On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence - from employers at a government roadshow - that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate.
Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses - demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia - it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role.
Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely.
So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim.
Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour.
Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments.
Natives, being restless
Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism.
Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that - only a few months ago - took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus.
"It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said.
On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up - because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them.
Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state.
Saying sorry
For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said - 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori.
To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament.
Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made - simultaneously - for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise.
The Action Against Universities
ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard - and their international students - has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel.
As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand.
As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations.
To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer.
Evidently - since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA - we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again.
But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on campus.The key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here.
This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK.
In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..'
Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest.
So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose - or would it support - the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations.
Would ACT - as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues - support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech?
The Other Option
Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest.
As Guideline 12 says:
12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
And here's Guideline 14 :
14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or ... the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism.
Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US.
So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) - the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism?
Big Thief Returns
Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior - Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked - before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing.
Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable - incomprehensible - we are to ourselves, and to each other.
If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
32 minutes ago
- Scoop
Bougainville Independence Talks Underway At Military Camp Near Christchurch
Article – RNZ In 2019, 97.7 percent of Bougainvilleans voted for independence. RNZ Pacific Bougainville independence talks have started just outside of Christchurch, in New Zealand's South Island, between the governments of Papua New Guinea and Bougainville. In 2019, 97.7 percent of Bougainvilleans voted for independence. The referendum, though mandated by the 2001 Peace Agreement, was not binding. Both governments are now debating the rules by which the results of a referendum on independence are tabled in parliament. The discussions at Christchurch's Burnham Military Camp focus on finalising the process to bring the referendum results before PNG's Parliament. Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape called Burnham the spiritual home of the Bougainville peace process. The military camp hosted pivotal talks in 1997 that helped end the Bougainville civil war. Marape said the Era Kone Convenant committed both governments to present the referendum before PNG's parliament in 2025. Bougainville has stated that it expects to be independent by 1 September 2027. It has established a Constitution Commission and included it within the region's autonomous parliament. The Christchurch meetings are closed to the media. New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade refused to share with RNZ Pacific a list of who will be attending the meeting.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that"regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Government Warned Corruption And 'Insider Threats' Increasing In New Zealand
The government has been warned that corruption and "insider threats" are increasing in New Zealand, despite the country's longstanding reputation as a country largely free of it. An advisory group says the country is poorly prepared to tackle the increasing threat and recommends developing a national anti-corruption strategy and modernising the Crimes Act, which the Minister responsible says is key. The Ministerial Advisory Group on transnational and organised crime was set up in February to provide independent advice and recommendations to improve the cross-government response to what Associate Minister of Police Casey Costello described as " an increasing threat." Previous reports have said New Zealand was "losing the fight" against organised crime, and specified a need for police to have greater financial powers to fight it. The third report has stated New Zealand's "lucrative market" and established crime networks have made the country "more susceptible than ever" to corruption and insider threats. It also pointed to the "deteriorating situation in the Pacific" as making the region more vulnerable. It defined corruption as the "abuse of access or authority to advance the objectices of organised crime". "It is a critical enabler of organised crime, particularly at national borders. It grants criminal networks access to protection, sensitive information, and operational impunity. "This is a real and increasing threat," the report said. The group was told by enforcement agencies about "trusted insiders" at ports and airports helping to retrieve concealed shipments of illicit drugs before customs inspections. "That information is consistent with an unpublished global report which estimates that 70 percent of maritime seizures worldwide involved links to trusted insiders." It raised a specific concern in the Pacific where exposure is increased due to expansive maritime borders, strategic trade corridors and growing cross-border flows of goods and people. "When individuals in border security, customs, or immigration are compromised, criminal groups can exploit these weak points to smuggle drugs, weapons, other illicit goods, and people with minimal detection. "Bribery, coercion, and cronyism can transform ports, airports, and checkpoints into open channels." If corruption was left unchecked, the report warned it could erode the integrity of New Zealand's institutions and undermine its collective security. "We are already seeing increasing pressure on Pacific nations which have limited capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute organised crime threats. "The financial incentives offered by organised crime groups can be tempting - especially for those working in jobs with useful access, but low pay, in New Zealand and within the Pacific." The advisory group reports to Costello who told RNZ she was not surprised by the contents of the report, except to learn that New Zealand was the only Five Eyes member who did not have an anti-corruption strategy. She did however believe New Zealanders might be shocked to learn corruption was getting worse, "we've kind of considered ourselves as a little bit of a haven". The report specified New Zealand's "reputation as a country largely free from corruption has long been a source of national pride and international credibility". But also pointed this had led to a "degree of inertia," referencing Julie Haggie, chief executive of Transparency International NZ, who said in the report "New Zealand's response to increasing corruption pressures over several years has been lacklustre and complacent". "New Zealand is poorly prepared to deter and tackle the increasing threat of corruption, but that is not to say nothing is being done," said the report. Costello said the report was not suggesting organisations were corrupt, but the ability for organised crime to target individuals was there. "That's where we see that familial or cultural pressures, that ability to have control over individuals, and that's not just in the drug world." She said New Zealand was not out of control, but the country needed to shift the way it was doing things, strengthen legislation and put clear strategies in place. Costello believed bringing the Crimes Act up to date to deal with corruption was one of the key recommendations. She said work being done at the moment was bringing agencies together to have consistency around sharing information. Another recommendation was to have a centralised agency that would have oversight across all agencies. "Whether that's in the public service commission, or whether it's in police or SFO [Serious Fraud Office] or a new agency, it's having that one oversight so that we work more cooperatively." In regards to the Pacific, she said it was important New Zealand supported its economic growth and viability. "When people are poor, then the amount of money you need to corrupt someone is relatively low. "Leaning in more to support those economies to help them not just gain knowledge, but actually keep these systems in place. "How do they optimise their control of their border so they're collecting excise, that they're optimising the revenue they can get from legitimate business, as well as ensuring that they aren't corrupted." She said the reports were about making New Zealanders more aware about organised crime and an appreciation of the challenges that it presents.
