Mr RUDDOCK (Attorney-General) (10:52 AM) —Firstly, I apologise. I had some House duty in another place, and I appreciate that colleagues have extended some courtesy to me. I thank them for that. I note that those who have addressed this bill include the members for Gellibrand, Lowe, Denison, Fisher and Boothby. I thank them for the contributions they have made. Before I deal with a couple of observations on matters that I understand have been the subject of comment, I reiterate that this bill will provide federal magistrates and their dependants with improved financial protection in the event of serious disability or death. The government acknowledges the significant contribution magistrates have made to an efficient federal civil justice system. It is the government’s view that the public interest is served by ensuring that federal magistrates with disabilities which prevent them performing their duties retire with adequate financial provision.

Currently, a federal magistrate whose performance is significantly impaired for medical reasons might nonetheless be unwilling to resign. This is particularly important where magistrates have tenure to age 70 and can only be removed on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. If the performance of a federal magistrate were significantly impaired for medical reasons, it is desirable that the lack of adequate disability provision not be a barrier to the magistrate’s willingness to resign.

I understand that during the course of the debate there was some concern about this measure in the context of superannuation benefits, and people foreshadowed that there may be amendments in another place. I understand they may seek to do that. I say only that moving amendments to judicial pensions and those in relation to magistrates in isolation from the wider class of people to whom that issue may be relevant would not be, in my view, appropriate. While the government has said that it wants to deal with those—

Ms Roxon —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. Would the member agree to a question on this matter?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the member for Berowra willing to give way?

Mr RUDDOCK —I was going to expand on the matter, but I am willing to answer a question. It may be appropriate to do that.

Ms Roxon —Can the Attorney, given his view that this matter should not be dealt with in isolation, provide us with any information about when he is going to act on it not in isolation? Your government has promised time and time again that this issue would be dealt with. Why should the Labor Party or anyone else not pursue this case by case, as you have indicated you want to consider it? At other times you say that, when it is done case by case, it is being done in isolation. I do not understand the government’s position to be consistent at all. Could the Attorney explain when action is going to be taken?

Mr RUDDOCK —The government is giving consideration to these matters. I have made that clear. The government has said that it will address issues when they are raised and deal with them on a case-by-case basis. But believing that it is appropriate to do it on an individual case basis, I think, flies in the face of reality. If you are going to expand entitlements to what are defined benefits superannuation measures, a much wider class of people in the group of cases that you want to deal with have to be considered. I do not believe it is appropriate to deal with the judges or magistrates in isolation from returned servicemen, public servants or even members of parliament.

Ms Roxon —When are you going to do those?

Mr RUDDOCK —I simply make the point that there is a wider range of issues that have to be looked at, and you would not separate out judges or magistrates from the wider class. In dealing with the issue of defined benefits superannuation entitlements, you would want to make those decisions with some very clear advice as to what the impact would be on the financial bottom line. If you dealt with judges and magistrates in isolation, the impact would probably not be very significant in budgetary terms. But if you move to the wider class of defined benefits schemes, you are talking potentially of billions of dollars being added to the forward estimates.

The opposition may think it is fine to look at these matters in isolation and to do them without regard to the budgetary impacts and future budgetary impacts. If that is the way they see budgeting, they can take the approach that they have. They are welcome to bring their amendments forward, but that does not mean the government would support them when the broader financial implications have to be addressed in considering the principal issue. I simply make that point.

While relatively new, the Federal Magistrates Court is now an integral and important part of the federal civil justice system. The government is committed to ensuring that federal magistrates have adequate and appropriate terms and conditions of service. This is a very important measure in assisting to ensure both the continued and high calibre of appointments and that federal magistrates can focus on important duties without being distracted by concerns over the adequacy of the protection available to them and their dependants in the sad event of disability or death.

I just say in a personal way that I think we have been extraordinarily well served by the magistracy. They have acquitted themselves with diligence, application and professionalism. The outcomes are there to be seen in the very considerable case loads that the Federal Magistrates Court disposes of. Dealing with this issue is important for ensuring that they understand that the tasks they are fulfilling are recognised as important and that we are determined to deal with the disability issues.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for the bill and proposed amendments announced.