‘Preferred partner': Baron Waqa calls for stronger US commitment
By
'Alakihihifo Vailala
, PMN
Pacific Islands Forum SG Baron Waqa, left, and New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met in Wellington last week.
Photo:
Facebook / Christopher Luxon
Baron Waqa, the secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum, says the United States continues to be the region's partner of choice, but adds that there is a need for greater involvement from Washington on crucial issues like climate change.
Waqa reassures Pacific communities and international partners that regional leaders are more united and determined than ever, despite recent diplomatic tensions involving New Zealand, Kiribati, and the Cook Islands.
During his official visit to New Zealand this week, Waqa gave an exclusive interview to
PMN News
.
He described current disagreements between Forum members as natural and healthy.
"It's not uncommon," Waqa says. "We've had in the past many rifts, they just don't see things eye-to-eye, but that's quite healthy, there's a show of maturity in our family.
"But at the end of the day, there's still that respect for each other as members of this bigger, greater foreign family, which is good."
Waqa's comments come in light of New Zealand's cancellation of its $102 million development programme with Kiribati and the lack of consultation from the Cook Islands over a comprehensive partnership agreement signed earlier this year with China.
"The forum stands ready to assist if there's any real concern there by anyone and wanting our assistance to mediate them," the former Nauruan President says, adding that no official request has been made as yet.
Waqa also met with NZ Deputy PM Winston Peters during his official visit to New Zealand.
Photo:
X / Winston Peters
Waqa reflects on recent meetings with international partners, including discussions with US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau.
"The partnership between the United States and the Pacific is very, very important, and that's what we're hearing from them as well," Waqa says.
"That is, I think, the most important for the Pacific because we want to engage with America, with the United States and they are our preferred partner."
He says that despite disagreements on issues like climate change, the need for more US involvement in the Pacific is vital to changing perspectives.
"That means we can continue to discuss our concerns, our vulnerability. We have to present it to them so they understand.
"No, I'm not too concerned because we have to respect them; they just came out of a big election, a big win for them, so no, we can discuss climate issues with them, why not, why not."
Waqa also addresses ongoing discussions about visa-free travel between Pacific nations and New Zealand.
"We know very well that New Zealand decide for themselves, but we always ask them and we're always putting it to them to consider having some kind of a reciprocal arrangement with the rest of us."
Looking ahead to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum Leaders' Meeting in the Solomon Islands, Waqa emphasises that Pacific leaders are focused on asserting the region's collective priorities, particularly climate change, economic resilience, and the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF).
He says United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has been invited to attend this year's meeting.
"They'll probably be sending some senior officials as well, but he'll be in the Pacific then. He's intending to attend some important programmes, but we would like to coordinate and see how well we can fit him into our own programme, the PIF leaders."
-This article was first published by
PMN
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Chair refuses to apologise, rejects use of ‘kia ora' in council email
Environment Southland has eight catchment committees across the region. Photo: ODT/Supplied A chair of a southern council group is unrepentant about his behaviour at a recent meeting, which was dubbed "disrespectful" by a council leader. Mataura catchment liaison committee chair Hugh Gardyne has also rejected the use of 'kia ora' in an email reprimanding him for his actions. The committee Gardyne oversees is one of eight in the region that supports Environment Southland with local river work. In May, Gardyne gave a blunt presentation to councillors, alleging catchment management was in "a state of paralysis" under the watch of the council chief executive and that communication was ineffective with the general manager in charge. He was shut down at the end of his talk, when he mentioned an abatement notice later revealed to be one [ issued by Environment Southland against itself]. A letter from Environment Southland chair Nicol Horrell on 28 May warned Gardyne of his behaviour, saying parts of his presentation were factually incorrect and disrespectful. "My intention is both to correct your understanding of the facts, and to inform you that councillors will not tolerate any criticism levelled at staff in public meetings or disrespectful behaviour," Horrell wrote. He added it was incorrect to suggest catchment work was in a state of paralysis and accused Gardyne of not having all the facts. "I would be interested to know from where you are getting your information." The letter ended with a suggestion that Gardyne apologise to the chief executive and manager in question, but Gardyne has defended his actions, saying his criticism was about questioning professional ability. "It doesn't, in my opinion, deserve a response or an apology." Hugh Gardyne chairs the Mataura catchment liaison committee, which helps Environment Southland with river management. Photo: ODT/Supplied Gardyne said he would speak at council again in the future and the response from the general manager had been "great", following the presentation. Separately, he also took exception with the use of 'kia ora' in the email sent by Horrell, which delivered the reprimanding letter. Gardyne requested he instead be addressed with 'hello' or 'dear'. Horrell told Local Democracy Reporting using the te reo Māori greeting was commonplace and he didn't think its use would be Gardyne's biggest issue. "I would have thought that that's almost a wee bit racist." In a letter back to Horrell, Gardyne doubled down on perceived issues with river management and questioned whether the chair's concerns were shared by other members. Environment Southland oversees eight catchment liaison committees, which help the council develop annual maintenance programmes and budgets, as well as provide a local point of contact. Gardyne has been involved with the Mataura group since the early 1990s. Last month, the council said it was working to improve communication with its catchment committees. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
