|
|
|
|
A Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) C-130J Hercules will deliver aid supplies to Papua New Guinea following the recent cyclone, while another New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) contingent has arrived in Port Moresby to carry out a range of activities with the country’s military and other agencies.
The C-130J left RNZAF Base Auckland this morning with humanitarian supplies provided by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to support Papua New Guinea’s response to Tropical Cyclone Maila.
Papua New Guinea and New Zealand authorities are working together to arrange distribution of the supplies to communities impacted by the severe weather event.
Yesterday, the Royal New Zealand Navy’s HMNZS Canterbury delivered two RNZAF NH90 helicopters and crew as well as personnel from the NZDF’s Deployable Joint Interagency Task Force (DJIATF), who specialise in working with partner agencies and nations to respond rapidly to unplanned and evolving events.
NZDF personnel will spend up to three weeks in Papua New Guinea, with the helicopter contingent focusing on professional integration and cooperation with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF), and the DJIATF group collaborating with government agencies.
The RNZAF last deployed helicopters to train in Papua New Guinea in 2025 and Commander Joint Forces New Zealand, Major General Rob Krushka, said the NZDF appreciated the chance to work with the PNGDF again so soon.
“Canterbury’s planned passage to Singapore for maintenance has provided us with a welcome opportunity to move our NH90s, crew and DJIATF personnel to undertake another collaboration with the PNGDF,” he said.
“As a Pacific nation, New Zealand has a shared commitment to humanitarian aid and disaster responses, and regional security.
“Training with the PNGDF means we can continue to strengthen our trusted relationships, develop shared procedures and confirm the practical interoperability that’s required when we’re called to work together.
“We appreciate every opportunity to partner with Papua New Guinea.”
The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, manager of the $90 billion New Zealand Superannuation Fund, is considering its response to a judicial review decision, published today, in which the High Court found certain parts of the Guardians’ current sustainable investment policy documents do not comply with legislative requirements.
In broad terms, the Court found that the relevant parts of the policy documents did not identify with sufficient clarity the standards and procedures the Guardians applies in order to invest the NZ Super Fund “in a manner consistent with avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community”.
Guardians CEO Jo Townsend said the Guardians was strongly committed to operating as transparently as possible.
“We recognise that we are investing on behalf of all New Zealanders, and that gives people a legitimate interest in how we manage the Fund.
“We will thoroughly evaluate today’s decision and determine how best to respond to it.”
Source: Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA)
The High Court in Auckland has found policies of the NZ Superfund are ‘unreasonable and unlawful’ and fail to properly address human rights issues, when the Fund considers excluding companies from its portfolio of investments.
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa issued judicial review proceedings against the Superfund for its failure to divest its investment in Israeli companies which the UN says are complicit in the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
The Court’s just released judgment found:
“The Guardian’s policies fail to meet the basic requirements of the Act (New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001) so far as exclusion from the fund for alleged breach of human rights standards is concerned. They are unreasonable and unlawful. (para 86)[1]
The Guardians have a duty to reformulate the policy documents.
Once legally compliant policy documents are in place the Guardians will inevitably have to make decisions about the challenged investments in accordance with these policy documents. (para 102)”
“This is an important and timely win for Palestine”, says PSNA Co-Chair John Minto. “We are certain if the Superfund now does its job properly, it will quickly divest from the four companies it holds investments in which are on the United Nations Human Rights Council list of companies involved in building and maintaining illegal Israeli settlements in the OPT.”
“As things stand, the Superfund is raking in money from the most appalling breaches of international law by Israel in the OPT, that is Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.”
“New Zealanders expect the highest of standards from our leading sovereign wealth fund, which should be setting the benchmark for all New Zealand investment funds.”
“No New Zealander on national superannuation in the future wants to have money in their pocket made from Israel’s war crimes and massive human rights abuses of Palestinians in the OPT.
Minto says of extreme concern to PSNA, is the revelation from the judgment, that in June 2022, a year after the Fund had divested from five Israeli banks, it gutted its exclusions policy and removed all direct references to human rights standards.
In particular, the new abbreviated policy removed the reference to the human rights standard in the UN Global Compact. The High Court said the new policies are now
“materially less clear and specific than previous iterations and there is no practical benchmark for those applying the policy in relation to alleged breaches of human rights standards” (para 60)
The High Court judgment also says:
“The current policy documents no longer link exclusion directly to any human rights standards”
“This is beyond outrageous” says Minto. “Our largest sovereign wealth fund, owned by the government on behalf of the people of New Zealand, has no specific references to human rights standards in its investment exclusions policy.”
Previously the Fund used policy documents, such as the United Nations Global Compact, an internationally recognised investment guideline which specifically includes human rights standards.
“But it removed the Global Compact and gutted its policy of any other direct reference to human rights, after it had made a previous principled decision on the five Israeli banks.”
“Not only was the Superfund in breach of its statutory obligations, but it was setting an illegally based template for KiwiSaver schemes and major private companies, such as those who sell Israeli products here, such as Sodastream.”
“We don’t believe it is a coincidence that the Fund dropped the policy after heavy pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, following the divestment decision on the five Israeli banks which profit from funding illegal Israeli settlements.”
“The Superfund replaced a principled policy with an entirely vague and subjective assessment of companies which meant they could resist pressure from human rights groups such as PSNA. The Fund was entirely making up legal sounding excuses as it went. It meant they could now keep on their books other companies which abuse the human rights of Palestinians.”
“Opting out of policies, which the High Court found were meant to be a statutory requirement, appears to be a cowardly backdown to backdoor bullying, which is standard operating procedure by the pro-Israeli lobby everywhere in the world. The Fund’s obligation is to stand up against human rights abuses without fear or favour,” says Minto.
“The Superfund owes us all an apology – and in particular an apology to Palestinians here and in Palestine, whose suffering is helping pay the price of the Fund’s increasing wealth.”
John Minto
Researchers are designing chatbots to help make life online safer and more welcoming for seniors.
New research, co-authored by Dr Jade Brooks (University of Auckland), led by Dr Yenni Tim (University of New South Wales) with Delen Zeng (Beijing Jiaotong University) and Joshua Huynh (AMP Limited), explores how properly designed tech can help older people feel safe, confident and included when they go online, not just able to use technology, but comfortable doing so.
The project, in partnership with a major Australian humanitarian organisation, focuses on senior citizens who increasingly rely on digital portals to access essential services such as healthcare, banking and government support. Many of these seniors live in rural areas, where in-person support is limited.
Traditionally, the organisation relied on caseworkers, often older volunteers themselves, to help people navigate online systems at home. However, an ageing population and rising demand are straining this model, says Brooks, a lecturer in information systems at the Business School.
To address this challenge, the research team co-designed an AI-powered chatbot.
Drawing on interviews with senior citizens, volunteer caseworkers, and staff from the partner organisation, the study identifies the limits of existing ‘digitally inclusive’ design and proposes a new concept: ‘socially inclusive design’.
“Socially inclusive design asks, does this technology help people feel they belong, that they can act independently, and that any concerns about safety are taken seriously,” says Brooks.
“The chatbot is intended to complement and, in some cases, relieve caseworkers' workload by guiding seniors step-by-step through online tasks, while also helping build skills and confidence over time.”
Tim, an associate professor at UNSW Business School, says the chatbot interface offers socially relevant and familiar interactions, making it feel trustworthy, personal, and reflective of users’ real-world social practices.
“We programmed supportive, reassuring, and adaptive settings that allow seniors to build confidence over time, enabling independent digital interactions.
“We also provided the system with positive feedback mechanisms and community-building features that encourage seniors to share experiences and develop a sense of belonging within its digital environments.”
Brooks, whose broader work examines digital inclusion and the changing nature of work, says the project is about more than making websites and apps accessible.
She says that while many older people are technically able to use online services, they often choose not to because they lack a sense of safety, confidence, or control.