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.

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.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

It might have taken six weeks to decide the shape of New Zealand’s next government (or three if you count from the final results), but in the end that is the nature of proportional representation. Compromise, trade-offs and haggling are the price of an MMP electoral system designed to avoid single-party rule.

So, after some intermittently passive-agressive political posturing and much striding through airports, the deals were done and signed off in Wellington today. Both the ACT and NZ First parties have agreed, with exemptions, to National Party’s fiscal plan, tax plan and 100-day plan.

With two of the three coalition parties having run on campaign slogans about “taking back” the country and putting it “back on track”, there was a predictable sense of a return to policies of the past.

The Reserve Bank will again be focused on price stability, schools will be required to teach the basics, red tape and civil servant numbers will be cut, the “three strikes” provision will be restored to the Sentencing Act, te reo Māori in government agency names will be reduced, landlords will enjoy interest deductibility, and tax “relief” is again front and centre.

Not everyone got their way, of course. National has had to drop its plan to fund income tax cuts with a levy on foreign property buyers. And ACT’s proposed referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi becomes a Treaty Principles Bill that will go through the select committee process.

Unpredictable internal dynamics

Unsurprisingly, in this coalition of many colours, National secures the lion’s share of the 30 positions in the executive (including positions within and outside cabinet), holding 19 roles. ACT and NZ First both have three positions inside cabinet, with their leaders sharing the deputy prime minister role in turn.

Past coalitions have tended to comprise one major party flanked by a smaller partner on its left or right. Sometimes, too, those governments (single- or multi-party) have been supported on confidence and supply by parliamentary partners who formally sit outside cabinet but occasionally get executive spots.

But this will be the first formal three-party coalition New Zealand has had: one government based on two agreements wrapping together three parties. A government can only ever speak with a single voice, but this one has multiple moving parts.

It will also have an unpredictable internal dynamic. A single relationship between a senior and junior partner is one thing; this government has three discrete relationships, and they will not always be in harmony.

Incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon had the phrase “strength and stability” on high rotation during negotiations: the structural design of his government will test the bar he has set.

Leer más:
From a red tide in 2020 to blood on the floor in 2023 – NZ slams the door on Labour

Dispute resolution

The shape of the administration, and the chequered coalition history of NZ First leader Winston Peters, mean the processes put in place to ensure the effective day-to-day management of the government take on added significance.

Those arrangements are surprisingly thin. A coalition committee will monitor progress against the contents of both agreements. But it will only meet once during each House sitting period. This is a strategic committee, not one established to deal with the routine political challenges associated with keeping a three-way coalition on the rails.

Nor is it entirely clear how the daily conversations required in multi-party governments – including finding time on the legislative agenda to get through two coalition agreements’ worth of work, let alone all of the other policy challenges the next three years will deliver – are going to be structured. Surprisingly, there is no reference to holding regular meetings of the party leaders.

Instead, beyond a beige agreement to “undertake their best endeavours to achieve consensus on Cabinet decisions”, and the now standard MMP commitment to a “no surprises” policy, the parties’ respective chiefs of staff will be the key players.

They are the ones to whom disagreements between parties will be referred. Only if they cannot resolve the issue will the party leaders be drawn in. It is a reactive rather than an active model.

Beyond that, there is the standard commitment to maintain collective cabinet responsibility, and to the long-established “agree to disagree” provisions contained in the Cabinet Manual. And that’s it.

Potential fault lines

It is already possible to discern some of the challenges the coalition is going to face. The first will be finding an equilibrium point.

ACT’s more doctrinaire MPs will chafe at being dragged to the economic centre by NZ First. Likewise, NZ First’s social conservatives and economic nationalists will not enjoy aspects of ACT’s libertarianism.

Luxon will be constantly reminded that being a prime minister in a three-party coalition is not like being a corporate CEO – and not all his challenges will come from Peters or ACT leader David Seymour.

For instance, there will be National MPs who were spokespeople during the previous parliament but who now see an ACT or NZ First minister in “their” cabinet seat. In time, ambitious people who missed out on ministerial appointment can become restive.

Leer más:
Lost voices: ethnic diversity in the New Zealand parliament will decline after the 2023 election

More broadly, tensions may well emerge between cabinet’s role as the centre of policy and political decision making and the prerogatives of individual ministers. It is not hard to envisage, say, a National minister pressing ahead with policy in their department rather than having always to run the coalition gauntlet in cabinet.

If this happens on any serious scale, not only will the fundamental principle of collective responsibility come under pressure, whole-of-government coordination (which is likely to be tested anyway by plans to cut the public service) will become challenging.

A loose federation of parties

Finally, small parties that prop up larger ones in office have often fared badly at the next election.

Having returned National to office in 1996, for example, NZ First came within 63 votes in Tauranga from tumbling out of parliament in 1999. In 2020, three years after installing a Labour-led government, it was turfed out.

ACT has no comparable record. But if the past is any guide, if polls start looking shaky for the smaller parties, watch for toys being ejected from political cots.

Today was all about the choreographed unveiling of a new government. But the extent to which the administration’s promises come to pass will depend on how the three parties get on once the gloss has come off and the pressure is on.

The coalition agreements are full of policy. But read the documents carefully and it is hard to escape the impression that, when it comes to the back-office arrangements that make governments tick, this is less a single government in lock-step than a loose governing federation of three parties. Now we get to find out if three parties can fit into one government.

Richard Shaw no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Three parties, two deals, one government: the stress points within New Zealand’s ‘coalition of many colours’ – https://theconversation.com/three-parties-two-deals-one-government-the-stress-points-within-new-zealands-coalition-of-many-colours-217673

In this the sixth episode of A View from Afar for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning present a two-part episode to analyse what to make of New Zealand Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins’ bilateral meetings with People’s Republic of China’s President Xi JinPing and other leaders of the PRC.

In part one, Paul and Selwyn also consider how the PRC-NZ trade relationship is seen in the eyes of New Zealand’s security partners.

Then, in the second half of today’s podcast, Paul and Selwyn analyse the most recent events in Russia – events that have taken shape since Wagner Commander Yevgeny Prigozhin’s pronounced intent to mobilise his mercenaries against the Russian Federation’s top two military heads, and, while doing so, pronounced that the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine was based on falsehoods.

What should we expect next? What is the real state of Putinism? What do the political and power elites in Russia make of President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the matter?

Weeks prior to this event happening inside Russia, Paul and Selwyn analysed the question: How stable is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hold on power? It’s a question that all those who watch Russian affairs have now been confronted with.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn unpack the complexity, look at what has changed as opposed to what has been said.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recordings of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

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

RECOGNITION: 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.

Warm and constructive.

That’s how Chris Hipkins wanted his meeting with Xi Jinping on Tuesday to be remembered.

The New Zealand Prime Minister deployed the ‘warm and constructive’ phrase at least eight times in a subsequent press conference with New Zealand media.

Hipkins was also keen to note that ‘the meeting was at no point adversarial’. This served to reinforce the impression of warmth.

It also matched with opening public comments by Xi, who said Hipkins’ visit was of ‘great significance’. Xi pointed to the ‘tangible benefits to the two peoples’ that had emerged since China entered into a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with New Zealand in 2014.

Xi added ‘we will continue to see each other as partners instead of rivals’, according to a Reuters report that cited Chinese state media.

By emphasising the friendliness of the meeting, Hipkins was also drawing a contrast with claims that his foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta, had received an ‘epic haranguing’ when she met her Chinese counterpart in Beijing in March.

The timing of the leaked description to ‘The Australian’ newspaper was strategic and threatened to derail Hipkins’ much sought-after appointment with Xi.

The reporting has not been denied, with Mahuta since confirming her meeting with Qin Gang was ‘very robust’.

Against this, Hipkins’ refusal to sign up to Joe Biden’s description of Xi as a ‘dictator’ would have been well received by Beijing.

Hipkins refused to say whether the ‘dictator’ issue had been brought up by Xi – but said he did not raise it himself.

China has yet to release its own account of the Xi-Hipkins meeting, leaving New Zealand’s version of the private section of the encounter largely to stand as the initial record.

But some intriguing insights into the thinking of the Chinese leadership in relation to New Zealand can be found in the semi-official Global Times newspaper.

In an article published late on Tuesday that focused on a range of diplomatic visits to China this week, New Zealand took centre-stage – even overshadowing analysis of Mongolia and Vietnam, China’s neighbours.

The newspaper depicted New Zealand as something of a role model for other Western countries, noting Wellington’s reputation for ‘independent policymaking’ and bipartisan consensus on ‘how to get along with China’. According to the paper, New Zealand showed how ‘Western countries can withstand the pressures of unilateralism, Cold War mentality and hegemony’.

The praise from the Global Times referenced approvingly Hipkins’ stance on the recent ‘dictator’ spat. The paper said the incident was an example of New Zealand’s ‘non-interference when dealing with China’ and contrasted sharply with the ‘arrogant and offensive attitude of Washington’.

After his meeting with Xi, Hipkins appeared somewhat nervous and at times uncharacteristically tongue-tied when answering questions from the New Zealand media – a sign that he was aware of the diplomatic stakes of the bilateral meeting.

Hipkins carefully declined to be drawn on what views Xi expressed during the private meeting, saying that ‘wouldn’t be diplomatic or appropriate’.

But the New Zealand PM did reveal that AUKUS ‘wasn’t specifically discussed’ during the meeting.

When asked, Hipkins also disclosed that New Zealand’s growing ties with NATO were not canvassed.

However, the meeting with Xi was a big picture one and it would not be unusual for these issues of detail to be addressed in a more indirect fashion.

Hipkins said the main focus of the meeting was on New Zealand’s economic ties with China.

But he added that issues such as the US-China relationship, the Pacific, the war in Ukraine and human rights were also covered in a ‘free-flowing dialogue’.

The official statement issued by the New Zealand PM’s office used softer language than the press conference.

For example, there is no direct mention of ‘human rights’ in the readout. Instead, it was noted that the pair ‘engaged on areas where our cultures and political systems differ’.

There was only one, relatively minor faux pas from Hipkins.

During the initial portion of the meeting that was open to media, Xi called New Zealand a ‘friend and partner’.

But when asked by media whether he would reciprocate this assessment, Hipkins initially dodged, responding ‘I would describe the relationship between New Zealand and China as an incredibly important one’.

Hipkins appeared to realise the ramifications of his answer as the questioning on the ‘friend and partner’ issue continued. He later added ‘it depends on the context, but yes, by and large’.

In length, Hipkins’ 40-minute meeting with Xi ran for ten minutes longer than scheduled.

Jacinda Ardern, Hipkins’ predecessor, received 50 minutes for her own meeting with Xi on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Bangkok last November.

We should not read too much into this discrepancy.

After all, it is a busy week for China, which is also hosting its first summer meetings of the World Economic Forum since 2019.

On Tuesday, Xi also met with the prime ministers of Barbados, Mongolia and Vietnam.

Moreover, Hipkins’ counterparts from the other ‘Five Eyes’ countries – Australia, Canada, the UK and US – are not currently being hosted in Beijing at all.

Chris Hipkins has passed his first major diplomatic test.

His first meeting with Xi Jinping was a success.

It genuinely was warm and constructive.

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.

Timing is everything.

After months of mixed signals, Chris Hipkins will head to China at the end of June.

The New Zealand Prime Minister’s long-awaited visit to Beijing will come shortly before he attends July’s NATO summit in Vilnius.

The careful timing of the PM’s China trip – billed as a trade mission – offers advantages to both the Chinese and New Zealand sides.

For Beijing, the tour will provide a valuable opportunity to influence the leader of a ‘Five Eyes’ country, just before Hipkins takes his seat at the NATO table in Lithuania.

NATO last year launched a new ‘Strategic Concept’ that called out China for its ‘stated ambitions and coercive policies’ and pinpointed the country as a source of ‘systemic challenges’ for the alliance.

For Wellington, the fact that Hipkins is choosing to visit China first – immediately prior to the NATO summit – will be a chance to balance up its recent foreign policy trajectory.

Since Hipkins took over as Prime Minister in January, New Zealand has generally sailed a more hawkish, pro-US course.

The latest instalment in that story came on Friday, when New Zealand signed up to a joint statement with Japan and the other four Five Eyes countries – Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States – this time condemning economic coercion.

Interestingly, the joint declaration did not explicitly name China.

The decision to omit an explicit reference to Beijing – which was the clear and obvious target – might have been a concession to the more sensitive countries in the grouping, especially New Zealand.

After all, the US now no longer shies away from openly criticising China. Traditional diplomatic niceties now frequently seem to be a thing of the past – as demonstrated by the sharp language used recently by Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary.

Whatever the motivations, the wording of the joint statement failed to stave off a typically swift and sharp reaction from the Chinese Embassy in Wellington.

Wang Xiaolong, the Ambassador, published a series of tweets which began: ‘Smearing other countries, either directly or indirectly, won’t whitewash one’s own dismal record on coercion’.

The embassy later issued a statement that said ‘certain countries tend to overstretch or abuse the concept of national security to impose protectionist policies’.

China is still New Zealand’s biggest trading partner by some margin – although the value of New Zealand’s exports to the country largely flatlined over the past year. The total now sits at $NZ21.6 billion.

In the year to March 2023, exports to China made up only 23 per cent of New Zealand’s total exports of goods and services, according to Statistics New Zealand.

During his time in China, Chris Hipkins will be seeking to rekindle and rebuild the trading relationship, especially after Covid-19. Reviving Chinese tourism to New Zealand will be one obvious major focus.

But he can also expect to hear more about China’s frustrations with both the joint declaration on economic coercion and other recent New Zealand foreign policy developments.

A meeting between Hipkins and Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, has yet to be officially confirmed, but – again – this seems to be only a question of timing.

Beijing’s concerns are likely to centre on New Zealand’s potential role in AUKUS, the elite-level military pact that currently involves Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Andrew Little, New Zealand’s defence minister, has said New Zealand is ‘willing to explore’ joining the next stage of AUKUS, which is focused on advanced technologies and is commonly referred to as ‘Pillar II’.

Little has also been at the forefront of other recent decisions that might have irritated China.

These include the recent signing of a new military agreement with Japan and a forthcoming upgrade of New Zealand’s defence ties with Fiji, as well as the boost in New Zealand’s military aid to Ukraine that was announced in early May.

Chris Hipkins and foreign minister Nanaia Mahuta appear to be less enthusiastic about New Zealand joining AUKUS.

After Mahuta visited Beijing herself in March, she said ‘we don’t want to see the militarisation of the Pacific, we’re not part of the AUKUS arrangements’, while Hipkins called the Pillar II issue ‘purely hypothetical’ when questioned in May.

It is difficult to work out the true extent of any divisions on foreign policy within Chris Hipkins’ Labour cabinet.

But recent speeches given a week apart by Little and Mahuta provide a useful case-study.

At the ‘Shangri-La Dialogue’ in Singapore on June 2, Little told fellow defence ministers that New Zealand viewed the global situation with ‘clear eyes’ and would ‘maintain the military capability necessary to contribute to the rules-based international order and protection of our free and democratic way of life’.

By contrast, Nanaia Mahuta’s speech to last week’s conference of the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs (NZIIA) in Auckland was more nuanced.

The foreign minister addressed the risks of a ‘more contested environment’, which she listed as ‘poverty levels, indebtedness, conflict, economic exclusion and human rights abuses’.

But Mahuta also told attendees that New Zealand did not cooperate ‘exclusively with those mirroring our views’ and argued ‘binary choices’ were unnecessary.

Perhaps most significantly, Mahuta argued there was no ‘new Cold War’ – a reference that would have been carefully chosen for its likelihood of a positive reception in Beijing.

China regularly warns countries – including New Zealand – against taking what it calls a ‘Cold War mentality’.

If avoiding superpower confrontation is the priority, Hipkins’ visit at the end of June may come at just the right time.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Beijing on June 18, in a much-awaited top-level trip. If it happens, Blinken’s mission will go against the grain of deteriorating US-China relations.

China’s defence minister Li Shangfu declined to meet with his US counterpart, Lloyd Austin, when the pair were in Singapore – a response to the US refusing to lift old sanctions on Li.

Not long after this diplomatic failure, the US released a video of an apparent near-collision of US and Chinese warships in the Taiwan Strait – which in turn came not long after claims of a similar incident involving aircraft.

Last but not least, US officials claimed at the weekend China had been spying on the US for years from Cuba. Unsurprisingly, China has rejected the allegations.

With New Zealand still being China’s best friend in the West, Hipkins has the potential to build on any progress made by Blinken in establishing proverbial ‘guardrails’ to prevent tensions between the superpowers from spiralling out of control.

Ultimately, the most likely role to be played by Chris Hipkins is that of messenger.

NATO leaders will be keen to hear what the New Zealand PM has to say about his China trip when he arrives in Europe in early July.

Chris Hipkins is going to China.

The timing is crucial.

And only time will tell just how successful his trip will be.

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. Disclosure: Geoffrey attended the Global Media Congress in 2022 as a guest of the organisers, the Emirates News Agency.

Political Roundup: Will the Govt act on mega bank profits and reform the banking sector?

The corporate retail banks are making mega profits on the back of Government policies and indirect subsidies of recent years. As a result, there are calls from across almost the whole political spectrum for greater regulation of the banking sector, including windfall taxes. But will outrage turn into action?

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern led the charge against the banks this week, warning the likes of ANZ – which announced recently that its profits were up 20 per cent to a record $2.3b – that they are at risk of losing their “social license” to operate here. The Prime Minister sounded tough, but she was also quick to admit that she has no intention of taking any action or changing the rules. The Finance Minister Grant Robertson was also fast to rule out any reforms or further investigations.

Critics have said that Ardern’s plea for the banks to have “self-reflection” is wishful thinking in the extreme. The Green Party’s finance spokesperson Julie Ann Genter put forward this analogy: “Expecting banks… to put people ahead of profit would be a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.”

National, too, is pressuring the Government to act, with spokesperson Nicola Willis saying a full investigation needs to be launched into the banking sector, including whether government monetary policy had contributed to the mega profits.

Why won’t the Government act?

Claire Matthews, a banking expert at Massey University, has accused Ardern of grandstanding on the issue, suggesting that if Labour really thought the mega profits were a problem, they would be doing something about it. She suggests today that Ardern is just being an opportunist populist and electioneering: “People like to hate the banks so it’s quite an easy win for the Government.”

Looking at the lack of substance from Ardern on banking, one leftwing blogger wrote yesterday on Labour’s banking policy: “this is why Labour deserves to end up in opposition after the next election: they’re all noise and no policy. They’re offering us literally nothing, just the same tired, unjust status quo.”

Sam Stubbs, Chief Executive of KiwiSaver provider Simplicity, is reported today as saying: “The PM talks about the social license to operate. There seems to be quite a bit of hui but not much doey from the Government on bank reform.”

Stubbs is rather scathing about the dissonance between Ardern’s bank-bashing and her own governance of the banking sector: “These are nice sound bites but so far what the Government has done is slap the banking industry with a wet bus ticket all through the pre-Covid profit period when it was huge, all through the Australian banking inquiry. They then provided them with a massive amount of free money during Covid.”

The Government has handed the banks the mega profits

Stubbs’ critique of government subsidies of the banks is important. He says: “They have received a tremendous amount of tax-payer-funded support. How do they reward us? By making record profits when everyone else is doing it hard.”

Business journalist Bernard Hickey also argues that the big banks have essentially been subsidised by the taxpayer in recent years. Today he writes that “The big four banks got massive help to grow their lending & profits from the Govt in 2020, 2021 & 2022. They get their licenses to print money from the public.” He argues that mega bank profits have been made because of the Government’s “$55b of money printing, abandonment of LVR controls and $16.4b of subsidised lending by the Reserve Bank to banks through the Funding for Lending scheme”.

Hickey also explains that the banks have benefitted from a government guarantee of their sector: “the banks benefit from an implied and unfunded Government guarantee to protect them, especially now the Government is building a deposit guarantee scheme and especially after the Government’s actions during the Global Financial Crisis, when the Government created retail and wholesale deposit guarantees in 2008/09.”

Quite simply, banks have always been keen to privatise the profits from their role in the economy, but then socialise any losses – by getting the state to bail them out and to guarantee their operations.

New Zealand Herald business editor Liam Dann makes some similar arguments today: “Billions of dollars were pumped into the economy by Government and the Reserve Bank to save businesses and jobs and avoid a crisis. A side effect of the stimulus was a property and savings boom through 2020 and 2021. That’s now had the galling result that a sizeable chunk of that cash looks set to line the pockets of Aussie bank shareholders.” And he adds, “When things actually go wrong, taxpayers have to bail them out.”

Leftwing political commentator Gordon Campbell also points to Government policy as behind the mega bank profits: “The banks have reaped the rewards of the government’s successful efforts (e.g. the wage subsidy scheme) to keep the economy relatively buoyant during the pandemic. Not only did those government schemes and capital injections save the banks from suffering the bad debts and mortgage defaults that they’d expected. In addition, the Aussie-owned banks are also now in line to reap further profits from the Reserve Bank’s current efforts to curb the inflation that those initial Covid interventions inadvertently helped to generate. For months, the banks have been able to crank up their lending rates. They’ve also increased their profit margins. In sum, Covid has been something of a joy ride for the banks.”

All of this means that the banks are likely to have a combined profit total of $10b this year. Analysts point out that a 14 per cent rate of return is extremely high for banking, which is a low-risk activity normally expected to make more like half of that rate. Unusually, banks are making much greater profits and return on investments than the average NZX50 Index companies.

As Bernard Hickey points out, the local bank operations in New Zealand are “now more profitable than their parents and almost all their peers in other developed economies”. And according to Victoria University of Wellington’s banking analyst Martien Lubberink, the previous year’s profit announcements showed that the four big banks were making a profit of about $1,200 per New Zealander.

Actions the Government can take on banking

Four different reform areas are currently being proposed by analysts.

The first is a special tax on the current mega bank profits. A “windfall tax” has been proposed for some time, especially by those on the political left. The Greens took up this idea last month, pushing for a one-off tax on companies in super-profitable sectors such as supermarkets, electricity and banking.

Bernard Hickey advocates that Labour adopts the same tax used by the Australian government on banks, arguing today that this “would generate extra tax revenues of $2.6b a year, which would be enough to either pay for a tax cut or extra social spending, or to return the Budget to surplus sooner.” He says that the tax could be a levy of 0.06 per cent on the banks’ loans of $447b.

A second action would be to increase competition in the banking sector. At the moment the lack of competition in New Zealand means that mortgage rates are higher than they should be. Australians get a much better deal from their banks, because a more competitive market has been fostered there. Here, the four big banks are allowed to make a killing without any great attempts to make the playing field level and competitive.

One way to do this would be to invest significantly in the state-owned Kiwibank, which is currently far too small to compete properly. Some critics say that the Government is failing to properly fund the bank which means that it can’t properly compete with the Big Four Australian banks. It simply doesn’t have the assets and economies of scale to make any difference.

Sam Stubbs has argued today that the Government should scale up Kiwibank significantly: “Now the Government owns it yes it can recapitalise it. It would be profitable and the Government would still make money and you would get a serious competitor.”

Similarly, Liam Dann argues today that the best way to scale up Kiwibank would be “with mixed-model ownership in the style of the power companies – something this Government will never allow.” Dann suggests Kiwibank could be doubled in size.

The third action would be a full independent inquiry into the banking sector, as took place in Australia recently. Banking expert Claire Matthews, suggests that the Commerce Commission could also undertake a market study, as they did with the supermarkets and the building sectors. She argues that we simply don’t know how the banks currently operate and what problems there might be with the market and its regulation.

A fourth action would be to open up the banking sector by creating “open banking”, whereby customers can more freely shift between banks. This has occurred in plenty of other countries, and Labour has been accused of being far too slow to act on this.

For example, Stubbs is scathing on the lack of reform in this area: “Why aren’t they doing what everybody else has already done? They talk about open banking – they could have bought it in three or four years ago. We are still waiting for that. They could bring in number portability – we know what that has done for phones – they haven’t done that.” He suggests that the banks have successfully lobbied Labour to delay such reforms.

Liam Dann also comments on this today, explaining that “new blockchain-based tech that allows consumers to control all their banking data and switch providers more easily. In fact, New Zealand is dragging the chain on this initiative which has been adopted in the UK and opens the market to all sorts of new players to offer retail-facing banking services.”

Today, Newshub is reporting Government sources saying that “a mega shakeup” in terms of open banking is soon to be announced. While neither Labour nor the banks are commenting publicly, it’s reported that “Behind the scenes there’s now a scurry to get this out quickly to capitalise on the public outrage over the massive bank profits.”

The banking problem is going to get bigger

Although the Government seems more inclined to try and embarrass the banks into action rather than take a more interventionist or reforming approach, it won’t be enough. In fact, the political situation could get more embarrassing for the Government over the next year.

With rising interest rates bank profits are just going to get bigger. But at the same time, for homeowners these rising interest rates – together with mortgage holders going into negative equity with falling property prices – may result in defaults on mortgage payments. Banks may then have to increase their foreclosures. That’s going to reduce their social license to operate even further.

Banks would be wise to convince the public and politicians that they are “ethical capitalists”. If they can’t or won’t do that, then pressure will mount on the Labour Government to regulate. Government pleas to the banks to be kinder are unlikely to be enough to convince the public.

Increasingly voters are aware that Labour’s monetary policies of recent years led to increased super profits for the rich – including a transfer of about $1 trillion to asset owners. A reckoning might therefore be coming, and politicians will increasingly have to show which side they stand on: with the banks and the super-wealthy, or with the public.

Further reading on bank profits
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Revealed: Major shake-up to banking on its way
Tamsyn Parker (Herald): Super profits: Are banks making too much money? (paywalled)
Luke Malpass (Stuff): Jacinda Ardern bashing the banks won’t distract the public from real-world inflation
Liam Dann (Herald): The Prime Minister is right, the banks have made too much money (paywalled)
Gordon Campbell: On bank profits, and the US midterms
Sam Stubbs (Stuff): How much is too much? Just look at the banks
William Hewett (Newshub): National Party leader Christopher Luxon ‘uncomfortable’ with large profits banks are making
William Hewett (Newshub): Expert defends banks after Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern questions large profits
No Right Turn: All noise and no policy
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): No plan for study into banking profits, Grant Robertson says, despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s criticism
1News: Bank profits soar as Govt lobbied to introduce windfall tax
Tess McClure (Guardian): Jacinda Ardern says banks ‘wrong’ to take huge profits as cost of living crisis deepens
Rob Stock (Stuff): Bank of New Zealand increases annual profit by 7% to $1.4 billion
Gareth Vaughan (Interest): BNZ CEO predicts ‘more New Zealanders are going to find it tough’ as bank posts record profit
RNZ: BNZ posts record annual $1.4 billion profit

Other items of interest and importance today

RESERVE BANK
Bernard Hickey (Interest): Reserve Bank independence just ended
Peter Dunne: Labour’s meddling and National’s attacks pose serious threats to the independence of the Reserve Bank
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Could Adrian Orr govern the Reserve Bank under a hostile National government?
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Why the Opposition is upset about the reappointment of the Reserve Bank governor Adrian Orr
Bridie Witton (Stuff): Why Adrian Orr’s RBNZ Governorship could be shortlived under a National and ACT government
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr’s fate will be decided by election (paywalled)
Richard Harman: Luxon changes mind on Orr (paywalled)
Michael Reddell: Reappointing Orr
Molly Swift (Newshub): Economist Brad Olsen says National raises ‘legitimate concerns’ over reappointment of Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr without review
RNZ: Reserve Bank governor’s job: New govt needs right to make choice – Luxon
Russell Palmer (RNZ): National ‘shocked’ by reappointment of Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): National, ACT lambast Government over Adrian Orr’s reappointment as Reserve Bank Governor
Bernard Hickey (Interest): Opposition leader and potential Finance Minister say they’re ‘shocked and appalled’ Orr was reappointed Governor
Susan Edmunds and Bridie Witton (Stuff): National ‘shocked’ by Adrian Orr’s reappointment to head of Reserve Bank
Adam Pearse (Herald): National Party ‘appalled’ Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr given another five-year term
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Mixed reaction to Adrian Orr reappointment (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): Adrian Orr reappointed RBNZ Governor for five years

ECONOMY, BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT
Adan Pearse (Herald): Cost of living burden pushes Govt into fuel sector changes
RNZ: Commerce Commission given power to set fairer petrol, diesel prices
Interest: Commerce Commission to get the power to step in and set ‘fair’ fuel prices
Geraden Cann (Stuff): ‘60% of the way to wage-price spiral and hyperinflation Armageddon,’ economist says
Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): High inflation to persist for two years, says Reserve Bank (paywalled)
David Hargreaves (Interest): Up and away: RBNZ’s own survey shows inflation expectations shooting up again
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Christopher Luxon on the fence about reviving Bridges-era tax indexation
RNZ: Productivity Commission to examine supply chain issues
Adam Stephenson (Herald): Fast-food workers deserve Fair Pay Agreements (paywalled)
Anna Whyte (Stuff): Is the pay freeze nearly over? Early public service pay offer revealed
RNZ: University staff rally at Parliament over proposed cuts

PARLIAMENT
Graham Adams (The Platform): Ardern enters the tragi-comic phase of her tenure
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Efeso Collins considers standing for Parliament – but for which party?
Jenna Lynch (Newshub): Newshub-Reid Research poll: What New Zealanders really think of Jacinda Ardern, Christopher Luxon revealed
William Hewett (Newshub): National Party leader Christopher Luxon defends reputation after Newshub poll found Kiwis view him as ‘smarmy’, ‘inexperienced’
Brigitte Morten (NBR): Labour changes focus to election prep mode (paywalled)
Michael Neilson (Herald): Labour, National compromise on Māori electoral roll options bill in ‘rare occasion’
Newshub: Dame Jenny Shipley ‘thrilled’ Parliament now more women than men
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Government exploring changes to proposed electoral legislation to ensure cross-party support
Joseph Los’e (Herald): David Seymour says he is not playing dog whistle or apartheid style politics – and he’s not a useless Māori
Rachel Sadler (Newshub): David Seymour denounces critics who call him a ‘useless Māori’, racist
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): How the Left wins 2023 Election – Jacinda’s electorate coffee dates to maximise MMP dynamics
Kirsty Frame (RNZ): More ‘humane’ sitting hours for parliament needed, Labour and National MPs say
Nikki Mandow (Newsroom): ‘Nobody’s cracked it’ – Govt struggles to fix poor procurement

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Georgina Campbell (Herald): Greens and Labour clean up in Wellington mayor’s committee appointments
Max Frethey (Local Democracy Reporting): Nelson mayor Nick Smith ‘disappointed’ with local government review
Steven Walton (Press): Christchurch deputy mayor Pauline Cotter keeps seat after recount confirms slim victory
Tim Murphy (Newsroom): Wayne’s first fix – a budget emergency
Verity Johnson (Stuff): We don’t need Wayne Brown to be another Office Rambo

THREE WATERS
Thomas Cramner: Three Waters and He Puapua
James Perry (Te Ao – Māori News): ‘We won’t have a say’ – iwi water representative on Wayne Brown’s counter-proposal
Bernard Orsman (Herald): ‘Outrageous’: Taxpayers foot $2.1m bill for controversial Three Waters Auckland HQ (paywalled)

ENVIRONMENT
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Climate Change Minister says COP ‘nightmare’ decision-making process needs to change
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): NZ promises cash for climate damage – is it enough?
Michael Neilson (Herald): COP27 climate change conference: New Zealand announces loss and damage funds of $20 million
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): COP27: New Zealand offers $20m to developing countries for climate change damage
Olivia Wannan (Stuff): New Zealand becomes third country to offer cash to climate-hit countries
Ian Llewellyn (BusinessDesk): James Shaw heads to COP27 with a $20m promise (paywalled)
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Jacinda Ardern skips COP27, says commitment to climate change won’t be questioned
Richard Prebble (Herald): Jacinda Ardern misses a powerful opportunity with COP27 no-show (paywalled)
Injy Johnstone (Newsroom): Number 8 wire thinking for a Net Zero NZ
Felix Watson (RNZ): Climate change tops agenda of New Zealand insurance companies
1News: Govt’s emissions trading scheme ‘vilifies farmers’ – Luxon
Tess McClure (Guardian): Serious concerns raised in NZ about environmental impact of major productions including Amazon’s Rings of Power
Benn Bathgate (Stuff): High Court shuts down hut burning across Te Urewera

HOUSING
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Who’s to blame for Rotorua emergency housing crisis?
Miriam Bell (Stuff): Wellington house price slide the biggest in 20 years
RNZ: Double-digit house market declines in main centres, new figures show
1News: Average house values falling by double-digit percentages

HEALTH
RNZ: Health Minister responds to mental health woes at North Shore ED
John Donne Potter ((The Conversation): With a COVID ‘variant soup’ looming, New Zealand urgently needs another round of vaccine boosters
RNZ: Government says no plans at this stage for annual Covid-19 booster for most people
Stefan Dimitrof (Te Ao – Māori News) Petition launched to halt defunding of child cancer medicines
Muriwai Hei (Te Ao – Māori News): Drug Foundation CEO on overdoses: ‘We are failing Māori’

IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES
Katie Todd (RNZ): Ukrainian arrivals say government support lacking in battle to begin new lives
Gill Bonnett (RNZ): Govt looks at Treaty interest in immigration policy
Gill Bonnett (RNZ): In residence limbo: Doctors, split families wait for news from Immigration NZ

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Government backs away from autonomous sanctions regime
Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): How the US midterms will affect NZ
Gabrielle Armstrong-Scott (Stuff): Five reasons Kiwis should care about the US midterm elections

OTHER
Phil Pennington (RNZ): Officials fear anti-government sentiment could impact next census
Oliver Hartwich (Herald): Rebuilding Better: Once world-class, NZ’s education system is now a disaster. How do we fix it?
Gavin Ellis: Alarm bells must bring out disinformation fire fighters
Lloyd Burr (Today FM): Jenna Lynch, Mani Dunlop are two of the most impartial journalists I know
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Anti-money laundering regime to be tweaked after sweeping review
Riley Kennedy (BusinessDesk): No quick fix to ease anti-money laundering burden (paywalled)
Emma Hatton (Newsroom): Privacy case throws up liability questions for social media groups
Pokere Paewai (RNZ): Taonga stolen during Crown invasion of Maungapōhatu returned
Ashleigh McCaull (RNZ): New study suggests Māori settlers arrived in Aotearoa as early as 13th century

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 approach this episode in two parts.

First we will 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? 

And secondly, are we beginning to see changes to the pre-pandemic globalisation framework? Are we witnessing a response to the breakdown of the global economic order?

If so, what does the emergence of near-shoring and friend-shoring mean for supply-chain issues, cost of living, and the global economy?

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.

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.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss how numerous countries have committed aid, intelligence expertise, military hardware and weapons to a multilateral effort in support of Ukraine.

What does this 2022-style of military diplomacy mean for the independent foreign policies of countries like New Zealand – with its style of incremental contributions in aid of the defence of Ukraine?

For example, the New Zealand Government this week confirmed the deployment of a C-130 Hercules with 50 personnel to Europe; a further eight logistics specialists based in Germany; $13 million in further support to procure equipment for the Ukraine military.

On announcing the move, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “Our support is to assist the Ukraine Army to repel a brutal Russian invasion because peace in the region of Europe is essential for global stability.”

Ardern added: “The global response has seen an unprecedented amount of military support pledged for Ukraine, and more help to transport and distribute it is urgently needed, and so we will do our bit to help.” (ref. ForeignAffairs.co.nz, https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/04/11/mil-osi-new-zealand-new-zealand-sends-c130-hercules-and-50-strong-team-to-europe-to-support-ukraine/ )

So today, we examine how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with its method of total annihilation, has drawn once relatively independent nations into the fold of western security alliances. And we will consider whether such moves will become a permanent configuration?

Also in this episode, we will discuss the South-West Pacific strategic balance. Specifically, why has the People’s Republic of China, and the Solomon Islands bilateral security agreement, upset Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America?

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 discuss how numerous countries have committed aid, intelligence expertise, military hardware and weapons to a multilateral effort in support of Ukraine.

What does this 2022-style of military diplomacy mean for the independent foreign policies of countries like New Zealand – with its style of incremental contributions in aid of the defence of Ukraine?

For example, the New Zealand Government this week confirmed the deployment of a C-130 Hercules with 50 personnel to Europe; a further eight logistics specialists based in Germany; $13 million in further support to procure equipment for the Ukraine military.

On announcing the move, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “Our support is to assist the Ukraine Army to repel a brutal Russian invasion because peace in the region of Europe is essential for global stability.”

Ardern added: “The global response has seen an unprecedented amount of military support pledged for Ukraine, and more help to transport and distribute it is urgently needed, and so we will do our bit to help.” (ref. ForeignAffairs.co.nz, https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/04/11/mil-osi-new-zealand-new-zealand-sends-c130-hercules-and-50-strong-team-to-europe-to-support-ukraine/ )

So today, we will examine how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with its method of total annihilation, has drawn once relatively independent nations into the fold of western security alliances. And we will consider whether such moves will become a permanent configuration?

Also in this episode, we will discuss the South-West Pacific strategic balance. Specifically, why has the People’s Republic of China, and the Solomon Islands bilateral security agreement, upset Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America?

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.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse how New Zealand and other nations are providing intelligence expertise in the defence of Ukraine.

But are the SIGINT and TECHINT operations a part of the NATO partnership, or, a part of the Five Eyes intelligence network’s operations – where the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand share resources to acquire and coordinate global and targeted intelligence.

Does confirmation from New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that New Zealand has deployed seven Defence intelligence officers to the United Kingdom and Belgium underscore a direct involvement against Russia and in defence of Ukraine by other independent nations like New Zealand?

• What will the intelligence, including geo-spacial analysis, most likely be used for and how would it be derived and delivered?
• How has western intelligence assisted Ukraine in this war and also in the targeting of Russian generals who were identified and killed during hostilities in Ukraine (ref. Washington Post)?
• How significant has Open Source Intelligence been in the Russia Ukraine war (to date) including the use of citizen acquired video and data and its dissemination to offensive and defensive operations in the conflict?
• And why is SIGINT and TECHINT proving to be more important than ever in this specific conflict?

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.