The two-year commemoration of the Christchurch mosque shootings provided moving moments as those affected were honoured at the national remembrance service.
However, this has been juxtaposed with serious concerns about the handling of the shooting aftermath.
In the lead-up to the commemoration, news of a threat to car bomb mosques in Christchurch understandably put everyone on edge.
The threat, made on an anonymous but not hard to find site used by the far Right, and indeed the Christchurch gunman, was reported to be found by a member of the public who alerted the police.
Someone has since been arrested in connection with the threat, but despite Intelligence Agencies Minister Andrew Little downplaying suggestions the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) missed the threat, many will wonder whether the agency’s monitoring of internet threats is good enough.
Hard on the heels of that came news about how easy it still is to find the footage of the mosque shootings online.
This prompted questions around the effectiveness of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s much-touted Christchurch Call, the voluntary accord supposed to rein in the worst of the worst in the Wild West of the internet. Ms Ardern insists progress is being made, but there has been criticism it is still too airy fairy and that without proper regulation this work will ultimately be pointless.
There has also been considerable coverage around the adequacy of support offered to those affected by the shootings, including those who witnessed the attacks and may be suffering debilitating mental health conditions as a result.
Such witnesses are not covered by the legislation the Accident Compensation Corporation must follow and the Government has shown no enthusiasm for a law change, nor for a tailor-made compensation package outside ACC.
This week, the Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, in a thoughtful report reflecting on the report of the royal commission of inquiry into the shootings, called for consideration of a specific reparations package.
This might include both compensatory payments and provision of services and would be a step towards fulfilling the rights of the affected whanau, survivors, and witnesses.
The duty to make reparations existed irrespective of the inquiry and must be proportionate to the harm suffered.
‘‘In this case, the harm is at the most severe end of the spectrum.’’
Another gap the HRC identified was the ability of those affected to have effective access to legal advocacy and assistance in future legal processes including the coronial inquest. Prof Hunt pointed out legal aid support was complex and might come with costs. He suggested bespoke legal advocacy and assistance for affected whanau, survivors and witnesses might be required.
The HRC has also joined those concerned about the 30-year suppression order on evidence and submissions to the inquiry by public sector executives and government ministers (on the grounds of national security and confidentiality).
This order was a blunt instrument, applying regardless of the designation of the chief executive or minister, Prof Hunt said.
As victims of terrorism, those affected had the right to seek and obtain information about the causes and conditions which led to the attack so they could learn the truth.
The suppression order sent a mixed signal to the affected whanau and survivors, who had not been consulted about it and it had had a potentially damaging effect on the community’s trust in the process, he said.
The HRC wants to see further engagement with the community about any further information they need from the government agencies which participated in the inquiry and, if necessary, steps taken to release information sought.
We agree with Prof Hunt that much of what has been done to date has been commendable, but now is not the time for the Government to rest on its laurels or rush to dismiss ongoing concerns. Revisiting some of these issues will be difficult but that does not mean it should not be done.
