Advertisement

Joel Fitzgibbon isolated as Labor backs bill to strip misbehaving judges of pensions

<span>Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian</span>
Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

Joel Fitzgibbon has warned Labor colleagues against supporting a push to strip misbehaving judges of their pensions, telling caucus the bill will be seen as payback against Dyson Heydon.

On Tuesday Labor’s caucus voted to support independent senator Rex Patrick’s bill, despite Fitzgibbon’s intervention citing the judge found by an independent review to have sexually harassed six junior high court staff – allegations he has denied.

The contribution landed poorly in caucus, with colleagues across the factional divide speaking against Fitzgibbon’s position and left-faction MPs describing it to Guardian Australia as a tone deaf intervention from the backbencher.

Related: Fitzgibbon's antics point to the question bubbling in Labor ranks: can Albanese win? | Katharine Murphy

Last month Fitzgibbon quit the Labor frontbench after a dispute about its climate policy, prompting fury from left aligned MPs that he had squandered an opportunity for Labor to put pressure on the Coalition over its lack of ambition on reducing emissions.

The Patrick bill proposes to revoke the payment of a retired judge’s pension where they have engaged in “serious misconduct” while serving as a judge, as determined by the Australian parliament.

The bill had been raised in shadow cabinet before Fitzgibbon quit but a decision was deferred by leader Anthony Albanese, and had also been debated in a caucus committee where Fitzgibbon’s position attracted limited support from some MPs.

Complaints about the Patrick bill include the impracticality of parliament making its own findings of misconduct without a court verdict, and the dangerous precedent of it standing in judgment of judicial officers.

After the shadow cabinet voted in favour of the Patrick bill, the shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus presented a motion on Tuesday to support it.

In response, Fitzgibbon argued that Labor should oppose poorly drafted crossbench bills and that it sent a bad message about parliament’s interference in the judiciary.

Fitzgibbon said it would be a bad look to support legislation targeted at Heydon, particularly because it could be perceived as revenge for his treatment of the former opposition leader Bill Shorten at the trade union royal commission.

Revoking judges’ pensions could lead to calls to revoke politicians’ pensions, he said. The argument fell flat, particularly since most MPs – those who were elected after changes championed under the leadership of Fitzgibbon ally Mark Latham – receive superannuation rather than pensions.

Of the 227 MPs and senators in parliament, only the 20 who were elected before the 2004 changes will receive pensions. Only 10 of them are in Labor.

Fitzgibbon’s position was rejected by MP Peta Murphy, a former barrister, and the New South Wales right senator Tony Sheldon.

They argued that it was important to stand against poor treatment of women and that the bill was the “right thing to do” to further equality.

Dreyfus’s position was backed in a vote on the voices, with Fitzgibbon the only dissenter.

Dreyfus told Guardian Australia: “The entire nation was shocked by the findings of the independent investigation into the conduct of former high court judge justice Dyson Heydon, initiated by the high court itself, and which found that he had sexually harassed six female associates during his 10 years on the bench.

“Our law already provides that a judge who is removed from office due to proven misbehaviour will generally forfeit their judicial pension,” he said.

“This law would allow the removal of pensions from judges who engage in serious misconduct while on the bench, if they retire before that misconduct is exposed.”

In June, Heydon’s lawyers Speed and Stracey said in response to allegations first reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: “In respect of the confidential inquiry and its subsequent confidential report, any allegation of predatory behaviour or breaches of the law is categorically denied by our client.

“Our client says that if any conduct of his has caused offence, that result was inadvertent and unintended, and he apologises for any offence caused.”