Ministerial Statements — New Zealand Defence Force—Red Sea Deployment

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement. Thank you. I rise to make a ministerial statement in support of Cabinet’s 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea, as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea. The decision to deploy NZDF personnel was made in response to Houthis’ actions which threaten commercial shipping, and it represents the commitment of the Government to defending our national interests and supporting our international partners.

The Houthi attacks against commercial and naval shipping are illegal, unacceptable, and profoundly destabilising. More than 50 nations have been affected in more than 30 attacks by the Houthi on ships in recent months. The international community, including New Zealand, has repeatedly demanded the Houthi cease their attacks on Red Sea shipping to no avail. The coalition response is an inevitable consequence of the Houthis’ very deliberate actions in the face of these warnings.

New Zealand’s interests are global, and include vital trade and economic interests. Freedom of navigation is an integral part of New Zealand’s national prosperity and trade security. Disruptions to shipping in the Red Sea and Suez Canal mean higher costs for New Zealanders—in fact, nearly 15 percent of global trade flows through this shipping lane.

The NZDF personnel being deployed will support coalition forces to carry out precision attacks on identified Houthi military targets. They will be in roles in operational headquarters in the wider Middle East region and elsewhere. None of our personnel will enter Yemen. Our personnel are highly trained, and this latest deployment will see them work alongside our traditional security partners to defend our values and protect our vital interests.

New Zealand’s contribution has already been appreciatively welcomed by coalition partners. Such collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability. New Zealand cannot enjoy the benefits of global security without making a contribution when we can and when it is in our clear security interests. This deployment to the international coalition is operationally very separate, but complementary, to New Zealand’s longstanding and enduring contribution to the combined maritime forces in Bahrain. Both deployments support New Zealand’s interest in the freedom of navigation in the Middle East region.

Finally, I would like to conclude by again acknowledging our NZDF personnel and their families. I know that I speak for all New Zealanders when I state how appreciative and proud I am for their sacrifice and their service.

Any Government that makes the decision to deploy New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel does not make those decisions lightly. It’s always made with a clear decision-making framework and a clear rationale. I can speak with experience with this particular matter. In my time as the former defence Minister, my colleagues and I made the decision—and it was the right decision—after the fall of Kabul to evacuate. In those circumstances, in August 2021, the rationale was quite clear. Then again, of course, the conflict in Ukraine, where we as a Government at the time decided that we would train, we would also supply, and we would also focus on humanitarian support in that conflict. With that having been said, with respect to humanitarian support, there is the urging of this side of the House for this Government to never turn their back on the need for humanitarian support across the wider Middle East during this time.

The Labour Party has made their position clear: that we should not be involved in this conflict. There’s no UN resolution in favour of such actions, and there are countries in Europe and Scandinavia that are against joining this conflict. We have to be very mindful about getting involved in such conflicts, and I don’t believe that the Government have made a clear case for it. The New Zealand reputation is respected worldwide. This, however, cannot be taken for granted and neither should the New Zealand support. The Government need to have a clear answer for New Zealanders who share in this belief that we should not be getting involved. With that having been said, I acknowledge that there are many of our NZDF personnel who are deployed right around the world, and we wish them safety and all the best in those deployments.

My questions to the Minister will continue to flesh out that rationale and making sure that this Government makes a very clear case for this particular deployment. With that having been said, my first question to the Minister is: given the Minister’s ministerial statement, and I quote, “Cabinet’s 23 January decision to deploy six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to support any future military action against Houthi targets in Yemen and the Red Sea, as part of coalition efforts to uphold maritime security in the Red Sea.” My first series of questions to the Minister is: how long is this deployment intended for? Is it costed, and when can the families of these personnel expect them home; sooner or later?

Thank you very much. Very happy to advise the member in the House that the deployment will be finishing before or on 31 July this year, so that’s when, after that, I’d expect families will be able to see their loved ones again, and the costing is around $500,000, and that’s being paid for within NZDF baselines.

In light of those answers, the Minister in media statements today also said that “we are going to need money in the future.” Does this send an indication to New Zealanders, and indeed to the House, that further NZDF deployments in the Middle East will be in the pipeline in the future?

No, the member should not take it as being that. What he should take it as is being that the New Zealand Defence Force has been left in a very difficult position after six—well, actually, the last three years of neglect, and that, clearly, promises that were made by a previous Minister, himself, to Defence around capital funding have not been complied with. So it is outrageous that this debate is being used to attack Defence on funding when, in fact, he’s left Defence in the position that they are. I’m really proud of what Defence has been able to do with what they have, and clearly the economy was left in a state pretty similar to what Defence was.

Given that the Minister raised that particular matter, is the Minister now, then, committing to all of the capital projects that this Government—the Labour Government in its time—committed to, in the past six years? A second to that, the other question that this House has is: what were the other options that the Cabinet Minister presented to Cabinet for consideration with respect to the US and the UK’s bombing of Yemen?

Might I just say at this point that while this exchange is free flowing, it is related entirely to the ministerial statement, and all commentary from both sides should relate to that ministerial statement.

Well, I’m sorry but there was so much noise coming from the other side that I actually missed the last part of the member’s question that might have actually related to the statement.

We’ll hold the time and you could ask the question again.

Thank you. My question was: what other options did the Minister present to Cabinet for consideration with respect and response to the US and the UK’s bombing of Yemen?

I’m sorry, it was in relation to what?

What other options might the Minister have presented to her colleagues?

Oh, right. Well, there are two options: one was to deploy a number of personnel, and the second was to deploy six, so those were the options and Cabinet agreed.

In the Minister’s statement she talked with respect to adding hugely inflationary costs to New Zealanders. My question to the Minister is: what evidence does the Minister have to suggest that attacks in the Red Sea and Panama Canal are indeed adding to inflation and cost of New Zealanders, and, if that is the case, when can New Zealanders expect a relief in the cost of living that currently impacts this country?

That’s slightly wide at the end.

Sorry, but the member clearly wasn’t listening to the statement I just read out. I didn’t actually make that statement. I’m happy to remind him that 15 percent of world trade goes through there, and if anyone really wants to know what happens when our shipping lanes and our supply chains are interrupted, just think back to what happened to New Zealanders and to their lack of buying power when we had the COVID-19 situation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That contradicts Nicola Willis; she said it was all our fault.

Well, hang on—good on you.

Just to remind the Minister, in her own statement today she clearly sets out that this means higher costs for New Zealanders, which is the thrust of my question. My final question to the Minister with respect to this statement is: given the challenges that she even pointed out in the line of questioning that I’ve presented to her, given the challenges to the New Zealand Defence Force, does the Minister think that this is indeed the priority for the Defence Force?

Yes, thank you for that question. Yes, can I just tell the member and the House that the Defence Force are delighted to be trusted to undertake this deployment, that the morale seems to be improving, they are getting to do the work that they came to Defence to do, and they are so happy that they’ve got a Minister who’s on their side. The country is coming back on track. [Interruption]

It was all going so well.

I promise I’ll keep that vibe going. Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Aotearoa has a proud and long custom and history of being a voice for peace and humanitarian concentration and efforts across world conflicts. We the Greens consider that we need our actions to continue to be focused on de-escalation of violence instead of supporting further fuelling of conflict where it is ordinary people who will be most affected. This Government’s denial—which will lead to some of our questions that I have—that this conflict in Yemen is connected to the war in Gaza is naive and dangerous—at best, wilfully ignorant—because we have seen, quite clearly across the world, that the Houthi have stated that their attacks on shipping are in response to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and will only stop when a ceasefire is reached. This Government is getting drawn into a situation with complex interests from a range of parties, without sufficient consideration and without a public mandate. Most importantly, this threatens the longstanding and robust agenda of an independent foreign policy approach rather than hooking our trailers up to States and nations of the world who are furthering and risking escalation of violence.

The decision to send the New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Red Sea has already been agreed, by many different global international relations experts, here and around the world—that it has every chance of escalating violence. Now, that is not even up for debate. That seems to be something that people both in support of deployment and people against deployment are at least agreed on, that particular notion that there is more than a 50 percent chance that violence and conflict will escalate.

So I am putting to the Minister of Defence: why is our country wanting to be involved in escalating further violence when our country needs to remain and actually protect our long held independence and our long held values and tradition of focusing our efforts on peacekeeping and enduring justice?

This is now going to one of the statements I have been referring to—I have been referring to this Minister’s statements the whole time, but one particular one that I do want to pick up is: the Minister said just now that “collective action demonstrates our commitment to support efforts to address a serious threat to international stability.” and to uphold legality. Is there nothing quite as threatening to stability and legality as the ongoing violence and genocide that is happening to Gaza, where we have actually withheld our discretion to make massive mandate deployment decisions so far and have not sought to use everything possible to call for a ceasefire? And yet, for this, for these attacks on the shipping, from Yemen in the Red Sea, we are then using discretion. How does the Minister decide when to be concerned about threats to security and stability and when to be concerned about legality? Where does she cherry-pick and choose to not be concerned about threats to stability? My first question there.

Well, I think I found a question in there. I think the point, really, the member needs to remember is that decisions are made on the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and every New Zealander who is going to be finding that the costs of this extra 10 to 15 days’ sailing and the extra insurances, being paid for and demanded to be able to have any shipping coming through, is going to be paid for by New Zealanders. So we also look to the legality; we look to principles that we have around making sure that New Zealand does what we can to be able to help ensure that New Zealanders are better off than we would be if we didn’t.

I’d also remind the member that New Zealand has been involved in matters around the Red Sea since 2013. It’s been going on for quite a long time, and no matter what the Houthis may say is their reason for doing what they’re doing, there are 50 other nations that are affected by this. And she’s also asked some statements, somewhere in there, around independent foreign policy. Well, I suggest to her that she looks at that, compared to her statements about how global commentators should be, obviously, influencing our foreign policy. Of course New Zealand has an independent foreign policy. By the way, so does every other State and territory that I’m aware of. We are one of many countries with an independent foreign policy, and I don’t note that it’s going to be set by commentators who like to comment from the sidelines and are not prepared to actually pull their weight when it comes to being a global citizen.

What is the Minister’s end game? Does she believe that this deployment into the Red Sea is what is going to find enduring peace in the Middle East? Does the Minister believe that our association with the US and the UK—who are already seen to be meddling right around the world—will de-escalate violence, and does she believe that escalating violence is truly in the best interest of New Zealanders?

I’m very happy to tell the member that I absolutely support the New Zealand Defence Force in what they’re doing. This is the right decision. New Zealand is not a freeloader. New Zealand is not going to—and the member may wish to, as she has today—express support for the Houthis. I do not, and nor does this Government. We do not support piracy; we do support New Zealanders’ freedom of navigation, being good citizens of the world, and we’re very proud of the people who are doing that.

Does the Minister support calls to end genocide and have a ceasefire and end further harm, and, on that, then, where was the public debate? If the Minister feels truly and confident that she has New Zealanders’ best interests at heart, where was the big debate?

Look, I don’t think any of that has anything to do with the statement that I’ve made today. But I would say to that member that we all love world peace; we’d just like to see a bit more of it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the ministerial statement from the Minister of Defence, the Hon Judith Collins, and as part of the coalition Government. The ACT Party supports the deployment, announced 23 January, of the six New Zealand Defence Force personnel to the Middle East to help and assist our partners with current and future military actions against the Houthi targets based in Yemen and the Red Sea.

The multiple Houthi attacks against merchant naval shipping are both highly illegal and extremely damaging to our freedoms and that of international trade furthermore. Freedom of navigation is a core tenet of the international rules-based order. The attack on vessels in the Red Sea by the Houthi rebels is eroding the sovereignty afforded to all law-abiding countries that transit the Red Sea and the Suez Canal whilst in international waters.

ACT fully supports the deployment of our military personnel to help aid and assist our allies and our international partners nullify this threat. New Zealand, like so many other countries, rely heavily on our trading relationships and our ability to access markets around the world. The disruptions in the Red Sea are having a profound effect on the 15 percent—and I clarify that nearly 15 to 16 percent of all the global trade uses these traditional shipping lanes.

ACT stands proud in support of the New Zealand Defence Force personnel and those that have been deployed to assist in this vital mission. We, as a country, cannot wish the evils of the world away. We must stand as a partner in a global society and play our important part in it. This deployment signals our commitment to our shared values of protecting all things democracy, global security, and the importance of global trade.

Thank you. Other speakers? In that case, the Minister has a brief right of reply.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s easy, isn’t it, when things happen a long way from New Zealand, to think it’s not our problem? But this is our problem. It’s our problem because these indiscriminate attacks by the Houthi on ships of all nations are hitting all of us in the pocket—all Kiwis. That’s you, me, our family, and our friends. These attacks are actually forcing ships to take the long route around the Cape of Good Hope, and that’s adding 10 to 15 days on to that journey—10 to 15 days of extra fuel and of wages—and it means fewer journeys.

So what does this mean for a country that sits at the bottom of the supply chain? It means fewer goods, and it means price increases. We saw what happened during and post COVID when supply chains were disrupted; costs skyrocketed, and that was if you could even get the item that you needed. I’m sure none of us wants to have a return to those days, and nor can we afford to at a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet.

But this deployment isn’t just about money; it’s about doing the right thing. New Zealanders are not freeloaders—certainly not under this coalition—and that’s not going to happen. We will not sit back and wait for someone else to sort things out for us. We are fair-minded people, and we want to do our bit, and we want to contribute. We’ve made it very clear that we’ve been asked to assist. We are a partner with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and other like-minded countries when it comes to playing our part. New Zealand has long done this, and it’s the right thing to do. We have a defence force for a reason. They are highly trained, and they’re ready to step up and do the job they signed up to.

We cannot just sit in blissful ignorance and naivety and think that everyone else needs to protect us and protect our shipping lanes. We cannot sit back and wait for someone else to sort it out for us. So, for the benefit of members opposite, I’ll say it again: New Zealanders are not freeloaders; we are going to do our bit.