National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis has described Winston Peters as “very, very confused” regarding his handling of official information concerning the Iran conflict.
Peters, in his role as Foreign Affairs Minister, referred to the situation as a “process mistake,” while National accused him of prioritizing politics over national interest.
The Prime Minister’s Office stated that Peters admitted to Christopher Luxon in a private meeting about his error in releasing emails concerning the official position on the United States’ attack on Iran.
Peters publicly acknowledged his mistake later that day.
“In the end, I made the mistake. We carry the can in our office, we don’t blame others, but interestingly enough, a couple of my staff will attend a training session this afternoon on the matter,” he told reporters.
The emails indicated Luxon had contemplated expressing “explicit public support” for the US-led assault that began on February 28. However, Peters’ office considered this approach “imprudent” and “counter to New Zealand’s national interests”.
Ultimately, the government adopted a more cautious stance, offering no explicit support for the US. Luxon noted in a post-Cabinet briefing that this stance mirrored Australia’s more supportive position, raising further questions about the official stance.
Luxon’s office later issued a statement asserting that the email release misrepresented Luxon’s views and claimed that Peters’ actions, without consulting the Prime Minister’s Office, “clearly put politics ahead of the national interest”.
Peters described it as a “process mistake” but resisted characterizing the release as an error.
“The assumption was that the Prime Minister’s Office was doing the same thing, and we should have verified that first,” he said.
“I’ve been in politics for a long time – longer than anyone else here – and I recall even during the Muldoon government, the view was that if it should be disclosed, disclose it unless there’s a good reason not to.”
National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis criticized the release of the emails by Peters’ office.
“No. Under the no surprises policy, you consult before releasing emails. If consultation had occurred, they might well have been released. The issue here is that the coalition agreement explicitly states that we will act in good faith.
“He now seems very confused. Very, very confused. One minute it was a mistake, the next minute it wasn’t. Now it’s a mistake again – and the issue with Winston Peters is you never know what you’re going to get.”
This comment referred to Peters telling Pacific Media Network that various aspects of the reporting were incorrect.
“The claim that it was in the Prime Minister’s Office was wrong, I mean how can you get that fact wrong? And then there are other parts about it that are seriously wrong as well.”
“I was under the impression that things that should have happened had not happened, and I found out this morning in my office that those things did happen. I’m not going to make a big song and dance about it – but the truth will out and I intend to make sure it does.”
“I acknowledged that I’d made a mistake and I found out this morning that I didn’t make a mistake,” Peters had said, but soon admitted his mistake to reporters at Parliament.
Willis stated that Peters’ actions were inconsistent with the no surprises principle and not in good faith.
“This is the problem with Winston Peters. Who’s to say he won’t have a similar bout of confusion during coalition talks?
“Judge him by his actions. This is the man who put Jacinda Ardern into the prime ministership,” she said. “He has claimed he won’t support a Labour, Green, Te PÄti MÄori government – what if he gets confused.”
She suggested that Peters’ actions could jeopardize coalition stability.
“It’s crucial to him that we ensure strong, stable government. And as I’ve said, the actions of Winston Peters’ office were inconsistent with achieving that.”
“The Prime Minister has a duty to serve New Zealanders, and we cannot do that as an executive if some political parties are pursuing political gamesmanship rather than the national interest.”
“When you release emails that characterize someone else’s position, you consult with them. This is how the Official Information Act works… that doesn’t mean you’re always pleased with the results of the consultation, but you consult.”
National’s campaign chairperson Simeon Brown said the coalition was in a good space “but ultimately our message is that Mr. Peters should not be putting politics ahead of the national interest. That’s very clear”.
“He’s been in parliament longer than I’ve been alive and he should know better,” he said.
“It’s standard practice in these matters that there’s consultation between offices. That didn’t happen … he considers himself a statesman – well, the reality is, he should operate in a way that respects the Office of the Prime Minister.”
Brown noted that Luxon had been seeking to compare the Foreign Ministry’s advice with the positions of Australia and Canada, but “our position’s very clear, he’s made that position very clear, and it still stands”.
The third coalition partner and Act leader, David Seymour, downplayed the dispute.
“The coalition has maintained a coordinated and consistent approach throughout this, I know what you want to talk about but people have discussions behind closed doors before we come to a position. I’d be much more concerned if there wasn’t a discussion.”
He sidestepped questions about Luxon wanting to express explicit support for the war.
“I think the most important issue facing New Zealand today in terms of government is anti-money laundering legislation … I don’t even understand what your question’s about, most people won’t understand it or care, but actually, this government is fixing what matters.”
He remarked that the reporting on the dispute was “one person’s view of another person’s view of something that occurred months ago, and the government had a united support position on it.
“The situation has changed so much since that time it’s kind of academic. All I’d say is that Australia and Canada, two of our best friends, came out with a certain position. We considered that position, and we ended up taking a more moderate one.”
Seymour dismissed questions about whose office the meeting between Peters and Luxon took place in.
“I know that there are people who argue about who’s meeting in whose office on which floor. Look, sometimes I meet with people in their office, sometimes I go and meet with them, sometimes I’m technically higher ranked than them, sometimes they’re technically higher ranked than me – well technically it’s only one time – but you know, I don’t think that’s really what matters to most Kiwis.”
Â
