|
senate vote 2021-02-17#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-15 09:21:33
|
Title
Bills — Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019; in Committee- Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Increased minimum number of Judges
Description
<p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>I table supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to these bills. I seek leave to move together government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet UN126.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-17.189.1) introduced by Queensland Senator [Murray Watt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/murray_watt) (Labor), which means it failed. It would have increase the minimum number of Judges required by the bill.
- ### Amendment text
- > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:*
- >
- > *(1) Amendment (1), subclause (3), omit “25 Judges”, substitute “32 Judges”.*
- >
- > *(2) Amendment (1), subclause (4), omit “25 Judges”, substitute “32 Judges”.*
<p class="speaker">Carol Brown</p><p>Is leave granted? Leave is granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>I seek leave to move together government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet RC137.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>Can I just clarify. The opposition would agree to the government moving amendments (1) and (2) on sheet RC137 together, but we would not grant leave to deal with sheets UN126 and RC137 together. We just need to clarify what Senator Stoker was seeking to do.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>Thank you for clarifying that you're prepared to grant leave for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet RC137 to be dealt with together. We also seek leave for amendments (1) to (3) on sheet UN126 to be dealt with together.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Leave is not granted for both together. We'll deal with the first request in terms of sheet RC137 and then, after that is dealt with, we'll deal with your other request.</p><p>That's fine. No problem. Thank you. I seek leave to move together government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet RC137.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>In relation to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019, I move:</p><p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "2 years", substitute "18 months".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 163, page 34 (line 24), omit "2 years", substitute "18 months".</p><p>Incorporation:20210217:Statement of reasons RC137 FC and FCA (Consequential Amdts and Transitional Provisions) Bill</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet RC137 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>I'll just make a short contribution. This is a very, very modest change to a truly terrible bill. But, if, against the advice of all the experts, this bill is to pass the Senate, it's better that it passes with these amendments than without them. On that basis, Labor will be voting in favour of these amendments.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Amanda Stoker</p><p>by leave—In relation to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet UN126 together:</p><p class="italic">  (1) Clause 9, page 18 (lines 25 to 27), omit subclause (3), substitute:</p><p class="italic">  (3) At least 25 Judges are to hold office in accordance with this Act.</p><p class="italic">  (4) In working out whether at least 25 Judges hold office:</p><p class="italic">  (a) include the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice; and</p><p class="italic">  (b) do not include a Judge who is also a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia.</p><p class="italic">  (2) Clause 76, page 73 (line 32), omit "2 years", substitute "18 months".</p><p class="italic">  (3) Clause 217, page 175 (line 20), omit "2 years", substitute "18 months".</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>by leave—In relation to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019, I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1208:</p><p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:</p><p class="italic">(1) Amendment (1), subclause (3), omit “25 Judges”, substitute “32 Judges”.</p><p class="italic">[increased minimum number of Judges]</p><p class="italic">(2) Amendment (1), subclause (4), omit “25 Judges”, substitute “32 Judges”.</p><p class="italic">[increased minimum number of Judges]</p><p>Incorporation:20210217:Opposition's statment of reasons on FCFC bills</p><p>Amendment (1) on the government's sheet of amendments, if enacted, would ensure that there would have to be at least 25 judges in Division 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. These amendments would marginally improve a terrible piece of legislation.</p><p>Let's not forget that, when the Attorney-General first put forward a bill to merge the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia in the 45th Parliament, he explicitly stated that he intended not to appoint new judges to Division 1 as they retired. That would have amounted to a gradual abolition of Division 1 over time. Let's remember that Division 1 is what the existing Family Court will become if the government's legislation passes the Senate. The Attorney-General was forced to back away from that position in the 46th Parliament.</p><p>Under its current iteration, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2019 would allow the Attorney-General to make a regulation to prescribe a minimum number of judges for Division 1, but nothing in the bill would require the Attorney-General to make any such regulation. The fact that the Attorney-General has stated publicly that he would prescribe a minimum of 25 judges is meaningless. The Morrison government commits itself to doing things all the time, and it almost never follows through.</p><p>Amendment (1) on the government's sheet of amendments will ensure that the Attorney-General cannot crab walk away from his commitment to prescribe a minimum number of 25 judges for Division 1. But it would still allow the Morrison government to reduce the number of judges, in what will become Division 1, from 32 to 25. And I note that there is also a vacancy that has been created recently. We do not think that that is acceptable. That is why I have moved amendments to this amendment to prescribe a minimum number of 32 judges in Division 1 so that the number of judges in that division cannot drop below 32.</p><p>But, even if our amendments to this amendment succeed, none of the changes to the bill that we are debating will address any of the fundamental problems with the legislation. The government's bill will still rob the Family Court of Australia of its essential distinguishing feature, which is that it is a court that deals only with family law matters. The government's bill will still do nothing to address any of the problems in the family law system, a system that the Liberals and Nationals have neglected for over seven years. The government's bill will still make an already bad situation even worse for Australian families. The government's bill will still, in the words of the Law Council, represent 'a terrible gamble with the lives of children and families'. But, in the event that this bill does pass the Senate, it is better that it passes with these amendments than without them.</p> <p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1208 to government amendment (1) be agreed to.</p> -
-
|