Jacinda Ardern’s principled and timely intervention to remedy Australia’s maltreatment of several hundred refugees on Manus Island risks becoming the most serious crisis in trans-Tasman relations since New Zealand’s adoption of its anti-nuclear policy more than 30 years ago.
Australia’s wanton neglect of those left in limbo by its closure of its offshore detention centre on the Papua New Guinean territory has brought the increasing strains in ties between Wellington and Canberra to a head.
Searching desperately for an adjective which acknowledges those tensions without further weakening those links, Ardern has settled on “robust”.
She accompanies that declaration with an accompanying wry grin which silently admits things are anything but robust.
There is certainly nothing robust about a relationship where her offer of $3 million-worth of material assistance to the refugees is rewarded by Australia’s hardball Immigration Minister deeming that spending such a sum to improve the living conditions of those suffering squalor and deprivation would be “a waste of money”.
Equally galling was Peter Dutton’s threat of “consequences” if Ardern kept meddling in something which he and the great bulk of Australian politicians consider to be their business and no-one else’s.
He did not offer any detail as to what form those consequences might take.
He did not need to do so. He knows people will assume he is flagging yet further erosion of the rights and entitlements enjoyed by the approximately 650,000 New Zealand citizens resident in Australia.
It all adds up to very clever politics on Dutton’s part.
He is putting the squeeze on Ardern to choose between not risking upsetting the 33,000 people in that citizenship category who are also registered to vote in a New Zealand general election or siding with a few hundred refugees who cannot muster a single vote between them.
Ardern cannot say she wasn’t warned.
She said her offer of taking Manus Island refugees may not be welcome, but she saw a role with Manus Island to "assist Australia".
Prior to her meetings last week with her Australian counterpart, Malcolm Turnbull, she was urged by National’s Gerry Brownlee, who had a brief stint as foreign minister prior to September’s election, to proceed with caution.
He warned she would make no progress by trying to embarrass Turnbull to do what any prime minister of a supposedly civilised country would be expected to do.
Brownlee’s prediction has turned out to be right on the button.
But then Australia nearly always gets its way.
Take the anti-nuclear policy. That development fractured the old ANZUS alliance, sparking fury in Australia’s defence establishment.
Australia ultimately got its revenge by forcing New Zealand to subsidise the former’s grossly inefficient shipbuilding industry through the purchase of new frigates which could have been bought at half the price from European shipyards.
There is a very worrying difference between the two episodes, however.
New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy did not derail efforts to bring the two countries closer together, be it with respect to trade, commerce, common law, relaxation of visa restrictions and border controls, alongside guaranteeing that New Zealand citizens resident in Australia were eligible to the entitlements enjoyed by the locals and vice versa.
Having reached the stage where it was impossible for the two nations to get any closer, there is now inertia; a sense of drift. Whatever happened, for example, to the notion of a Euro-style common currency?
There seems to be little desire or inclination amongst those in power on either side of the Ditch to repair things and reinvigorate the relationship.
The truth is that while the Anzac Spirit still runs deep, it no longer has much bearing on the political here and now.
The assault mounted in recent years by the conservative administrations run by Turnbull and Tony Abbott on those long-established rights and entitlements enjoyed by New Zealand citizens resident in Australia is evidence aplenty that the “special relationship” between the two countries is no longer special.
The friction between Ardern and Julie Bishop, Australia’s Foreign Minister, and their unwillingness to offer the olive branch to one another is especially telling.
Ardern clearly believes that kissing and making up only perpetuates a very unsatisfactory status quo — one which sees New Zealand always being punished when it is unquestionably right and Australia has manifestly got things very wrong.
Despite that, Ardern sought to be a paragon of diplomatic virtue during her discussions with Turnbull by stressing her focus was solely on the “human face” of what was happening on Manus Island, not the wider political ramifications.
She similarly made it clear that her use of the words “not acceptable” applied to the living conditions of the refugees, not Australia’s behaviour.
Such niceties cut little ice in Canberra. The standard response of Australian governments to New Zealand politicians seen to be trying to punch above their weight is to punch back even harder.
In Ardern’s case, the retaliation was not slow in coming. A front-page story in last Tuesday’s edition of Brisbane’s Courier Mail newspaper “revealed” that Australia’s border protection services had intercepted four boats heading for New Zealand with 164 asylum seekers on board.
The news report was woefully short on fact, including detail of when the interception occurred and who was saying it did happen.
The story had the stench of fake news. Interviewed on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report, Ardern was unable to confirm whether the report was accurate.
Jacinda Ardern is being warned her stance could be creating tensions in the trans-Tasman relationship.
Were it accurate, New Zealand would have been told as a matter of priority. Ardern would have been briefed accordingly.
The only conclusion to draw is that the information was not passed on because it never happened. If it did, the failure of Australia to share the information suggests things are even more awry than is currently thought.
Another “leak” — this time of an Australian Government intelligence report — sought to undermine Ardern by declaring group of Manus Island asylum seekers had been luring underage girls as young as 10 into having sex.
Then came Dutton’s contribution. It all looked like a conspiracy to silence Ardern.
She has made her point, however. There is no need for her to keep repeating it.
The National Party claims that the Prime Minister’s offer of $3 million, plus her willingness to take150 refugees off Australia’s hands, is a sop to those on the left of the Labour Party which will make it easier for that faction to swallow a revised version of the hated Trans-Pacific Partnership.
There is a kernel of truth in that. Her actions on Manus Island will be lapped up with delight in those quarters.
As a self-proclaimed “conviction politician”, however, she could not turn a blind eye to the plight of asylum-seekers.
To remain silent would have meant being seen to be condoning what can only described as barbarism on Australia’s part.
Remaining silent would have eroded New Zealand’s credibility when it comes to criticising human rights abuses elsewhere.
It seems New Zealand at long last has a prime minister who is not scared to tell Australia where to get off when that country’s behaviour demands rebuke.
But for how long?
When Australia and New Zealand are in dispute, there is only one winner. And that winner is almost without exception not New Zealand.
SHARE ME