JUDGES' PENSIONS LOOPHOLE MUST BE CLOSED
I thank the committee and the secretariat for the work it has done in relation to this inquiry and thank the people and organisations that made submissions.
The purpose of the bill is set out in my second reading speech.
The bill was introduced into the Parliament in response to the findings of an independent inquiry established by Court Chief Justice, Susan Kiefel after it was brought to her attention that former Justice Dyson Heydon, while on the High Court bench, sexually harassed a number of associates.
Since that time a number of other matters have been raised concerning serious misconduct of persons holding high office, including grave allegations about the former Attorney-General and now Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Hon Christian Porter MP.
By flatly refusing to support this bill, the government members of the committee have failed efforts to improve standards of behaviour across public life and especially to eliminate sexual harassment and sexual assault in all its forms.
While the report expresses support for the intent of the bill to provide a mechanism to address sexual harassment in the judiciary, and acknowledges that there is an important deficiency in the Judges ' Pensions Act 1968, at every stage the report finds fault without offering credible or timely remedy. The government members of the committee were determined at every stage to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and so justify inaction.
Questions about the precise definition of 'serious misconduct' can be addressed through amendment to the bill.
The Attorney-General's Department's comments in relation to the constitutionality of the bill are far from conclusive. Indeed, they were so tentative as to be inconsequential.
Australia certainly needs an independent judicial commission, an indeed an independent commission against corruption, but the government has been determined to drag its feet in relation to both. In any case the absence of such institutions does not detract from, and instead reinforces, the need to close the loophole that presently exists in relation to judge's pension arrangements.
Throughout the inquiry, the government members of the committee demonstrated no enthusiasm for the bill. Given the context of revelations concerning former Justice Heydon, and other allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct amongst other judicial office holders and the legal profession more broadly, one might reasonably ask why?
In the course of my discussions with other MPs, it has been clear that from the outset the bill was strongly opposed by the then Attorney-General and that opposition was well known to the government-members of the committee.
It was also made clear to me that some MPs were concerned that support for the measure proposed in the bill could encourage greater scrutiny of the behaviour of Members of Parliament and other public office holders, and that was considered to be a bad thing.
Those views were expressed prior to more recent deeply disturbing revelations about the conduct of persons in the federal parliament.
The report's negative recommendation reflects the view, and I understand the political direction, of the former Attorney-General. In that it sends precisely the wrong message about the parliament's preparedness to set an example and forthrightly address the deeply seated problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault across Australian society.
If the parliament cannot deal with the problem of former judges responsible for sexual harassment and possibly worse continuing to receive their taxpayer funded pensions, then what hope is there that the federal legislature will overcome its own deep-seated political culture of cover-up and concealment.
Given the former Attorney-General's legal and reputational circumstances, and his potential conflict of interest in relation to these matters, it would be in the public interest for the new Attorney-General, Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash, to set aside the policy position determined by the former Attorney and disregard the negative recommendation of the committee's report. She should reconsider the matter.
I would be happy to work with her to progress an effective legislative remedy for what is an obvious legal loophole.
Recommendation
The bill should be supported.