The Deputy Prime Minister was “really letting New Zealand down” when he made controversial comments about former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr, Helen Clark says.
Carr’s lawyers have sent legal letters to Winston Peters over comments the Foreign Affairs Minister made on RNZ yesterday about Carr’s attitude to China that they say are defamatory.
“It’s a problem because normally we look to foreign ministers to be a serious presentation of our country abroad, and this kind of bluster and abuse of language, I think, is really letting New Zealand down,” the former prime minister told Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive.
“I think it’s not a good look at all.”
Clark also admitted she’d alerted the former Australian Labor Party minister to the comments – since removed from the radio station’s website – Peters made as he criticised Carr’s views on the Aukus security partnership involving Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
“When I heard the comments on Morning Report, I was really shocked and I would expect people to alert me, if something like that was said about me. So I told Bob that these very concerning comments have been made and that Radio New Zealand would probably ring him, which they did.”
But Clark was also concerned by Peters’ interest in Aukus, the first pillar of which she described as a “direct hit at [New Zealand’s] nuclear-free foreign policy”.
Peters and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken released a joint statement last month saying they both “see powerful reasons for New Zealand engaging practically” with Aukus.
But Clark told Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive that Peters was “trying to claim the next bit of the sentence, which said ‘when both sides deem it appropriate’, somehow qualified it”.
“No, it doesn’t. He said there are powerful reasons. He won’t spell out what they are. And frankly, if you left the discussion until there’s an invitation, it’ll all be over but the shouting, the public will be led into it far too late. He owes it to the New Zealand public to spell out now – what are these powerful reasons?”
The Foreign Minister has said he hadn’t changed his position on Aukus Pillar 2 – a decision can’t be made now because New Zealand hadn’t been invited, and he didn’t know what exactly it involved.
Pillar 2 is the second leg of the Aukus nuclear-powered submarine pact between the Australia, the UK and the US and involves the sharing and development of advanced, non-nuclear technologies. It could involve New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and South Korea, should the other Aukus partners extend an invite.
Peters told Morning Report all he was doing was continuing work started by the previous government to consider it.
Clark has previously said the idea of joining Pillar 2 should have been dismissed, and that it was clear Pillar 1 was “a nuclear submarine technology agreement which is aimed at containing China”.
Any New Zealand involvement in the security partnership mattered because it hit at the heart of the country’s independent foreign policy, she said.
“The Aukus Pillar 1 is a nuclear submarine technology partnership between three countries in the English speaking sphere … the Pacific hasn’t asked for nuclear-powered subs to patrol its waters.
“We stand for a nuclear-free Pacific. A growth in the number of nuclear submarines, particularly by the US, means nuclear submarines which are nuclear-armed. So it is, I think, a direct hit at our nuclear-free foreign policy.”
New Zealand engagement with Aukus would come with expectations, including to engage in various military adventures, increase defence spending and buy expensive equipment, Clark said.
“So this is the kind of debate we need to have, and we’re not getting answers on these issues.”
Cherie Howie is an Auckland-based reporter who joined the Herald in 2011. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years and specialises in general news and features.
Special investigation – ‘My life denied’: The cost of cancer treatment delays