Green MP Chloe Swarbrick, sitting next to Marama Davidson in Parliament last week. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick has doubled down after calling a statement from the prime minister "a demonstrable lie" in Parliament's debating chamber.
She could face consequences meted out by the Privileges Committee if she is found to have accused him of lying - which would be a breach of the rules - but she argues she was referring to the government's policy, and she believes it is provable.
The matter arose when Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was answering a question on Wednesday from Green co-leader Marama Davidson about climate change targets.
"We're not weakening our actions on climate change, we're just going about it a different way," he said.
Swarbrick's outrage at that statement was picked up on the Parliamentary microphone, as she loudly protested "a demonstrable lie."
Calling an MP a liar in Parliament is against the rules, and the speaker typically requires whoever has done so to withdraw and apologise.
ACT leader David Seymour raised a point of order with Speaker Gerry Brownlee over Swarbrick's accusation, and while Brownlee said he had not heard the statement, he suggested she "consider withdrawing and apologising".
Swarbrick, however, responded: "My point was that it is demonstrable".
Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters noted her accusation may have been caught on the audio recording, "and if that's the case, then we know where this goes after that".
Brownlee referred back to a previous speaker's ruling, that "saying a member is lying is always out of order, so if that is what the member said and doesn't want to withdraw it, then that does have other consequences".
Such consequences could include being referred to the Privileges Committee, which can exact punishments from MPs that break the rules.
Rather than apologising, Swarbrick sought to clarify her position.
"Mr Speaker, I was speaking to the content of the policies as put forward by this government and the fact that the content of those policies are a lie," she said.
"If the inference is that therefore the minister or the prime minister are a liar, that wasn't the statement that I was making. But I was pointing out that it is demonstrable on the evidence that the undertakings from this government are completely contrary to our climate commitments."
Brownlee said the House would move on, but said Swarbrick's position "is an opinion [and] others will make a judgement on whatever the Hansard record might eventually show".
Hansard is the official transcript of the proceedings in Parliament.
Swarbrick told reporters afterwards she stood by her statements.
"The evidence is clear and the facts speak for themselves. I came to this House to tell the truth and the government's policies are active climate denialism.
"Demonstrably, the policies that the government is undertaking will not keep us within 1.5 degrees of warming ... demonstrably the content of that statement - as I said in the House - was a lie insofar as there is an inconsistency between the flowery rhetoric that being is used and what is necessary to keep us within 1.5 degrees of warming."
She suggested she would face whatever consequences came her way as a result.
"We have a responsibility as Parliamentarians to tell the truth, and I'll work through any of the consequences that come through in the House as is necessary to keep the focus on the climate crisis and the existential threat that poses to humanity and to all of the biodiversity."