24
all 24 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
new
old
[deleted]
It's a nice thought but I am a bit concerned about the ability for the government to kick the opposition MPs out of Parliament, including them not being able to vote.
It's also unprecedented. By confirming this suspension they have just said they think this is 7 times worse than the worst thing that has ever been done by an MP in Parliament since Parliament started.
I know it sucks, but our only recourse is to promote other parties.
Vote the fuckers out! Next year.
I don't condone violent opposition; our democracy still works. I hope we can provide better options for people, and remind them what these useless people have been doing....A year and a half of Seymour as deputy PM is going to be frustrating.
I don't believe what happened is 7 times worse than the next worst thing...5 days would have been enough; to show that this was the worst thing (if you agree it was); it would have given similar weight to the expulsion, without turning it into a parody of itself.
I'd love to know how they came up with the recommendation. Presumably it was not based on history but they are trying to set a new precedent with longer suspensions for anyone that opposes them.
I hope it doesn't become the new normal going forward, like "under urgency" has.
I think it will. It's ratified now, it will be considered in future cases.
I don't really get why we let the government kick out the opposition anyway. At the very least they should still get to vote.
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:
20.5.2 Prohibition on interjections during party vote
Interjections during the conduct of a party vote are regarded as particularly serious since there is no debate in progress, so they can have no justification. In particular, members are not permitted to comment as party votes are cast.[39] Indeed, the Speaker has suggested that interjections at this point, as well as promoting confusion, could, if intimidatory, amount to a breach of privilege.[40]
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.
Parliament has strict rules around decorum, and with good reason, the place would be total chaos without them.
And the punishment is harsh, but there's never been a group of people before with such disdain for the establishment they represent their constituents within.
Parliament has strict rules around decorum
Bullshit. If there are any rules they are not applied fairly or uniformly.
And the punishment is harsh, but there’s never been a group of people before with such disdain for the establishment they represent their constituents within.
You are a lying sack of shit. There have been tremendous amount of distain for the parliament by other people and parties. Learn some fucking history you zealot.
I know this is the internet, but when will you two communicate constructively? (My point is each of you tend to be unhelpfully inflammatory. Trollish, even...).
Perhaps if you brought some examples it might help your argument?
That's all I'll say.
Tagging @[email protected] so it's not all on ballpeen
This person is saying that the haka was the most disruptive thing to happen in parliament in the entire history of his nation.
Here is the quote.
but there’s never been a group of people before with such disdain for the establishment they represent their constituents within.
You know this is a lie, I know this is a lie, and he knows this is a lie.
Why should somebody be able to lie so blatantly without being called out? Especially since the lie is motivated by racism.
I'm just trying to get either of you to provide details or examples so you can have a constructive discussion as opposed to a vitriol-fest.
And you've done that, thanks!
If you want to see what not confronting this kind of racism and right wing zealotry leads to just look at the USA. They are literally sending soldiers to shoot protesters all in the name of maintaining decorum.
Just FYI, I've had ballpeen blocked for probably over a year. They never have anything insightful or useful to say, and I see no benefit to even seeing their comments.
I recommend doing the same.
LOL. Block all you want. I will be here to call your racism and right wing batshittery every time I see it.
such disdain
That's a thought crime.
Suspension is supposed to punish actual actions, that are breeches e.g. fistfights, criticising the speaker, stepping to someone and telling them to "stand up" for a fight, etc.
The physical actions currently being punished are not 7x worse than anything else on record (e.g. all the above).
As for disdain, it's also arguably disdainful to our democratic system to completely abandon the scale/tradition of punishments that have been handed out during the entire history of our Parliament.
They deliberately and intentionally disrupted the process of Parliament, by actions that were planned ahead of time. Even Chris Hipkins hasn't defended their actions, only saying he feels the punishment was overly harsh.
I don't think anyone disputes that they intentionally disrupted the process of Paliament.
I too am pointing out that the punishment is overly disproportionate.
I also think if you want a harsher penalty than a few days' suspension, it should not be one that comes at the expense of the constituency, as this one does.
Disrupted the process by a couple of minutes. Big whoop. The process didn't end, nothing was cancelled and you shouldn't believe the lie that the TMP prevented ACT from voting. That was a libel told by the National party which should be punishable by a much higher level.
The punishment was purely based on racism. If any other party had done this they wouldn't be punished this bad.
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