Jacinda Ardern requested to appear for Covid response inquiry
The Royal Commission into the country's Covid-19 response has requested former prime minister Jacinda Ardern to appear for questions. Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins spoke to Melissa Chan-Green.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Covid inquiry hearings: No decisions yet on which politicians will appear
Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led the country through the first response to Covid-19, but the Royal Commission will not confirm if she will appear at the inquiry. Photo: 2021 Getty Images The Royal Commission investigating New Zealand's Covid-19 pandemic response has not made any decisions about which leaders and politicians will appear for a public healing. The inquiry is looking into the government's response to the pandemic and its effects. This week's hearings have concentrated on the impact of the extended lockdown in Auckland and Northland in 2021 and on vaccine mandates and safety. RNZ previously reported that the commission had requested former prime minister Dame Jacinda Ardern to give evidence at a public hearing in August. But the commission said no decisions had been made about who would appear at the hearing. "The witness list is still under consideration, and it is not appropriate to make further comment about it at this stage," they said in a written statement. "The Inquiry will share the witness list and more information about the planned August public hearing in due course." They also noted that people giving evidence would not necessarily be required to do so in a public hearing. "Public hearings are just one way the Inquiry can gather evidence, in addition to private interviews, written correspondence, stakeholder engagements, public submissions and document analysis." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Public servants' views on staffing, stress and job satisfaction revealed in new survey
More than four out of five public servants said staffing levels/work volumes was a problem. File photo. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Public servants say poor staffing is their biggest barrier to performance, and just 44 percent are confident their colleagues were hired based on merit. The Public Service Census is a voluntary survey carried out by the Public Service Commission this year, following on from the first such survey in 2021. Public Service Minister Judith Collins in May brushed off criticism raised by the Greens over her involvement, which included suggesting questions and wording to the commissioner. The approach taken in the 2025 edition had a much stronger focus on productivity, and removed questions around identity. The results showed 44,737 out of more than 65,000 public servants took part from 40 agencies - a participation rate of 68.5 percent, up from the 63.1 percent in 2021. Commissioner Sir Brian Roche said he was overall encouraged by the results, saying it indicated the public service was performing well - pointing to the more than 90 percent who believed their team was at least moderately successful achieving objectives in the last 12 months. He expected chief executives would make changes in areas where organisations needed to improve, highlighting some of those areas for improvement in a written statement: He said the Commission planned to run the survey again in 2027. More than four out of five public servants said staffing levels/work volumes was a problem, making it the top-rated concern. Some 49 percent said it affected them to a great or very great extent, a further 33 percent said it had somewhat of an effect, with just the remaining 19 percent saying it was very little or not at all a factor. The second-biggest barrier was complicated or unnecessary business processes (37 percent great or very great, 36 percent somewhat, 27 percent very little or not at all), followed by inefficient decision-making - including slow timelines or micromanaging (34 percent, 41 percent). Too many meetings was rated the least problematic, with 52 percent saying it was very little barrier or not at all, placing it behind siloed communication between teams, lack of access to the right tools, agency appetite for risk and innovation, colleagues not having the right skills or motivation, and physical environment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, public servants were generally positive about their work - with high proportions (87 percent) believing they contributed to better outcomes and providing value to taxpayers (80 percent), the vast majority (90 percent) saying they cared how their agency's use of taxpayer funding, and that their manager cared about delivering good value (79 percent). A majority of respondents felt they had more than enough work to do - 23 percent saying they were well above capacity, and 42 percent slightly above capacity, with only 5 percent saying they were available for more work. The vast majority experienced work stress, with 10 percent saying they were always stressed, 34 percent often stressed, and 42 percent sometimes, compared to 11 percent hardly ever and 2 percent never stressed. And while about a third (34 percent) were satisfied or very satisfied with their pay, about half did not or strongly did not think their pay adequately reflected their performance. Nearly all (96 percent) said it was important to them that their work contribute to the common good, with most (78 percent) reporting a sense of accomplishment, and enthusiasm about their job (72 percent), though fewer reported being satisfied in their job (62 percent, down from 69 percent in 2021). Fewer public servants (54 percent) said they had no immediate plans to leave their job compared to 2021 (59 percent), although the 2025 survey did introduce one extra option (want to do a secondment or temporary move in the next 12 months, 9 percent), potentially spreading the results more thinly. The two agencies bucking that trend - with fewer staff planning to leave than in the past - were the Treasury and the National Emergency Management Agency. The top reasons for people to consider leaving their job were a perceived lack of career progression (42.4 percent), followed by pay (39.4 percent), boring work (32.7 percent), poor management (27.8 percent), lack of training/development (26.3 percent), high workload (21.1 percent). Only 71 percent expressed confidence that their organisation was free and frank in our advice to ministers, meaning nearly a third (29 percent) did not have confidence in their ministry to be open and honest with their minister. The organisations scoring the lowest on this metric were the Ministry for Women (54 percent), Ministry of Transport (56 percent), Ministry of Māori Development (59 percent), Oranga Tamariki (60 percent), the Ministry for the Environment (62 percent), Ministry of Education (62 percent), Ministry of Disabled People (63 percent), the Social Investment Agency (66 percent) and the Education Review Office (66 percent). More than 12 percent experienced bullying or harassment in the past year - most of that (9.2 percent) being bullying, 1.6 percent reporting hostility or ridicule because of race, colour, ethnicity or national origin, and 0.8 percent saying they were sexually harassed. Most of the time the offender was a current or former manager, though nearly as many were underlings or colleagues. People with non-binary or multiple genders were more likely to say they faced sexual harassment (1.4 percent) than women (1.1 percent) or men (0.4 percent). Questions about bullying frequency showed that of those who were bullied, 48 percent faced it just a few times over the last year, 15 percent said monthly, 17 percent weekly, and 8 percent daily. Some 40 percent of managers said they did not have the support needed to manage or improve the performance of staff who were not meeting expectations, with leaders at all levels saying managing staff performance was a challenge. And 44 percent said they were confident that in my organisation people get jobs based on merit. Two thirds of employees felt their manager provided them with helpful feedback. About 79 percent said their team had clear objectives, and 84 percent said the team collaborated well, and only 9 percent felt their team was only slightly, or not at all successful in meeting objectives. The proportion who felt they understood their organisation's responsibilities under the Treaty or Te Tiriti was up, at 77 percent compared to 2021's 69 percent, as was the proportion who felt comfortable supporting tikanga in their agency (72 percent, up from 69 percent in 2021). Nearly three quarters (73 percent) said they valued their knowledge of te reo Māori or wished to grow it. The survey showed most (88 percent) were confident in their ability to learn new digital skills, but less than half (42 percent) agreed their organisation took enough advantage of technology. About a third had used AI for work, with 14 percent saying they used it regularly. The 2025 survey included several questions about flexible working, but the commission said those results would be published alongside separate working from home data which was still being collected. This would be released in late August or early September. It avoids confusion if these two sets of data are published together, a spokesperson said. The survey showed a decrease in the number of public servants who identified as rainbow, but the commission said this may reflect a change in the measurement approach. It remains considerably higher than seen in New Zealand's LGBTIQ+ population overall, at 4.9 percent of usually resident adults, according to a Stats NZ 2023 report. It also showed rainbow-identifying public servants were underrepresented at all levels of management, but age was likely to be a factor with rainbow public servants being considerably younger on average than their non-Rainbow colleagues. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
How Are Designated Terrorist Entities Selected In New Zealand? Here's What You Need To Know
Explainer - Who are the terrorist groups listed under New Zealand law, and who decides who names them? With news last week that the American far-right group the Proud Boys had been removed from the terrorist entity list, there are questions about exactly how such a designation works. Here's what you need to know about how terrorist entities are designated in New Zealand. What is a designated terrorist entity and how are they decided upon? A designated terrorist entity decision is made by the government against groups or individuals known for violent actions. Once an entity is on the list, it greatly restricts their financial activities, participation and efforts to recruit new members. John Battersby is a specialist on terrorism and counter-terrorism and a teaching fellow in the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University. Entities can end up on the list "broadly speaking, if an individual or group is active in perpetrating terrorist acts, and are internationally recognised as doing so," he said. This includes groups designated by the United Nations, "as well as any which the NZ prime minister (acting on advice) has 'good cause to suspect' have participated in committing a terrorist act". Who is on the list? There are basically two kinds of terrorist entities - ones that are listed by the United Nations which New Zealand is obliged to include, and ones that New Zealand has designated on its own. New Zealand has international counterterrorism obligations under a number of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions. These came after the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed, following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. That act established a legal framework for the suppression of terrorism. Those on the UN list also on New Zealand's list include the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Da'esh), Al-Qaida, the Taliban and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities. The second set of entities designated in New Zealand are associated with UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which obliges us to outlaw the financing of, participation in and recruitment to terrorist entities. The UN's resolution leaves it to member states to identify the entities against which they should act. The New Zealand-designated group includes groups such as the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Real Irish Republican Army and The Shining Path. The only individual listed is the convicted Christchurch mosque shooter. "Designating the offender is an important demonstration of New Zealand's condemnation of terrorism and violent extremism in all forms," former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in making that call in 2020. What happens if you're on the list? Once a group is on the list, it means it freezes their assets in New Zealand and it's illegal to deal with the entity's property or provide such an entity with property, financial or related services. It is also an offence to knowingly recruit for a group on the list, or participate in a group for the purpose of enhancing its ability to carry out a terrorist act, knowing, or being reckless as to whether the group is a designated entity. Action can be taken against designated entities' property, and Customs can seize and detain goods or cash they have "good cause" to suspect are tied to designated entities. However, "simple membership of a designated entity is not an offence," police say. Who makes the call who is on the list? Ultimately, the prime minister has the power. "The Prime Minister may designate an entity as a terrorist entity under this section if the Prime Minister believes on reasonable grounds that the entity has knowingly carried out, or has knowingly participated in the carrying out of, one or more terrorist acts," the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 says. However, there's a lot of support and intelligence given before making that call. A Terrorist Designation Working Group chaired by New Zealand Police does the work of considering entities. It includes officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the National Assessments Bureau, the New Zealand Defence Force, Crown Law, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. The working group then refers their information to the National Security Board, who make a determination whether or not to proceed with forwarding a recommendation to the prime minister. The prime minister also has to consult the Attorney-General before making the designation. Letters of recommendation are then given to the Commissioner of Police to be acted upon. "No specific factors are identified for the Prime Minister's consideration when exercising his discretion," police say. For example, in November Prime Minister Christopher Luxon designated the armed and political group Hezbollah a terrorist entity. "For any organisation [to be designated] ... we have to have evidence and we go through a number of tests under our legislation, that that organisation has knowingly undertaken terrorist activity," Luxon said then. "It's a standard process." How do you get off of the list? Any entity on the list or a third party can also apply to the prime minister to make a case to get the designation revoked. Of course, whether or not that happens is up to the government to decide. The designations on the list are made for a period of three years, and can simply expire if not renewed. Judicial reviews of the decisions are also possible, police say. So how did the Proud Boys get removed? The government's New Zealand Gazette notification on the Proud Boys delisting is extremely brief - it simply says their designation expired on 19 June, and any person who deals with the property of the group cannot be prosecuted under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Ardern designated the Proud Boys and another known white supremacist group, The Base, in June 2022. The Base designation was renewed in June and remains on the terrorist entity list, but the Proud Boys no longer do. Byron Clark, a researcher into right-wing extremist groups, pointed out that US President Donald Trump pardoned the group's leader Enrique Tarrio earlier this year along with many others involved in the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot. "They operate as an unofficial, but tacitly acknowledged, militant wing of Trump's Make America Great Again movement, and I think that makes it politically more difficult to designate them terrorists now that that movement holds power in the United States." Battersby agreed the changing political situation in the US may have played part in the expiration. "If 'the good cause to suspect' case against the Proud Boys and The Base was founded on convictions following the 2021 US Capitol Hill riot, the presidential pardons - from a legal perspective - could remove those grounds." The prime minister's office told Stuff journalist Paula Penfold, who has extensively investigated the Proud Boys, that the group "remain on the radar ... and if any new information comes to hand, they will consider it." In the past, a separate terror watch list of individuals the New Zealand Security and Intelligence Service was kept. That list had been reported to be around 30 to 40 individuals. In a statement to RNZ, NZSIS said it "does not discuss specific numbers of individuals who may be at risk of undertaking a violent extemist attack" and that it no longer keeps what could be called a "watchlist." "The concept of a 'watchlist' does not reflect how NZSIS assesses information about individuals, or how they are triaged and managed for follow up actions if required." NZSIS said attacks are still seen as likely to happen "with little or no warning". "The NZSIS continues to assess that another terrorist event in New Zealand remains a realistic possibility, with the most likely threat actor being an individual who has been self-radicalised, uses readily available weapons and seeks to avoid detection." "Most people on watchlists turn out to be incapable or unwilling to do any real damage," Battersby said, but noted "it's excellent that police and the NZSIS pay attention to suspect individuals, this is valuable and necessary work." Are these methods going far enough? Will they keep us safe? "New Zealand isn't safe - we have never been safe," Battersby said. "We have been fortunate in that we are politically insignificant globally - so no international terrorist group will waste any time here, and that anyone in New Zealand who has actually wanted to undertake acts of political violence has been mostly isolated and alone, largely unsuccessful inspiring any successive action." "Watchlists are one tool - they will catch the careless, lazy and unlucky; it is much more difficult to intercept a security conscious, careful planner (or group) which keep their heads down, or who play along legally (as the mosque shooter did) looking to exploit vulnerabilities which frankly exist everywhere." Battersby noted that both the Christchurch mosque shooter and Ahamed Samsudeen, who attacked shoppers at Auckland's LynnMall in 2021, were lone actors. "These people represent singular acts, so designation - in my opinion, is a largely unproductive exercise." Samsudeen had been under scrutiny for some time yet was still able to pull off his attack, while the mosque shooter "demonstrated what is possible when the risk is not identified," he said. "I think government terrorist group lists have some significant limitations," Clark said. "The Christchurch terrorist communicated extensively with far-right groups around the world, and even supported some financially, but wasn't formally a member of any, and the LynnMall terrorist was Isis-inspired but not actually a member of the organisation." Clark said it is still important that groups of concern in New Zealand continue to be monitored. "I do think there needs to be more scrutiny on far-right and Christian nationalist groups, the recent demonstrations by Destiny Church members targeting numerous minority groups demonstrate the threat they pose to social cohesion." Clark said that last year's defunding of research into violent extremism research being done at the He Whenua Taurikura research centre in Wellington was also troubling. "The defunding of He Whenua Taurikura means we've lost the other side of counter terrorism, which is researching these groups and their beliefs in order to have a more informed public, and greater awareness of where potential threats could come from. Less of that work is being done now, and I don't think adding more groups to terrorist designation lists could make up for that loss." Still, New Zealand remains less vulnerable to terrorism than many places, Battersby said. "It is important to keep all of this in perspective, however - terrorists or violent extremists pose a risk, but a very small one in statistical terms when you consider something like our road toll. The most dangerous thing you will do today is drive to work, and drive home again - you are vastly more likely to be killed doing that, than you ever will be by a terrorist in New Zealand."
