Division Description Changes — Resolutions of the Senate — Covid-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry; Consideration of Senate Message — 18th Jun 2020

Change	Division
representatives vote 2020-06-18#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-07-24 10:44:03	Title ~~Resolutions of the Senate - Covid-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry - Delay consideration of Senate Message~~ Resolutions of the Senate - Covid-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry - Delay consideration of Senate message Description The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-06-18.20.1): > That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ~~It was introduced by Aston MP [Alan Tudge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/aston/alan_tudge) (Liberal).~~ It was introduced by Aston MP [Alan Tudge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/aston/alan_tudge) (Liberal).
representatives vote 2020-06-18#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-07-24 10:43:52	Title ~~Resolutions of the Senate — Covid-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry; Consideration of Senate Message~~ Resolutions of the Senate - Covid-19: Arts and Entertainment Industry - Delay consideration of Senate Message Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. The Leader of the Greens on a point of order?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-06-18.20.1): > That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. It was introduced by Aston MP [Alan Tudge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/aston/alan_tudge) (Liberal). ~~<p>I understand that the point was made yesterday about a gag being moved midway through, but I moved an amendment and that amendment was seconded so the question should—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>No—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p>~~ ~~<p>When the minister moved that the question be put, the question before the House was my amendment.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ <p>Yes, but until that question, as I said yesterday, has been moved, seconded and then I have stated that it is the question before the House, it is not the question. The question before the House is the original question. It's made very, very clear in the <i>House of Representatives Practice</i>, with all the precedents, that a closure motion can be moved during the moving of an amendment, the seconding of an amendment, until such time as that seconding is complete and I say, 'The question is that the amendment be agreed to.' Up until that point, the closure applies.</p> ~~<p>I know the member for Melbourne has raised this a number of times. I suggest that he has a close look at the page in <i>Practice</i> with all the precedents.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ <p>That being the case, it would be appreciated if you could restate the actual question that is before us, because it's my understanding that if there's a no vote on the question that's now before us it would have the same impact as the amendment would have had.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question before the House is the original question moved by the minister: that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>So it effectively puts off the consideration of the issue.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ <p>It does exactly what the motion says; it's an order of the day for the next sitting. I hope that clarifies things for the member for Melbourne. I will send around the page; it's probably easier if I do that. So the question is that the motion moved by the minister that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting be agreed to.</p>

~~Tony Smith~~
~~The question now is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. The Leader of the Greens on a point of order?~~
~~Adam Bandt~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-06-18.20.1):
> *That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.*
It was introduced by Aston MP [Alan Tudge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/aston/alan_tudge) (Liberal).
~~I understand that the point was made yesterday about a gag being moved midway through, but I moved an amendment and that amendment was seconded so the question should—~~
~~Tony Smith~~
~~No—~~
~~Adam Bandt~~
~~When the minister moved that the question be put, the question before the House was my amendment.~~
~~Tony Smith~~
Yes, but until that question, as I said yesterday, has been moved, seconded and then I have stated that it is the question before the House, it is not the question. The question before the House is the original question. It's made very, very clear in the House of Representatives Practice, with all the precedents, that a closure motion can be moved during the moving of an amendment, the seconding of an amendment, until such time as that seconding is complete and I say, 'The question is that the amendment be agreed to.' Up until that point, the closure applies.
~~I know the member for Melbourne has raised this a number of times. I suggest that he has a close look at the page in Practice with all the precedents.~~
~~Tony Burke~~
That being the case, it would be appreciated if you could restate the actual question that is before us, because it's my understanding that if there's a no vote on the question that's now before us it would have the same impact as the amendment would have had.
~~Tony Smith~~
~~The question before the House is the original question moved by the minister: that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.~~
~~Tony Burke~~
~~So it effectively puts off the consideration of the issue.~~
~~Tony Smith~~
It does exactly what the motion says; it's an order of the day for the next sitting. I hope that clarifies things for the member for Melbourne. I will send around the page; it's probably easier if I do that. So the question is that the motion moved by the minister that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting be agreed to.