Like many of his fellow citizens, New Zealand trade minister Damien O’Connor has lived and worked in Australia. “I went in 1978,” he told Parliament in 2008. “New Zealanders have always been going to Australia, and coming back.”
And the Kiwis are certainly not going back empty-handed. “There are more New Zealanders coming back into this country now than we have seen for many, many years,” he said. “They bring back capital, they bring back knowledge, and they bring back families, and good on them … Australia can afford to pay huge wages.”
He must have been feeling chuffed with himself last week, having upgraded New Zealand’s trade agreement with China.
When asked by CNBC about his country’s offer to play a mediation role in the dispute between Australia and China, O’Connor began by proudly declaring New Zealand’s relationship with Beijing was “mature and honest”. What a pity the Aussies had made a hash of theirs.
“I can’t speak for Australia and the way it runs its diplomatic relationships but clearly if they were to follow us and show respect, I guess a little more diplomacy from time to time, and be cautious with wording, then they, too, hopefully could be in a similar situation,” he said.
Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Foreign Ministry was quick to praise Comrade O’Connor, a spokesperson saying Australia should “heed the constructive voices from people with vision”. Noting the irony that “O’Connor’s lesson in diplomacy was itself spectacularly undiplomatic,” New Zealand news website Stuff slammed the trade minister in an editorial. “Lecturing our friends across the ditch about speaking nicely to China will irritate many people, and not just in Australia,” it said.
The National Party foreign affairs shadow minister, Gerry Brownlee, was also taken aback. “Other countries will see us being a little bit, sort of, high and mighty, a little bit smug, and in the case of Australia, they’ll see us as being somewhat pretentious,” he said.
O’Connor later released a statement to the effect he had called his Australian counterpart, Dan Tehan, to clarify that he did not mean to speak for Australia.
“The Australia-China relationship will always be a matter for China and Australia,” he said. And New Zealand’s foreign minister, Nanaia Mahuta, told ABC’s 7.30 “that is really not something that we can or should comment on, and is a matter are for Australia and China to work through.”
‘Damien’s made a dill of himself’
This was the clarification many wanted to hear – diplomatic speak for “Damien’s made a dill of himself, and Jacinda and I will have a word with him.” All good now?
Well, no, because Mahuta is also part of the problem. Speaking in December regarding the 2021 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit – which New Zealand is hosting – she was the one who suggested her country could mediate Australia and China’s trade and diplomatic stoush. “Both parties will have to be willing to come together and concede in some areas where they are currently not seeing eye to eye,” she said.
That statement was made less than a month after Chinese embassy officials distributed to Australian media outlets a list of 14 grievances against the Morrison government. How many of those grievances was Mahuta suggesting Australia “concede” – repealing the foreign interference legislation, ceasing government grants to “anti-China” think tanks, rescinding moves to repeal the Andrews Government’s Belt and Road Initiative agreement with China, and censoring “antagonistic” or “unfriendly” media commentary against Beijing, just to name a few?
Butt out
As the Sydney Morning Herald reported last week, the Morrison government had, following Mahuta’s ill-advised offer, told the Kiwis to butt out. O’Connor, a member of cabinet, must have known this, and would have been aware of the sensitivities at the time of his interview with CNBC. Why then did he, a politician of nearly 30 years, not deflect the question regarding mediation, let alone gratuitously admonish Australia?
What was thought to be naivety looks increasingly like opportunism. “[O’Connor] just told anyone suspecting New Zealand of sucking up to China for economic reward that they’re bang on the mark,” wrote TV presenter Heather du Plessis-Allan in the New Zealand Herald. And as Dr Jeffrey Wilson, research director of the Perth USAsia Centre at the University of Western Australia observed, the timing of the upgraded free agreement “puts China in a position where it can play one side off against the other”.
It already has. Even before the O’Connor controversy, Beijing’s state-run Global Times declared the renegotiated deal as a “wake up call” for Australia. “New Zealand’s deepening economic and trade co-operation with China will probably make exporters in neighbouring Australia envious,” it chortled.
Probably? There is no doubt New Zealand exporters, particularly the timber, meat, wine, and seafood industries, will greatly benefit from China’s stymieing of Australian exports, a reward for Wellington being the visually-challenged member of the Five Eyes nations. It was the only member of that group not to sign a joint statement last year condemning Chinese encroachment of Hong Kong’s autonomy, instead releasing its own.
It was also the last member of the group to suspend its extradition treaty with Hong Kong. Last year, the Financial Times’s Asian editor, Jamil Anderlini, reported that a senior Five Eyes intelligence official had warned New Zealand’s viability as a group member was in question because of its “supine” attitude towards China.
Presumably this timidity explains why New Zealand acts as if the Australia/China dispute centres on trade disagreements as opposed to Beijing’s hegemonic diplomacy.
Contrast this with the observations of Japan’s ambassador-designate to Australia, Shingo Yamagami, who last week praised Canberra for resisting China’s belligerence. “This is a trying time for Japan’s friends in Australia,” he said. “The fact of the matter is the world’s eyes are now on Australia.” But rather than stand in solidarity with its ally and closest friend, New Zealand has exploited this situation to Australia’s detriment.
Last year Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said any concerns her government had about China’s policies would be raised “in a manner that is respectful”. But Ardern was not at all concerned about respect when she publicly berated Prime Minister Scott Morrison last year at Kirribilli House over his government’s policy of deporting New Zealanders sentenced to 12 or more months imprisonment and/or who are associates of a criminal organisation. “Send back Kiwis – genuine Kiwis,” she demanded. “Do not deport your people and your problems.”
And who could forget her telling journalists at the Pacific Islands Forum in 2019 that “Australia has to answer to the Pacific” over climate change? Witnessing the pile-on that followed, a delighted Wang Xuefeng, the envoy from the biggest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet, declared China recognised the “legitimate demands” of small Pacific countries for tougher climate action.
Unacceptable on several levels, @jacindaardern. Giving #China govt a reward when it has the opposite of "respect" for #humanrights not helpful. @hrw_chinese
— Sophie Richardson (@SophieHRW) January 28, 2021
New Zealand Trade Minister advises Australia to show China more 'respect' https://t.co/cop8JI5i2f
Ardern appears more concerned with emphasising she is different from other Western leaders, particularly those of the Republican or Coalition variety, rather than stressing unity. When asked two weeks ago about the legacy of former US President Donald Trump, she talked of the challenges in working with other leaders. “It’s obviously a lot easier to do that when you have a few more shared values,” she said, tongue in cheek. Other than incessantly airing grievances against Australia, I cannot think of any values New Zealand and China’s leaders share, yet everything appears very cosy between them.
In 2017, New Zealand Labour MP and now education minister Chris Hipkins caused friction with the Turnbull government after he became involved in the issue of whether then Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce held dual citizenship. Hipkins had answered questions from an ALP staffer concerning New Zealand citizenship, although he maintained he had not known the context.
Then foreign minister Julie Bishop was furious, saying she “would find it very hard to build trust with those involved in allegations designed to undermine the government of Australia” in the event NZ Labour came to power.
As subsequent events have shown, she was right.
More Coverage
Read related topics:China Ties
Join the conversation
Israel’s epiphany could end in Iran’s destruction
While the Jews had faced the Third Reich, times have changed – and “never again” isn’t only a slogan. What does that mean in practice? Simply put, Israel’s gruesome epiphany could ultimately lead to the obliteration of Iran.
Read more
Strange bedfellows now united in hatred of the Jews
What we’re seeing is extremes across the ideological spectrum intersecting across common values and goals. Just as ideological extremists share a rejection of liberalism, moderation and centrism, they generally overlap in their scapegoating of Jews.
Read more