The PM announced:

Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says.
“On 15 March our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place,” Jacinda Ardern said.
“Cabinet agreed to overhaul the law when it met on Monday, 72 hours after the horrific terrorism act in Christchurch. Now, six days after this attack, we are announcing a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand.

This sounds like a good step. The key thing will be what is the precise definition used in the bill. What is an assault rifle?

“Legislation to give effect to the ban will be introduced when Parliament sits in the first week of April. We will provide a short, sharp Select Committee process for feedback on the technical aspects of the changes. We are looking to progress the amendments to this legislation under urgency and expect these amendments to the Arms Act to be passed within the next session of Parliament,” Jacinda Ardern said.

I’m glad there is a short select committee process. It is essential people can submit on the details.

“The Bill will include narrow exemptions for legitimate business use, which would include professional pest control. Police and the Defence Force will also have exemptions. Issues like access for mainstream international sporting competitions are also being worked through,” Police Minister Stuart Nash said.
“We have also acknowledged that some guns serve legitimate purposes in our farming communities, and have therefore set out exemptions for 0.22 calibre rifles and shotguns commonly used for duck hunting. These will have limitations around their capacity.

The proposed exemptions sound sensible. I look forward to seeing the detailed bill.

Have a look at the document listing all the stakeholders the review group (that is proposing taking almost all powers away boards of trustees) met with.

Barely a handful of schools make the list. Of 2,600 schools maybe a dozen had meetings. Parents and trustees were missing.

Little wonder the recommendations are to remove parents from meaningful involvement in school governance.

Politik reported:

The Government has effectively rejected a radical proposal from the Productivity Commission which could have opened up the Budget process to non-governmental organisations.
The previous National Government in 2017 asked the Commission to examine productivity in the state sector.
Predictably the Commission produced a report which drew heavily on private sector market-driven ways of improving performance.
It particularly suggested that the Minister of Finance should set aside money in the Budget dedicated to “high impact initiative” proposals that had a high probability of making a significant impact on social wellbeing.
These would need to be  evidenced through robust business cases, and returns on investment and then the Government would progressively increase the share of the budget allowance devoted to that portion.
“The Minister of Finance should restrict access to the “high-impact initiative” portion of future budget operating allowances to those departments that can credibly demonstrate productivity gains from existing baselines,” the report said.
But even more controversially it proposed that the process be opened up beyond the state sector.
“The Minister of Finance should allow non-government organisations to make budget bids directly to the Treasury for the “high- impact initiative” portion of the operating allowance,” the report said.
In other words, NGOs would be able to bid for Budget funding on the same basis as a Government Department like Social Development or Education.

That’s a great idea. It could make a huge difference. Very sad the Government has rejected it. I love the idea of NGOs being able to do direct budget bids.

Now Whitcoulls has banned Jordan Petersen’s Book, will the next step be a public burning of all books deemed incorrect?

No doubt Don Brash’s books will be added to the pile along with Mike Hosking’s and Bob Jones’.

I blogged in February on how the MOH tried to undermine a report showing worse outcomes for babies in midwife-led care. Rather than look at how to improve outcomes, they tried to discredit the research.

Seems this is not new. Received this e-mail from Andrea Menclova, an associate professor at Canterbury University:

My name is Andrea Menclova and I’m an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Canterbury. I was very pleased when Diana Sarfati and Ellie Wernham published their paper on the NZ lead maternity carer system. I find it appalling how they have subsequently been treated and this bullying behaviour from the College of Midwives needs to stop.
 
I myself wrote a paper reaching similar conclusions as Sarfati & Wernham in 2008. I presented it at a few conferences/in academic seminars. After a presentation at the Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation in Sydney, my Head of Department received a letter from the College of Midwives ‘warning him’ that I do research of poor quality (with many of their points completely uninformed) and asserting that: “there is a clear agenda and conflict of interest which is not stated”. At that point, I had only been in New Zealand for less than two years and had no connections in the LMC system or the NZ healthcare system more generally, had received no funding to conduct the study and had no a-priory views on maternity care. The College of Midwives have never contacted me directly. Like Peter Crampton at Otago, my then Head of Department (Seamus Hogan) fully supported me and defended academic freedom. Still, I can very much relate to Peter Crampton’s assessment that researchers attacked so aggressively by the College of Midwives then feel “beaten up and traumatised by the experience”. That’s not okay.  

Very sad that there is a pattern of abuse and attack of anyone pointing out flaws in the current system.

StatsNZ reports:

Gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.6 percent in the December 2018 quarter, after a 0.3 percent rise in the previous quarter, Stats NZ said today.
“Growth this quarter was led by a 0.9 percent rise in service industries, while the goods-producing industries grew 0.2 percent,” national accounts senior manager Gary Dunnet said. “Growth was mixed at the industry level, with 10 of the 16 industries recording increases.” …

GDP per capita was up 0.1 percent in the December 2018 quarter, following a 0.1 percent fall in the September 2018 quarter.
Annual GDP growth for the year ended December 2018 was 2.8 percent.

2.8% annual growth is reasonable decent. Hopefully that will continue.

The Herald reported:

The Government plans to pass reforms to abortion law but is being held up by New Zealand First, the Herald understands.
Justice Minister Andrew Little previously said he expected to get Cabinet sign-off by the end of last year and to present legislation early this year.
However that was stymied by NZ First, which is reluctant for the issue to be treated as a Government measure.
Legislation for abortion reform, which is to be treated as a conscience issue, would have to be signed off by Cabinet. That raises questions about how Cabinet collective responsibility would apply for NZ First Cabinet Ministers, who may want to vote against it.

It is also understood Little has approached National to sound them on support for reform.

That is telling.

The report recommended three options:
• A – There would be no statutory test that must be satisfied before an abortion could be performed, and the decision would be made by the woman in consultation with a doctor.
• B – The doctor would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate after considering the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.
• C – The decision would be made by the woman in consultation with her health practitioner, but after 22 weeks of a pregnancy, the doctor would need to be satisfied that the abortion is appropriate after considering the woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing.
Currently it is a crime to perform an abortion unless certain circumstances apply.
All three options would remove abortion from the Crimes Act – the statutory test would be in health legislation – and remove the requirement for two consultants to approve an abortion, or for a woman to prove it would cause serious physical or mental harm to her.
Most – but not all – medical groups and pro-choice groups favour the first option. Pro-life groups prefer the status quo.
Last night a Newshub-Reid Research Poll showed 43 per cent support for option B, 37 per cent for option A and 12 per cent for option C; 8 per cent did not know.

Like Andrew Little my preferred option is C.

A better poll would have been to include the status quo as an option.

Radio NZ report:

Media outlets have begun discussions on how best to cover the court case of the accused Christchurch terrorist without giving him a platform for propaganda. …

Over the weekend, the accused shooter told his duty solicitor he wanted to represent himself, raising fears he would try to exploit the trial to broadcast his ideology.

This is no surprise. His manifesto said he would plead not guilty and obviously that was so he could get publicity from the trial.

The last thing anyone wants is a two month long trial where he is in the news everyday, milking it for everything he can. And most of all we don’t want survivors of the attack having to be cross-examined by him in court.

So to minimise this Crown Law need to do things a bit differently. Normally in a murder case you call every possible witness, so that there is nothing left which could lead to reasonable doubt and a not guilty verdict.

In this case it is not hard to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You just need to prove:

• He purchased guns
• He was the shooter
• The victims died from the shooting
• He published the manifesto, live stream etc

You don’t need to call 100 witnesses to the shootings. Just call the cops. Use the video as proof rather than spend weeks proving he went into this room then that room etc.

Crown Law should understand this is not really a trial about guilt. Yes they need to provide the evidence to the court, but they need to be aware every extra witness is an opportunity for him to grandstand. Only call people if they are essential. Don’t even bother with motive. You have a video of him doing it.

I’d far rather he was found guilty of 48 of the 50 murders in a two week trial than he was found guilty of all 50 of them in a three month trial. His sentence will be the same.

Jim Rose writes at Stuff:

Never let a bunch of anti-capitalists design a legal market for cannabis.
Their consuming hatred of Big Marijuana and the profit motive would create such an ineffectual legal market that the gangs will still supply most of the marijuana along with offers of free samples of harder drugs that even voters will work out how awful the legal model is and vote it down at the coming referendum.
The Greens and the Drug Foundation not only want to decriminalise marijuana, they want to legalise it with government controls on who can supply,  and checks on quality. They seem to want to limit access to social supply and consumer co-ops so that Big Marijuana is kept out of the market. No for-profit supply seems to be their ideal.
The Greens seem to want to imitate the monumental screwup in Canada. Not only did Canada forget to legalise production before supply, so they ran out of inventory within a week

Sounds very Canadian.

One province chose a government monopoly. Others allowed private retailers but they had to have a clean record and pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual registration fees.
Most of the current marijuana dealers in Canada did not qualify and already had an established network of customers so they stayed in business offering tax-free marijuana. American states also continue to have black markets in marijuana.
What the Greens will set up is a legal supply that is hopeless at competing with existing gang suppliers. The legal shops will be so far away from schools and other sensitive locations, open 9-to-5 in a remote warehouse district, paying a living wage that they will end up asking for a bailout from Shane Jones’ Regional Growth Fund because they attracted so few customers.

Very possible.

If advocates of legalisation want a legal market that drives the gangs out of marijuana supply, the Greens and others on the Left will have to swallow a big dead rat and embrace capitalism.
Big Marijuana might end up developing an app that ensures that adults and only adults buy marijuana delivered by Uber Eats. Marijuana legalisation will be full of the unexpected.

Cannabis delivered by Uber Eats. What a great idea!

Maajid Nawaz writes:

The anti-Muslim terrorist attack at two mosques in New Zealand marked perhaps the lowest point for Muslim communities in the West since the Bosnia genocide. It has left no doubt that far-right extremism is on the march once more.
But the sheer human tragedy of this attack against my Muslim communities has not deterred extremists from those other two ends of our political spectrum, the far left and the theocratic Islamists, from seeking to exploit it for their own nefarious purposes.

Just as a visibly pregnant Chelsea Clinton was accosted at an NYU vigil and faced unwarranted blame for the attack, others too have found themselves caught in the unforgiving crosshairs of ideologues seeking to settle scores. This was unsurprising. If the daughter of a Democratic president and a Democratic presidential candidate was fair game, what chance would those with lesser liberal bona fides have of being spared?

Some on the left seem to be in a competition as to who can blame the most people for it. You know it has got insane, when Chelsea Clinton is being blamed.

Last month I was racially attacked in the Soho area of London. I was punched in the face as my assailant shouted “f***ing Paki”, and my forehead was punctured with an unknown object. I will probably be scarred for life. So I know how tempting it can be to succumb to the forces of vengeance and division in times like these. In my youth, as an angry 15-year-old Muslim witnessing the Bosnia genocide, I once succumbed to this temptation and promoted extreme Islamism myself for a few years. I know what giving in to hate feels like, and I know the lasting damage it can cause. But that is exactly the reaction that extremists want, and exactly why it must be resisted with all our might.

Nawaz is a former Islamist.

Opportunistic Islamist and far-left extremists began calling for a purge of people whose politics they disagree with, and started publishing McCarthyite lists of personae non grata to target. 

The interesting thing in NZ is that the usual suspects have gone for the easy targets but none of them have had the balls to go after the politician who has been the most strident and consistent opponent of immigration.

After the multiple jihadist terror attacks Western cities have faced to date, it has been these same far-left and Islamist voices resisting the call to name the ideology behind these attacks as “Islamism”, and to distinguish it from the religion of Islam. They have taken the view that talking about the Islamist ideology unfairly stigmatises all Muslims. They have preferred to beseech us all to understand the grievances that fuel the anger of jihadists, and have encouraged instead ‘hug a Muslim’ campaigns. Yet, after New Zealand, these same voices paradoxically insist on directly addressing white nationalist ideology; they hounded a pregnant Chelsea Clinton; they have taken to compiling blacklists of individuals they do not like; and they are calling for the deplatforming of “right-wing” pundits and protests against “right-wing” media. Consistency has been sorely missing. This is dangerous, despicable and disingenuous. Only the extremist seeks to erase all opposition.

Extremism comes in many forms.

Just as it would be wrong to blame critics of Western foreign policy generally for jihadist terror in the West, it should be unacceptable to use this latest attack to to blame critics of Islam or immigration, or to seek to silence the political right generally. Doing so will only make matters worse and is precisely what the accused New Zealand terrorist explicitly told us he wanted, in his diatribe commonly referred to as a manifesto. In fact, there is an entire section in which [deleted by DPF] muses over pitting the American left against the American right in order to sow chaos. Falling for this trap is to allow ourselves to be trolled by a terrorist

Wise words.

To confuse hating all Muslims with critiquing the doctrines of Islam, is akin to confusing anti-smoking campaigns with hating all smokers.

I will do a separate post on this issue in a week or so.

Mark Steyn’s column is also a good read.

Good to see quite a few people are now auto-approved for comments. However the majority are not, and hence their comments are still waiting for approval. As I am a business owner and a parent, as well as a blogger, I am often offline for a few hours at a time.

So keen to get a small number of people to help approve comments. It’s very easy. There is a pending approval queue and you just click on approve or trash.

You don’t have to be a commenter yourself. You should ideally have never had a strike or a history of getting into flamewars with others.

At first the job will be simply approving comments that are obviously 100% okay. Any that are even slightly borderline, leave in the queue and then we’ll discuss collectively.

If you are keen to help out, to help Kiwiblog remain a place of robust debate, e-mail me.

UPDATE: Have three offers already. So will start with those three and expand if necessary.

Party leaders made statements in the House yesterday on the attack. WOrth sharing some of these.

Jacinda Ardern:

The 15th of March will now be for ever a day etched in our collective memories. On a quiet Friday afternoon, a man stormed into a place of peaceful worship and took away the lives of 50 people. That quiet Friday afternoon has become our darkest of days. But for the families, it was more than that. It was the day that the simple act of prayer, of practising their Muslim faith and religion, led to the loss of their loved ones’ lives. Those loved ones were brothers, daughters, fathers, and children. They were New Zealanders. They are us. And because they are us, we, as a nation, we mourn them. 

Simon Bridges:

As New Zealand woke on 15 March 2019, none of us could have imagined the horror and terror about to be unleashed on our people. As mums and dads, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters in Christchurch went to work or to school or to prayer, none of them thought for a moment that they would return home that night changed for ever. For 50 of the worshipers who entered Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre for Jumu’ah, or Friday prayers, in Christchurch, it would be their last day in this world. These New Zealanders had their lives ended, and all of us changed for ever.
For some, New Zealand had been their home for a long time. They had made their lives here working in our businesses, going to our schools, living in rich and diverse communities, and espousing everything good about our nation. For some, New Zealand was somewhere they found solace in a world full of problems. New Zealand was for them a new, a fresh, opportunity: the chance to live in a country which embraced tolerance, respect, compassion, opportunity, and freedom to be who you want to be. It was for them, as it is for us, the best little country in the world. We let them down, and for that we are sorry.

Winston Peters:

Friday, 15 March 2019 is the day everything changed in our country—a day when someone from outside our shores attempted to terrorise us and tear us apart. That, we believe, was his objective, and he has failed. Why? Because violent extremism, whatever its origin or form or creed, is utterly rejected by New Zealanders. His creed, like extremists’ anywhere and everywhere, seeks only to destroy; it’s evil and it’s destructive. The Pakistani Foreign Minister, when expressing his country’s sympathies for New Zealand, told me that 77,000 people in his country had died from terrorist-related violence in Pakistan’s recent history. He truly understood how New Zealanders feel, and we’ve had a number of messages in similar vein from Muslim countries all around the world.

Marama Davidson:

I acknowledge the lives cruelly taken and badly injured in our Muslim community by a terrorist attack driven by hatred. We are holding deep love for your families and loved ones, and your entire Muslim communities. We are holding deep love for the city of Christchurch and all of us who are hurting and are angry.
You were praying. You were in the most profoundly peaceful state of harmony and compassion that a human can be in. You were with your children, your elders, your partners and siblings, your friends, and your closest loved ones. You were anchored in the collective love of your community, the collective practice of your sacred traditions under the shelter of your sacred place of worship. Your families have been ripped apart, your hearts broken, your wairua destroyed. As artist Ruby Alice Rose drew: “This is your home. You should have been safe here.”

David Seymour:

I extend, not just to those who were attacked, but to every Muslim New Zealander, our sympathy, but also our solidarity. It is important that that solidarity is comprehensive, so let us close ranks around the cherished values of our country. Let me adopt, from the opposite end of our political spectrum, the words of our Prime Minister: “we grieve together. We are one. They are us.”
Normally in New Zealand, all the bad news is in the world section of our newspapers. How could it be that our country is supplying bad news to the papers of the world? It is tempting to say that we have changed forever. Well, cold comfort it may be, but one of our darkest days has also shed light on our true character. Up and down this country have opened up seemingly bottomless wells of love and strength. I’d like to pay tribute to those first responders, including the very first responders who heroically confronted the terrorist practically unarmed. I hope that the Crown suitably recognises you. To those who followed up: the police, the medics, hospital staff, teachers—this Parliament thanks you for your service. To those who have held vigils, created means of affirmation, left flowers, and donated millions of dollars to show the warmth and resilience of our communities.

Stuff reports:

Wellington’s Central Library will close indefinitely after the city council received engineering advice about significant quake vulnerabilities.
The closure was effective from 8.30pm Tuesday, with no date set for its reopening. The carpark underneath the library would also close, as well as Clark’s Cafe and Citizens Advice Bureau which operate inside the complex.
Wellington Mayor Justin Lester said the library was “the living room of the city” and it was a very difficult decision.

This is a massive blow. I hope the Council give priority to making the library safer and getting it re-opened.

That should be the much higher priority than spending $150 million on the Town Hall.

Stuff reports:

One of Australia’s most senior Muslim clerics, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, was refused entry to New Zealand following the Christchurch massacre – but the ban was overturned following a complaint to the Australian government.
The revelation will raise questions about why the Sheikh was on a New Zealand no-fly list, particularly in light of accusations that Australian security agencies and their international partners are too focused on Islamic extremism compared to right-wing terrorism. …

Immigration New Zealand confirmed Sheikh Shady was refused entry to the country due to a ban placed on him by Denmark last year.
“[INZ] can confirm that Mr Alsuleiman was advised that he was unable to travel to New Zealand visa free as a result of being excluded from Denmark,” said national border manager Stephanie Greathead.
“Because of the exclusion he required what’s known as a special direction enabling a visa to be granted. Taking into account all the circumstances Mr Alsuleiman has now been granted the special direction and a one month visitor visa.”

I don’t have a problem with Sheikh Shady coming here. I do not think he is a security threat. But it is worth looking at what he has said over the years. They include:

• In 2013, Alsuleiman spoke of the “evil actions” of homosexuality, saying, “Allah will send on them diseases they have never experienced before
• He has said in online videos that females will be ‘hung by their breasts in hell’ and that adulterers should be stoned to death
• He has advocated 100 lashes for people engaging in pre-marital sex
• He has said women must obey their husbands and men have the right to demand sex from their wives
• Spoke to a UK school and said “Give victory to all the Mujahideen all over the world. Oh Allah, prepare us for the jihad”
• In 2009 invited a top recruiter for Al Qaeda to speak to Muslim youths in Sydney

Personally I’m against the death penalty for anything, let alone consensual adult sex.

As we know the terrorist was motivated by opposition to immigration from non-Europeans. He did his slaughter to try and provoke conflict, hoping it will lead to his eventual goal.

So what better way to respond to his hatred of immigration, than for the Government to announce that say for the next three years we will relax our immigration settings so an extra 5,000 people a year (100 per person killed) can migrate to New Zealand, under the normal residency criteria.

Could there be a stronger way for us to say that New Zealand rejects his anti-immigration hatred of non-europeans. That the result of his madness is now what he wanted, but the opposite?

One can have legitimate debates about the right level of immigration, but an extra 15,000 over three years is not going to have a huge impact on infrastructure,

Let all the parties in Parliament get together and announce unanimous support for allowing an extra 15,000 people to immigrate to New Zealand over the next three years. Let that be our response to his murderous hatred of non-white immigrants. WOuldn’t that be great and fitting.

In a week or two I will do a fuller post on the issues around freedom of speech, the terrorist attack in Christchurch and acceptable comments on Kiwiblog. It will be a very long post as it is a complex area.

But as people know I have put comments on manual moderation, as the normal process of waiting for someone to complain about a comment was not ideal in this period.

Having me manually approving every comment is not a long-term solution. But neither was the old system of having all comments appear automatically unless there were complaints about them. Because that means some unacceptable comments stay there.

At this stage I am not changing the criteria for what is an acceptable comment, but will touch on that in a couple of weeks. What I am announcing is a change which will give preference to people who post under their actual name.

I post under my name. I believe doing so encourages me to be responsible. It makes you think a bit longer and harder about what you write before hitting publish.

If you use your real name for comments, you will be given a status that allows your comments to appear automatically. There will be no delay. You’re still subject to moderation after the event if your comment breaches policies, but you will not have any delays.

If you do not wish to use your real name, you are entitled to do so. There are many genuine reasons you may have for that. But it means your comments will be held for moderation until a moderator (currently just me) can view it and approve or decline it.

The idea is to incentivise people to use their real names, but to still allow an alias.

Some people have said they are happy to “own” their comments but don’t want to have their name listed as the commenter as it becomes the first thing which comes up on Google. One can qualify for “auto-approve” status if you link your user profile to a page that identifies you, even if you use initials or an alias.

To use myself as an example, I could qualify for auto-approve status if I comment under my real name of “David Farrar”. Or alternatively I could comment as “DPF” or “Laughing Gnome” and have my user profile linked to Kiwiblog or my Facebook page which identifies me.

At present no-one but me is on auto-approve status. If you wish to gain this status change your user profile (if necessary) to display your real name or a link to your identity and e-mail [email protected] with your username. If I verify you, I will give you auto-approve status.

I believe this change will be an improvement overall, even if not for everyone. As with any change I’ll review it over time.

UPDATE: Also if you don’t want your name linked to your previous comments but happy to do so for future ones, I can remove your e-mail address from your old account so you can use it for a new account.

I was interviewed by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on how the Prime Minister has handled the terrorism attack in Christchurch.

Their article is online here. Worth reading the whole thing but my quote is here:

“Empathy has always been one of her strengths and never has it shown more,” said David Farrar of the popular politically-focused Kiwiblog.

“The picture of her in Christchurch wearing a headscarf looking devastated is a powerful iconic image. I think Ardern has been near perfect in her response to the tragedy.”

I think some get blinded by their disagreements with the PM on other issues, to not see how well she has handled this.

Scarcely 18 months in office, Jacinda Ardern faces an era-defining tragedy for her country — and is winning praise for meeting the moment with a deft mix of empathy and resolve.

That was sort of my quote also – the mixture of both empathy and resolve. She has shown that with the quick action on guns.

In due course I will be opposing the Government as they try to impose an unfair Capital Gains Tax on New Zealand. But opposing them on some things, doesn’t mean opposing them on everything.

Likewise as the details of the gun law changes are known, I may critique the details. But I’m glad for once the Government isn’t just setting up a working group and waiting 18 months. New Zealanders don’t want the status quo to continue when what happened in Christchurch happened under the status quo.

The PM announced:

Today it was also agreed that there will be an inquiry to look at the specific circumstances leading up to the Christchurch mosques terror attack on March 15. The purpose of this inquiry is to look at what all relevant agencies knew or could or should have known about the individual and his activities, including his access to weapons and whether they could have been in a position to prevent the attack.
It will look at whether there were any impediments to the sharing of information, such as legislative or intelligence sharing challenges. The key agencies we’ll be looking at include the New Zealand SIS, GCSB, Police, Customs, and Immigration I want to highlight again, though: this is an inquiry that these agencies absolutely support.
 The inquiry will also look at the individual’s travel movements to and from New Zealand, and internationally; his activities in New Zealand; and his use of social media and his connection to others.
The terms of reference are currently being finalised, and decisions around who will lead the inquiry and what form it will take will also be made shortly. Our key considerations will be public confidence in the work, timeliness, and the management of classified information. We’re also mindful, of course, that criminal proceedings are under way.

This is a good thing, and what you would expect.

I would suggest though that the terms of reference might be a bit narrow. It should cover how the Police implement the Arms Act currently. Really it should be able to go into any area where changes could be made to stop a reoccurence. I wouldn’t just focus on the intelligence agencies.

But regardless of exact TOR, an inquiry is absolutely the right thing to do.

Stuff has profiles of the victims who have been named. I’ll just highlight a couple:

• Atta Elayyan, 33, from Kuwait, Elayyan was the goalkeeper for the national and Canterbury men’s futsal teams.
• Husna Ahmed, 44, from Bangladesh Ahmed was killed when she returned to the Masjid Al Noor in Deans Ave to check on her husband Farid, after getting some children to safety.
• Mucad Ibrahim, 3, born in Christchurch,
  Mucad, whose family is from Somalia, was with his father and brother at the Masjid Al Noor in Deans Ave when the shooting began. His father and brother escaped. Mucad was “energetic, playful and liked to smile and laugh a lot”
• Sayyad Milne, 14,
  Milne was described by his half sister, Brydie Henry, as a good-natured, sporty teenager who loved football. He had dreams of being an international footballer, and played goalie.
• Kamel Darwish, 38, from Jordan,
  Kamel immigrated to New Zealand about six months ago and worked on a dairy farm in Ashburton
• Ansi Alibava, 25, from Kerala, India,
  Alibava came to New Zealand to pursue a Master of Agribusiness Management at Lincoln University.
• Amjad Hamid, 57,
  Hamid was a Senior Medical Officer and Rural Hospital Consultant at Hawera Hospital.

And some heroes:

• When the gunman advanced toward the mosque, killing those in his path, Abdul Aziz didn’t hide. Instead, he picked up the first thing he could find, a credit card machine, and ran outside screaming “Come here!” Aziz, 48, is being hailed as a hero for preventing more deaths during Friday prayers at the Linwood mosque in Christchurch after leading the gunman in a cat- and-mouse chase before scaring him into speeding away in his car.

• The police officers who dragged an alleged gunman from a car following a shooting at two Christchurch mosques came straight from a training session on how to deal with armed offenders.The Herald has exclusive details about how the officers, after hearing there was an active shooter on the loose in the city, took to the streets to find him – and stop him. The officers, who the Herald has agreed not to name, are both based in smaller towns out of Christchurch.

Comments turned off until I have had time to delete and sanction those who have crossed the line.

UPDATE: Comments now back on. But they will not appear until manually approved. Those lacking in empathy will probably not appear.