N※N

Show Politics and Government Publications

Green Party Co-Leader Chloe Swarbrick Grapples With Apology Decision Over Treaty Bill Protest

Green Party Co-Leader Chloe Swarbrick Faces Decision on Apology and Return to Parliament

In a dramatic turn of events in New Zealand's Parliament, Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick finds herself at a crossroads, deliberating whether to issue an apology for her actions during a heated debate, which could pave the way for her return to the House. The incident stems from a contentious vote on the Treaty Principles Bill, a piece of legislation that has ignited widespread controversy over its potential impact on Māori rights and the interpretation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The episode unfolded during the bill's first reading, where Swarbrick, known for her passionate advocacy on environmental and social justice issues, staged a protest that disrupted proceedings. As the vote was being called, she stood and repeatedly chanted "This is a disgrace," while holding up a sign that read "Toitū te Tiriti," a Māori phrase meaning "Honour the Treaty." This act of defiance led to her being named by the Speaker of the House, Gerry Brownlee, and subsequently suspended for the remainder of the sitting day. Under parliamentary rules, such a suspension requires an apology for the member to be allowed back into the chamber without further penalties.

Swarbrick's protest was not isolated but part of a broader wave of opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill, introduced by the ACT Party and supported by the governing coalition. The bill aims to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in law, which critics argue could undermine Māori treaty rights by promoting a more literal interpretation that diminishes the unique status of iwi and hapū. Supporters, including ACT leader David Seymour, contend that it seeks to ensure equality under the law for all New Zealanders, regardless of ethnicity. However, the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from opposition parties, Māori leaders, and legal experts who warn it could erode decades of progress in treaty settlements and co-governance arrangements.

In the aftermath, Swarbrick has been vocal about her stance, emphasizing that her actions were a necessary stand against what she perceives as an assault on democratic values and indigenous rights. Speaking to media outside Parliament, she described the bill as "divisive and harmful," arguing that it represents a step backward in New Zealand's journey toward reconciliation and partnership with Māori. "I'm not going to apologize for standing up for what's right," she stated, highlighting the emotional weight of the moment and her commitment to amplifying voices that feel marginalized by the current government's policies.

The Green Party has rallied behind Swarbrick, with co-leader Marama Davidson praising her colleague's courage. Davidson noted that the protest reflects the party's core values of upholding Te Tiriti and fighting for justice. "Chloe's actions highlight the deep concerns many New Zealanders have about this bill," Davidson said. The party has a history of bold parliamentary tactics, often using creative means to draw attention to issues like climate change and inequality, and this incident fits into that pattern.

Reactions from other political figures have been mixed. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, from the National Party, condemned the disruption, calling it "unacceptable behavior" that undermines the decorum of Parliament. He urged Swarbrick to apologize promptly to resume her duties, stressing the importance of respectful debate in a democratic institution. Similarly, ACT's Seymour accused her of "grandstanding" and suggested that such protests distract from substantive policy discussions. On the opposition side, Labour leader Chris Hipkins expressed sympathy for Swarbrick's frustrations but advised that apologies in such cases are often a pragmatic step to continue advocacy from within the House.

The suspension raises questions about parliamentary protocols and the balance between free expression and maintaining order. Under Standing Orders, a member named by the Speaker must withdraw immediately, and failure to apologize can lead to extended exclusions. Historical precedents include similar incidents where MPs from various parties have been suspended for outbursts, such as during debates on contentious issues like asset sales or social reforms. In Swarbrick's case, the decision to apologize or not could set a tone for how opposition members respond to future controversial bills under the current coalition government, which includes National, ACT, and New Zealand First.

Broader implications extend beyond Parliament's walls. The Treaty Principles Bill has sparked nationwide protests, including hīkoi (marches) organized by Māori groups and supporters. Thousands have mobilized to oppose the legislation, viewing it as part of a pattern of policies perceived as rolling back Māori advancements, such as changes to the Marine and Coastal Area Act and the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority. Swarbrick's protest has amplified these voices, drawing international attention to New Zealand's ongoing debates over colonialism, sovereignty, and equity.

As Swarbrick weighs her options, she faces a personal and political dilemma. Apologizing could allow her to return quickly and continue challenging the government from the floor, potentially participating in select committee processes where public submissions on the bill will be heard. However, refusing to do so might solidify her image as a principled resistor, appealing to her base but risking prolonged absence from key votes and debates. Sources close to the Green Party indicate that internal discussions are ongoing, with Swarbrick consulting colleagues and supporters before making a final call.

This situation underscores the tensions in New Zealand's political landscape, where issues of race, rights, and representation continue to polarize. The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 between Māori chiefs and the British Crown, remains a foundational document, but its principles—partnership, protection, and participation— are interpreted differently across the political spectrum. The current bill proposes to legislate these principles in a way that emphasizes equal rights, but opponents fear it could limit Māori-specific protections and lead to legal challenges.

Public opinion appears divided, with polls showing a split between those who support clarifying treaty principles for certainty and those who see it as unnecessary provocation. Advocacy groups like the Waitangi Tribunal have previously recommended against such legislative definitions, arguing they could constrain the treaty's evolving nature.

Swarbrick, who rose to prominence with her viral "OK boomer" moment in 2019, has built a reputation as a forthright voice for younger generations and progressive causes. Her potential decision not to apologize could inspire similar acts of civil disobedience, both inside and outside Parliament, as the bill progresses to its second and third readings.

Ultimately, Swarbrick's choice will not only affect her immediate parliamentary role but also signal the intensity of opposition to the government's agenda. As the debate rages on, it highlights the enduring relevance of Te Tiriti in shaping New Zealand's identity and governance. Whether she returns with an apology or stands firm, the incident has already etched itself into the annals of parliamentary history, reminding observers of the passionate undercurrents in Kiwi politics. (Word count: 928)

Read the Full rnz Article at:
[ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/569775/green-s-co-leader-chloe-swarbrick-to-decide-whether-to-apologise-and-return-to-parliament ]