Prime Minister's Office Only Given Hour's Notice Before Winston Peters' Speech Dismissing 'Trade War'
While Peters did not name Christopher Luxon in his speech, it was seen as a veiled swing at a series of phone calls the Prime Minister made to other world leaders over US tariffs, and the lack of notice he had been given ahead of a Foreign Policy speech by the Prime Minister a few days earlier.
Correspondence first obtained by Newsroom and also released to RNZ show the communications Peters' office had with officials ahead of the speech in Hawai'i, and the notice it gave the Prime Minister's office.
The background
On 10 April, the Prime Minister delivered a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, in which he said free trade was "worth fighting for" and raised the idea of CPTPP and European Union nations working together to champion rules-based trade.
He also announced his intention to speak to other world leaders about trade, amid the tariffs which had then-recently been announced by US President Donald Trump.
The same afternoon, Peters told reporters at Parliament such remarks were "all very premature," and confirmed the Prime Minister had not discussed with him the idea of getting CPTPP and EU nations together.
A day later, Peters was in Tonga, and during a press conference advised politicians to "tone down" and wait for the dust to settle.
"Markets lose their nerve. Share market speculators lose their nerve. Politicians should not lose their nerve."
He also said the Prime Minister should consult with him.
"He didn't check it out when he made that speech and made those phone calls. And so I hope that he'll get my message and he'll call me next time."
From there, Peters was off to Hawai'i, and delivered a speech in Honolulu.
He told a gathering at the East-West Centre the "tendency to hype up a debate about how international trade works into a black-and-white, polarising issue has been unfortunate and misguided" and criticised "military language" like "trade war" and the "need to fight."
Peters said such language "has at times come across as hysterical and short-sighted."
Giving notice
WhatsApp messages show Peters' senior foreign affairs adviser Michael Appleton informed staff in the Prime Minister and Trade Minister's offices about the quote Peters had given reporters at Parliament about the Prime Minister's idea to get the CPTPP and EU together to talk trade being "premature", as well as the responses he gave reporters in Tonga about the tariff approach.
On 12 April, he also gave the group a heads up that Peters would be giving a speech in Honolulu, and that they would get an advance copy once it was finalised.
In a separate WhatsApp group with Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials, Appleton informed them Peters had "decided" to "deliver brief (5-10 minute) remarks" about the US/NZ relationship in Hawai'i.
Appleton said he would work on a draft on the six-hour flight to Honolulu, using the "existing briefing/comms pack" and Peters' instructions as a guide.
"But warning you I'll want some reactions to a draft text later today once we have arrived in Honolulu," he said.
The responses to Appleton's message were redacted.
Via email, Appleton informed senior diplomats and officials of Peters' intention to deliver the speech on US/NZ relations, and sent them a draft.
"It has been written to his instructions, and he has signed it off (subject to same [sic] final tweaking tonight). So the scope for further edits is limited."
The recipients included the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade Bede Corry, the US Ambassador Rosemary Banks, MFAT's deputy secretary for trade and economic Vangelis Vitalis, its deputy secretary for the Asias and America Grahame Morton, Americas divisional manager James Waite, and Pacific divisional manager Sarah Lee.
Appleton told the group Peters' office would alert the Prime Minister, the Trade Minister, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet "to the fact of this speech, and then provide an advance copy one MFA has finished his tweaking.
"So no need for you to do any coordination on that front."
The advance copy was sent to the offices via WhatsApp an hour before Peters delivered the speech.
'Nothing to add'
Following the speech, Luxon said coverage had been a "media beat-up" and insisted that he and Peters were actually on the same page.
"We both agree that tariffs and trade wars are bad. We both think cool, calm and collected approaches are what is needed from ourselves and from our partners. We'll continue to build out our US relationship, and we're strengthening our bilateral ones," he told Morning Report.
"So from our side, whether it's Winston and I, whether it's the five ministers dealing with it, and frankly, our whole cabinet, we're very aligned on our approach."
Asked on Friday about the released of the communications and the notice his office was given, Luxon told reporters he had said all he wanted to say on the matter.
"I've spoken about that ages ago, I've got nothing further to say about it. As you know, we're just making sure we're upholding the rules-based trading system."
Peters' office did not wish to comment further.
"We have nothing to add on this issue, which was well traversed at the time."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Day two of hearings on Regulatory Standards Bill under way
politics policy 24 minutes ago The second day of hearings for the contentious Regulatory Standards Bill is under way at Parliament. Reporter Lillian Hanly spoke to Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Watch live: Taxpayers Union, Māori data scientist among Regulatory Standards Bill submitters
Day two of hearings for the Regulatory Standards Bill is underway at Parliament, with MPs from the Finance and Expenditure committee hearing arguments in opposition and support of what has been dubbed by some the Treaty Principles Bill 2.0 . Some have called it a "procedural" Bill that looks to introduce the concept of good lawmaking. Others have raised concerns around the failure to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. A former ACT MP has given a scathing rebuke of the "economic dogma" it represents. Submissions continue on Tuesday afternoon and over the following two days. A small group has gathered outside parliament calling themselves 'The Peoples Committee' to provide a space for those who haven't received formal speaking slots to make their case. Retired judge David Harvey spoke in support of the bill, because it introduces the concept of "good lawmaking". Harvey said every piece of legislation involved some form of erosion or interference with "individual or corporate liberty." He argued that it wasn't a "constitutional" bill, an argument he claimed had been reported or published, and that it was in fact "procedural." "It can be amended. It can be repealed by subsequent governments, and it can, like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 be ignored in the legislative process. Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union was one of the submitters on Tuesday. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly "The only thing is that, if it is going to be ignored, those who are responsible for ignoring it are going to have to stand up and say, why." Harvey also said the bill should reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi because it involved elements of governance and of "equal application of the law." He didn't know how that should be done within the scope of the bill, but said there should be "some recognition of the Treaty." A leading Māori data scientist argued the bill "fundamentally fails to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi". Te Kahui Raraunga's Kirikowhai Mikaere told the committee it disregarded the collective rights and aspirations of iwi Māori and prioritised private property and corporate interests over public good, environmental protection and the wellbeing of iwi Māori. She said the privileging of individual and corporate rights would have a "negative and long term impact" when it came to the data landscape of the country. She also said it would risk the "very delicate social license" of trust the country had of its own data system. "Data is not only a strategic asset, and what we know to be probably the biggest commercial asset in the world, it is a national asset for New Zealand, and what we recognise is this bill puts at jeopardy that national asset." Mikaere argued the Bill had also failed to honour Te Tiriti principles of partnership and participation in its creation. "Even the way that the bill was crafted, was in isolation of Te Tiriti partners. "Going forward, it reflects the values of and priorities of a very small number of New Zealanders." The Taxpayers Union argued New Zealand's poor quality regulations was one thing holding back the country's economy. Executive director Jordan Williams said the Bill was a "litmus test" for whether the government was serious about getting New Zealand back into the "status of the first world economy and with first world living standards." Williams said the bill was primarily about transparency. "The bill is, in effect, an information disclosure regime. "It does not obviously tie the hands of Parliament, other than forcing lawmakers to turn their minds to cost trade offs and regulatory takings, among other things." Williams said it was an "encapsulation" of what used to be seen as "just good law making." He challenged the MPs listening, saying one of their key roles as an MP was to uphold the rule of law. "Frankly, if you vote against a bill that requires disclosure of the rule of law implications of proposed legislation, I'd put to you that that is a failing of what is traditionally a duty of being a public representative in Parliament." Ray Deacon, an economist for the group who also submitted, added the "economic cost of poor legislation is enormous." "There has been no plan to assess the quality of legislation. There has been no plan to improve the quality of legislation. Therefore, there has been no plan to reduce the economic cost of redundant, ineffective or poorly implemented regulation." He argued there had been an ad hoc approach to reviewing and amending legislation and only when it was impossible to ignore. "This bill provides the legal structure for assessing the quality of existing legislation. This has to be worth something." A former member of Parliament for the ACT party gave a scathing rebuke of historical legislation she said had ripped apart New Zealand's collective strength. In opposing the bill, Donna Awatere Huata referenced the State Sector Act which "turned our public service into a business." She said the Reserve Bank Act legislated that "inflation matters more than jobs, more than housing, more than food on the table, more than anything." Huata said the Public Finance Act "made our children invisible unless they could be turned into an output." She told the committee the Fiscal Responsibility Act "made caring a liability." "These laws have got to go. They are not neutral. They slash jobs without a single thought of the devastation to families pushed us into unsafe homes, or worse, into cars or the streets. "They gouged fairness and equality, tore the spirit from our public life, recreating the misery and hatred of the poor of 19th century Britain." Huata argued the Regulatory Standards Bill would take "the economic dogma that caused this harm" and elevate it into "constitutional doctrine." "It would make it almost impossible to rebuild, to fix the broken systems, to honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to re-weave tikanga into public life. "It would allow courts to override our voices, your voice, my voice, the voice of community, of collective care." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Unions, former MPs, lawyers speak at Regulatory Standards Bill hearings
The second day of hearings on the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill has begun at Parliament. The first day saw a wave of opposition to the bill , but the Regulation Minister was dismissing concerns. While he had not watched all of the submissions from the first day, David Seymour said finding constructive criticism of the bill was like searching "for a needle in a haystack". Groups submitting on the second day of hearings will include Toitū te Tiriti, the Taxpayers' Union, the Council of Trade Unions, Business NZ and the Law Society. ACT leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Individuals include former ACT MP Donna Awatere Huata, former Green MPs Kevin Hague and Eugenie Sage, lawyer Tania Waikato and retired judge David Harvey. Much of the criticism on the first day was on the principles in the bill, which critics said elevated ACT ideology above health or environmental concerns. The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. A new Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation, could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "This Regulatory Standards Bill does not prevent a government or a Parliament from making a law or regulation. What it does do is create transparency so that the people can actually watch and understand what their representatives are doing," Seymour said. But Sophie Bond, associate professor of geography from the University of Otago, said the principles would embed "libertarian ideology" at a constitutional level. "The bill would not withstand an evaluation under even its own narrow terms. It's ill conceived, poorly drafted and undemocratic," she said. Similarly, Kirsty Fong from Asians Supporting Tino Rangatiratanga said it would "embed the ACT Party values and principles that are rooted in libertarian ideology that elevates individualism and profit at the expense of wellbeing". Criticism was also directed at what was not in the bill: there is no mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This led Rahui Papa from Pou Tangata National Iwi Chairs Forum to compare it to the Treaty Principles Bill, which was voted down at its second reading earlier this year. "We think this is a relitigation of the Treaty Principles Bill under another korowai, under another cover. So we say the attacks keep on coming." Unlike the Treaty Principles Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill has more chance of success. National's coalition agreement with ACT contains a commitment to pass the bill through into law. Natalie Coates from the Māori Law Society said Te Tiriti could not be "unstitched" from lawmaking. "Its absence isn't, of course, a drafting oversight, but a deliberate omission that bucks a clear break from constitutional best practice and our treaty obligations." She doubted, however, whether adding a treaty clause would fix the rest of the "fundamental problems" she saw in the bill. Seymour said he was yet to hear an argument about why Te Tiriti should be included. "If you can find any person that would give me a practical example of how putting the Treaty into Regulatory Standards Bill would change the outcome in a way that's better for all New Zealanders, then I'm open minded. I have been the whole time," he said. "But so far, not a single person who's mindlessly said 'oh but it's our founding document, it should be there' can practically explain how it makes the boat go faster." He acknowledged there were existing tools like Regulatory Impact Statements and the Regulations Review Committee, but questioned whether they were effective. "What we're doing is taking things that the government already does in different ways, and we're putting them together in one black letter law that governments must follow so New Zealanders have some rights. There's nothing really new here," he said. While the majority of submitters were opposed to the legislation, Ananish Chaudhuri, professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland spoke in favour. "It puts ideas of effiency and a careful weighing of the costs and benefits of proposed regulation at the heart of the legislative process," he said. Former Prime Minister and constitutional lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer was among the first speakers on Monday - arguing it's a bizarre and strange piece of legislation. "It is absolutely the most curious bill I've ever seen, but it's got a long history, you have to remember that this is the fourth occasion that this bill has been before Parliament," he told Morning Report. "I first encountered it in 2010 when I was president of the Law Commission and chair of the Legislation Advisory Committee. "We opposed it then and it didn't go any further then ... the thing about it is it is very divisive, the number of submissions against it is extraordinary, it challenges the numbers that came out against the minister's Treaty Principles Bill." Palmer said the Regulatory Standards Bill is just as unsound as that was. He said the bill upsets the way Parliament currently operates and that is based on the ability to interfere with the present legislative process "by putting a supremo minister over the top of it". The bill takes away the capacity of portfolio ministers to be responsible for the regulatory features of bills that they design, introduce and administer, Palmer said. "That in turn, reduces the accountability of those ministers and splits it between them and this other supremo minister and it is going to be a complete shambles. "It is going to make the job of the Parliament much more difficult than it is now." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
