Speaking to reporters this afternoon, Willis said the decision to release those emails should have been made in concert with Luxon\u2019s office and suggested the failure to do so was \u201cintentional\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe problem here is the coalition agreement sets out very clearly that we will act in good faith and in a no-surprises fashion \u2013 his office failed to uphold those principles,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Christopher Luxon (left) and Winston Peters met last night. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
Willis wouldn\u2019t answer directly when asked if it constituted a breach of the agreement, acknowledging mistakes happen but noting Peters\u2019 comments weren\u2019t clear.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt appears to be political game-playing at a time when the country is experiencing a fuel crisis, significant conflict in the Middle East, at a time when New Zealanders want their ministers focused on them and their interests.\u201d<\/p>\n
Willis, referring to Peters\u2019 earlier denial a mistake had been made, claimed the Foreign Affairs Minister seemed \u201cvery, very confused\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat is to say he won\u2019t have a bout of similar confusion in the coalition talks?\u201d<\/p>\n
Asked to clarify her meaning, Willis responded: \u201c[Peters] has said that he won\u2019t support a Labour, Greens, Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori Government, but what if he gets confused?\u201d<\/p>\n
Peters this afternoon admitted there had been a \u201cprocess mistake\u201d in not informing Luxon\u2019s office of the decision to release the emails to the Herald.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the end, I made the mistake,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe don\u2019t blame others, but funnily enough, a couple of my staff are going to be at a training session this afternoon on the matter.\u201d<\/p>\n
Peters claimed an \u201cassumption\u201d was made that Luxon\u2019s office was also releasing the emails; an act he defended.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf it should be disclosed, disclose it, there\u2019s no good reason not to. That\u2019s the view I\u2019ve always had myself.<\/p>\n
\u201cI should have made sure that the Prime Minister was on the same wavelength.\u201d<\/p>\n
He wouldn\u2019t respond to questions about Luxon\u2019s statement, specifically the Prime Minister\u2019s claims that Peters put politics over the national interest, Peters had mischaracterised Luxon\u2019s position and Luxon\u2019s position on the conflict.<\/p>\n
\u201cLook, that\u2019s yesterday\u2019s story,\u201d Peters said.<\/p>\n
In a statement, a spokesman for Luxon told the Herald yesterday the pair had met in Peters\u2019 office, during which Peters had acknowledged a mistake had been made.<\/p>\n
The spokesman said the emails \u201cmischaracterise the PM\u2019s position\u201d and said Luxon would have expected Peters to show \u201cbetter judgment\u201d.<\/p>\n
Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said some of his staff were going through a training session related to the matter. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell <\/p>\n
The Herald\u2019si exclusive report revealed emails between advisors in the days after war broke out in February, when the United States and Israel struck targets in Iran.<\/p>\n
Asked at the time whether New Zealand supported the strikes, Luxon answered that New Zealand \u201cacknowledge[d]\u201d<\/a> the strikes, but was silent on whether New Zealand supported them.<\/p>\n This wording, emphasising acknowledgement but not support, was different from the likes of Australia, whose statements on the war emphasised the fact that country explicitly supported the strikes.<\/p>\n Senior staff from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), the public service agency that provides Luxon with policy advice, emailed Peters\u2019 office suggesting Luxon\u2019s talking points be updated to align with a statement from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese<\/a>.<\/p>\n The email noted that changing these talking points would have flow-on effects to New Zealand\u2019s foreign policy, including the question of whether New Zealand believed the strikes were illegal under international law.<\/p>\n