It’s Scomo versus Shorten as Australians go the polls today, ending an all-pervading campaign. New Zealander Paul Davies has been watching it from his sofa

Billboards have been defaced, eggs thrown and vile old Facebook posts dug up. It’s difficult to ignore the plethora of election coverage that has bombarded us over recent weeks – even if you ignore the traditional media of TV, radio and print. Election campaigning pervades every bit of your online life, hounding you to try and convince you how to part with your hard earned ballot. Except for me, there’s a complication: I can’t vote.

Despite being a settled, taxpaying resident of Australia, married to an Australian citizen with an Australian citizen son, I’m not today afforded that most basic of democratic rights, the ability to determine the government that makes decisions on our behalf. Or perhaps that’s just it, they don’t make decisions for you, or many of the hard working people that live and contribute the very fabric of Australia – they only do that, for Australian citizens. For a country that loves to talk about getting a “fair go”, it all seems pretty unfair.

Of course the discriminatory approach to voting doesn’t stop political parties from using a non-discriminatory approach to campaigning. A video of the local Green candidate pops up in my Instagram feed, the Labour candidate is wrapped around the local bus stop, election ads follow my every move online – it’s like being invited to a barbie but not being allowed to eat. Even after you’ve paid into the communal account and brought snacks.

Nowhere is sacrosanct, not even your Facebook settings where you’re met with a profile picture filter asking you to “Stand with Scott”. Not bloody likely mate – even if I could. For those that don’t know, Scott’s the prime minister: Scott “Daggy Dad” Morrison. He might not know much about respecting people’s personal space, but he does know politics. He got the top job by being in the right place at the wrongest of times – standing next to Malcolm Turnball as the axe fell into the back of the elected prime minister. Being the leader of Australia’s right wing Liberal Party, Scott is a fan of coal who doesn’t know much about the environment, but he does know the opposition. He knows that Labour leader Bill Shorten is out to end the weekend and he also knows that the big threat to Australian national security is the Greens. That’s right, those tree hugging, bike riding, climate change believers, THEY are the real problem.

And while the prime minister is stirring up rumours about the left, he’s laying groundwork for future deals with the right. Morrison is getting cosy with Clive Palmer, a billionaire who’s bought himself a political party called United Australia. Palmer, a right wing populist, has spent AUD $55 million on brilliant slogans such as “Make Australia Great”. He’s basically a shorter, wider, Australian Donald Trump without the TV experience. Even the deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack from coalition partner The Nationals is courting the far right of Australian politics. He’s publicly courting Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. Pauline, who stated that Australia is being “swamped by Muslims” and then wore a burkha into parliament, has been busted trying to cut deals with the NRA. Senator Fraser Anning, the bloke that blamed the Christchurch terror attack on muslims and wore an egg for it, is a former member of One Nation who referenced Hitler when he called for a “final solution” to immigration. These politicians are a hair’s breadth away from the angry white men that hit the streets to throw Nazi salutes – an environment that legitimises hate and breeds extremist behaviour. Just last month a man who’d expressed anti-muslim views on social media was found making explosives in his Adelaide backyard.

The government isn’t innocent in its appeal to Australian “patriotism” either. Last year National and Liberal coalition senators voted on Pauline Hanson’s motion that it’s “OK to be white” – a white supremacist slogan which almost passed parliament. There’s a sense of nationalism here that transcends anything in New Zealand politics – one that reaches beyond scones and bingo to reveal an ugly side.

One can’t help but ponder if Australia’s voting system contributes to the “Aussie Aussie Aussie” screams that echo in the background. David C Earnest, an American researcher who studied the voting rights of residents in 25 countries, developed a scale for tolerance of immigrant residents voting. A score of 0 showed no tolerance for residents voting while a score of 5 was given where residents received non-discriminatory, national voting rights. At the bottom was Australia with a score of 0 and the top was, you guessed it, New Zealand with a score of 5. Perhaps it is this contrast that grates kiwis who live here permanently. Andrew, an IT Consultant from Wellington who’s lived in Australia for over 10 years, is supportive of New Zealand’s electoral system allowing non-citizens who’ve made a contribution to the country having a vote. “I just think the Australian system is a bit archaic”, he says. And living, paying tax and having a family in a country where you can’t vote has an effect. “It does make you feel second class in many ways.”

While it’s difficult to quantify, Heath Pickering, deputy editor of Election Watch, a University of Melbourne initiative which provides non-partisan, fact based, expert election analysis, said that the number of foreign born legal residents who live in Australia but can’t vote is in the millions. Among them are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. Heath believes this prejudice against non-citizens is in stark contrast to the principles of democracy, “the fundamental principle of a democracy (which literally translates as “rule by the people”) is that members of the community should have a say in the decisions that affect them.”

It’s this “say” that people like Andrew want to have. “I’m married to an Australian, I have two sons born here and own a house. My future is here so I want to be in a position where I can contribute fully to society more than just pay tax which is essentially all I can do now,” he told me. However, being able to vote requires becoming an Australian citizen – for many Kiwis like Andrew that’s an unnatural fit. “I thought it would somehow make me be less of a Kiwi, but I worked through that and realised I could be a kiwi proud of his heritage while choosing to become a citizen of Australia.” Now a permanent resident, Andrew will qualify for citizenship at the end of the year. It’s not just pride that gets in the way though.

Adam, a brand manager originally from Auckland with an Australian partner and children, said the financial burden was a barrier. “The main reason I am not a citizen is due to the cost. Even through a de-facto spousal avenue it will still cost approximately AUD $4000 just to become a (permanent) resident and then another year or two of waiting to become a citizen.” And even if Adam forks out to pursue that path, there’s no guarantee he’ll reach the finish line.

Shifting goalposts for New Zealand residents in Australia is a common theme. In 2014, Tony Abbott enacted sweeping changes to the Migration Act, resulting in the deportation of more than 1600 New Zealand born Australian residents – many of whom had been here since children and have no family across the Tasman.

And while Labor talks about New Zealanders in Australia being left in limbo by the government, actual policy on how to fix the problem is thin on the ground. The fact that most kiwis don’t get to vote might have something to do with it. But if they did, what issues would they vote on? Andrew sees education, healthcare, climate, and infrastructure as important issues, while Adam wouldn’t mind having a say on the environment, immigration and taxation of corporations. They seem standard issues, so why not consider letting residents have a vote?

While the arguments for extending voting rights include proper representation for taxpayers that are part of society and avoiding the pitfalls of biased treatment against certain nationalities (cough-cough-KIWIS-cough-cough), Heath Pickering said that many Australians are concerned that adding millions of new voters to the mix would change the political landscape. Given that Australian politics is heading down a dangerous path of engaging with far right, intolerant political parties with connections to hate groups while struggling with huge international issues such as human rights and climate change, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad move?

Philippa, originally a Dunedin woman who’s lived in Australia for seven years, told me that New Zealanders in Australia not being able to vote is not known by the public. “Your everyday Aussie doesn’t know about this and they’re shocked when they find out.” A programme manager for the Australian Medical Council, Philippa struggles to understand why it’s an issue. “I literally work for the betterment of the Australian health system and community, yet can’t vote to support it. I love living here – why can’t I ensure the quality of life in Australia, for myself and others, with my vote?” She thinks that adding foreign born residents to the mix would benefit everyone, resulting in “more voices, with slightly better accents, investing in the future of the country.”

Adam believes there’s more to gain than just sexier accents having their say. “I think it’ll introduce more free thinkers to the mix. People who’ve been raised in other countries and haven’t been indoctrinated with the Australian political system.” For some Australians however, especially those who seek to control the destiny of those living in the land down under, perhaps therein lies the problem.

The Royal Commission investigating the March 15 attacks will look to determine if the event could (and should) have been prevented. AUT law professor Kris Gledhill explains what the Commission needs to do to stay on the right track. 

The Christchurch mosque attacks raise both narrow and wider issue. The narrow issue, in the hands of the criminal courts, is whether the accused man carried out the numerous fatal and near-fatal attacks in such a way as to be guilty of murder and attempted murder.

The wider issue is in the hands of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Attack on Christchurch Mosques, which has just commenced its work following the appointment of its second member: former diplomat, Jacqui Caine, who joins the Chair of the Commission, Justice William Young of the Supreme Court.

The Royal Commission has been given the task of investigating four things. First, what “relevant state sector agencies” – which can be taken to cover the police and the intelligence community – knew about the activities of the accused man before his arrest. Second: “What, if anything, they did with that information”. Third: “What measures agencies could have taken to prevent this attack”. And fourth: “What measures agencies should take to prevent such attacks in the future”.

These sensible questions reflect the important issue of whether the atrocity could and should have been prevented and – if there were deficiencies in what was done – what changes will minimise the risk of any recurrence. The context of these questions is the possibility that the focus of the agencies was in the wrong place.

What is the best process for answering this wider question? There is guidance from the international community because, unfortunately, avoidable deaths have occurred in various settings and it has been found that those charged with protecting life have failed.

There is an overarching legal framework for this. Duties to protect life are placed on the government under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Aotearoa New Zealand agreed to the standards in this treaty in 1978. Put briefly, there is a duty on police and security forces to take action if they know or ought to know of significant risk to life.

Implicit in this duty to protect life is an obligation to investigate whether inadequate action was taken by state officials if the duty to protect was breached. The reasons for such an investigation include the need to assess the lessons that can be learned with regards to preventing a repetition. But there is also a need to consider questions of reparation for those most directly affected, victims and their families.

This helps to answer what the process should be. The issue of reparations means that victims and their families are directly involved and not merely bystanders. Moreover, the investigation into what went wrong and what can be done to prevent a recurrence is something that group has a particular interest in. This will ensure that the wider public interest is served. The latter is also served by having an investigation that is as public as possible, which will support the important aim of public confidence that the investigation is thorough.

Moreover, the absence of as much being done in public as possible creates the impression of the authorities adopting a “trust us, we know best” approach. This will not do in the context of investigating whether the authorities got it wrong in a way that led to significant loss of life.  

There are downsides to greater victim and public involvement in terms of the speed of the investigation and perhaps, its cost. But a process that leads to a better outcome is surely worth that: interim findings can always be released to meet the needs of urgency. In addition, a Royal Commission, as can a court, may hear some material in private if the public interest mandates that secrecy.

How does the Royal Commission fare against these requirements? Its terms of reference clearly involve it asking some of the right questions. But there is a significant caveat in that it is precluded from looking into certain areas, namely gun laws, the role of social media and other non-state agencies, and the response of the police after the incident had begun.

It may be that the response to the attack is beyond reproach, but not being allowed to ask the question is restrictive. Furthermore, if part of the problem was a failure to regulate social media and its allowance of vile hatred, or the inadequate enforcement of gun laws, that is something people need to know. This requires an amendment of the terms of reference of the Commission.

The process being followed is also problematic. The Commission issued a note on 13 May setting out a provisional view that it will conduct its information gathering in private. There is an indication that it may have some public foray. There is no mention at all of ensuring that the victims and their families are given an appropriate status. The closest one gets is that a Muslim Community Reference Group will be identified.

Nothing in the Terms of Reference or the Inquiries Act 2013 prevent the Commission from ensuring that there is more direct engagement from the victims and their families. These are the people who the state would have failed if the atrocity is found to have been preventable. They should be more directly involved.

Further, the approach of proceeding in public unless there is a good reason not to would allow informed input into the process. The Commission’s provisional view it that its process is clearly one that it can modify. It is to be hoped that it will review its approach and ensure it complies with the international human rights framework.