Speaking as President-elect immediately after the United States Electoral College’s votes had confirmed him as the next President of the United States, Joe Biden observed that “politicians don’t take power – people grant power to them.”

Those words are both timely and applicable far beyond the United States and are relevant here as a new Parliament gets down to it business. Although we also had a hotly contested election, producing a decisive result, once it was over and the result declared, that was it. Unlike in the United States there was no ongoing dispute about its legitimacy or integrity. For that reason, Mr Biden’s comments sprung primarily from the need to try and heal deepening divisions and tensions within the United States, but they also have value in a wider context.

Their relevance goes to the nature of political leadership in democratic societies. At its heart, it is, in theory at least, essentially a partnership or compact between the leaders and the led. Political authority is ceded to the leaders on the basis they will carry out certain specified tasks on behalf of the people. In return, politicians are expected to acknowledge that they govern at the behest of the people, and not seek to pursue policies outside this mandate. This implicit partnership is especially important in a small and intimate democracy like ours where there are few formal checks and balances on the exercise of political power.

Of course, it does not always work as smoothly as this. There are always going to be accusations of a particular government or group of Ministers usurping too much power unto themselves or ignoring the will of the people. But that is generally the stuff of political debate, rather than a breach of the informal compact between leaders and the people. The next election is usually a pretty a good sanction on governments going too far.

Nevertheless, there are some governments that do come to display more totalitarian tendencies than others, and some politicians, particularly during long spells in government, who come to believe more in themselves and so lose touch with public reality, or develop an unreasonable sense of entitlement, or both. The current controversy surrounding the Speaker of the House is arguably an example of the latter point.

The first two weeks of the new 53^rd Parliament have shown it is likely to be one like no other in our recent history. While that is exciting, it is not without its risks. The country’s first single party majority government in a generation will need to be ever mindful that it is not a law unto itself, despite its large majority, so must pay due heed to the consideration and role of Parliament when it comes to decision making. The Opposition and the smaller parties must have their rights protected to comment on the issues of the day and to participate fully in the debates and select committee meetings, even if their paucity of numbers means they are unlikely to be able to influence very much.

In that regard, the approach being taken by the two new Maori Party MPs is encouraging. With a clear eye to the constituents they are representing, they have already sought to establish their relevance by not so gently pricking many of Parliament’s treasured balloons. While their small numbers mean they will not win their battles, their approach is nonetheless refreshing and will ensure them a credibility and grudging respect within the system that they would have otherwise struggled to find.

By now, many of our political leaders will be returning to their home areas to be with family and friends – to be normal for a few weeks. For the new MPs, the buzz and excitement of their election and first few weeks in the seat of power will still be fresh. There are probably some of them who will feel a little frustrated that Parliament has wound up for the year so soon after it started, and just as they were beginning to get used to it. However, for others, Ministers especially, for whom 2020 has been unusually long, unpredictable and stressful, the break will not come soon enough.

For all of them, the coming holiday period provides an opportunity to relax and recharge the batteries to get ready for 2021. As they do so, all of them, no matter how senior or junior they may be, should reflect on the wisdom of the Biden dictum and make a commitment as one of their New Year’s resolutions to follow it in their work next year.

As one who has experienced and understood over many years the pressures of political and public life, I appreciate that the vast majority – although by no means all – of our politicians of whatever political persuasion are decent people trying to do their best as they see it for our country. My wish to all of them is that they are able to enjoy a peaceful and happy Christmas and New Year with their families and those dear to them, so that they return to duty next year determined to use responsibly and effectively the power the people have granted them.

On that note, Dunne Speaks takes its leave for 2020. My best wishes to everyone for the coming Festive Season and for a better year in 2021.  

The Prime Minister has apologised. So too have the Director of the Security Intelligence Service and the Commissioner of Police. Yet, despite this veritable chorus of apologies in the wake of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Shootings, one glaring and awkward fact remains unchallenged. Notwithstanding the failings of the Police, the Intelligence Services and the general machinery of government identified by the Report, by its own admission the Royal Commission could offer no assurance that even if all the shortcomings it identified had been rectified, the terrorist attack could have been prevented.

This is the nub of the issue. The government has accepted all 44 of the Royal Commission’s recommendations – a positive rarity of itself for Royal Commission recommendations – and is developing a work programme for their implementation. That is good, but the blunt truth still remains that, even after all that has been done, given the Royal Commission’s conclusion, we will really be no better off than we are today, and still just as much at risk from the type of “lone wolf” terrorist attack that happened in Christchurch last year.

Now that is not to say that there are not lessons to be learned from what happened then, and things that can and should be done much better in the future. Clearly, there are.

The way in which our firearms laws are administered certainly needs to be tidied up. Removing semi-automatic weapons from general circulation and the eventual establishment of a national firearms register are positive steps. But they will count for nothing if the process by which individual licence applications are considered and decided remains as lax and casual as it seems to have been in the Christchurch case. If the Police cannot guarantee a consistently rigorous approach is applied universally across the country then maybe it is time to shift the entire process – from licencing, the removal of dangerous weapons, and the maintenance of the firearms register to a dedicated independent agency whose sole responsibility it is.

Much has properly been made of the extent of Islamophobia in the general community and the need for greater respect and tolerance for different cultures, nationalities and religions. Our historically one-dimensional view of Islam – its peoples, its culture and religious values – desperately needs to change. Islam is not a monolithic culture and religion – it spans many countries and many cultures and traditions, just like Christianity and we need to start appreciating this diversity far more strongly. Colouring Islam and its adherents by the actions of its extremists is just as wrong as colouring all Christians by the actions of its fundamentalist fanatics.

After the Christchurch attacks, there was a wave of support for the Islamic communities throughout New Zealand which was remarkably positive and affirming of the Prime Minister’s “you are us” comment of the time. But some of that spirit has inevitably waned over time. However, as the Royal Commission reminds us, our society is now so rich in its diversity that the inclusion of the Islamic communities in New Zealand needs to become much more mainstreamed, so that issues of hate and bitterness are no longer tolerated if and when they emerge.

The Royal Commission’s conclusion that the Intelligence Services had spent too much time focusing on potential Islamic extremism and not enough time looking at the potential for right-wing extremism confirmed a long-held suspicion. The Security Intelligence Service Director’s acknowledgement this was the case and her consequent apology offer some hope change might be in the wind. Less convincing, however, was the excuse that budget constraints were the reason for this far too narrow focus.

In my experience, the Intelligence Services have always focused on the issues they think are important, often regardless of the views of the government of the day. A far more likely explanation for the myopic focus on Islamic terrorism, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the much more recent rise of ISIS, lies with New Zealand’s membership of the Five Eyes Intelligence agreement.

Over time, New Zealand’s primary contribution to Five Eyes has been as an intelligence and signals gatherer through the Waihopai Satellite tracking station. For obvious reasons, we are not a huge provider of intelligence in our own right. Therefore, the workings and perceptions of our Intelligence Services about risks and threats are shaped very much by the views and attitudes of our Five Eyes partners, principally the United States. Given the United States’ focus on Islamic terrorism, perhaps at crescendo levels during the era of the departing Trump Administration, it is hardly surprising that some of that has rubbed off on the perceptions held by New Zealand’s Intelligence Agencies.

The Royal Commission’s recommendation of a new, overarching security structure, and a more co-ordinated approach than has been the case to date may help broaden our Intelligence focus. But it is hard to see that leading to much change unless it is accompanied by other changes in how New Zealand relates to its Five Eyes partners in the future. That relationship is likely to come strain in the immediate future over China. There is already speculation that New Zealand’s close economic reliance upon China will be at increasing odds with the Five Eyes’ mounting antagonism towards aspects of Chinese economic and foreign policy, forcing us at some point to make a hard choice.    

The Christchurch Mosque shootings understandably shocked and outraged many New Zealanders and rattled our traditional complacency. It is fair to say very few ever imagined such an attack occurring on our shores. While the Royal Commission has identified shortcomings that need to be addressed, and helped the public’s healing process through the way it went about its work, its rueful observation that probably nothing could have prevented the “lone wolf” attacks occurring – and by extension potentially again in the future – cannot be ignored.

 

 

 

READ MY OTHER WEEKLY COLUMNS ON NEWSROOM.CO.NZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is now stand and deliver time for Labour on climate change. Otherwise, it looks set to follow other flagship Labour commitments like solving the housing crisis and reducing child poverty into the policy abyss. 

When Labour was in Opposition it constantly touted its Kiwibuild policy of building 100,000 homes over 10 years as the answer to New Zealand’s housing woes. But in reality, Kiwibuild proved to be such a failed policy when Labour tried to implement in government that it was abruptly dropped, and the Minister replaced. Now, the very word has even disappeared from the Labour lexicon. 

At the same time, the housing crisis has worsened with more people on waiting lists and the costs of buying a first house soaring. Bereft of the boldness of Opposition, Labour now looks completely out of ideas when it comes to dealing with the current situation and is crying out for others like the Reserve Bank to solve the problem for it. 

Likewise, with child poverty, another of Labour’s major attacks in Opposition. Indeed, we were constantly told that the sole reason the Prime Minister had got into politics in the first place was to tackle child poverty. She even made herself the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, yet, under her watch child poverty levels have continued to rise. 

When the Prime Minister was in Opposition she proclaimed that climate change was her generation’s “nuclear free moment”, implying a determination and commitment to bold and resolute action not so far matched by her actions in government. The largely Green Party inspired Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Act passed in 2019  talks of providing “a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies” that allow “New Zealand to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change.” Good worthy words – but beyond that rhetoric little has actually happened so far. 

In fact, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions levels have been increasing at the second highest level of the 43 industrialised nations considered to have the greatest obligation to reduce emissions. Mounting international concern at New Zealand’s relative inaction means there is the real possibility of New Zealand being excluded from an important summit this month to mark the fifth anniversary of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change and to prepare for the next major meeting in Glasgow next year. Far from being the climate change leader the government would like us to think they are, we risk being reduced to a climate change also-ran.

In an unusually blunt and withering assessment from a senior diplomat, the British High Commissioner recently pointed out there was a credibility gap between New Zealand’s rhetoric and its actions. She said, “There is also a gap – if you’ll forgive me for saying it, as a friend, and someone who has married one of your own – between ambition and reality. You have Scandinavian ambitions in terms of quality of life and public services, but a US attitude to tax. The brand 100% Pure New Zealand lulled many into a false sense of security, when the environmental reality is far more challenging.” New Zealand climate change expert Professor Bronwyn Hayward has told the Guardian newspaper that “even under Trump, the US is going to have made better per-capita reductions than we have.”

New Zealand’s response – with an obvious immediate eye to inclusion in the forthcoming Sprint to Glasgow meeting – has been to resort to the politics of the grand gesture that this government is so good at – the declaration by Parliament of a climate change emergency, and the promise to achieve net-zero emissions levels within the next thirty years. The Speech from the Throne last week said climate change policy would be a priority over the next three years with the government committed to developing policy to reduce emission levels. More fine words, but as is rapidly becoming the hallmark of this government, words still waiting to be backed up by firm action.

Others are starting to notice that this government is not the government of transformation it promised to be back in 2017. It has certainly turned emoting and angsting about the various issues facing the country into a veritable art form, which has paid it a positive political dividend so far. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly adept at finding others to blame for its failings. First it was the previous government, then it was its former coalition partner, and now, the housing crisis is apparently the fault of the New Zealand public!

However, there is no room for excuses any more. As the country’s first single party majority government in a quarter of a century it will be expected to match its rhetoric with action. Failure to do so will be no-one else’s fault but its own. Moreover, having talked so big to the world about our ambitions, we should hardly be surprised when others highlight our perceived shortcomings. The British High Commissioner’s comments, and the potential exclusion from the Sprint to Glasgow meeting are likely to be the first of many international wake-up calls.

So, having declared a climate change emergency by way of a Parliamentary motion, the ball is very much in the government’s court to back up that fine sentiment with practical and measurable policies for the next three years and beyond to turn around and reduce New Zealand’s steadily rising emissions levels. Ministers have been at pains to reassure that such actions are coming, and that the government will deliver on this policy. They do so against the United Nations Secretary-General’s lament this week that nowhere near enough is being done by governments across the world to tackle climate change.  

The clock has been ticking on this generation’s “nuclear free moment”. The time for rhetoric has passed. The Parliamentary declaration has set up the expectation that decisive action will now follow. As part of the accountability inherent within that Ministers should be required to report to Parliament each year what tangible progress the country is making to reducing its emissions levels and moving to a more sustainable future.

Otherwise, climate change policy risks quickly disappearing into Labour’s policy abyss the way Kiwibuild and reducing child poverty have.