Yesterday in Parliament Christopher Luxon showed that he is struggling on the job.
Good Prime Ministers have a solid grasp of the detail. They are briefed, are on top of the facts and understand and are prepared for the variety of potential attacks on the Government’s position. Helen Clark was extraordinary, Jacinda Ardern was exceptional and John Key was frustratingly good. He was always well briefed, knew his stuff and was able to pivot and avoid traps.
Christopher Luxon is none of those. Here is exhibit A in support of this statement.
And here is exhibit B.
His misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of the International Court of Justice decision on Palestine was particularly galling. As shown in this exchange with Shaw:
Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that under article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, New Zealand has an obligation to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not sure the point of the question that the member is trying to ask or get to.
Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To assist the Prime Minister, the point of the question was to ask if he was aware of article 1 of the convention.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Personally not aware, but if he’d like to direct a specific question to the relevant Minister, I’m sure we could help.
Hon James Shaw: What actions is the Government taking to meet its obligations under article 1 of the genocide convention in light of the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that found a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was a provisional finding, and it wasn’t a plausible risk.
Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ICJ did find that there was a plausible risk of genocide, which would—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Excuse me; when a question is being asked, the House is silent. Start again.
Hon James Shaw: Is he aware that the ICJ did find that there is a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza—
Hon Chris Bishop: And not a genocide.
Hon James Shaw: —and that—
SPEAKER: Mr Bishop.
Hon James Shaw: —and that that would trigger New Zealand’s obligations under article 1 of the convention to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct.
Hon James Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a difference between having found whether genocide has taken place or whether there is a plausible risk of genocide taking place, and that article 1 of the convention requires New Zealand to take action to prevent genocide before it occurs—i.e., when there is a plausible risk?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. That is part of a full and substantive hearing that will take place in subsequent months and years.
The point is important because the ICJ clearly found it plausible that Israel’s actions could amount to genocide. The consequence is, as pointed out by Shaw, that New Zealand is then required to take steps to prevent genocide. A finding that it is plausible that genocide is occurring means that New Zealand and other States should take action. Luxon has no understanding of the nuance of the question, nor even what New Zealand’s obligations under the treaty are.
And he had to come back to Parliament and correct his answer. From Hansard:
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question during oral question No. 4 today.
SPEAKER: That’s to give a personal explanation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I said that there wasn’t a plausible risk. What I should have said is that the court was not required to determine whether Israel had actually breached its obligations under the genocide convention. Therefore, the court did not make any findings that Israel has actually engaged in genocidal conduct. However, the court found that there is a plausible case that Israel’s conduct in Gaza may breach its obligations under the genocide convention. That will be the subject of a full and substantive hearing in the International Court of Justice.
From Hipkins’ questions it is clear that Labour has information that Casey Costello gave NZ First policy documents to Officials to then develop policy options for the Government. I expect we will hear a lot more about this in the future.
In the meantime I suspect that National and Luxon are beginning to dread every time he stands up in the house. And it is abundantly clear that in the house he is no John Key.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress