作者：Tom Santos | 政治评论员
–
特朗普卸任之时，
战争部将恢复为国防部。
特朗普肯尼迪中心将恢复原名肯尼迪中心。
美洲湾将再次成为墨西哥湾。
尚未完工的东翼（在特朗普任期结束前不会完工）将由下一任总统重建，而且不会建成宴会厅。
充斥着不合格忠诚者的联邦机构将会解雇这些人，并重新聘用被特朗普解雇的职业专家。
司法部将回归执法职能，而不是保护总统。
像美国国家海洋和大气管理局（NOAA）、美国环境保护署（EPA）和美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）这样的科学机构将恢复不受政治干预地发表研究成果。
美国将重新与盟友结盟，而不是与敌人结盟。
总统赦免权将不再被用作奖励忠诚拥护者的手段。
监察长们将回归调查腐败的工作，而不是因此而被解雇。
白宫新闻发布室将恢复举行新闻发布会，由真正的记者而不是播客主持人主持。
美国外交政策将不再围绕奉承独裁者展开。
世界将继续发展，仿佛唐纳德·特朗普从未存在过。
–
作者： Tim Murphy （Newsroom 联合编辑）
2025年12月1日周一，奥克兰高等法院对当事人通告了对Paul Young 控告魔王肖志鸿诽谤案的裁决。12月5日周五，裁决书公开。当日，新西兰知名媒体人、新西兰英文媒体Newsroom 联合编辑 Tim Murphy 发布文章报道此案。以下是对这篇文章的翻译。
–
前奥克兰市议员 Paul Young 在一宗诽谤案中胜诉，被告是活跃在社交媒体的声名狼藉的肖志鸿（魔王/Morgan Xiao）。案件涉及其在中国社交平台微信上发布的多篇帖子，这些帖子被指控暗示 Young 不适合担任公职，并受到外国势力影响。
奥克兰高等法院（High Court of New Zealand） 法官 Tracey Walker 裁定，肖魔王必须就 2021年至2023年间发布的16篇帖子中的13篇 向Paul Young 支付 22.5万纽元的赔偿金，其中包括一般性赔偿金和加重损害赔偿金（general and aggravated damages）。
Tracey Walker) 法官将这些帖子形容为“一场诋毁运动，完全没有任何负责任传播的特征。”
法官同时驳回了被告肖志鸿提出的抗辩理由，包括：
法官指出：“被告在每一项言论中所体现出的责任程度都明显极低。”
除支付赔偿外，法官还下令肖魔王：
判决书写道：“命令肖不得再发表关于 Young 不忠诚、不诚实、不适合担任公职、腐败、受外国势力影响，以及滥用法院程序（misuse of court proceedings imputations）等指控。”
–
–
Young 曾是奥克兰市议会 Howick 选区的市议员，任期至2022年。今年（2025）10月他曾尝试连任但未成功。
他说，这项判决证明了他三年来的诉讼努力是正确的。
他说：“我希望这一结果能传达一个明确的信息：新西兰的法律体系能够为那些在持续网络攻击中声誉受损的人提供有效补救措施（New Zealand’s legal system provides effective remedies for those whose reputations are attacked through sustained online campaigns）。”
Justice Walker法官指出，案件的核心争议之一是魔王肖志鸿的帖子将 Young 描绘为台湾独立支持者。
判决写道：“这是一个在华人社区中具有高度政治敏感性的议题。”
不过法官指出，肖志鸿的言论还进一步对Paul Young做出下述指控：
Young 否认自己支持台湾独立。他的律师告诉法庭，这样的指控在华人社区“可能对一个人的声誉造成致命打击。”
判决书还提到，在审判结束后，Paul Young 试图把 2025年5月的一篇新帖子添加到其诉讼中。
法官认为该帖子似乎只是重复之前的言论。其中一项争议涉及帖子中的一个图示是否具有某种“文化含义”，暗示 Young 已经“不可救药”。
法官表示：在没有独立专家证据说明这种文化象征意义的情况下，她不会接受这一说法。
这些被认定为诽谤的言论主要以中文发布在微信平台上。微信是全球华人社区广泛使用的社交媒体平台。
Paul Young 认为，魔王肖志鸿的这些帖子旨在破坏他在地方选举中的胜算机会，同时提升肖魔王自己的政治前途。
在关于“支持台湾独立”的指控问题上，法官指出：法律必须从整个社会对声誉影响的角度进行评估，而不仅仅是某个特定群体。
不过她也提出，在多元社会中，这一原则的合理性可能需要重新审视。因为某些言论在某个族群或宗教社区中可能严重损害声誉，但在社会整体中未必如此。但她表示，目前的判例法不允许法院改变这一原则。
法官认为：仅仅称某人支持台湾独立，在新西兰社会整体语境下并不一定构成诽谤；但肖志鸿的其他言论确实构成对Paul Young的诽谤。
法官总结说：肖志鸿的帖子是为了推进他个人的政治和个人利益，通过一场贬损行动 （campaign of denigration) 来削弱 Paul Young 的政治资本。
Xiao 的“总体抗辩”是：把某人称为 “支持台湾独立” 并不构成诽谤。他还认为，Paul Young 试图压制他依据 《新西兰权利法案》 所享有的政治言论自由。
法院判决书称，肖的职业是停车管理员（parking warden），但他自认为是一名“观点鲜明的网络评论员”，也是一名强烈的亲中网民。他还在法庭上“承认”，自己的一些其他观点被人认为是“极端”观点。
新西兰高等法院的裁决是魔王肖志鸿今年（2025年）第二次在法庭上遭遇不利裁决。
今年6月，一名地区法院法官推翻了另一名法官先前作出的命令。
此前，魔王肖志鸿曾依据 《有害数字通信法》（ Harmful Digital Communications Act ） 成功申请命令记者毛芃/Portia Mao 删除有关他的网上评论，并向他道歉。
然而，肖魔王是在未通知记者毛芃、也就是说在毛芃不知道自己是被告、没有上庭为自己做陈述的情况下获得了该项禁令。毛芃因为参与制作Stuff新闻网站制作的关于中国在新西兰影响力的纪录片后，遭到肖某等人的网络攻击，毛芃的评论出于对肖的反击。
在 Free Speech Union 的帮助下，毛芃成功申请撤销法庭先前的禁口令。
法官 Richard McIlraith 表示：“我不认为毛芃文章中的评论构成虚假指控……这些言论并非为了骚扰，也并非严重冒犯。”
与此同时，毛芃本周通过自由言论联盟表示，Xiao 的一名同伙富强（Frank Qiang Fu） 已在另一宗地区法院案件中起诉她，目前案件正在等待判决。
她表示：“又来了……法律体系不应该成为压制新闻自由的武器（the legal system should not be a weapon to silence freedom of the press）。”
–
–
肖本人曾是新西兰地方政府选举候选人，此前曾称著名中国问题专家安妮-玛丽·布雷迪等人为“反华势力”和“狗娘养的”，并呼吁将天安门广场的抗议者吊死而引发争议，Newsroom在2019年对此曾有过报道。
2022年，Paul Young 曾公开批评过肖魔王。据新西兰电台报道，Paul Young 当时表示：有来自中国的海外干涉行动，试图抹黑他的名誉并阻止他进入地方政府。
Paul Young 出生于台湾。他说一名中国间谍曾出现在他的竞选启动仪式活动现场。他还认为，与他竞选的“亲中候选人”，即肖志鸿/ Morgan Xiao，属于一个旨在影响选举结果的“海外干预行动”组织。
前工党议员霍建强（ Raymond Huo）是Paul Poung 控告肖志鸿诽谤案中的Paul Young的律师之一。
霍建强律师说，肖志鸿在其微信帖子以及审判过程中也对他进行攻击。
霍律师表示：“作为政治人物，必须具备极大的忍耐力，准备好承受各种攻击。“
他说：“但我完全没有想到，作为一名法律专业人士，我也必须承受同样程度的攻击——这完全是由于被告的挑衅行为。”
霍律师还表示：在诉讼结束后，肖志鸿仍继续发表有关 Paul Young 的帖子。
甚至在法院尚未正式公开判决之前，肖魔王就违反了司法发布禁令，提前发布消息和个人评论。而法庭规定的正式发布时间是12月5日周五上午10点。
霍律师认为，这一判决具有深远意义：“这项判决应当开启华人社区赋权的新阶段，使社区成员能够对诋毁和抹黑的行动坚定地说‘不’。这一裁决实现了必要的正义，而判给原告的赔偿数额也对未来可能发生的诽谤行为构成了有力而明确的震慑。“
肖志鸿向媒体 Newsroom 表示，他将对高等法院的裁决提出上诉。
他说：“我认为这一判决严重违反了《新西兰权利法案》（New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. ）。司法裁决不应该禁止人们批评公职候选人，却只允许赞扬。”
Xiao 在判决发布后向 Newsroom 发表书面声明称，他认为法院试图惩罚他并帮助 Paul Young，以维护所谓的“新西兰价值”。
他说，但如果这种做法以牺牲公众监督和批评政治人物的权利为代价，那么这项判决实际上是在破坏新西兰的民主价值，违反《权利法案》。
魔王声称这项判决会将新西兰价值观贬值到朝鲜的程度。
Xiao 还表示：法院并没有禁止他评论 Paul Young，只是禁止批评。
他说：“这意味着我只能赞扬他。干得好，新西兰民主。”
（毛传媒编译）
民调结果显示，国家党的支持率跌至20%左右，总理面临的压力与日俱增。
–
–
根据最新的纳税人联盟（Taxpayers’ Union Curia）民调，国家党的支持率仅有28.4%，较上月下降近3个百分点。
如果这一民调结果在11月大选日重演，国家党的一些议员将会失去议员席位。
与此同时，最大的竞争对手工党的支持率略有上升，为34.4%。
联盟政府中的两个小党 – 行动党和新西兰优先党 – 的支持率分别为7.5%和9.7%。行动党支持率稍有上升，新西兰优先党的支持率略有下降。
左派阵营中，绿党的支持率上升至10.5%； 毛利党的支持率上升至3.2%。
依据这一支持率，工党将获得 44 个席位，国家党将获得 36 个席位。
新西兰优先党和绿党均保持13个席位。行动党增加2个席位至10个，而毛利党则保持4个席位。
结果就是中左翼联盟将获得61个国会席位，足以组成下一届政府；而现任联合政府则无法继续执政。
该民调还询问了工党和国家党在特定政策领域的管理能力孰优孰劣。
国家党在经济和支出方面领先，而工党则在医疗、扶贫、通胀、教育、安全、住房、环境以及不增税方面领先。
这项针对1000名新西兰人的民意调查于3月1日星期日至3月3日星期二进行，误差幅度为正负3.1%。
2025年10月份，同一家民调机构所作的民调显示，国家党支持率为29%。而此次的民调结果比10月份的那次更为低迷。
–
纳税人联盟（Taxpayers’ Union Curia）民调结果走势图显示，从2023年11月到2025年12月，国家党支持率在下降，而工党支持率在上升。
–
卢克森总理本周两次更正自己就美国和以色列对伊朗的袭击所发表的言论。这引发了国家党内部成员和联盟伙伴的议论，他们认为卢克森总理难以清晰地传达政府的信息，这可能会阻碍国家党在11月的大选中获胜。
即将于未来几个月退休的卢克森内阁高级部长朱迪思·柯林斯表示，在世界面临如此多不确定性的情况下，担任总理是一项“艰巨的任务”，公众不应被民调结果“吓到”。
柯林斯曾担任国家党领袖，在2020年大选中，她领导的国家党只获得了25.58%的得票率。
据报，国家党议员们对总理的表现感到不安，他们担忧卢克森在接受媒体采访和与公众沟通方面越来越差，而不是越来越好。
卢克森总理在去年年底就承受着巨大的压力，因为国家党的民调支持率较低，在经济问题上输给了工党，而经济问题一向被认为是国家党最擅长处理的议题。
如果卢克森的党领袖职务不能坚持到大选，谁会取代他呢？据RNZ报道，有猜测说，国家党正在进行内部民意调查，以了解 Chris Bishop 部长是否会在选举年做得更好。
–
–
Chris Bishop身兼多个部长职务。他是住房部长、基础设施部长、资源管理法改革部长、交通部长、下议院领袖、财政部副部长以及体育和休闲部副部长。他同时也是哈特南选区的国会议员。
（毛传媒编译）
by Jillaine Heather
Key notspeech at the Countering Foreign Interference & Safeguarding Democracy, Sovereignty and Open Societies Symposium – 21 February 2026, Auckland
Good afternoon, everyone.
I’d like to extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to this international symposium focused on Countering Foreign Interference and Safeguarding Democracy, Sovereignty & Open Societies.
My name is Jillaine Heather. I am the Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union New Zealand, and the Free Speech Union is proud and honoured to be co- hosting alongside the Tasman Alliance of New Zealand.
I’d like to acknowledge the Tasman Alliance and “Lao Chen “/ Chen Weijian for organising this conference. It takes courage to build a pro-democracy organisation in any country. It takes particular courage when the regime you are standing up to has a very long reach.
I’d also like to welcome and thank all the speakers who have come from across New Zealand and overseas, and extend a warm welcome to our distinguished guests and speakers from Taiwan, and finally to extend a welcome and thank you to everyone here for showing up today to listen and participate.
Look around this room. You are not alone. Every person here has made a choice to be present, to stand up, to refuse to be silent. That is not a small thing. And the fact that we are here together, from different countries, different communities, different experiences, matters. Because the forces that want to silence us count on us feeling isolated, scared and divided. Today is proof that we are not.
Today you will hear from academics, politicians, journalists, experts, and fellow civil liberty advocates – who have all stood up for democratic freedoms.
But I am not here today as an academic or a policy expert. I am here because Portia Mao reached out to the Free Speech Union a few years ago – and her case is a powerful reminder of why freedom of speech – the ability to criticize, ask questions and disagree – is so important in a functioning democracy – and her case demonstrates how quickly that foundation can be attacked.
WHY FREE SPEECH IS THE FIRST TARGET
Foreign interference does not begin with spies or cyberattacks. It begins with silence.It begins with making speech expensive, risky, and exhausting – until people decide it is easier to say nothing.
Every authoritarian regime in history has understood this. The first thing they go after is not the army, the economy or the courts. It is the right to speak, it is communication. Because if you control what people can say, and the information they have access to, you don’t need to control much else.
That is why free speech is not just one freedom among many. It is the freedom that makes all the others possible.
Without it, you cannot organise.
You cannot protest.
You cannot hold power to account.
You cannot even name what is happening to you.
Every other right – democracy, rule of law, freedom of association – depends on the ability to speak.
Two weeks ago, two investigative journalists in China published an article on WeChat exposing local corruption. Three days later, both were arrested. The charge? “making false accusations” – essentially for writing a news article.
Then the article is deleted. Posts supporting the journalists were removed. And the message is clear: speak, and bear the personal cost. Only silence is tolerated
That is China in 2026. But as everyone in this room knows – some of those tactics are here as well.
PORTIA MAO’S STORY
Many of you know Portia Mao. She emigrated from China over two decades ago, became a journalist, and worked with the Stuff Circuit team on the documentary The Long Game, which exposed CCP interference in New Zealand. By putting her name in those credits, she put a target on her back.
Now what happened next should alarm every person in this room. A man she had investigated – Morgan Xiao, an aspiring politician and ardent CCP supporter – used the Harmful Digital Communications Act to obtain a court order barring Portia from criticising him. The application and court order was made without her knowledge.
The court sent one email – it bounced. Nobody tried again. Portia found out because Xiao was bragging about his victory on a Chinese-language chat forum.
Let me say that again. A journalist in New Zealand was gagged by a court order she never knew about, obtained by a man using a New Zealand law to silence scrutiny of his political activities.
Honestly, you could not make this up.
WHAT THE FSU DID
So, Portia reached out to the Free Speech Union for help. The FSU funded a barrister (her lawyer) to represent her.
In June last year, the judge ruled in Portia’s favour. He found her commentary did not amount to harmful digital communications. He found Morgan Xiao was – and I am quoting the court – “not a vulnerable person.” He warned against the weaponisation of legal tools to silence political criticism.
But Xiao was not finished. He tried the same thing against Justin Wong, a journalist for Stuff. Justin’s crime?
The judge dismissed this case, and in her decision, she cited Portia’s case – the precedent the Free Speech Union helped set. The earlier victory directly protected the next journalist.
That is how this works. You fight for one person’s right to speak, and you slowly but surely build a wall that protects everyone who comes after.
And that is why gathering like this matters. Every case we win, every person who stands up, every room like this one – it makes the next act of courage, or defiance a little less lonely and a little less costly.
THE PATTERN
Now, these cases are part of a pattern – and many of you know it far better than I. Within the Chinese community in New Zealand, people who criticise the CCP get labelled “anti-China.” They are abused on Chinese-language social media.Their families back in China are contacted. They are surveilled. They are photographed at events like this one.
I want to be very clear: this should not be happening in New Zealand. New Zealand is not part of China. The political standards of the Chinese Communist Party have no authority here. Every person in this country has the right to criticise any government, any party, and any leader.
That is not a privilege. It is the baseline of a functioning democracy.
The NZ Security Intelligence Service’s 2025 threat report named the People’s Republic of China as the most active state conducting foreign interference in New Zealand. The Director-General said the public would often notice threats before the intelligence services did. – He was talking about you.
And it is not just Chinese born individuals. Three weeks ago, the Chinese Embassy in Wellington publicly condemned the New Zealand Herald for publishing an opinion piece about Taiwan – written by Jonathan Ayling.
A foreign embassy – telling a New Zealand newspaper what it is and is not allowed to print. We issued a media release emphasizing that our media exists to serve a New Zealand audience, not to reflect the sensitivities of overseas states.
WHY THE FSU MATTERS – WHO WE ARE
I want to speak directly about why the Free Speech Union’s work matters so deeply – particularly for diaspora and minority communities.
Portia’s case was not just about one journalist. It was about whether the Chinese community in New Zealand would be allowed to have independent voices, an independent press, and independent thought.
The outcome of the judge’s ruling matters beyond the courtroom. It helps shape how members of the community understand and choose between different values.
It says: in New Zealand, you are free to speak and free to criticise. And if someone tries to silence you, there are people who will stand with you.
Free speech is not a luxury for the comfortable majority nor just a privilege of the powerful (as we so often hear these days). It is the enabling right – the foundational right that makes all other rights usable. And the people who need it most are often the minority cowant to speak directly about why the Free Speech Union’s work matters so deeply – particularly for diaspora and minority communities.
Portia’s case was not just about one journalist. It was about whether the Chinese community in New Zealand would be allowed to have independent voices, an independent press, and independent thought.
The outcome of the judge’s ruling matters beyond the courtroom. It helps shape how members of the community understand and choose between different values.
It says: in New Zealand, you are free to speak and free to criticise. And if someone tries to silence you, there are people who will stand with you.
Free speech is not a luxury for the comfortable majority nor just a privilege of the powerful (as we so often hear these days). It is the enabling right – the foundational right that makes all other rights usable. And the people who need it most are often the minority communities with the least institutional support.
For those who do not know us – the Free Speech Union exists to defend the right to speak, to think, and to question, freedom of speech, conscience and intellectual inquiry
For those who do not know us – the Free Speech Union exists to defend the right to speak, to think, and to question, freedom of speech, conscience and intellectual inquiry
We have written over 120 letters to ministers, regulators, and institutions. We have filed more than 100 submissions. We have supported people who have lost their jobs, faced disciplinary action, or been dragged through the courts for saying what they believe. And it has worked.
We funded Portia’s legal defence and won, setting a precedent that protected the next journalist targeted by the same complainant.
These are not abstract wins,
They are people who kept their voices, their jobs, and their dignity.
If you are facing pressure for speaking out – legal threats, workplace consequences, community intimidation – contact us. Become a member, we are a grass roots donor funded organization, support us, refer cases to us.
Every case we are able to take on makes the next person’s voice a little easier.
CHANGING THE LAW
And the good news is that the legal landscape is shifting – and the FSU has been part of making that happen.
The Harmful Digital Communications Act was meant to protect vulnerable people from online bullying. Portia’s case proved it can be weaponised to silence political speech.
In December, Melissa Lee, a Member of Parliament, lodged an amendment bill, developed in close consultation with the FSU, to fix exactly that:
And in November last year, Parliament passed the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Act, creating new offences for covert, deceptive, or coercive actions on behalf of a foreign state. You will hear more about this from the speakers directly involved.
These changes signal something important: New Zealand is beginning to take foreign interference seriously, not just as an intelligence problem, but as a threat to democracy (whicThese changes signal something important: New Zealand is beginning to take foreign interference seriously, not just as an intelligence problem, but as a threat to democracy (which is fragile and needs protection), and as a threat to the rights of people in communities like yours.h is fragile and needs protection), and as a threat to the rights of people in communities like yours.
REMOVING THE FEAR
I want to close with something simple. This conference exists because people refused to be silent.
Portia published her journalism because the public had a right to know. She was gagged. She fought back. She won. She is still here.
Justin Wong asked questions for a story. He was taken to court. The case was thrown out. He is still reporting.
Every person in this room who has chosen to speak – despite the risk, despite the cost, despite the pressure – is doing something profoundly important.
Because free speech does not survive on its own. It survives because people insist on using it.
Foreign interference depends on silence. It depends on fear. Every time someone in this room speaks, that silence cracks a little more.
And every time we gather like this – across borders, across communities, across languages – we prove something the authoritarians do not want proved: that the people who believe in freedom outnumber the people who fear it.
You are not alone in this fight. The person sitting next to you is not alone. And neither are we.
Free speech is not given to us by governments. Free speech is the natural condition of a free people. It is what happens when fear is removed.
Our job – the Free Speech Union’s job, your job, all of our jobs – are to speak up individually and collectively to remove the fear.
Thank you.
Jillaine Heather
Chief Executive Officer
Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Incorporated
演讲者：Todd Stephenson，行动党议员
Todd Stephenson 议员
–
女士们、先生们、各位嘉宾、各位演讲者，以及所有热爱自由的朋友们：
首先再次感谢塔斯曼联盟主办这场重要的研讨会，并让我们今天齐聚一堂。
对于不认识我的朋友——我相信这样的人不少——我是托德·斯蒂芬森，新西兰行动党的一名首次当选国会议员。虽然我未必像今天其他演讲者那样资历深厚，但我很高兴能为这一重要讨论贡献自己的声音。
我也要向我的议会同事海伦·怀特致意。海伦和我将向议会同事们通报本次活动及其讨论内容，其中包括今晚我将会见的新西兰副总理戴维·西摩阁下。
副总理是台湾的坚定支持者，目前行动党四位国会议员都曾访问过那座美丽的岛屿。
我居住在皇后镇，这是一个非常宜居的地方。我出生并成长于南地，在但尼丁完成大学学业。我成长于20世纪80至90年代——那是新西兰经历深刻经济自由化与社会改革的时期。
在这一时期，我们的经济逐步对外开放，政府干预减少。我们在生产、消费以及商业运作方面获得了更大的经济自由。
更重要的是，作为贸易国家，我们进一步融入世界——取消进口许可，大幅降低关税，废除补贴。与此同时，还实施了劳动力市场改革、国有资产出售以及国家体制结构调整。
在社会领域，也发生了重要改革：同性恋合法化、《怀唐伊条约法庭》职权扩展、新西兰无核政策，以及——对行动党成立至关重要的——混合比例代表制（MMP）选举制度的确立。
当然，人们可以对这些改革持不同看法。但对我而言，关键在于：在成长过程中，我亲眼见证了新西兰人如何通过民主投票实现变革。这让我深刻理解民主的重要性。
遗憾的是，当今世界民主国家数量远少于非民主国家。这正是举办今次活动的重要原因——我们需要探讨如何维护民主及其核心价值。
新西兰是世界上持续时间最长的民主国家之一，但我们绝不能对此掉以轻心。我坚定信奉个人自由、机会平等与有限政府原则——这些正是行动党的核心理念，也吸引我投身政治。
事实上，行动党的基本原则之一是：
“作为个体的人天然拥有对自己生命的所有权，并应当有权按照自己的判断自由行动，只要他们尊重他人享有同样的自由。”
这一理念建立在自由民主的基本权利之上，包括：
作为国会议员，我每天都必须思考这些权利，而言论自由对我尤为重要。
在当今世界，威权政权通过干涉、胁迫与虚假信息积极破坏开放社会。在这种背景下，自由表达并非奢侈，而是民主社会识别、讨论并抵御威胁的关键机制。
民主韧性，是指一个社会在面对外部压力、内部分裂和颠覆企图时，仍能坚守核心价值的能力。健全制度、法治、透明治理以及与志同道合国家的联盟，都至关重要。但如果没有对言论自由的有力保护，这些都无法有效运作。
我曾因在议会邀请一些争议性演讲者而受到批评。但我深知，言论自由确保少数群体能够发声，为其重要议题进行倡议，它是保护少数群体的关键权利。作为议员，我经常为他人提供表达观点的平台，即使我未必认同他们的立场。
言论自由是民主的氧气：它让思想自由竞争，揭露谎言，监督权力，并推动创新与进步。
为什么言论自由在反制外国干涉中如此重要？因为威权行为体——尤其是中共政权——依赖压制异议来维持控制。他们将这些手段输出海外：恐吓侨民社区、向学界与媒体施压、传播虚假信息，并通过统战工作影响制度。
如果没有言论自由，我们无法公开讨论这些威胁、点名其性质或组织应对。公开辩论使我们能够揭露统战活动、网络入侵、经济胁迫以及渗透政治、大学与公民社会的行为。
我们也必须持续审视新西兰自身的防护机制。作为司法委员会成员，我曾深入参与《刑法（反制外国干涉）修正案》的审议。该法案去年通过，这是议会迟来的重要举措。
今天我们还听取了PILLAR提出的《外国影响力透明法案》建议，我一定会将这一想法带回议会讨论。
当我们发现本地的异常现象时，也必须直言不讳。
近期媒体广泛报道黎智英在香港被囚事件。新西兰媒体，包括国家广播电台，都进行了报道。然而我获悉，RNZ中文平台并未提及此事。这是刻意审查，还是相关人员出于自身及家人安全的担忧？
我认为，RNZ需要审视其中文新闻服务的独立性，同时也要保障员工安全。
新西兰拥有捍卫自由的光荣传统——从战争贡献到太平洋伙伴关系皆是如此。我们支持一支现代化国防力量，强化与台湾关系，并对外国干涉保持警惕。
朋友们，民主韧性要求我们积极捍卫那些习以为常的权利。
通过捍卫言论自由与人权、推动跨党派与国际合作，并坚决反对一切形式的审查，我们才能建立威权干涉无法征服的社会。
让我们共同致力于建设一个更加自由、更加坚韧的未来。
谢谢大家。
Todd Stephenson
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, fellow speakers, and friends of freedom.
Thank you once again to the Tasman Union for hosting this important symposium and bringing everyone together today.
For those of you who don’t know me – and I’m sure that’s quite a few – I’m Todd Stephenson, a first-term ACT New Zealand Member of Parliament. While I don’t feel as qualified as many of the other speakers you’ve heard today, I’m very happy to add my voice to this important discussion.
I’d like to acknowledge my fellow Parliamentary colleague, Helen White. Helen and I will ensure our colleagues know about this event and what was discussed. That will include New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister, Hon David Seymour, whom I’ll be with this evening.
The Deputy Prime Minister is a strong supporter of Taiwan, and four of the current ACT MPs have visited that beautiful island.
I live in Queenstown. It’s a lovely place to call home. I was born and raised in Southland and attended university in Dunedin. I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s – a time when New Zealand was going through a great deal of economic liberalisation and social reform.
Over this period, our economy was opened up and government intervention reduced. We gained more economic freedoms in what we could produce and buy, and in how we conducted business.
Importantly, we further opened to the world as a trading nation – removing import licences, slashing tariffs, and eliminating subsidies. There were labour market reforms, asset sales, and other changes to the structure of the state.
There were also important social reforms: homosexual law reform, changes to the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal, New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy, and – key to the establishment of ACT – the adoption of the Mixed Member Proportional voting system.
We can, of course, have different views on these changes. That is not the point. The point for me is that, growing up, I witnessed first-hand how New Zealanders could exercise their democratic right to vote for change. I came to appreciate for myself just how important democracy is.
Sadly, we live in a world today where democratic countries are vastly outnumbered by non-democratic ones. That’s why events like this are so important – to discuss and debate how we safeguard democracy and its accompanying values.
While New Zealand is one of the world’s longest continuous democracies, we cannot take that for granted. I am deeply committed to the principles of personal freedom, opportunity, and limited government that define our party and attracted me to politics.
In fact, one of the core principles of ACT as a political party is this: “That it is inherent in the nature of human beings as individuals that they are the owners of their own lives and must be free to act according to their own judgments so long as they accept and respect the like freedom of others.”
That sentence is underpinned by the important rights in a liberal democracy, including:
As a Parliamentarian, it is important that I think about these rights – and others – every day. Free speech is one that is particularly important to me.
In a world where authoritarian regimes actively seek to undermine open societies through interference, coercion, and disinformation, the ability to speak freely is not merely a luxury – it is the essential mechanism that enables democracies to detect, debate, and defend against such threats.
Democratic resilience is the capacity of a society to withstand external pressures, internal divisions, and attempts at subversion while preserving its core values. Strong institutions, the rule of law, transparent governance, and alliances with like-minded nations all contribute. But none of these can function effectively without robust protections for freedom of expression.
I’ve faced criticism for hosting speakers others don’t agree with at Parliament. What I recognise is that freedom of speech has ensured, over the years, that minorities have been able to speak and advocate about issues important to them. It is a key right that protects minorities. As a Parliamentarian, I often give others the opportunity to express their views, even if I might not hold the same position.
Freedom of speech is the oxygen of democracy: it allows ideas to compete openly, exposes falsehoods, holds power to account, and fosters innovation and progress. Why does freedom of speech matter so much in countering foreign interference? Authoritarian actors – particularly from regimes like the Chinese Communist Party – rely on silencing dissent to maintain control. They export these tactics: intimidating diaspora communities, pressuring academics and media, spreading disinformation, and seeking to influence institutions through united front operations.
Without freedom of speech, we cannot openly discuss these threats, name them, or mobilise responses. Open debate allows us to expose united front activities, cyber intrusions, economic coercion, and attempts to infiltrate politics, universities, and civil society.
We must also continue to look at our protections within New Zealand. As a member of the Justice Select Committee, I was intimately involved in the review of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Act, which passed last year. These changes had been proposed for many years, and it was pleasing to see Parliament finally address them.
Today we also heard from PILLAR about their Foreign Influence Transparency Bill. I’ll certainly be taking this idea back for discussion with my colleagues.
We also need to call out other local curiosities when we see them.
Recently there has been a lot of media coverage about Jimmy Lai’s imprisonment in Hong Kong. New Zealand media, including Radio New Zealand, have carried the story – which you could say reflects badly on the Chinese government. However, I’ve been told that Radio New Zealand’s dedicated Chinese portal has not mentioned the story. Is this deliberate censorship, or are those staff involved in the portal worried about themselves and their families?
I’d suggest Radio New Zealand needs to examine the integrity of its Chinese news service while also ensuring the safety of its staff.
New Zealand has a proud tradition of defending freedoms – from our wartime contributions to our Pacific partnerships. We support a modern defence force focused on alliances, stronger ties with Taiwan, and vigilance against foreign influence. Friends, democratic resilience demands the active defence of the rights we take for granted.
By championing freedom of speech and related human rights, fostering cross-party and international commitments, and rejecting censorship in all its forms, we build societies that authoritarian interference cannot conquer.
Let’s commit to a freer, more resilient future together.
Thank you.
作者：毛 芃
随着象征自由、活力与奋进的马年到来，一场重要的国际研讨会将于今天- 2月21日（周六）下午 在奥克兰Waipuna Hotel 举行。
本次研讨会主题为：“反制外国干涉，捍卫民主、主权与开放社会”。
–
–
研讨会将汇聚来自新西兰、澳大利亚与台湾的知名学者、记者、政治人物与公共倡议者，共同探讨当今民主国家面临的最紧迫挑战之一 —— 如何应对外国干涉。
会议议程还包括讨论拟议中的 《外国影响力透明法案》。该法案旨在加强对那些接受外国势力指示、在新西兰试图从事危害新西兰民主、危害新西兰公民个人自由的组织或是个人的活动的透明性。
本次研讨会由成立不久的塔斯曼联盟（Tasman Union） 主办，协办方包括在新西兰具有重要影响力的两个民间组织——新西兰言论自由联盟（Free Speech Union） 与 新西兰价值联盟（New Zealand Values Alliance）。
新西兰言论自由联盟首席执行官 朱莉安·希瑟（Jillaine Heather）
主旨演讲： 《言论自由：其他一切自由的基石》
Free Speech: The Foundation That Makes All Other Freedoms Possible.
安妮-玛丽·布雷迪（Anne-Marie Brady）教授
著名中国问题研究专家， 坎特伯雷大学
演讲题目：《民主“法宝”与中共“法宝”战略：对新西兰应对中国统战工作的反思》
The ‘Magic Weapons’ of Democracy and the CCP’s ‘Magic Weapon’ Strategy: Reflecting on New Zealand’s Response to China’s United Front Work.
Nick Hanne 先生：
PILLAR NZ（捍卫个人生命、自由与权利）联合创始人
演讲题目：《 一部切实有效的法律： 透明与问责》
A Law Fit For Purpose: Transparency and Accountability
Paula Penfold 女士
Stuff 调查记者
演讲题目：《追踪线索：关于影响力与外国干涉的调查报道》
Following the Threads: Reporting on Influence and Interference
Simon O’Connor
新西兰前国会议员、前外交、国防与贸易委员会主席、对华政策跨国议会联盟（IPAC）校友理事会理事
演讲题目：《信仰自由》 / Free to Believe
Helen White MP
工党 Mt Albert 选区国会议员
演讲题目：《民主面临的威胁——对妇女与儿童的影响》
Todd Stephenson MP
行动党国会议员
演讲题目：《民主韧性与自由的重要性》
本次研讨会主办方还邀请了澳大利亚和台湾的知名学者以及有影响力的台湾网红，他们包括：
悉尼科技大学 冯崇义教授
台湾国立政治大学李酉潭教授
西澳大学陈杰教授
国立中央大学与国立台湾示范大學曾建元副教授
台湾知名网红 温子渝（八炯）先生
台湾知名网红 王苡儒先生
研讨会意义重大
此次研讨会意义重大，它将成为新西兰首次由华人社区与主流社会携手，共同为捍卫民主与自由发声的重要公共活动之一。
正如 PILLAR NZ 联合创始人 Nick Hanne 所言：“这此研讨会意义深远，并将成为推动新西兰真正变革的开端。”
📅 时间： 2026年2月21日（周六）
🕐 时段： 下午1:00 – 6:00
📍 地点： Waipuna Hotel & Conference Centre
58 Waipuna Road, Mt Wellington, Auckland
欢迎各界人士参加。
作者：Jonathan Ayling
（本文是一位政策顾问，他也是前新西兰言论自由联盟CEO，他每周四在NZ Herald发表评论文章，本文是他今年2月19日专栏文章 （ 的中文翻译版）
–
在我 1 月 29 日的专栏《台湾与中国：言论是前线》中，我曾写道：“我们必须重新找回说出真相的能力，即使这会带来后果。民主优于独裁，自由优于压迫。台湾不属于中国。”
对此，中国驻新西兰大使馆发表正式声明，并联系我的编辑，要求《新西兰先驱报》作为一个“负责任的媒体”，而不是“误导公众或损人不利己”。声明还称：“这不是言论自由问题，而是一个根本原则问题，是非分明的问题。”
中国共产党这种虚伪的愤怒并不令人意外。真正令人意外的是，新西兰前驻华大使卡尔·沃克（2009–2015）转发了这份声明，特别强调其中关于“责任”的说法，并将我的专栏斥为“反华”。
这是否说明新西兰已经在多大程度上被“害怕惹怒北京”的心理所扭曲？抑或是这种对中国的迎合已被视为理所当然？
“Listener” 杂志的常驻专栏作家、前法官大卫·哈维博士在回应中警告：“我们必须警惕并识别任何外国势力，尤其是中国，对我们国内主权的干预。若不能做到这一点，我们的民主制度将被侵蚀，滑向一个奥威尔式的‘集体思维’与‘遵循党路线’的环境。”
这正是塔斯曼同盟（新西兰）本周六在奥克兰举办国际研讨会所要直面的议题。该活动与新西兰价值联盟以及自由言论联盟等民间团体联合举办，演讲嘉宾包括知名中国问题专家安妮-玛丽·布雷迪教授、《Stuff》记者Paula Penfold、PILLAR NZ 联合创始人尼克·汉尼，以及来自跨党派的国会议员，包括海伦·怀特和托德·斯蒂芬森。
这场研讨会本身，就是新西兰开始警醒于外国干预逐渐被“正常化”的一个信号。
会议的一项议程将讨论拟议中的《外国影响透明度法案》。这项立法旨在提高透明度，要求披露在外国政府指示下在新西兰开展的活动。它将与 2025 年通过的《刑事法（反制外国干预）修正案》形成互补，使新西兰更接近英国、加拿大和澳大利亚等民主国家的做法。
研讨会还将讨论另一个新西兰人更应了解的问题：中共在新西兰大学中的影响力和进入渠道，包括通过与奥克兰大学、维多利亚大学和坎特伯雷大学合作设立的孔子学院。
在海外，新西兰已明显落后于盟友。在美国，拜登政府时期，孔子学院数量从一百多所降至不足五所。欧洲国家如瑞典已关闭全部孔子学院及中学层面的“孔子课堂”。在加拿大和澳大利亚虽仍有部分存在，但墨尔本大学、昆士兰大学、新南威尔士大学和西澳大学等已悄然选择不再续约，州和联邦政府也表达了对外国影响的担忧。
在英国，是否应要求大学披露外国政府资金的争论重新升温。《泰晤士报》报道，英国军情五处（MI5）已向大学发布指导，警告来自“敌对国家”的干预风险，明确点名中国，并提醒注意其试图影响对“敏感议题”的教学与研究，例如天安门事件、维吾尔人遭受的压迫、西藏问题，以及显然的台湾议题。
新西兰从与中国人民的贸易中受益良多，这种关系应当继续。但我们的公共空间不容出售。
现在是新西兰更严肃看待国家主权的时候了，更重要的是，要珍视支撑主权的价值。我在大学学习过中文，也曾多次访问中国。如今不得不承认，我可能已不再安全地前往那里。这一简单事实，难道不已说明这个政权的本质吗？
我刻意使用“政权”一词，因为真正需要被挑战的正是它。新西兰人无须害怕或反对中国文化或中国人民。但中国共产党是一个干预他国、压迫本国人民的霸凌者，它公然无视本国人民的基本权利与尊严，并试图将其红线向外延伸。
新西兰无法单独改变这一现实。但我们可以，也必须，守护属于我们自己的公共空间。我们有责任捍卫新西兰人的权利——无论中共的意愿如何。若我们连专栏作家、记者、学者、研究人员、政治人物以及非政府组织领袖表达一个最基本主张的权利都无法捍卫——即人们享有公民自由、政治自由与经济自由的权利——那么我们其实已经选择了臣属地位，而非公民身份。
本周六（2月21日）在奥克兰举行的研讨会，正是越来越多新西兰人开始认真看待这一威胁的证明。下一步，是要把这种严肃认识转化为政策与立场。透明度法律之所以重要，是因为影响力往往滋生于灰色地带。大学和公共机构应被要求披露与外国国家相关的资金来源、合作关系以及指令背景，让公民能够在阳光下加以判断。但披露仅仅是起点，更深层的任务是重建公民信心——一种平静而坚定的信念：自由社会不会接受一党制国家来指示什么才是“负责任”的言论。
如果我们守不住这条底线，终有一天会发现，主权并不是在某一次重大事件中失去的，而是在无数次自我审查中一点点流失的。面对这些威胁保持沉默，我们或许仍然拥有国旗与议会，但我们的公共空间，早已属于他人。
Our Public Square Is Not for Sale
In my column on 29 January, Taiwan and China: Speech is the front line, I concluded: “We must recover the ability to say what is true, even if it carries consequences. Democracy is better than dictatorship. Freedom is better than oppression. Taiwan does not belong to China.”
In response, the Chinese Embassy issued an official statement and contacted my editor, calling on The Herald to act as a “responsible media outlet”, rather than “mislead the public or do harm to others without benefitting itself”. It added: “This is not a matter of freedom of expression, but a fundamental question of principle and a clear issue of right and wrong.”
Such faux outrage from the Chinese Communist Party was not surprising. What was surprising was that Carl Worker, New Zealand’s former ambassador to China (2009 to 2015), retweeted the statement, highlighted its call to “responsibility”, and dismissed my column as “China bashing”.
Does this show how far New Zealand has already been bent by fear of displeasing Beijing, or how normalised deference has become?
Former Judge Dr David Harvey, a regular columnist for The Listener, warned in response: “We must be vigilant to identify interference with our domestic sovereignty by any foreign power and especially the PRC. Failure to do so will result in the erosion of our democratic institutions into an Orwellian environment of Groupthink and adherence to ‘The Party Line.’”
That is exactly what the Tasman Union (NZ) seeks to confront this Saturday at an international symposium in Auckland. Hosted alongside the New Zealand Values Alliance, and other civil society groups such as the Free Speech Union, it will feature speakers including prominent China expert Professor Anne-Marie Brady, Stuff journalist Paula Penfold, PILLAR NZ co-founder Nick Hanne, and MPs from across Parliament, including Helen White and Todd Stephenson.
This symposium is a sign that New Zealand is waking up to the slow normalisation of foreign interference.
Part of its programme will consider a proposed Foreign Influence Transparency Bill, drafted legislation intended to improve transparency around activities in New Zealand carried out at the direction of foreign powers. It would complement the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Act 2025, and move New Zealand closer to approaches adopted in comparable democracies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.
Another issue the symposium will address, and more Kiwis should understand, is the influence and access the Chinese Communist Party maintains within New Zealand’s universities, including through Confucius Institute partnerships at Auckland University, Victoria University, and Canterbury University.
Overseas, New Zealand is out of step with our international partners. In the United States under the Biden presidency, the number of Confucius Institutes went from over 100 to fewer than five. Likewise, European nations like Sweden have shut all Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms (the high school level equivalent). While several still function in Canada and Australia, universities like the universities of Melbourne, Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia have each quietly opted to not renew contracts, with State and Federal governments expressing concern regarding foreign influence.
In the United Kingdom, debate has revived over whether universities should be required to disclose foreign government funding. The Times has reported on MI5 guidance warning universities about interference from “hostile states”, naming China explicitly, and cautioning about attempts to shape teaching on “sensitive subjects” and certain research. Think Tiananmen Square, the oppression of Uyghurs, Tibet, and, evidently, Taiwan.
New Zealand benefits from trade with the Chinese people; long may that continue. But our public square is not for sale.
It is time New Zealand took sovereignty more seriously, and even more importantly, the values that underpin it. I studied Chinese at university and have visited China on several occasions. It saddens me to admit it may now be unsafe for me to visit again. Does that basic admission not tell us almost everything we need to know about this regime?
I say “regime” deliberately, because that is what should be challenged. New Zealanders have nothing to fear, or oppose, in Chinese culture or in Chinese people. But the Chinese Communist Party is an interfering, oppressive bully, a state that has shown blatant disregard for the basic rights and dignity of its own people, and that seeks to extend its red lines outward.
New Zealand cannot change that reality alone. But we can, and must, protect our own public square. We have a duty to defend the rights of Kiwis, the wishes of the CCP be damned. If we cannot defend the right of columnists, journalists, academics, researchers, politicians, and NGO leaders to state the basic claim that people have a right to civil, political,
编辑：毛 芃
今天，2月17日，是中国的春节，中国进入了马年。社交媒体上年，到处都是庆祝马年到来的图片，有意思的是，有些图片上不是马，而是鹿。
–
–
马是最优美的动物之一，它象征着力量、速度与希望，中国著名画家徐悲鸿以画奔腾的骏马闻名于世。
马年迎春图，马被“鹿”取代，看似玩笑，却契合了中国成语 —— ”指鹿为马“，一种极具沉重历史感的政治隐喻。
众说周知，“指鹿为马”是由一个真实故事而来。
这个典故出自《史记》。秦朝权臣赵高牵一匹鹿入朝，指鹿为马，借此试探群臣。然而，真正被测试的，不是他们的认知能力，而是他们对权力的服从程度。谁敢坚持事实，谁就可能付出政治代价，甚至生命代价。
因此，“指鹿为马”，看似荒谬，实则是一个关于权力如何塑造现实的故事。
它揭示了一种可怕的政治机制：当权力足够集中时，它不仅能够决定行动规则，甚至可以重塑语言表达与事实真相本身。
鹿是否是马，已经不再取决于客观世界，而取决于谁掌握定义权。
这正是极权政治最深层的特征——它不仅控制行为，还试图控制认知；不仅改变现实，还试图改变对现实的叙述。
一旦“指鹿为马”成为一种政治秩序，人们不仅被迫说谎，甚至开始习惯说谎，直至逐渐失去区分真假的勇气与能力。
从这个角度看，“马年贴鹿”的象征意义就非常清晰了。
马年贴鹿迎春，并非节日的幽默，而是一种无言的政治表达。它在提醒人们思考，当权力越来越倾向于垄断，当话语空间、公共讨论空间被不断压缩，真相是否能够独立于权力而存在。
当鹿代替马成为马年迎春图片在网络上热传时，它不仅是对荒诞的历史故事的嘲讽，更是在表达一种更深层的集体焦虑：荒诞是否已经成为为社会现实，并被视为“正常”。
合理量刑信托（Sensible Sentence Trust）供稿 / 毛 芃 编译
2025年8月，New Plymouth 民众游行到当地法院，呼吁加快推进对偷袭拳（Coward Punch）法案的立法进程。摄影/Luke De Villiers
–
政府提议就“偷袭拳杀人“ （Coward Punch killings）的行为设立一项新罪名，但没有提出最低刑期，这样的立法于事无补。
“偷袭拳”（Coward Punch）指的是施暴者在毫无预警、受害者无法自我防卫的情况下，突然出拳打击其头部或颈部，导致其死亡的犯罪行为。
如果新西兰国会希望这项法律能够遏制“偷袭拳”杀人行为、为受害者伸张正义，就必须包含切实有效的最低不得假释刑期。
“偷袭拳杀戮”行为必须得到公平惩处，至少8年不得假释 。
让法律真正发挥效力——别让它沦为一纸空文！请点此处，向国会提交您的意见 。
按照惯例，新西兰议会正就此议案征询民众意见，意见提交截止时间是2月16日星期一午夜。
所以，请尽快行动！我们已为您准备好体现这一诉求的意见书！
您只需点击此处链接就可向国会提交意见书，请把下面这个英文意见书内容直接在国会网站页面上，只需复制、粘贴就可以发出。
Subject: Submission on Crimes Amendment Bill — Coward Punch killings
I am making a submission on the Crimes Amendment Bill.
I support stronger consequences for Coward Punch killings, but I am concerned the proposed offence is only a label change and will not increase sentencing outcomes.
If Parliament wants this law to deter Coward Punch killings and deliver justice for victims, it must include a meaningful minimum non-parole sentence.
I urge the Justice Select Committee to amend the Bill to include an 8-year minimum non-parole prison sentence for manslaughter by strike to the head or neck.
Thank you for considering my submission.
Name（您的姓名）:
Town/City （您所在的城镇）:
“偷袭拳”（Coward Punch）指的是施暴者在毫无预警、受害者无法自我防卫的情况下，突然出拳打击其头部或颈部，导致其死亡的犯罪行为。
“偷袭拳“的英文词汇是“Coward Punch”，凸显这种行为是令人不齿的懦夫行径。用中国俗话说，就是没有“武德”。
自2011年以来，新西兰共有15起符合这一定义的过失杀人案件。
这些案子之所以被判定为过失杀人（manslaughter）, 是因为要证明这些案子中的施暴者有谋杀意图非常困难，或者并不存在明确的杀人意图。
–
从上图可以看出，新南威尔士州和维多利亚州对“偷袭拳”致死案的凶手判决刑期平均为9年8个月；最低服刑平均至少6年，即至少6年不得假释。
反观新西兰，对“偷袭拳”致人死亡的判决刑期平均为3年4个月，平均服刑14个月即可获得假释或释放。
事实上，在新西兰的“偷袭拳”过失杀人案中，25%的案子的行凶者仅被判处居家监禁。
（上述图表有关新西兰部分的统计基于对自2011年以来新西兰所有“偷袭拳”过失杀人案的判决和服刑情况，但不包括对居家监禁的判决。）
政府提议在《刑事法》（Crimes Act） 中新增一项罪名，即“因击打头部或颈部导致的过失杀人罪”，以专门针对“偷袭拳”造成死亡的犯罪行为。
这项新罪名的最高法定刑期与现行的过失杀人罪相同 ，都是终身监禁。然而，自2002年《量刑法》（Sentencing Act 2002） 通过以来，新西兰还从未有人被判处终身监禁，政府提案的关键点在于，对拟议中的新罪名的刑罚没有设定最低刑期。
如果不设立最低刑期，这项修法提案只是一个空洞的姿态，并不会在实际层面明显提高对“偷袭拳”致死案件的量刑。
这使得《刑事法》对“偷袭拳”杀人的刑罚流于表面。
合理量刑信托组织（Sensible Sentence Trust）认为：“偷袭拳”致人死亡是仅次于谋杀罪的第二重罪。”
我们在此呼吁，对偷袭拳导致无辜受害人死亡的行为，应处以至少8年不得假释。
在新西兰，如果杀人意图得到证实，就构成谋杀罪；如果没有杀人意图或无法证实，则构成过失杀人罪。
对谋杀罪的最高刑罚是终身监禁，至少10年不得假释。（参见2002年《量刑法》第103条）。
对“偷袭式”致人死亡案件量刑过轻，是议会的过错，只有议会才能解决这个问题。 如果没有法律规定的最低刑期，法官不可能对这类案子的量刑做出改变。
政府提议将”偷袭拳”杀人设成一个罪名，这一提案包含在一项综合法案 -—《刑事法修正案》（Crimes Amendment Bill）中，已提交至国会司法委员会审议，委员会目前正在征集公众意见，意见提交截止时间为2月16日（星期一) 中国大年三十午夜。
如果您同意我们的观点，请向国会司法特别委员会提交意见书。
如果您想了解更多相关信息，请登录合理量刑信托组织页面 – https://www.sst.nz/campaigns/fair-consequences-for-coward-punch-killings
感谢您为了让新西兰成为一个更安全、对受害者更公平的司法体系所做的努力。
请登录合理量刑信托组织官网https://www.sst.nz，在页面底部注册您的电子邮箱地址，以及时接受我们的最新信息。