DOCSLIB.ORG

An Informed and Independent Voice: ASPI, 2001-2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Informed and Independent Voice: ASPI, 2001-2021 An informed and independent voice ASPI, 2001–2021 Graeme Dobell An informed and independent voice ASPI, 2001–2021 Graeme Dobell About ASPI The Australian Strategic Policy Institute was formed in 2001 as an independent, non‑partisan think tank. Its core aim is to provide the Australian Government with fresh ideas on Australia’s defence, security and strategic policy choices. ASPI is responsible for informing the public on a range of strategic issues, generating new thinking for government and harnessing strategic thinking internationally. ASPI’s sources of funding are identified in our annual report, online at www.aspi.org.au and in the acknowledgements section of individual publications. ASPI remains independent in the content of the research and in all editorial judgements. It is incorporated as a company, and is governed by a Council with broad membership. ASPI’s core values are collegiality, originality & innovation, quality & excellence and independence. ASPI’s publications—including this report—are not intended in any way to express or reflect the views of the Australian Government. The opinions and recommendations in this report are published by ASPI to promote public debate and understanding of strategic and defence issues. They reflect the personal views of the author(s) and should not be seen as representing the formal position of ASPI on any particular issue. Important disclaimer This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in relation to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering any form of professional or other advice or services. No person should rely on the contents of this publication without first obtaining advice from a qualified professional. © The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited 2021 This publication is subject to copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers. Notwithstanding the above, educational institutions (including schools, independent colleges, universities and TAFEs) are granted permission to make copies of copyrighted works strictly for educational purposes without explicit permission from ASPI and free of charge. First published August 2021 Published in Australia by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute ASPI Level 2 40 Macquarie Street Barton ACT 2600 Australia Tel + 61 2 6270 5100 Fax + 61 2 6273 9566 Email [email protected] www.aspi.org.au www.aspistrategist.org.au Facebook.com/ASPI.org @ASPI_org ISBN 978‑1‑925229‑67‑7 (print) ISBN 978‑1‑925229‑68‑4 (online pdf) No specific sponsorship was received to fund production of this report Contents Introduction: sometimes we will annoy you 1 Strategy 9 The Department of Defence: kit, cash, capability— and contestability 22 Terrorism, security, intelligence, policing—and pandemic 49 Iraq and Afghanistan 66 Cyber and tech 80 The United States and China 95 Japan, India and the Quad 112 Indonesia and Southeast Asia 125 Australia’s island arc: the South Pacific and Timor-Leste 140 Northern Australia 157 ASPI covers 2001–2021 164 Women, peace and security 185 Climate change 193 Antarctica 202 On the 1.5 track 212 The Strategist 223 Thinking the ASPI way—the Professional Development Centre 233 Conclusion 242 Acronyms and abbreviations 246 About the author 248 Acknowledgements 249 Index 250 Introduction: sometimes we will annoy you Peter Jennings A senior diplomat from one of Australia’s close ‘Old Commonwealth’ partners tells a story about hosting an Australian visit from his country’s defence minister, an aspiring political operator. The minister came to ASPI for a 90-minute roundtable with senior staff. Mark Thomson briefed on Defence’s budget woes—this was one of those years when financial squeezing was the order of the day, and a gap was quietly appearing between policy promises and funding reality. Andrew Davies reported on the challenges of delivering the Joint Strike Fighter, the contentious arrival of the ‘stop-gap’ Super Hornet and the awkward non-arrival of the future submarine. Rod Lyon spoke about the insurmountable problems of Iraq and Afghanistan, the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and our own government’s foreign policy foibles. It was, like many ASPI meetings, a lively and sustained critique of policy settings. Driving back to the High Commission, a somewhat startled minister muttered to his diplomatic escort: ‘Thank God we don’t have a think tank like that back home!’ The genius of ASPI is that it’s designed to be a charming disrupter. Sufficiently inside the policy tent to understand the gritty guts of policy problems, but with a remit to be the challenger of orthodoxies, the provider of different policy dreams (as long as they’re costed and deliverable), the plain-speaking explainer of complexity, and a teller of truth to power. Well, that’s perhaps a little too grand. ASPI aims to be a helpful partner to the national security community, not a hectoring lecturer. But the institute ceases to have any value if it just endorses current policy settings: the aim is to provide ‘contestability of policy advice’. Not always easy in a town where climbing the policy ladder is the only game. The story of ASPI’s creation has been told by several present at the creation1 and, very enjoyably, by Graeme Dobell in the second chapter in this volume. With the release of the Howard government cabinet records for the year 2000, we now get to see that the National Security Committee of cabinet deliberated carefully over ASPI’s composition, charter, organisational location, geographical location and underlying purpose. The annual expenditure proposed ($2.1 million) was, by Defence’s standards, trivial even in 2000. What the government was chewing over was the sense or otherwise of injecting a new institution into the Canberra policymaking environment. The case for a strategic policy institute was set out in a cabinet submission considered on 18 April 2000: There are two key reasons to establish an independent institute to study strategic policy. The first is to encourage development of alternative sources of advice to Government on key strategic and defence policy issues. The principles of contestability have been central to our Government’s philosophy and practice of public administration, but Introduction: sometimes we will annoy you 1 these principles have not been effectively implemented in relation to defence and strategic policy, despite the vital national interests and significant sums of money that are at stake. The Government has found in relation to the COLLINS Class Submarines project for instance, and more recently in relation to White Paper process, that there are almost no sources of alternative information or analysis on key issues in defence policy, including the critical questions of our capability needs and how they can best be satisfied. The ASPI will be charged with providing an alternative source of expertise on such issues. Second, public debate of defence policy is inhibited by a poor understanding of the choices and issues involved. The ASPI will be tasked to contribute an informed and independent voice to public discussion on these issues.2 ‘An informed and independent voice’. There couldn’t be a better description of what the institute has sought to bring to the public debate; nor could there be a more fitting title for this study of ASPI’s first 20 years by Graeme Dobell, ably assisted by the voices and insights of many ASPI colleagues. The April cabinet meeting agreed that ASPI should be established, but the government went back to Defence a second time to test thinking about the institute’s organisational structure. In July, the department proposed several options, including that ASPI could be added as an ‘internal Defence Strategic Policy Cell’, or operate as an independent advisory board to the Minister for Defence, or be based at a university, or be a statutory authority, executive agency or incorporated company. Having considered other possibilities, the government accepted Defence’s recommendation (endorsed by other departments) that ASPI be established as a government-owned incorporated company managed by a board ‘to enhance the institute’s independence within a robust and easy to administer corporate structure’.3 The most striking aspect of this decision is that the government opted for the model that gave ASPI the greatest level of independence. There were options that would have limited the proposed new entity, for example, by making it internal to Defence or adding more complex governance mechanisms that might have threatened the perception of independence. Those options were rejected. A decision to invite a potential critic to the table is the decision of a mature and confident government. It’s perhaps not surprising that there aren’t many ASPI-like entities. Prime Minister Howard was also keen to see that the institute would last beyond a change of government. ASPI was directed to be ‘non-partisan’, above daily politics. The leader of the opposition would be able to nominate a representative to the ASPI Council. ASPI would also be given a remit to ‘pursue alternate sources of funding and growth’, giving the institute the chance to outgrow its Defence crib. Interestingly, the August 2000 cabinet decision to establish ASPI as a stand-alone centre structured as an incorporated company and managed by a board of directors also stated that: ‘The Cabinet expressed a disposition to establish the centre outside of the Australian Capital Territory.’4 By the time ASPI was registered in August 2001 as an Australian public company 2 An informed and independent voice: ASPI, 2001–2021 limited by guarantee, the institute’s offices were located in Barton in the ACT, where they remain to this day.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • China Media Bulletin
    Issue No. 154: May 2021 CHINA MEDIA BULLETIN Headlines ANALYSIS The Gutting of Hong Kong’s Public Broadcaster P2 IN THE NEWS • Regulators “clean up” internet ahead of CCP anniversary alongside censorship of Oscars, Bible apps, and Weibo P5 • Surveillance updates: Personal data-protection law advances, Apple compromises on user data, citizen backlash P6 • Criminal charges for COVID commentary, Uyghur religious expression, Tibetan WeChat use P7 • Hong Kong: Website blocks, netizen arrests, journalist beating, and Phoenix TV ownership change P9 • Beyond China: Beijing’s COVID-19 media strategy, waning propaganda impact in Europe, new US regulations to enhance transparency P10 FEATURED PUSHBACK Netizens demand transparency on Chengdu student’s death P12 WHAT TO WATCH FOR P13 TAKE ACTION P14 IMAGE OF THE MONTH Is RTHK History? This cartoon published on April 5 by a Hong Kong visual arts teacher is part of a series called “Hong Kong Today.” It depicts a fictional Hong Kong Museum of History, which includes among its exhibits two institutions that have been critical to the city’s freedom, but are being undermined by Chinese and Hong Kong government actions. The first is the Basic Law, the mini-constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression and other fundamental rights; the other is Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), the once-respected public broadcaster now facing a government takeover. The teacher who posted the cartoon is facing disciplinary action from the Education Department. Credit: @vawongsir Instagram Visit http://freedomhou.se/cmb_signup or email [email protected] to subscribe or submit items. CHINA MEDIA BULLETIN: MAY 2021 ANALYSIS The Gutting of Hong Kong’s Public Broadcaster By Sarah Cook A government takeover of Radio Television Hong Kong has far-reaching Sarah Cook is the implications.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewed at the Sideline: Yeah, Nah
    China-haters run for cover as Newscorp ‘virus warfare’ propaganda implodes 17 May—At no point since the Canberra intelligence establishment and its media puppets commenced their anti-China propaganda campaign in earnest some five years ago have they put forth any meaningful evidence to back up their accusations against Beijing. On the contrary, it would be fair to say that their proofs have grown ever flimsier in proportion to the scale of atrocity alleged. Newscorp’s attempt this month to revive the “Wuhan lab leak” theory on the origin of the COVID-19 coronavirus may (we hope) be the nadir of this trend, being so transparently stupid that it has been roundly rejected by other news agencies, and even disowned by some of the very “experts” it cites, whose own outlandish China scare-stories have already strained credulity to its limits, and who have gone strangely quiet since. It is early days yet, and this will likely be only a temporary lull; but in the event the dying Anglo-American empire to which Australia is annexed doesn’t take the world down with it in a thermonuclear holocaust, some future historian may pinpoint 8 May 2021 as the day our nation’s media-inflated bubble of anti-China hysteria burst, and the Australian newspaper’s front-page “exclusive” that day, headlined “‘Virus warfare’ in China files”, as the pin that pricked it. Penned by the Australian’s “investigations writer” Sharri Markson, the article claims that “Chinese military scientists discussed the weaponisation of SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] coronaviruses
    [Show full text]
  • 2Col 09 SEPT 2020 Clarion
    CLArion Issue No 20200901, September 2020 CLA on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CivilLibertiesAus/ Email newsletter of Civil Liberties Australia (A04043) Email: Secretary(at)cla.asn.au Web: http://www.cla.asn.au/ ____________________________________________ Covid-19 vaccination: CLA’s position If a vaccine is found for the Covid-19 virus, in general it should NOT be mandatory for Australians to be vaccinated, CLA believes. When Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the vaccine would be mandatory, he misspoke: within hours he had walked back his comments significantly. CLA’s policy on accessing health is: are not willing to be vaccinated. Sometimes this will not be possible. • Everyone has the right to equal access to publicly- provided health services, and to receive or refuse medical While children are apparently not largely affected by Covid-19, treatment. Mental health patients have the same rights. they may be significant carriers. It is possible that children and others could be prevented from visiting places such as aged • In the absence of informed consent, ideally no one should be forced to have any medical treatment. If treatment is care homes for a number of years, until widespread (“herd”) needed for urgent or life-saving reasons (as sometimes protection is in place. ordered by a court), the least intrusive or invasive CLA in general supports the measures for introducing one or treatment should be given. more Covid-19 vaccines to Australia. But these are preliminary • If governments or businesses seek to make vaccination a comments. Much more information will be needed before any of compulsory requirement to access benefits, services, us can sign off on a specific vaccine or vaccination policy.
    [Show full text]
  • JOINT MEDIA RELEASE: Afghan and Australian Human Rights Groups Welcome Release of the Brereton Afghanistan Inquiry
    JOINT MEDIA RELEASE: Afghan and Australian human rights groups welcome release of the Brereton Afghanistan Inquiry For immediate release | Friday 20 November 2020 Afghan and Australian human rights organisations have welcomed the release of the report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan (IGADF) Inquiry, led by Justice Paul Brereton, into alleged war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan and have called on the Australian Government to now move swiftly to implement its recommendations and establish a proper redress mechanism for victims. The report, the result of a four year inquiry, found evidence of grave human rights violations by Australian special forces soldiers, including the alleged executions of 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners, deliberate cover-ups and abuse. It has made 143 recommendations, including that 53 incidents involving 19 soldiers be referred to the Office of the Special Investigator for criminal investigation, and that the families of the victims be compensated. It has also made numerous recommendations aimed at transforming the “warrior-hero” culture and accountability mechanisms within the SAS, including strengthening reporting mechanisms and protections for whistleblowers. Horia Mosadiq, Executive Director at the Conflict Analysis Network, said: “We welcome the forthcoming criminal investigations into the allegations of war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, and the release of the much overdue report. What is important is not only justice and accountability for the victims, but that this process should lead to the elimination of a culture of cover-up and self-policing by the military. We hope and expect that Afghan victims are able to participate in the process and have the chance to be heard.
    [Show full text]
  • Uninhabited Systems Growing in Importance for Air Combat
    AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT DEC - JAN 2021 VOL.46 NO.10 UNINHABITED SYSTEMS GROWING IN IMPORTANCE FOR AIR COMBAT SOTG INTERVIEW: INDUSTRY UPDATES IN AFGHANISTAN AND STÉPHANE MAROUANI, LAND 129 THE BRERETON REPORT MATHWORKS AUSTRALIA AND SEA 129 IAI’s Heron Family Interoperable Solution for Your Operational Needs Heron TP Heron MK II Heron Tactical Heron Our Experience - Your Winning Solution The all-in-one platform backed by over 1,800,000 operational UAS flight hours, IAI’s Heron Family features: • Multi-mission, multi-payload configuration • Long Runner capabilities: remotely-controlled landing and take-off • Advanced voice and touch activated workstation • A strong technical and logistic support + a well-established UAS academy • Full automation • Seamlessly shifts between satellites • Highest safety and reliability www.iai.co.il • [email protected] CONTENTS FEATURES Print Post Approved PP349181/00104 11 THE BRERETON REPORT – A POLITICAL PROBLEM Managing Director/Publisher The SAS has had a rogue culture for too long Marilyn Tangye Butler AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT DEC - JAN 2021 Phone: +61 (0) 410 529 324 VOL.46 NO.10 Email: [email protected] 14 AIR 4503 – TIGER ARH REPLACEMENT Editor Misleading answers from the Department Kym Bergmann Phone: +61(0)412 539 106 of Defence Email: [email protected] Contributors 19 UNMANNED SYSTEMS IN THE MARITIME Vladimir Karnozov Arie Egozi DOMAIN Mark Farrer UNINHABITED Air, surface and subsea systems being trialled Mike Yeo Geoff Slocombe SYSTEMS
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Edition 2021
    SUMMER EDITION 2021 COMMONWEALTH WAR GRAVES FRANCE PRESIDENTS REPORT PAGES 1 & 2 MEMBERS FEES DUE ~ PAGE 3 NOTICE TO MEMBERS REGARDING MONTHLY MEETINGS TO BE HELD~PAGE 6 FIVE MORE BODIES IDENTIFIED K.I.A. FRANCE WW1 Pages 15 and 16 MATTERS COVERING THE BRERETON INQUIRY (ARMY) Pages 22 to 25 Official Newsletter of: Toronto RSL sub-Branch PO Box 437 Toronto 2283 [email protected] 0249593699 www.torontorslsubbranch.com Arcade Books 60 The Boulevarde Toronto ~ 49592800 Selling all types of pre-loved books and helping adults with reading and writing skills. In the arcade opposite Toronto Diggers. Closed Mondays Tues - Fri 9:00-5:00 Sat 9:00-1:00 In a time of need turn to someone you can trust. Ph. (02) 4973 1513 4959 1296 Pre Arranged Funeral Plan in Association with • All work done on the premises • Alterations and Repairs • Exclusive Bridal and Eveningwear Specialists • Blankets, Quilts, Curtains [email protected] From the president’s desk... Happy New Year everyone. I initially thought I would be able to wish you all a Happy New Year without the worry of COVID-19 interfering with our thoughts & wellbeing. Just as I write this report another cluster has appeared in the Sydney area, and once again we have border closures with holiday makers clambering to get home before they are forced into isolation. Let’s hope our authorities can get it under control quickly, they have been able to do so in the past so I assume they will continue to do the excellent job they have done so far.
    [Show full text]
  • Exposing the Show Trial Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange
    THE SPARKPLUG Vol. 1 Issue 5 In salute to disobedient, moral journalism. December 2020 - #2 Exposing the Show Trial Against Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange By Elizabeth Leier In 2010, Assange faced allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. He always denied the allegations and, contrary to most reports, always sought Assange’s first extradition hearing took place in London over several weeks to answer them, provided guarantees be made against a possible onward 1 from February to September 2020. A decision regarding his extradition is extradition to the United States. In 2013, a Freedom of Information request expected to be handed down in the New Year – on January 4, 2021. This (FOIA) filed by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi revealed that the U.K. hearing is the culmination of a struggle which has lasted a decade, ever since authorities were pressuring the Swedish prosecution against interviewing Assange had the courage to publish troves of classified information which Assange in London and dissuading them from dropping the preliminary revealed, amongst other things, the war crimes committed by Western allies investigation. Finally, after Assange’s expulsion from the Ecuadorian 2 during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Embassy in 2019, Sweden officially dropped the case . The U.N Special Rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer investigated the initial allegations made These publications earned Assange and his website many awards which by the Swedish prosecution and declared them to be unusual, in addition recognized his heroism and contribution to journalism. In spite of this to noting several procedural abnormalities. recognition, he now faces the overwhelming might of the United States government which is doing everything in its power to silence him and deny Countering Disinformation him the protections ordinarily reserved to the press.
    [Show full text]
  • Family De-Planning: the Coercive Campaign to Drive Down Indigenous Birth-Rates in Xinjiang 1
    Family de-planning The coercive campaign to drive down indigenous birth-rates in Xinjiang Nathan Ruser and James Leibold S OF AS AR PI E S Y T Y R T A T N E E G Y W T Policy Brief 2 0 1 01 - 20 2 Report No. 44/2021 About the authors Nathan Ruser is a researcher with ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre. James Leibold is a non-resident Senior Fellow with ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre. Acknowledgements We would like to thank our external peer reviewers, Dr Timothy Grose, Dr Adrian Zenz, Dr Stanley Toops, and Peter Mattis, for their comments and helpful suggestions. Darren Byler, Timothy Grose and Vicky Xu also generously shared with us a range of primary source materials. We’re also grateful for the comments and assistance provided within ASPI by Michael Shoebridge, Fergus Hanson, Danielle Cave, Kelsey Munro and Samantha Hoffman and for crucial research assistance from Tilla Hoja and Daria Impiombato. This research report forms part of the Xinjiang Data Project, which brings together rigorous empirical research on the human rights situation of Uyghurs and other non-Han nationalities in the XUAR. It focuses on a core set of topics, including mass internment camps; surveillance and emerging technologies; forced labour and supply chains; the CCP’s “re-education” campaign and deliberate cultural destruction and other human rights issues. The Xinjiang Data Project is produced by researchers at ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre (ICPC) in partnership with a range of global experts who conduct data-driven, policy-relevant research.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Reflections John Blaxland
    20 Final reflections John Blaxland Niche Wars sets out to help provide some meaning to an otherwise hard to explain, let alone understand, series of choices made by successive Australian governments from 2001 to 2014. A string of decisions was made that saw Australian forces deploy carefully calibrated contributions to various places across the Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in neighbouring countries. The book’s authors have made contributions spanning Australia’s commitment of troops to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in the United States through the decision to support the US invasion of Iraq and then dealing with the consequences of that decision both in Iraq and back in Afghanistan. Building on contributions made at the ‘War in the Sandpit’ conference on Australia’s involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the book outlines a wide range of observations and potential lessons for Australia as it considers the utility of force and the pitfalls of short-term thinking in the pursuit of its national interests. The book helps us to understand the choices made as well as the incomplete and, at times, incorrect information at hand that led to certain fateful decisions. While not addressing the Brereton Report of November 20201 in any detail as it was released on the eve of publication, this book helps to explain some of the context of the gravely flawed decisions that 1 Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, Afghanistan Inquiry Report (‘the Brereton Report’), afghanistaninquiry.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry -Public-Release-Version.pdf (retrieved 24 November 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Anzsil Perspective
    ANZSIL PERSPECTIVE NOVEMBER 2020 EDITION 19 CONTENTS Editorial .............................................................................................................................. 2 Perspectives ....................................................................................................................... 3 The Brereton Report: War Crimes Allegations and Command Responsibility .............. 3 Brenton Tarrant and Trans-Tasman Prisoner Transfers ................................................ 8 Transnational feminisms: Trafficked women, death row, autonomy and systemic reform .......................................................................................................................... 12 Shipbreaking Industry - Responsibility of the Maritime Industry ............................... 20 EDITORIAL Welcome to the NOVEMBER 2020 issue of ANZSIL Perspective. My editorial team and I are delighted to deliver the last ANZSIL Perspective for 2020 which maintains the consistently high level of contributions which we have shared with members since ANZSIL Perspective inception, and now freely available on the ANZSIL website for the international community. This month we are very pleased to have four excellent contributions from a range of authors on some interesting and sometimes controversial topics. We look forward to our next edition in February 2021 and to the forthcoming year, whether by monthly or fast turnaround contributions. As we move towards our revised conference arrangements, I hope that members and the wider
    [Show full text]
  • How the 'Good War' Went Bad: Elite Soldiers From
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ How the ‘good war’ went bad: elite soldiers from Australia, UK and US face a reckoning As coalition troops prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan after 20 years, former soldiers, key officers and the public are asking what went wrong with some special forces Special Operations Task Group soldiers make their way to a waiting UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter in Sha Wali Kot, Afghanistan by Ben Doherty 2 Jun 2021 “Whatever we do … ,” one Australian special forces soldier said of his service in Afghanistan, “I can tell you the Brits and the US are far, far worse. “I’ve watched our young guys stand by and hero worship what they were doing, salivating at how the US were torturing people. You just stand there and roll your eyes and wait for it to end.” As the post-9/11 Afghanistan conflict dragged deep into its second decade, with persistent rumours alleging impropriety, brutality, and even possible war crimes swirling among Australia’s tight-knit defence community, Dr Samantha Crompvoets, a civilian sociologist, was commissioned to investigate alleged cultural failings within its special forces. 2 She would conduct hundreds of hours of interviews over a period of two years with serving and former defence force members including the one above. “These things don’t happen in isolation,” she told Guardian Australia. “They don’t happen coincidentally.” Justice Paul Brereton, the defence force inspector general, argued similarly, writing of the country’s longest war: “Most of Australia’s coalition partners in Afghanistan have had to deal with allegations of war crimes.” Those allegations, of war crimes reportedly committed by Australians in Afghanistan, face a very public reckoning this month, when a defamation action brought by the Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith begins.
    [Show full text]
  • Saturday, November 21, 2020 the SKY’S the LIMIT
    TE NUPEPA O TE TAIRAWHITI SATURDAY-SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 21-22, 2020 HOME-DELIVERED $1.90, RETAIL $2.70 INSIDE TODAY WAIROA TO NAPIER HAGER: NZ TROOPS COULD ALSO HAVE LOG TRAINS HONOURING ‘GUILTY SECRETS’ GISBORNE’S RESUME AMBITIOUS WOMEN PAGE 3 PAGE 10 UP, UP AND AWAY ... and a giant step for gnome-kind Push for Maori wards ‘Diversity at the table matters’ by Alice Angeloni “It would be an egregious miscarriage of representative justice for those voices EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION is to be spoken over today and to say that having the “hearts and minds of Maori” they are actually well represented in this at the council table, Gisborne councillors system when they say that they are not,” have heard before a vote on whether to Ms Ngata said. establish Maori wards in Tairawhiti. Gisborne district councillors heard Indigenous rights advocate Tina Ngata from 19 submitters about whether the made a submission at a hearing on voting system should be changed to Thursday asking councillors if “distinct establish Maori wards, where only those representation” for Maori mattered, if on the Maori electoral roll vote for the it was being achieved by the council candidates, in time for the 2022 election. and whether non-Maori This followed a could “best determine the consultation period interests” of Maori. We know our which ran from August “Representation matters ‘people intimately. to November in which and diversity at the table the council received 293 matters,” she said. We know what’s responses. Ms Ngata spoke to a really happening in While 68 percent of submission endorsed by the homes and lives submissions said they numerous hapu and marae, would like to see Maori in which she said Maori of people who live wards, those in opposition had the right to distinct in Kaiti cited concerns about representation as the — Ngati’ Oneone chair racism and divisiveness, Treaty partner.
    [Show full text]