Winston Peters speaking in the debate on a ministerial statement regarding the Israel/USA/Iran conflict. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
For Foreign Minister Winston Peters, the sitting week began with the task of navigating opposition questions on the war in Gaza.
The questions were asked of Peters, not during question time, but following his Ministerial Statement on the government response to the situation in the Middle East - his second statement on this in as many months.
The statement itself echoed the joint statement made on 21 July by New Zealand (and 27 other countries, including Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom), calling for an end to the war in Gaza.
"The international community is united in its revulsion to what is happening in Gaza," Peters told the House. "This horror must end. Too many lives have been lost; too many people have been traumatised, polarised, and embittered, ensuring that yet another generation of Israeli and Palestinian children are born into a situation of insufferable conflict and enmity. That is why New Zealand has come together with Foreign Ministers from 27 other countries to state as clearly as we can that enough is enough, that this war must end now, that this suffering is intolerable."
"In that joint statement, we condemned Hamas' continued detention of hostages and called for their immediate and unconditional release, and we condemned Israel's policies, which are leading to untold and unimaginable suffering and death among Palestinian civilians. And we call for [Israel] to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law."
Ministerial statements are used by governments to brief Parliament-and by extension the public-on an unfolding situation or event, and to explain the government's plan of action in response to it.
They resemble an MP-only press conference, wherein a minister delivers a statement, followed by questions or comments from MPs from other parties, generally spokespersons on the relevant topic.
Like a press conference, the most interesting or illuminating information comes not from a minister's prepared statement, but from the Q&A that follows.
In Tuesday's exchange, all three opposition parties held similar stances - supporting the joint statement, while also questioning what they perceived to be a reluctance from the government to follow up those words with actions.
On further actions against Israel
The Greens' Teanau Tuiono asked about potential concrete measures like sanctions the government could take to support its condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza.
"The discussions [with the signatories] have been wide ranging," Peters said. "We do not want to make a decision or actions which are purely symbolic in nature and of no real meaning in fact."
Tuiono followed up by asking why the government had not also frozen the assets of the two Israeli Ministers who had received a ban from travelling to New Zealand.
"Because we do not believe that the justification for that, at this point in time, has been established," Peters replied.
On Palestinian statehood
Calls from the Greens and Te Pāti Māori to recognise Palestinian statehood were met with a familiar response from Peters.
"We have always said, this government, that it's not a matter of 'if' but 'when'. The question that has to be answered-saving us lowering our standards of statehood-who would we negotiate with? Who would we talk to…. We have talked to Egypt about that. We've talked to many Middle Eastern countries about that. We've talked to [the United Arab] Emirates about that. We've talked to Indonesia about that. We're all on the same wavelength here. Who would we talk to, to establish this so-called state? Or are we just virtue signalling? Virtue signalling is not what we're going to do here."
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi's version of the question was relatively more blunt than Tuiono's.
"Does the Minister, and this government, recognise Palestine as a sovereign state - yes or no?"
Peter's answer evoked a sense of deja vu.
"We have made it clear that, for us, it's a question of not if but when. But we need to ensure we do not lower the standards of what statehood comprises. There, in our conversation with the Middle East and with Egypt and other countries bordering there, knowing far more about the circumstances than us, they have an agreement with us. We need to establish who it is we're going to negotiate with before we recognise [it]."
On allegations of genocide
President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) US lawyer Joan Donoghue (2R) confers with colleagues at the court in The Hague on 12 January, 2024, prior to the hearing of the genocide case against Israel, brought by South Africa. Photo: Remko de Waal / ANP / AFP
Labour's Peeni Henare asked Peters whether allegations of a genocide in Gaza was something the International Court of Justice should determine, and not politicians.
"Yes, we agree in the sense that the court of which that member speaks has got a duty, but hitherto they have not found that, they have taken it by way of investigation and reviewed it. But they have not come down with a precedent, directive, or, dare I say, finding. However, that still doesn't obligate the rest of us needing to be considering the merit or otherwise of such a claim and to see whether it is substantial or not," Peters replied.
After being pressed on the issue again by Waititi, Peters gave a similar answer.
"It has not been declared by the international courts to be that, so we are not going to add our support to something that is not based on facts but is based on what someone would hope to be the case regardless of legal precedent."
On aid to Gazans
In the joint statement, there is a condemnation of what is referred to as a "drip feeding" of humanitarian aid to Gazans. Signatories to the statement, including Peters, hope that momentum from this collective condemnation will put pressure on those responsible for distributing aid to those in need.
Henare had a series of questions for the minister on New Zealand's role in the area of humanitarian aid.
Henare: "Is the government concerned by the widespread criticism of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, including by over 240 NGOs, and has New Zealand contributed funding to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; and if so, what conditions, if any, were attached?"
Peters: "The reality is that we have a duty in these circumstances, no matter how desperate they are and inhumanitarian they are, to ensure we can recount to the New Zealand taxpayer. And that's why, when we ran into difficulties with the server of aid, and they were under suspicion, and indeed under investigation, by the United Nations themselves, we found other organisations with credibility to assist us, to ensure that the aid continued. That has always been our course, under successive governments."
Henare: "Will the government commit to more aid resource to fill the need in this unfolding humanitarian crisis?"
Peters: "I understand what the member has asked for, but the reality is New Zealand has already given significant amounts of aid, and at a time when the international economy is facing uncertainty and so is the domestic economy as a consequence. We also have serious aid programmes in the Pacific, which are our number one priorities and have been under the last two governments. And so whilst we'll carry on endeavouring to help out, remember this: it is an awful long way away from New Zealand, and we have the right to feel awfully frustrated that for decades of all of our lives, this issue has been there, at the centre of international news. We hope one day it would finally be over."
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk.
