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&#8217; views on the issue of marriage equality.</dd></dl></p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That all words after &#8216;That&#8217; be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: &#8216;this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents&#8217; views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage.&#8217;</p><p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Mr Stephen Jones&#8217;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>