All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2017-06-13#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-07-13 14:31:38
|
Title
Regulations and Determinations — Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016; Disallowance- Regulations and Determinations - Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 - Disallow
Description
<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>I am now going to put the question that the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 disallowance motion be put. Before I do, I would ordinarily ring the bells for one minute, but, if any senator requires me to ring the bells for more than one minute, I shall ring them for four minutes. I believe the will of the Senate will be satisfied with one minute.</p><p class="italic">Senator Fifield interjecting—</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-06-13.4.2) to disallow the [Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01652), which means that Regulation no longer has legal force. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator [Richard Di Natale](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/richard_di_natale).
- ### What was the motion about?
- The motion to disallow the Regulation was introduced in order to restore the ability of terminally ill patients to access medicinal cannabis products. Read more about the regulation in its [explanatory memorandum](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01652/Explanatory%20Statement/Text) and the arguments for its disallowance in the [debate](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-05-11.152.2).
<p>It is the disallowance motion; we are now recommitting.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>What was the previous? That was to allow—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>That was to allow the disallowance motion to be recommitted. Is everyone clear where we are? We are recommitting the disallowance motion of the last sitting. The question is that the motion moved to disallow the regulations be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; those against say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>The noes—</p><p class="italic">Senator Di Natale interjecting—</p><p>Yes, Senator Di Natale?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I seek clarification on the question again, please.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>This is the disallowance motion you have had recommitted, Senator Di Natale. So the vote was just recommitted.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>And I did not hear the outcome.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The outcome was that the ayes had it, and the division has now been called for from the noes. Division required; ring the bells for one minute.</p><p>The question is that the disallowance motion be agreed to.</p>
|