I think the article underplays the different reactions in Australia from the Right and the Left. And at the moment the government in Australia is held by a right wing party. Predictably, the party and its supporters have reacted to Jacinda Ardern's response with derision and contempt. They have temporarily pulled back from their dog whistling and anti immigrant bile in an effort to seem human in the face of such horrific events. Senator Fraser Anning was given a rebuke from both sides of parliament for his claims.
Also, the disgusting misogynistic attacks on former prime minister Julia Gillard came from the Right and a former right wing prime minister in particular. The country was not angry at her; just the right wing.
The right wing politicians in Australia seem to take their cues from America's Republicans with predictable results.
Also, the article does overplay the national sentiment as being machismo. Again, this is a reflection of the attitudes of right wing politicians and supporters. The current government is seen as having a "women problem". In the recent leadership spill, the woman Foreign Affairs minister, who was the most popular contender for leadership amongst voters was unable to even muster single digit support from within the party.
30
Julie Bishop wasn't substantial enough on economic policy to be leader (neither is Morrison) that's why she was parked in Foreign Affairs and not seen as a contender. Morrison simply Bradbury'd his way to the post.
3
@Barry Long the liberals are centre-right. They’re very far from being a right wing Conservative party.
@Barry Long
Not really. The culture of Australia certainly seems more sexist than UK, Canada or New Zealand.
2
If Australia didn't have leadership crises every six months, maybe they could have a government with a voter mandate and a leader that knows the job and assumes responsibility. I don't know if it has anything to do with sexism (though it seems everything does nowadays) but the horrible way Julia Gillard was treated I wouldn't be a bit surprised. We're on our third, technically fourth, female head of state.
That's one of many ways that Australia and New Zealand are *not* similar countries. Our politics are much more stable, our far right is much smaller, our immigration policies are far far more humane, and we have a different economy. (Sometimes yours is better, sometimes ours is.)
Australia looks to the US for inspiration. That's why they have an American style right-winger as PM. NZ prefers to go its own way, with a dash of Westminster and Buckingham Palace. There's a lot of chatter across the Tasman, but it's good-natured, and neither country wants to be like the other, and there is no reason they should be.
Just don't make too much of "the Jacinda thing." We're still only the dot on the lower right edge of the map and there is only so much influence she or we can have. If NZ has ever been a trend setter it was inadvertent, just trying to do the right thing for itself. One lesson that *can* be taken from her is that decency can coexist with politics and policy. All you need are decent people in charge.
91
@Stevenz. Jacinda certainly has her appeal, although I am not sure how her actual policies will work out in the long term. But on the immigration thing, you have to keep in mind that Australia has had to deal with the drowning deaths of 1000+ migrants trying to reach it by boat. The harsh policies have at least halted the carnage. Is it more humane to keep letting people, including young children, die? Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that thanks to geography, NZ does not have the "boat people" problem that Australia has. If it did, NZ might have been forced to pursue different immigration policies, too. The other point is that so many Kiwis have settled here in Australia rather than staying home in NZ (for example, I'd bet that statistically speaking the Gold Coast probably has more Kiwis than Australians) that I suspect you need the immigrants to keep your economy running.
4
@Stevenz
"Australia looks to the US for inspiration. That's why they have an American style right-winger as PM."
No we don't. We have a PM who is there due to his party's internal machinations and ideological differences. No Australians have voted for him to be PM.
He's about to face an election and if his conservative coalition party win then he'll be a right wing Christian Prime Minister who does follow a type of American Pentecostal church ideology but that's about it. The pundits and polls are pointing to that never happening.
As to looking to the US for inspiration I'm not sure what your attempting to say; Defence pacts,economic treaties,cultural ties?
Can't be gun laws as Australia's are amongst the toughest in the world and are far more stricter than NZ's new laws.
The Westminster system reigns supreme here as does compulsory voting. Percentage of Australians who voted at last Federal election is around the 96% mark, contrast that with the US or indeed NZ which had a turnout of 77% in the last election.
We do however slavishly follow the US in it's military policy and that is not inspiration or inspirational.
7
@Lee H
We look to the US for inspiration because we have a Murdoch media. Additionally, right wing Aussie politicians are being inspired (if that is the right word!) by Trump and saying similar things.
23
You elected them.
1
Do Australians have a case of Jacinda envy? They shouldn’t.
Like many in NZ who had traditionally voted National (Republican) – I voted Labor (Democrats) – last election.
Like many of my boomer generation, National had at last gone too far even for us in its endless serving of the rich elite - us - at the expense of everyone else.
So we voted for Labor, even we among the entitled 10% could see we were paupering our children’s future.
Even greed needs to end!
Then the appalling massacre in Christchurch – a white gunman murdering innocent Muslim worshippers. We were impressed with our Jacinda’s leadership – good for her!
Except 2 days later a vile Islamist cleric blamed the killings on a Jews. Not a word from our Jacinda on that one!
Then the massacre in Sri Lanka. Not a word on Christians, just some fluff on Easter Worshippers.
And of course our Jacinda also pulled the plug on all those promised economic reforms & leap back in the clutches of our benevolent rich in exchange for staying in power.
More fool us. The pattern was always there.
Politician at school, politician at University, then Parliament.
Just another professional identitarian politician.
Hugs and kisses for the PC crowd & media – she’s great at that. But nothing real for the poor. I don’t doubt that the next batch of Jacinda will be compulsory sensitivity training of some sort.. but god forbid any real help for those in need – lets give them a circus and puffery instead.
The Aussies can have her.
1
Before this horrible terrorist incident, many commentators were classifying Arden as a one-term PM.
She is like Canada's Trudeau - a good looking rather shallow individual with limited/no legislative accomplishments.
Trudeau will be out in Canada in six month while Jacinda has three years.
So - no - no envy.
1
Don't know about the Aussies, but I know a couple of other English speaking nations, on either side of the Atlantic, that for different reasons could use a leader like Jacinda.
As far as the US is concerned, consider this:
1999: mass shooting at Columbine. 20 years and many mass shootings later - firearms as plentiful as ever.
2019: mass shooting in Wellington, NZ. 26 days later: NZ passes meaningful firearms legislation.
Can you say helpless giant?
19:25 EDT, 4/24
I'm having a case of New Zealand envy. If only American politics could catch on to the idea that women can be great leaders, and stop obsessing over "sure, but is she ELECTABLE?" How about treating the female nominee contenders as CONTENDERS, not an interesting angle in reporting the presidential election cycle? NYT has certainly been failing at this in recent months.
I don't think how Gillard was treated was as much to do with her gender, as it was her roots in life. It was classist. She had the wrong accent. A very working class accent.
For better or worse, she was fighting not only misogyny.
1
No way
She’s merely acted on gun control over 20 years later than Australia
1
This is a strange article, but clearly written by someone who is attempting to draw on events to ft a narrative rather than presenting a reasoned, objective comparison of Australia & NZ.
For a start, Fraser Anning received a total of 19 votes in the 2016 election. He is not representative of Australia, and only ended up in Parliament when Roberts was disqualified.
Two, Egg Boy had a GoFundMe page started for him and received mainly positive press, but hey, as you said, we do like our larrikins.
Also, if I was a kiwi, I would be insulted by your reference to "primary claim to fame being Lord of the Rings". Seriously, as a South African, you should know it's the All Blacks. Just kidding. NZ's numerous firsts and achievements that have been mentioned in other posts.
And finally, how can you talk about Australia's female leaders without mentioning Julie Bishop.
It seems that every time I read an article about Australia in the NY Times it's either negative &/or ill-informed. NY Times, are you jealous of us....
& for the record, I think Jacinda is great.
1
Enough of the lazy fandom. There's more to effective leadership than good looks and quiet dignity.
Irrespective of the alleged killer's motivation, since the Port Arthur shooter in 1996 the Christchurch massacre simply could not have taken place here in Oz.
Why not? Because since Port Arthur, gun laws have been tightened in every Australian state and territory to make such a massacre nigh impossible.
NZ has had many years to follow suit. Instead, NZ politicians from NZ PM Helen Clark onwards have bowed to the NZ gun lobby, to NZ farmers and hunters, and failed to put in place the laws that could have stopped this massacre.
As the Huffington Post declared, NZ's feeble gun laws have been glaringly lax compared to here in Oz.
According to Huff Post, unlike Australia and the UK, NZ 'does not ban semi-automatic firearms'. 'And while New Zealand gun owners are required to obtain a license and complete a gun safety course, they do not have to register their guns, with some exceptions, making it impossible for police to know the exact number of firearms in the country'.
Only two countries in the world fail to try to register all firearms in a database: the USA and NZ.
Time and again, despite repeated requests from NZ police, PM Ardern and her NZ Police Minister, Stuart Nash, refused to restrict access to unregistered semi-automatic weapons. Only now, when it's too late, has Jacinda Ardern done so.
Effective leaders? No. Both Ardern and Nash enabled the Christchurch massacre.
2
Don’t confuse larrikinism with wit!! There is still a ‘blokey’ and at times, misogynistic element at work. You only need to look at past events in professional sports, politics, television to affirm this.
2
Take the testosterone out of political leadership. Men have run things for thousands of years and never learn that agression only begets aggression. Long past time to put the women in charge
3
@Chuck Burton
Sure, except it was Australian PM John Howard who banned public ownership of all semiautomatic weapons after Port Arthur while NZ PM Helen Clark refused to follow suit.
1
In a simple answer to the question in the heading, this male Australian says YES!
15
I choose to visit NZ in 2008 & that was a great decision...it helped that friend lives on the North Island. Nonetheless I love and support NZs pluralistic & inclusive attitudes...Are you listening Australia?🧐
It is no secret that Australia is racist, sexist and xenophobic.
3
Other than she is an attractive woman, I don’t find Jacinda politically exceptional or an extraordinary leader in any aspect
5
Why do I have the feeling that we all have Ardern envy these days?
21
For a South African journalist to lump Australia and New Zealand together is extraordinary. If she imagines that New Zealanders are like the white Australians she meets is West Australia she is very much mistaken.
Perhaps she should have a look at the history of the formation of the Federation of Australia in 1901. She will learn that New Zealand backed away from joining the Federation because its delegation was not satisfied that joining was in the interests of the Maori population in New Zealand.
In 1840 Te Whakaminenga o Nga Rangatiratanga o Nga Hapu o Nu Tireni, or The United Tribes of New Zealand signed a treaty with the British Crown. The Treaty of Waitangi ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and among its provisions was that the Maori became British subjects.
This has always been interpreted by New Zealand governments as meaning the Maori have always had the same rights as other citizens. No apartheid, no discrimination.
In Australia, the indigenous people were treated by the British as vermin to be exterminated. Apparently the British Colonial authorities understood the agricultural Maori warriors in New Zealand, but couldn't even conceive of a nomadic hunter-gather culture. So the Aboriginal people in Australia have been subjected to two centuries of sustained genocide.
Do these things make a difference? I believe they are at the roots of the contemporary cultures in these two countries.
Australia could never have produced Jacinda Ardern.
5
Meaningful gun control legislation in 2 weeks? She makes Trump look like a dust mite.
6
PM Ardern is much to classy for this bit of snark but I'm not so I'll do it for her:
I am Jacinda Ardern. Watch and learn. I am waaayy better than you so get over it. You're welcome.
1
The world would be a far better place is men would stop thinking they're all that. Because they're not.
1
Just wish we had her here in the U.S.!
6
It must be a slow news day. Jacinda Envy was something bandied about last month in the wake of the Christchurch massacre - it was a convenient phrase used by journalists who would like to see a change of government. Australia is about to have a Federal election...the Prime Minister wasn't "picking a needless and unwinnable" fight - he responded to antagonistic questioning by Waleed Aly, who is very much against the current government. This entire article is little more than a storm inside the journalist's head and lacks perspective.
3
We ALL have a bad case of Jacinda envy. She is amazing.
6
What Senator Fraser Anning said was appalling. The comments would be insensitive and racist at any time but to make this statement immediately after this tragedy says a lot about the man.
On the other hand I do not understand the fuss being made about him defending himself against the 17 year old who hit him with the egg. This "boy" as the author calls him is not a victim. Just because this man is a despicable, bigoted individual , it does not make what this 17 year old did OK. If Bernie Williams was making a speech and a 17 year old hit him with an egg, I am pretty sure security would have him pinned to the ground in a choke hold too.
5
Australia has produced great tennis players, golfers, and swimmers, and also wonderful historians and art critics like Robert Hughes. All are a glory to their country.
Both Australia and New Zealand fought hard as members of the allied side in world war II. ANZAC day is celebrated in both countries.
For more insight into Australia, I suggest you read the novelist Patrick White, and watch the films, Rabbit Proof Fence, and A Place to Call Home on Acorn TV. The latter makes for compulsive viewing.
5
This is really a clash of mindsets. I don't really know how good a politician Australia's PM Julia Gillard was, but I do remember being appalled at the way she was vilified by her opponents for simply being female and, in particular, outspoken. We can't have women like that, boys, can we?
It was a stain on Australia's world image. It is still not gone and for me, probably never will.
Jacinda Ahern's behavior has been impeccable as far as progressives (liberals) are concerned, but for the regressives (conservatives,) she is just pandering to minorities, instead of massaging their frightened, white, fragile egos; just like a certain somebody in The White House.
Progressives look forward to the future with a hand of welcome, optimism and a smile.
Regressives only sourly look back. They want a return to overwhelming white dominance, with its attendant deference from colored folks and non-Christians.
2
New Zealand's 'primary claim to fame until now has been 'Lord of the Rings'. Really? The first country to give women the vote; the first to set up a full welfare state; home of the man to split the atom, and the first man to climb Everest. And for what is the world indebted to Australia? Hmm, let's see. Oh, yes ... Rupert Murdoch. The fact is the two countries were always very different in spirit. From its foundation in 1840, indigenous Maori in NZ had the full rights of British subjects. Miscegenation was not a crime but almost the official plan. ('Through love and intermarriage the two races will be lost, one within the other,' said the first Governor.) Genocide, meanwhile, or at least repeated massacre, was the lot for Aborigines in Tasmania and the mainland states.
The difference between the two countries was basically historical. Australia was a brutal eighteenth-century penal colony which gave a cynical and sceptical outlook to the national psyche. NZ was founded in a (brief) moment of high Victorian idealism which left a very different mark.
12
@colombus
It's a myth perpetuated by Pakeha that the Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori full rights as British subjects.
In fact, Waitangi disfranchised Maori.
The first cousin, William Colenso, of my direct maternal forebear was the NZ Government Printer who proofread and printed the Treaty.
Colenso warned Governor Grey that the Maori chiefs did not understand that the Treaty would take away Maori lands. Grey ignored him.
If Waitangi was so bloody marvellous then please explain why in 2019 so many Maori live in poverty, so many Maori are in prison, so many Maori are in gangs, so many Maori kill themselves, so many Maori kill their wives, girlfriends, sisters and daughters.
1
My personal observation based on a couple of weeks spent in New Zealand and Australia while on a Canadian Parliamentary committee studying tax reform in 1988 was that New Zealand had produced and elected hugely competent, dignified, MPs from both major political parties.
Given that New Zealand only had population slightly greater than Metropolitan Toronto at the time, I wondered how that country managed to attract and elect such competent politicians from such a small population.
My impression of Australia during that trip was completely different. There, politicians (especially a future Prime Minister), spoke in what I considered to be disgusting language in Parliament. Back then, the national psyches in two neighbouring countries were as different as could be imagined.
That this difference in national ability and attitude that struck me as so different back then has continued to this day is remarkable. Bravo New Zealand!
12
I don't know if Ardern is popular in New Zealand or not, but I do know that politicians the world over will rush to the scene of the latest tragedy or disaster, full of hope that we'll see them dealing with it, and that they REALLY CARE. It's easy to look good hugging victims, but no one else benefits. The massacre in Christchurch would have been pure gold for any political leader—it could have even made our goofy prime minister look statesmanlike. Yet no one here envies the New Zealanders for it.
3
@Brett
Not so! She responded as the head of the New Zealand government. Since then her government has moved to reign in self loading rifles (people killers) and has fast tracked permanent residency for the survivors of the attack. The rational? To take away the stress of their uncertainty about whether the applications will be accepted.
7
If only America could borrow Jacinda AND the New Zealand legislature for a while, we could truly Make America Greater Again after the trump nightmare. Indeed, trump is the least manly man on the planet, and compared to all men, Australian and all who have served their nation, he is a truly a coward.
14
With the joke we have in the Whitehouse I would much prefer Ms. Ardern running this country too.
12
By the way, the term 'larrikin' (an AUS/NZ word) seems very similar to the term 'redneck', which is used in the United States.
1
I think the photo in this article says it all. Over the last few decades, New Zealand has moved forward and accepted it's geography, demography and culture. While imperfect, there is a respect for and an interest in teaching Indigenous history and culture. There is an understanding that European colonizers are no different than newer immigrants who call the country home. Civility and good government are important.
While there are huge similarities between New Zealand and Australia, just as there are huge similarities between the United States and Canada, what is different is the tone.
14
@Zack
There is an understanding that European colonizers are no different than newer immigrants who call the country home. Civility and good government are important.
This is blantantly false, else they would refer to the Maori who fought against colonialization as xenophobic fascists.
"In recent times, as far-right racism and sexism have become more mainstream, Australia’s larrikins have multiplied, and many at their forefront are women."
My MW "Collegiate" says "larrikin" is Aussie for "hoodlum" or "rowdy". Evidently it needs updating;--here it means "irreverent" --tradition challenging--applying to women challenging traditional sexism and people of color challenging white supremacy.
That would be "progressive".
And it's better to update "right wing"--which includes racism and sexism--by "regressive"--conservative, conserving the past. That would better describe/classify the US (Canadian too) right wing.
2
I'm a recent new Australian, by marriage. All my liberal friends here have Jacinda envy big-time, and good on them. They yearn for a strong, liberal leader. The fact it a strong woman doesn't bother them. But the conservatives... they have Jacinda nightmares.
8
Australians, get behind me. I have a serious case of Jacinda envy. Just listened to her this morning at a conference to address the "facebook problem." Made me realize that the rest of the world just might have been waiting for the U.S. to do something, and now that they have given up on us, Jacinda is taking the lead.
8
The teenager attacked Mr. Anning and got what was coming to him.
2
@Npeterucci
The boy is a child and Anning punched him twice in the head.
Clearly, Anning has no empathy or sense of humor.
1
@Npeterucci
yes, Mr. Anning got what was coming to him all right.
1
Some of the comments on here are so out there and preposterous! In a recent survey of most preferred leader our PM got over 50% of the vote and the other people in Opposition never came close to her as our preferred PM. Her ratings went up after the terrorist attacks as most kiwis were very impressed with the way our PM handled the terrorist attacks.
And the comments on here by Australians just proves the writer of this article correct! lol!
11
So a South African is pitting Australia Vs New Zealand in politics?
Not cool.
Everyone knows that is only acceptable when it comes to cricket, rugby and netball.
3
I have “ Jacinda Envy”.
6
her response to the Christchurch shooting has been marked by respect, here in Australia, our highest-profile, primarily male politicians have been less than inspiring.
http://www.siyasat.pk/royal-news-live.php
1
Liberal logic....conservative physically attacked by liberal and his reaction of like violence is condemned, not the initial attack.
2
@D
"attacked" by a kid with an egg. Conservative logic: don't attack me with a potential feather or I'll get my goons to beat you, you 90-pounds kid.
9
@D
"Like violence"? Being hit on the head with an egg is nothing like being punched and kicked.
9
It is interesting that the Liberal Party in Australia is riven by the same systemic intellectual decay that has afflicted the Republican Party here in the US. An argument can be made that the main driver of this intellectual decay in both instances is their long-term ongoing irrational denial of the threat posed by climate change.
Sustaining their position of denial requires both groups to endlessly demonize science and scientists and policy makers who take the threat seriously, and this same anti-intellectualism spills over into the way the two groups think and act on other critical issues ranging from gun control to immigration to women's rights to the protection of national treasures like Bear Ears and the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in the US and the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.
5
This is both a very interesting article; which gives one pause to consider what is going on in the world right now; but also a good comparison to what appears to be a clash of the so called old school values and today`s political correctness. Jacinda Ardern is in the same mold as Canada`s Justin Trudeau; who is willing to embrace anyone and everyone who lives in our land as equals. While there is much to be admired at this "Golden Rule" approach; it also presents real challenges and problems. It equates those who "just got off the boat" with long standing citizens whose families have toiled for generations to create the "Western Civilization" so admired and ENVIED by the rest of the world. Is it really so surprising that such families bitterly resent being shoved aside by some politicians who see nothing but votes in their P.C. pockets by saying you are more important to me than those who have fought, shed blood, and died for their country long before these newcomers set foot on such lands? Those who have forged nations out of the wilderness have both a deep love of the land that no immigrant can ever really lay claim to. If after several generations these families can show the same devotion; the story will then be different. Racism is evil. But it is NOT RACIST to claim a legacy of self sacrifice that many feel is being ignored, ridiculed, and forgotten; in this rush to assert a new epoch where the past virtues are now ridiculed and dismissed are a slap in the face.
3
@Greg Hodges I don't see anyone being shoved aside here. Where is this coming from? Any resentment you speak of is manufactured by politicking trolls. The slap in the face is from you to immigrants - many of whom must be very sorry to leave their homelands but have to out of necessity. I speak as a fifth generation Canadian living in a small town whose father and grandparents fought in the world wars. I have a deep love and pride in my country but am more than willing to share our space and freedom with others less fortunate. There should be no tolerance of resentment towards immigrants in this country. Unless you are indigenous we are all from immigrant families.
14
@Greg Hodges
I understand your point, but I don't think people deserve credit or blame for the deeds of their ancestors.
4
Australia has some very capable female politicians. I for one hope we see a Prime Minister Plibersek one day.
15
@Andrew
Totally
1
The big difference between New Zealand and Australia is that one has a press dominated by Rupert Murdoch and the other does not. Australian politics is all about staying mates with Rupe and so racism, Islamophobia and hate dominate the public realm. New Zealanders, Canadians and the Irish have been spared the corrosion of a Murdoch media. The United States, Australia and the UK have all suffered a decades-long undermining of institutions and public trust because of the intense dishonesty of New Corp publications and television. Jacinda turned off Sky in New Zealand for broadcasting video of the killings. We should all turn off all Murdoch owned media.
108
@Daniel Hudson -- I never thought of it thus (presence/absence of Murdoch garbage), yet it makes perfect sense. Thank you!
14
@Daniel Hudson
I'm very happy this has been made a Times Pick. Thank you the NYT. It's very true and very sad. Well said Daniel.
11
I’d be curious to know how/if the Maori culture plays into this. Don’t Maori women hold positions of respect within their communities?
3
As an avid moviegoer, my impression of Australia was influenced by Paul Hogan’s inimitable rendition of Crocodile Dundee and the stream of talented actors and actresses hailing from Australia, including Bryan Brown, Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Hugo Weaving, Judy Davis, Toni Collette, Cate Blanchett, and Naomi Watts among others.
Crocodile Dundee was never misogynistic but a gallant, embodying a persuasively attractive image of redeemed masculinity. My perception of Australian macho culture was that it cultivated many attributes women publicly derided but privately loved.
Australia has its aborigines, while New Zealand has its Maoris.
New Zealand is a nation of pastoral beauty, sheep farming, inexpensive prescription drugs—and Jacinda Ardern.
Even before the tragedy, Ms. Ardern embodied a potent image of female possibility, delivering a child after having been recently elected Prime Minister. Ms. Ardern presented the world with a moving image of grace under pressure, followed by decisive legislative action to prohibit automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
New Zealand has Jacinda Ardern, Australia has Scott Morrison, Canada has Justin Trudeau, and the United States has Donald Trump. We need not mention Viktor Orban or Jair Bolsonaro. Who among these national leaders is most respected?
“Envy” does not go far enough as a remedy or corrective in an era of emergent international right-wing populism. We are well beyond envy.
5
@Andrew Shin
A little joke in New Zealand is that we have always exported our best racehorses, entertainers, and criminals to Australia. Russell Crowe is one of those exports. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out which category he is in.
2
Julia Gillard was not the victim of sexism. “The Big Red Box” was revolting but more sexual harassment/bullying than sexism; it was not emblematic of anything either. The article failed to provide evidence of sexism working against JG, because there was no sexism working against her.
It reminds me of Cheryl Kernot. She was perhaps the second most powerful politician in Australia, and well liked. Then she left the Democrats and went to Labour, fell from grace... and blamed sexism.
@Andrew Nielsen
If you don't see the "big red box", public attitudes and treatment of Julia Gillard as sexism, then you're part of the problem.
4
As a yank who loves both countries and probably should stay quiet, I appreciated Ardern"s neither mentioning the name of the perpetrator nor allowing his face to be shown. As a result, he has disappeared from the media (although probably not from the Dark Web). When there is a mass shooting here, the perpetrator has his name blabbed for days and his picture stays on the screen for 30 seconds at a time. This may not be a minor point: a lot of copycats want to end their existence making big headlines and having everybody know their names.
57
P.S. This time I’m voting Labour (left).
5
I certainly would like our Australian Prime Minister to show some of the empathic qualities that Jacinda Arden embodies. This article is superficial tho. For a purpose that is not clear to me, facts are cherry picked; for example, Fraser Anning was censured by the Australian parliament for his comments but this is not mentioned. And Australia and New Zealand were among the first countries to give women the vote. That said, Australia has deeply misogynistic elements- the treatment of Australia's first Prime Minister Julia Gillard was deeply shaming and shameful.
6
As an American, I am certainly having 'Jacinda envy'.
55
@Dr. B. Me too.
1
I’m very proudly Australian, but if I was a Kiwi I might even be more proud, particularly comparing our current political and cultural systems. And their economy is going gangbusters too - yet we allegedly have all the natural advantages.
I’ve been to NZ countless times (and 32 states in the US, and another 28 countries). New Zealand is the country I admire most - of any - in the world. And Jacinda is simply wonderful. And every Aussie I know agrees wholeheartedly, while condemning our politicians to the standard familiar to Americans.
Often, half-jokingly, Australia would suggest that NZ should become part of Australia. At the moment that would be a vast step backwards, and, as an alternative, I’d be delighted to live on the West Island of New Zealand. With Jacinda as PM!
It’s not just travel for me - it’s business. Kiwis are the best people in the world to deal with. Love ’em! There is no one more honest and open, nor more insistent on win-win negotiation.
If only my auto-correct would realise I’m not misspelling her name!
17
@Neil Bolton
Better perhaps, if Australia become part of New Zealand?!
2
She can only play the middle for so long. Eventually, constituents are going to expect favors for their individual groups and she will have to pick a side. Once she picks a side, the other side will vilify her and her spotless reputation will come under fire.
No she did very well and compassionately after the dreadful events in Christchurch. Economically she taking New Zealand backwards there is a great deal of concern for the direction the country is taking under her leadership. She only got there by doing a deal man who lost his seat in the actual election but as leader of his party formed a Government with her and become Deputy PM. She does nothing without his okay.
2
@Bev Jacida may have got to be Prime Minister because Winston Peters sided with her side, but Bev you are conveniently forgetting Simon Bridges (National Party) would of been in the same position if Winston had gone with them.
6
I spent 7 weeks in each country 12 years ago and loved the outgoing friendliness of the Kiwi's versus the Aussies. I also thought it was cool that New Zealand was the first country that gave women the right to vote (1893) in the world and had one of the first female prime ministers in the world. Each country had its benefits and challenges but given a choice, I'd prefer to live in New Zealand.
12
Sir Robert Muldoon, Prime Minister of New Zealand 1975-1984. summed up the relationship between that country and Australia when replying to the question of whether the large number of NZers moving to Australia constituted a Brain Drain and whether he was concerned. No, he said, it was overall a good thing since it simultaneously raised the IQ levels of both countries.
61
@David Blacklock
Ooh, that must have left a welt.
5
I lived on the west coast for a good part of the 90s, including a season in Whistler, a popular destination for young Australians as they were allowed to work in Canada...
The vast majority of the males were extremely misogynistic... it was Shelia this, and Shelia that (Shelia being a derogatory term). It appears not much has changed in the years since.
16
@HammerTime the Sheila thing must be something that they picked up in your lovely country as in my nearly 60 years living here I have never heard males refer to females as Sheilas in everyday conversation. And I can assure you that I have not lived a sheltered life.
@HammerTime
It's "sheila" - not "shelia". In Australia, men are "blokes" and women are "sheilas". They are not derogatory terms - but loving and jocular. They are not used anywhere near as much as they used to be back before the '80's -particularly sheila. Sheila is also a woman's name - but a very uncommon one these days.
2
The kind of decency, compassion, self-restraint and grace under pressure which are seemingly second nature to Ms. Ardern and have made New Zealanders so proud, would be anathema to Trump supporters. They want their president to give them “spectacle.” They want rallies full of taunts, slurs, fist-pumping and and hateful rhetoric by the bushel.
To think that only three years ago, in Barack Obama, we also had a leader who also appealed to “the better angels of our natures.” It seems like an eternity.
49
Living in Australia in the 1950s a Larrikin was a delinquent. It seems the term has changed somewhat. And the delinquents are currently in charge.
7
@Geof Rayns
Ex Prime Minister John Howard used to wheel "larrikin" out as some ethereal embodiment of Ocker blokehood.
I get a picture of a man; big, blonde, stupid and loud.
Jacinda Ardern made a grave error when she donned a hijab in solidarity with the grieving survivors of the Christchurch massacre. It is a symbol of male oppression of women implicit in Islam.
It is a nonsense that the massacre was somehow racially inspired, because there is a multitude Chinese and Indians, and a smattering of Middle Eastern Christians recently introduced to New Zealand, and they are not being targeted, so the murderer’s disagreement must be cultural.
And the drip that is New Zealand’s Prime Minster has successfully reinforced the most prominent part of it.
9
The NZ Prime Minister is a smart lady but she was ill advised when she wore the veil as a symbol of solidarity with the Islamic community. As correctly said by the above, the veil is a symbol female oppression.
8
@Pelasgus Or perhaps Prime Minister Ardern's donning of the hijab was a message that she understands female oppression and stands united with Muslim women. Or maybe it was no different than when western women journalists don the hijab when interacting with certain communities across the globe. Did anyone ask Prime Minister why she wore the hijab, or are we just making presumptions?
12
@Pelasgus
I suggest that the same article of clothing can be symbolic of a number of things, depending on the context in which is it donned.
Of course, if you tend to be "bloody-minded" (intellectually rigid, inflexible), you may well be deaf to context.
12
As an Australian I have more than once in the past year thought about seeking NZ citizenship. Jacinda Ardern and her nation embody the kindness and fortitude that my country used to display, but have sadly lost in the past 3 decades. I worry it is too late to turn it around. I also considered trying to change Australia's politics from the inside, by running for office. But watching the behaviour of our current politicians who seem determined to compete in a global 'race to the bottom' of integrity, I do not have the stomach for it.
33
@WAX You don't need to seek citizenship, you can just move. Australians can live and work in NZ (and vice versa).
The article made much of Australia’s European settler origins for explaining current attitudes. But NZ has similar colonial frontier origins (albeit without the penal colony factor) and similar male culture. There are differences but suspect they’re the result of more recent cultural changes.
Having lived for long periods in both countries the similarities between the Anglo cultures still seem more obvious than the differences.
7
@SM I wonder if the more recent cultural differences include the fact that Australia’s press has been dominated by Rupert Murdoch for the past 40 years?
54
@SM In NZ we made a treaty with our indigenous native population, giving them rights and responsibilities, equality and respect - although we subsequently didn't always follow through. Australia pushed their indigenous native population into the most isolated parts of the country and treated them like vermin - still do.
There's the difference!
1
I'm envious! Wish we had her here!
31
@pablo It wouldn't really help. The difference in the US and NZ is that Americans (or a certain cross section of Americans) don't let things go. 46 years on and Roe v Wade is still being re-litigated. Whereas, in NZ, we got civil unions, decriminalised prostitution, banned smacking, and got gay marriage because people might object to change but they do so relatively civilly and, then when the sky doesn't fall in, they move on and don't fuss.
31
I'm not getting what this woman did that is so wonderful. She took a bunch of symbolic steps and then took guns away from people who had nothing to do with it. Where's the beef?
6
@Michael Livingston She showed remarkable grace in empathizing with her fellow citizens who had been violently attacked. She ignored barriers of religion to demonstrate tangible empathy and respect. She then put her empathetic response into action to prevent further violent attacks. She is a remarkable example of excellent leadership while under duress. I am truly sorry you do not see how extraordinary her behavior was.
115
Taking guns away halted mass shootings in Australia and the United Kingdom.
How has not taking guns away addressed mass shootings in the United States?
74
@JohnFred
What barriers of religion? Really, what barriers?
Then she took "Bold, decisive action" to ban guns but did she prevent further attacks? Apparently not since ISIS took revenge because of the Christchurch massacres. From her choice of words about gun control she was obviously playing to an American audience. She misread ISIS and the terrorists They were listening and watching too.
3
You wrote - “The country was angry at her,”. And you are right. But, it had nothing to do with Julia Gillard's gender.
We were angry at her because her policies were ridiculous and she lied. Before the election she promised that she would never implement a carbon tax, and then straight after she won the election she implemented the carbon tax and everyone’s electricity prices soared, making the cost of living almost impossible for many people.
10
@Michael
She broke the promise because it was not just a Labor Government, but a minority government with support from the Greens and some independents, which she could not have foreseen. The implementation of the carbon tax only increased inflation by 1%. The much higher rise in electricity prices was overwhelmingly due to over-investment in "poles and wires" and higher retail margins. I think you really have to consider why you care so much that she - as a politician - lied. Don't all politicians lie sometimes? Be honest now - it's because she is a she isn't it?
31
Climate change is real you know. And carbon taxes are needed. Australia - where I was brought up - has a lot of growing up to do.
16
@Michael
I thought the prices soaring had more to do with privatization of generation and the grid. And when was that storm that took out the power lines?
6
The major political parties in Australia get pulled to the extremes in Australia in a way they don't in New Zealand, because New Zealand has proportional representation, and we don't in our lower house. For example, the Liberal Party adopted their harsh policy on asylum seekers because they thought that if they didn't the One Nation party would take seats in Queensland.
This type of electoral system gives an undue weight of power to demographic groups which happen to cluster together in geographical areas, while denying a voice to the mainstream (which in Australia is suburban, tolerant, and by and large feminist). Hence you have the Greens winning a seat in inner Melbourne with lots of students in high density housing. and Liberal Party right-wingers in outer suburbs in some states (where there are lower socioeconomic groups).
There are also significant differences between states, because of their histories. Victoria and South Australia (neither ever a penal colony) vote more to the left than other states. Victoria does indeed have a Jacinta-like figure in its upper house, which is elected by proportional representation.
All that said, the way Julia Gillard was treated was a disgrace and an eye-opener to this middle-class male from Melbourne. Her "misogyny" speech is one of the great political speeches in English, and can be found on Youtube. Be sure to watch the full 15 minute version. Wonderful speech, but probably lost her votes.
40
i've been to nz five times and two short visits to oz but only melbourne.
the kiwis i've met there and in north america often thought aussies were loud, coarse and had a superiority complex which wasn't warranted.
likened them to americans.
many aussies seemed to think kiwis had the best of the relationship because they were to move to oz without much trouble.
also, a bit countrified.
2
Australians also have the run of NZ – more so than their NZ counterparts now that Australia has curtailed the once reciprocal rights that the citizens of each nation had in the other (another recent source of grievance in NZ). Until recently Australia, being the larger more prosperous neighbour, was a popular designation for New Zealanders.
3
@SM that trend has reversed. More Australians now migrate to NZ (9,000 in 2018) than the other way around (4,000). People are voting with their feet.
7
@WAX
And they can probably fit in a few more American billionaires (if they ask nicely).
Interesting article, but it seems a bit off on quite a few points. I agree that Australia, like most societies, is structured in a way that tends to favour men and that there are many obstacles for women in Australian politics, especially in leadership roles (eg. Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop) that need to be addressed. There is a kind of sexism that is so much part of the fabric of Australian society, it’s barely recognised by most people. I would say that Australians like Jacinta Arden and she’s a great role model for young women and girls, but I wouldn’t say that we’d go so far as having leader envy. Her handling of Christchurch was inspiring, but she is only introducing to New Zealand gun controls that Australia has already had for over 20 years (and I think our laws are still more stringent). While a few far right politicians like Fraser Anning have emerged recently, the article ignores that his views about Muslims have been widely condemned including by parliament itself, or that the leader of One Nation (probably our most significant far-right party) is Pauline Hanson, a woman. Your description of the Aussie “battler” is right, but the way you have used the “larrikin” is new. In my mind the traditional Aussie larrikin is always male, a bit like the battler, just wilder and more cheeky. It doesn’t surprise me that a society like Australia has spawned a number of feminist/queer stars like Hannah Gadsby etc. We do have a feminist history the article doesn’t touch on.
12
@Kay
I liked a lot of the article, but the concept of the battler seemed to get mixed up with the ocker (though maybe in recent times that's happened in reality too, sadly). I agree that the larrikin seemed to get redefined here, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing if it's getting redefined the same way in reality (as opposed to slipping the other way, towards the hoon and the bogan). The phrase "fair go" (used later in the article) was probably the most useful traditional Australian concept on which to build the egalitarian approach the author (commendably) advocates.
2
I think the world just might have a case of 'Jacinda Envy'... although I have to say there is equally favorable opinion growing about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Please may these two politicians represent the future...smart, informed, resolute and compassionate. We all could do with size-able doses of those attributes in our corridors of power.
64
@Tom
Sounds dreamy, in the best sense, to me. I’m only 66, and want see New Zealand first hand. What a country!
16
@RjW Please come! We could grab a coffee...? I'm a sprightly 62
2
@Tom AOC is not smart judging by the crazy things she’s said including her green new deal that proposed paying people who don’t want to work. Her economics degree appears to be worthless too judging by the crazy ideas she’s come up with. She’s a new age Marxist and if America takes her serious then you guys are in big trouble.
The byline on this op-ed is horrendous. It's like saying American and Canada are similar countries.
The political and policy histories of Australia and New Zealand diverge in ways that make it easy to see how these trajectories have shaped their disparate current political climates.
26
@Kate
Having lived in both countries, briefly, i think of the relationship between Australia and New Zealand as being much like that of the US and Canada. And I definitely preferred New Zealand.
12
@Kate We are similar countries.
1
To tell the world good Australian women are not found in its Parliament is preposterous. Loads of people love Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Marise Payne, Sarah Hanson Young. I'm not pining for Jacinda. Besides she was not that popular in NZ to begin with.
7
@EC So many women in Parliament. Is that why Tony Abbott made himself Minister for Women? He only had two (2) women in his cabinet. How many old white men did he have?
1
@EC
She is there only because of a 'coalition of losers' following the last election that ousted the former governing party that actually won more seats in Parliament (and more popular votes if you're thinking of a Trump-like trick). She's not that popular.
Australia and the US have leaders who rose to the top, carefully selected by somebody for something.
Hillary raised a billion dollars inside a year, and made an express appeal to a wide variety of interest and identity groups.
Who would pay a billion dollars to promote a Jacinda-like candidate here?
Which interest or identity groups would feel a Jacinda would serve their special interests best? It would need to be many, not just one.
We have donors, and we have interest groups, but they don't buy Jacinda-candidates. They buy the 16 guys on stage with Trump, people like that.
It isn't that we don't have good people. Australia has them too.
It is that neither one of our countries has any part of its system interested in a good leader. They want other things. Sometimes they get them, like tax cuts today. Sometimes they don't even if they win, like health care under Bill Clinton. But they certainly don't get a Jacinda by accident, when trying to buy someone more serviceable to their narrow interests.
11
Never heard of anything like that. But I am sure it will only take a few more columns like this one for it to become a "real thing". This self-generating hype arising out of nothing is kinda annoying. Sure, it takes the keenest power of observation to be the first in detecting a trend or phenomenon, but there is a fine line here between detecting and inventing.
6
@David you might be surprised (as I was) that in 2018 more Australians migrated to NZ (9,000) than New Zealanders migrated to Australia (5,000) based on official gov statistics from both countries.
It's a thing. And I've considered doing it too.
https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/historical-migration-statistics/resource/8aa8ef88-8418-4b65-ad48-48cad7f7e58b
https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/international-migration-february-2019
1
@WAX I could point out that as Australia's population is more than 5 times that of NZ. Proportionally, far more New Zealanders moved to Australia than the other way around. In any case such statistics usually don't mean a lot.
I got the impression Jacinda Ardern made such a public display after the massacre as an attempt to convince the world that it was an anomaly and not representative of New Zealand's sentiment toward Muslims, hoping to prevent any revenge attacks by terrorists. It was an idle gesture in that regard but she did make use of the incident to ban guns, which she planned to do when she was elected. That is evident when she came to the USA and allied herself with gun control advocates in the USA shortly after she took office, and even more evident when she echoed their words and arguments whens calling for a gun ban in her country.
3
Our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern behaved the way she did after the attacks in Christchurch because she genuinely believes that New Zealand is a country where people strive to live in peace with one another. Her behaviour reflects those beliefs. She also said that Australia and Australians are still New Zealand’s close allies and friends. In addition the move to ban semi automatic weapons was overwhelmingly supported by both those in Parliament, with only one dissenting vote, and by the New Zealand public. Of which I am one. Do not attempt to somehow tie together the American pro-gun pronouncements by lobby groups, and citizens and it’s supporting legislation with New Zealand’s political and social convictions. New Zealanders believe very strongly in the need to tightly control gun ownership and use in the wider community. Which is a very different reality to that of the United States.
152
@Dr Miriam Hughes
Apparently New Zealand is a nice, tolerant peaceful place. Where was all of the deadly gun play killing each other before the gun ban? The Christchurch massacres were not perpetrated by the great mass of New Zealand citizens. It was perpetrated by one, single, radicalized Australian who was able to kill so many because New Zealand is a nice place to live. The police forces and the people at the mosque didn't have their guard up because they didn't have to. You say everyone supported a gun ban but I wonder about that. She still made criminals out of 25% of the population.
It was Jacinda Ardern who tied together New Zealand gun bans with American domestic gun control issues by her choice of words to the international media. I bet if you dared to investigate you would find she got help from Americans active in gun control efforts in this country. After she was elected she came to America to make contact with liberal American gun controllers. She picked her side early. Then there is the international UN sponsored agenda to disarm civilians populations around the globe. She dovetailed with that program perfectly.
@Dr Miriam Hughes
I think that you expressed her behavior extremely well. When I visited your country last year that was the one thing that came across to me loud and clear. It is also a country that looks at society as a whole and not the me, me.me that I am seeing in the USA right now.
8