Division Description Changes — Same-Sex Marriage — 18th Nov 2010

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:19:13	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. ~~<p>The members were voting on whether:</p>~~ <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> ~~<p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p>~~ ~~<p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p>~~ <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p> This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. The members were voting on whether: > _the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted._ The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives). The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives). Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives)). Debate in Parliament The original [substantive motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was: > _That this House:_ > > _(1) notes that there is:_ > > > > _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_ > > > > _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_ > > > > _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._ Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was: > _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._ This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion. Background to the Motion The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792), which had been introduced by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-03-13 13:21:27	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words into the motion~~ Motions - Same-Sex Marriage - Insert new words into the motion Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-11-07 13:37:39	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words into the motion Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> ~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>~~ ~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol></p>~~ <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 11:55:43	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:58:26	Title Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> ~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>~~ ~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p>~~ <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:37:49	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - amendment - insert new words~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words Description <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted are from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>
representatives vote 2010-11-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2013-10-09 10:36:59	Title ~~Same-Sex Marriage~~ Same-Sex Marriage Motion - amendment - insert new words Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</p>~~ <p>This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:</p> <ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li> <li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol></p> <p>The members were voting on whether:</p> <p><blockquote><i>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</i></blockquote></p> <p>The words proposed to be inserted are from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.</p> <p>Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).</p> <p><b>Debate in Parliament</b></p> <p>The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That this House:</i></p> <p><i>(1) notes that there is:</i></p> <p><i>(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and</i></p> <p><i>(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and</i></p> <p><i>(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</i></blockquote></p> <p>Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:</p> <p><blockquote><i>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</i></blockquote></p> <p>This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.</p> <p><b>Background to the Motion</b></p> <p>The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.</p>

Change

Division

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:13

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
~~The members were voting on whether:~~
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
~~<blockquote>That this House:~~
~~(1) notes that there is:~~
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the [House of Representatives Practice](http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx) [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
> _the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted._
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP [Stephen Jones](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives). The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP [Adam Bandt](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives).
Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division [here](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives)).
**Debate in Parliament**
The original [substantive motion](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) introduced by Bandt MP was:
> _That this House:_
>
> _(1) notes that there is:_
>
>
>
> _(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and_
>
>
>
> _(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and_
>
>
>
> _(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality._
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP [sought leave](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22) to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in [his amendment](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22), which was:
> _That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”._
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
**Background to the Motion**
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the [Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792), which had been introduced by Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate).

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-03-13 13:21:27

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words into the motion~~
Motions - Same-Sex Marriage - Insert new words into the motion

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-11-07 13:37:39

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words into the motion

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>~~
~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol>~~
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”.
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Someone who voted Aye wanted to replace the words in Bandt MP's motion with the words from the amendment. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to the newly amended motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 11:55:43

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/05%20About%20Parliament/53%20HoR/532%20PPP/Practice6/PDF/Chapters/6Chap09.ashx">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:58:26

Title

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
~~<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>~~
~~<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>~~
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">House of Representatives Practice</a> [923kb], a motion is “any proposal made for the purpose of eliciting a decision of the House”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained proposals drafted in a form capable of expressing a decision or opinion of the House”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “largely procedural in character”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:37:49

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage Motion - amendment - insert new words~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion - Amendment - Insert new words

Description

This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted are from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
The words proposed to be inserted were from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.

representatives vote 2010-11-18#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2013-10-09 10:36:59

Title

~~Same-Sex Marriage~~
Same-Sex Marriage Motion - amendment - insert new words

Description

~~That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.~~
This division is a vote about a motion rather than a bill. According to the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/pubs/gtp/pdf/chapter8.pdf">Guide to Procedures</a> [547kb], a motion is “a formal proposal made to the House that it take action of some kind”. There are two kinds of motions:
<ol><li>substantive motions, which are “self-contained items of business for consideration and decision”; and</li>
<li>subsidiary motions, which are “amendments to motions and ancillary or procedural motions”.</li></ol>
The members were voting on whether:
<blockquote>the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted.</blockquote>
The words proposed to be inserted are from an amendment introduced by Labor Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Stephen_Jones&mpc=Throsby&house=representatives">Stephen Jones</a>. The amendment was to a substantive motion introduced by Greens Party MP <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Adam_Bandt&mpc=Melbourne&house=representatives">Adam Bandt</a>.
Someone who voted Aye wanted to insert the words from the amendment into Bandt MP’s substantive motion. Since the majority voted Aye, the amendment was successful. The next step is to vote on whether to agree to Bandt MP’s newly amended substantive motion (see that division <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2010-11-18&number=5&house=representatives">here</a>).
Debate in Parliament
The original <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">substantive motion</a> introduced by Bandt MP was:
<blockquote>That this House:
(1) notes that there is:
(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and
(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and
(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.</blockquote>
Before introducing the motion, Bandt MP <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0180;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">sought leave</a> to amend his motion but leave was not granted. The wording Bandt MP wanted to use was the same as the wording proposed by Jones MP in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0182;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2010-11-15%2F0000%22">his amendment</a>, which was:
<blockquote>That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”.</blockquote>
This is why Bandt MP joined Jones MP and the rest of the Labor Party in voting ‘Aye’ in this division to amend the substantive motion.
Background to the Motion
The substantive motion introduced by Bandt MP was part of the Greens Party’s campaign to change the law to recognise same-sex marriage. At the time it was introduced, the Senate was considering the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s792">Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010</a>, which had been introduced by Greens Senator <a href="http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Sarah_Hanson-Young&mpc=Senate&house=senate">Sarah Hanson-Young</a>.