• liv@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    26 days ago

    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.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      25 days ago

      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.

        • Dave@lemmy.nzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          25 days ago

          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.

          • liv@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            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.