Division Description Changes — Bills — Marriage Amendment Bill 2012; Report from Federation Chamber — 19th Sep 2012

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:21:05	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2 motion] to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. ~~This means that the bill will not considered any further.~~ ~~''Debate in Parliament''~~ The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives Stephen Jones] as a private member’s bill. Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.(Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here]. ) He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.(Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here]. ) ~~As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour.~~ Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.(Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here]. ) However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill. Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.(Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here]. ) ~~''Background to the Bill''~~ The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.(Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].) ~~References~~ The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2) to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. This means that the bill will not considered any further. _Debate in Parliament_ The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) as a private member’s bill. Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.(Read Jones MP's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1). ) He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.(Read Jones MP's explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8). ) As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [Luke Simpkins](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives) MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.(Read Simpkins MP's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3). ) However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill. Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [Stuart Robert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives) MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.(Read Robert MP's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1). ) _Background to the Bill_ The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives) and Independent MP [Andrew Wilkie](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives). There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate). Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.(Read more about these three bills in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041).) References
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:53	Title Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2 motion] to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. This means that the bill will not considered any further. ''Debate in Parliament'' The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives Stephen Jones] as a private member’s bill. Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.[1] He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.[2] Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.(Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here]. ) He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.(Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here]. ) As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.[3] However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill. Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.(Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here]. ) However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill. Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.[4] Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.(Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here]. ) ''Background to the Bill'' The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.[5] The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.(Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].) References * [1] Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here]. * [2] Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here]. * [3] Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here]. * [4] Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here]. * [5] Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-02-14 14:57:21	Title ~~Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage~~ Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time Description The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2 motion] to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. This means that the bill will not considered any further. ''Debate in Parliament'' The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives Stephen Jones] as a private member’s bill. ~~<p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.</p>~~ Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.[1] He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.[2] <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. ~~<p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>~~ Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.[3] However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill. <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.</p> <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.</p> <p>Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.</p> ~~<p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>~~ <p>The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.</p> ~~<p>More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.</p>~~ Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.[4] ''Background to the Bill'' The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.[5] References * [1] Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here]. * [2] Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here]. * [3] Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here]. * [4] Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here]. * [5] Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 13:55:02	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.</p> <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.</p> <p>Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.</p> <p>More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 13:52:31	Title ~~Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading~~ Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.</p> <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.</p> <p>Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.</p> <p>More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-08 17:13:00	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href-"http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.</p> <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.</p> <p>Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.</p> <p>More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-08 17:12:36	Title Description <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as John Murphy MP.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href-"http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.</p> <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.</p> <p>Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.</p> <p>More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2012-09-19#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-08 17:10:32	Title Bills — Marriage Amendment Bill 2012; Report from Federation Chamber Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading Description ~~<p class="speaker">Anna Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that this bill be now read a second time.</p>~~ <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.</p> <p>Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.</p> <p>As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as John Murphy MP.</p> <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.</p> <p>Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.</p> <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p> <p>The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.</p> <p>More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.</p>

Change

Division

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:05

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2 motion] to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
~~This means that the bill will not considered any further.~~
~~''Debate in Parliament''~~
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives Stephen Jones] as a private member’s bill.
Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.(Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here]. ) He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.(Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here]. )
~~As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour.~~
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.(Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here]. ) However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.(Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here]. )
~~''Background to the Bill''~~
The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.(Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].)
~~References~~
The majority voted against a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2) to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
This means that the bill will not considered any further.
_Debate in Parliament_
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives) as a private member’s bill.
Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.(Read Jones MP's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1). ) He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.(Read Jones MP's explanation [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8). )
As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [Luke Simpkins](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives) MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.(Read Simpkins MP's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3). ) However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [Stuart Robert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives) MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.(Read Robert MP's contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1). )
_Background to the Bill_
The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives) and Independent MP [Andrew Wilkie](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives). There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate). Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.(Read more about these three bills in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041).)
References

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:53

Title

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2 motion] to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
This means that the bill will not considered any further.
''Debate in Parliament''
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives Stephen Jones] as a private member’s bill.
Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.[1] He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.[2]
Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.(Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here]. ) He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.(Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here]. )
As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.[3] However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.(Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here]. ) However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.[4]
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.(Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here]. )
''Background to the Bill''
The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.[5]
The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.(Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].)
References
* [1] Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here].
* [2] Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here].
* [3] Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here].
* [4] Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here].
* [5] Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-02-14 14:57:21

Title

~~Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage~~
Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Description

The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-19.35.2 motion] to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members reject the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages.
This means that the bill will not considered any further.
''Debate in Parliament''
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives Stephen Jones] as a private member’s bill.
~~The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.~~
Jones MP said that he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”.[1] He explained that in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.[2]
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
As the Labor Party called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour.
~~Debate in Parliament~~
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives Luke Simpkins] MP said that a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members.[3] However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.
Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.
~~Background to the Bill~~
The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.
~~More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.~~
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives Stuart Robert] MP referred to family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.[4]
''Background to the Bill''
The Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives Adam Bandt] and Independent MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives Andrew Wilkie]. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young]. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex.[5]
References
* [1] Read Jones MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-13.20.1 here].
* [2] Read Jones MP's explanation [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-27.144.8 here].
* [3] Read Simpkins MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-28.119.3 here].
* [4] Read Robert MP's contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-06-18.256.1 here].
* [5] Read more about these three bills in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041 bills digest].

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:55:02

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow its members to make a conscience vote on any legislation that legalised same-sex marriage, which is what occurred in this case.
Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.
Background to the Bill
The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.
More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:52:31

Title

~~Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading~~
Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Recognise same-sex marriage

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.
Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.
Background to the Bill
The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.
More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-08 17:13:00

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.
Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href-"http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.
Background to the Bill
The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.
More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-08 17:12:36

Title

Description

The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.
Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as John Murphy MP.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as <a href-"http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=John_Murphy&mpc=Reid&house=representatives">John Murphy</a> MP.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.
Background to the Bill
The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.
More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.

representatives vote 2012-09-19#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-08 17:10:32

Title

Bills — Marriage Amendment Bill 2012; Report from Federation Chamber
Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 - Second Reading

Description

~~Anna Burke~~
~~The question is that this bill be now read a second time.~~
The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 for a second time. This means that the majority of members rejected the main idea of the bill.
Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill, which was to recognise same-sex marriages. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.
Debate in Parliament
The bill was introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a> as a private member’s bill. Jones MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0091;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F26088656-df77-4f73-8605-47271c5ff5cf%2F0090%22">said that</a> he was guided by the fact that “a majority of Australians are in favour of the changes contained within this bill” as well as “the human right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality”. He <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0219;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fdfa1725a-aa28-48db-ba56-7995bad31f8c%2F0000%22">explained that</a> in 2011 the Australian Labour Party changed its policy to allow for same-sex marriage and to allow a conscience vote on any legislation to that effect, which is what occurred in this case.
Much of the debate on the bill took place within the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_16_-_The_Federation_Chamber">Federation Chamber</a>, which is a debating committee that gives members more opportunities to debate bills and other matters.
As the Labor Party had called for a conscience vote on this issue, Labor members were split for and against the bill with the majority voting in favour. Some Labor members were particularly strong in their opposition to the bill, such as John Murphy MP.
Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow its members a conscience vote, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Luke_Simpkins&mpc=Cowan&house=representatives">Luke Simpkins</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0166;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc34bef48-297b-4a1e-9e19-cb3482680115%2F0000%22">argued that</a> a conscience vote was “always” an option for Liberal members. However, the Liberal Party still uniformly voted against the bill.
Several members who opposed the bill argued that the current marriage law is not discriminatory. For example, the Liberal Party’s <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stuart_Robert&mpc=Fadden&house=representatives">Stuart Robert</a> MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0391;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F8f9c3c2a-1ee7-4657-a602-aef97dd32610%2F0000%22">referred to</a> family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson’s submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality that “functional equality has already been achieved” in Australian law for registered same-sex unions.
Background to the Bill
The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on the same day as the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which was co-sponsored by the Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a> and Independent MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Andrew_Wilkie&mpc=Denison&house=representatives">Andrew Wilkie</a>. There was also a similar bill being considered in the Senate, called the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, which had been introduced by Greens Party Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>. Despite containing different language and writing styles, all three bills aimed to allow people to marry regardless of sex. Although the three bills were unsuccessful, they represent a significant growth in political will towards recognising same-sex marriage at the federal level.
More information about this bill and its context can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158#_Toc327804041">here</a>.