Counterterrorism Watchdog Needed
An independent watchdog would shine a light into the shadowy world of security and counterterrorism, says Associate Professor John Ip in a research paper.
Since the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks, New Zealand has introduced several counterterrorism laws, significantly expanding state power. Now, a legal expert says it's time to follow the UK, Australia and Ireland in appointing an independent watchdog to keep that power in check.
In his paper, 'The case for an independent reviewer of counterterrorism legislation in New Zealand,' University of Auckland Law Associate Professor, John Ip, says although necessary, counterterrorism legislation often lacks provision for ongoing oversight.
Counterterrorism legislation, says Ip, is characterised by a government's need to react to an incident decisively and quickly, leaving little time for public input, legislative deliberation or scrutiny. Once on the books, counterterrorism legislation is rarely repealed and difficult to ratchet back.
'This makes scrutiny and oversight essential, especially given the potential impact on individual rights and freedoms.'
Since 2019, New Zealand has introduced counterterrorism legislation including the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Act, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act, and the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Act. But Ip says this relative flurry of legislation hasn't been matched by any permanent oversight mechanism.
'It's important that any unintended consequences, gaps and shortcomings are brought to light and that the public have confidence that the powers conferred by counterterrorism legislation are being used appropriately.'
Ip argues that creating an independent review entity would enhance public understanding, facilitate evidence-based policymaking and augment existing legal and political avenues of scrutiny and oversight.
'Countries around the world quickly react to acts of terrorism, and in this, we see expansion, or at the very least, some consolidation of the power of the state. We see the creation of a stronger national security state. And as this is happening, we should strengthen the oversight and control of those same institutions.'
However, the options for oversight currently available, says Ip, have limitations.
'As is typical of national security matters, secrecy shrouds the operation of counterterrorism law. Secrecy around national security creates a problem – those who might provide oversight often don't have access to the whole picture.
'In the courts, legal challenges depend on individuals bringing cases, but secrecy can mean a wrong can't be established because of a lack of publicly available evidence. When they do hear cases, without a comprehensive picture, judges are also likely to be more deferential.'
Temporary review bodies such as public inquiries also have limits, says Ip. For example, the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into the 15 March attacks meant that the Commission was not allowed to look into the police's initial response.
'These kinds of inquiries and bodies also stop existing once they deliver their final report. If the government chooses not to act on the recommendations, there's little option in following up or pushing for change later on.
'These limitations, including that more specialised review bodies tend to be either ad hoc or otherwise circumscribed in scope, suggest the need for something different.'
In his paper, Ip examines overseas models, including the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL). The IRTL is legally qualified, independent of government, and has access to the same classified information as ministers, enabling impartial, informed oversight.
Unlike courts, which look into specific cases, the IRTL has a broad mandate to review counterterrorism legislation as a whole.
While the UK model is interesting, Ip says New Zealand might more closely follow the formal statutory approach exemplified by Australia's Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and to a lesser extent Ireland's Independent Examiner of Security Legislation (IESL). Both are created by legislation with clearly defined powers and responsibilities.
'A permanent independent office, with comprehensive access to information, could review the operation of counterterrorism legislation here and publish reports with findings and recommendations,' says Ip.
'Independent review bodies play a crucial role in shining a light into the shadowy corners of the world of security and counterterrorism.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Dunne's Weekly: Oppositions Seldom Win, But Governments Often Lose
That Oppositions do not win elections, but governments lose them is a well-established political maxim. Elections are essentially a judgement on the performance of the government of the day. Seldom does the capability of the Opposition to govern come into the calculation, if the government has lost public favour. Elections are therefore more about getting rid of an unpopular government than the risk of installing an often-unprepared Opposition in power. Moreover, voters often have short memories. A recent poll showed many people believe it is time for another group of parties to govern in New Zealand, despite it being less than two years since that same group was unceremoniously turfed out of office and does not yet seem to fully appreciate the reasons why. Indeed, although the Opposition has not yet released any specific policy, its general attitude seems to be that it will just pick up where it left off last time and resume the same sort of policy approach and style of government voters rejected so clearly at the last election. That is why Labour was able to get away last week with criticising the government's handling of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis without offering any alternative of its own, because, frankly, as the Opposition, its views do not matter. Next year's election will be more a referendum on the government's performance than a critique of the Opposition's alternative. This is not unique to New Zealand. Last year's Labour landslide victory in the British general election was more a repudiation of fourteen years of Conservative rule, than an endorsement of Labour. Now, having rejected the Conservatives so overwhelmingly, and to date being less than impressed with Labour's offering, it is hardly surprising that British voters are flocking in droves to the untried Reform Party. The New Zealand equivalent of that phenomenon has been the increase in support for minor parties, New Zealand First and the Greens in particular. So much so that the next election, and which parties form the next government, could come down to how well the minor parties perform, rather than the major parties they could be expected to align with in government. Given that context, it is not altogether surprising that there is mounting speculation the current government could be the country's first one-term government in 50 years. But, so far, the evidence for that happening is not strong. The National/ACT/ New Zealand bloc has led in most opinion polls since the end of 2021. Today, the latest rolling average of polls shows the coalition government ahead of its rivals by just under 4%, and still able to form a majority government. At the same point in the electoral cycle three years ago, the then Labour Government was trailing the then-Opposition National/ACT/ New Zealand bloc by just under 5%. Nevertheless, National's position is precarious. Its vulnerability, which this column has highlighted many times previously, is its increasing dependence on its coalition partners to get across the electoral line. Until recently, the Prime Minister has shrugged this point aside, saying it is just one of the realities of MMP. However, in recent weeks there has been a perceptible change in the government's tempo, with a slew of major policy announcements from National in a variety of areas, from a new infrastructure plan, a new funding model for general practices, an end to building open-plan classrooms, and even the controversial changes to electoral enrolment provisions, National has shown a new determination in seeking to dominate the political agenda on its terms. No longer does it seem happy to let its coalition partners control the policy agenda as they appear to have done throughout the government's term. With the election just over a year away National looks to have moved centre-stage in terms of the government's performance. It knows that to win the next election the coalition government needs to first lock-in the support of those who voted for it last time, before trying to drag in additional other voters from across the political divide. So, National's current moves are a deliberate attempt to claw back supporters who may have deserted it for ACT or New Zealand First, because they have seen them as more boldly defined. Without locking-in that core government support into National's column, National's position will become shakier and its prospects more uncertain. Things are not quite as challenging for Labour, however. Because it is in its first term in Opposition and because one-term governments are a rarity – only two (both Labour) in the last century – while there may be increasing hope, there is not yet any real expectation that it can win in 2026. That immediately relieves some of the pressure of expectation of returning to office so quickly. Similarly, because governments lose elections rather than Oppositions win them, the level of scrutiny on Labour's promises will always be less than that on the government's promises. That will change a little as the election nears, but for Labour, right now, the longer it can keep getting away with criticising the government and not offering any constructive alternative, the better. None of this means a Labour-bloc victory at the next election is unlikely or impossible. With polls showing increasing disapproval of the country's current direction, it must be acknowledged there is a greater chance of this occurring. And yet again, it will be a case of the government losing, rather than the Opposition winning.
