The Fiji Police Force has confirmed that a man who was taken in for questioning by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces in Suva has died in custody.

Fijian media are reporting that the man was a wellknown “drug lord” known to local authorities.

The man was among a group allegedly linked to gang activity who were taken in for questioning by the military on Thursday night, fijivillage.com reports.

• READ MORE: Fiji military puts public ‘on notice’ citing national security threats
• ‘We will comment later,’ says military chief over army custody death
• Other Fiji military reports

Police spokesperson Ana Naisoro said an investigation into the incident was underway.

The incident comes amid ongoing joint operations between the police and the military.

This week, the Fijian military warned that individuals responsible for “any attempt to destabilise national security” and those who aid “individuals engaged in criminal activity” had been put on notice.

The death also comes as Fijians mourn the passing of the former President Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, who has been accorded a state funeral today.

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

The Fiji military has warned that individuals responsible for “any attempt to destabilise national security” and those who aid “individuals engaged in criminal activity” have been “put on notice”.

It comes after the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) confirmed just last Friday that “unknown individuals” had made “unsuccessful” attempts to access its installations.

To allay public anxiety, the RFMF assured that “there is no threat to public safety arising from the incident”.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji military security reports

However, in a statement on Monday night, the military said it had initiated joint security operations with the Fiji Police Force as “a deliberate and measured approach to recent unacceptable challenges to security, including threats to infrastructure and isolated acts of violence against civilians and officers in the line of duty”.

While pointing out its constitutional responsibility to “ensure the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians”, the RFMF said it would not take these matters lightly.

“Therefore, we put on notice that any attempt to destabilise national security or endanger the wellbeing of citizens will be met with firm, lawful and proportionate action.”

According to the statement — authorised by the military commander — the enhanced security measures are expected to “continue for as long as necessary”.

“Members of the public are reminded that providing shelter, assistance, or support to individuals engaged in criminal activity is an offence and directly undermines national security.”

The Fiji Military is encouraging the public to remain vigilant and report suspicious activities to the relevant authorities.

‘Alarming’ development – Labour Party
The Fiji Labour Party (FLP) has reacted to the developments by questioning the current state of national security in the country.

“As a party that has twice been the victim of military coups — in 1987 and 2000 — we understand only too well how fragile national security can become when well-organised elements with ill intent are allowed to operate,” it said in a statement on Sunday.

It said the unauthorised access to RFMF installations “is particularly alarming when set against the backdrop of rising drug-related activities and seizures across Fiji in recent times”.

“The emergence of sophisticated, well-coordinated criminal elements poses a direct threat to public safety and national stability,” the party said in a statement.

“Even though the RFMF has confirmed that no weapons, ammunition, or equipment were compromised, the very fact that such attempts were made sends a dangerous signal: our defence installations may not be as impenetrable as we have been led to believe.”

FLP is demanding clear answers and concrete action to strengthen safeguards across all military and strategic installations.

Meanwhile, Fijians are set to head to the polls later this year.

The general elections can be held anytime between August 7 (earliest) and 6 February 2027 (latest).

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

While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process — this time for foreign investment in New Zealand.

But it has had almost no public scrutiny.

If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close tomorrow.

• READ MORE: Other NZ foreign investment reports

A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 “to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely”.

There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments — especially in forestry.

A three-step test
Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator — the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ — 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.

If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.

Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, would require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.

These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.

Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.

If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.

Inadequate regulatory process
Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.

Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.

Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.

The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.

A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.

The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.

Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations.

There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement.

No ‘benefit to NZ’ test
While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.

Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.

Repeal of the “special forestry test” — which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions — means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked.

There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.

The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.

It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore.

Locked in forever?
Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.

A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.

However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question.

As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.

But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.

Dr Jane Kelsey is emeritus professor of law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in a highly partisan 100-minute speech, the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history on Wednesday.

Trump defended his sweeping actions over the past six weeks.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have accomplished more in 43 days than most administrations accomplished in four years or eight years, and we are just getting started.

AMY GOODMAN: President Trump praised his biggest campaign donor, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who’s leading Trump’s effort to dismantle key government agencies and cut critical government services.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And to that end, I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps.

Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight. Thank you, Elon. He’s working very hard. He didn’t need this. He didn’t need this. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

AMY GOODMAN: Some Democrats laughed and pointed at Elon Musk when President Trump made this comment later in his speech.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s very simple. And the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over.

AMY GOODMAN: During his speech, President Trump repeatedly attacked the trans and immigrant communities, defended his tariffs that have sent stock prices spiraling, vowed to end Russia’s war on Ukraine and threatened to take control of Greenland.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America. We need Greenland for national security and even international security, and we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it.

But we need it, really, for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.

‘A declaration of war against the American people.’  Video: Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: During Trump’s 100-minute address, Democratic lawmakers held up signs in protest reading “This is not normal,” “Save Medicaid” and “Musk steals.”

One Democrat, Congressmember Al Green of Texas, was removed from the chamber for protesting against the President.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Likewise, small business optimism saw its single-largest one-month gain ever recorded, a 41-point jump.

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 1: Sit down!

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEMBER 2: Order!

SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House and to cease any further disruptions. That’s your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant-at-arms to restore order to the joint session.

Mr Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: He has no mandate to cut Medicaid!

SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON: Take your seat. Finding that members continue to engage in willful and concerted disruption of proper decorum, the chair now directs the sergeant-at-arms to restore order, remove this gentleman from the chamber.

AMY GOODMAN: That was House Speaker Mike Johnson, who called in security to take Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green out. Afterwards, Green spoke to reporters after being removed.

DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MEMBER AL GREEN: The President said he had a mandate, and I was making it clear to the President that he has no mandate to cut Medicaid.

I have people who are very fearful. These are poor people, and they have only Medicaid in their lives when it comes to their healthcare. And I want him to know that his budget calls for deep cuts in Medicaid.

He needs to save Medicaid, protect it. We need to raise the cap on Social Security. There’s a possibility that it’s going to be hurt. And we’ve got to protect Medicare.

These are the safety net programmes that people in my congressional district depend on. And this President seems to care less about them and more about the number of people that he can remove from the various programmes that have been so helpful to so many people.

AMY GOODMAN: Texas Democratic Congressmember Al Green.

We begin today’s show with Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, former presidential candidate. Ralph Nader is founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. His most recent lead article in the new issue of Capitol Hill Citizen is titled “Democratic Party: Apologise to America for ushering Trump back in.”

He is also the author of the forthcoming book Let’s Start the Revolution: Tools for Displacing the Corporate State and Building a Country That Works for the People.

Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, all these different programmes. Ralph Nader, respond overall to President Trump’s, well, longest congressional address in modern history.

RALPH NADER: Well, it was also a declaration of war against the American people, including Trump voters, in favour of the super-rich and the giant corporations. What Trump did last night was set a record for lies, delusionary fantasies, predictions of future broken promises — a rerun of his first term — boasts about progress that don’t exist.

In practice, he has launched a trade war. He has launched an arms race with China and Russia. He has perpetuated and even worsened the genocidal support against the Palestinians. He never mentioned the Palestinians once.

And he’s taken Biden’s genocidal policies one step further by demanding the evacuation of Palestinians from Gaza.

But taking it as a whole, Amy, what we’re seeing here defies most of dictionary adjectives. What Trump and Musk and Vance and the supine Republicans are doing are installing an imperial, militaristic domestic dictatorship that is going to end up in a police state.

You can see his appointments are yes people bent on suppression of civil liberties, civil rights. You can see his breakthrough, after over 120 years, of announcing conquest of Panama Canal.

He’s basically said, one way or another, he’s going to take Greenland. These are not just imperial controls of countries overseas or overthrowing them; it’s actually seizing land.

Now, on the Greenland thing, Greenland is a province of Denmark, which is a member of NATO. He is ready to basically conquer a part of Denmark in violation of Section 5 of NATO, at the same time that he has displayed full-throated support for a hardcore communist dictator, Vladimir Putin, who started out with the Russian version of the CIA under the Soviet Union and now has over 20 years of communist dictatorship, allied, of course, with a number of oligarchs, a kind of kleptocracy.

And the Republicans are buying all this in Congress. This is complete reversal of everything that the Republicans stood for against communist dictators.

So, what we’re seeing here is a phony programme of government efficiency ripping apart people’s programmes. The attack on Social Security is new, complete lies about millions of people aged 110, 120, getting Social Security cheques.

That’s a new attack. He left Social Security alone in his first term, but now he’s going after [it]. So, what they’re going to do is cut Medicaid and cut other social safety nets in order to pay for another tax cut for the super-rich and the corporation, throwing in no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security benefits, which will, of course, further increase the deficit and give the lie to his statement that he wants a balanced budget.

So we’re dealing with a deranged, unstable pathological liar, who’s getting away with it. And the question is: How does he get away with it, year after year? Because the Democratic Party has basically collapsed.

Courts Just Say No to Trump’s Authoritarian Power Grabs https://t.co/wUZspBh6RQ

— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) March 6, 2025

They don’t know how to deal with a criminal recidivist, a person who has hired workers without documents and exploited them, a person who’s a bigot against immigrants, including legal immigrants who are performing totally critical tasks in home healthcare, processing poultry, meat, and half of the construction workers in Texas are undocumented workers.

So, as a bully, he doesn’t go after the construction industry in Texas; he picks out individuals.

I thought the most disgraceful thing, Amy, yesterday was his use of these unfortunate people who suffered as props, holding one up after another. But they were also Trump’s crutches to cover up his contradictory behavior.

So, he praised the police yesterday, but he pardoned over 600 people who attacked violently the police [in the attack on the Capitol] on 6 January 2021 and were convicted and imprisoned as a result, and he let them out of prison. I thought the most —

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, I —

RALPH NADER: — the most heartrending thing was that 13-year-old child, who wanted to be a police officer when he grew up, being held up twice by his father. And he was so bewildered as to what was going on. And Trump’s use of these people was totally reprehensible and should be called out.

Now, more basically, the real inefficiencies in government, they’re ignoring, because they are kleptocrats. They’re ignoring corporate crimes on Medicaid, Medicare, tens of billions of dollars every year ripping off Medicare, ripping off government contracts, such as defence contracts.

He’s ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare, including that doled out to Elon Musk — subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts, you name it. And he’s ignoring the bloated military budget, which he is supporting the Republicans in actually increasing the military budget more than the generals have asked for. So, that’s the revelation —

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph? Ralph, if I — Ralph, if I can interrupt? I just need to —

RALPH NADER: — that the Democrats need to pursue.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Ralph, I wanted to ask you about — specifically about Medicaid and Medicare. You’ve mentioned the cuts to these safety net programmes. What about Medicaid, especially the crisis in this country in long-term care? What do you see happening in this Trump administration, especially with the Republican majority in Congress?

RALPH NADER: Well, they’re going to slash — they’re going to move to slash Medicaid, which serves over 71 million people, including millions of Trump voters, who should be reconsidering their vote as the days pass, because they’re being exploited in red states, blue states, everywhere, as well.

Yeah, they have to cut tens of billions of dollars a year from Medicaid to pay for the tax cut. That’s number one. Now they’re going after Social Security. Who knows what the next step will be on Medicare? They’re leaving Americans totally defenceless by slashing meat and poultry and food inspection laws, auto safety.

They’re exposing people to climate violence by cutting FEMA, the rescue agency. They’re cutting forest rangers that deal with wildfires. They’re cutting protections against pandemics and epidemics by slashing and ravaging and suppressing free speech in scientific circles, like CDC and National Institutes of Health.

They’re leaving the American people defenseless.

And where are the Democrats on this? I mean, look at Senator Slotkin’s response. It was a typical rerun of a feeble, weak Democratic rebuttal. She couldn’t get herself, just like the Democrats in 2024, which led to Trump’s victory — they can’t get themselves, Juan, to talk specifically and authentically about raising the minimum wage, expanding healthcare, cracking down on corporate crooks that are bleeding out the incomes of hard-pressed American workers and the poor.

They can’t get themselves to talk about increasing frozen Social Security budgets for 50 years, that 200 Democrats supported raising, but Nancy Pelosi kept them, when she was Speaker, from taking John Larson’s bill to the House floor.

That’s why they lose. Look at her speech. It was so vague and general. They chose her because she was in the national security state. She was a former CIA. They chose her because they wanted to promote the losing version of the Democratic Party, instead of choosing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the most popular polled politician in America today.

That’s who they chose. So, as long as the Democrats monopolise the opposition and crush third-party efforts to push them into more progressive realms, the Republican, plutocratic, Wall Street, war machine declaration of war against the American people will continue.

We’re heading into the most serious crisis in American history. There’s no comparison.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, we’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, we’re going to continue to cover these issues. And I also wanted to wish you, Ralph, a happy 91st birthday. Ralph Nader —

RALPH NADER: I wish people to get the Capitol Hill Citizen, which tells people what they can really do to win democracy and justice back. So, for $5 or donation or more, if you wish, you can go to Capitol Hill Citizen and get a copy sent immediately by first-class mail, or more copies for your circle, of resisting and protesting and prevailing over this Trump dictatorship.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, longtime consumer advocate, corporate critic, four-time presidential candidate, founder of the Capitol Hill Citizen newspaper. This is Democracy Now!

The original content of this programme is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence. Republished by Asia Pacific Report under Creative Commons.

“Our people are fed up with coups”  — this is the message from renowned Fijian academic Professor Steven Ratuva as he reiterated the statement shared by Minister for Home Affairs Pio Tikoduadua earlier this week.

Professor Ratuva, director of Canterbury University’s Centre for Pacific Studies in New Zealand, said coups had no place in modern politics and Fiji was no exception.

“It corrupts and destroys the very principles on which constitutional democracy is built, it is destructive to the economy, disrupts social relationships and wellbeing and creates a cycle of instability in the long run,” he said.

• READ MORE: ‘Get used to the political culture of coalition’, says Ratuva
• Fijians desire peace; no more coups – Tikoduadua
• Other Steven Ratuva reports

“A coup is like the covid epidemic with a long tail and unfortunately, we are still in the shadows of the long tails of the previous coups because the impacts are still with us, even as years pass.

“Up to a point, people will reach the coup-fatigue threshold and Fiji would have reached it long ago, as people are just fed up [with] coups and simply hearing rumours associated with coups, it is psychologically traumatising to say the least.”

Professor Ratuva said the whole nation had collectively been traumatised by the series of coups in the past since 1987 and it was time to “put a stop to this scourge”.

He added that the military, as a professional security institution, was often subjected to external political interests and pressures to serve narrow political and personal ends.

Military for ‘nation-building’
He also commended the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai for his conduct during this time.

“The military must be an independent institution for national security and nation-building, not a tool for illegal state capture by some,” Professor Ratuva said.

“Fiji’s military commander is a highly educated officer with an internationally reputable status and his calm and intelligent response to destabilising rumours, gives the nation a sense of assurance and comfort.

“He and the military will need support by all political parties and citizens generally to maintain stability in these challenging times.”

Shayal Devi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

More than 100 media leaders from around the world have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in signing an unprecedented joint statement expressing support for detained Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong.

They have called for his immediate release.

Among the signatories are publishers, editors-in-chief, and senior editors from 41 countries, including New Zealand — and two Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

• READ MORE: Other Jimmy Lai reports

This powerful joint statement is signed by 116 media leaders spanning 41 countries, from Egypt to Turkey, from India to Gambia, from Myanmar to Mongolia, and everywhere in between.

RSF coordinated this call in support of Jimmy Lai, who has become an emblematic figure in the fight for press freedom in Hong Kong and globally.

The action also seeks to highlight the broader dire state of press freedom in the Chinese-ruled territory, which has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

A former laureate of RSF’s Press Freedom Prize, 75-year-old Jimmy Lai has worked over the past 25 years to uphold the values of freedom of speech and press through his independent media outlet Apple Daily.

Concurrent sentences
Detained since December 2020 in a maximum security jail and repeatedly refused bail, Lai is already serving concurrent sentences on charges of attending “unauthorised” pro-democracy protests and allegations of fraud.

He now faces a possible life sentence under the draconian national security law, with his trial scheduled to start on September 25.

“We stand with Jimmy Lai. We believe he has been targeted for publishing independent reporting, and we condemn all charges against him,” said the RSF and co-signatories.

“We call for his immediate release.”

They also called for the release of all 13 currently detained journalists in Hong Kong, and for any remaining charges to be dropped against all 28 journalists targeted under national security and other laws over the past three years.

Among the signatories are 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates Dmitry Muratov (Novaya Gazeta, Russia) and Maria Ressa (Rappler, the Philippines); publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger; publisher of The Washington Post Fred Ryan; CEO Goli Sheikholeslami as well as editor-in-chief Matthew Kaminski of Politico (USA); editors from a wide range of major UK newspapers including Chris Evans (The Telegraph), Tony Gallagher (The Times), Victoria Newton (The Sun), Alison Philipps (The Daily Mirror); Ted Verity (Mail newspapers), and Katharine Viner (The Guardian); editor-in-chief of Libération Dov Alfon, editorial director of L’Express Éric Chol and director of Le Monde Jérôme Fenoglio (France); editors-in-chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung Wolfgang Krach and Judith Wittwer, and editor-in-chief of Die Welt Jennifer Wilton (Germany); editor-in-chief of Expressen Klas Granström (Sweden); and many more from around the world.

Among the signatories is Dr David Robie, editor and publisher of the New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Report.

The RSF appeal over Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai.

‘Powerful voices’
“We have brought these powerful voices together to show that the international media community will not tolerate the targeting of their fellow publisher. When press freedom is threatened anywhere, it is threatened everywhere,” said RSF’s secretary-general Christophe Deloire in a statement.

“Jimmy Lai must be released without further delay, along with all 13 detained journalists, and urgent steps taken to repair the severe damage that has been done to Hong Kong’s press freedom climate over the past three years, before it is too late.”

Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien said: “Hong Kong is now a city shrouded in a blanket of fear. Those who criticise the authorities are threatened, prosecuted, imprisoned. My father has been in prison since 2020 because he spoke out against CCP [Chinese Community Party] power.

“Because he stood up for what he believes in. It is deeply moving to now see so many powerful voices — Nobel prize winners, and many of the leading newspapers and media organisations across the world — speak out for him.”

Over the past three years, China has used the national security law and other laws as a pretext to prosecute at least 28 journalists, press freedom defenders and collaborators in Hong Kong — 13 of whom remain in detention, including Lai and six staff of Apple Daily.

The newspaper itself was shut down — a move seen as the final nail in the coffin of press freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is ranked 140th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index, having plummeted down the rankings from 18th place in just 20 years.

China itself ranked 175th of the 180 countries and territories surveyed.

• The full text of the statement and list of signatories are here.

Journalists may face decades in prison for “foreign interference” offences unless urgent changes are made to Australia’s national security laws, according to a University of Queensland researcher.

PhD candidate Sarah Kendall from UQ’s School of Law warned that reporting on issues relating to Australian politics, national security or international relations while working with overseas media organisations could place journalists at risk of criminal prosecution under the Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018.

“The law could apply to any journalist, staff member or source who works for or collaborates with foreign-controlled media organisations,” Kendall said.

• READ MORE: Other Australian media freedom reports

“There could also be repercussions for journalists working overseas, as any news published in Australia is subject to these laws.”

The Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018 covers nine foreign interference offences, with penalties ranging from 10 to 20 years imprisonment.

“While these offences require some part of the person’s conduct to be covert or involve deception, this does not exclude legitimate journalistic activities,” Kendall said.

“Journalists could be acting covertly whenever they liaise with a confidential source using encrypted technologies or engage in undercover work using hidden cameras.”

Public interest protection
In a Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom briefing paper, Kendall recommended that the government introduce an occupation-specific exemption to protect journalists working in the public interest.

The paper argues that the scope of offences be narrowed to remove “recklessness” and “prejudice to Australia’s national security” as punishable elements.

“For example, a journalist could be accused of recklessly harming national security when they publish a story that reveals war crimes by members of the Australian Defence Force,” Kendall said.

“Journalists and their sources could face up to 20 years in prison if any part of their conduct was covert, even if they are engaged in legitimate, good faith reporting.”

Kendall said the law’s Preparatory Offence, which carries a potential jail term of 10 years, risked creating a dangerous precedent when combined with the offence of conspiracy.

“This offence can capture the earliest stages of investigative reporting so a discussion between a journalist and source about a potential story on Australian politics could see them charged with conspiring to prepare for foreign interference,” Kendall said.

Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom is the latest report in UQ Law School’s Press Freedom Policy Papers series, a project aimed at laying the groundwork for widespread reform in laws spanning espionage, whistleblowing and free speech as they affect the media.

This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security released its much anticipated report on national security threats affecting the higher education and research sector.

The 171-page report found the sector is a target for foreign powers using “the full set of tools” against Australia, which can undermine our sovereignty and threaten academic freedom.

It made 27 recommendations to “harden the operating environment to deny adversaries the ability to engage in the national security risks in the sector”.

• READ MORE: Kylie Moore-Gilbert is one of hundreds of victims of state attacks on academic freedom
• Academic freedom is paramount for universities. They can do more to protect it from China’s interference
• New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists

The committee’s recommendations, when correctly implemented, will go a long way towards combating the threat of espionage and foreign interference. But they are not enough to protect academic freedom.

This is because the laws that make espionage and foreign interference a crime could capture legitimate research endeavours.

National security risks to higher education and research
The joint committee found there are several national security threats to the higher education and research sector. Most significant are foreign interference against students and staff, espionage and data theft.

This includes theft via talent recruitment programmes where Australian academics working on sensitive technologies are recruited to work at foreign institutions.

These threats have been occurring through cyber attacks and human means, including actors working in Australia covertly on behalf of a foreign government.

Foreign adversaries may target information on research that can be commercialised or used for national gain purposes.

The kind of information targeted is not limited to military or defence, but includes valuable technologies or information in any domain such as as agriculture, medicine, energy and manufacturing.

What did the committee recommend?
The committee stated that “awareness, acknowledgement and genuine proactive measures” are the next steps academic institutions must take to degrade the corrosive effects of these national security risks.

Of its 27 recommendations, the committee made four “headline” recommendations. These include:

1. A university-wide campaign of active transparency about the national security risks (overseen by the University Foreign Interference Taskforce)
2. adherence to the taskforce guidelines by universities. These include having frameworks for managing national security risks and implementing a cybersecurity strategy
3. introducing training on national security issues for staff and students
4. guidance for universities on how to implement penalties for foreign interference activities on campus.

New & long-awaited parliamentary report (PJCIS) on foreign interference at Australian universities. It makes strong recommendations to unis & government on ways to counter state-backed harassment & intimidation & protect students & staff. https://t.co/7I8mI52gb9 pic.twitter.com/uTlMWzDCkv

— Elaine Pearson (@PearsonElaine) March 29, 2022

Other recommendations include creation of a mechanism to allow students to anonymously report instances of foreign interference on campus and diversification of the international student population.

What about academic freedom?
Espionage makes it a crime to deal with information on behalf of, or to communicate to, a foreign principal (such as a foreign government or a person acting on their behalf). The person may also need to intend to prejudice, or be reckless in prejudicing, Australia’s national security.

In the context of the espionage and foreign interference offences, “national security” means defence of Australia.

It also means Australia’s international relations with other countries. “Prejudice” means something more than mere embarrassment.

So, an academic might intend to prejudice Australia’s national security where they engage in a research project that results in criticism of Australian military or intelligence policies or practices; or catalogues Australian government misconduct in its dealings with other countries.

Because “foreign principals” are part of the larger global audience, publication of these research results could be an espionage offence.

The academic may even have committed an offence when teaching students about this research in class (because Australia has a large proportion of international students, some of whom may be acting on behalf of foreign actors), communicating with colleagues working overseas (because foreign public universities could be “foreign principals”), or simply engaging in preliminary research (because it is an offence to do things to prepare for espionage).

Foreign interference makes it a crime to engage in covert or deceptive conduct on behalf of a foreign principal where the person intends to (or is reckless as to whether they will) influence a political or governmental process, or prejudice Australia’s national security.

The covert or deceptive nature of the conduct could be in relation to any part of the person’s conduct.

So, an academic working for a foreign public university (a “foreign principal”, even if the country is one of our allies) may inadvertently commit the crime of foreign interference where they run a research project that involves anonymous survey responses to collect information to advocate for Australian electoral law reform.

The anonymous nature of the survey may be sufficient for the academic’s conduct to be “covert”.

Because it is a crime to prepare for foreign interference, the academic may also have committed an offence by simply taking any steps towards publication of the research results (including preliminary research or writing a first draft).

The kind of research criminalised by the espionage and foreign interference offences may be important public interest research. It may also produce knowledge and ideas that are necessary for the exchange of information which underpins our liberal democracy.

Criminalising this conduct risks undermining academic freedom and eroding core democratic principles.

So, how can we protect academic freedom?
In addition to implementing the recommendations in the report, we must reform our national security crimes to protect academic freedom in Australia. While the committee acknowledged the adequacy of these crimes to mitigate the national security threats against the research sector, it did not consider the overreach of these laws.

Legitimate research endeavours could be better protected if a “national interest” defence to a charge of espionage or foreign interference were introduced. This would be similar to “public interest” defences and protect conduct done in the national interest.

“National interest” should be flexible enough so various liberal democratic values — including academic freedom, press freedom, government accountability, and protection of human rights — can be considered alongside national security.

In the absence of a federal bill of rights, such a defence would go a long way towards ensuring legitimate research is protected and academic freedom in Australia is upheld.

Sarah Kendall is a PhD candidate in law, The University of Queensland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says an attack at Auckland’s New Lynn Countdown supermarket today was a terrorist attack carried out by a violent extremist.

The prime minister and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster addressed media after the man was shot dead at a west Auckland mall this afternoon.

It is understood six people – all shoppers at the mall – have been wounded in the incident at LynnMall in New Lynn.

• READ MORE: Man shot dead at Countdown supermarket in Auckland

A St John Ambulance spokesperson said three patients in a critical condition and one patient in a serious condition had been taken to Auckland City Hospital; one patient in a moderate condition had been taken to Waitakere hospital; and one patient in a moderate condition had been taken to Middlemore Hospital.

Ardern revealed the terrorist was a Sri Lankan national who had arrived in New Zealand in October 2011 and he became a person of national security interest from 2016.

The reasons he was known to agencies was subject to suppression orders, but Ardern said it was her view that it was in the public interest to share as much information as possible.

The prime minister did say the terrorist held a violent ideology inspired by the Islamic State, but it would be wrong to direct any frustration at anyone other than this individual.

Personally aware
She said she was personally aware of the terrorist before today’s attack.

Ardern said it was a senseless attack and she was sorry it had happened.

“What happened today was despicable. It was carried out by an individual.”

Ardern said the individual was under constant monitoring, and he was shot and killed within 60 seconds of the attack starting.

The police team who was monitoring shot and killed him.

Commissioner Coster said the man had been under heavy surveillance because of concerns about his ideology.

He had entered the store and obtained a knife from within the store before starting the attack.

When the man approached police with the knife he was shot and killed.

Surveillance teams ‘close’
Coster said the surveillance teams were “as close as they possibly could be without compromising the surveillance”.

“I acknowledge that this situation raises questions about whether police could have done more, whether police could have intervened more quickly. I’m satisfied based on the information available to me that the staff involved did not only what we expect they would do in this situation, but did it with great courage,” he said.

“The reality is, that when you are surveilling someone on a 24/7 basis, it is not possible to be immediately next to them at all times. The staff intervened as quickly as they could and they prevented further injury in what was a terrifying situation,” Coster said.

Ardern said all legal and surveillance power had been used to try to keep people safe from this individual.

“What I can say is that we have utilised every legal and surveillance power available to us to try and keep people safe from this individual. Many agencies and people were involved and all were motivated by the same thing – trying to keep people safe.”

Coster said there had been nothing that would tell police the extent of his intentions, or that he intended to do this today.

He said the individual was very surveillance-conscious, and surveillance teams needed to maintain a distance to be effective.

intervened ‘in 60 seconds’
“There was nothing to prevent him being in the community and we were doing absolutely everything possible to monitor him and indeed the fact that we were able to intervene so quickly — in roughly 60 seconds — shows just how closely we were watching him.”

Ardern said the local Muslim community had been “nothing but helpful and supportive. It would be wrong to direct any frustration to anyone beyond this individual. That is who is culpable, that is who is responsible — no one else”.

She said his past behaviour and action did not reach the threshold to have him in in prison, which was why he was being constantly monitored.

An eyewitness told RNZ she had seen a man running around armed with a knife and heard many people screaming.

Another shopper who was in the supermarket at the time heard someone scream before shoppers started running towards the door.

Heavily armed police and ambulances remain at the scene.

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

The Hong Kong police force has charged media entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, founder of Next Digital Limited, which owns the Apple Daily newspaper, with collusion with foreign forces under Hong Kong’s controversial new national security law, reports the Committee to Protect Journalists.

It is a charge that carries up to life in prison if convicted, according to the Apple Daily and news reports.

“Charging Jimmy Lai under Hong Kong’s new national security law marks a dangerous escalation in China’s attacks on Hong Kong’s independent media,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia programme coordinator, in Washington, DC.

“China appears intent on crushing what remains of Hong Kong’s much vaunted tradition of press freedom. Lai should be freed at once, and all the charges he is facing should be dropped,” he said.

• READ MORE: RSF denounces arrest of Apple Daily founder

Lai has been in custody since police detained him and two Apple Daily executives on a fraud charge on December 2, as CPJ documented at the time.

He is expected to remain in jail at least until a court hearing on April 16, 2021, as a court rejected his bail bid on December 3, according to news reports.

Lai’s collusion charge will enter court proceedings tomorrow at the West Kowloon Courts, according to those reports.

The Hong Kong Police Force did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

Two raids by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on journalists and media organisations within the last 24 hours represent a disturbing attempt to intimidate legitimate news journalism that is in the public interest, says the union for Australian journalists, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).

Yesterday’s raid on a News Corporation Australia journalist, and today’s raid on the public broadcaster ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and three of its journalists, suggest that no media organisation is immune from government attacks on press freedom.

“A second day of raids by the AFP sets a disturbing pattern of assaults on Australian press freedom. This is nothing short of an attack on the public’s right to know,” said MEAA media section president Marcus Strom in a statement.

READ MORE: ABC’s Sydney headquarters raided by Australian Federal Police over Afghan Files stories

WATCH: John Lyons of the ABC’s The Drum sums up the Australian Federal Police raid

“Police raiding journalists is becoming normalised and it has to stop.

“These raids are about intimidating journalists and media organisations because of their truth-telling.

“They are about more than hunting down whistleblowers that reveal what governments are secretly doing in our name, but also preventing the media from shining a light on the actions of government,” Strom said.

“It is equally clear that the spate of national security laws passed by the Parliament over the past six years have been designed not just to combat terrorism but to persecute and prosecute whistleblowers who seek to expose wrongdoing.

‘Poisonous laws’
“These laws seek to muzzle the media and criminalise legitimate journalism. They seek to punish those that tell Australians the truth.

“Yesterday’s raid was in response to a story published a year ago. Today’s raid comes after a story was published nearly two years ago.

“Suddenly, just days after a federal election, the Federal Police launches this attack on press freedom. It seems that when the truth embarrasses the government, the result is the Federal Police will come knocking at your door,” Strom said.

“MEAA demands to know who is responsible for ordering these coordinated raids, and why now. We call for the government and opposition to take collective responsibility for the legal framework they’ve created that is allowing for what appears to be politically motivated assault on press freedom,” Strom said.

“For years the Liberal and Labor parties have engaged in a high-stakes game of bluff which has seen the introduction of anti-democratic laws in the guise of national security legislation.

“It is time that the government and opposition had a common sense approach to defusing these poisonous laws that are effectively criminalising journalism. This attack on the truth must end.”

• The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) is the Australian union defending press freedoms and is a member of the International Federation of Journalists.
• More media freedom stories

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced that New Zealand will hold a Royal Commission of Inquiry into security agencies following the Christchurch terrorist attacks.

While New Zealanders and Muslim communities were still grieving they were also rightly asking questions about how the terror attack was able to take place, she said.

The inquiry will look at what could or should have been done to prevent the attack, Ardern said.

READ MORE: Asia Pacific Report stories on the Christchurch terror attack

It will probe the accused individual and his activities before the terrorist attack, including into agencies.

“It will look at the actions of SIS, the GCSB, police, Customs, Immigration and any other relevant government departments or agencies,” she said.

RNZ Checkpoint live today.

Ardern said the terms of reference had not yet been set, but these would reflect the seriousness of the attack and the need to get answers in a timely manner.

“There will be a focus on whether our intelligence community was concentrating its resources appropriately and whether there were any reports that could or should have been alerted then to this attack.

‘No stone left unturned’
“It’s important that no stone is left unturned to get to the bottom of how this act of terrorism occurred.”

Ardern said the commission would look at events leading up to the attacks, rather than the immediate emergency response to the attacks, which was work that would be done separately.

She said the government needed to balance the timeliness of the inquiry with the need to be thorough.

“We want it to be independent, we want it to be at the highest level, but we also want it to be timely … I absolutely accept that people want answers and they don’t want to be waiting a long time, but we equally have to allow the inquiry the time to do the job properly, so we’re weighing all that up,” Ardern said.

She said Royal Commissions were usually reserved for the matters of gravest public important and it was clearly the appropriate form of inquiry for this instance.

Ardern also announced that she would travel to Beijing in China on Sunday where she will meet with President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang. She will also formally open the New Zealand embassy.

Shorter visit
Ardern said it was an important visit that was planned some weeks ago but given the terrorist attacks in Christchurch it had been cut back to just one day of meetings.

Ardern said she would be back in New Zealand by Tuesday.

“I expect discussions will include a broad range of bilateral, regional and international issues of common interest, including on upgrading our free trade agreement, protecting and promoting a rules based international trading system and combating climate change.”

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

Australia is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world. Since September 11, 2001, it has passed 54 laws.

The latest suggested addition is the Turnbull government’s crackdown on foreign interference. The bill has been heavily criticised by Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and major media organisations for being too heavy-handed and far-reaching in the limits it would place on freedom of expression and several other civil liberties.

The government’s own intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, argues the bill is so widely worded that its own staff could break the law for handling documents they need to access to do their job.

READ MORE: New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists

A case in point is whether the ABC’s publication of confidential and secret cabinet documents would be in breach of the proposed bill. Two filing cabinets full of thousands of confidential cabinet documents were given to the ABC by a source who, astonishingly, had bought them for small change at an op-shop in Canberra.

The ABC made an assessment and chose to publish a very limited number of the documents it deemed in the public interest. The ABC has so far clearly acted responsibly, and no documents that could harm Australia’s national security were in the first publication.

Some of the published documents are embarrassing for both the current and former Coalition and Labor governments, but that should not stop publication – rather, the opposite.

What the bill would mean
The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill.

Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.

The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.

The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.

In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS countries and the situation in the European Union.

Fear-driven security
Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.

Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.

Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.

The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out.

That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?

There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.

‘Other’ enemy
Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.

The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage.

If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.

Dr Johan Lidberg is an associate professor in the School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation on a Creative Commons licence and is republished with the author’s permission.