this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)
NZ Politics
743 readers
10 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.