logo
How Are Designated Terrorist Entities Selected In New Zealand? Here's What You Need To Know

How Are Designated Terrorist Entities Selected In New Zealand? Here's What You Need To Know

Scoop20 hours ago
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."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Buy now, and get a free set of knives in the back
Buy now, and get a free set of knives in the back

Newsroom

time34 minutes ago

  • Newsroom

Buy now, and get a free set of knives in the back

Analysis: All for only 25 percent, plus shipping and handling. Buy now, and get a free knifing in the back. The stream of leader-to-leader tariff letters being posted on US President Donald Trump's social media feed as I write (14 and counting) are rather reminiscent of those late-night TV infomercials of yesteryear. But Trump isn't selling miracle balance thigh and ab trainers made in China. He's selling 'more balanced, and fair, TRADE' – and the US as a manufacturing location. 'We will charge Kazakhstan a Tariff of only 25% on any and all Kazakh products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs!', 'We will charge Thailand a tariff of only 36%', 'We will charge Laos a Tariff of only 40%'. These are form letters, with only the names and percentages changed. They all rely on the fictional and inimical trade deficits first concocted on 'Liberation Day', in April. 'This Deficit is a major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!' Trump concludes, on each. 'Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Some of the tariffs are slightly increased on April's announcement; most are slightly reduced. The pause on implementation, for all of them, has been extended from July 9 to August 1. Trump has also threatened new tariffs on any nation supporting the 'anti-American' policies of the Brics group of emerging economies – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and others. New Zealand isn't directly affected; the tariff for this country is the White House's baseline 10% applied to countries that haven't specifically piqued Trump. That's painful to our exporters (and to US consumers) but is not expected to rise. Yet. Winston Peters' office says they and officials are monitoring the announcements closely. Immediate challenges for New Zealand include: 1) The impact on our trading partners. China and the US have cooled their initial tit-for-tat trade war, but nonetheless, most East Asian nations are being hit with the new tariffs. The trade war is expected to lead to slowing growth in the US and Asia, in particular. That means eight of New Zealand's 10 biggest export destinations are directly affected; only Singapore, Australia and perhaps the UK remain in the 10 percent 'other nations' category like New Zealand. The slowing of those economies will constrain their ability to pay the prices Kiwi exporters might hope for. I spoke with Felicity Roxburgh, the new executive director of the NZ International Business Forum. She was watching the announcements roll through yesterday morning. 'This kind of unilateral action threatens the rules-based trading system that small, export-dependent economies like New Zealand rely on,' she told me. 'They create uncertainty which negatively impacts New Zealand.' 2) Trump has made it clear he doesn't like national drug-buying schemes like those in Australia and New Zealand. Last month he promised that US trade duties on pharmaceutical products (exempted from the initial round of tariffs) were coming 'very soon'. As with other goods, he wants companies to manufacture their drugs in America. And he wants consumers and governments to pay the premium prices that the big US pharma companies believe are justified by the research and marketing they've put into their medicines. This is a problem for drug-buying agencies such as Pharmac, trying to get the best prices they can within inevitably constrained budgets, to make as many good and important medicines as possible available to New Zealanders, whether or not they can afford full-cover health insurance packages. And it's a problem for New Zealand; there's a degree of political consensus over the principles behind our drug-purchasing model, a delicate balance that will be upset if Trump tilts the scales. 3) The big question is how does the New Zealand Government react? Despite Peters' claim on Liberation Day to have won New Zealand the lowest tariffs in the world, the most we can really claim is to not have aggravated Trump into imposing higher tariffs. To that extent, a tactic of keeping our head below the parapets remains attractive – certainly, seeking direct negotiations with the White House would be dangerous. It's at such a point that Trump's advisers might alert him to the existence of Pharmac, or GST, or New Zealand's attempts to work within the OECD on a digital services taxation agreement. But at some point, New Zealand has to stand alongside its partners in the Asia-Pacific, who face great harm from these tariffs. It's low-wage workers in Asean countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia who have really been targeted by this morning's announcements. New Zealand has been one of the world's strongest champions of free or low-tariff trade within an international rules-based framework. Frameworks like the World Trade Organisation or more recently, the CPTPP, protect New Zealanders and protect those even less able to stand up to the might of the bickering superpowers. New Zealand must walk the fine line of protecting its own export interests, while not selling out the principles on which it has stood so strong, for so long.

What is Rocket Lab launching into space and why are people angry about it?
What is Rocket Lab launching into space and why are people angry about it?

The Spinoff

time3 hours ago

  • The Spinoff

What is Rocket Lab launching into space and why are people angry about it?

On Friday, picket signs bearing Palestine flags and banners about genocide gathered around three Rocket Lab locations in New Zealand. Why? Rocket Lab, founded in 2006 by Sir Peter Beck, is often lauded in New Zealand for catalysing our space industry. Today it still leads the sector, one with a quickly growing revenue – it was $2.68b in 2024. It's not just glowey-eyed nationalism that paints Rocket Lab favourably. Outside of New Zealand, it's seen as an ' innovative, exciting young space tech company,' and in the first quarter of 2025, Rocket Lab recorded $123 million in revenue, 32% up year-on-year. Rocket Lab is now an American corporation with headquarters in California. It offers launches from Māhia Peninsula and Virginia USA as well as aerospace manufacturing and design. While in 2008 Beck stated, ' if it's involved in the military we don't want anything to do with it,' the company won contracts from at least three US defence agencies in 2009, and seemingly never looked back. In May, Rocket Lab announced a $460 million deal with a US missile tracking tech company, positioning itself as a major contractor to US national security. In the US, Rocket Lab's rockets are the second most launched (after SpaceX). Here in New Zealand, concerns have been raised, and largely ignored by politicians, that Rocket Lab's ability to replace satellites makes the country a military target. Over the years, groups like Auckland Peace Action and Rocket Lab Monitor have accused Rocket Lab of being part of the militarisation of space and breaching New Zealand's Nuclear Free status. Many of the complaints have centered around its US military contracts. These groups have pointed out that Lockheed Martin, the world's largest weapons manufacturer, has invested in Rocket Lab and that the aerospace intelligence and communications technology that Rocket Lab develops, manufactures and launches could be used in weapon systems and other military operations. The most recent protests, from Friday, were led by Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). Beyond the pickets, the group, along with a lawyer, have referred Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck, minister for space and for defence Judith Collins and others to the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Why? Because PSNA believes that Rocket Lab activities may have intentionally contributed to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Israel. In a statement provided to The Spinoff, a Rocket Lab spokesperson said the company 'strongly refutes PSNA's false and irresponsible claims' and that it is considering its legal options. They followed with a bullet-pointed summary of New Zealand's legal requirements for launching rockets. So what does Rocket Lab launch into space from Māhia? Rocket Lab's website says that its launches, numbering over 200 since 2018, have enabled ' operations in national security, scientific research, space debris mitigation, Earth observation, climate monitoring, and communications '. In the past the company has said it does not and will not launch weapons as this is against its commitment and New Zealand law. New Zealand's space activities are regulated by the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act 2017. Apart from safety considerations, the act takes into account New Zealand's international obligations and national interests like economic benefits, risks to national security and international relations. Anything launched into space must have a license granted by discretion of the government on a case-by-case basis. Cabinet has outlined some payloads not to be permitted – payloads that contribute to nuclear weapons programmes or capabilities; payloads with the intended end use of harming, interfering with, or destroying other spacecraft, or space systems; payloads with the intended end use of supporting or enabling specific defence, security or intelligence operations that are contrary to government policy; payloads where the intended end use is likely to cause serious or irreversible harm to the environment. Rocket Lab's website includes a log of launched missions. Among the clients listed are Hawkeye360, BlackSky, Capella Space, NASA, the US National Reconnaissance Office, the United States Space Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and RideShare. A few are labelled 'confidential commercial customer' or simply 'undisclosed'. Some media coverage states that Hawkeye360, BlackSky, Capella Space, all space-based intelligence firms, have links to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, though unsurprisingly it's hard to track down evidence and details. In its ICC referral, PSNA has taken issue with Rocket Lab's BlackSky launches in particular, claiming that ' these satellites provide high resolution images to Israel which are very likely used to assist with striking civilians in Gaza '. BlackSky has a network of satellites and sensors that capture high-frequency imagery of Earth. They monitor places and activities for clients, providing high-resolution photographs and AI-enabled analytics every hour under subscription models. This year, Rocket Lab is launching a series of BlackSky's Gen-3 satellites from Māhia Peninsula which are faster, can automatically identify smaller objects and can capture imagery through clouds, smoke or haze. In 2024, Intelligence Online, an intelligence trade publication, reported that 'BlackSky has a secret $150m contract to supply high temporal frequency images and analysis to the Israeli defence ministry'. This claim has not been reported elsewhere, but BlackSky has recently announced a new, $100+ million contract from a 'strategic international defense sector customer' for its Gen-3 monitoring capabilities. When Rocket Lab was asked by Newsroom in November last year whether payloads it had launched had been used to inform Israeli air strikes, a spokesperson pointed to other uses of commercial satellite imagery and data like disaster and humanitarian response, emergency management, national security, commerce, and environmental monitoring. A recent mission launched satellites for wildfire detection and monitoring. What don't we know? There is much we don't know and may never know about what Rocket Lab and its clients do. Some payloads have been kept confidential, yet all launches from New Zealand have to disclose information to the government in order to get the needed licenses. It's not cut and dry when the government might have obligations to release that information – under the Official Information Act information can be withheld on grounds of commercial or national security. The Spinoff contacted the office of Judith Collins for comment on Rocket Lab and the ICC referral. We were referred to the office of the prime minister who provided the following comment from a spokesperson: 'People are free to express their views but New Zealand has consistently made clear the situation in Gaza is deeply distressing, and the crisis must end. Our response to the Israel-Hamas conflict has been consistently grounded in the importance of upholding international law.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store