Mike's Minute: Medicine for foreign aid money is a no-brainer

From our “he would say that, wouldn’t he” file, comes the predictable Winston Peters response to the National Party's medicine for aid deal. 

National are reading the room. If you have no money and you need to trade one thing for another, does medicine beat aid? 

Yes, hands down. 

Although Pacific aid is protected, where Peters has fallen hopelessly short is in his oft-used line about being friends, "long-standing friends", and that counts. 

In other words, the fact big players like China roll into town and start writing cheques won't ultimately make a lot of difference because good old New Zealand has been along for the ride for years. 

Well, that ain't true, and we know it. 

Money talks and the last Pacific Islands Forum with its missing members and its lack of communique because of the various players who are now overtly pro-China, tells the real story. 

That’s before you get to the lack of accountability. Aid has become a sop, a hand-out, and the recipients don’t appear overly grateful. 

Then you might well argue about effect – what exactly does aid solve? What problems does it fix when it is more these days, at best, a band-aid? 

A never-ending, ever larger band-aid, driven as much by habit as a potential answer to a problem. 

It's part of our international commitment of course. We need to be seen to be playing our part. 

It's like defence – we can't piggyback on bigger, richer countries. 

But in a world increasingly looking inwards this should not be a surprise. 

The same way Pauline Hanson has upended the immigration debate with the Coalition yesterday slashing their target, not because it makes sense or is good for the economy, but because they are losing to Hanson, for National there are no votes in invisible money in offshore locations we don't care about. 

There are votes in better pills and potions. 

It's called retail politics and Peters of all people should recognise it.