New Zealand and Australia's foreign ministers offered a straight bat to the public when they met. But with increasing numbers of sore spots in the relationship, further tension seems inevitable, Sam Sachdeva writes.
ANALYSIS: As a warm-up act for their prime ministers, Nanaia Mahuta and Marise Payne had a fair amount of hype to live up to.
The opening of the trans-Tasman bubble enabled the foreign ministers to meet in Wellington this week, ahead of an expected trip from Scott Morrison to see Jacinda Ardern sometime in May.
While Anzac goodwill has been to the fore thanks to emotional photos of loved ones being reunited, it cannot be denied there has been an increasingly fractious tone to the prime ministers’ interactions.
In early 2020, Ardern angrily told Morrison to stop deporting “your people and your problems”; almost exactly a year later, she visibly shook with rage as she condemned the Australian Government’s unilateral decision to cancel the passport of alleged Isis terrorist and dual citizen Suhayra Aden, sending yet another of its "problems" our way.
Coupled with the indignant (bordering on overwrought) reaction across the ditch to the Five Eyes remarks, the stage was set for fireworks when Mahuta and Payne took to the stage of the Beehive theatrette.
But instead of underarm sledges, both ministers offered straight bats to the questions they faced about the flashpoints in the relationship.
The New Zealand Government’s Belt and Road Initiative agreement with China was “entirely a matter for New Zealand”, Payne declared, barely a day after she had ripped up the Victorian state government’s own pact on the grounds it was inconsistent with Australia’s foreign policy.
By now, there is no surprise in Canberra about New Zealand’s opposition to its approach on deportation, while on Wellington’s side there is surely the same certainty that Morrison and his team are not for turning.
She likewise sidestepped a question about how New Zealand should approach its ties with China, while on Five Eyes there was nothing to suggest our immediate exile.
“My view is that countries will choose to address issues of concern in whichever forums they determine appropriate and consistent with their national interest, but our respect for each other – Australia, the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada – is enduring and continuing and one which we particularly in Australia value enormously.”
In return, Mahuta held back when talking about Australia’s deportations.
In March, she alleged Peter Dutton had “trash[ed] his own reputation” when he likened Australia’s deportations to “taking the trash out”. But asked about Dutton’s comments on Wednesday, she said only that “the things that were needed to be said were said at the time”.
That’s not to say Mahuta pulled punches on the broader principles at play: indeed, she stuck closely to Ardern’s prior comments that Morrison’s government was sending "back" many people who had spent most of their lives in Australia and did not identify as Kiwis in any meaningful way.
But by now, there is no surprise in Canberra about New Zealand’s opposition to its approach, while on Wellington’s side there is surely the same certainty that Morrison and his team are not for turning.
The Suhayra Aden situation is more complex, given both the national security implications and the fact of her two young children, and Payne said only that the two countries were “working through those issues in the spirit of our bilateral relationship”.
Four Eyes? Not likely
It is Five Eyes, and New Zealand’s approach to China, where the most diplomatic energy may be expended in the coming months.
Payne may not have been on the attack in public, but before she had touched down anonymous Australian officials were comfortable telling the Sydney Morning Herald they had been “blindsided” by the Five Eyes remarks.
Former foreign minister Alexander Downer also took potshots at Mahuta on social media, while Australian and British news sites have been filled with breathless criticism of New Zealand and claims of treachery.
In truth, there appears no meaningful risk of Five Eyes shrinking to Four in the near future, despite what some claim.
Talk of New Zealand as the “weak link” in the alliance dates back to at least 2018, with scepticism about our own contributions surely going back years beyond that.
Yet we have remained in the alliance throughout, suggesting there must be some value to our presence that has not yet been outweighed by points of difference.
Within New Zealand’s borders, there has been a strikingly broad range of responses to Mahuta’s speech.
If greater clarity was the Government’s goal with Mahuta's China speech, the initial reaction suggests it may have failed.
Some have hailed it as a nuanced but notable step up against China’s aggressions, others attacked it as CCP appeasement, while yet another view had it as mere continuation of status-quo hedging between the Great Powers.
If greater clarity was the Government’s goal, the initial reaction suggests it may have failed.
Indeed, there is a school of thought that if the intention was to reiterate New Zealand’s independent foreign policy without meaningful changes, it may have been better to say nothing at all.
There is also the question, to what extent the concern about Five Eyes’ overreach was Mahuta’s, rather than New Zealand’s.
In media interviews this week Ardern has subtly walked back some of the inferences drawn, albeit without directly contradicting her minister, while the fact the comments were not in Mahuta’s prepared remarks seems to have added significance.
Where matters head from here remains to be seen, and much will depend on the actions of Beijing (or Washington) and the flow-on effects.
But there will be another swift temperature check of the trans-Tasman relationship when Morrison heads to New Zealand.
Queenstown has been mooted as a potential venue, as Kiwi tourism operators hope to lure Australians keen on ski season - but Ardern will be hoping talks are warmer than the scenery.
