APIAPE: Agents of Private Interest, Architects of Public Erosion

Christopher Luxon: The Polished Face of Collapse

From Brand Management to National Damage

CEO of the Coalition | Public smiles, private sell-outs

Current Portfolios

• Prime Minister
• Minister for National Security and Intelligence
• Minister Responsible for Ministerial Services

Christopher Luxon presents himself as a calm, competent executive with a long-term plan for national renewal. In reality, he is a coordinator of managed decline — a frontman for policies designed to fast-track privatisation, silence dissent, and hollow out democratic protections.

As Prime Minister, Luxon has not merely tolerated the extremism, overreach, and constitutional vandalism of his coalition partners — he has enabled it through silence, branding, and executive sign-off. His Cabinet empowers the erosion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the weakening of environmental standards, and the outsourcing of national infrastructure to private and foreign interests.

This exposé does not ask whether Luxon is effective. It asks: who is he effective for? And the answer is clear — not for the public. Not for those who voted in hope. Not for future generations.

His support for the Government’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill — one of the most constitutionally dangerous proposals in modern Aotearoa — was no accident. It was signed, advanced, and protected by his office. What began as ACT’s fringe proposal became a Government Bill with full National backing. Luxon didn’t write the bill — but he made sure it reached the floor of Parliament.

Beneath the polished tone and corporate language lies a clear pattern: sell-offs, silencing, and systemic handovers. The slogans change. The damage deepens. And the public, once excluded from decision-making, is now being excluded from the future.

Christopher Luxon is not leading a government. He is coordinating an exit strategy — for the powerful, not the public.

Easily Winnable, Easily Lost

Back in 2021, then-National Party leader Judith Collins told her party that the 2023 election would be “easily winnable” — if National focused on “the things that matter to New Zealand – to those Kiwis who deserve more.”¹ But everyone already knew Labour was at its lowest — battered by pandemic fallout, rising living costs, and growing public resentment. The public hadn’t just lost trust — they were determined to see Labour out.

Collins wasn’t offering deep policy vision. She was offering a sales pitch — designed to make the outcome look earned. By staging debates and outlining seven ‘key areas,’ she tried to frame the likely win as a result of National’s merit, rather than Labour’s collapse. It was presentation over substance. And the campaign reflected that.

But National didn’t win outright. Despite all that momentum, they couldn’t command a majority. They returned to government only through a coalition with ACT — the smallest, most extreme party in the House — and Winston Peters, who many assumed had left politics for good. What emerged was not a renewal, but a fragile hybrid: different brands, same engine, shared direction.

And this was no surprise to political analysts. In mid-2021, Dr Bryce Edwards called out the National Party’s internal decay: scandals involving fake CVs, sexual harassment, spying allegations, bullying, and outright incompetence plagued its MPs and candidates.² He warned: "National will achieve no long-term operational success until its members demand accountability from those they elect to run the party’s affairs."

Four years later, his prediction has proven correct. National has not achieved operational success — it has achieved operational erosion. Dysfunction was never cleaned out — it was promoted. And now, under Luxon’s stewardship, that dysfunction has scaled up into legislation.

That vulnerability changed the tone. What we see now is not a government building for the long term — it’s a coalition clearing house. Luxon is not planning for legacy. He’s governing on borrowed time. And the result is a policy sprint: rushed bills, deregulation, dismantled services — before the clock runs out.

“He’s not governing for legacy. He’s governing for the handover.”
— APIAPE Analysis, 2025

Collins made it look like the win would be based on readiness. But once in power, the truth became clear: there was no roadmap — only a rollout. Public land, public language, public rights and services — fast-tracked to private hands or gutted altogether. And while ACT and NZ First carry out the most controversial moves, the agenda behind them remains National’s.

Just as Peters mirrored Collins’s tactics, and Seymour carries her legal tone, the policy authorship has not changed. This coalition wasn’t built to bring diverse visions together — it was built to fracture blame. While New Zealanders watch three parties argue, the real project continues unchallenged.

A recession looms. Housing is worse. Migration is at record highs. Food prices keep climbing. Public services buckle. And Parliament keeps pushing harmful bills. No solutions — just speed. And under it all, one hard truth:

“This coalition wasn’t built to fix a country. It was built to sell one.”

Empowering Extremes

• Formed a government with ACT and NZ First, despite their histories of destabilising rhetoric, race-baiting, and policy extremism.
• Empowered David Seymour as Minister, despite Seymour’s interference in a murder investigation and ACT’s internal sexual abuse scandal.
• Greenlit the Government’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill — one of the most divisive and constitutionally dangerous proposals in modern New Zealand history — while pretending to distance himself from it. Though fronted by ACT, the bill was introduced not as a Member’s Bill, but a Government Bill, meaning Luxon personally authorised its introduction as Prime Minister. When confronted, he deflected responsibility by claiming it was “part of democracy” and “how coalition governments work.” But that excuse doesn’t cut it. Enabling an assault on Te Tiriti and Aotearoa’s constitutional foundation isn’t democratic compromise — it’s complicity. Luxon had the power to block it, and he chose not to.

He isn’t containing coalition extremism — he’s amplifying it. By cloaking radical ideology in the legitimacy of government process, Luxon launders extremism through executive respectability, all while enabling irreversible sell-offs and constitutional damage.

Split Crown, Shared Erosion: The Two-Headed Deputy Prime Minister

In a move without precedent in Aotearoa’s modern political history, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon split the Deputy Prime Minister role between Winston Peters and David Seymour³ — the first half of the term led by NZ First’s veteran populist, the second by ACT’s deregulation architect.

From November 2023 to May 2024, Winston Peters held the DPM seat. As of 1 June 2024, the role passes to David Seymour — giving him not just legislative power, but symbolic national authority.

Seymour, who has authored bills to erode Te Tiriti, deregulate pharmaceuticals, and undermine courts, is now second in command. This is not a ceremonial title — it is a signal. A government willing to co-sign two radically different, yet equally erosive visions of power has not formed a coalition — it has formed an axis of erosion.

The arrangement shows Luxon’s willingness to appease extremes rather than confront them. And it raises a fundamental question: When both Deputy Prime Ministers are architects of constitutional rollback — who, exactly, is guarding the nation’s foundations?

Privatisation & Deregulation

Beneath Luxon’s corporate polish lies a deeper agenda: weakening state capacity while strengthening private interest.

• Backed the Auckland Future Fund, enabling the sell-off of public assets without direct community mandate.
• Cut the school lunch programme, affecting thousands of children while claiming it would be more “efficient.”
• Reintroduced charter schools, funnelling public money into private ventures with little accountability.
• Empowered a Ministry of Regulation aimed at prioritising property rights over environmental sustainability and Treaty obligations.
• Welcomed BlackRock into national infrastructure planning under the banner of “partnership” — effectively positioning a private global fund to influence New Zealand’s long-term development priorities.

This is not reform — it's soft privatisation disguised as productivity. The cost: long-term sovereignty, public trust, and generational equity.

Allowances & Engineered Extraction: Luxon’s Role in Normalising Corruption

Christopher Luxon has inherited and actively maintained the system of legalised extraction in Parliament — a structure where self-serving housing arrangements, inflated allowances, and public-funded privileges are not only permitted, but openly protected by leadership.

In June 2024, when the housing allowance rorts were publicly exposed — including MPs renting from their own spouses, trusts, and companies⁴ — Luxon refused to confront the problem. Instead, he hid behind the Remuneration Authority, claiming the rules were “independent” and outside his control, despite the reality that only Parliament (and his government) can change them⁵.

This pattern is not abstract. The case of Kieran McAnulty — caught funnelling public funds through a family property arrangement — is a clear example of how these rules are exploited across the political spectrum. Under Luxon's watch, such engineered self-enrichment has become business as usual.

Rather than ending the culture of self-interest, Luxon’s government simply clarifies, formalises, and continues it. When Labour leader Chris Hipkins called only for a “review,” Luxon matched him — both prioritising protection of parliamentary privilege over public trust, and both refusing to dismantle the pipelines that funnel public money into MPs’ own pockets⁵.

Meanwhile, the public is left to process the abuse as “perks” — a word repeated by media and official reports, not by accident but by design. The term “perk” (short for perquisite) refers to a bonus or benefit, usually offered to employees as a sweetener or reward. But in the context of MPs channelling public funds to themselves, this language does not shame or deter—it softens, normalises, and even justifies what should be called out as engineered abuse of power.

When party leaders refuse to challenge the rort, and the media masks it as “perks,” the public is not protected — they are managed. And the lesson is clear: those in power set the rules, write the justifications, and keep the pipelines open.

This is not a minor issue. These engineered privileges are part of the same decay as asset sell-offs and constitutional erosion. They teach every MP, and every citizen, that extraction is normal, accountability is a performance, and the real purpose of office is private gain.

Dodging Accountability

• Minimised Seymour’s interference in criminal proceedings as “ill-advised” while refusing to enforce consequences.
• Ignored the ACT abuse scandal despite prior knowledge of misconduct, including delayed resignation of former party president Tim Jago.
• Preached moderation while enabling fringe bills and extreme ideology from the comfort of the prime ministerial office.

This isn’t cautious leadership — it’s orchestrated erosion under the guise of professionalism.

A System of Impunity: Kenya Knew. Now So Does New Zealand

Under Luxon's leadership, impunity is no longer the exception — it is the operating system. Figures like David Seymour, Winston Peters, and Todd McClay have all evaded serious accountability for actions that would be career-ending in any principled government: racism, disinformation, abuse cover-ups, and blatant constitutional overreach.

This pattern is not unfamiliar. I’ve seen it before — in Kenya, where a magistrate once told me: “This is Kenya!” It wasn’t a joke. It was a warning — that justice there had no connection to principle, only power. I had to pay to get my rights and walk free, because the system protected itself — not the people.

When Todd McClay told a Mexican-born MP, “You’re not in Mexico now — we don’t do things like that here,” he exposed the same instinct. It wasn’t about dignity — it was about dominance. McClay has never explained the remark. And under Luxon, he has not been asked to. Because here, too, power protects itself.

This government is beginning to look like others I’ve witnessed — where corruption is normalised, racism is excused, and silence is rewarded. Luxon is not containing it. He is managing it.

Weaponised Morality, Hollow Standards

In response to Marama Davidson’s emotional comment during the 2023 Posie Parker protest — made shortly after she was hit by a motorbike and confronted by far-right media — Luxon publicly condemned her for being “offensive” and “wrong,” and said she should apologise.

Yet Luxon has refused to demand public accountability from coalition partners who have:

• Shouted racist slurs in Parliament (“Send the Mexicans home”)
• Spread disinformation about Te Tiriti, co-governance, and journalists
• Enabled convicted offenders and abusers within their own parties

The hypocrisy is clear: Luxon reserves public morality for convenient targets, while turning a blind eye to systemic harm and ongoing abuses of power. His standards shift not by ethics — but by political utility.

Legacy Management, Not Nation Building

Luxon speaks of a 30-year plan while governing like a man preparing for a 3-year exit. His partnerships with global investors and deregulated interests signal not bold reform — but legacy insulation. New Zealand prime ministers receive lifetime pensions. Luxon knows this term may be his only one, and he is cashing in accordingly.

Rising living costs, increasing homelessness, crumbling public services — all ignored as he builds a legacy for foreign boardrooms and PR firms.

Systemic Dysfunction: The Party Behind the PM

Christopher Luxon did not emerge from a well-functioning political machine. He took the reins of a party already mired in scandal, weak candidate vetting, and internal dysfunction. From sexual abuse allegations to espionage concerns, National’s leadership pipeline was damaged long before he arrived — and instead of cleaning house, Luxon has simply polished the front office while the rot continues inside.

Bryce Edwards described it plainly in 2021: “The National Party has a major problem with standards, especially amongst its MPs and election candidates.”⁷ He cited a string of unresolved scandals — Jian Yang, Andrew Falloon, Jake Bezzant, Nick Smith — and ultimately placed the blame not on individuals, but on systemic party failure, concluding:

“National will achieve no long-term operational success until its members demand accountability from those they elect to run the party’s affairs.”
— Bryce Edwards, Democracy Project

That accountability never came. Peter Goodfellow remained party president, candidate vetting remained poor, and Luxon inherited — and now leads — a machine still reliant on silence, loyalty, and low standards. The same factions that protected Jian Yang and ignored the Bezzant warning signs are now driving constitutional reform, Treaty undermining, and foreign investor entrenchment — all with Luxon’s sign-off.

Leadership is more than tone. It’s what you allow, and what you inherit without confronting. In that sense, Luxon’s government is not an exception to National’s dysfunction. It’s the corporate face of its continuation.

Different Flags, One Agenda

“Everyone sees the betrayal now — it’s not hidden. The scandal isn’t that they sell out. The scandal is that they keep getting away with it.”
— APIAPE, 2025

Christopher Luxon leads a government branded as a coalition of differing parties and competing ideologies. But when we examine what it does — the laws passed, the powers seized, the public safeguards stripped away — the branding fades. National, ACT, New Zealand First, and even Labour before them have all contributed to the same trajectory: more control for ministers, more access for private investors, less voice for the public, and less protection for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Judith Collins once warned of a “secret agenda” ⁸ and “radical Treaty reinterpretation,”⁸ only to later support ACT’s Principles of the Treaty Bill, help push fast-track reforms that bypass community consultation, and defend privatisation strategies that removed public oversight from land and resources. David Seymour preaches individual liberty while writing laws that hand unchecked power to Cabinet. Winston Peters, long retired and mocked for returning, now sits beside those dismantling the very foundations he once claimed to protect. Even under Labour, public housing was quietly privatised, fast-tracking expanded, and Tiriti protections compromised.

What we are seeing is not a sequence of contradictions. It is a culture — a political environment where selling out is the norm, not the exception. Politicians enter with ambition, then adjust to survival. They begin with promises, but end in silence. And once public trust fades, the sell-out accelerates. With no support left to protect, the only loyalty that remains is to capital, lobbying, and the safety of future retirement deals.

In Kenya, corruption became so deeply woven into political life that it stopped being a scandal. It became the structure. The same pattern is now visible here. The agenda no longer belongs to a party. It belongs to the system. Deregulation is inherited. Privatisation is assumed. Consultation is a formality. And each government — no matter its flag — carries the work forward with new language, but the same intent: to dismantle what protects the people and preserve what profits the few.

Christopher Luxon’s leadership is not a break in that chain — it is a deepening of it. His government did not rise on strength or clarity, but stumbled into power through public exhaustion and opposition fragmentation. And once there, it did not pause or reform — it accelerated the decline. Every mechanism of erosion continued: more centralisation, more foreign access, more betrayal of constitutional commitments. This is a government that knows it will not be re-elected — and governs accordingly. Not for the people, but for those waiting behind the curtain.

Disregard Disguised as Strength

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's recent declaration that he will reinstate a total ban on prisoner voting wasn't just a political move — it was a legal and moral regression. When reminded that the courts had already ruled such a ban inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act in Taylor v Attorney-General (2015), Luxon replied: “I do not care what anyone else says.”⁹

That one sentence exposes a serious problem: this is not leadership grounded in law, evidence, or responsibility. It's rule by rejection. He wasn’t just brushing off political critics — he was openly dismissing legal precedent, the judiciary, and human rights frameworks.

When he later said the policy "makes complete sense," he was implying that everyone else — including judges, legal experts, Māori leaders, and civil rights organisations — simply don't get it. This is more than arrogance. As one APIAPE analyst put it:

“Lacks the expertise but speaks with absolute certainty — a dangerous mix when making decisions that reshape people’s rights.”
— APIAPE, 2025

Every word that came out of Luxon’s mouth on this issue¹⁰ was wrong, offensive, and revealing. He stripped away any illusion of consultation or constitutional care — and what remained was raw alignment with the agenda this coalition hides behind PR gloss.

His slogan, "Rights & Responsibilities," sounds polished — perhaps even AI-generated. But it’s just that: branding over substance. The reality? He’s removing a right, not balancing one. We don’t deny food, light, or visits — because rights aren’t earned. They are upheld because people are human. Voting is no different.

“Uses polished slogans like ‘Rights & Responsibilities’ to mask harmful policies — reducing complex rights to corporate catchphrases.”
— APIAPE, 2025

And this isn’t isolated. From prisoner rights to the Treaty Principles Bill, to weakening Māori language programmes and rebranding public water as ‘local control’ — Luxon continues to champion legislation that ignores experts, disrespects Te Tiriti, and accelerates the sale or deregulation of collective assets.

He knows prisoners won’t vote for him. So he silences their vote to boost his own. It’s not about justice — it’s about control. By targeting a feared minority, he wins mainstream applause and suppresses opposition. This is calculated electoral engineering.

Worse still, removing the vote damages rehabilitation. It tells prisoners — even the wrongly convicted — that they no longer belong in society. That they are not citizens. That their future participation is unwanted. And that message weakens the very thing justice should protect: reintegration.

“Stripping the vote breaks the bridge back to society. It hardens the system, not the person.”
— APIAPE, 2025

This is why many now see Luxon’s approach as part of the same "secret agenda" Judith Collins once hinted at — one that undermines Māori under the guise of ‘clarity,’ sidesteps Treaty obligations while pretending to modernise them, and clears a path for asset transfers disguised as reform.

“If we allow one man to overrule human rights, no right is truly safe. Today it’s prisoners. Tomorrow it’s whoever stands in the way.”
— APIAPE, 2025

Under the surface of ‘decisiveness’ lies a reckless pattern: disregard for law, refusal of expertise, weaponisation of slogans, and consistent targeting of Māori and public rights. It’s not a leadership style — it’s a dismantling strategy.

Systemic Failures in Six Acts

1. Disregard for Legal Precedents and Human Rights

Luxon's push to ban all prisoners from voting directly contradicts Taylor v Attorney-General (2015), which deemed such a ban inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. Instead of engaging with this ruling, Luxon said, “I do not care what anyone else says about it,” reflecting open contempt for legal boundaries and democratic safeguards.

But this isn’t just contempt — it’s calculation. Luxon knows most prisoners would vote Labour, Green, or Te Pāti Māori — not National. By removing their vote, he quietly weakens the opposition while appealing to fearful voters with a show of “toughness.” It’s not justice. It’s electoral engineering.

This move targets a socially unpopular group to boost his own standing — setting a precedent where rights can be revoked not by due process, but by political convenience. If we accept this now, what rights will be next?

2. Alignment with Controversial Legislative Agendas

By backing ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill and fast-tracking reforms that weaken Māori rights, Luxon shows alignment with a broader deregulatory agenda — one that reframes foundational rights as outdated obstacles to privatisation and centralised control.

3. Privatisation of Natural Resources and Public Assets

From “Local Water Done Well” to long-term infrastructure changes, Luxon’s government is setting the stage for public assets to shift quietly into private hands — under the banner of efficiency and localism, but without proper public mandate or Treaty consultation.

4. Dismissal of Expert Opinions and Institutional Knowledge

Luxon’s abrupt dismissal of the Te Whatu Ora board and disinformation-laced justification signal a government unwilling to listen to specialists. He discards expert voices while pretending his outsider certainty outweighs decades of collective knowledge.

5. Marginalisation of Māori Perspectives and Treaty Obligations

Luxon’s policies — from cutting Te Ahu o te Reo Māori funding to endorsing the Treaty rewrite — suggest a deliberate effort to reduce Māori influence in public life. These moves are dressed up as equity or efficiency, but their effect is cultural erasure.

6. Governance Lacking Transparency and Accountability

Repeated decisions are being made with limited consultation, rushed legislation, and rejection of public concern. The tone is one of control, not service — of steering outcomes, not seeking understanding. Luxon’s leadership is not accountable. It is evasive.

Electoral Engineering & Distraction Politics

This prisoner voting ban isn’t just a constitutional concern — it’s a political tactic. Luxon knows most prisoners would vote against him. So instead of engaging the public honestly, he cuts out the votes he doesn’t want — hoping it quietly boosts his own count.

And by targeting a socially unpopular group, he sends a signal to fearful voters: I’m tough. I’m in control. But it’s not strength — it’s desperation. A collapsing economy, record migration, rising homelessness, unaffordable food, and no solutions — so what does the Prime Minister focus on? Voting rights for prisoners.

When leaders make their enemies out of the powerless, it means they’ve run out of answers. This isn’t leadership. It’s survival — at the public’s expense.

“This isn’t about prisoners. It’s about politics. A collapsing country, and a PM desperate to shift the focus.”
— APIAPE, 2025

Disregard Across Party Lines: Different Face, Same Pattern

Christopher Luxon is not the first Prime Minister to dismiss rights, override law, or weaponise fear. During the pandemic, Jacinda Ardern famously declared that New Zealanders had “no right to leave their homes” during lockdown — and that only one person per household could go out for essentials, under police-enforced rules. These directives were not only unlawful but later ruled illegal by the courts as well.

What connects Ardern and Luxon — despite their different brands — is not party, but pattern:

• Both used moral slogans to justify legal overreach.
• Both disregarded human rights when it suited their messaging.
• Both ignored expert concerns until legal challenges exposed them.

This is not about Labour or National. This is about how power behaves when it stops being held accountable. When rights become conditional. When leaders rewrite legality to fit their convenience. When protecting the public becomes managing the public — by force.

What Luxon is doing now — revoking prisoner voting rights, ignoring the courts, and branding it as “responsibility” — is just the next step in a culture already shaped by Ardern’s overreach. Different face, same danger. The public is not being protected. They are being handled.

“This is what unchecked power looks like — rights become optional, and law becomes branding.”
— APIAPE, 2025

If we let any leader decide who deserves rights, or when the law applies, then no party can be trusted. And no future is secure. We must remember: legality must not be rewritten by power. It must restrain it.

Conclusion: More Than Just Arrogance

Christopher Luxon is not just making poor decisions — he is strategically enabling erosion for personal and political gain. His leadership aligns with a deeper, long-running agenda: dismissing legal safeguards, disempowering Māori, facilitating privatisation, suppressing dissent, and removing opposition votes.

But it’s not just arrogance. It’s a dangerous blend of deliberate ignorance, genuine incompetence, and quiet corruption. Luxon speaks with certainty where he lacks understanding, acts with force where he lacks evidence, and rewrites rules where he lacks principle. What he calls "common sense" often hides personal advantage or political convenience.

This isn’t reform — it’s rebranding erosion as efficiency. From prisoner voting to public assets, from te reo Māori to Treaty obligations, the message is the same: rights are conditional, and law is flexible — so long as it benefits those in charge.

And this isn’t new. Jacinda Ardern once told New Zealanders they had no right to leave their homes — an act later ruled unlawful. Now Luxon says prisoners have no right to vote — despite the courts saying otherwise. Different government, same tactic. Rewrite the law. Reframe the right. Remove the resistance.

“He’s not just ignoring experts. He’s ignoring the country — and rewriting the rules to suit himself.”
— APIAPE, 2025

This Is the Erosion We Must Stop

Christopher Luxon didn’t start the decay — but he is its most willing coordinator yet. Under his leadership, what was once hidden behind language is now executed in plain sight. Racism, deregulation, privatisation, rights removal — no longer softened, no longer denied. Just delivered.

But this exposé is not just about Luxon. It’s about a system that survives every election — swapping faces, rotating slogans, and continuing the same dismantling. Ardern once locked down the country with unlawful orders. Luxon now bans votes with open contempt for precedent. Different parties, same betrayal: power over principle, branding over accountability.

Where parties don’t compete — they cooperate behind closed doors. Where public resistance is punished, and silence is rewarded. Where foreign investors write the rules, and the public is managed — not represented.

We’ve seen this before — in Kenya, in other captured states, and now in Aotearoa: where ministers act as clients, laws are tools of control, and democracy is reduced to marketing language. The right to vote, to protest, to speak — all now conditional, fragile, and under review.

This is not just decline. This is engineered erosion. Managed by figureheads like Luxon, disguised in corporate tone, and fast-tracked under the cover of coalition urgency. The country isn’t slipping — it’s being sold.

“What we are witnessing is not a government — it is a final transaction.”
— APIAPE, 2025

Aotearoa deserves better. Not another brand. Not another scripted leader. But public memory, legal clarity, and resistance strong enough to end the cycle. The collapse is no longer quiet. And neither should we be.

What You Can Do

• Demand accountability. Demand sovereignty. Demand more than a former corporate mouthpiece — deliberately advertised as a commercial CEO. He is dressed up as a national leader but cannot manage a company, let alone a country.
• Spread the word: Share this exposé on Christopher Luxon and expose the branding behind the breakdown.
• Don’t be distracted by polished PR or pre-written slogans. Track the pattern. Share the evidence. Defend the future.

Every case documented strengthens public memory—and demands accountability.
🔙 Back to APIAPE Index