The House: Foreign Minister Winston Peters navigates opposition questions on Gaza
Photo:
VNP / Phil Smith
For Foreign Minister Winston Peters, the sitting week began with the task of navigating opposition questions on the war in Gaza.
The questions were asked of Peters, not during question time, but following his Ministerial Statement on the government response to the situation in the Middle East - his second statement on this in as many months.
The statement itself echoed the joint statement made on 21 July by New Zealand (and 27 other countries, including Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom), calling for an end to the war in Gaza.
"The international community is united in its revulsion to what is happening in Gaza," Peters told the House. "This horror must end. Too many lives have been lost; too many people have been traumatised, polarised, and embittered, ensuring that yet another generation of Israeli and Palestinian children are born into a situation of insufferable conflict and enmity. That is why New Zealand has come together with Foreign Ministers from 27 other countries to state as clearly as we can that enough is enough, that this war must end now, that this suffering is intolerable."
"In that joint statement, we condemned Hamas' continued detention of hostages and called for their immediate and unconditional release, and we condemned Israel's policies, which are leading to untold and unimaginable suffering and death among Palestinian civilians. And we call for [Israel] to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law."
Ministerial statements are used by governments to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event, and to explain the government's plan of action in response to it.
They resemble an MP-only press conference, wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic.
Like a press conference, the most interesting or illuminating information comes not from a minister's prepared statement, but from the Q&A that follows.
In Tuesday's exchange, all three opposition parties held similar stances - supporting the joint statement, while also questioning what they perceived to be a reluctance from the government to follow up those words with actions.
The Greens' Teanau Tuiono asked about potential concrete measures like sanctions the government could take to support its condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza.
"The discussions [with the signatories] have been wide ranging," Peters said. "We do not want to make a decision or actions which are purely symbolic in nature and of no real meaning in fact."
Tuiono followed up by asking why the government had not also frozen the assets of the two Israeli Ministers who had received a ban from travelling to New Zealand.
"Because we do not believe that the justification for that, at this point in time, has been established," Peters replied.
Calls from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori to recognise Palestinian statehood were met with a familiar response from Peters.
"We have always said, this government, that it's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. The question that has to be answered-saving us lowering our standards of statehood-who would we negotiate with? Who would we talk to…. We have talked to Egypt about that. We've talked to many Middle Eastern countries about that. We've talked to [the United Arab] Emirates about that. We've talked to Indonesia about that. We're all on the same wavelength here. Who would we talk to, to establish this so-called state? Or are we just virtue signalling? Virtue signalling is not what we're going to do here."
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi's version of the question was relatively more blunt than Tuiono's.
"Does the Minister, and this government, recognise Palestine as a sovereign state - yes or no?"
Peter's answer evoked a sense of deja vu.
"We have made it clear that, for us, it's a question of not if but when. But we need to ensure we do not lower the standards of what statehood comprises. There, in our conversation with the Middle East and with Egypt and other countries bordering there, knowing far more about the circumstances than us, they have an agreement with us. We need to establish who it is we're going to negotiate with before we recognise [it]."
President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) US lawyer Joan Donoghue (2R) confers with colleagues at the court in The Hague on 12 January, 2024, prior to the hearing of the genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa.
Photo:
Remko de Waal / ANP / AFP
Labour's Peeni Henare asked Peters whether allegations of a genocide in Gaza was something the International Court of Justice should determine, and not politicians.
"Yes, we agree in the sense that the court of which that member speaks has got a duty, but hitherto they have not found that, they have taken it by way of investigation and reviewed it. But they have not come down with a precedent, directive, or, dare I say, finding. However, that still doesn't obligate the rest of us needing to be considering the merit or otherwise of such a claim and to see whether it is substantial or not," Peters replied.
After being pressed on the issue again by Waititi, Peters gave a similar answer.
"It has not been declared by the international courts to be that, so we are not going to add our support to something that is not based on facts but is based on what someone would hope to be the case regardless of legal precedent."
In the joint statement, there is a condemnation of what is referred to as a "drip feeding" of humanitarian aid to Gazans. Signatories to the statement, including Peters, hope that momentum from this collective condemnation will put pressure on those responsible for distributing aid to those in need.
Henare had a series of questions for the minister on New Zealand's role in the area of humanitarian aid.
Henare: "Is the government concerned by the widespread criticism of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, including by over 240 NGOs, and has New Zealand contributed funding to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; and if so, what conditions, if any, were attached?"
Peters: "The reality is that we have a duty in these circumstances, no matter how desperate they are and inhumanitarian they are, to ensure we can recount to the New Zealand taxpayer. And that's why, when we ran into difficulties with the server of aid, and they were under suspicion, and indeed under investigation, by the United Nations themselves, we found other organisations with credibility to assist us, to ensure that the aid continued. That has always been our course, under successive governments."
Henare: "Will the government commit to more aid resource to fill the need in this unfolding humanitarian crisis?"
Peters: "I understand what the member has asked for, but the reality is New Zealand has already given significant amounts of aid, and at a time when the international economy is facing uncertainty and so is the domestic economy as a consequence. We also have serious aid programmes in the Pacific, which are our number one priorities and have been under the last two governments. And so whilst we'll carry on endeavouring to help out, remember this: it is an awful long way away from New Zealand, and we have the right to feel awfully frustrated that for decades of all of our lives, this issue has been there, at the centre of international news. We hope one day it would finally be over."
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
US refuses to budge on 15 percent trade tariff imposed on NZ
Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay says President Trump's 15 percent trade tariff on New Zealand will be harmful. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Trade Minister Todd McClay has spoken with the United States trade representative to make the case against increased tariffs, but Jamieson Greer appears unlikely to budge. On Friday, the US announced a new 15 percent tariff on exporters , which McClay called a "blunt tool". Speaking to delegates at the National Party conference in Christchurch, McClay said he spoke to Greer on Saturday morning. "I made the case that it is not reasonable and it should not be happening to New Zealand, and it is going to be harmful for some of our exporters, and we would ask them to look at that and reconsider it," he said. However, Greer had made it clear that President Donald Trump had made a decision, if a country had a trade deficit with the United States, it would be hit with the 15 percent tariff, wherever they were. Top trade diplomat Vangelis Vitalis will travel to Washington on Sunday, while McClay intended visiting in coming weeks. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand had underscored it did not believe tariffs were good for the world economy. "The reality is, as a small trading nation, our job is get out there and hustle, and create opportunities for New Zealand businesses," he said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
PM wants NZ to get behind development, progress, stem tide of Kiwis leaving for Oz
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon addresses 550 delegates at the annual National Party conference in Christchurch. Photo: RNZ / Giles Dexter National leader Christopher Luxon has told the party's annual conference that the country needs to "say yes" more. Addressing about 550 delegates, MPs and supporters at the Air Force Museum of New Zealand in Christchurch, Luxon bemoaned "activists" who opposed housing developments, agriculture, cruise ships and mines. "If we're serious about keeping Kiwis at home, creating jobs and increasing wages for all New Zealanders, we can't afford to keep saying no to every opportunity that comes our way." Opposition parties have heavily criticised the government for its economic policies and laid the blame at its feet for the 30,000 New Zealanders who moved to Australia last year, but Luxon said the opposition would make it worse. "Take a look at Australia," he said. "If they shut down their mining industry or their energy industry tomorrow, as Labour and the Greens want to do here, I guarantee you would see fewer Kiwis moving across the ditch." Luxon's speech came hot on the heels of an announcement from the United States that it would increase tariffs to 15 percent. Still digesting the announcement and what it would mean for New Zealand exporters, Luxon acknowledged "challenging" global conditions. "We can't just batten down the hatches and hope for the best," he said. Luxon's speech made no mention of National's coalition partners, New Zealand First or ACT, or even the word 'coalition' itself, although deputy Nicola Willis acknowledged the "energy" it took to keep Winston Peters and David Seymour under control. Instead, Luxon's speech was heavy on shoutouts to his National ministers and their policies, and also on blaming the previous government for the cost-of-living struggles New Zealanders currently faced. "In the years to come, immediate action on the cost of living isn't enough," he said. "The last government spent billions of dollars in failed handouts, only to watch inflation roar and the economy falter. "We have to keep our eyes on the prize." Echoing his speech at Monday's post-cabinet press conference, Luxon leaned on the economic policies the government had introduced, such as tax changes, FamilyBoost and the removal of the Auckland Fuel Tax. "We're doing what we can," he said. The speech contained an announcement the government would make it easier to get a concession on Department of Conservation land . "That means more certainty for businesses, less bureaucracy and much faster decisions, so the businesses that should be operating can get up and running." There would still be restrictions on some parts of the DOC estate. "Where it does make sense, we need to get to the 'yes' much faster - instead of being bogged down in process and uncertainty," Luxon said. Charges of $20-40 for foreign visitors to high-volume sites like Cathedral Cove, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Sound, and Aoraki Mount Cook were being introduced, but New Zealanders would be exempt from the fees. Party president Sylvia Wood, who was re-elected at the conference, said the party would select candidates for the 2026 election shortly. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
