Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick refuses to apologise over Palestine debate
Chlöe Swarbrick is not backing down from fiery comments towards fellow MPs during a debate on Palestine that ended with the Green Party co-leader booted from Parliament for the rest of the week – unless she says sorry.
“I don’t really know what I have to apologise for,” Swarbrick told Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW this morning.
She also claimed she’d be back in Parliament today and was “engaging directly with the Speaker’s office” to help Gerry Brownlee “understand that the punishment that he’s dished out is completely contrary to the reality”.
During a speech on Palestinian statehood yesterday, Swarbrick called on Government MPs to back a Green Party bill that’d allow New Zealand to sanction 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.”
Brownlee said the “spine” comment was “completely unacceptable” and ordered Swarbrick to withdraw the comment and apologise, but she refused.

Innocent people were being “mercilessly carpet bombed and slaughtered” and governments and their leaders could take meaningful action, Swarbrick told Bridge.
“That can look like recognising the statehood of Palestine, but more than that, it can look like sanctioning Israel for its war crimes.”
The Government had been saying it was doing everything it could while issuing “empty statement after empty statement”, Swarbrick said,
“New Zealanders deserve to have statements followed up with substance. And substance looks like sanctioning Israel for its war crimes.”

Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, standing at Swarbrick’s side as part of their regular political panel with Bridge, said Swarbrick’s claim Israel was carpet bombing Gaza wasn’t true.
“Carpet bombing has a definition ... once you start to unpack the other things that Chloe’s saying, there’s a lot of inaccuracy in there.
“But the reason why she should apologize is very simple. Our Parliament ... over hundreds of years has evolved a set of rules that are designed to make sure that you are actually debating the issue, not questioning the character or the motivations of the other people in Parliament.”
Swarbrick asked if Seymour was “really offended by ‘spineless’?”
He was offended by people who said they want an international rules-based order, but couldn’t “uphold the basic rules of their own workplace”.
She’d be back in Parliament today, Swarbrick told Bridge, prompting him to again ask if she’d apologise.
“I don’t know what I have to apologise for,” Swarbrick said.
Seymour replied: “Well, because you can’t go back without apologising.”
She was “engaging directly” with Brownlee’s office, Swarbrick said.
“And I think he will come to understand that the punishment that he’s dished out is completely contrary to the reality.”
“Good luck with that,” said Seymour.