Written By:
- Date published:
10:34 am, July 31st, 2026 - 46 comments
Categories: China, Christopher Luxon, coalition of chaos, culture, Diplomacy, discrimination, doofus of the week, exports, helen clark, nz first, racism, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, winston peters -
Tags:
After the 2005 election, the Chinese Embassy sent Zhang Wei to ask me if Winston Peters would follow Labour government policy. I said I didn’t know, but would ask.
I was the Labour Party General Secretary at the time. I spoke to Phil Goff, who had been Labour’s Foreign Minister in the previous two terms. Phil said he would do that, I passed that message back to Zhang Wei, and Peters did follow the policy of the Helen Clark led government.
Twenty years later, we have a rogue Minister in a very different coalition government with a weak leader. Helen Clark is reported as saying that Peters’ behaviour is “inviting a sacking.”
Peters’ comments on China’s polity and governance are not only ignorant but they are insulting. He is simply repeated the memes portraying China as some vast regressive gulag which is far from the truth. We cannot afford him representing us with our largest trading partner.
I. am certain that if Peters had come out with the same comments in Parliament when he was the Foreign Minister while Helen Clark was Prime Minister he would have been out of the job in a flash.
I can see now why the Chinese embassy was concerned in 2005. Luxon should show some real leadership and dismiss him now.
We should, perhaps, consider what it is Peters is wanting to achieve by doing these things and then deny him the satisfaction of helping him meet his objective.
If Peters wants to be sacked, thus graphically distancing himself from the Luxon Government just prior to the election, to his own political advantage, let's not react in a way that might help him do that.
If he's likely to lose significant support from anyone thinking of voting for him, by all means whip up a frenzy of indignation and highlight his behaviour.
I agree to an extent with what you are saying here, but there's a principle that matters more than anti-Peters strategy. It's really not ok for NZ to have racists who runs off at them mouth as Foreign Minister.
And pigs might fly!
He's generating headlines around the world and he knows in the current environment of rising fascism there's a lot of support for this type of rhetoric
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/31-07-2026/winston-peters-comments-to-lawrence-xu-nan-make-headlines-around-the-world
Jacinda created global headlines for compassion and kindness, Peters does it through division and intolerance.
What a shame.
What a sham.
What a ham.
(Used for someone who overacts on stage or acts silly and dramatic in real life just to get laughs and attention.)
Peters, what a shamus! (Wikipedia – derogatory slang for a persisting stereotype of an Irish-American police officer — especially detectives and private investigator). This one is different, not Irish but Scottish/Maori, definitely a stereotype, investigating with an eye to the fast touch .
Something that occurs about Peters is that he is shameless! He is part Maori – does he care to declare in public his concern for hapu and iwi affiliation? He seems to adopt an Ayn Rand otherness, and has behaved to important trade partners not western, with careless neglect of respect for their personhood, national pride and Kiwi diplomacy. To whom does he feel affiliation?
To Winston perhaps, and how did he go on the foreshore question about Maori and the seashore? Churchill quote:: We shall fight on the seas and oceans, We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,..
Named Winston with perhaps Churchill himself in mind, these words of the British PM from about 10 May 1940 could apply to us. But our Winston here could not repeat them with truth:
…we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our Island Home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.
At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.
https://genius.com/Winston-churchill-we-shall-fight-on-the-beaches-annotated
And a good read – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_shall_fight_on_the_beaches#
I like the way that Churchill says they will try, not making fulsome promises but rallying the hopes and powers of the nation. I have a book of Thomas Bracken's poems written here in 1906 and he was hopeful for our country, now fading into decadence. But I meet keen young people-to-go so those of us older, and we must keep on fighting for a good country not bound in purity, fine-raising laws and hindrances, but in good will, hard work and outcomes that all receive with opportunities for change. Perhaps we could have a Day of Togetherness and commit to stop being Money-Diversion-Mad but aim for a vision of a happy, busy, positive, sustainable nation, funding fewer, and short-term, politicians,managers,administrators.
Shame
Shamus
Sham
Ham…
Let's cut to the chase,
What an a.
True enough re Helen Clark, and she's clear he is angling to be sacked and bring the government down and go for the snap election.
But Luxon is unable to do that. So Winston stands like Odysseus and commands against a sea of woke.
So the more interesting question for November 7th is whether the NZFirst support now goes down, or indeed goes up.
If it goes up … All Hell breaks loose 🙂
if it goes up (not just the next poll), that tells NZ a lot about where we are at as a nation. Serious af.
Does removing him from cabinet definitely trigger an early election.
Could labour and the greens offer confidence and supply for a couple months , ?
omg wtf Wag
Wag's wigged-out.
technically they could.
The next few polls may or may not be a true reflection on how voters view Peters.
There was an element in the US where polling companies didn't receive accurate answers from respondants when it came to Trump. Trump supporters were simply too embarrassed to state, openly, that they would vote.
The response was skewed polling results, leading to an unforeseen victory for the Orange Village Idiot in 2024.
We may get something along those lines here, though not along the same lines as in the US, thank fully.
The only real way to neutralise NZFirst is for both National and Labour to categorically rule out coalescing with NZF.
And pigs will fly. Power is simply too important for the Nats, and Luxon is desperate for a second term, to save his political skin.
Mike Smith's opinion piece is exactly why Peters plays his game, knowing (and sadly proved correct) that his critics will fall into his trap.
If anyone needs it spelled out (and it seems they do), here it is:
Peters' racist attack was directed at a New Zealander. And by extension, at the New Zealand Chinese community – even at minority communities in general (see also "butter chicken" etc).
We should condemn, unequivocally and strongly, the racism of NZ First. When our fellow citizens are attacked then, to coin a phrase, "they are us". We stand alongside them.
We should do this because it is the right thing to do. Not because it offends a foreign government, not because of diplomatic manoeuvering, not because of trade implications or Pacific power considerations or any other calculations.
If our "anti-racism" is based on appeasing Modi or Xi Jinping then it is worthless. It is morally bankrupt. Why not give a free pass to anti-African racists, we don't need to worry about the power of Ghana or Gabon, do we?
Condemn racism because it is racism. No other consideration is needed.
I disagree. It wasn’t racism but xenophobia and a typical arrogant Peters personal put-down, in this specific instance. Consider the weak response from the Speaker of the House, Gerry Brownlee, who did nothing at all and even excused it – does that make him a racist too?
Of course it is racism.
Sadly, ironically, you are also "othering" Lawrence Xu-Nan, in a much nicer way than Peters, but "othering" nonetheless.
Attacking foreigners = xenophobia. After 30 years Lawrence is still a foreigner?
Agree condemn racism because it is racism.
But Peters has also commented on the Chinese government. Can't really separate those two things.
Agreed. Things can be racist and stupid, while also being bad foreign policy at the same time.
I can't believe we've sunk this low.
Which is why NZers of Chinese descent aren't really helped by the Chinese ambassador acting as though one of its citizens had been maligned. The ambassador might just as well have issued a press release saying "Yes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is correct, Lawrence Xu-Nan absolutely is Chinese and the CCP is pleased he's in your country's Parliament."
He should have just said "Lawrence Xu-Nan is a New Zealander, this is nothing to do with China."
Nope, one’s adopted nationality and passport don’t change one’s country of origin/birth and ethnicity.
The UK High Commissioner didn't comment on immigrant Michael Cullen's utterances, and it would have been extraordinary if they had.
Sadly this is the age-old story of visible immigrants versus invisible immigrants. If your ethnicity is Chinese or Indian then you get lumped in with Them. If your ethnicity is White British, you soon become Us.
What's more, this Othering disregards the obvious fact that NZ citizens who are labelled "Chinese" can have origins in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia and countless other nations. Or even refugees fleeing China. Not to mention all the multi-ethnic identities that Kiwis have.
And yet we're still doing "Chinese = Beijing". I really thought/hoped we were well past this. Especially on the political left.
Well ad and mecurio , it's about being the adult in the room , labour could come out publicly and say luxon should sack the old racist fool, and we'll keep the government going election time
True, they could. Problem is, it would require Hipkins to be a leader. Opportunism being a stance that exploits opportunities, an agent must see the glint of gold in the situation. Since H has no obvious aptitude for that, he's in the position of needing expert advice. Anyone in Labour able to provide that? Even if they did, the usual Labour default of using a captain's call to evade the thing would apply. Hipkins would likely ponder the option of trying to seem decisive for days, until everyone moves on…
or maybe Labour know more about winning elections than you do.
Another logical fail on your behalf.
I doubt Hipkins failed last time on my behalf, but you could infotain us by trying to explain how he did it…
Another comprehension fail on your behalf. Are you deliberately being obtrusive, because you’re not even funny, just nonsensical.
every party that's ever stood still knows more about how to win an election than you. All you've got is the nasty negatives, and that's not a winning strategy.
Hey, I merely pointed out to bwaghorn why it was unlikely his expectation would be fulfilled. All the evidence, based on his past performance, is that he won't use the opportunity as such. I've given him credit on the few occasions he has merited it. If he wins the election, I must do so again…
bullshit. Your sly nastiness is always pulling people down then butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.
B had an idea and put it out there as a question. People answered. You used their comment to Hipkins bash. No attempt to explain your thinking as to why Labour giving C/S to National would be useful, nor understanding of why Hipkins might have good reasons for not doing that.
Instead, your MO is to slur as if your critique is legit, when it fact it is vacuous.
Some of us want a change of government in November, and some of us think it's critical.
Either the racism is a political opportunity or not. I agreed with him that it is. I pointed out why. All your melodrama around trying to hallucinate motives I don't have is irrelevant.
Nope, you took bwaghorn’s suggestion seriously and ‘obliged’ with a load of gibberish negative nonsense about Labour & Hipkins, which is your MO here on TS and it’s fucking tedious. This showed that you haven’t got a clue and that your faux ‘merit & credit’ is disingenuous. The most appropriate response to bwaghorn’s suggestion, so far, was given @ 8.2 (https://thestandard.nz/sack-him-christopher/#comment-2068419).
Oops, snap!
Why? Luxon already has the power to resolve this: he can sack Peters, or he can call an early election. Why should Labour rescue him from the consequences of his own coalition agreement for no political or electoral benefit?
Labour's purpose is to form and lead a centre-left government. Propping up a centre-right government would make that objective harder, not easier. It would blur the distinction between government and opposition while allowing National to avoid the political costs of managing its own coalition.
If National's governing arrangement has become untenable because of the actions of one of its Ministers, the responsibility for fixing that lies with the Prime Minister, not the Leader of the Opposition. That's how responsible government works.
what's the earliest a snap election could be?
The only hard-and-fast statutory rules are that election day must be a Saturday, and polling day cannot be earlier than 20 days after the close of nominations.
In practice, that means a snap election could realistically be held in about four weeks.
So we'd be looking at early September. At that point, though, you have to ask whether it's worth the disruption when the scheduled election would only be another four to six weeks away on 7 November.
Why , to force luxon to either sack him or really ram homw how gutless weak power needy he is.
Exactly. All of that can be achieved simply by Hipkins standing up and saying, "The Prime Minister should sack Peters". Which he has already done.
That leaves the political pressure exactly where it belongs: on Luxon. He now has to decide whether to back his minister or dismiss him, and voters can judge him accordingly.
Here is a headline from The Onion. Or the UK's Private Eye, if you prefer. (Or NZ's own Civilian?).
Luxon expresses confidence in Peters as Foreign Minister, says his remarks were ‘racist’
No, that's too silly to be satire. Oh, hang on …
Luxon expresses confidence in Peters as Foreign Minister, says his remarks were ‘racist’ | Stuff
Lux is using pragmatism quite well here. Winston's rhetoric is racist in the mind's of enough of the electorate, I reckon, to deflate NZF poll ratings. Yet voters may not be thus swayed. They may dismiss it as the kind of posturing that democracy induces.
So his confidence is in the mana and position that W exhibits, rather than in his character, imo. Since we are widely reported as being within an attention economy nowadays, he must make effective plays for attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/denny-center/blog/the-attention-economy/
https://www.humanetech.com/youth/the-attention-economy