Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5300 revised:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1AA  Subsection 4(1)

Repeal the definition of child of marital relationship.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), item 1, before the definition of salary, insert:

de facto relationship means:

             (a)    the relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis;

             (b)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, all the circumstances of the relationship must be taken into account, including any of the following:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (c)    no one factor, or any combination of factors, under paragraph (b) or (f) is necessary to establish a de facto relationship;

             (d)    a de facto relationship may be between two people, irrespective of gender;

             (e)    two people may still be in a de facto relationship if they are living apart from each other on a temporary basis;

              (f)    if a relationship is registered under a state or territory law allowing for the registration of relationships, registration is proof of the relationship from that date.

The debate has, I think, already mostly taken place during the second reading debate, so I will not extend it any longer than need be, given the lateness of the hour. Clearly this item inserts a new definition of de facto relationship into the act. The definition is based on the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission model definition published in its report. It goes on to define a de facto couple as a couple living together in a genuine domestic relationship and then provides a list, of (a) to (j), of how that would then be taken into account. It does confine itself and it is narrowly cast. It is in fact more narrowly cast than the amendments to be moved by the minor parties. Be that as it may, it does seek equity—as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate—for Justice Kirby. This of course is the prime amendment that Labor is moving to the act and the rest are consequential. The effect would be that de facto homosexual couples will gain access to the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples, which is the main import. As we know, it only relates to the particular act which it amends—which is the Judges’ Pensions Act. While Minister Johnston was keen to group me with the minor parties—and whilst sometimes I do not mind standing with them—in this instance I am slightly apart. This amendment is only with respect to the Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007. It seeks to amend that bill to provide for equity in respect of the arguments which were progressed during my speech in the second reading debate and which I have outlined now. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Going from what they have said in the past, I am disappointed that the government do not take the opportunity in this instance to take what I consider to be a case-by-case example with a narrow amendment which does not have the cost implications that Senator Johnston avers. Of course, the government can, if he talks about a range of other Commonwealth officers and sergeants, and other officers for that matter—I did not want to leave out the ordinary and sometimes exceptional foot soldiers—undertake that process. They can demonstrate their bona fides in this and undertake their work. In this instance they can start with this one. I move:

(3)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1A  Section 4AC

Repeal the heading, substitute:

1B  After subsection 4AC(2)

Insert:

     (2A)    For the purposes of this Act, a person is a de facto partner who survives a deceased Judge if:

             (a)    the person had a de facto relationship with the deceased Judge at the time of the death of the deceased Judge (the death); and

             (b)    in the case of a deceased Judge who was a retired Judge at the time of the death:

                   (i)    the de facto relationship began before the retired Judge became a retired Judge; or

                  (ii)    the de facto relationship began after the retired Judge became a retired Judge but before the retired Judge reached 60; or

                 (iii)    in the case of neither subparagraph (i) nor (ii) applying—the de facto relationship had continued for a period of at least 5 years up to the time of the death.

1C  After subsection 4AC(3)

Insert:

     (3A)    In spite of subsection (2A), a person is taken to be a de facto partner who survives a deceased Judge if:

             (a)    the person previously had a de facto relationship with the deceased Judge; and

             (b)    in the case of a de facto relationship that began after the deceased person became a retired Judge and reached 60—the relationship began at least 5 years before the deceased person’s death; and

             (c)    in the Attorney-General’s opinion, the person was wholly or substantially dependent upon the deceased Judge at the time of the death.

1D  Section 7

Repeal the heading, substitute:

1E  Section 7

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1F  Section 8

Repeal the heading, substitute:

1G  Section 8

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1H  Subsection 9(1)

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1I  Subsection 10(1)

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1J  Section 11

Repeal the heading, substitute:

1K  Subsection 11(1)

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1L  Section 12

Repeal the heading, substitute:

1M  Subsection 12(1)

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1N  Section 12A

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1O  Section 15

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1P  Section 15A

Repeal the heading, substitute:

1Q  Section 15A

After “spouse” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partner”.

1R  Section 15A

After “spouses” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto partners”.

This final item is to remove the term ‘child of a marital relationship’ from the act. The term in fact came to our attention when we were preparing our amendments for this bill. It appears to be a hanger-on, possibly from a previous amendment to the legislation, that has been missed. Often I spend most of my time looking at your legislation, and these things turn up occasionally and I give you the opportunity to correct them. The problem with the definition is that it appears only once in the legislation, in the definition section. So you have a phrase that is defined but in fact not used. It is not unusual, I guess, for Commonwealth legislation, but occasionally it comes up. In my view, this appears to be a redundant section of the legislation. The term ‘child’ and ‘eligible child’ are defined elsewhere, and those are the terms that are used throughout the act.

I would be happy to accept advice from the minister as to whether this is worth keeping in the definition when it does not appear to have any function as it is unrelated to any other section. It appears that, in keeping with always removing causes of confusion, it might be worth accepting this amendment and removing it unless there is good cause to keep it. Perhaps the minister has some clarification as to a good reason for keeping it there.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no clarification of that, but the broad thrust of my response to the same-sex amendment is that, whilst Senator Ludwig wants to tell us that the states have referred matters of superannuation from de facto relationships to the Commonwealth, to underline my position I want to point out that South Australia and Western Australia have not done that. What do you say, Senator Ludwig, about that? What that highlights is what I am saying: we need a proper, detailed, well-thought-out, comprehensive plan to deal with this issue and to not make it up as we go along.

Question negatived.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 5325 revised 2 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), item 1, before the definition of salary, insert:

child of a de facto relationship means:

             (a)    a child born of a de facto relationship; or

             (b)    a child adopted by the persons engaged in that relationship during the period of the relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis, where the two people are not legally married:

             (a)    in determining whether two people are in a de facto relationship, the circumstances of the relationship must be considered as a whole. Without limiting the generality of this paragraph, those circumstances may include:

                   (i)    the length of their relationship;

                  (ii)    how long and under what circumstances they have lived together;

                 (iii)    whether there is a sexual relationship between them;

                 (iv)    their degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between or by them;

                  (v)    the ownership, use and acquisition of their property, including any property that they own individually;

                 (vi)    their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

                (vii)    whether they mutually care for and support children;

               (viii)    the performance of household duties;

                  (ix)    the reputation, and public aspects, of the relationship between them;

                   (x)    the existence of a statutory declaration signed by both persons stating that they regard themselves to be in a de facto relationship with the other person;

             (b)    a de facto relationship may be between two people of the same gender.

Note:   A person in a marital relationship is taken to be legally married—see subsection 8A(2) of the Superannuation Act 1976.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1A  Subsection 4AB(1)

After “basis at that time”, insert “and includes a de facto relationship”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1B  Section 4AB

Omit “marital relationship (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(4)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1C  Section 4AC

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(5)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 26), after item 10, insert:

10A  Subsection 10(2)

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(6)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 5), after item 11, insert:

12A  Subsection 11(3)

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

(7)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 19), after item 12, insert:

12A  Subsection 12(3)

Omit “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), substitute “beneficiary relationship”.

I propose to move the same amendment that Senator Ludwig voted for. As you heard, he said he was a little distant from us on this matter. He actually voted for it, and if you look carefully you will see that that was a matter that was divided on. The division related to the same amendment, which was designed for the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which was moved earlier this week. There was a division on it and it had the support of Labor, the Democrats and the Greens versus Family First and the Liberal and National parties. So when you hear Senator Ludwig say he is slightly apart from us, perhaps it is with respect to this bill; it certainly was not with respect to the income tax act, because he voted for it.

This week we have dealt with this on a systematic basis. I do not intend to engage the minister in his rebuttal of my position. I could continue rebutting his and we can go backwards and forwards and, I suspect, he will use his barrister skills and I will use my deep understanding of superannuation financial figures. But it is probably best left alone at this time of night and at this time of the week.

I would indicate, for the assistance of the chamber, that this week this amendment has been rejected by the coalition with respect to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. They will be rejecting it for the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disabilities and Death Benefits) Bill, I am sure. They rejected it with respect to the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. They have indicated they will reject this for the Judges’ Pensions Act and the Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act. They rejected it with respect to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act and the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990. They rejected it with respect to the Social Security Act 1991. They rejected it with respect to the Superannuation Act 1976, the Superannuation Act 1990, and the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation) Act 1993. And they rejected it with respect to the Workplace Relations Act 1996.

That totals 12, so this is hardly an attempt to leave out sergeants and include judges, which I thought the minister might have thought because he might not have been paying attention to other legislation. He has a busy life as a minister, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But we have made a systematic, holistic and comprehensive approach to this matter. I have said that I will not engage further in debate—and I will not, unless provoked. I simply move my amendments.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly do not want to provoke Senator Murray, because I know he is earnest and sincere and I respect him enormously. The point I want to make is that the government is not saying no. The government has said, ‘We are considering this.’ I want to just pause to say that this is very, very significant legislation. It is generational legislation, Senator Murray, if we go down this path—and, as time rolls by, it seems that we are going to go down this path. The Attorney’s words that the government is considering this ring in my ear.

Senator Murray, your amendments are interesting but they set out by way of example the sorts of problems we are dealing with. As you well know, we have six states and two territories. They make legislation. By and large, all of them have enacted legislation concerning de facto relationships. The defining point of de facto legislation is the effluxion of time. In other words, de facto spouses acquire rights by virtue of the duration of the relationship. What your amendments seek to do, and indeed what a number of amendments before this chamber have sought to do, is to say that rights are required. Firstly, let us deal with children. Your amendment (1) says:

child of a de facto relationship means:

             (a)    a child born of a de facto relationship; or

             (b)    a child adopted by the persons engaged in that relationship during the period of the relationship.

There is a period mentioned there. You then go on to say:

de facto relationship means:

             (a)    the relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis ...

You then clarify that to say ‘not married’. Given that the states define ‘de facto relationship’ by virtue of time and you have not, you have created a complete conundrum between rights that flow by virtue of state legislation and rights that we would seek to bestow by virtue of Commonwealth legislation. This creates a dual rights regime—the haves and the have-nots. All I am saying to you is: please, work this through. It is complex. There are a host of considerations and we are giving them consideration. It is not going to happen tonight; it is not going to happen in the immediate term. But, ultimately, I think the package will go across agencies, across departments. We will look at actuarial tables. We will look at life expectancies of same-sex couples, we will look at the effect on children and we will take the states with us. All I am saying to you is: please go with us on this mission.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It just dawned on me that I think you were wrong about WA, because WA have their own Family Court.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family law, yes, but de facto is separate.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But they can deal with same-sex de facto couples in their system. Anyway, it is a minor argument.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s 10 to 10.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whoops! It is 10 to 10, they tell me from behind, so we should not have that debate now. I will turn to Senator Murray’s amendments. Senator Murray, I actually prefer my amendments. I am not going to support yours. The Democrat amendments are designed to accomplish largely the same task as ours, although they differ in detail. Specifically, the definition they use of ‘de facto relationship’ is similar to that of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but it is worded in a slightly different manner. A recommended subsection (3) has been included with subsection (2). In addition, the Democrat amendment does not include the optional Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission clause, which gives recognition to relationships registered under a state scheme, whereas our amendments make this inclusion. We understand that Tasmania already has a state relationship register. As such, Labor’s view is that our amendments, although defeated, will offer greater certainty to couples who have a de facto relationship registered under that scheme.

There are two more areas of distinction between our amendments and the Democrat amendments. The Democrat amendments include a new definition of ‘child of a de facto relationship’, which parallels the definition of ‘child of a marital relationship’ that already exists. I am not convinced that this is necessary. If you look through the Judges’ Pensions Act, you will see that the only time the term ‘child of a marital relationship’ is used is in the definitions. It does not appear to be anywhere else in the act, and the term ‘child of a de facto relationship’ will not be either. I offered that up to the government but it failed to amend the legislation accordingly. Maybe you could look at it some other time.

The definition of ‘child’ in section 4 of the Judges’ Pensions Act already includes adopted children and biological children under the age of 16. If a child is validly adopted under the law of an Australian state, it is fair to assume they will fall under this act. In addition, the act sets up a scheme for determining whether or not a child can receive pensions, under sections 4AA and 9 to 12. Section 4AA provides that a child is eligible to receive part of a pension if the child is a child of the deceased judge and if:

(b) the Attorney-General is of the opinion that:

                   (i)    at the time of the death of the deceased Judge, the child was wholly or substantially dependent on the deceased Judge; or

                  (ii)    but for the death of the deceased Judge, the child would have been wholly or substantially dependent on the deceased Judge.

Sections 9 through to 12 set up when an eligible child may receive a pension. Labor’s amendments would have removed the definition of ‘child of a marital relationship’ entirely. As such, although I support the general concerns raised by you, Senator Murray, and they are echoed by Labor, we will not be supporting your amendments because they would seem to have the combined effect of removing one of the redundant definitions and replacing it with another, unfortunately—although I do not mean to be harsh in saying that. I seek clarification from the government as to why this definition may be in the act. They can have a another go at trying to tell us. I tried in vain to get an explanation from Minister Johnston. Maybe they can have another go now.

Finally, the Democrats have restructured the legislation to replace every instance of the term ‘marital relationship’ with the term ‘beneficiary relationship’. On balance, I prefer to stay with the draft that Labor have put forward. We spent a bit of time on that, and we think that it matches HREOC and it matches Labor’s position in respect of state relationship registers. It offers greater certainty to those same-sex, de facto couples who have registered their relationship under a state scheme, such as in Tasmania. With those words, Labor will not be supporting the Democrat amendments.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that people participating in the debate understand, I took very senior and very specialised advice in designing the amendments. This is not one of those things you can knock off on the back of a cigarette box. When the government are considering matters, perhaps they might look at some of the concepts which have been fed to me to try and resolve what the minister has properly identified as thorny issues and which the shadow Attorney-General has indicated need some thought. These amendments come with a fairly good pedigree in their design. That is all I will say on that.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the same way that the Greens supported the previous opposition amendments, we will be supporting these Democrat amendments.

Questionnegatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 5335:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 6), before the definition of salary, insert:

child of a de facto relationship means:

             (a)    a child born of a de facto relationship; or

             (b)    a child adopted by the persons engaged in that relationship during the period of the relationship.

de facto relationship means a relationship between two people living together as a couple on a genuine domestic basis.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 1, insert:

1A  Section 4AC

After “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto relationship”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 26), after item 10, insert:

10A  Subsection 10(2)

After “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto relationship”.

(4)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 5), after item 11, insert:

11A  Subsection 11(3)

After “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto relationship”.

(5)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 19), after item 12, insert:

12A  Subsection 12(3)

After “marital relationship” (wherever occurring), insert “or de facto relationship”.

These amendments go to the same issue as the previous two sets of amendments—that is, the removal of the discrimination that exists within this legislation. The Australian Greens amendments do it comprehensively. I feel that there is not much more we can say on this. We do not support discrimination and these amendments seek to remove that discrimination, right across the board. This is an opportunity to move such amendments. Senator Murray has talked about the other opportunities we have had this week to remove discrimination from law and the Greens have been supportive of those attempts to remove the discrimination. We do not believe in discrimination, so we seek to remove it from the law and that is what these amendments do.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take Senator Murray’s advice and have another look at the amendments he drafted. I try to make my words not seem too unkind; nevertheless they might come out that way. Senator Nettle might find what I am going to say a little unkind, unfortunately.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not thin-skinned.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us hope Senator Nettle is not either. Labor are not prepared to support Senator Nettle’s amendments. In fact, Labor oppose them. It is surprising to me—it may have been an oversight, I do not know; Senator Nettle may wish to clarify—that these amendments do not extend the benefits to same-sex couples. The reasons they do not do that, in Labor’s view, is that there is no specific inclusion of same-sex partners in the proposed amendments, as in the Labor and the Democrat amendments. These amendments do not offer sufficient coverage for same-sex, de facto partners and sufficient certainty that they are in fact covered.

Federal law has not defined a de facto relationship to include same-sex couples. The Family Law Act, for instance, states, ‘A de facto relationship means a relationship between a man and a woman who live with each other as spouses on a genuine domestic basis, although not legally married to each other.’ The dictionary defines de facto as, ‘in fact, in reality’. Given that the Marriage Act specifically excludes marriage or same-sex partners, it is hard to see how a same-sex relationship could be construed as de facto unless it was more specifically defined. If you look at the previous case law on this, in 1995 Brown v Commissioner for Superannuation examined a similar issue. In that case, the question was whether the phrase ‘ordinarily lived with that other person as that other person’s husband or wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis’ could include same-sex couples. It was ultimately decided that it did not. Although there are obvious marked differences between Brown and the present situation with the Greens amendments, it does show that at least in that instance Australian courts have been hesitant as to whether to accept same-sex relationships as de facto couples. You would have to go through the process to see if in fact it was, whereas in respect of the Democrat and the Labor amendments you do not expose yourself to a court case for the determination of that fact. The amendments proposed by Labor and the Democrats make it clear that same-sex couples are covered under the pension scheme. The amendments proposed by the Greens do not.

This is an example where you can see that the Greens are trying to achieve something, but you cannot actually trust the Greens to do something constructive. I accept that, on many occasions, their principles might push them, but it seems that they harp about these things and they actually fail to get them right. The Greens amendments would not extend benefits to same-sex, de facto couples; instead they would slightly extend the existing scheme and create two parallel schemes for de facto relationships. On that basis, Labor oppose the Greens amendments.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to indicate Labor’s position. It is similar to the position I have been adopting all night with respect to these types of amendments from the Democrats in this area. We agree with the principle; we have said it repeatedly this evening in this debate. With respect to this particular one, we prefer our position, quite frankly, and we are quite willing to continue with that. Even though the government will not accept it, we think we might be able to wear them down eventually.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government—it may be of no surprise to anybody—is voting against the amendments.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens are supporting the amendments.

Original question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 and Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2007 reported without amendment; report adopted.