Asked afterwards about Carr’s legal action, Peters told media: “I’m not going to get deviated on this matter. This is not my first legal rodeo either.”
The issue related to an interview on RNZ yesterday in which Peters criticised Carr’s views on the Aukus security partnership involving Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Carr’s lawyers have claimed some comments about Carr’s attitude to China were defamatory. The remarks in question have been removed from the radio station’s website.
“I’m not a coward. I’m standing up for the rights and principles of a free society,” Peters said today.
He said senior Government leaders had some inkling of Aukus back in September 2021 and business leaders and media should be better informed about the security pact.
“I’m very happy to start releasing the conversations that were happening.”
He added: “I’m massively disappointed because we haven’t got anywhere near the level of discussions for us to even progress the matter at this point in time.”
New Zealand had not been invited to join Aukus, and had given no indication it would join, he said.
‘Vital partner’
In his speech this morning, Peters discussed “violations of human rights in Hong Kong and Tibet” and called on China to uphold international human rights agreements.
And he mentioned Taiwan, saying regardless of New Zealand’s “One China” policy he was concerned about tensions rising on the Taiwan Strait.
“China is a vital economic partner for New Zealand, offering opportunities for trade, investment, and cooperation that benefits both sides,” Peters said in his speech.
“We value a productive, stable, and complementary trading relationship with China.”
Peters’ remarks reflected the 10th anniversary of New Zealand’s Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China.
Peters at a meeting of the New Zealand China Council today, with Air NZ chief executive Greg Foran to the right. Photo / Michael Craig
His speech also mentioned “a rolling back of democracy”, trade protectionism, and global conflict and instability.
“New Zealand and China’s histories, cultures, political systems diverge in significant ways, and it is no surprise that this leads to differences of opinion,” he said.
“We strongly believe that in a mature relationship like ours, it is possible to discuss differences openly, respectfully, and predictably. We will continue to share our concerns with China, where we have them.
“As with any relationship, a lot comes down to how we engage with each other,” Peters added.
“For New Zealand, consistent and predictable engagement with China provides us a platform for open communication to air concerns, clarify intentions, deepen understanding, and explore potential areas of cooperation.”
Peters’ office has confirmed the Deputy PM received a letter from Carr’s lawyers.
Peters today said he had been “too busy” to read the letter.
According to Newshub, Peters was told his statements were “false and defamatory” and defamation proceedings would start immediately.
“In that regard, our client has never had any business relationship with any Chinese entity, nor has he ever served on the board of any Chinese company,” Newshub quoted the legal letter as saying.
Peters in the House of Representatives yesterday stood by his attack on critics of Aukus under questioning by Labour’s David Parker.
Peters said Aukus critics “malign the agencies of state charged with collecting and analysing, for their Government, intelligence that informs our view about the challenging strategic environment in the Pacific”.
He also told Parker Pillar 2 of Aukus was a technology-sharing mechanism, not a military alliance.
Asked today what benefits Pillar 2 might bring to New Zealand, he said: “We’re not trying to be evasive here, or deliberately obtuse. We haven’t got the information.”
Pillar 1 related to nuclear-powered submarines and New Zealand has shown no interest in changing its nuclear-free policy.
Peters said China respected New Zealand’s independent foreign policy.
And he suggested Carr should too.
“I would never go to another country and start telling them what to do on a major issue like that.”
