Skip to content
Political Tracker

20 Mar 2018 · 3:50 PM · Division 2

Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia

Order for the Production of Documents
Official title
Documents - Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia - Order for the Production of Documents

Ayes in the majority

This says only which side won the vote, because what Aye and No meant here depends on the exact question put in the chamber.

Aye
39
No
27
Not recorded voting
9

“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.

What was decided

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by SA Senator Stirling Griff (Nick Xenophon Team), which means it succeeded.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the failure of the Government to adequately fund the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia,

(ii) that the Government's neglect of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia means that families facing the most serious family law issues can wait up to three years before a final trial,

(iii) that the continued failure by the Government to adequately resource the family law system has served to create a snowballing effect, the social and economic cost of which will continue to be felt by the community for years to come,

(iv) that the Government has failed to consult with the courts and the legal profession to formulate a clear plan for the future,

(v) that, in March 2014, a report by KPMG, commissioned by the Attorney-General's Department, into the funding of federal courts was presented to the Government but has still not been released,

(vi) that the KPMG report, obtained by The Australian in 2014, warned of significant cuts to service and staffing levels potentially leading to increased delays in litigation, the closure of smaller registries and cutbacks to services in regional Australia,

(vii) that the warnings in the KPMG report appear to have gone unheeded by the Government,

(viii) that, in 2014-15, as part of the response to the KPMG report, the Attorney-General's Department undertook additional work with Ernst & Young to develop costings scenarios involving federal courts, and

(ix) that KPMG's comprehensive report confirming the financial crisis facing federal courts and proposing a range of possible solutions, along with the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report, should be released prior to the Senate voting on the Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill 2017; and

(b) orders that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Attorney­-General, by 9am on 22 March 2018:

(i) the KPMG report into the funding of federal courts, and

(ii) the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report.

Notice of motion altered on 19 March 2018 pursuant to standing order 77.

Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate

Policies this vote counts towards

How They Vote For You uses this vote when scoring members against each policy.

Votes by party

Both bars use the same scale: number of members.
Aye
39
No
27
Votes by party as a table
PartyAyeNo
Australian Labor Party210
Liberal Party019
Australian Greens80
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party40
National Party03
Liberal National Party02
Nick Xenophon Team20
Australian Democrats10
Country Liberal Party01
Deputy Senate President01
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party10
Independent01
Liberal Democratic Party10
Senate President10

How each member voted

Aye · 39

No · 27

Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.