Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to join in the debate on the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. Since the government’s election to office, one of its best initiatives in the area of the Attorney-General’s and justice portfolios is the establishment of federal magistrates. Federal magistrates have carried out a very important role since 2000 in helping to ensure that Australia gets the sort of justice it deserves in the federal arena. We have had a number of very high quality federal magistrates appointed, and they certainly help to ensure that we as a country have the necessary judicial officers available in a range of areas to ensure that people are able to obtain justice.

It is important that the federal magistrates service be independent. It is independent, and the government has always supported the independence of the federal magistracy. With respect to the vitally important role that magistrates have, it is essential that their employment conditions be such that they are appropriately remunerated at a level that befits their responsibilities and also, of course, that their benefits extend to giving them some level of support in the event of disability or death. Their benefits must be set at a level that is reasonable, just and fitting given their responsibilities.

This bill amends the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 to provide federal magistrates with disability cover and death benefits. It seems almost an oversight that the terms of employment for these senior magistrates have not, up until now, included any specific entitlements for their retirement should it occur as a result of disability or in the unfortunate case of death while in service of the judiciary. I do not know whether we are appointing people who are fit and well and unlikely to need to access these particular services, but clearly it is a problem when we contemplate that federal magistrates are able to hold office until age 70.

I will briefly digress to say that I think history has recorded that the constitutional amendment that required judges to retire at age 70 is not entirely in the interests of the country at the moment. With a declining birthrate, an ageing population, increasing levels of health and increasing longevity, people these days are able to serve beyond 70 and I would like, at some stage, to see a government amend the Constitution once again to make provision for judges of the High Court to serve until at least age 75. The old life appointment was probably inappropriate, but in practice it worked fairly well because judges who were incapable of continuing their work usually retired. I think that to force judges to retire at 70, as is currently the case, is regressive and retrograde, and it deprives Australia of the judicial services of some excellent judicial officers just because chronologically they happen to be 70-plus.

The current situation with federal magistrates is that they are entitled to make a contribution equal to 13.1 per cent of their salary to a super fund or towards their savings for their retirement. But the lack of entitlements or insurance in the case of disability or death brings about the obvious dilemma. In the case of disability, if they are to be removed due to incapacity before age 70 and they have no protection, they may well be unwilling to leave. There is a fairly messy procedure required to actually dismiss a federal magistrate or a federal judge. That is why this legislation is important. It brings about the sort of reform that is necessary in the interests of fairness and equity but also in the interests of the appropriate administration of the judicial system in Australia.

It would be terrible if we had people clinging to office even though they had lost their ability to fulfil their role at a satisfactory level, because they simply could not afford to retire. This bill will introduce changes that will help to rectify the situation. It introduces changes that will make it easier and less financially disadvantageous for a magistrate whose health is deteriorating to step down voluntarily from office. The bill also introduces changes that, on the resignation of a federal magistrate due to permanent disability or infirmity, will give the Attorney-General the ability to certify that disability is the reason for the premature departure, which then would entitle the resigning magistrate to a pension equal to 60 per cent of his or her salary until he or she turns 65 or dies, whichever comes first.

In addition to this payment, the retired magistrate would receive ongoing superannuation payments from the Australian government while in receipt of that disability pension. The superannuation payments would be the same as if the magistrate had continued working up until age 65. Additionally, the bill provides for the introduction of a benefit that will take effect only on his or her death while in office or, in the case of a former magistrate who has left office as a consequence of disability, if he or she dies before attaining the age of 65. The benefit is in the form of a lump sum payment that is payable to the spouse of the deceased magistrate and also to the dependent children of the deceased magistrate, should the deceased magistrate have dependent children. The lump sum would be an amount equal to the superannuation payments that would have been made from the date of death to his or her 65th birthday had the former magistrate not passed away.

I am pleased that the opposition is supporting this bill, even though it is doing so with some reservations. The federal magistracy is far too important an institution to Australia for it to be politicised, and I am pleased that both sides of the House will be voting for the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. The changes reflect the great importance of the roles of senior federal magistrates and I am particularly pleased to be able to commend this bill to the chamber.

See this speech in context