This research note briefly explores both the pre-attack and post-attack language employed by New Zealand’s security agencies and the New Zealand Prime Minister, specifically with regards to the terms ‘extremism’ and ‘terrorism.’ It demonstrates that throughout 2019, national security references to the Christchurch attacker were inconsistent in their use of the terms ‘extremist’ and ‘terrorist.’ We argue that this inconsistency indicates confusion and directly influences government and security agencies, as well as, the media and general population. Consequently, it is imperative for the terms to be clearly defined so that the executive and national security sector can deliver concise, clear, factual and consistent language and information for any future extremist or terrorist concerns facing New Zealand. Moreover, at this stage, we see no evidence that the new 2020 DPMC definitions of these two terms have encouraged consistent and concise language around these terms across the sector. We stress that an improvement in this language consistency will, ultimately, achieve better national security outcomes and lead to a safer New Zealand.
The seasonality of human cryptosporidiosis in New Zealand
