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.
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.