Chlöe Swarbrick is not backing down after causing uproar in Parliament for accusing Prime Minister Christopher Luxon of telling a "demonstrable lie".
She wouldn't apologise for her remark when questioned by media after Question Time on Wednesday.
Accusing another Member of lying is against the rules of the House and Winston Peters has warned the issue could go before Parliament's powerful Privileges Committee.
But so far, she's avoided punishment, with Speaker Gerry Brownlee deciding against any immediate sanctions in the House.
Swarbrick made the claim that Luxon had told a "demonstrable lie" after the Prime Minister told Parliament that the new Government was "not weakening our actions on climate change".
It caused commotion in the House, raising the eyebrows of both ACT leader David Seymour and the deputy Prime Minister. Despite Brownlee giving Swarbrick the opportunity to withdraw her remarks, she didn't.
She said she 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".
"If the inference is that therefore the minister or the Prime Minister are a liar, that wasn't the statement I was making, but I was pointing out it is demonstrable on the evidence that the undertakings from this Government is completely contrary to our climate commitments."
Asked by Newshub after Question Time whether she would apologise, Swarbrick replied: "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."
Does she stand by effectively calling Luxon a liar?
"Demonstrably, the policies that the government is undertaking will not keep us within 1.5 degrees of warming."
She said, "demonstrably the content of that statement, as I said in the House, was a lie."
"So far, as there is an inconsistency between the flowery rhetoric that is being used and what is necessary to keep us within 1.5 degrees of warming. This is an existential crisis."
Asked about Peters' comment that the issue could go before the Privileges Committee, Swarbrick said her point was that parliamentarians need to tell the truth.
"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 that poses to humanity and to all of the biodiversity that this Government seems intent on bringing down with us."
In his comments in the House, Brownlee said Speaker's Rulings say accusing a Member of lying "is always out of order". He said if Swarbrick did make that comment and didn't withdraw it, "that does have other consequences".
