Balancing security and human rights

New Zealand's response to the massacres at the Christchurch mosques continues to be impressive and appropriate. Sickened and staggered by the devastation wrought on our fellow citizens, and a few visitors to our shores, we have joined in sorrow and solidarity with our sisters and brothers.

Led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, we have shown we care. While those of one faith were cruelly targeted at places of worship, this was a massive assault on our country and us all.

What, though, about action and more than empathy and support? What about change to reduce the chances of further terrorism? The emphatic pronouncements on gun reform have been a good first step. It manifested a determination to do something specific. The country's psyche needed that.

The decision to set up the Royal Commission of Inquiry is also welcome. Something went very wrong when a gunman, who had proclaimed abhorrent views and murderous intent, went undetected.

This immediately raised questions about the security services and whether the potential for fascist terrorism was taken seriously enough. The actions of the SIS, the GCSB, police, Customs, Immigration and any other relevant government departments or agencies will be looked into, Ms Ardern said.

It would have been easy and understandable in this the immediate emotional aftermath to clamour for surveillance laws to try to make us safer and to strengthen the powers of the State. The consequences would be to weaken human rights.

Sensibly, Ms Ardern said she wanted to wait for the inquiry before considering expanding the spy agencies' powers. She said she wished to hold back until there was evidence for why the killer was not identified. Was it lack of resources, where resources were placed or the limits of surveillance which were at fault?

It could well be, in times ahead, that New Zealand broadens its ability to spy on its people and internet traffic. It might be prudent to give up portions of our liberty for the sake of safety.

But that should be a complex and important debate best conducted in the knowledge of the horrors of Christchurch and not in the grip of its emotional distress. After all, a basic terrorist tactic is to sow terror and promote a backlash. Cool heads and calculated consideration are required instead.

Politicians often declare the terrorist will not win, that the way of life they seek to destroy will live on. That means the triumph of tolerance and love in the face of fanaticism and hate and the preservation of freedom despite its abuse by the perpetrator.

In practice, however, actuality can differ. International and personal freedoms have been curtailed post 9/11. And from now on security considerations will never be the same in New Zealand. At least, in this country a new understanding has emerged about the individuality, variety and humanness of our Muslim brethren. The official declarations have been followed by outpourings of sympathy and not by suspicion, recriminations and harsher laws.

In due course, the debate about security and human rights and about institutional and constitutional safeguards on state-held information will need to take place. While New Zealand must never follow the Chinese model where privacy and individual rights are subservient to state power and control, balances and compromises will, at a minimum, be discussed.

Kindness and tolerance and the embrace of togetherness go a long way in preparing ground where extremists are less likely to sprout. But New Zealand has had its naivete smashed. We should not be blind to our new present, our new future and our continuing, potential risks. Meanwhile, our authorities will need the attitudes and the tools to prevent extremist terrorist activities - from wherever they come.