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
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government extends tax break for Philip Morris heated tobacco products
'This Government has the wrong priorities. It is giving tax breaks to tobacco companies now valued at over $300 million and the evaluation they promised, to check that it was helpful, is a total sham.' Labour's Ayesha Verrall criticised the extension, citing health system strain and a $300 million cost. Photo / Getty Images Costello cut the HTP tax rate by 50% last year, with the aim that cheaper prices may encourage people to switch from cigarettes to HTPs. The cut was made despite health officials telling Costello there was no evidence HTPs worked to stop people smoking or were significantly safer than cigarettes. Costello told Cabinet she had her own 'independent advice', which, when she released it later, turned out to be five articles that were either about different products, outdated, or offered only weak support for her view. Treasury said Philip Morris had a monopoly in the HTP market in New Zealand and would be the main beneficiary of the move. NZ First's Casey Costello is under fire for extending HTP tax cuts for another year, favoring tobacco giant Philip Morris. Photo / Getty Images Costello's office told RNZ the tax cut trial would be extended because Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device from sale last year, as it did not comply with requirements for vaping devices to have a removable battery. Last week, Costello ditched the requirement for removable batteries, saying Cabinet was advised this was the best way to resolve legal action from Mason Corporation, which owns the Shosha vape store chain. A spokesman for the minister said with HTPs off the market for months last year, the original plan for an evaluation after one year did not make sense. 'There wasn't an evaluation because of the withdrawal of HTPs from the market. Any report back would be meaningless as the cheaper HTPs were only available for two months,' the spokesman said. 'Cabinet agreed to extending the HTP review to July 2027 as there will be more market data available.' The spokesman said the evaluation would then be able to show whether 'a sustained price reduction encouraged uptake by smokers' and if it had helped reduce smoking. The assessment would also look at whether HTP use 'encouraged smokers away from vapes' and the extent of 'unintended uptake by young people'. A March 2025 Ministry of Health (MOH) briefing to Costello, focused on how to evaluate the HTP tax cut, said Philip Morris had not initially passed on the excise reduction to consumers. 'There was no price change passed through to customers for the first month, though this is an observation of value in and of itself,' the MOH said. The briefing, obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, said Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device just three months into the tax cut trial. 'All HTP devices were removed from the market in New Zealand due to not meeting new safety regulations. This has meant there have been no HTP devices available for purchase for at least five months of the 12-month trial period.' Costello has said that HTPs 'have a similar risk profile to vapes', but officials from Treasury and Ministry of Health advised her they were much more harmful than vaping. In its March briefing, the MOH told Costello it would be difficult to assess whether people using HTPs had decreased their harm or not. 'While we will be able to assess whether the percentage of current or recent smokers who use HTPs increases, we will not be able to track whether those same people were previously using, or likely to use vapes, for example, whether they moved from a safer alternate product to a more harmful one.' Verrall said the onus should be on Philip Morris to prove its product was safe. 'There is no reason why the government should be running a study for Philip Morris to help get its products used,' she said. 'This product is not a health product. It is a harmful product.' Verrall said the latest update from the Treasury showed the HTP tax cut was forecast to cost up to $293m if continued until 2029. 'It's deeply worrying when our health system is underfunded that the Government is giving away $300m to the benefit of a single company with links to one of the coalition partners,' Verrall said. The extension of the tax break for the Philip Morris products comes after RNZ published documents alleging a close relationship between NZ First and the tobacco giant. The documents, released in litigation against US vaping company JUUL, allege Philip Morris pitched draft legislation to NZ First as part of a lobbying campaign for its HTPs. The documents claim Philip Morris corporate affairs staff 'reached out to NZ First to try and secure regulation to advantage IQOS'. A lobbying firm advising Juul claimed that NZ First leader Winston Peters had a relationship with Philip Morris and also that 'any regulation he champions is likely to be very industry-friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests in the sector'. Peters did not address the allegations that NZ First received material from Philip Morris, but said RNZ's story was a 'tissue of baseless accusations' and that engagement with the tobacco industry was legitimate. 'Multiple government departments have themselves proactively reached out to, and met with, 'big tobacco' for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation,' he said, in a post on X. Health Coalition Aotearoa and Vape-Free Kids want Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to strip NZ First of the tobacco and vaping portfolio but he says Costello is doing a great job.
Otago Daily Times
17 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Sir Ian Taylor: Do we really need this passport debate?
OPINION: Sir Ian Taylor has penned a letter to Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Kia ora Winston , I know we still haven't managed to have that long-promised lunch to unpack the true meaning of the term woke which, given your political instincts, I suspect you secretly enjoy throwing around just to keep everyone on their toes. But before we sit down over a steaming plate of puha to have that kōrero, (see what I did there) I was wondering if I could add another topic to the agenda: the use of Māori on the New Zealand passport. It seems, somehow, that the order of two words on a travel document now ranks among the great political battlegrounds of our time. Forget the cost-of-living crisis. Forget child poverty. Forget the price of butter which, somehow, has become a handy distraction from the real costs hitting household budgets. Rent, insurance, petrol, electricity, rates. You know, those things we don't have any option about paying. And that's what's confusing me. I find it difficult to believe that in times like those we are currently facing, what matters most to you, and Brooke van Velden, is whether our passports say New Zealand Aotearoa or Aotearoa New Zealand . I know Brooke won't be coming to share kai with us (sorry did it again) but there is a bit to discuss here don't you think? You and I both travel. I've got the older passport that leads with New Zealand . My son has the updated version that begins with Aotearoa . And miraculously, we both manage to get through international border controls all over the world. In the last month that included, Dubai, Paris, Lisbon, Seville, Belfast and Dublin. No panic. No confusion. Just a couple of kiwi travellers doing what travellers do. Handing over our passports to show where we come from. So, if no one at the border seems to care which name comes first, is this really the debate we need to be having here in Aotearoa New Zealand? Maybe when we do sit down for that lunch, we could have a better one: where did the name New Zealand come from in the first place? Our national identity is quite literally borrowed from a country on the other side of the world that has no historical, cultural, or geographical connection to us, at all. When Abel Tasman who, it's worth pointing out never even set foot on these shores, spotted the coastline in 1642 he didn't ask the local inhabitants what they called the land. Those inhabitants just happened to be yours and my Polynesian ancestors who landed here hundreds of years before Tasman made it to this, the land of the long white cloud. No, instead Dutch cartographers back in Europe dubbed it Nova Zeelandia , after their own province of Zeeland. A flat, soggy region famous for its' windmills, dykes, cheese, tulips and canals. Not a single Pohutukawa tree in sight. I don't know about you, but I'm not sure windmills and cheese wheels quite capture the essence of who we are. And yet somehow, this adopted name, bestowed by men who didn't even disembark, has become sacrosanct to some, while Aotearoa , a name used to describe this land for centuries before Tasman turned up, is treated by some as irrelevant, with little or no place in our history. But I do think you and I will be able to find a few things in common when we get to this part of our korero. I actually don't know why the order on the passport was changed in the first place. I quite like the old cover on my passport, where Aotearoa sits below New Zealand. In fact, one could argue that having Aotearoa beneath New Zealand is symbolic. That it reflects the foundation, the whenua, on which this nation was built. Recognising that Aotearoa was here first and we built a new nation, together, on top of that foundation. I hope you don't think that is too woke of me. This isn't just about your argument to change it back. The same argument could have, and perhaps should have, been made when someone decided to make the first change. But now it's become an ideological battle, not a discussion. It's less about identity and more about headlines. But surely this is not a debate that belongs on the front pages, and certainly not in Parliament's time. It looks like a turf war between two minority parties fighting over the same narrow band of voters. Voters you both need to stay above that 5% barrier that, in the current MMP environment, gives minority parties, on both sides, far more power than was ever intended. A power that has led to a growing division between us that will ultimately weaken us as a nation the world looks up to. If you're looking for what a modern, unified New Zealand looks like, I suggest you go back and watch Michaela Sokolich-Beatson's post-match speech after the Northern Mystics v Tactix netball final last weekend. Michaela spoke beautifully, switching naturally between English and te reo Māori. It was moving, eloquent and powerful. It showed that both languages, both cultures, are now a part of who she is. And then her team delivered a haka. When Michaela Sokolich-Beatson and her team stood after their loss and delivered that haka, it wasn't a challenge. In Māori culture it's a gesture of honour and pride. A way to acknowledge their opponents, their teammates, and the community they represent. It was powerful because it wasn't about the scoreboard, it was about identity, unity, and respect. That haka didn't just mark the end of a match. It marked who we are now. So, Winston, about that lunch. Let's talk woke . Let's talk passports. But more importantly, let's talk about how we shift the focus back to the real work that needs doing, on both sides of the House.
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
MetService Weather: 29 July
NZ First leader Winston Peters on the Government's new Parent Boost Visa He stressed the need for the migrants to pay their own costs and not rely on the taxpayer. Video / Mark Mitchell
