Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Democrats amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5260:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 22), omit “70”, substitute “60”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (line 26), omit “65”, substitute “60”.

Section 6 of the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 sets the age threshold for judges of every other federal court at 60 years, and yet the age threshold for benefits and death benefits under this bill has been set at 65. In the submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—and it seems an awfully long time ago now; I think it was April last year that it took place—the Victorian Bar noted that this bill continues to place federal magistrates on an unequal footing with judges of every other federal court by not including federal magistrates under the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968. We propose that the age threshold for benefits should be reduced to 60, which would place federal magistrates on equal footing with judges of every other federal court, whose pensions are determined by the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968. We believe this is an opportunity to be fair to federal magistrates. We believe the reduction of the age threshold for benefits to 60 years would serve to ensure relativity of remuneration within the federal judicial system. I could go on, but I am not going to do that. I can probably read the numbers in this place. Similarly, when I move other amendments in relation to this legislation, I will try to expedite that process as well.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Democrats amendments (3) to (6) on sheet 5260:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 10 (line 15), omit “husband or wife”, substitute “partner”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 10 (line 19), omit “husband or wife”, substitute “partner”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 10 (line 23), omit “husband or wife”, substitute “partner”.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 16), after subsection 9E(8), insert:

     (8A)    To remove doubt, the Minister must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is not a marital relationship on the ground that the Federal Magistrate and his or her partner are of the same gender, gender identity or sexuality.

The Senate would be aware that this is a related issue. It relates to same-sex entitlements. We have probably debated this issue here today to a sufficient degree. Obviously the Democrats put on record our disappointment at the outcome of the last set of amendments without wanting to reflect on a vote of the chamber, of course. This is an attempt to amend the legislation before us in relation to dealing with same-sex issues. We have sought to do that by changing words such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and the relevant definitions of that terminology to ‘partner’. The arguments have been put forward by colleagues on this side and I urge the Senate to support the amendments before it.

Question negatived.

I do not want to move for a division on that particular vote, but I am wondering, and I know it is a courtesy only, if senators will indicate how their parties voted so that I do not have to take up time with a division.