Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

JUDGES’ PENSIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2007

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES AMENDMENT (DISABILITY AND DEATH BENEFITS) BILL 2007

In Committee

Database

Senate Hansard

Date

20-09-2007

Source

Senate

Parl No.

41

Electorate

South Australia

Interjector

 

Page

285

Party

AD

Presenter

 

Status

Final

Question No.

 

Questioner

 

Responder

 

Speaker

Stott Despoja, Sen Natasha

Stage

In Committee

Type

 

Context

Bills

System Id

chamber/hansards/2007-09-20/0404


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 20 September 2007
Page: 285


Senator STOTT DESPOJA (10:02 PM) —by leave—I move Australian Democrats amendments (3) to (6) on sheet 5260:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 10 (line 15), omit “husband or wife”, substitute “partner”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 10 (line 19), omit “husband or wife”, substitute “partner”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 10 (line 23), omit “husband or wife”, substitute “partner”.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (after line 16), after subsection 9E(8), insert:

      (8A)    To remove doubt, the Minister must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is not a marital relationship on the ground that the Federal Magistrate and his or her partner are of the same gender, gender identity or sexuality.

The Senate would be aware that this is a related issue. It relates to same-sex entitlements. We have probably debated this issue here today to a sufficient degree. Obviously the Democrats put on record our disappointment at the outcome of the last set of amendments without wanting to reflect on a vote of the chamber, of course. This is an attempt to amend the legislation before us in relation to dealing with same-sex issues. We have sought to do that by changing words such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ and the relevant definitions of that terminology to ‘partner’. The arguments have been put forward by colleagues on this side and I urge the Senate to support the amendments before it.

Question negatived.