The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Roxon’s amendment) stand part of the question." In other words, the majority wanted the original motion to remain unchanged and therefore disagreed with Labor MP Nicola Roxon's amendment.
"That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the Opposition believes that the bill fails to give equal treatment to all judges by not treating judges in same-sex de facto relationships in the same way as heterosexual judges and their spouses or de facto spouses, and calls on the Government to amend the bill in order to give judges in same-sex relationships equal treatment’."
Background to the bill
The bill was introduced in response to recent reductions in the superannuation surcharge rate.(Read more about the background to the bill in its bills digest. ) It amends the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 in order to insert a definition of ‘salary’ for pension purposes and fix technical deficiencies in the superannuation surcharge formula in relation to:
- reduced rates of surcharge in 2003-04 and 2004-05;
- treatment of invalidity and death benefits; and
- payments made to discharge in part a judge’s surcharge debt.(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available here.)