Echo Chamber: Spineless, unacceptable, deeply offensive… C U next Tuesday?
Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus.
All eyes were on Chlöe Swarbrick from the moment she walked in the door. There was more security than usual in the public gallery; both police and parliamentary security stood on guard, as if they were expecting chaos from protesters. There were none to be seen – the gallery was mostly empty but for a school group.
The Green Party co-leader had ruffled the speaker's tail feathers the previous day by urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. Brownlee, who has typically been a rather passive speaker who lets MPs get away with more than they should, took great offence to this comment and ejected her from the chamber, saying she couldn't come back until she apologised.
As she returned to the house for Wednesday's question time, Brownlee began by inviting Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for her statement. 'I won't be doing that, Mr Speaker,' Swarbrick replied. 'Then the member is to leave the house,' Brownlee said. But Swarbrick did no such thing. She crossed one knee over the other and cast a contumacious gaze at the speaker's chair. This made Brownlee big mad. 'Is the member refusing to leave the House? I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick.'
Naming is an innocuous-sounding ruling that is actually one of the most serious punishments an MP can get, a suspension from the House for 'grossly disorderly behaviour'. Labour leader Chris Hipkins immediately tried to interject, but Brownlee was on a mission. He called for an oral vote to name Swarbrick. The government benches rang out with 'aye' and the opposition, 'no'. 'The ayes have it,' Brownlee declared, even though the nos were clearly louder. The opposition protested, so Brownlee called for a party vote. The parties voted down government lines, meaning the ayes won 68-54. 'The member will leave the house,' Brownlee said triumphantly.
At this, Swarbrick stood up and left her seat – but not without a quick 'free Palestine'. 'Yasss,' cheered Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
That was far from the end of the matter. The House then turned to a long debate about what had just happened. Chris Hipkins began with a characteristically pedantic complaint about the exact wording of the motion. 'I wonder whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was? Because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does.'
Brownlee had no patience for Hipkins' schtick. In an impressively petulant response, Brownlee hit back with 'in that case, I'll put it again'. The House repeated the same performance – again, the no vote was louder. Brownlee ruled with the ayes, but there was a protest, and another round of party votes yielded the same result as before.
Hipkins then questioned whether the punishment was warranted. It's common for MPs to be kicked out of the house for the day for unparliamentary comments, but it's extremely rare for speakers to demand an apology the following day. The only recent example was in 2015, when then prime minister John Key accused opposition MPs of 'backing rapists', prompting a mass walkout. 'That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost,' Hipkins said.
Willie Jackson, proudly one of parliament's Naughtiest Boys, wanted to give his personal input as someone who regularly gets in trouble with the speaker. 'I think this is outrageous,' he said. 'You have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes… It is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required.'
From across the room, Chris Bishop yelled 'you apologised' – which sent Jackson into a fit of righteous rage. 'I did not apologise. I did not apologise and I would never apologise.'
Winston Peters, whose party had now twice voted to name and suspend Swarbrick, then took to his feet to defend her. 'I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted.' He compared it to another John Key incident from 2015, when the then prime minister demanded the opposition 'get some guts' regarding sending troops to Iraq, and the recent hullabaloo where Brooke van Velden became the first MP to use the word 'cunt' in the house.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, not one to let Act have such a conspicuous honour to itself, decided to add her name to the list. 'There were many of us that were offended by the 'cunt' word,' she said. She argued that 'spineless' did not reach the same threshold and that the speaker's ruling appeared to be 'suppressing an opinion on the rights of Palestinians'.
Brownlee didn't react to the second use of the word 'cunt' under his watch, but the repeated use of 'spineless' sent him into a tizzy. He grasped desperately for his pearls like a Victorian lady about to faint onto a chaise longue after spotting some uncovered ankles. 'I personally found it deeply offensive,' he said. 'It was completely unacceptable' and 'a gratuitous insult'. Brownlee was on a moral crusade to right all the wrongs of society, starting with enforcing slightly more polite wording in the House of Representatives. 'If we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside.'
After about half an hour of arguing in circles, Brownlee finally put a stop to it and turned to the questions of the day. Winston Peters kicked things off by complaining, for the umpteenth time this term, about the use of the word 'Aotearoa' on the order paper. 'Who gave anybody the mandate to change this country's name?' he grumbled. And, for the umpteenth time this term, Brownlee told him that Aotearoa was a perfectly acceptable word. Everything was back to normal. Parliament was back on track.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: If we want to limit words in te reo Māori, what about words in English?
Surely every parent wants to hear their child's teacher say, 'He tohunga tō tamaiti ki te pānui' ('Your child is great at reading'), and for the parent to respond 'Ehara, ehara' ('Absolutely'). Sue Leman, Mt Albert. The children can cope It is astonishing to note so much alarm over the inclusion of Māori words in the reading programme for 5-year-olds. Surely teachers and children can both cope with the inclusion of vocabulary that many learners would already be familiar with. Songs in Māori, counting and skipping rhymes are known and often sung in kindergarten and pre-school situations. Most young children entering school would happily cope with 'pukeko' or 'pipi' as part of daily life and vocabulary. Growing up in New Zealand, they are also used to Aotearoa as the name of our motu. We have a hybrid language already; it's not easy or desirable to separate English and Māori usage. As a writer for Red Rocket Books, used as supplementary readers in junior classes, I am delighted to find some of my early titles being produced in Māori. Why would we want to backtrack on the language progress that has already been made? Would the education authorities please reconsider this restrictive attitude towards early school learning? Diana Burslem, Epsom. Blood-and-guts debate Gerry Brownlee has done it again! Add this latest fiasco in the debating chamber to his long list of 'Gerry Brownlee Gaffes' - and yes, there is a page with a list of at least 10 major gaffes on it. Brownlee defended his actions by saying Chlöe Swarbrick's words were directed personally at other coalition MPs. Oh no! That being the case then, why was Labour's Kieran McNulty not sent from the House in July last year when he said, 'They are spineless and gutless because they have given in to the whims of their coalition partners just to get into power', when referring to National. He went on to say, 'Utterly spineless and gutless.' There are many other examples of references to spines and guts being used, even by Sir John Key, which Brownlee enthusiastically applauded at the time. If anyone should be asked to apologise for their hasty actions, it's Brownlee. But I'm guessing he will be too gutless, or should that be spineless? Steve Jardine, Glendowie. Add to that list . . . Chlöe Swarbrick, the co-leader of the Green Party, was asked to leave the House yesterday for the second time after calling MPs spineless, or questioning whether enough of them had spines, and refusing to apologise. I support the cause Chlöe was espousing, in its essence, and also her right to make that comment in the House without being asked to leave. However, I wonder if she will now add to her list of spineless MPs two former Prime Ministers, (Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins) and two former ministers (Grant Robertson and Ayesha Verrall), who have all chosen not to appear in public hearings for the Covid Royal Commission of Inquiry, despite being asked to do so, as announced on Wednesday. Claire Chambers, Parnell. In support of Peters' approach It would seem that Hamas has now come out and thanked all of those nations that, in recent weeks, called for the recognition of a Palestinian state. Hamas claims that this was its ultimate aim and that it is grateful for the international support. That would underscore why Chlöe Swarbrick's call for support from 'six of 68 government MPs with a spine' was, in fact, way off course, and that Winston Peters' more cautious approach makes total sense. John Pendreigh, Westmere. Good on Chlöe! What Chlöe Swarbrick said in the House, and to reporters afterwards, was right on the money, and she should not have been told to withdraw her statement and apologise. Good on her for not doing so. Glenn Forsyth, Taupō.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
On The Lack Of Spine In New Zealand's Foreign Policy On Gaza
The word 'Gaza' is taking on similar connotations to what the word ' Auschwitz' meant to a previous generation. It signifies a deliberate and systematic attempt to erase an entire people from history on the basis of their ethnic identity. As a result, Israel is isolating itself as a pariah state on the world stage. This week alone has seen Israel target and kill four Al Jazeera journalists, just as it had executed eight Red Crescent medical staff and seven other first responders back in March, and then dumped their bodies in a mass grave. Overall 186 journalists have died at the hands of the IDF since October 7, 2023, and at least 1,400 medical staff as of May Monday night a five year old disabled child starved to death. Reportedly, he weighed only three kilograms when he died. Muhammad Zakaria Khudr was the 101st child among the 227 Palestinians now reported to have died from starvation. Meanwhile, PM Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters keep on saying that with regard to New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state, it is a matter of 'Not if, but when.' Yet why is ' but not now' still their default position? At this rate, a country that used to pride itself on its human rights record – New Zealand has never stopped bragging that this is where women won the right to vote, before they did anywhere else – will be among the last countries on earth to recognise Palestine's right to exist. What can we do ? Some options: (a) Boycott all Israeli goods and services (b) Engage with the local Palestinian community, and support their businesses, and cultural events (c) Donate financial support to Gaza. Here's a reliable link to directy support pregnant Gaza women and their babies (d) Lobby your local MP, and Immigration Minister Erika Stanford – to prioritise the inclusion of hundreds of Gazans in our refugee programme, just as we did in the wake of the civil war in Syria, and earlier, in Sudan (e) Write and phone your local MP, and urge them to support economic sanctions against Israel. These sanctions should include a sporting and cultural boycott along the lines we pursued so successfully against apartheid South Africa (f) Contact your KiwiSaver provider and let it be known that you will change providers if they invest in Israeli firms, or in the US, German and UK firms that supply the IDF with weapons and targeting systems. Contact the NZ Super Fund and urge them to divest along similar lines (g) Identify and picket any NZ firms that supply the US/Israeli war machines directly, or indirectly (h) Contact your local MP and urge him or her to support Chloe Swarbrick's private member's bill that would impose economic sanctions on the state of Israel for its unlawful occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Swarbrick's Bill is modelled on the existing Russian sanctions framework. If 61 MPs pledged support for Swarbrick's Bill, it would not have to win a private members ballot before being debated in Parliament. Currently 21 MPs (the Greens and TPM) formally support it. If and when Labour's 34 MPs come on board, this will still require another six MPs (from across the three coalition parties) to do the right thing. Goading MPs into doing the right thing got Swarbrick into a world of trouble this week. (Those wacky Greens. They're such idealists.) We should all be lobbying our local MPs for a firm commitment that they will back the Swarbrick Bill. Portray it to them as being in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and as them supporting the several UN resolutions on the status of the occupied territories. And if they still baulk ask them flatly- if not, why not? (i) Email/phone/write to the PM's office, and ask him to call in the Israeli ambassador and personally express New Zealand's repugnance at Israel's inhumane actions in Gaza and on the West Bank. The PM should also be communicating in person New Zealand's opposition to the recently announced Israeli plans for the annexation of Gaza City, and expansion of the war in Gaza. (h) Write to your MP, to the PM, and to Foreign Minister Winston Peters urging them to recognise Palestinian statehood right now. Inquire as to what further information they may need before making that decision, and offer to supply it. We need to learn how to share our outrage. (i) Learn about the history of this issue, so that you convince friends and family to take similar actions. Here's a bare bones timeline of the main historical events. This map showing (in white) the countries that are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood speaks volumes. Those holdout nations in white tend to have been the chief enablers of Israel's founding in 1948, a gesture of atonement driven by European guilt over the Holocaust. This 'homeland' for the Jews already had residents known to have had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Yet since 1948 the people of Palestine have been made to bear all of the bad consequences of the West's purging of its collective guilt. Conditional justice The same indifference to the lives of Palestinians is evident in the belated steps towards supporting the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Even the recognition promised by the UK,Canada, France and Australia next month is decked out with further conditions that the Palestinians are being told they need to meet. No equivalent demands are being made of Israel, despite the atrocities it is committing in Gaza. There's nothing new about this. Historically, all of the concessions have been made by the Palestinians, starting with their original displacement. Some 30 years ago, the Palestine Liberation Organisation formally recognised Israel's right to exist. In response, Israel immediately expanded its settlements on Palestinian land, a flagrant breach of the commitments it made in the Oslo Accords, and in the Gaza-Jericho Agreement. The West did nothing, said little. As the New York Times recently pointed out: In a 1993 exchange of letters, the Palestine Liberation Organization's chairman, Yasir Arafat, recognized the 'right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security' and committed the P.L.O. to peaceful negotiations, renouncing terrorism and amending the Palestinian charter to reflect these commitments. In return, Israel would merely recognize the P.L.O. as the representative of the Palestinian people — and only 'in light of' Mr. Arafat's commitments. Palestinian sovereignty remained remote; Israeli occupation continued apace. This double standard persists: This fundamental unfairness has informed every diplomatic effort since. The rump Palestinian government built the limited institutions it was permitted under the Oslo Accords, co-operated with Israeli security forces and voiced support for a peace process that had long been undermined by Israel. Led by then-Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority's statehood campaign in the 2000s was entirely based on playing the game according to rules set by Israel and the Western-dominated international community. Yet recognition remained stalled, the United States blocked Palestine's full membership in the United Nations — and still, no conditions were placed on the occupying power. That's where we're still at. Luxon, Peters and David Seymour are demanding more concessions from the Palestinians. They keep strongly denouncing the Hamas October 7 atrocities – which is valid - while weakly urging Israel to abide by the international laws and conventions that Israel repeatedly breaches. When a state deploys famine as a strategic weapon, doesn't it deserve to be condemned, up front and personal? Instead, the language that New Zealand uses to address Israel's crimes is almost invariably, and selectively, passive. Terrible things are 'happening' in Gaza and they must 'stop.' Children, mysteriously, are 'starving.' This is 'intolerable.' It is as if there is no human agent, and no state power responsible for these outcomes. Things are just somehow 'happening' and they must somehow 'cease.' Enough is enough, cries Peters, while carefully choosing not to name names, beyond Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has announced its plans to expand the war, even though 600 Israeli ex-officials (some of them from Shin Bet, Israel's equivalent to the SIS) have publicly said that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel. As mentioned, Israel is publicly discussing its plans for Gaza's ' voluntary emigration ' and for the permanent annexation of the West Bank. Even when urged to do so by Christopher Luxon, it seems that Israel is not actually complying with international law, and is not fulfilling its legal obligations as an occupying power. Has anyone told Luxon about this yet? Two state fantasy, one state reality At one level, continuing to call for a 'two state' solution is absurd, given that the Knesset formally rejected the proposal a year ago. More than once, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly denounced it while also laying Israel's claim to all of the land west of Jordan, which would include the West Bank and Gaza. Evidently, the slogan ' from the river to sea' is only a terrorist slogan when Hamas uses it. Yet the phrase originated as a Likud the West evidently thinks it is quite OK for Netanyahu to publicly call for Israeli hegemony from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Basic rule of diplomacy: bad is what they do, good is what we do, and we have always been on Team Israel. Over the course of the three decades since the Oslo Accords were signed, the West has kept on advocating for a two state solution, while acting as if only one of those states has a right to exist. On what land do Luxon and Peters think that a viable Palestinian state can be built? One pre-condition for Palestinian statehood that Luxon cited to RNZ last week required Israel to be 'not undermining the territorial integrity that would then undermine the two state solution.' Really? Does Luxon not realise that this is exactly what Israel has been doing for the past 30 years? Talking of which.. are Luxon and Peters genuinely expecting Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders? That land was agreed at Oslo and mandated by the UN as the territory needed for a viable Palestinian state. Yet on the relatively small area of the West Bank alone, 3.4 million Palestinians currently subsist on disconnected patches of land under occupation amid extreme settler violence, while contending with 614 Israeli checkpoints and other administrative obstacles impeding their free movement. Here's what the land left to the Palestinians looks like today: A brief backgrounder on Areas A, B and C and how they operate can be found here. Obviously, this situation cannot be the template for a viable Palestinian state. What Is The Point? You might well the light of the above, what is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? Given the realities on the ground, it can only be a symbolic gesture. The reversion to the 1967 borders (a necessary step towards a Palestinian state) can happen only if the US agreed to push Israel in that direction by withholding funds and weaponry. That's very hard to imagine. The hypocrisy of the Western nations on this issue is breath-taking. The US and Germany continue to be Israel's main foreign suppliers of weapons and targeting systems. Under Keir Starmer's leadership as well, the UK sales of military equipment to Israel have sharply increased. New export licensing figures show that the UK approved licenses for £127.6 million worth of military equipment to Israel in single issue licenses between October to December 2024. This is a massive increase, with the figure in this three-month period totaling more than 2020-2023 combined. Thanks to an explicitly enacted legal exemption, the UK also continues to supply parts for Israel's F-35 jets. UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts [ estimated ] to be worth at least £500 million since 2016, and [this] is the most significant part of the UK arms industry [relationship]with least 79 companies [are] involved in manufacturing components. These are the same F-35 war planes that the IDF has used to drop 2,000 pound bombs on densely populated residential neighbourhoods in Gaza. Starmer cannot credibly pose has as a man of peace. So exactly is the point of recognising Palestine as a state? No doubt, it would boost Palestinian morale if some major Western powers finally conceded that Palestine has a right to exist. In that narrow sense, recognition would correct a historical injustice. There is also optimistic talk that formal Palestinian statehood would isolate the US on the Security Council (Trump would probably wear that as a badge of honour) and would make Israel more accountable under humanitarian law. As if. Theoretically, a recognition of statehood would also enable people in New Zealand and elsewhere to apply pressure to their governments to forthrightly condemn and sanction Israel for its crimes against a fellow UN member state. None of this, however, is likely to change the reality on the ground, or prevent the calls for Israel's 'accountability' and for its 'compliance with international law' from ringing hollow. As the NYT also says: After almost two years of severe access restrictions and the dismantling of the U.N.-led aid system in favour of a militarized food distribution that has left more than 1,300 Palestinians dead, [now 1,838 dead at these 'aid centres' since late May, as of yesterday ]... The 15 nations [at a UN meeting in late July that signed a declaration on Gaza] still would not collectively say 'Israel is responsible for starvation in Gaza.' If they cannot name the problem, they can hardly hope to resolve it. In world may talk the talk of Palestinian statehood being a matter of 'not if, but when' and witter on about the 'irreversible steps' being taken toward statehood, and finally - somewhere over the rainbow – towards a two state solution. Faint chance: 'For those who are starving today, the only irreversible step is death. Until statehood recognition brings action — arms embargoes, sanctions, enforcement of international law — it will remain a largely empty promise that serves primarily to distract from Western complicity in Gaza's destruction. Exactly. Behind the words of concern are the actions of complicity. The people of Gaza do not have time to wait for symbolic actions, or for sanctions to weaken Israel's appetite for genocide. Consider this option: would New Zealand support an intervention in Gaza by a UN-led international force to save Gaza's dwindling population, and to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected, however belatedly? Would we be willing to commit troops to such a force if asked to do so by the UN Secretary-General? That is what is now needed. Footnote One: On Gaza, the Luxon government has a high tolerance for double standards and Catch 22 conditions. We are insisting that the Palestinians must release the remaining hostages unconditionally, lay down their arms and de-militarise the occupied territories. Yet we are applying no similar pre-conditions on Israel to withdraw, de-militarise the same space, release all their Palestinian prisoners, allow the unrestricted distribution of food and medical supplies, and negotiate a sustainable peace. Understandably, Hamas has tied the release of the remaining hostages to the Israeli cessation of their onslaught, to unfettered aid distribution, and to a long-term commitment to Palestinian self-rule. Otherwise, once the Israeli hostages are home, there would be nothing to stop Israel from renewing the genocide. We are also demanding that Hamas be excluded from any future governing arrangement in Gaza, but – simultaneously - Peters told the House recently that this governing arrangement must also be 'representative.' Catch 22. 'Representative' democracy it seems, means voting for the people pre-selected by the West. Again, no matching demands have been made of Israel with respect to its role in the future governance of Gaza, or about its obligation to rebuild what it has criminally destroyed. Footnote Two: There is only one rational explanation for why New Zealand is currently holding back from joining the UK, Canada, France and Australia in voting next month to recognise Palestine as a full UN member state. It seems we are cravenly hoping that Australia's stance will be viewed with such disfavour by Donald Trump that he will punish Canberra by lifting its tariff rate from 10%, thereby erasing the 5% advantage that Australia currently enjoys oven us in the US market. At least this tells us what the selling price is for our 'independent' foreign policy. We're prepared to sell it out to the Americans – and sell out the Palestinians in the process – if, by sitting on the fence for now, we can engineer parity for our exports with Australia in US markets. ANZAC mates, forever.
The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Spineless, unacceptable, deeply offensive… C U next Tuesday?
Inside parliament, as MPs and speaker Gerry Brownlee battled over his decision to suspend Chlöe Swarbrick for calling government MPs spineless. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. All eyes were on Chlöe Swarbrick from the moment she walked in the door. There was more security than usual in the public gallery; both police and parliamentary security stood on guard, as if they were expecting chaos from protesters. There were none to be seen – the gallery was mostly empty but for a school group. The Green Party co-leader had ruffled the speaker's tail feathers the previous day by urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. Brownlee, who has typically been a rather passive speaker who lets MPs get away with more than they should, took great offence to this comment and ejected her from the chamber, saying she couldn't come back until she apologised. As she returned to the house for Wednesday's question time, Brownlee began by inviting Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for her statement. 'I won't be doing that, Mr Speaker,' Swarbrick replied. 'Then the member is to leave the house,' Brownlee said. But Swarbrick did no such thing. She crossed one knee over the other and cast a contumacious gaze at the speaker's chair. This made Brownlee big mad. 'Is the member refusing to leave the House? I therefore name Chlöe Swarbrick.' Naming is an innocuous-sounding ruling that is actually one of the most serious punishments an MP can get, a suspension from the House for 'grossly disorderly behaviour'. Labour leader Chris Hipkins immediately tried to interject, but Brownlee was on a mission. He called for an oral vote to name Swarbrick. The government benches rang out with 'aye' and the opposition, 'no'. 'The ayes have it,' Brownlee declared, even though the nos were clearly louder. The opposition protested, so Brownlee called for a party vote. The parties voted down government lines, meaning the ayes won 68-54. 'The member will leave the house,' Brownlee said triumphantly. At this, Swarbrick stood up and left her seat – but not without a quick 'free Palestine'. 'Yasss,' cheered Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. That was far from the end of the matter. The House then turned to a long debate about what had just happened. Chris Hipkins began with a characteristically pedantic complaint about the exact wording of the motion. 'I wonder whether you could indicate to us what the motion that the House just voted on actually was? Because if it was the one that you spoke, it doesn't have the effect that you think it does.' Brownlee had no patience for Hipkins' schtick. In an impressively petulant response, Brownlee hit back with 'in that case, I'll put it again'. The House repeated the same performance – again, the no vote was louder. Brownlee ruled with the ayes, but there was a protest, and another round of party votes yielded the same result as before. Hipkins then questioned whether the punishment was warranted. It's common for MPs to be kicked out of the house for the day for unparliamentary comments, but it's extremely rare for speakers to demand an apology the following day. The only recent example was in 2015, when then prime minister John Key accused opposition MPs of 'backing rapists', prompting a mass walkout. 'That was a very controversial matter, and it was at least a week later that the speaker asked him to withdraw and apologise in order to restore order in the House, which had been lost,' Hipkins said. Willie Jackson, proudly one of parliament's Naughtiest Boys, wanted to give his personal input as someone who regularly gets in trouble with the speaker. 'I think this is outrageous,' he said. 'You have kicked me out twice for calling another member a liar, and then I've been out of the House for less than 30 minutes… It is incredibly unfair that I can call another member a liar, rightfully get kicked out of the House, and come back into the House within half an hour, with no apology required.' From across the room, Chris Bishop yelled 'you apologised' – which sent Jackson into a fit of righteous rage. 'I did not apologise. I did not apologise and I would never apologise.' Winston Peters, whose party had now twice voted to name and suspend Swarbrick, then took to his feet to defend her. 'I don't agree with a thing that Chlöe Swarbrick said at all, but this is a robust House where people have a right to express their views as passionately as they may, within certain rules. But I do not think that eviction was warranted.' He compared it to another John Key incident from 2015, when the then prime minister demanded the opposition 'get some guts' regarding sending troops to Iraq, and the recent hullabaloo where Brooke van Velden became the first MP to use the word 'cunt' in the house. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, not one to let Act have such a conspicuous honour to itself, decided to add her name to the list. 'There were many of us that were offended by the 'cunt' word,' she said. She argued that 'spineless' did not reach the same threshold and that the speaker's ruling appeared to be 'suppressing an opinion on the rights of Palestinians'. Brownlee didn't react to the second use of the word 'cunt' under his watch, but the repeated use of 'spineless' sent him into a tizzy. He grasped desperately for his pearls like a Victorian lady about to faint onto a chaise longue after spotting some uncovered ankles. 'I personally found it deeply offensive,' he said. 'It was completely unacceptable' and 'a gratuitous insult'. Brownlee was on a moral crusade to right all the wrongs of society, starting with enforcing slightly more polite wording in the House of Representatives. 'If we don't change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside.' After about half an hour of arguing in circles, Brownlee finally put a stop to it and turned to the questions of the day. Winston Peters kicked things off by complaining, for the umpteenth time this term, about the use of the word 'Aotearoa' on the order paper. 'Who gave anybody the mandate to change this country's name?' he grumbled. And, for the umpteenth time this term, Brownlee told him that Aotearoa was a perfectly acceptable word. Everything was back to normal. Parliament was back on track.
