All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2020-06-16#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-06-26 13:31:37
|
Title
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Put the question
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-06-16.89.1) "*That the question be now put.*" In other words, they voted to stop the current debate and instead vote on the matter immediately.- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-06-16.89.1) "*That the question be now put.*" In other words, they voted to stop the current debate and instead vote on the matter immediately.
|
|
senate vote 2020-06-16#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-06-26 13:31:22
|
Title
Bills — Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019; Consideration of House of Representatives Message- Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Description
<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-06-16.89.1) "*That the question be now put.*" In other words, they voted to stop the current debate and instead vote on the matter immediately.
<p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>It's quite unusual for the government to make this suggestion in a motion immediately after the minute, before the Senate has had an opportunity to consider, at any length at all, the position of the House and the request from the House. We know that, in the other place today, Labor backflipped and abandoned its opposition to mandatory sentencing.</p> <p class="speaker">Government Senators</p><p>Government senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>I can hear some interjections from coalition senators here saying that that's exactly what the Labor Party should do. I'll address this in more detail when we get into the committee, but I want to simply make the point here that this is an unseemly haste from the government. I expect that the Labor Party is going to support this motion because it's embarrassed at its backflip—and so it should be embarrassed at its backflip, because the backflip that Labor is engaged in here today, firstly, is in direct contravention to its own policy. Labor's policy says this: 'Labor opposes mandatory sentencing'—and so Labor should oppose mandatory sentencing. So Labor did oppose mandatory sentencing yesterday in this parliament, when it joined with the Australian Greens and members of the crossbench to reject the mandatory sentencing provisions of this legislation. Yet here we are today with Labor having backflipped in the House and supported the mandatory sentencing provisions of this legislation, and now, I have no doubt, Labor will be helping the government to ram this legislation through the parliament today.</p><p>Let's be very clear about what this legislation will do should it be successful, which it now will be thanks to this appalling backflip and walk away from its own policy by the Labor Party. It will place at significant risk teenagers in Australia engaging in what, over human history, has been quite normal teenage behaviour.</p><p class="italic">Senator Pratt interjecting —</p><p>I'll take that interjection—I don't know whether Hansard picked it up—from Senator Pratt—</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator McKim, I would just remind you that you really need to be debating the substance of whether we go into committee or not. Thank you.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I will address these matters once we go into committee, but I'm making the point that the sooner this legislation goes through the parliament—which it now will, thanks to the Labor Party—the higher the risk that teenage people in Australia will be sentenced to four, five, six or, in some cases, seven years imprisonment for engaging in what through human history has been relatively normal teenage behaviour. The only rebuttal that the government has to this allegation is that we can all relax because there is prosecutorial discretion and prosecutors will not prosecute if it is not in the public interest to do so. I say to the government and to the Labor Party: tell that to Mr Bernard Collaery, tell that to Witness K and tell that to the innumerable whistleblowers that have been prosecuted in this place.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the question be now put.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that the closure motion as moved by the minister be agreed to.</p><p>Ordered that the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately.</p>
|