When foreign governments sanction MPs, New Zealand must do more than ‘express concern’

Thursday, 4 June 2026

Louisa Wall and Simon O'Connor are former members of parliament, and alumni members on the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC).

OPINION: The sanctioning of four New Zealand members of Parliament for visiting Taiwan is a matter of serious concern, not simply for those individuals, but for the integrity and independence of New Zealand's democratic institutions.

This issue extends beyond foreign policy. It raises fundamental questions about whether elected representatives can carry out their parliamentary duties free from pressure, intimidation or coercion by foreign states.

The MPs concerned represent different political parties and travelled to Taiwan as part of their legitimate parliamentary activities. Reports that they have been banned from entering China, Hong Kong and Macau, and that such sanctions could be reduced or lifted if they apologised for their visit, should concern all New Zealanders regardless of their political views.

Read more:

• Australia backs NZ MPs banned from China, expressing concern alongside Winston Peters

• 'Pineapple diplomacy': The MPs trying to bring NZ closer to Taiwan

• Foreign Minister Winston Peters blasts Chinese ambassador’s 'mistake'

New Zealand’s official position remains firmly committed to an independent, bipartisan foreign policy. Successive governments have emphasised that New Zealand makes its decisions based on its own values and interests, rather than alignment with any major power bloc.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters have both reaffirmed this principle, while also acknowledging that it must be exercised in a more complex and contested global security environment.

The significance of this development is heightened by New Zealand's recent efforts to strengthen protections against foreign interference. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Act 2025 was introduced to safeguard democratic institutions and ensure that New Zealand's political processes remain free from coercion and external influence.

While diplomatic disagreements between states are not unusual, attempts to pressure elected representatives to alter or recant legitimate political activities strike at the heart of democratic sovereignty. New Zealand MPs must remain free to meet, travel, engage and exchange ideas with international partners without fear of foreign reprisal.

The experience of the European Parliament provides an important precedent. When Members of the European Parliament were sanctioned by China for their engagement with Taiwan and for expressing views on human rights issues, the European Parliament responded institutionally.

It treated the sanctions not merely as an attack on individual members, but as a challenge to the independence and authority of the Parliament itself. Official dialogue was suspended and parliamentary solidarity was demonstrated across party lines. Ultimately, China lifted those sanctions.

New Zealand should consider a similarly principled response.

Parliament should make clear that sanctions imposed on individual MPs for carrying out their duties are a matter affecting the institution as a whole. This could include:

• A cross-party motion affirming support for the four MPs and the independence of Parliament.

• An urgent debate on the implications of foreign sanctions against New Zealand parliamentarians.

• Consideration by the Privileges Committee or the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the constitutional and democratic implications of such actions.

• A review of parliamentary exchanges and engagement while sanctions against New Zealand MPs remain in force.

The Speaker of the House has an important role in affirming the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament and in defending Parliament's institutional independence. Likewise, the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs should make clear that New Zealand expects its elected representatives to be able to carry out their duties without external coercion or intimidation.

This is not a question of supporting one political party, one country, or one foreign policy position. It is a question of whether New Zealand's democratic institutions are prepared to defend their own independence.

The issue before us is simple: if foreign governments can penalise New Zealand MPs for where they travel, who they meet, or what views they express in the course of their parliamentary duties, then the independence of Parliament itself is at stake.

A confident democracy does not respond to such pressure with silence. It responds by reaffirming the rights, freedom and sovereignty that underpin its institutions.