Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has criticised the joint statement from Christopher Luxon and his counterparts from Australia and Canada that called for a pause in hostilities in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The joint statement called for Hamas to release all hostages and to "stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and lay down its arms".
It comes after New Zealand joined 152 other countries in voting in favour of an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, while countries like the US and Austria voted against it.
While the resolution is non-binding, it serves as an indicator of global opinion.
Clark, who is also a former United Nations Development Programme Administrator, hit out at the UN saying it has been "missing in action" in the Middle East.
"The UN has been a bit of a bystander on the political process in the Middle East for a long time. It of course has done a good job in rallying the humanitarian and other kinds of support, but on peace and security it's been missing in action," Clark told AM co-host Melissa Chan-Green.
"But somehow this dispute has to have international actors now coming into play because left to the two sides, they're not going to reach an agreement which will lead to a two-state solution. So the UN may have some role to play."
Clark appeared on AM on Thursday morning and told the show a lot of weight lies on the shoulders of the US - which should be doing more to stop the fighting.
"Clearly, it didn't stop the bombing overnight. The General Assembly has spoken and spoken extremely loudly that there's very little support for voting down that resolution. But nonetheless, the killing went on," she said.
"The question is, I think now the extent to which the United States will try to put brakes on Israel. It's been uttering the words, but really hasn't done enough to convince Israel that it has to stop this and start to look for a way forward that doesn't involve cycles of war in Gaza."
Clark told AM Australia and Canada had moved their position to support a pause in fighting after abstaining at the UN General Assembly in October, which she believes will be a concern for the US.
"I think the statement was a little bit of a setback from the New Zealand position. It used language that New Zealand hadn't used before. Take for example this phrase, quote, 'defeating Hamas'. Now, Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, questioned this a week or two back and he said, what does this mean," she said.
"Those who go deeper into the situation know that Hamas, of course, has a military wing that committed terrorist acts on the 7th of October and at other times, but it has also been a social and political movement.
"I have to say, the world is full of examples from South Africa to East Timor to Kenya to wherever, where those previously designated, quote, 'terrorists' have ended up in governments or leading them. So this kind of phraseology, I think, has not been consistent with where New Zealand has been at."
Clark was critical of the statement and the part that said there is "no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza".
She told AM these "absolutist statements aren't actually helpful" and believes New Zealand's foreign policy is "shuffling" in a direction, which she described as concerning.
"We've been consistent in deploring terrorism, but we've also been consistent in wanting sustainable peace and what I learned over many years of public life, both in New Zealand and then at the UN, is that sometimes peace comes with trade-offs," she said. "Do you pursue justice to the extent that you can't get peace?"
Watch the interview above for more.
