Division Description Changes — Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — General Law Reform) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — 24th Sep 2008

Change	Division
representatives vote 2008-09-24#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2017-09-28 14:19:56	Title ~~Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — General Law Reform) Bill 2008 — Second Reading~~ Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws — General Law Reform) Bill 2008 - Second Reading 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>nevertheless recognises that partners in same-sex relationships ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and ought to be treated on a similar basis to partners in heterosexual de facto relationships;</dd><dt>(3)</dt><dd>recognises the right of  children who live in same-sex households not to be discriminated against; and</dd><dt>(4)</dt><dd>notes that the Opposition has referred the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for reporting by September 30 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>there is no unintended recognition of same sex marriage, including through amendments to the <i>Migration Act 1961</i>;</dd><dt>(c)</dt><dd>the rights and status of children are properly protected; and</dd><dt>(d)</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> <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Ms Ley’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</p> The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2008-09-24.19.2) to keep the words "That this bill be now read a second time" unchanged. Liberal MP [Sussan Ley](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/farrer/sussan_ley) had proposed to delete the words after "That" and replace them with: > 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 to Australian society; > (2) nevertheless recognises that partners in same-sex relationships ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and ought to be treated on a similar basis to partners in heterosexual de facto relationships; > (3) recognises the right of children who live in same-sex households not to be discriminated against; and > (4) notes that the Opposition has referred the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for reporting by September 30 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) there is no unintended recognition of same sex marriage, including through** amendments to the Migration Act 1961;* >> (c) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and >> (d) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”. MPs who voted "Aye" (Yes) disagreed with MP Ley's proposed new wording. ### What does it mean to read a bill for a second time? All bills have to be read three times: first to introduce the bill for discussion; second to decide if the majority agree with the main idea of the bill; and third to decide whether the majority will pass the bill or not so it can become law. So a second reading vote is a vote on whether to agree with the main idea of the bill or not.

That this bill be now read a second time.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>nevertheless recognises that partners in same-sex relationships ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and ought to be treated on a similar basis to partners in heterosexual de facto relationships;</dd><dt>(3)</dt><dd>recognises the right of  children who live in same-sex households not to be discriminated against; and</dd><dt>(4)</dt><dd>notes that the Opposition has referred the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for reporting by September 30 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>there is no unintended recognition of same sex marriage, including through amendments to the Migration Act 1961;</dd><dt>(c)</dt><dd>the rights and status of children are properly protected; and</dd><dt>(d)</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>
That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Ley’s amendment) stand part of the question.
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2008-09-24.19.2) to keep the words "*That this bill be now read a second time*" unchanged. Liberal MP [Sussan Ley](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/farrer/sussan_ley) had proposed to delete the words after "That" and replace them with:
> *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 to Australian society;*
> *(2) nevertheless recognises that partners in same-sex relationships ought not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and ought to be treated on a similar basis to partners in heterosexual de facto relationships;*
> *(3) recognises the right of children who live in same-sex households not to be discriminated against; and*
> *(4) notes that the Opposition has referred the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for reporting by September 30 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) there is no unintended recognition of same sex marriage, including through amendments to the Migration Act 1961;*
>> *(c) the rights and status of children are properly protected; and*
>> *(d) the rights and status of people in interdependent relationships other than same-sex relationships are recognised and properly protected”.*
MPs who voted "Aye" (Yes) disagreed with MP Ley's proposed new wording.
### What does it mean to read a bill for a second time?
All bills have to be read three times: first to introduce the bill for discussion; second to decide if the majority agree with the main idea of the bill; and third to decide whether the majority will pass the bill or not so it can become law.
So a second reading vote is a vote on whether to agree with the main idea of the bill or not.