24
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)
NZ Politics
725 readers
1 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't either. Everyone should get to vote. I was reading about the Homosexual law reform the other day and surprised to see some members tried to make Parliament vote early to take advantage of the weather preventing others from attending. That shouldn't be a thing.
That's crazy. Absentee votes should be available for MPs. In the case of the suspended MPs they are not allowed to vote, but do you know if we have ways for MPs to vote if they simply couldn't make it to parliament? With widespread internet access it should be easy to do.
I think you only need one member of your party there these days and they put in a vote for the whole group (section 20.5).
But suspended people can't be included.
Ah nice find. So the weather is now unlikely to affect who can vote.
This part is perhaps relevant:
It seems once the debate is over and they are into voting, no one should talk, and doing so is deemed particularly serious. In this case we have two Te Pāti Māori members making a quite disruptive "interjection" just after Act had voted. The part "since there is no debate in progress, so they can have no justification" would apply in this case, even though perhaps there wasn't an actual party currently voting (as I understand it).
Even though, it doesn't sit right with me that the government can prevent the opposition from voting for a period of time (and especially not the length of time in this case). Surely removing them from the floor (e.g. through suspension) would achieve any goal of restoring order to parliament, and there would be no reason not to let their party vote on their behalf.
This context makes sense, thanks. I can see that interrupting a vote is more serious than ordinary interjections.
I agree though, preventing people (and their constituencies) from voting for weeks seems really anti-democratic.