Luxon, Peters in crisis talks after NZ First leader releases emails showing PM wanted explicit Iran war backing

“As you’d expect, it is the PM’s job to always challenge the advice he receives and, in this case, he sought to test New Zealand’s position against that of Canada and Australia.

“The public statements made by the Government reflect the PM’s position. If they didn’t, they would not have been made,” they said.

The emails were released to the Herald under the Official Information Act (OIA).

Luxon’s spokesman said the decision by Peters’ office to release the emails “clearly put politics ahead of the national interest”.

The spokesman said Luxon would have expected Peters to show “better judgment” after more than 40 years in politics.

“The PM met with Mr Peters this evening to make that point and Mr Peters acknowledged he made a mistake,” the spokesman said.

A spokesman for Peters said there was nothing further to add.

“The minister confirms he had a meeting with the Prime Minister and he was surprised that the OIA request had not been sent to PMO as well,” the spokesman said, using an acronym for the Prime Minister’s Office.

The spokesman did not confirm Luxon’s office’s precise account of the meeting. It is possible Peters has a different recollection.

The war broke out on February 28 when the United States and Israel struck targets in Iran.

On Monday, March 2, Luxon was asked byRNZ’s Morning Report whether New Zealand supported the US and Israel’s strikes.

Luxon answered that New Zealand “acknowledge[d]” the strikes, but was silent on whether New Zealand supported them.

This line repeated a position agreed between Luxon and Peters in their first statement on the war. This wording, emphasising acknowledgement but not support, was different from the likes of Australia, whose statements on the war emphasised the fact that their country explicitly supported the strikes.

Later that morning, senior staff from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), the public service agency that provides Luxon with policy advice, emailed Peters’ office suggesting Luxon’s talking points be updated to align with a statement from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

The email noted that changing these talking points would have flow-on effects to New Zealand’s foreign policy, including the question of whether New Zealand believed the strikes were illegal under international law.

There is an active debate over the war’s legality, with many observers thinking it is illegal.

These emails circulated the Australian and Canadian positions. Contrary to the statement from the Prime Minister’s office, staff suggested New Zealand should shift its position to reflect these statements. The emails do not suggest Luxon was testing the views of ministers of the public service.

Peters was travelling in South America at the time.

Michael Appleton, a foreign affairs adviser seconded from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to Peters’ office responded to the DPMC official.

“I’ve discussed with MFA the PM’s preference for more explicit public support of the US’ action,” Appleton wrote, using MFA, an acronym for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

“MFA does *not* wish for NZ to move towards explicit support, like Australia/Canada have expressed.

“He sees value, from a foreign policy perspective, in walking the careful line we established yesterday via the written statement and in his stand-up – which neither condemns nor gives explicit support to the US action,” he said.

Appleton suggested drafting lines which were “clearer” but which did not substantively change the position.

Another staffer in Peters’ office, who is likely to be senior adviser Jon Johansson, seconded Appleton’s view, saying he wished to “reinforce” that the Government “do not shift our position”.

“This is a time to closely observe what unfolds over the next week or two. Overtly supporting the US position will expose even further the position put to the PM this morning on Morning Report about the legality of the action”, he wrote.

“We should hold our nerve and exhibit prudence here, not panic,” he wrote.

A spokesman for Peters told the Herald that the minister, travelling in Latin America at the time, was “alerted via his staff to the Prime Minister’s wish for New Zealand to express explicit support for the US-led military strikes on Iran”.

“As outlined in the documentation released, the minister considered this suggestion to be an imprudent course of action, which would run counter to New Zealand’s national interests.

“He conveyed this view to the Prime Minister, via communications between his team and the Prime Minister’s,” he said.

“Experience matters in foreign policy.”

The emails suggested Luxon wished to shift the New Zealand position to be closer to the positions of Australia and Canada.

After the war broke out, the Canadian Government said, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security”.

While the Australian Government said, “we support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security”.

An early April Ipsos poll published by the Herald showed Kiwis were strongly sceptical of the war.

The poll found 87% of Kiwis either strongly or somewhat agreed that New Zealand should avoid direct military involvement, while 83% held the view that military action would only trigger further attacks on other countries.

Roughly three-quarters of Kiwis surveyed didn’t think the conflict was worth paying more for fuel and gas.