NZ should feel proud . . . we’ve made a difference
The Weekend Herald catches up with the PM during her busy New York trip
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has wrapped up a frenetic few days in New York that included 18 bilaterals, nine speeches, two major announcements, two US media appearances and one press conference.
Her national statement to the US General Assembly centred on the lessons of March 15 and the need for a collaborative, multilateral approach. It was a stark contrast to US President Donald Trump’s speech, which trumpeted the merits of protectionism and patriotism.
She made two major announcements that showcased the collaborative approach she was preaching: an update on the Christchurch Call, including the social media giants joining forces to fight extremism, and a new trade agreement to combat climate change.
Trade was a major theme of many of her bilateral meetings, including with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, and with Trump.
She also gave the keynote address at a luncheon at the UN Climate Summit, appeared on panel discussions about inequality and climate change, and made a cameo appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
The Weekend Herald sat down with the Prime Minister just before she flew back to New Zealand to get her reflections on New York.
What new leader did you meet who made an impression and which familiar face was really good to see again?
I really enjoyed meeting the Prime Minister of Denmark [Mette Frederiksen], probably for normal human reasons. We got on well. We knew people in common. She comes from a progressive background as well. We just had a really common starting point.
It will probably seem completely obvious that the more you see one another, the easier it becomes to pick up where you left off. I find that’s the case with people like [Spanish Prime Minister] Pedro Sanchez. We have really interesting conversations about policy that we move into really quickly, because you always have such limited time.
In the green room [at Goalkeepers 2019], we were discussing our wellbeing budget. He’s really interested in that. In the green room before the national statement, we were talking about Brexit and the EU.
But equally [Germany Chancellor] Angela Merkel. We had a great conversation at [the heads of delegation] lunch.
And you have a particular affinity with the Prime Minister of St Lucia (Allen Chastanet, who has gifted Neve a rasta beanie)?
Yeah, based on riding in a bus in an event at CHOGM. The same with the leader from Jamaica [Andrew Holness]. We all actually sat together on a bus and had a really big conversation about oceans and plastics, and that was when we first started talking about the idea of banning single-use plastics.
So when I saw the leader from Jamaica yesterday, he said, “How’s your plastic bag ban going?”
And you had a look at Jordan’s King Abdullah’s knife, is that right?
Yeah, he just casually carries . . . I guess it would be a switchblade. We gave him a gift and he opened it in a very efficient manner and loved it.
How significant is his participation in the Christchurch Call?
It won’t necessarily be reasonably well known, but for some time now Jordan has been hosting, on a regular basis, tech company leaders to work though these very issues. It hasn’t been high-profile but it has been effective.
So when we entered this space with the Christchurch Call, King Abdullah said, “Please use the forum we’ve already created for these conversations, and if we can help with anything, please tell us.”
So that relationship has been very important and helpful.
Have you met Mark Zuckerberg? Do you want to meet him and is that important to you?
I’ve not. I’ve met Sheryl Sandberg twice now and we’ve spoken several times.
We [Zuckerberg and I] have spoken on the phone twice, I think. But that element was secondary to whether or not we made progress.
What we’ve been able to achieve in a short space of time has outstripped my expectations. It really has. Of course we wanted to see tangible changes around things that were directly linked to the attack, like for instance live-streaming policy. But now we have a piece of infrastructure, a work programme around algorithm outputs and use, the engagement of civil society — they finally have a seat at the table alongside the tech companies and they’ve been asking for that for a long time.
That will have a legacy that will have a much broader impact than the experience we had in New Zealand. I feel really proud of that.
The specific commitment to tackle extremism is an important aspect of the call, but it also highlights free speech concerns. Do you think those concerns are credible? Censoring content — those are very grey areas about where you draw the line.
They can be but is that a reason to not do anything at all? And I think we’ve been able to demonstrate that it’s not. Yes at different points there will be areas where it will be a little more difficult than the example we had in Christchurch, which was very black and white.
But the starting point is that most of these platforms have terms of service and terms of use that set up where they see those lines.
Just because those conversations might be difficult, at least we have agreement that it is not an excuse anymore to do nothing, which is where we were before.
Will we come to a point where content is prevented from being uploaded and it leads to an outcry about freedom of expression, or would it be a justified restriction? Because there are justified restrictions.
There are justified restrictions, and that’s why it’s been really important that we have the areas where we all agree. But where we might be moving into grey spaces, having a set of principles about maintaining an open, accessible and secure internet — that’s a starting point for us. And having civil society groups that do represent issues around free speech at the table helps you navigate all of that.
But interestingly it’s not just around what content is restricted. There are things we need to learn around the way some of these platforms are curating content for people, directing them in particular places or not. We won’t be able to have a conversation around the impact that has if we don’t have an understanding of how that’s working in the first place and we don’t have transparency around that. And now we’ve formed these expectations and working groups within the GIFCT (Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism). That is the place where we will be able to call for greater transparency. Before, we didn’t even have an in for that conversation. Now we do.
These companies haven’t given people a reason to put much faith in them before — scandals around Cambridge Analytica etc. Are the changes cosmetic or are they substantial?
I’m confident they are substantial. However, that doesn’t mean they remain that way if we take the pressure off. That is going to be key, continuing to have those milestones. The way it’s structured is such that it gives ongoing pressure points. It’s not just reliant on the NZ Government to keep pushing this agenda, because actually that’s not sustainable.
We have to bring in people who are working in this space every day to have a seat at the table and that’s how we’ll maintain some pressure and momentum.
Also, this is now a group sitting around the table together where some companies are willing to push a little harder than others, and that will create a sense of collective responsibility.
About 10,000 people called the mental health line. They saw the video. You saw the video. Do people deserve an apology at all? Some people might feel they deserve one.
Ultimately individuals will know whether that will make a difference for them and ultimately that’s a responsibility for Facebook. I think what they’d rather, is not having ever seen it. That’s where I think we should be holding those companies accountable, rather than apologies after the fact.
Would you be happy for the Christchurch Call to be your legacy?
It’s not something I ever expected to be involved in, but no one ever expected March 15 either. I think it’s something I felt a sense of responsibility around. Of course it is one of many things we’re doing. We’re here doing the Christchurch Call and climate tools and free trade negotiations.
But knowing we have made it harder for someone to seek notoriety through hateful acts is something that New Zealand should rightly feel proud of: that we’ve made a difference there.
The trade agreement (to cut tariffs on green technology, goods and services and lower fossil fuel subsidies): Not many countries have signed up.
It’s a starting point. I mentioned it with [EU Trade Commissioner] Cecilia Malmstrom. It takes longer to do anything with the EU, but that feels to me like a natural place to go.
They of course have already done a bit of work on this but it was focused on goods. They didn’t have services as well, and of course things changed with the change in leadership with the US [which is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement]. So I expect we’ll go there next.