This is a transcript of the Premium Politics newsletter. To sign up, click here, select “Inside Politics with Audrey Young”, and save your preferences.
Welcome to Inside Politics. It should have been a week focused on Palestine, but instead, Chlöe Swarbrick’s action ensured the focus turned to her. In Parliament’s snap debate on Tuesday about whether the Government should recognise Palestinian statehood, she made a brilliant speech – one of her best – right until the last few seconds.
That’s when she made comments about MPs getting a spine because the Government has not picked up a sanctions bill on Palestine. The Speaker took offence and Swarbrick refused to withdraw and apologise. It was the same the next day, and then she refused to leave the House until she was voted out. More on that later.
Chlöe Swarbrick became a distraction from the debate on Palestine during a crucial week in which Israel stepped up bombardments of Gaza City and New Zealand began debating a huge issue. But outrageously, she made it about whether being asked twice to apologise was unprecedented.
It wouldn’t be so ironic if she hadn’t used her speech to the Greens’ AGM on Sunday to rail against politics that is “designed to outrage”.
“It gets headlines. It gets cut-through. It sucks up the oxygen and depletes the energy necessary to focus on the bigger picture. It benefits the multi-multi-multi-millionaire and billionaires, and their puppet politicians. All of this is designed to deflect, distract and divide,” she said.
Of course, she was talking about other politicians, not herself. In her self-centred world, it is only others that deflect, distract and divide.
Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has been appearing in the international media this week in her role as an Elder – part of a group of elder statesmen and women set up by Nelson Mandela. Along with co-Elder and former Irish President Mary Robinson, Clark visited the Rafah border crossing in Egypt to draw attention to the obstruction facing aid trucks. They concluded there is “an unfolding genocide”. It is a term that reflects the reality of starvation occurring in Gaza and the role of international courts to determine it.
Clark has also put on a conciliatory hat in regards to US President Donald Trump. Normally a trenchant critic, she recognises his unique power to pressure Israel and has pleaded with him in several interviews to turn his attention to ending the war in Gaza.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon suddenly told us what he really thinks – that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “lost the plot” – and it resonated. He was responding to a question from colleague Jamie Ensor about what he thought about the term “unfolding genocide”.
“I think what is happening in Gaza is utterly, utterly appalling,” he said on his way into the House yesterday.
“I think Netanyahu has gone way too far. I think he has lost the plot. And I think what we are seeing overnight, the attack on Gaza City, is utterly, utterly unacceptable... He is not listening to the international community and that is unacceptable.
“The situation we are observing is utterly appalling, utterly appalling. It is driving more human catastrophe across Gaza,” Luxon said.
“As a community, we have worked together with other like-minded countries. We are a small country a long way away with very limited trade with Israel, but we have stood up for values and we keep articulating them consistently, and what you have seen is Israel not listening to the global community at all.
“We’ve asked for humanitarian assistance to be delivered unfettered. That hasn’t happened. We have said a forceful displacement of people and annexation of Gaza would be a breach of international law. We have called these things out consistently, time and time again. You’ve seen New Zealand join many of our friends and partners around the world to make these statements, and he is just not listening.
“An attack on Gaza City is a really serious issue because we don’t want to extinguish the pathway to a two-state solution.
“I’m telling you what my personal view is; looking at the situation, that’s how I feel about it.”
Luxon’s comments were immediately reported in Israel, and its deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sharren Haskel, has responded on X.
“I guess when you don’t really need an army because your most deadly enemy is a possum or a cat, you wouldn’t comprehend the challenges that come with facing Hamas – a jihadist death cult – only a few kms away from your country, that rape, execute, burn alive and starve your people,” she wrote.
The three coalition parties in the Government – National, Act and NZ First – will decide whether New Zealand recognises Palestinian statehood (see my commentary here). It is looking likely that it will do so, but based on certain conditions, and it is those conditions that will be crucial. Also crucial will be whether Act will effectively neuter such a move by insisting on impossible conditions.
If, for example, a condition were for there to be a functioning Government in place already, that would render it worthless. But it could use some of the conditions set out by like-minded countries, such as the UK, Canada, Australia and France, including the demilitarisation of a Palestinian state, assistance for international help and no role for Hamas.
France and Saudi Arabia are spearheading the drive to keep the two-state solution alive. They organised a conference at the UN earlier this month and issued the “New York Declaration” in which, for the first time, the Arab League condemned the attacks by Hamas on civilians in October 2023 and said it must end its rule in Gaza.
It set out a plan for an independent Palestine, including a UN stabilisation mission to provide security for Palestine and Israel.
Chlöe Swarbrick is planning to be in her Auckland Central electorate today. Let us pray she stays away and that that is the end of the matter.
Brownlee’s ruling that her comment about Government MPs and finding a spine was unparliamentary was not a surprise. Successive Speakers have ruled it unparliamentary to refer to other MPs as dishonest or cowardly, or to accuse them of being gutless and spineless. Not every Speaker makes the same ruling every time. They make judgment calls based on a variety of things, including the temperature of the debate. Green MPs sometimes take offence and call for the Speaker to order a withdrawal and apology.
It is not an exact science. MPs have different thresholds for taking offence. In the end, the Speaker is the arbiter.
Speakers are supposed to be impartial, but in this particular case, Brownlee yesterday confessed that he himself felt personally offended (presumably as a member of a Government party) when Swarbrick said: “I will reiterate my call for the Government to pick up our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and 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 clearly has strong views on what is happening in Gaza and objected to the view that anyone who didn’t support Swarbrick’s bill was spineless.
Brownlee also made a good case for enforcing a greater respect for each other during debate.
“There’s a point where things change, and I’ve reached the conclusion that we had so many threats and other stuff being directed at members of Parliament that if we don’t change behaviour in here, nothing will change outside,” he said.
MPs elect Speakers to use their judgment about what is unparliamentary, and they do. Those are the rules. It would be great if they were applied perfectly consistently, but that is unrealistic.
The Speaker gets to decide what is parliamentary and unparliamentary language.
Winston Peters thinks Swarbrick’s reference to spines and Government MPs didn’t meet the threshold. But his standards are infinitely flexible. He thinks it is okay to describe the facial tattoo of Rawiri Waititi as “scribbles on his face”.
It has been claimed that it is unprecedented for a Speaker to have sought an apology on the next day. It certainly isn’t usual, but I wouldn’t be so sure that it has never happened.
Even if it is a first, Brownlee is entitled to make his own rulings as Speaker. Brownlee originally ordered Swarbrick out for a week – which was ridiculously long – but he corrected himself a short time later and gave notice that he would be asking her again the next day, yesterday, to apologise.
• Labour leader Chris Hipkins got his 2015 John Key speeches muddled up yesterday. He wrongly suggested that the National Party, including Gerry Brownlee as a minister, had given Key a standing ovation after accusing Labour of supporting rapists and murderers (essentially 501s). Wrong. There was no applause or standing ovation. That speech was in November and, after much objection and great offence, Key apologised several weeks later. Key did, however, get a standing ovation for his impassioned speech in February that year about why the Government was sending the NZDF to Camp Taji to train Iraqis fighting ISIS. Labour opposed the deployment. Key’s speech finished this way: “I will not – will not – stand by while Jordanian pilots are burnt to death, when kids execute soldiers, and when people are out there being beheaded. I am sorry, but this is the time to stand up and be counted. Get some guts and join the right side.”
• Finance Minister Nicola Willis has been in London this week, meeting with her British counterpart Rachel Reeves.
• Big ups to Lyric Waiwiri-Smith of The Spinoff for raising a sensitive subject with the Prime Minister at the post-Cabinet press conference on Monday – the Queenstown near-miss-kiss. Australia’s Anthony Albanese had been having a hongi with his Ngāi Tahu hosts, and with Luxon next in line, Albanese went in for a hongi. But Luxon was going in for a hug and, as a result, they narrowly avoided a kiss. Awkward on Saturday, awkward on Monday.
“In a Labour-led Government, Barbara Edmonds will be the Finance Minister” – Chris Hipkins responds to the suggestion that Chlöe Swarbrick wants to be Finance Minister.
Where are President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin planning to meet this week? (Answer at the bottom of this article.)
Goes to Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick. The focus should have been entirely Palestine’s this week, but she turned the spotlight on herself.
Goes to Christopher Luxon for calling out Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He let his guard down and told it as he saw it. Good job. Do it more often.
PM on Israel: PM Christopher Luxon condemns Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says he’s ‘lost the plot’
Opinion – Palestine debate: Should New Zealand help save the two-state solution for Palestine? –Audrey Young
Swarbrick expulsion: Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick kicked out of House for a second time
Opinion – Palestine debate: Government kicks can down the road on Palestinian statehood - Thomas Coughlan
Mitchell interview: Police Minister Mark Mitchell’s past police, international security work revealed in health battle
Covid no-show: Chris Hipkins defends decision to skip Covid-19 Royal Commission inquiry public hearings
Analysis – NCEA: NCEA overhaul – what we know and don’t know, and who might fall through the cracks – Derek Cheng
Youth justice claims: Labour MP Willow-Jean Prime’s claims of fight clubs, meth in youth justice facilities not substantiated by officials
Albanese visit: Luxon-Albanese talks focus on 30-year problem: Lifting living standards
Greens AGM: Greens want to lead Government, Chris Hipkins not interested in ‘arguing’ with them
New ambassador: Changing of the guard in Washington as veteran diplomat comes home
Quiz answer: The US state of Alaska.
For more political news and views, listen to On the Tiles, the Herald’s politics podcast.