Chris Hipkins accused PM of failing to call out illegality of US

Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins accused Prime Minister Christopher Luxon of ducking a clear legal judgement over United States and Israeli strikes on Iran, escalating a sharp exchange over New Zealand’s foreign policy stance.

Hipkins said the strikes were illegal and should have been labelled as such by the Government. He warned that refusing to make that call weakened New Zealand’s commitment to international law and the rules-based order successive governments had claimed to defend.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

“We have been very clear that we think international law matters, and that all parties to these sorts of conflicts should follow international law. That’s not the case here,” Hipkins said to RNZ.

Speaking publicly on the issue, Hipkins argued that small nations relied on international law for their protection and influence. He said if powerful countries could act militarily without being challenged on legality, smaller states like New Zealand stood to lose.

“If the situation becomes that the countries with the most power can do whatever they like regardless of what international law says, that’s very bad news for a small country like New Zealand.”

Image: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon pauses mid-answer at Monday’s post-Cabinet press conference, appearing to stumble over his response as questions mount about the legality of overseas military strikes. (Courtesy of 1News)

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Luxon confirmed New Zealand would not participate in any military action. However, he declined to state whether he considered the strikes lawful. He said New Zealand had not been privy to the intelligence that informed the operation and pointed to concerns about nuclear proliferation and security risks in the region.

As he put it, “Issues of legality [are] for Israel and the US to talk to because we’re not party to that information or that intelligence they may have.”

Luxon signalled alignment with key partners while stopping short of endorsing or condemning the legality of the strikes. That “understand[s] fully why the Americans and Israelis have undertaken the independent action… to make sure Iran can’t threaten people.”

The response from the Prime Minister was framed within a decade-long bipartisan view, “we’ve had a long-standing commitment under successive governments that any actions that stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing.”

Hipkins rejected that position, and said it was about the principle of whether international law had been upheld.

“New Zealand’s government should stand up for the international system of rules that we rely on for our own security as a country,” he said.

The exchange exposed a widening political divide over how assertive New Zealand should be when close allies take controversial military action.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Video: 1News senior political correspondent Maiki Sherman’s report, where Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stumbled his way through Monday’s press conference. (Courtesy of 1News)

The moment of exchange was a test of consistency and argued New Zealand’s credibility depended on speaking plainly about breaches of international norms.

International scrutiny over the strikes intensified, placing added pressure on Wellington to articulate a clear and principled position.

New Zealand’s role as an independent voice on the world stage is under scrutiny, with the government emphasising diplomatic relationships and regional stability.

Support Brief Banner

Keep independent journalism going.

We are independent and committed to bringing authentic reporting to the people.

thisquality is built for the people and powered by their support. People like you reading this free article help us remain a strong and independent platform within New Zealand's media landscape.

Advertisement
    
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

I'd like to donate

About thisquality

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉