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