Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, February 3rd, 2026 - 21 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Two recent posts have pictures of Shane Jones wearing a hat à la Trump saying Make New Zealand Great Again. This rather raises the question, "When was it not great?"
Or, "Were we ever truly great?"
That's a question that might arouse some interest and replies. What have we done in our past that have lowered us from our lofty pinnacle of greatness, if we were ever there?
Foreign wars like Korea, Vietnam? Rugby tours with racist countries? Dawn raids on Pacifica households?
Googling the word 'shame' gets some interesting results. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/54014/'day-of-shame'-for-labour-mp-in-morning-papers
IMHO if this country was ever 'great' it was in terms of progressive social policy, such as the Old Age Pension of 1898 and Votes for Women of 1893. Also the social welfare system set up by the First Labour government under Michael Joseph Savage.
We could have maintained 'great' if the Norman Kirk superannuation scheme had been allowed to continue – alas!
The socialist democracies of Scandinavia have long outstripped us in that particular sphere of 'great.'
Suffice to say, nothing has ever been contributed to making NZ a 'great' place by any right wing government.
Thanks, Tony. I agree with your summation. I would also instance our once proud-making international leadership in the League of Nations where we opposed lifting sanctions against Italy for its invasion of Ethiopia, Kirk's stance on Mururoa and nuclear weapons testing, Lange's action in refusing nuclear armed or powered ships.
As you say, I do not have much pride in what right wing governments have done.
I'd like to hear what conservatives would instance for their pride-making achievements and policies.
Do Lange's actions over the transfer of the convicted Rainbow Warrior bombers to French jurisdiction fill you with equal pride?
It's very easy for a country to engage in performative grandstanding in a League of Nations (I note that the League ignored NZ's protest) or a UN which is largely devoid of power; but much harder in the world of international realpolitik – when the consequences of 'principle' are all too real.
"Do Lange's actions over the transfer of the convicted Rainbow Warrior bombers to French jurisdiction fill you with equal pride?
This is what was negotiated. https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Arechaga-etal-Rainbow-Warrior-1990.pdf
"A dispute arose between France, which demanded the release of the two agents, and New Zealand, which claimed compensation for the incident. New Zealand also complained that France was threatening to disrupt New Zealand trade with the European Communities unless the two agents were released.
The two countries requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to mediate and to propose a solution in the form of a ruling, which both Parties agreed in advance to accept. The Secretary-General's ruling, which was given in 1986, required France to pay US $7 million to New Zealand and to undertake not to take certain defined measures injurious to New Zealand trade with the European Communities.2 The ruling also provided that Major Mafart and Captain Prieur were to be released into French custody but were to spend the next three years on an isolated French military base in the Pacific. The two States concluded an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters on 9 July 1986 ("the First Agreement"),3 which provided for the implementation of the ruling. Under the terms of the First Agreement, Major Mafart and Captain Prieur were to be
… transferred to a French military facility on the island of Hao for a period of not less than three years. They will be prohibited from leaving the island for any reason, except with the mutual consent of the two governments.
The actual transfer took place on 23 July 1986."
The ones acting without honour were the French, acting under the rule of a socialist PM who was firstly French and then socialist. They cheated on the deal. Pffffffffft à l'honneur Français……..
Must have stuck in his craw to agree to it. but I've never doubted we'd have seen a foot-and-mouth outbreak here in a matter of months if he hadn't.
I have just read that the new right wing government in France replacing Mitterand in 1986 wanted to very much increase sanctions against New Zealand. There is a long but detailed and interesting document here on the bombing and its legal aftermath ending with the agreement that France later dishonoured.
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-differences-between-new-zealand-and-france-arising-from-the-rainbow-warrior-affair-ruling-sunday-6th-july-1986
Absolutely inevitable outcome to any observer – once they were transferred to French control.
An example of the NZ government bowing to realpolitik.
And an illustration of the difference between international political posturing, and the reality of the grubby decisions that governments have to make in reality.
Me too, and wouild add Helen Clark / Labour / NZ not joining Australia in the Iraq war's Coalition of the Willing, as a decision to be proud of.
Also glad NZ got in ahead of Aussie in declining Trump's Bored of Peace invitation.
How about NZ supporting the UN peacekeeping efforts in Timor Leste.
One of the few, relatively effective, UN mediated transfers of power.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-peacekeepers-go-east-timor-0
https://teara.govt.nz/en/peacekeeping/sources
https://www.ms.now/opinion/trump-united-nations-funding-shutdown
Normally, I avoid reading about Brian Tamaki as much as I detest reading about Donald Trump, but Matthew Tukaki’s opinion piece at Waatea News was pretty good, in my opinion [hat-tip to Newsroom e-mail Newsletter].
https://waateanews.com/2026/01/31/opinion-destiny-church-immigration-and-why-new-zealanders-reject-the-anger-politics-on-display/
I almost turned this into a Post about the striking similarities between Destiny Church-Brian Tamaki and NZ First-Winston Peters, but I don’t want to aggravate some TS stalwarts any more than necessary.
Tukaki asks: “[A]re New Zealanders concerned about immigration?”
I can’t resist using Tukaki’s words to point to the obvious similarities. (NB It goes without saying that I subscribe to his thinking)
Amen to that!
I skipped the bits about religion and Christianity because they were less relevant to the point I’m trying to make and I don’t want to be disrespectful of people’s religious faith.
Tukaki writes that over the years Tamaki has made many [outrageous] claims (and so has Peters) that haven’t panned out and they won’t. He argues that there’s “a growing disconnect between the Destiny Church worldview and the values of most New Zealanders” and that “[w]e’ve simply rejected his [Tamaki’s] version of it”. Note, the change to the first person use. At face value, this is where the similarity between Destiny Church-Brian Tamaki and NZ First-Winston Peters breaks down. However, both leaders are polarising and divisive who both (over)use demagogic tools and although NZ First has been rising steadily in the opinion polls (and gradually freaking out some Lefties) I think it’s fair to say that, on the whole, New Zealanders are rejecting Winston Peters’ version of it.
Tamaki, I assume, wants to shore up and increase the number of supporters, and, presumably, those supporters pay some kind of ‘membership fees’. Peters wants to shore up and increase the number of supporters because it gives him more political leverage (power), right now and later during the negotiations to form the next Government when & where he’ll use his blustering and bluffing skills to the limit – he’s really unmatched in that game.
The context: Peters is milking the FTA with India and his talking points, i.e., the usual stuff about immigrants, appear to find a receptive audience among Labour supporters. Those supporters are keen for Labour to reject supporting National in getting the deal ratified in Parliament. (NB some of those supporters are also dead-keen for Labour to reject doing a deal with Winston Peters after the General Election and want Labour-Hipkins to rule him out now)
Context
https://e-tangata.co.nz/korero/matthew-tukaki-making-it-up-every-day/
Rimutaka, Uncle Ray and Midwinter (Middie) scion pre-merger (via the J8 diplomatic treaty into the kingdom of the Blessed Brian Best J7/Third 1 origins).
Thanks for the article, a good read.
While your comment is about Peters/Tamaki and that is relevant, the elephant in the room is Labour's response to the offer to ratify the trade deal.
A comment hereabouts in the last day or so, put the idea up that Labour may go the way of the Dutch Labour party. This immigration/free trade/globalism vs protection for local workers schism is one of the faults that runs through Labour, IMO.
Similarly I've read here about how NZ1st picked up Labour voters last election round. This could be an issue that sends more of them Winnies way.
Workers only do well when there is a Labour government (2005-2008 and 2017-2020 that made NZF look better than they are).
2023-
1.little increase in the MW
2.no Fair Pay Agreement (Industry Awards)
3.blocked pay equity.
4.no increase in ACC funding, so less support provided to those off work
1996-99
1. little increase in the MW
2.ECA continued
3.market rents in state housing
Well, that was the context for my comment. The question is though, whose version of the trade deal, Luxon’s, Peters’, MSM’s, somebody else’s? There’s so much mis-information around (and presumably dis-information from unscrupulous parties).
Yeah, I saw that. The context of Dutch politics with its two chambers with separate elections, with the European Parliament, and its electoral system is so utterly different from ours that I cannot give credit to the idea that the NZ Labour Party might be going the same way as the PvdA (the Dutch Labour Party).
These are indeed complex issues where NZ Labour Party needs to have clear policies and even clearer and consistent messaging. If you buy into certain narratives (e.g., from Winston Peters), you could be forgiven that NZ Labour is on a mission to nowhere. NZ is a small economy that depends on trade exports & imports and arguably, on a more differentiated labour force than it can cultivate and grow at home at present (for a number of reasons). Further, I don’t quite see [it as] a ‘schism’; in fact, the policies released so far point to a more inward and self-sustaining NZ (e.g., https://www.labour.org.nz/futurefund).
I doubt it. Only if those voters haven’t already been swayed by Winston’s demagoguery. Winston would like them to think that immigrant communities in NZ are made up solely of outsiders, which ignores that there are many second, third, and higher-generation people who now are, for all intents and purposes, Kiwis (and voters!). Winston’s xenophobic drum sounds eery and ominous and stokes us-vs-them instincts and sentiments, as intended.
Post up on today's combined L/G press conference
https://thestandard.nz/game-on-labour-and-the-greens-speak-to-media-from-waitangi/
Music to my ears.
https://theconversation.com/polls-are-snapshots-not-predictions-how-to-read-them-critically-this-election-year-274531
Polls cause so much misplaced angst that leads to kneejerk reactions.
@ Incognito @2.2.2, thanks for your reply.
I take your point about the Dutch system being different but there is still peril. Last time round with the 'Captain's Call' and the policies that went in the bin, it was poll driven, not an alignment with principle or direction.
Part of the wider issue for Labour, through the lens I look at them, is being too timid to tell business/industry to lift their game. To invest and train their staff. I get some specialized roles may need to be imported but we are so far down the neo liberal wormhole, we have to bring in welders, truck drivers and cooks. Not to mention nurses and health care assistants.
I want to believe that the small target strategy is a holding pattern till some major, bold direction is announced with some clear messaging to go with it.
Complacency should never replace vigilance but this doesn’t mean we should live in constant fear & angst because of the doomsplainers.
IIRC, that ‘Captain’s Call’ wasn’t a Captain’s Call as such. I think they (the Party and its new Leader) tried to create some breathing room to re-align things. I don’t know how much was poll-driven or influenced by those mythical ‘focus groups’ though.
I don’t think this is true. In any case, Labour has little to gain by making enemies with business/industry (and that includes the farming community). A respectful constructive dialogue is not being too timid but more clearly and strongly standing up for workers is not mutually exclusive with that either.
The FTA with India is not bringing in welders, truck drivers, cooks, nurses, and health care assistants, is it? In addition, those temporary employment entrants (1,667 per year) are not just doing a job but we can also learn from them, right?
I’d be quite disappointed if they didn’t this year.
About Moltbook.
https://theconversation.com/openclaw-and-moltbook-why-a-diy-ai-agent-and-social-media-for-bots-feel-so-new-but-really-arent-274744
Related to this, it’s important that we have strong regulations about sharing data and (personal) information between government/public service agencies and one other reason why mergers into super-ministries should be watched carefully. The loose use of (agentic) AI by government increases the risks of things getting out of control rapidly.