Winston Peters says David Seymour was wrong to suggest that his official response would be essentially the same as Seymour's. Photo: RNZ
The foreign affairs minister has suggested both his coalition partners were wrong to publicly criticise a United Nations letter before he has officially responded to it.
"This is a matter of experience here, and it's called diplomacy," Winston Peters told reporters on Tuesday afternoon. "Experience is important in this business."
But David Seymour is refusing to accept he has done anything wrong.
It is the latest twist in coalition dynamics after revelations Seymour - in his capacity as the regulations minister - had issued a scathing missive in response to the UN letter, which he called "presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced".
The letter - from UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Albert K Barume - laid out a number of concerns about the coalition government's agenda, including Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said this morning that the UN's letter was "total bunkum" and a "waste of time" but he had "made it clear" to Seymour that the responsibility for responding lay with Peters.
Speaking later on Tuesday, Seymour said Peters was actually the first to raise the matter with him after coming to Seymour's office yesterday afternoon.
"[Peters] said, 'look, really I need to respond'. I said, 'okay, well, I'll take my letter out. You send one, just hope that it has the same points'. He said, 'believe me, you won't be disappointed'. I said, 'that's great'."
Seymour said Luxon only raised the issue later during one of their scheduled evening catch-ups and rejected any suggestion he had been given a "telling-off".
"Much as people in the media would love that to be true, it isn't," he said.
Despite having agreed to retract his letter, Seymour denied having made a mistake by sending it in the first place and said he had simply been "a bit too efficient".
"I don't acknowledge that I was wrong. I acknowledge that it's better if we send one together. And of course, if that's how people would like to do it, that's fine.
"If people think that I'm too quick off the mark, getting stuck into the UN on their crazy criticisms of our government, then that's fine. I don't think it makes a big difference, because we all agree the UN's criticisms are crazy."
'We don't do megaphone diplomacy' - Peters
Addressing reporters on Tuesday afternoon, Peters said Seymour was wrong to suggest that his official response would be essentially the same as Seymour's.
"That's not true," Peters said. "Why would he say that?"
Peters said he was still consulting all affected ministries and would make the government's official position clear before the UN's deadline of 11 August.
"We don't do megaphone diplomacy in this business," he said. "Don't you understand diplomacy? You don't speak to other countries via the media."
Asked by RNZ whether Luxon was also wrong then to publicly describe the letter as "bunkum", Peters shot back: "Why don't you ask him?"
Peters said he went to see Seymour after learning of his involvement to point out the proper process established over 80 years of engagement with the UN.
He said the meeting ran for about seven or eight minutes: "I didn't have my watch with me at the time, because my battery was flat, and somebody's uptown getting a new battery."
The initial letter from Barume took aim at Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, claiming it excluded Māori traditions and failed to uphold principles guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi.
In his response, Seymour said that claim was "not only incorrect but offensive". He also said it was "misleading and offensive" for Barume to claim Māori had been excluded from consultation.
"As an indigenous New Zealander myself, I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori regarding legislation that aims solely at ensuring clarity, consistency, and accountability in regulatory processes."
Seymour concluded by describing Barume's intervention as "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty".
"We neither require nor welcome external lectures on our governance, particularly from bodies whose understanding of our nuanced historical, cultural, and constitutional context is so clearly deficient."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
