spinofflive
A protest in New York in May (Photo: Ron Adar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
A protest in New York in May (Photo: Ron Adar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

OPINIONSocietyMay 4, 2021

Widening the definition of terrorism won’t help the communities most at risk

A protest in New York in May (Photo: Ron Adar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
A protest in New York in May (Photo: Ron Adar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Broadening the scope of our anti-terrorism law won’t make us safer – what we need is a security service that’s aware of its own biases and which focuses on genuine threats.

A couple of weeks ago the government announced an update to New Zealand’s counter-terrorism legislation. The accompanying press release tied the changes back to a recommendation included in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain. This recommendation asked the government to:

Review all legislation related to the counter-terrorism effort … to ensure it is current and enables Public sector agencies to operate effectively, prioritising consideration of the creation of precursor terrorism offences in the Terrorism Suppression Act… and acceding to and implementing the Budapest Convention.

As a result, the proposed bill widens the definition of terrorism to include planning for a terrorist act, as well as criminalising combat and weapons training, material support and international travel for terrorist acts.

On the face of it, planning for a criminal act is also criminal activity and if the legislation brings us in line with international conventions, then it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, the way legislation is applied is in a context of discrimination and marginalisation.

That can most clearly be seen in Clause 5 of the bill, which amends definitions of sanctioned organisations using the United Nations Security Council’s designated sanctions list of terrorist entities. The problem is that the UN list does not include a single white supremacist, white nationalist, alt-right or neo-Nazi organisation.

Even though there have been so many mass shootings by these groups, the definitions of terrorism used by the UN means that these organisations can often continue to elude authorities. This is symptomatic of an international bias that also impacts us here in Aotearoa.

The Royal Commission report found that, prior to May 2018, our security services inappropriately concentrated their resources “on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism”, at the expense of threats associated with other ideologies. One of the reasons was that our intelligence partners did not provide intelligence on white supremacist terrorist activity within their own borders. Why? They were simply not looking.

Now countries such as Canada and Australia have included neo-Nazi organisations – including the Proud Boys (involved in the attacks on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021), Combat 18, Blood & Honour, and Sonnenkrieg Division – on their lists of terrorist organisations. I don’t understand why our bill doesn’t add any international neo-Nazi groups to Clause 5. Failure to do so perpetuates an already unfair bias.

We know that marginalised communities unfairly bear the brunt of state power. Aotearoa has already witnessed an unfair use of terrorism laws with Operation 8, the 2007 “anti-terror” operation that led to a finding by the Independent Police Conduct Authority that the police had acted unlawfully in raiding houses and setting up roadblocks. The police formally apologised for their actions on that day.

The proposed legislation broadens the definition of terrorism. Instead of defining it as the inducement of “terror in a civilian population” it is now simply “fear in a population”, a less stringent definition which lowers the mens rea, the intention of committing a crime. Where before the definition of a terrorist act was one done “to unduly compel” a government or organisation to carry out (or abstain from) an action, now it just “to coerce”. This broadens the definition of terrorism, giving wider power to the state. It’s difficult to see the justification for doing so.

These new powers would not have helped to prevent the Christchurch mosque attacks. The issue wasn’t that the laws weren’t broad enough to prosecute the terrorist prior to the atrocities he committed. The problem was that our national security system didn’t recognise him as a threat – even when he came to the attention of state agencies, even when he travelled in and out of the country and even when he applied for a gun licence. The killer wasn’t ever on the radar.

Over the years we have seen ever-increasing powers awarded to the state with each change to counter-terrorism laws. I have yet to see evidence that these changes have made us safer. What will make us safer is a national security system that is not biased, that picks up on of global emerging trends, and that is responsive to reports from targeted communities. When the systems are poor, greater legislative powers lead to the risk of greater harm.

When the state grants itself greater powers, it must also give the public greater protection from the misuse of those powers.  Adding specific human rights checks would be a start, as well as legislative requirements to monitor and address unfair bias.

We all want to be safe and feel safe from a terrorist attack. We want to know that those who wish to cause harm and terror will be prevented from doing so. Overly broad definitions will not make us safer, and neither will targeting communities unfairly.

Keep going!
Picketers outside Wellington’s Kilbirnie bus depot on April 23, 2021 (Photo: Dom Thomas/RNZ)
Picketers outside Wellington’s Kilbirnie bus depot on April 23, 2021 (Photo: Dom Thomas/RNZ)

OPINIONSocietyMay 4, 2021

There is no climate action without justice for bus drivers

Picketers outside Wellington’s Kilbirnie bus depot on April 23, 2021 (Photo: Dom Thomas/RNZ)
Picketers outside Wellington’s Kilbirnie bus depot on April 23, 2021 (Photo: Dom Thomas/RNZ)

When private companies are paid to own and operate public transport, who wins? Not the drivers, nor the passengers – and certainly not the planet, write Wellington councillors Tamatha Paul and Thomas Nash.

Last month’s Wellington bus driver lockout at the hands of their employer, NZ Bus, sparked a fresh set of questions. 

Before then, people had, understandably, focused mostly on when the bus was coming, but now they wanted to know more. How come an Australian private equity firm owns around half the buses in Wellington, plus a bunch in Auckland and Tauranga? Why don’t bus drivers already get paid a base rate above the living wage? Why would bus drivers sign new contracts they consider worse than the ones they are currently on? Why are companies making private profit from public transport and how do they end up owning these buses that are ultimately paid for with public funds? Who was the genius who thought up this system? And, importantly, how much of a strategic climate risk does private ownership of buses pose?

Wellington bus drivers were served with a lockout notice on April 22 in response to the drivers’ union’s plan for a 24-hour strike the next day. This followed a breakdown in collective agreement negotiations with NZ Bus, which is owned by Australian private equity firm Next Capital.

Wellingtonians were dismayed by the terrible treatment of our local bus drivers, who were locked out of their livelihoods while demanding the dignity of a living wage base rate of pay. Successive national reforms have squeezed the state out of public transport and now public agencies like councils and central government pay private companies to own and operate our public bus services. Who has benefited from these reforms? Passengers haven’t, and nor have drivers. Maybe some shareholders have. The climate hasn’t.

In Wellington pretty much everyone wants action on climate – 92% of us. As a city, we are always eager to get out onto the streets and demand justice from our leaders through kaupapa like the School Strikes 4 Climate. Truth is, when it comes to our cities and our increasingly urban population, there is no one magic button for climate action. Instead, the struggle for our climate is happening right now and our bus drivers are at the coalface.

Transport emissions make up more than 40% of Wellington’s emissions, mostly from private vehicles. The best way we can give people more options is to increase the frequency, reliability and accessibility of fully electric public transport, alongside safe, connected cycling and walking infrastructure. Let’s give people a wide range of transport options and not shame those who rely on a private vehicle – or any other mode – to move about the city.

A few years ago, our city was shaken by the bustastrophe, where major network changes at a time of driver shortages had a negative impact on people’s day-to-day lives. Since then, the regional council – which manages the public transport network and sets routes and fares – has taken big strides to restore public confidence. One of those recent moves was setting the living wage as a base rate for bus drivers. Moving more people onto public transport means massively increasing the availability and frequency of the bus service. That requires more drivers who feel valued in their job.

However, Next Capital seemed to choose profit over people, trying to force through new contracts that bus drivers said took their pay and conditions backwards. The company locked out drivers, presumably prioritising the 25% returns they promise shareholders on its website over fairness and dignity for the people getting us all safely from A to B. The union applied to the Employment Court for an injunction, which was granted, but NZ Bus has not ruled out taking further action.

The current public transport arrangement, where private gain is extracted from workers and public funds, is symbolic of the struggle for climate justice. It makes choosing the best option for our planet more expensive because of the need to pay for profit margins. This is self-defeating and unnecessary. The amount of profit that bus companies make, often at the expense of hardworking people – both drivers and the public – could well be enough to provide free public transport for every Community Services cardholder in the country.

To scale up bus services we need to change the public transport legislation at a national level and bring our buses back in-house. The Ministry of Transport is working on options to change the “Public Transport Operating Model” – the rules councils follow to organise public transport. As councillors working on climate in Wellington, we have some recommendations.

First, provide for public ownership and operation of bus services by public entities. Public ownership allows national coordination tailored to local needs, so in Wellington we might see a public Wellington bus corporation.

Second, develop a nationwide agreement on fair pay and conditions for drivers and public transport workers so that everyone gets a decent deal no matter who their employer is.

Third, make a nationwide plan for a large-scale purchase of electric buses, with strict procurement standards on human rights and environmental protection, ideally using bus builders based in Aotearoa.

These changes will take time to come into effect, with existing contracts for bus services in place until at least 2024 in Auckland and at least 2027 in Wellington.

When we all demonstrate and support the intersecting ways that properly resourced, publicly owned bus services can help us achieve a valued workforce, more liveable cities and real climate action, then the sooner we will be there. Thank you, drivers!

Tamatha Paul is a Wellington city councillor and Thomas Nash is a Wellington regional councillor.

But wait there's more!