Motions — Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories—Ongoing Violence
We come now, I think—is there a Government motion?
I seek leave to move Government notice of motion No. 4 in my name.
Leave is sought. Is there any objection?
Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Ah, no, we’re in a leave process. You can’t take a point of order in the middle of a leave process. [Interruption] No, you can’t take a point of order in the middle of a leave process. So leave has been sought. Is there any objection?
Golriz Ghahraman: Sir, I seek leave to move two amendments to the motion.
SPEAKER: No, no, let’s get us through it. I’ll go one more time: is there any objection to the course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move two amendments to the motion: firstly, to add “and the death of over 16,000 people in Gaza, including over 7,000 children, together with 1,200 killed in Israel on 7 October” at the end of the first point in the motion.
Yeah, can I just interrupt the member. I don’t like doing this, but there is a procedure that I’m very keen that we follow to make it proper. So, if there is to be an amendment, the amendment should be made during the speech in response to the motion being put to the House.
Golriz Ghahraman: Is that during the debate, sir?
SPEAKER: Yes, it is.
I move, That this House express grave concern at the ongoing violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories; unequivocally condemn the Hamas terrorist attack on 7 October 2023, and call for the release of all hostages; call on all parties involved in the conflict, as well as countries with influence in the region, to take urgent steps towards establishing a ceasefire; recognise Israel’s right to defend itself, acting in accordance with international law, and that all civilians be protected from armed conflict; affirm that a lasting solution to the conflict will only be achieved by peaceful means and that action to revive the Middle East Peace Process is critical; note that the Government will continue its efforts to help all New Zealanders impacted by the conflict.
I acknowledge the motion being put up by the Government on this tragic issue. I also move, That the words, “call on all parties involved in the conflict, as well as countries with influence in the region, to take urgent steps towards establishing a ceasefire;” be replaced with “urgently calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel to put a halt to the inhumane and appalling attacks and violence so that a journey to a lasting peace can begin, and calls on countries in the area to support that ceasefire;”.
New Zealand has a proud history of an independent foreign policy. We have over the decades stood up for what is right. We set up a social welfare system. We supported the set-up of the United Nations and all its principles. We supported the World Trade Organization because we know of the importance of this. There can be no prosperity without peace—we have seen that through the world, time and time again. I was proud to represent our country at APEC—a joining of economies focused on economic prosperity. The issue of Ukraine was raised—we’d been talking about that terrible situation for at least over twelve months. The situation in Gaza is absolutely appalling. No person with any ounce of moral courage can see this as anything but horrific; nothing more than a genocide. And I call upon Israel, a nation that has been set up and seeks sympathy and support because of the Holocaust and the outrageous outcomes—I call on that nation to look at itself and to apply the same humanity to the people of Palestine.
This is a critical time for the world. We cannot stand back and look at images that come to each and every one of us—many images, many video clips, much social media coming to us; it brings tears to my eyes. It drives me to rage, to think what we can do, as human beings, to one another. We were appalled by what happened in the 1940s and the Holocaust. How, then, can a nation impose that upon another race of people? We have, as a nation, supported a two-State solution; we’ll continue to do that. We must respect the rights of the people of Israel and the people of Palestine, but bombing and killing and slaughtering women and children who have nothing to do with this other than to have been born as a Palestinian—that is outrageous.
We as a country have been a little slow in calling for a ceasefire. That is the very minimum, because until a ceasefire is imposed and people can sit down and talk, there can be no peace and there can be no prosperity; there can be no humanity. Just look at the eyes and the faces of young children who have lost their parents, who don’t know what is going on around them—who, we pray, may have a future life somewhere—how will they address those atrocities, that horror, into the future?
I’m proud to be here, and I’m sure everyone in this House is here for the right reason. We’ve come here to build a better world. We are lucky to be an island nation, a long way from both of those major conflicts. But if we think we can prosper as an island nation without peace elsewhere in the world, we are kidding ourselves. We acknowledge that in trade; well, we have to acknowledge it in humanity. So I acknowledge the Government’s motion, and on behalf of the Labour Party we support the call for a ceasefire, a call for an end to this depravity, this genocide, this slaughter—that’s what it is. No nice words can change the reality of that for women, children, and innocent people in Gaza, and now, increasingly, in the West Bank.
There is no excuse for what might have started this, but you can look at the Prime Minister of Israel, who’s been under suspicion of corruption and bribery since 2019, and ask the question—well, people think this is horrific. What I say is look to the causes of why we could do this to innocent women and children—why anyone would. It is impossible, almost, to understand, but we have to identify the causes and call on nations who share our quest for a humane and peaceful world to do everything they can to try and firstly impose a ceasefire, and then to impose a process of peace that will bring some harmony to the people in the Middle East.
Haere ki ngā mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ngā mokopuna, ngā tamariki, ngā kaumātua, ngā tāne, ngā wāhine i patua, i patua, i mate. Haere, haere, okioki mai.
Hoki mai ki a mātou, ki a tātou ngā kanohi ora, kia tū tika. Kia tū tika ki te whakamana i te haerenga mō ngā mokopuna o Palestine me ngā mokopuna o Israel ki te noho pai.
[To the deceased, pass on, rest in peace. The grandchildren, the children, the elders, the men, the women who were killed, who were killed. Go on, rest in peace.
Returning now to us, to all of us, the living, to stand true. To stand true to honour the journey for the grandchildren of Palestine and the grandchildren of Israel to live well.]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call and, firstly, seek leave to move two amendments to the motion: firstly, to add—
SPEAKER: Well—
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I seek leave—
SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to seek leave; it’s a debate.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: OK. I move, That the words, “and the death of over 16,000 people in Gaza including over 7,000 children together with 1,200 killed in Israel on 7 October” be added to the end of the first point of the motion expressing grave concern, and the words “recognise Israel’s right to defend itself, acting in accordance with international law, and that all civilians be protected from armed conflict;” be replaced with “recognise that targeting civilians, schools, and hospitals constitutes a war crime and can never be considered self-defence.”
“To accept the sacrifice of the children in Gaza is humanity giving up. This is our last chance before we delve into seeking to explain yet another utterly avoidable tragedy.” This quote is from the Geneva Palais briefing note. It is a summary said by UNICEF spokesperson James Elder, who wants to be quoted to understand the gravity and the depth and the horror of what is happening. How else are all of the innocent people on the ground in Gaza meant to understand this as anything other than genocide? How else are the children growing up with generational trauma of their cities and their families being slaughtered and murdered supposed to receive this as anything else but the darkest oppression? How else are innocents in Gaza supposed to be receiving the deprivation of water, health supplies, basic shelter, basic humanities than anything other than not just the right to defend but a right to obliterate? How else are they supposed to receive that?
They’re not even interested in international law. Even though we should stick to it, they don’t know what international law is at this very moment. All they know is the absolute murder and genocide and slaughter that is happening to them now. That’s all they know, and that is not just something that started after 7 October. This is decades—decades—of oppression by the Israeli Government over the occupied territories of Palestine. As tangata whenua—
SPEAKER: Look, sorry to interrupt the member. There is a motion on the floor, and the debate requires that you speak to the motion. You can speak to your amendments but you’re going well beyond the intention of those amendments at the moment.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I appreciate that; thank you, Mr Speaker. This self-defence narrative, then: we utterly condemn all violence—I am a former prevention of violence Minister—of course, and have since the start condemned all violence, including the attacks by Hamas on 7 October. But it is intolerable and grotesque to suggest the actions of the Israeli Government are self-defence. This is retaliation against civilians, and the international community has a duty to not let it continue.
Speaking to the motion, then, the size of Gaza—is it the size of Auckland, Chlöe?
Chlöe Swarbrick: A third the size.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: A third? It is a third the size of Auckland and the trapped civilian population—Gaza is smaller than Wellington City—is 2 million people. There are 2 million people in that space there, including 1 million children, and they literally have nowhere to go.
Speaking to the motion, the responsibility of New Zealand and the international community is to uphold international law, including the responsibility to prevent genocide from occurring under the Genocide Convention.
Speaking to the motion, there is the need for urgent and enduring ceasefire of all military and paramilitary activities in Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank, and, speaking to the motion, I do appreciate, finally, a call for an everlasting ceasefire. I wonder how many more thousands of innocent people we could have saved if the world had applied that pressure and made that call many, many, many weeks ago, straight after the resumption, after the pause ceasefire—I don’t know; to pause for what? After the recent pause ceasefire resumed, the killing of children began again.
I’m pleased to see that the Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister of Foreign Affairs—has put up a ceasefire in this motion. I welcome it. I wish we as a country had put this pressure out to the world, given the many thousands of dead, innocent civilians, many, many weeks ago.
The support for internationally backed negotiations to secure lasting peace and uphold all of the human rights is something that we have an absolute duty, moral, legal, and political, to do. We must affirm, again, in speaking to the motion, that everyone living in Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank—all of them—have a right to live in peace and security and that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, which has been undermined by decades of occupation. I hope we all do the right thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, thank you. We’re extremely concerned about the renewed hostilities and their disastrous impacts upon civilians. We’ve called on all parties, as well as countries with influence in the region, to take urgent steps towards establishing a ceasefire. The Government urges all parties to return to the negotiating table and to find a way to avoid further suffering and loss of life.
The Government fully supports Israel’s right to defend itself from the terrorist organisation Hamas. Israel must abide by international humanitarian law at all times, even when fighting a terrorist group which is clearly disregarding humanitarian law itself. The massive loss of civilian life and displacement of the scale seen in northern Gaza is deeply concerning, and we call again on Hamas to locate and release all hostages immediately. Hamas must cease its attack on Israel, and Hamas must cease using civilian infrastructure and its deplorable use of human shields. We continue to call for food, water, fuel, medical supplies, and other humanitarian aid to get to civilians in Gaza with the utmost urgency.
The Government is pleased that 20 New Zealand citizens, permanent residents, and family members have now exited Gaza. We’re aware there are a small number of New Zealanders who are seeking to leave Gaza, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials continue to work to secure approvals for these individuals to leave. The Government has also contributed $10 million to address immediate humanitarian need. A lasting solution to the conflict will only be achieved by peaceful means. Action to revive the Middle East peace process is critical.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports this motion, but I would like to point out there are some real problems with the discourse that is being had in New Zealand over the past few months since 7 October.
What many have described as an occupation of the land of Israel, the Israeli people—Jewish people—call home. The trauma of 7 October has reignited the worst memories of the Holocaust, not just in New Zealand’s Jewish community but in Jewish people around the world. The majority of Jewish people in New Zealand see those attacks as an existential threat on Jewish people around the world. The sense is that if Israel is not able to survive this attack and these ongoing attacks, then it will be harder for the Jewish people to survive. And by extension, if a Western liberal democracy like Israel falls to the terrorist attacks of a group like Hamas and its supporters—to the missiles, to the kidnapping, the hostage taking and all the abominable crimes against civilians—then what hope does a small nation of 5 million like New Zealand—a similar Western democracy—have if we were to accept the fall of the nation of Israel?
Anti-Semitism has gone through the roof in New Zealand in the past few months. I’ve had reports that there are incidents where Jewish children in New Zealand’s schools have been bullied for their belief and culture. On the streets here in New Zealand, there’s been a sense of mob rule at times, where even elected members of the New Zealand Parliament have felt free to use Hamas slogans like “From the river to the sea”, which, if you take Hamas seriously, and we should, do mean the eradication of Israel and its people.
But it’s not just Israel and her people that have suffered under Hamas. Dozens of citizens from other countries were killed or captured and are being held as hostages right now. Two million people are being held hostage in Gaza right now by Hamas—a murderous dictatorship akin to ISIS. Institutions and representatives we rely on and trust to uphold the rule of law and protect us are failing to stand up for what’s right.
We should call for peace in the land of Israel, and between Israel and her neighbours. We should call for the return of the hostages, and we should call those who choose death over life what they are: terrorists, because there can never be a lasting peace between Israel and her neighbours until Hamas, Hezbollah, and their enablers, Iran, officially formally recognise Israel’s right to exist.
There are precedents for this. Jordan and Egypt both went to war with Israel with the intention of eliminating the Jewish state many times—1948, 1956, 1967, 1973. In 1988, Jordan became the second Arab state, after Egypt, to formally sign a peace treaty with Israel, recognising that nation’s right to exist and establishing security relationships. There are precedents, but what it takes is for both sides to recognise each other’s right to exist as a precursor for a lasting peace.
So, while we might debate this here in New Zealand’s House of Representatives, we must also consider that when we debate the fate of peoples and nations, we must also think about those communities in New Zealand—the Jewish community, in this case—and how the New Zealand Parliament and our representatives should be supporting them while their family members are held hostage, and while their country is under attack.
Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I stand to speak to the motion before us. I guess the thing that we have with extremism and violence is that sometimes we become so defensive for one of two varying sides that we struggle to see peace. I think it’s really important for us to use our influence, our sphere of influence, to always look for and find peace. Violence breeds violence and violence emboldens violence.
This afternoon, maybe about 12-ish, I made my way back to Parliament to be able to be here in the House. I experienced the violence of those who are supporting pro-Israel, in “Man Up” costumes, who swamped my car, and who put their Israel flag all over my windscreens so I couldn’t get out and get here. I normally have my whānau—
SPEAKER: With all due respect to the member, that’s not very pleasant—
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I normally—
SPEAKER: Excuse me. That’s not very pleasant for the member, but I think—please stick to the motion.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I will.
SPEAKER: The member wouldn’t be the first person who’s had an offensive flag draped over their windscreen.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you, e te Pīka. I normally have my mokopuna in the car, and got to experience what it must be like when you’re ambushed and you’re living peacefully and you just want to get by, from one place to the other.
We cannot let peace become so hard, so out of reach, that we lose track of what it is that we’re truly debating, and we cannot let those who profit from war and who don’t seek peace, until we sit here and take stock and choose not to ignore what we see going on. We are seeing, all of us, collectively, some of the worst, most horrific violence—amputations of limbs of children—and people desperately sharing what it is that they’re experiencing so the rest of the world take heed and do what we can to ceasefire and fight for peace.
From our perspective, that is about ending genocide. We have seen 16,248 Palestinians being killed—7,112 of them are children. Every child killed today would still be alive if we had done what was right by peace: a ceasefire, an end to genocide, and helping them to find the right solution. By sitting back and doing nothing, it doesn’t really matter who’s taking and who’s attacking right now, because neither Governments in Aotearoa has shown leadership towards what it is that we need to do. We need to be vocal in ending all violence, and we need to be vocal in making sure that people are not triggered into extremes in the way that they’re so comfortable about being able to dispute who’s right or who’s wrong.
We’re seeing the bombing of hospitals, the bombing of homes, refugee camps, schools, churches, for goodness’ sake. That’s not self-defence. The use of white phosphorous in densely populated areas is not self-defence. Collective punishment of civilians by cutting off food, water, and medical supplies is not self-defence. The murder of tamariki, no matter whose tamariki they are, is not self-defence. We are witnessing the ethnic cleansing and the attempted genocide of a people, the Palestinian people, and as a descendant of Parihaka, I must, and always will, use my sphere of influence to stand for peace. And I know there can be no peace without justice.
There is debate about who’s occupying who. From our perspective, Israel’s colonial occupation of Palestinian lands in Jenin by the British Empire has led to decades of pain, suffering, and bloodshed. We have empathy with that journey, we have empathy with that history, we have connection with that history. The genocidal rhetoric of Israeli Ministers and officials is well documented. I haven’t made this up. The attempts to dehumanise an indigenous people of Palestine of all faiths and religions must be resisted. Western countries are simply in denial about the long-term aggression because it’s too close to home. We are still not talking about our own history, our own ancestors, and some of the good and the bad and the ugly decisions that they have put us in today. The conflict simply did not start on 7 October, and I will never ever accept this House normalising violent experiences and saying it’s OK and that we’ve had this happen here before. It’s never OK. It’s never OK.
So Te Pāti Māori is happy to stand in support of this motion for a ceasefire, and ask the Government what next. Every world leader has refused the call for a ceasefire—what is this Government willing to do to exert pressure on our allies, who will ignore this call? The United States has poured billions of dollars into Israel’s military. There’s a brutal occupation going on. There’s savage violence happening. We can no longer provide political cover for US-funded imperialism. We can’t sit here and act as if we’re not connected to it.
You know and we all know that Te Pāti Māori has asked to expel the Israeli and US ambassadors, and to recall the Israeli consulate until a permanent ceasefire is agreed to—not a pause but permanent.
Hon Shane Jones: Tell us about the Morioris.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: God, how low you get! It means recognising the State of Palestine as we recognised the State of Israel in 1949. Never ever is it OK to ever have violence against anyone. And not a single one of our histories is pure, but what we should do is learn from our history and what we do with our influence today. What is stopping the Government right now from introducing an Israeli sanctions bill to Parliament, just as we did in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or creating a special visa category for Palestinians displaced by this war, as our allies in Australia have done, as we also did for Ukraine?
SPEAKER: This is getting very wide of the motion.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Imposing economic sanctions is something the Government must consider, if you are intent on this actual motion being pono and being tika. As tangata whenua, we’ll always support indigenous peoples. I don’t know why you keep getting really uncomfortable with that; that’s who we are.
SPEAKER: Think about the use of the term “you”.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you; we—I don’t know why we are not comfortable with that. Thank you.
Te Pāti Māori will continue to fight against the atrocities of violence, colonisation, and the inter-generational trauma and extremism it produces. We will always stand for peace. We will always remind ourselves that we must look for peace in amongst all our differing opinions here. Te Pāti Māori will also stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine. Our aroha is for all those who have lost whānau and friends in this horrific, long-drawn-out war. Our kotahitanga is with the indigenous communities fighting for their survival in occupied Palestinian territories. From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free. Kia ora rā.
All members will be aware that relevance in debates is important. There is a motion, and there are three amendments to it, and I would encourage the whole House to recognise that there is a collective wellbeing expressed by all speakers, whether the words used by each are similar or not. So it’s not my intention that this will be a debate that goes on for any lengthy period of time.
I move, after the words “action to revive the Middle East peace process is critical;”, the addition of the following words: “and that process must seek a just and lasting peace that recognises the existence and self-determination of Israelis and Palestinians. We call for the establishment of a free and independent Palestinian state as part of a two-State solution, with both nations having secure and recognized borders where all citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms.”
I want to talk about the day after the ceasefire that I hope will come soon. What then? There’s no viable status quo to go back to. Palestinians weren’t safe before. Israelis weren’t safe either. The place was a powder keg. There is no military solution to this problem, not when you have four generations of Palestinians living in refugee camps. Bombing people into oblivion will simply breed extremism. The endless cycle of violence cannot be allowed to go on. A new peace process must address the underlying cause of this conflict, and that is the denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination.
Yes, there are people on both sides of this conflict who do not accept the right of the other to exist—that is the sad truth—but they must not be allowed to prevail. The only way—the only pathway for peace—is for Israel and the Palestinians, in the context of an internationally supported peace process, to agree the establishment of a free and independent Palestinian State. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace, with internationally recognised and secure borders.
So many people have invested their hopes in a two-State solution, but too few have spoken out against Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Those settlements have, in a very real sense, undermined the credibility and the viability of a two-State solution. New Zealand has a track record of principled diplomacy in this area. In 2016, under then Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Murray McCully, New Zealand sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution which reaffirmed that Israel’s settlements in Palestinian territory, occupied by Israel since 1967, constitute a flagrant violation of international law, and I quote, “a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders.” We can use our voice, and it does make a difference.
In line with that UN Security Council resolution that New Zealand sponsored, New Zealand should now condemn the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, demand that Israel immediately cease settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, and abide by its legal obligations as an occupying power—in particular, to bring its occupation of all Palestine territories, including in Gaza, to an end as soon as possible.
I take heart that New Zealand’s foreign Minister said, “The desperate need of the Palestinians for peace and statehood is undeniable. We hope that a way will be found to take forward the peace process with the representatives of the Palestinian people.” That was the Rt Hon Winston Peters in 2006.
I’m confident that even on this most polarised of issues, the great majority of New Zealanders see this for what it is, a longstanding injustice that must be settled, if peace is to prevail. I call on the Government to resist the nervous and over-cautious advice of its foreign affairs officials who, as always, will be worried about being out of step with Canberra and Washington, and do the right thing. Use New Zealand’s voice to speak up on the side of peace and justice to make the case now, internationally, that the establishment of a free and independent Palestinian State in the context of a two-State solution is a prerequisite to lasting peace in the Middle East. It’s the right thing to do.
Firstly, can I support the Minister’s motion, and move, That after the words “all civilians be protected from armed conflict”, the following words be added and expressed: “deep concern that actions of the Israeli Defence Force are disproportionate and indiscriminate.”
Like others today, I share concern with what has been happening in the Gaza. I find it almost too hard to listen to and to watch on TV as we see the daily atrocities being rolled out. I know that some people have gone a bit wider in this debate, but I think the House should remember that the Palestinian people have been under occupation for almost 75 years—75 years they have waged a struggle against a Government in their own land. Whether we like it or not, it’s a strategy that’s been dubbed an apartheid strategy by many around the world. When you have those types of conditions every day, those types of pressures, it is the most horrific way for people to live. Of course, that’s no excuse for what Hamas did, but the problem is that we keep getting reminded of this background.
However, there’s no doubt that Israel had a right to respond—I don’t think anyone in this House would support the Hamas response. No one in this House would support the Hamas initiative, but we cannot support the Israeli response. In the eight weeks of the conflict, thousands of Palestinians, the majority of them women and children, have been killed. The lives of these victims have been changed in a second—horrific scenes of lives destroyed. Children whose parents, siblings, and grandparents have been killed are still missing and buried in the rubble. There are few places to go in terms of safety. It’s a daily nightmare for people there. Just listening to the stories this morning, people are just dying in the open—no food, no shelter, no nothing.
It requires a strong response, so I compliment the Minister for this initiative. But we think, as Phil Goff has said, we can go wider, we can be a bit stronger here, and we can stand up against the rest of the world.
I want to go to an area here, because Debbie Ngarewa-Packer was talking about what was happening outside. I think it’s important for the House to know that the Māori response is not what you see outside. The Māori people are getting mixed up with Destiny and Life and Brian Tamaki.
The Māori activist movement was inspired by the Palestinian situation. They were inspired by Arafat, and they were inspired by Castro and Mandela, who all supported the Palestinians. But that was the Māori movement, and it’s important, because these people outside are confusing people in terms of the support in terms of this conflict—confusing people.
So I’m glad today to tell the House that Māori are very much in support of the Palestinian people—always have been, always will be—and the two-State solution is the only way to go in terms of getting justice and fairness for the Palestinian people. It is one of the biggest tragedies in terms of indigenous people, in terms of oppressed people, in the world today. We’re glad—particularly our Māori caucus and the Labour Party—that this Government is making a stand, and I compliment you today. But we are adding a few words to that, and we hope you take some of those recommendations seriously. Kia ora tātou.
As I said before, I don’t think this should be a long debate, and so closure is coming. But I’ll take the Green member Golriz Ghahraman.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this motion, both as the Green spokesperson for foreign affairs but also as a former international criminal lawyer, but most importantly as a Middle Eastern child who lived under bombs at some point in my life. I just want to stress and to bring into this Chamber that feeling that we have in some parts of the world, as those bombs are falling, that our lives matter a little bit less. So I want us to know that each time a Minister moves a motion like this, it matters. It matters that our Government has finally said that word “ceasefire”. It matters that until now, both the caretaker Government and our incoming Prime Minister have failed to call for a lasting ceasefire.
A humanitarian pause, while a bit of rice and water is brought in and two days later the bombs begin again, feels like that blackout that I and my family felt when the Iran and Iraq war was going on—that feeling that there are those around the world who don’t care, and that there are those, as we know today in relation to Palestine, who might be profiting from wars that happen, that cause our loss of life, our loss of land, our loss of access to the most basic amenities. I want to hold, as our Green amendment holds, that incredible loss of life that disproportionately has impacted the children of Gaza—7,000 that we know of. That’s not counting those who have not been extracted from under the rubble. I want to hold, in noting that number and introducing it into the motion, that each one of those children would have had their favourite toy, their favourite subject at school. They might have been a little bit loud, or a little bit quiet, or naughty. They would have been somebody’s everything, that they’re not just numbers, and that it matters—it matters—that our leadership speaks for peace.
We are a Five Eyes nation; we are an English-speaking Western member of the Commonwealth. We are a member of a beautiful Pacific neighbourhood, many of whom did not vote for ceasefire at the United Nations, in each of those groups. So it matters that we show leadership. We’re not just some small island nation; we have relationships, and we have always been at our best when we have led as an independent, principled voice on the world stage. It matters that our Prime Minister and that our foreign Minister push back on that line of diplomacy that says we have to walk hand in hand with our allies and trading partners as they fail the children of Gaza.
So I seek, on behalf of those who are struggling under that blanket, blind ban on social media, or even power and water, that we keep using our freedom to show that leadership, to keep standing for peace not just through this motion, not just today, but to keep holding our allies to account. Because the world is failing Gaza right now, and it feels dark, and it is not what the people of New Zealand expect of us. Those people out there are watching and they expect leadership. So, in supporting this motion, and in supporting our colleagues here in Te Pāti Māori, I do want to ask and leave the House with the question of “What next?” Because every 10 minutes one of those kids—somebody’s everything—is killed in Gaza. So this can’t be the end of it.
I move, That at the commencement of the motion, the following words be added: “That this House express its deep sadness and regret at the loss of life occurring in Gaza and Israel and recognise the grief of communities in New Zealand who have connections with those in the conflict”.
May I begin today by thanking the foreign Minister for moving this motion in the House today. The New Zealand Labour Party has been for weeks urgently calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and Israel to put a halt to the appalling attacks and violence so that a journey to a lasting peace can begin. I am certain I speak for all members in this House when I say that we are horrified at the loss of life in Israel and Gaza. The latest reports have 1,200 people killed as a result of Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October, while at least 16,000 Palestinians have been killed since then, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Many more have been unlawfully captured, seriously injured, and displaced. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza grows worse by the day, with millions unable to access food, water, medical care, shelter, and fuel and trapped in a tiny area the size of Wellington with nowhere to go to.
The death toll of children in the conflict is horrific. More than 7,000 Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza. More children have been killed in Gaza than in all the world’s conflicts combined in each of the past three years. When I see images of young children in Gaza killed while playing football, I think of my young nephews who are football mad but who can play the beautiful game here in New Zealand safely and without fear. The children of Gaza deserve hope and a future.
The Labour Party acknowledges those New Zealanders who have family, friends, workmates, and acquaintances in Israel and Gaza who are affected by the conflict and who are living in fear. Our hearts go out to you, and we stand with you in love during these horrific and distressing times.
I am a practising Christian, and my plea and my prayer is for a Middle East and a Holy Land where people of all faiths—Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people; people of other faiths or no faith; people from all backgrounds, all ethnicities, and all walks of life—may live together in equality, freedom, peace, and safety.
We are a proud country of peacekeeping. We are a peacekeeping nation, and we have an obligation as a nation to continue to call for peace in the Holy Land. My parents have travelled to the Holy Land and led pilgrimages in the region, where they have met and shared with leaders and ordinary people from all faiths and backgrounds who live and work in the region. People who live and reside in the region do not want this conflict or the death and destruction that the world is witnessing. They want peace.
My mother has shared the following prayer with me from the Very Rev. Canon Richard Sewell, Dean of Saint George’s College, Jerusalem, which I’ll finish my contribution with today: “Sovereign God, we pray for political, military and religious leaders involved in this conflict to show genuine willingness to work towards a better future for all Palestinians, Jews and others living in the region. We long for dignity, mercy, justice, peace and love to triumph so please grant wisdom and courage to those with authority across the world working to end this war. … Amen.”
I thank those who have participated in this debate. The irony is, of course, that the background of religious choice involved in this catastrophe is of peoples with prophets who were identical in a former time, and it shows how the divisions have grown over history.
When this outbreak of violence and mass murder occurred on 7 October, this Government was weeks from being formed—as the Government—despite some of the statements being made in this House today. We have put out more than just a statement as to where we stand. The Government’s position is set out in the motion before the House today, and it’s in accord with the Secretary-General of the United Nations’ statement of 4 December, just three days ago. The Secretary-General reiterated his call for a sustained humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and the unconditional and immediate release of all remaining hostages.
What we want on this debate is sincerity, understanding, and insight, and not virtue signalling. I want to reference someone who made a statement—and I was watching it—he’s the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. Keir Starmer said this: “All sides must work for a return to cessation that would allow for the release of more hostages, provide much needed time and space to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and open a dialogue for a political solution that provides for a long-term cessation of hostilities. We will only reach that long-term solution if Israel is assured that Hamas cannot carry out an attack like 7 October ever again. Those who can influence Hamas must demand they release the remaining hostages immediately.” That’s Keir Starmer from the UK Labour Party—someone whose opinion I do respect and I think we should respect because he’s put his finger on it.
Can I say, as well, that we will accept the Hon Phil Twyford’s amendment because it adds to the original motion, when we do think that others do not add anything more than what we’re trying to say as a country.
Can I just make one very clear point, here in today’s debate, which was politicised, and that’s this: there were people living here. There were only three examples, in all of the history of humanity, practising peace and non-violence, and they were on the Chatham Islands and they were called the Moriori. Some of us might remember who they were because the last one died—and I happen to be privileged to have gone to the home in which he died. But the last pure Moriori died in 1936. Now, why am I saying it? Because there are people, here, who know who invaded the Moriori and ruined their peaceful existence. Stop lecturing to us as though, somehow, they’re perfect and the rest of us are not. If we’re going to go anywhere in this debate in this Parliament—
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I was speaking when the member made that call. Just probably come back to the motion a little bit more would be very helpful to the House.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m happy to come back to the motion, but I’m not going to sit here and be lectured to throughout the entire motion—and those are the rules of this House—where there was a huge detour and deviance while we were lectured to.
So let’s get back to the motion we’re talking about. The motion we’re talking about is the one before the House today. I thank those who have participated in this debate, and I thank Mr Twyford in particular for his clear and additional statement.
The question is that the amendment moved by the Hon Damien O’Connor be agreed to.
We come now to the amendment by Marama Davidson. Marama Davidson, I understand, has circulated another copy, but that is out of order so I’ll put the original motion as moved in her speech.
We come now to the amendment by the Hon Phil Twyford. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
We come now to two amendments that are subsequent—that’s one from the Hon Willie Jackson and one from Rachel Boyack. Given that Phil Twyford’s amendment has just passed, there’s a question about whether they are still in order. Do those members wish to proceed with those amendments? OK, fair enough. We come to the amendments in the name of the Hon Willie Jackson.
We come now to the amendment of Rachel Boyack.
Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two matters of order, regarding the debate that we have just held, to raise with you. The first is, I think in the 5½-odd years that I was Leader of the House, I cannot recall a situation in which I put a Government notice of motion before the House without first discussing that with the Business Committee and seeking some agreement as to how that motion was to be handled and who was to speak on that motion. My understanding is that there was a discussion at the Business Committee this week on this particular motion or a variant thereof and there was an agreement that it be deferred until next week, and the Government decided to subsequently pursue the course of action that they have today.
That has a number of implications for the House, and, actually, it first of all is a breach of good faith across the House. But the second is that it would actually mean that, potentially, members on this side of the House might have made different decisions. You will see my question No. 1, for example, was lodged on the basis that we were not going to be having the debate that we have just held, because that is what the Business Committee had agreed. So I would ask you and the Business Committee to reflect on the process for how motions like this should be handled.
The second of which is that you invited the mover of the motion to respond at the end of the debate. Now, I happen to agree that that was an appropriate course of action; however, the Standing Orders does not allow for that. This was not a ministerial statement; it was a motion before the House. The Standing Orders are very clear that members can only speak once in a debate on a question.
So, two things. Firstly, you know that I’m a strong supporter of the Business Committee and believe it should work appropriately. The question discussed at the Business Committee was a matter of leave that was proposed, not the motion—so I don’t think the Business Committee can be too much criticised for others’ actions beyond them. The second thing is that Standing Order 129 does provide for the response in a debate like this. I thank the member for his contributions.