Jim Chalmers voted strongly against speeding things along in Parliament (procedural)

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by ending debate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted "That the question be now put." In this case, the question was on whether to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let a vote on a censure motion happen.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put." In other words, they voted to end debate on the question and instead vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put." In other words, they voted to stop debating the question and instead vote on it right away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

This means that the debate will end and the question voted on immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to speed things along and vote of the question straight away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put." In other words, they voted to end debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put." In other words, they voted to end debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put." In other words, they voted to end debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put." In other words, they voted to speed things along and end debate by voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put. In other words, they voted to end debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put." In other words, they voted to vote on the question straight away from that continuing the debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion That the question be put. In other words, they voted to speed things along by voting on the question immediately rather than continuing debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. To "put a question" is to vote on the question immediately rather continuing to debate it.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which is parliamentary jargon for speeding things along and voting on the question immediately without further debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put." In other words, they voted to stop debating the question - in this case, whether to agree with the Senate amendments - and instead vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which is parliamentary jargon for ending debate and voting on the question straight away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which is parliamentary jargon for stopping debate on a matter and voting on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to speed things along by ending debate and voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along and vote on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question rather than continuing to debate it.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by ending debate and voting on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put." In other words, they voted to speed things along by voting on the question immediately rather than discussing it any further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which is parliamentary jargon for speeding things along and voting on the question immediately without further debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along and vote on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to 'put' the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by immediately voting on the question rather than continuing to debate it. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted:

That the question be now put.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to end debate and vote on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to end debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of putting the question, which is parliamentary jargon for voting on the question straight away without any further discussion.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by stopping debate and voting on the matter immediately. In parliamentary jargon they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put." In other words, they voted to end debate on the matter and vote on the question straight away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put." This is parliamentary jargon for ending debate and voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to stop debate and vote on the question immediately. This is known as putting the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along, which ended debate on the question and required them instead to vote on it immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to stop debate and vote on the question immediately. This is known as putting the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they agreed to vote on the question straight away instead of debating it any further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to 'put the question', which is parliamentary jargon for ending debate and voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along, which was introduced by Durack MP Melissa Price (Liberal), which means it succeeded. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question introduced by Pearce MP and Attorney-General Christian Porter (Liberal). This is parliamentary jargon for stopping debate and instead voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which is parliamentary jargon for ending debate and voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to stop debate and vote on the question immediately. This is known as putting the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be put", which means that they will stop debating the question and instead vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to speed things along by stopping the debate and voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to vote on the question straight away, without further debate. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

In other words, they voted to stop this current debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

In other words, they voted to stop this current debate and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by ending debate on a question and voting on it immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to stop discussion on the issue and vote immediately on the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put. In other words, they wanted to vote on the question now rather than discussing it any further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by ending debate and voting on it straight away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, in other words, they voted to stop debating the question and instead vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to stop debating the matter and vote on it instead.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to vote on the issue now rather than continuing to debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to "put the question". In parliamentary jargon, they voted to speed things along by voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by ending debate and voting on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along by ending debate and voting on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by ending debate and voting on the question straight away. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

The majority voted in favour of putting the question. In other words, they voted to speed things along by having the vote immediately rather than debating the matter any further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to immediately vote on the issue under discussion instead of debating it any further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

In other words, they voted to stop debating the matter any further and vote straight away.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted to stop discussing the question and instead vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

In other words, they voted to stop debating the question and vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of putting the question, which is another way of saying that they voted to stop debate and instead vote on the question straight away. In this case, the question was whether the amendments should be agreed to.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by putting the question. That is, voting on the question now rather than debating it further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along by voting on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted in favour of ending debate on the matter and instead voting on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along by putting the question. This means that debate on the question will now end and it will be voted on immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That the question be now put.

In other words, they voted to end any further debate on this matter and put the original question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of the motion "That the question be now put." This means that the debate on the question will end so the House can vote on it immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they voted in favour of speeding things along.

The majority voted in favour of putting the question. In other words, they voted in favour of speeding things along by voting on the motion now rather than debating any further.

The majority voted against a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted:

That the question be now put.

Motion like these stop debate and force the House to vote on the relevant motion immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. These types of motions are known as gagging motions because they end debate and force the House to vote on the question under discussion, which in this case was on whether to delay debate on this bill until later.

The majority voted against a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, the motion was:

That the question be now put.

Because the majority voted against this, the debate on this matter could continue.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along by stopping debate and voting on the question immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to 'put the question'.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question. In other words, they wanted to speed things along.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to 'put the question'. In other words, they voted to end discussion and vote on the question immediately.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to "put the question". In other words, they voted to end debate on whether to postpone debate on this bill and vote immediately on that question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question, which means they'll now stop debating and instead immediately vote on the question.

About the bill

The purpose of the bill is to:

progressively extend the lower 27.5 per cent corporate tax rate to all corporate tax entities by the 2023-24 financial year; and further reduce the corporate tax rate in stages so that by the 2026 27 financial year, the corporate tax rate for all entities will be 25 per cent

Read more in the bills digest.

The majority voted in favour of voting on the matter immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in favour of putting the question rather than debating it any further.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted in put the question so that they could vote on the matter they were discussing immediately rather than speaking more about it.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to 'put the question', which means debate will stop and a vote will happen immediately.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted "That the question be now put". This type of motion forces the House to vote on the matter immediately rather than debating anymore.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to "put" the question. In other words, they voted to stop debate on this subject and just take the vote already.

The debate related to a motion criticising the Government's actions on the Great Barrier Reef, which was subsequently voted on.

The majority voted in favour of a motion:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.

A "motion for a third reading" is the last vote that needs to happen in a house of Parliament before the bill can pass that house, so it's really just a vote on whether or not to pass a bill.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question", which means debate has to stop and the question needs to be voted on immediately.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along, which means they'll stop discussing the matter and vote on it immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the question.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In other words, they wanted to voted immediately on whether to pass the bill (and so end the third reading stage) rather than debating it for longer. Because this vote was successful, debate ended and the House immediately voted.

These sorts of motions are known as 'closure' or 'gag' motions and in parliamentary jargon, they are motions 'to put the question'.

What is this bill all about?

The bill was introduced to implement the Coalition Government's new school funding proposal. Unfortunately, at the time of this vote there was still no bills digest to explain exactly what the new proposal is, but there is a very helpful and easy to understand explanation on The Conversation by Associate Professor Misty Adoniou. As a brief summary:

• the proposal offers more money for schools, but less than the previous Labor Government had offered;
• every student will attract the same amount of funding but the amount of funding that the federal government will provide (as opposed to the state governments) is not equal between government and non-government schools (that is, the federal government will provide 80% of the funding for non-government schools but only 20% for government schools, with the states paying the difference);
• those in need will get more funding, but the Government still doesn't have any proposal for how this will work or even how many students will be eligible for this, which leaves a big question mark over the whole proposal.

How are schools currently funded?

ABC News has created a handily jargon-free summary of how Australian schools are funded.

The majority voted on a motion to speed things along by voting on the question immediately rather than debating any further. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question". In this case, the question was whether to suspend the normal parliamentary rules so that they could decide whether to pass the bill immediately.

These sorts of motions are known as 'closure' or 'gag' motions.

What is this bill all about?

The bill was introduced to implement the Coalition Government's new school funding proposal. Unfortunately, at the time of this vote there was still no bills digest to explain exactly what the new proposal is, but there is a very helpful and easy to understand explanation on The Conversation by Associate Professor Misty Adoniou. As a brief summary:

• the proposal offers more money for schools, but less than the previous Labor Government had offered;
• every student will attract the same amount of funding but the amount of funding that the federal government will provide (as opposed to the state governments) is not equal between government and non-government schools (that is, the federal government will provide 80% of the funding for non-government schools but only 20% for government schools, with the states paying the difference);
• those in need will get more funding, but the Government still doesn't have any proposal for how this will work or even how many students will be eligible for this, which leaves a big question mark over the whole proposal.

How are schools currently funded?

ABC News has created a handily jargon-free summary of how Australian schools are funded.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to put the motion of whether to agree with the main idea of the bill immediately, which is what happened.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along. In other words, they voted to decide on Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten's motion immediately rather than discussing it anymore.

Motion text

That the motion be put.

The majority voted in favour of having the vote on whether to pass the bill immediately. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend standing orders, which would normally require a certain period of time to pass before the House can vote on whether to pass the bill.

Because of this vote, there will be no more discussion of the bill in the House, which is why votes like this are sometimes called 'gags'.

Christopher Pine moved that the question be put (meaning no one else can contribute to the debate and that it should be voted on immediately).

This is a motion to 'put the question'. Members of Parliament (MPs) who vote in favour of putting the question are really voting in favour of speeding things along. In other words, they want to stop talking about a question and just vote on it already.

These types of motions are sometimes known as 'gag' motions, since they stop debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along.

Motion text

That the question be now put.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to speed things along.

Motion text

That the question be now put.

The majority voted in favour of "putting the motion". In other words, they voted to ask the question immediately rather than discussing it any further.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along and having the vote on a particular motion immediately rather than discussing it any further.

What was the motion that they were discussing?

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie introduced the motion and both Independent MP Cathy McGowan and Greens MP Adam Bandt supported it.

It was that:

'the House declines to give the bill a second reading and instead:

(1) acknowledges that the global refugee crisis is for Australia a humanitarian challenge and not a border security problem;

(2) notes that Australia's response to asylum seekers will inevitably require a genuinely regional solution involving most, if not all south-east Asian countries, as well as Australia and New Zealand, and be approved by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;

(3) insists that Australia's response to asylum seekers be consistent with all of our international treaty obligations including the Refugee Convention, the Rome Statute, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and

*(4) calls on the Government to develop and implement a sophisticated policy response to this challenge that as far as possible deals with the situation in source countries, countries of first asylum and transit countries.' *

Who supported the motion?

When the vote on whether to agree to the motion was taken, only MPs Wilkie, McGowan and Bandt voted in favour of it. Since there has to be at least five MPs on either side of the vote for an official division to be recorded, the result of the vote was recorded in Votes and Proceedings but not in Hansard and, therefore, not on They Vote For You.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along and having the vote on a particular motion immediately rather than discussing it any further.

Motion text

That the motion be put.

The majority voted in favour of speeding things along and having the vote on a particular motion immediately rather than discussing it any further.

Motion text

The question is that the motion be put.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to vote on the question being discussed now and not debating anymore.

Motion text

The question is that the motion be put.

The majority voted in favour of putting the motion. This is parliamentary jargon for speeding things along. By voting in favour of this question, the majority has voted to end debate on an issue by immediately voting on it.

The motion being debated here was introduced by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and was voted on immediately after this vote.

Motion text

That the question be put.

In other words, stop debating and vote on the question before the House.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to vote on whether to pass the bill now rather than continuing to debate.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to end debate by immediately voting on the question. This means that there won't be any more discussion or debate.

Motion text

That the motion be put.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, meaning that the discussion about the bill will now end and the House will now vote on whether they agree with the main idea of the bill (that is, whether to give the bill a second reading).

Main idea of the bill

The bill amends the Commonwealth Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme by, for example, reducing the large-scale renewable energy target (LRET) and replacing the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the operation of the RET scheme with annual statements by the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Further detail is available in the bills digest.

What happened next?

When the question was put, all Members of Parliament (MPs) except Mr Bob Katter and Mr Andrew Wilkie agreed to the bill's main idea.

The majority voted for ending the debate on the bill's main idea so the members will now be asked whether they agree with it straight away without any more talk. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for putting the question.

Bill's main idea

The bill's main idea is to speed up the management of asylum seekers' claims and support the Government's policies that stop asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat (for example, by intercepting the boats and turning them around). It also re-introduces temporary protection visas "because the Government is of the view that those who arrive by boat without a valid visa should not be rewarded with permanent protection" (see the bills digest)

Human rights issues

Some of the changes made by the bill may go against Australia's international law obligations. Particularly Australia's non-refoulement obligations, which stop Australia from sending people to places where their lives or freedoms are threatened. Australia has these obligations because it signed up to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Convention against Torture.

For example, the bill will insert a provision into the Migration Act 1958 that says that Australia’s non-refoulement obligations are not relevant to removing people who are not citizens and don't have a visa. The bills digest explains that this change would mean courts won't be able to stop the Government from removing people just because it is against Australia’s non-refoulement obligations. In other words, the Government wants to decide how to apply those obligations by itself, without any potential judicial oversight.

For more about which changes may go against these obligations and how, see the bills digest.

Background to the bill

The title of the bill says it is about "resolving the asylum legacy caseload". This refers to the asylum claims made by asylum seekers who arrived by boat without a visa between August 2012 and December 2013 and who have not been sent to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island. The Coalition Government says this caseload of asylum claims is the result of the previous Labor Government's policies.

During the 2013 election campaign, the Coalition said it would address this caseload and the changes made in this bill are part of their effort to do this.

More information on the background to the bill is in the bills digest.

The majority agreed to end debate on the bill's main idea (in parliamentary jargon, they agreed to put the question). This means that the House will now vote on whether they agree with the main idea without further delay (see that division).

Main idea of the bill

The main idea of the bill is to introduce broad ranging changes to the higher education sector, including the three changes mentioned below.

1. Deregulating university fees

One of the most controversial aspects of the bill is that it will remove any restrictions on the amount that universities can charge students for tuition in Commonwealth Supported Places (CSPs). It is not known how much tuition fees would rise if this bill is passed and becomes law (read more in the bills digest).

2. Indexing HECS-HELP debt by ten year bond rate

The bill will also introduce new indexation arrangements for Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) debts (also known as HECS-HELP debts). Currently, these debts are indexed by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The bill proposes to index them by the generally higher ten year bond rate, with a cap at 6%.

3. Charging fees for postgraduate research degrees

Currently, postgraduate students in research degrees don't have to pay any tuition costs. The bill will allow universities to charge these students fees of up to $3,900 per unit for high-cost courses and $1,700 for low-cost courses.

Background to the bill

As part of its 2014-15 Budget, Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Government has announced a series of changes to government funding arrangements and this bill is part of those changes (read more in the bills digest).

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. This type of motion has the effect of ending debate by immediately putting the question under discussion. The question referred to was whether the amendments made in the Senate should be agreed to, which was subsequently put.(See the division on whether to agree to the amendments here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that "the motion be put", which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. Mr Ciobo put this motion to end the third reading debate by immediately putting the question of whether to read the bill for a third time and therefore pass it in the House of Representatives.(See the division on whether to read the bill for a third time here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. This motion has the effect of ending the consideration in detail stage of the debate and immediately put the question of whether the bill should be agreed to.(See the division on whether to agree to the bill here. )

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Steven Ciobo. The question referred to was a motion introduced by Labor MP Chris Bowen and was subsequently put.(See the division on Mr Bowen's motion here.)

Mr Ciobo's motion has the effect of ending debate on Mr Bowen's motion by immediately putting it.

Background to the bill

This bill was introduced following the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 (No. 2) being laid aside because it could not "be progressed in its current form".(Read more about this bill being set aside here. The division which resulted in that bill being laid aside is available here. )

This bill repeals the Minerals Resource Rent Tax as well as related measures such as the low income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. The bill also revises the capital allowances for small business entities and the superannuation guarantee charge percentage increase.(Read more about the changes made in the bill in the explanatory memorandum. ) Under the previous Labor government, the superannuation was set to increase to 12 per cent by 2019 (as of 1 July 2014, it is at 9.5 per cent).(Read more about superannuation in Australia here.) However, this bill will push that rise up until 1 July 2025.

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put", which was introduced by Parliamentary Secretary Alan Tudge. This motion ended debate on the question by immediately putting it to the House.(See that division here. )

In this case, the question was whether "consideration of the message be made an order of the day for a later hour this day." This "message" was from the Senate and stated that the Senate insisted on the amendments it had made previously to the bill. The House must decide whether to agree to these amendments and therefore pass the bill or reject the amendments, which means the bill will fail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must go through to become law here. )

Background to the bills

The Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 and the related Asset Recycling Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014 were introduced to create the Asset Recycling Fund ('ARF').

The ARF is the fund from which grants to states and territories will be sourced under the Asset Recycling Initiative ('ARI'), which was developed to assist states to privatise assets and to speed up the construction of transport infrastructure in capital cities.(Read the Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss's comments on the initiative on ABC's PM program here. ) Under the ARI, states and territories will be encouraged to sell assets, including transport infrastructure, and use the proceeds to fund new public infrastructure. By way of encouragement, the Commonwealth will provide a financial contribution of 15 per cent of the asset value of the sale that is used to fund the new infrastructure.(See the bills digest for more information. )

The Council of Australian Governments voted in favour of the ARI on 2 May 2014.(Read more about COAG's decision to agree with the ARI on ABC News here.)

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the third reading debate on the bill. The question was whether to read the bill for a third time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

• increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
• increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
• increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
• increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the third reading debate on the bill. The question was "that the motion to suspend so much of the standing orders as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay". That motion was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

• increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
• increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
• increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
• increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the consideration in detail debate on the bill. The question was whether to agree to the bill (read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here), which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

• increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
• increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
• increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
• increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which has the effect of ending the second reading debate on the bill. The question was whether to read the bill for a second time, which was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The bill implements one of the measures proposed by the Government as part of its 2014-15 Budget.(Read more about the Government's Budget proposal here. ) It will amend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ('PBS') so as to:

• increase the concessional patient co-payment by 80 cents from 1 January 2015;
• increase the general patient co-payment by $5.00 from 1 January 2015;
• increase the concessional safety net threshold by two prescriptions each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018; and
• increase the general patient safety net threshold by 10 per cent each year for four years, from 2015 to 2018.

(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, is available here.)

A co-payment is the amount paid by the patient towards the cost of their PBS medicine. The government covers the rest of the cost.

The majority voted in favour of a motion that "The questions be now put", which was put by Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt. This means that the House will stop discussing the bills in detail and will now vote on the amendments that have been proposed.

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The bills included in this package are the following:

• Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the question be now put", which means that the House will stop discussing the bills in detail and will now vote on the question proposed, which was whether an amendment introduced by Greens MP Adam Bandt be agreed to. This question was subsequently put without division because there are fewer than five members on the side of the 'ayes' when the vote was put.(Read more about why a division does not always take place in our FAQ Section here.)

The amendment would have amended the original motion "that the bills be read a second time" with the following:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and:

(1) notes that:

(a) the world is on track for 4 degrees of warming; and

(b) warming of less than 1 degree is already intensifying extreme weather events in Australia and around the world with enormous costs to life and property; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) protect the Australian people and environment from climate change by approving no new coal mines or extensions of existing mines, or new coal export terminals; and

(b) adopt a trajectory of 40-60% below 2000 levels by 2030 and net carbon zero by 2050 emissions reduction target in global negotiations for a 2015 treaty."

Background to the bills

The Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and related bills were introduced to remove the carbon pricing mechanism, which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.(You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price here. )

The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.(For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s website. ) It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.

This is the third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.(See that division here. ) The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.(See that division here. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News here or on the World Today here.)

The bills included in this package are the following:

• Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014
• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014

The majority voted to end the debate on Labor MP Mark Butler's statement, which criticised the Government's climate change policies. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to "put the question".

This means that the members of parliament (MPs) will now immediately vote on whether they agree with Butler's statement without further debate (see that division).

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to was that the bill be read a third time, which was subsequently put.(See this division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to was a motion introduced by MP Pyne 'that so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.' This motion was subsequently put.(See this division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question was that the bill be agreed to and was subsequently put.(See that division here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour of a motion to put the question, which was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne.

The question referred to is whether to read the bill for a second time, which was subsequently put.(See the division for that motion here. )

Background to the bill

The Qantas Sale Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced to remove the foreign ownership and other restrictions that apply to Qantas but do not apply to other airlines based in Australia.(Read more on ABC News and on ABC Radio's AM program. ) These restrictions include: limits on the issue and ownership of Qantas shares, the makeup of the board of directors, use of the name Qantas and the location of the head office, place of incorporation and principle place of business.(Read more in the bills digest (852 KB).)

The majority voted in favour a motion to put the question, which means that it can now be voted on.

The question was that the further Greens amendments be agreed to.(A copy of the Greens amendments is available here. ) This question was subsequently voted on and agreed to without division, which means that the House agrees with the Senate that the debt limit should be removed altogether.

Background to Bill

On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media here. ) This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.

The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the explanatory memorandum (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available here.)

The majority voted in favour of a motion that the question be put.

This means that the question can now be put, which is that the requested amendment be made.(See that division here. )

Background to Bill

On 22 October 2013, the Abbott Government announced that it will raise the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion.(Read more about this in the media here. ) This was following the August 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook which reported that the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority would reach the $300 billion limit by December 2013.

The purpose of the increase to the debt ceiling is to "provide stability and certainty to financial markets about the Government's ability to issue sufficient debt to manage its budget".(See the explanatory memorandum (106 KB). More about the bill, including its bills digest, is available here.)

The majority voted for a motion that the question be now put. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.

The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP Tony Burke that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

Background to the Motion

The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's website. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this fact sheet.)

The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.