Division Description Changes — Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 — Second Reading — 13th Aug 2007

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2007-08-13#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:18:21	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12 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 [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives Nicola Roxon]'s amendment. The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. ) To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 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 [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest]. ) It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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 [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].) The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12) "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](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives)'s amendment. The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ) To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1): "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](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014). ) It amends the [Judges’ Pensions Act 1968](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/) 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](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813).)
representatives vote 2007-08-13#1 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:09	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12 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 [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives Nicola Roxon]'s amendment. ~~The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."[1] To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 amendment]:~~ The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. ) To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 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.[2] It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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: The bill was introduced in response to recent reductions in the superannuation surcharge rate.(Read more about the background to the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest]. ) It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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.[3] * payments made to discharge in part a judge’s surcharge debt.(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].) ~~''References''~~ * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. * [2] Read more about the background to the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest]. * [3] More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].
representatives vote 2007-08-13#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-06-19 09:33:49	Title ~~Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 — Second Reading~~ Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 - Second Reading - Same-sex de facto relationships Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That this bill be now read a second time.</p>~~ <p pwmotiontext="moved">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’.</p> ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the words proposed to be omitted (<b>Ms Roxon’s</b> amendment) stand part of the question.</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12 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 [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives Nicola Roxon]'s amendment. The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."[1] To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 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.[2] It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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.[3] ''References'' * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. * [2] Read more about the background to the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest]. * [3] More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].

Change

Division

representatives vote 2007-08-13#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:18:21

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12 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 [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives Nicola Roxon]'s amendment.
The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. ) To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 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 [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest]. ) It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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 [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].)
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12) "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](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives)'s amendment.
The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ) To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1):
"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](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014). ) It amends the [Judges’ Pensions Act 1968](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/) 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](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813).)

representatives vote 2007-08-13#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:09

Title

Description

The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12 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 [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives Nicola Roxon]'s amendment.
~~The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."[1] To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 amendment]:~~
The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here]. ) To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 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.[2] It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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:
The bill was introduced in response to recent reductions in the superannuation surcharge rate.(Read more about the background to the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest]. ) It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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.[3]
* payments made to discharge in part a judge’s surcharge debt.(More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].)
~~''References''~~
* [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
* [2] Read more about the background to the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest].
* [3] More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].

representatives vote 2007-08-13#1

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-06-19 09:33:49

Title

~~Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 — Second Reading~~
Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 - Second Reading - Same-sex de facto relationships

Description

~~That this bill be now read a second time.~~
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’.
~~That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Roxon’s amendment) stand part of the question.~~
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.136.12 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 [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Nicola_Roxon&mpc=Gellibrand&house=representatives Nicola Roxon]'s amendment.
The original motion was "That this bill be now read a second time."[1] To this, Ms Roxon proposed the following [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2007-08-13.133.1 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.[2] It amends the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/jpa1968184/ 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.[3]
''References''
* [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
* [2] Read more about the background to the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0708/08bd014 bills digest].
* [3] More information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2813 here].