Division Description Changes — Motions — Racial Discrimination Act 1975 — 22nd Mar 2017

Change	Division
representatives vote 2017-03-22#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2017-03-24 04:06:20	Title ~~Motions — Racial Discrimination Act 1975~~ Motions - Racial Discrimination Act 1975 - Let the motion be voted on Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.</p>~~ The majority voted against a motion introduced by Leader of the Opposition [Bill Shorten](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maribyrnong/bill_shorten), which means it was unsuccessful. Although his motion was about the [changes to the Racial Discrimination Act](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/section-18c-whats-the-fuss/8374136), the vote itself was actually on whether to let Mr Shorten MP put his motion to the vote, not on the motion itself. The parliamentary rules (known as [standing and sessional orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html)) don't let MPs introduce and vote on motions whenever they want to. Sometimes, they have to ask to suspend the rules to let a particular vote happen. This is what Mr Shorten MP was doing here, but he was unsuccessful. ### Motion text > That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House: > (1) notes: >> (a) the Prime Minister has confirmed that his laws to water down protections against racist hate speech will be introduced into the Senate instead of the House of Representatives; >> (b) this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to be able to claim to the extreme elements in his party room that his Government is taking action on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act while hoping MPs in this Chamber can avoid having to vote on the issue; and >> (c) Members of Parliament should not say one thing in Canberra but another thing to the voters in their electorates; > (2) resolves to deal with this issue today; > (3) affirms there should be no weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act by giving licence to racist hate speech; and > (4) therefore, resolves to retain section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form.

~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~
~~<p>The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.</p>~~
The majority voted against a motion introduced by Leader of the Opposition [Bill Shorten](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maribyrnong/bill_shorten), which means it was unsuccessful.
Although his motion was about the [changes to the Racial Discrimination Act](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/section-18c-whats-the-fuss/8374136), the vote itself was actually on whether to let Mr Shorten MP put his motion to the vote, not on the motion itself.
The parliamentary rules (known as [standing and sessional orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html)) don't let MPs introduce and vote on motions whenever they want to. Sometimes, they have to ask to suspend the rules to let a particular vote happen. This is what Mr Shorten MP was doing here, but he was unsuccessful.
### Motion text
> *That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:*
> *(1) notes:*
>> *(a) the Prime Minister has confirmed that his laws to water down protections against racist hate speech will be introduced into the Senate instead of the House of Representatives;*
>> *(b) this is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to be able to claim to the extreme elements in his party room that his Government is taking action on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act while hoping MPs in this Chamber can avoid having to vote on the issue; and*
>> *(c) Members of Parliament should not say one thing in Canberra but another thing to the voters in their electorates;*
> *(2) resolves to deal with this issue today;*
> *(3) affirms there should be no weakening of the Racial Discrimination Act by giving licence to racist hate speech; and*
> *(4) therefore, resolves to retain section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in its current form.*