Winston Peters is New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the NZ First Party. He previously served as foreign minister in Helen Clark’s Labour-led coalition government.
OPINION
“Gone by lunchtime,” allegedly uttered Don Brash, then leader of the Opposition, back in January 2004. Brash’s gaffe referredto New Zealand’s anti-nuclear policy. During the 2005 general election campaign, then prime minister Helen Clark and her Labour Government attacked Brash and National as advocating that New Zealand’s independent foreign policy should be traded away.
Now these two individuals, decades after retiring from frontline politics and relinquishing the ability to access classified information about the strategic foreign policy challenges facing our country, have formed an unlikely alliance of their own. They stand united in their opposition to the idea that the coalition Government should continue a process begun under Labour of carefully weighing up what potential benefits might exist from any partnership with Aukus (Australia, the United Kingdon, and the United States) over the development of advanced technologies in Aukus’ Pillar 2.
To be clear, New Zealand has not been invited to join AukusPillar 2, let alone reached a decision about doing so. We, like the Ardern and Hipkins-led Labour Government, are engaged in discussions with Aukus partners about what Pillar 2 is and how New Zealand may or may not fit into its architecture.
So, a question for readers to ask is where were Brash and Clark when the last Labour Government decided to initiate discussions with Aukus partners in October 2021? Not a mutter, not a murmur, not a syllable, not a sound from them until the coalition Government turned up.
We have researched very closely the timeline of decision-making by that Labour Government in relation to Aukus and Pillar 2. In the interests of full transparency, we stand ready to release submissions, briefings, aide memoires, meeting notes and decisions made by the Labour Government between October 2021 and the formation of the coalition Government in late 2023 in relation to their initiating then continuing discussions with Aukus partners, including on Pillar 2. We simply need the leader of the Opposition Chris Hipkins’ permission to do so, and we cannot see a reason why he would withhold it.
China's Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi, left, with his New Zealand counterpart Winston Peters. The pair met in March at a time of escalating tensions in the South China Sea. Photo / Getty Images
We are 100% confident that New Zealanders would see from this record that we are continuing the work of prime ministers Jacinda Ardern and Hipkins, not dramatically shifting away from our long-held independent foreign policy, as alleged by Brash and Clark.
Again, readers should ask themselves: where were Brash and Clark during that two-year period of Labour’s engagement on Aukus? It is Labour, in opposition, that is seemingly walking away from the bipartisan position on Aukus Pillar 2, which is both convenient and irresponsible. We urge them to hold their nerve.
Why? Because it would be utterly irresponsible for the coalition Government, indeed any government, to not consider whether collaborating with like-minded partners on advances in technology is in our national interest.
We have equities with our one formal ally Australia that mean we need to understand what Pillar 2 architecture means for our closest defence and diplomatic relationship. For instance, if Australia adopts new advanced technologies what does that mean for New Zealand’s ability to communicate with our ally’s capabilities? Indeed, it would be irresponsible for us not to consider whether the four P-8A Poseidon aircraft and five new Hercules aircraft, which cost $3.5 billion in 2018, will still be fit-for-purpose under Pillar 2′s technology advances.
New Zealand's then prime minister Helen Clark and China's then premier Wen Jiabao in 2008. Photo / Reuters
Prudence also dictates exploring technological advancement to assess its potential significant benefits for our economy, military, and space sectors, and how these benefits might then flow into wider society. This is especially relevant for our fast-growing space sector, so understanding that sector’s potential relationship with Aukus Pillar 2 is prudent for the Government to analyse and consider.
We say that if independence for our country’s foreign policy means sometimes disagreeing with our traditional and like-minded partners, but somehow does not contemplate also being at liberty to agree with them at times to pursue shared and mutual interests, then the term independence is utterly meaningless.
Independence is about having the agency to freely make decisions, in any direction, consistent with well-considered, prudent assessments of New Zealand’s vital national interests. That is what the coalition Government is undertaking in its Pillar 2 discussions with like-minded partners, trying to understand its costs and benefits so we can reach decisions in the best long-term interests of New Zealand.
We, more so than the Ardern-Hipkins Labour Government, are committed to transparency. We are raising with counterparts our Pillar 2 discussions when we travel around the Pacific and Southeast Asia. We set out our full logic on Pillar 2 discussions in a widely reported speech on May 1 to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, a speech we published. And we will continue to be transparent about our Pillar 2 discussions once they are developed sufficiently to put before the public.
