A federal Newspoll, conducted May 11-13 from a sample of 1,516, is the first poll taken since the May 9 budget. It gave Labor a 55-45 lead, a one-point gain for the Coalition since the previous Newspoll, three weeks ago. Primary votes were 38% Labor (steady), 34% Coalition (up one), 11% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (steady) and 10% for all Others (down one).

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had ratings of 57% satisfied (up four) and 38% dissatisfied (up one), for a net approval of +19, up three points. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s net approval improved four points to -15. Albanese slightly increased his better PM lead over Dutton from 54-28 to 56-29.

Newspoll has asked three questions after every budget since 1988: whether the budget was good or bad for the economy, good or bad for you personally and whether the opposition would have delivered a better budget.

By 33-28, voters thought this budget was good for the economy, but this net +5 rating is mediocre by historical standards. By 36-20, voters thought the budget bad for them personally. By 49-35, they thought the Coalition would not have delivered a better budget. Both the personal impact and opposition rating are in line with historical standards.

On the budget’s effect on inflation, 39% expected a negative impact, just 13% a positive impact and 33% said it would have no impact. Newspoll figures and analysis of the historical record are from The Poll Bludger.

Labor retains a large lead over the Coalition on voting intentions, and Albanese’s ratings have improved. Although the budget doesn’t score well compared with all budgets, Labor budgets have rated worse overall than Coalition budgets. Analyst Kevin Bonham said this budget rated better than the average Labor budget.

Pre-budget Morgan poll: 54.5-45.5 to Labor

In last week’s edition of the weekly federal Morgan poll, conducted May 1-7, Labor led by 54.5-45.5, a one-point gain for Labor since the previous week. Primary votes were 35.5% Labor, 35.5% Coalition, 12.5% Greens and 16.5% for all Others.

Left to control NSW upper house after National becomes president

The New South Wales upper house has 42 members, with 21 up for election every four years, so members serve eight-year terms. All 21 are elected by statewide proportional representation with optional preferences.

Left-wing parties won the 21 upper house seats elected at the March 25 election by an 11-10 margin, but the right won in 2019 by 11-10, leaving the upper house tied at 21-21.

Read more:
Labor gains in Newspoll but Voice support slumps in other polls; NSW final results and Queensland polls

The president of the NSW upper house can only vote to break a tie. In last Tuesday’s first parliamentary session since the election, National Ben Franklin nominated for and was elected upper house president.

By taking a vote away from the right, the left holds a 21-20 majority on the floor of the upper house. The 21 left members comprise 15 Labor, four Greens, one Legalise Cannabis and one Animal Justice. If they can reach agreement, they can pass legislation without any support from the right.

NSW final two party result: 54.3-45.7 to Labor

The NSW electoral commission has released a Labor vs Coalition two party result for all seats at the March 25 election. In initial counts, many seats were left out as one of the major parties did not make the final two candidate count.

Labor won the statewide two party vote by a 54.3-45.7 margin over the Coalition, a 6.3% swing to Labor since the 2019 election. Despite the commanding vote margin, Labor only won 45 of the 93 seats, and will govern in minority, two seats short of a majority.

Read more:
Labor two seats short of a majority in final NSW lower house results, plus a polling critique

Labor’s two party share is 0.4% higher than that estimated by the ABC before the release of this final data. That makes Newspoll easily the most accurate pollster on two party votes with Labor at 54.5% two party, with Morgan the next best at 53.5%. The other two pollsters were worse, with Freshwater at 53% and Resolve 52.5%.

Bonham has much more on the final NSW results and the pre-election polls.

Tasmanian Liberal government falls into minority

Tasmania has the last Liberal government left in any Australian jurisdiction. On Friday, two Liberal MPs quit to sit as independents, partially over opposition to the proposed $715 million AFL stadium in Hobart.

As a result, the Liberals have been reduced from 13 to 11 seats in the 25-member Tasmanian lower house, and are two short of the 13 needed for a majority. Labor has eight seats, the Greens two and there are two independents.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Albanese’s ratings improve in a post-budget Newspoll; left to control NSW upper house – https://theconversation.com/albaneses-ratings-improve-in-a-post-budget-newspoll-left-to-control-nsw-upper-house-205186

Political Roundup: New Zealand resets relationships with Australia and India

The first clues to New Zealand’s foreign policy after Jacinda Ardern are beginning to emerge.

Chris Hipkins, the new Prime Minister, decided to retain Nanaia Mahuta as his foreign minister – and both Hipkins and Mahuta took to the skies last week.

While Hipkins headed to Australia – the customary first destination for an incoming New Zealand Prime Minister – Mahuta flew to India on a surprise trip announced just a day prior to her departure.

In very different contexts, the pair managed to smooth over differences and pave the way for deeper partnerships – which may well involve greater military cooperation.

Mahuta is likely to play a bigger role in New Zealand’s foreign policy in the months to come, not least because Hipkins’ pledge to focus on ‘bread and butter’ economic issues is likely to keep him at home more often, especially as the October 14 election date draws closer.

The dynamic between Hipkins and Mahuta will be fascinating to watch.

Hipkins demoted Mahuta in his Cabinet rankings – from 8th to 16th – and reassigned her other ministerial portfolio of Local Government, under which Mahuta had been determined to roll out the controversial ‘Three Waters’ infrastructure reforms.

In announcing his Cabinet reshuffle, Hipkins made clear that he expected Mahuta to be ‘out and about travelling more’.

This was a reference to Mahuta’s relatively light travel schedule since becoming foreign minister in November 2020. Mahuta’s last major trip before India was to Papua New Guinea in early September 2022.

While the foreign minister paid tribute to outgoing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on social media, she made no similar move to congratulate Chris Hipkins on his new role.

There was another curiosity as well.

In Waitangi with the Prime Minister and her Labour Party colleagues for events to commemorate New Zealand’s national day on February 6th, the foreign minister suddenly cancelled a scheduled address to foreign diplomats without explanation.

She then suddenly announced a trip to India and left New Zealand on Waitangi Day itself.

The following day, February 7, Chris Hipkins flew to Canberra for a more predictable, one-day trip to meet his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese.

The two leaders were at pains to project warmth and friendship – despite being at odds over whether they had previously met each other (Albanese recalled a past encounter in Wellington, but Hipkins had already told media that he had never met Albanese).

In the Australian capital, Hipkins was keen to stress continuity – ‘our foreign policy position hasn’t changed just because there’s a change of prime minister’ – while Albanese sought to stress closeness by saying ‘we are family’.

Albanese’s repeated use of the word ‘family’ to describe the relationship with New Zealand echoed the superficially warm, yet intentionally exclusionary ‘Pacific family’ phrasing that was frequently deployed by Australia to try and ward off China’s moves in the region last year.

Still, an underlying tension had been neutralised in advance of Hipkins’ visit to Canberra, after the Australian government pledged to apply more discretion when deciding whether to deport ‘501s’, or New Zealand citizens who had served prison sentences of 12 months or more in Australia.

The issue had been a source of tension in the bilateral relationship, with Ardern calling it ‘corrosive’ to the relationship in 2019 and publicly telling Australia’s then Prime Minister Scott Morrison in 2020 ‘do not deport your people and your problems’ – a reference to the fact that many deportees had grown up in Australia.

The recent shift by Albanese’s government is largely a case of style over substance – Australia has not changed Section 501 of its Migration Act and has made no specific commitments on the numbers of deportees.

But it was a shift in tone and that was all that was needed to take the 501 issue off the agenda.

As geostrategic competition in the Indo-Pacific builds, Australia has bigger fish to fry.

Canberra would like to see Wellington move more closely into its orbit when it comes to countering Beijing.

When asked about the potential for New Zealand to become involved in the new Aukus security pact, Chris Hipkins deployed the usual red herring of pointing to New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy – which would seemingly rule out a partnership built on nuclear-powered submarines.

But the architects of Aukus have long suggested the partnership could be expanded into other areas, and Anthony Albanese reinforced this notion in his press conference with Chris Hipkins.

Albanese said Aukus was ‘about a whole range of issues, including the interoperability of our forces and also co-operation on technology and other issues’.

High-ranking officials, such as Jacinda Ardern’s defence minister and New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Australia, have previously signalled an interest in becoming involved in non-nuclear submarine components of Aukus.

With the 501 issue dealt with and an easier pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders living in Australia to be announced by April, Australia might be tempted to take advantage of the goodwill generated – and the fresh leadership in Wellington – to push for New Zealand’s involvement in a more peripheral component of Aukus.

Over 10,000 km away from Canberra, in New Delhi, New Zealand’s foreign minister faced a challenge that was both different and similar to the one faced by Chris Hipkins.

Nanaia Mahuta’s visit to India was a reciprocal call after an unusually long, five-day visit to New Zealand in October by India’s external affairs minister, Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

During his visit, Jaishankar had publicly signalled his displeasure with New Zealand over its treatment of Indian visa-holders during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a sense, there were parallels with New Zealand’s resentment over the ‘501’ deportees from Australia.

It had nothing to do with the bigger geopolitical picture, but there was a sense of grievance.

New Zealand had clearly heard Jaishankar’s criticism and responded by announcing 1,800 new ‘post-study’ work visas in December. While this was not a full solution, the news was welcomed by Indian nationals who had returned home during the pandemic and subsequently found themselves locked out of New Zealand.

With the issue now at least partially dealt with, there was no repeat of the public rebuke issued by Jaishankar on his visit to Auckland and Wellington in 2022.

Instead, the Indian external affairs ministry’s account of Jaishankar’s meeting with Mahuta noted discussions of bilateral cooperation on ‘economic, political, defence, education, and science & technology’ issues.

The mention of ‘defence’ is arguably the most significant – and potentially a sign of things to come.

In an interview with India’s Hindustan Times, Mahuta described India as a ‘counterbalance to the superpower contest’ and pointed to ‘many benefits beyond trade’, while she told the ABP Live outlet ‘we need to figure out who we can trust, who we can rely on in this time of need and India is such a significant contributor to ensuring greater peace and stability in the region’.

Military ties have played a key role in Australia’s deepening of its own bilateral relationship with India.

Australia signed defence cooperation agreements with India in 2006, 2009 and 2014, which paved the way for the wider ‘Comprehensive Strategic Partnership’ signed in 2020.

Since 2015, Australia has conducted regular bilateral naval exercises with India called AUSINDEX. It followed this up last year with the first joint land-based activity, Austra-Hind, and by involving India in the multilateral Indo-Pacific Endeavour exercises.

In parallel, Australia has stepped up its commitment to the ‘Quadrilateral Security Dialogue’ (or Quad) grouping that also includes India, Japan and the United States.

The increased military engagement probably helped to facilitate the signing of Australia’s limited free trade agreement with India that came into force in December 2022.

New Zealand is envious of Australia’s trade deal with India, which according to some estimates is now the world’s most populous country.

Around the world, trade and security are only likely to become more interlinked as geopolitical tensions build.

Australia and India would probably both like to expand their military ties with New Zealand.

However, it needs to be remembered that Australia and India are forging stronger bilateral relations in large part because of their common desire to counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific.

And Chris Hipkins last week described Beijing as ‘an incredibly important partner for New Zealand – a very important trading partner and a partner in other areas as well’.

With a third of New Zealand’s exports going to China every year, Hipkins will have his country’s beef and butter issues on his mind.

New Zealand may have a new Prime Minister.

But the challenges remain much the same.

Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s geopolitical analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. He is currently working on a PhD on New Zealand’s relations with the Gulf states.

Items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT, DEMOCRACY
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Why ‘have your say’ exercises are meaningless
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Chris Hipkins’ challenges and the case for a snap election
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Labour leads, Māori Party the kingmaker in latest poll
Gareth Hughes (Stuff): Time for the Greens to ditch a key election strategy
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Chris Hipkins puts stamp on Government – but is it really a policy purge?
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): After Chris Hipkins’ policy bonfire, voters need to hear plans (paywalled)
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): After the bonfire, Chris Hipkins must face the real heat (paywalled)
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Luxon yet to catch a break after Hipkins’ rise
Claire Trevett (Herald): The clever politics in PM Chris Hipkins’ Loaves and Butter announcement – how will Chris Luxon counter? (paywalled)
Herald: Christopher Luxon v Chris Hipkins: Which Chris won the week? (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: Chippy clears out his toolbelt (paywalled)
Peter Wilson (RNZ): Has Chris Hipkins done enough?
Claire Trevett (Herald): Grant Robertson – the full story on why he did not want to be Prime Minister (paywalled)
Claire Trevett (Herald): PM Chris Hipkins faces cuisine challenges, the likely successor to Jacinda Ardern in Mt Albert turns 40 (paywalled)
Sophie Neville (Woman’s Day): Carmel Sepuloni: ‘I don’t want to be the sookie bubba deputy PM’
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Chris Hipkins braves bad weather to attend Asia-Pacific business conference (paywalled)
Marc Wilson (Herald): Red flag: Does hair colour matter when it comes to leadership? (paywalled)

HATE SPEECH LAWS
Chris Trotter (Interest): Can words hurt us?
Grant Duncan: Is free speech under threat?
Alan Ringwood (Herald): Religious beliefs must be open to scrutiny and, sometimes, to ridicule (paywalled)
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): How Wellington woke activists ensured hate speech laws were kicked off political agenda

PARLIAMENT PROTEST AND CONSPIRACIES
1News: Q+A: Where are the Parliament protesters one year on?
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): One year on, a small group gathers to remember the Parliament occupation
RNZ: Parliament protest: Plan to commemorate occupation one year on
Nevil Gibson (NBR): The Covid conspiracies that fuel extremism

CO-GOVERNANCE, TREATY, PARTNERSHIP
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Co-governance debate heats up at Rātana, Waitangi
Thomas Cranmer: Tūhoe: co-governance is not our word
Tina Ngata (E-Tangata): Performative gestures and permissiveness are derailing Tiriti justice
Will Trafford (Whakaata Māori): ‘Racist’ rally going ahead, after organiser’s legal threats
Aroha Gilling (E-Tangata): Partnership means pulling up your socks

COST OF LIVING, EMPLOYMENT
Janet Wilson (Stuff): Food insecurity growing in two-parent working families
Gianina Schwanecke (Stuff): Cost of living crisis ‘traumatic’ for some students in Aotearoa, principal says
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Government considered energy payment and encouraging cycling instead of fuel tax cut
Andrew Gunn (Stuff): How is anyone supposed to live on less than $22.70 an hour?
RNZ: Retailers claim minimum wage increases make it harder to maintain relativities for staff
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): National’s Erica Stanford slams Government for not making ‘tough political decisions’ on minimum wage
Rebecca Stevenson (BusinessDesk): Business wants minimum wage explanation (paywalled)
Rob Stock (Stuff): Cost of house insurance has increased 17% in one year, says Quashed

ECONOMY, BUSINESS
David Hargreaves (Interest): What happens when the Official Cash Rate gets to the ‘top’?
RNZ: Manufacturing sector expands in January after three months of contraction – index
RNZ: Retail sales using cards up 2.6% as appetite for big ticket buys remains

AUCKLAND, FLOODING, CLIMATE CHANGE
Alison Mau (Stuff): Don’t let a good thing die – why the Citizens Advice Bureau must be saved
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Why is a secular Government agency talking to me about a weather God?
Tracy Watkins (Stuff): After the storm, then what?
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Budget cuts ‘not-fit-for-purpose’ in climate crisis
Asaad Shamseldin (Newsroom): Stormwater thinking outside the box
Lana Hart (Stuff): Will this summer of slosh get us moving on climate change?
Brent Edwards (NBR): Minister James Shaw: Climate adaption’s funding challenge (paywalled)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THREE WATERS
Lauren Crimp (RNZ): ‘We wear full accountability’ – Council knew about falling street lamps
Lauren Crimp (RNZ): Faulty street lamps fall to the ground: ‘You’d be killed stone dead’
Tom Hunt (Stuff): It’s raining lamps: 15kg street lights fall in Wellington with deadly force
Julia Talbot-Jones and Thomas Benison (The Conversation): It’s near impossible to get good data on water use in New Zealand. This raises questions about public accountability
George Thomson (Chris Lynch Media): Council urges Government to re-think approach to Three Waters Reform
Kiri Gillespie (Rotorua Daily Post): Rotorua mayor Tania Tapsell pushes back on submissions saga amid a legal threat
Maia Hart (Local Democracy Reporting): Online voting, civics education key to turnout turnaround
Lois Williams (Newsroom): West Coast councils baulk at fluoride cost
Jake Kenny (Stuff): Cake decorator who helped defraud Westland taxpayers of $459,000 could be deported
Emily Moorhouse (Open Justice Reporting): Auckland cake decorator sentenced for role in in corrupt council contract
RNZ: Feedback sought over wildlife refuge and wetland in Christchurch’s red zone

HOUSING
MIriam Bell (Stuff): New website revealing how many properties landlords own is under investigation
Geraden Cann (Stuff): New website allows renters to find out how many properties their landlord owns
Kate Newton (Stuff): For sale: new, warm and dry homes. The catch? They’re in a flood plain, and the flood is coming sooner than you think
Olivia Wannan (Stuff): A law could allow flood-hit homeowners to seek safer ground, if the Government would fund it
Miriam Bell (Stuff): Property investors will not be making a comeback anytime soon

HEALTH
RNZ: Epidemiologist Michael Baker to head new public health communication project
Maryanna Garcia (Bay of Plenty Times): Covid-19 coronavirus: General Practice funding cut as majority of cases treated as mild infection
RNZ: The Detail: Youth vaping: New regulations too little too late?
Brianna Mcilraith (Stuff): Supermarket selling beer cheaper than water are being investigated by police
RNZ: Suicide prevention charity sees 62 percent increase in peer support demand

MEDIA, BROADCASTING
Damien Grant (Stuff): Mister Organ: A voyeuristic tour of damaged human detritus for our amusement
Herald: ‘Iconic show’: Ten 7 Aotearoa, formerly Police Ten 7, is coming to an end after two decades
RNZ: TVNZ to cancel controversial crime show Ten 7

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning examine in detail what to expect from the NATO leaders’ summit, which includes addresses from the prime ministers of Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Why is NATO including addresses of NATO partners in this year’s leaders’ summit?

What will the hawks bring to the summit, and what will those of a more moderate and dove persuasion bring to the NATO debate and course ahead?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will analyse how the Pacific region has become the epicentre of foreign policy assertions from the region’s and the world’s powers.

This month has seen the United States President Joe Biden forward commit to increasing the USA’s presence in the Pacific. The announcement was pitched during a Whitehouse meeting in Washington DC with New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

Meanwhile, at the same time, the People’s Republic of China’s foreign minister Wang Yi was on a whistle-stop series of meetings with Pacific regional leaders, seeking mutual agreements on investment, infrastructure development, and security.

And back in China, the PRC took exception to this element of the US-NZ joint statement where Biden and Ardern jointly stated: “… we note with concern the security agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Solomon Islands. In particular, the United States and New Zealand share a concern that the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interests would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region and pose national-security concerns to both our countries.”

That position compelled China’s spokesperson for its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zhao Lijian, to state: “We noted the relevant contents of the joint statement, which distorts and smears China’s normal cooperation with Pacific Island countries, deliberately hypes up the South China Sea issue, makes irresponsible remarks on and grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs including issues related to Taiwan, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. China is firmly opposed to this.”

New Zealand is now positioned squarely on the fault-line between two opposing global powers.

Now add into the foreign policy mix the election of a new Labor Government in Australia where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was quickly sworn in alongside his cabinet and then whisked off to a QUAD security pact leaders’ summit, and, most recently has met with his Indonesian counterpart, President Joko Widodo, to discuss securing a more cooperative relationship between the two regional powers.

In this episode of A View from Afar Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will deep-dive into these events to determine what this all means and where the shifting sands of Pacific foreign policy is heading.

One this is for sure, the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ summit this year will be important and interesting.

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

New Zealand was said to have been sidelined when the trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States was announced a week ago. But very quickly the “Aukus” pact has taken on an unpopularity in this country, with a consensus forming that New Zealand is best out of the defence arrangement. This is especially due to its centrepiece nuclear submarine plans, which will have huge ramifications for the Asia Pacific region.

The New Zealand Government has been noticeably muted in their response to the arrival of Aukus. Officially the Anglophone initiative is being welcomed, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pointing out that although legally the new submarines won’t be able to enter New Zealand waters, nonetheless “we welcome the increased engagement of the UK and the US in our region”.

I’ve criticised this stance in an analysis column in which I argue that the New Zealand Government should actually be condemning this dangerous warmongering, as such a nuclear and military escalation is not in the interests of New Zealand nor the Asia-Pacific region – see: What happened to the dream of a peaceful nuclear-free Pacific?.

Why is Ardern so soft on the Anglo-militarisation of the Pacific? I argue that “Ardern doesn’t want to get offside and suffer diplomatic consequences. In this regard, she is no David Lange or Norman Kirk. These former Labour prime ministers were at the forefront of the fight against militarism and nuclear technology in the Pacific, and were willing to pay a price to uphold their country’s independent foreign policy.”

I’m not the only one to notice Ardern’s soft approach to the escalation of nuclear and military tensions. Richard Harman says “New Zealand has been absent from any international discussion on the agreement”, and points out that Ardern’s statement was “to partly defend the thinking behind Aukus” – see: Ardern lays it on the line (paywalled).

According to Harman, it’s one thing to say that the subs won’t be able to come here due to the law, but Ardern hasn’t extended this statement to say New Zealand is also “not welcoming them because they represent an international alignment which we do not share.”

Progressive condemnation of Aukus

There’s been very little debate and comment from politicians and political parties. Even the Greens have gone quiet on this. Political activists – even from the peace movement – have been silent or unbothered by the landmark military announcement.

However, one strong voice against it is former Green MP Keith Locke, who penned a scathing analysis of the deal, saying Ardern has welcomed engagement in the Pacific to curry favour with US and allies, but that New Zealanders should be upset by the nuclearisation of our neighbour, pointing out that it’s a slipperly slope towards Australia getting nuclear weapons – see: Many anti-nuclear reasons to oppose Aukus.

Locke says that “New Zealand has long championed nuclear disarmament” and pushed for treaties in the region that prevent nuclear arms and pollution, which he believes are about to be violated by the three Anglophone countries.

Chris Trotter has written two columns warning against New Zealand becoming ensnared in the Anglo alliance of countries that have been illegally waging wars in other parts of the world to ill-effect – see: A coalition of the waning. He says: “Surely, it is time for New Zealand to break free of the imperial project in which it has been enmeshed for the past 181 years?”

But he warns that those in the MFAT and Defence Establishment will be alarmed that this country has been left out of the pact of our traditional allies, and they’ll now be pressuring the Labour Government to get closer to Washington – see: Keep New Zealand Nuclear-Free – stay out of Aukus!.

Similarly, today leftwing political commentator Gordon Campbell says New Zealand is lucky to be outside of the Aukus deal, and will be increasingly seen by other countries as saner in its orientation to China – see: On Canada’s election, and the Aukus defence pact. Campbell believes that the new nuclear subs won’t even be of much use in defending Australasia – they are more of a forward attack mechanism to point against China.

Newspaper editorials united against Aukus

The major newspapers have also published editorials that are negative about Aukus. The New Zealand Herald editorial is the strongest – painting a picture of an agreement that threatens to make a volatile situation in the region even worse – see: Aukus security pact has rocky start; could make China, Asia tensions worse (paywalled).

The Herald argues that the motivations behind the defence announcement are more about the three Anglo countries’ domestic politics – it’s about political reputations rather than the public interest. And the paper warns that it pushes Australia and the region closer to war, “and other countries may seek nuclear-powered subs”.

The Otago Daily Times is also unimpressed, suggesting that New Zealand is fortunate not to be involved – see: Scotty’s submarines steaming ahead. The paper also says “it is upsetting to think of nuclear subs operating off our coastline”, and therefore “Former Labour prime ministers Norman Kirk and David Lange, and generations of peace and nuclear-free advocates, will be spinning in their graves at the thought of nuclear subs just across the Tasman Sea.”

Today’s Stuff editorial is also highly negative about the deal, labelling it “a major development with unsettling implications”, and rebutting those that suggest New Zealand needs to now get closer to these Anglo allies – see: Hawkish Aukus not for us.

The prospect of US nuclear-armed subs being hosted nearby is also pointed out by the editorial: “Australia is getting a leg up to receive nuclear-propelled submarines, and is also expected to offer a base for its allies’ own submarines, some of them potentially nuclear-armed, to receive deep maintenance, thereby maintaining a sustained presence in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Aukus presents opportunities for New Zealand

The above Stuff newspaper editorial argues that instead of following the Anglophone’s hawkish approach, New Zealand should be less black and white towards China, “which is to co-operate with China where we can and team up with like-minded democracies to push back where there are disagreements that require it.” Such an approach might well see New Zealand rewarded in trade terms with both China and the European Union.

This is also an argument made by international analyst Geoffrey Miller, who says that countries like New Zealand that are deliberately not part of the aggressive Aukus-style orientation towards China will be rewarded, not just in the Asia Pacific, but also in Europe where Australia’s reputation has been sunk at the crucial time that trade deals are being negotiated with this part of the world – see: New Zealand could be the big winner of Aukus fallout.

Miller argues that the creation of Aukus heralds the establishment of “a new hierarchy when it comes to countries’ views of China” – with the “premier league” of defence hawks including the US, UK and Australia (perhaps also with India and Japan), whereas a “second division includes the EU, Canada and New Zealand, as well as potentially some Southeast Asian countries”. He predicts that New Zealand will sit well within that group of like-minded countries, who will prosper by taking a less confrontational approach to China.

Similarly, Pete McKenzie believes that this like-minded grouping of countries is an opportunity for New Zealand to break away from its current pivot towards the US-led confrontation with China – see: Aukus pact could push New Zealand to deepen relations with Europe and Pacific.

Aukus puts pressure on New Zealand

The arrival of the Aukus pact will ratchet up pressure on New Zealand to contribute to traditional defence agreements according to some commentators. This is best seen in Thomas Manch’s article: Why doesn’t New Zealand have submarines? Aukus highlights pressing military question for Government.

In this, former defence minister Wayne Mapp is quoted saying that Australia will now be applying the pressure: “It’s certain that Australia, at least, will be saying, ‘Well you’re a military ally of ours, what are you gonna do?'”… When you are in a military alliance, it has obligations as well as advantages. There’s no bucking that fact, and we can’t hide behind the nuclear-free thing and say, ‘Oh that answers everything’. It doesn’t.”

Pressure to spend much more on defence equipment will be one specific outcome. Mapp points to the need for new frigates to match those of Australia: “This particular [Aukus] announcement will put quite a bit of pressure on the New Zealand Government to make it clear how they’re going to replace the Anzac frigates, because they can’t wish that decision away.”

There’s a growing consensus that the arrival of Aukus means that an Anglo-Chinese military confrontation is much more likely than before. And the Herald’s Audrey Young has looked at what this escalation might mean for New Zealand, and in particular whether this country would be expected to contribute militarily to the US-led side – see: Preparing for war between US and China – what it means for NZ and Australia (paywalled).

In this, Young makes it clear that if New Zealand chose to stand aside from the US, failing to endorse its military and diplomatic strategies, there would be trouble: “What New Zealand says matters in terms of allegiances, because as a small country with relatively little economic or military strength, its voice is often its biggest contribution. Hence the pile-on when it takes a different position to its larger friends.”

For an example of the heat that New Zealand experiences due to perceptions amongst allies that it is not pulling its weight see Scott Palmer’s Aukus: New Zealand labelled ‘a joke’ after nuclear-free stance blocks Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines.

Although this article contains the expected condemnation of New Zealand from Australia, it does raise legitimate concerns about New Zealand no longer having defence interoperability with Australia. In particular, the question is asked: how can New Zealand rely on its biggest defence ally, Australia, coming to its defence in the future when its nuclear-propelled vessels won’t be allowed into local waters?

Finally, some are arguing that Aukus means that it’s now time for New Zealand to ditch its laws banning nuclear propulsion. For more on this, see Stuff political editor Luke Malpass’ column, Why Aukus should make us reconsider parts of our nuclear-free stance.

A View from Afar: Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan present this week’s podcast, where they analyse the Australia-China-New Zealand relationship. Has this reached a tipping-point? Also, Israel. How stable will this cobbled together coalition of anti-Netanyahu parties be?

But first, Australia, China, and New Zealand:

• What are the main take-away points from the New Zealand-Australia leaders bilateral meeting this week?
• AU PM Scott Morrison referenced ANZUS while NZ PM Jacinda Ardern spoke of NZ’s defence requirements as an independent consideration.
• So who is correct here? Does Australia and New Zealand’s re-stated commitment to being a Trans-Tasman family drag NZ into supporting any future Australian conflict?

And then there’s China’s foreign ministry response, that states: “The leaders of Australia and New Zealand, with irresponsible remarks on China’s internal affairs relating to Hong Kong and Xinjiang as well as the South China Sea issue, have made groundless accusations against China…”

• Does AU and NZ governments’ renewed sense of self-identity indicate a rebalancing of a regional and global order? And has the PRC’s dominating influence in AU and NZ politics reached its zenith?
• And does the PRC’s increased authoritarianism at home and abroad reflect leadership weaknesses rather than strength?

*** Israel.

In the last quarter of this episode, Buchanan and Manning will discuss the latest from the Middle East.

• Will a cobbled-together coalition of anti-Netanyahu politicians succeed in creating a new Israel Government? How stable will it be, and, what does this mean for Palestinians in the West Bank of Gaza?

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar: Selwyn Manning and Paul Buchanan present this week’s podcast, where they analyse the Australia-China-New Zealand relationship. Has this reached a tipping-point? Also, Israel. How stable will this cobbled together coalition of anti-Netanyahu parties be?

• What are the main take-away points from the New Zealand-Australia leaders bilateral meeting this week?
• AU PM Scott Morrison referenced ANZUS while NZ PM Jacinda Ardern spoke of NZ’s defence requirements as an independent consideration.
• So who is correct here? Does Australia and New Zealand’s re-stated commitment to being a Trans-Tasman family drag NZ into supporting any future Australian conflict?

And then there’s China’s foreign ministry response, that states: “The leaders of Australia and New Zealand, with irresponsible remarks on China’s internal affairs relating to Hong Kong and Xinjiang as well as the South China Sea issue, have made groundless accusations against China…”

• Does AU and NZ governments’ renewed sense of self-identity indicate a rebalancing of a regional and global order? And has the PRC’s dominating influence in AU and NZ politics reached its zenith?
• And does the PRC’s increased authoritarianism at home and abroad reflect leadership weaknesses rather than strength?

*** Israel.

In the last quarter of this episode, Buchanan and Manning will discuss the latest from the Middle East.

• Will a cobbled-together coalition of anti-Netanyahu politicians succeed in creating a new Israel Government? How stable will it be, and, what does this mean for Palestinians in the West Bank of Gaza?

WE INVITE YOU TO PARTICIPATE WHILE WE ARE LIVE WITH COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS IN THE RECORDING OF THIS PODCAST:

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

The level of orchestration and political acting was turned up a notch this week in Queenstown by prime ministers Jacinda Ardern and Scott Morrison, who went to great pains to put on a highly contrived united front about their different orientations towards China. Clearly, both leaders were highly sensitive to the danger of the escalating tensions between the two countries getting out of hand, and consciously tried to dial back any public sense of differences.

The strategy was a tremendous success, resulting in dozens of media reports produced locally and overseas about the unity of the two leaders in the summit. It was a sharp contrast to the preceding weeks of increasing speculation about a split between the trans-Tasman counterparts over how to deal with Beijing.

The intense attempt to paper over the differences and to project a new common position on China has sparked further questions. Was it a case of Wellington being pulled into line over China? Or of Canberra having to move away from its critical stance towards Wellington’s foreign policy? It was probably a bit of both.

Newshub political editor Tova O’Brien portrayed the event as a deliberate move to prevent greater trans-Tasman conflict from breaking out: “Like so many family feuds, the leaders dealt with it all by playing happy families” – see: Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison departs New Zealand with no real shift on major trans-Tasman pressure points.

O’Brien points out that despite all the superficial unity, in terms of substance, “there has been no shift on the major pressure points affecting the trans-Tasman relationship.” She argues that Australia managed to come out on top, with Ardern not actually winning any concessions on important issues for her country: “There was plenty of talk but no real shifts in New Zealand’s favour on any of those pressure points. Australia does what it wants when it wants.”

The contrived unity of the leaders was emphasised by Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who describes the bilateral meeting as “highly orchestrated with them both walking on eggshells” – see: Jacinda Ardern and Scott Morrison’s fleeting trip to Queenstown highly orchestrated. He suggests the attempts to show unity is “a front simply because there’s trouble on the horizon [over China], and they will need each other”.

Soper reports that the level of personal friendship was played up for the public: “They’re Scott and Jenny to our Prime Minister and our first couple are Jacinda and Clarke to their Prime Minister. Never since the days of sleepovers by John Key at the Sydney mansion of Malcolm Turnbull has there been such transtasman bonhomie.”

The degree that the media were controlled at the summit by government spin-doctors is conveyed, with Soper saying he tried to ask Morrison the “only unscripted question” of the press conference, and Ardern shut this down, saying: “Oh look we won’t get into ad-libbing there Bri, Barry cos it’s not fair on everyone else”. Soper responds to this in his column: “That shows how stage managed this whole day was, journalists having to submit their questions in advance, presumably to ensure the experienced leaders aren’t blindsided and risk undoing all the love that had been so carefully expressed.”

For more on how stage-managed the event was, see Justin Giovannetti’s ‘How do you spell hongi?’ 26 hours in Queenstown with ScoMo and Jacinda. He playfully sums up the leaders meeting like this: “In a carefully cultivated display of family love, the two prime ministers — or as they put it: Scott and Jacinda — declared their countries to be devoted to each other, despite meddling foreign influences trying to drive them apart.”

Giovannetti reports that despite a media presence of about 50 people, New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs insisted on allowing only four questions, in advance, from each country’s respective media pack. The end result was that politicians were the winners, with little changing: “Both prime ministers got to go home with a win. Neither changed anything about their positions on China.”

Ardern and Morrison acted as a kind of tag-team against reporters’ attempts to find differences over the China issue. This is conveyed well in Jo Moir’s article, Scott Morrison kills any notion of China rift. She says that media were confronted by a “cuddle puddle”, and during the interview session, “Morrison was there to ‘concur’ and ‘agree’ with Ardern at every turn.”

Moir is unconvinced by Morrison’s repeated attempts to dissuade the media that the Australian Government is onside with Wellington’s approach towards China, and explains what she thinks is going on: “The Australian media haven’t created a China narrative out of thin air and the questions put to the leaders came from a place of some knowledge and insight from within Morrison’s government. It doesn’t make political sense for Morrison to speak of a war between New Zealand and Australia in such a public setting, and he is no doubt happy to leave that [anti-New Zealand message] to officials leaking to media and comments from his own colleagues, like his Defence Minister Peter Dutton.”

Moir also comments on the one area that the two leaders had obviously decided to allow differences to be shown: “The only thing the pair found something to disagree on during formal talks was the old trans-Tasman battle over Australia’s hard-line deportation policy.”

Heather du Plessis-Allan has characterised the meeting as a contrived “love fest” in which “ScoMo and Jacinda really want you to know they’re best friends right now” – see: Ardern and Morrison laid it on thick in Queenstown love fest.

Here’s her account of the attempt to at fake unity: “Both Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern went out of their way to convince us that they are friends. Jacinda Ardern mentioned more than once how often they talk to each other, saying at one stage during the Covid response she was in more contact with ScoMo than her mum. They swapped jerseys, and they drove it home by trying very hard to call each other by their first names. No Prime Minister Ardern and Prime Minister Morrison here. It was all Jacinda and Scott.”

Du Plessis-Allan says the strategy was “obviously an attempt to kill off perception that New Zealand is cosying up to China, and splitting from its western allies.” As to why this would be, she speculates on the possible audience being China, the US, or just all the critics of New Zealand’s orientation to China. It might also be a part of a general move by New Zealand more back into line with Australia: “Some believe New Zealand has realised its error in cosying up to China and is correcting it.”

Today’s Herald editorial isn’t buying all the forced bonhomie, instead lampooning how the rather contrived patching up of differences, including the press conference in which the big issue of China was constantly discussed without the country’s name being uttered – see: Editorial: Friends reunion for Five Eyes? (paywalled).

Here’s the newspaper’s conclusion: “Like the actors from the wildly popular TV show, we are bound to be friends for life. But, despite this week’s staged-for-photo hongi and sports jumper trading, the friendship appears as strained as it has ever been.”

Note, however, not everyone was so critically-minded about what happened in Queenstown – today’s Otago Daily Times salutes the visit as a great triumph, arguing that “we should not be too cynical” about the contrived friendliness and displays of unity, saying “it was impossible not to feel just a little warm inside about the resumption of Anzac relations” – see: That old Anzac spirit.

So, did Ardern capitulate to Morrison over China? There’s some sense of this in Richard Harman’s account of what happened in Queenstown: “What was evident both in the communique issued at the end of the pair’s talks and in their joint media conference was that New Zealand is now inching closer to Australia’s position on China. We are not there yet, but it would seem we are on our way” – see: Together – only slightly apart (paywalled). According to Harman, the joint statement to come out of Queenstown was much more in line with Australia’s orientation to China than New Zealand’s.

Despite Morrison’s friendly behaviour to Ardern this week, according to Harman, this shouldn’t disguise the fact that ultimately he’s much more concerned with staying on side with the US: “New Zealand may be family to Australia — as Morrison continually says — but its best mate is the United States.”

Audrey Young also points out that the “leaders’ joint statement is more direct [about China] this year”, and that “New Zealand has become more critical of China, not less” – see: Why Scott Morrison revived the Anzus alliance after talks with Ardern (paywalled). And she argues that Morrison’s friendly line towards New Zealand was entirely strategic: “He knows that any sense of public disagreement on China will please only China and as a regional leader, it is in his interests to present a unified position with New Zealand.”

Young suggests that there was in fact a heavy message given to New Zealand in Queenstown: “The fact that Scott Morrison deliberately alluded to the Anzus alliance with New Zealand twice is a departure from the usual invocations of the Anzac spirit. Analysts will be poring over his statements, especially in light of Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton’s public musings about armed conflict. These things are not said for nothing. The Anzus reference is likely a gesture on the part of Australia to remind New Zealand that it is a formal defence ally in dealing with the area known as the Indo Pacific and that requires obligations, not complete independence.”

Stuff political editor Luke Malpass similarly argues that Australia’s continued emphasis in Queenstown on the need for a “free and open Indo-Pacific” is telling, asserting that regional players need to push back stronger against China. And the “Anzac” rhetoric is translated: “In other words: both countries will seek to uphold and defend the US-led international order against Chinese assertiveness in the region” – see: Jacinda Ardern and Scott Morrison: an Anzac Indo-Pacific mission accomplished.

Nonetheless, Malpass concludes that the meeting was a great success for the two leaders: “New Zealand and Australia are singing from the same song sheet on China. And it is a domestic political win for both leaders. Australia thinks it has pulled New Zealand back into the sceptical-about-China club. While New Zealand, which never thought it was really out, gets to reaffirm that the trans-Tasman relationship and western alliance is bigger than any current leader.”

The response from Beijing to the Queenstown meeting can be read in Zane Small’s Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta brushes off China’s ‘predictable’ response to NZ-Australia statement on Hong Kong, Xinjiang. The key part of this is this statement of China’s foreign affairs spokesperson Wang Wenbin: “The leaders of Australia and New Zealand, with irresponsible remarks on China’s internal affairs relating to Hong Kong and Xinjiang as well as the South China Sea issue, have made groundless accusations against China, grossly interfered in China’s internal affairs and seriously violated the international law and basic norms governing international relations”.

But Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta isn’t too worried about this, and argues that Beijing won’t really find much to be offended by what Ardern and Morrison said, because “These joint statements are very predictable and consistent with what we’ve already said.”

Perhaps of much more interest and significance is an article published in the China state-controlled Global Times, which is highly sympathetic to New Zealand’s position and actions – see Ning Tuanhui’s Wellington continues its pragmatic policy despite Canberra pressure. The key part of this article is the following about the joint Ardern-Morrison communique: “The statement was more intended to show the two sides’ general unity. And by including these China-related issues in the statement, New Zealand was showing some respect and support for Australia’s feelings, instead of blindly joining an anti-China chariot.”

Finally, just why has Australia diverged from New Zealand’s pragmatic orientation towards China? Chris Trotter explains today that Australia has gone hard against China, risking disastrous trade wars and even all-out military conflict due to the rise of Christian fundamentalists to the top of their government – see: Australia’s Eschatological diplomacy.

If there were any doubts about Jacinda Ardern’s ability to deliver the goods as a campaigner, then they were quashed by her masterful performance against Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday.

Ardern made what is being reported as a “stunning attack” on the Australian Government, while standing alongside the Australian PM in a highly-orchestrated press conference. She declared his Government were in the wrong for deporting people to New Zealand who have very little connection with our country. She said, “We have a simple request. Send back Kiwis, genuine Kiwis – do not deport your people and your problems.” And she concluded: “We will own our people. We ask that Australia stop exporting theirs.”

Ardern’s extraordinary attack, and the reaction, is well covered by the Herald here: NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern lashes Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison – the reaction.

For a good report on the press conference, see Henry Cooke’s account: Extraordinary scene as Jacinda Ardern directly confronts Scott Morrison over deportations. He says the confrontation was highly unusual: “Ardern went for the jugular”, Morrison responded strongly, and “They didn’t just make their points and leave it at that – they directly argued with each other”.

Cooke looks at the motivations of both sides: “There was no softening of positions on either side. Both prime ministers were clearly playing to domestic audiences. Morrison got to look tough on criminals while Ardern got to look like a leader unafraid to smash another politician in the face when needed. It was quite a show.”

I’ve written for the Guardian today about the political calculations behind the PM’s performance – see: Taking on Scott Morrison over deportees is a win-win strategy for Jacinda Ardern.

In one respect, the attack is clearly an attempt by the Government to deal with the Opposition’s strong push on law and order issues: “It’s election year and National started the year ramping up talk about criminal gangs in New Zealand. While that’s to be expected every election year, there is evidence that the Australian deportation policy has contributed not just to growth in criminal activity but, alarmingly, to the establishment of a whole new gang culture imported from Australia.”

I explain the PM couldn’t let the National own this issue: “Ardern needed to be seen to be doing something about it, and directly confronting Morrison on his home turf certainly got everyone’s attention. Making this stand on the international stage, in such a commanding fashion, also ensured that opposition leader Simon Bridges was overshadowed and left with few options to attack her on.”

This was a departure for Ardern, who has been relatively quiet in dealing with other world leaders recently over other big issues. For example, last year she met with Donald Trump but did not raise any contentious issues such as climate change – see my Guardian column at the time: Ardern was supposed to be the anti-Trump, but she failed to speak truth to power.

So, Ardern has answered her critics and shown she will stand up to bigger countries when necessary. As I argued in today’s Guardian column, “Her supporters want to see her ruffle feathers internationally on issues of principle and humanitarianism, especially at a time when critics say she has been too pragmatic. Compassion, particularly when it comes to migrants, is one of her defining political characteristics, and in Scott Morrison she has almost the perfect foil. Standing up for the rights of New Zealand citizens abroad is always a winner.”

For more background on the political threat the deportation issue poses for the Government, and why Ardern had to respond so strongly, see Luke Malpass’ PM Jacinda Ardern gets a win in ScoMo’s territory.

He explains that deportations are linked to concern about a rise in gang problems here, made even more galling by the fact that New Zealand doesn’t treat Australians in the same way. Malpass says the deportation move “has sparked a crime wave in New Zealand, boosted gang membership and introduced a whole new Australian gang, the Comancheros, to these shores. It is a fair gripe. Under New Zealand law, with few exceptions, if you’ve been on these shores for 10 years you are considered New Zealand’s problem.”

National has started to make political capital out of this, and have been campaigning hard on the need to reciprocate and deport Australians, and this is worrying Labour: “The fascinating thing domestically is how the gangs and deportations issue is clearly now starting to nip at Labour’s heels. It has not been the party of law and order for many decades”, but with Ardern’s response on Friday, “Law and order just became a bigger part of the election campaign.”

In terms of impressing supporters, the strategy worked. For example, Labour blogger Greg Presland wrote about how Ardern had effectively snookered Bridges and shown her toughness: “National with its latest tough on crime approach will be hating this. Not only has Jacinda again displayed a backbone of steel but she has again shown that she is one of the most remarkable International leaders. The justice of her argument is clear.  And she has trashed traditional notions of how New Zealand Australia relations are conducted when making her point” – see: Do not deport your people and your problems to New Zealand.

Even some of the more sceptical voices on the left watched Ardern’s performance with great appreciation. For example, blogger Martyn Bradbury says “Jacinda stepped up……she is just such a class act isn’t she? She has acted with real leadership… She’s just amazing” – see: Jacinda robs Simon Bridges of his Australian thunder.

Bradbury also sees the electoral strategy as very smart, saying “Last week I thought Bridges had made a break through moment by promising to deport Australian criminals back home to Australia”, but now “she makes Simon’s earlier announcement of reciprocity look blunt and desperate”.

Ardern’s strong attack on the Australian Government over deportations was justified, according to Guardian reporter Ben Doherty, who specialises in immigration issues. He says: “Australia is unambiguously in the wrong here, and it has been consistently for years” – see: Not much love actually: Jacinda Ardern was right to call out Australia’s ‘corrosive’ policies.

Doherty argues: “countries are responsible for the people they create…They are Australian, and they are Australia’s responsibility. Just as parents can’t spurn their children who behave badly, states can’t simply foist people they find difficult onto other countries. The Australian government mounts arguments around national security and safety, but they are spurious, and made for the hackneyed political gain of being seen as tough on crime, and harsh towards ‘others’.”

Although Ardern is being widely celebrated for speaking out so strongly on Australia’s treatment of deportees, there are rumblings about her silence, so far, on controversial statements from one of her own ministers. On Saturday, NZ First’s Shane Jones went on Newshub Nation to say this about immigration: “If you want another million, 2 million, 3 million people, we should debate it and there should be a mandate, rather than opening up the options, unfettered, and everyone comes here from New Delhi. I don’t like that idea at all. I think the number of students that have come from India have ruined many of those institutions” – see Dan Satherley’s Shane Jones says Indian students have ‘ruined’ NZ academic institutions.

David Cormack suggests there is a clear mismatch between Ardern’s treatment of Morrison and her continued leniency towards Jones: “So as our Prime Minister was standing next to a man who has the leadership skills of a potato and telling him to change Australia’s domestic policy on deporting criminals, a man who sits in her Cabinet was back at home belching out vile racism. And will she say anything about it? I hope so, but I’m not holding my breath” – see: Jacinda Ardern’s deafening silence over Shane Jones ‘racist’ comments (paywalled).

Finally, comedian Oscar Kightley is impressed with Ardern’s press conference on Friday, saying it “felt like a turning point in terms of our relationship with Australia. Finally, a leader from here was willing to stand up and say what New Zealanders have been thinking since this discriminatory treatment started – see his broader outline of how this latest spat fits into the long-running relationship between the two countries: Jacinda Ardern’s shirtfront on ScoMo a turning point in trans-Tasman relations.