Chlöe Swarbrick ejected from Parliament after Gaza speech
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has been ejected from Parliament's debating chamber and barred for the rest of the week after a fiery speech about the war in Gaza.
She was taking part in an urgent debate called after the coalition's announcement that it would come to a formal decision in September over whether to recognise the state of Palestine.
As Swarbrick came to the end of her contribution, she challenged the coalition MPs to back her member's bill allowing New Zealand to apply sanctions on Israel "for its war crimes".
"If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history," Swarbrick said.
Almost immediately, Speaker Gerry Brownlee condemned the remark as "completely unacceptable" and demanded she "withdraw it and apologise".
Swarbrick shot back a curt - "no" - prompting Brownlee to order her out of the chamber for the remainder of the week.
"Happily," Swarbrick said, as she rose to leave.
Earlier, during Parliament's Question Time, Act leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour objected to Swarbrick having a Palestinian scarf, or keffiyeh, draped across her seat.
"I invite you to consider what this House might look like if everybody who had an interest in a global conflict started adorning their seats with symbols of one side or another of a conflict," he said.
"I think that would bring the House into disrepute and no member should be allowed to do such a thing."
Brownlee said Seymour raised a good point, only for Swarbrick to then wrap the scarf around her neck.
"Oh, here we go," he said. "Well, stay warm. We'll move on now."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
25 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Israeli far-right minister backs contentious West Bank settlement plan
Israel's finance minister has backed plans to build 3400 homes in a particularly contentious area of the occupied West Bank, calling for the territory's annexation in response to several countries' plans to recognise a Palestinian state. In response, the United Nations chief warned that building Israeli homes in the area
NZ Herald
3 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.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Only one option on recognising Palestinian state
Recognising a supposed state which is split in two, with one bit run by the corrupt Fatah movement and the other by the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hamas, surely meets those tests. Yet Peters going so public on the matter on Monday was still extraordinary. In a formal media statement, the Foreign Minister publicly acknowledged the Cabinet is divided over whether to recognise Palestine, with 'a broad range of strongly held views within our Government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society'. 'This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue,' Peters said, in what risks reading as a subtle dig at Luxon. Peters promised to approach the matter 'calmly, cautiously and judiciously' and to 'canvass this broad range of views before taking a proposal to Cabinet' which he would then present in New York late next month, when representing New Zealand at the UN's annual leaders' week. While Peters would be right to worry about US President Donald Trump's reaction to New Zealand recognising Palestine in an age of arbitrary tariffs, it is almost unthinkable that Cabinet would decide against it. Recognition of a Palestinian state is common ground between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, representing over two-thirds of MPs in Parliament, and of at least two of the smaller parties. It is also now the position of our only military ally and biggest economic partner, Australia, and the conditional stance of two other close Five Eyes friends, the UK and Canada. Strong objections can be made that the divided Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the usual tests of statehood, including control of territory and effective government. Moreover, recognising Palestine as a state risks being seen not just as endorsing the corrupt West Bank regime of Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas – now into the 20th year of his first four-year term – but the evil Hamas organisation which has run Gaza for nearly as long. On the other hand, that may be too purist. Recognising Palestinian statehood is not about supporting Abbas or Hamas but a way of expressing opposition, not to Israel itself, but to its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It isn't clear if Luxon meant his attack on Netanyahu this week – that he has 'gone way too far' and 'lost the plot' – to be so unequivocal that it attracted global media attention and was flattered by a tough response from Israel. 'When you don't really need an army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat,' its deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel said tartly but not inaccurately, 'you wouldn't comprehend the challenges that come with facing Hamas – a jihadist death cult – only a few kilometres away from your country, that rape, execute, burn alive and starve your people.' Nevertheless, Luxon almost certainly spoke for a majority of the Cabinet, Parliament and New Zealanders. The only inaccurate part about his critique of Netanyahu is that he described his going too far and losing the plot as a recent development. In fact, Netanyahu – who has been on trial for corruption and fraud in the Jerusalem District Court since 2020 – has tragically been coming to mirror his enemies for much longer. Israel and the world would be better off had he retired from politics after he implemented his extraordinarily successful economic reforms 20 years ago. He has managed even to alienate Germany, whose leaders have described one of the purposes of the very existence of their country since 1949 as being to assure the security of Israel. Even it has felt forced to suspend all military exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. With Luxon having made his attitude so clear – not just to New Zealanders but to the international community – Cabinet cannot choose other than to endorse his support for New Zealand recognising Palestinian statehood. No matter how frustrating it can sometimes be for foreign ministers, foreign policy is ultimately the prerogative of the head of government. If, somehow, Luxon's views were not to prevail on such a matter, he would be rendered a complete lame duck around his own Cabinet table. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, actively deciding not to recognise Palestine in the current international environment would no longer be interpreted as a refusal to do anything that would legitimise Hamas but as an active endorsement of Netanyahu and some of the extremist parties that keep him in office and so potentially out of jail. New Zealand foreign and trade policy is strongest and most successful when it reflects a consensus between National and Labour. For all their faults, they are ultimately the grown-ups in the room. The antics of Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick or the more reflexively pro-Israel views of some within the Act Party should not influence the forthcoming decision. The Cabinet Manual demands that matters such as this be considered at that level, and not just resolved in a meeting between the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and Foreign Minister. So be it. Cabinet government is a better system than taking decisions on a Prime Minister's couch. Still, with New Zealand's unfolding economic crisis needing to be tackled without distraction, it would be better if the decision could be taken more quickly than late September. And it should be the Prime Minister who makes the announcement in New Zealand and explains why the decision was made, not the Foreign Minister at the UN in New York. As leader of the country, not just a mere first among equals around the Cabinet table, Luxon needs to assert himself.
