At a time when ageing rockstars are embarking on seemingly endless farewell tours, and the US is contemplating a presidential election between two octogenarian men, the world’s most famous female political superstar will be out of office and out of parliament before her 43rd birthday in July.
At a news conference on the North Island, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made the shock announcement that she is stepping down in a little over a fortnight’s time on 7 February.
In the meantime, the New Zealand Labour Party will choose a new leader. In April, there will be a by-election to replace Ms Ardern in her constituency in Mount Albert. Ms Ardern also announced that she was calling a general election for 14 October this year.
Ms Ardern’s five and a half years of political leadership and her manner of leaving it have been unique and will be the subject of comment for years to come.
Nonetheless, by this summer she will be out of politics and her future plans are vague beyond this message for her five-year-old daughter and her partner Clarke Gayford, a television presenter: “To Neve: Mum is looking forward to being there when you start school this year. And to Clarke – let’s finally get married.”
Ms Ardern was not a record-breaker for her sex or age, either nationally or internationally. She is New Zealand’s third woman prime minister, following Jenny Shipley and the long-serving Helen Clark, who Ms Ardern worked for.
Yet Ms Ardern has been a star from the moment she emerged in 2017, aged just 37, as prime minister of a coalition government. Many people beyond New Zealand were caught up in “Jacindamania”, seeing this self-styled “progressive” and “feminist” as the antithesis to populist authoritarian men such as Donald Trump who were enjoying power around that time.
More on Jacinda Ardern
Related Topics:
She was soon featured on the magazine covers of Vogueand Timemagazines, not bad for a leader of a small country of five million people.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
Ardern breaks down as she announces resignation
Ms Ardern bridled at comments which dwelt on her femininity. She slapped down reporters who suggested she was holding the first ever New Zealand bilateral with the Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin because they were both young women. She said: “I wonder whether or not anyone ever asked Barack Obama and John Key if they met because they were of similar age.”
Advertisement
A farmer publicly apologised after brandishing a placard at a protest calling her a “Pretty Communist”.
‘You can be kind, but strong’
Ms Ardern’s tearful news conference announcing her departure could scarcely have been less Trumpian. She explained her reasons bluntly: “I know what this job takes. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple.”
She concluded her statement by thanking New Zealanders for giving her “the greatest role in my life. I hope in return I leave behind a belief that you can be kind, but strong. Empathetic, but decisive. Optimistic, but focused. That you can be your own kind of leader – one that knows when it’s time to go”.
Ms Ardern’s two terms in power have been action-packed, as she noted: “We encountered a… domestic terror event, a major natural disaster, a global pandemic, and an economic crisis.”
In March 2019 she united the nation after the shooting attack on two mosques in Christchurch which left 51 people dead.
She insisted that the name of the perpetrator should not be used, while she said of the Muslim victims: “They are us.”
Image: Ms Ardern with longtime partner Clarke Gayford
In December of that year, she had an equally strong and inclusive message when 21 people, many foreign tourists, were killed when the Whakaari volcano erupted on White Island. The closed borders and lockdown she ordered during the COVID pandemic resulted in a comparatively low number of deaths, some 2,500, in New Zealand.
Her decisive and empathetic style of leadership served her well politically. In the 2020 election, her popularity converted her coalition with other parties into an unprecedented overall majority for Labour in New Zealand’s proportional representation system.
Dodging humiliation
Perhaps New Zealand’s voters are now as exhausted as their prime minister. Opinion polls suggest Ms Ardern has dodged humiliation by stepping down now. At the upcoming general election, most observers expect her Labour party to lose office with the right-of-centre National Party to emerge victorious.
As elsewhere, inflation is running high in New Zealand. Ms Ardern admitted this week there have been challenges delivering her chosen domestic “agenda focused on housing, child poverty and climate change”.
Out of some 195 nations in the world, only around 17 have heads of government who are women. Well under 10%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
Jacinda Arden’s legacy as New Zealand PM
Ms Ardern was only the second female head of government, after the late Benazir Bhutto, to give birth while in office. At her joint appearance with Prime Minister Marin, Ms Ardern accepted that they had responsibility as female leaders to women facing “dire circumstances” in countries such as Iran, and that they stood “to make sure every woman and girl all across the world will have the same rights and the same opportunities as men”.
This is still not even the case in the Westminster parliament. Noting that only one in four Conservative MPs are women, Baroness Jenkin dismissed Boris Johnson’s boasted goal of 50:50 as “fine words but very little actual engagement”.
Encountering sexism in parliament
Ms Ardern will be missed by the Council of World Women Leaders since she was its most prominent member following the retirement of Angela Merkel. Like her counterpart in Australia, she encountered sexism in parliament from her opponents; unlike Julia Gillard, she did not need to make a celebrated speech attacking misogyny.
Instead, she apologised for branding the leader of ACT NZ “an arrogant prick” after he asked, “Can the prime minister give us an example of making a mistake, apologising for it properly and fixing it?”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:27
Ardern shoots down gender question
Ms Ardern’s qualities as a political leader are not unique to women, although they are most often found there. The same goes for the modesty with which she retreated from office: “I am human, politicians are human. We give all that we can for as long as we can. And then it’s time. And for me, it’s time.”
In political terms, Ms Ardern could be described as something similar to a “Blairite”. In the Noughties, she even worked on his government’s policies in the Cabinet office in London. She never met Tony Blair then. When she did a few years later she challenged him over the invasion of Iraq.
Ms Ardern hopes to live to see New Zealand become a republic, but she attended the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II with her partner and their daughter, wearing a Maori cape.
Perhaps Jacinda Ardern will return to politics in a few years’ time, perhaps she will be offered some international office, perhaps she will not. Either way, she’s sure of a lasting place as a star in the political firmament. She may well have written her own epitaph already: “Someone who always tried to be kind”.
Almost 7,000 Afghan nationals are being relocated to the UK following a massive data breach by the British military that successive governments tried to keep secret with a superinjunction.
The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families – with as many as 100,000 people impacted in total.
The UK only informed everyone on Tuesday – three-and-a-half years after their data was compromised.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said the relocation costs alone directly linked to the data breach will be around £850m. An internal government document from February this year said the cost could rise to £7bn, but an MoD spokesperson said that this was an outdated figure.
However, the total cost to the taxpayer of existing schemes to assist Afghans who are deemed eligible for British support, as well as the additional cost from the breach, will come to at least £6bn.
In addition, litigation against the UK arising from the mistake could add additional cost, as well as whatever the government has already spent on the superinjunction.
Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted the injunction that had been sought by the government.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:46
Defence secretary on Afghan leak
Barings Law, a law firm that is representing around 1,000 of the victims, accused the government of trying to hide the truth from the public following a lengthy legal battle.
Defence Secretary John Healey offered a “sincere apology” for the data breach in a statement to MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
He said he had felt “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency” around the data breach, adding: “No government wishes to withhold information from the British public, from parliamentarians or the press in this manner.”
The previous Conservative government set up a secret scheme in 2023 – which can only now be revealed – to relocate Afghan nationals impacted by the data breach but who were not eligible for an existing programme to relocate and assist individuals who had worked for the British government in Afghanistan.
Some 6,900 Afghans – comprising 1,500 people named on the list as well as their dependents – are being relocated to the UK as part of this programme.
Image: Afghan co-workers and their families board a plane during the Kabul airlift in August 2021. Pic: South Korean Defense Ministry/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock
This comes on top of the many thousands more who are being moved until the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). A lot of these individuals are also caught up in the data breach.
The Times, which has been battling the injunction, said a total of 18,500 people have so far been relocated to the UK, including those directly impacted plus their dependents.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Some 5,400 more Afghans who have already received invitation letters will be flown to the UK in the coming weeks, bringing the total number of Afghans affected by the breach being brought to the UK to 23,900. The rest of the affected Afghans will be left behind, the newspaper reported.
How did the data breach happen?
The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details of 18,714 Afghan nationals. They had been trying to apply to a British government scheme to support those who helped or worked with UK forces in Afghanistan that were fighting the Taliban between 2001 and 2021.
Image: People gathered desperately near evacuation control checkpoints during the crisis. Pic: AP
Image: The evacuation at Kabul airport was chaotic. Pic: AP
The collapse of the western-backed Afghan government that year saw the Taliban return to power. The new government regards anyone who worked with British or other foreign forces during the previous two decades as a traitor.
A source said a small number of people named on the list are known to have subsequently been killed, though it is not clear if this was a direct result of the data breach.
It is also not clear whether the Taliban has the list – only that the MoD lost control of the information.
Image: Taliban members on the second anniversary of the fall of Kabul. Pic: Reuters
Adnan Malik, head of data protection at Barings Law, said: “This is an incredibly serious data breach, which the Ministry of Defence has repeatedly tried to hide from the British public.
“It involved the loss of personal and identifying information about Afghan nationals who have helped British forces to defeat terrorism and support security and stability in the region.
“A total of around 20,000 individuals have been affected, putting them and their loved ones at serious risk of violence from opponents and armed groups.”
The law firm is working with around 1,000 of those impacted “to pursue potential legal action”.
It is thought that only a minority of the names on the list – about 10 to 15% – would have been eligible for help under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
The breach occurred in February 2022, when Boris Johnson was prime minister, but was only discovered by the British military in August 2023.
A superinjunction – preventing the reporting of the mistake – was imposed in September of that year.
It meant the extraordinary – and costly – plan to transport thousands of Afghans to the UK took place in secret until now.
Sir Keir Starmer’s government inherited the scandal.
What is a superinjunction?
In UK law, a superinjunction prevents the publication of certain information.
However, unlike a regular injunction, it also prevents the media from reporting on the existence of the injunction itself.
Superinjunctions can only be granted by the high court, with applicants required to meet stringent legal tests of necessity, proportionality and the risk of serious harm.
They are most commonly used in cases involving breaches of privacy, confidential business information, or where there is a risk of significant reputational damage.
Why was superinjunction lifted?
An internal review into the affair was launched at the start of this year by Paul Rimmer, a retired civil servant.
It played down the risk to those whose data is included in the breached dataset should it fall into the hands of the Taliban.
The review said it was “unlikely to substantially change an individual’s existing exposure given the volume of data already available”.
It also concluded that “it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting” and it is “therefore also unlikely that family members… will be targeted simply because the ‘principal’ appears… in the dataset”.
This is why a High Court judge ruled that the superinjunction could be lifted.
Mr Malik, however, said that he believes there is still a risk to those named in the breach.
He added: “Our claimants continue to live with the fear of reprisal against them and their families, when they should have been met with gratitude and discretion for their service.
“We would expect substantial financial payments for each claimant in any future legal action. While this will not fully undo the harm they have been exposed to, it will enable them to move forward and rebuild their lives.”
Latest MoD data breach
While the MoD’s data breach is by far the largest involving Afghan nationals, it is not the first.
Earlier this month, the MoD said Afghans impacted by a separate mistake could claim up to £4,000 in compensation four years after the incident happened.
Human error resulted in the personal information of 265 Afghans who had worked alongside British troops being shared with hundreds of others who were on the same email distribution list in September 2021.
In December 2023, the UK Information Commissioner fined the MoD £350,000 and said the “egregious” breach could have been life-threatening.
An Afghan man who worked for the British military has told Sky News he feels betrayed and “completely lost (his) mind” after his identity formed part of a massive data breach.
The man, who spoke anonymously to Sky News from Afghanistan, says that for more than 10 years he worked for British forces
But now he says he regrets working alongside troops, who were first deployed to Afghanistan in 2001.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:59
Afghans being relocated after data breach
“I have done everything for the British forces… I regret that – why (did) I put my family in danger because of that? Is this is justice?
“We work for them, for [the] British, we help them. So now we are left behind, right now. And from today, I don’t know about my future.”
He described receiving an email warning him that his details had been revealed.
He said: “When I saw this one story… I completely lost my mind. I just thought… about my future… my family’s.
“I’ve got two kids. All my family are… in danger. Right now… I’m just completely lost.”
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The mistake by the Ministry of Defence in early 2022 ranks among the worst security breaches in modern British history because of the cost and risk posed to the lives of thousands of Afghans.
On Tuesday, a court order – preventing the media reporting details of a secret relocation programme – was lifted.
Defence Secretary John Healey said about 6,900 Afghans and their family members have been relocated or were on their way to the UK under the previously secret scheme.
He said no one else from Afghanistan would be offered asylum, after a government review found little evidence of intent from the Taliban to seek retribution.
But the anonymous Afghan man who spoke to Sky News disputed this. He claimed the Taliban, who returned to power in 2021, were actively seeking people who worked with British forces.
“My family is finished,” he said. “I request… kindly request from the British government… the King… please evacuate us.
“Maybe tomorrow we will not be anymore. Please, please help us.”
The retreat from Afghanistan during the Taliban takeover in 2021 began as a farce, then it was a scandal and now it’s a shoddy cover-up.
The farce was when the then foreign secretary Dominic Raab remained on his holiday sunbed in Crete rather than return to work during the height of the evacuation crisis.
It was a scandal because around 200 people were killed in the chaos, with distressing pictures of terrified Afghans clinging to the wings of moving aeroplanes at Kabul airport.
And now we learn that in a massive cover-up, the Tory government of Rishi Sunak took out a superinjunction to gag the media from reporting a data breach that put 20,000 Afghans in danger.
Over the years, superinjunctions granted by UK courts have been condemned for enabling celebrities and sports stars to cover-up extra-marital affairs, drug-taking and other secrets.
The superinjunction granted to the government in 2023 to conceal a secret scheme to relocate Afghan nationals was obviously entirely different and no doubt sought for honourable motives.
More on Afghanistan
Related Topics:
But it was a cover-up nonetheless and not so honourable because it hid a data blunder exposing names and contact details of 18,000 people who had applied for asylum in the UK under a resettlement scheme.
The scheme had been set up by the government in 2021 to provide asylum for people who had worked with the UK armed forces and could be at risk of Taliban reprisals for working with western forces.
In the Commons, the current defence secretary, John Healey, said it was “deeply uncomfortable” to be prevented from reporting the data breach blunder to MPs until now.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:59
Afghans being relocated after data breach
The ministers involved in seeking the gagging order were the former defence secretary Ben Wallace and the then armed forces minister James Heappey, he said.
But while most MPs welcomed Mr Healey’s apology, it’s probably fair to say that if it hadn’t been for tenacious campaigning by media organisations the superinjunction might not have been lifted by the High Court.
One Tory MP, Mark Pritchard, accused the defence secretary of “wriggling” and said: “The fact is that he is justifying this superinjunction and not telling parliament, the press, the public and, unbelievably, the Afghans who were potentially in harm’s way.”
And, among a number of individual cases highlighted by MPs, Liberal Democrat Calum Miller told MPs that “in the chaos of withdrawal” a constituent who left Afghanistan was promised by British officials that his pregnant wife could follow him.
“Two years later, we have still not kept that promise,” said Mr Miller. “My constituent’s wife and child continue to move around in Afghanistan to evade the Taliban and my constituent is so desperate that he is talking about returning to Afghanistan – despite the risk to him – to be reunited with them.”
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf hit out at the Tory government’s asylum policy, writing on X: “24k Afghans secretly granted asylum, costing British taxpayers up to £7bn.
“The government covered it up. Who was in government? Home secretary: Suella Braverman. Immigration minister: Robert Jenrick.”
Later, Mr Healey was asked on LBC’s News Agents podcast if the official responsible for the data breach is still employed by the government. “They are no longer doing the same job on the Afghan brief,” he replied.
Hmm. That suggests the person hasn’t been fired, which will alarm those MPs who remain extremely concerned about this whole fiasco.
Follow the World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Asked whether he would have taken out the superinjunction if he had been defence secretary in 2023, he replied: “Very, very unlikely.”
But when he was asked if he could rule out the use of superinjunctions by the Ministry of Defence in the future, Mr Healey said: “Well, you can never say never.”
So while Mr Healey will obviously be determined to avoid a farce in future, it appears that the threat of another Ministry of Defence cover-up in future hasn’t gone away.