The coalition Government has claimed that Labour led the work to explore joining AUKUS Pillar Two with the release of previously unseen cabinet documents from the previous government on Friday.

However, Labour said the party's position on the agreement is "clear" and that they "remain unconvinced".

New Zealand has not yet been formally invited to join the security alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, however, it has been exploring options around what a potential Pillar Two agreement could look like.

AUKUS Pillar II is an agreement between member countries to share advanced technology, such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and cyber weapons.

Documents appear to show that in March last year the Labour government was warm to advancing the controversial security agreement.

"For New Zealand as a Pacific nation, we welcome security architecture that contributes to regional security and stability and reflects the interests of the countries of the region.

"New Zealand welcomes AUKUS as an initiative to enhance regional security and stability."

During a visit by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken a few months later, the Labour government reiterated the same view.

"We are interested in discussing opportunities for cooperation on the non-nuclear aspects under Pillar Two of AUKUS. We look forward to senior officials' engagement on this soon," the document said.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters claimed that, despite Labour's views back then, current critics who are vocal now did not raise the same concerns.

"All those months, all the way to the 2023 election, there was not a word not a mutter, not a syllable, not a sound from some of the people who are telling you that's all wrong now."

Peters said no decision has been made on AUKUS Pillar II but it would be a possibility worth exploring.

"It would be irresponsible not to find out, particularly when so much of this investigation could be to our massive economic advantage and we need to turn our economy around," he said.

"We are here north of the penguins, the most southern island so to speak, but we’re not isolated," he said.

 READ MORE

• Official AUKUS documents outline timeline of New Zealand's understanding and position on Pillar Two
• AUKUS in talks with Canada, Japan, NZ, say leaders
• Aukus Pillar Two: Australia gets new quantum atomic clocks
• Luxon's NATO talks bring home what's at stake for New Zealand

"We have to realise that we need relationships with countries that are like-minded, who believe in the most difficult flower of history, a thing called democracy, freedom, human rights, equality and above all the right to believe in the god of your choice."

Labour foreign affairs spokesperson David Parker said there was "nothing new" with the release of the documents, saying Peters was "continuing with this pretense" the Government were continuing on with something Labour started.

"By the time of the election, it was absolutely clear from comments that [former Labour prime minister] Chris Hipkins made that the preference was not for AUKUS Pillar Two."

Parker said Labour had "serious doubts" about why New Zealand would position ourselves in this conflict between China and the United States.

"Our role should be to make sure that the Pacific remains demilitarised and that we push for peaceful coexistence between superpowers rather than taking sides."

Parker said there has been "strong language" around the issue.

"We've recently had the Prime Minister say that New Zealand should be a 'force multiplier' for the US and others in the South China Sea. That seems to us to be pretty obvious language that there is a realignment being proposed for New Zealand's long independent foreign policy towards taking the side of the US in this rising strategic battle with China."

Labour argues that China is not a threat to New Zealand and that we should not be picking a fight with our largest trade partner.

"If China was to set up military bases in the Pacific, I would be concerned, but they haven't.

"We haven't yet taken a final position on it, but we keep saying 'make the case for it'. We're not convinced."