Prime Minister's office only given hour's notice before Winston Peters' speech dismissing 'trade war'
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The Prime Minister's office was only given an hour's notice of the contents of a speech by the Foreign Affairs minister, in which Winston Peters criticised the language used by politicians regarding a "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.
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."
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.
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."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
43 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Insurance companies urge use of Takapuna golf course for flood prevention
Thousands of insurance claims were lodged after 2023 floods in the area. Photo: Davina Zimmer Insurance companies say using a golf course on Auckland's North Shore to prevent flooding may be a necessary sacrifice for golfers. Auckland Council proposes converting half the Takapuna Golf Course into a flood catchment, which golfing bodies and prominent figures in the sport oppose. Insurance Council chief executive Kris Faafoi said their members received 1000 claims from homes and businesses in the areas around the golf course, after the Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023. "What we're asking, as insurers of those areas, is to make sure we can protect families and keep insurance available to those communities. "We've got to make sure that there's a balanced debate and, as well as the emotion of a golf course and enjoying a golf course, there's a good hard look at some of the realities that might happen if there's another [extreme weather] event like that and how we can protect people from the kind of pain they suffered a little over two years ago." Faafoi said, as a golfer himself, ideally, the golf course could be maintained, but the council needed to do its job to deal with the natural hazard risk. IAG chief executive Amanda Whiting said the proposal prioritised the safety of Aucklanders living in the surrounding area. She said her insurance company received more than 3000 claims for homes, vehicles and businesses in neighbouring suburbs, after the 2023 weather events. "As New Zealand's largest general insurer, our priority is protecting people, property and communities from the increasing risks posed by extreme weather and flooding. The reality is that climate change is driving more frequent and severe flood events. "Strategic land-use decisions like this, which build resilience and reduce future harm, are essential to keeping insurance both accessible and affordable. "Investing in natural hazard protection now helps avoid far greater costs later." The council said it would assess a revised proposal from Takapuna Golf Club and make a decision in the coming weeks. Construction on any approved plan for the flood catchment at the golf course was not expected to begin until 2027. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Why do the government's carbon auctions keep failing, and does it matter?
Many companies, including petrol companies, have to buy carbon credits every year to cover their planet-heating emissions under the Emissions Trading Scheme. Photo: 123RF Explainer - Seven failed auctions and counting. How did the government lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from big polluters? Here's what you need to know about the steep decline in carbon credit auctions. It's all about carbon. On a single day in 2021, the government earned over $600 million in revenue in around three hours - just from selling the rights to emit carbon dioxide. That was just one of its quarterly auctions of something called NZUs - New Zealand Units, or, in colloquial terms, licences to produce a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. Many companies, including petrol companies, have to buy these every year to cover their planet-heating emissions under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Farmers are exempt when it comes to their methane and nitrous oxide, and certain big emitters (like Rio Tinto, Methanex, NZ Steel, Fletcher Building) get most of their NZUs given to them free by the government on the basis they're exposed to overseas competition. The auction price is set by the market, but can't be lower than a minimum floor - currently $68 a tonne. Companies have four chances a year to buy what they need from the government. The idea is that paying for emissions gives companies an incentive to lower their climate pollution (and consumers an incentive to buy cleaner products), as well as being a tidy money spinner for the taxpayer. At Budget 2021, Treasury estimated that selling carbon credits would generate $3 billion for the government over the next five years - and many market observers at the time thought that was too conservative. In the past, revenue has topped a billion dollars in a year. The money earned is there to be spent on helping companies cut their carbon emissions, giving people tax cuts or whatever else the government of the day wants to spend it on. Along with ACC levies, earnings from the selling NZUs are the biggest source of government revenue after the tax take . The basic concept of New Zealand's ETS - as explained by the Ministry for the Environment Photo: MFE It used to be. Then the auctions started failing. The first failed auction happened in March 2023. Not one tonne of carbon sold. The same thing happened in June, September and December 2023 - a whole year without a sale. In March 2024, the government managed to sell around 3 million tonnes, earning around $200 million. That was followed by two more failed auctions, then a brief rally in December 2024, when 4 million tonnes were sold. The recovery was short-lived though. In 2025, demand has been back in the doldrums. Both of 2025's auctions have failed. In fact, in June, nobody even bothered to register to bid. Nigel Brunel, the New Zealand managing director for trading firm Marex, says it's not unusual internationally for a carbon auction to fail. "But you could stand back and say, if they're continually not clearing, what's at play?" Nope. It's not that companies have stopped polluting the atmosphere with their heating emissions. New Zealand's total emissions have only fallen a few percent during the time the auctions have been failing. In short, the reason companies don't want to buy these from the government is that they can buy their NZUs cheaper elsewhere. You see, the auctions aren't the only market for carbon. The government only auctions off as many NZUs as it thinks it can inject into the market without blowing the country's emissions budgets - aka how much the country is allowed to pollute the climate each year. And, these days, it keeps a pretty tight reign on supply. Every year, the number of NZUs available to buy from the government shrinks a bit. And every year, the minimum price the government can sell them for rises a bit. The combination of falling volumes and a rising floor price is meant to keep the country on track for meeting its climate targets, by ensuring companies don't get their hands on too many NZUs at once, which they can use to pollute. But outside of the government auctions, companies can trade NZUs privately at whatever price they want -- and that price is outside the government's direct control. For most of the last two years, buyers have been able to get their carbon cheaper elsewhere, on what's called the secondary market. Forestry owners can also create new NZUs by planting trees. Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King Companies buy NZUs to cover their annual emissions, but they can also bank them for use or resale later. They can even trade them like commodities, if they want to. The government isn't the only entity able to create NZUs. Forestry owners can also create new NZUs in unlimited quantities, by planting trees, and, like other NZU owners, can sell them whenever they want at a price they choose. Right now, a tonne of carbon dioxide on the secondary market is about $10 cheaper than the government's minimum auction price. Little wonder that nobody is bidding. As for how the secondary market price is set, well, how highly companies value the carbon they have in their store cupboards depends on a lot of things. Like, what do they think the carbon price is going to be in the future? How much do they themselves intend to emit? How much demand for NZUs do they think there will be from other emitters? Do they think the government is strongly committed to slashing emissions, meaning NZUs might get harder to come by? This all involves a lot of second-guessing, including about how committed the government of the day is to meeting its emissions budgets, and maintaining a strong carbon market. It's complicated, but it's fair to say that politicians have played a big role. That first failed auction happened after former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins and his Labour-led government got cold feet and tried to stop allowing the price of carbon to rise. Independent experts had told the government it couldn't keep pumping more NZUs into the system to lower the price, whenever the price at auctions got high. This was when the carbon price was above $80 a tonne, and a supposedly rare contingency plan for putting more NZUs into auctions was being triggered frequently. With the country recovering from lockdowns, Hipkins didn't want to drive up petrol or electricity costs, both of which are affected by the carbon price. He refused to follow the advice. Ultimately, he backed down after a court challenge. But the market saw the decision as a lack of commitment by the government. The price of NZUs on the secondary market crashed. Then the Hipkins government announced a review of how credits generated by forestry were treated. Although the government's intention was to make the market stronger, the move prompted some foresters to panic-sell their NZUs, crashing the price again. The new, National-led coalition government came to power promising a strong and stable carbon market - and promptly cancelled the forestry review. But within less than a year, prices had dropped again, this time after the new government made a surprise announcement that it was considering lowering 2025's minimum floor price. Again, the proposal never became reality. But prices haven't really recovered by much. The first failed auction happened after former Prime Minister Chris Hipkins' government tried to stop allowing the price of carbon to rise. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Not this time. There's also the matter of millions of tonnes' worth of "spare" NZUs that are stashed away in companies' accounts. These represent the right to produce millions of tonnes of future climate pollution. Companies are allowed to hold NZUs that they'll never need themselves - and many of them are holding big stockpiles. Because these could land on the secondary market any time, they can make the price more volatile and unpredictable - and push it down, if lots of them are released at once. "The long-running saga of the New Zealand ETS has been the surplus of units sitting in private accounts ... where there isn't really a clear purpose for those being in private accounts," says Kristen Green, a climate change consultant and economist. "You could be an international hedge fund and hold some units ... there's a pool that might be held by speculators, there could be some that foresters or emitters had hoarded over the last 10, 20 years when the market settings were a bit looser so they have built them up to sell," she says. At the latest estimate, there were thought to be roughly 50 million of these excess units, the equivalent of more than a year's worth of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions. Brunel of Marex says a surfeit of NZUs on the secondary market is the underlying factor behind the continued failure of auctions. "It appears to have been - and there's a lot of evidence to back it up - that a lot of small to medium forest owners have sold an excess amount of carbon," he says. He says many sheep and beef farmers have woodlots on their land to supplement their income with logs or NZUs. "If you go back a year and a half ago to when this started, economically, New Zealand wasn't in a great place, with high interest rates, and beef and sheep farmers struggle sometimes at the best of times." Typically, any forest owner who plans to eventually harvest their trees keeps some NZUs to cover the carbon they'll emit when they fell the trees. "What was clear was that some of these farmers that had units held back for harvest, decided not to harvest and sold those units into the market," says Brunel. He says log prices had also been relatively subdued, which might have made some forests less economic to harvest - and made selling the NZUs more attractive. "There was clearly an excess number of units being sold, which was picked up by emitters, which really kept the price subdued and somewhat weak. "It's making its way back now, we're almost at $60, but clearly those emitting companies didn't need the auctions to satisfy their demands," he says. The government - on the advice of the Climate Change Commission - has been trying to flush the surplus units out by selling fewer NZUs at auction, and Brunel says that should start having an impact. "The supply coming into the market is approximately 18-20 million tonnes a year, 6 million at auctions, 6 million of free allocation, and approximately 6 million of forestry. "But the actual demand or the requirement (for NZUs) to be surrendered every year is around 35 to 36 million tonnes, and that was brought about to try and eat into the stockpile. "Everyone knows there's a quantum of units that have built up over the last decade that are excess." Brunel says that as long as forestry planting stays reasonably constant over the next few years, those excess NZUs should start being used up by emitters, making the market more stable. The Climate Change Commission has advised the government to flush the surplus units out. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas Not quite. There's a twist. At the end of every year, any unsold NZUs from government auctions are meant to be cancelled. The next year's auctions start with a clean slate. But the Climate Change Commission has told the government it should reinject unsold NZUs from the string of failed auctions back into the market, in 2028-30. "Some people didn't expect that, even though the Climate Change Commission is technically correct," says Brunel. "If they weren't required at the auction, why bring those units back?" The government is still deciding whether to cancel the unsold units, and the commission has faced a lot of pushback. "The government should probably consider banking that win," says Brunel. "We're not going to decarbonise at $60 a tonne and by cancelling those units it would probably push the price higher. The auctions would also probably start clearing, which would be good for the government because it would get that revenue. "We really need to be reducing gross emissions, and I can't see that happening at the current price." Kristen Green says cancelling the unsold carbon would give the government some wiggle room when it comes to meet its future climate targets. "We don't have any kind of tangible measure in place for agricultural emissions, which is 50 percent of our emissions, and when you look at forestry, which is so uncertain about how many removals it will deliver, having that wiggle room is important. "I think the reaction from stakeholders has rightly been quite critical [of re-adding the units]. "The ironic thing here that makes you pull your hair out, is that the commission have also advised the government on its fourth emissions budget ... and part of that advice was, hey government, you should drop your emissions budgets ... by 15 million tonnes, which happens to be about the number of units they've said should be added on." Green says the commission was only following the law when it delivered the two pieces of conflicting advice, but from the perspective of those watching "it's maddening". If the government followed both pieces of advice to the letter, she says, "all those extra units would come straight back off again". It depends who you ask. The ETS has long been New Zealand's main tool for lowering emissions. Under the current government, it's virtually the only tool because the coalition government believes in a market-led approach and hasn't allocated any real funding for cutting carbon emissions. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has said the failed auctions and the cancelled NZUs are just the market working as intended to rebalance. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The government has also made it clear that it doesn't mind if the carbon price is too low to drive companies cut emissions - in its view, planting trees at a lower cost to soak carbon up is just as good, especially if it works out cheaper for emitters and households. Others - the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission and the OECD among them - disagree. They say New Zealand is running a risk of suffering major regret in the future, when there's no more suitable land for planting pine trees and it still hasn't tackled the root sources of its carbon emissions. Plus, there will be swaths of land tied up in (potentially fire-prone) trees that can never be cut down ... unless their owners repay all the NZUs they've generated. "It depends on what your vision of the role of the ETS is," says Green. "It won't have any effect on gross emissions at the prices we're seeing today. "If you buy into the 2008-era vision of the ETS, which is being agnostic as to how many forestry removals you get and how many gross emissions reductions you get, then the current prices of $60 might not be an issue to you, and in fact you might see that as a positive because the cost to households is less than it might have been. "From a personal standpoint, if you want an effective transition over the long term, you need to start driving action on gross emissions and get system changes happening," she says. Brunel says you don't necessarily want the price rising fast, because it creates inflation. But a steady pushing upwards signals to companies that it's time to change, with minimal impact on inflation, he says. Currently, the persistently low prices are even affecting the government's climate plans. A major plank of the government's climate plans was allowing carbon capture and storage. Its calculations that it was on track for its climate targets partly rested on the assumption Taranaki's Todd Energy would commission a major carbon capture and storage project to put emissions underground at its Kapuni gas field, in around 2027. Todd Energy now says carbon prices are too low to make the scheme economic, unless it gets a subsidy. The government says it is re-calculating its emissions estimates based on recent developments, and will tweak its plans as needed. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Plant production 'one of the most underrated horticultural sectors', says young industry leader
Jake Linklater of Nova Natives in Canterbury's Templeton has been named Young Plant Producer of the Year 2025. Photo: SUPPLIED A young, award-winning plant producer says while plant production is critical to the success of both primary industries and domestic gardens, he believes the sector's "good mahi" goes under the radar. Lincoln University conservation and ecology student Jake Linklater won the prestigious Young Plant Producer of the Year award in his hometown of Christchurch last week. Linklater has been the nursery manager at Nova Natives in Templeton, near Ōtautahi, for the past three and a half years and has worked in plant production for more than five years. "I came from experience in landscaping and arboriculture before this, and every time I went and visited a nursery, I always thought that would be such a cool job," he said. "So when landscaping was finished for me and my boss ran out of work, I went sideways in horticulture and went into nursery production. "I haven't really looked back since." Nova Natives sells native plants to nurseries, farmers, commercial landscapers and community groups for restoration projects. Photo: Cosmo Kentish-Barnes Unlike the majority of nurseries, which were privately-owned, Nova Natives was a social enterprise for Nova Trust that ran addiction treatment and recovery programmes . "The pool of money that we do generate goes back into the trust as a whole and helps run the programme here through our drug and alcohol rehab programme," Linklater said. He said it was a rewarding experience. "It's always nice, and it's good to give a lot of them life and employment skills as well. And getting them up and moving physically, because a lot of them haven't really had routine in a number of years, so it all helps. And that circles back around." Linklater and four other finalists faced two days of practical challenges, testing skills in finance, biosecurity, plant propagation, identification and more, based on a points system. Winning the contest, hosted by the International Plant Propagators' Society, will see Linklater go head-to-head with winners across industry contests in viticulture, growing, aboriculture and more in November for the overarching Young Horticulturalist of the Year contest. They will be vying for a prize pool worth more than $20,000. So he said it was a big year ahead. "I'm looking forward to meeting people from the other sectors and hopefully doing my sector proud, because I believe we're one of the most underrated horticultural sectors in the industry," he said. "We lay the groundwork for all the other sectors as well, producing the plants before they get planted out in their vineyards or out in their gardens. "I believe we do a lot of good mahi that goes under the radar." The award came with 12-month mentorship support and a $4000 fund towards advancing his career in plant production. Finalists included first runner-up Kirsten Phillips-Ong of Northland, second runner-up Johnnie Clay of Christchurch, then Auckland's Ezra Alexander and Kerikeri's Yuong Chaiyaklang. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
