Revealed: The talking points Christopher Luxon failed to nail on Iran
Thursday, 2 July 2026
Official briefing notes provided to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon explicitly stated New Zealand was 'horrified' by the deaths of more than 100 children in an Iranian school bombing.
During his press conference, Luxon refused to pass judgement on the deadly bombing, stating it was 'up to the US and the Israelis' to explain what happened.
Officials never advised the Prime Minister to express support for 'any action' against Iran, a phrase he used during a media round and later claimed he 'misspoke' on.
Internal emails reveal Luxon’s preference for explicit public support of the US action sparked strong pushback from Winston Peters’ office, which warned it could constitute a significant change in position.
The prime minister’s policy office was provided with a full page of talking points ahead of a press conference seen by some as a low point for the Christopher Luxon’s leadership.
On March 2, the Monday after the United States and Israel first launched strikes on Iran, the prime minister did a round of media interviews and later a post-cabinet press conference on the conflict.
He struggled to articulate whether New Zealand supported the strikes, repeatedly saying that New Zealand supported “any action” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which he later had to walk back claiming he “misspoke”.
Luxon also struggled to convey what New Zealand’s position on the legality of the strikes and he would not pass judgement on the deadly bombing of a primary school.
Documents released to Stuff under the Official Information Act reveal the briefing notes Luxon was given on the Sunday ahead of these media appearances.
The talking points included an explicit line on the deaths of more than 100 schoolchildren killed in a bombing of a school.
“We are horrified by the deaths of civilians - on all sides - including the deaths of more than 100 children in Iran,” the notes said.
When Luxon was directly asked about the bombing at his press conference, he said: “Well, again, that is up for the US and the Israelis—I know they’ve got—with respect to the school bombing, that is up to them to present what has happened there”
He was pressed again.
“You can’t make a judgement call on whether the deaths of 200 schoolchildren in a bombing is a good or bad thing? Is that what you said?” a journalist asked.
“Well, we want to make sure that any action is protecting civilians. We want to make sure that any action is consistent with international law. But we also, you know, need Israel and the US to explain their actions and their understanding of that event, and that is for them to explain,” was the Prime minister’s answer.
“I’m not in a position to judge that from sitting in New Zealand and just jumping to an assumption or a conclusion there. That is up for them.”
The talking points were prepared and sent to the Foreign Minister’s office and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on Sunday morning ahead of Winston Peters first media engagement on the matter.
Among other lines on New Zealand’s position, officials recommend that “if pressed on support for strikes” the following responses could be used.
The US and Israel have explained why they have done this.
We have acknowledged their reasons and we understand them.
These things are never black and white.
Iran’s behaviour since the strike tells us everything. Iran is a destabilising force.
Canada and Australia had both expressed “support” for the strikes, whereas the official statement issued by Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters was softer in tone and rather said “we acknowledge that the actions taken overnight by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”
Luxon struggled on RNZ’s Morning Report to explain why New Zealand had taken a different approach to partners.
The talking points noted he should say:
New Zealand has consistently condemned Iran’s nuclear programme, its destabilising activities in the region and the repression of its people.
There is no doubt that Iran’s behaviour needs to be addressed and contained.
Israel and the US are trying to do this.
This explains why they took action.
We support the right of the Iranian people to determine their future.
We support Iran no longer posing a threat to regional security.
We support a de-escalation and a return to negotiations.
Here’s what he said on Morning Report: “Well we acknowledge the actions they have taken by the US and Israel they were independent actions but they’re designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security and that’s what its about.
“Also the NZ position over many decades over many different governments along with the international community frankly has been to condemn Iran’s repression of its own people, its funding of armed proxies and also its nuclear and missile programme“
Shortly following Luxon’s morning media appearances, DPMC asked for more extensive talking points that more closely aligned with Australia and the UK.
This led to the explosive email chain which was released by Winston Peters office at the end of April in which the Foreign Minister’s office pushed back strongly against this as it may constitute a significant change in position.
“I’ve discussed with MFA the PM’s preference for more explicit public support of the US’ action,” Peters senior foreign affairs adviser, Michael Appleton wrote. MFA refers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
“MFA does *not* wish for NZ to move towards explicit support, like Australia/Canada have expressed.”
Later that morning the same briefing notes are sent around, ahead of Luxon’s scheduled 4pm post cabinet press conference.
They also included answers on what to say about any legal advice the government had and notes on whether the strikes were illegal.
I can’t talk about that. Cabinet rules prevent me from discussing legal advice. [Note: Cabinet Manual 4.65 all legal advice that is provided to ministers will attract solicitor client privilege]
What I will say is that it’s for the US and Israel to make the case on the legality of the strikes.
Israel and the US have invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defence).
Whether or not something is legal is fact dependent and New Zealand is not privy to the information on which they made the decision.
The key point to make is that Iran has consistently and flagrantly been flouting international law for decades.
And now with the conflict underway the spotlight needs to be on International Humanitarian Law.
Iran’s indiscriminate attacks are clearly in defiance of this.
(MFAT noted that one point here was incorrect at the time of writing. The US and Israel formally invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter on 20 March 2020.)
It was in answers to questions about the legality of the strikes and what information was given to New Zealand as a Five Eyes partner of the US that Luxon said that New Zealand supported “any actions” to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.
“Well, again, all I can talk to you is to say very simply, you know, we have a long standing commitment and set of condemnations about actions that actually we—you know, any actions taken by this former regime to actually pursue nuclear weapons is something we have no interest in,” he said.
Then later.
“All I can say is then, zooming out, is that as New Zealand we’ve had a long standing, you know, commitment under successive Governments that any actions that stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing. Any actions that are taken to stop them from sponsoring terrorism is a good thing. Any actions that stop them from killing their own people is a good thing.”
He was asked whether any action included New Zealand supported carpet bombing the country.
“Well, I mean we obviously understand—we’re not saying that. What we’re saying is that we understand there’s—I don’t know how to be any clearer, guys,” was the answer.
At no point in the briefing do officials advise to say that New Zealand supports the action taken, much less “any action” taken. And it must be noted officials don’t make policy, they advise.
By the next day, the one pager of talking points had grown to nine pages.