|
senate vote 2017-11-29#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-12-23 17:57:30
|
Title
Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; in Committee- Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - in Committee - State and Territory Officers
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Macdonald on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-29.18.1) which would force state and territory officers to solemnise a marriage where there are no legal impediments (currently the Marriage Act uses the language that those officers *may* solemnise such a marriage).
- This amendment was introduced by Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (NSW).
- ### 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>Chair, I want to raise a point of order. You've been very precise in enforcing the standing orders. There is a senator in this chamber who is clearly breaching the rule about wearing insignia supporting a cause here. I ask you to exercise the same rigour that you've used on other points of order on all senators in this chamber and not allow one senator to think he or she is better than anyone else and there are special rules for him or her just because of some inflated view of their own importance.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Siewert?</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>Chair, I'm wondering if Senator Macdonald is referring to my badge for Family Matters.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, did you wish to add anything to your point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I want you to enforce the standing orders, as you have been so diligent in doing this morning.</p><p>The CHAIR: I certainly heard you say that, Senator Macdonald. I was simply asking you if you wish to clarify because there are a number of senators who are not clear on what it is that you are objecting to in particular.</p><p>It would be inappropriate for me to reflect on their inability to understand, as that would be a reflection. We always wear badges supporting various charitable causes. You look around, Chair. You're in charge of the joint. If you see anyone who is breaching a standing order that has been enforced by past presidents, including against me, then I ask you to enforce those standing orders again. If you can't see them, then perhaps you should go to Specsavers.</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. It wasn't a matter of whether I could see them or not; it was seeking further clarification. I thank you for adding that clarification. As senators would be aware, and as Senator Macdonald alluded to in his point of order, there is a practice in the chamber that we wear small badges and pins to recognise particular days and so on. That's been a longstanding custom in the Senate.</p><p>Senator Macdonald is also correct in that we do have standing orders and rulings by Presidents that go to something more than that. There is a distinction, and the distinction is, where it is obvious that the message reflects on the views of the senator or is broad enough to be interpreted, the senator is called to order about the prop or the message that they are wearing. On the point of order that you've raised this morning, Senator Macdonald, I don't believe that the range of badges and pins that are being worn today in the Senate are a breach of that particular ruling. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>Madam Chair, may I ask that you, in your ruling, consider the ruling of Temporary Chair Senator Whish-Wilson which required both me and I think a member of the Greens party to remove from display the political campaigning for the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns as demonstrated by the rainbow flag and 'It's O.K. to Vote No.' That was upheld by Senator Whish-Wilson—I accept that—but I do make the point: there are badges signifying the political campaign we've gone through in this place. We're just looking for consistency.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>I suspect that I'm the person that Senator Macdonald is referring to, and I think I'm entitled to have something to say here. The previous President of the Senate, Senator Parry, made no comment at all when Senator Hanson turned up here wearing a burqa.</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hinch. I don't believe you are the person being referred to.</p><p>I'll leave that alone and go to the badges. Yesterday Senator Macdonald said, 'We all wear badges in this chamber; we're all entitled to,' and yet he challenged Temporary Chair Senator Whish-Wilson for wearing a badge inadvertently yesterday.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Hinch, please resume your seat.</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Please resume your seat.</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>The CHAIR: Can you resume your seat, Senator Macdonald. Thank you. I've indicated to the chamber my interpretation of the standing order in relation to the point of order that you have made.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>On the point of order—</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>Which point of order?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I'm just actually clarifying; I think it's Senator Macdonald's point of order. Can I respectfully—</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, resume your seat, thank you. We will hear Senator Wong's point of order in a respectful way.</p><p>I am happy to make this contribution as a committee contribution, if that would make you feel better, Senator Macdonald.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Well, it would abide by the standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Senator Macdonald, a little courtesy this morning, I think, would be good. This is a bill that has been the subject of a national vote, and there are many people across the country who are observing this—not a national vote, a national survey. Does that make you feel better? There are many people who are watching the behaviour of this chamber. People are entitled to their different views, but having an unseemly and, frankly, discourteous argument about badges is less than this Senate ought be doing. If Senator Macdonald or Senator Bernardi believe that the attire of one of the senators is inconsistent with the standing orders, I think it's incumbent upon them to raise that. I indicate, from the opposition's perspective, regardless of who is in the chair, we have respected the ruling of the chair in relation to dress code.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>On the debate, as Senator Wong well knows, I have not raised the issue about a badge, and Senator Wong contributes—</p> <p class="speaker">Honourable Senator</p><p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>This is not a point of order, if you'd opened your ears; I'm talking in the debate as Senator Wong did. Madam Chair, you've allowed Senator Wong to speak in the debate on a matter that wasn't particularly germane to it. There was direct misrepresentation by Senator Wong of what I said, when I particularly mentioned that it didn't refer to badges. What I was saying was that, if this chamber is going to work, the people in the presiding officers' chairs need to enforce the rules. There is a senator in this chamber, to anyone's view, who is not complying with those rules. What I'm asking, in my contribution to this debate, is that whoever is in the chair enforces the rule, as you, Madam Chair, have so rigorously done so far in the debate today.</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Please resume your seat. I believe there is a point of order. Senator Whish-Wilson?</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>Madam Chair, if Senator Hinch were to remove his scarf, Senator Hanson-Young would have to remove her dress, because it's a rainbow dress!</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, that is not a point of order. Frankly, it does not contribute to the debate before us. Senator Macdonald, did you wish to continue?</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Senator Hanson-Young, I will give you my handkerchief—not to cover the dress but to deal with the flood of tears that would no doubt come. Madam Chair, continuing the debate, Senator Wong talks about this being a respectful debate. Senator Wong, of course, as we all know, is the worst offender in respect and disrespect at question time. I have made very clear in this debate what my position is. I have actually achieved this in ways Senator Wong hasn't done, by voting for the removal of discriminations against gay people, and I stand proudly on that record. I have indicated my own personal view, respectfully. What I am asking is that tolerance be shown in this debate and throughout Australia, but particularly in this chamber, for those who don't have the corporate view. I know there are many members of the Labor Party with deep religious convictions who are very uncomfortable about being corralled into supporting a Labor Party majority vote. That needs to be exposed to anyone. I don't care what their view is, I don't care what their religion is and I don't care whether they have religion or not—those are matters for them. In a debate that was intended to have a conscience vote by all senators, it's clear that some senators are not able to follow their conscience. That disturbs me.</p><p>Madam Chair, on the debate before the chamber that Senator Wong was speaking to, I'm not quite sure what contribution Senator Wong made in relation to the debate, but I have made my position clear. I agree this debate has to be respectful but, regrettably, the way others in this chamber have performed today shows that respect is not universal.</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Fierravanti-Wells?</p> <p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p><p>Madam Chair, I think in the interests of progressing this debate and getting on with what we are required to do, Senator Hinch, could I kindly ask you if you would remove your scarf? I think that would enable this matter to progress. I appreciate and I respect the situation, but I think otherwise we're just going to be bogged down in this debate. I just think that might be a sensible way of moving on in this debate.</p><p>The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Senator Hinch?</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>Nobody stood and complained when Senator Hanson wore a burqa in this chamber.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Hinch—</p><p>Everyone else has had their say, Chair.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Hinch, are you raising a point of order? If not, I have made the comment about your attire.</p><p>I thought it was just a debating point still.</p><p>The CHAIR: We are debating, but I have made my comment in relation to your attire.</p><p>Madam Chair, with respect, I was asked by another senator to take a certain action, which I will not do, and I agree with Sarah Hanson-Young who says, 'I'm wearing a rainbow dress.'</p><p>The CHAIR: I am in the hands of the Committee of the Whole. We have a number of amendments before us. Senator Leyonhjelm?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|