Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Senior National Party Cabinet ministers are not backing Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s alleged support for the war in Iran.
On their way into Question Time, ministers from the National Party said they supported Luxon as Prime Minister, but none would voice backing for his alleged support for US-led airstrikes against Iran.
One, Finance Minister Nicola Willis, repeated a remark from Luxon’s spokesperson that Luxon’s position on the war had been “mischaracterised” by staff working in Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ office.
Luxon’s office continues to refuse to release documentation proving that Peters and his office got Luxon’s position wrong.
On Thursday morning, the Herald published emails obtained under the Official Information Act between staff working in Peters’ office, including senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) adviser Michael Appleton – who is seconded to Peters’ office – and another staffer, believed to be senior adviser to Peters, Jon Johansson.
The emails show that days after the war broke out, Appleton was giving advice on “the PM’s preference for more explicit public support” of the war.
Appleton advised that Peters “does *not* wish for NZ to move towards explicit support” like Australia and Canada.
Johansson jumped into the chain seconding this view.
A spokesman for Luxon said the emails “mischaracterise” Luxon’s position, although Luxon’s office refused to release the other part of the email chain.
Peters does not think his office mischaracterised the position. Peters said Luxon’s apparent support of the war was “imprudent” and would have “run counter to New Zealand’s national interests”.
“Experience matters in foreign policy,” he said on Wednesday night.
On their way into the House on Thursday, senior ministers, including key Luxon allies, gave the issue a wide berth.
While all the ministers backed Luxon and backed the Government’s agreed position on the war, none of the ministers approached by the Herald would say whether they thought Luxon’s alleged support for the US-led war was wise and whether they supported it.
Social Development Minister Louise Upston would not say whether Luxon’s decision to advocate for supporting the war was the right one.
“I support the Prime Minister’s position and that is what I will continue to do ... we made a decision as a Government and that’s the position we’ve taken,” she said.
Asked explicitly whether Luxon was right to push Peters to support the strikes, Upston said, “we have a position and that’s the position of the Government”.
Upston walked into the House instead of taking further questions. She was one of the key speakers supporting Luxon during last week’s caucus vote on his leadership, two sources have confirmed to the Herald.
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said that “every call the PM makes is a wise call”.
“At the end of the day I’m not going to get involved in speculation between those two,” Watts said.
Watts said he supported the position Luxon outlined, which was Peters’ position of not explicitly supporting the war. When asked, he did not say whether he supported Luxon’s efforts to shift to a more hawkish stance.
Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka said he always supported the Prime Minister, but would not express any support for Luxon’s position as outlined in the emails.
“That’s a matter for the Prime Minister and ultimately he and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond to,” Potaka said.
Asked whether Luxon was “wise” to advocate for supporting the US, Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey said Luxon makes “wise calls” and “tough calls for New Zealanders”.
Doocey said he backed the Prime Minister, but when asked whether he backed Luxon’s push to support the US, Doocey turned and walked into the debating chamber without answering.
Police Minister Mark Mitchell would not say whether Luxon’s call was “wise”.
“I support ... I support our Prime Minister ... 100% I support him,” Mitchell said.
“If you’ve got a specific issue that you want to raise with the Prime Minister in terms of what he’s said, raise it with him,” he said.
Nearly two months after the war, Luxon’s personal views on the conflict remain a mystery.
The emails released to the Herald are replies to an original email.
The original, which comes from a Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) staffer, was not released. Appleton’s replies suggest it is a direction from Luxon for the Government to explicitly support the US-led war.
Appleton responded to this idea arguing that support for the war is a bad idea.
The Herald has filed two separate requests, to the Prime Minister’s Office and to DPMC, the public service department that provides him with foreign policy advice.
The requests were transferred. One was transferred to MFAT, which threatened to refuse the request on the grounds its scope was too broad and would have required too much collation. The scope of the request covered just three days’ worth of information.
Emails that formed the other side of the correspondence between staff in Peters’ office and the Prime Minister would have been included in that request, had it not been rescoped.
Eventually, some documents were released by DPMC, showing the department’s foreign affairs adviser to Luxon, Mark Talbot and chief executive Ben King, had been emailing and calling between offices during the period in question.
However, the text of most of these emails has not been released.
The Herald asked Luxon’s office to release this correspondence in order to back up the claim he had been mischaracterised by staff in Peters’ office and Peters himself.
Luxon’s office treated that request as another Official Information Act request, meaning the emails could take weeks to release – if the Government chooses to release them.
Luxon was absent from Parliament on Thursday. His office provided no evidence to substantiate the claim his views on the war had been mischaracterised.
If Luxon’s view was mischaracterised, then Appleton, a senior MFAT staffer and former High Commissioner to Sri Lanka; Johannson, a senior adviser; and Peters himself all drew the same conclusion: Luxon supported the US strikes and wanted the Government to say so.
On Thursday, National chided Peters for not consulting on the release of the emails.
Usually, such frank emails are not released, with officials using several grounds of the OIA to redact them. Other offices are usually consulted on the release of such emails.
Peters on Thursday admitted a “process mistake” was made in releasing emails between advisers of Luxon and Peters to the Herald without notifying Luxon. Peters’ comments clarified earlier statements indicating Peters believed no mistake had been made.
Willis said the decision to release those emails should have been made in concert with Luxon’s office and suggested the failure to do so was “intentional”.
“The problem here is the coalition agreement sets out very clearly that we will act in good faith and in a no-surprises fashion – his office failed to uphold those principles,” she said.
Peters, meanwhile, took the lead on responding to the story in Question Time, during which Luxon was not present.
Peters reiterated his view that New Zealand should not explicitly support the war. Peters told the House that he was the one who set New Zealand’s foreign policy.
“As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I am ultimately responsible for determining New Zealand’s foreign policy, in close consultation with the Prime Minister and other ministers and MPs,” Peters said.
Labour’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Vanushi Walters sent a letter to Speaker Gerry Brownlee requesting an urgent debate on the issue.
Usually these questions are dealt with at the beginning of Question Time, but Brownlee waited to see Peters’ answers to Walters’ questions before deciding not to grant her request for a debate, saying he was “not convinced that the matter warrants setting aside the business of the House”.