The sacking of Phil Goff as New Zealand’s High Commissioner in London was swift, taking less than 24 hours from the time officials were told of his now infamous Donald Trump-related remarks to when he was formally told to stop representing his country.
Documents obtained by the Herald this week highlight the frenzy of activity that day between Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) staff, High Commission representatives in London, Goff, and even his wife, Mary.
They reveal Goff’s deputy alerted other senior officials to his remarks at a Chatham House event after they were reported by the Guardian, deep down in an article about relations between Europe and Trump.
A top official initially couldn’t contact Goff, with the High Commissioner not picking up his phone because he was at another event. The situation became so urgent that an assistant got in touch with Mary Goff to seek her help.
Back home in Wellington, events were moving quickly.
Less than two hours after Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was briefed on the matter, he resolved to move Goff on.
Although he acted quickly, Peters had agonised over the decision, in part because he had previously worked with Goff in Government. But the minister concluded Goff’s comments didn’t represent New Zealand’s views, and his position as the country’s top diplomat in Britain was untenable.
Later that day, both Peters and the Governor-General signed the necessary paperwork and an email was sent to Goff by MFAT chief executive Bede Corry confirming he was being removed from the post.
“The ministry is now following the processes necessary to provide formal notification of removal from office, and I will communicate this by letter when this has been completed,” Corry wrote.
Goff was reminded he had to comply with the ministry’s code of conduct until he left and was given a month to pack his bags.
Goff, the former Foreign Affairs Minister, Auckland Mayor, and someone who had once campaigned to be Prime Minister as Labour leader, was told not to represent New Zealand in any way outside of the commission.
Goff’s position as High Commissioner in London became untenable in the eyes of Peters on March 6.
Goff had spoken at a Chatham House event, which was livestreamed to the world. Questioning the Finnish Foreign Affairs Minister, Goff recalled reading a speech by former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill in 1938 after the Munich Agreement.
“He turned to Chamberlain. He said, ‘You had the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, yet you will have war’,” Goff said. “President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history?”
While Goff has since told the Herald he doesn’t believe those comments crossed the line into being offensive, they were noteworthy enough to be included in the Guardian article.
According to documents obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act (OIA) from MFAT, this article was shared among staff at the London High Commission on the night of March 5.
It was brought to the attention of Rodney Harris, the ministry’s Europe division manager, and other senior officials by Guergana Guermanoff, the deputy UK High Commissioner.
In an email, Guermanoff provided a link to the article and copied over a quote from Goff. She also said Goff had the day beforehand “put [out] a Facebook post with the Churchill quote (but not the subsequent reference to Trump)”.
“Let me know if you would like to discuss, or any actions I need to take at this end,” Guermanoff said.
Despite it being nearly midnight in New Zealand, Harris got into action quickly.
He emailed a senior communications adviser that he had just received an email “alerting us to a quote by Phil Goff in a Guardian article which could be read as critical of Trump”.
Early in the morning of March 6, Harris emailed that the Facebook post had been “taken down” and there had been “no pick up so far” in media.
There’s a brief exchange between media advisers captured in the email chain about the appropriateness of the Guardian reporting the comments, given they were made at Chatham House.
The Chatham House rule is well-known for meaning people at a gathering or meeting can use the information they receive there, but should not identify who said it.
“Did anyone talk to the Guardian about removing Phil’s comments from their story since it was clearly a Chatham House session [comments not for attribution]. An outlet like the Guardian should well know the rules,” they said.
Another adviser later wrote back saying the event was “on the record, livestreamed and recorded for online” and Goff’s comments had been “accurately quoted by the Guardian”.
“They were within their rights to include the comments in the article,” the adviser said.
Conversations about the matter were at this point well under way between MFAT’s most senior officials, including staff working in the ministry’s Americas division.
Harris rang a senior adviser to Peters at 8.31am about Goff’s comments as reported by the Guardian. At 9.15am, Peters was briefed on the matter. He requested more information on the context of the reporting “to help inform his response,” according to information obtained by the Herald from Peters’ office.
Also that morning, Paula Wilson, the deputy secretary for MFAT in charge of Europe, messaged Guermanoff saying she suspected either she or Corry would need to speak with Goff. She asked whether the High Commissioner was doing anything and if he would be free to take a call.
Guermanoff spoke with an executive assistant at the London High Commission. A timeline provided to the Herald says the pair were “attempting to locate Mr Goff”. This was in the morning New Zealand time, but the evening in Britain.
“Is Phil doing anything this evening? He may be receiving a call from [Wellington] and I need to know if he is free to take it,” Guermanoff asked the assistant.
She was told he was at an event hosted by the Indian High Commission at Chatham House, which was followed by a reception.
“He’s not great at picking up Whatapp [sic] messages. Let me know if you want me to text him,” the assistant said.
Guermanoff asked Wilson whether Goff needed to be told to be ready to receive a call, but Wilson replied saying to wait while other staff discussed the matter.
A couple of hours later, about 10am in New Zealand, Wilson messaged Guermanoff again, saying she had “called and messages [sic] Phil but no response”.
“I really need to talk to him now – is there any way you can assist?” the deputy secretary said.
The assistant spoke with Mary Goff about getting her husband to check his phone.
“We are trying to get hold of Phil. Could you please ask him to check his phone as Paula Wilson has been trying to reach him,” the assistant said.
Mary responded: “Sure will do. Must be on silent”.
The timeline shows that a few minutes after Mary was contacted, Wilson and Goff spoke about “what happened at Chatham House”.
Goff told the Herald the Indian Foreign Minister was speaking at the event he was attending and he had his phone on silent. He didn’t think there was any issue with not being contactable for a short period.
At 11am, there was a second meeting between Peters and his advisers, which included “showing him the video of [Goff’s] comments”.
“[Minister of Foreign Affairs] decides Phil Goff’s comments make his position as [Head of Mission London] untenable,” a timeline says.
Peters agreed to a media statement which would be sent in response to any queries on the matter. His adviser phoned Corry to discuss implementing Peters’ decision. The Prime Minister’s office is also being kept up to date throughout.
Wilson and Goff were in contact following this. She sent Goff a quote from Peters’ statement and advised him it had been released.
The statement from Peters’ office said: “Phil Goff’s comments are deeply disappointing.
“They do not represent the views of the NZ Government and make his position as High Commissioner to London untenable. We have asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Bede Corry, to now work through with Mr Goff the upcoming leadership transition at the New Zealand High Commission in London.”
At 12.31pm, Peters’ adviser emailed Corry asking that he “take appropriate steps with respect to a leadership transition at our High Commission in London”.
Corry responded, acknowledging the email. He said he would be “formally advising Mr Goff of it and requesting that he relinquishes his role as High Commissioner as soon as practicable”.
Over the course of the rest of March 6 there were a series of emails, text messages and phone calls alerting staff at the London High Commission to “Mr Goff’s removal”.
Lines to send in response to media requests were developed, and officials discussed the process of appointing and removing Heads of Mission.
About 1.39pm, an MFAT adviser emailed staff about what was happening following “the London issue”. It included that discussions were under way on “possible candidates for an Acting position”.
There were also emails from Goff to Corry about the Chatham House comments, the High Commissioner’s removal and details on his return to New Zealand. These were not released in full to the Herald.
Paperwork was completed by Peters late in the afternoon, after which it was taken to the Governor-General for her signature. That was done in the evening.
There was also discussion about how to word the formal letter that would be sent to Goff. Part of this included “discussing legal advice relating to Mr Goff’s employment”.
An email to Goff at 6.53pm from Corry said Peters had formed the view that his position in London “has become untenable because of your recent comments at Chatham House, which have caused him to lose confidence in you”.
Corry highlighted what Goff had said and noted the High Commissioner had made similar comments on his Facebook page without the reference to Trump.
“These were subsequently removed following our request to you to do so,” Corry said.
He said the process was under way to formally notify Goff’s removal from office and that it was expected he left the position “as soon as practicable, and before 4 April 2025”.
Corry said he wanted to reiterate that “you remain our employee and subject to the expectations set out in our letter of offer, the letter of expectation, and supporting documentation such as the Code of Conduct”.
“I asked that you comply with these expectations while you remain an employee of this ministry.”
He ended with: “You should not attend external meetings or other official external engagements as High Commissioner between now and your departure.”
Peters said on the day of Goff’s removal that it was “one of the most difficult things one’s had to do”, noting he had worked alongside Goff in Government.
“If he had made that comment about Germany, France, Tonga, or Samoa, I would have been forced to react. This is seriously regrettable,” Peters said.
Goff has since told the Herald he had been surprised by the decision to remove him, acknowledging he had “taken it to the edge” with his comments, but “I didn’t think I had actually crossed the line to the point that this would be offensive”.
“I haven’t made it into a feud with Winston. He has the prerogative to take the action that he did … He made the decision I should be recalled and I accept that. That’s the beginning and end of it.”
In a separate statement, Goff said he was not complaining about Peters’ action and did not regret asking his question.
“By saying nothing, New Zealand – and many other countries – was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing,” Goff said.
“It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.”
Guermanoff stepped in for several days to represent New Zealand in London after Goff’s removal. Chris Seed, the former MFAT head, was then selected as acting High Commissioner. In late May, it was confirmed diplomat Hamish Cooper would take the role permanently from September.
Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
OPINION: Polls show pay equity changes are unpopular, but not as unpopular as feared.