Division Description Changes — Same-Sex Marriage — 18th Nov 2010

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by Henare Degan on 2014-10-10 14:06:48	Title Description This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. ~~The members were voting on whether:~~ ~~> _the words proposed to be omitted ( Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question._~~ ~~In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.~~ The vote arose because Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives). Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives)). ~~Debate in Parliament~~ The [original motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was: ~~> _That this House:_~~ > ~~> _(1) notes that there is:_~~ > > > ~~> _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_~~ > > > ~~> _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_~~ > > > ~~> _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._~~ Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was: > _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._ ~~This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.~~ ~~Background to the Motion~~ This division relates to the Policy _[For same sex marriage](/policies/1)_. This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. The members were voting on whether: > _the words proposed to be omitted ( Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question._ In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone. The vote arose because Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives). Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives)). Debate in Parliament The [original motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was: > _That this House:_ > > _(1) notes that there is:_ > > > > _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_ > > > > _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_ > > > > _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._ Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was: > _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._ This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division. Background to the Motion The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792), which had been introduced by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:13	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. ~~<p>The members were voting on whether:</p>~~ <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> ~~<p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p>~~ ~~<p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p>~~ <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p> This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. The members were voting on whether: > _the words proposed to be omitted ( Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question._ In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone. The vote arose because Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives). Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives)). Debate in Parliament The [original motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was: > _That this House:_ > > _(1) notes that there is:_ > > > > _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_ > > > > _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_ > > > > _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._ Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was: > _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._ This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division. Background to the Motion The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792), which had been introduced by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 13:21:01	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Change the wording of the motion~~ Motions - Same-Sex Marriage - Change the wording of the motion Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 13:37:48	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Change the wording of the motion~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Change the wording of the motion Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 13:32:25	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Omit words~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Change the wording of the motion Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> ~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>~~ ~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol></p>~~ <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> ~~<p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p>~~ <p>In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 11:56:08	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:57:36	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> ~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>~~ ~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p>~~ <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:36:34	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Omit words Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:08:03	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:04:48	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> ~~<p><i>That this House:</i></p>~~ <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> ~~<p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~ <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></p> ~~<p></p>~~ <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:04:04	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> ~~<p></p>~~ <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> ~~<p><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></p>~~ <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></blockquote></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></p> <p></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></p> <p></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:02:47	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a>, a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></p> <p></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></p> <p></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 09:57:04	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion Description <p pwmotiontext="moved">That this House:<dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>notes that there is:<dl><dt>(a)</dt><dd>a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</dd><dt>(b)</dt><dd>widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</dd></dl></dd><dt>(2)</dt><dd>calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</dd></dl></p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage.’</p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</p> <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a>, a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><i>the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</i></p> <p>In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.</p> <p>The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>

Change

Division

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by Henare Degan

on 2014-10-10 14:06:48

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
~~The members were voting on whether:~~
~~> _the words proposed to be omitted ( **Mr Stephen Jones’s** amendment) stand part of the question._~~
~~In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.~~
The vote arose because Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives).
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives)).
~~**Debate in Parliament**~~
The [original motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was:
~~> _That this House:_~~
>
~~> _(1) notes that there is:_~~
>
>
>
~~> _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_~~
>
>
>
~~> _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_~~
>
>
>
~~> _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._~~
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was:
> _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._
~~This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.~~
~~**Background to the Motion**~~
This division relates to the Policy _[For same sex marriage](/policies/1)_.
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
> _the words proposed to be omitted ( **Mr Stephen Jones’s** amendment) stand part of the question._
In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives).
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives)).
**Debate in Parliament**
The [original motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was:
> _That this House:_
>
> _(1) notes that there is:_
>
>
>
> _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_
>
>
>
> _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_
>
>
>
> _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was:
> _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
**Background to the Motion**
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792), which had been introduced by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:13

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
~~The members were voting on whether:~~
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
~~<blockquote>That this House:~~
~~(1) notes that there is:~~
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
> _the words proposed to be omitted ( **Mr Stephen Jones’s** amendment) stand part of the question._
In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives).
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives)).
**Debate in Parliament**
The [original motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was:
> _That this House:_
>
> _(1) notes that there is:_
>
>
>
> _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_
>
>
>
> _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_
>
>
>
> _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was:
> _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
**Background to the Motion**
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792), which had been introduced by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 13:21:01

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Change the wording of the motion~~
Motions - Same-Sex Marriage - Change the wording of the motion

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:37:48

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Change the wording of the motion~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Change the wording of the motion

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:32:25

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Omit words~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Change the wording of the motion

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>~~
~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol>~~
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
~~In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.~~
In other words, they were voting on whether the original words of the motion should be left alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> proposed to amend the motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Someone who voted Aye supported the wording of the original motion. Since the majority voted No, the wording of the original motion will now be omitted and a vote will be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">original motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 11:56:08

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:57:36

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>~~
~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>~~
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:36:34

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Omit words

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:08:03

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=4&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:04:48

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote>
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
~~That this House:~~
<blockquote><i>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
~~(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.~~
~~~~
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.
~~~~
<blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:04:04

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
~~~~
The members were voting on whether:
~~the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.~~
<blockquote><i>the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.</blockquote></p>
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:02:47

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a>, a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#3

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 09:57:04

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion

Description

That this House:<dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>notes that there is:<dl><dt>(a)</dt><dd>a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</dd><dt>(b)</dt><dd>widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</dd></dl></dd><dt>(2)</dt><dd>calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</dd></dl>That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage.’That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a>, a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Jones’s amendment) stand part of the question.
In other words, they were voting on whether to leave the words of the original (substantive) motion alone.
The vote arose because Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> had introduced an amendment to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye supported the original wording of Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted No, a vote can now be taken on whether to insert the words proposed by Jones MP’s amendment into the substantive motion.
Debate in Parliament
The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i>
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i>
<i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘No’ in this division.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.