The second counterterrorism hui was held this week amid a swirl of new publications and initiatives stemming from the March 15 inquiry. What do they all amount to, and how are they being received by affected communities?

The 16th of 44 recommendations issued by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 2019 terrorist attacks on Christchurch Mosques called for the establishment of “an annual hui, to bring together relevant central and local government agencies, communities, civil society, the private sector and researchers to create opportunities to build relationships and share understanding of countering violent extremism and terrorism.”

The first of these gatherings, He Whenua Taurikura Hui, was convened in June 2021 in Christchurch. Following criticisms about some elements of the event, the 2022 hui was designed with a focus on the work being undertaken to prevent violent extremism and terrorism.

Hosted by the newly formed He Whenua Taurikura research centre (itself established following a Royal Commission recommendation) and organised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, it took place in Auckland amid a welter of new publications and initiatives. What follows is a whistlestop tour of some of that work, the trends identified, and voices aired this week in the main hall, around the venue and beyond the hui. 

‘A smorgasbord of extremist views’

Since April 2019, the official terrorism threat level in New Zealand has been set at “medium” – denoting “a terrorist attack is feasible and could well occur”. Addressing the hui on Monday morning, Rebecca Kitteridge, director general at Security Intelligence Service, said: “It should be uncomfortable to us that the level has been this high for so long.”

She went on to explain that, until “the last six months or so”, the SIS counterterrorism investigations were “split fairly equally between identity motivated violent extremists, particularly white identity, and faith motivated violent extremists. But more recently there has been a “sudden rise in anti-authority violent extremism”.

That follows a report by the Combined Threat Assessment Group late last year that warned of a “small, but increasingly vocal, number of New Zealand-based politically motivated violent extremist individuals who have expressed violent rhetoric in relation to the Covid-19 mitigation programmes”. The report, issued three months before violence spilled out on the lawns of parliament, said: “the rhetoric highly likely normalises and encourages violence as a legitimate response to perceived transgressions by the government.”

Kitteridge said that the SIS caseload was now “split fairly evenly between these three ideologies”. The boundaries were now blurrier, with extremists exploring a range of ideologies online – “they essentially cherry-pick from a smorgasbord of extremist views that may resonate for them”. It was a constant challenge, she said, to “determine who has actual intent and capability among the morass of hateful content online”, and to distinguish “those who only spew violent rhetoric, however objectionable, from those who might actually cause violent harm in the real world – our focus needs to be on the latter”.

The agency’s assessment was that the present terror threat does not exist in a directly planned attack by a group meeting in person. “An attack is much more likely to be carried out by a local person, recruited or inspired online and using easily obtainable weapons, like a car, a knife or a gun, without warning”.

Zooming out, Jacinda Ardern identified four “key global trends that impact our national security” in her speech to the hui the following morning. First, an increasing competition between countries, coupled with “the deterioration of the rules-based order”, most visibly evidenced in the tensions stemming from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Second, technology changes which enable the spread of “extreme views and disinformation”. Third was climate change, “and its role in more severe weather events”. And fourth: “The ongoing economic, social and political effect of Covid-19 and any future pandemics.”

‘We need to talk about national security’

“Let’s talk about our national security”, reads the first half of the title to a document published on Tuesday morning to time with the hui. The “National Security Long-term Insights Briefing” (the remainder of the title) draws in large part on a survey of national security perceptions among the general public. 

The resulting draft, which is now out for public consultation, is notable as much for its approach (“let’s talk about …”) as for its contents. A section headed “We need to talk about national security” explains: “Events in recent years, such war in Europe, a global pandemic, malicious actors targeting New Zealand, and a shifting world order, leaves us increasingly concerned about our national security. We know New Zealanders are concerned too and want to know more, and some want to be more involved in how we respond – they believe we should act quickly given our own experiences and the changing threats on a global scale.”

The survey found 58% wanted to learn more about the threats facing the country. Just one in five thought security agencies shared enough information. 

The case for “transparent and accessible public information”, as laid out in the briefing, is this: “Sharing information and making it easy for people to access and read it will build the public’s knowledge of our national security risks, what we are doing about them and how they can help to reduce and respond to them. This in turn will help to correct information imbalance and support people’s participation.”

Ardern echoed that point in her address. “One very clear message we’ve heard is that people want us to talk and share more about national security,” she said. “That knowing more about the threats we face actually makes people feel more confident in our ability to respond to them.”

‘Secrecy is hurting us’

The stated ambition to pursue more openness and transparency was laudable, said Aliya Danzeisen, national coordinator at the Islamic Women’s Council, but agencies and their officials had some way to go. “They’re still not comfortable being fully front-facing about what they’re doing,” she told The Spinoff on the second day of the hui. “What we need as a community is to understand how safe we are, and what are the issues we face?” 

The information provided was disappointingly generalised and abstract, she said. There had been no details, for example, on whether pledges to diversify the workforce had been implemented, or whether deradicalisation programmes had been effective. “They haven’t presented statistics sufficient for us to know that work has been done,” she said. While strategies were being described and promoted at the hui, “they’re not actually informing the public why those strategies are appropriate … The secrecy is what is hurting us as a nation.”

As for listening to concerns from the community, “some agencies are doing better than others”, said Danzeisen. “There is evidence that police are trying to listen … but there are other agencies where we just don’t know what they do. We know what they’re supposed to do, but what have they accomplished in that space?” She pointed to the GCSB and Corrections as examples where detail was lacking. 

The point was echoed by Abdur Razzaq Khan, chairperson of the Federation of Islamic Associations NZ. “We needed more in terms of not just what the government is doing, but what is coming up, and what is missing,” he told The Spinoff. “A lot has been achieved, but some of the fundamental areas are still not being talked about.”

At next year’s counterterrorism hui, Danzeisen would like to see the security establishment more visibly “facing the nation and saying: this is what we’re doing, here’s our project this year, how have we done? And let the communities give an assessment.” The 2022 event had “been too controlled, even though well-meaning,” she said, with agencies struggling to fully move out of the shadows. “When you’ve operated in the dark for so long, that’s the hard part.” 

Disinformation, distrust and division

The insights briefing traversed a range of threats, from hacking, transnational organised crime and foreign interference and espionage to terrorism and challenges of resilience in the Pacific. But most attention was paid to the threats of misinformation and disinformation – the latter denoting false information created and/or shared with malign intent. 

Misinformation topped the list of perceived national security threats in the public survey, with 84% believing it to be a “real threat” in the next 12 months. “We are particularly concerned about the challenge of disinformation as we see this exacerbating a number of national security issues,” said Ardern in her speech. “Disinformation takes different forms and creates a range of harms, for example by promoting extreme beliefs; fuelling disagreement and division in society; and, spreading harmful narratives which threaten minority groups. Ultimately, the spread of disinformation can lead to radicalisation and violence when people chose to act upon these beliefs.”

Analysis by Microsoft, said Ardern, identified in New Zealand a “spike in exposure to Russian disinformation or propaganda online after December 2021, much of this related to Covid-19” .

She said: “It is impacting liberal democracies worldwide, eroding trust in institutions, and our ability to respond to it as a society is being tested.” It was made trickier by the ill-defined nature of the problem – as well as the risk that a state response could be seized on by disinformation propagators to their own ends.

The insights briefing painted a sometimes dystopian picture of what might be expected in the coming 10 to 15 years, as the spread and sophistication of disinformation grow. “Other countries may purposely seek to encourage tension, distrust and divide New Zealanders,” wrote the authors of the multi-agency report. “This will pose an ongoing threat to our democracy and national security.” Advances in technology, meanwhile, were “likely to increase the problems caused by disinformation, including the emergence of synthetic media such as ‘deepfakes’ as well as machine learning and artificial intelligence.”

Te Tiriti o Waitangi

The consensus among those spoken to at the hui by The Spinoff was that the event got off on the right foot on the Monday morning, with the first session focused on a te tiriti perspective. 

Activist and scholar Tina Ngata (Ngāti Porou) challenged those who might see “white identity extremism as an isolated blight on an otherwise kind, just and progressive nation.” She continued: “For those of us who dedicate our lives to standing up to colonialism, and dedicate our lives to defending and promoting te tiriti and indigenous and human rights, it is simply the extension of a history of colonial violence, the natural, ultimate endgame of having our lives consistently devalued.”

She said: “For all the times that I hear people say te tiriti – particularly government agencies – if there’s one word that seems anathema to their tongue, it’s the word colonialism … We so often hear that addressing colonialism must sit to the side while we address every other dimension of a matter, and that perhaps if we give it a Māori name, offer a whakataukī, appoint a Māori adviser and say a karakia at the beginning, that we solve the problem. But the forces that brought us here today are no less than pure, distilled, concentrated colonial entitlement. Colonial violence is not an accessory to this conversation. It is the conversation.”

Rawiri Taonui, an independent researcher and New Zealand’s first professor of indigenous studies, noted that despite “bold statements about te tiriti” in the text of the Royal Commission report on social cohesion, when it came to the recommendations “essentially there was nothing”.

Tiriti-based consultation on the part of the crown, he said, too often took the form of a bolt-on or afterthought, rather than integral: “We want a real, equitable, reciprocal, mutually beneficial partnership that results in tangible, measurable benefits for our people.”

He concluded by saying: “In terms of social cohesion to prevent extremism, we’re emphasising the importance of everyone in the country seeing their place in te tiriti. No one higher, no one lower, everyone part of it. We’re all tangata tiriti … we all belong here.”

“The best thing about this hui is we had, for the first time, the tangata whenua giving their version of what [the response] should be,” said Abdur Razzaq. “Their statement that maybe it’s time for faith-based communities to get together with tangata whenua, because we have so much in common, that’s very important.”

How to detect a terrorist in the making

The SIS last week released a guide to “identifying signs of violent extremism”. Called Kia mataara ki ngā tohu – Know the signs, the booklet includes almost 50 “indicators” – ranging from mindset and ideology to relationships and patterns of research – that draw on the “behavioural science that someone might be escalating to violence in the real world”, said Kitteridge at the hui. “These are the signs that family members, friends, co-workers or schools might discern.”

Agencies “do not carry out mass surveillance”, said Kitteridge, and lean heavily on information from the public. “Even quite minor information may help NZSIS intelligence professionals to join vital dots that may be the crucial lead that ends up saving lives.”

The “identifying signs” guide was welcome, said Abdur Razzaq, but there was a “mismatch of timing” in meeting that recommendation from the Royal Commission – the 15th – without first implementing the 14th, on which it relies: properly establishing a means to process public reports. “The indicators have been developed and are out in the public, but the capture mechanism hasn’t been set up yet. I talked to the police yesterday. They’re not ready. I asked them: have you got the resources to look at 500 [leads] a week, and follow them up? What’s going to happen? Somebody will mention something, and it’s not followed up, and then you have an inquiry into why it wasn’t followed up. We know it.” 

‘We want certainty on hate speech’

After former justice minister Kris Faafoi tripped on his shoelaces over the shape and scope of putative new hate speech laws, the plan – again, as recommended by the Royal Commission – appeared to have been kicked into the long grass.

Just hours before the hui began on Sunday, however, his successor, Kiri Allan, confirmed earlier indications that she would be pursuing changes, telling Q+A an announcement would be made before year is out, with a view to pass legislation before the election. Ardern subsequently indicated she was hopeful of receiving support from across parliament, hinting at a more defined focus on bringing faith-based incitement into the Crimes Act. “There should be good support for saying we should not experience hate speech and incitement based on your religion,” she said on Monday.

The move to make legislative changes are backed by Amnesty International NZ, but questioned by National and opposed by Act and the Free Speech Union. 

The announcement was encouraging, said Abdur Razzaq, with confidence in the Muslim community “deflated” by a lack of action. It is “pivotal that faith based communities are covered,” he said. “We want certainty about when it will happen.”

A national security strategy

The projects and discussions at and around the hui will all feed into – it is hoped – a single national security strategy, a document which should, Ardern told the Auckland event, “embed this work for years to come”. 

The lack of such a motherlode, said Abdur Razzaq, remained extraordinary: “Imagine a country not having a national security policy!” Filling that gap, as recommended by the Royal Commission, was critical to properly coordinating agencies with security roles, which “still haven’t gelled”, he said. 

The strategy, for which submissions have now closed, “will outline our national security interests, identify current and future security challenges and describe priority areas for system reform and investment”, according to the government blurb. Among its stated ambitions:

• Ensure New Zealand can make appropriate national security choices for the nation 
• Reflect a commitment to te Tiriti o Waitangi and recognise the role of Māori in national security 
• Recognise the importance of the Pacific and the deep interconnections between New Zealand and the region. 

It was critical that the strategy, expected to emerge towards the middle of next year, dispense with “the old bogey” of focus on faith-based terrorist groups abroad, said Abdur Razzaq. That mindset persisted in parts of the counterterrorism strategy published last year, he said, in the form of repeated references to the Islamic State group. “The whole narrative has to change,” he said. “We were the victims. The narrative that was brought in by the five eyes doesn’t apply here. That narrative message has to go through to all agencies. It still hasn’t. Hopefully that will change. We don’t want to bring the baggage from overseas.”

He added: “The Royal Commission said it was very important that communities should have a say in national security priorities. The community must have a say. We still do not. Yes, an amazing amount of engagement has been done. But what we’re talking about is prioritisation. We need to have more engagement on that. And that engagement has to be transparent. They can’t pick and choose who they talk to.”

Of the wider challenge, he put it this way: “We know they’re hearing, but are they really listening?”