The first I heard of this was yesterday. I was thinking about what I'd write to the Nationals MP in my Federal electorate about it - but it seems that I dallied too long. I obviously needed to get in before 24 hours was up! Welcome to the 'new' legislative changes where debate is not required.
WHAT is this country coming to??? Honestly, these morons deserve bullets in their heads in parliament if this is what they think they were voted in to do. The kinder thing, of course, would be to decisively vote them all out in the coming federal election, but we know what the majority of voters are like: uninformed, spineless people who wouldn't know the truth if it hit them over the head.
Another problem is, the implications of this Bill are FAR WORSE than even the Digital ID Bills. WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR PARLIAMENTARIANS?!?!?!?!?
Yes, I'm evil. A danger to society. I've treated patients, very well, too, for 20 years. I'm a great parent. I've put up with so much and still been (mostly) very decent to others! But telling politicians off? Suggesting things we all think of, anyway?! Oops, my bad ;-)
I hear you. But I don't fear for me. But maybe I do for others.
If they seriously want to come and take me away for saying that, when the worst I've ever done (illegally) in my adult life is get caught for speeding in my car a few times, then that would show everyone that my words DO have cause. That the parliamentarians really DO deserve bullets to the head!
I have a life plan, and it's a nice, helpful one. But if other things get in the way and I get put on another path that's greater than me, then I guess that's where I'm going.
These parliamentarians are a law unto themselves. The rubbish in this bill won't apply to them. And it won't stop at what are dubbed 'Islamic terrorists', the very same people Labor are happily letting into our country!!!
This country is going to the dogs. And unless we all individually stand up to it, it'll be too late. There's no place for fear in our future. Only courage.
The LNP are closet socialists - wolves in sheep's clothing.
And as silly as others may think this is, we need Trump to call this out. If he points a finger at Australia's draconian laws like the Hate Speech and Online Safety Bills, the world will listen.
Is this just another way of getting in their disinformation/misinformation freedom of speech bill under another name. I wonder sometimes if all those smears against different groups at each other were all set up deliberately to get to this moment! Pick the moment while it’s all going on an push through the solution. No debate. We’ll need more petitions/submissions etc. It just goes on. Pauline Hanson still has an ongoing case against her for a supposed racist slur and apparently has others for different things she’s said in the past, as she usually does. Perhaps that had something to do with her no show at the vote.
Too few nos....too many ayes...and there go the Greens again, occasionally surprising me! Sure, they wanted mandatory covid injections for all, but automatically imprisoning people for 'hate speech' isn't on their agenda. Maybe they all suffer from split personality disorder. Who knows.
It might say something, that One Nation votes weren't recorded, but possibly they weren't there for an hour or two, and the vote happened so quickly. Lots of bills get passed when the house is not full (or anywhere near full on occasion...). However, if could also mean something. There could be dirty deals going on. Except they had the numbers to pass it without any of the smaller parties/Independents. BUT One Nation also likes free speech. And this bill goes completely against that. So at this stage, until I know more information, I might sit on the fence with that one, but thankyou for the information. It has given me food for thought!!
Antic, A. Babet, R. Payman, F.Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Tyrrell, T. M.
Both Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts did not vote at all! In fact, Pauline Hanson has missed MAJOR senate votes including the Mis/Disinformation Bill, and the Online Safety Bill - she just didn't turn up!
"While One Nation strongly support tougher penalties for violent terrorists, we will never support reckless laws that undermine freedom of speech. That’s why we refused to take part in this sham vote"
I think if a parliamentarian or party disagrees with a bill so much, the least they could do is vote NO to it, not abstain, or refuse to be in the chamber.
One Nation Senators were not in the Chamber. You and Hansard are correct. But "refused to take part" also = not in the chamber. So in that sense, they are not 'hypocrites' because the website said they did not take part, which is absolutely correct. In fact, they were not even IN the Chamber to take part! However, they are paid to BE in the chamber. So refusing to vote, although I can understand why this is done, is still not OK in my books. They are voted in to DO the voting! Not refuse to turn up.
If you abstain whilst in the chamber, that's another thing. And perhaps it would've been better if they WERE in the Chamber and then abstained. But then that would be on record that they abstained - and voters would want to know why they abstained. It gets messy.
But seriously, if you agree, you say AYE, if you disagree, you say NO. If you are ambivalent, well, maybe that's sometimes when politicians abstain? But I think they more do it to make a point....like when Abbott abstained during same sex marriage (even though 75% of his electorate said yes). He abstained because saying yes was against his morals, which, on an individual level, is commendable. BUT he was voted in to vote FOR the people of his electorate, not follow his conscience. Right or wrong, he should've voted yes. For his 'crime' he got voted out! But he did loads of horrible things (eg not letting unvaccinated kids go to daycare) so I have no sympathy for the guy! He didn't do his job properly.
Abstaining from a vote tells me that either a politician is letting their views get in the way of things, they're ambivalent about the bill (or just plain lazy!) or they're doing it to make some sort of point/not look bad.
HOWEVER, MPs should always vote according to their constituents, not their conscience. Senators, on the other hand, are voted in by STATE. I think their Conscience Vote might count for a lot more...?
I agree with some of your comments. But comparing Abbott to Hanson and Roberts is drawing a long bow in my opinion. I agree Abbott should have voted, but he abstained because he was a member of the LNP, which is still wrong in my eyes.
Hanson and Roberts are ON. They don't have to answer to anyone except themselves, and Hanson is leader. So if anything, they more than anyone should have listened to their constituents, and they didn't!
It didn't stop them asking for digital ID uploads from people with MyGovID accounts right after the Digital ID Bill went through...
I think what people forget (if they ever knew...) is that Albanese got himself 'rubber stamped' as PM before the votes were even counted properly. I think 20% of them had been counted, and he got himself & some ministers sworn in, so he could go to that Quadrilateral meeting in Japan. NO PM has ever been sworn in so quickly!! Someone who gets the GG to swear him in without following the proper protocols (even Morrison had to wait 2 weeks post-election to be sworn in!) is a person who DOES NOT CARE about the rules. Albanese makes up his own rules (or does the batting for his Master). Rules are things for 'other people' in his mind. Someone like that should NEVER have the top job!!!! This man and his whole party need to go. And Dutton sure as hell should not take his place.
HOW do we get rid of both Labor AND Liberal at the next election?!?!?!?!
Yes, now that I've had many years to think about it, I prefer first past the post. Whoever gets the most outright votes wins. Anything else is just semantics.
When you marry someone, it's not like you have 23 suitors all lined up, and you ask everyone who you should pick, and then apply preferential voting. You'd invariably end up with someone you didn't like as much! YOU know who you want to be with. So just pick them!
Preferential voting for 1, 2 & 3 I'm OK with, but after that, who cares?! If they're any further down your list, they're not your favourite anyway, thus do not need a vote. Maybe changing preferential voting just to 1 2 3 might work (instead of 1-67). The 'lucky country' voters might buy that. It would be a good first step at least. You know how much Australians like change. They don't!
Proportional representation is the only system that if properly instituted does not disenfranchise supports of minor parties and independents. You get 20% of the votes, you get 20% of the seats. Mind you it hasn't helped the idiotic shambles that Germany and NZ have become - culture overcomes the best systems.
Yes, proportional representation. That's the one! Sorry, I'm just a bit irritated with the Federal idiots in Canberra right now, my brain is focused on other things. But even WITH a good system, shambles still ensue, you're right! I think humans and their egos being in the mix might be the cause of that problem...?!?!
It's academic anyhow. Even the sleepy Kiwis changed their system over 30 years ago but don't hold your breath waiting for it here. We have a disadvantage over NZ: we're worth owning and controlling. Oh well, footy season starting...
I have been saying this for a long time, take the cross benches with an alliance of independents. If the majors can be forced into minority government they will have to negotiate to things done. The critical target is the Senate. Take down as many Green Senators as possible. That cuts into Labor support. Go after UAP and any left leaning independents.
But it all falls apart when Labor AND the LNP vote together!
A party could do and say all they like to somehow form a minority government - and there have been agreements before between major parties & minor parties, to get the major over the line. However, this line-up is rare.
If only we could get Australians to vote in an informed fashion! There'd be more smaller parties and less larger ones. Still wouldn't mean they could actually compromise, though!
Labor have 25 seats, LNP 31 if memory serves. Labor rely on Greens to get anything by the LNP, ONP, Independents. Greens hold 11 seats. So on voting if Labor get 100% Green support they get 36 votes. if six Green seats can be taken, Labor has to rely on six independents, 2xONP, Jaquie Lambie as well as LNP traitors to get anything over the line. I don't think its an impossible task to knock six Greens out of the Senate. An easy target would be Pauline Hanson on her traitors vote in favor of the Hate Bill. By failing to vote she sold Australian supporters out.
I think getting rid of the larger parties, Labor and Liberal, would be better than trashing the small parties! Small parties may not always be perfect, but the big parties are even worse. As an example, Labor pollies went DIRECTLY AGAINST their party platform to introduce mandatory sentencing! They should all be unendorsed for that!!
And did you read what the Greens Senators had to say about Labor in Hansard on the Hate Speech vote? It was horrible! Not sure how much longer that unwritten 'agreement' between Labor & the Greens is going to hold. Not that I like these party 'agreements' anyway. I think the Nationals should split from the Libs and the Greens should stand on their own two feet. Any which way, the politicians will still find alliances, regardless of parties.
The Independents in the Senate have been quite good, generally, I have found. They have generally voted fairly well (not always, though). Well, above my expectations, anyway! Sometimes I've been quite surprised, in a good way, by the voting choices they've made. David Pocock & Tammy Tyrrell have been nice surprises.
One stuff-up, or refusal to vote, is hardly a party crime in itself. However, if the stuff-up is so massive, or it follows a barrage of bad decisions, then I guess that's another thing. But One Nation has not been so bad. I think it is unfair for people to call them traitors. They've mostly been pretty good about standing up for everyday Australians. They're not the ones introducing the Digital ID Bill or the Hate Speech Bill or other draconian legislation! And they've pretty well always voted against this sort of stuff.
I think if we can take out votes for Labor and Liberal then we'll be in a better place. Nowhere near perfect, but certainly better.
Hanson's excuse was pathetic, this is not the first time she has done this, she has form. Even though her vote and the other ONP vote would not have stopped it. She had a duty to vote against it, she even stated it was bad law. She turned her back on it. That was unconscionable and unforgivable. As for the larger parties, nope the Greens are the only logical first target. Secondary targets should be marginal seats and Teals.
Yea well that will not be an issue. She was appointed by Labor. Her bio says it all, this will be rubber stamped by the useful idiot.
'Mostyn was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service in the social justice, gender equity, sporting, cultural and business sectors, to reconciliation, and to environmental sustainability.'
'.....advocate for gender inclusion and equality, sustainability, and climate change action, Ms Mostyn was awarded the 2020 United Nations Day Honour Award'
Attack on free speech has always been around hiding under may umbrellas carrying the same old thing of observing them& their ideas but not ours This state of affairs will continue into future Again there are those who will equip themselves with rightouness & strong values who will step forward for the tough task
Some very telling names in the list of Senators that voted yes. Including Jacinta Price, someone I expected would have voted against it. Antic, Babet, Payman (shock horror) Pocock, Rennick and Tyrrel the stand outs who voted No. Many of those who voted yes said absolutely nothing, there were eight divisions before the final vote. Slowly but surely the sellouts capitulated and voted in favor of it.
O.M.G.
The first I heard of this was yesterday. I was thinking about what I'd write to the Nationals MP in my Federal electorate about it - but it seems that I dallied too long. I obviously needed to get in before 24 hours was up! Welcome to the 'new' legislative changes where debate is not required.
WHAT is this country coming to??? Honestly, these morons deserve bullets in their heads in parliament if this is what they think they were voted in to do. The kinder thing, of course, would be to decisively vote them all out in the coming federal election, but we know what the majority of voters are like: uninformed, spineless people who wouldn't know the truth if it hit them over the head.
Another problem is, the implications of this Bill are FAR WORSE than even the Digital ID Bills. WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR PARLIAMENTARIANS?!?!?!?!?
They're bought and paid for. And look who their 'leaders' are - our best do not go into politics..
"...these morons deserve bullets in their heads..."
That's hate speech. 12 months jail for you. Actually, maybe 5 because you threatened politicians, which is a far, far more heinous crime.
I would say lifelong,you can't threaten precious Albo ,Bowen and the other thugs...oh sorry,that's hate speech.....with bullets!!!
Ha ha ha ha!!
Yes, I'm evil. A danger to society. I've treated patients, very well, too, for 20 years. I'm a great parent. I've put up with so much and still been (mostly) very decent to others! But telling politicians off? Suggesting things we all think of, anyway?! Oops, my bad ;-)
The scariest thing about it is that you could honestly be charged, even though your comment may be 'tongue in cheek.'
I fear for my family.
I hear you. But I don't fear for me. But maybe I do for others.
If they seriously want to come and take me away for saying that, when the worst I've ever done (illegally) in my adult life is get caught for speeding in my car a few times, then that would show everyone that my words DO have cause. That the parliamentarians really DO deserve bullets to the head!
I have a life plan, and it's a nice, helpful one. But if other things get in the way and I get put on another path that's greater than me, then I guess that's where I'm going.
These parliamentarians are a law unto themselves. The rubbish in this bill won't apply to them. And it won't stop at what are dubbed 'Islamic terrorists', the very same people Labor are happily letting into our country!!!
This country is going to the dogs. And unless we all individually stand up to it, it'll be too late. There's no place for fear in our future. Only courage.
Don't worry about Robyn, she is on a watch list already like most of us. She just moved up the list a few spots LOL!
The LNP are closet socialists - wolves in sheep's clothing.
And as silly as others may think this is, we need Trump to call this out. If he points a finger at Australia's draconian laws like the Hate Speech and Online Safety Bills, the world will listen.
Is this just another way of getting in their disinformation/misinformation freedom of speech bill under another name. I wonder sometimes if all those smears against different groups at each other were all set up deliberately to get to this moment! Pick the moment while it’s all going on an push through the solution. No debate. We’ll need more petitions/submissions etc. It just goes on. Pauline Hanson still has an ongoing case against her for a supposed racist slur and apparently has others for different things she’s said in the past, as she usually does. Perhaps that had something to do with her no show at the vote.
Maybe she was told, in no uncertain terms, that if she voted against this bill, that all charges against her would hold. Maybe...
Senator Matthew Canavan voted FOR the bill, so I hold no respect for him!
The No voters (Hansard) were: -
Mr Bandt (Australian Greens)
Mr Bates (Australian Greens)
Mr Chandler-Mather (Australian Greens)
Ms Chaney (Independent)
Ms Daniel (Independent)
Dr Haines (Independent)
Dr M Ryan (Independent)
Ms Steggall (Independent)
Ms Tink (Independent)
Ms Watson-Brown (Australian Greens)
Mr Wilkie (Independent)
Interestingly, there is no record of One Nation's Pauline Hanson or Malcolm Roberts vote. That says a lot.
Too few nos....too many ayes...and there go the Greens again, occasionally surprising me! Sure, they wanted mandatory covid injections for all, but automatically imprisoning people for 'hate speech' isn't on their agenda. Maybe they all suffer from split personality disorder. Who knows.
It might say something, that One Nation votes weren't recorded, but possibly they weren't there for an hour or two, and the vote happened so quickly. Lots of bills get passed when the house is not full (or anywhere near full on occasion...). However, if could also mean something. There could be dirty deals going on. Except they had the numbers to pass it without any of the smaller parties/Independents. BUT One Nation also likes free speech. And this bill goes completely against that. So at this stage, until I know more information, I might sit on the fence with that one, but thankyou for the information. It has given me food for thought!!
I am wondering about OneNation,can that be true? I hope there is some misunderstanding.
See my reply, just below MarilynK's.
The Senate Hansard final no vote was: -
NOES
Antic, A. Babet, R. Payman, F.Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Tyrrell, T. M.
Both Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts did not vote at all! In fact, Pauline Hanson has missed MAJOR senate votes including the Mis/Disinformation Bill, and the Online Safety Bill - she just didn't turn up!
You can read the final account yourself here (PDF) https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28691/&sid=0000
If you want the parliamentary debate and vote, just google something like "hansard parliament 6 february 2025"
https://www.onenation.org.au/one-nation-defends-free-speech
So, this came out today.
"While One Nation strongly support tougher penalties for violent terrorists, we will never support reckless laws that undermine freedom of speech. That’s why we refused to take part in this sham vote"
I think if a parliamentarian or party disagrees with a bill so much, the least they could do is vote NO to it, not abstain, or refuse to be in the chamber.
I read your link, and I say they are hypocrites!!!
Please refer to Hansard. There is NO record of Pauline even being there the entire day. Or correct me if I am wrong?
And as far as I'm concerned, abstaining from voting - when they are voted in to represent their constituents - is a YES vote!
How dare they allow this to go through without a word on the record!
One Nation Senators were not in the Chamber. You and Hansard are correct. But "refused to take part" also = not in the chamber. So in that sense, they are not 'hypocrites' because the website said they did not take part, which is absolutely correct. In fact, they were not even IN the Chamber to take part! However, they are paid to BE in the chamber. So refusing to vote, although I can understand why this is done, is still not OK in my books. They are voted in to DO the voting! Not refuse to turn up.
If you abstain whilst in the chamber, that's another thing. And perhaps it would've been better if they WERE in the Chamber and then abstained. But then that would be on record that they abstained - and voters would want to know why they abstained. It gets messy.
But seriously, if you agree, you say AYE, if you disagree, you say NO. If you are ambivalent, well, maybe that's sometimes when politicians abstain? But I think they more do it to make a point....like when Abbott abstained during same sex marriage (even though 75% of his electorate said yes). He abstained because saying yes was against his morals, which, on an individual level, is commendable. BUT he was voted in to vote FOR the people of his electorate, not follow his conscience. Right or wrong, he should've voted yes. For his 'crime' he got voted out! But he did loads of horrible things (eg not letting unvaccinated kids go to daycare) so I have no sympathy for the guy! He didn't do his job properly.
Abstaining from a vote tells me that either a politician is letting their views get in the way of things, they're ambivalent about the bill (or just plain lazy!) or they're doing it to make some sort of point/not look bad.
HOWEVER, MPs should always vote according to their constituents, not their conscience. Senators, on the other hand, are voted in by STATE. I think their Conscience Vote might count for a lot more...?
I agree with some of your comments. But comparing Abbott to Hanson and Roberts is drawing a long bow in my opinion. I agree Abbott should have voted, but he abstained because he was a member of the LNP, which is still wrong in my eyes.
Hanson and Roberts are ON. They don't have to answer to anyone except themselves, and Hanson is leader. So if anything, they more than anyone should have listened to their constituents, and they didn't!
I linked the senate one in my post.
It does not become law until ratified by the Governor General. Normally a rubber stamp
It didn't stop them asking for digital ID uploads from people with MyGovID accounts right after the Digital ID Bill went through...
I think what people forget (if they ever knew...) is that Albanese got himself 'rubber stamped' as PM before the votes were even counted properly. I think 20% of them had been counted, and he got himself & some ministers sworn in, so he could go to that Quadrilateral meeting in Japan. NO PM has ever been sworn in so quickly!! Someone who gets the GG to swear him in without following the proper protocols (even Morrison had to wait 2 weeks post-election to be sworn in!) is a person who DOES NOT CARE about the rules. Albanese makes up his own rules (or does the batting for his Master). Rules are things for 'other people' in his mind. Someone like that should NEVER have the top job!!!! This man and his whole party need to go. And Dutton sure as hell should not take his place.
HOW do we get rid of both Labor AND Liberal at the next election?!?!?!?!
You won't get rid of them while ever we have 'preferential voting'. Try explaining that to the average Australian though.
Yes, now that I've had many years to think about it, I prefer first past the post. Whoever gets the most outright votes wins. Anything else is just semantics.
When you marry someone, it's not like you have 23 suitors all lined up, and you ask everyone who you should pick, and then apply preferential voting. You'd invariably end up with someone you didn't like as much! YOU know who you want to be with. So just pick them!
Preferential voting for 1, 2 & 3 I'm OK with, but after that, who cares?! If they're any further down your list, they're not your favourite anyway, thus do not need a vote. Maybe changing preferential voting just to 1 2 3 might work (instead of 1-67). The 'lucky country' voters might buy that. It would be a good first step at least. You know how much Australians like change. They don't!
Proportional representation is the only system that if properly instituted does not disenfranchise supports of minor parties and independents. You get 20% of the votes, you get 20% of the seats. Mind you it hasn't helped the idiotic shambles that Germany and NZ have become - culture overcomes the best systems.
Yes, proportional representation. That's the one! Sorry, I'm just a bit irritated with the Federal idiots in Canberra right now, my brain is focused on other things. But even WITH a good system, shambles still ensue, you're right! I think humans and their egos being in the mix might be the cause of that problem...?!?!
It's academic anyhow. Even the sleepy Kiwis changed their system over 30 years ago but don't hold your breath waiting for it here. We have a disadvantage over NZ: we're worth owning and controlling. Oh well, footy season starting...
I have been saying this for a long time, take the cross benches with an alliance of independents. If the majors can be forced into minority government they will have to negotiate to things done. The critical target is the Senate. Take down as many Green Senators as possible. That cuts into Labor support. Go after UAP and any left leaning independents.
But it all falls apart when Labor AND the LNP vote together!
A party could do and say all they like to somehow form a minority government - and there have been agreements before between major parties & minor parties, to get the major over the line. However, this line-up is rare.
If only we could get Australians to vote in an informed fashion! There'd be more smaller parties and less larger ones. Still wouldn't mean they could actually compromise, though!
Labor have 25 seats, LNP 31 if memory serves. Labor rely on Greens to get anything by the LNP, ONP, Independents. Greens hold 11 seats. So on voting if Labor get 100% Green support they get 36 votes. if six Green seats can be taken, Labor has to rely on six independents, 2xONP, Jaquie Lambie as well as LNP traitors to get anything over the line. I don't think its an impossible task to knock six Greens out of the Senate. An easy target would be Pauline Hanson on her traitors vote in favor of the Hate Bill. By failing to vote she sold Australian supporters out.
I think getting rid of the larger parties, Labor and Liberal, would be better than trashing the small parties! Small parties may not always be perfect, but the big parties are even worse. As an example, Labor pollies went DIRECTLY AGAINST their party platform to introduce mandatory sentencing! They should all be unendorsed for that!!
And did you read what the Greens Senators had to say about Labor in Hansard on the Hate Speech vote? It was horrible! Not sure how much longer that unwritten 'agreement' between Labor & the Greens is going to hold. Not that I like these party 'agreements' anyway. I think the Nationals should split from the Libs and the Greens should stand on their own two feet. Any which way, the politicians will still find alliances, regardless of parties.
The Independents in the Senate have been quite good, generally, I have found. They have generally voted fairly well (not always, though). Well, above my expectations, anyway! Sometimes I've been quite surprised, in a good way, by the voting choices they've made. David Pocock & Tammy Tyrrell have been nice surprises.
One stuff-up, or refusal to vote, is hardly a party crime in itself. However, if the stuff-up is so massive, or it follows a barrage of bad decisions, then I guess that's another thing. But One Nation has not been so bad. I think it is unfair for people to call them traitors. They've mostly been pretty good about standing up for everyday Australians. They're not the ones introducing the Digital ID Bill or the Hate Speech Bill or other draconian legislation! And they've pretty well always voted against this sort of stuff.
I think if we can take out votes for Labor and Liberal then we'll be in a better place. Nowhere near perfect, but certainly better.
Hanson's excuse was pathetic, this is not the first time she has done this, she has form. Even though her vote and the other ONP vote would not have stopped it. She had a duty to vote against it, she even stated it was bad law. She turned her back on it. That was unconscionable and unforgivable. As for the larger parties, nope the Greens are the only logical first target. Secondary targets should be marginal seats and Teals.
Yea well that will not be an issue. She was appointed by Labor. Her bio says it all, this will be rubber stamped by the useful idiot.
'Mostyn was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for eminent service in the social justice, gender equity, sporting, cultural and business sectors, to reconciliation, and to environmental sustainability.'
'.....advocate for gender inclusion and equality, sustainability, and climate change action, Ms Mostyn was awarded the 2020 United Nations Day Honour Award'
Attack on free speech has always been around hiding under may umbrellas carrying the same old thing of observing them& their ideas but not ours This state of affairs will continue into future Again there are those who will equip themselves with rightouness & strong values who will step forward for the tough task
Some very telling names in the list of Senators that voted yes. Including Jacinta Price, someone I expected would have voted against it. Antic, Babet, Payman (shock horror) Pocock, Rennick and Tyrrel the stand outs who voted No. Many of those who voted yes said absolutely nothing, there were eight divisions before the final vote. Slowly but surely the sellouts capitulated and voted in favor of it.
Hansard makes for some interesting reading. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28691/&sid=0000
Yea maybe. Sure there would be a reason. Probably come out later.