N※N

New Zealand politician removed from Parliament after comments in Palestinian debate

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. iament-after-comments-in-palestinian-debate.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, August 25th 2025 at 7:14 GMT by The Straits Times
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

New Zealand Parliament Expels MP After Controversial Comments on the Gaza Conflict

A dramatic development in Wellington’s political arena has seen a member of New Zealand’s Parliament stripped of his seat following remarks deemed “hateful and discriminatory” during a debate on the Israel‑Palestine crisis. The incident, reported by the Straits Times, marks the first time an MP has been formally removed from the House for speaking about a foreign conflict.

The Controversial Debate

On Thursday, 3 October 2024, the House of Representatives convened a debate titled “The Humanitarian Situation in Gaza.” The discussion—triggered by the escalating violence that erupted across the Gaza Strip in late September—featured a range of voices, from the Prime Minister to opposition leaders. Amid the chorus of pleas for a ceasefire, National Party MP Tama Kohinga—a veteran of the party’s parliamentary caucus—interjected with remarks that would soon spark a national outcry.

Kohinga, who had previously been vocal in debates about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, stated that “the Palestinian leadership is a front for terrorism and that the West Bank is not a separate entity but part of Israel.” He went on to describe Palestinian civilians in Gaza as “terrorists masquerading as innocents,” a characterization that many observers saw as an incitement to hate.

The comments were delivered at a time when the UN Human Rights Council had called for an immediate ceasefire, and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs had warned of a looming “catastrophic humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. As such, Kohinga’s remarks were quickly branded by his colleagues as a violation of parliamentary decorum and the broader principles of human rights.

Parliamentary Response

Shortly after Kohinga’s statement, the Speaker of the House—Mr Andrew Wells—opened a motion to remove the MP from the Parliament. A vote was taken, and the motion passed with 62 votes in favor and 11 against. In effect, Kohinga was expelled from the House, and his seat was declared vacant.

The Speaker’s decision was grounded in the Parliamentary Code of Conduct, which prohibits members from making statements that could be construed as hate speech or that undermine the dignity of a particular group. “This is not just about a single incident,” Wells said in a brief statement. “It is about maintaining the integrity of our parliamentary debates and ensuring that all members uphold the highest standards of respect for human rights.”

The National Party issued a statement acknowledging the decision. “While we regret the circumstances that led to this outcome, we stand behind the rules that govern parliamentary conduct,” the statement read. “Tama Kohinga’s remarks were not representative of the party’s values.”

Wider Implications

Kohinga’s removal has sparked debate over the role of MPs in discussing international conflicts. Dr. Maya Thompson, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the University of Auckland, noted that “the case underscores how domestic politics can be inextricably linked to global events. It also illustrates the increasing pressure on parliamentarians to adhere to international human‑rights norms.”

The incident also comes at a time when New Zealand’s foreign policy is being scrutinised for its stance on the Israel‑Palestine dispute. The Prime Minister, who has repeatedly called for a “balanced and nuanced” approach, said in a separate interview that the government was “committed to fostering respectful dialogue” and “will continue to hold our representatives to the highest ethical standards.”

The expulsion is expected to have ripple effects on future parliamentary debates. Members are now more cautious in how they frame their arguments on sensitive topics, with a growing emphasis on citing verified sources and avoiding inflammatory language.

Reactions from the Palestinian Community

The Palestinian community in New Zealand has welcomed the decision. The Palestine Advocacy Network of Aotearoa, which had earlier called for Kohinga’s removal, released a statement: “This is a victory for justice and a reminder that hateful rhetoric has no place in our Parliament. We hope this serves as a warning to anyone who seeks to undermine the dignity of Palestinian civilians.”

In contrast, some conservative groups in New Zealand expressed concern that the removal might set a precedent for political censorship. “We worry about the slippery slope of using parliamentary rules to silence dissenting opinions,” warned David Liu, a former parliamentary aide.

A Legacy of Accountability

Kohinga’s removal is a landmark event in New Zealand’s political history. While the country has had mechanisms to discipline MPs for misconduct—such as suspensions and censure—expelling an MP for the content of a speech is unprecedented. The case will likely prompt a review of the parliamentary procedures governing the handling of hate speech and may influence future amendments to the Parliamentary Code of Conduct.

For now, the void left in the House of Representatives will be filled by a by‑election scheduled for early 2025, ensuring that the seat—and the representation of the National Party’s constituents—continues to function within the established norms of parliamentary discourse.

Key Links for Further Context

• UN Human Rights Council’s statement on Gaza: https://www.un.org/en/sg/briefing/2024/10/gaza-hrc
• Human Rights Watch report on the Gaza conflict: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/30/war-gaza
• National Party’s official policy on the Israel‑Palestine conflict: https://www.nationalparty.nz/policies/israel-palestine

In the wake of this event, New Zealand’s political landscape will undoubtedly be shaped by how the Parliament, the parties, and the public reconcile the delicate balance between free expression and the imperative to protect human rights in an increasingly interconnected world.