All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2017-11-29#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-12-23 15:11:05
|
Title
Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; in Committee- Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Religious versus civil marriage celebrants
Description
<p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p><i>(In division)</i> Chair, I want to raise a point of order. I'll be very precise about what's in the standing orders. I draw your attention to a senator in this chamber who is breaching the orders made by a number of Presidents, one in relation to the order about wearing insignias supporting any particular approach in this chamber.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, I am happy to come back to this, but at this point we are in a division and you can only raise a point of order in relation to the division.</p>- The majority voted in favour of keeping items 5, 8 to 17 and 64 and part 4 of schedule 1 unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for those items to *stand as printed*.
- These items were opposed by One Nation Senator [Pauline Hanson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson) (Qld) and they related to who counted as a religious marriage celebrant (as opposed to *civil* celebrant) and what that meant for the application of anti-discrimination laws. Senator Hanson [argued that](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-11-29.5.1):
- > *The difference in definition between religious marriage celebrants and civil marriage celebrants is unnecessary. If a marriage celebrant wants to refuse to solemnise a marriage, they should be entitled to do so without recrimination.*
- ### Why did some Liberals vote Yes and others No?
- The Liberal Party was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Liberal Party decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines.
- ### What does this bill do?
- This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also:
- > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.*
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
<p>Well, the division might not be accurate—</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, I have suggested that you raise that point of order once this division has concluded.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p><i>(In division)</i> Chair, point of order—</p><p>The CHAIR: I'm sorry; I can't hear you. I have said that the point of order that Senator Macdonald wishes to raise is not to do with the current division. So Senator Macdonald may choose to raise that point of order once the division has concluded. The question is that items 5, 8 to 17 and 64 and part 4 of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p>
|