The New Zealand Government’s response to Israel-US attacks on Iran has revealed a chasm. On one side are those who argue; that New Zealand must stay aligned with its 20th century allies right or wrong.

On the other side are those who insist; that the long fought for reputation, of a nation that stood for an international order based on law, justice and multilateralism, should be the guiding principles in good times and bad.

New Zealand has inched toward such societal rifts before; the Springbok Rugby tour of New Zealand in 1981; shortly followed by a generational shift and geo-political quake that came in the form of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear movement and subsequent enduring legislation. The United Nations security council endorsed response in Afghanistan to attacks on the United States shook the foundations of the Labour-Alliance coalition Government in 2001-02. And the fraudulently justified US-led invasion of Iraq triggered hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to protest in the streets. (The Helen Clark Labour-led Government of the time refused to officially be included among the US-led coalition forces that invaded Iraq.)

In recent times, old loyalties and biases have been challenged with the genocidal disproportional response by Israel against Hamas and generally Palestinian woman, children, and the elderly whose only offence was to exist in the path of the military machine.

And now, the US Donald Trump Administration’s alliance with Israel has unilaterally justified its attacks on Iran – the murder of its supreme leader and the assassination of over 40 individuals in its operational chain of command – as a legal pre-emptive response to a perceived first-strike-plan by Iran. This, while negotiations were underway to address regional security concerns.

This is the backdrop to New Zealand Government’s response where Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters wrote on Sunday March 1:

“In this context, we acknowledge that the actions taken overnight by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.

“We condemn in the strongest terms Iran’s indiscriminate retaliatory attacks on Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. We cannot risk further regional escalation, and civilian life must be protected.” (Ref. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-government-statement-iran )

*******

LISTEN: To Radio New Zealand’s The Panel, where host Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Sue Bradford and Phil O’Reilly. First up, is an extended conversation on the US and Israel attack on Iran. Columnist and Iranian New Zealander, Donna Miles-Mojab, delivers her take on the conflict and what it means for the regime. Then, I (Selwyn Manning) give an analysis on New Zealand’s stance and the legality of the attack.

It’s well worth a listen, as the fault line of New Zealand debate is clear.

*******

For those who are prepared to abandon the process of law and justice on international affairs, the New Zealand Government’s statement offered clarity; that their government would stand at the side of traditional security ‘friends’ as they commit to fight against another ‘evil’ empire.

For others, the statement was another example of mediocrity from a coalition that lacks a morality within its own argument – an apparent abandonment of principles such as international law and multilateralism – frameworks that have served small significant nations like New Zealand well.

The argument follows; that New Zealand’s coalition government has jeopardised the national interest, the hard won identity respected by those nations that still hold true to multilateralism and principle.

Here’s a please explain moment:

New Zealand is a small nation, but it is a significant actor in international affairs. Once, it could be relied upon – especially on matters of principle – to articulate a strong position on breaches of international law and justice. We have held positions at the United Nations security council, have been a driven advocate among general assembly nations and a persuasive arbiter among multilateral groups such as CANZ (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) that tag-team diplomacy at the United Nations and elsewhere.

New Zealand was once a staunch advocate (and remains a member state) of the International Criminal Court. And, in matters of trade, New Zealand sought to develop common ground rather than difference – tools that have been beneficial to others in times past when conflict has raged and red-mist would otherwise have dominated attempts at a diplomatic solution.

Today’s New Zealand is a myriad of conflicting arguments; its current coalition government argues that Iran’s regime is evil so therefore the powerful must bomb it to peace.

But the fact that the Iran regime is not a paragon of virtue – either domestically or regionally – does not diminish the fact that the United States’ and Israel’s governments decided to attack – decisions that allegedly and arguably breach international law.

International law: In a rudimentary sense; it comes down to whether Israel in the first instance was legally obliged to commit a preemptive strike on Iran, murdering its supreme leader and taking out over 40 of those who were in its chain of command.

Was there an imminent threat to Israel? At this juncture, it appears not.

Were diplomatic efforts underway to address regional security concerns, through US diplomatic efforts? Yes… up until Thursday February 26.

When Opposition Is Beyond Political

Back to New Zealand: New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, on matters of geopolitics and global security, often appears to operate more like a CEO rather than the chair of a nation’s cabinet.

Widespread reports of the Prime Minister’s lack of coherency on this matter is reasonably consistent with a manager waiting to be guided by a governor, or board chair by way of policy, on the required pathway ahead.

The problem for Christopher Luxon is; he has no such external nor internal guidance. In geopolitics and matters of global security, policy alone does not help. Natural leadership qualities do.

Throughout his prime ministership, Luxon has displayed a tendency to outsource foreign affairs leadership responsibilities to his junior coalition partner, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. Or, when that doesn’t work, he leans toward Australia and/or the United States to provide direction on big picture issues.

But for many New Zealanders, New Zealand can’t have it both ways; either it (the coalition government) sides with the ‘might-is-right’ Trump-led approach to chaotic global affairs, or it sides with the multitude of countries that still hold on to principles of justice and international law.

Where will New Zealand as a society tilt? It will likely be up to New Zealand voters, later in 2026, to finally decide which way this country tracks over the next few years.

US President Trump’s vanity and sense of global imperialism has become more expansive and performative this year.

These are times when countries like New Zealand, lacking persuasive moral leadership, can easily lose their souls, and, in the process of being risk averse, risk abandoning their own sovereignty, national interest, and identity.

*******

Luxon claimed the issue was ‘complex’ and New Zealanders should not expect a decision until well after his foreign minister Winston Peters has spoken on the matter at the United Nations in New York.

Advocacy group, Palestinian Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), immediately issued a statement headlined: Genocide is not ‘complex’, it’s a ‘cowards’ way out’.

It the statement, PSNA co-spokesperson John Minto said the ‘complexity’ excuse for cabinet inaction on Palestine this morning is “a cowards’ way out for the government to avoid even the most tepid policy to oppose Israeli genocide in Gaza”.

John Minto, said the New Zealand Government recognised Palestine at the United Nations in 1947.

“It’s taken nearly 80 years to work out ways to make that real and it still can’t do it.

“(Winston) Peters needed very clear and strong instructions to take to the UN, where he could have joined the calls for the growing list of sanctions to be imposed on Israel,” John Minto said.

He added: “In just over two days last week, Israel demolished fifty of the tallest residential tower blocks in Gaza City.  That’s a rate of destruction of more than one every hour and thousands more people made homeless.

“There’s nothing about defending borders, or implementing a strategy of getting hostages released in all of this barbarous onslaught by Israel.  It’s self-declared ethnic cleansing.”

Minto said the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, must face up to Israel’s blatant violations of international laws and conventions.

“At the same time, Israel has tried to kill the Hamas negotiations team by bombing them in Qatar.  New Zealand has declared that the issues can only be resolved through negotiations, but has said not one word of complaint that Israel is murdering the negotiators.”

He said there is a “yawning gap” between the government’s policy towards Russia and that towards Israel.

“Winston Peters has just implemented its thirty-second sanction measure against Russia. That does not seem to be complex,” John Minto said.

Christopher Luxon is finding his foreign policy feet.

Now eight months into the job, New Zealand’s Prime Minister is in Washington DC this week to attend the NATO summit.

It is the third year in a row that Wellington has been invited to the annual gathering of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the West’s premier political and military alliance. This year’s meeting – already carrying special weight by commemorating the 75^th anniversary of NATO’s founding – looks set to be the most substantive summit yet in terms of New Zealand’s involvement.

New plans are being unveiled for NATO’s cooperation with its ‘Indo-Pacific 4’ (or ‘IP4’) partners: Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. Four joint projects from the IP4 and NATO will focus on Ukraine, artificial intelligence, disinformation and cybersecurity, according to US officials.

This marks new territory for New Zealand – and something of a turnaround.

While it sent two Prime Ministers to NATO, New Zealand’s previous Labour Government had delayed formalising expanded bilateral links with the alliance.

Australia, Japan and South Korea all finalised ‘Individually Tailored Partnership Programmes’ (or ITPPs) with NATO by last year – but New Zealand’s formal ties remained a work in progress.

This may have been driven by a degree of caution on the part of Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, who attended NATO as New Zealand Prime Ministers in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

Both Ardern and Hipkins were proponents of New Zealand’s ‘independent foreign policy’. The doctrine, developed after the US downgraded ties with New Zealand in the 1980s, has seen New Zealand build strong relations with China.

A major reason for NATO’s invitation to the IP4 to its Madrid summit in 2022 was to support the launch of the alliance’s new long-term blueprint. The Strategic Concept openly called out China for its ‘stated ambitions and coercive policies’ and pinpointed Beijing as a source of ‘systemic challenges’ for the alliance.

After Ardern attended the 2022 NATO gathering, the Chinese Embassy in Wellington issued a statement noting Beijing’s opposition to ‘all kinds of military alliances, bloc politics, or exclusive small groups’.

Two years on, New Zealand has a new centre-right government. Winston Peters, Luxon’s foreign minister, signalled in April that an ITPP was very much still on its way. Peters himself is known for his pro-US views and more hawkish stance towards China.

China’s reaction to the new NATO-IP4 joint projects remains to be seen. But Beijing is unlikely to be mollified by the fact that the plans avoid any direct mention of China, given the trajectory of closer IP4-NATO cooperation.

Stronger ties with NATO may present particular geopolitical risks for Wellington. NATO is solely a political and military alliance; no companion trade deals are on offer. China has been New Zealand’s biggest trading partner since 2017, while access to most North American and European markets remains heavily restricted for New Zealand exporters.

Aware of the sensitivities of NATO’s interest in China, Christopher Luxon has been keen this week to put the focus on Ukraine – the subject of one of the new NATO-IP4 cooperation projects and tying in with this year’s overall summit theme, ‘Ukraine and transatlantic security’.

To that end, New Zealand’s Prime Minister has announced a modest new $NZ16 million package of aid for Kyiv, of which $NZ4 million appears to be for weaponry. The funds come on top of a $NZ26 million package announced in February, of which $NZ6.5 million was allocated for lethal aid.

The arms contributions are significant because under the previous Labour Government, Wellington had become reluctant to send Ukraine additional lethal aid (or money to purchase it) after making a one-off $NZ7.5 million contribution in April 2022.

After this week’s announcement, Luxon wrote on social media: ‘New Zealand understands that while we are distant from Ukraine, what happens there affects us all, and we are prepared to stand with Ukraine for the long haul’.

It was the Prime Minister’s second Ukraine-related post for the week.

By contrast, there was little publicity this week of New Zealand’s participation in a joint briefing published by a large number of NATO and IP4 security agencies, including New Zealand’s National Cyber Security Centre. The 28-page publication focused on the ‘tradecraft’ used in relation to Australia by ‘APT40’, defined as a ‘People’s Republic of China (PRC) state-sponsored cyber group’.

Given the advisory’s target and its authors, it seems very unlikely to be a coincidence that the document was released just prior to the NATO summit.

Stepping back, it is worth reflecting how this week’s NATO focus has shifted the spotlight away from the debate over whether Wellington will join AUKUS – the high-level defence pact that currently involves Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Much ink has been spilled over the merits and drawbacks of New Zealand becoming a member of the ostensibly technology-focused ‘Pillar II’ strand of AUKUS.

With time running out for New Zealand to join AUKUS before US elections in November, New Zealand’s Prime Minister may be turning the page.

For Christopher Luxon, AUKUS may not be needed at all.

A deeper partnership with NATO could be more than enough.

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 at the University of Otago on New Zealand’s relations with the Gulf states.

Collectiveness at it most potent has been called asabiyya by macrohistorian and cliodynamicist Peter Turchin. At its least potent, collectiveness is a recipe for social division, top-heaviness, escalating inequality, and societal breakdown.

The present ‘debates’ in Aotearoa New Zealand – ostensibly about Te Tiriti, the Treaty of Waitangi – represent a case in point. Increased bipartisanship festers, with the two sides largely talking past each other.

Pre-contact indigenous culture in Aotearoa New Zealand can be characterised as on the collectivist side of the collective-individual spectrum, at least with respect to tribal Iwi; whereas anglo-celtic culture was and is much more individualist. The protagonists on the Māori side of our present governance-wars are rhetorically harking back to the more collectivist worldview of their ancestral predecessors. And they are indulging in forms of co-sovereignty rhetoric that border on separate governance, without much explanation of what that means for individual Aotearoans.

One aspect of the more collectivist conceptual apparatus is the language, Te Reo. There is no explicit plural form. The word Māori covers Māori as a collective (or as a set of tribal collectives) and Māori as a set of individuals. While non-Māori used to refer to Māori as ‘Maoris’, this is simply not done in polite circles anymore. (I remember in 1984, how the leader of the “New Zelland Party” used to refer to “the Marries”.) Yet I do it here, as a way to emphasise my differentiation of collective Māori from individual ‘Maoris’.

In addition to pre-contact cultural differences in relation to the collective-individual spectrum, the established political Left and the established political Right (at least as we understand those terms in Aotearoa New Zealand; the United States has muddied those waters) define themselves through that spectrum. So Māori on the Left of politics have two predispositions towards collectivism. (Here we must note that the present ‘sovereignty debate’ is at least as much a debate within Māori as between Māori and non-Māori; the principal antagonists as well as the principal protagonists are conspicuously Māori. Twenty-first century Māori culture is by no means as collectivist as the rhetoric of the protagonists conveys; the divisions are Left versus Right, with a cultural overlay.)

Vertical Equity and ‘Targeting’; trickle-down or micro-management

Vertical equity is not a liberal concept (refer to my To be (a) liberal). Whereas horizontal equity means ‘treating equals equally’ – a concept central to (individualist) liberalism – vertical equity means ‘treating unequals unequally’. Discrimination. The liberals of the political Right, who emphasise the targeting of social services and public income distribution, square this illiberal circle by emphasising policies which solely target ‘need’; not race nor religion, not sex nor gender.

The political ‘progressives’ of the Left emphasise a collective form of targeting, but cannot (or refuse to) individualise this. Thus they may advocate more resources for Māori (and often tag-on Pasifika) and more resources for women; but they avoid any korero about individual discrimination.

At Budget-time, we have routinely heard the claim that there is not enough provision in the Budget – the government’s annual fiscal statement – for Māori. Perhaps less so from 2018 to 2022. But what does that mean? Resources for Māori? Or for ‘Maoris’?

The collectivist approach mandates that discrimination happens at the top-level of political society; at the governance level. Thus bureaucracies are created or extended – including governmental ‘entities’, and indeed ‘non-governmental’ entities (which nevertheless depend on government mandates) – which are openly discriminatory in their intent.

Discrimination in favour of an allegedly disadvantaged identity is justified through a process of leverage. Statistics are gathered from individuals and coded according to attributes – especially ethnicity, sex or gender, and health status; age and religion are less fashionable at present. The never unexpected results are then presented to justify forms of collective discrimination in the political process. Predictably, the incomes of ‘Maoris’ are lower on average than the incomes of ‘non-Maoris’, and female incomes are lower on average than male incomes.

The aim of this political process is not to remove these statistical differences. Rather it is to justify and extend identity bureaucracies – indeed to create advocacy ‘industries’ around such statistical differences – in such a way that there is a large suite of highly-paid jobs available to highlight these inequalities of averages. Such political theatre typically generates much heat and very little actionable ‘light’.

Essentially, what is supposed to happen is that much resource goes into these funded governance structures, and it is meant to trickle-down to the leverage group of disadvantaged people. The result in practice is that Left governments consume large slices of the national income, while achieving very little for the disadvantaged groups ostensibly being served. Trickle-down never worked. Instead the result is too much political superstructure and too little ballast. Government becomes top-heavy.

(These same principles apply to the under-provision – and particularly the lack of maintenance – of physical infrastructure as well. Hence all the water leaks from neglected pipes, and potholes across the roading network; pipes are ballast, and potholes are examples of missing ballast. Gold-plated schemes are created and discarded.)

Policies which benefit ‘Maoris’

The disconnect between the Treaty Māori and the leaders of the present government, is that the present leaders have an individualist mindset which means the parties talk past each other. Chrisopher Luxon genuinely wants to improve life for ‘Maoris’. Problems arise because his philosophical approach of targeting the needy – disproportionately ‘Maoris’ – has its own bureaucratic short-comings; and because his understandings of public finance are medieval (in the better sense of that word), and because he is a mercantilist at heart. Mr Luxon equates national progress with ‘making money’, with the accrual of financial wealth.

Nevertheless, and despite his philosophical blindspots, Luxon is correct to emphasise that expanding discriminatory superstructure is part of the problem, rather than a solution, to the statistical disadvantages used to justify that superstructure. Christoper Luxon and David Seymour clearly understand that effective direct support for the disadvantaged will disproportionately assist ‘Maoris’, because Maoris are disproportionately disadvantaged. Further, direct assistance also provides support for disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’, who are no more nor less deserving. Indeed – and given the practical Ministry of Health definition of who is a ‘Maori’ – there are more disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’ in Aotearoa New Zealand than disadvantaged ‘Maoris’ (because ‘Maoris’ represent perhaps twenty percent of that database of individual Aoteroans).

Collectivism and Individualism

As Stephen Joyce noted in his recent book, collectivism has an individual dimension and individualism necessarily has a collectivist dimension. Both sides of the present ‘debate’ need to expand their fields of vision, and address these blindspots.

‘Trickle-down’ policies have wasted much of this nation’s income. The Left version of trickle-down is no better than the Right version (which includes ‘tax-cuts for the rich’) which the Left like to lampoon. And the Right indulge in much more collectivism – albeit private sector collectivism – than they would ever want to admit. (Proper macro-accounting, incorporating public equity, helps to reveal the over-distribution of resources to elite private interests.)

It is clear that Christopher Luxon and David Seymour would have preferred not to have Winston Peters and Shane Jones as lead rhetoricians for their government. The irony is that, with one small adjustment to National’s tax policies, National would probably have got at least five percent more votes, and we would have a two-party rather than a three party coalition today. The adjustment was to have an income tax policy which only gave tax cuts to people earning less than $180,000 a year. National’s rhetoric of tax cuts to “low and middle income earners” was hollow, because everyone knew that high income earners were also getting the maximum tax cut (not counting a contrived higher amount only envisaged for a few thousand families). All National had to do was to bring the top tax threshold down to about $160,000 (refer my Christopher Luxon is tone deaf, 14 Nov 2023); but it did not do this, on account of its own lack of imagination and unwillingness to seek or take advice from outsiders.

Māori are important to Aotearoa New Zealand, not because of their ‘race’ but because they were Aotearoa’s first boat people. The Tiriti is not about ethnicity – though it is about indigeneity – and people who want to continue discussing its principles are not racist. Separatist agendas based on distinguishing individual Aotearoans on the basis of their race – their ethnicity, their ancestry – are racist. Collectivism averts the racist problem of individual discrimination, but creates another problem; the growth of an expanded high-earning elite class which leverages off rather than practically addresses socio-economic problems which are there for all to see.

Christopher Luxon operates by a mercantilist metaphor that sees Aotearoa New Zealand as a ship that must “go forward”. While that metaphor represents both shallow politics and shallow economics, the prime minister does at least understand that superstructure sinks ships.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Analysis by Keith Rankin.

The new government is making a weak start to its tenure. On Morning Report (RNZ, 28 Nov 2023, Prime Minister Luxon to lead first cabinet meeting), Mr Luxon repeated a comment such as he has made several times before: “The number one job is to rebuild the economy so we can lower the cost of living so everyone can get ahead“. Three clichés in one short sentence!

First cliché. Is the economy destroyed, and therefore in need of rebuilding? Or is Mr Luxon planning to destroy the economy, so that it can be rebuilt? Or is he just speaking inane hyperbole?

Second cliché. Is Mr Luxon calling for deflation? Is he promising to lower the CPI (consumers price index)? That’s a literal interpretation of what he said.

Or did he mean to say: ‘lower the rate of inflation’? That is, did he mean to say that his aim is to slowdown the rate at which the cost of living is increasing? (We’ll ignore for now the fact that ‘inflation’ and ‘an increasing cost of living’ are technically and practically different things, although they are related through the concept of ‘rising prices’.)

For most of the 2010s, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand was waging a quixotic war against price deflation, on the basis that deflation is worse than inflation. Mr Luxon now seems to be saying that deflation is a desirable thing. Yet, as I understand it, the changes which he wants to make to the Policy Targets Agreement (the Government’s contract with the Reserve Bank) are to create a single mandate that makes inflation compulsory.

Third cliché. Can everyone get ahead? Ahead of who or what? The natural understanding of this aspiratorial cliché is the metaphor of a running race. In one sense everybody gets ahead if they all reach the finish line, because they will be ahead of the start line. But in another sense ‘getting ahead’ means ‘winning’ or at least ‘not losing’; in this sense its logically impossible for everyone to get ahead.

As I understand it, ‘getting ahead’ is an awkward cliché for ‘equality of opportunity’. ‘Equality of opportunity’ is a mantra for centrist liberalism which I suspect that the outgoing Chris and the incoming Christopher both subscribe to. The metaphor is that life is a running race (the human race?) and the starting point is at the ‘age of majority’; say, 18. The ideal is that every adult starts as equals. (The two variations are the Act liberal race, which is like Formula One motor racing, where the most likely winners have favourable starting positions; whereas the Labour liberal race is more like the Melbourne Cup, where the more-likely winners are subject to a handicap.)

This concept of centrist liberalism explains why we are so obsessed with ‘child poverty’ and so little concerned with adverse outcomes in adult life. As the story goes, adults are ‘free to choose’ and must ‘lie in the beds’ that we (as adults) make for ourselves. In this narrative, children are not free to choose; social policy is therefore all about ensuring an equitable (or acceptable) starting line for the race of life.

The idea that everyone gets ahead seems very socialist to me. Under liberalism, some people do get behind. Necessarily.

Why do media interviewers meekly accept these clichés?

Two Other Clichés

I’ll mention two other common clichés, without much elaboration. These are most often heard by mainstream commentators. Refer to RNZ The Panel part 1, 27 November 2023.

The fourth cliché is that we should have a longer parliamentary term (than three years) because we waste the election year on politicking, and waste the year after elections in getting set-up. It’s an assertion repeated repeatedly; but rarely examined. Nobody mentions that the United States’ parliament (Congress) has a two-year term. And few mention the fact that most United Kingdom parliaments do not go full term.

The fifth cliché is that ‘there is only so much money’ to go around. This glib statement is patently false, yet almost always presumed to be true; money is a social technology, not some magical mined mineral. This cliché, subscribed to by the entire Aotearoan political class in 2023, has jammed New Zealand politics into a tight stalemate; into a nasty zero-sum game that ruined the 2023 election. As a result, the new government, in being required to abandon one oft-lampooned method (taxes on foreign buyers of luxury homes) of funding nominal tax cuts, has been required to find another source of funds. So, shock horror, they are choosing a policy that they claim will increase revenue from tobacco taxes. This may well be a bad health policy, though it’s not that clear. But the state of political discourse is so clichéd that the obvious solution – to budget for a slightly larger fiscal deficit – is ‘off the table’, politically speaking. ‘Unfunded’ (ie deficit) spending is a necessity in capitalism; somebody has to incur deficits (it might as well be the government); and as economies grow, total deficits must also grow.

A related cliché, which is less obviously untrue, is that ‘borrowed money has to be paid back’. In fact, borrowed money must be serviced. In public finance, the near-universal truth is that borrowed money is serviced, both through interest payments and rollovers of principal. (Otherwise, money is paid forward, not paid back; eg when I pay down a bank loan, the bank advances that money to someone else. Money literally paid back is money destroyed.) This version of the cliché is like believing that God requires the universe to be ‘paid back’.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.