NZ Considering Recognition Of State Of Palestine
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Government will carefully weigh up its position over the next month on recognition of a state of Palestine, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.
'The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is rightly at the forefront of the global agenda,' Mr Peters says.
'New Zealand, as a long-standing supporter of the two-state solution and Palestinian self-determination, is an active participant in discussions about how to broker a ceasefire and a political settlement to enable Israelis and Palestinians to live peacefully side-by-side. While we are a long way away from the Middle East, we will continue to ensure our voice is heard.'
Mr Peters took an oral item to Cabinet today about recognition of a state of Palestine, ahead of a formal consideration of the issue in September.
'Some of New Zealand's close partners have opted to recognise a Palestinian state, and some have not,' Mr Peters says.
'Ultimately, New Zealand has an independent foreign policy, and on this issue, we intend to weigh up the issue carefully and then act according to New Zealand's principles, values and national interest.'
'New Zealand has been clear for some time that our recognition of a Palestinian state is a matter of when, not if,' Mr Peters says.
'New Zealand has long asked whether the pre-requisites for a viable and legitimate Palestinian state – in security, political, diplomatic and economic terms – exist. Fundamentally, we will need to weigh up whether sufficient progress is being made against these benchmarks in order to warrant New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state at this juncture.
'New Zealand has been giving this issue careful, methodical and deliberate attention. We will be taking heed of the facts on the ground deteriorating rapidly, our close partners being divided on the issue of recognition, and a range of Arab states making clear Hamas must disarm and must have no future role in Palestinian governance.
'Cabinet will take a formal decision in September over whether New Zealand should recognise a state of Palestine at this juncture – and if so, when and how.
'This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue,' Mr Peters says. 'There are a broad range of strongly held views within our Government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society over the question of recognition of a Palestinian state.
'It is only right that this complicated issue be approached calmly, cautiously and judiciously. Over the next month, we look forward to canvassing this broad range of views before taking a proposal to Cabinet.'
Mr Peters will travel to New York in late September for the United Nations Leaders' Week, where he will present the Government's approach to this issue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
42 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Government accused of 'fence-sitting' on Palestinian statehood
Christopher Luxon and Winston Peters. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone An academic is accusing the coalition of sitting on the fence during the Gaza conflict so they don't upset the United States. New Zealand has fallen out of step with Australia, Canada, France and the UK in its positioning on Palestinian statehood. Australia confirmed it would make the formal recognition at next month's UN General Assembly on Monday afternoon. Minutes beforehand, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters put out a statement saying he had raised the issue in Cabinet . "Cabinet will take a formal decision in September over whether New Zealand should recognise a state of Palestine at this juncture - and if so, when and how," his statement said. Fronting questions in his post-Cabinet media conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon would not elaborate on what factors Cabinet was considering, what his colleagues views were, what his view was or what the decision-making process would look like, other than "ongoing conversations" among Cabinet members. Auckland University law professor Treasa Dunworth said the statements put out by countries like Australia weren't without their problems. "It's conditional on Hamas not being part of the post war governance structures in Palestine but the whole idea of state recognition is that the state gets to choose. That's what self determination is," Dunworth said. However, Dunworth said "the time for action was some time ago" and New Zealand had fallen behind many other countries in its position on Palestinian statehood. "I don't accept that they haven't been thinking about this because that's just not credible. They do know and therefore they're fence-sitting because they're not entirely sure which way the wind is blowing," Dunworth said. "We have to raise questions about whether this is all about our diplomatic relationship with the United States and looming above that is the question of the tariffs being imposed by Donald Trump. "If they want to sell New Zealand out on the basis of trade advantage or disadvantage then so be it, at least say that honestly, rather than hiding behind, 'oh it's complicated'." Luxon has denied the coalition's position has anything to do with the United States, reiterating New Zealand has an independent foreign policy. "We'll make our own decisions that are right for New Zealand and consistent with our values," he told reporters on Monday. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said a move to recognise Palestinian statehood was well overdue. "What's really concerning is that New Zealand doesn't appear to have a coherent position on Palestine, doesn't seem to be able to articulate why we're not recognising Palestine as a state or what the criteria might be for us to recognise Palestine as a state," Hipkins said. "It's well and truly time for the government to put this issue to bed. Recognise Palestine. It's the right thing to do." Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick - who's put forward a members bill to sanction Israel - said the whole situation was baffling. "It's just honestly mind-blowing. This government for the better part of two years has said that is is doing everything it can while it sits on its hands. Palestinians can't eat empty statements." RNZ asked voters hurrying home in the wintry weather on Monday night what they thought the government's position should be. "If they're considering it they've probably got their reasons for and against," one Wellington woman said. "It's a very complicated situation," another woman said. "I really don't know. In a way it's none of our business, in another way it's a humanitarian crisis," a Wellington man said. "The least we should be doing is recognising a Palestinian state," another Wellington man said. "There's people starving there, there's people dying there every day. It's stupid not to recognise Palestine," an Auckland woman said. "I think it's the only pathway to peace really... the sooner the better," an Auckland man said. Peters will travel to New York in late September to represent New Zealand at the UN General Assembly. Asked if the public would know Cabinet's decision on recognising a Palestinian state before Peters heads to the US, Luxon said he suspected so. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Scrapping petrol tax could be transformative. But will it?
Comment: The way we currently get around is unfair, and unhealthy. Some people travel a lot, creating disproportionate harms on people and the planet, such as pollution, injury risk and physical inactivity. Others cannot afford to travel enough, missing out on things that are important, such as catching up with loved ones or healthcare appointments, or end up having to forego expenditure on other important things, such as food. Replacing fuel excise duty (or petrol tax) with electronic road user charges for all vehicles – as announced by Transport Minister Chris Bishop last week, offers an opportunity to transform the way we fund and pay for our transport system in a way that works for people and the planet – by reflecting the true costs imposed when we use the roads. Bishop said 'it isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often'. And on the whole, we agree. We know that those households with the lowest income drive far less (about 100km a week less) but also have to spend a much greater proportion of their income on getting around (16 percent of income compared with 9 percent or higher-income households). Those on lower incomes are also far less likely to be able to afford an electric vehicle with cheaper running costs, instead paying the relatively more expensive petrol tax. However, Bishop's proposal represents a narrow view of the harms, or wider costs, of driving to society. It is largely based on the assumption all vehicles should contribute 'fairly' (based on weight and distance travelled) towards road maintenance, operations and improvements. But a pricing structure that also accounts for the costs to our health system of injuries, pollution and physical inactivity caused by the transport system, might also include differential charging for different types of vehicles. For example, we know that SUVs cause more severe injuries to those outside of the vehicle, and while EVs reduce tailpipe emissions, they still contribute to congestion and injury risk. The proposal does suggest that weight, as well as distance travelled, will be factored into pricing; however, it should also consider the damage that heavier and larger vehicles do to people and the environment. A change in the way we are charged for using the roads offers a real opportunity to design a progressive charge that alleviates costs pressures for those already struggling to pay for the driving they need to do, while reducing levels of driving overall. One way to achieve this would be through increasing the rate per km, above a certain amount of kilometres driven. Given the costs involved in running and operating the scheme, and that this needs to be revenue generating for Government, it seems unlikely there will be a reduction in the cost of travel in real terms for everyone. However, if the Government is committed to fairness, it needs to ensure costs don't escalate for those who can least afford it and who have few alternatives. The proposed changes to road user charges are most likely to be successful and acceptable if they are accompanied by investment in public transport, walking and cycling and alongside strategic urban planning that supports local access to the things we all need such as shops, schools and sports grounds. The most straightforward way to ensure that charging for using the roads doesn't force people into situations where they have to forego other essentials, is to ensure that it's easy and safe to get around in other ways, or that we don't need to travel as much. For both fairness and health and wellbeing we need to continue to improve travel options other than driving. Bishop presented this as a new way to fund our roads, but we should be taking a more holistic view – this is an opportunity to think about how we fund our transport system. Using revenue raised to reduce the need to drive can make charging for driving more acceptable. Bishop said, 'This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future proof how we fund our roads for decades to come'. This policy has the potential to be truly transformative and be part of creating a transport system (not just roads) that is fairer, and healthier for everyone. It can be done. The question is, will it?
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
‘Turning women's wages into a political piggy bank'
It's a short walk from Parliament to the National Library – barely two minutes – but the journey comes with several reminders of the history of women's rights in New Zealand. Navigate a pedestrian crossing with a signal in the shape of famous suffragist Kate Sheppard, and you're greeted with a sign for the library's exhibition on the 1893 petition (spearheaded by Sheppard) that helped secure Kiwi women the right to vote. Little wonder then that the venue was chosen for the opening day of the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity. Made up of 10 female ex-MPs from four different parties, the group has come together to scrutinise the pay-equity changes rushed through under urgency by the coalition without any public input. As former Labour minister Nanaia Mahuta put it as she opened proceedings: 'We are here to do what the Government did not.' Perhaps wary of the wrath generated by the controversial changes, Mahuta asked submitters to refrain from making comments that 'may be defamatory of any individual'. She and the committee didn't need to worry, at least for the first day, with a surprisingly good-humoured mood among those gathered. Hugs, kisses and selfies were in plentiful supply as the (overwhelmingly female) crowd filtered into the room, while there were light moments throughout: 'These days, I pretend I'm retired,' former National MP and feminist scholar Marilyn Waring quipped as she introduced herself. Yet the subject at hand was undeniably heavy, with submitters expressing frustration at both the secretive and hasty nature of the Government's reforms and the real-world consequences for women being paid unfairly low wages. 'What was once a relatively straightforward, albeit occasionally lengthy road is now one filled with various potholes and roadblocks. The Government continues to insist it's a road, but it's not one that anyone can travel along anymore,' NZ Council of Trade Unions national secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges said. Ansell-Bridges said moving the threshold for claims from arguability to merit meant some would never get started – not because they lacked merit, but because the requirements could not be met unless the process was already underway, creating a Catch-22 situation. A workable and sustainable alternative to the existing pay-equity regime would have been celebrated by the Government, she said, the subject of public consultation and a full parliamentary process rather than rammed through overnight with no advance warning. 'It speaks to the shame felt by this Government, whose job it is to look after the interests of all New Zealanders, as they strip away half our population's access to the fundamental rights.' The financial cost of the changes goes beyond hypothetical foregone income in the future, too. Aged Care Association chief executive and former New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin said the sector had spent close to $500,000 in the last year gathering information for a care and support workers' pay equity claim, with much of the work done at the Government's request – even as it was working in secret to overhaul the regime. 'We invested significant time and resources only to find those efforts wasted – this breach of good faith will take some time and genuine effort on behalf of governments to repair,' Martin said. She painstakingly laid out the complex range of duties carried out by aged-care workers: clinical support and medical assistance, the administration of medication, nutritional care, using de-escalation techniques to manage agitation, providing companionship, and maintaining 'warmth and patience' even in challenging moments, to name just a few. 'It is complex, skilled, and physically and emotionally demanding work that requires ongoing training, professional resilience and unwavering commitment to quality of life for some of New Zealand's most vulnerable citizens … 'If you listen to the jobs that they do, the skills that they have, you could immediately go out yourself and find a male-dominated sector that is required to have the same skills and that could not be employed at the price that we are currently paying our carers – but we cannot do it if the Government washes its hands of its responsibilities.' Former Governor-General and High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright provided a legal view of the Government's changes, noting the retrospective nature of shutting down claims already underway went against principles of good law-making and could damage New Zealand's international reputation. Cartwright predicted 'significant amounts of litigation' related to the new law, while noting a number of appeal rights had been narrowed by the changes. 'I think that the courts, if they can get a case before them after getting through all the very many barriers, will do their best to make things fairer, but it's going to be very difficult.' Tony McCombs, the great-grandson of New Zealand's first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs. Photo: Sam Sachdeva Somewhat ironically, the loudest applause of the day went to one of the few men in the audience. Tony McCombs, the great-grandson of New Zealand's first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs, offered a scathing criticism of the Government as he reflected on his ancestor's legacy. 'In her maiden speech way back in 1933 she said, 'I wish to work for the women and children of this country, and I hope to see the day when women will receive equal pay for equal work' … 'If Elizabeth McCombs were here, she would rise with righteous rage and ask, 'How dare you? How dare you erase progress with the stroke of a pen? How dare you undo a century of struggle in a single vote? How dare you silence the voices of working women and call it reform?'' McCombs said he wanted his own daughter (also named Elizabeth, and working as an early childhood teacher) and granddaughters to live in a country where they were treated fairly and equally, 'not fighting the same battles over and over again'. 'These changes are not about fairness. They are not about sustainability. They are about saving money at the expense of those already underpaid, turning women's wages into a political piggy bank.' With the committee's hearings continuing until October, and over 1500 submissions received, such expressions of anger will hardly be unique – but will they change anything? Asked about the hearings on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon indicated he had no regrets about the Government's decision, and no intention of reversing the changes. 'Look, I mean, I think we have canvassed this area at the time when we first talked about it, which is that we fundamentally feel the system got too broad, too loose, and, frankly, unworkable.' Asked by Newsroom what she hoped would come of the committee's work, Mahuta was non-committal. 'I think the Government's already reflecting on a process that has fallen short of keeping faith with women in the workforce – women who are doing very, very valuable work as teachers, as carers under some of the hardest conditions. 'So if they're not already reflecting on the process and what they might do, we're certainly listening to the people.' Barring a change of government at next year's election – and a change in law following it – providing the public with a sense of comfort in being heard may be all the group can hope for.
