Like a relentless ocean, wave after wave of pro-Palestinian pro-human rights protesters disrupted New Zealand deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ state of the nation speech at the Christchurch Town Hall yesterday.

A clarion call to Trumpism and Australia’s One Nation Party, the speech was accompanied by the background music of about 250 protesters outside the Town Hall, chanting: “Complicity in genocide is a crime.”

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto described Peters’ attitude to Palestinians as “sickening”.

Inside the James Hay Theatre, protester after protester stood and spoke loudly and clearly against the deputy Prime Minister’s failure to support those still dying in Gaza, and his failure to denounce the ongoing genocide.

Ben Vorderegger was the first of nine protesters who appealed on behalf of people who have lost their voices in the dust of blood and bones, bombs and sniper guns.

Before he and others were hauled out, they spoke for the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza — women, men, doctors, aid workers, journalists, and children.

Gazan health authorities have reported that the official death toll is now more than 50,000 — but that is the confirmed deaths with thousands more buried under the rubble.

Real death toll
The real death toll from the genocide in Gaza has been estimated by a reputed medical journal, The Lancet, at more than 63,000. A third of those are children. Each day more children are killed.

One by one the protesters who challenged Peters were manhandled by security guards to a frenzied crowd screaming “out, out”.

The deputy Prime Minister’s response was to deride and mock the conscientious objectors. He did not stop there. He lambasted the media.

At this point, several members of his audience turned on me as a journalist and demanded my removal.

This means that not only is the right to free speech at stake, the right or freedom to report is also being eroded. (I was later trespassed by security guards and police from the Town Hall although no reason was supplied for the ban).

Inside the Christchurch Town Hall the call by Peters, who is also Foreign Minister, to “Make New Zealand Great Again” continued in the vein of a speech written by a MAGA leader.

He whitewashed human rights, failed to address climate change, and demonstrated loathing for a media that has rarely challenged him.

Condemned movement
Slamming the PSNA as “Marxist fascists” for calling out genocide, he condemned the movement for failing to talk with those who have a record of kowtowing to violent colonisation.

This tactic is Colonial Invasion 101. It sees the invader rewarding and only dealing with those who sell out. This strategy demands that the colonised people should bow to the oppressor — an oppressor who threatens them with losing everything if they do not accept the scraps.

Peters showed no support for the Treaty of Waitangi but rather, endorsed the government’s challenge to the founding document of the nation – Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In his dismissal of the founding and legally binding partnership, he repeated the “One Nation” catch-cry. Ad nauseum.

Besides slamming Palestinians, the Scots (he managed to squeeze in a racist joke against Scottish people), and the woke, Peters’ speech promoted continued mining, showing some amnesia over the Pike River disaster. He did not reference the environment or climate change.

After the speech, outside the Town Hall police donned black gloves — a sign they were prepared to use pepper-spray.

PSNA co-chair John Minto described Peters’ failure to stand against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians as “bloody disgraceful”.

The police arrested one protester, claiming he put his hand on a car transporting NZ First officials. A witness said this was not the case.

Protester released
The protester was later released without any charges being laid.

A defiant New Zealand First MP Shane Jones marched out of the Town Hall after the event. He raised his arms defensively at protesters crying, “what if it was your grandchildren being slaughtered?”

I was trespassed from the Christchurch Town Hall for re-entering the Town Hall for Winston Peters’ media conference. No reason was supplied by police or the Town Hall security personnel for that trespass order..

It is well known that Peters loathes the media — he said so enough times during his state of the nation speech.

He referenced former US President Bill Clinton during his speech, an interesting reference given that Clinton did not receive the protection from the media that Peters has received.

From the over zealous security personnel who manhandled and dragged out hecklers, to the banning of a journalist, to the arrest of someone for “touching a car” when witnesses report otherwise, the state of the nation speech held some uncomfortable echoes — the actions of a fascist dictatorship.

Populist threats
The atmosphere was reminiscent of a Jorg Haider press conference I attended many years ago in Vienna. That “rechtspopulist” Austrian politician had threatened journalists with defamation suits if they called him out on his support for Nazis.

Yet he was on record for doing so.

I was reminded of this yesterday when the audience called ‘out out’ at hecklers, and demanded the removal of this journalist. These New Zealand First supporters demand adoration for their leader or a media black-out.

Perhaps they cannot be blamed given that the state of the nation speech could well have been written by US President Donald Trump or one of his minions.

The protesters were courageous and conscientious in contrast to Peters, said PSNA’s John Minto.

He likened Peters to Neville Chamberlain — Britain’s Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940. His name is synonymous with the policy of “appeasement” because he conceded territorial concessions to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, fruitlessly hoping to avoid war.

“He has refused to condemn any of Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians, including the total humanitarian aid blockade of Gaza.”

Refusal ‘unprecedented’
“It’s unprecedented in New Zealand history that a government would refuse to condemn Israel breaking its ceasefire agreement and resuming industrial-scale slaughter of civilians,” Minto said.

“That is what Israel is doing today in Gaza, with full backing from the White House.

“Chamberlain went to meet Hitler in Munich in 1938 to whitewash Nazi Germany’s takeovers of its neighbours’ lands.

“Peters has been in Washington to agree to US approval of the occupation of southern Syria, more attacks on Lebanon, resumption of the land grab genocide in Gaza and get a heads-up on US plans to ‘give’ the Occupied West Bank to Israel later this year.

“If Peters disagrees with any of this, he’s had plenty of chances to say so.

“New Zealanders are calling for sanctions on Israel but Mr Peters and the National-led government are looking the other way.”

Only staged questions
The conscientious objectors who rise against the oppression of human rights are people Winston Peters regards as his enemies. He will only answer questions in a press conference staged for him.

He warms to journalists who warm to him.

The state of the nation speech in the Town Hall was familiar.

Seeking to erase conscientiousness will not make New Zealand great, it will render this country very small, almost miniscule, like the people who are being destroyed for daring to demand their right to their own land.

Saige England is a journalist and author, and a member of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). She is a frequent contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A former Tuvalu prime minister says while the New Zealand government’s oil and gas plans show it is concerned about its economy, he is more concerned about the livelihoods and survival of the Tuvalu people.

Enele Sopoaga — who still serves as an MP in Tuvalu — says the climate crisis is the “main enemy”.

“There is nothing more serious and more important than that.”

His comments come after New Zealand’s Resources Minister Shane Jones said it was “left wing catastrophisation” to suggest that waters would be lapping at towns in Pacific countries as a result of the New Zealand government’s decision on gas and coal.

Vanuatu Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu called on the New Zealand government not to reverse the ban at last year’s Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Rarotonga.

“We call on them not to do it to be in line with Paris, in line with the 1.5 degree target. The science says you cannot [make] new fossil fuels,” he told RNZ Pacific in 2023.

Despite this, the current New Zealand government has backed its plans, which Tuvalu is not happy about.

‘It’s going to sink Tuvalu’
“Go ahead and drill and open up new coal mining or get new gas stations,” said Sopoaga, “but don’t forget that whatever you are going to do, it’s going to increase greenhouse gas emissions, which are going to sink the islands of Tuvalu and kill the people.

“It’s just as a matter of fact, as simple as that.”

Jones was asked by RNZ’s Morning Report how New Zealand’s Pacific neighbours would feel about restarting exploration of oil and gas, and the associated environmental impact.

Jones said the Pacific understood Aotearoa needed reliable energy to generate an economic dividend to then be able to contribute to the Pacific region.

“[New Zealand] keeping the lights on and the hospitals functioning, you can’t hold that type of thinking responsible for the tide lapping around Tuvalu. Come on, give us a break,” Jones said.

Sopoaga called the comments “daft” and “naive”.

“I think it’s a completely stupid idea,” he said.

‘Early demise, rising sea levels’
“It’s just logical — the more you open up new gases and the more release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will simply cause the early demise and rising of sea levels that will affect the islands of Tuvalu.

“I would appeal to New Zealand to rethink about doing that.”

Sopoaga was prime minister from 2013 to 2019. He was re-elected as an MP in this year’s election and is part of Tuvalu’s 16-member parliament.

He now wants Aotearoa to stick with its ban on fossil fuel exploration, and to also contribute to the cost of adaptation.

Sopoaga said he wanted to remind Jones that “we are working as a global team in the world”.

“Countries cannot just take up their own initiatives, and then go the wrong way.

“[We can not] go with the national interests of countries, we have to discipline ourselves so that we don’t break up and claim that we are doing what the Paris Agreement and Kyoto Protocol are telling us.

“In fact, the Paris Agreement is a legally binding framework, and you cannot just simply say we open up new oil fields in New Zealand and these will not affect the Pacific Island countries.

“This is a stupid idea,” Sopoaga said.

NZ urged to pacify US/China
New Zealand is sending a political delegation on a five-stop Pacific tour next week.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has recently spoken about New Zealand’s relationship with China.

“We strongly believe that in a mature relationship like ours it is possible to discuss differences openly, respectfully, and predictably. We will continue to share our concerns with China, where we have them.

“China has a long-standing presence in the Pacific, but we are seriously concerned by increased engagement in Pacific security sectors. We do not want to see developments that destabilise the institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned our region’s security.”

Peters has said he is continuing work started by the previous government to consider partipation in AUKUS Pillar 2, but that New Zealand was a long way from making a decision.

“I think the role of New Zealand is to de-escalate and pacify the situation, talk to China, talk to Australia, talk to the US,” Sopoaga said.

“There is no enemy, their biggest enemy is climate change.

“They are only using this [AUKUS] as a camouflage to move away from responsibility and cause global warming. And they want to ignore their accountability, their responsibility to deal with it,” Sopoaga said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been warned that Māori will not sit by without a fight if the government attempts to meddle with te Tiriti o Waitangi.

As politicians of all stripes have flocked to Rātana near Whanganui, it was a rare chance for Māori to address politicians directly on the pae — something that holds extra weight this year, because the annual celebrations come so soon after last weekend’s national hui.

Among those in attendance were Labour and Green MPs, Prime Minister Luxon, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones, while Te Pāti Māori were welcomed on Tuesday. ACT did not have a representative there.

Rāhui Papa, a representative of the Kiingitanga and Waikato-Tainui, said they were watching the rhetoric coming out of the Beehive very closely.

“Quite frankly, te iwi Māori — and the hui at Turangawaewae confirmed, the hui here at Rātana has confirmed — that if there is any measure of meddling with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori will not sit idly by.

“The message is: The Tiriti o Waitangi is sacrosanct in the view of te ao Māori. We truly believe that the only treaty in town is the one that was written in the indigenous language.”

Amid a climate of concern over the Treaty Principles legislation, Luxon is calling for calm over a bill he himself has said feels divisive.

Government ‘will honour the Treaty’
“The government has no plans and never has had plans to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements that we have all worked so hard together to achieve.

“The government will honour the Treaty.”

His speech to the Rātana faithful largely a speech to all Māori — and focusing on his favourite word: outcomes.

“Ours will be a government with goals for better healthcare, better school achievement, and less welfare dependency.

“When I talk about wanting better outcomes, I’m not talking about giving out hand-outs to close the gaps. I want to improve the opportunities so that people who are prepared to get to work and work hard, can make the most of their opportunities and get ahead.”

Ratana representative Kamaka Manuel told the government that promise of better outcomes was hard to believe.

“What we do see is the first part of the word ‘outcomes’ — or like ‘Māori out’ — and we’re left with the last part: ‘how come’.”

Māori outcomes ‘gone backwards’
He once again reiterated his claim that outcomes for Māori had gone backwards under Labour, and that National had “no intention and no commitment” to take ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond a first reading.

There may be no commitment or intention at this point to do so, but Luxon has repeatedly refused to categorically rule out further support for it.

“It’s consistent with our coalition agreements, we have said and I don’t know how to be any clearer about it, there is no commitment to support it beyond the first reading.”

He was asked by reporters if he would say National would clearly say they would not support it further, but Luxon again said there was “no intention, no commitment”.

For a day full of politicians, Rātana is not supposed to be overtly political.

Deputy Prime Minister Peters acknowledged that — but still gave a political speech anyway — lashing out at Labour to pockets of heckling.

“These people will promise you a bridge where there is no river . . . I want to ask you this question: what’s their record?.”

impromptu standup
In an impromptu standup with reporters, NZ First’s Shane Jones said a review of the Waitangi Tribunal would need to address whether its powers should remain intact.

“An institution that’s been around for 50 years should not expect to continue on uncritically for another set of decades without being reviewed.”

Spurred on by speeches from the morehu, Labour’s Willie Jackson said it had made the opposition parties more united than ever.

“What they were saying the whaikōrero was that there was one enemy . . . and the enemy was the government, and so they wanted us to all . . . to come together as a group — Greens, Pāti Māori, Labour.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, in his first public appearance of the year, spent all of a minute talking about Labour’s deep connection to Rātana — and then went on the attack.

“The role of us as political leaders is to light that path forward, it’s not to exploit the fear that comes from uncertainty.”

Hipkins said the current government’s approach was emboldening racism, which he later clarified related to things like the Treaty Principles Bill.

Policies ‘enable racism’
“I don’t think those are things that a responsible government should do.

“The policies of this current government encourage, foster, and enable racism in New Zealand and we should call that out for what it is.”

This time last year, Hipkins was speaking as prime minister. He now admitted — from the benefit of hindsight — the last government didn’t get it all right.

“One of the things that we didn’t get right was that making sure we were bringing non-Māori New Zealanders along with us on that journey.”

There was a notable absentee — the ACT Party, whose Treaty Principles Bill National has agreed to support to Select Committee, but no further.

“We know there could have been some trepidation like last week at Turangawaewae where we only had a couple from the three-headed taniwha government that we have in New Zealand today,” Rāhui Papa said.

‘Dishonour’ to Māori world
Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson told reporters that ACT’s no-show at Rātana was a display of “absolute ignorance” and a dishonour to the Māori world.

“It dismisses the mana and the importance of Ratana, of Wiremu Pōtiki Ratana, and te ao Māori and their political voice.”

But David Seymour was brushing off the criticism.

“There was a time when they didn’t manage to invite me and now they seem to be complaining that they’ve invited me but I haven’t come. I guess one day the stars will align.”

Seymour has never attended Rātana festivities, describing it as a “religious event”, but he will be attending Waitangi next month.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Shane Jones continues to skate on the thin ice of integrity. Yet he never seems to fall through. His latest controversy involved making public comments last week directed against the decision by one of his own government agencies to revoke the transport licence of a Northland logging truck company.

Jones may be the most problematic minister in the Labour-led Government. However, it’s increasingly clear that he can get away with questionable behaviour, not just because Jacinda Ardern allows him too, but because the survival of New Zealand First, and therefore the current government, is predicated on Jones playing to his support base.

Jones’ Northland trucking controversy

Heather du Plessis-Allan wrote yesterday about the latest Jones scandal and what it means – see: A Jones by any other name. She sums up the scandal like this: “This time he’s interceded with authorities on behalf of a trucking company owned by his mother’s great-great-great-grandmother’s great-great grandson. The trucking company racked up 116 speeding and traffic-related fines in four years. The authorities want the trucks off the road. Matua Shane – as he likes to call himself – had a word with those authorities.”

So why is this a problem? du Plessis-Allan says: “That should set off alarm bells because he’s the Associate Transport Minister. But hey, that’s not the hat he was wearing during the chat, he reckons. Nope. He interceded as the Champion of the Regions – as he likes to call himself. Because the Champion of the Regions was worried about the 1000 jobs that would be lost if the company folded.”

The transport license issue will be resolved in court. Last Monday the Whangārei company managed to get the High Court to impose a temporary suspension of the ban on their license.

For a more detailed outline of the case, see Matthew Theunissen’s very good article, Shane Jones denies conflict in comments on Semenoff Logging court case. This reports how at one stage this week, Jones said “constitutionally I must not comment on the High Court case” but “he then proceeded to do just that”. Jones also claimed that he hadn’t meddled in the decision-making process to revoke the transport licence, but “confirmed he had briefly spoken to the chief executive of the Transport Agency about the case”.

In terms of the “wearing different hats defence” that ministers often use, Theunissen says about Jones: “He also pointed out that the court case has not yet started, and said he had not been speaking as the Associate Transport Minister.” Jones is quoted: “I said those remarks as the Minister of Regional Development… I have no delegations for safety as Associate Minister of Transport. I have never once discussed this issue with Julie Anne Genter, who is the safety transport minister.”

The article also explains that Jones has been downplaying his personal connections with the owner of the trucking company – former Whangārei mayor Stan Semenoff, who has donated to Jones’ election campaigns in the past, and who he is related to.

It therefore seems that Jones is in trouble on five possible charges of constitutional impropriety or conflicts of interest: 1) he’s a Cabinet minister commenting publicly on a matter before the courts; 2) he’s using his role as a transport minister to pressure officials in his own agency about an operational matter; 3) he’s conflicted because he’s intervening on behalf of an electorate he’s trying to win as an election candidate; 4) he’s standing up for someone who he’s received financial support from; and 5) he’s personally related to the owner of the company that he is championing.

In the face of such criticisms, Jones has not retreated from his outspoken remarks. In Parliament, he said “The principles of comity and privilege are important constitutional privileges that define our system, but there is no stone that should be put upon the tongue of the champion of the regions to talk about the implications of decisions that our Government may, from time to time, be held accountable for.”

The problem, according to rightwing blogger David Farrar, is not just if Jones has stood up for the company publicly, but if he’s been fighting behind the scenes: “if Jones has had discussions with any officials or contractors of NZTA regarding the decision, then he must be sacked. If he has privately tried to pressure NZTA with regards to an independent safety regulatory decision, just because it involves a major employer in a seat he wants to win – he must go” – see: Has Shane Jones been doing a Justin Trudeau?

Farrar also brings up the problem that this is all about road safety: “The Government says it wants safer roads yet their Associate Transport Minister is attacking a regulatory decision to do just that.”

In terms of the safety record of the Semenoff Logging company, and why NZTA has revoked its license, see Anne Gibson’s informative article, Shane Jones wades in against NZTA over legal case against log trucker. She reports that “Meredith Connell managing partner Steve Haszard, who has been overseeing NZTA’s regulatory compliance, said the entity has been strongly encouraging Stan Semenoff Logging since 2016 to get the company to lift its safety standards.”

Haszard, who is contracted to help NZTA, is quoted: “The Transport Agency has given Stan Semenoff Logging every opportunity to provide evidence of improvement, but over the course of two audits and three years we have seen that this company is either unwilling or unable to comply with the necessary transport operator safety standards… The revocation is a safety decision, plain and simple. It’s not just about the safety of Mr Semenoff’s drivers, it’s about the safety of all Northland’s other road users”.

Interestingly, the trade union representing truck drivers, First Union, has been fully supportive of the Semenoff Logging company losing its license. Hamish Rutherford reports that First Union “says tough action by the Transport Agency is long overdue against Stan Semenoff Logging” – see: Shane Jones steps into case between company owned by ‘my mother’s cousin’ and NZTA.

A pattern of bad behaviour

Of course, the Northland logging truck controversy is only the latest in a long line of incidents that have raised questions about Shane Jones’ integrity and style of operating in this current government. Very helpfully, Alex Braae has catalogued these controversies – see: A brave attempt to count every Shane Jones mini-scandal over 18 short months.

Braae comments: “With the possible exception of Phil Twyford, no minister has generated more headlines over the current government’s term than Shane Jones. And a lot of them aren’t good headlines at all. So how does he keep surviving? The charmed career of Shane Jones continued on breezily this week. Despite opening up yet another target around perceived conflicts of interest for the opposition to aim at, there has been no suggestion whatsoever that he could be on the verge of being sacked.”

The apparent ability of Jones and his fellow NZ First Cabinet Ministers to get away with ethically questionable behaviour was discussed by Guyon Espiner, who raises examples of Jones providing misleading answers: “Such omissions can end ministerial careers. Ask Clare Curran, who had to exit Cabinet for failing to disclose her meetings. It matters because full disclosure about the spending of public money is at the core of a strong democracy” – see: Does everyone want Sonny Bill on their team?

Espiner uses sporting metaphors (after Jones painted himself as the Sonny Bill Williams of politics), and says “So where’s the ref or even the captain? The Prime Minister is largely on the sidelines watching Jones perform… Jacinda Ardern wasn’t prepared to say he had been misleading in answering questions… Jones doesn’t get the red card. He’s got the get out of jail free card. He’s answerable only to Winston Peters. And Peters is enjoying the show.”

Similarly, Mike Hosking comments that Jones’ various indiscretions show that the Prime Minister is lacking the will to control her NZ First ministers: “there seems no indiscretion she would find remotely troubling. Under Ardern you can do what you like, because she’s not into discipline. It will bite her eventually” – see: Shane Jones saga isn’t sackable – but it’s shonky, shady, loose and arrogant.

Writing last month about Jones’ previous controversy, Hosking says “it’s not sackable” but it “breaches all rules of good governance and common honesty. It’s shonky, it’s shady, it’s loose, it’s arrogant.”

Ultimately it means that the Labour-led Government is losing any rights to claim the high moral ground of transparency and integrity: “If the Cabinet Manual is to be dismissed when it suits, don’t have a manual. If indiscretions are to be explained away, don’t then say you’re wanting to be the most open, honest, and transparent government this country has ever seen. Because you can’t be both.”

Explaining the unpunished bad behaviour of Jones and NZ First

Hosking isn’t the only one arguing that the Government is suffering due to Jones’ antics. Herald political editor Audrey Young says that with Jones being out-of-control and undisciplined, the “message that sends the public is that coalition management is shambolic” – see: Shane Jones makes coalition management look shambolic.

But reporting on earlier bad behaviour, Young wonders if it’s deliberate: “What is Shane Jones up to? Did he just have a bad week in which his good nature has been subsumed by irascibility and poor judgment? Or is he embarking on a deliberate mission for New Zealand First to become more assertive in the Coalition Government?”

It’s the latter according, according to Heather du Plessis-Allan. In her column, she says: “The amazing thing is just how little Jones seems to care about having his integrity questioned. He just leans back, half closes his eyes, and chats about it like he’s explaining the ins and outs of why he chose Quarter Tea for the bathroom walls. In fact, it’s almost like Jonesy – as he likes to call himself – is deliberately breaking rules and forgoing principles.”

She says it’s all about attention-seeking: “in the same way that a junkie needs heroin, but also in order to keep his job. The party he belongs to is currently polling below the 5 per cent threshold. As in, half of that. They should be doing better.”

This is where Matthew Hooton’s recent column, Behaving badly is NZ First’s best bet, comes in, in terms of understanding what’s going on. He argues that although it might seem counterintuitive, bad behaviour is the party’s best chance of pushing its support levels back up in time for next year’s election: “NZ First knows it has no chance of reaching 5 per cent by loyally supporting the Government. Nor does it care if 90 per cent of voters think its behaviour is reprehensible. It needs to win the support of only 1 in 20 voters: anything more is pointless. Drawing on the Kiwi culture of larrikinism, bad behaviour is its best bet.”

It’s all about living up to the party’s anti-Establishment reputation, as well as differentiating themselves from Labour and the Greens: “Demonstrating that different rules apply to NZ First and making the nominal Prime Minister look weak is central to differentiating the party from its larger coalition partner ahead of 2020. The scandal then provided a pretext for Jones to go on the offensive. For NZ First, attacking journalists, threatening to smear named individuals under parliamentary privilege, making dark insinuations about the SFO and positioning big business as somehow treasonous have been core business for a quarter century. In everything he did this week, Jones had the full blessing of Peters and the NZ First caucus.”

Furthermore, Hooton writes in another column that Jones is the only hope for the survival of New Zealand First, and that Peters needs to step down as leader and deputy prime minister for his protégé to take over and re-launch the party – see: Move on Winston Peters, your time is up.

And Jones keeps getting away with his behaviour because Peters is clearly protecting him. As Alex Braae writes, Jones’ continued survival “might be because it remains politically impossible for the PM to get rid of him, whether she wanted to or not. NZ First is too powerful, and Shane Jones and Winston Peters are clearly very loyal to each other.”

Finally, despite Shane Jones recently comparing himself to Sonny Bill Williams, there’s an even more colourful comparison, and one that helps explain how Jones can get away with so much. Liam Hehir points to one of the characters in the British sitcom The Office: “This man is full of himself, makes vulgar jokes and often blunders over the line of acceptable professional decorum. For all his awfulness, however, Finch never seems to get in trouble” – see: Sorry but Shane Jones is Chris Finch from The Office.