Mike Hosking: What the hell was Chris Hipkins doing?

In defence of the New Zealand Labour Party, and the bust up they now have with the Australian Government, the following points can be made:

1. Peter Dunne, who is of course part of the government, has come to their defence if not rescue, saying it was the Australian media, not Labour MP Chris Hipkins, who started all this.

2. The Australian government had a pile of issues on their plate before the Barnaby Joyce shambles ever got life.

3. As in all matters like this, no matter what is said and no matter how severe it might appear, there is always a good dose of politics about it. In other words, you might not take it all with a grain of salt, but a lot of robust stuff is said in the game that can be papered over another day.

That said, what the hell was Hipkins doing within a million miles of this in the first place?

If it wasn't dodgy, his new leader would never have had to have a word.

Remember, this is the second word in a week she's had with recalcitrant teammates.

Kelvin Davis got, and I quote because the whole thing sounded tragic, a "growling". Now Hipkins has been reprimanded.

What makes Hipkins' role odd, if not suspect, is: did he ask questions? He argues he didn't know what the questions were about, or who they were for. Really? So is he saying he just asks questions for the sake of it? You can get him to use his time to fire off any series of questions you like on any old subject going, and he's not a bloke who asks questions about the questions? Does anyone really believe that?

The clue is the admission that he had an inkling. What a convenient word - an inkling.

Having watched a bunch of MPs fall by the wayside across the Tasman, all of a sudden you're up asking questions about birth places and parents and citizenship, and all you have is an inkling? I hope Hipkins is blushing at this point.

The really serious part of this is tell me the last time a Foreign Minister - of not just one of our closest allies, but the closest ally - gives both barrels over trust.

True, governments of opposite persuasions over the years have not seen eye-to-eye, but it's always been cordial and civil and fantastically successful and productive. And now, with a potential change of government in five weeks, that's in trouble. It's amateurish, it's unnecessary, it's a distraction and none of it ever needed to happen - if Hipkins had his eye on the main prize.