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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-24 11:09:32

Title

Description

  • The majority rejected the bill’s main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they voted against giving the bill a [second reading](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). This means the bill failed and won’t be debated anymore.
  • The bill’s main idea was that Australian law should recognise all marriages that are legal overseas, including same-sex marriages.
  • ###Rebellion and a free vote
  • Liberal Senator [Sue Boyce](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/sue_boyce) was a [rebel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#rebel) and agreed with the bill’s main idea while the rest of the Liberal Party disagreed with it.
  • The Labor Party treated this division as a [free vote](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#free) so Labor senators could vote for or against it.
  • ###Background to the bill
  • [Same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) is not legal or recognised in Australia so homosexual couples who marry overseas are not considered married here.
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced this [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923) two months after New Zealand became the latest country to allow same-sex marriage (more information on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand)).
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced this [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923) two months after New Zealand became the latest country to allow same-sex marriage (more information on [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand)).
  • ABC News reported the result of this division [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-20/liberal-senator-crosses-floor-on-same-sex-marriage-bill/4768284).
  • [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-20/liberal-senator-crosses-floor-on-same-sex-marriage-bill/4768284) reported the result of this division.
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-23 16:26:25

Title

Description

  • The majority rejected the bill’s main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they voted against giving the bill a [second reading](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). This means the bill failed and won’t be debated anymore.
  • The bill’s main idea was that Australian law should recognise all marriages that are legal overseas, including same-sex marriages.
  • ###Rebellion and free voting
  • ###Rebellion and a free vote
  • Liberal Senator [Sue Boyce](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/sue_boyce) was a [rebel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#rebel) and agreed with the bill’s main idea while the rest of the Liberal Party disagreed with it.
  • The Labor Party treated this division as a [free vote](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#free) so Labor senators could vote for or against it.
  • ###Background to the bill
  • [Same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) is not legal or recognised in Australia so homosexual couples who marry overseas are not considered married here.
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced this [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923) two months after New Zealand became the latest country to allow same-sex marriage (more information on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand)).
  • ABC News reported the result of this division [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-20/liberal-senator-crosses-floor-on-same-sex-marriage-bill/4768284).
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-10-23 16:25:08

Title

  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Read a second time
  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • _Debate in Parliament_
  • Australian Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate), who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2). ) She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including Senator [Penny Wong](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate), Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [Sue Boyce](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate) supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.(Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1). )
  • Liberal Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate), who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.(Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1). ) He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • _Background to the Bill_
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.(See the bill's [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22). More information about the bill and its context can also be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923).) It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • References
  • The majority rejected the bill’s main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they voted against giving the bill a [second reading](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html)). This means the bill failed and won’t be debated anymore.
  • The bill’s main idea was that Australian law should recognise all marriages that are legal overseas, including same-sex marriages.
  • ###Rebellion and free voting
  • Liberal Senator [Sue Boyce](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/sue_boyce) was a [rebel](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#rebel) and agreed with the bill’s main idea while the rest of the Liberal Party disagreed with it.
  • The Labor Party treated this division as a [free vote](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/help/faq#free) so Labor senators could vote for or against it.
  • ###Background to the bill
  • [Same-sex marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia) is not legal or recognised in Australia so homosexual couples who marry overseas are not considered married here.
  • Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) introduced this [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923) two months after New Zealand became the latest country to allow same-sex marriage (more information on Wikipedia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand)).
  • ABC News reported the result of this division [here](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-20/liberal-senator-crosses-floor-on-same-sex-marriage-bill/4768284).
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:21

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • Australian Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young], who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2 here]. ) She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate Penny Wong], Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sue Boyce] supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.(Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1 here]. )
  • Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis], who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.(Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1 here]. ) He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.(See the bill's [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22 explanatory memorandum]. More information about the bill and its context can also be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923 here].) It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • References
  • The majority voted against a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • _Debate in Parliament_
  • Australian Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate), who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2). ) She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including Senator [Penny Wong](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate), Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [Sue Boyce](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate) supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.(Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1). )
  • Liberal Senator [George Brandis](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate), who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.(Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1). ) He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • _Background to the Bill_
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.(See the bill's [explanatory memorandum](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22). More information about the bill and its context can also be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923).) It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • References
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:55

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • Australian Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young], who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.[1] She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • Australian Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young], who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.(Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2 here]. ) She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate Penny Wong], Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sue Boyce] supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.[2]
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sue Boyce] supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.(Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1 here]. )
  • Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis], who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.[3] He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis], who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.(Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1 here]. ) He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.[4] It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.(See the bill's [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22 explanatory memorandum]. More information about the bill and its context can also be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923 here].) It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • References
  • * [1] Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2 here].
  • * [2] Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1 here].
  • * [3] Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1 here].
  • * [4] See the bill's [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22 explanatory memorandum]. More information about the bill and its context can also be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923 here].
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-02-14 16:19:37

Title

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • Australian Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.[1] She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • Australian Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young], who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.[1] She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate Penny Wong], Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sue Boyce] supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.[2]
  • Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis], who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.[3] He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.[4] It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • References
  • * [1] Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2 here].
  • * [2] Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1 here].
  • * [3] Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1 here].
  • * [4] See the bill's [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22 explanatory memorandum]. More information about the bill and its context can also be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923 here].
  • * [4] See the bill's [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22 explanatory memorandum]. More information about the bill and its context can also be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923 here].
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2014-02-14 16:19:19

Title

  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Recognise valid overseas same-sex marriages
  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Description

  • The majority voted against a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time.
  • This means that the majority of senators reject the main idea of the bill, which is to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill, which was to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.</p>
  • Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not considered any further.
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p>
  • ''Debate in Parliament''
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • Australian Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sarah Hanson-Young, who introduced the bill, said that the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”.[1] She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.
  • <p>Australian Greens <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>, who introduced the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”. She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.</p>
  • The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate Penny Wong], Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  • <p>The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Penny Wong</a>, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.</p>
  • Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate Sue Boyce] supported the bill, despite acknowledging that it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.[2]
  • <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sue Boyce</a> supported the bill, despite <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">acknowledging that</a> it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.</p>
  • Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate George Brandis], who opposed the bill, said that there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition.[3] He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.
  • <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Liberal Senator George Brandis</a>, who opposed the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition. He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.</p>
  • ''Background to the Bill''
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia”.[4] It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.
  • <p>The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia” (see the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22">explanatory memorandum</a>). It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.</p>
  • <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923">here</a>.</p>
  • References
  • * [1] Read Senator Hanson-Young's full contribution and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2013-06-20.3.2 here].
  • * [2] Read Senator Boyce's full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.8.1 here].
  • * [3] Read Senator Brandis' full contribution [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2013-06-20.5.1 here].
  • * [4] See the bill's [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22 explanatory memorandum]. More information about the bill and its context can also be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923 here].
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2013-11-07 14:10:23

Title

  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading
  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Recognise valid overseas same-sex marriages

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill, which was to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p>
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • <p>Australian Greens <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>, who introduced the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”. She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.</p>
  • <p>The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Penny Wong</a>, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.</p>
  • <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sue Boyce</a> supported the bill, despite <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">acknowledging that</a> it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Liberal Senator George Brandis</a>, who opposed the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition. He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.</p>
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia” (see the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22">explanatory memorandum</a>). It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.</p>
  • <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2013-10-08 11:08:11

Title

Description

  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill, which was to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not be considered any further.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill was not considered any further.</p>
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • <p>Australian Greens <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>, who introduced the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”. She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.</p>
  • <p>The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Penny Wong</a>, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.</p>
  • <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sue Boyce</a> supported the bill, despite <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">acknowledging that</a> it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Liberal Senator George Brandis</a>, who opposed the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition. He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.</p>
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia” (see the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22">explanatory memorandum</a>). It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.</p>
  • <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923">here</a>.</p>
senate vote 2013-06-20#2

Edited by mackay

on 2013-10-08 11:07:35

Title

  • Bills — Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013; Second Reading
  • Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 - Second Reading

Description

  • <p class="speaker">John Hogg</p>
  • <p>The question now is that the bill be read a second time.</p>
  • <p>The Aye voters failed to pass a motion to read the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 for a second time. This means that the majority of senators rejected the main idea of the bill, which was to legally recognise same-sex marriages validly entered into in foreign countries.</p>
  • <p>Someone who voted Aye supported the main idea of the bill. Since the majority voted No, the bill will not be considered any further.</p>
  • <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p>
  • <p>Australian Greens <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Hanson-Young</a>, who introduced the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> the bill addresses “discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries”. She argues that this bill “is a step towards marriage equality in Australia” and that the “majority of the public support that”.</p>
  • <p>The Labor Party was allowed a conscience vote on this issue and so there were Labor senators both for and against the bill. The three Labor senators who spoke about the bill during the debate supported it, including <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Penny_Wong&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Penny Wong</a>, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate.</p>
  • <p>Although the Liberal Party did not explicitly allow a conscience vote, one Liberal senator did vote in favour of the bill. <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sue_Boyce&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Senator Sue Boyce</a> supported the bill, despite <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0009;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">acknowledging that</a> it was “a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia”.</p>
  • <p><a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=George_Brandis&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Liberal Senator George Brandis</a>, who opposed the bill, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0006;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F56c6873e-02be-48c1-a805-5a44781c4c92%2F0000%22">said that</a> there were different views on same-sex marriage within the Coalition. He argued that “one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position ... and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so”.</p>
  • <p><b>Background to the Bill</b></p>
  • <p>The purpose of the bill was to “ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia” (see the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs923_ems_b0bf8a51-4ecb-48b1-9deb-f1dc4c9cd3ff%22">explanatory memorandum</a>). It was introduced and debated during the final two months of the 43rd Parliament.</p>
  • <p>More information about this Bill and the context surrounding it can be found <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s923">here</a>.</p>