I'm not a huge fan of former PMs sticking their oar into the water of current political debates.

Not only are their thoughts rooted in briefings given by officials long ago, but when attacking a sitting Prime Minister, they tend to sound a bit whingy and out-of-touch.

This is the case of Helen Clark and Don Brash, who've issued a statement condemning Christopher Luxon for comments he made to the Financial Times on the sidelines of NATO in Washington D.C..

Luxon said a few things:

1. We need to call out China more for spying.

2. He's hoping to sign a deal that would see NZ able to deploy military assets to the Philippines, which has long running and regular disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.

3. He's keen on our military joining the U.S. and Australia in conducting joint military exercises inside the Philippines' exclusive economic zone.

4. He spoke about NZ being a "force multiplier" for Australia, the U.S., and other partners.

Clark and Brash are tut-tutting this, which comes off the back of the AUKUS debate, and wades into another long-running one - the $38-billion debate.

That's what two-way trade between China and New Zealand is worth, remember it was Clark and then Foreign Minister Phil Goff who signed the FTA that got us there.

They reckon this tough talk and cosying-up to the US is undermining our "independent foreign policy" and could lead to us being punished by China at the port.

China's no bigger a spy-threat to us than other countries, they reckon.

Here's the thing though, Luxon hasn't actually changed much in the way of foreign policy yet. Plus, the full Financial Times article also quotes him saying we're pursuing a balanced strategy with China on trade, renewable energy and people-to-people ties.

What's more, the current PM is getting more up to date briefings on China's cyber threat than Clark or Brash...

And when it comes down to it, most of us would agree we'd side with America and Australia if war returned to the Pacific theatre, wouldn't we?

Isn't Luxon just laying out what's realistically bound to happen?

In saying all of that, Australia learnt the hard way what poking the bear can do to your exports, so it's an area we should tread carefully, but perhaps some are now better placed than others to walk that tight rope.

I'm not a huge fan of former PMs sticking their oar into the water of current political debates. 
Not only are their thoughts rooted in briefings given by officials long ago, but when attacking a sitting Prime Minister, they tend to sound a bit whingy and out-of-touch. 
This is the case of Helen Clark and Don Brash, who've issued a statement condemning Christopher Luxon for comments he made to the Financial Times on the sidelines of NATO in Washington D.C.. 
Luxon said a few things:
1. We need to call out China more for spying.
2. He's hoping to sign a deal that would see NZ able to deploy military assets to the Philippines, which has long running and regular disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.
3. He's keen on our military joining the U.S. and Australia in conducting joint military exercises inside the Philippines' exclusive economic zone.
4. He spoke about NZ being a "force multiplier" for Australia, the U.S., and other partners.
Clark and Brash are tut-tutting this, which comes off the back of the AUKUS debate, and wades into another long-running one - the $38-billion debate. 
That's what two-way trade between China and New Zealand is worth, remember it was Clark and then Foreign Minister Phil Goff who signed the FTA that got us there. 
They reckon this tough talk and cosying-up to the US is undermining our "independent foreign policy" and could lead to us being punished by China at the port. 
China's no bigger a spy-threat to us than other countries, they reckon. 
Here's the thing though, Luxon hasn't actually changed much in the way of foreign policy yet. Plus, the full Financial Times article also quotes him saying we're pursuing a balanced strategy with China on trade, renewable energy and people-to-people ties. 
What's more, the current PM is getting more up to date briefings on China's cyber threat than Clark or Brash... 
And when it comes down to it, most of us would agree we'd side with America and Australia if war returned to the Pacific theatre, wouldn't we? 
Isn't Luxon just laying out what's realistically bound to happen? 
In saying all of that, Australia learnt the hard way what poking the bear can do to your exports, so it's an area we should tread carefully, but perhaps some are now better placed than others to walk that tight rope.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

A fresh and intelligent start to your day - catch the very latest international and domestic news developments, sport, entertainment and business on Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, on Newstalk ZB.

Advertisement