Division Description Changes — Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — Superannuation) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — 4th Jun 2008

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2008-06-04#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-17 12:39:14	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22) that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "_That this bill be now read a second time_" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [Brendan Nelson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives). He had proposed the following [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1): "_That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:_ _(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia) to Australian society;_ _(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and_ _(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:_ _(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;_ _(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and_ _(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”._" ~~Background to the bill~~ This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [superannuation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia) schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). Its explanatory memorandum can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).) It comes following [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission)'s report [Same Sex: Same Entitlements](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements). The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22) that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words of the motion to remain unchanged. Those words were: "_That this bill be now read a second time_". Leader of the Opposition [Brendan Nelson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives) had proposed the following [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1): "_That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:_ _(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia) to Australian society;_ _(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and_ _(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:_ _(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;_ _(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and_ _(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”._" Background to the bill This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [superannuation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia) schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). Its explanatory memorandum can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).) It comes following [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission)'s report [Same Sex: Same Entitlements](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements). References
representatives vote 2008-06-04#6 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:18:25	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22 motion] that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "''That this bill be now read a second time''" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives Brendan Nelson]. ~~He had proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1 motion]:~~ "''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:'' ~~''(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia marriage] to Australian society;''~~ ''(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and'' ''(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:'' ~~''(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;''~~ ~~''(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and''~~ ~~''(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.''"~~ ~~Background to the bill~~ This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].) It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements]. ~~References~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22) that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "_That this bill be now read a second time_" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [Brendan Nelson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives). He had proposed the following [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1): "_That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:_ _(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia) to Australian society;_ _(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and_ _(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:_ _(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;_ _(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and_ _(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”._" Background to the bill This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [superannuation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia) schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). Its explanatory memorandum can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).) It comes following [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission)'s report [Same Sex: Same Entitlements](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements). References
representatives vote 2008-06-04#6 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:09	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22 motion] that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "''That this bill be now read a second time''" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives Brendan Nelson]. He had proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1 motion]: "''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:'' ''(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia marriage] to Australian society;'' ''(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and'' ''(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:'' ''(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;'' ''(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and'' ''(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.''" Background to the bill This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.[1] It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements]. This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].) It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements]. References * [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].
representatives vote 2008-06-04#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-06-02 14:11:10	Title ~~Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — Superannuation) Bill 2008 — Second Reading~~ Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008 - Second Reading - Keep motion to read a second time unchanged Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That this bill be now read a second time.</p>~~ <p pwmotiontext="moved">That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:<dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of marriage to Australian society;</dd><dt>(2)</dt><dd>recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and</dd><dt>(3)</dt><dd>notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:<dl><dt>(a)</dt><dd>the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;</dd><dt>(b)</dt><dd>the rights and status of children are properly protected; and</dd><dt>(c)</dt><dd>the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.</dd></dl></dd></dl></p> The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22 motion] that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "''That this bill be now read a second time''" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives Brendan Nelson]. He had proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1 motion]: "''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:'' ''(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia marriage] to Australian society;'' ''(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and'' ''(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:'' ''(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;'' ''(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and'' ''(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.''" Background to the bill This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.[1] It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements]. References * [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].

Change

Division

representatives vote 2008-06-04#6

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-17 12:39:14

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22) that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "_That this bill be now read a second time_" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [Brendan Nelson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives).
He had proposed the following [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1): "_That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:_ _(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia) to Australian society;_ _(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and_ _(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:_ _(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;_ _(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and_ _(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”._"
~~Background to the bill~~
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [superannuation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia) schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). Its explanatory memorandum can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).) It comes following [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission)'s report [Same Sex: Same Entitlements](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements).
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22) that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words of the motion to remain unchanged. Those words were: "_That this bill be now read a second time_".
Leader of the Opposition [Brendan Nelson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives) had proposed the following [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1): "_That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:_
_(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia) to Australian society;_
_(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and_
_(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:_
_(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;_
_(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and_
_(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”._"
Background to the bill
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [superannuation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia) schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). Its explanatory memorandum can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).) It comes following [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission)'s report [Same Sex: Same Entitlements](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements).
References

representatives vote 2008-06-04#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:18:25

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22 motion] that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "''That this bill be now read a second time''" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives Brendan Nelson].
~~He had proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1 motion]:~~
"''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:''
~~''(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia marriage] to Australian society;''~~
''(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and''
''(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:''
~~''(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;''~~
~~''(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and''~~
~~''(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.''"~~
~~Background to the bill~~
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].) It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements].
~~References~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22) that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "_That this bill be now read a second time_" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [Brendan Nelson](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives).
He had proposed the following [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1): "_That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:_ _(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [marriage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia) to Australian society;_ _(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and_ _(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:_ _(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;_ _(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and_ _(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”._"
Background to the bill
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [superannuation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia) schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf). Its explanatory memorandum can be found [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011).) It comes following [Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission)'s report [Same Sex: Same Entitlements](https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements).
References

representatives vote 2008-06-04#6

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:09

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22 motion] that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "''That this bill be now read a second time''" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives Brendan Nelson].
He had proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1 motion]:
"''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:''
''(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia marriage] to Australian society;''
''(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and''
''(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:''
''(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;''
''(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and''
''(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.''"
Background to the bill
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.[1] It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements].
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].) It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements].
References
* [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].

representatives vote 2008-06-04#6

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-06-02 14:11:10

Title

~~Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — Superannuation) Bill 2008 — Second Reading~~
Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008 - Second Reading - Keep motion to read a second time unchanged

Description

~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That this bill be now read a second time.</p>~~
<p pwmotiontext="moved">That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:<dl><dt>(1)</dt><dd>affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of marriage to Australian society;</dd><dt>(2)</dt><dd>recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and</dd><dt>(3)</dt><dd>notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:<dl><dt>(a)</dt><dd>the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;</dd><dt>(b)</dt><dd>the rights and status of children are properly protected; and</dd><dt>(c)</dt><dd>the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.</dd></dl></dd></dl></p>
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.107.22 motion] that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. In other words, the majority wanted the words proposed to be omitted to remain unchanged. Those words were: "''That this bill be now read a second time''" and their omission had been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Brendan_Nelson&mpc=Bradfield&house=representatives Brendan Nelson].
He had proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2008-06-04.90.1 motion]:
"''That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:''
''(1) affirms its commitment to the central importance of the institution of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Australia marriage] to Australian society;''
''(2) recognises that partners to permanent interdependent domestic relationships other than marriage (including, but not limited to, same-sex relationships) ought not to be discriminated against in relation to their financial affairs; and''
''(3) notes that the Opposition will refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with a view to ensuring that, in removing discrimination against people in same-sex relationships:''
''(a) the centrality of marriage is not devalued, whether by the use of inappropriate statutory language or otherwise;''
''(b) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and''
''(c) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.''"
Background to the bill
This bill was introduced to amend the fourteen Acts governing and regulating [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia superannuation] schemes in order to increase coverage of same-sex couples and their children.[1] It comes following [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_and_Equal_Opportunity_Commission Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission]'s report [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/same-sex-same-entitlements Same Sex: Same Entitlements].
References
* [1] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/86LR6/upload_binary/86lr66.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest]. Its explanatory memorandum can be found [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r3011 here].