Ministerial Statements — Conflict in Middle East—Government Response

I seek leave to make a ministerial statement on the Middle East.

SPEAKER: You don’t need leave, sir.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you. Almost a month ago on 24 June 2025, we delivered our most recent ministerial statement on the Middle East to this House. At that time, the world was grappling with Israel and Iran bombing one another. New Zealanders were in harm’s way; the spectre of escalation and a wider regional war was very real. Back then, we called for de-escalation, dialogue, and ceasefire. Thankfully, the United States and Qatar were able to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and that wider regional war has, for now at least, been avoided.

A month later, though, we continue to be confronted by horrifying scenes playing out in Gaza. We have the horror of innocent Israeli families robbed of their loved ones—in October 2023, by Hamas’ heinous and immoral hostage-taking—still yearning and demanding for them to be free. We have the horror of more and more innocent Palestinian citizens and civilians starving, being deprived of their basic needs, and being killed every day—because Israel’s military response to the events of 7 October 2023 long ago ceased to be proportionate, reasonable, or moral, and because Hamas continues to act with complete disregard for civilian life.

The international community is united in its revulsion to what is happening in Gaza. This horror must end. Too many lives have been lost; too many people have been traumatised, polarised, and embittered, ensuring that yet another generation of Israeli and Palestinian children are born into a situation of insufferable conflict and enmity. That is why New Zealand has come together with Foreign Ministers from 27 other countries to state as clearly as we can that enough is enough, that this war must end now, that this suffering is intolerable. In that joint statement, we condemned Hamas’ continued detention of hostages and called for their immediate and unconditional release, and we condemned Israel’s policies, which are leading to untold and unimaginable suffering and death among Palestinian civilians, and we call for it to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The international community is joined by an overwhelming majority of Israelis and Palestinians in wanting an immediate ceasefire. That is understandable, because only a negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing Israeli hostages home, and of ending the immense suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

New Zealand has always accepted that it has limited influence over the course of this generations-long conflict. The Middle East is a long way away from New Zealand, but we can and must still do our part. New Zealand’s mission has for decades been consistent: we want dialogue, we want diplomacy, we want negotiation, and we want a two-State solution. We call out actions which undermine the conditions for a two-State solution. This New Zealand Government has designated the entirety of Hamas, whose standard objectives include the complete destruction of Israel, a terrorist organisation.

Steve Abel: What about the IDF?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We have also put in place travel bans against Israeli Ministers who have taken complete steps to undermine the two-State solution by advocating illegal settlements and settler violence. Sometimes, it pays to be patient and find out the facts before shouting from the rooftops.

As today’s joint statement by 28 Foreign Ministers, now joined by more, says, we strongly oppose any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such steps seek to undermine the two-State solution and they must stop. The only way forward is an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire. Human suffering is indiscriminate in this conflict. It’s been inflicted in vast quantities on Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Further bloodshed serves absolutely no purpose and, therefore, it must stop.

New Zealand, with our partners, reaffirms our complete support for the efforts of the United States, Qatar, and Egypt to achieve a ceasefire. We wish them well in this critically important task. Ultimately, what we must see is a political pathway towards peaceful Israelis and Palestinians living securely side by side. Only then can this long-running cycle of conflict be ended, in the hope that the next generation of Israeli and Palestinian children can know better, brighter days. No matter how hopeless the situation seems, that must be the international community’s objective, and New Zealand will continue to do what it can to contribute to those efforts. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. The Labour Party welcomes the ministerial statement from this Government on very concerning matters in Gaza. We want to be very clear and upfront that we continue to be concerned with what’s transpiring across the entire Middle East region. We know, though, that action speaks louder than words.

Labour’s position has been clear: we support an immediate and permanent ceasefire and the unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid and, of course, a two-State solution. We continue to denounce the actions of Hamas and will continue to do so into the future.

Israel’s ongoing military campaign and blockade have created one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent memory. Over 58,000 Palestinians have been killed in 19 months of relentless bombardment and attack. Ninety percent of Gaza’s population has been displaced. Infrastructure, homes, hospitals, and schools have been decimated. Nearly half a million people are facing catastrophic hunger. Approximately 71,000 children under five are expected to be acutely malnourished. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are starving. Children are dying from hunger and preventable disease.

We welcome the Government’s recent steps, sanctions against Israeli Ministers, and co-signing a joint international statement calling for an end to the war. But we must be honest: these moves come after 24 other countries have already taken action. There is more that New Zealand can do and must do. Silence is no longer the issue; inaction is. If we believe in international law and human rights, we must act with moral clarity and urgency.

I now have a series of questions for the Minister. The first question: will the Government now join South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice as a demonstration of support for international legal accountability; if not, why not?

The Minister may choose to answer within the member’s time slot.

Could I tell my colleague that I intend to take advice on that and get back to him with an informed answer.

Thank you, Minister. The next question: does the Government agree that allegations of genocide are a matter for the International Court of Justice to determine, and not for politicians to dismiss or decide unilaterally?

Yes, we agree in the sense that the court of which that member speaks has got a duty, but hitherto they have not found that. They have taken it by way of investigation and reviewed it, but they have not come down with a precedent, directive, or, dare I say, finding. However, that still doesn’t obviate the rest of us needing to be considering the merit or otherwise of such a claim and to see whether it is substantial or not.

Thank you to the Minister. My next question is: given the 20week total blockade on Gaza, what is New Zealand doing, diplomatically or otherwise, to press Israel to allow unimpeded aid access?

Well, as I said, in the last months we have made many, many statements. The last one was in June. Today, we’re updating it, with now a growing number of Foreign Ministers and Governments joining us. At the latest it looks like we’re at 28, plus we’ve been combined by the whole of the European Union, so it’s gathering momentum. Hopefully, in time, that level of pressure will prevail.

Thank you. The next question to the Minister: is the Government concerned by the widespread criticism of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, including by over 240 NGOs, and has New Zealand contributed funding to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; and if so, what conditions, if any, were attached?

The reality is that we have a duty in these circumstances, no matter how desperate they are and inhumanitarian they are, to ensure we can recount to the New Zealand taxpayer. That’s why, when we ran into difficulties with the server of aid, and they were under suspicion and indeed under investigation by the United Nations themselves, we found other organisations with credibility to assist us to ensure that the aid continued. That has always been our course under successive Governments.

Thank you. In light of the Minister’s answer, the next question is very direct: will the Government commit to more aid resource to fill the need in this unfolding humanitarian crisis?

I understand what the member has asked me for, but the reality is New Zealand has already given significant amounts of aid, and at a time when the international economy is facing uncertainty and so is the domestic economy as a consequence. We also have serious aid programmes in the Pacific, which are our number one priorities and have been under the last two Governments. So whilst we’ll carry on endeavouring to help out, remember this: it is an awful long way away from New Zealand, and we have the right to feel awfully frustrated that for decades of all of our lives, this issue has been there, at the centre of international news. We hope one day it would finally be over.

Thank you to the Minister for his answer. My next question is to the recent deployment made by this New Zealand Government, with respect to what has transpired between Israel and Iran, and whether or not the Government have considered, with respect to that deployment, offering any further support to what’s transpiring in Gaza?

The reality is that we had teams working on the outskirts of that situation in Gaza and Israel and found no requests for our help. The other paradox, or irony, that we have faced is that we sent a full military plane all the way up, set to take 139 people out of Iran. We had teams brought over the border to use and facilitate the transport on those planes, and then the peace broke out and no one wanted to get on the plane. Now, that’s one of the things that we do as a country. It wasn’t a waste of time. We were there just in case there was an emergency, and we started from 36 people finding they needed help to, dramatically, 139 by the time the plane got there—and then peace broke out. We hope we have the same unusual circumstances happen when it comes to Gaza.

Thank you, Minister. My next question is: the large diaspora here in New Zealand who have families suffering in Gaza, the Palestinian community—has the Minister or this Government considered any support with their efforts in, one, trying to contact and, two, trying to support their families in Gaza?

The successive situation, over many Governments, has been to help through international agencies. Whilst there are both sides of the story occupant in New Zealand, we hope they haven’t brought their politics with them—that they remember that this country is a peaceful country, it has got its values, there’s a flag to salute, there’s our laws to be obeyed, and there’s a political system and freedom that needs to be subscribed to, including the freedom of religion. The very lessons of success here need to be learnt back there—

Steve Abel: It’s not a religious conflict.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Who said that? You must have come down the last shower.

SPEAKER: Just to advise the House not to make those sorts of interjections in a ministerial statement.

Thank you. My final comments on this matter: as we continue to encourage action from this Government, we welcome this ministerial statement, and we’ll continue to look towards what more New Zealand could possibly do to support. But I remind the House once again that silence is no longer the issue and action is, and that if we believe in international law and human rights, we must act with moral clarity and, most importantly, with urgency.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to respond to this ministerial statement. I acknowledge the statement, but we need to have more than words—we need to have more than words. We are beyond the point where we need to have action. I was watching the media last night, horrified to see that 19 people had died of starvation in Gaza. Hundreds and hundreds of people who had been lining up to get food have been shot and killed. We see over 17,000 children killed, over 70,000 people killed as well, and hundreds of thousands of people displaced.

I do hear around the House that it is far away and on the other side of the planet, and so on and so forth. It is far, but it is also close as well, as many MPs around the House will have been connected with the diaspora community—and we have that in Palmerston North as well, and I want to share one story. I was helping a family get their grandmother over so she could help with their children—they had come from Gaza—and she was here for one week before the bombs dropped on her apartment, destroying the apartment that she lived in. This is a family now living in New Zealand. Gaza might be far away, but it is also close as well. I want members around the House to remember that—that when they look overseas and see their grandmothers, their daughters, their grandfathers, their brothers and sisters dying, this is something that the House should take into account.

I also want to make the point as well that this House can actually move fast. A number of us were here in the last Parliament when Russia invaded Ukraine, and we passed sanctions—this House passed sanctions. So it can move quickly when the political will does exist. I think we’re getting late in the day where we need to actually take some action here.

We’ve got a bill in the members’ tin which would allow this Parliament to collect sanctions on Israel, because that is what is needed; that is what is being called for. We have the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, who had a report this week highlighting companies which are directly benefiting from the genocide in Gaza. These are actions that we can take; these are things that we can take as a Parliament.

Yes, ministerial statements show that the Government is taking note of what’s happening, but we need to have more than words. The people outside these walls want more than words. They want to know that their families are safe. They want to know that their brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, and uncles and aunties, and all of that, are safe.

On that, I do have a series of questions that I would like to put to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will the Government also join the multilateral actions of 12 States, led by South Africa and Colombia, who announced measures to prevent the provision of arms, including dual-use items, to Israel; prevent the docking of vessels that may carry arms to Israel; commence urgent reviews of public contracts to prevent public funds supporting the occupation; and investigate Israel’s war crimes?

First of all, to liken the invasion of, first of all, Georgia, then Crimea, then Ukraine to 7 October and the Hamas terrorism is an extraordinary juxtaposition of history and fact.

The second thing I want to say is that the very question that’s being raised here obviates the fact that the South Africa v Israel case before the international court is yet to be decided, and it’s wrong to prejudge the court’s decisions, including on various huge allegations such as genocide. Only then, when there was such a finding and proven, would the kind of action being demanded by that member be warranted.

Another question. What concrete measures, if any, will the Government take to support the statement, such as public divestment from Israel, joining the case in the International Court of Justice—and I do acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs did mention that—or sanctioning Israel as we did with Russia? In that context, I do make the point that the time has moved on. We have hundreds of thousands of people displaced, tens of thousands of people killed, people dying of starvation, and people being shot while they’re trying to get food. So I think that the situation has changed.

Well, if the member thinks that the situation has changed, why haven’t Hamas given back the hostages they’ve got now—right here, right now? Why haven’t they done it months ago, years ago, when this thing was first requested by the international community? Why aren’t we talking about that?

The second thing I want to say is there are people who have been judged by New Zealand in Israel to have been terrorists. We’ve even said that of a couple of Ministers who have made statements, which in our view were terrorist in their nature. We’ve already done that. To make a finding that is unwarranted by international precedent is not what we’re going to do.

Has the Government spoken to any of the 27 other Governments involved in this statement about material measures to put concrete pressure on Israel to stop the genocide, such as economic sanctions, and if not, why not?

The Government has spoken to all of those countries over the months. We have been to Egypt. We’ve spoken to the Palestinian Authority. We’ve spoken to Indonesia. We’ve spoken to countless countries who understand the plight we’re in trying to be helpful in a peaceful resolution of this tragedy.

Did those conversations include sanctions?

Pardon?

Did those conversations include discussions on sanctions?

Well, obviously, the discussions have been wide ranging. We do not want to make a decision or actions which are purely symbolic in nature and of no real meaning in fact.

Why did New Zealand only implement travel restrictions on two Israeli Ministers and not also asset freezes like those announced by the UK and Canada?

Because we do not believe that the justification for that, at this point in time, has been established.

Does the Government share Australia’s position that Australia no longer sees recognition of a Palestinian State as only occurring at the end of negotiations, but rather as a way of building momentum towards a two-State solution, and if so, when will New Zealand recognise Palestinian statehood as a tool to help build peace?

We have always said, this Government, that it’s not a matter of if but when, but the question that has to be answered, saving us lowering our standards of statehood, is who would we negotiate with? Who would we talk to? Who would establish the State sans or without an election? We have talked to Egypt about that. We’ve talked to many Middle Eastern countries about that. We’ve talked to Emirates about that. We’ve talked to Indonesia about that. We’re all on the same wavelength here. Who would we talk to, to establish this so-called State, or are we just virtue signalling? Virtue signalling is not what we’re going to do here.

With six seconds, what concrete measures, if any, will the Government take to support the statement such as public divestment form Israel?

I tried to point out that such a decision would have to be the result of international findings, and those findings have not been established. Even the court which was referenced in the previous questions here has not made the decision that is claimed by some members in this House. Those are not facts. We await those findings at this point in time.

One of the vagaries of Standing Orders is that while we’ve agreed that the rosters for questions and other such might change, it’s not within the jurisdiction of the Business Committee to extend that to ministerial statements. However, the member might like to seek leave of the House.

Mr Speaker, I seek leave from the House to take a call on this ministerial statement.

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

RAWIRI WAITITI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Gaza is starving. Israel is deliberately engineering a famine. They blockade thousands and thousands of trucks that have lined up at the Rafah border. Food has been stockpiled in warehouses—in fact, enough food that could replenish the whole of Gaza for three months. Supply-ready, systems-ready, but they are being denied entry. A population of 2 million, including 1 million children, are being starved, with no access to food or water. Many are going weeks and days without food. Many are being shot, daily, by the Israel Defense Forces while lining up for food. This continuation of a genocide is the most cruel humanitarian crisis—the merciless butchering of people, children, while being deliberately starved. People can barely walk. They’re drowsy. They are slowly dying on livestream. Don’t dare turn a blind eye, saying we didn’t know. One in four children under five years in northern Gaza is severely malnourished—no baby formula. It’s not a food crisis if food is waiting at the border; it’s the deliberate starving of children and wiping out of people by wiping out their children.

This Government does many cruel things, but nothing is as cruel as being mates with those committing this genocide. They are complicit—for Israel to not open the gates. We do not accept this Government’s pathetic lip-service calling for a ceasefire. It’s your fifth time in two years. We must end this human crisis. Sanction Israel. Sanction everyone supporting them. Again, we demand: Israel, open the bloody gates and stop the genocide, democide, ethnic cleansing, and the massacre of mokopuna and the innocent. We need strong sanctions—expulsion of the Israel ambassador, as we have called for in the past. We don’t need whaiwhai pīhau solutions, which means following the flatulence of others like the US. We must lead with courage and humanity.

I also have questions of the Minister. Does the Minister, and this Government, recognise Palestine as a sovereign State—yes or no?

They say the first victim of war is truth, and that’s a classic example. Do we recognise a Palestine State? We have made it clear that, for us, it’s a question of not if but when. But we need to ensure we do not lower the standards of what statehood comprises. There, in our conversation with the Middle East and with Egypt and other countries bordering there, knowing far more about the circumstances than us, they have an agreement with us. We need to establish who it is we’re going to negotiate with before we recognise.

Thank you, Minister. Why does this ministerial statement not call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire by Israel?

Well, perhaps, because one of the conditions has yet to be met, like giving back the hostages.

Is the Government prepared to name the actions of Israel in Gaza as genocide or ethnic cleansing, as identified by United Nations experts and the International Court of Justice?

That last claim is false; it has not been declared by the international courts to be that, so we are not going to add our support to something that is not based on facts but is based on what someone would hope to be the case regardless of legal precedent.

Why does the ministerial statement fail to acknowledge New Zealand’s obligations under the genocide convention?

The same answer for that question is given in the previous two answers I gave that member. Perhaps he should pay attention to the fact that the international courts are yet to make a judgment on that matter—or does he think he knows more about the law than they do?

What tangible actions, beyond words, is the Government taking to stop arms sales, diplomatic ties, or trade with Israel?

New Zealand’s citizenry, on behalf of their Government, has made an enormous contribution in terms of the civil obligations we believe we have to the people who are caught by the strife. It is a very, very significant contribution and is about as much as we can afford, given the huge demands upon our purse when it comes to international aid in other troubled areas of the world as well.

The Minister may like to exercise a right of reply.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I think we’ve taken too much time of the House already. I appreciate the comments made by those Ministers and those members of Parliament, who are, hopefully, understanding of just how difficult it is to achieve an outcome the control of which is not in our hands.