And if some details were ultimately glossed over, or simply not known at that time — like the lurching phone call to police by a parliamentary security official who related the terrorist’s manifesto and named the mosques he was to attack (all while the slaughter was taking place) — would it have made much difference?
A previous Commission of Inquiry has suggested no.
Possibly, if Ardern had known the contents of that phone call and had disclosed it, a perception may somehow have been cemented that parliamentary officials were to blame for the slaughter — not terrorist Brenton Tarrant.
At least Ardern was disciplined.
Winston Peters, however, displayed a regrettable lack of precision in his initial tweet this week.
Peters said evidence from the Coroners Court hearing into the deaths of the 51 Muslims showed that the Prime Minister’s Office received information about the March 15 terrorist attack before the massacre took place.
“Jacinda Ardern should be called to the hearing and asked to explain this appalling lack of transparency to the New Zealand public,” he tweeted.
The insinuation is obvious.
But in March 2019, Ardern had explained publicly that her office was sent the terrorist’s manifesto minutes before the first shots were fired.
“I was one of more than 30 recipients of a manifesto that was mailed out nine minutes before the attack took place ... It did not include a location, it did not include specific details. I’m advised that within two minutes of its receipt in at least my office, it was conveyed directly to parliamentary security,” RNZ reported her as saying.
As we have learned from the Coroners Court hearing in Christchurch this week, the manifesto did in fact name various mosques that the terrorist was to target. That came out in cross-examination of the parliamentary official who has name suppression. The mosques’ rough locations are contained in a transcript of the phone call which the coroner released.
On this score, Peters has a point.
But the parliamentary official’s phone call also disclosed that he strongly doubted there would be an attack. The upshot is that police have since been subjected to questioning during the coroner’s hearing about whether they were thus too slow off the mark once they received the parliamentary call.
Context is everything.
It’s easy to overlook the fact that when Ardern did comment on her office’s role, New Zealand was in a state of high-security alert after the massacre. It was mass murder by a terrorist — something no one expected to occur in our peaceful islands.
Authorities were anxious to ensure that it did not spark a revenge attack on other New Zealanders. Internationally, Muslim political leaders were questioning New Zealand’s approach. Peters — Foreign Minister at that time — was deputed to Turkey, where the president was making some unfortunate claims.
They were heightened times. It was important to quell unrest.
Now, with the distance of time, the Coroners Court has set out to “speak truth to power” as it seeks to get to the essence of the crisis and pull together its ruling on how the 51 people lost their lives.
Timing is everything.
In less than a fortnight, Ardern will join French President Emmanuel Macron to co-host the fifth leaders’ meeting on the Christchurch Call, which is the foundation of her post-politics career.
Her appointment as special envoy to the Christchurch Call was a gift by outgoing Prime Minister Chris Hipkins. It expires at the end of this year and it will be up to incoming Prime Minister Chris Luxon whether to extend her term. She has not taken any remuneration for the role but her expenses are covered.
Ardern is held in high esteem in French foreign affairs and governmental circles. She is admired for a reputation earned through skillfully handling the initial stages of the Covid-19 pandemic by closing the border and saving lives.
Ardern and Macron initially brought together a group of world leaders and major tech companies to adopt the Christchurch Call.
Those countries, companies and organisations supporting the Christchurch Call have committed to a set of collective actions that aim to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online, such as tools to prevent the uploading of such content; countering the roots of violent extremism; increasing transparency around the removal and detection of content; and reviewing how companies’ algorithms direct users to violent extremist content.
This is valuable work.
But so too, the coroner’s determination. Why not come back and share insights that could help prepare future leaders and their offices for a crisis of the worst kind?
