Winston Peters intervened to stop diplomat accounts posting about Pride Month
Minister of foreign affairs Winston Peters personally intervened to stop New Zealand's diplomatic posts around the world from posting about Pride Month on social media, documents show.
New Zealand's embassies and high commissions around the world have regularly posted about Pride Month in the past, sharing New Zealand milestones such as being the first country to grant women the vote and to have openly transgender MPs, as well as celebrating legislative freedoms like marriage equality.
The posts on Facebook and other social media often included photos or footage of key diplomatic staff marching in Pride parades.
But when a batch of similar social media drafts were circulated with the minister's office for 'awareness' earlier this year, Peters' office intervened – leading to a new directive being issued to all posts (embassies and high commissions) about social media use, including a warning regarding posting about Pride Month from official Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mfat) accounts.
Documents released to The Spinoff under the Official Information Act show the draft social media posts themselves were fairly anodyne and similar to the material posted in the years prior.
One draft post, featuring a photo of a Pride gathering, read: 'It's #PrideMonth and we are sharing our history. Pride festivals and fairs began in New Zealand in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of these festivals were a response to the global late-stage HIV pandemic and enabled the community to come together.'
The posts were included in a document pack prepared by Mfat's central communications division, which noted that New Zealand's support for rainbow community rights was one of 'seven thematic human rights focus areas'.
'New Zealand's support for rainbow communities is grounded in the core human rights principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination,' the document read.
'Demonstrating that support through the Ministry's social media accounts is a strand of New Zealand's 'soft diplomacy'. In some countries, especially minimally restrictive countries where the host country has made some positive steps, demonstrating our visible commitment to the human rights of rainbow communities can build connection and understanding with community groups or government stakeholders, potentially opening the door to further discussion on these issues.'
The minister's office did not respond for several weeks, but after a prompting on WhatsApp, senior advisor Michael Appleton wrote back on May 27, explaining the minister's discomfort. His exact guidance was redacted but the directive is clear from surrounding statements – a halt to the proposed posts.
'…in line with earlier guidance issued by DCE-P, he [Peters] made the point that he views Mfat's social media channels as being primarily for use to communicate New Zealand's positions on foreign and trade policy issues and to document our engagement with other countries,' Appleton wrote. 'I accept this is not a binary, black and white, either/or choice – but I am seeking to locate [the minister of foreign affairs] MFA's preference on Pride Month content in the wider context of his views on the proper / appropriate scope of the Ministry's social media content.'
The email continued: 'I hasten to add that the guidance above should not be read as having wider implications for our human rights diplomacy […] or for what activities / events our Post network choose to undertake/attend (which will be context-specific and driven by Post judgments, overseen by regional divisions, about how to promote New Zealand interests).'
This email resulted in a directive to all posts on 'UPDATING MINISTRY SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDELINES' – sent three days later on May 30, just before Pride Month began.
The summary notes that MFAT is updating its social media guidelines and that this update will be 'informed closely by MFA's [Peters] direction that social media platforms should be focused on the communication and advancement of New Zealand's foreign and trade policy positions.'
It is noted that 'this will impact the Ministry's social media engagement, most immediately, in relation to Pride Month.'
The exact way this applies to Pride Month is detailed in two redacted paragraphs, which were redacted under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Act, meaning 'to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions'.
The redacted paragraphs are followed by a statement that 'this should not be read as having wider implications for our human rights diplomacy more broadly'.
No posts concerning Pride Month in 2025 appeared on any of the dozen Mfat social media channels reviewed by The Spinoff. One post about global trade tensions did feature a rainbow umbrella.
The Spinoff asked Peters to detail his exact direction to posts and why he intervened. 'The minister believes New Zealand's diplomatic network should be focused on advancing New Zealand's interests,' a spokesperson responded.
'The minister naturally has views about how New Zealand should conduct its diplomacy. One of those views is that social media content published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its post network should primarily be focused on communicating New Zealand's positions on foreign and trade policy issues, in line with our policy priorities agreed by cabinet, and on documenting our engagement with other countries.'
Peters' own legislative record stands in direct contrast to many of the milestones championed by past social media posts – he voted against legalising gay sex between men in 1986, and against same-sex marriage in 2013. The Spinoff asked if this history had any part to play in the decision, but did not receive a direct response.
His office was also asked what its message would be to any queer diplomats who were angered by the decision. The spokesperson said Peters' record of support for diplomats spoke for itself.
'The minister has the utmost respect for New Zealand's diplomats and the important work they do on behalf of all New Zealanders. This has been consistently demonstrated over three terms as foreign minister in Mr Peters' public remarks and his approach to foreign affairs resourcing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Peters challenged on tobacco links
Public health researchers at the University of Otago have called on the prime minister to show some leadership and remove the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First, following allegations the party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. Documents from a Radio NZ investigation show Philip Morris provided NZ First with a draft piece of regulation which the deputy prime minister at the time, Winston Peters, supported. They show NZ First assured Philip Morris they would "put that draft into the policy mix". Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the attempt to attack NZ First was "old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". The allegation comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes, and creating a smokefree generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. University of Otago Aspire Aotearoa Research Centre co-director and public health researcher Prof Janet Hoek said the fact the documents were six years old was "neither here nor there", because NZ First had repeatedly denied having any connections with the tobacco industry. The revelation raised questions about how easily companies were able to access politicians, and the kind of lobbying that went on behind closed doors. "The challenge that he [Mr Peters] has to address is that there have been allegations that he's been dealing with tobacco companies and using their documents to inform policy. "None of his statements, none of his rebuttals, address that concern. "What we need is some transparency — some actual evidence showing that these allegations that have been put forth in the documents don't stand, and that's not what he's been able to provide. "I think he really needs to be held to account here." She said Mr Peters' instinctive response was "attack is the best defence". "I think there's actually a real question about integrity of the political process here, and what people want to feel is that politicians are acting in the best interest of the country, not the best interest of the tobacco company." Prof Hoek said the "discrepancy" was further decreasing trust in the government, and called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to assert some leadership and removed the tobacco and vaping portfolio from NZ First, and entrust it to a politician without alleged links to tobacco giants. "We know that tobacco companies operate in the shadows by lobbying politicians. "What these documents reveal are claims that tobacco companies are not just lobbying, they are writing policy. "The New Zealand public will be disgusted to learn that is how the party that should be promoting public health is allegedly behaving." Fellow Aspire co-director Prof Richard Edwards said the repeal of New Zealand's world-leading smokefree legislation prompted a huge outcry from communities affected by smoking, health organisations, health professionals and public health experts. "The repeal raised questions about influence of the tobacco industry. "Subsequent industry-friendly policies like tax cuts for heated tobacco products only increased those concerns, and the recent revelations of close links between NZ First and Philip Morris suggest these concerns were well-founded." He called for the urgent reintroduction of the repealed measures, which were very likely to rapidly reduce the enormous harm from smoking, and protect future generations from smoking. Asked to respond to the accusations, a spokesman for Mr Peters pointed to a social media post online. In it, Mr Peters said the documents referenced were more than six years old, and the "attempt to attack NZ First is old, stale, repetitive, and utterly baseless". He said multiple government departments had themselves proactively reached out to "big tobacco" for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation. He accused Radio NZ of being "clearly lefty biased", and their "bottom-of-the-barrel attack reporting" had caused New Zealanders to lose trust in them and switch to other stations. "The smokefree legislation that we implemented is working," he said. "New Zealand First is proud of the smokefree legislation, which is backed by Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH), that we have implemented and that we are still implementing."
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Simmonds ignored advice in Otago Polytech decision
Penny Simmonds went against early advice by allowing Southern Institute of Technology to stand alone and grouping Otago Polytechnic with a pair of North Island-based institutions, it can be revealed. Advice to the vocational education minister released under the Official Information Act showed the decision to not allow Otago Polytechnic to stand alone was made despite it being assessed as "financially viable" along with six other institutions. The advisers from a special vocational education working group gave Ms Simmonds the option of all seven viable institutions - including SIT and Otago Polytechnic standing alone - but recommended the pair be linked together as part of three regional groupings. Otago Polytechnic and SIT should also be grouped with the Open Polytechnic. Ms Simmonds went on to ignore that advice and linked Otago Polytechnic with Palmerston North-based Universal College of Learning (UCOL) and Lower Hutt-based Open Polytechnic; and approved SIT, which she was formerly the chief executive of for 20 years, standing alone. Green MP Francisco Hernandez said the situation was a mess that benefited no-one in vocational education. "Advice shows that Otago Polytech was considered 'viable', even prior to the extensive and disruptive cuts that Otago was forced to undertake thanks to the lack of support." Mr Hernandez said Ms Simmonds must release the advice proactively "so we can examine the basis for the decision making". Otago Polytechnic executive director Dr Megan Pōtiki saw the advisory group's recommendations this week. "This only adds to our confusion about the decision announced last Monday. "In none of the four options shortlisted by the advisory group was Otago Polytechnic listed as a 'non-viable' entity. "We are deeply concerned that Otago Polytechnic has been unfairly singled out, in a decision which appears to have favoured some organisations for reasons other than financial viability." Dr Pōtiki said she was pleased the option of merging Otago Polytechnic and SIT was not adopted. "Both organisations have long and proud histories of providing quality tertiary education in our respective regions, but we have clear differences in our programme strengths and styles of operations. "However, we are still looking forward to a close and collaborative relationship with our closest neighbour going forward." Dr Pōtiki said Otago Polytechnic should be in surplus by the end of the year. "We are again asking the minister to release the criteria she used for making these decisions, and to clearly communicate why Otago Polytechnic was singled out to be moved out of the 'viable' category and included as part of a federation." Ms Simmonds said the debt and cash reserves of both SIT and Otago Polytechnic when they went into Te Pūkenga contributed to the decision. Otago Polytechnic had $16.1 million debt and $1.3 million in cash reserves, SIT had no debt and $40.1 million in cash reserves, of which $15.6 million were ring-fenced. "The paper you are referring to is an early piece of advice and there were several updates made. Otago Polytechnic is one of the 10 institutions being re-established and will stand alone within the new federation of polytechnics. "It was not grouped with SIT or the Open Polytechnic in a combined entity because the final decision adopted the proposed federation model rather than other options proposed during consultation."
1News
18 hours ago
- 1News
NZ passport redesign to have English words above te reo Māori
New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text — with the new look being rolled out atl the end of 2027. Since 2021, newly issued passports have had the words "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above "New Zealand Passport". Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden today confirmed the positions of the text would be swapped in future to reflect the coalition's commitment to using English first "as it is the language most widely spoken by the New Zealand public". She said the redesign – which would be unveiled later this year – was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport-holders. Passports with the new design would start being issued only after the existing stock of booklets had been used up. ADVERTISEMENT A spokesperson for Internal Affairs told RNZ the department was working towards an "end-of-2027 release date" for the updated passport. The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori – without costing taxpayers". The Department of Internal Affairs, in 2021, promoted the passport's existing "unique design" as one to "be proud of" and highlighted the more prominent use of te reo Māori both on the cover and throughout the book. The change came as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulated that public service departments had their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also included an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand. On Wednesday, NZ First leader and Foreign Minister Winston Peters objected to the Green Party's use of the term "Aotearoa New Zealand" during Parliament's Question Time. ADVERTISEMENT "No such country exists," Peters said. "The name of this country in all the documents, and the membership of the United Nations, is New Zealand. "We are not going to have somebody unilaterally – without consultation, without consulting the New Zealand people – change this country's name." Speaker Gerry Brownlee insisted Peters respond to the question in a "reasonable fashion" and pointed to his ruling earlier this year that it was not inappropriate for MPs to refer to "Aotearoa New Zealand". "The New Zealand Geographic Board also recognises and uses the term 'Aotearoa New Zealand'," Brownlee told MPs. "It would be utterly ridiculous for this House to ban such use if the Geographic Board itself is using that." Returning to the issue yesterday, Peters requested Brownlee reconsider on the basis that the Geographic Board had no jurisdiction to alter the country's name. But Brownlee was unmoved. ADVERTISEMENT He noted that the word "Aotearoa" was regularly used as a name of the country, including on New Zealand passports, which he said Peters would be familiar with — given his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs. "He would have – over some five years or more – presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it," Brownlee said. "I'd further say that through all of those years ... there has been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever from a government he was part of. "That is the end of the matter."
