|
senate vote 2024-09-12#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-15 07:23:12
|
Title
Bills — Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024; First Reading- Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024 - First Reading - Introduce the bill into the Senate
Description
<p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I move:</p>-
- A small majority voted against a [motion](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) to introduce [the bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1429) into the Senate for consideration. In other words, they voted against giving the bill a first reading. This means the bill will not be considered any further.
- ### What is the main idea of the bill?
- The [bill](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1429) would have removed anti-discrimination protections from trans and gender-diverse people by removing the term "gender identity" from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and defining "man" as "a member of the male biological sex irrespective of age" and "woman" as "a member of the female biological sex irrespective of age". Note that this may also have had the effect of removing anti-discrimination protections for intersex people and possibly other men and women with nontraditional gender presentations.
- ### Reasons for this division
- It is rare for bills to be rejected by division on the first reading, as explained by Tasmanian Senator [Jonathon Duniam](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jonathon_duniam) (Liberal), [when explaining why](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.39.1) the Coalition would be voting in favour of a first reading:
- > *While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor and other crossbench bills that we have had opposition to.*
- >
- > *The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken, and it should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be subject of a normal internal process.*
- ACT Senator [Katy Gallagher](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/katy_gallagher) (Labour) [then explained why](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-09-12.39.1) the Labour Party were voting against giving it a first reading:
- > *I wasn't going to make a statement but, following on from Senator Duniam's contribution—he is correct in many of his remarks—we have also chosen not to support the first reading on matters that are extremely serious and do cause significant division and harm in the community. The Senate has chosen when that is appropriate, and it is very rare to not support the first reading. Certainly the government believes that this bill falls into that category, and we will be opposing the first reading of this bill.*
- >
- > *The division, the hurt, the pain that that causes for gender-diverse members of the community is real, and the sooner the Senate realises that and takes responsibility for causing that harm the better. We should not be allowing something like this to come into this chamber. We have to stand up and support all members of our community.*
<p class="italic">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and for related purposes.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p><p>I present the bill and move:</p><p class="italic">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</p> <p class="speaker">Steph Hodgins-May</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Steph Hodgins-May</p><p>The Greens will not allow One Nation to use parliamentary privilege to deny the existence of the trans and gender-diverse community. We will not give Pauline Hanson a platform for hate. Trans rights are human rights and they are non-negotiable. We must work towards a safer world for the trans and gender-diverse community. The gender-diverse community deserve to feel safe, respected and valued, living their lives treated as equals and free from discrimination.</p><p>The immediate and widespread backlash against the Prime Minister's decision to exclude questions on gender, sexuality and intersex characteristics from the 2026 census proved that the wider community will always reject bigotry and hate. It's a relief that the government has half-reversed that decision, but there is still so much work to be done. The Greens will always stand in solidarity with the trans community against hatred and bigotry.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Hodgins-May, I remind you, when addressing senators in this chamber, to use their correct titles.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>While the Senate has the opportunity to reject a bill at the first reading stage, in practice the first reading is almost always passed without opposition and is regarded as a purely formal stage. The coalition supports these normal procedures, as we have with many Greens, Labor and other crossbench bills that we have had opposition to.</p><p>The normal process enables bills to be fairly considered and debated by the Senate before a substantive decision is taken, and it should only be deviated from in the most extreme of circumstances—</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>Yes; hate speech is extreme!</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Order! Please continue, Senator Duniam.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>lest we deny the right of senators to even have matters debated. As in all cases, a vote on the first reading should not be taken as a position on the substantive legislation, especially where a bill has not had the opportunity to be subject of a normal internal process.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I wasn't going to make a statement but, following on from Senator Duniam's contribution—he is correct in many of his remarks—we have also chosen not to support the first reading on matters that are extremely serious and do cause significant division and harm in the community. The Senate has chosen when that is appropriate, and it is very rare to not support the first reading. Certainly the government believes that this bill falls into that category, and we will be opposing the first reading of this bill.</p><p>The division, the hurt, the pain that that causes for gender-diverse members of the community is real, and the sooner the Senate realises that and takes responsibility for causing that harm the better. We should not be allowing something like this to come into this chamber. We have to stand up and support all members of our community.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the first reading on Senator Hanson's introduction of the bill be agreed to.</p><p></p><p></p> -
-
|