance
She received a standing ovation when she said the government had succeeded in banning military style semi-automatics and assault rifles, in the wake of the Christchurch mosque attacks.

“On the 15th of March 2019, 51 people were killed in a terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The entire brutal act was livestreamed on social media. The royal commission that followed found that the terrorist responsible was radicalised online,” she said.

“In the aftermath of New Zealand’s experience, we felt a sense of responsibility. We knew we needed significant gun reform, and so that is what we did.”

She went on to say that if genuine solutions were to be found to the issue of violent extremism online, “it would take government, civil society and the tech companies themselves to change the landscape. The result was the Christchurch Call to Action.

“And while much has changed as a result, important things haven’t.”

Ardern called on social media companies to recognise their power and act on it and acknowledge the role they play in shaping online environments.

“That algorithmic processes make choices and decisions for us — what we see and where we are directed — and that at best this means the user experience is personalised and at worst it means it can be radicalised.

‘Pressing and urgent need’
“It means, that there is a pressing and urgent need for responsible algorithm development and deployment.”

She said the forums were available for the tech companies to work alongside society and governments to find solutions to the issues.

She encouraged her audience to realise that their individual actions were also important.

“In a disinformation age, we need to learn to analyse and critique information. That doesn’t mean teaching ‘mistrust’, but rather as my old history teacher, Mr Fountain extolled: ‘to understand the limitations of a single piece of information, and that there is always a range of perspectives on events and decisions’.”

While the prime minister’s US trip was planned around the Harvard Commencement, there is a trade and tourism focus, but also a chance to check in with some of the tech giants at whom she delivered her message, in particular around the Christchurch Call, during the next few days.

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

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has spoken to media to demonstrate to the US market that New Zealand is “open for business”, having arrived in the US yesterday.

Her trip includes meeting members of Congress and the UN Secretary-General, attending a launch event for sustainable meat exports, delivering the Harvard Commencement speech, meeting with California governor Gavin Newsom, and meeting with executives of tech giants like Twitter and Microsoft.

With US President Joe Biden in Japan for the launch, and Ardern having only just recovered from covid-19, the hoped-for meeting between the two is still up in the air, but there is optimism from the New Zealand side it will happen.

• READ MORE: Other PM Ardern visit to US reports

Ardern’s first event was a sit down with major American tourism media, as part of the drive to update the US market about New Zealand, and she will later meet meet with representatives of US multinational investment management firm BlackRock.

Ardern said the message of New Zealand being open for business and open for travel was really important at this time.

Travelling with a business delegation and doing as much as possible to open doors on their behalf is important, she said.

“Our high level meeting with BlackRock enabled our business delegation to sit face-to-face with a number of influential individuals in their investor sector from the United States. A really thoughtful, interesting discussion and dialogue which all of our business representatives had the chance to participate in.”

Ardern said the dominant issue discussed was sustainability.

Watch the PM speaking

One-on-one with UN chief
Ardern also had a one-on-one with the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, where Ukraine was top of the agenda.

Ardern was keen to hear the secretary-general’s perspective on the war in Ukraine and to offer New Zealand’s support in the ongoing diplomatic work.

She said it was a chance to “discuss everything from the conflict in Ukraine to climate change and more broadly, the role that New Zealand can play in UN reform which we’ve long been an advocate and supporter of”.

“A really fruitful discussion but really useful to hear the secretary general’s reflections on the current conflict,” she said.

Ardern said that predominately the focus was on issues of climate sustainability and the war on Ukraine.

“Any reflection on the relationship between China and the United States whilst ultimately that is a matter for them, what we will continue to advocate is for peace and stability in our region, including any discussions around increasing tensions around Taiwan.”

Ardern said NZ would continue to be strong advocates of the US using the CPTPP as its port of call for a meaningful trade option.

‘An alternate framework’
“They have proposed an alternate framework, our mission as a country needs to be to keep our aspirations high but also work with what’s on the table,” she said.

“Ultimately the CPTPP is an existing framework that offers a significant amount from New Zealand’s perspective. However we will also engage with what’s currently on the table.”

Ardern does not yet have an update on a meeting with Biden.

Ardern said that having an independent foreign policy meant New Zealand had been very consistent in maintaining its values of peace, stability, the use of dialogue and the importance of multilateral institutions like the UN as an honest broker in difficult situations.

“There is tension in our region, we have our various periods of time seen escalation in language, we will constantly call, on New Zealand’s behalf and ours, on peace and stability in our region.”

The Chinese foreign minister is doing a tour of a number of Pacific nations. Ardern is not surprised by this.

“It’s not necessarily just presence, it’s the nature of that presence and the intention around it,” she said.

‘We want collaboration’
“From our perspective within our region, we’re very firm that yes, of course, we want collaboration in areas where we have shared concern, issues like climate adaptation and mitigation, we want quality investment and infrastructure in our region, we don’t want militarisation, we don’t want an escalation of tension.

“We want peace and stability so we will remain firm in our values.”

She said the question would continue to be whether some of those engagements were necessary.

Ardern’s day will be rounded off with a repeat appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Just before departing New Zealand, she virtually attended the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, an alliance of 13 countries including New Zealand that proposes joint efforts on climate change and digital issues but is widely considered a US attempt to limit China’s economic influence.

The IPEF also includes the members of “the Quad” – the US, Australia, India and Japan – who have been meeting in Tokyo, along with Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam.

Together, the grouping represents 40 percent of the world’s GDP.

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

Her daughter Neve tested positive on Wednesday, she added in the post. Her partner Clarke Gayford tested positive on Sunday.

“Despite best efforts, unfortunately I’ve joined the rest of my family and tested positive for covid-19,” Ardern wrote on social media.

• READ MORE: Covid-19 update: 29 deaths, 7441 new cases in New Zealand

Reports of her covid status follow a statement yesterday by Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield that thousands of new cases of covid-19 were being reported every day in New Zealand, but this was likely to be half of the number of actual cases.

With a further 29 deaths with covid-19 and 7441 new cases yesterday, Dr Bloomfield said the impact of the severity of omicron was still visible.

Prime Minister Ardern has been symptomatic since Friday night, according to a statement, and has “moderate” symptoms. She returned a weak positive Friday night and a clear positive this morning on a RAT test.

Ardern will be required to isolate until the morning of Saturday May 21.

Missing the Budget
Ardern, who has been isolating since Gayford tested positive, will now have to miss the Budget announcement on Thursday and the release of the government’s Emissions Reduction Plan on Monday.

“There are so many important things happening for the government this week,” she wrote.

“I’m gutted to miss being there in person, but will be staying in close touch with the team and sharing some reckons from here.

“To anyone else out there isolating or dealing with covid, I hope you take good care of yourselves!”

Ardern’s upcoming travel to the United States, scheduled for late May, will go ahead as planned at this stage. She is scheduled to give the commencement speech at Harvard University on May 26.

Former Labour Party president Mike Williams hopes she will be well enough to travel.

“After two years of isolation, internationally she’s a rock star attraction, and it does the country a hell of a lot of good to get her out and about.”

Williams said Ardern, 41, was young and fit, so should be fine.

Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson will take the post-cabinet press conference on Monday.

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

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Singaporean counterpart Lee Hsien Loong have added a focus on climate and sustainability to the enhanced relationship between the two countries.

Speaking after bilateral talks in Singapore, the pair jointly announced a fifth pillar would be added to the agreement on the New Zealand-Singapore Enhanced Partnership.

They announced the initial enhanced partnership in 2019 during Ardern’s last official visit, with the four pillars of trade and economics; security and defence; science, technology and innovation; and people-to-people links.

• READ MORE: Other New Zealand and Singapore trade reports
• China and Solomon Islands sign security pact

The fifth pillar added today will be “climate change and the green economy”.

Ardern said given the existential threat posed by climate change, it was fitting.

“When it comes to climate change this is not an area where countries are seeking to be competitive, or we shouldn’t be seeking to be competitive unless the competition is who can reduce emissions the fastest.

“Globally we have entered what must be an age of action, and that includes the private sector as well. No government can do this alone.”

Call for stronger global cooperation
Lee echoed that sentiment, calling for stronger global cooperation on climate change.

“Climate change is the existential challenge of our times … we need stronger cooperation among most countries.”

He said areas that could be worked on included workshops for building joint capacity in responding to climate change, improved pricing for emissions trading, and work on sustainable aviation initiatives.

“Aviation is one of the major sources of carbon emissions … and New Zealand is at the end of the world and Singapore is not so close to Europe either.

“If we are going to call for a low-carbon world this is something we should be focused on.”

Ardern said Singapore was a trade hub which 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports funnelled through, and there were opportunities in reducing emissions for both shipping — including hydrogen fuel — and food, including research into urban farming.

Ardern’s trade delegation to Asia — including Trade Minister Damien O’Connor, officials, a dozen business people and media — landed in Singapore last night.

They travel to Japan tomorrow for a three-night stay, although three members of the roughly 50 people returned weak positive covid-19 test results today, believed to be from previous infections.

Because of Japan’s entry rules, they will not be allowed to enter.

Regional cooperation, defence and trade
Asked about the increasing influence of China in the Asia-Pacific region, Ardern said China had acknowledged the effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and Lee saying Singapore was unaware of the details of agreement between China and the Solomon Islands.

They expressed concern that the war in Ukraine could lead to increased protectionism in the region however, and reiterated their shared commitment to an “open, inclusive, rules-based and resilient Indo-Pacific region”, including free trade, open markets, and respect for countries’ sovereignty.

Lee also said they welcomed interest from other countries including China and Korea in joining the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, an agreement signed in 2020 between New Zealand, Singapore and Chile.

The agreement aims to support digital economies and trade, and guarantees cooperation on digital identity, policies, emerging technologies, data protection and digital products.

They said they also welcomed the efforts of the United States in pursuing an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.

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

In recent weeks, barely a day has gone by without Christopher Luxon demonstrating the chasm of ability that exists between the leaders of Aotearoa New Zealand’s two major political parties. When his latest gaffe (on public transport funding) was politely pointed out to him by a NZ Herald journalist, Luxon replied: “I haven’t really thought too deeply about it, to be honest.”

Maybe that should be National’s next election campaign slogan: “Thinking Is For The Liberal Elite: Vote National!” For a party that claims to disdain mediocrity, National appears to have elevated a prime specimen of it to its top position.

Before the public transport gaffe slides down the memory hole, it is worth keeping in mind what Luxon actually said. As he told the NZ Herald: “Fundamentally, it [public transport] has got to stand on its own merits…”

• READ MORE: Other articles by Gordon Campbell

When reminded public transport has been heavily subsidised in modern times, Luxon admitted he had not thought deeply on the subject. “I haven’t thought too deeply about it, to be honest. I think the bottom line is, we want to encourage more mode shift,” he said…

”Public transport needs to stand on its own feet, it can’t be subsidised or underwritten right? It has to be able to build its own case.”

What are we to make of stupidity on this scale? Leave aside the fact that public transport already stands on its merits, by providing a public service, and by helping to combat climate change.

Leave aside the fact that roads and politicians — and Air New Zealand, both now and while Luxon was CEO — are also all heavily subsidised.

Look instead at the extra costs the public would be facing from what Luxon is proposing. Transport Minister Michael Wood has spelled out some of them:

“Under Luxon’s plan a multi-zone bus fare in Auckland would go from $12.60 to $31.50, in Christchurch a $4.70 trip would become $11.75, a train ride in Wellington would go from $19 to $47.50, and superannuitants would no longer be able to use their SuperGold Card to catch off-peak and weekend public transport.”

In all likelihood, Luxon would not really follow through and do what he just said. His modus operandi is gradually becoming clear. It follows this basic pattern: what Luxon says is almost beside the point, since the gaffe (once it has been detected by other people) will be quickly followed up by a scrambled attempt to conceal the meaning his words plainly conveyed.

Essentially, the details are merely the window dressing for the slogans that take up most of the rentable space inside his noggin. Such as: Government Bad, Private Sector Good. Regulations Bad For Business, Open Slather Good For Business. Unions Bad. Farmers Good. Landlords Very Good. Climate Change Hurt My Head.

Footnote: All the same, Luxon is posing as the champion of the people fighting the cost of living pressures. Yet that pose is wildly inconsistent with what he has actually been advocating, and opposing.

As Clint Smith has pointed out, the list includes :

Luxon’s cost of living policies: – oppose the Winter Energy Payment – oppose the minimum wage hike – oppose the benefit increase – oppose Fair Pay Agreements – increase public transport prices – $2 tax cut for typical Kiwi taxpayer – $18,000 tax cut for him.

Luxon’s cost of living policies:
– oppose the Winter Energy Payment
– oppose the minimum wage hike
– oppose the benefit increase
– oppose Fair Pay Agreements
– increase public transport prices
– $2 tax cut for typical Kiwi taxpayer
– $18,000 tax cut for him

— Clint Smith (@ClintVSmith) April 12, 2022

Gendered double standards
The double standard involved here is breathtaking. If a female politician said something as laughable as Luxon’s proposal on transport subsidies and defended it on the basis that she hadn’t thought about it too deeply, she would never survive the fallout.

She would be roundly damned as a scatterbrain and a show pony, and deemed plainly unfit for higher office.

Yet because Luxon is a man in a suit, and because he is the leader of a National Party that has always been suspicious of conspicuous intelligence, he is being enabled to continue on his bumbling way.

Jacinda Ardern on the other hand, is held to a different standard. Obviously, there is and should be a range of opinions on whether her government is doing the right thing. Even people who routinely vote Labour criticise it on the details and pace of change it is currently overseeing.

However, much of the most vehement criticism levelled at Ardern has little to do with policy detail and a lot to do with her gender. Her competence — which includes a command of detail across the whole range of government activity, and an ability to communicate the details succinctly — is commonly held against her.

In an excellent article on Stuff last week, Michelle Duff tackled that issue head on:

Two years into the pandemic, there is talk about the new normal. Here’s what that looks like. It is open misogyny, visible on every platform and supported and promoted by upvotes on Reddit, laughing emojis on Facebook, comments about “that woman” on LinkedIn, and someone who looks like your Aunty referring to the PM as “Cindy” and calling her a “c…”.

It is targeted and increasingly violent misogynistic abuse and threats – illustrated by but not limited to the escalation in gendered hatred directed towards Ardern – being directed at public-facing women from central and local body politicians to journalists, public servants, academics and chief executives.

Ardern is (a) the most prominent and (b) the most consistent target of the gendered hatred that Duff is talking about. Yet as Duff reports, the abuse and the escalating threats have a wider context:

The amount and tone of gendered disinformation and misogynistic abuse online has exploded since last August, constituting both a national security threat and a human rights issue that authorities are struggling to combat. It appears to be part of a concentrated effort to suppress women’s participation in public and political life, borne from far-right ideology designed to oppress women that has spread to a more mainstream audience.

“There’s an increase in the amount, and there’s an increase in the intent, and that’s to control and punish women who challenge male dominance, the Prime Minister but all women,” says Disinformation Project lead Kate Hannah. It is worse for women of colour and wāhine Māori, gender minorities and disabled women, she says.

It is a spectrum of abuse, and at one end it begins with the denigration intentionally conveyed by the use of the term “Cindy” to refer to the Prime Minister. As Duff says:

Some might find this funny, but its aim is to diminish. Massey University senior lecturer Dr Suze Wilson, who studies leadership, says no-one called John Key “Johnny,” or Chris Luxon “Chrissy,” in an attempt to infantalise or belittle them. “Right from the outset you had people saying, ‘I don’t want to be told what to do by that woman,’ with an element of ‘how dare she tell me what to do.’ That had to pre-exist for this to be possible.”

But that was petty compared to now. “What’s really tipped it is the more violent rhetoric. The straight out abusive terms, the c-word, the horse-face, the threats to kill. “It comes from this idea that if any woman comes into a position of power she’s not acting as a ‘good’ woman should — and that’s why this doesn’t only come from men, it comes from people who cleave to more traditional idea around gender roles…”

Like most of the rhetoric that characterises the anti-vaxx movement, the gun lobby and other parts of our public discourse, these extremes of politicised misogyny have been imported here from the United States — a country where religious beliefs permeate the perceptions of what are seen to be the appropriate gender roles.

I’m not implying that this alarming trend — and the double standard it entails — is the fault of Christopher Luxon. But he is definitely a beneficiary of it. Because if politics was a level playing field, Luxon wouldn’t be standing a chance against Ardern. On every conceivable measure of ability, he simply isn’t in her league.

Footnote: On that point, Luxon is often dismissed as being a John Key clone. That’s a mistake. Because what Luxon has been proposing are very hard right policies, and not the moderate centrism that enabled Key to be seen as an amiable, grinning placeholder acceptable to a wide range of voters.

Instead, Luxon and David Seymour are trying to inject policies into the political mainstream that over the past 30 years, have enjoyed only about 5-10 percent support at most. It isn’t a stretch to regard their “small government” extremism as having more than a little in common with the “That bitch can’t tell me what to do” extremism mentioned above.

Gordon Campbell is an independent progressive journalist and editor of Scoop’s Werewolf magazine. This article has been republished with the author’s permission.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says expelling the Russian ambassador remains an option, but it would not have the most impact of the actions New Zealand can take to condemn the Russian invasion.

MPs are debating whether they can summons Ambassador Georgii Zuev for questioning, after he has twice rebuffed their requests to discuss the war in Ukraine.

Ardern told RNZ Morning Report that it is a current discussion by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and it would be “very unusual” for her to interfere in it.

Ardern said when it is deliberating, the committee is likely to keep in mind the fact that the first time they summonsed the Russian ambassador the request was rejected and the second time it was ignored.

New Zealand has not expelled the Russian ambassador and Ardern said she believes only one country has done so because there are other measures that have more impact on this conflict.

However, she did not rule out the ambassador being expelled in the future.

She said economic sanctions remain a far more powerful stance.

“When we’ve been engaging with our Ukraine counterparts, the focus for them, very much at the moment on economic sanctions, they can see it as having an impact, they want everyone to continue the pressure.”

Appearing before committee ‘minimum’ – Brownlee
However, National’s foreign affairs spokesperson Gerry Brownlee said appearing before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was the least Russia’s ambassador could do.

Brownlee said the committee wanted to get the ambassador to appear after the Russian embassy in New Zealand put fake news about what was happening in Ukraine on social media.

“So he’s been asked to come to the committee for that to have a talk about that, that’s the minimum thing that he should do, otherwise what’s the point in having him here?”

Brownlee said there was an ongoing discussion about what happens from this point in terms of his appearing before the committee, but he saw it as a bare minimum.

“What is the point in having the guy in New Zealand if it’s not for us to at least put him on the mat over what we see his government has done, or want to be able to tell him his government is doing, is completely wrong.

“He is Vladimir Putin’s mouthpiece in New Zealand and he is able to sit here, get onto the social media, do all sorts of activities in that social media, pushing that Russian line [that] the rest of the world is making all this up and it’s not nearly as bad as it seems – no one believes that.”

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

Aotearoa New Zealand will remain at the red covid-19 traffic light setting, says Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Ardern made the announcement at today’s post-cabinet media briefing.

She said the rolling average of cases had declined 36 percent in the two weeks since the government refined the traffic light system.

• READ MORE: Covid-19 update: Nine further deaths and 10,205 new community cases
• Māori dying with covid-19 because of misinformation, says health leader
• Other NZ covid outbreak reports

There had been early data showing an uptick since mid-March in people visiting places of retail and recreation in Auckland, as well as more people returning to workplaces, she said.

While cases were dropping in Auckland, Wellington and Tairāwhiti, others region like Canterbury, Northland and Waikato were not experiencing the same drop. Hospitalisations in some DHBs were not expected to peak until mid- to late-April.

“So for now, New Zealand will remain at red,” Ardern said.

“I know there is an eagerness to move to orange, but we are still frankly amid an outbreak and there is still pressure across our hospital network.”

Nine further deaths
The Ministry of Health today reported 10,205 new community cases of covid-19 and nine further deaths.

There are now 734 people in hospital, including 25 in ICU or HDU.

In a statement, the ministry said the seven-day rolling average of case numbers was continuing to decline — down to 13,218 from last Monday’s 16,102.

Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said health officials would not be looking at a specific number of hospitalisations when advising a move down to the orange setting, but would rather be considering capacity and pressure levels, which also includes staffing at hospitals.

The next review of the traffic light settings will be on Thursday, April 14.

The country will remain at the red Covid-19 traffic light setting, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.

Ardern made the announcement at today’s post-Cabinet media briefing from about 4pm.

Based on health advice
Ardern said the decision today was based on health advice, and the government did not want to move too quickly and lose the progress made.

“It’s less about the case numbers and more about the hospitalisations.”

Asked why Auckland could not move to orange when cases were falling, Ardern said that while there was a decline in hospitalisations, “it is off a high base, the numbers are still relatively high, the pressure on our system is still there, we want to make sure that we’re in the best possible position and we don’t lose the gains we’ve worked so hard for.

“We’ve always said that there is the possibility of moving regions to different levels at different times … but as we’ve said, Auckland has made significant progress but we do still have a relatively high hospitalisation rate.

“We need to look after our healthcare workforce.”

The country needed to help the health system recover and be ready for the expected winter surge, Ardern said, requesting that people get boosted.

“Unvaccinated and people that are not boosted make up a disproportionate number of people in our hospitals. More than 9900 people are due their booster today, please get your booster as soon as you can.”

Looking at overall trends
Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins told RNZ Checkpoint tonight there were a range of considerations cabinet would have to take account of in its April 14 review.

“We’re obviously looking at the overall trends … how many new hospital admissions as well as those who are in hospital – but also the demographics,” he said.

Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins on border opening. Video: RNZ

“We look at something called case weightings because not every hospitalisation is equal, some are in and out of hospital much quicker than others.

“If you think about it from an economic perspective only, the last thing I think people want to see is a sudden surge in cases which puts more people at home, more people having to isolate, because ultimately from a business perspective that’s bad for business as well, it means fewer staff and fewer customers.”

Dr Bloomfield said the weight of advice from paediatricians and other child-health experts and epidemiologists suggested they thought New Zealand had done a good job in protecting children, including being among the first to bring in covid-19 vaccinations for children.

Many district health boards (DHBs) had more than 90 percent of Māori double vaccinated, and booster vaccination rates for Māori, Pasifika and others was very similar in the more vulnerable 65+ age groups, he said.

The covid-19 vaccination programme — including its infrastructure, capacity, and capability — has been transferred across to help the population catch up on MMR and other vaccines, Dr Bloomfield said.

Fourth dose advice
He had received advice on a fourth Pfizer dose and that would be going to ministers very shortly, he said.

“The evidence is still emergent on this … what I would say is that it’s clear that it’s most important for those high-risk groups.”

Ardern said New Zealand’s covid-19 record still stood among the best in the OECD.

“No country has got away without being impacted by covid but in New Zealand the impact on us has been less than most countries we compare ourselves to.”

Meanwhile, Ardern said there “absolutely” was work under way to prepare for any new variants.

Aotearoa had a range of tools that had been kept “in the wings” should we need them, such as mandates, passes and the alert levels system.

Hipkins said the decision to keep New Zealand at red was not informed by the emergence of the new covid variant XE, which will likely come across the border as it opens.

Tracking new variants
“We’re tracking any emergence of new variants internationally very closely. So yes, that hasn’t had an impact on this particular decision because the information there is still very new about new variants, but we’re monitoring that very closely.”

The National Party wants the traffic light system scrapped completely.

The prime minister told RNZ Morning Report vaccine mandates and the traffic light system had made a big difference but said the first omicron peak had passed in parts of the country.

She warned it was only the first wave of omicron and there would be more waves and new variants coming.

Ardern said precautions that were known to be effective in preventing the spread of covid-19, such as mask use and gathering restrictions, would continue to be required, even if it was decided that parts of the country could move to the orange setting.

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

It came up in my Facebook memories that it was two years to the day on March 23 since Aotearoa New Zealand started its first lock-down. Coincidentally also the day many of the remaining restrictions and regulations relating to covid were relaxed or removed.

On this day two years ago Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced, “New Zealand has moved to Alert Level 3, effective immediately. In 48 hours, New Zealand will move to Alert Level 4”. We had our first case of community transfer that could not be traced to the border.

It would be seven weeks before we went down to level 2

• READ MORE: Covid-19 surge: Christchurch Hospital coping as region’s infections outstrip Auckland
• NZ public health chief encouraged in spite of 34 covid deaths and ‘Mexican wave’ cases
• Other NZ covid outbreak reports

New rituals were started, the daily health update at 1pm became must watch viewing — were the numbers going up or down? There was much excitement from certain family members each time schools being closed was extended.

We changed time zones — the kids waking hours shifted, staying up and getting up late, and while you nagged them to attend online classes it didn’t really matter.

We spent a lot more time with our teenage children than we would have otherwise. Created lots of memories albeit mostly based in the lounge, things like playing charades and enjoying Netflix and popcorn.

We laughed at the Aussies for buying all the toilet paper, meanwhile here shops ran out of flour, yeast, icing sugar, as everyone baked. Sourdough starter was the thing to do.

Consciousness cooking
Diets improved, there was little meat and what was available was wildly over priced. The kids got more involved in cooking, there was less food waste as we became more conscious than normal about what he had and needed to use up.

A good life lesson, and of course no takeaways or Uber eats.

The working world changed with Zoom “you’re on mute” meetings. Always interesting if the person in the meeting hadn’t put a background on, realistically we were often not in even the most casual of office attire.

Teddy bears appeared in windows as people started walking or cycling round the neighborhood. There were many small acts of kindness.

Sure we missed out on a lot of activities, dance classes and competitions, football seasons, school camps, and of course seeing friends and family.

At the beginning of covid, as we saw things change from an event in a part of China we probably hadn’t heard of to spreading around the world, we realised planned events that had seen many hours of preparation and fund-raising could not proceed. There would be many more cancellations and disappointments along the way.

But there were good things too.

Team of five million
The pride that the team of five million felt in how well the lockdown was working to stop the spread.

The excitement the day we reached zero community cases, the PM said she did a little dance — I’m sure she wasn’t the only one.

We moved forward with restrictions and people mostly were happy to cooperate. There was little sympathy for those breaking the rules, not following lock down restrictions, breaking out of MIQ etc. It felt like those people were letting the rest of us down by not doing their bit.

We had periods of relative freedom then more lockdowns. We were used to this now, after the announcement of new cases we’d jump on the supermarket site and try to get a delivery window — bugger none available.

The last of the big lock-downs was predominantly only Auckland. It was a long one and something unexpected and unprecedented happened — the rest of the country started to feel the love for Auckland.

I have to say as a long time resident, who despite living in Tamaki Mākaurau half my life never fully considered myself an Aucklander, I felt pretty bloody proud of the people of my city.

Vaccinations arrived and we watched the progress — could we get a high percentage vaccinated before the next wave came? The Vaxathon reminded those of us of a certain age of Telethons gone by — it was such a positive Kiwi thing. And yes, we quickly became one of the most vaccinated populations on earth.

Along with the vaccines came the mandates and passes. Most of us got it, could see why they were necessary and were happy to go along with them — heck who wouldn’t want to get a free vaccine against a virus killing millions around the world and protect yourself and others?

Dissent and dissatisfaction
“Some people who were no doubt a little reluctant to got vaccinated so they could go to work or take part in things. But some people didn’t want to be told to take the vaccine.

They wanted to be free to not take it and continue to do their jobs, take part in leisure activities, which put them into contact with those of us who had been vaccinated. Many of us had limited sympathy for this point of view.

The dissent or dissatisfaction of some became rich material for the political opposition who had struggled for oxygen with the daily updates from the PM and the Ministry of Health.

They and some reporters in the media found that an individual who was having a tough time as part of the restrictions, someone in MIQ unable to be with with a sick relative, someone missing a funeral, someone stuck overseas unable to get home, was given a lot of air time.

More coverage it often seemed than was given to the vast majority who were happy with things and grateful that we weren’t seeing the serious illness and deaths occurring overseas.

So what were the changes flagged last week?

We’ll be keeping the traffic light system to handle new variants or pressure on the health system.

Pragmatic steps
From Friday red-level indoor gathering restrictions are raised to 200 people, and there will no longer be limits of for outdoor gatherings including sports events, concerts, etc. There will also be no need to scan or sign in from this time.

From the April 5 no more use of vaccine passes will be required, and there will be no more mandates for education, police, the military, and staff in places like restaurants and bars. There will still be some mandates required in the health system.

These are pragmatic steps given the level of community spread and the lack of measures that could realistically contain it. But we also need to continue to protect our most vulnerable people from exposure to covid, I can see why the government has kept some restrictions in place.

Will those who have complained so much, the mandate protesters, the politicians and media, now draw a line under it? Move forward accepting that even if the government didn’t always get it 100 percent right they did bloody well most of time?

Yeah right!

Even after all the precautions and vaccinations my family and I eventually got covid a few weeks ago, pretty unavoidable without isolating such was the infection rate of the omicron strain.

Isolation felt like another lockdown except everyone around you in the community carried on with life as normal, and there was no sending a designated person to queue at the supermarket. Whereas the earlier lockdowns has been quiet this one was full of noise traffic and construction.

Remembering best of times
As we return to life with fewer restrictions we‘ll no doubt remember those days of lockdowns, the extra time with immediate family, taking pleasure in simple things, and yes the hard times and missed events that caused us sorrow.

This time will remain in the memories of those who are kids today and be something they annoy their own children and grandchildren with tales of many years from now.

Some will continue to work remotely, perhaps there will be a bit more consideration for those in our community who could do with a helping hand — even if it is just dropping off a few things at the letterbox. If there is another pandemic, a more dangerous variant, or some other event, we’ll be well placed to handle it calmly.

Dogs will remember lockdowns as the best of times; all of their people were home, even if they didn’t really go anywhere.

Many of us will remember that feeling of the nation coming together and wonder if maybe, just maybe, we could apply that same collective effort to addressing other problems we face as a society.

The last two years haven’t been easy but we bloody did it, we saved lives — think of the awful final hours in ICU that didn’t result for so many additional people due to those actions. It was worth it.

Nick Rockel is a “Westie Leftie with five children, two dogs, and a wonderful wife”. He is the publisher of the Daily Read where his article was first published. It is republished here with the author’s permission.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has revealed cabinet’s decisions about when and how covid-19 restrictions will be eased.

She said the traffic light system would remain to help manage any future outbreaks.

However, Ardern said things had changed since the system was introduced:

• New Zealand is now dealing with the omicron variant, rather than delta;
• there is more more data available now and the government is better able to identify which environments are high risk; and
• there are high rates of vaccination coverage.

The changes came as the Ministry of Health reported today that the national death toll had risen above 200 — to a record 210 — with 11 further deaths, and 20,087 new community cases of covid-19.

• READ MORE: Covid-19 update: Total death toll rises above 200, with 20,087 new community cases reported today
• Other NZ covid outbreak reports

With that in mind, Ardern said she was announcing that all outdoor gathering limits would be removed from the traffic light system.

She said indoor gathering limits would increase from 100 to 200 under the red light setting.

Ardern said data showed hospitality had a relatively low secondary attack rate of 6.7 percent, which was backed up by other research.

She said it was the view of public health officials that hospitality gathering limits could be increased in the red setting from 100 to 200 without having a significant impact on the health system, particularly when retaining the seated and separated rules.

She also announced that vaccine passes would no longer be required from 11.59pm on April 4.

Watch the announcement

Video: RNZ New

Businesses and events would still be able to use them, if they chose to do so, but they would no longer be mandated, she said.

Ardern said masks were vital, and while people did not like them — for good reason — a study from the British Medical Journal late last year showed mask wearing reduced new cases by 53 percent.

In the orange setting, outdoor events will also be limitless. Close contact is higher risk for indoor events, however, so organisers of events over 500 people are encouraged to either add extra capacity or provide seating.

Green will not have restrictions but there will be guidance, and will not change.

“These changes are based on the best available evidence we have right now in real time. We believe they will make the Covid Protection Framework easier to maintain while also still being very effective,” Ardern said.

She said the changes could be made almost immediately and would come into effect at 11.59pm on March 25.

The next review of the traffic light settings and which setting the country sits in will happen on April 4.

Mandates needed for delta
On mandates and vaccine passes, Ardern said she was initially not in favour of their use but after months of delta it became clear that mandates were needed to achieve vaccination levels required for safe reopening, and passes had a role to play too.

She said these were undoubtedly one of the reasons the country reached 95 percent of the eligible population vaccinated, and achieved the near elimination of delta over summer, but omicron had changed things.

Almost all of New Zealand’s more than 500,000 cases of covid-19 had been in the omicron wave, she said. Many cases do not show symptoms and testing did not catch every case, so modellers expected total cases now could be as high as 1.7 million.

For the unvaccinated, the illness could be severe, she said.

Ardern said these people would have built some immunity from the illness itself, and as New Zealand had come down off the peak the need for passes changed.

The isolation period for household contacts remained at seven days, Ardern said.

On QR codes, she said there was no plan for New Zealand to contact trace more widely with the exception of high-risk environments like aged care facilities or residential facilities for the vulnerable.

QR codes use relaxed
From this weekend people would no longer be required to scan everywhere they went, and businesses were no longer required to provide the means to do so.

Ardern said businesses should stand ready to stand up QR codes again and people should not yet delete the app from their phone, in case of a new variant that evaded vaccines or was more deadly, in which case contact tracing would provide again a more critical role.

“Scanning has been a really important part of what we’ve achieved, so thank you for everyone for playing your part,” she said.

Finally, cabinet has also reviewed the role of vaccine mandates. As rates increased, they sought advice from Professor Sir David Skegg, who said the case for or against was now more finely balanced.

Skegg said: “Because of our relatively high vaccination coverage and increasing natural immunity as well as the apparent lowering of vaccine effectiveness of the omicron variant, while vaccination remains critically important in protecting New Zealanders from covid-19 we believe that several of the vaccine mandates could be dropped once the omicron peak has passed.”

The government will no longer require mandates for education, police and defence workforces and businesses operating vaccine passes from 11.59pm on April 4. They will continue to be used in health, aged care, corrections staff and border and MIQ workers.

Ardern said the government had also asked whether the mandates in the health sector could be narrowed, and expected to provide more updates on advice to the private sector on their use more broadly.

However, she asked people to still get vaccinated and boosted, saying it would continue to be central to the stability and strength of New Zealand’s recovery.

Looking back
Ardern said that after two long years of living in a pandemic it was easy to lose sight of how far New Zealand had come.

“This exact day two years ago, Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield announced from over at the Ministry of Health that we had 36 new cases of covid-19. Half at that time were from overseas travel, with the exception of the Queenstown World Hereford Cattle conference … we could contact trace 50 new cases a day back then. We hadn’t locked down yet, but the early signs were there.”

She said two new community cases were announced on 23 March 2020, one in Wairarapa with no link to the border.

Within days New Zealand was in a nationwide lockdown, a decision Ardern said was not a hard one.

“We had no other defence, no other way to protect each other. There was no vaccine, no antiviral medicines, there was very little data to tell us which public health restrictions worked and which did not, so we built our own defences and we hunkered down.”

The transition had not been easy but it had worked, she said. New Zealand successfully eliminated the first wave and recorded the lowest number of deaths in the OECD for two years in a row.

She said the response was also the best economic response, but while New Zealand had been successful “it was also bloody hard … everyone has had to give up something to make this work and some more than others”.

She said she imagined every family would have had a difficult conversation about vaccines, mandates or passes but among the different opinions there was also fatigue.

Ardern said New Zealand was now able to keep moving forward safely, but it had to be kept in mind that covid was here to stay.

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

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has gone on a marketing blitz to reel Australians to Aotearoa New Zealand’s shores.

It comes as tourism operators race to ramp up in time — with less than four weeks to go before those crossing the Tasman can touch down.

Already some Queenstown businesses expected demand could be high, but they were questioning how they would find enough staff in time.

• READ MORE: PM on border reopening plan: ‘We’re ready to welcome the world back’
• LISTEN TO RNZ: PM Jacinda Ardern in Queenstown to lure Australians back to NZ
• Covid-19 update: 14,128 community cases, 943 people in hospital, five more deaths
• Other NZ covid-19 outbreak reports

Beaming in from shores of Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told Australian breakfast show Sunrise, Aotearoa couldn’t wait to have them back.

“I cannot remember a time when we’ve been so excited about the prospect of seeing as many Australians as possible come and visit us, so you can expect to get the warmest welcome you can imagine,” she told Sunrise on Friday morning.

She has been speaking with tourist operators around Queenstown on Friday, and acknowledged that they needed more support to find enough staff in time.

‘Ready to welcome the world’
Ardern has announced New Zealand’s borders will be open to vaccinated Australians from 11.59 pm on April 12, RNZ News reports.

She says fully vaccinated travellers from visa-waiver countries will be able to enter the country from 11.59pm on May 1.

The border has already reopened to New Zealanders from around the world and on Monday critical and skilled workers also became eligible to enter without isolation, Ardern said.

“We have now received guidance that it is safe to significantly bring forward the next stage of border reopening work, bringing back our tourists,” she said.

“In short, we’re ready to welcome the world back.”

On her Sunrise programme, she said: “We traditionally haven’t had to market particularly. But in this environment right now, I have been talking with Tourism New Zealand and I’d like to bring Immigration New Zealand in to work together around promoting New Zealand as a working holiday option to try and bring in that extra workforce we need.”

“You can expect to get the warmest reaction you can imagine”

New Zealand Prime Minister @JacindaArdern says Kiwis are “so excited” to welcome tourists back from next month after two years mostly shut off from the world. pic.twitter.com/EvBuyAWfC0

— Sunrise (@sunriseon7) March 17, 2022

NZ Ski chief executive Paul Anderson was thrilled to see images of Coronet Peak and other iconic vistas beamed back to Australia as part of the Prime Minister’s trip today.

Finding staff a hot topic
But he told her the hot topic was how to find enough staff.

Recruitment was underway for the three mountains, which usually have about 1250 workers.

He said they were on the look out for more snow sport staff.

“There will be 400 to 500 of them we will need in Queenstown. That’s probably 100 to 200 more than we had in previous years.”

And he has not ruled out getting extras in just in case covid-19 took a toll on their workforce.

“If covid is still going through the community, we need to be really aware of that and be able to manage absenteeism that are lot of businesses are suffering from at the moment.”

Rees Hotel chief executive Mark Rose said the border announcement was the best news he has had during the pandemic.

Steady bookings flow
“Two minutes after she started speaking and that date came out, we started getting bookings and there’s been a steady flow of them ever since.”

Friends, family and travel agents in Australia got in contact after seeing the Prime Minister’s appearance on Sunrise.

“I’ve no doubt that we are going to be inundated with Australians over the coming months. I mean they’ve made up about 40 percent of my business over the years.

“I have no doubt at all that we’ll be back to where it was and probably even stronger for this first six months.”

The hotel has gone from 120 staff to 50 over the past two years — but Rose said that needed to double within a few months.

“We’ll need a hundred staff working at the hotel by about the June 20, probably a little earlier to give them the training and things to get the standards up.

“If we’re not at that level, we will slow down the sales of our rooms so we won’t close rooms down but we just won’t have them up for sale.

“It’s much more important that we offer great service than it is for us to just be piling people in and putting money in the bank.”

A long two years for operators — but it seemed there was finally light at the end of the tunnel.

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

With recent polling showing National edging ahead of Labour for the first time in two years, Jacinda Ardern’s previously strong support has eroded rapidly since winning a remarkable outright majority at the 2020 general election.

But the dip in electoral fortunes is only part of the story. It’s probably not an overstatement to say Ardern is presently one of the most reviled people in Aotearoa New Zealand, attracting vitriol that violates the bounds of normal, reasoned political debate.

During the recent illegal occupation of Parliament grounds, the apparent hatred was fully evident. There were ludicrous claims the prime minister is a mass murderer, and demands she be removed from office and executed for “crimes against humanity”.

• READ MORE: The reward for good pandemic leadership: Lessons from Jacinda Ardern’s New Zealand reelection
• The extremism visible at the Parliament protest has been growing in NZ for years – is enough being done?
• Analysis shows horrifying extent of abuse sent to women MPs via Twitter

Even on the supposedly professional social networking site LinkedIn, false claims that Ardern is a “tyrant” or “dictator” have been increasingly commonplace. For those making such claims, factual, constitutional, electoral and legal realities seemingly hold no weight.

So, what fuels these levels of antagonism? I suggest three factors are at play.

Context matters
How a leader is judged and what they can achieve is never simply a reflection of their individual characteristics and abilities.

Rather, as leadership scholars have long emphasised, the expectations of followers and the wider political, economic, social and historical context influence both how they are judged and their ability to achieve desired results.

In Ardern’s case, the public’s main concerns right now — food and fuel prices, rental and home ownership costs, and the effects of the omicron outbreak — are beyond the direct control of any political leader. Some will require years of transformative effort before significant improvements are seen.

A paradox of leadership is that while followers will often hold unrealistic expectations that leaders can solve complex problems quickly, they are also quick to blame leaders when they fail to meet those unrealistic expectations.

Ardern is caught in the maw of these dynamics, and that’s one of the factors fuelling the attacks on her.

Protest over, but the flames of disinformation keep burning: https://t.co/2AagprfTqT pic.twitter.com/jJTxJuHgG4

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) March 10, 2022

Covid controversies
The second obvious reason lies in the covid-related policies — including vaccine mandates, crowd limits and border controls — that have disrupted people’s lives and been heavily criticised by vested interests such as expat New Zealanders and various business sectors.

Anti-mandate protests, in particular, have become a front for wider anti-vaccine movements and extreme right-wing conspiracists. While the prime minister must balance restrictive policies with the greater public good, detractors are not bound by such considerations.

Ironically, by demonstrating a firmness of resolve to act in the nation’s best interest — something leaders might normally expect praise for, and for which Ardern has won international admiration — leaders become open to accusations of being inflexible and unresponsive.

Echoed by opposition politicians and some media commentary, these elements combine to feed a sense of growing frustration.

Old-fashioned sexism and misogyny
But these first two factors alone, while significant, don’t explain the full extent of the violent and hateful rhetoric directed at Ardern, albeit by a minority. Rather, it’s clear this is rooted in sexist and misogynistic attitudes and beliefs, further amplified by conspiratorial mindsets.

Research shows both men and women with more traditional views desire “tough”, “bold” and “authoritative” leadership. A man displaying traditionally masculine behaviours, who is an assertive risk-taker, dominating and commanding others, is their ideal leader. This aligns with an assumption that women should follow, not lead.

Ardern’s emphasis on traditionally feminine ideals, such as caring for vulnerable others, and her strongly precautionary covid response run counter to what traditionalists respect and admire in leaders.

What’s known as “role incongruity theory” further suggests that Ardern jars with what traditionalists expect of “good women”. Overall, the sexism and misogyny inherent in these traditionalist beliefs mean Ardern is treated more harshly than a male prime minister pursuing the same policies would be.

Worryingly, the 2021 Gender Attitudes Survey (carried out by the New Zealand National Council of Women) showed such traditional views about leadership and gender are on the rise.

Abuse shouted at Ardern by anti-mandate protesters in Westporthttps://t.co/0HncAc2y7S pic.twitter.com/8dt2xJA83T

— 1News (@1NewsNZ) February 22, 2022

Traditionalist myths
Insults and abuse commonly directed at Ardern on social media reflect the generally gendered nature of cyberviolence, which disproportionately targets women. These insults translate traditionalist beliefs into sexist and misogynistic acts.

Referring to Ardern as “Cindy”, for example, infantilises her. Calling her a “pretty communist” not only reflects the sexist and misogynist view that a woman’s worth is measured by her appearance, but also suggests her looks disguise her real aims.

This plays on the traditional trope of woman as evil seductress. From there it’s a short leap to the conspiracy theories that depict Ardern as part of an evil international cabal.

Unfortunately, for traditionalists and extremists alike, the evidence shows that effective leaders do not conform to their ideal or play by their rule book. Instead, they tend to be collaborative, humble, team-oriented and able to inspire others to work for the common good — qualities women often exhibit.

Of course, Ardern’s performance is not beyond criticism. But a fair-minded analysis, free from sexist and misogynist bias, would suggest the hatred directed toward her says more about the haters than Ardern.

Dr Suze Wilson is senior lecturer in Executive Development/School of Management, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

All political parties have supported a motion in Parliament to recognise the “safe restoration of Parliament’s grounds” and the selfless service of emergency services.

Yesterday, riot police moved in and dispersed the protest against covid-19 restrictions, which had occupied the Parliament grounds for 23 days.

In response, protesters set fire to tents, scrub and other structures including a children’s playground. Police in turn used pepper spray and sponge bullets as protesters lobbed cobblestones, metal poles and other debris.

• READ MORE:  Parliament protest aftermath – NZ police enter ‘significant investigation phase’
• Police out in force after chaotic scenes end anti-mandate protest at NZ’s Parliament
• Covid-19 update: 23,183 new community cases, 503 in hospital
• NZ Parliament grounds ‘reclaimed’: Police operation ends 23-day protest
• Other NZ covid outbreak reports

The police operation resulted in 89 arrests yesterday — 40 of the 600 officers involved were injured, with eight admitted to hospital.

Parliament’s regular question time was cancelled today with party leaders instead delivering speeches on yesterday’s chaos, before adjourning early. This is standard procedure after major events, such as the Christchurch terror attacks in 2019.

‘Acts of violence cannot stand’ – Ardern
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern began proceedings with the motion that the House recognise the safe restoration of Parliament’s grounds and the selfless service of our Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Wellington Free Ambulance, Parliament Security, and many others, in returning Parliament to the people.

The support of Māori wardens was also recognised in an amendment, at the suggestion of Te Pāti Māori.

“You were there throughout these events at a great risk to yourselves. Many of you were abused, some were injured, but you put your personal safety aside in order to look after others and for that we are very grateful,” Ardern said.

She expressed sorrow at what Wellingtonians endured, and the trampling of the mana of Taranaki Whānui. She said it was clear to her this protest was different from others as soon as it arrived.

Prime Minister Jacinda Arderns’s speech.

“There was an immediate focus on occupying the space. The rhetoric that came from the speakers they installed swung between benign to sometimes threatening. Many media who walked the grounds were either abused or in some cases chased away. It was a form of protest I did not recognise and I found it hard to reconcile it with the reality of what all New Zealanders had faced in this pandemic, and yet quietly got on with it.”

She said the demands of the protesters were hard to square with what others had suffered during the pandemic, including Labour MP Barbara Edmonds’ six-week-old niece who was recovering after a trip to hospital, having struggled to breathe after being infected with covid-19.

“And so my message today is simple, Mr Speaker, it is to condemn what happened here. Acts of violence cannot stand. It is to reinforce that this will always be a place where difference can be expressed and where that will be welcomed, but that should always be done with dignity and respect for the place upon which we stand.”

She said the pandemic felt hard right now, but it would pass; and vaccine passes, mandates and restrictions would also change.

“There is reason to feel hopeful, but for now, the smell of smoke has faded, the playground will be restored, and the people, our people, will return to their place.”

Protesters’ behaviour ‘was thuggery’ – Luxon
Opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon also thanked emergency services and others who responded, particularly the “immense bravery and selflessness of our frontline police officers”.

He said National condemned the protesters’ behaviour, saying it was “not peaceful protest or activism, it was thuggery“.

“Those scenes were the culmination of weeks of intimidation and aggression toward Wellingtonians. We will always respect people’s right to protest, it is quite rightly a basic tenet of our democracy … but something was off in this protest from the get-go. There was real animus in the atmosphere.”

Opposition National Party leader Christopher Luxon’s speech.

He said he visited officers last night to thank them, and heard how they had all manner of things thrown at them, resulting in broken bones for some. About 80 had only recently graduated, he said, and for one he spoke to it was only her second day on the job.

“Their tenacity in withstanding the protesters provocations and remaining calm, patient and restrained is a testament to their incredible skill and professionalism and we all owe them our sincere and heartfelt thanks.”

He called for a review of the relationships between police and Parliamentary authorities, including the Speaker, as well looking for practical measures to ensure the security of Parliament while not cloistering politicians away from electors.

And while it was not appropriate for lawmakers to have a conversation with lawbreakers on the forecourt of Parliament, they could not risk writing off the concerns of other New Zealanders, he said.

“It is reasonable to expect that Aucklanders who spent 15 weeks in lockdown last year, or business owners who have lost the ability to pay their staff or put food on their family’s table will want to hold the government accountable for its decisions and promises.”

Greens: ‘There is another virus’
Green Party co-leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw each spoke. Davidson drew particular attention to health workers who had supported the pandemic response, including social workers and community leaders who would play a role in supporting social cohesion into the future.

She said it took courage for police to maintain as much of a de-escalation approach as possible while also being urged to do something to restore a peaceful environment for Wellington.

“That approach over the history of police here in Aotearoa, has unfortunately not been applied consistently and unfortunately there has been discrimination in the way that it hasn’t and has been applied. So I acknowledge yesterday as being a really positive step in the way we police in Aotearoa.”

Seeing people come to harm yesterday had rocked her, she said, and the violence was completely unacceptable, but it had begun long before.

She urged police to investigate those who were responsible for spinning out disinformation and hold them accountable, and urged protesters to think on yesterday’s events and hold themselves accountable.

“The biggest prevention of harm would have been for the protesters to go home, that much is very clear.”

Shaw commented on disinformation and conspiracy theories by reflecting on how he was attacked in the street in 2019, “by a man who yelled at me that I had to stop what I was doing at the UN before fracturing my eye socket with his fist”.

The reasoning for that could be one of two conspiracy theories, he suggested, both with “the same root cause”.

“Twenty-nine hours later 51 people were killed and another 40 injured at the hands of a white supremacist terrorist in Christchurch. It’s apparent that the terrorist spent a great deal of his time … in the dark recesses of the internet.”

He also spoke of the attack on the US Capitol last year, which he said was aimed at destabilising society and creating conditions for authoritarians like Donald Trump and Vladmir Putin. He said doubts about vaccines and mandates were “seeded by the same actors” and led to hundreds of thousands more deaths when instituted as public policy overseas.

He said New Zealand, with its “breezy, she’ll be right attitude” had almost no immunity to this other virus, misinformation, and questions like “should Parliament have a wall around it, is it ever okay to play Barry Manilow” were just addressing the symptoms.

“Yesterday the grifters and the charlatans, the political opportunists and the white supremacists who were behind the protest melted away like cowards and abandoned the field to the desperate people who they had led astray.

“I can only hope that they will be held accountable for their part in all this and that we can find a way as a country to immunise ourselves against their malign impact.”

‘Can’t talk about civil liberties when you’re threatening others’ – David Seymour
ACT leader David Seymour agreed with the motion, and used the time to criticise the protest, support the police, and to criticise the response and attitude of the government.

“There is a right to protest, but that right of protest does not extend to taking over the rights of other people around you. You can’t talk about civil liberties when you’re threatening others. You can’t talk about restrictions when you’re preventing small businesses in the area … from getting on and doing their business.”

ACT leader David Seymour’s speech.

Most protests understood that a society that observes democracy and the rule of law is worth preserving, he said, and the protest seen yesterday was different from those that had come before.

However, Ardern’s speech in response yesterday was disappointing, he said.

“So far as she’s concerned, everything is fine, the covid response is fine, it’s all because of foreign conspiracy theories driven by foreign websites. Well you know what? That sounds like a conspiracy theory in itself.

“Just to be clear, the world does have a big problem with misinformation … that doesn’t mean that everybody who has a concern is misinformed, and the problem with being unable to ‘internalise complex problems in our head’ to quote an old ad, is that we are failing to do that as politicians too.”

He also criticised the Speaker for calling the protesters ‘ferals’ and turning loud music on them.

“Where were you as the leader and custodian of this fine institution seeking a mature de-escalation. That’s what we should have seen.”

He said there were unacceptable behaviours in the protest, but also behaviours from people who felt they had been ostracised by society. A more “human response” to the pandemic from the government may not have created the seeds of “this unexpectable and despicable meltdown”, he said.

‘Colonisation … continues to divide us’ – Rawiri Waititi
Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi expressed deep sadness and loss, saying the violence seen on the grounds yesterday was a manifestation of the colonial vision of those who had continuously oppressed the people through reckless laws.

“One of the key objectives of the formation of this Parliament was to kill the “beastly communism” of Māori — a quote made by a past Minister of this House: Christopher William Richmond,” he said.

Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi’s kōrero.

The whakapapa of this generational trauma could only be traced back to colonisation, he said.

“Colonisation has turned our worlds upside down and has rendered parts of the culture unrecognisable. It continues to divide us today because it feasts on our trauma, thus forcing us to disregard the very essence of who we are and who we once were.”

He said when mandates did lift, we “will still be left here fighting against the racist system that is still designed to kill our ‘beastly communism’. We will still be faced with Māori health inequities, Māori education disparities, Māori being the highest incarcerated peoples in the world. Māori will still make up 50 percent of the social housing waiting list and 67 percent of the tamariki in State care.

“We will still be over half of the people in emergency and transitional housing. And the Māori unemployment rate will still double that of non-Māori. That is the true plight that we as tangata whenua have been fighting for near on 200 years, and we will continue to fight once the mandates have been lifted”.

Threats, abuse and hate towards politicians was unacceptable, he said, and it was time to heal.

“It is time for us to dig deep into our ngākau to show the world who we truly are. We are an honourable people. We are tangata whenua. We are the people of this land and it is our responsibility to ensure everyone is safe.”

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

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says New Zealand joins its international partners in condemnation of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and has immediately taken a range of measures against the Russian government.

Giving a statement today about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ardern said Russia began a “military offensive and an illegal invasion” yesterday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared war on Ukraine and launched a full-scale land, sea and air attack on the country.

• READ MORE: New Zealand announces bans on Russia in reply to Ukraine invasion

Putin said his goal was the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, but US President Joe Biden has asserted the evidence clearly showed Russia was the aggressor and it had no evidence for its justifications.

New Zealand has joined with the United Nations in launching economic sanctions against Russia.

Ardern said: “The UK’s Ministry of Defence communicated this morning that more than 80 strikes have been carried out against Ukrainian targets and that Russian ground forces are advancing across the border on at least three axis from north and northeast, and south from Crimea.

“There are reports of attacks in a range of locations around Ukraine, including heavy shelling in eastern Ukraine and fighting in some areas, including around airports and other targets of strategic importance.

‘Unthinkable’ loss of lives
“By choosing to pursue this entirely avoidable path, an unthinkable number of innocent lives could be lost because of Russia’s decision,” she said.

New Zealand called on Russia to do what was right and immediately cease military operations, and permanently withdraw to avoid a “catastrophic and pointless loss of innocent life”, she said.

The invasion posed a significant threat to peace and security in the region and would trigger a humanitarian and refugee crisis, she said.

Russia had demonstrated a disregard for diplomacy and efforts to avoid conflict in the lead-up to the attack, she said, and “must now face the consequences of their decision to invade”.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia has “displayed a flagrant disregard for international law and abdicated their responsibility to uphold global peace and security” and now must face the consequences, Ardern said.

New Zealand has immediately imposed measures in response which include targeted travel bans against Russian officials and other individuals associated with the invasion. They will be banned from obtaining visas to enter or transit New Zealand.

Secondly, this country is prohibiting the export of goods to Russian military and security forces.

Blanket ban a ‘significant step’
“While exports from New Zealand under this category are limited, a blanket ban is a significant step as it removes the ability for exporters to apply for a permit and sends a clear signal of support to Ukraine,” she said.

Finally, New Zealand has suspended bilateral ministry consultations until further notice.

Ardern says there will be a significant cost imposed on Russia for its actions. New Zealand will also consider humanitarian response options, she said.

“Finally our thoughts today are with the people in Ukraine affected by this conflict. Decades of peace and security in the region have been undermined.

“The institutions built to avoid conflict have been threatened and we stand resolute in our support for those who now bear the brunt of Russia’s decisions.”

She again called for Russia to cease military actions and return to diplomatic negotiations to resolve the conflict.

During questions from journalists, Ardern said New Zealand was not constrained by being unable to launch autonomous sanctions.

Additional measures
“There are additional measures that we can take. Obviously already you’ll see those targeted travel bans, we do have the ability to extend those as required and as those involved with this activity grows,” she said.

“We also have the ability to continue to restrict the amount of diplomatic engagement that we have … and obviously the autonomous sanction regimes that have been proposed in the past don’t for instance cover situations of human rights violations.”

Ardern admitted there were some limitations on economic sanctions New Zealand could impose, but the government continued to get advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the tools that could be used and “we want them all to be on the table”.

The measures New Zealand has imposed are limited but send a very clear message.

“What this does say is that there’s no ability to apply or seek to export … this is a blanket ban,” she says.

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