Ministerial Statements — Middle East—Palestine

I wish to make a ministerial statement on the Middle East. Two years ago today, Hamas mounted its heinous terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens as well as those from other nations caught in the wrong place on that day of infamy. This resulted in the worst massacre in Israel’s history. That event set off what must seem to most New Zealanders like yet another of the seemingly never-ending cycles of violence in that region.

We have strongly condemned the overwhelming nature of Israel’s military response as Palestinian civilians have paid a disproportionate price for the sins of Hamas. One of our primary concerns throughout has been the generational consequences of the level of suffering and violence we have witnessed these past two years. What hope of peace is there for children who have only known violence, socialised into a situation of insufferable conflict and hatred?

We confirmed, in New York, 10 days ago what we have said repeatedly at the United Nations, as elsewhere: first, a ceasefire needs to be negotiated so that the violence can stop; second, all hostages and any remains must be returned as part of that ceasefire; and, third, the Israeli Government must facilitate the unimpeded flow of vital aid. We also said that we desperately want diplomacy to succeed and that those countries with leverage were most likely to achieve the longed-for breakthrough. We are encouraged that the United States-led peace plan—supported by Muslim countries around the world, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt—represents a possible first step to achieving these goals.

While some New Zealanders wished we would recognise Palestinian Statehood in New York, the Government always saw recognition as a distraction from, or even complication to, achieving a ceasefire, the return of hostages and remains, and the unimpeded flow of aid. Our focus has never shifted from that. We continue to consider recognition as a matter of when, not if.

As we said in our national statement to the United Nations, very few New Zealanders can recall any period of sustained peace in the Middle East during their lifetimes. While we are furthest away from the conflict, we have acknowledged the strongly held views people have about it. Most New Zealanders were rightly appalled at scenes of violence and famine in Gaza. Understand that we have limited ability to influence the direction of the conflict, but we can provide aid to those suffering, which we have done and continue to do so, working through those agencies that can get the aid to where it is most needed.

Other New Zealanders have expressed the concern that by not recognising Palestinian Statehood, New Zealand’s international reputation will suffer. Well, we can report that we have not received criticism from partners or from other countries near to, or far from, the Middle East. Protest action that has followed our national statement in New York forms part of the democratic fabric of New Zealand, so long as it respects the laws of our country.

Now, three New Zealanders are being held by the Israeli Government and are awaiting deportation. These people have gone against their Government’s advice not to join the flotilla and attempt to reach Gaza by sea and are receiving ongoing consular assistance. That assistance will not stop, and we have asked for as much notice from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs about their deportation as is possible.

One irony here, that will not be lost on many New Zealanders, is that the very protesters and their supporters who believe we must break off diplomatic relations with Israel are receiving consular assistance precisely because we did not do that, and they wish to break off diplomatic relations with Israel nevertheless. Another irony is that three private individuals freely chose to place themselves in a dangerous situation but now expect their Government to bail them out. We will do exactly that, not least because the Government feels a sense of responsibility even for those who act utterly irresponsibly.

The violent targeting of politicians’ private homes by some protesters, however, is a disgrace. It has caused distress to our families and disturbed the peace of our neighbours. Means such as these corrupt the protesters’ ends, such as they are. We must call out those members of this House who collude and collaborate with the very protesters targeting politicians’ homes. Do they have no shame? Do they feel so morally righteous that you and your supporters are justified to break any law, any taboo, any political norm? We say shame on you.

We believe New Zealanders understand the limits of our ability to influence the direction of Middle East politics. We also believe they support our giving aid to those who need it. Finally, we believe that in New Zealand, the extremes on both sides of this never-ending conflict have fallen into a black hole of irrationality and senselessness. It’s time to wake up, look at the situation with eyes wide open, and gain a sense of perspective. Those extremists, including those in this House, are entitled to go off the deep end and preen hysterically and monomaniacally about a single conflict overseas while many others rage in other parts of the world. They are entitled to do that because we live in a free society.

For the New Zealand Government, it is time to refocus on our foreign policy priorities closer to home in the Pacific and Indo-Pacific, always dedicated to making New Zealanders safer and more prosperous. Every day spent on Gaza and Palestinian Statehood recognition or flotillas is a day not spent on that important work on behalf of all New Zealanders.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start today by acknowledging the horrific act that took place two years ago, on 7 October 2023. A terrorist act was undertaken by Hamas, a group recognised around the world as a terrorist organisation. The New Zealand Labour Party condemns this attack and the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

In the two years that have passed since, we have seen a horrifying humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The New Zealand Labour Party also condemns this unfolding genocide. The Prime Minister has had countless opportunities to show moral clarity on Palestine; each time, he has chosen delay, equivocation, or inaction. For many months, New Zealanders have been eagerly waiting for the Government to make the decision to recognise Palestine as a State. We heard on numerous occasions the push for a two-State solution from this Government. For many months, the Prime Minister has been lacking the courage to put his foot down, be a leader, and recognise the other State in this two-State—

SPEAKER: The member knows that’s not an appropriate statement to make.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs also contained very inflammatory attacks on other members of the House. The Minister set the tone for the debate in his opening remarks.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m not accepting that. The ministerial statement was circulated ahead of time, and there was no objection to it, and it did not specifically mention any member as the Hon Peeni Henare just has.

Hon PEENI HENARE: For many months, the Prime Minister has failed to recognise the other State in this two-State solution. This Government talks about process, about considering options, about waiting for the right time. But while the Prime Minister and his Government hesitates, countless innocents are being maimed and killed, and families are being driven from their homes.

New Zealanders expect their leaders to have courage—to take a stand. It is the belief of the Labour Party that this Government lacks that. New Zealand has a proud tradition of standing on the right side of history: opposing apartheid, leading the charge towards a nuclear-free world, opposing the catastrophic war in Iraq, and playing a significant role in establishing the rules-based international order in the aftermath of World War II. The Prime Minister has undermined that tradition. It is not leadership to watch atrocities unfold on our screens and say, “Let’s review it again in a month or a year.” It is not leadership to wait for coalition partners to stop squabbling before deciding to do nothing.

When history calls, a true leader will answer. On Palestine, the Prime Minister has let the call go unanswered. The decisiveness that has been demonstrated by other countries only reinforces that. This is not just a failure of policy or the choice between recognition and non-recognition; it is a failure of conviction, a failure of principle, and a failure of leadership. When the leadership fails, humanity takes actions into its own hands; the flotilla that has been intercepted in recent days is an example of this. Israel’s treatment of humanitarian flotillas has been heavy-handed and unlawful. The Government must stand up for its people and demand their safety without hesitation.

New Zealand deserves a leader who will stand with humanity and most of the international community and not one who will wobble indecisively. New Zealand’s reputation and moral authority has already suffered thanks to this Government, and that must stop.

Therefore, my question to the Minister: Does he agree with the hundreds and thousands of peaceful citizens in this country that the Government of New Zealand needs to take more action like sanctions in response to the unfolding genocide by the Government of Israel against innocent and defenceless Palestine civilians?

SPEAKER: The, well—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Question.

SPEAKER: There’s no question on a ministerial debate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, there is.

Hon Member: That’s the whole point.

SPEAKER: Sorry? No, there’s not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’ll take advice

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: To help out, the Standing Orders were changed about three parliaments ago—

SPEAKER: Oh, were they?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —so that a ministerial statement can be followed by questions. As the first Minister to face one of those questions, I can say that this is absolutely now an integral part of a ministerial statement process.

SPEAKER: Well, I don’t recall, actually, a motion being put before the House. It was a statement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, it was a change of the Standing Orders, and a Minister is obliged to answer the questions.

SPEAKER: I am correct. There is no question before the House, but there is a question and answer format, and members can ask questions and have answers to those questions in their five-minute call. At the moment, there’s no one seeking a call.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 365(1) says, “Following a ministerial statement, the leader of each party”—which, of course, is able to be delegated to other members—“or a member authorised by the leader, may—(a) comment on the ministerial statement: (b) ask questions [of] the Minister who made the ministerial statement, to elucidate more information about [that].”

SPEAKER: That’s right. There’s no question about that, but someone hasn’t done that. You asked me if there’s no motion. The member’s got a minute and 12 seconds to go, and if he’s got a question he can ask it.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yes. [Interruption]

Hon Member: He asked a question.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll ask my question again.

SPEAKER: Ask your question again. Sorry.

Hon PEENI HENARE: To the Minister, does he agree with the hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens in this country that the Government of New Zealand needs to take more action, like sanctions, in response to the unfolding genocide by the Government of Israel against innocent and defenceless Palestine civilians?

Now, what’s fascinating about that question is that there was a poll where 60 percent of New Zealanders did not express support for recognition. It was almost as though that majority is of no moment; 60 percent did not express it. And it was followed up by a Stuff poll that said 55:45 percent against recognition until it was distorted by people voting countless times. So to make the statement that New Zealanders in the majority are for recognition is demonstrably numerically wrong.

Further to the Minister, does the Minister agree that New Zealand was put on notice in 2024 by the International Court of Justice that it had a legal obligation to prevent genocide in Gaza, that is not necessary for a definitive determination on genocide to be made before action is taken, and what actions has the Government taken to prevent genocide in Gaza?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Following on from the Leader of the Opposition, Standing Order 365(1)(b), that question does not elucidate anything to do with this ministerial statement. It traverses issues to do with the International Court of Justice, which was not referred to by the member.

SPEAKER: I think, given that the ministerial statements have been coming now in the nature of a debate where questions can be asked, to suggest that in a debate or a ministerial statement about the Government position on Palestine there couldn’t be some reference to other views on it would be, I think, quite wrong. The question can stand.

The reality is, again, that is a misstatement of the actual facts here. But here’s the point, really. Helen Clark had nine years to recognise Palestine; she didn’t. Jacinda Ardern had five years to recognise Palestine; she didn’t. Mr Hipkins had a year to recognise Palestine and he didn’t. We are sick of people who are lions in Opposition and lambs in Government.

To the Minister, what does the Minister believe constitutes the New Zealand Government’s duty to prevent genocide under the genocide convention, and what actions has New Zealand not taken on the matter in Gaza?

The reality is, there has been no International Court of Justice ruling to that effect. Or does he think that we should just ignore the International Court of Justice and just come to our own interpretation, legally qualified or otherwise?

To the Minister, at the time the Minister made his speech to the UN General Assembly, was New Zealand aware or did New Zealand have any involvement in the peace plan proposed by the US President Donald Trump?

The truthful answer to that is no, accepting we did say at the end of the speech that we hoped that there was time for countries with influence to step up. And we are very much encouraged by all those Middle Eastern countries all the way to Indonesia, where the President made a superb speech—even though he had a different view, but a superb speech—at the United Nations, which showed that they believe there’s a chance now for peace to work. Why aren’t people here celebrating that?

To the Minister, is the expectation that the peace plan as proposed by the United States must be fully implemented before this Government will recognise Palestine as a State?

Well, again, the primary answer to the question began with the criteria from the Montevideo convention about recognition. That has not been satisfied. There are fundamental things here that other countries might have changed because of enormous pressure back home, but other countries—and New Zealand was one of them—asked this of them, “Oh, yes, so what happens tomorrow after you make that decision? What changes?” And so we would make this speech to the United Nations where all this recognition changed nothing until Trump, alongside Saudi Arabia and others, got together a peace plan, and we hope it works.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to address the humanity of every person who was killed by the terrorist violence on 7 October. I want to understand and recognise, and put in the middle of this House, their loved ones, the pain that they suffered as a result of that violence. And we must—all of us—condemn that violence. We must also—all of us—humanise every single person, every civilian who has been lost to violence and who has been lost to genocide. That is all it requires of us: to uphold the humanity of the death of ones that we love. Surely, that is something that we must continue to ask of every single MP in this House, for every single innocent civilian’s lost life in the genocide and the war that has been not just since 7 October but, in fact, for decades and decades and decades of oppression by Israel.

Having recognised that, I do want to pick up on the ministerial statement. Let us be clear that recognising Palestinian Statehood, the likes of which the Green Party put forward a motion to propose to do exactly that in 2021, was opposed by National and ACT MPs, is an important part of being very clear that Israel must not be rewarded for its genocide. The Minister, in his speech, spoke about not recognising Palestine in fear of rewarding the actions of Hamas, and yet straight after he did not recognise Palestine, the Israel officials were celebrating, as if it was a reward for their genocide. So that does not hold, Mr Peters.

It’s also about recognising that it’s not just about Palestinian Statehood. If we are truly interested in enduring peace, it means that we must properly afford their sovereignty and mana motuhake for them to come up with what they, as a people, believe is the best way forward for their State. That is what truly recognising Palestinian Statehood requires, not Western powers and the rest of the world imposing conditions on their lives, but that we must recognise their authority to choose their systems, to choose how they want to live on their own lands.

Of course, we wish that this Government, absolutely, had the courage to take one initial but important step to properly recognising Palestinian Statehood. The recognition was always going to be important in strengthening the hands of Palestinians, in truly being able to negotiate enduring peace for all—for all—not just for Palestinians. While we were not surprised, the Greens have been incredibly disappointed to not see this Government take every step that it can and use every lever with its full chest that it can—surely, as a responsibility of also this Government supposedly signing up to prevent genocide at the end of last year, alongside the UN. Surely, recognising Palestinian Statehood was one of the initial, first steps; the tools that are available to us to uphold humanity.

Because any world that normalises over 20,000 - plus children’s lives being taken by the violence of Israel, any State—any country—that normalises the intentional killing of doctors and nurses and journalists and the winding back of the health system, surely, that needs to be part of our responsibility. Because a world that dehumanises their mokopuna is a world that dehumanises and puts our mokopuna at danger.

In light of that, how does the Government’s decision to defer recognition of Palestinian Statehood get the world any closer to the so-called two-State solution that his Government says that they support, or any kind of peaceful resolution to the conflict in Palestine?

The Green Party co-leader just said that they had a motion in 2021. What you didn’t tell the House is what happened to it. My question now is: what did Labour do with your motion? Why didn’t you tell the country? Why didn’t you tell the people listening around New Zealand, instead of thinking that we will just ignore the facts? The silence is deafening on that one question.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the ministerial statement by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

New Zealand’s decision not to recognise a Palestinian State at this time is the right one, and ACT supports it. Recognition should be based on clear, democratic principles, not just political pressure or symbolism. A State must have a legitimate, accountable Government; respect for the rule of law; and a commitment to peace. That’s not the case today, with the Palestinian territories divided and part of it controlled by Hamas—a terrorist organisation that rejects democracy and has committed horrific violence.

Today we also recognise the anniversary of the brutal and abhorrent 7 October attacks by Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens. ACT believes our foreign policy should reflect our values—freedom, democracy, and human rights—not reward those who oppose them. Peace, of course, will come only through direct negotiation between two democratic partners willing to co-exist, not through declarations that ignore reality.

We live in a world where democracy is in a state of peril. It is in a state of functional decline around the world. Some would say that I am being hyperbolic, that I am exaggerating, that these are my thoughts. This is not true, I assure you, Mr Speaker. The Freedom House index, an internationally recognised index, measures democratic process around the world. It has democracies in 19 years of consistent free fall, where now autocratic regimes are more plentiful than democracies that we support; more plentiful than countries that foster and use the democratic process. We are so damnably lucky in this country to have a democratic system here in New Zealand, and it must be preserved at all costs. It must be celebrated.

Violence is not the answer to the objective nature of debate. Emotions must be removed from the difficult situations so we all hear the debate in its entirety, and debated objectively, thus ensuring the best outcomes for all New Zealanders. The moment violence enters, democracy is lost from all of us. We must all stand against this moral decline wherever it happens and preserve this wonderful reality. These are core tenets to all of us. The freedom of speech, self-determination, and, above all things, property rights. To embrace these values, we become a country—[Interruption]—they laugh; I find that odd—of unlimited potential. The alternatives don’t bear thinking about and I want to thank the House for its time today. Democracy for everyone.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

SPEAKER: Are you seeking leave?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Yes. I would like to seek leave from the House to speak to the Minister’s statement, on behalf of Te Pāti Māori.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: We agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that Palestinians have paid a disproportionate price. We also lament for all of those families and all of those innocent civilians who have to endure through this violence. Specifically today, we’re noting the anniversary, and we lament for all of those families that have had to figure out how to move beyond this trauma that they’re watching politicians throughout the world debate and have very strong opinions on, right or wrong. But this didn’t start on 7 October 2023, and I think that we have to remind ourselves of what happened 75 years ago, when Palestinian land was taken, when houses were destroyed, and when people were displaced and, in fact, their self-determination—their mana motuhake—was denied.

We had an opportunity to show who we are, as the heart of a nation. We, personally, would have liked to have seen the Minister acknowledge the State of Palestine. For us, it was not only about acknowledging those who are disproportionately experiencing genocide but also it would have shown goodwill towards finding a peaceful solution. To imply that there hasn’t been anything before 7 October denies, as we heard earlier, the decades of occupation, apartheid, and human suffering. So, at the end of the day, this is our opportunity to show which side of history we are on when it comes to using our influence on the right side of humanity.

We have, every day, seen the occupation and what an open-air prison has reduced humans to. We see the bombing of refugee camps, we see the targeted killing of the media—we see the targeted killing of those who are trying to say the stories—we see children buried under rubble, and we see blockades denying food and water, and I guess that if we don’t accept that, then we are pretending, as human beings, that everything else that happened before 7 October and that continues to happen is OK, but it’s not. The fact is that if this was any other race than Palestinians, I’m not sure that we would be having this kind of debate, and that doesn’t sit well in our puku.

Our question has to be this. The flotilla’s goal was to deliver desperately needed aid, and the Minister has talked about the need for aid in his speech. What we have to say is that condemning the flotilla is then condemning any efforts that we’re trying to humanely do to get aid into a nation of people who are enduring the most inhumane suffering disproportionately—disproportionately. We acknowledge the three New Zealanders who were detained by Israel after being illegally intercepted in international waters, because they had the courage to actually do what this Government doesn’t. We have to show our mokopuna and our children that we were trying to do something about genocide, much more than this Government was prepared to do.

Our question, therefore, to the Minister is this: in the Minister’s statement, you said that there was little influence that we have in our Government, and so my question is: how would the Minister know how little influence we have when our Government has refused to take any action against Israel for the genocide that they are committing in Palestine?

There was a statement made there about genocide that is not authorised, supported, or precedented by any international court whatsoever, but they make the statement anyway, and, sadly, that’s been far too often the case on this very, very sad issue. I might say that in Myanmar, you’ve got millions and millions, and in Sudan, we’ve got 33 million starving—suffering. Is it because they’re black that you don’t care, or what? But, no, no, it’s always on this issue.

My next question is: in what way would recognising Palestinian Statehood complicate achieving a ceasefire?

Well, here’s the reality: there are clear guidelines out in the 1990s Montevideo Convention on recognition, which is not met. We’ve had decades and decades of political parties supporting this criteria when all of a sudden, despite Clark having the 90s to do that, despite Jacinda Ardern having five years to do that, and despite Mr Hipkins having one year to do that, they all of a sudden want to change the criteria. Now that doesn’t bespeak, surely, to the ethics and morality of their argument.

But here’s the point. You’ve got these Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt all seeking to work with the American-led peace plan to get a solution. I’ve never heard one word from these people saying, “And we hope they succeed”. Does that tell you something? The silence is deafening on the question of hypocrisy here.

My next question to the Minister is: how can it be true that we have little to no influence over the genocide in Gaza, yet our recognition of Palestine as a State could also distract from and complicate a ceasefire?

Isn’t it amazing: you’ve got countries like Saudi Arabia setting out criteria—which they’ve never accepted—that Hamas must go; they must lay down their arms and leave the country. You’ve got the Arab people next door to them—strictest rules possible because they know there’s no possible peace with Hamas still there. And here you’ve got sympathisers trying to make a defence today in this House.

My next question is: what actions is Aotearoa taking to ensure that aid reaches Gaza, and to ensure a ceasefire is achieved and not in line with the goals the Minister has just stated?

Well, I’m pleased to say that when we dealt with the United Nations food programme and this marvellous lady, Senator McCain’s widow, on their food programme—and many others as well—they were aware of a country called New Zealand, not one that’s just been made-up over here. And might I say, on the so-called aid programme, the flotilla was offered—by the Italian Government—a military ship to take all of their so-called aid on those boats and to make sure they got to the destination. Guess what? They refused it. They refused it because they’re virtue signallers—they are performative; they aren’t real.

My next question is: does he commend the flotilla for trying to deliver aid to Gaza when he has consistently called for the unimpeded flow of vital aids to Gaza?

Well, the flotilla, as a member of the Green Party found out a number of years ago, was never going to make it. They were told that. They were told that by the New Zealand Government, but they left anyway so that some people could perform and carry on and say things like this, “We are being starved.”, and the next announcement was “We’re on a hunger strike.” I mean, I expect the people over there to have the maturity to see through people like that.

My last question to the Minister: from the foreign affairs policy perspective for this Government, is what the USA and Israel want more important than what New Zealanders want to see in their foreign policy?

Well, look, you can’t argue with success and we’re hoping there is success with the American-led plan. It’s backed by farsighted people, people I’d recommend. If you’ve got a chance to listen to the President of Indonesia in his speech, it was something to listen to. There are countries—massive populations of Islamic or Muslim people—with a different view to what I’m hearing in this House. That’s the sad part about it. We might be a long way away, but there’s no reason for us to be blind to the facts.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise a matter that has come up a number of times over the past few years in relation to debates on Israel and Palestine. That is this allegation of genocide, which is made repeatedly in this House by members of the Opposition, which I’m concerned might lead to violence against Jews in New Zealand. Members of the Jewish community have expressed to me their concern that continuing to use this term in the House does raise the fear they have that violence might be used against them. Mr Speaker, I’d like you to consider—I’m not intending to debate with other members—in upholding the reputation of this House, whether it denigrates this House to spread such damaging information as allegations of genocide against a people and a country. Mr Speaker, I’d like you to consider that.

What I can say, right now, is that there is a very big difference between making a claim and making an allegation. The other point I would make is that, throughout this debate, the point about freedom of speech has been made several times on both sides of the House, and it will continue to be that. Mr Peters, do wish to have a right of reply?

No, I think, with the questions I have answered from various members, that the debate has been sufficient. It is our genuine aspiration and hope that the peace process that has been entered into finally succeeds. That’s the Government’s position.