A rare bipartisanship on terror and why that’s a problem

Analysis: Fifty-one murders at two city mosques on a peaceful Friday. That confronting scene – more confronting for those who lived through it, or lost loved ones – is the reason you’re reading this.

Any story into the country’s political direction after March 15, 2019, or response to the Royal Commission into the Christchurch terror attack, needs to be considered in that context – people in their place of worship shot dead, and left dying, injured and traumatised.

With a change of government, Judith Collins, the new minister overseeing progress on the commission’s 44 recommendations, has been briefed by Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet officials. The document was released publicly on February 1. (Other agencies, such as Ministry of Social Development, Police, and the intelligence agencies, have also briefed their ministers.)

The briefing, dated December 4, sets out decisions for the Government in the first three months, two of which were:

• The Government’s approach, and priorities, to the “remainder” of the response to the Royal Commission report;

• Options for “integrating the response into business-as-usual activities”.

On the latter point, the briefing says the minister may “wish for us to provide you with advice and options on transitioning the response from a dedicated work programme to an approach that is integrated into business-as-usual”.

This past week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said: “We’re coming up to the five-year anniversary of that royal commission of inquiry report and those actions and those recommendations.

“We have been very supportive of that direction of travel, but I’m also very conscious … you actually have to close it out, and you actually have to get a resolution for people.

“We are going through all 43, 44 recommendations now, making sure that we can get to a hard completion on each of them, one way or another.”

New government, new direction? Not necessarily.

In the wake of the terrorist attack, the biggest government move, which made headlines around the world, was to ban military-style semi-automatic and assault rifles. The Christchurch Call, to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online, was established.

On the commission’s recommendations, several were easily ticked off, like appointing a responsible minister, establishing a collective impact board, and upgraded the Office of Ethnic Communities to a ministry.

Recently, Police established an online firearms registry. (The National Party-Act coalition agreement promises to review whether the registry “is effectively improving public safety”.)

However, the previous government, guided by its responsible minister Andrew Little, struggled with difficult areas.

Reforms to hate speech and hate crime laws were watered down in 2022, with the topic kicked to the Law Commission.

(The National Party-New Zealand First coalition agreement mandates the commission will stop work on hate speech legislation.)

The Royal Commission recommended a new national intelligence and security agency be established – indeed, it was the second recommendation and many of the next 16 recommendations were predicated on this. But it’s nowhere to be seen.

Discussions about “restorative justice” with affected whānau, survivors, and witnesses haven’t started. Where is the requirement for health officials to report firearms injuries?

Over the past two years, Labour’s response to the Royal Commission’s appeared to run out of puff. So advice to the new minister suggesting a move from a dedicated programme to work being absorbed into the machinery of government appears to be in line with the previous government’s more recent approach.

It’s a rare bipartisanship, considering this Government has spent its first few months undoing its predecessor’s policies. But should it be? And should the public accept this?

Royal commissions are established, and commissioners given legal powers, to ensure the country learns lessons from matters of national importance, and, hopefully, doesn’t repeat them.

A “hard completion” on each of the 44 recommendations following the terror attack suggests the lessons have been learnt, fixes put in place, and the conditions in which such events could take place again have been dealt with.

Let’s just look at two examples – security and intelligence, firstly, and then social cohesion – harking back to language used by the Royal Commission when its report was released in December 2020.

New Zealand’s intelligence agencies had been slow to understand the threat of extreme right-wing domestic terrorism, the report said, and preventing future terrorist attacks, and making the country safer, required “improved strategic leadership and greater accountability”.

As it stood, national security was structured in a decentralised coordinated model, meaning the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet operated “across the spectrum of national security and all-of-government issues”, but agencies weren’t under its direction or control.

Effective leadership would mean ensuring agencies were interacting effectively, and not separately or over each other, and gaps in the system would be identified and addressed.

“This is a demanding leadership role, particularly for an agency such as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which has little operational experience and limited resources.”

A new agency would deliver a more “systematic approach to addressing extremism and preventing, detecting and responding to current and emerging threats of violent extremism and terrorism”. Another recommendation, to be written in legislation, was an advisory role for communities, civil society, local government and the private.

With a new agency in place, DMPC’s advice would drop to a “second opinion”.

Fast-forward to November this past year, and a joint briefing to Collins as minister for GCSB and SIS. (The Government Communications Security Bureau’s work is in online surveillance, cyber security and cyber resilience, while the Security Intelligence Service focuses more on physical surveillance, human intelligence and protection.)

Intelligence agencies work closely with the national security group within DPMC, the document said, “which holds a collaborative leadership role within the national security community”.

Another briefing, this time to Luxon as incoming minister for national security and intelligence, also from November, details how DPMC’s national security group “provides system leadership and stewardship across New Zealand’s national security and intelligence community”.

The group’s structure was changed recently “to help us deliver more effective national security leadership”. “These changes will enable us to more effectively lead the national security community to ensure that the government is best placed to keep New Zealanders safe across the set of key risks and threats that we face”.

The National Security Board of Chief Executives has also been “refreshed”.

The briefing goes on: “Once the changes have bedded in and you have had the opportunity to see the new structure in operation, we will engage with you about whether further structural reform is needed to ensure the issues identified by the Royal Commission have been fully addressed.”

It’s hard to discern if these changes are substantial, with corresponding changes in personnel, or more of a reshuffle. Also, it’s not clear from the briefings how agencies that were “slow to understand the threat of extreme right-wing domestic terrorism”, are now agile enough, with more effective oversight, to ensure the public is safer.

The intelligence briefing to Collins noted DPMC “leads the policy work to respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry”. Ironically, one those recommendations was to create a new agency because of that department’s “little operational experience and limited resources”.

What is social cohesion?

According to experts, a socially cohesive society is one in which individuals and groups have a sense of belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition and legitimacy. It doesn’t mean people have to think and behave in the same way.

It’s an ideal rather than a goal, the Royal Commission report said, and something that “must continually be nurtured and grown”.

Sir Peter Gluckman, director of the think tank Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Future, suggested social cohesion was something to “value, grow and protect and, critically, invest in”.

Cohesive societies are more politically stable, meaning they can focus on economic growth and business development, one commentator said. These societies are more mutually supportive, it’s said, and develop ways of coping with divisions, such as “disparities of wealth or ethnic or cultural diversity”.

“Social cohesion can contribute to preventing or countering extremism,” the Royal Commission report said. “This is because cohesive and resilient communities are better placed to resist and counter the risk of radicalisation and mobilisation to violent extremism and terrorism. 

“Tolerant, and ideally inclusive, societies are more able to address and prevent the polarisation and disenfranchisement that can contribute to a rise in extremism.”

New Zealand is diverse, and becoming more so. It’s home to people from 213 different ethnic groups who speak more than 150 languages.

However, not everyone reacts well to diversity. There’s evidence of discrimination and prejudice against some groups, including because of ethnicity and religion, which means “substantial numbers” of people are being left behind.

Muslim communities up and down the country – not just in Christchurch – are particularly affected. Covid-19 has heightened societal tensions and mistrust.

Ways to build social cohesion include supporting community activities, moves to reduce discrimination, and prioritising equity and social inclusion, in education and society at large.

“Community capacity development means promoting the ability of communities to develop, implement and sustain their own solutions to problems that affect them,” the Royal Commission said.

The previous government announced a $2 million, contestable fund to boost social cohesion. However, the fund expired after a year.

The briefing to Collins, as lead coordination minister, said a steering group to guide the response to the Royal Commission report. While the response continues – “until Cabinet decides the response has concluded” – funding for the minister’s support conclude on June 30 this year.

“DPMC’s chief executive would welcome an early opportunity to discuss your priorities for the response, as well as any potential resourcing required if applicable.”

Newsroom spoke with Aliya Danzeisen, national coordinator of the Islamic Women’s Council, and Abdur Razzaq, who heads the royal commission committee of The Federation of Islamic Associations. Both were happy to work with the new government, and mentioned they’d briefed key figures while they were in opposition.

However, Danzeisen was unhappy with the briefing to Collins on several matters, including scant detail about the risks posed to society by social media, and deficiencies about the full extent of the coronial inquiry.

(The inquiry will investigate the role of social media in radicalising the Christchurch terrorist. The coronial hearing’s first phase has already unearthed important details about the emergency services response, including a Parliamentary Services staffer making a 111 call identifying Linwood Islamic Centre as a potential target.)

Another problem with the ministerial briefing, Danzeisen says, is the lack of context about the public service’s poor disclosures before the terror attack in March 2019, and the lack of investment in social cohesion.

“Now reading this briefing, I understand why Minister Collins would think that she might be able to wrap it up. They didn’t include social cohesion issues weren’t fully invested in, they didn’t discuss accurately or adequately the security and intelligence situation, as far as we can see, and they weren’t full and frank about what the Royal Commission findings were.”

(The only mention of social cohesion in the briefing to Minister of Social Development and Employment Louise Upston was an explanatory sentence that one of its roles was “co-ordinating the whole-of-government approach to strengthening social cohesion, which is part of the Government’s response to the recommendations from the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch Masjidain in March 2019”.)

This past week, Newsroom asked Collins’ office if she’d arranged a visit to Christchurch to meet the affected community, and if she’d be in Christchurch on the March 15 anniversary. Also, when she expected to make announcements on the future of potential national security reforms, and whether the Government’s response will morph from dedicated to business as usual.

The Minister said: “The Government is keenly aware of the upcoming fifth anniversary of this tragic day, with the most important factor being that the families and friends of the victims are at the heart of commemorations.

“The Government is committed to the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and my officials are meeting regularly with key representative groups within the community.

“I will be meeting with members of the community and the independent ministerial advisory group, Kāpuia, to hear their views and what their concerns are.”

While listening to those concerns, and deciding the Government’s direction, the new minister must remember the reason for her ministerial appointment: 51 murders at two city mosques on a peaceful Friday.