The Fiji government looks set to pay around NZ$1.5 million in damages to the disgraced former head of the country’s anti-corruption agency FICAC.

The state is offering Barbara Malimali an out-of-court settlement after her lawyer lodged a judicial review of her sacking in the High Court in Suva.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka suspended Malimali from her role on May 29, following a damning Commission of Inquiry into her appointment.

• READ MORE: Other FICAC reports

Malimali was described as “universally corrupt” by Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the commissioner of the nine-week investigation, which involved 35 witnesses.

“She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or other government members thrown out,” Ashton-Lewis told RNZ Pacific Waves earlier this month.

Tanya Waqanika, who acts for Malimali, told RNZ Pacific that her client was seeking a “substantial” payout for damages and unpaid dues.

Waqanika met lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Office in the capital, Suva, on Tuesday after earlier negotiations failed.

Expected to hear in writing
She declined to say exactly what was discussed, but said she expected to hear back in writing from the other party the same day.

A High Court judge has given the government until 3pm on Friday to reach a settlement, otherwise he will rule on the application on Monday.

“We’ll see what they come up with, that’s the beauty of negotiations, but NZ$1.5 million would be a good amount to play with after your career has been ruined,” Waqanika said.

“[Malimali’s] career spans over 27 years, but it is now down the drain thanks to Ashton-Lewis and the damage the inquiry report has done.”

She said Malimali also wanted a public apology, as she was being defamed every day in social media.

“I don’t expect we’ll get one out of Ashton-Lewis,” she said.

Adjournment sought
During a hearing in the High Court on Monday, lawyers for the state sought an adjournment to discuss a settlement with Waqanika.

However, she opposed this, saying that the government’s legal team had vast resources and they should have been prepared for the hearing.

Malimali filed a case against President Naiqama Lalabalavu, Rabuka and the Attorney-General on June 13 on the grounds that her suspension was unconstitutional.

Waqanika said the President suspended her on the advice of the Prime Minister instead of consulting the Judicial Services Commission.

Government lawyers approached Waqanika offering a compensation deal the same day she lodged a judicial review in the High Court.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Fiji government looks set to pay around NZ$1.5 million in damages to the disgraced former head of the country’s anti-corruption agency FICAC.

The state is offering Barbara Malimali an out-of-court settlement after her lawyer lodged a judicial review of her sacking in the High Court in Suva.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka suspended Malimali from her role on May 29, following a damning Commission of Inquiry into her appointment.

• READ MORE: Other FICAC reports

Malimali was described as “universally corrupt” by Justice David Ashton-Lewis, the commissioner of the nine-week investigation, which involved 35 witnesses.

“She was a pawn in the hands of devious members of government, who wanted any allegations against them or other government members thrown out,” Ashton-Lewis told RNZ Pacific Waves earlier this month.

Tanya Waqanika, who acts for Malimali, told RNZ Pacific that her client was seeking a “substantial” payout for damages and unpaid dues.

Waqanika met lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Office in the capital, Suva, on Tuesday after earlier negotiations failed.

Expected to hear in writing
She declined to say exactly what was discussed, but said she expected to hear back in writing from the other party the same day.

A High Court judge has given the government until 3pm on Friday to reach a settlement, otherwise he will rule on the application on Monday.

“We’ll see what they come up with, that’s the beauty of negotiations, but NZ$1.5 million would be a good amount to play with after your career has been ruined,” Waqanika said.

“[Malimali’s] career spans over 27 years, but it is now down the drain thanks to Ashton-Lewis and the damage the inquiry report has done.”

She said Malimali also wanted a public apology, as she was being defamed every day in social media.

“I don’t expect we’ll get one out of Ashton-Lewis,” she said.

Adjournment sought
During a hearing in the High Court on Monday, lawyers for the state sought an adjournment to discuss a settlement with Waqanika.

However, she opposed this, saying that the government’s legal team had vast resources and they should have been prepared for the hearing.

Malimali filed a case against President Naiqama Lalabalavu, Rabuka and the Attorney-General on June 13 on the grounds that her suspension was unconstitutional.

Waqanika said the President suspended her on the advice of the Prime Minister instead of consulting the Judicial Services Commission.

Government lawyers approached Waqanika offering a compensation deal the same day she lodged a judicial review in the High Court.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Fiji police have commenced investigations into a Commission of Inquiry report on the appointment of the country’s now sacked head of the anti-corruption office.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka stood down Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) commissioner Barbara Malimali last month after a months-long inquiry was completed.

Malimali was appointed as FICAC chief in September last year despite being under investigation by the anti-corruption office.

• READ MORE: Why Fiji’s new anti-corruption commissioner was arrested on her first day in the job
• Fiji govt sticks with new anti-corruption chief after astonishing turn of events
• Other FICAC reports

Opposition figures at the time slammed it as “unbelievable” but the government backed her appointment.

The 648-page inquiry report, prepared by the Commissioner of Inquiry and Supreme Court Judge David Ashton-Lewis, has rocked Rabuka’s coalition government in recent weeks, with one political expert calling it a “full-blown crisis”.

The report, which has now been leaked online, includes allegations not only against Malimali, but senior government officials and lawyers, including the nation’s highest judicial officer and the head of the Law Society.

Local media are reporting that the inquiry found a “systematic failure of integrity” across Fiji’s governance and justice systems.

They report that the inquiry states the appointment process for Malimali was “legally invalid” and “ethically reprehensible”.

Investigations started
Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu confirmed via a statement on Wednesday that investigations into the Commission of Inquiry Report findings commenced after the police received a formal letter of referral from President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalau.

“A formal letter of referral was sent to the Fiji Police Force and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, to investigate the Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry and persons of interests, and where warranted, prosecution,” he said.

Tudravu said he had met with the FICAC acting Commissioner Lavi Rokoika, alongside senior Fiji police officers “to discuss the specific areas of investigation to be undertaken by our respective institutions, to avoid duplication, and ensure efficiency of the investigation process”.

He has given his assurance for a thorough independent investigation by the team of senior investigators from the Criminal Investigations Department.

“A Commission of Inquiry report into the appointment of Barbara Malimali as head of the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption has cost the country’s Attorney-General Graham Leung his job, embroiled Fiji’s Law Society in an acrimonious feud and exacerbated tensions in the governing coalition,” Victoria University of Wellington’s political science professor John Fraenkel wrote for the DevpolicyBlog on Tuesday.

Among the accused
“The country’s Chief Justice Salesi Temo is allegedly among those accused by the COI (though, at the time of writing, the report has not been publicly released).

“Worryingly, given Fiji’s history of coups in 1987, 2000 and 2006, military chief Jone Kalouniwai has visited the Prime Minister’s office reminding the nation of his constitutionally-bequeathed responsibility for the ‘wellbeing of Fiji and its people’.”

According to Fraenkel, the inquiry controversy comes at a critical juncture, with the Supreme Court due to rule on the legal status of the country’s 2013 Constitution in August and with Fiji drawing closer to the next election, scheduled for 2026 or, at the very latest, February 2027.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

A group representing firearms owners has asked three federal agencies to investigate how the gun industry’s main lobbying group secretly used the intimate details of weapons buyers for political purposes.

In making the request, Gun Owners for Safety cited a ProPublica investigation that detailed how the National Shooting Sports Foundation turned over sensitive personal information on gun buyers to political operatives while presenting itself as a fierce advocate for the privacy of firearms owners. The letter — sent last week to the FBI, the Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — called the NSSF’s secret program that spanned nearly two decades "underhanded.”

“Gun owners’ privacy is not a partisan or ideological issue,” wrote Malcolm Smith, a Gun Owners for Safety member. “No matter the industry, exploiting customers’ private data like their underwear size and children’s ages in a secret scheme is reprehensible and cannot be permitted.”

Gun Owners for Safety has been operated since 2019 by the gun violence prevention organization Giffords, which was co-founded by Gabby Giffords, the Arizona lawmaker who survived an attempted assassination in 2011. It has chapters in nine states and consists of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who believe in what they call “common sense” measures to reduce gun-related deaths like safety locks and improved background checks on firearm purchases.

The ATF acknowledged receiving the letter but had no other comment. The FBI, FTC and NSSF didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions and requests for comment.

The NSSF previously defended its data collection, saying its “activities are, and always have been, entirely legal and within the terms and conditions of any individual manufacturer, company, data broker, or other entity.” The organization represents thousands of firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors and retailers, along with publishers and shooting ranges. While not as well known as the chief lobbyist for gun owners, the National Rifle Association, the NSSF is respected and influential in business, political and gun-rights communities.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told ProPublica he agreed with Smith’s call for an investigation. Last November, Blumenthal, then chair of a Senate subcommittee on privacy, asked the NSSF for details on the companies that contributed information to the trade group’s database, the type of customer details that were shared and whether the data is still being used. The trade group did not answer the senator’s questions.

“The NSSF’s disturbing, covert data collection raises serious safety and privacy concerns,” Blumenthal said. “And the American people deserve answers.”

It’s unclear how successful any request for an investigation will be under the Trump administration, especially given the NSSF’s past political support for the president.

ProPublica’s investigation identified at least 10 gun industry businesses, including Glock, Smith & Wesson and Remington, that handed over hundreds of thousands of names, addresses and other private data — without customer knowledge or consent — to the NSSF, which then entered the details into what would become a massive database. The database was used to rally gun owners’ electoral support for the industry’s preferred candidates running for the White House and Congress.

Privacy experts told ProPublica that companies that shared information with the NSSF may have violated federal and state prohibitions against deceptive and unfair business practices. Under federal law, companies must comply with their own privacy policies and be clear about how they will use consumers’ information, privacy experts said.

A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from those gun-makers found that none of them informed buyers that their details would be used for political purposes. (Most of the companies named in the NSSF documents declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica. One denied sharing customer data, and the new parent company of another said it had no evidence of data sharing with the NSSF under prior ownership.)

In 2016, as part of a push to get Donald Trump elected president for the first time and to help Republicans keep the Senate, the NSSF worked with the consultancy Cambridge Analytica to turbocharge the information it had on potential voters. Cambridge matched up the people in the database with 5,000 additional facts about them that it drew from other sources. The details were far-ranging. Along with the potential voters’ income, debts and religious affiliation, analysts learned whether they liked the work of the painter Thomas Kinkade and whether the underwear women had purchased was plus size or petite.

ProPublica obtained a portion of the NSSF database that contains the names, addresses and other information of thousands of people. ProPublica reached out to 6,000 people on the list. Almost all of those who responded, including gun owners, expressed outrage, surprise or disappointment over learning they were in the database.

In his letter seeking an investigation, Smith noted that the FBI’s new director, Kash Patel, has spoken out in favor of protecting gun owners’ privacy rights.

“Surely, then,” Smith wrote, “the FBI understands the importance of ensuring no organization or government agency maintains a secret database of firearm customers and gun owners. As many high-profile hacks and data leaks have shown, private data can easily be mishandled and exploited for nefarious purposes.

Smith, a 69-year-old retired executive of J.P. Morgan bank and registered Republican, told ProPublica his love of guns started as a teen when his father bought him a Remington rifle for bird hunting. The passion intensified over the years, and Smith started collecting guns heavily in response to political efforts to restrict gun access.

“Anytime I heard Nancy Pelosi not like something, I felt like I had to have it,” Smith said.

But he joined Giffords in 2020 after growing uncomfortable with extremism in gun rights circles. More recently, he said, the Department of Government Efficiency’s attempt to grab large amounts of confidential citizen data from the Social Security Administration and IRS inspired his request for government action. (DOGE officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

“The initial disclosures about the National Shooting Sports Foundation was an alarm bell. But now this is a four-alarm fire,” Smith said. “We’re supposed to have some sort of privacy in our lives, and apparently the NSSF decided I didn’t have to have it. And DOGE really thinks I’m not entitled to it.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Corey G. Johnson.

There are calls for greater transparency about what the HMNZS Manawanui was doing before it sank in Samoa last October — including whether the New Zealand warship was performing specific security for King Charles and Queen Camilla.

The Manawanui grounded on the reef off the south coast of Upolu in bad weather on 5 October 2024 before catching fire and sinking. Its 75 crew and passengers were safely rescued.

The Court of Inquiry’s final report released on 4 April 2025 found human error and a long list of “deficiencies” grounded the $100 million vessel on the Tafitoala Reef, south of Upolu, where it caught fire and sank.

• READ MORE: Other RNZ Navy reports

Equipment including weapons and ammunition continue to be removed from the vessel as its future hangs in the balance.

The Court of Inquiry’s report explains the Royal New Zealand Navy was asked by “CHOGM Command” to conduct “a hydrographic survey of the area in the vicinity of Sinalei whilst en route to Samoa”.

When it grounded on the Tafitoala Reef, the ship was following orders received from Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand. The report incorrectly calls it the “Sinalei Reef”.

Sinalei is the name of the resort which hosted King Charles and Queen Camilla for CHOGM — the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting — which began in Samoa 19 days after the Manawanui sank from 25-26 October 2024. The Royals arrived two days before CHOGM began.

Support of CHOGM
Speaking at the release of the court’s final report, Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Garin Golding described the Manawanui’s activity on the south coast of Upolu.

“So the operation was done in support of CHOGM — a very high-profile security activity on behalf of a nation, so it wasn’t just a peacetime operation,” he said.

“It was done in what we call rapid environmental assessment so we were going in and undertaking something that we had to do a quick turnaround of that information so it wasn’t a deliberate high grade survey. It was a rapid environmental assessment so it does come with additional complexity and it did have an operational outcome. It’s just, um you know, we we are operating in complex environments.

“It doesn’t say that we did everything right and that’s what the report indicates and we just need to get after fixing those mistakes and improving.”

The report explained the Manawanui was tasked with “conducting the Sinalei survey task” “to survey a defined area of uncharted waters.” But Pacific security fellow at Victoria University’s Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University Iati Iati questions what is meant by “in support of the upcoming CHOGM”.

“All we’ve been told in the report is that it was to support CHOGM. What that means is unclear. I think that needs to be explained. I think it also needs to be explained to the Samoan people, who initiated this.

“Whether it was just a New Zealand initiative. Whether it was done for CHOGM by the CHOGM committee or whether it was something that involved the Samoa government,” Iati said.

What-for questions
“So a lot of the, you know, who was behind this and the what-for questions haven’t been answered.”

Iati said CHOGM’s organising committee included representatives from Samoa as well as New Zealand.

“But who exactly initiated that additional task which I think is on paragraph 37 of the report after the ship had sailed, the extra task was then confirmed. Who initiated that I’m not sure and I think that needs to be explained. Why it was confirmed after the sailing that also needs to be explained.

“In terms of security, I guess the closest we can come to is the fact that you know King Charles was staying on that side and Sinalei Reef. It may have something to do with that but this is just really unclear at the moment and I think all those questions need to be addressed.”

The wreck of the Manawanui lies 2.1 nautical miles — 3.89km — from the white sandy beach of the presidential suite at Sinalei Resort where King Charles and Queen Camilla stayed during CHOGM.

Just over the fence from the Royals’ island residence, Royal New Zealand Navy divers were coming and going from the sunken vessel in the early days of their recovery operation, and now salvors and the navy continue to work from there.

AUT Law School professor Paul Myburgh said the nature of the work the Manawanui was carrying out when it ran aground on the reef has implications for determining compensation for people impacted by its sinking.

Sovereign immunity
“Historically, if it was a naval vessel that was the end of the story. You could never be sued in normal courts about anything that happened on board a naval vessel. But nowadays, of course, governmental vessels are often involved in commercial activity as well,” he said.

“So we now have what we call the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity which states that if you are involved in commercial or ordinary activity that is non-governmental you are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, so this is why I’ve been wanting to get to the bottom of exactly what they were doing.

“Who instructed whom and that sort of thing. And it seems to me that in line with the findings of the report all of this seems to have been done on a very adhoc basis.”

RNZ first asked the New Zealand Defence Force detailed questions on Friday, April 11, but it declined to respond.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Health workers spoke out at a rally condemning Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the latest atrocity against Palestinian aid workers today, calling on the New Zealand government to join global demands for an independent investigation.

They were protesting over last month’s massacre of 15 Palestinian rescue workers and the destruction of their ambulances in Gaza’s Rafah district under heavy fire.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) has called for an independent international inquiry into the “deliberate killing” of 8 ambulance medics, 6 civil defence workers and 1 UN worker reportedly executed by the Israeli forces on March 23.

• READ MORE: Survivor of Rafah ambulance massacre exposes Israeli army atrocities
• Red Crescent demands international probe into Israel killing of Gaza medics
• Caitlin Johnstone: Israel’s innocent oopsie-poopsie medical massacre mistake
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

Their ambulances were destroyed and buried together with the bodies of the victims in a shallow grave a week after the crews went missing.

One PRCS paramedic, Assaad al-Nassasra, was reported to be still missing.

Among the speakers in the rally in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square, Amnesty International’s Audrey Van Ryn said: “These killings must be independently and impartially investigated and the perpetrators held to account.

“Medical personnel carrying out their humanitarian duties most be respected and protected in all circumstances.”

Health worker Jason Brooke read out a message from the secretary-general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Jagan Chapagain, in response to the killing of the Palestinian first-responders.

‘Their ambulances were clearly marked’
“I am heartbroken. These dedicated ambulance workers were responding to wounded people. They were humanitarians. They wore emblems that should have protected them; their ambulances were clearly marked,” said Chapagain.

“They should have returned to their families; they did not.”

Their bodies were discovered a week later by fellow workers. A video from one of the slain Palestinian Red Crescent medics contradicting the lies propagated by Israel’s military that the vehicles were “advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals”

These first responders were not mistakenly misidentified. They were travelling, clearly visible in red crescent marked ambulances with their lights on. They posed no threat.

According to the United Nations, at least 1060 healthcare workers have been killed in the 18 months since Israel launched its genocidal offensive in Gaza.

“Whether it’s first-responders and medics, health workers or reporters, not only are these workers being targeted with impunity by the IOF, but their deaths seem to barely cause a ripple,” said Brooke, who was greeted with cries of shame.

“Where is the condemnation of our politicians? Our media?”

‘Dehumanisation of Palestinian life’
“As the Palestinian poet and author Mohammed El-Kurd suggests, what we are witnessing is the dehumanisation of Palestinian life.

“Israel only has to mention the word ‘Hamas’ and the indoctrinated look-away. As if resistance to genocide itself were a crime — the punishment a life predetermined for death.

“Genocide does not distinguish between civilian, aid worker, health worker, reporter and militant. All are condemned.”

Medical personnel, medical transport, hospitals and other medical facilities, the injured and sick are all specifically protected under international humanitarian law.

The devastating Gaza massacre represents the single most deadly attack on Red Cross or Red Crescent workers anywhere in the world since 2017.

Secretary-general Chapagain said: “The number of Palestine Red Crescent volunteers and staff killed since the start of this conflict is now 30.

“We stand with Palestine Red Crescent and the loved ones of those killed on this darkest of days.”

‘Palestine wants freedom to live’
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) advocate Janfrie Wakim called on the crowd to give each other “high fives” in recognition of their solidarity in turning up for the protest in the 79th week since the war began.

“I like the sign in front of me: ‘Palestine wants the freedom to live while Israel has the freedom to kill!’ she said.

“We mourn those thousands of innocent people  — some with families here and in Gaza and the West Bank — who made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives, and the thousands unaccounted for in rubble and over 100,000 injured.

“Mostly women and children.

“The humanitarian workers who have been murdered serving humanity.”

Wakim said the genocide had been enabled by the wealthiest countries in the world and Western media — “including our own with few exceptions”.

“Without its lies, its deflections, its failure to report the agonising reality of Palestinians suffering, Israel would not have been able to commit its atrocities.”

All fatalities women and children
Meanwhile, the United Nations reports Palestinian women and children were the only fatalities in at least three dozen Israeli air strikes on Gaza since mid-March, as it warned that Israel’s military offensive threatened Palestinians’ “continued existence as a group”.

Ravina Shamdasani, spokeswoman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said on Friday that the office had documented 224 Israeli strikes on residential buildings and tents for displaced people in the Gaza Strip between March 18 and April 9.

“In some 36 strikes about which the UN Human Rights Office corroborated information, the fatalities recorded so far were only women and children,” she said.

The findings come as Israel’s attacks on Gaza have killed more than 1500 Palestinians since the Israeli military broke a ceasefire in March, according to figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Health, reports Al Jazeera.

A German official was the latest to call for an independent probe over Israel’s killing of the 15 medical aid workers.

An investigation into Israel’s killing of paramedics must be carried out independently, said German Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Assistance Luise Amtsberg.

“This alleged violation of international law must not go unpunished,” Amtsberg said in a message on social media platform Bluesky.

Israel’s ‘distortion’ straining ties
“The investigation must be carried out quickly and independently, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice as soon as possible. The Israeli government and judiciary have a duty here,” she said.

Israel’s distortion of the event was “once again” straining ties between Germany and Israel, she added.

Myriam Laaroussi, an emergency coordinator with Doctors Without Borders, known by its French initials MSF, told Al Jazeera from al-Mawasi, an area west of Khan Younis that houses thousands of displaced Gaza families, that the health system had been destroyed.

Due to the Israeli blockade, the supplies needed to treat patients were lacking and had left children in Gaza vulnerable to disease, she said.

The desalination unit was not functioning any more due to Israel’s decision to cut electricity, which had decreased the capacity to retain good hygiene and was leading to outbreaks of polio and scabies.

“We see that it’s a ‘slow death’ for many Palestinians, with shortages of food and water leading to a loss of weight and medical issues,” she said.

The ceasefire had been an opportunity to scale up the capacity of the different health facilities, but it had been too short to have enough effect, and now health facilities were being attacked again.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A West Papuan advocacy group is calling for an urgent international inquiry into allegations that Indonesian security forces have used the chemical weapon white phosphorus against West Papuans for a second time.

The allegations were made in the new documentary, Frontier War, by Paradise Broadcasting.

In the film, West Papuan civilians give testimony about a number of children dying from sickness in the months folllowing the 2021 Kiwirok attack.

• READ MORE: Frontier War, a documentary about Indonesia’s drone warfare in West Papua
• Other West Papua reports

They say that “poisoning . . . occurred due to the bombings”, that “they throw the bomb and . . .  chemicals come through the mouth”, said United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) interim president Benny Wenda.

They add that this was “the first time they’re throwing people up are not dying, but between one month later or two months later”, he said in a statement.

Bombings produced big “clouds of dust” and infants suffering the effects could not stop coughing up blood.

“White phosphorus is an evil weapon, even when used against combatants. It burns through skin and flesh and causes heart and liver failure,” said Wenda.

‘Crimes against defenceless civilians’
“But Indonesia is committing these crimes against humanity against defenceless civilians, elders, women and children.

“Thousands of Papuans in the border region were forced from their villages by these attacks, adding to the over 85,000 who are still internally displaced by militarisation.”

Indonesia previously used white phosphorus in Nduga in December 2018.

Journalists uncovered that victims were suffering deep burns down to the bone, typical with that weapon, as well as photographing yellow tipped bombs which military sources confirmed “appear to be incendiary or white phosphorus”.

The same yellow-tipped explosives were discovered in Kiwirok, and the fins from the recovered munitions are consistent with white phosphorus.

“As usual, Indonesia lied about using white phosphorus in Nduga,” said Wenda.

“They have also lied about even the existence of the Kiwirok attack — an operation that led to the deaths of over 300 men, women, and children.

“They lie, lie, lie.”

Frontier War/ Inside the West Papua Liberation Army    Video: Paradise Broadcasting

Proof needed after ‘opening up’
Wenda said the movement would not be able to obtain proof of these attacks — “of the atrocities being perpetrated daily against my people” — until Indonesia opened West Papua to the “eyes of the world”.

“West Papua is a prison island: no journalists, NGOs, or aid organisations are allowed to operate there. Even the UN is totally banned,” Wenda said.

Indonesia’s entire strategy in West Papua is secrecy. Their crimes have been hidden from the world for decades, through a combination of internet blackouts, repression of domestic journalists, and refusal of access to international media.”

Wenda said Indonesia must urgently facilitate the long-delayed UN Human Rights visit to West Papua, and allow journalists and NGOs to operate there without fear of imprisonment or repression.

“The MSG [Melanesian Spearhead Group], PIF [Pacific Islands Forum] and the OACPS [Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States] must again increase the pressure on Indonesia to allow a UN visit,” he said.
“The fake amnesty proposed by [President] Prabowo Subianto is contradictory as it does not also include a UN visit. Even if 10, 20 activists are released, our right to political expression is totally banned.”

Wenda said that Indonesia must ultimately “open their eyes” to the only long-term solution in West Papua — self-determination through an independence referendum.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

We speak with Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, author of the new book Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, which examines the global rise of authoritarianism in the United States, Russia, Israel and beyond. He says attacks on education are a key part of the fascist toolkit to undermine democracy and pluralism. “They’re attacking the institutions, the universities, because the universities provide critical inquiry into the kind of myths that’s required for these kinds of politics,” says Stanley.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

A month before the anniversary of the death of photojournalist Issam Abdallah — killed by an Israeli strike while reporting in southern Lebanon — Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and 10 organisations have sent a letter to the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel.

The letter supports a request made by Abdallah’s family in July for an investigation into the crime, reports RSF.

According to the findings of Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agencies, and the NGOs Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the shooting that killed Abdallah and injured journalists from AFP, Reuters, and Al Jazeera on 13 October 2023 originated from an Israeli tank.

• READ MORE: RSF video investigation into the death of Reuters reporter Issam Abdallah in Lebanon: the journalists’ vehicle was explicitly targeted
• Palestine: Impunity persists two years after the Israeli army’s murder of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh

A sixth  investigation, conducted by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), found that “an Israeli tank killed Reuters reporter Issam Abdallah in Lebanon last year by firing two 120 mm rounds at a group of ‘clearly identifiable journalists’ in violation of international law,” according to Reuters.

Based on these findings, RSF and 10 human rights organisations sent a letter to the United Nations this week urging it to conduct an official investigation into the attack.

The letter, dated September 13, was specifically sent to the UN’s Commission of Inquiry charged with investigating possible international crimes and violations of international human rights law committed in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories since 7 October 2023.

With this letter, RSF and the co-signatories express their support for a similar request for an investigation into the circumstances of Abdallah’s murder, made by the reporter’s family last June which remains unanswered at the time of this writing.

Rare Israeli responses
Rarely does Israel respond on investigations over journalists killed in Palestine, including Gaza, and Lebanon.

Two years after the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh in the West Bank on 11 May 2022, and a year after Israel’s official apology acknowledging its responsibility, justice has yet to be delivered for the charismatic Al Jazeera journalist.

At least 134 journalists and media workers have been killed since Israeli’s war on Gaza began.

Jonathan Dagher, team leader of RSF’s Middle East bureau, wrote about tbe Abdallah case:

“Issam Abdallah a été tué par l’armée israélienne, caméra à la main, vêtu de son gilet siglé ‘PRESS’ et de son casque.

“Dans le contexte de la violence croissante contre les journalistes dans la région, ce crime bien documenté dans de nombreuses enquêtes ne doit pas rester impuni.

“La justice pour Issam ouvre une voie solide vers la justice pour tous les reporters.

>“Nous exhortons la Commission à se saisir de cette affaire et à nous aider à mener les auteurs de cette attaque odieuse contre des journalistes courageux et professionnels à rendre des comptes.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Anna Solomon, a Papua New Guinean journalist and editor with 40 years experience, is now providing training for journalists at the Wantok Niuspepa.

Wantok is a weekly newspaper and the only Tok Pisin language newspaper in PNG.

Solomon, who spoke during last month’s public inquiry on Media in Papua New Guinea, asked if the Parliamentary Committee could work with the media industry to set up a Complaints Tribunal that could address issues affecting media in PNG.

Anna Solomon talks about the media role to “educate people” at the public media inquiry.  Video: Inside PNG

She also called for better Tok Pisin writers as it was one of two main languages that leaders, especially Parliamentarians, used in PNG to communicate with their voters.

At the start of the 3-day public inquiry (21-24 May 2024), media houses also called for parliamentarians and the public to understand how the industry functions.

The public inquiry focused on the “Role and Impact of Media in Papua New Guinea” and was led by the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Communication with an aim to improve the standard of journalism within the country.

Republished from Inside PNG with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Papua New Guinea’s Police Commissioner David Manning has been reinstated after being stood down following riots and looting on January 10.

That rioting — branded as Black Wednesday — was sparked by a police protest after unannounced deductions from their wages, which the government blamed on a glitch.

The protest led to a riot causing the deaths of more than 20 people, widespread looting and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to businesses.

• READ MORE: Long term plan needed for underlying PNG problems, says academic

Amnesty International called on authorities to protect human rights in response to the riots.

The 14-day state of emergency following the violence has now ended.

The National newspaper reported Prime Minister James Marape announced Manning’s reinstatement, and that of Taies Sansan as the Department of Personnel Management Secretary, after administrative preliminary investigations concluded.

However, Treasury Secretary Andrew Oake and Finance Secretary Samuel Penias remained suspended “due to their failure to update the salary system, which led to the events of Jan 10”, Marape said.

Marape also said Deputy Police Commissioner Dr Philip Mina was being suspended.

A commission of inquiry will be appointed to look into the police force.

“The commission of inquiry will be headed by a judge from the Supreme Court and National Court, and will be concluded as soon as possible, to look into the structure, the operation, and their ethics of conduct,” Marape said.

“The country deserves to have a police force that is effective and efficient. We will leave no stone unturned as we recover, reboot and restore.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Congressional investigators are launching an inquiry into the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of medical device recalls for the first time in years following reports that the agency failed to issue warnings about breathing machines capable of sending hazardous particles and fumes into the lungs of patients.

U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., urged the Government Accountability Office to investigate, citing reports by ProPublica and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that detailed the role of the FDA in an ongoing health crisis that has threatened millions of people in the United States and around the world.

The news organizations revealed that the agency had received hundreds of complaints about breathing machines manufactured by Philips Respironics long before the company announced a massive recall in 2021, but took no action to alert patients or doctors.

Philips withheld thousands of additional complaints over the course of 11 years while customers who relied on the machines to breathe reported respiratory problems, kidney and liver conditions, and cancer, the news organizations found.

“It’s clear from the Philips case that information about patient harm was known for years and not properly shared or addressed,” Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “We must ensure there is adequate oversight on medical device manufacturers so that Americans know the potential risks and can make informed decisions with their health care providers.”

In their request to the GAO, the watchdog arm of Congress, Durbin and Blumenthal said they needed far more information about the FDA’s oversight of the medical device industry, including how the agency ensures that companies initiate recalls and what happens when manufacturers fail to comply.

In an email, the GAO said it accepted the lawmakers’ request to conduct an inquiry.

Philips has said that it evaluated the early complaints about its sleep apnea machines and ventilators on a case-by-case basis and launched the recall after the company became aware that an industrial foam fitted inside the devices could break down and release potentially “toxic and carcinogenic” material.

The FDA has defended its handling of the crisis, saying it received complaints about “general contamination issues” before the recall but that the debris could have been caused by external sources unrelated to foam. At least 30 of the complaints described foam degradation, but the FDA said the reports did not indicate that any patients had been harmed.

“The FDA welcomes the opportunity for GAO review of the agency’s oversight of medical device recalls,” the agency said in a statement last week.

Durbin and Blumenthal said the GAO inquiry would follow up on a similar probe in 2011 that called for changes to better protect patients. Safety advocates said a new investigation is badly needed and long overdue.

In 2022, the FDA received 3 million reports about malfunctioning devices — nearly 30 times more than in 2005, government records show. Nearly one-third described injuries and deaths.

“At the end of the day, the public should have confidence in the products that are regulated by the FDA,” said Kushal Kadakia, a public health researcher at Harvard Medical School who has written about the Philips recall.

Device safety advocates said the GAO should review whether the FDA is regularly using information in health records, insurance claims, medical device registries and other sources — data they said would greatly improve the agency’s ability to track dangerous products. The FDA moved to create a center to bring together that data years ago, but a comprehensive new system is still not in place, records and interviews show.

Former FDA analyst Madris Kinard also said the FDA should do more to ensure the safety of devices before they are marketed and sold. A controversial process at the agency allows device makers to gain clearance for a new product by showing that it is substantially equivalent to one already on the market.

Kinard said the FDA should investigate whether those older models had any safety issues before newer versions are cleared.

“Simply getting a new device to market to me isn’t innovation,” she said. “Innovation is only good if it’s helping the patient.”

Durbin and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., have proposed legislation aimed at ensuring that doctors and patients receive vital information about recalls by requiring the FDA to create an electronic system of communication for the agency, device makers, hospitals and other providers. The bill would also require device makers to disclose more information about health risks and instruct hospitals and health care workers to pass the information to patients.

The proposal “will create an efficient, accountable system for ensuring patients are routinely notified about safety recalls for medical devices,” Chuck Bell, advocacy programs director at Consumer Reports, said in a statement. “As our health system operates today, consumers and providers may never receive any information ... or may receive it too late to avoid adverse consequences.”

Medicare claim forms should also include identifying information for devices — model numbers and names of manufacturers — to make it easier to detect troubled devices and contact patients in the event of a recall, Kadakia and others said.

“Right now, we rarely know what device has been used in what patient and when,” said Dr. Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco who has studied medical device safety and regulation. “Without this basic, really fundamental information about the device a patient has received, we can’t track the device.”

The GAO inquiry comes as a growing number of federal lawmakers call for investigations into Philips.

Schakowsky, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that oversees consumer product safety, said earlier this month that the company must be “fully held accountable and stopped from any future wrongdoing” if investigators determine that Philips failed to warn consumers in the years before the recall.

Schakowsky also cited new revelations, reported last month by ProPublica and the Post-Gazette, that a different foam placed inside replacement devices sent out by Philips after the recall was also found to emit hazardous chemicals, including formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

“Americans should not be kept in the dark when it comes to the safety of their medical devices, and they certainly should not be forced to choose between a dangerous product and getting the care they need,” Schakowsky said in a statement.

Philips has said the new foam is safe and does not emit chemicals at dangerous levels. The FDA, which first reported that the foam failed emissions testing in 2021, said more tests are needed.

Philips said it regrets any “distress and concern” caused by the recall and is cooperating with authorities. The company also said testing on the original foam in the months after the recall found that the chemical emissions are not at levels that can cause “appreciable harm” to patients. The FDA has challenged Philips, saying in a statement in October that the studies were not adequate and that the company had agreed to conduct additional tests.

Debbie Cenziper with ProPublica and Michael D. Sallah with the Post-Gazette contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by .

• COP28 climate talks wrap up, includes moderate agreement on fossil fuel phase out.
• Congressional Democrats urge Biden Administration to reject Republican insistence on border changes in exchange for Ukraine aid.
• House Republicans approve an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
• Fed stands pat on interest rates for third straight quarter.
• Supreme court to rule on Biden Administration challenge to abortion pill access restrictions.
• UN officials make case for Gaza ceasefire again, citing humanitarian concerns.

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – December 13, 2023 House Republicans approve an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

• COP28 climate talks wrap up, includes moderate agreement on fossil fuel phase out.
• Congressional Democrats urge Biden Administration to reject Republican insistence on border changes in exchange for Ukraine aid.
• House Republicans approve an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.
• Fed stands pat on interest rates for third straight quarter.
• Supreme court to rule on Biden Administration challenge to abortion pill access restrictions.
• UN officials make case for Gaza ceasefire again, citing humanitarian concerns.

The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – December 13, 2023 House Republicans approve an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Papua New Guinea’s government has appealed to the Australian Federal Police and the Singapore Police to assist PNG police to link money laundering trails.

Speaking in Parliament yesterday, Prime Minister James Marape said Australia and Singapore had been the major hub of transit for possible money laundering activities.

He wants help from police in the two countries to assist PNG police in their fight against corruption in the country.

• READ MORE: Papua New Guinea to bring criminal charges over UBS loan
• Other PNG crime reports

“We are fighting corruption. For instance, we are following the footprints of the [A$1.2 billion Swiss bank] UBS money that has gone deeply rooted so our police are working on it,” he said.

“Therefore I want to encourage police in Singapore and police in Australia assist PNG police to deal with money laundered from PNG.

“I want to appeal again to the Australian police and Singaporean police to assist our police and I make this statement as the Prime Minister of this country.

“And in the case of UBS, we have made [a] deep incision, we are following the money trail, the entire loot that was looted from this country,” he said.

‘Prioritise law and order’
“I want to give commendation to the Police Commissioner, David Manning — he is not here to stop tribal fights; stopping tribal fights is the job of our members of Parliament.

“Governors you have PSIP (constituency development funds) funds so prioritise law and order using your funds, do not wait for police commissioners to come and stop tribal fights.

“PNG has been labelled a corrupt country so I don’t want to leave this label for the next 20 years so we have to make an example out of other existing corruption that has been documented and evidence are used.

“And the ICAC [Independent Commission Against Corruption] commission of inquiry has sufficient evidence for us to pursue our efforts to fight corruption.

“I will indicate to this House that we will bring to this floor of Parliament the Finance Inquiry again and other inquiries that are outstanding.

“We will revisit if they are not time bound but we will not limit the limited police capacity so that is why I appeal to Singapore police and Australia police to assist my policemen to link to the money trails,” the Prime Minister said.

“Monies do not hide, monies move from one bank account to another bank account, forensic auditors and investigators will follow the money trials and our police are working as part of the law and order conversation, focusing on our country like fighting corruption like never before,” he said.

Marape said the ICAC, Ombudsman Commission and police would work in partnership in the pursuit to address corruption in the country.

He said with the efforts to strengthening the work of the ICAC, three commissioners had been appointed while a third Ombudsman commissioner would be appointed this week.

Jeffrey Elapa is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

For the first time in U.S. history, the Justice Department has criminally charged the child of a sitting president. Federal prosecutors have indicted President Biden’s son Hunter Biden on felony charges of illegally possessing a handgun and making false statements in order to obtain a revolver in 2018. Special counsel David Weiss brought the charges after a Trump-appointed federal judge in July rejected a deal that would have seen Hunter Biden plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax counts in order to avoid jail time. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and fines of up to $750,000. This comes as Republican lawmakers have opened an impeachment inquiry of President Biden. “Maybe this will become the norm … to impeach the president if the president is from the opposite party,” says Ryan Grim, D.C. bureau chief for The Intercept, who adds that Republican infighting is threatening House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s leadership and likely to lead to a shutdown of the federal government. “It does seem like they are headed for a shutdown of their own making.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

• News

Marcellus Williams, Facing Execution Despite DNA Evidence of His Innocence, Sues Missouri Governor and Attorney General for Dissolving Board of Inquiry Examining the Case and Moving to Set an Execution Date

Gov. Mike Parson violated the law when he dissolved board without a report.

Press Release 08.24.23 By Innocence Staff

Marcellus Williams. (Image: Courtesy of Marcellus Williams’ legal team)

Related News

Marcellus Williams, Facing Execution Despite DNA Evidence of His Innocence, Sues Missouri Governor and Attorney General for Dissolving Board of Inquiry Examining the Case and Moving to Set an Execution Date

Press Release

Basketball Was His Escape During His Wrongful Conviction. Now, Norberto Peets Is Free At Last.

News

Who Is Marcellus Williams: Man Facing Execution in Missouri Despite DNA Evidence Supporting Innocence

Death Penalty

The post Marcellus Williams, Facing Execution Despite DNA Evidence of His Innocence, Sues Missouri Governor and Attorney General for Dissolving Board of Inquiry Examining the Case and Moving to Set an Execution Date appeared first on Innocence Project.

This content originally appeared on Innocence Project and was authored by Justin Chan.

The videos showed a convoy of Philippine boats and ships as they maneuvered past the China Coast Guard while sailing on a resupply mission to a remote military outpost in Ayungin Shoal (Second Thomas Shoal) in the Spratly Islands. 

Two Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) ships, the BRP Cabra and BRP Sindangan, escorted the convoy. They had arranged a rendezvous with civilian boats contracted by the military on Monday before setting off for Ayungin Shoal the following day, Commander Jay Tarriela said.  

The PCG spokesman challenged Chinese claims that its ships allowed the supply mission to proceed peacefully, and said that when the Philippine ships were within 2.5 nautical miles of reaching the shoal “we experienced dangerous maneuvers by four China Coast Guard vessels backed by four Chinese maritime militia. 

“They executed different ways for the Philippine Coast Guard to be separated from the supply boats so that they would be able to prevent (them) from entering the shoal,” Tarriela told reporters. 

Also on Wednesday, Sen. Risa Hontiveros alleged that the People’s Republic of China had continued to militarize portions of the West Philippine Sea, despite international condemnation. Manila uses that name for South China Sea waters that lie within its territory.

During a speech in the Senate, Hontiveros called “for an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into further capacitating and empowering the Philippine Coast Guard to enable it to carry out its primary mission of enforcing Philippine law and upholding national sovereignty within the country’s maritime zones, particularly the West Philippine Sea.”

China’s actions, she said, had led to an “unprecedented challenge to the Philippine Coast Guard’s primary mission of enforcing Philippine law, maintaining the country’s sovereignty and upholding vital national interests.

In Beijing on Wednesday, China’s foreign ministry called on the Philippines “to immediately stop any actions that may complicate the situation on the ground. 

“Let me stress that in response to what the Philippines did, China Coast Guard took necessary law enforcement action in accordance with the law,” ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said. 

Tuesday’s incident followed one about two weeks ago where the China Coast Guard fired water cannons at the BRP Sierra Madre, a World War II-era ship deliberately run aground by the Philippines to serve as its military outpost in Ayungin Shoal. 

The shoal is about 200 km (124 miles) from the western Philippine island of Palawan, and more than 1,000 km (621 miles) from China’s nearest major landmass, Hainan island.

“Now, it has become clear that China has her eye on Ayungin Shoal. The water cannons, the military laser, the removal of a naval gun cover – all these severe provocations were against Philippine vessels making their way to Ayungin,” Hontiveros told the Senate on Wednesday.

“China is actively blocking these missions because she does not want any further reinforcement to our most defiant sovereign marker in the West Philippine Sea, the BRP Sierra Madre.”

Videos

On Wednesday, Tarriela presented a video that showed a China Coast Guard ship blocking a Philippine Coast Guard ship from entering the shoal. 

A second Chinese ship was positioned to intercept the Filipinos in case they got through the first cordon, the video showed. 

“There are also other videos that we have showing that our supply boats were being blocked by China Coast Guard vessels and the four Chinese maritime militia,” he said. 

“Well, this time our game plan really was to outmaneuver the China Coast Guard vessels … and make sure that the supply boats would be successful in entering the shoal,” Tarriela said. 

The Chinese ships issued radio challenges and warnings that said Beijing had “indisputable sovereignty” over the sea region, according to officials. The Chinese ships said they were allowing the Philippine Coast Guard and the supply boats to pass through “in the spirit of humanism.” 

“[W]e don’t need permission from the People’s Republic of China and Ayungin Shoal is within our exclusive economic zone. We have the sovereign right over these waters,” Tarriela said. “Secondly, it is not true that they are humane or extended humanitarian assistance.”

Journalists who traveled with the Philippine Coast Guard on Tuesday posted photos of a U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon patrol and reconnaissance plane flying overhead during the resupply mission. 

In Washington on Wednesday, officials at the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a BenarNews request for comment about the flight. On Monday, U.S., Australian and Philippine troops held an air assault drill in Rizal town, in the western island province of Palawan, about 108 nautical miles from Ayungin Shoal.

BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By BenarNews Staff.

A review of RNZ’s online news has called for greater oversight and enforcement of standards after a crisis sparked by a single staffer making “inappropriate” edits to international news online.

RNZ Mediawatch asks RNZ’s chief executive if this was the result of a digital shift done on the cheap — and how he’ll put right what he himself called “pro-Kremlin garbage”.

“An RNZ digital journalist has been stood down after it emerged they’d been editing news stories on the broadcaster’s website to give them a pro-Russian slant,” host Jeremy Corbett told 7 Days viewers back in June when the story first hit the headlines.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MEDIAWATCH: Putting right what went wrong
  
• READ MORE: Other RNZ “Russian edits” crisis reports

“You’d never get infiltration like that on 7 Days. Our security is too strong. Strong like a bear. Strong like the glorious Russian state and its leader Putin,” he said.

It’s never good for a serious news outlet when comedians are taking aim.

It was just a joke of course, but at the time some wondered whether Kremlin campaigns could have been behind the unapproved editing of RNZ’s online world news.

Pro-Russian perspectives and some loaded language inserted into news agency stories relating to the war in Ukraine were first spotted overseas.

RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson called it “pro-Kremlin garbage” and some politicians asked if RNZ might be carrying foreign propaganda.

RNZ tightened editorial checks and stood down one online journalist, who later resigned. He told RNZ Checkpoint that he had edited news reports “in that way for years” and no one had ever queried it or told him to stop.

An RNZ audit of stories he edited eventually discovered 49 — mostly supplied by Reuters — which RNZ deemed to be inappropriately edited.

External experts were then appointed to look at the problem and how RNZ should respond.

Former RNZ political editor Brent Edwards, currently political editor at NBR, drew on his experience as RNZ’s newsgathering chief to pinpoint a key problem.

“I technically had no responsibility whatsoever for what went on the web. I always thought that that news should have run ‘Digital,’” Edwards said.

“Maybe one of the recommendations  . . . would be that ‘Digital’ should be integrated into the news division – and therefore a lot more editorial control imposed on what goes on the web,” he said

That was indeed a key suggestion when the expert panel reported back this week.

What the independent experts found
The Independent External Review of RNZ Editorial Processes (PDF) confirmed once and for all it was just one journalist — who mostly worked remotely — responsible for the breach of standards. But RNZ was responsible too.

“What we found was a journalist who acted in breach of both editorial standards and RNZ’s contract with Reuters — and an organisation that facilitated the conditions for a journalist to do so,” the panel concluded.

It also cited poorly-resourced digital news team members not adequately supervised or trained, outdated technology and organisational silos as factors that “reduced the oversight of editorial standards.”

“The training materials we reviewed were basic and staff had not engaged with them. Training in editorial standards  . . . lacked consistency and effectiveness,” the report said.

“I have empathy for the journalist and his situation. He felt that he was doing the right thing he’d been doing for a long period of time,” RNZ’s chair Dr Jim Mather told Checkpoint on Wednesday when asked if the journalist was ‘a fall guy’.

“The report clearly identifies he didn’t receive the required level of training, support and oversight. So I think there’s some significant questions that we need to be asking ourselves,” he said.

The co-editor of Newsroom.co.nz Mark Jennings — formerly the long-serving news chief at TV3 — was not so forgiving.

“(The panel members) seem to believe that he was a misguided soul with no deliberate intent to breach editorial standards,” he told RNZ’s Morning Report on Thursday.

“He was inserting his own opinions. I’ve got no doubt about that. And it wasn’t just pro-Kremlin. It was pro-China. It was anti-America and anti-Israel,” he said.

This week RNZ said it has accepted the panel’s 22 recommendations, including a new role focused on editorial standards and building trust. It also said it was already planning some of the changes, such as updating aged in-house editorial technology.

In the end, the panel didn’t agree all 49 of the stories RNZ identified were inappropriately edited. It also said there was no intention to misform or propagandise, but RNZ’s reputation for accurate and balanced journalism had been damaged.

“That has to be a concern. When there is a breach, it really hurts to go backwards a little bit in the estimation of some of the public,” RNZ CEO Paul Thompson told Mediawatch.

“But it was 49 stories and in the end — and it was one person. If we get those things in place . . . I think that the trust will be there,” he said.

The report said Thompson himself amplified the alarm and perception of damage to trust by calling the stories “pro-Kremlin garbage”.

“The panel is entitled to its opinion on my use of language, but my view of what happened and the panel’s view is the same – the editing was inappropriate and it affected the balance. It introduced unreliable information and there was a pro-Russian bias in the copy. They didn’t like the fact that I used a very strong term to describe it,” he told Mediawatch.

Putting it right

Paul Thompson confirmed online news would now be under the supervision of RNZ’s news division, as the report recommended.

“This division . . . was common in many organisations, particularly public broadcasters, in the early days of the internet. Online news was a new emerging area but those days are long gone,” the report says.

Thompson is an experienced newsroom leader. Shouldn’t he have addressed this earlier?

“We’re integrated across RNZ. Everyone works across platforms — that’s how we do podcasts and social media and have a functioning website,” he said.

“So what we’re talking about is that function of editing news and the benefits of that being brought together where everyone is editing news. In May we wrestled with this and decided it was time to make that change — and within a couple of weeks we were thrown into this crisis,” he said.

“Should we have got on to it sooner? Probably. And I’ll take responsibility for that,” he said.

The report also says the journalist responsible for the inappropriate editing had himself suggested additional editing positions to ease the workload and improve oversight.

“In both cases one of the key factors cited and not proceeding was a lack of funding and resources,” the report said.

Thompson championed online expansion as soon as he took over at RNZ in 2013, setting stretch goals to attract new and bigger audiences.

Yet it wasn’t until 2017 that RNZ emerged from a lengthy funding freeze. Was this crisis a consequence of a digital transition done quickly and on the cheap?

“We have been constrained on funding and we just couldn’t ‘magic’ up those positions. Even if we agreed with his suggestion . . . it probably wouldn’t have stopped him doing what he did — and he’s the one who did the editing,” Thompson told Mediawatch.

“We have been stretched  – but the counterfactual is if we hadn’t pushed ourselves to move into those areas, even though it has been hard, we’d be way behind where we need to be in terms of looking after audiences,” he said.

“It’s a fair comment. But the good part is that we’ve now received that material funding increase. It kicked in a month ago and it will mean that we can resource digital for the first time to the level that it needs to be,” he said.

A big bill
RNZ’s chair has said the bill for the review is around $230,000.

Broadcasting minister Willie Jackson told Newshub Nation on Saturday the government had no regrets.

“We had no choice. You’re almost talking about national security here. I don’t think it’ll happen again. They’re going to cover the gaps,” Jackson said.

“It’s the only way that you can remove any doubt that there’s any lingering issues that we haven’t resolved. It’s all being flushed out.

“The recommendations  . . . are sensible and pragmatic. We need to make sure we use this as an opportunity to make ourselves even stronger,” Paul Thompson told Mediawatch.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Recently, there was a serious revelation that some wire service reports were edited, without attribution, by an individual employee of our national broadcaster, RNZ.

Now, let’s examine the way I composed the above sentence.

I included the word “serious” to signal to readers that this news is of significant importance. The reason is that I believe there is already extensive frustration at media coverage of news — and therefore anything that erodes trust in our major media should be taken seriously.

• READ MORE: Mediawatch: Further fallout as RNZ takes out the ‘Kremlin garbage’
• Other RNZ inquiry reports
• Other Palestine reports

Later in the sentence, I used the word “edited”. Initially, I had used the word “altered” but I made a conscious decision to change it to “edited”. I did this because I thought the word “altered” might suggest a higher type of wrongdoing — one that could be linked to fraud and criminality, such as being paid by a foreign agent to alter documents.

There is no evidence that this was the case at RNZ. The word “edited” suggests the use of some sort of journalistic judgment which, in this particular case, regardless of the factuality or falsehood of the edits, were clearly unethical because they were unauthorised and undeclared.

The reference to “an individual employee” was to ensure that other journalists at RNZ, and the organisation as a whole, were not implicated in the revelation. If I had thought RNZ was systematically biased in its reporting, I probably would have just written that RNZ had been found to be altering wire service news.

So my choice of words to form the first sentence of this column was informed by my personal perspectives, as well as the impression I hoped to create in the minds of those reading it.

The subject of this column isn’t about what happened at RNZ. We will be informed of this, in time, when the result of the ongoing inquiry is made public.

Unbiased reporting?
The question I intend to explore here is if there is such a thing as unbiased reporting.

I went back to university later in life to study journalism because it was important to me to understand how the news was produced. My course placed a lot of emphasis on the importance of objectivity and impartiality as ideal standards of news reporting, without much discussion about the limits of achieving such unrealistic standards.

News is produced by reporters and shaped by editors who cannot help but inject their own perspectives and personal experiences into the final product. Even when reporting live from the scene, journalists often have to form a judgment as to what is newsworthy, and so depending on who is reporting the story, the information we receive may alter.

In general, the idea of “unbiased”, “objective” or “neutral” reporting cannot be entirely divorced from the editorial guides journalists use to determine what information to report, and also what they believe is the truth.

Omitting context or the decision to exclude some key words can, in some instances, produce a misleading report.

For instance, my interest in the Palestinian cause has meant that I notice the journalistic language used in reporting on Palestine. I consider that Gaza and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) should always be referred to as “occupied Gaza” and “occupied West Bank” because this is their legal status under international law.

But in many articles about Palestine, the word “occupied” is often dropped even though its use matters because it gives relevant context to reporting of political and military events there.

#Mediawatch: Further #fallout as #RNZ takes out the ‘Kremlin garbage’ #CafePacific #AsiaPacificReport #rnznews #PacificMediaWatch #rnzinquiry #kremlingarbage #RussiaUkraineWar #media #mediacredibility #newsedits @USPWansolwara https://t.co/waIGzEUdwE pic.twitter.com/wfzDEFZjdi

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) June 18, 2023

Impartial presentation
Some journalistic codes refer to “balanced” and “fair” reporting. The idea here is that, where there is controversy, there should be an impartial presentation of all facts as well as all substantial opinions relating to it.

A fair report, it is said, should avoid giving equal footing to truths and mistruths and should provide factual context to any inaccurate or misleading public statement.

In recent years, The New York Times has used a series of articles known as Explainers to, as they describe it, “demystify thorny topics”.

Stuff’s Explained follows a similar format to help deconstruct topics that are complex and challenging to understand.

The notion of bias in news writing has become the most common criticism of the media.

Ultimately, the solution to increasing trust in journalism lies in transparency and disclosure of the standards, judgments and systems used to produce and edit news. It is therefore right that RNZ has announced an external review of its processes for the editing of online stories.

But there should also be a mind shift in our understanding of the notions of unbiased and objective reporting — namely that these notions have always existed and continue to operate within power dynamics that give privilege to certain perspectives.

The best approach, therefore, is to always allow for an element of doubt — and only believe something to be true just so long as our active efforts to disprove it have been unsuccessful.

Donna Miles-Mojab is an Iranian New Zealander interested in justice and human rights issues. She lives in Christchurch and works as a freelance journalist and a columnist for The Press. This article is republished with the author’s permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

MEDIAWATCH: By Colin Peacock, RNZ Mediawatch presenter

The comedians on 7 Days had a few laughs at RNZ’s expense against a backdrop of the Kremlin on TV Three this week.

“A Radio New Zealand digital journalist has been stood down after it emerged they’d been editing news stories on the broadcaster’s website to give them a pro-Russian slant, which is kind of disgusting,” host Jeremy Corbett said.

“You’d never get infiltration like that on 7 Days. Our security is too strong. Strong like a bear. Strong like the glorious Russian state and its leader Putin,” he said.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MEDIAWATCH: The RNZ editing fallout
• RNZ appoints panel to investigate inappropriate editing of online stories
• ‘I think it’s really important that we preserve the editorial independence of an institution like RNZ’ – PM Chris Hipkins
• Prime Minister responds to questions on RNZ investigation into pro-Russian editing
• Other RNZ inquiry reports

“I love this Russian strategy: ‘First, we take New Zealand’s fourth best and fourth most popular news site — then the world!” said Melanie Bracewell, who said she had not kept up with the news.

Just a joke, obviously, but this week some people have been asking if Kremlin campaigns played a role in the inappropriate editing of online world news.

It was on June 9 that the revelation of it kicked off a media frenzy about propaganda, misinformation, Russia, Ukraine, truth, trust and editorial standards that has been no laughing matter at RNZ.

The story went up a notch last weekend when TVNZ’s Thomas Mead revealed Ukrainian New Zealander Michael Lidski — along with 20 others — had complained about a story written by the journalist in May 2022, which RNZ had re-edited on the day to add alternative perspectives after prompting from an RNZ journalist who considered it sub-standard.

The next day on RNZ’s Checkpoint, presenter Lisa Owen said the suspended RNZ web journalist had told her he edited reports “in that way for five years” — and nobody had ever queried it or told him to stop.

RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson, who is also editor-in-chief, then told Checkpoint he did not consider what he had called “pro-Kremlin garbage” a resignation-worthy issue.

“I think this is a time for us actually working together to fix the problem,” he said.

RNZ had already begun taking out the trash in public by listing the corrupted (and now corrected) stories on the RNZ.co.nz homepage as they are discovered.

Thompson said the problem was “confined to a small area of what RNZ does” but by the following day,  RNZ found six more stories — supplied originally by the reputable news agency Reuters — had also been edited in terms more favourable to the ruling regimes.

“RNZ has come out with a statement that said: ‘In our defence, we didn’t actually realise anyone was reading our stories’,” said 7 Days’ Jeremy Corbett.

That was just a gag — but it did actually explain just how it took so long for the dodgy edits to come to light and become newsworthy.

Where the problem lay
Last Wednesday’s cartoon in the Stuff papers — featuring an RNZ radio newsreader with a Pinocchio-length nose didn’t raise any laughs there either — because none of the slanted stories in question ever went out in the news on the air.

They were only to be found online — and this was a significant distinction as it turned out, because the checks and balances are not quite the same or made by the same staff.

“In radio, a reporter writes a story and sends it to a sub-editor who will then check it. And then a news reader has to read it so there’s a couple of stages. Maybe even a chief reporter would have checked it as well,” Corin Dann told RNZ Morning Report listeners last Monday.

“What I’m trying to establish is what sort of checks and balances were there to ensure that that world story was properly vetted,” he said.

That question — and others — will now be asked by the external experts appointed this week to run the rule of RNZ’s online publishing procedures for a review that will be made public.

On Thursday a former RNZer Brent Edwards made a similar point in the National Business Review where he’ is now the political editor.

“For a couple of years, I was the director of news gathering. I had a large responsibility for RNZ’s news coverage but technically I had no responsibility whatsoever for what went on the web,” he said.

“Done properly the RNZ review panel could do all news media a favour by providing a template for how online news should be curated. It should reinforce the importance of quality, ethical journalism,” Edwards added.

His NBR colleague Dita di Boni said “there but for the grace of God go other outlets” which have “gone digital” in news.

“I worked at TVNZ and there was a rush to digital as well with lots of resources going in but little oversight from the main newsroom.”

Calls for political action
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has made it clear he doesn’t want the government involved in RNZ’s editorial affairs.

David Seymour of the ACT party wanted an inquiry — and NZ First leader Winston Peters called for a Royal Commission into the media bias and manipulation.

Former National MP Nathan Guy told Newshub Nation this weekend “heads need to roll” at RNZ.

“If I was the broadcasting minister, I would want the chair in my office and to hold RNZ to account. I want timeframes. I want accountability because we just can’t afford to have our public broadcaster tell unfortunate mistruths to the public,” he said.

In the same discussion, Newsroom’s co-editor Mark Jennings reminded Guy that RNZ’s low-budget digital news transition happened under his National-led government which froze RNZ’s funding for almost a decade.

“This is what happens when you underfund an organisation for so long,” he said.

Jennings also said “trust in RNZ has been hammered by this” — and criticised RNZ chairman Dr Jim Mather for declining to be interviewed on Newshub Nation.

Earlier — under the headline Media shooting itself in the foot — Jennings said surveys have picked up a decline and trust and news media here.

“And the road back for the media just had a major speed bump,” he concluded.

How deep is the damage to trust?

While the breach of editorial standards is clear, has there been an over-reaction to what may be the actions of just one employee, which took years to come to light?

Last week the think-tank Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures at Auckland University hosted a timely “disinformation and media manipulation” workshop attended by executives and editors from most major media outlets.

It was arranged long before RNZs problems arose — but those ended up dominating discussion on this theme.

Among the participants was media consultant and commentator Peter Bale, who has previously worked overseas for Reuters, as well as The Financial Times and CNN.

“I really feel for RNZ in this, for the chief executive and everybody else there who does generally a great job. The issue of trust here is in this person’s relationship with their employer and their relationship with the facts.”

Bale is also the newsroom initiative leader at the International News Media Association, which promotes best practice in news and journalism publishing.

The exposure of the “inappropriate editing” undetected for so long has created the impression a lot of content is published online with no checking. That is sometimes the case when speed is a priority, but the vast majority of stuff does go past at least two eyes before publication.

“I think it is true also that editing has been diminished as a skill. But I don’t think it’s necessarily a failure of editing here but a failure of this person’s understanding of what their job is,” Bale told Mediawatch.

“You shouldn’t necessarily need to have a second or third pair of eyes when processing a Reuters story that’s already gone through multiple editors. The critical issue for RNZ is whether they took the initial complaints seriously enough,” he said.

‘Pro-Kremlin garbage’?

There have been many reports in recent years about Russia seeding misinformation and disinformation abroad.

Last Tuesday, security and technology consultant Paul Buchanan told Morning Report that RNZ should be better prepared for authoritarian states seeking to mess with its news.

“This incident that prompted this investigation may or may not be just one individual who has certain opinions about the war between Russia and Ukraine. But it is possible that . . . stories were manipulated from abroad,” he said.

Back in March the acting Director-General of the SIS told Parliament: “States are trying, in a coercive disruptive and a covert way, to influence the behaviors of people in New Zealand and influencing their decision making”.

John Mackey named no nations at the time, but his GCSB counterpart Andrew Hampton told MPs research had shown Russia was the source of misinformation many Kiwis were consuming.

Is it really likely the Kremlin or its proxies are pushing propaganda into the news here? And if so, to what end?

“I think there’s been a little bit of ‘too florid’ language used about this. This person has inserted what are in some people’s views genuine talking points from those who . . . want to have expressed what the Russian view is. But it was very ham-fisted,” said Bale.

“There are ways to do this. You could have inserted the Russian perspective to highlight the fact that there is a different view about things like the Orange Revolution when the pro-Kremlin leader in Kyiv was overthrown,” he said.

Not necessarily ‘propaganda’
“I don’t think it is necessarily ‘Kremlin propaganda’ as it’s been described. It was just a misguided attempt to bring another perspective, I suspect, but it still represents a tremendous breach of trust,” he said.

“I write a weekly newsletter for The Spinoff about international news, and I try sometimes to show . . . there are other perspectives on these stories. Those things are legitimate to address — but not just surreptitiously squeeze into a story in some sort of perceived balance.

“I don’t think in this particular case that it is to do with the spread of disinformation or misinformation by Russia. I think this is a different set of problems. But I agree (there’s a) threat from the kind of chaos-driving techniques that Russia is particularly brilliant at. They’re very skilled at twisting stories . . . and I think we need to be ready for it,” he said.

The guest speaker at that Koi Tū event last Wednesday was Dr Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein center on Media and Politics at Harvard University in the US, where she researches and tracks the sources of misrepresentation and misinformation in the media, and the impact they have on public trust in media — and also how media can prepare for it.

At the point where 15 supplied news stories had been found to be “inappropriately edited” by RNZ, she took to Twitter to say: “This is wild. Fake news has reached new heights.”

Set against what we’ve seen in US politics — and about Russia and Ukraine — is it really that bad?

“Usually what you see is the spoofing of a website or a URL in order to look like you’re a certain outlet and distribute disinformation that way. It’s very unlikely that someone would go in and work a job and be editing articles without proper oversight,” said Donovan  — who is also the co-author of recently published book, Meme Wars, The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy. 

“I think when it comes to one country, wanting to insert their views into another country — even though New Zealand is very small — it does track that this would be a way to influence a large group of people.

“But I don’t think if any of us know the degree to which this could be an international operation or not,” she told Mediawatch.

“What you learn is that their pattern is that they happen over and over and over again until a news agency or platform company figures out a mitigation tactic, whether it’s removing that link from search or writing critical press or debunking those stories.

“When I think about the fallout of it . . . using the legitimacy of RNZ in a parasitical kind of way and that legitimacy to spread propaganda is one of the most important pieces of this puzzle that we would need to explore more,” she said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Own goals by two of our top news organisations last week raised a fundamental question: What has happened to their checking processes?

Both Radio New Zealand and NZME acknowledged serious failures in their internal processes that resulted in embarrassing apologies, corrections, and take-downs.

The episodes in both newsrooms suggest the “second pair of eyes” that traditionally acted as a final check before publication no longer exists or is so over-worked in a resource-starved environment that they are looking elsewhere.

The RNZ situation is the more serious of the two episodes. It relates to the insertion of pro-Russian content into news agency stories about the invasion of Ukraine that were carried on the RNZ website.

The original stories were sourced from Reuters and, in at least one case, from the BBC. By today 22 altered stories had been found, but the audit had only scratched the surface. The alleged perpetrator has disclosed they had been carrying out such edits for the past five years.

RNZ was alerted to the latest altered story by news watchers in New York and Paris on Friday. It investigated and found a further six, then a further seven, then another, and another. This only takes us back a short way.

A number of the stories were altered only by the inclusion of a few loaded terms such as “neo-Nazi” and “US-backed coup”, but others had material changes. Some are spelt out in the now-corrected stories on the site. Here are two examples of significant insertions into the original text:

An earlier edit to this story said: “Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February last year, claiming that a US-backed coup in 2014 with the help of neo-Nazis had created a threat to its borders and had ignited a civil war that saw Russian-speaking minorities persecuted.”

An earlier edit to this story said: “The Azov Battalion was widely regarded as an anti-Russian neo-Nazi military unit by observers and western media before the Russian invasion. Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the nationalists of using Russian-speaking Ukrainians as human shields.”

Hot water with Reuters
The scale and nature of the inappropriate editing of the stories is likely to get RNZ into very hot water with Reuters. The agency has strict protocols over what forms of editing may take place with its copy and even the most cursory examination of the altered RNZ versions confirms that the protocols have been breached.

It is unsurprising that RNZ’s chief executive Paul Thompson has told staff he is “gutted” by what has occurred.

Both security analyst Dr Paul Buchanan and AUT journalism professor Dr Verica Ruper have cautioned against speculating on how the material came to be appear on the RNZ website and I agree that to do so is premature. Clearly, however, it amounts to much more than a careless editing mistake.

Paul Thompson has acted promptly in ordering an external independent enquiry into the matter and in standing down the individual who apparently handled the stories. It is likely that the government’s security services are also taking an interest in what has occurred.

What we can speculate on is the possibility that RNZ’s internal processes are deficient to the point that there is no post-production vetting of some stories before publication — that “second pair of eyes”.

We might also speculate that the problem is faced by The New Zealand Herald newsroom, following the publication of an eight-line correction at the top of page 3 of the Herald on Sunday, and carried equally sparingly on the Herald website.

“A story published last Sunday about a woman who triumphed over a difficult background to become a lawyer had elements that were false. In publishing the article, we fell short of the high standards and procedures we hold ourselves to.”

Puzzled by correction
Many readers would have been puzzled by the correction, which gave no details of the story concerned, nor did it identify those elements that were false.

There may have been legal reasons for omitting which details were incorrect, but not for leaving readers to puzzle over the story to which they referred.

It appears to relate to a three-page story in the Review section of the previous Sunday’s edition that was headed “From mob terror to high flyer”. The story related to the daughter of a woman jailed for selling methamphetamine. The daughter had gone on to a legal career in the United States.

I recall having some undefined concern about the story when I read it and still can’t quite put my finger on why the old alarm bell in the back of my head tinkled. Perhaps it was that — apart from previously published material — the story appeared to rely on a single interview. There also appeared to be a motive in telling the story to the Herald on Sunday — a forthcoming book.

The article seems to have been removed from the Herald website, but the short correction suggests that checks were missed. The same seems to have been the case with RNZ.

It is, of course, sheer coincidence that both RNZ and the Herald on Sunday should face such shortcomings in the same week. However, the likely root causes of their embarrassment are issues that all news media face.

First, the pressure on newsroom resources has increased the workload of all staff, from reporters in the field to duty editors. Time pressures are a daily, and nightly, reality and multi-tasking has become the norm.

Checking comes second
In such an environment, checking the work of other well-trained staff may come second to more pressing demands.

As an editor, I slept better knowing that each story had passed through the hands of a news editor, sub-editor and, finally, a check sub with a compulsive attention to detail who checked each completed page before it was transmitted to the printing plant. I fear our newsrooms are now too bare for that multi-layered system of checks.

If the demands of newspaper deadlines are tough, the pressures are manifestly greater in a digital environment where websites have become voracious beasts that cry out to be fed from dawn to midnight. New stories are added throughout the protracted news cycle, pushing older stories down the home page, then off it to subsidiary pages on the site tree.

The technology to satisfy the hunger has advanced to the point where reporters publish direct to the web using Twitter-like feeds. We saw it last week during the Auckland City budget debate when news websites were recording the jerk dancing minute by minute.

Clay Shirky, in his influential 2008 book Here Comes Everybody, popularised the term “publish, then filter”. It referred to a change from sifting the good from the mediocre before publication, to a digital environment in which users determined worth once it had been published.

However, increasingly, the phrase has taken on additional meaning. The burden of work created by digital appetites has seen mainstream media foreshortening the production process by removing some of the old checks and balances because they can always go back later and make changes on the website.

The abridgement may, for example, mean a pre-publication check is limited to headline, graphic, and the first couple of paragraphs. Or, in the case of “pre-edited” agency or syndication content, it may mean foregoing post-production text checks altogether (I hasten to add that I do not know whether this was the case with the RNZ stories).

Editorial based on trust
Editorial production has always been based on trust. It works both down and up. Editors trust those they rely on to carry out processes from content creation to post-production, and those responsible for one phase trust their work will subsequently be handled with care.

Individual shortcomings should not erode trust in the newsroom, but such episodes do point to a need to re-examine whether systems are fit for purpose.

Over a decade ago, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel wrote a book called Blur. It was about information overload. In it they state that, as journalism becomes more complicated, the role of the editor becomes more important, and verification is a bigger part of the editor’s role.

Incidents such as those that came to light last week reinforce that view. They also suggest that mainstream media organisations should leave Clay Shirky’s mantra to social media and bloggers. Instead, they should (thoroughly) filter, then publish.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes the website knightlyviews.com where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

RNZ has appointed a group of experts to carry out an investigation over how pro-Russian edits were inserted into international stories online.

An RNZ digital journalist has been placed on leave after it came to light he had changed news agency stories on the war in Ukraine.

RNZ has since been auditing hundreds of stories the journalist edited for its website over a five-year period.

Twenty-one stories from news agency Reuters and one BBC item have so far been found to be inappropriately edited, and have been corrected. Most relate to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but others relate to Israel, Syria and Taiwan.

Media law expert Willy Akel, will chair a three-person panel. The other members are public law expert and former journalist Linda Clark, and former director of editorial standards at the ABC, Alan Sunderland.

RNZ board chairman Dr Jim Mather told RNZ’s Morning Report the board had also agreed on the review’s terms of reference.

“The terms of reference are specific about reviewing the circumstances around the inappropriate editing of wire stories discovered in June 2023 identifying what went wrong and recommending areas for improvement.

Specific handling of Ukraine complaint
“We’re also going to look at the specific handling of the complaint to the broadcasting minister from the Ukrainian community in October 2022 and then it’s going to broaden out to review the overall editorial controls, systems and processes for the editing of online content at RNZ.”

The review would also look at total editorial policy and “most importantly” practice as well, Mather said.

No stone would be left unturned, he said.

“Policy is one thing but ensuring it’s put into practice is another.

“We have specifically and purposefully decided not to limit it in any way shape or form but to allow it to broaden as may be required to ensure we restore public confidence in RNZ.

“We’re prepared as a board to support the panel going where they need to, to give us all confidence that we are ensuring that robust editorial process are being followed.

“I’m making no pre-determinations whatsoever, I’m waiting for the review to be conducted.”

The investigation was expected to take about four weeks to complete.

Dr Mather said he retained confidence in RNZ chief executive and editor-in-chief Paul Thompson.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The arrest of Papua New Guinea former prime minister Peter O’Neill yesterday was prompted by a complaint by Chief Secretary Ivan Pomaleu to the Commissioner of Police David Manning after reviewing the UBS Commission of Inquiry Report.

In a major incident brief for police obtained by the PNG Post-Courier, Chief Secretary Pomaleu, as the custodian of government’s commission of inquiries and submissions, made a referral on the recommendation of the UBS Report on the US$1.2 billion loan inquiry to police as an investigative authority.

Pomaleu referred the COI report to the Commissioner’s office to commence its investigations on the 5 June 2023.

• READ MORE: Other UBS inquiry reports

“The Office of the Chief Secretary to Government in its capacity as the custodian of government’s inquiries and policy submissions including decisions implementations made a referral on the recommendations in the report to police as an investigative authority to cause an investigation,” the police major incident brief detailed.

“On the 05th of June, 2023 the Chief Secretary to Government referred the COI Report to the Office of the Commissioner of Police to commence investigation in the report.

“In the view of the report an obvious infringement was noted to be breached during the COI,” it detailed.

According to the summary of facts, on the 8 June 2023, O’Neill was brought in to the Special Investigation Team office at Airport Police Station, 7 Mile, upon a complaint of offering “delusive evidence” at a Commission of Inquiry.

Three counts of perjury
Yesterday he was charged with three counts of giving false evidence under oath in the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) loan, Commissioner of Police David Manning confirmed.

O’Neill was later released on OR — own recognisance, granted by Commissioner Manning.

The police major incident brief also stated that police conducted a clinical analysis to see whether or not the responses given by the defendant before the Commission on 17 June 2021 were false.

In the responses, the defendant denied having knowledge of any transactions made between Oil Search and Elk-Antelope.

He also denied having any agreements/discussions and correspondences about any potential investments with Oil Search and Elk-Antelope in 10 percent shareholding acquisitions and placements.

Further investigations and deliberations conducted into the recommendations in COI discovered that statements and information produced before it by O’Neill between 2011 and 2019 were false and misleading when presented before the commission.

“Police had to look at the Commission of Inquiry report with several volumes including the transcripts of the COI going over three years.

‘Further investigations’
“Following further investigations by police it was discovered that statements and information produced by Mr O’Neill between 2011 and 2019 were false and misleading when presented before the commission, and contradicted National Executive Council Policy Submission 67/2014 on financial arrangements for the state acquisition of shareholding in Oil Search Limited and state borrowing,” Commissioner Manning said.

“From police investigations, the evidence gathered confirmed that the answers given before the commission were flawed and untrue,” he said.

Subsequently, three charges were laid on Peter O’Neill today as follows that he:

• Did appear as a witness of the 17th of June 2021 before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Processes and Procedures Followed by the Government of Papua New Guinea into Obtaining the Off-Shore Loan from the Union Bank of Switzerland and Related Transactions and given false evidence on oath, that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of what Oil Search Ltd intended to do with the money paid by the State for the purchase of Oil Search shares in 2014, and that Oil Search Ltd intended to use the money paid by the State for shares in Oil Search Ltd to purchase an interest in PRL-15 Elk Antelope, before the Royal Commission of Inquiry;
• Did appear as a witness of the 9th of August 2021 before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Processes and Procedures Followed by the Government of Papua New Guinea into Obtaining the Off-Shore Loan from the Union Bank of Switzerland and Related Transactions give false evidence that, “there was never any discussion” about Oil Search Ltd using the money paid by the State for the purchase of shares in Oil Search Ltd to buy an interest in PRL-15 Elk Antelope and “this information did not come to the government’s notice or particularly at the leadership level” before the said Royal Commission of Inquiry; and
• Did appear as a witness of the 17th of February 202 before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Processes and Procedures Followed by the Government of Papua New Guinea into Obtaining the Off-Shore Loan from the Union Bank of Switzerland and Related Transactions give false evidence on oath that “there was never any discussion” about Oil Search Ltd using the money paid by the State for the purchase of shares in Oil Search Limited to buy an interest in PRL-15 Elk Antelope and “this information did not come to government’s notice”.

Gorethy Kenneth and Majorie Finkeo are PNG Post-Courier reporters. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The RNZ board is meeting tonight to begin setting up an independent review on how pro-Russian sentiment was inserted into a number of its online stories.

An RNZ digital journalist has been placed on leave after it came to light he had changed copy from news agency Reuters on the war in Ukraine to include pro-Russian views.

Since Friday, hundreds of stories published by RNZ have been audited, and 16 Reuters stories and one BBC item had to be corrected, with chief executive Paul Thompson saying more would be checked “with a fine-tooth comb”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘I think it’s really important that we preserve the editorial independence of an institution like RNZ’ – PM Chris Hipkins
• LISTEN TO RNZ NINE TO NOON: ‘I am gutted. It’s painful,’ says RNZ chief executive
• Prime Minister responds to questions on RNZ investigation into pro-Russian editing
• Other RNZ inquiry reports

The journalist told RNZ’s Checkpoint he had subbed stories that way for a number of years and nobody had queried it. Thompson said those comments appeared to be about the staffer’s overall role as a sub-editor.

Board chairperson Dr Jim Mather said the public’s trust had been eroded by revelations and it was going to take a lot of work to come back from what had happened.

“We see ourselves as guardians of a taonga and that taonga being the 98 years of history that RNZ has in terms of trusted public media and high standards of excellent journalism and so it is fair to say we are extremely disappointed,” he told RNZ’s Checkpoint on Monday.

“We need to demonstrate that we are prepared to review every aspect of what has occurred to actually start the restoration process in terms of confidence in RNZ.”

The board would discuss who will run the investigation and its terms of reference, and would make a decision “very soon”.

Currency is trust
“The role the board is going to take is we are going to appoint the panel of trusted individuals, experienced journalists, those that do have editorial experience to undertake the review. This is going to be done completely separate from the other work being undertaken by management,” he said.

Dr Mather said the currency of the public broadcaster was trust, and the revelations had impacted the organisation’s journalists.

“I know that we pride ourselves as having the highest standards of journalistic quality so I can just say that it’s had a significant impact also on our journalism team.”

Reuters said it had “addressed the issue” with RNZ, noting in a statement that RNZ had initiated an investigation.

“As stated in our terms and conditions, Reuters content cannot be altered without prior written consent,” the spokesperson’s statement said.

“Reuters is fully committed to covering the war in Ukraine impartially and accurately, in keeping with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.”

‘Important that politicians don’t interfere’ – Hipkins
Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said while he would never rule out a cross-party parliamentary inquiry, he had not seen anything so far to suggest the need for an wider action.

Hipkins told RNZ’s Morning Report he was not sure a cross-party parliamentary inquiry on issues around editorial decisions would be a good way of protecting the editorial independence of an institution like RNZ.

“Having said that, we always monitor these kinds of things to see how they are being handled, it’s really important that politicians don’t interfere in that,” he said.

“I think if it reached a point where public confidence in the institution was so badly tarnished that some degree of independent review was required, I’d never take that off the table.”

But in the first instance, it was important to allow RNZ’s management and board to deal with it with the processes that they had in place, Hipkins said.

“I haven’t seen anything in the last few days that would suggest that there’s any case for us to trigger something that’s more significant than what’s being done at the moment.”

Hipkins said he had not sought, nor had, any briefings from New Zealand’s security services in relation to the incident because it was a matter of editorial independence and it was important that politicians did not get involved in that.

“RNZ, while it’s a publicly-funded institution, must operate independently of politicians.”

Not an issue for politicians – Willis
National Party deputy leader Nicola Willis agreed that it was not an issue for politicians to be involved in.

She said it was important the investigation was carried out, and the concern was about editorial standards that let the situation go unnoticed for such a long time.

Trust in media was important and people reading mainstream media expected stories to go through a fact-checking process and reflect appropriate editorial independence, she told RNZ’s First Up.

“I think it will be a watch for newsrooms around the country, and I hope that it’s a thorough investigation that comes out with robust recommendations.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Former Papua New Guinea prime minister Peter O’Neill has been charged with three counts of giving false evidence contrary to Section 10 of the Commission of Inquiry Act.

He met reporters outside Boroko Police Station in Port Moresby today stating “this is politically motivated”.

O’Neill, who is also Ialibu-Pangia MP, was at the station for police formalities to be completed in the charges against him.

• READ MORE: Other UBS loan inquiry reports

Earlier, the PNG Post-Courier’s Todagia Kelola reported that O’Neill had been requested to front up at the National Fraud Squad office at Konedobu today for questioning on allegations of perjury.

In a short media statement on Saturday, Police Commissioner David Manning requested O’Neill to make himself available for questioning on allegations of perjury emanating from the UBS Commission of Inquiry.

In response, O’Neill said in a statement titled “Is Manning Police Commissioner or Chief of PNG Intimidation?”: “Firstly, I am surprised but heartened the Police Commissioner is working late on a Saturday evening.”

“Violent crimes, kidnap for ransom, rape, and murders along with crippling corruption have been skyrocketing since his time in the high office of Police Commissioner.

“I am sure it is comforting to all Papua New Guineans to know the Commissioner is choosing to go after me late on a Saturday night in what appears to be blatant intimidation rather than focus on keeping the people of Papua New Guinea safe.”

Commissioner Manning in his statement said: “Based upon investigations into the UBS Commission of Inquiry report, we are satisfied that Mr Peter O’Neill gave false evidence whilst under oath.

“I am appealing to Mr O’Neill to cooperate and make himself available by Monday morning to Director Crimes, Chief Inspector Joel Simatab, at the National Police Headquarters in Konedobu,” Manning said.

Commissioner Manning said the ultimate objective of the Commission of Inquiry was to establish whether there were breaches of PNG laws and constitutional requirements in the negotiation and approval of the UBS loan, whether PNG as a country had suffered as a result of the deal, and whether people involved could be held accountable.

“After a thorough investi­gation and assessment of the facts, we are satisfied and have sufficient evidence that Mr O’Neill has perjured the inquiry — thereby committing an offence under the Commission of Inquiry Act of giving false evidence under oath,” Manning said.

O’Neill, in his statement in response said: “It is nearly 12 months since the internationally presided over UBS Commission of Inquiry ended with no findings against me, and now, late on a Saturday evening, I am instructed via a media statement by the Police Commissioner to attend questioning on the next day, a Sunday,” said O’Neill.

“It appears that before I am questioned, Commissioner of Police in his statement seems to be directing his investigating officers to arrest and charge me of a crime of perjury while under oath in the UBS Commission of Inquiry.”

“I welcome the opportunity to face the courts to test a politically motivated and very expensive Commission of Inquiry.

“I have faith in the fairness of the courts but not in yet another Police Commissioner instructed investigation into me.

“The perjury claim that I have learned of in Mr Manning’s statement is false.

“I can only assume he is referring to the unsubstantiated claim given to the COI by a self-serving politician.

“I will attend at 10am on Monday the 12th June 2023 for questioning at Konedobu Police HQ.

“I assure all supporters that I remain steadfast and more committed than ever to Papua New Guinea and the foundations of democracy.

“These terrible times we are all experiencing are temporary.”

The UBS COI final report in its answer to the question, “Who was responsible and what remedies should be sought against them”, recommended that O’Neill should be prosecuted for giving false evidence to the Commission and referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Todagia Kelola is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

A call for the first reading of a member’s bill banning seabed mining altogether was voted down at Parliament today, with Labour, National and ACT turning in 106 votes against the Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill.

The Green Party, Te Pāti Māori and independent MPs Elizabeth Kerekere and Meka Whaitiri made up the 13 votes in favour.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said her member’s bill was born in response to an application to mine 66 kmsq of seafloor near Patea, over 35 years, and frustrations iwi had experienced in dealing with existing seabed legislation.

• READ MORE: Other seabed mining reports

The application by Trans-Tasman Resources involved taking: “Millions of tonnes of iron, titanium, vanadium from the seabed… by dredging up millions of tonnes of the sea floor, extracting the mineral, and dumping the unwanted sludge back into the sea, smothering the surrounding area with a sediment film — which would spread all the way down from Taranaki to Wellington, affecting marine life, biodiversity, and Māori,” Ngarewa-Packer said.

But TTR chair Alan Eggers previously said if the company’s application for seabed mining near Patea was granted it would create “a major new $1 billion export industry employing best practice sustainable environmental approach to mineral recovery, with minimal impact on the environment”.

Ngarewa-Packer’s bill asked for a nationwide ban on seabed mining consents within Aotearoa’s exclusive economic zone and the coastal waters governed under the Resource Management Act (RMA), as well as the withdrawal of all existing seabed mining consents and a ban on any rights to exploration being granted under the Crown Minerals Act.

Inquiry announced
Earlier this month Labour’s Environment Minister David Parker announced a select committee inquiry to investigate seabed mining rules in New Zealand waters, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of seabed mining.

But Ngarewa-Packer said public opinion did not support that approach.

“The opposition to seabed mining has been strong . . .  we already know an enormous amount about seabed mining. The government does not need an inquiry to understand that this industry would trash our moana; it’s abundantly clear,” she said.

“Iwi don’t want it. Our community don’t want it. The public doesn’t want it. Nor does the technology sector.”

There had been 13,000 submissions against seabed mining presented to the government, she said: “With only a handful in favour. We have also delivered 40,000-signature petitions to the government”.

“Ocean advocates from across Aotearoa have called on this government to urgently ban seabed mining. More than 30 hapū and iwi, environmental NGOs, KASM (Kiwis Against Seabed Mining) and Greenpeace Aotearoa have called on the prime minister to support my bill.”

Ngāti Ruanui and Ngā Rauru had led a long fight against seabed mining in Taranaki, Ngarewa-Packer said.

There had been strong participation from fishers, divers, farmers and community leaders, and the opposition group included many with in-depth technical expertise in the sector.

‘Battle taken to every court’
“This battle has taken them to every court in this nation, resulting in successfully winning in the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court,” Ngarewa-Packer said.

“From our iwi’s perspective, seabed mining is a violation of our kaitiakitanga and as defenders of the ecosystems, we are gravely concerned it will affect everything. This is a part of who we are, where we are, and it must be protected.

“The government has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop this dangerous industry before it starts.”

Parker said while the government did have concerns about the environmental impacts of seabed mining, this bill was not the right tool to tackle the issue. Particularly because it would cancel existing consents and exploration rights – including for gas, he said.

“It has been clear from the start of this bill that the effect of this legislation would have been to, amongst other things, close down the Maui platform, and it would have done that retrospectively, it would have done it without compensation, and it would have done it without any transition period.”

That would have “threatened the security of supply of electricity in the short to medium term”, and would cause the government to reneg on previous agreements to the oil and gas sector, Parker said.

Instead, he said that if the select committee inquiry found there were genuine concerns about seabed mining, those could be addressed at the wider Pacific regional level.

‘Genuine concern’
“If there is a genuine concern, as I do think there is about mining at sea, then, if we can coalesce with the Pacific around a solution to protect the Pacific from deep-sea mining, then, effectively, we will be protecting a big part of the world’s oceans.”

National Party spokesman for energy and resources Stuart Smith said blanket bans were unhelpful: “We have more than adequate processes to deal with environmental challenges and issues when we exploit resources — and exploit resources we do.

“Our very standard of living is totally dependent on the resources industry”.

Offshore seabed mining for aggregates was common overseas, he said: “Those sorts of things are happening all the time”.

New Zealand did not yet have the energy infrastructure to move away from using gas, and if less gas was available it would make the country more dependent on using coal to generate electricity, which was worse for the environment, he said.

The broad reach of the bill and its retrospective component would also dissuade trade and investment, Smith said.

“This bill would send a massive shock wave through the international community, particularly the sovereign risk that New Zealand has always been seen as very low, until the oil and gas exploration ban, which did send a massive shock wave through the international community.

Sovereign risk ‘too high’
“So much so that, in fact, I’ve been told from companies trying to raise funds for other projects — nothing to do with the oil and gas sector — that they weren’t going to be supported by independent financiers because they see the sovereign risk in New Zealand now, as a result of that ban, as too high for them; they would rather invest their funds elsewhere.”

The issue had been a hot topic globally as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) planned to begin taking applications for industrial-scale deep-sea mining in Pacific waters in July.

However, critics were worried about potential environmental damage and the effects mining could have on coastal communities, with some saying better regulations were needed.

And there has been an increasing international call for an end to seabed mining, with France, Canada, Tuvalu, Fiji and Nauru among those who have called for a moratorium.

Ngarewa-Packer said the government’s stance was confusing, considering their support of a conditional moratorium against seabed mining in international waters.

“We cannot fathom for the life of us how Labour today is able to face themselves,” she said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Australian Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s recent claim that New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has veto powers over Parliament was met with surprise in New Zealand, especially by the members of the tribunal itself.

That’s because it is just plain wrong.

As the debate around the Voice to Parliament ramps up, we can probably expect similar claims to be made ahead of this year’s referendum. But the issue is so important to Australia’s future that such misinformation should not go unchallenged.

• READ MORE: What Australia could learn from New Zealand about Indigenous representation
• Solicitor-general confirms Voice model is legally sound, will not ‘fetter or impede’ Parliament
• Explainer: the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi
• What actually is a treaty? What could it mean for Indigenous people?

From an Australian perspective, New Zealand may appear ahead of the game in recognising Indigenous voices constitutionally. But that has certainly not extended to granting a parliamentary power of veto to Māori.

The Waitangi Tribunal was originally established as a commission of inquiry in 1975, given the power only to make recommendations to government. And so it remains. The Crown alone appoints tribunal members and many are non-Māori.

As with all commissions of inquiry, it’s up to the government of the day to make a political decision about whether or not to implement those recommendations.

Deceptive and wrong
Price’s claim echoed a February article and paper published by the Institute of Public Affairs, aimed at influencing the Voice referendum. Titled “The New Zealand Māori voice to Parliament and what we can expect from Australia”, it was written by the director of the institute’s legal rights program, John Storey.

The paper makes a number of assertions: the Waitangi Tribunal has a veto over the New Zealand parliament’s power to pass certain legislation; the Waitangi Tribunal was established to hear land claims but its brief has expanded to include all aspects of public policy; and the Waitangi Tribunal “shows the Voice will create new Indigenous rights”.

The last of the statements is deceptive and the others are completely wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal’s jurisdiction was largely set in stone by the New Zealand parliament in 1975 when it was established.

Far from investigating land claims, it initially wasn’t able to examine any claims dating from before 1975. Parliament changed the tribunal’s jurisdiction in 1985, giving it retrospective powers back to 1840 (when the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed).

The tribunal then started hearing land claims. But in its first decade, it focused on fisheries, planning issues, the loss of Māori language, government decisions being made at the time and general issues of public policy.

Historic grievances
Over the past 38 years, the tribunal has focused on what are called “historical Treaty claims”, covering the period 1840 to 1992. In 1992 a major settlement of fishing claims began an era of negotiation and settlement of these claims, quite separate from the tribunal itself.

With the majority of significant historic claims now settled or in negotiation, that aspect of the tribunal’s work is coming to an end. It has returned to hearing claims about social issues and other more contemporary issues.

Far from expanding its jurisdiction, the tribunal’s powers have been steadily reduced in recent decades. In 1993, it lost the power to make recommendations involving private land — that is, land not owned by the Crown.

In 2008, it lost the power to investigate new historical claims, as the government looked to close off new claims that could undermine current settlements.

There is one area where the tribunal was given the power to force the Crown to return land. The 1984-1990 Labour government set a policy to rid itself of what were seen as surplus Crown assets.

A deal was struck between Māori claimants and the Crown to allow the tribunal to make binding recommendations to return land in very special cases.

This compromise was not created by the tribunal but through ambiguity in legislation, which was resolved in favour of Māori claimants in the Court of Appeal. The ability to return land has almost never been used and is being progressively repealed across the country as Treaty settlements are implemented in legislation.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price made the erroneous comments while appearing at a debate on the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia. https://t.co/XGBfteJDaM

— Stuff (@NZStuff) April 27, 2023

Wide political support
Storey quotes a number of tribunal reports, which make findings about the Crown’s responsibilities, as if these findings are binding on the Crown or even on Parliament. This is not the case. The Waitangi Tribunal investigates claims that the Crown has acted contrary to the “principles of the Treaty”.

The Waitangi Tribunal establishes what those principles are, but they are binding on neither the courts nor Parliament. Having made findings, the tribunal makes recommendations — not to Parliament, as Storey suggests, but to ministers of the Crown.

Some recommendations are implemented, others are not.

Where there is a dispute between the Crown and Māori, the tribunal has often recommended negotiation rather than make specific recommendations for redress.

Storey has elsewhere referred to the tribunal as a “so-called advisory, now binding, Māori Voice to Parliament” that has “decreed” certain things. In the longer paper he does admit the “tribunal cannot dictate the exact form any redress offered by government must take”.

But he then falls back on the notion of a “moral veto” — that its status is so elevated that parliament is forced, however reluctantly, to do its bidding.

Yet not only does the Crown ignore tribunal recommendations as it chooses, it refuses even to be bound by the tribunal’s expert findings on history in negotiating settlements.

The Waitangi Tribunal will remain a permanent commission of inquiry because there is wide political support for its work. Nor can be it held solely responsible for increasing Māori assertiveness or political engagement with government, even if this was in any way a bad thing.

A larger social shift has taken place in Aotearoa New Zealand over the past few decades. No fiat from the Waitangi Tribunal has eliminated the cultural misappropriation of Māori faces and imagery — something Storey warns could mean “tea towels with a depiction of Uluru/Ayers Rock, or boomerang fridge magnets, would become problematic”.

The Waitangi Tribunal has often done no more than make Māori histories, Māori perspectives and Māori values accessible to a non-Māori majority. It has certainly had no power to control where debates on Indigenous issues fall.

Dr Michael Belgrave is professor of history, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Ruby Lott-Lavigna.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Dave Smith, Eveline Lubbers.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Ramzy Alwakeel.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Ruby Lott-Lavigna.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Ruby Lott-Lavigna.

A Pasifika health leader hopes the Royal Commission into the Covid-19 pandemic will look into the equity of the response and resource allocation.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern yesterday announced a Royal Commission into the government’s covid-19 response which will be chaired by Professor Tony Blakely, an epidemiologist working at the University of Melbourne.

He is joined by former National Party MP Hekia Parata, and the previous secretary to Treasury, John Whitehead, as commissioners.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: Pasifika Futures CEO Debbie Sorensen on the Royal Commission and the equity of communities
• NZ announces Royal Commission into government’s covid-19 response
• Domestic violence, isolation hit Pacific women during pandemic, says USP survey

Pasifika Futures chief executive Debbie Sorensen said Pasifika people were essentially left to form their own response during the earlier stages of the pandemic.

That was despite Pasifika people working a large proportion of jobs in MIQ facilities and at the airport and other front line locations, she said.

Many affected Pacific families experienced a great deal of hardship, she said.

It was important for the inquiry to look at the covid-19 response in regards to specific communities, she said.

Slowness of response
“We’re really clear that equity in the response and in the resource allocation is an important consideration.”

One issue was the slowness of the government’s response to both Pacific and Māori communities during the height of the pandemic, she said.

“Advice was provided to the government, you know cabinet papers provided advice on specific responses for our communities and that advice was ignored.”

An important aspect of the inquiry should be reviewing how that advice was given to the government, its response to it and how the government’s sought more information, she said.

The inquiry’s initial scope appeared to be very narrow, but it could be broadened as it went along, Sorensen said.

“The impact on mental health and the ongoing economic burden for our communities is immense — you know we have a whole generation of young people who have not continued their education because they were required to go in to work.”

Sorensen said often young people had to work because they were the only person in their family who had a job at that time due to covid-19.

Mental health demand
The pandemic also increased demand for mental health services which were already under pressure, she said.

Anyone who was unwell unlikely to be able to get an appointment within six to eight months which was shameful, she said.

Sorensen would have preferred the inquiry had been announced earlier, but it was an opportunity to better prepare for the future, she said.

But Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, chief medical officer Dr Rawiri McKree Jansen told Morning Report he had some concerns that the probe into the covid-19 response was coming too soon to gain a full picture.

The pandemic was ongoing and starting the inquiry so early may obstruct a complete view of it, he said.

“I understand that there’s people champing at the bit and [saying] we should’ve done it before but it’s very difficult to do that and adequately learn the lessons.”

Understanding how to get a proper pandemic response was in everyone’s interest, but the pandemic was now still in its third wave, he said.

About to begin
Nevertheless, the inquiry was about to get underway and it could make a large contribution if it was done well, he said.

“I’m sure there will be many Māori communities that want to have voice in the inquiry and you know contribute to a better understanding of how we can manage pandemics really well.

“We’ve had pandemics before and they’ve been absolutely tragic. We’ve got this pandemic and the outcome for us is something like two to two-and-a-half times the rate of hospitalisations and deaths, so Māori communities are fundamentally very interested in bedding in the learnings that we’ve achieved in the pandemic.”

Dr Jansen hoped the inquiry would provide enduring information about managing pandemics with a very clear focus on Māori and how to support the best outcomes for the Māori population.

Inquiry’s goal next pandemic
The head of the Royal Commission said the review needed to put New Zealand in better position to respond next time a pandemic hits.

Professor Blakely said the breadth of experience and skills of the commissioners was welcome, and would help them to cover the wide scope of the Inquiry, ranging from the health response and legislative decisions, to the economic response.

Reviewing the response to the pandemic was a big job, he said.

“There’s already 75 reports done so far, I think about 1700 recommendations from those reports, New Zealand’s not the only country that’s been affected by this cause it’s a global epidemic, so there’s lots of other reports.”

The inquiry panel would have to sit at the top of all that work that had already been done “and pull it altogether from the perspective of Aotearoa New Zealand and what would help best there.

The inquiry needed to make New Zealand was prepared for a pandemic with good testing, good contact tracing and good tools that the Reserve Bank could use to support citizens in the time of a pandemic, Professor Blakely said.

“Our job is to try and create a situation where those tools are as good as possible, there’s frameworks to use when you’ve entered another pandemic, which will occur at some stage we just don’t know when.”

Professor Blakely said he was flying to New Zealand next week and would meet with Hekia Parata and John Whitehead to start thinking about the shape of the inquiry going forward.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Adam Bychawski.

A group of migrants who have been helping a New Zealand investigation into immigration fraud may soon be forced to leave the country.

The group were some of the 50 Chinese construction workers who claimed a New Zealand-based recruiter had misled them about their pay and working rights.

Last year an arrest warrant was issued for Li Wenshan, also known as Peter Li, who fled New Zealand before charges were laid.

• READ MORE: Other reports on migrant worker exploitation

Li still faced charges for immigration fraud.

Meanwhile, two other people associated with Li face a trial in December this year.

Ten workers are expected to give evidence in court, claiming they were duped.

But last week, the workers were told by Immigration authorities that they would be expected to leave the country within a month of the trial ending.

Undermining probe efforts
Green Party immigration spokesman Ricardo March said the treatment of this group undermined efforts to combat migrant exploitation.

“These workers are not pieces of evidence, they are human beings, and so to put them in a situation where they are treated as expendable once they’re not deemed useful to provide evidence is unjust,” March said.

“And, actually [it] will undermine the government’s intent to create a supportive environment , where workers are able to come forward and participate in processes to hold employers to account.”

March called for the immigration minister to intervene, and to send a strong message that workers holding employers to account would be supported.

One of the men due to give evidence in court, 50-year-old carpenter Sheng Canhong, felt he had been punished for doing the right thing.

“The New Zealand government doesn’t like people who speak up and affect New Zealand’s reputation. Such people are not welcome here,” he said.

Sheng arrived on a work visa in 2018, but was left with no work for the initial months, and was consequently moved to a limited visa to assist with the investigation.

‘No option but to speak up’
“Because of the work situation, we had no option but to speak up. Think about it, we were in Tauranga for three months without work, we had to pay for food and accommodation, where do we get that money?

“When I came here I only had $200. So I owed people money for the living costs, and could only pay back later when I found work,” he said.

The ten workers had also missed out on the chance to apply for one-off residency.

Many of them had tried to move back onto work visas, but their applications failed despite having full time jobs, and they struggled to understand why.

Unite Union director Mike Treen, who has assisted the men since 2019, is also calling for a pathway to residency for this group.

“We ought to be giving them something to compensate them for the hurt, humiliation and exploitation that they’ve suffered while they’re here,” he said.

Treen said the system of temporary visas had fuelled migrant exploitation and needed to change.

System of ‘migrant exploitation’
“Immigration New Zealand [INZ] created a system of migrant labour exploitation, and they throw out the people who have helped expose it,” he said.

“Ten percent of workers in New Zealand were on temporary visas, 30 to 40 percent of workers in construction and hospitality and agriculture and horticulture were on temporary visas.”

INZ referred RNZ News to the minister for comment on the workers’ situation.

Minister Michael Wood said due to legal and privacy reasons he was unable to comment on the circumstances of the workers and the case.

Meanwhile, Li Wenshan is still on the loose and it is uncertain when he will make an appearance in court.

INZ declined to answer questions on whether they were looking to extradite Li.

An INZ spokesperson said for legal and privacy reasons, they would not make further comment on Li.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Israeli army has admitted for the first time that Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was likely fatally shot by an Israeli soldier during an Israeli raid in the occupied West Bank in May. The conclusion to the internal investigation comes after months of outrage from Abu Akleh’s family and human rights activists at Israel’s initial claim that the bullet came from Palestinian fire. The U.S. responded by saying it will pressure Israel to reexamine its rules of engagement. Abu Akleh’s family says it’s not enough, and is demanding a meeting with President Biden. “Real accountability includes holding the soldier who killed Shireen accountable … and changing the entire policy that continues to perpetuate violence against Palestinians,” says Shireen Abu Akleh’s niece, Lina Abu Akleh.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Auckland University of Technology has unreservedly apologised to a former academic turned Australian MP for its botched handling of her complaint regarding sexual harassment by a former staff member.

Dr Marisa Paterson was director of Australian National University’s Centre for Gambling Research in 2020 when she publicly accused internationally-respected gambling expert Max Abbott of stalking and harassing her.

He stepped down as dean of the School of Health and Environmental Sciences​ after the story was aired by the news organisation Stuff. He later resigned as a professor.

• READ MORE: Dr Marisa Paterson, who previously revealed she was sexually harassed, reaches settlement with New Zealand university
• The 2021 Davenport report into harassment and sexual harassment at AUT

In a joint statement with the university issued through the Office of the Human Rights Proceedings today, Dr Paterson, now a Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, said she made the complaint because she wanted the harmful behaviour to stop and for the situation to be investigated.

“My desperation in lodging a formal complaint was extreme — my career was everything to me and I knew that making a complaint would have significant implications. The independent report that was commissioned by AUT and this apology, are public recognition that I did not experience the appropriate or adequate response to the harm I experienced.”

Dr Paterson said in addition to the sexual harassment, she suffered “long-term distress and implications” from having to fight an institution for an adequate response.

“But today, what I went through is being publicly recognised. And my voice today is being heard — most importantly by AUT. It is accounted for and it is being recognised as an equal through this joint statement. My statement today is not one of forgiveness. This is a public step in leadership.

“This can never happen again.”

‘Poor investigation’
Chancellor Rob Campbell said AUT offered its unreserved apology to Dr Paterson for its poor investigation into her complaint and lack of communication through the process.

“We would also like to recognise your courage in coming forward, and to thank you for providing the opportunity for AUT to learn from this and initiate a process of culture change which we are confident will improve the experience of people learning and working in the university,” he said.

“We hope that our actions will be viewed as reflecting a survivor-centred approach and positive shift in institutional culture.

“We trust that this genuine apology will support you in your pathway forward.”

He said the university was already working to respond the 36 recommendations in the independent review, including the development of a stand-alone sexual harassment policy, a new three tier complaints process, and training for all managers.

The Office of the Human Rights Proceedings said the apology and joint statement was a positive outcome for both sides.

‘Absolute tenacity’
Director Michael Timmons said it reflected “Dr Paterson’s absolute tenacity and her strength in accessing justice for what happened to her”.

“But it also shows AUT has acknowledged what has happend to her and is publicly holding themselves to account.”

He conceded the outcome had been a long time coming.

In an interview with the ABC in Australia, Dr Paterson said: “I am feeling vindicated. I feel that today there has been some justice served. This has been many years in the making for me, and I think that this is a big day for human rights and for women.”

Dr Paterson first laid a complaint with the Human Rights Commission in November 2021 but it was not resolved.

Mid-way through this year, she contacted the Office of the Human Rights Proceedings, which is responsible for providing publicly-funded representation to complainants taking legal action under the Human Rights Act.

Timmons said the settlement has avoided the need for further legal proceedings.

“This case is really important because it says to big institutions, particularly tertiary institutions, that they have firm obligations under the Human Rights Act for the actions of their staff.”

Max Abbott’s name was not mentioned in the apology or statement as the case only concerned AUT’s actions, he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

On the one-year anniversary of the report’s publication, the statement says that although the report “provided a historic opportunity” for the Maltese authority to restore the rule of law and avoid an assassination like that of Daphne Caruana Galizia ever happening again, Maltese authorities failed to implement necessary changes. “The changes introduced so far are token gestures, rather than urgently needed, radical and effective change,” the statement said.

The full statement can be read here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Jennifer Dunham.

TVNZ’s head of news and current affairs, Paul Yurisich, has resigned after a review into the hiring of presenter Kamahl Santamaria.

TVNZ released its long-awaited report this afternoon. It came after an inquiry was carried out by senior employment lawyer Margaret Robins.

The former Al Jazeera presenter lasted just 32 days in the job and left under a cloud of accusations of inappropriate behaviour to colleagues.

• READ MORE: The Breakfast anchor media saga

The review covered TVNZ’s recruitment practices and processes in general, as well as the specific recruitment of Kamahl Santamaria, who had carved out a strong television broadcasting reputation while a news anchor and presenter at Al Jazeera in Qatar between 2005 and 2022.

In addition, TVNZ took the opportunity to have Robins undertake a review of several policies, including those relating to internal workplace complaints and the development of TVNZ’s “Speak Up” policy.

The review found that Santamaria was hired “without meaningful input from key individuals” who usually included senior staff, including the chief executive, the general manager of news and current affairs and the chief people officer.

Robins concluded that Yurisich had not sufficiently consulted with senior executives, although “the fundamental problem was the failure of TVNZ’s recruitment policy to provide a process suitable for the recruitment of unique roles such as a key presenter”.

New policy needed
While TVNZ’s recruitment policy was suitable for the majority of roles, it did not traditionally apply to hiring key presenters, she said.

She said even if Yurisich had consulted more widely it was likely Santamaria would have been hired.

However, if he had consulted more widely and had secured two additional references, more safeguards could have been put in place and sufficient due diligence may have been provided.

She recommended that the People and Culture team, which carried out recruitment, should set out new recruitment guidelines, and that it should also follow some suggestions from the review author on recruiting in a “fair and robust” manner where the usual guidelines were not being followed, such as for presenters.

TVNZ chief executive Simon Power said “the review’s findings and its recommendations provide a clear path to ensure TVNZ’s recruitment practices and internal policies are adequately robust and fit for purpose”.

He said TVNZ supported the findings and recommendations of the review.

“There are improvements needed in our recruitment policies and work is already under way to embed these,” he said.

Power said Yurisich had spearheaded the digital transformation of the newsroom which has set TVNZ up strongly for the future. He had also provided strong leadership to the news and current affairs team during the pandemic.

Phil O’Sullivan will continue in the role of acting head of news and current affairs.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The Forde Inquiry largely confirms the disturbing picture presented by the earlier leaked report, finding that Corbyn’s team, backed by a left-wing membership that favoured his democratic socialism, was pitted against right-wing party bureaucracy and a parliamentary party both committed to maintaining the neoliberal priorities of New Labour set by former leader Tony Blair.

Party staff saw one of their main tasks as finding pretexts to expel Corbyn supporters, in what they termed “trot busting” and “trot hunting” exercises. Those same senior staff exhibited “deplorably factional and insensitive, and at times discriminatory, attitudes” towards Corbyn supporters.

Since Corbyn’s departure, there has been a mass exodus of members disillusioned with the direction the party has been taking. Forde, who was commissioned by Corbyn’s successor, Keir Starmer, to investigate those turbulent years, proposes ways to heal divisions that have threatened to tear Labour apart.

He criticises what he calls a “monoculture” and “groupthink” at head office that has left the party’s senior staff unrepresentative of the membership and has damaged Labour’s “overall effectiveness”.

Despite its ambitions, however, the 138-page report is unlikely to ease tensions in Labour. Its resolute both-sidism spreads the blame around equally, and in the process ensures no one will be satisfied.

Media firestorms

But Forde’s seeming even-handedness is, in fact, a continuation of factionalism by other means. The report’s implausible premise is that Corbyn and a handful of staff in the leader’s office wielded as much factional power as the combined might of Labour HQ, the parliamentary party and the entire media establishment. Each side was apparently equally obstructive and uncooperative; each fed the other’s political paranoia.

That misrepresents the true balance of power in Labour – and the reason why Corbyn spent his years as leader permanently on the defensive, battling internal revolts and media firestorms.

Forde castigates a Labour culture prone to leaking to the media, as though Corbyn and his team had someone – anyone – to turn to in the establishment media who would take their side.

The Blairites, by contrast, had the willing ear of journalists for any story that could be spun against Corbyn. The leaks were entirely one-sided and often devastating, representing Corbyn as shambolic and feeble-minded, a traitor, a national security threat, an antisemite, and much more. There was no meaningful counter-narrative available, outside the margins of social media.

Forde’s complaint that the leader’s office and party HQ duplicated each other’s functions and failed to develop trust sounds ludicrously divorced from the reality faced by Corbyn’s team. They found themselves at war with the party bureaucracy and had little choice but to insulate themselves from internal sabotage.

The report at least recognises that problem, even if it fails to give it proper weight. In parentheses, Forde notes, for example, that Labour staff secretly misappropriated members’ money to fund “campaigns supportive of sitting, largely anti-Corbyn MPs” while withholding funds from “campaigns for pro-Corbyn candidates in potentially Tory winnable seats”.

In the 2017 election, Corbyn could have ended up at Number 10, had he won seven knife-edge Tory seats.

Elephant in the room

But even more egregiously, Forde largely ignores the elephant in the room: that with Corbyn gone, the civil war did not peter out. It intensified.

Starmer, far from trying to find middle ground between Labour’s left and right, has actively stoked the fires on one side only. The “broad church” Forde espouses as the way forward for Labour has been repudiated by Starmer at every turn.

Not only has Starmer effectively forced Corbyn permanently out of the party and exiled his predecessor’s few allies to the backbenches, but he has also driven the Labour Party as a whole firmly back to Blairite territory. Left-wing members are being aggressively purged or made so miserable in the new environment that they leave.

Forde’s both-sides equivocations allowed a Labour spokesman to respond with the patently preposterous claim that Starmer “has made real progress in ridding the party of the destructive factionalism and unacceptable culture that did so much damage previously and contributed to our defeat in 2019”.

The reality is that Starmer has done precisely the opposite. Even with a firm grip on the leader’s office, the party bureaucracy, the front bench and the parliamentary party, the Labour right is still not satisfied. It wants to eradicate any chance of the left-wing membership ever having influence over party policy again.

Starmer has demonstrated the true meaning of “factionalism”: that the right will permanently treat the left as unwanted interlopers, and refuse any ideological compromise. That is the same power dynamic that existed when Corbyn was leader. It is just that now, with the leader’s office in the right’s pocket too, the imbalance of ideological forces arrayed against the Labour left is far harder to ignore.

Implausible both-sidism

The same lacuna can be found in the Forde report’s analysis of Labour’s “antisemitism problem”. Starmer has stepped up the crackdown on left-wing members on the basis of a supposedly continuing concern about the prevalence of antisemitism in Labour’s ranks – a claim at the heart of the Labour right’s efforts to discredit the left under Corbyn.

Notably, the Forde report concedes that antisemitism was used for factional advantage by the party’s right to damage the left. He notes: “Some anti-Corbyn elements of the party seized on antisemitism as a way to attack Jeremy Corbyn.”

In that regard, Forde quietly echoes Corbyn’s statement nearly two years ago that antisemitism in Labour was “dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”. When Corbyn made that assessment, Starmer used it as a pretext to expel him from the parliamentary party.

Given the toxic legacy of the furore over antisemitism in the party, it was presumably no easy matter for Forde to acknowledge its weaponisation by the right. Chris Williamson, a Labour MP and Corbyn ally, was expelled from the party for saying much the same.

Perhaps understandably, Forde seeks to soften the blow – again resorting to an unconvincing both-sidism – by arguing that the left was factional about antisemitism too. Corbyn’s supporters, he writes, “saw it simply as an attack on the leader and his faction – with both ‘sides’ thus weaponising the issue and failing to recognise the seriousness of antisemitism, its effect on Jewish communities and on the moral and political standing of the party”.

In the report’s telling, this counter-“weaponisation” relates to two supposed failings in the left’s approach: a denial that Labour suffered from antisemitism and insensitivity towards Jewish groups’ concerns about antisemitism.

But this entirely misses the role antisemitism has played in Labour’s civil war and why it continues to be so radioactive. In effect, Forde reproduces the very factionalism he castigates everyone else for.

Setting a trap

It was the Labour right that claimed the left denied there was antisemitism in the party. It set a trap for those on the left who questioned whether it was right to treat anything more than softball criticism of Israel as antisemitism, as Williamson, among others, discovered to his cost.

In fact, there was widespread recognition on the left that antisemitism was to be found in Labour. The left’s argument – supported by evidence – was that Labour’s antisemitism “problem” was no worse than that found in wider British society, and far less of a problem than the Conservative Party’s much-less-discussed racism against both Jews and Muslims.

The left did not deny antisemitism. They denied its characterisation as an exceptional problem in Labour. Given that the evidence supported them but was always ignored in media coverage, the left came to the view that the Labour right’s insistence on raising antisemitism at every opportunity was designed to damage Corbyn and the left, not to fight antisemitism.

Forde simply muddies the waters by defining the left’s resistance to its own vilification by the right as an equivalent factional “weaponising” of antisemitism. He also ignores the fact that the left had a particular grievance about how antisemitism was being redefined by the party’s right – backed by pro-Israel lobby organisations and establishment media – to conflate criticism of Israel, or even support for Palestinian rights, with hatred of Jews.

The Labour left’s concern was with the bad faith of the actors promoting the narrative of a Labour “antisemitism crisis” under Corbyn. Notably, Forde agrees that this was indeed the case: that antisemitism was used by the right to settle factional scores. But he then seems to deny it as a defence for those who were targeted maliciously – including the many Jewish members who found themselves expelled or suspended as antisemites after criticising Israel.

‘Debilitating inertia’

Forde’s bogus both-sidism ultimately leads to an implausible – if not absurd – conclusion. He acknowledges that the Labour right’s covert efforts to subvert Corbyn by weaponising antisemitism – and the backlash from the Corbyn camp – contributed to damaging the party’s “moral and political standing”.

He recognises that party HQ secretly channelled funds to candidates not on the basis of how winnable a seat was, but on the basis of whether the candidate was opposed to Corbyn. WhatsApp message chains revealed internal sabotage, such as “a deliberate go-slow by certain members of staff designed to frustrate the efforts of a colleague from an ‘opposing faction’ [Corbyn’s] to promote the party’s wider interests”.

The report describes a “debilitating inertia, factionalism and infighting, which then distracted from what all profess to be a common cause – electoral success”.

And then, after amassing all this evidence, Forde concludes that it was “highly unlikely” the very public damage inflicted on the party leadership by the Labour right cost the party the 2017 election. That, remember, was when Corbyn came within some 2,000 votes of winning outright and produced the biggest leap in Labour’s share of the vote since 1945.

In Forde’s assessment, “the two sides were trying to win in different ways”. But the “two sides” did not have an equal mandate to fight and win the election. The Labour bureaucrats were unelected officials. Corbyn had been chosen as leader by the party membership and it was his left-wing platform that was supposed to be presented to the electorate by his officials in the best light possible. Anything less was a willful subversion of the democratic process.

What the Labour right did was not fight the election “in a different way”, as Forde suggests. They staged an internal coup that made the Labour Party internally dysfunctional and outwardly look increasingly ill-equipped to form a government. By the 2019 election, Labour was in open disarray.

That year’s humiliating defeat gave Starmer the chance to step in as the unity candidate who promised to restore calm and find common ground between the left and right. The reality is that Starmer deceived the membership. Once elected, he made himself little more than a battering ram for the Labour right.

The truth that Forde dare not admit is that under Starmer, the factionalism his inquiry so excoriates is far worse – and party democracy a more distant prospect than ever.

• First published in Middle East Eye

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Jonathan Cook.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Daniel Trilling.

The report “sets a solid legal basis for asserting that climate-destructive business activities by fossil fuel and cement companies contribute to human rights harms,” said Yeb Saño, the Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director, in a release. “The message is clear: these corporate behemoths cannot continue to transgress human rights and put profit before people and planet.”

The inquiry began seven years ago after survivors of Typhoon Haiyan and local organizations banded together to demand an investigation into fossil fuel companies and their role in climate change-driven human rights violations. The 2013 storm, one of the strongest typhoons on record, left some 6,300 dead, 29,000 injured, and 1,800 missing. “We should not only be counting the victims of climate change or being counted among them,” wrote the petitioners.

According to the report, 47 global oil, gas, coal, and cement companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron — contributed to 21.4 percent of global emissions. The commission concludes that the companies, dubbed the “Carbon Majors,” “engaged in willful obfuscation” of climate science, hindering worldwide efforts to transition to clean energy and directly violating citizens’ rights to health, water, sanitation, livelihood, and cultural preservation.

The report also traces the Carbon Majors’ history of misinformation and says that the companies knew the climate consequences of their operations since at least 1965. It highlights a study on ExxonMobil, which, over a 37-year period, sponsored research that largely advanced climate science at the same time it purchased newspaper ads to cast doubt on that science. 

“All acts to obfuscate climate science and delay, derail, or obstruct this transition may be a basis for liability,” the report says. “Obstructionist efforts are driven, not by ignorance, but by greed.” 

Within the Philippines, women, children, and up to 17 million Indigenous people disproportionately bear the burden of climate disasters. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, the Philippines is the fourth most-affected country in the world, facing drought, food insecurity, water scarcity, violent storms, and sea level rise. However, the small archipelagic nation is responsible for just 0.3 percent of global emissions. 

The report’s authors call on the Filipino government to abandon fossil fuels, create laws that hold businesses responsible for human rights abuses, and establish a fund to compensate victims of climate disasters. On the business side, they recommend publicly disclosing human rights impact assessments and encourage investors to exert pressure toward fossil fuel divestment. 

“The fact alone that human activity contributes to climate change, makes [it] the duty and the responsibility of all parties to address this,” said Roberto Eugenio Cadiz, then commissioner of the human rights office, in a press briefing on Friday. “States have an obligation and duty, and businesses have a responsibility to address these challenges.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Filipino inquiry says polluters are liable for human rights violations on May 10, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Lina Tran.

On May 6, Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency opened an inquiry into Abraham, an anchor with the privately owned broadcaster BOL News and host of a current affairs YouTube channel with about 500,000 subscribers, according to news reports and a press release by the FIA.

The office of Ambreen Jan, director-general of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s external publicity wing, told CPJ via email that Abraham appeared to violate Article 19 of the Pakistan constitution, which restricts freedom of speech on the basis of the ”integrity, security or defense of Pakistan,” in a video published on May 2.

In that video, Abraham discussed an alleged foreign conspiracy to oust former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was removed from power in a no-confidence vote on April 10.

“Amid a political transition in Pakistan, the country’s new government has a unique opportunity to demonstrate its respect for press freedom, which is undermined when journalists face legal harassment in retaliation for their work,” said Steven Butler, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “Authorities must drop their inquiry into Sami Abraham, allow him to report freely, and cease harassing journalists under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.”

The FIA press release said authorities are conducting the inquiry under Section 20 of the 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which criminalizes transmitting information that harms a person’s dignity. Authorities accused Abraham of “spreading fake news regarding state institutions” and attempting to “incite armed forces personnel to mutiny,” according to those sources.

In a notice sent to Abraham, the FIA ordered him to appear at the agency’s Cybercrime Reporting Center in Islamabad on May 13. The agency’s press release stated that since Abraham was abroad at the time, a red notice would be issued against him through Interpol.

Abraham tweeted that he had discussed the inquiry with his lawyer, and he planned to take necessary legal action upon his planned return to the country on May 14. Abraham did not immediately respond to CPJ’s calls and messages requesting comment; on May 8 he published a video denied any criminal wrongdoing.

If charged and convicted under Section 20, Abraham could face up to three years in prison and a fine of 1 million rupees (US$5,328). CPJ has repeatedly documented how the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act has been used to detain, investigate, and harass journalists in retaliation for their work.

The FIA stated in its press release that Abraham will have the opportunity to defend himself; if the inquiry determines that Abraham committed an offense, authorities can register a first information report, which opens an investigation and enables authorities to detain him, according to the press release.

On April 11, Pakistan’s parliament elected Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, as the country’s new prime minister. On April 19, the newly appointed Minister of Information and Broadcasting Marriyum Aurangzeb announced that the government would review the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, particularly the sections in which the right to freedom of expression was “misconstrued,” according to Dawn.

On Monday, May 9, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority issued directives warning private electronic media companies not to cast “aspersions against state institutions,” including the army and judiciary.

In its email to CPJ, Jan’s office stated that the government of Pakistan was “firmly committed to support, protect and promote free, independent and responsible media.”

CPJ emailed the Federal Investigation Agency for comment, but did not immediately receive any reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Campaigners within and beyond the Philippines on Friday applauded a new government report that backs accountability for major polluters driving the climate emergency and its associated negative impacts on human rights.

"We enjoin all Filipinos to stand up for climate and environmental justice, and ensure our elected officials in the next administration take this to heart."

Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director Yeb Saño—a former climate negotiator for the Philippines—was among those who welcomed the conclusions of the country's Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and called for action in a statement Thursday.

"The findings of the Commission on Human Rights are a vindication for the millions of people whose fundamental rights are being impacted by the corporations behind the climate crisis," he said. "This report is historic and sets a solid legal basis for asserting that climate-destructive business activities by fossil fuel and cement companies contribute to human rights harms."

Saño said the CHR "sets a courageous example for other similar institutions and governments around the world," and that "alongside our co-petitioners, we are calling on the incoming Philippine government and world leaders to adopt the commission's findings and hold big polluters responsible for the climate-damaging impacts of their business activities."

"We expect the government to urgently act on these findings," he added, "and work on people-centered policies that will hold climate-polluting businesses accountable, prevent further harm, usher in the energy transition, and ensure a just, safe, sustainable, and peaceful future for the people."

As former CHR Commissioner Roberto Cadiz—whose term ended Thursday—explained in the preface of the report, the commission was petitioned in 2015 to conduct an inquiry into the claim that "climate change was adversely impacting human rights and the top oil producers of the world were contributing, and knowingly continue to contribute, to this phenomenon."

The petition was the first of its kind to be accepted by a national human rights institution (NHRI) for investigation, the document notes—also highlighting the significance that it was conducted by a commission based in the Philippines, which endures roughly 20 typhoons each year.

For its inquiry, the commission held 12 public hearings in 2018, some in the Philippines and others around the world. As the report outlines, CHR's key findings include that "climate change is real," is caused by human activity, and "is a human rights issue."

The commission also determined that humanity's contributions to the crisis are "quantifiable and substantial" and that carbon majors not only "had early awareness, notice, or knowledge of their products' adverse impacts on the environment and climate systems" but also "engaged in willful obfuscation and obstruction to prevent meaningful climate action."

The Philippine news outlet Rappler reported that "climate change is real" was the first thing Cadiz said at a Friday press conference, echoing the report. He added that "the fact alone that human activity contributes to climate change makes the duty and the responsibility of the parties to address this."

Taking aim at carbon majors, Cadiz further declared that "their acts of obstruction, obfuscation are immoral given the existential threat posed to humanity by climate change."

The CHR document details adverse effects on the Philippines specifically, outlining how the climate emergency impacts the rights to life, health, food security, water and sanitation, livelihood, adequate housing, preservation of culture, self-determination and development, equality and nondiscrimination, and a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, as well as the rights of future generations and intergenerational equity.

The publication concludes with recommendations for governments, polluters, the financial sector, the United Nations and other international bodies, NHRIs, courts, civil society, and global citizens. There is a section dedicated to suggestions for the Philippine government, which the report says "exhibits mediocre actions to meet the Paris agreement climate commitments."

"While long overdue, this report by the CHR provides supporting arguments for holding corporations accountable for their climate transgressions."

As Rappler summarized, "For the Philippines, the CHR made bold recommendations: Penalize big polluters, stop fossil fuel and coal dependence, and lead the way toward a renewable future."

Petitioners on Friday similarly urged the Philippine government to take ambitious climate action.

"The CHR findings should embolden impacted communities to seek remedies in courts for the injustice caused by corporate global emissions that have primarily caused climate change," said EcoWaste Coalition national coordinator Aileen Lucero. "We enjoin all Filipinos to stand up for climate and environmental justice, and ensure our elected officials in the next administration take this to heart."

Von Hernandez, a 2003 Goldman Environmental Prize awardee and global coordinator of Break Free from Plastic, said that "while long overdue, this report by the CHR provides supporting arguments for holding corporations accountable for their climate transgressions which impinge on the rights of citizens."

"As a petitioner, I feel the outcome of this process could have been much stronger and groundbreaking," Hernandez added. "It just means that our struggle for climate justice continues and we hope the next administration gives this issue the real importance it deserves."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Papua New Guinea’s Justice Minister Bryan Kramer has confirmed that he has ordered his department — Justice and the Attorney-General (DJAG) — to investigate a complaint against the National Judicial Staff Service (NJSS) hiring highly paid overseas consultants.

Their wages are paid in Australian dollars and deposited in overseas accounts.

Kramer made this statement on the floor of Parliament when answering a series of questions from shadow attorney-general and Rabaul MP Dr Allan Marat during question time.

• READ MORE: Other reports on PNG consultants

Dr Marat had asked what the status of the investigations are?

Were there breaches of the relevant laws, and why they are paid in Australian dollars and their salaries paid in overseas accounts?

Kramer said this initial complaint came via a written complaint as chairman of Judicial Legal Commission concerning contracts that were recently awarded within the judiciary to overseas consultants.

The complaint, he said, had a report attached that raised specific issues of amount of money being paid, to foreign contractors and payments being made overseas.

investigations are ongoing
The investigations are not complete and are ongoing.

Once complete a decision would be made about course of action would be taken, Kramer said.

“On the issues of public service it is important to note that these contracts were paid for private consultancy services so won’t fall [under] the regulation of public service,” he said.

Kramer explained that there was a query raised with the State Solicitor to seek clearance concerning whether or not these contracts were complied with legally and lawfully under the procurement processes.

“And the advice I understand provided by the State Solicitor is that, they exceeded the threshold within the jurisdiction of the judicial services to execute these contracts and provided an advice [on] whether to re-negotiate the contracts down to the threshold or to call for public tender on those contracts.”

He added that the concern was over the manner in which the contracts had been approved and the amounts involved in the contracts.

“There are specialised skills or experts around the globe that the state may engage from time to time — be it in oil and gas, and in any new legislative areas like in carbon credits,” Kramer said.

Significant fee
“These experts will attract a significant fee but justification will be on a short term contract where they may apply to come on a three to six month to provide that expert opinion and advice.

“These contracts were extended over a period of, I think 8 to 9 years,” he said.

“That’s another contentious issue that we are looking at.”

• What was the justification;
• What were the terms of reference for engagement of these contracts;
• What were the specific outcomes of these contracts;
• Why were they continually renewed — is it necessary to renew?;
• Why were they not advertised for Papua New Guinean experts or other experts, like under the European Union (EU); or
• Why did we not engage these consultants under the existing EU [arrangements] where they pay for the contracts and we don’t have to meet the costs.”

Kramer concluded that once the investigations were completed and if it was confirmed that there was non-compliance with legislative procedures, then a decision would be made by DJAG to terminate these contracts.

Republished with permission from the PNG Post-Courier.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Afghanis who say they have witnessed torture and murder at the hands of Australian soldiers want the chance to testify in court as well as compensation, a journalist says.

Australia’s Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell announced yesterday that there is information to substantiate 23 incidents of alleged unlawful killing of 39 people by 25 special forces personnel in Afghanistan.

He was commenting on a four-year inquiry that found “credible information” supporting allegations of war crimes by the country’s special forces.

Major-General Paul Brereton’s report also said junior soldiers were often required by their patrol commanders to shoot prisoners to get their first kill in a practice known as “blooding”.

The inquiry also found evidence soldiers gloated about their actions, kept kill counts and planted phones and weapons on corpses to justify their actions.

One victim had told him four of his family had been killed – two brothers and two cousins.

In another village he spoke to a number of victims about their bad experiences and they described “murders after murders”.

“One man did say to me that he wanted to look up in the eyes of these killers and ask them why did they kill so many innocent Afghans.”

Another man he interviewed could not stop crying as he likened the sound of bullets from a gun with a silencer to “drops of water”.

“These families… have been telling me that they want to get justice, that they want to make sure this is a transparent process and that those responsible are brought to justice.”

They have asked him if those directly affected will get the chance to fly to Australia to give evidence in courtrooms there, Sarwary said.

Many of the people involved were very poor and they had also asked him about their chances of receiving compensation from Australia.

Sarwary said that the Afghanistan Human Rights Commission has demanded that Australia adopts a transparent process as it lays charges against the perpetrators and there should be compensation for victims.

Former SAS paramedic Dusty Miller, who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, told the ABC he had witnessed a number of unlawful killings and had since struggled with “psychological wounds”. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot

‘We crossed a very bad line’ – ex-soldier
The Brereton inquiry heard from more than 400 witnesses, including former SAS paramedic Dusty Miller, who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012.

He told the ABC he witnessed a number of unlawful killings and has since struggled with “psychological wounds”.

He said he felt vindicated after reading the report and was in no doubt that some of the soldiers needed to go to jail for their crimes. It might be hard for the Australian public to accept such behaviour had occurred, he said.

“We’ve got this proud ANZAC tradition that we’re trying to uphold but unfortunately it’s like finding out that Santa Claus isn’t real.

“We crossed a very bad line and we crossed it for a number of years and we need to pay that price now.”

The report also warned that more killings would be revealed in the future and Miller said he was sure that is true.

Some soldiers’ lives had been ruined by what they had witnessed in Afghanistan. It also meant the end of his own military career, Miller said.

‘Everybody knew what was going on’
“Everybody knew what was going on. It was a day-to-day occurrence. We normalised it… you certainly had to go along with what was happening because the alternative would have been professional suicide. You’d have been ostracised.

“There was no way you would have flagged this with the commanders or speak up – that would have been unthinkable.”

Miller said the commanders must have known what was happening especially as they had debriefs after every mission.

However, it was “a minority group” who acted badly and the majority of men he served with were “honourable” although they operated in a “dog eat dog” aggressive environment.

Jon Stephenson: “They deliberately planned and carried out unlawful actions, alleged war crimes.” Image: RNZ

Clear differences between NZ and Australian troops, says author
Investigative journalist Jon Stephenson, the co-author of Hit and Run, the book which led to the Operation Burnham Inquiry, said there was a difference between the way Australian forces behaved and the conduct of New Zealand forces.

“It’s clear that for Operation Burnham the allegations concerned civilian casualties but they weren’t deliberate. The New Zealand forces were involved in an action in Afghanistan that led to civilian casualties but they didn’t intend for those people to die,” Stephenson told Morning Report.

“Whereas in the Australian case, there’s a clear difference, in that they deliberately planned and carried out unlawful actions, alleged war crimes – shooting people who were in their custody and posed no threat or civilians.”

Australian and New Zealand troops worked together in some places, such as headquarters, but they did not go out in large numbers on missions together.

After New Zealand troops had bad experiences working with the US in Afghanistan a decision was made that New Zealand troops would operate as independently as possible so they would not be “contaminated” by some of the behaviour they saw.

In some cases they did support missions, but generally they acted on their own or with the Afghans, Stephenson said.

Australian federal police will investigate the specifics and decisions will be made about which troopers should be prosecuted over the 39 alleged murders. This process may take years, he said.

“It would be my expectation, based on what I’ve heard, and the people I’ve spoken to, that there will definitely be a large number of prosecutions.

“It’s inconceivable to me given that, for example, people have been shown on camera shooting unarmed young men in a field who posed no threat, that there will not be successful prosecutions, convictions and some people will serve serious jail time.”

Defence Force chief General Angus Campbell identified a significant problem with what he called “toxic warrior culture” in Australian forces and this was not seen in the New Zealand forces.

However, Stephenson said it is important for New Zealanders to consider if their troops had served as many rotations in the same same high intensity conflict areas and had lost as many troops in conflicts as the Australians did whether such a culture might evolve.

He believes that NZ troops would not have resorted to this type of behaviour.

“I think there are significant cultural problems in the Australian military. They have got a very different attitude towards indigenous people than our troopers have.

“That’s not to say that our forces have acted impeccably at all times, but I do think there are significant cultural differences, training differences between New Zealand and Australia.”

With New Zealand’s smaller numbers it was also easier to identify bad behaviour.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

A member of the Papuan Parliament has called for an independent inquiry into last Monday’s Freeport copper mine shooting conducted by the United Nations Human Rights Council with New Zealand involvement.

Laurenzus Kadepa has urged the establishment of such an transparent inquiry to to clear up “suspicion” over the killing of New Zealand mine worker Graeme Wall and the wounding of at least two other people.

“Civilians want an independent team and the two defending parties (the National Liberation Army of West Papua, TPNPB, and the Indonesian National Police) must accept this proposal because many civilians have become victims [in the conflict over the mine for independence],” Kadepa said in a statement.

READ MORE: Background on the West Papua self-determination issue

Kadepa’s statement said:

“The shooting of PT. Freeport Indonesia employees occurred again in the Kuala Kencana Timika work area, Monday, March 30, 2020. One foreigner from New Zealand was killed.

– Partner –

“I think the government needs to allow [an] independent investigation team. The international team, or one from the Human Rights Council, the United Nations and also the New Zealand state. Some time ago the party acting in the name of the National Liberation Army of West Papua or, in short TPNPB, has determined the battlefield in the Freeport area, from Grasberg [to the] Port Site. The TPNPB group has stated a responsible attitude towards the shooting on 30 March 2020 at Kuala Kencana’s Office Building / OB 1 office.

“One foreign employee from New Zealand was reported killed and another Indonesian employee was injured and is still being treated. The Papua Regional Police and Mimika Regional Police have said the perpetrators of the shooting were the KKB group led by Joni Botak who operated in the area.

“Although the TPNPB conveyed the responsibility of departing from past experience, from this incident I as a member of Parliament elected from this region thought that an independent investigation team was needed. The international team, or from the UN Human Rights Council, [would involve] New Zealand, the country of origin of the Freeport employee who was killed.

“This is very important. Because the shooting in the Freeport area was never revealed clearly and ultimately the victims [are] the people of Papua. Civilians want an independent team and the two defending parties (TPNPB and the Indonesian National Police) must accept this proposal because many civilians have become victims.

“I hope the government supports and accepts this proposal and is not afraid. I am sure it will benefit Indonesia in international diplomacy if the civilian (employee) who was killed was really shot by the TPNPB group according to [the] claim.

“The Indonesian government must continue to engage the international community so that everything is open about what is really happening in Papua. Conversely, do not be suspicious.

“Thus my proposal does not provide support to certain groups, nor does it corner the conflicting parties, in this case the TPNPB group and the Indonesian National Police, which are state instruments. But more on the safety of civilians going forward.

“Thank you, God bless.”

Laurenzus Kadepa
Member of the Papua Parliament
Jayapura, 31 March 2020

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The phone of Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos was hacked after receiving a file sent from an account used by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, United Nations experts said Wednesday.

The two experts called for an “immediate investigation” by the United States into information that suggests that Bezos’ phone was likely hacked after he received an MP4 video file sent from the Saudi prince’s WhatsApp account in May 2018, after the two exchanged phone numbers at a dinner in California.

The file was sent to Bezos’ phone five months before Saudi critic and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed by Saudi government agents inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey in October. At the time, the crown prince was being widely hailed for ushering in major social reforms to the kingdom, but Khashoggi was writing columns in the Post that highlighted the darker side of the crown prince’s simultaneous clampdown on dissent.

The Post was harshly critical of the Saudi government after Khashoggi’s killing and demanded accountability in a highly public campaign that ran in the paper for weeks after his death.

“The information we have received suggests the possible involvement of the Crown Prince in surveillance of Mr. Bezos, in an effort to influence, if not silence, The Washington Post’s reporting on Saudi Arabia,” the independent U.N. experts said.

They said that at a time when Saudi Arabia was “supposedly investigating the killing of Mr. Khashoggi, and prosecuting those it deemed responsible, it was clandestinely waging a massive online campaign against Mr. Bezos and Amazon targeting him principally as the owner of The Washington Post.”

The U.N. experts published their statement after reviewing a full report conducted by a team of investigators hired by Bezos. The experts said they reviewed the 2019 digital forensic analysis of Bezos’ iPhone, which was made available to them as U.N. special rapporteurs. The independent experts are appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The digital forensic investigation that was commissioned by Bezos and shared with the U.N. experts assessed with “medium to high confidence” that his phone was infiltrated on May 1, 2018, via the MP4 video file sent from the crown prince’s WhatsApp account.

The experts said that records showed that within hours of receiving the video from the crown prince’s account, there was “an anomalous and extreme change in phone behavior” with enormous amounts of data being transmitted and exfiltrated from the phone, undetected, for several months.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, called the hacking allegations “absolutely illegitimate.”

“There was no information in there that’s relevant. There was no substantiation, there was no evidence,” he told an Associated Press reporter at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “It was purely conjecture, and if there is real evidence, we look forward to seeing it.”

Saudi Arabia is already under investigation in the U.S. for another case involving Twitter. U.S. prosecutors in California allege that the Saudi government, frustrated by growing criticism of its leaders and policies on social media, recruited two Twitter employees to gather confidential personal information on thousands of accounts that included prominent opponents.

Bezos went public last February after allegedly being shaken down by the U.S. tabloid National Enquirer, which he said threatened to expose a “below-the-belt” selfie he’d taken and other private messages and pictures he’d exchanged with a woman he was dating while he was still married.

Bezos wrote in a lengthy piece for the Medium that rather than capitulate to extortion and blackmail, “I’ve decided to publish exactly what they sent me, despite the personal cost and embarrassment they threaten.” While he did not accuse Saudi Arabia’s crown prince of being behind the hacking of his phone, he noted that the owner of the National Enquirer had been investigated for various actions taken on behalf of the Saudi government.

Bezos’ chief investigator, Gavin De Becker, went further, saying in a published report last March that the investigation found the Saudis obtained the private data of Bezos. His piece for The Daily Beast outlined in detail what he said was the crown prince’s close relationship with the chairman of AMI, David Pecker, which is the parent company of the National Enquirer.

At the time of his dealings with the crown prince, Bezos had been looking for a site in the Middle East to expand Amazon’s cloud services. The billionaire technology mogul had visited Saudi Arabia in 2016 to meet with the crown prince before meeting with him again during the prince’s tour of the United States in 2018. The company ultimately selected the island nation of Bahrain off the coast of Saudi Arabia, which opened in July.

Amazon has also expanded into the Middle East with its 2017 purchase of e-commerce website Souq.com, which is a competitor of Noon.com, a platform that launched that same year and is heavily funded by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund that is overseen by the crown prince.

Another senior Saudi official in Riyadh, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, told the AP that the kingdom finds it “distressing” that these claims are being made “devoid of evidence or fact.

“The kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not conduct illicit activities of this nature, nor does it condone them,” the official said.

The Financial Times, which has seen the forensic report that was done by FTI Consulting., said the investigation “does not claim to have conclusive evidence,” and “could not ascertain what alleged spyware was used.”

Associated Press writers David Rising and Jon Gambrell in Dubai and Jamey Keaten in Davos, Switzerland, contributed to this report.