Decoding non-answers on Palestine

Analysis - Parliament held an urgent debate on Tuesday on whether to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of the speeches were fiery and the Hansard record is worth reading.

Strong party positions were outlined by Simon Court (ACT), Vanushi Walters and others (Labour), Chlöe Swarbrick (Green) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori). New Zealand First's only speaker, Winston Peters, spoke aggressively, though more as minister of foreign affairs than party leader.

The only party that made no speeches at all was National. This was unusual for an urgent debate. The eight calls in an urgent debate are not proportionally allocated, but National MPs usually speak regardless of whether it is a National minister who initially responds. If nothing else, this uses up available Opposition speech time.

It may be that the National Party has not managed an internal consensus on Palestine and was not prepared to reveal internal division or put forward a message some members wouldn't support.

Other parties did not worry about laying out their opinions. ACT's speaker was the most fervently against statehood. Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs all made strong speeches.

So, what does the National Party, or indeed the prime minister think about Palestine and Gaza?

That is still uncertain, though an attempt to tease it out was made in Question Time, when Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick asked Christopher Luxon a series of questions on Gaza. Both answers and non-answers can both be instructive.

Below are the questions and answers from that interchange and a later one, with brief commentary.

Question one

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that "There are a broad range of strongly held views within our government", and, if so, who in the government is opposing recognising Palestinian Statehood?

Christopher Luxon: There are a broad range and strongly held views across the whole of our society and across the whole of New Zealand and, as you would expect, across this Chamber there will be a variance of views as well.

Note: You will notice that the prime minister didn't answer that question. That is not newsworthy - Luxon usually avoids directly answering Opposition questions in the House. He usually segues to prepared talking points, using phrases like "what I can say is", or "I'll just say to the member". The questions he receives are often very political (and have few good answers), so his avoidance is understandable. Some of Swarbrick's queries were more straightforward though, offering openings for statesmanlike or informed answers - like the next one.

Question two

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the harm, if any, of recognising Palestinian statehood?

Christopher Luxon: Well, it's been a longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments since 1947 to recognise the creation of a State for Israel and a State of Palestine where two peoples can live together in peace and security. That has been a longstanding position of the New Zealand Governments of different political parties. The issue is that we need to, as we've said, as you've heard the foreign Minister say, and it's been a longstanding position-it's a matter of when, not if. But the immediate challenge for the situation in the Middle East is, of course, Hamas must release hostages. As a terrorist organisation, they must release those hostages. Secondly, Israel must allow unfettered humanitarian access into what is an absolute catastrophe, and there must be a ceasefire and diplomacy and dialogue.

Note: The next question was politically couched, but still afforded options for a good answer.

Question three

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware that Israeli hostages have been offered back multiple times and Israel currently holds approximately 10,000 Palestinian prisoners?

Christopher Luxon: Sorry, I'm not going to respond to that question. That's not what I've been briefed on.

Notes: Swarbrick appealed to the Speaker about that non-answer to a question she argued was seeking "to tease out the logic that [Luxon was] using with regard to government decision-making". Speaker Gerry Brownlee ruled in Luxon's favour, saying: "The prime minister said he wasn't prepared to answer it because it wasn't within the scope of the briefing that he's received."

Parliament's rules do allow a few reasons why ministers might refuse to answer, including not giving a legal opinion, or an answer not being in the public interest. Not being briefed is not in the list, although some ministers do sometimes admit a lack of knowledge and offer to come back with a response.

The next question felt like it was straight from a morning newspaper's five-minute quiz.

Question four

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware, then, of our obligations under the genocide convention, and, if so, what are they?

Christopher Luxon: Yes, and what I'd say to the member is I would be very careful throwing terms like "genocide" around. It's very important that the right bodies that we support under the international rules-based system - the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court - are those closest and are the appropriate bodies which we fully support to make those determinations.

Notes: For extra quiz points - signatories to the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (including New Zealand) - undertake to prevent as well as punish genocide. It's there in the name.

Strictly speaking that answer could have stopped at "yes", because ministers are only required to address any one leg of a two-legged question. However, saying yes, and then pivoting away does make one wonder whether the prime minister was worried about getting the second leg wrong. Admitting to an obligation to prevent genocide might have made for a difficult follow-up question.

Question five

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister finally willing to say that Israel's slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza is a genocide, and, if not, what does he know that Holocaust and genocide scholars don't?

Note: Like many questions in Question Time this one actually falls outside the very strict parameters for questions (which do not allow the inclusion of supposition or argument). On this occasion ACT leader David Seymour intervened with an objection to the Speaker. Swarbrick reworded the question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the prime minister know that Holocaust and genocide scholars apparently do not when they call what is currently occurring in Gaza a "genocide"?

Christopher Luxon: Well, what I know is that there's a humanitarian catastrophe happening in the Middle East. What I know is that we want to see peace and stability and security reign in the Middle East, and, for that to happen, Hamas must release hostages immediately. What happened on 7 October from a terrorist organisation inflicting 1200 deaths on innocent civilians was unacceptable. We are also saying, clearly - and we've done it through a number of calls with other countries as well - that we want Israel to give unfettered humanitarian access. We do not want more military action. We need to make sure that we actually see diplomacy and dialogue reign in the Middle East.

Note: Anyone managing to tease out a solid party or government position on Palestinian statehood from that interchange would need to be a talented haruspex. It is worth noting that during Question Time the prime minister does not speak as a party leader, but as leader of the Executive. Previous prime ministers have at times made observations as individuals or have outlined the varying perspectives that coalition partners bring to an issue. On this issue I expect there is significant diversion of thought, both within and between the coalition member parties. Possibly it is creditable that the prime minister is not seeking to impose a perspective on his own MPs as leader. Later in Question Time Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also focused on Palestine. Most of her questions were not well phrased and were disallowed, but the first two added a little to the picture.

Te Pāti Māori questions

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the prime minister allowing the government to delay recognition of the State of Palestine until September?

Christopher Luxon: Well, it's a government that wants to weigh up its position over the next month. We acknowledge that some of our close partners have changed their position; others have not. We will work our way through the process, as we outlined on Tuesday.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What criteria does the prime minister believe Palestinians have not met that is preventing his government from immediately recognising their humanity and statehood on Wednesday?

Christopher Luxon: Well, as I explained earlier, it's been a longstanding, bipartisan position that New Zealand supports a two-state solution. It goes right back to 1947 and the partition. We want to see a State of Israel and a State of Palestine living peacefully, side by side. But we are going to review and weigh up our position, as we articulated, and it's an important issue, it's a complex issue, and we'll work through it sensibly and seriously.

Note: Luxon avoided answering several out-of-order questions that followed on the Israeli Defence Force having killed Al Jazeera journalists, whether the IDF's actions undermined Israel's own statehood, and what would be left to protect once the government makes a decision about statehood.

* RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.