Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the terminology used in all the clauses of the bill refers to judges but nowhere does the bill make it clear that we are talking only about federal judges. I would like to ask the minister just to confirm that this is not an attempt to cover the field, which I do not believe there would be power to do, but that this will leave state judges in a different situation to federal judges. I would just like confirmation of that.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for her question. I will get back to the shadow minister on the detail of the answer. I do not have it available to me at the moment.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to clause 39, which inserts proposed clauses 17AA to 17AJ into the Judges' Pensions Act, which creates a new associated pension for non-member spouses. I would like to ask the minister whether or not he is aware of any other provision in family law for the creation of such a pension.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I would need to take that question on notice. I will get back to you when I can.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would similarly like to ask about new proposed subsection 17AA(2), which provides for the operative time that the member's spouse is in receipt of the pension and creates something called an 'associate immediate pension'. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the existence of any other like pension applicable to any person in Australia other than this category of persons.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the question and I appreciate the forensic process of going through this bill. But, again, I will get back to the shadow minister to answer the specific detail of that question.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could continue to go through this bill for which the minister is responsible in great detail. The explanatory memorandum is 24 pages long in order to create this new category of family law which is applicable only to this special subclass of judges. I guess I am going to get the same answer every time—that the minister does not know the answer and that he will get back to me. I really do not think that is an acceptable way to deal with this sort of legislation, but I can see no point in going on through every clause of the bill, because I know I will get the same answer. So perhaps the minister could explain to us why this particular new arrangement has been created for this subset of people.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is designed to accommodate current issues that are to be dealt with in the case of the splitting arrangements for judges and governors-general. In the current situation we do not have a law that covers that eventuality in sufficient detail. This bill attempts to deal with that. I do appreciate the detailed forensic consideration which the shadow minister is giving this bill. It is a consideration that the shadow minister brings to all of her interactions and gives all legislation. I appreciate the quality of the questions being asked, and I will get back to her with detailed answers to the specific questions that she has asked. I feel that is the best way to treat with respect and consideration the detailed questions that she is asking.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his complimentary words about my concern about the actual workings of the bill. When something like this is occurring which is brand new—and I note the use of the word 'accommodation'—I find it of concern that it would be considered reasonable to accommodate the concerns of a subset of people when a different law applies to everybody else. That is why, if you look at the bill in particular and the explanatory memorandum, you will see page after page of new terms that simply do not exist in the rest of the Family Law Act. New terminology has had to be created for this specific category of people. I honestly do not see how in all conscience a government can accommodate the wish of a small group when a whole lot of other people are going to be excluded. It is not even all judges; it is only the three courts created in the federal jurisdiction—the High Court, the Federal Court and the Family Law Courts. As I understand it, it is to accommodate a problem that arose for a particular Family Law Court judge and his ex-spouse. That is not the way to make good legislation. I will not ask any more questions because I do not think I am going to get any specific answers, but perhaps this will add to the answers and information that will be made available to the Senate references committee should the reference be successfully made.

Bill agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.