Palestine debate deepens as Speaker faces scrutiny over Swarbrick ban
Swarbrick's stand-off enters third day
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was yesterday suspended from Parliament for the rest of the week after again refusing to apologise for her remark urging 'government MPs with a spine' to back her bill sanctioning Israel. The clash with Speaker Gerry Brownlee began on Tuesday, when Swarbrick refused to withdraw the comment during a snap debate on Palestinian statehood. Brownlee ejected her for the day, and warned she could not return without an apology. For more on Tuesday's events, read Lyric Waiwiri-Smith's latest Echo Chamber column for The Spinoff.
On Wednesday, after a private meeting failed to resolve the standoff, Swarbrick entered the debating chamber, Brownlee again asked her to apologise, and she declined. After she refused his first request to leave, Brownlee moved to 'name' her – a formal disciplinary step triggering a suspension. Brownlee said he was coming down hard on Swarbrick because she delivered the 'personal insult' during a speech to the House, not as an interjection.
Speaker's powers under scrutiny
Speaking after her second ousting, Swarbrick said Brownlee was operating under a double standard, noting that John Key in 2015 had called for the opposition to 'get some guts' in a speech, without being punished at all. Writing in The Spinoff, constitutional law expert Andrew Geddis says Brownlee's approach appears to go beyond what Parliament's rules allow. Standing Order 90(1) empowers the Speaker to eject an MP only 'for the remainder of that day's sitting' – not to impose an open-ended ban until an apology is made. Geddis contrasted this with the treatment of Labour's Willie Jackson earlier this year, who was ordered out for calling Act leader David Seymour a liar – in a speech – but returned the next day without apologising.
The one-day rule goes back almost a quarter-century, Geddis notes. In 2001, then Speaker Jonathan Hunt ruled on the issue, confirming that once an MP has left for refusing to apologise, 'the matter is at an end'. By effectively rewriting that precedent, Geddis argues, Brownlee appears to have created 'a disciplinary consequence that appears nowhere' in the Standing Orders – parliamentary rules that are meant to stay the same, no matter the Speaker.
Recognition debate drags on
The row over Swarbrick's suspension comes against a backdrop of growing frustration at the government's slow progress on Palestinian statehood. Australia, Canada, France and the UK have announced recognition plans ahead of next month's UN General Assembly, but New Zealand has only said it will have made a decision by then. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the government is 'waiting for other countries to take a principled stance before we're willing to do so', while Audrey Young of the NZ Herald (paywalled) calls the approach 'the classic bob-each-way position of a small state' – seeking to avoid alienating Israel, Palestine or their respective supporters.
For Swarbrick, the delay is unconscionable. 'We are a laggard, we are an outlier … We are one of the very few countries in the world who, so far, refuse to acknowledge the absolute bare minimum,' she told the House before her first ejection.
Act's hard line complicates talks
One reason for the hold-up is Cabinet's current consensus rule, which effectively gives each coalition partner a veto on any decision. In Politik (paywalled), Richard Harman reports that Act 'appears to be' the brake on recognition of Palestinian statehood, by pushing for it to be contingent on Hamas releasing all Israeli hostages – a precondition not shared by leaders in Australia, Canada or the UK. Prime minister Christopher Luxon has echoed Act's position in recent comments, leaving New Zealand out of step with its allies and, says Harman, showing up the 'fundamental weakness' of this government: 'that the prime minister appears unable to confront his coalition partners when they dig their heels in'.
Yet Luxon also used his strongest language yet on Israel yesterday, calling the situation in Gaza 'utterly, utterly appalling' and claiming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had 'lost the plot', reports the Herald's Jamie Ensor. Luxon's criticism suggests frustration at both the worsening situation in Gaza and the political deadlock at home. Whether that frustration will ultimately translate into recognition of Palestine remains an open question.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
The Arab, The Left And Those Who Remained Silent: History Will Not Forgive You
The consequences of the Israeli genocide in Gaza will be dire. An event of this degree of barbarity, sustained by an international conspiracy of moral inertia and silence, will not be relegated to history as just another "conflict" or a mere tragedy. The Gaza genocide is a catalyst for major events to come. Israel and its benefactors are acutely aware of this historical reality. This is precisely why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a race against time, desperately trying to ensure his country remains relevant, if not standing, in the coming era. He pursues this through territorial expansion in Syria, relentless aggression against Lebanon, and, of course, the desire to annex all occupied Palestinian territories. But history cannot be controlled with such precision. However clever he may think he is, Netanyahu has already lost the ability to influence the outcome. He has been unable to set a clear agenda in Gaza, let alone achieve any strategic goals in a 365-square-kilometer expanse of destroyed concrete and ashes. Gazans have proven that collective sumud can defeat one of the most well-equipped modern armies. Indeed, history itself has taught us that changes of great magnitude are inevitable. The true heartbreak is that this change is not happening fast enough to save a starving population, and the growing pro-Palestinian sentiment is not expanding at the rate needed to achieve a decisive political outcome. Our confidence in this inevitable change is rooted in history. World War I was not just a "Great War" but a cataclysmic event that fully shattered the geopolitical order of its time. Four empires were fundamentally reshuffled; some, like the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman, were erased from existence. The new world order resulting from World War I was short-lived. The modern international system we have today is a direct outcome of World War II. This includes the United Nations and all the new Western-centric economic, legal, and political institutions that were forged by the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944. This includes the World Bank, the IMF, and ultimately NATO, thus sowing the seeds of yet more global conflicts. The fall of the Berlin Wall was heralded as the singular, defining event that resolved the lingering conflicts of the post-WWII geopolitical struggle, supposedly ushering in a new, permanent global realignment, or, to some, the "end of history." History, however, had other plans. Not even the horrific September 11 attacks and the subsequent US-led wars could reinvent the global order in a way that was consistent with US-Western interests and priorities. Gaza is infinitely small when judged by its geography, economic worth, or political import. Yet, it has proven to be the most significant global event defining this generation's political consciousness. The fact that the self-proclaimed guardians of the post-WWII order are the very entities that are violently and brazenly violating every international and humanitarian law is enough to fundamentally alter our relationship with the West's championed "rule-based order." This may not seem significant now, but it will have profound, long-term consequences. It has largely compromised and, in fact, delegitimized the moral authority imposed, often by violence, by the West over the rest of the world for decades, especially in the Global South. This self-imposed delegitimization will also impact the very idea of democracy, which has been under siege in many countries, including Western democracies. This is only natural, considering that most of the planet feels strongly that Israel must end its genocide and that its leaders must be held accountable. Yet, little to no action follows. The shift in Western public opinion in favor of Palestinians is astounding when considered against the backdrop of total Western media dehumanization of the Palestinian people and Western governments' blind allegiance to Israel. More shocking is that this shift is largely the result of the work of ordinary people on social media, activists mobilizing in the streets, and independent journalists, mostly in Gaza, working under extreme duress and with minimal resources. A central conclusion is the failure of Arab and Muslim nations to factor into this tragedy befalling their own brethren in Palestine. While some are engaged in empty rhetoric or self-flagellation, others subsist in a state of inertia, as if the genocide in Gaza were a foreign topic, like the wars in Ukraine or Congo. This fact alone shall challenge our very collective self-definition—what it means to be an Arab or a Muslim, and whether such definitions carry supra-political identities. Time will tell. The left, too, is problematic in its own way. While not a monolith, and while many on the left have championed the global protests against the genocide, others remain splintered and unable to form a unified front, even temporarily. Some leftists are still chasing their own tales, crippled by the worry that being anti-Zionist would earn them the label of antisemitism. For this group, self-policing and self-censorship are preventing them from taking decisive action. History does not take its cues from Israel or Western powers. Gaza will indeed result in the kind of global shifts that will affect us all, far beyond the Middle East. For now, however, it is most urgent that we use our collective will and action to influence one single historical event: ending the genocide and the famine in Gaza. The rest will be left to history, and to those who wish to be relevant when the world changes again. - Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His forthcoming book, ' Before the Flood,' will be published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include 'Our Vision for Liberation', 'My Father was a Freedom Fighter' and 'The Last Earth'. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
The House chips away at lawmaking, amid distractions
Photo: 123RF A brouhaha about unparliamentary language, an eviction from the House, and apologies, or a lack of them, stole the spotlight from the legislative agenda this week at Parliament. At the beginning of the week, the government had planned to get through as many as 12 legislative stages. By the time the MPs were allowed to go home on Thursday evening, the House had completed just seven of those scheduled debates. After a fiery Question Time and an even fierier Urgent Debate on Palestinian statehood , the legislative agenda began on Tuesday with two new bills. The first, a relatively uncontentious regulatory systems bill for internal affairs, making minor technical changes; and the second, a bill trying to curb 'antisocial' conduct while operating a vehicle. The Greens opposed the Transport Bill, but without their usual Labour ally. Labour had agreed to support the bill, at least to select committee, with the caveat that the committee would be Transport and Infrastructure, rather than Justice. With the first two readings out of the way in just under an hour, the government was making good time on its business. Enter the committee stage of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, when progress got a whole lot slower. The opposition interrogated the minister in charge, Chris Bishop, over what they described as controversial last-minute amendments, one of which would allow farmers to pollute waterways without consent. The House spent all of Tuesday night and most of Wednesday evening debating that bill, before moving on to the committee stage of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, which they eventually finished on Thursday morning, thanks to an extended sitting. Thursday afternoon saw the completion of three stages: To learn more about the bills that are going through Parliament this sitting block, have a look at our article from earlier in the week . RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, its legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel looking to re-settle Gazans in South Sudan
South Sudan and Israel are discussing a deal to resettle Palestinians from war-torn Gaza in the troubled African nation, three sources told Reuters - a plan quickly dismissed as unacceptable by Palestinian leaders. The sources, who have knowledge of the matter but spoke on condition of anonymity, said no agreement had been reached but talks between South Sudan and Israel were ongoing. The plan, if carried further, would envisage people moving from an enclave shattered by almost two years of war with Israel to a nation in the heart of Africa riven by years of political and ethnically-driven violence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office and Israel's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the information from the three sources. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said, "we do not speak to private diplomatic conversations," when asked about the plan and if the United States supported the idea. Netanyahu said this month he intends to extend military control in Gaza, and this week repeated suggestions that Palestinians should leave the territory voluntarily. Arab and world leaders have rejected the idea of moving Gaza's population to any country. Palestinians say that would be like another "Nakba" (catastrophe) when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced out during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. The three sources said the prospect of resettling Palestinians in South Sudan was raised during meetings between Israeli officials and South Sudanese Foreign Minister Monday Semaya Kumba when he visited the country last month. Their account appeared to contradict South Sudan's foreign ministry which on Wednesday dismissed earlier reports on the plan as "baseless". The ministry was not immediately available to respond to the sources' assertions on Friday. News of the discussions was first reported by the Associated Press on Tuesday, citing six people with knowledge of the matter. Wasel Abu Youssef, a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said the Palestinian leadership and people "reject any plan or idea to displace any of our people to South Sudan or to any other place". His statement echoed a statement from the office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday. Hamas, which is fighting Israel in Gaza, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel, who visited the South Sudanese capital Juba this week, told reporters that those discussions had not focussed on relocation. "This is not what the discussions were about," she said when asked if any such plan had been discussed. "The discussions were about foreign policy, about multilateral organisations, about the humanitarian crisis, the real humanitarian crisis happening in South Sudan, and about the war," she said, referring to her talks with Juba officials. Netanyahu, who met Kumba last month, has said Israel is in touch with a few countries to find a destination for Palestinians who want to leave Gaza. He has consistently declined to provide further details.
