The House: Parliament's Reaction To The Middle East Crisis

Scoop

5 hours ago

Parliament's week began with an assurance that the safety of New Zealanders in the Middle East is the first priority.
The tense situation in the Middle East, and indeed, intervention from one of our allies is something that no government could ignore, so when the sitting day began on Tuesday, the first item of business was not Question Time, but a Ministerial Statement from Foreign Minister Winston Peters, followed by debate and questions.
Peters emphasised that the government's main focus amidst the tension in the region was to get New Zealanders out of harm's way.
"The government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis," Peters told the House. "Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided around the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran-and to their families back home in New Zealand - and will continue to do so."
The statement was also peppered with lines advocating for three D words: diplomacy, de-escalation, and dialogue - treading a delicate line of not signalling outright support for either side, citing New Zealand's limited influence in the Middle East.
Perhaps as a reaction to accusations of fence-sitting in recent days, Peters finished the statement by offering a list of what New Zealand does and does not want in the region.
"We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace side-by-side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace.
"What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm's way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli civilians alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land.
"Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East, scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end."
Statement benefits
Ministerial Statements are used by the government to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event and explain the government's plan of action in response to it.
They resemble a press conference wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic.
There is a tactical benefit for governments in getting in first and delivering a Ministerial Statement (instead of waiting for the Opposition to request an Urgent Debate), in that you can lead the messaging, and so try to control it.
Equally though, there is a benefit to the Opposition from Ministerial Statements - because they are able to both make comments and ask questions. Ministerial Statements are more flexible than either Question Time or Urgent Debates.
The Q & A
Labour leader Chris Hipkins generally agreed with Peters' advocation for diplomacy over the conflict saying "there is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with".
"We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with.
"If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support."
Opinions diverged over whether New Zealand should have called the US strike on Iran a violation of the UN Charter, with Hipkins asking Peters whether the government believed the strike was in line with the Charter's clause on the right to self defence.
Peter continued to tread a delicate line in his reply.
"Unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we've said it constantly day-after-day that instead of rushing to judgement, as we were asked this morning by the media, 'Has peace broken out?' - 'No,' we said, 'We're going to trust but verify,' and when we sought to verify we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong.
"And in this case, we're going to find out the facts as time goes by. There'll be some days yet-maybe sometime yet-before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons."
While Hipkins wasn't quite able to milk the committal he wanted from Peters, the two weren't especially adversarial in their exchange. That mood wasn't to last though, with Green co-leader Marama Davidson the other opposition MP to question the minister.
After a speech advocating upholding the rules-based order, Davidson asked whether the minister would condemn the Israeli and American strikes on Iran.
This question seemed to open the floodgates for a shouting match between the two parties, which perhaps is a lot easier with the new seating configuration in the House (New Zealand First are now close to the Greens, having swapped with ACT to allow the new deputy prime minister to sit next to the prime minister). A Ministerial Statement which began in a relatively statesmanlike fashion then morphed into a political tit-for-tat.
"I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran-when it comes to that, the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever," Peters said.
"We've condemned all parties, and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member's only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she's mentioned Iran's people. Yes, Iran's people have been under 40 years of desperation."
After a few minutes of back and forth and argy-bargy, Speaker Gerry Brownlee blew his metaphorical whistle.
"Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you'd expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker's ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement."
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.