Chlöe Swarbrick's back in Auckland – thrown out of Parliament this week for refusing to apologise for comments in the House.
The Greens co-leader said if six of 68 Government MPs with a spine back her bill to sanction Israel, New Zealand can stand on the right side of history.
Former Speaker, Sir Lockwood Smith told Kerre Woodham that impugned the Government's integrity and warranted an apology.
He says that all Swarbrick needed to do was withdraw and apologise and that would be the end of the matter, but she chose not to.
Sir John Key made a similar comment without repercussions in 2015, but Smith says he expects he'd have apologised if he'd been asked.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks head b.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
So as I was saying before the news. Chloe Swarbrick,
the co leader of the Greens, is heading back to
Auckland today pre planned after being kicked out of the
House for a second time and having a paydoct. The
Greens co leader is refusing to apologize for saying government
MPs with a spine should support sanctioning Israel over Gaza
(00:33):
earlier this week. Swarbrick says Speaker Jerry Brownley's taken them
into uncharted territory. She'd have hoped he would have taken
a lot more care with how he's stepping. She also
says the Greens are considering all response options now. She
wasn't thrown out of the House for saying she was
looking for government MPs with a spine. She was thrown
(00:53):
out for not apologizing. Why should she and joining me
now as former National MP and Speaker of the House,
Sir Lockwoodsmith, A very very good morning to you, so look.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Good, A good one in Kerry. Always good to talk
to you.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Well, Always good to get your expertise on these matters
because if anyone knows about the rules of the House
and how the Speaker should apply them. It's you so.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Kind of you to say that.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, what's your take on Jerry Brownley's stance.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
It's an interesting situation, Kerry. I think that Jerry the Speaker,
mister Speaker, was I think correct to ask Zoe Swarbrick
to withdraw and apologize for that comment she said, if
I remember correctly, she said, it's something that would take
(01:51):
eight members of the of the government to grow a spine, yeap,
and that is impugning their integrity, and you can't do
that in the House. So all she needed to do,
I mean, she should know that, and all she needed
to do was simply withdraw and apologize and that would
be the end of the matter. But she chose not to.
(02:12):
And okay, So the Speaker had no choice when she
was defying his ruling to ask her to leave the house,
and when she refused to leave the house, he had
no choice but to name her. Now, I know people
have shown the tape of former Prime Minister John Key
telling the opposition to get some guts or something. Ye Interestingly,
(02:36):
I wasn't the speaker then. I had left the chair
two years prior to that. I he was twenty fifteen
or when Prime Minister Key made that comment. Now the issue
is this that I wouldn't mind betting. Although I've not asked,
John Key would have known he would probably be asked
to withdraw and apologize that comment. And had I been
(02:58):
in the chair, I would have asked him to. I
understood and said, you can't do that. The standing orders
don't allow you to impune the integrity of another member.
And I would have asked him to withdraw and apologize.
And I'm sure he would have expected it and would
have withdrawn and apologized. He would have still got his
point across, if you like, and so Zorius Warburt could
(03:20):
have still got a point across she made, but all
she needed to do is withdraw and apologize and the
House would have moved on. But you can't defy the speaker,
you know, she can't. I don't know what they're planning
to do. I mean, the Greens can choose not to
attend the House. That's fair enough. They don't need to vote,
(03:40):
they don't need to attend, but that doesn't achieve anything
for them. And so you know, it's an interesting, interesting
situation but as I say to me, I support Speaker
brownly because the House has been deteriorating in recent years.
In my humble opinion, well it has.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
So you could perhaps argue that's saying, come on, six
of you need to grow a spy, and I don't
think is that impugning integrity or just saying come on.
If you believe and the rights of the Palestinian people
to have their own state, then stand up for yourself
and go against what your whippers telling you to vote.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
No, what it's actually saying is you don't have the
courage to do that. Grow a spine, you know, there's
another way of saying, you know, grow you know you
don't have the courage. You can't you can't accuse another
member of the House. You're meant to be debating the issues.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
But as you say, it's been declining. And when you
look back at what was allowed on what wasn't, language
has evolved over time and terms of offense have evolved over.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Time, and that's why some words are now sort of
acceptable and seemed to be acceptable in the House if
they're not impuning the integrative and other member. But it's
an important standing order because if you allow members to
just slander each other in the house. You destroyed the
places the places at a place for debate because all
(05:13):
members will do is just you know, focus on each
other rather than the issue that they should be debating.
And that's why I think what Brownley did, the speaker
did was was appropriate. And the problem is he's got
to self into is she's defied the speaker. I mean
(05:34):
the original crime, if you like, or the original breach
maybe could be argued wasn't that bad. But you can't
defy the speaker.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
But yeah, but you you would if you knew, surely,
I mean I would. I wouldn't apologize either if I
knew that Kiaran macinnaughty had used spineless and gutless in
July of last year and wasn't punished. In March of
last year, James Shaw called the National Party an absolute
Potemkin village of toothless, spineless people. Judith Colin, you know,
(06:07):
if you keep going back and back and back, it's
been used before.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
I know that's a reasonable argument. But to me, sooner
or later someone's got to pull the House back into
compliance with its standing orders. And if we allow this
to just get worse and worse. I mean the place
the standards have declined seriously, Kerry, and it's not good enough.
(06:37):
And so it may be, you know, you one could
argue that the current speaker, because I presume those issues
earlier this year or under Speaker Brownie speakership if you like,
and consistency does matter. It does, and so you know,
I think you make a valid point there. But the
(06:57):
situation remains that the main problem that Zoia has got
a solf into is defying the speaker, and you can't
do that.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
But is the speaker omnipotent? Like if the speaker has
made a mistake, can he then like if Jerry wakes
up the next day thinks it's probably about harsh I
should have you know, other people have said it. What
can he do?
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Then the speaker can in fact change the mind indeed
carry And I think one time I can't remember what
caused me to do it, but I think I actually
apologized the House for a ruling i'd made and changed
my mind on something. And there's nothing wrong with the
speaker doing that. In fact, to me, it shows you know,
(07:41):
integrity on the speaker's part. If they the speaker can't
make mistakes too, because you've got to do things on
the spur of the moment and it can be challenging. Yeah,
so you know, there's nothing wrong with the speaker changed
their mind, But this one now has got As I say,
the real issue now is defiance of the speaker, and
(08:06):
you know that you can't defy the speaker. Sure you
can move a motion of no confidence in the Speaker,
but then if you wanted to have that motion put,
you'd have to have a majority of the House backing you,
and that's unlikely to happen given the government has a majority.
(08:26):
I've never known a motion of no confidence in the speaker.
They've often lodged. I think, in fact, when I speak,
it's no one.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
We've managed to get you. Are you up north, sir Lockwood?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Yes? What happened? No idea? What happened there?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Where? Do we take it from here? Then? Like she
is not going to apologize for saying that? Can she
apologize to the speaker for not apologizing? I mean, what
happens now? And surely wasn't that supposed to be the
end of it when she was sent from the house?
Off she went, and that was supposed to be the
(09:03):
end of it. Didn't Jerry relitigate it.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
But she came back into the house if I saw
the video correctly, and you can't come back into the
house if you've been sent from the house, mind you.
I guess he could only put her out for a
day came back in. And that is an interesting technical
point you raise, Kerry, because what I don't know is
(09:29):
whether he again asked her to apologize, withdraw and apologize.
If he asked her again to withdraw and apologize for
the matter, then you know that would solve that issue.
But forgive me, I haven't seen a replay to know
exactly what happened there.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
He was basically asking for the apology again, and.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Okay, and relitigation, well, he's entitled to do that because
and you know, it's it's an interesting issue that Zoe's
going to have to make up a mind whether New
Zealand's Parliament and it's rules that guide its behavior, and
(10:09):
that's procedures matter or not. And they do matter. And
while you know, we all hold certain things dear to
our hearts and feel very deeply about them, at times,
I've said things in that part over twenty nine years
there that I've had to withdraw and apologize for and
(10:29):
often you know, you feel quite deeply about them, but
those are the rules and you do it and get
on with life. And so I'm not sure what will
happen now, but that'll be up to the speaker. But
the real problem that Zoe faces now is defiance of
the speaker.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Yes, so what's the Chloe, So what's the worst that
can happen is at the end of the week that
she can come back in or can the Speaker keep
keep her out of the house until she apologizes? And
it becomes up to the speaker.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
That's my apologies. He's getting closed. It's okay name apologize
for that deeply. Yeah, that'll be up to the Speaker
how he choose to handle it going forward. But it'll
be interesting to see because you know, as say, the
rules matter, and just because one chooses to defy them
(11:27):
for one moment doesn't mean that you can then get
away with it just by being out of the house
for a day. So it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Oh, yes, and this is one where I bet you're
glad you're not in the Speaker's chair so you can.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Well, I wouldn't have minded it because I think I
would have handled a few of these things differently in
the past, which would have made this a little simpler,
if you like, what.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Would you have done about the C word where it
was a quote not directed at members of the House,
but it was a.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Quote that to me is a very tricky one. I'll
tell you what. Way back in the nineteen nineties, when
I was Opposition spokesperson on ed education and the Prime
Minister Longing was the minister, I wanted to ask him
about a text being used in schools that included the
F word, and I chose not to quote the book
(12:19):
in the house, and I lost through not doing that
if I I was made to look stupid when if
I'd quoted the text, it probably would have really raised eyebrows.
And that's the dilemma. That is a really tricky one.
And to me, that's not as bad as impugning the
(12:41):
integrity of another member. If you're quoting a text, to me,
that's not such a serious issue. And so you know,
that's so long as a person wasn't using that. If
the person was using the C word directly to describe
another member, that's totally unacceptable, totally, But quoting a text
(13:03):
that if the text though, was impune another member, that
to me would also be unacceptable. So to quote a
text to also impune another member is not acceptable. So
it depends totally on the context as far as I
would have handled it.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Lovely to talk, as always, Sir lockwood Smith, former Speaker
of the House.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks head b.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
So as I was saying before the news. Chloe Swarbrick,
the co leader of the Greens, is heading back to
Auckland today pre planned after being kicked out of the
House for a second time and having a paydoct. The
Greens co leader is refusing to apologize for saying government
MPs with a spine should support sanctioning Israel over Gaza
(00:33):
earlier this week. Swarbrick says Speaker Jerry Brownley's taken them
into uncharted territory. She'd have hoped he would have taken
a lot more care with how he's stepping. She also
says the Greens are considering all response options now. She
wasn't thrown out of the House for saying she was
looking for government MPs with a spine. She was thrown
(00:53):
out for not apologizing. Why should she and joining me
now as former National MP and Speaker of the House,
Sir Lockwoodsmith, A very very good morning to you, so look.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Good, A good one in Kerry. Always good to talk
to you.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Well, Always good to get your expertise on these matters
because if anyone knows about the rules of the House
and how the Speaker should apply them. It's you so.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Kind of you to say that.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, what's your take on Jerry Brownley's stance.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
It's an interesting situation, Kerry. I think that Jerry the Speaker,
mister Speaker, was I think correct to ask Zoe Swarbrick
to withdraw and apologize for that comment she said, if
I remember correctly, she said, it's something that would take
(01:51):
eight members of the of the government to grow a spine, yeap,
and that is impugning their integrity, and you can't do
that in the House. So all she needed to do,
I mean, she should know that, and all she needed
to do was simply withdraw and apologize and that would
be the end of the matter. But she chose not to.
(02:12):
And okay, So the Speaker had no choice when she
was defying his ruling to ask her to leave the house,
and when she refused to leave the house, he had
no choice but to name her. Now, I know people
have shown the tape of former Prime Minister John Key
telling the opposition to get some guts or something. Ye Interestingly,
(02:36):
I wasn't the speaker then. I had left the chair
two years prior to that. I he was twenty fifteen
or when Prime Minister Key made that comment. Now the issue
is this that I wouldn't mind betting. Although I've not asked,
John Key would have known he would probably be asked
to withdraw and apologize that comment. And had I been
(02:58):
in the chair, I would have asked him to. I
understood and said, you can't do that. The standing orders
don't allow you to impune the integrity of another member.
And I would have asked him to withdraw and apologize.
And I'm sure he would have expected it and would
have withdrawn and apologized. He would have still got his
point across, if you like, and so Zorius Warburt could
(03:20):
have still got a point across she made, but all
she needed to do is withdraw and apologize and the
House would have moved on. But you can't defy the speaker,
you know, she can't. I don't know what they're planning
to do. I mean, the Greens can choose not to
attend the House. That's fair enough. They don't need to vote,
(03:40):
they don't need to attend, but that doesn't achieve anything
for them. And so you know, it's an interesting, interesting
situation but as I say to me, I support Speaker
brownly because the House has been deteriorating in recent years.
In my humble opinion, well it has.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
So you could perhaps argue that's saying, come on, six
of you need to grow a spy, and I don't
think is that impugning integrity or just saying come on.
If you believe and the rights of the Palestinian people
to have their own state, then stand up for yourself
and go against what your whippers telling you to vote.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
No, what it's actually saying is you don't have the
courage to do that. Grow a spine, you know, there's
another way of saying, you know, grow you know you
don't have the courage. You can't you can't accuse another
member of the House. You're meant to be debating the issues.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
But as you say, it's been declining. And when you
look back at what was allowed on what wasn't, language
has evolved over time and terms of offense have evolved over.
Speaker 3 (04:50):
Time, and that's why some words are now sort of
acceptable and seemed to be acceptable in the House if
they're not impuning the integrative and other member. But it's
an important standing order because if you allow members to
just slander each other in the house. You destroyed the
places the places at a place for debate because all
(05:13):
members will do is just you know, focus on each
other rather than the issue that they should be debating.
And that's why I think what Brownley did, the speaker
did was was appropriate. And the problem is he's got
to self into is she's defied the speaker. I mean
(05:34):
the original crime, if you like, or the original breach
maybe could be argued wasn't that bad. But you can't
defy the speaker.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
But yeah, but you you would if you knew, surely,
I mean I would. I wouldn't apologize either if I
knew that Kiaran macinnaughty had used spineless and gutless in
July of last year and wasn't punished. In March of
last year, James Shaw called the National Party an absolute
Potemkin village of toothless, spineless people. Judith Colin, you know,
(06:07):
if you keep going back and back and back, it's
been used before.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
I know that's a reasonable argument. But to me, sooner
or later someone's got to pull the House back into
compliance with its standing orders. And if we allow this
to just get worse and worse. I mean the place
the standards have declined seriously, Kerry, and it's not good enough.
(06:37):
And so it may be, you know, you one could
argue that the current speaker, because I presume those issues
earlier this year or under Speaker Brownie speakership if you like,
and consistency does matter. It does, and so you know,
I think you make a valid point there. But the
(06:57):
situation remains that the main problem that Zoia has got
a solf into is defying the speaker, and you can't
do that.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
But is the speaker omnipotent? Like if the speaker has
made a mistake, can he then like if Jerry wakes
up the next day thinks it's probably about harsh I
should have you know, other people have said it. What
can he do?
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Then the speaker can in fact change the mind indeed
carry And I think one time I can't remember what
caused me to do it, but I think I actually
apologized the House for a ruling i'd made and changed
my mind on something. And there's nothing wrong with the
speaker doing that. In fact, to me, it shows you know,
(07:41):
integrity on the speaker's part. If they the speaker can't
make mistakes too, because you've got to do things on
the spur of the moment and it can be challenging. Yeah,
so you know, there's nothing wrong with the speaker changed
their mind, But this one now has got As I say,
the real issue now is defiance of the speaker, and
(08:06):
you know that you can't defy the speaker. Sure you
can move a motion of no confidence in the Speaker,
but then if you wanted to have that motion put,
you'd have to have a majority of the House backing you,
and that's unlikely to happen given the government has a majority.
(08:26):
I've never known a motion of no confidence in the speaker.
They've often lodged. I think, in fact, when I speak,
it's no one.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
We've managed to get you. Are you up north, sir Lockwood?
Speaker 3 (08:39):
Yes? What happened? No idea? What happened there?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Where? Do we take it from here? Then? Like she
is not going to apologize for saying that? Can she
apologize to the speaker for not apologizing? I mean, what
happens now? And surely wasn't that supposed to be the
end of it when she was sent from the house?
Off she went, and that was supposed to be the
(09:03):
end of it. Didn't Jerry relitigate it.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
But she came back into the house if I saw
the video correctly, and you can't come back into the
house if you've been sent from the house, mind you.
I guess he could only put her out for a
day came back in. And that is an interesting technical
point you raise, Kerry, because what I don't know is
(09:29):
whether he again asked her to apologize, withdraw and apologize.
If he asked her again to withdraw and apologize for
the matter, then you know that would solve that issue.
But forgive me, I haven't seen a replay to know
exactly what happened there.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
He was basically asking for the apology again, and.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Okay, and relitigation, well, he's entitled to do that because
and you know, it's it's an interesting issue that Zoe's
going to have to make up a mind whether New
Zealand's Parliament and it's rules that guide its behavior, and
(10:09):
that's procedures matter or not. And they do matter. And
while you know, we all hold certain things dear to
our hearts and feel very deeply about them, at times,
I've said things in that part over twenty nine years
there that I've had to withdraw and apologize for and
(10:29):
often you know, you feel quite deeply about them, but
those are the rules and you do it and get
on with life. And so I'm not sure what will
happen now, but that'll be up to the speaker. But
the real problem that Zoe faces now is defiance of
the speaker.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Yes, so what's the Chloe, So what's the worst that
can happen is at the end of the week that
she can come back in or can the Speaker keep
keep her out of the house until she apologizes? And
it becomes up to the speaker.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
That's my apologies. He's getting closed. It's okay name apologize
for that deeply. Yeah, that'll be up to the Speaker
how he choose to handle it going forward. But it'll
be interesting to see because you know, as say, the
rules matter, and just because one chooses to defy them
(11:27):
for one moment doesn't mean that you can then get
away with it just by being out of the house
for a day. So it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Oh, yes, and this is one where I bet you're
glad you're not in the Speaker's chair so you can.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Well, I wouldn't have minded it because I think I
would have handled a few of these things differently in
the past, which would have made this a little simpler,
if you like, what.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Would you have done about the C word where it
was a quote not directed at members of the House,
but it was a.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
Quote that to me is a very tricky one. I'll
tell you what. Way back in the nineteen nineties, when
I was Opposition spokesperson on ed education and the Prime
Minister Longing was the minister, I wanted to ask him
about a text being used in schools that included the
F word, and I chose not to quote the book
(12:19):
in the house, and I lost through not doing that
if I I was made to look stupid when if
I'd quoted the text, it probably would have really raised eyebrows.
And that's the dilemma. That is a really tricky one.
And to me, that's not as bad as impugning the
(12:41):
integrity of another member. If you're quoting a text, to me,
that's not such a serious issue. And so you know,
that's so long as a person wasn't using that. If
the person was using the C word directly to describe
another member, that's totally unacceptable, totally, But quoting a text
(13:03):
that if the text though, was impune another member, that
to me would also be unacceptable. So to quote a
text to also impune another member is not acceptable. So
it depends totally on the context as far as I
would have handled it.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
Lovely to talk, as always, Sir lockwood Smith, former Speaker
of the House.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
news talks that'd be from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!