Winston Peters speaking in an earlier debate on a ministerial statement regarding the Israel/USA/Iran conflict. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Tuesday saw a case of déjà vu in parliament, as Foreign Minister Winston Peters addressed the war in Gaza in the latest of a series of ministerial statements on the issue.
The first sitting day back from a recess often features either a request for an urgent debate or a ministerial statement.
The world doesn't pause just because parliament does. When MPs return, they're often behind the eight-ball in discussions about current events.
Even if an issue has already been widely canvassed, it still tends to be addressed in the House, if it's significant. This often manifests in the form of a ministerial statement, which is a way for a minister to brief parliament - and, by extension, the public - on unfolding events, and to outline how they have responded or plan to respond.
Tuesday's statement chartered familiar territory - the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Specifically, Peters re-iterated the government's recent decision not to recognise Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in New York just over a week ago.
Co-incidentally, it also marked two years since the 7 October attacks by Hamas. Peters began his statement by acknowledging this, before getting into the details of New Zealand's foreign policy.
"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.
"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."
Peters' statement itself didn't offer anything particularly new or profound, with that "when, not if" refrain being a handy diplomatic tagline the Foreign Minister has used throughout this whole saga. Likewise, the subsequent party speeches did not illuminate fresh thinking - party positions on the issue have been well established by now.
However, both sides adopted a palpably more adversarial tone, with the minister alluding to the recent protests outside his home in Auckland.
"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."
Typically, after a ministerial statement, each party gets the chance to respond - starting with the largest opposition party. Peeni Henare began Labour's contribution by questioning the prime minister's leadership on the issue.
"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 solution."
Before long, he was stopped in his tracks by Speaker Gerry Brownlee, who objected to mentioning specific members of the House in this context. Henare may have known he would be pulled up by Brownlee, but often MPs will persevere with a risky remark, which can serve a purpose just by being put on the public record.
Winston Peters' remarks (above) were not similarly tamped.
The rules
Henare rounded off his comments with a question.
"Does he [the minister] 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?"
There seemed some confusion over what was supposed to happen next. The speaker looked prepared to end the event at that point.
A back and forth between Brownlee and Labour leader Chris Hipkins ensued about the correct procedure.
Brownlee consulted the clerk for advice and the rules were eventually clarified, so what is the procedure for ministerial statements?
The standing orders, which are Parliament's rules, say this on questions after ministerial statements:
Comments and questioning about ministerial statement
(1) Following a ministerial statement, the leader of each party with six or more members, or a member authorised by the leader, may
(a) comment on the ministerial statement:
(b) ask questions to the minister who made the ministerial statement, to elucidate more information about it.
(2) Following the comments and questioning under paragraph (1), the minister may reply.
In practice, however, the minister is not required to answer questions directly. On Tuesday, little was elucidated during the exchanges that followed.
Much of what was said simply re-iterated the government's established talking points on the issue.
Compared with the previous pair of statements on Gaza, the tone this time round was noticeably less cordial, with fewer attempts at genuine clarification and more political posturing.
RNZ's The House, with insights into parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from parliament's Office of the Clerk.
