Category: Airlines

Today’s release of the threat assessment by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (SIS) is the final piece in a defence and security puzzle that marks a genuine shift towards more open and public discussion of these crucial policy areas.

Together with July’s strategic foreign policy assessment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the national security strategy released last week, it rounds out the picture of New Zealand’s place in a fast-evolving geopolitical landscape.

From increased strategic competition between countries, to declining social trust within them, as well as rapid technological change, the overall message is clear: business as usual is no longer an option.

By releasing the strategy documents in this way, the government and its various agencies clearly hope to win public consent and support – ultimately, the greatest asset any country possesses to defend itself.

Low threat of violent extremism

If there is good news in the SIS assessment, it is that the threat of violent extremism is still considered “low”. That means no change since the threat level was reassessed last year, with a terror attack considered “possible” rather than “probable”.

It’s a welcome development since the threat level was lifted to “high” in the
immediate aftermath of the Christchurch terror attack in 2019. This was lowered
to “medium” about a month later – where it sat in September 2021, when another extremist attacked people with a knife in an Auckland mall, seriously
injuring five.

The threat level stayed there during the escalating social tension resulting from the government’s COVID response. This saw New Zealand’s first conviction for sabotage and increasing threats to politicians, with the SIS and police intervening in at least one case to mitigate the risk.

After protesters were cleared from the grounds of parliament in early 2022, it was
still feared an act of extremism by a small minority was likely.

These risks now seem to be receding. And while the threat assessment notes that the online world can provide havens for extremism, the vast majority of those expressing vitriolic rhetoric are deemed unlikely to carry through with violence in the real world.

Changing patterns of extremism

Assessments like this are not a crystal ball; threats can emerge quickly and be near-invisible before they do. But right now, at least publicly, the SIS is not aware of any specific or credible attack planning.

Many extremists still fit well-defined categories. There are the politically motivated, potentially violent, anti-authority conspiracy theorists, of which there is a “small number”.

And there are those motivated by identity (with white supremacist extremism the dominant strand) or faith (such as support for Islamic State, a decreasing and “very small number”).

However, the SIS describes a noticeable increase in individuals who don’t fit within those traditional boundaries, but who hold mixed, unstable or unclear ideologies they may tailor to fit some other violent or extremist impulse.

Espionage and cyber-security risks

There also seems to be a revival of the espionage and spying cultures last seen during the Cold War. There is already the first military case of espionage before the courts, and the SIS is aware of individuals on the margins of government being cultivated and offered financial and other incentives to provide sensitive information.

The SIS says espionage operations by foreign intelligence agencies against New Zealand, both at home and abroad, are persistent, opportunistic and increasingly wide ranging.

While the government remains the main target, corporations, research institutions and state contractors are now all potential sources of sensitive information. Because non-governmental agencies are often not prepared for such threats, they pose a significant security risk.

Cybersecurity remains a particular concern, although the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) recorded 350 incidents in 2021-22, which was a decline from 404 incidents recorded in the previous 12-month period.

On the other hand, a growing proportion of cyber incidents affecting major New Zealand institutions can be linked to state-sponsored actors. Of the 350 reported major incidents, 118 were connected to foreign states (34% of the total, up from 28% the previous year).

Russia, Iran and China

Although the SIS recorded that only a “small number” of foreign states engaged in deceptive, corruptive or coercive attempts to exert political or social influence, the potential for harm is “significant”.

Some of the most insidious examples concern harassment of ethnic communities within New Zealand who speak out against the actions of a foreign government.

The SIS identifies Russia, Iran and China as the three offenders. Iran was recorded as reporting on Iranian communities and dissident groups in New Zealand. In addition, the assessment says:

Most notable is the continued targeting of New Zealand’s diverse ethnic Chinese communities. We see these activities carried out by groups and individuals linked to the intelligence arm of the People’s Republic of China.

Overall, the threat assessment makes for welcome – if at times unsettling – reading. Having such conversations in the open, rather than in whispers behind closed doors, demystifies aspects of national security.

Most importantly, it gives greater credibility to those state agencies that must increase their transparency in order to build public trust and support for their unique roles within a working democracy.

Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato

When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz proclaimed a “Zeitenwende”, or historical turning point. It resulted in Germany’s first ever official national security strategy.

The equivalent wake-up call in New Zealand was the 2019 Christchurch terror attack. This hammered home, in the most horrific way, that geographic distance and small size no longer protected the country in ways they might have once.

While some countries, such as the United States and Britain, have had serious national security strategies in place for a long time, for others it takes a shock. In 2018, before the Christchurch atrocity, New Zealand’s national threat level was set at “low”.

The Defence Policy Statement from the same year, although far from naïve, reflected a simpler world. This changed with the more sober 2021 Defence Assessment, followed by the defence policy review announced last year into whether current policy, strategy and capability were fit for purpose.

The suite of documents released today – including a first ever national security strategy – provides the answer. In short, New Zealand now faces a very different and rapidly changing world. Business as usual is no longer considered an option.

A new security strategy

In July, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs released its strategic foreign policy assessment, Navigating a Shifting World-Te whakatere i tētahi ao hurihuri. It looks ahead to 2025 and is “intended as a contribution to the national conversation on foreign policy”.

The national security strategy, Secure Together-Tō Tātou Korowai Manaaki, along with a new defence policy and strategy statement, rounds out this revised New Zealand worldview. A soon-to-be-released threat assessment from the security intelligence agencies will complete the picture.

Announcing the new strategy, Defence Minister Andrew Little said: “In 2023 we do not live in a benign strategic environment.” He went on to say:

Aotearoa New Zealand is facing more geostrategic challenges than we have had in decades – climate change, terrorism, cyberattacks, transnational crime, mis- and disinformation, and competition in our region which, up until recently, we thought was protected by its remoteness.

While the new assessments and strategic statements come from different state agencies, they nonetheless speak clearly and coherently about the risks to New Zealand’s security. The national wake-up call, then, rests on four broad pillars of understanding.

1. Geopolitical uniqueness

The first consistent theme concerns New Zealand’s uniqueness.  It is a liberal, multicultural democracy based on a bicultural relationship and te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. The nation’s strong sovereign identity is anchored in the Pacific, and it speaks with a strong and independent voice.

The New Zealand people and their socially cohesive society are the country’s most valuable assets. The obligation of guardianship over these, for both present and future generations, means being better prepared for potential external and internal threats.

Ensuring national resilience and security underpins the government’s unprecedented (at least for this century) planning for and prioritising of that preparedness.

2. Times are changing

The new strategy identifies 12 national security issues, ranging from terrorism and climate change to attempts to subvert New Zealand democracy. While no one challenge is expressly prioritised, there is a clear emphasis on geostrategic competition and the threats to a rules-based international system.

Many of the assumptions about global and regional affairs that have underpinned New Zealand’s foreign policy for a generation or more are coming under real and sustained pressure.

The rules-based order that has allowed the country to thrive peacefully is under stress. The risk of open conflict is heightened, with the wider Indo-Pacific region at the centre of geopolitical contests.

There are also unpredictable but significant risks – especially economic ones – from those tensions, even without a descent into military conflict. And there is the potential for more than one negative event to occur at the same time.

3. Partnerships matter

New Zealand’s security has to be collective, and there is no lurching towards isolationism. More collaborations are likely to address shared security challenges.

The most important relationship is with Australia, which is also rapidly upgrading its defence capabilities. As New Zealand’s closest partner and only formal ally, Australia is “indispensable to New Zealand’s national security”.

The US relationship is also very important, of course. Throughout the new documents, the US is variously described as a “crucial” defence partner in general, and “critical for New Zealand’s security” in the Indo-Pacific and Pacific regions.

Other less immediately obvious security relationships are also noted, including with Singapore, Japan and NATO. The Five Eyes intelligence network (which also includes Britain and Canada)  is cast as “an invaluable support to our understanding and ability to respond to emerging and complex security issues”.

The newer multinational security partnerships – namely AUKUS and the “Quad” (US, India, Japan and Australia) – are mentioned. But none of the new documents explicitly state whether New Zealand will or will not join them in the future – other than to say they “may” provide the opportunity for New Zealand to further pursue its interests.

But the Defence Force needs to improve its combat readiness and effectiveness, as well as other military capabilities, and increase its presence in the Pacific. It’s clear greater investment is needed in both the short and medium term, but no dollar figures are attached.

4. Realism over China

The damage Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused to the international legal framework is clear. But the new strategies and assessments repeatedly highlight the challenge of China.

While peaceful cooperation in areas of shared interest is deemed desirable, China is also recognised as being major driver of geopolitical change, especially in its willingness to be more assertive and willing to challenge existing international rules and norms.

Finally, aspects of China’s operations in the Pacific threaten to fundamentally alter the regional strategic balance. New Zealand must plan and be prepared for this.

Overall, the new assessments and strategy represent a turning point: a recognition security threats are rising and will require new approaches. While the detail is not fleshed out, and no doubt there will be partisan debate as the October election nears, the need for real change has rarely been made so clear.

Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Assuring resiliency in our built environment and safeguarding people and their homes is essential as the recent devastating impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle show.

Two projects at the University of Waikato have been awarded funding for work to reduce the exposure and vulnerability of homes to natural hazards.

Senior Lecturer in Climate Change Dr Luke Harrington, and a separate team led by Professor of Environmental Planning Dr Iain White and Senior Lecturer in Environmental Planning Dr Xinyu Fu, have been awarded Earthquake Commission (EQC) funding under the Toka Tū Ake EQC University Research Programme 2024.

Understanding how homeowners perceive and manage risk around extreme rainfall and flooding

When buying a home many of us look to past extreme events to see if a location is ‘safe’. But Dr Luke Harrington says that in a changing climate with rainfall intensification, this is going to be an increasingly poor way to perceive risk and prepare for future risk.

“We tend to consider the upper limits of recent floods as a proxy for the worst-case scenario. But our world is changing so future scenarios could be much worse.”

Dr Harrington’s research will look at people’s recent memories around extreme events, and historic rainfall data and past extreme events nationwide. This will be used to model plausible, record-shattering rainfall events that could occur over the next several decades at different locations.

“We want to ensure that homeowners and decision makers continue to build resilience based on evidence rather than thinking biased by recent disasters (or particularly a lack thereof).”

It is anticipated that the end data could be included in the EQC risk portal.

Dr Harrington will also collaborate with stakeholders to see how the information can be developed into storytelling scenarios to support and better prepare people.

“This project represents a crucial step towards building community resilience in a rapidly warming climate.”

Including land use policy and development practice to model future hazard risk

Hazard mitigation research focuses on understanding how hazards, such as flooding, may change over decades. But current methods fail to consider that urban development and the way we use land will look different in the future.

However, new research by the University of Waikato, will ensure we are better equipped for the future by applying property development practice, and regulation decisions to future hazard risk models.

A team made up of Professor Iain White, Dr Xinyu Fu, Dr Silvia Serrao-Neumann, Dr Sandi Ringham and Dr Rob Bell say this research fills an important gap and will provide a more complete understanding of how regulation and land development practice can impact risk exposure over long timeframes.

“There’s a pressing need for innovation in how we understand and model future residential growth to better link it to future hazards. Understanding the effects of different policies on future risk means we can make smarter decisions on where and how cities grow,” said Professor White.

The researchers will engage directly with the people and agencies concerned with urban development, to understand why they build the kinds of things they do where they do, and importantly, how policy changes affect their decision making.

The findings will be used to create a modelling tool to enable the simulation of different future residential land-use patterns under different hazard scenarios.

It will be of interest to a range of stakeholders including iwi, central government, insurers and property developers.