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

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2017-11-28#2

Edited by mackay

on 2017-12-29 13:10:32

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of keeping particular parts of schedule 1 unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for "*section 39DD and subsection 39DE(3) in item 8, and items 9 to 16 and 57, of schedule 1 [to] stand as printed.*" This division took place after Liberal Senator [David Fawcett](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/david_fawcett) moved that that parts [be opposed](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1).
  • The majority voted in favour of keeping particular parts of [schedule 1](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fs1099_first-senate%2F0001%22;rec=0) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for "*section 39DD and subsection 39DE(3) in item 8, and items 9 to 16 and 57, of schedule 1 [to] stand as printed.*" This division took place after Liberal Senator [David Fawcett](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/david_fawcett) moved that that parts [be opposed](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1).
  • These parts deal with the issue of religious marriage celebrants (including how to identify them), who are allowed to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs in certain circumstances.
  • ### Why did some Liberals vote Yes and others No?
  • The Liberal Party was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Liberal Party decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines.
  • ### What does this bill do?
  • This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also:
  • > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.*
  • Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
senate vote 2017-11-28#2

Edited by mackay

on 2017-12-29 13:09:49

Title

  • Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; in Committee
  • Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Religious marriage celebrants

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>
  • <p><i>(In division)</i> Is the amendment relating to the definition able to be separated from the amendment relating to celebrants?</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: I believe that that question has been put, Senator Macdonald. All of the amendments on sheet 8326 were moved, by leave, together. However, they are separate questions.</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of keeping particular parts of schedule 1 unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for "*section 39DD and subsection 39DE(3) in item 8, and items 9 to 16 and 57, of schedule 1 [to] stand as printed.*" This division took place after Liberal Senator [David Fawcett](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/david_fawcett) moved that that parts [be opposed](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-28.16.1).
  • These parts deal with the issue of religious marriage celebrants (including how to identify them), who are allowed to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs in certain circumstances.
  • ### Why did some Liberals vote Yes and others No?
  • The Liberal Party was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Liberal Party decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines.
  • ### What does this bill do?
  • This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also:
  • > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.*
  • Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
  • <p>Which one are we voting on now?</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: Amendments (1) to (19), (21) to (23), (25), (27) to (38), and (40) to (44) on sheet 8326.</p>
  • <p>Can someone help me? Is that the issue on the definition or on the celebrants?</p>
  • <p>Government senators: Both. They're all together.</p>
  • <p>I'm asking: can they be split?</p>
  • <p>An opposition senator: No.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, they have been moved, by leave, together. The Senate has already agreed that all of the amendments on sheet 8326 be moved together. However, we have separated them out in the manner I've just described so that the first question is that the amendments be agreed to and the second question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.</p>
  • <p>I'm asking if the different amendments can be voted on separately.</p>
  • <p>An opposition senator: No.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: The answer is no.</p>
  • <p>I'm asking the Chair&#8212;thank you for your help!</p>
  • <p>Honourable senators interjecting&#8212;</p>
  • <p>I'm exercising an informed vote on this, unlike those numpties over there, who are just doing what they are being told to do.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, please resume your seat.</p>
  • <p>Honourable senators interjecting&#8212;</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: I remind senators to be respectful. This has been a respectful debate; let's keep it that way. I've made my point, Senator Macdonald. I've made my point that the Senate has made its decision. Senator Birmingham?</p>
  • <p>An honourable senator: He can't speak if he's not in his chair.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, you can't move now.</p>
  • <p>Honourable senators interjecting&#8212;</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: Order! I am seeking to keep the debate respectful and keep people orderly. Senator Birmingham, you have the call.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
  • <p>Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say, if it may help Senator Macdonald, that there are subsequent amendments that deal more separately with the question in relation to celebrants and their treatment that don't necessarily change the definition of 'marriage'. Whilst of course you're right, Chair, that the chamber had already agreed to deal with these amendments together, it would be helpful, at least for Senator Macdonald, who asked a reasonable question, to understand that there are subsequent amendments that do deal with the matters on separate terms.</p>
  • <p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The question now is that section 39DD and subsection 39DE(3) in item 8, and items 9 to 16 and 57, of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p>
  • <p>Progress reported.</p>