thedailyblog--2020-12-01--On National’s Unsafe Attitude Towards Drug Testing

Earlier this week , the Government announced that it was going to pick up one of the loose threads from the previous Parliamentary term – and pass measures to allow the testing of drugs at music festivals and the like , so as to reduce the risk of … well , serious harm occurring .
It ’ s a robust , evidence-supported policy that ’ s utterly uncontroversial in other parts of the world ( although not Australia ) – and therefore , it ’ s perhaps no surprise that the National Party remains bitterly opposed thereto .
Because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message ” .
Which leads me to ponder whether the “ right message ” is young people dying or being injured in order to “ scare the others straight ” .
Last Term , it wasn ’ t alone in this .
New Zealand First also blocked the bill that ’ d been put forward – and so it was defeated .
But with the makeup of the House having changed considerably since then , it ’ s been brought back for another go .
Where it shall pass .
And predictably , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Partially , it ’ s because the legislation has been brought forward under Urgency – with noted afficionado of Things Young People Like , Simeon Brown , taking issue with the Government ’ s apparent “ priorities ” as a result .
Which , on paper , might sound like a semi-reasonable objection … up until you consider that it ’ s already early December with the House rising for Summer very shortly , during which time no legislation is passed – and that most of the drug-taking at music festivals etc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , over the Summer .
Or , phrased another way – it actually makes sense to ensure that legislation that will be most relevant over the summer is in place before the summer .
However , leaving aside the Parliamentary process side to things ( and I ’ m sure we could find any number of .. curious things the Nats had used Urgency to pass , previously ) – it ’ s Simon Bridges who makes the most concise case for why the National Party remain resolutely opposed to seeing sense upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National isn ’ t supporting the pill testing bill because it sends the wrong message on hard drugs to our young & it gives them a false sense of security .
This law may result in more illicit drug use & more harm.
” These claims are , substantively , incorrect .
Evidence from overseas does NOT show a greater use of drugs as the result of pill testing .
Indeed , it ’ s not hard to see how the converse is often more likely to be true : after all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective at getting somebody NOT to consume a pill they ’ ve bought .
The ‘ just say no ’ message that ’ s already evidently failed ?
Or pointing out that the pill in question tested positive for rat poison – or the delightfully sobriqueted “ Dr Death ” [ less commonly , but more accurately known as ‘ para-Methoxyamphetamine ’ ] .
Meanwhile , the “ false sense of security ” is that which recreational drug-users currently may enjoy – by telling themselves that whatever they ’ ve bought is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been told it is .
Pill testing can actually help to re-inject not a “ false sense of security ” … but a “ real sense of danger ” – especially when , as is the case in some overseas jurisdictions , drug-harm information for various substances is also given out with the test results .
Bridges ’ claim rests upon the reasoning that drug-testing may lead to an increase in drug-harm .
It is difficult to see how such a claim can be supported , in light of the fact that drug-testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in drug-taking – and also , as its actively intended purpose , keeps the more- and most-harmful drugs OUT of people ’ s bodies in the first place .
It ’ s simple – if we genuinely want fewer people taking harmful drugs … we should be making clear which ones the ( more ) harmful ones are .
I do appreciate the argument that allowing drug-testing to go ahead may seem like it ’ s providing some sort of moral stamp of validation to the otherwise-illicit conduct in question – but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that way ; certainly not much more than seat-belts in cars provide a moral stamp of validation for driving fast or drunk and getting into automobile accidents [ and I was … very surprised to find that these sorts of arguments were actually being made against seatbelts becoming mandatory , half a century ago ] .
The simple truth is that whatever one feels about the morality or the legitimacy of young people ( and older people , for that matter ) , taking drugs at a festival – I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is a crime that ought carry a potential death sentence to it .
Even if some , apparently , do implicitly believe this to be the case .
I can only presume that they don ’ t say so openly and overtly out of a fear that it would “ send the wrong message ” to the electorate about their values in practice .

Earlier this week, the Government announced that it was going to pick up one of the loose threads from the previous Parliamentary term – and pass measures to allow the testing of drugs at music festivals and the like, so as to reduce the risk of … well, serious harm occurring.
It’s a robust, evidence-supported policy that’s utterly uncontroversial in other parts of the world (although not Australia) – and therefore, it’s perhaps no surprise that the National Party remains bitterly opposed thereto. Because they assert that it “sends the wrong message”.
Which leads me to ponder whether the “right message” is young people dying or being injured in order to “scare the others straight”.
Last Term, it wasn’t alone in this. New Zealand First also blocked the bill that’d been put forward – and so it was defeated. But with the makeup of the House having changed considerably since then, it’s been brought back for another go. Where it shall pass.
And predictably, the Nats are somewhat aggrieved about that.
Partially, it’s because the legislation has been brought forward under Urgency – with noted afficionado of Things Young People Like, Simeon Brown, taking issue with the Government’s apparent “priorities” as a result. Which, on paper, might sound like a semi-reasonable objection … up until you consider that it’s already early December with the House rising for Summer very shortly, during which time no legislation is passed – and that most of the drug-taking at music festivals etc. tends to take place, likewise, over the Summer.
Or, phrased another way – it actually makes sense to ensure that legislation that will be most relevant over the summer is in place before the summer.
However, leaving aside the Parliamentary process side to things (and I’m sure we could find any number of .. curious things the Nats had used Urgency to pass, previously) – it’s Simon Bridges who makes the most concise case for why the National Party remain resolutely opposed to seeing sense upon this matter.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Quoth Bridges: “National isn’t supporting the pill testing bill because it sends the wrong message on hard drugs to our young & it gives them a false sense of security. This law may result in more illicit drug use & more harm.”
These claims are, substantively, incorrect. Evidence from overseas does NOT show a greater use of drugs as the result of pill testing.
Indeed, it’s not hard to see how the converse is often more likely to be true: after all, what’s going to be more effective at getting somebody NOT to consume a pill they’ve bought. The ‘just say no’ message that’s already evidently failed? Or pointing out that the pill in question tested positive for rat poison – or the delightfully sobriqueted “Dr Death” [less commonly, but more accurately known as ‘para-Methoxyamphetamine’].
Meanwhile, the “false sense of security” is that which recreational drug-users currently may enjoy – by telling themselves that whatever they’ve bought is, in fact, what they’ve been told it is. Pill testing can actually help to re-inject not a “false sense of security” … but a “real sense of danger” – especially when, as is the case in some overseas jurisdictions, drug-harm information for various substances is also given out with the test results.
Bridges’ claim rests upon the reasoning that drug-testing may lead to an increase in drug-harm. It is difficult to see how such a claim can be supported, in light of the fact that drug-testing does not appear to lead to an increase in drug-taking – and also, as its actively intended purpose, keeps the more- and most-harmful drugs OUT of people’s bodies in the first place.
It’s simple – if we genuinely want fewer people taking harmful drugs … we should be making clear which ones the (more) harmful ones are.
I do appreciate the argument that allowing drug-testing to go ahead may seem like it’s providing some sort of moral stamp of validation to the otherwise-illicit conduct in question – but I don’t really see it that way; certainly not much more than seat-belts in cars provide a moral stamp of validation for driving fast or drunk and getting into automobile accidents [and I was … very surprised to find that these sorts of arguments were actually being made against seatbelts becoming mandatory, half a century ago].
The simple truth is that whatever one feels about the morality or the legitimacy of young people (and older people, for that matter), taking drugs at a festival – I don’t think many would be prepared to agree that this is a crime that ought carry a potential death sentence to it.
Even if some, apparently, do implicitly believe this to be the case. I can only presume that they don’t say so openly and overtly out of a fear that it would “send the wrong message” to the electorate about their values in practice.


thedailyblog--2020-12-01--Temporary migration system is broken – time for a reset with a path to residency

Employers in the agriculture sector who are screaming for help to pick their crops deserve to suffer a bit of pain .
They ’ ve spent years excluding local workers and creating an economic sector totally reliant on temporary migrant labour , a vulnerability which the pandemic has now realised .
These employers have used temporary migrant labour to avoid training Kiwis to do the job and paying a genuine market rate for the hard work involved .
Over the past decade , the number of working holiday visas have increased from 20,000 to 70,000 a year .
A special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Employer scheme was created to bring in Pacific agricultural workers , and has grown from 5,000 a year to 14,500 .
We had another 100,000 students with the right to work and 150,000 on various other renewable work visas .
Workers from the Pacific have become more and more skilled at the work but employers continue to keep most of them on minimum wage—or less—once accomodation costs and other expenses are deducted .
Many Pacific island villages have become dependent on the regular income these visas are able to provide even if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is good that 2000 workers have been approved to return .
The employer must pay their quarantine costs and at least the living wage of $ 22.10 an hour compared to the current minimum wage of $ 18.90 an hour .
The Covid crisis has exposed how dependent the New Zealand economy has become on cheap labour from across the globe .
We discovered that around 300,000 workers , 15 % of the workforce , were in the country on one type of temporary visa or another with the right to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in entire sectors of the economy from agriculture to aged care .
Many of those on working holiday visas and about half those on Recognised Seasonal Employer visas have returned home already .
But at least 250,000 remain and many want to stay .
The total is probably twice the number from a decade ago .
This system gave employers the power to exploit the workers dependent on them for visas , and employers used this power to suppress wages in their sectors .
Pre-Covid New Zealand might have expected to have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to service of our major industries.But that system has broken into a thousand pieces , and will never be put back together until the world is free of Covid and no other pandemic threatens .
This is a good thing .
It allows us to do the right thing by the people now stuck in New Zealand .
Many of these workers were brought here and kept here on essential work or student visas with the false promise of one day being able to transition to permanent residency .
Instead , while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various temporary visas have more than doubled over the past decade the number of those being granted residency has been kept at around 40-50,000 a year .
This simply increased the competition for places and Immigration New Zealandconsistently raised the bar on those seeking permanent residency .
The Jacinda Ardern-led government in 2017 imposed a radical cut to the number of people granted permanent residence .
It went from 47,682 to 37,947 in the year from June 2017 to June 2018 and dropped further to 34,992 for the September 2019 year – a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the back of any coherent policy being able to be applied .
The points needed to gain residency are now off the charts and nurses , teachers and other professionals can ’ t qualify .
The only way to fix the broken system is to grant those who have made New Zealand their home a pathway to residency .
This could begin with everyone on a visa who has worked here five years or more an immediate offer of residency .
They also don ’ t need language tests that most Kiwis wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be extended to other categories who want to stay but could be offered incentives to earn useful points by studying particular subjects or working in particular occupations or regions .
The previous National Government from 2014-17 under John Key and Bill English , implemented a proposal for a group of workers in the South Island as a one-off pathway to residency for around 4,000 temporary migrant workers and their families .
In the words of the then Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse : “ Many of these migrants are already well settled in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their communities.
” ” [ The proposal ] will also enable employers to retain an experienced workforce that has helped meet genuine regional labour market needs.
” All workers in New Zealand who want to make New Zealand their home should have the opportunity to do so .
This is a humane and sensible proposal in the post-Covid world that meets the needs of the workers.Many bosses will be thrilled to be able to keep the workers they have invested time and money into training , even without the workers being kept in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be freed from dependency on a single employer and will be able to stand up for their rights as full and equal members of New Zealand society .
The union movement will have up to 300,000 more potential members who can join the fight for equality , fairness and justice in their new home .
Fixing this issue is one of the most important issues before the union movement today .
We have an opportunity to seize the once in a generation chance to use the Covid crisis to bring an end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migration .
If we succeed it will be a huge benefit to working people as a whole .
The way to achieve this goal is to provide permanent residency to all those currently living and working in New Zealand who have made New Zealand their home and want to stay .
The same principle should be applied to those stuck overseas who have also made New Zealand their home before going overseas and have been stuck there since Covid hit .
They should be treated as fellow Kiwis with the right to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the back of the queue .
Implementing such a policy will end once and for all the disgraceful over-reliance on workers forced to come to New Zealand on temporary visas and then trapped in exploitative bondage to an employer .
Several hundred thousand workers will then be free to join the fight for a new New Zealand that cares for all its residents with respect and dignity .

Employers in the agriculture sector who are screaming for help to pick their crops deserve to suffer a bit of pain. They’ve spent years excluding local workers and creating an economic sector totally reliant on temporary migrant labour, a vulnerability which the pandemic has now realised.
These employers have used temporary migrant labour to avoid training Kiwis to do the job and paying a genuine market rate for the hard work involved.
Over the past decade, the number of working holiday visas have increased from 20,000 to 70,000 a year. A special category of visa called the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme was created to bring in Pacific agricultural workers, and has grown from 5,000 a year to 14,500. We had another 100,000 students with the right to work and 150,000 on various other renewable work visas.
Workers from the Pacific have become more and more skilled at the work but employers continue to keep most of them on minimum wage—or less—once accomodation costs and other expenses are deducted.
Many Pacific island villages have become dependent on the regular income these visas are able to provide even if they had to return home each season. It is good that 2000 workers have been approved to return. The employer must pay their quarantine costs and at least the living wage of $22.10 an hour compared to the current minimum wage of $18.90 an hour.
The Covid crisis has exposed how dependent the New Zealand economy has become on cheap labour from across the globe. We discovered that around 300,000 workers, 15% of the workforce, were in the country on one type of temporary visa or another with the right to work. Temporary visa holders have become dominant in entire sectors of the economy from agriculture to aged care.
Many of those on working holiday visas and about half those on Recognised Seasonal Employer visas have returned home already. But at least 250,000 remain and many want to stay. The total is probably twice the number from a decade ago.
This system gave employers the power to exploit the workers dependent on them for visas, and employers used this power to suppress wages in their sectors.
Pre-Covid New Zealand might have expected to have been able to continue recycling cheap temporary labour to service of our major industries.But that system has broken into a thousand pieces, and will never be put back together until the world is free of Covid and no other pandemic threatens.
This is a good thing. It allows us to do the right thing by the people now stuck in New Zealand. Many of these workers were brought here and kept here on essential work or student visas with the false promise of one day being able to transition to permanent residency.
Instead, while the number of migrants being brought here on various temporary visas have more than doubled over the past decade the number of those being granted residency has been kept at around 40-50,000 a year. This simply increased the competition for places and Immigration New Zealandconsistently raised the bar on those seeking permanent residency.
The Jacinda Ardern-led government in 2017 imposed a radical cut to the number of people granted permanent residence. It went from 47,682 to 37,947 in the year from June 2017 to June 2018 and dropped further to 34,992 for the September 2019 year – a ten year low.
This simply broke the back of any coherent policy being able to be applied. The points needed to gain residency are now off the charts and nurses, teachers and other professionals can’t qualify.
The only way to fix the broken system is to grant those who have made New Zealand their home a pathway to residency. This could begin with everyone on a visa who has worked here five years or more an immediate offer of residency. They also don’t need language tests that most Kiwis wouldn’t pass. This could then be extended to other categories who want to stay but could be offered incentives to earn useful points by studying particular subjects or working in particular occupations or regions.
The previous National Government from 2014-17 under John Key and Bill English, implemented a proposal for a group of workers in the South Island as a one-off pathway to residency for around 4,000 temporary migrant workers and their families.
In the words of the then Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse:
“Many of these migrants are already well settled in New Zealand and make a valuable contribution to their communities.”
”[The proposal] will also enable employers to retain an experienced workforce that has helped meet genuine regional labour market needs.”
All workers in New Zealand who want to make New Zealand their home should have the opportunity to do so.
This is a humane and sensible proposal in the post-Covid world that meets the needs of the workers.Many bosses will be thrilled to be able to keep the workers they have invested time and money into training, even without the workers being kept in a bonded relationship. The workers will be freed from dependency on a single employer and will be able to stand up for their rights as full and equal members of New Zealand society. The union movement will have up to 300,000 more potential members who can join the fight for equality, fairness and justice in their new home.
Fixing this issue is one of the most important issues before the union movement today. We have an opportunity to seize the once in a generation chance to use the Covid crisis to bring an end to the abusive system of mass temporary work migration. If we succeed it will be a huge benefit to working people as a whole.
The way to achieve this goal is to provide permanent residency to all those currently living and working in New Zealand who have made New Zealand their home and want to stay.
The same principle should be applied to those stuck overseas who have also made New Zealand their home before going overseas and have been stuck there since Covid hit. They should be treated as fellow Kiwis with the right to return and not be forced to wait at the back of the queue.
Implementing such a policy will end once and for all the disgraceful over-reliance on workers forced to come to New Zealand on temporary visas and then trapped in exploitative bondage to an employer. Several hundred thousand workers will then be free to join the fight for a new New Zealand that cares for all its residents with respect and dignity.


thedailyblog--2020-12-01--Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism

I don ’ t include the full text of anything in a blogpost but I ’ m making an exception here because most of us struggle to find time to follow links from blog – life is too short – and this open letter , which was printed in the UK Guardian newspaper on the weekend , deserves to be read in full as New Zealand ’ s pro-Israeli lobby works behind closed doors to try to worm and weasel the IHRA so-called definition of anti-semitism into acceptance in New Zealand political networks .
We , the undersigned Palestinian and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hereby stating our views regarding the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA ) , and the way this definition has been applied , interpreted and deployed in several countries of Europe and North America .
In recent years , the fight against antisemitism has been increasingly instrumentalised by the Israeli government and its supporters in an effort to delegitimise the Palestinian cause and silence defenders of Palestinian rights .
Diverting the necessary struggle against antisemitism to serve such an agenda threatens to debase this struggle and hence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be debunked and combated .
Regardless of pretence , no expression of hatred for Jews as Jews should be tolerated anywhere in the world .
Antisemitism manifests itself in sweeping generalisations and stereotypes about Jews , regarding power and money in particular , along with conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial .
We regard as legitimate and necessary the fight against such attitudes .
We also believe that the lessons of the Holocaust as well as those of other genocides of modern times must be part of the education of new generations against all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fight against antisemitism must , however , be approached in a principled manner , lest it defeat its purpose .
Through “ examples ” that it provides , the IHRA definition conflates Judaism with Zionism in assuming that all Jews are Zionists , and that the state of Israel in its current reality embodies the self-determination of all Jews .
We profoundly disagree with this .
The fight against antisemitism should not be turned into a stratagem to delegitimise the fight against the oppression of the Palestinians , the denial of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land .
We regard the following principles as crucial in that regard : • The fight against antisemitism must be deployed within the frame of international law and human rights .
It should be part and parcel of the fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia , including Islamophobia , and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism .
The aim of this struggle is to guarantee freedom and emancipation for all oppressed groups .
It is deeply distorted when geared towards the defence of an oppressive and predatory state .
• There is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are singled out , oppressed and suppressed as a minority by antisemitic regimes or groups , and a condition where the self-determination of a Jewish population in Palestine/Israel has been implemented in the form of an ethnic exclusivist and territorially expansionist state .
As it currently exists , the state of Israel is based on uprooting the vast majority of the natives – what Palestinians and Arabs refer to as the Nakba – and on subjugating those natives who still live on the territory of historical Palestine as either second-class citizens or people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to self-determination .
• The IHRA definition of antisemitism and the related legal measures adopted in several countries have been deployed mostly against leftwing and human rights groups supporting Palestinian rights and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions ( BDS ) campaign , sidelining the very real threat to Jews coming from rightwing white nationalist movements in Europe and the US .
The portrayal of the BDS campaign as antisemitic is a gross distortion of what is fundamentally a legitimate non-violent means of struggle for Palestinian rights .
• The IHRA definition ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination , eg , by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour ” is quite odd .
It does not bother to recognise that under international law , the current state of Israel has been an occupying power for over half a century , as recognised by the governments of countries where the IHRA definition is being upheld .
It does not bother to consider whether this right includes the right to create a Jewish majority by way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balanced against the rights of the Palestinian people .
Furthermore , the IHRA definition potentially discards as antisemitic all non-Zionist visions of the future of the Israeli state , such as the advocacy of a binational state or a secular democratic one that represents all its citizens equally .
Genuine support for the principle of a people ’ s right to self-determination can not exclude the Palestinian nation , nor any other .
• We believe that no right to self-determination should include the right to uproot another people and prevent them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other means of securing a demographic majority within the state .
The demand by Palestinians for their right of return to the land from which they themselves , their parents and grandparents were expelled can not be construed as antisemitic .
The fact that such a demand creates anxieties among Israelis does not prove that it is unjust , nor that it is antisemitic .
It is a right recognised by international law as represented in United Nations general assembly resolution 194 of 1948 .
• To level the charge of antisemitism against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel as racist , notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based , amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity .
Israel can thus deport its Palestinian citizens , or revoke their citizenship or deny them the right to vote , and still be immune from the accusation of racism .
The IHRA definition and the way it has been deployed prohibit any discussion of the Israeli state as based on ethno-religious discrimination .
It thus contravenes elementary justice and basic norms of human rights and international law .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support of Palestinians ’ right to self-determination , including the demand to end the internationally acknowledged occupation of their territories and the statelessness and deprivation of Palestinian refugees .
The suppression of Palestinian rights in the IHRA definition betrays an attitude upholding Jewish privilege in Palestine instead of Jewish rights , and Jewish supremacy over Palestinians instead of Jewish safety .
We believe that human values and rights are indivisible and that the fight against antisemitism should go hand in hand with the struggle on behalf of all oppressed peoples and groups for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bashir Associate Professor of Political Theory , Open University of Israel , Raanana , State of Israel Beshara Doumani Mahmoud Darwish Professor of Palestinian Studies and of History , Brown University , USA Honaida Ghanim General Director of the Palestinian forum for Israeli Studies Madar , Ramallah , Palestine Ghassan Hage Professor of Anthropology and Social theory , University of Melbourne , Australia Nabeel Kassis Former Professor of Physics and Former President , Birzeit University , Palestine Rabab El-Mahdi Associate Professor of Political Science , The American University in Cairo , Egypt Ziad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and IR , American University of Paris , France Dina Matar Reader in Political Communication and Arab Media , SOAS , University of London , UK Karma Nabulsi Professor of Politics and IR , University of Oxford , UK Nadine Naber Professor , Deptartment of Gender and Women ’ s Studies , University of Illinois at Chicago , USA Omar Al-Qattan Filmmaker , Chair of The Palestinian Museum & the A.M.Qattan Foundation , UK Rafeef Ziadah Lecturer in Comparative Politics of the Middle East , SOAS , University of London , UK

I don’t include the full text of anything in a blogpost but I’m making an exception here because most of us struggle to find time to follow links from blog – life is too short – and this open letter, which was printed in the UK Guardian newspaper on the weekend, deserves to be read in full as New Zealand’s pro-Israeli lobby works behind closed doors to try to worm and weasel the IHRA so-called definition of anti-semitism into acceptance in New Zealand political networks.
We, the undersigned Palestinian and Arab academics, journalists and intellectuals are hereby stating our views regarding the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and the way this definition has been applied, interpreted and deployed in several countries of Europe and North America.
In recent years, the fight against antisemitism has been increasingly instrumentalised by the Israeli government and its supporters in an effort to delegitimise the Palestinian cause and silence defenders of Palestinian rights. Diverting the necessary struggle against antisemitism to serve such an agenda threatens to debase this struggle and hence to discredit and weaken it.
Antisemitism must be debunked and combated. Regardless of pretence, no expression of hatred for Jews as Jews should be tolerated anywhere in the world. Antisemitism manifests itself in sweeping generalisations and stereotypes about Jews, regarding power and money in particular, along with conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. We regard as legitimate and necessary the fight against such attitudes.
We also believe that the lessons of the Holocaust as well as those of other genocides of modern times must be part of the education of new generations against all forms of racial prejudice and hatred.
The fight against antisemitism must, however, be approached in a principled manner, lest it defeat its purpose. Through “examples” that it provides, the IHRA definition conflates Judaism with Zionism in assuming that all Jews are Zionists, and that the state of Israel in its current reality embodies the self-determination of all Jews. We profoundly disagree with this. The fight against antisemitism should not be turned into a stratagem to delegitimise the fight against the oppression of the Palestinians, the denial of their rights and the continued occupation of their land. We regard the following principles as crucial in that regard:
The fight against antisemitism must be deployed within the frame of international law and human rights. It should be part and parcel of the fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia, including Islamophobia, and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism. The aim of this struggle is to guarantee freedom and emancipation for all oppressed groups. It is deeply distorted when geared towards the defence of an oppressive and predatory state.
There is a huge difference between a condition where Jews are singled out, oppressed and suppressed as a minority by antisemitic regimes or groups, and a condition where the self-determination of a Jewish population in Palestine/Israel has been implemented in the form of an ethnic exclusivist and territorially expansionist state. As it currently exists, the state of Israel is based on uprooting the vast majority of the natives – what Palestinians and Arabs refer to as the Nakba – and on subjugating those natives who still live on the territory of historical Palestine as either second-class citizens or people under occupation, denying them their right to self-determination.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism and the related legal measures adopted in several countries have been deployed mostly against leftwing and human rights groups supporting Palestinian rights and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, sidelining the very real threat to Jews coming from rightwing white nationalist movements in Europe and the US. The portrayal of the BDS campaign as antisemitic is a gross distortion of what is fundamentally a legitimate non-violent means of struggle for Palestinian rights.
The IHRA definition’s statement that an example of antisemitism is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is quite odd. It does not bother to recognise that under international law, the current state of Israel has been an occupying power for over half a century, as recognised by the governments of countries where the IHRA definition is being upheld. It does not bother to consider whether this right includes the right to create a Jewish majority by way of ethnic cleansing and whether it should be balanced against the rights of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, the IHRA definition potentially discards as antisemitic all non-Zionist visions of the future of the Israeli state, such as the advocacy of a binational state or a secular democratic one that represents all its citizens equally. Genuine support for the principle of a people’s right to self-determination cannot exclude the Palestinian nation, nor any other.
We believe that no right to self-determination should include the right to uproot another people and prevent them from returning to their land, or any other means of securing a demographic majority within the state. The demand by Palestinians for their right of return to the land from which they themselves, their parents and grandparents were expelled cannot be construed as antisemitic. The fact that such a demand creates anxieties among Israelis does not prove that it is unjust, nor that it is antisemitic. It is a right recognised by international law as represented in United Nations general assembly resolution 194 of 1948.
To level the charge of antisemitism against anyone who regards the existing state of Israel as racist, notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based, amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity. Israel can thus deport its Palestinian citizens, or revoke their citizenship or deny them the right to vote, and still be immune from the accusation of racism. The IHRA definition and the way it has been deployed prohibit any discussion of the Israeli state as based on ethno-religious discrimination. It thus contravenes elementary justice and basic norms of human rights and international law.
We believe that justice requires the full support of Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including the demand to end the internationally acknowledged occupation of their territories and the statelessness and deprivation of Palestinian refugees. The suppression of Palestinian rights in the IHRA definition betrays an attitude upholding Jewish privilege in Palestine instead of Jewish rights, and Jewish supremacy over Palestinians instead of Jewish safety. We believe that human values and rights are indivisible and that the fight against antisemitism should go hand in hand with the struggle on behalf of all oppressed peoples and groups for dignity, equality and emancipation.
Samir Abdallah
Filmmaker, Paris, France
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Nadia Abu El-Haj
Ann Olin Whitney Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University, USA
Lila Abu-Lughod
Joseph L Buttenwieser Professor of Social Science, Columbia University, USA
Bashir Abu-Manneh
Reader in Postcolonial Literature, University of Kent, UK
Gilbert Achcar
Professor of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, UK
Nadia Leila Aissaoui
Sociologist and Writer on feminist issues, Paris, France
Mamdouh Aker
Board of Trustees, Birzeit University, Palestine
Mohamed Alyahyai
Writer and novelist, Oman
Suad Amiry
Writer and Architect, Ramallah, Palestine
Sinan Antoon
Associate Professor, New York University, Iraq-US
Talal Asad
Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, Graduate Center, CUNY, USA
Hanan Ashrawi
Former Professor of Comparative Literature, Birzeit University, Palestine
Aziz Al-Azmeh
University Professor Emeritus, Central European University, Vienna, Austria
Abdullah Baabood
Academic and Researcher in Gulf studies, Oman
Nadia Al-Bagdadi
Professor of History, Central European University, Vienna
Sam Bahour
Writer, Al-Bireh/Ramallah, Palestine
Zainab Bahrani
Edith Porada Professor of Art History and Archaeology, Columbia University, USA
Rana Barakat
Assistant Professor of History, Birzeit University, Palestine
Bashir Bashir
Associate Professor of Political Theory, Open University of Israel, Raanana, State of Israel
Taysir Batniji
Artist-Painter, Gaza, Palestine and Paris, France
Tahar Ben Jelloun
Writer, Paris, France
Mohammed Bennis
Poet, Mohammedia, Morocco
Mohammed Berrada
Writer and Literary Critic, Rabat, Morocco
Omar Berrada
Writer and Curator, New York, USA
Amahl Bishara
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, Tufts University, USA
Anouar Brahem
Musician and Composer, Tunisia
Salem Brahimi
Filmaker, Algeria-France
Aboubakr Chraïbi
Professor, Arabic Studies Department, INALCO, Paris, France
Selma Dabbagh
Writer, London, UK
Izzat Darwazeh
Professor of Communications Engineering, University College London, UK
Marwan Darweish
Associate Professor, Coventry University, UK
Beshara Doumani
Mahmoud Darwish Professor of Palestinian Studies and of History, Brown University, USA
Haidar Eid
Associate Professor of English Literature, Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, Palestine
Ziad Elmarsafy
Professor of Comparative Literature, King’s College London, UK
Noura Erakat
Assistant Professor, Africana Studies and Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, USA
Samera Esmeir
Associate Professor of Rhetoric, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Khaled Fahmy
FBA, Professor of Modern Arabic Studies, University of Cambridge, UK
Ali Fakhrou
Academic and writer, Bahrain
Randa Farah
Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Western University, Canada
Leila Farsakh
Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
Khaled Furani
Associate Professor of Sociology & Anthropology, Tel-Aviv University, State of Israel
Burhan Ghalioun
Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Sorbonne 3, Paris, France
Asad Ghanem
Professor of Political science, Haifa University, State of Israel
Honaida Ghanim
General Director of the Palestinian forum for Israeli Studies Madar, Ramallah, Palestine
George Giacaman
Professor of Philosophy and Cultural Studies, Birzeit University, Palestine
Rita Giacaman
Professor, Institute of Community and Public Health, Birzeit University, Palestine
Amel Grami
Professor of Gender Studies, Tunisian University, Tunis
Subhi Hadidi
Literary Critic, Syria-France
Ghassan Hage
Professor of Anthropology and Social theory, University of Melbourne, Australia
Samira Haj
Emeritus Professor of History, CSI/Graduate Center, CUNY, USA
Yassin Al-Haj Saleh
Writer, Syria
Dyala Hamzah
Associate Professor of Arab History, Université de Montréal, Canada
Rema Hammami
Associate Professor of Anthropology, Birzeit University, Palestine
Sari Hanafi
Professor of Sociology, American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Adam Hanieh
Reader in Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, UK
Kadhim Jihad Hassan
Writer and translator, Professor at INALCO-Sorbonne, Paris, France
Nadia Hijab
Author and human rights advocate, London, UK
Jamil Hilal
Writer, Ramallah, Palestine
Serene Hleihleh
Cultural Activist, Jordan-Palestine
Bensalim Himmich
Academic, novelist and writer, Morocco
Khaled Hroub
Professor in Residence of Middle Eastern Studies, Northwestern University, Qatar
Mahmoud Hussein
Writer, Paris, France
Lakhdar Ibrahimi
Paris School of International Affairs, Institut d’Etudes Politiques, France
Annemarie Jacir
Filmmaker, Palestine
Islah Jad
Associate Professor of Political Science, Birzeit University, Palestine
Lamia Joreige
Visual Artist and Filmaker, Beirut, Lebanon
Amal Al-Jubouri
Writer, Iraq
Mudar Kassis
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Birzeit University, Palestine
Nabeel Kassis
Former Professor of Physics and Former President, Birzeit University, Palestine
Muhammad Ali Khalidi
Presidential Professor of Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center, USA
Rashid Khalidi
Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, USA
Michel Khleifi
Filmmaker, Palestine-Belgium
Elias Khoury
Writer, Beirut, Lebanon
Nadim Khoury
Associate Professor of International Studies, Lillehammer University College, Norway
Rachid Koreichi
Artist-Painter, Paris, France
Adila Laïdi-Hanieh
Director General, The Palestinian Museum, Palestine
Rabah Loucini
Professor of History, Oran University, Algeria
Rabab El-Mahdi
Associate Professor of Political Science, The American University in Cairo, Egypt
Ziad Majed
Associate Professor of Middle East Studies and IR, American University of Paris, France
Jumana Manna
Artist, Berlin, Germany
Farouk Mardam Bey
Publisher, Paris, France
Mai Masri
Palestinian filmmaker, Lebanon
Mazen Masri
Senior Lecturer in Law, City University of London, UK
Dina Matar
Reader in Political Communication and Arab Media, SOAS, University of London, UK
Hisham Matar
Writer, Professor at Barnard College, Columbia University, USA
Khaled Mattawa
Poet, William Wilhartz Professor of English Literature, University of Michigan, USA
Karma Nabulsi
Professor of Politics and IR, University of Oxford, UK
Hassan Nafaa
Emeritus Professor of Political science, Cairo University, Egypt
Nadine Naber
Professor, Deptartment of Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
Issam Nassar
Professor, Illinois State University, USA
Sari Nusseibeh
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, Al-Quds University, Palestine
Najwa Al-Qattan
Emeritus Professor of History, Loyola Marymount University, USA
Omar Al-Qattan
Filmmaker, Chair of The Palestinian Museum & the A.M.Qattan Foundation, UK
Nadim N Rouhana
Professor of International Affairs, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, USA
Ahmad Sa’adi
Professor, Haifa, State of Israel
Rasha Salti
Independent Curator, Writer, Researcher of Art and Film, Germany-Lebanon
Elias Sanbar
Writer, Paris, France
Farès Sassine
Professor of Philosophy and Literary Critic, Beirut, Lebanon
Sherene Seikaly
Associate Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Samah Selim
Associate Professor, A, ME & SA Languages & Literatures, Rutgers University, USA
Leila Shahid
Writer, Beirut, Lebanon
Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian
Lawrence D Biele Chair in Law, Hebrew University, State of Israel
Anton Shammas
Professor of Comparative Literature, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
Yara Sharif
Senior Lecturer, Architecture and Cities, University of Westminster, UK
Hanan Al-Shaykh
Writer, London, UK
Raja Shehadeh
Lawyer and Writer, Ramallah, Palestine
Gilbert Sinoué
Writer, Paris, France
Ahdaf Soueif
Writer, Egypt/UK
Mayssoun Sukarieh
Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, King’s College London, UK
Elia Suleiman
Filmmaker, Palestine-France
Nimer Sultany
Reader in Public Law, SOAS, University of London, UK
Jad Tabet
Architect and Writer, Beirut, Lebanon
Jihan El-Tahri
Filmmaker, Egypt
Salim Tamari
Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Birzeit University, Palestine
Wassyla Tamzali
Writer, Contemporary Art Producer, Algeria
Fawwaz Traboulsi
Writer, Beirut Lebanon
Dominique Vidal
Historian and Journalist, Palestine-France
Haytham El-Wardany
Writer, Egypt-Germany
Said Zeedani
Emeritus Associate Professor of Philosophy, Al-Quds University, Palestine
Rafeef Ziadah
Lecturer in Comparative Politics of the Middle East, SOAS, University of London, UK
Raef Zreik
Minerva Humanities Centre, Tel-Aviv University, State of Israel
Elia Zureik
Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University, Canada


thedailyblog--2020-12-02--The Last Thing Working-Class New Zealanders Need is “Stability and Certainty”.

THERE IS SOMETHING quite seriously out-of-kilter with the universe when I find myself agreeing with Richard Prebble .
Commenting in this morning ’ s NZ Herald , Prebs states with unnerving accuracy : “ Labour won the election but we elected a conservative government .
Gone from the government programme announced in the speech from the throne is any promise of ‘ transformational change ’ .
Instead we have the false promise of every Tory , ‘ stability and certainty ’ .
Many conservatives will disagree with Prebble ’ s analysis .
In their eyes , Jacinda Ardern is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her party a collection of fire-breathing “ Cultural Marxists ” hell-bent on transforming New Zealand into the Venezuela of the South Pacific .
[ No , I ’ m not really sure what a “ Cultural Marxist ” is either – but the term is very big right now in right-wing circles ! ]
The conservatives ’ confusion is understandable , however , given how common it has become for radical ideas about culture and identity to be conflated with the ideology of the “ Left ” in general .
Prebble is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political spurs in the days when leftism was mostly about the economic , social and political consequences of being born into a particular social class .
The Labour Party he grew up in took as its starting point the condition of the New Zealand working-class and how it could be improved .
The point of Prebble ’ s admirably acidic column is that this “ Labour ” government has begun its second term from a very different starting-point : namely , the condition of the New Zealand middle-class and how it can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to “ stability and certainty ” .
The problem , of course , is that keeping conditions stable and certain for the middle-class more-or-less obliges the Government to refrain from implementing policies likely to produce significant improvements in the condition of the working-class .
Most especially , it obliges Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues to do next-to-nothing for the poorest and most vulnerable members of the working-class .
Improving their lives would simply be too costly .
It would require precisely the sort of new taxes and tax increases that Labour has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Prebble is the least bit interested in tax rises .
His big worry is New Zealand ’ s woefully low levels of productivity .
Like any good Rogernome , he sees the solution to this country ’ s poor productivity in terms of upping the rate of exploitation : i.e .
making the nation ’ s employees work harder and longer for less .
He ’ s all about further deregulating an already comprehensively de-regulated labour market .
Yes , he would start by undoing Labour ’ s minimal improvements to paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t stop there .
The funny thing about Prebble and his ilk is that the solution to our low rate of productivity has always been staring them in the face .
The fastest way to lift productivity is to force employers to substitute innovative technology for the absurdly cheap and indifferently-skilled human labour that has , since the 1990s , been permitted to take its place .
By dramatically lifting wages and improving working conditions , a reforming government would require inefficient businesses to either find a way to work smarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unemployment would be met with a massive state programme of upskilling and employment creation .
Not that this government would dream of implementing such a solution .
Not only would it outrage the small-business sector , but it would unnerve the professional and managerial classes .
Those who work for salaries are extraordinarily sensitive to what we old trade unionists used to call “ the relativities ” .
Put simply , any appreciable rise in the income of the “ lower orders ” unmatched by a corresponding upward movement in the income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construed as a direct attack on their social prestige and position – which , of course , it is .
Maintaining the yawning gap in the life experiences of wage workers and salaried professionals is one of those unspoken and unbreakable laws of capitalist society that “ reformers ” ignore at their peril .
Fortunately for the class that dominates Labour ’ s caucus , Jacinda doesn ’ t do peril !
But , if the Sixth Labour Government is unwilling to follow either Prebble ’ s path , or the path of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it hope to escape the latter ’ s anger and disillusionment when they realise that in spite of all her “ kind ” words , Jacinda is not going to help them ?
Tragically , my gut instinct tells me that she and her colleagues are going to try and distract them .
For quite a long time now it has been clear to those who make it their business to keep an eye on such things that most of this country ’ s blue collars are to be found around brown necks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s most poorly paid jobs are being done by Maori , Pasifika and immigrant workers .
They make up the bulk of the “ working poor ” and they are represented disproportionately in the ranks of beneficiaries .
These are the people who struggle to pay the rent , or , far too often , struggle to find a landlord to pay rent to .
Theirs are the schools that are failing .
Theirs the hospitals that are underfunded .
It is their mothers , daughters , sisters and wives who are abused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their fathers , sons , brothers and husbands who are pulled over by the cops .
Most of all , they are the New Zealanders for whom the daily injuries of race are experienced much more directly and painfully than the injuries of class .
What could be easier than to portray racism as the root cause of their misery ?
Especially when it is so much cheaper , politically , to persuade people that their problems arise out of the personal failings and prejudices of their fellow citizens , rather than from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subordination in which they are trapped .
As an explanatory tool , race has the added advantage of being something we can not do anything about .
Those who are born poor , on the other hand , are not bound by their genetic inheritance to remain so .
To make race the problem is to choose a war that can never be truly won .
Healing the injuries of class , however , is something human-beings have done before – and can do again .
What ’ s more , the great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the way it renders racial differences increasingly unimportant .
When an injury to one is treated as an injury to all , the only colour people tend to see is red .
It ’ s a colour that has bugger-all to do with “ stability and certainty ” , but it used to have a whole lot to do with Labour .
Even Richard Prebble knows that .

THERE IS SOMETHING quite seriously out-of-kilter with the universe when I find myself agreeing with Richard Prebble. Commenting in this morning’s NZ Herald, Prebs states with unnerving accuracy: “Labour won the election but we elected a conservative government. Gone from the government programme announced in the speech from the throne is any promise of ‘transformational change’. Instead we have the false promise of every Tory, ‘stability and certainty’.
Many conservatives will disagree with Prebble’s analysis. In their eyes, Jacinda Ardern is still “a pretty communist”, and her party a collection of fire-breathing “Cultural Marxists” hell-bent on transforming New Zealand into the Venezuela of the South Pacific. [No, I’m not really sure what a “Cultural Marxist” is either – but the term is very big right now in right-wing circles!] The conservatives’ confusion is understandable, however, given how common it has become for radical ideas about culture and identity to be conflated with the ideology of the “Left” in general.
Prebble is not so easily distracted. He won his political spurs in the days when leftism was mostly about the economic, social and political consequences of being born into a particular social class. The Labour Party he grew up in took as its starting point the condition of the New Zealand working-class and how it could be improved. The point of Prebble’s admirably acidic column is that this “Labour” government has begun its second term from a very different starting-point: namely, the condition of the New Zealand middle-class and how it can be protected. Hence, its very public commitment to “stability and certainty”.
The problem, of course, is that keeping conditions stable and certain for the middle-class more-or-less obliges the Government to refrain from implementing policies likely to produce significant improvements in the condition of the working-class. Most especially, it obliges Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues to do next-to-nothing for the poorest and most vulnerable members of the working-class. Improving their lives would simply be too costly. It would require precisely the sort of new taxes and tax increases that Labour has already ruled out of contention.
Not that Prebble is the least bit interested in tax rises. His big worry is New Zealand’s woefully low levels of productivity. Like any good Rogernome, he sees the solution to this country’s poor productivity in terms of upping the rate of exploitation: i.e. making the nation’s employees work harder and longer for less. He’s all about further deregulating an already comprehensively de-regulated labour market. Yes, he would start by undoing Labour’s minimal improvements to paid leave and minimum wages, but it wouldn’t stop there.
The funny thing about Prebble and his ilk is that the solution to our low rate of productivity has always been staring them in the face. The fastest way to lift productivity is to force employers to substitute innovative technology for the absurdly cheap and indifferently-skilled human labour that has, since the 1990s, been permitted to take its place. By dramatically lifting wages and improving working conditions, a reforming government would require inefficient businesses to either find a way to work smarter or close down. The inevitable rise in unemployment would be met with a massive state programme of upskilling and employment creation.
Not that this government would dream of implementing such a solution. Not only would it outrage the small-business sector, but it would unnerve the professional and managerial classes. Those who work for salaries are extraordinarily sensitive to what we old trade unionists used to call “the relativities”. Put simply, any appreciable rise in the income of the “lower orders” unmatched by a corresponding upward movement in the income of their “betters” will be construed as a direct attack on their social prestige and position – which, of course, it is. Maintaining the yawning gap in the life experiences of wage workers and salaried professionals is one of those unspoken and unbreakable laws of capitalist society that “reformers” ignore at their peril. Fortunately for the class that dominates Labour’s caucus, Jacinda doesn’t do peril!
But, if the Sixth Labour Government is unwilling to follow either Prebble’s path, or the path of uplifting the working-class, then how can it hope to escape the latter’s anger and disillusionment when they realise that in spite of all her “kind” words, Jacinda is not going to help them? Tragically, my gut instinct tells me that she and her colleagues are going to try and distract them.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
For quite a long time now it has been clear to those who make it their business to keep an eye on such things that most of this country’s blue collars are to be found around brown necks. So many of this country’s most poorly paid jobs are being done by Maori, Pasifika and immigrant workers. They make up the bulk of the “working poor” and they are represented disproportionately in the ranks of beneficiaries.
These are the people who struggle to pay the rent, or, far too often, struggle to find a landlord to pay rent to. Theirs are the schools that are failing. Theirs the hospitals that are underfunded. It is their mothers, daughters, sisters and wives who are abused for wearing the hijab. It is their fathers, sons, brothers and husbands who are pulled over by the cops. Most of all, they are the New Zealanders for whom the daily injuries of race are experienced much more directly and painfully than the injuries of class.
What could be easier than to portray racism as the root cause of their misery? Especially when it is so much cheaper, politically, to persuade people that their problems arise out of the personal failings and prejudices of their fellow citizens, rather than from the structures of economic exploitation and social subordination in which they are trapped. As an explanatory tool, race has the added advantage of being something we cannot do anything about. Those who are born poor, on the other hand, are not bound by their genetic inheritance to remain so. To make race the problem is to choose a war that can never be truly won. Healing the injuries of class, however, is something human-beings have done before – and can do again. What’s more, the great thing about combatting the injustices of class is the way it renders racial differences increasingly unimportant.
When an injury to one is treated as an injury to all, the only colour people tend to see is red. It’s a colour that has bugger-all to do with “stability and certainty”, but it used to have a whole lot to do with Labour. Even Richard Prebble knows that.


thedailyblog--2020-12-03--Labour’s puny move on tax misses the super-rich altogether

The government has passed legislation to increase the top income tax rate to 39 % on income over $ 180,000 It ’ s the biggest tax move planned by Labour for the next three years and yet its impact will be puny .
Labour has been telling its working class supporters its new top tax rate will have an impact on reducing inequality while reassuring the middle class that it will only apply to the top 2 percent of income earners .
Firstly the biggest impact in inequality I have seen quantifies the impact on inequality at 0.2 % on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Secondly the tax is on incomes so it will impact the big salaries of executives but it will miss the super-rich altogether .
As Inland Revenue pointed out several years back – half the highest net wealth New Zealanders ( those 200 or so on the NBR ’ s rich list ) declared incomes of less than $ 70,000 – where the top tax rate used to kick in .
I ’ d be willing to bet that less than 10 % of these super-rich bludgers will end up paying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by ruling out a capital gains tax and a wealth tax , has boxed itself into a corner and at the same time has boxed all of us into policies which will increase inequality and poverty .
It ’ s a small political party , afraid of its own shadow .

The government has passed legislation to increase the top income tax rate to 39% on income over $180,000
It’s the biggest tax move planned by Labour for the next three years and yet its impact will be puny.
Labour has been telling its working class supporters its new top tax rate will have an impact on reducing inequality while reassuring the middle class that it will only apply to the top 2 percent of income earners.
Both statements are misleading.
Firstly the biggest impact in inequality I have seen quantifies the impact on inequality at 0.2% on the GINI measure of inequality. Forget it.
Secondly the tax is on incomes so it will impact the big salaries of executives but it will miss the super-rich altogether.
As Inland Revenue pointed out several years back – half the highest net wealth New Zealanders (those 200 or so on the NBR’s rich list) declared incomes of less than $70,000 – where the top tax rate used to kick in. I’d be willing to bet that less than 10% of these super-rich bludgers will end up paying the new top tax rate.
Labour, by ruling out a capital gains tax and a wealth tax, has boxed itself into a corner and at the same time has boxed all of us into policies which will increase inequality and poverty.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It’s a small political party, afraid of its own shadow.


A Pivotal Moment

JMAD ’ s 2020 NZ Media Ownership report is doubly significant .
First , it completes a decade of research into a changing mediascape .
Each annual report , available online , is a valuable resource for journalists , academics , activists and all others committed to democratic public sphere principles .
In retrospect , major ownership trends can be traced—transnationalisation , concentration , conglomeration , financialisation and the emergence of local independents .
Second , the 2020 report documents the national impact of COVID-19 on different media sectors—television and radio broadcasting , magazines , newspapers , Māori language and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To complement these accounts , the report also explains how COVID-19 affected global media—print news , television broadcasting , media-entertainment corporations , ICT , streaming and social media corporations .
I won ’ t rehearse the latter findings here except to identify a bleak-joyful continuum .
At the bleak end , newspapers and news businesses reliant on offline sales and advertising either disappeared or barely survived .
At the joyful end , Facebook , Alphabet/Google , Zoom and Netflix did well .
The happiest performer of all was Amazon .
For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , Amazon earned US $ 5.2 billion in net income , double that for the same period in 2019 .
CEO Jeff Bezos increased the value of his personal holdings from US $ 113 billion to US $ 192 billion from mid-March to mid-October 2020 .
The world ` s richest man is a pandemic profiteer .
The national media impact of COVID-19 outlined in this year ’ s report should be read in conjunction with my earlier blog ( link -June 5 , Crisis , Disintegration and Hope : Where to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? )
.
Altogether , there are some grounds for cautious optimism .
Outside of private-equity controlled companies ( Bauer Media , MediaWorks ) and shareholder-owned media/telecom companies , independents can be strengthened .
The latter category includes Allied Press , Business Desk , NBR , Newsroom , Scoop , The Spinoff and Stuff ( purchased this year by Sinead Boucher ) .
Their sustenance of news reporting , current affairs commentary and investigative journalism would be greatly assisted by returns from a tax or levy on social media corporations .
The Australian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alphabet/Goole and Facebook generate significant revenue from recycling already created news content .
Similar moves in the UK and Europe have passed our government by .
Meanwhile , government proposals for an RNZ/TVNZ merger seem to be in hibernation .
Properly administered , this could re-invigorate public media .
Additionally , Crown-owned media organisations—TVNZ , RNZ and Māori Television—should be conceived , strategically , as an amalgam of stations , channels and digital platforms with overlapping non-commercial objectives .
This is a pivotal moment .
Out of the pandemic , the government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public media reform .
If this does not eventuate then the 2020 JMAD Media Ownership report will read , historically , as the start of an era—an era of missed opportunity .

JMAD’s 2020 NZ Media Ownership report is doubly significant. First, it completes a decade of research into a changing mediascape. Each annual report, available online, is a valuable resource for journalists, academics, activists and all others committed to democratic public sphere principles. In retrospect, major ownership trends can be traced—transnationalisation, concentration, conglomeration, financialisation and the emergence of local independents. Second, the 2020 report documents the national impact of COVID-19 on different media sectors—television and radio broadcasting, magazines, newspapers, Māori language and Māori interest media and social media platforms. To complement these accounts, the report also explains how COVID-19 affected global media—print news, television broadcasting, media-entertainment corporations, ICT, streaming and social media corporations. I won’t rehearse the latter findings here except to identify a bleak-joyful continuum. At the bleak end, newspapers and news businesses reliant on offline sales and advertising either disappeared or barely survived. At the joyful end, Facebook, Alphabet/Google, Zoom and Netflix did well. The happiest performer of all was Amazon. For the three months to the end of June 2020, Amazon earned US$5.2 billion in net income, double that for the same period in 2019. CEO Jeff Bezos increased the value of his personal holdings from US$113 billion to US$192 billion from mid-March to mid-October 2020. The world`s richest man is a pandemic profiteer.
The national media impact of COVID-19 outlined in this year’s report should be read in conjunction with my earlier blog (link -June 5, Crisis, Disintegration and Hope: Where to for New Zealand’s news media?). Altogether, there are some grounds for cautious optimism. Outside of private-equity controlled companies (Bauer Media, MediaWorks) and shareholder-owned media/telecom companies, independents can be strengthened. The latter category includes Allied Press, Business Desk, NBR, Newsroom, Scoop, The Spinoff and Stuff (purchased this year by Sinead Boucher). Their sustenance of news reporting, current affairs commentary and investigative journalism would be greatly assisted by returns from a tax or levy on social media corporations. The Australian government has responded to the fact that Alphabet/Goole and Facebook generate significant revenue from recycling already created news content. Similar moves in the UK and Europe have passed our government by.
Meanwhile, government proposals for an RNZ/TVNZ merger seem to be in hibernation. Properly administered, this could re-invigorate public media. Additionally, Crown-owned media organisations—TVNZ, RNZ and Māori Television—should be conceived, strategically, as an amalgam of stations, channels and digital platforms with overlapping non-commercial objectives. This is a pivotal moment. Out of the pandemic, the government has a clear mandate for media reconstruction and public media reform. If this does not eventuate then the 2020 JMAD Media Ownership report will read, historically, as the start of an era—an era of missed opportunity.


thedailyblog--2020-12-07--Can Labour Serve Two Masters?

Can Labour Serve Two Masters?

THE QUESTION to be answered , one way or the other , before 2023 is pretty simple : Can Labour serve two masters ?
Will it hold to the course recommended by its professional advisers ?
Or , will the party be driven into the weeds by the convictions of its caucus ?
Put another way : is Labour capable of putting its ideological convictions to one side in the name of holding on to its electoral advantage ?
There is a price to be paid either way .
So , which master will pocket it ?
Pragmatism or Idealism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idealism in question is not the old-fashioned social-democratic kind .
Virtually no one in Labour ’ s caucus favours pushing capitalism to the outer limits of its tolerance .
This is not a caucus that is going to agitate for the reintroduction of universal union membership , or the unfettered right to strike .
There ’ s no hardcore bunch of “ Big Taxers ” arguing for a top income tax rate of 90 percent on incomes over $ 200,000 .
Nor will a “ Re-nationalisation Faction ” emerge to threaten the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 doesn ’ t do sort of idealism .
There is actually a greater chance of Labour ’ s pollsters and focus group moderators advancing these sort of ideas than Labour ’ s MPs .
That ’ s because New Zealanders , like Americans , are surprisingly positive about making the rich pay their fair share and reclaiming their country ’ s economic sovereignty .
Notwithstanding the electorate ’ s willingness to embrace such radical policies , those same pollsters and focus group moderators would , nevertheless , hesitate to recommend their official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will , most assuredly , poke you back – harder .
Labour ’ s professional advisers would also be acutely aware that a fair amount of the poking-back would come from the party ’ s parliamentarians .
Considering the socio-economic strata from which nearly all Labour ’ s MPs have been recruited , such opposition would be entirely understandable and predictable .
Turkeys don ’ t vote for Christmas .
No , incipient socialism is not what Labour ’ s professional advisers fear .
After all , it ’ s not as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority available for such a programme in the House of Representatives .
Not even the Greens would feel comfortable advancing such a programme – not when they considered the reaction of their voters in the central city electorates , the ones on fat salaries , the ones among whom their own party , and Labour , both go looking for “ good ” candidates .
New Zealanders may surprise opinion pollsters with their policy preferences but , lacking a political party to take them forward , those preferences don ’ t amount to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scares the bejesus out of Labour ’ s advisers , however , is the radical cultural agenda for which an alarming number of Labour and Green MPs would be prepared to die in a ditch .
They are all-too-aware that this is not an agenda which enjoys broad electoral support .
Even worse , they know that it is not an agenda which the parties of the Right ( even in the unlikely event that a significant number of liberal Nats subscribed to it ) could possibly allow to pass unchallenged .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which promotes division and dissension in ways that do not favour Labour ’ s re-election .
The Government ’ s professional advisers will be urging the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues to steer well clear .
But will they listen ?
Can Andrew Little be dissuaded from introducing legislation against “ hate speech ” .
Can the Maori Caucus be turned aside from embracing the sort of constitutional radicalism that the Maori Party has already gone all the way with ?
How many women in Labour ’ s caucus are there willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a badge of honour ?
Will Nanaia Mahuta ’ s Cabinet colleagues counsel her against removing the right of electors to force local authorities to submit their proposals for Maori wards to a referendum ?
Is Chris Hipkins strong enough to resist the introduction of a compulsory New Zealand history curriculum in which greedy Pakeha settlers are invariably cast as the “ baddies ” , while noble indigenous Maori are consistently presented as the “ goodies ” ?
Will agreement at Ihumatao open-up all previous Treaty settlements for re-negotiation – even as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poker game ?
Labour MPs who would energetically resist being labelled “ socialists ” ( in any other sense than endorsing the nostalgic veneration of Mickey Savage ) might find it a great deal harder to deny their support for “ decolonisation ” , curbing hate speech , and facilitating early gender transitioning .
Repudiating such key elements of the radical cultural agenda will be made even harder if they become the subject of private members bills .
Will Jacinda Ardern risk a caucus revolt by ordering her parliamentary troops to ruthlessly vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she doesn ’ t , how does she propose to prevent such bills passing ?
Now that Winston ’ s handbrake is no longer there to give her plausible deniability on the pragmatic front ?
The Prime Minister ’ s problem is positively Biblical in its moral complexity .
It is , after all , in Matthew ’ s gospel that Jesus is recorded as saying : “ No man can serve two masters : for either he will hate the one , and love the other ; or else he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other .
Ye can not serve God and mammon.
” Unfortunately , it is Jacinda Ardern ’ s efforts to serve both masters that has so far distinguished her second term .
Mammon , it must be said , has – so far – received the best service .
Keeping the business community sweet , and not “ the preferential option for the poor ” , has been the order of the day .
God must be wondering when it ’ s going to be his turn .
There is a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even the professionals might see some merit in following .
If economic and cultural radicalism could be combined : if emancipating people from the grip of poverty could be undertaken at the same time as they were being encouraged to break free from the grip of racism , sexism and transphobia , then the prospects of success for all of these emancipatory projects would be enhanced considerably .
If history has taught us anything , it is that a revolution which is not an all-embracing festival of freedom : economic , cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost certainly , it is not a revolution at all .

THE QUESTION to be answered, one way or the other, before 2023 is pretty simple: Can Labour serve two masters? Will it hold to the course recommended by its professional advisers? Or, will the party be driven into the weeds by the convictions of its caucus? Put another way: is Labour capable of putting its ideological convictions to one side in the name of holding on to its electoral advantage? There is a price to be paid either way. So, which master will pocket it? Pragmatism or Idealism?
Before anyone gets too excited, the idealism in question is not the old-fashioned social-democratic kind. Virtually no one in Labour’s caucus favours pushing capitalism to the outer limits of its tolerance. This is not a caucus that is going to agitate for the reintroduction of universal union membership, or the unfettered right to strike. There’s no hardcore bunch of “Big Taxers” arguing for a top income tax rate of 90 percent on incomes over $200,000. Nor will a “Re-nationalisation Faction” emerge to threaten the Aussie banks. The Labour Party of 2020 doesn’t do that sort of idealism.
There is actually a greater chance of Labour’s pollsters and focus group moderators advancing these sort of ideas than Labour’s MPs. That’s because New Zealanders, like Americans, are surprisingly positive about making the rich pay their fair share and reclaiming their country’s economic sovereignty. Notwithstanding the electorate’s willingness to embrace such radical policies, those same pollsters and focus group moderators would, nevertheless, hesitate to recommend their official adoption. Poke capitalism too hard and it will, most assuredly, poke you back – harder.
Labour’s professional advisers would also be acutely aware that a fair amount of the poking-back would come from the party’s parliamentarians. Considering the socio-economic strata from which nearly all Labour’s MPs have been recruited, such opposition would be entirely understandable and predictable. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
No, incipient socialism is not what Labour’s professional advisers fear. After all, it’s not as if there’s anything resembling a majority available for such a programme in the House of Representatives. Not even the Greens would feel comfortable advancing such a programme – not when they considered the reaction of their voters in the central city electorates, the ones on fat salaries, the ones among whom their own party, and Labour, both go looking for “good” candidates. New Zealanders may surprise opinion pollsters with their policy preferences but, lacking a political party to take them forward, those preferences don’t amount to a hill of electoral beans.
What scares the bejesus out of Labour’s advisers, however, is the radical cultural agenda for which an alarming number of Labour and Green MPs would be prepared to die in a ditch. They are all-too-aware that this is not an agenda which enjoys broad electoral support. Even worse, they know that it is not an agenda which the parties of the Right (even in the unlikely event that a significant number of liberal Nats subscribed to it) could possibly allow to pass unchallenged. More bluntly, it’s an agenda which promotes division and dissension in ways that do not favour Labour’s re-election. The Government’s professional advisers will be urging the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues to steer well clear.
But will they listen? Can Andrew Little be dissuaded from introducing legislation against “hate speech”. Can the Maori Caucus be turned aside from embracing the sort of constitutional radicalism that the Maori Party has already gone all the way with? How many women in Labour’s caucus are there willing to wear the term “TERF” as a badge of honour? Will Nanaia Mahuta’s Cabinet colleagues counsel her against removing the right of electors to force local authorities to submit their proposals for Maori wards to a referendum? Is Chris Hipkins strong enough to resist the introduction of a compulsory New Zealand history curriculum in which greedy Pakeha settlers are invariably cast as the “baddies”, while noble indigenous Maori are consistently presented as the “goodies”? Will agreement at Ihumatao open-up all previous Treaty settlements for re-negotiation – even as it introduces privately-owned land into the anti-colonial Poker game?
Labour MPs who would energetically resist being labelled “socialists” (in any other sense than endorsing the nostalgic veneration of Mickey Savage) might find it a great deal harder to deny their support for “decolonisation”, curbing hate speech, and facilitating early gender transitioning. Repudiating such key elements of the radical cultural agenda will be made even harder if they become the subject of private members bills. Will Jacinda Ardern risk a caucus revolt by ordering her parliamentary troops to ruthlessly vote all such legislation down? And, if she doesn’t, how does she propose to prevent such bills passing? Now that Winston’s handbrake is no longer there to give her plausible deniability on the pragmatic front?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The Prime Minister’s problem is positively Biblical in its moral complexity. It is, after all, in Matthew’s gospel that Jesus is recorded as saying: “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
Unfortunately, it is Jacinda Ardern’s efforts to serve both masters that has so far distinguished her second term. Mammon, it must be said, has – so far – received the best service. Keeping the business community sweet, and not “the preferential option for the poor”, has been the order of the day. God must be wondering when it’s going to be his turn.
There is a way in which the Lord could be served that even the professionals might see some merit in following. If economic and cultural radicalism could be combined: if emancipating people from the grip of poverty could be undertaken at the same time as they were being encouraged to break free from the grip of racism, sexism and transphobia, then the prospects of success for all of these emancipatory projects would be enhanced considerably. If history has taught us anything, it is that a revolution which is not an all-embracing festival of freedom: economic, cultural, sexual and political; then, almost certainly, it is not a revolution at all.


thedailyblog--2020-12-09--VIDEO on DEMAND: Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning to discuss Commission of Inquiry into Christchurch

VIDEO on DEMAND: Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning to discuss Commission of Inquiry into Christchurch Terrorist Attack

PROMO FOR LIVE VIDEO : In what will be a precursor episode to a planned Evening Report panel-series through 2021 , tomorrow ( Thursday midday , NZDST ) Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan will discuss and respond to elements of the Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terrorist attacks of March 15 , 2019 .
• Interaction : Comments welcomed during the LIVE programme via Facebook , YouTube , or Twitter ( via Periscope ) • The Report : Officially titled – Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on March 15 2019 .
The Inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas : • Recommended changes that could prevent future terrorist attacks of this kind .
This A View from Afar discussion will explore takeouts from the Inquiry ’ s report and will include ( Ref .
https : //chchroyalinquiry.cwp.govt.nz/the-report/ ) : ‘ The idea that intelligence and security agencies engage in mass surveillance of New Zealanders is a myth.
’ In 2014 , the intelligence and security agencies were in a fragile state .
A rebuilding exercise did not get underway until mid-2016 and was still unfinished when the terrorist attack took place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2019 , the primary , but not exclusive , focus of the counter-terrorism resources was on what was seen as the presenting threat of Islamist extremist terrorism .
There was an inappropriate concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism .
In May 2018 , there was one project focused on developing an understanding of right-wing extremism in New Zealand .
At that time , the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service had only a limited understanding of right-wing extremism in New Zealand and work on this was not complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence function of New Zealand Police had degraded and from 2015 was not carrying out strategic terrorism threat assessments .
The SIS had a lack of capacity until mid-2018 both to deal with ( its perceived Islamic extremist ) threat and , at the same time , to baseline other threats .
Other agencies did not engage in informed discussion about the SIS approach nor consider the implications of this .
COULD THE TERRORIST HAVE BEEN DETECTED AND IDENTIFIED ?
: Given the operational security that the individual maintained , the legislative authorising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the limited capability and capacity of the counter-terrorism agencies , there was no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance .
The fact the individual was not detected was not in itself an intelligence failure .
The creation of a national intelligence and security agency ( NISA ) .
This will deliver a more systematic approach to counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism efforts .
The CEO of a proposed NISA would be the national adviser on intelligence and security .
Full implementation of our recommendations will result in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and capability and a less restrictive legislative framework .
The Inquiry expects to see far more political and public engagement and discussion and stronger oversight .
This will result in greater public trust and thus social licence .
We wish to see discussion about counter-terrorism normalised .
Our recommendations provide mechanisms for this to occur .
The Inquiry stated that should a public facing two-way discourse have been encouraged by governments through : a “ see something , say something ” policy , it is possible that aspects of the individual ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to counter-terrorism agencies .
Such reporting , the Inquiry stated , would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack .
If the known risk that a terrorist could take advantage of New Zealand ’ s lax regulation of semi-automatic firearms had been addressed earlier , it is likely that there would have been no terrorist attack on 15 March 2019 .
It will take time to enhance public trust and confidence in New Zealand ’ s counter-terrorism effort , so work to do so should begin urgently .
The agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : National Security Group of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet , the Government Communications Security Bureau , Immigration New Zealand , New Zealand Customs Service , New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service .
You can interact with the LIVE programme by clicking on one of these social media channels .
Here are the links : You can also see video-on-demand of this show , and earlier episodes too , by checking out EveningReport.nz or , subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here .

VIDEO: In what is a precursor episode to a planned Evening Report panel-series through 2021, Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan discuss and respond to elements of the Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch terrorist attacks of March 15, 2019.
NOTE from Selwyn Manning: In correspondence after this live episode, government sector law specialist, Graeme Edgeler, wrote:
Paul G. Buchanan responded to Mr Edgeler’s correspondence:
Once again you fail to distinguish between general precepts under the Inquiries Act and the specific terms of reference for this RCI. It specifies that all testimony, statements and documentary provision is voluntary on the part of those who agree to appear before the Commission. The blanket name suppression of all such people below the Director level was in part designed to encourage whistle blowers to come forward when they otherwise would not under the voluntary regime. All classified material was supplied at the various agency’s discretion–the RCI could not compel production of anything that the agencies refused to supply. This is known as a self-limiting or self-binding approach, something that limits the legal exposure of people who otherwise could be held liable for actions that (however indirectly) contributed to mass murder.
Graeme Edgeler further responded:
The Royal Commission’s terms of reference are publicly available ( http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0072/latest/whole.html#LMS183988) They do no [sic] specify that all testimony, statements, and documentary provision is voluntary. In fact, the word voluntary does not appear at all. Nor do the words testimony, statement(s), document(s) or documentary. There are requirements in the terms of reference around secrecy, and confidentiality, around holding parts of the inquiry in private, etc, but there is nothing in them covering what you say is in there (feel free to suggest a clause you think has this effect). I do not rule out that as a matter of fact, the inquiry avoided using its power of summons in respect of material held by state agencies, but if it did, it was not because its terms of reference prevented it.
We thank Graeme for contributing to the discussion.
THE EPISODE:
EveningReport.nz Programme: A View from Afar
Live Discussion: Paul G. Buchanan (36th-Parallel.com) and Selwyn Manning (EveningReport.nz)
Interaction: Comments welcomed during the LIVE programme via Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter (via Periscope)
Time: Midday, NZDST (6pm, US EST), Thursday December 10, 2020.
The Report: Officially titled – Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques on March 15 2019.
The Inquiry’s terms of reference contained three areas:
The terrorist’s actions
Actions of public sector agencies
Recommended changes that could prevent future terrorist attacks of this kind.
LIVE DISCUSSION POINTS:
This A View from Afar discussion will explore takeouts from the Inquiry’s report and will include (Ref. https://chchroyalinquiry.cwp.govt.nz/the-report/):
‘The idea that intelligence and security agencies engage in mass surveillance of New Zealanders is a myth.’
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In 2014, the intelligence and security agencies were in a fragile state. A rebuilding exercise did not get underway until mid-2016 and was still unfinished when the terrorist attack took place in 2019.
Between 2016 and 15 March 2019, the primary, but not exclusive, focus of the counter-terrorism resources was on what was seen as the presenting threat of Islamist extremist terrorism.
There was an inappropriate concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism.
In May 2018, there was one project focused on developing an understanding of right-wing extremism in New Zealand. At that time, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service had only a limited understanding of right-wing extremism in New Zealand and work on this was not complete when the terrorist attack occurred.
The intelligence function of New Zealand Police had degraded and from 2015 was not carrying out strategic terrorism threat assessments.
The SIS had a lack of capacity until mid-2018 both to deal with (its perceived Islamic extremist) threat and, at the same time, to baseline other threats.
Other agencies did not engage in informed discussion about the SIS approach nor consider the implications of this.
COULD THE TERRORIST HAVE BEEN DETECTED AND IDENTIFIED?:
Given the operational security that the individual maintained, the legislative authorising environment in which the counter-terrorism effort operates and the limited capability and capacity of the counter-terrorism agencies, there was no plausible way he could have been detected except by chance.
The fact the individual was not detected was not in itself an intelligence failure.
RECOMMENDATIONS (SECURITY/INTEL REFORM):
The creation of a national intelligence and security agency (NISA). This will deliver a more systematic approach to counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism efforts.
The CEO of a proposed NISA would be the national adviser on intelligence and security.
Full implementation of our recommendations will result in a better organised counter‑terrorism effort with enhanced capacity and capability and a less restrictive legislative framework.
NISA would provide:
Strategic policy advice.
Develop a counter-terrorism strategy.
Administer relevant national security legislation.
POLITICAL, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND STRONGER OVERSIGHT:
The Inquiry expects to see far more political and public engagement and discussion and stronger oversight.
This will result in greater public trust and thus social licence. We wish to see discussion about counter-terrorism normalised. Our recommendations provide mechanisms for this to occur.
PUBLIC DISCOURSE:
The Inquiry stated that should a public facing two-way discourse have been encouraged by governments through: a “see something, say something” policy, it is possible that aspects of the individual’s planning and preparation may have been reported to counter-terrorism agencies.
Such reporting, the Inquiry stated, would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.
RETROSPECTIVE CRITICISM:
If the known risk that a terrorist could take advantage of New Zealand’s lax regulation of semi-automatic firearms had been addressed earlier, it is likely that there would have been no terrorist attack on 15 March 2019.
INQUIRY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
It will take time to enhance public trust and confidence in New Zealand’s counter-terrorism effort, so work to do so should begin urgently.
The agencies within the scope of the Inquiry include: National Security Group of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Government Communications Security Bureau, Immigration New Zealand, New Zealand Customs Service, New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.
Be informed: Link to Inquiry Report.
COMMENT DURING THE LIVE DISCUSSION:
You can interact with the LIVE programme by clicking on one of these social media channels. Here are the links:
You can also see video-on-demand of this show, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.