New Zealand is trying to walk an increasingly difficult tightrope.
On the one hand, we promote our values, as champions of democracy, egalitarianism, honesty and integrity, and the environment; as leaders, innovators and independent free-thinkers.
We want to be team players too, and are aware our geographical isolation means we need to be.
But while any relationship inevitably involves compromise, our desire to be in the various ''big boys' clubs'' is increasingly taking us down a conflicting path.
The issues around Australia's offshore processing of asylum seekers and its detention and deportation of New Zealanders with criminal convictions are cases in point.
The riot at the Christmas Island detention centre was disturbing, and perpetrators can expect to face the full force of Australian law if implicated.
Disturbing also, though, have been the disorderly and disrespectful scenes in our own Parliament in the past few days regarding the issue.
How has the situation come to this?
We may dislike (for a variety of reasons) Australia's new hardline policy to deport New Zealand-born and largely Australian-raised people with criminal convictions - but do we really have to lump it?
Prime Minister John Key's steadfast refusal to talk to new Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about what he deems Australia's ''domestic policies'' seems strange given the ''special relationship'' we are told we have.
The two leaders do seem happy to use parliamentary time to carry out sporting bets; why not important political issues?
It has proved remarkably easy to dismiss the people involved in this case - as both PMs have effectively done - by block labelling them ''rapists and murderers'' whom no-one ''wants''.
But, to our shame, amid the emotive outbursts and political pointscoring, the fundamental issues of human rights and civil liberties are being brushed aside.
There is no doubt some of the individuals in question have been convicted of violent offending, although many in detention centres on the Australian mainland have been guilty of arguably minor and historic offences.
Although they committed crimes, it must be remembered all have served their time. The spectre of double jeopardy is unsettling.
The additional overtones involved in rounding up people at night, transporting them to often remote detention centres ahead of deportation (with what appears to be little meaningful recourse to legal representation) are sinister on various levels.
Are these the actions of a civilised nation, and one of our supposed best friends? Aren't nations judged on how they treat the most vulnerable?
And by not addressing these actions - in person, as a Government, or at the United Nations - are we in effect condoning such behaviour?
As a United Nations member, New Zealand is committed to the tenets of peacekeeping, diplomacy, development - and human rights.
We have made much of our two-year term on the UN Security Council, which was won because of various high and mighty pledges.
Yet, it appears we have made little impact there, and it has been noted by other nations we have remained quiet on Australia's controversial asylum seeker policy as it pushes for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council - despite widespread condemnation of its various humanitarian failings.
Best mates at all costs?
Or best mates at our cost?
Our transtasman mateship has been thrown back in our face.
Our recent invitation to the United States regarding warship visits potentially risks our proud and longstanding nuclear-free label as much will still be based on trust.
And are we being seen as all talk and no action at the UN?
We appear to be paying a high price for our ''club'' fees.
We need to consider whether they are worth it.
We may not be partial to the people involved in this latest incident, but the principles are surely worth upholding.
We need to re-examine what value we are getting from our ''friends'', and what values we are sacrificing to maintain those relationships - and whether it is all worth it.
