This bill became law on Nov 6th, 2023.
Law, justice & rights
Family courts must now decide parenting cases using a shorter checklist that puts child safety first, including protection from family violence, abuse, neglect and other harm to children and their carers.
Inquiries exposed long court delays, confusing parenting laws and inadequate protection for people at risk of family violence in the family law system. The bill simplifies parenting decisions, puts child safety first, better recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s cultural rights, and lets courts curb abusive repeat applications.
By 2023, the Family Law ActThe main law this bill changes, setting the rules for parenting orders, child arrangements and enforcement after separation.’s parenting rules had become widely criticised inside Parliament as confusing for separated families, especially because they could be read as favouring shared parental decision-making even where safety risks, family violence, abuse or neglect mattered most. The bill responded by rewriting the parenting framework to make child safety the starting point, clarify consequences for breaches and harmful repeat litigation, and after Parliament passed it in October 2023 the changes became law with Royal Assent in November.
The main criticism was that abolishing the equal shared parental responsibilityThe old rule that could trigger consideration of equal or substantial time with a child; this bill removes it because many people treated it like a right to equal time. presumption went too far, could downplay the role of both parents after separation, and might create unintended effects in parenting cases. That case was raised mainly by Coalition speakers and some legal critics, while several crossbench supporters still wanted tighter drafting, review or further evidence rather than rejecting the bill outright.
Hon Mark Dreyfus KC, MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by One Nation, UAP.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 06 Nov 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
222 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Family courts must now decide parenting cases using a shorter checklist that puts child safety first, including protection from family violence, abuse, neglect and other harm to children and their carers.
Courts no longer start from an assumption that separated parents should share major long-term decisions equally, which is meant to reduce confusion that this guarantees equal time with a child.
Courts must now weigh an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander childThe bill requires courts to consider a child's right to stay connected to family, community, culture, country and language.’s right to stay connected to family, community, culture, country and language when making parenting orders.
People who breach parenting and other child-related orders can face a clearer set of consequences, from make-up time and changed orders to bonds, fines or jail for serious breaches without a reasonable excuse.
The law now lets family courts block repeated harmful applications unless the person gets permission first, to curb legal harassment that can be used against former partners and children.
(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:Family Law Amendment as-passed bill text
The Bill will repeal the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (the presumption) contained in section 61DA of the Family Law Act. The Bill will also repeal section 65DAA. Currently, when the court makes an order for equal shared parental responsibility, it is also required to consider making an order for the child to spend equal, or substantial and significant, time with the child’s parents. The repeal of the presumption is a response to substantial evidence of community misconception about the law – that is, that parenting arrangements after separation are based on a parent’s entitlement to equal time, rather than an assessment of what arrangements serve the child’s best interests. This misunderstanding may lead parents to agree to unsafe and unfair arrangements, or encourage parties to prolong litigation based on the incorrect expectation of equal time.Family Law Amendment explanatory memorandum
The Bill promotes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s right to enjoy their culture by introducing a requirement for the court to consider that right when determining what is in the child’s best interest. Specifically, the court is required to consider the child’s right to enjoy their Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture by having the opportunity to connect with, and maintain, their connection with, their family, community, culture, country and language. The court must also consider the likely impact any proposed parenting order will have on that right.Family Law Amendment explanatory memorandum
If the court finds on the balance of probabilities that the respondent contravened the child‑related order without having a reasonable excuse, the court may make any of the following orders (having regard to the seriousness of the contravention):Family Law Amendment as-passed bill text
New Division 1B introduces ‘harmful proceedings orders’. This will provide the courts with a new power to restrain a person from filing any further family law applications and serving them on the respondent, without first obtaining leave of the court. The purpose of this measure is to protect the respondent and/or children who are the subject of proceedings from the harmful impact of frequent and unnecessary applications filed by an applicant. Once this order is in place, further applications will first be assessed by the court to ensure that they are not vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of proceedings and have reasonable prospects of success before they can be filed and served.Family Law Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
By 2023, the Family Law ActThe main law this bill changes, setting the rules for parenting orders, child arrangements and enforcement after separation.’s parenting rules had become widely criticised inside Parliament as confusing for separated families, especially because they could be read as favouring shared parental decision-making even where safety risks, family violence, abuse or neglect mattered most. The bill responded by rewriting the parenting framework to make child safety the starting point, clarify consequences for breaches and harmful repeat litigation, and after Parliament passed it in October 2023 the changes became law with Royal Assent in November.
Government says the existing parenting law is confusing and not keeping child safety central
In the second reading speech, the Attorney-GeneralThe government minister responsible for introducing the bill and explaining why the reforms are needed. said the Family Law ActThe main law this bill changes, setting the rules for parenting orders, child arrangements and enforcement after separation. had become a source of confusion for separated families and needed to put the best interests of children first more clearly.
Hansard ↗Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 is introduced
The bill was introduced to simplify parenting decisions, remove misleading assumptions around equal shared parental responsibilityThe old rule that could trigger consideration of equal or substantial time with a child; this bill removes it because many people treated it like a right to equal time., and strengthen protections in cases involving violence, abuse, neglect and harmful repeat proceedings.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliamentary debate highlights the scale of intimate partner violence behind the reforms
During House debate, speakers pointed to ABS figures showing more than one in four women and one in 14 men had experienced violence from a current or former intimate partner, reinforcing the case for a safety-first parenting test.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the new parenting checklist, stronger breach consequences and harmful proceedings orders to become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent makes the reforms law
Royal Assent turned the bill into an Act, finalising the shift to a shorter best-interests test centred on child safety and cultural connection for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Reported from Federation Chamber
Recorded vote: 88 to 55.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
Referred to Committee (11/05/2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (24/08/2023)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesThe bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 38 to 3.
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Third reading agreed to :
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that abolishing the equal shared parental responsibilityThe old rule that could trigger consideration of equal or substantial time with a child; this bill removes it because many people treated it like a right to equal time. presumption went too far, could downplay the role of both parents after separation, and might create unintended effects in parenting cases. That case was raised mainly by Coalition speakers and some legal critics, while several crossbench supporters still wanted tighter drafting, review or further evidence rather than rejecting the bill outright.
Opposition centred on the parenting-law redesign, not the bill's broader child-safety goal.
Shared parenting could be weakened
Critics argued the bill removed a long-standing shared-parenting principle without enough justification, risking outcomes that understate the importance of both parents in a child's life and undo what they saw as hard-won protections.
The changes were seen as too rushed and insufficiently tested
Opponents said the parenting reforms were contentious, untested and may go further than necessary, so they should have been examined through a fuller committee process and public hearings before Parliament locked them in.
Some supporters still warned the drafting and safeguards may be incomplete
Even among backers of the bill, some argued the reforms needed clearer drafting, closer monitoring and additional changes on family violence and systems abuse to make sure the new framework works safely in practice.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 38 to 3. Support came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from One Nation and UAP.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 88 to 55. Support came from Labor and Greens. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Passed 35 to 29. Support came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
The House agreed to the amendments made by the Senate, so the bill could pass both chambers in the same form.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senate
Defeated 28 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated, so the bill kept the government’s wording rather than adding those extra parenting and review safeguards.
Defeated 26 to 36. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated, so the commencement table remained as drafted and the linked amendments could proceed.
Defeated 28 to 34. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated, so the bill did not add those extra limits on how family violence orders are weighed or the new lawyers-fees review.
Defeated 4 to 46. Support came from One Nation and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeated, so the bill did not restore that presumption or impose the proposed extra training requirements.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as carried on voices.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe's proposal would have required the court to consider the safety of a child and the parties when making costs orders; it was decided on voices and not agreed to.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe's proposal would have required the court to consider the safety of a child and the parties when deciding whether to make a costs order; it was decided on voices and not agreed to.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe's proposal would have changed the stated purpose of the family law practice and procedure provisions so they do more than ensure things happen, by also prioritising them; it was decided on voices and not agreed to.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate Journal records this outcome as carried on voices.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Mark Dreyfus supports the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and says it will make the family law system safer, simpler and more focused on children's best interests.
Read in Hansard ↗Paterson says the opposition is concerned about the bill as drafted and does not support it in its current form because the changes are too far-reaching, rushed, and not properly negotiated or tested.
Read in Hansard ↗Steggall supports the bill and says it is a needed reform to put the best interests of the childThe main test courts must apply when deciding parenting orders, meaning the child's welfare comes first. at the centre of parenting orders and simplify the family law framework.
Read in Hansard ↗Tink supports the bill because she says it will make family law safer and simpler, put the child's best interests at the centre, and improve protection for women and children facing family violence.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
9 speakers · 10 contributions · 9 support
“The family law system has a fundamental impact on the lives of many Australians. The government has committed to ensuring it is safer, more accessible, simpler to use, and delivers justice and fairness for all Australian families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Bill removes the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and the associated provision that requires a court to consider certain time arrangements for children to spend with each parent.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I put this legislation to the chamber and hope that it will be supported by both sides of the parliament.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is important reform that we're initiating here. It's focused very heavily on the best interests of children. There is some codification of the common law in relation to the ruling in the 1979 case Rice v Asplund, which specified that if there's a final parenting order in place the applicant must show there's been a significant change of circumstance since the making of the order for the order to be reconsidered. That's very child focused. I like the fact that there's a provision in the legislation that deals with that. That rule is founded on the notion, as in the harmful proceedings orders I referred to earlier, that it's not in the best interests of children for there to be continuing litigation over a child or children. It cannot possibly be. My observation, having been an accredited specialist in family law, is that once people get through their initial separation and get focused on the best interests of children they tend to work together in partnership.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend this bill to the chamber, and I urge those who are contemplating any amendments to consider the bill and their amendments. If they're for the better, then no doubt the chamber will view those as it should for better outcomes for all of those. I commend this bill to the floor.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, the needs of every child are unique, and every family's circumstances are unique. We must find a path which meets their needs as effectively and safely as possible. Making the law clearer and more accessible is a critical component of that process. I encourage this House to support this bill and to contribute to securing better outcomes for children through these important legislative reforms. I look forward to these reforms becoming law so that the best interests of children are again the essential focus of the family law system.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Nita Green on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Nita Green supports the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and says it will make family law simpler, safer and more focused on children’s best interests. She argues the changes are long overdue because the current system is confusing and can prolong conflict, and she says the bill better recognises First Nations children and kinship.
“It is critical that our family law system places the best interests of children at the centre of its operation. These reforms go some way towards that goal.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Green supports the bill and says it will fix confusing family law wording, better protect children and victims of family violence, and align Australian law with the Hague Convention. She argues the changes make the system clearer and safer, and says the evidence heard by the inquiry overwhelmingly supported them.
“Many of these changes seek to keep those kids safer, to make sure that our family law system is setting a standard we can rely on and build on to make sure that all children's interests are considered in the court system. That's what these changes seek to do, and anyone suggesting otherwise has not engaged with the content of this bill or the experts that say that that is what the bill does.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This is a profound and important reform, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The needs of every child are unique. The Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill will ensure all children involved in the family law system have their needs met as effectively and safely as possible. I encourage the Senate to support these bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
22 speakers · 23 contributions · 2 support · 12 oppose · 8 mixed
“In summing up, this is a complex area of law. We have no doubt that the government has proceeded with the best of intentions, but given the complexity, given the speed with which this has been legislated, the speed of the parliamentary inquiry and the apparent unwillingness to negotiate with the opposition about sensible bipartisan changes, we are concerned about the legislation as it stands. We hope that these issues that we're raising in this place can be corrected before we are required to have a vote.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition was expecting that the government's approach to this reform would be in line with the recommendations of the joint select committee's investigations. Rather than steering a sensible and balanced middle course of meaningful reform informed by the extensive consideration of the opinion of experts and those working within the system with the previous parliament's inquiry, this bill instead pushes a potentially divisive approach to family law. The coalition is deeply concerned by this approach. When it comes to family law reform the principles of stability and security need to be absolutely at the centre of everything we do. We understand that extensive stakeholder consultation makes better policy. With that in mind, the coalition is recommending that this bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry, and the findings of that inquiry will inform the final position of the coalition on this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Just in summary: many of the changes in the family law amendment bills that we're debating here today were made with good intentions; we recognise that, we support some of the changes that are in the bills and we join with the government in recognising that many of the issues that these bills seek to address are problems that need a solution. Like I said, I spent a lot of time on the family law committee in the last parliament and I don't think that anybody in this place would think that our family law system is perfect. But in too many places the proposals that are being put forward by the government in these bills do not align with those problems. They go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews, they aren't supported by the legal profession, they have unintended consequences and, in many cases, they haven't been road tested on the ground. The coalition's very real concern is that although we join with the government in recognising these problems, the solutions in these bills are actually going to make things worse for Australian families. We cannot afford for our family law system to make things worse for Australian families. As I said in my very first moments of this contribution, that's something that we, as legislators, should be very cautious about, particularly when we're dealing with a system that's meant to guide families through some of the most difficult parts of their lives.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, the coalition agrees with the intent behind many of the measures in this bill, but the bill is not yet in a position where the coalition can support it. The problems are well recognised, but we are concerned that the solutions have not adequately been tested or will go further than is needed.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Labor's amendment goes much further than what has been recommended. The recommendations are clear. The presumption of equal and shared custody should be reformed and clarified. Many across the legal profession raised concerns during the consultation period when the exposure draft was released. The problem that Labor says it wants to address is the misunderstanding of the presumption. The misunderstanding arises because, as it is presently drafted, the presumption is often conflated with equal time. The explanatory memorandum refers to the ALRC report which found that the essence of presumption was useful and should be retained. It says that the problem is that parents can enter into negotiations based on incorrect assumptions about their entitlements.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's now look at the approach that the government has taken in this bill. What we have is the work has been done, the recommendations are clear that the presumption should be reformed and clarified, and the coalition agrees with that. But Labor's approach in this bill goes that much further. They want to repeal the presumption entirely. It is illuminating that when he consulted on the exposure draft of the bill, the Attorney-General, in typical style, never bothered to ask whether or not the presumption should be retained. He treated repeal as a given yet that is not what the body of evidence is in the presumption. The independent, impartial and expert recommendation of the ALRC, under this Attorney-General, never actually had a chance.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“A very real concern is that, although we join with the government in recognising the issues and the problems to be tackled, the solutions in this bill in some cases may make things worse in terms of the efficiency, effectiveness or outcomes of our family law system, and that's why we urge the government to give serious consideration to the concerns that have been raised by colleagues. Those will be explored further during the committee stage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As the shadow attorney-general, Senator Cash, has already indicated, some of what has been proposed in these bills is welcome and certainly needed, particularly when it comes to the second of the bills before us—the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill. But we need to recognise that just because these proposals are put forward, it doesn't mean that they're the right solutions, and that is where the concerns of the opposition arise. We look at what is put in place by way of law, and everything we do has a flow-on impact. We don't know what impacts will be felt by some of these changes—many of them will be unintended, and that is what concerns us most. So, while we join with the government in seeking to recognise the problems—and some of the issues this bill seeks to address are problems in need of a solution—too many of the proposals and that have been put forward by the government don't align with what the problems actually are. If a solution isn't fit for purpose, if it isn't actually going to address the issues that families are facing, and that the family law system and the experts who operate in that system are telling us need to be resolved, then why are we doing this?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think the bill is nearly there and that this chamber as a whole could support the bill, with a few tweaks, in its totality. So, again, I ask the government in particular to consider a number of amendments to the bill, which are put forward in good faith and in a spirit whereby we think it would actually be a very positive thing if this Senate could unanimously support the amendments to the Family Law Bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“One of my concerns with this legislation, and one of the reasons that I will be calling on both the government and the crossbench”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, Labor's amendments go much further than has been recommended and than I believe any reasonable Australian would want. For those reasons, I call on the Labor Party to consider amendments. It is not too late.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We join with the government in recognising that many of the issues this bill seeks to address are problems that are in real need of a solution, but in too many places the proposals put forward by the government in the bill do not align with those problems. They go beyond recommendations made by previous reviews and are not supported by the profession. They have unintended consequences and have not been road-tested in communities on the ground. The coalition's very real concern is that, although we join with the government in recognising these problems, the solutions in this bill, as I've said, are untested and may actually make things worse for Australian families, and that is something that we as legislators must be very cautious about.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think there is good intention being displayed in relation to these bills, but it is clear that they need more work. There are some holes here, and these must be addressed before they become law. They must be addressed by us here before they impact any more children unnecessarily.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is, as I say, a very difficult piece of legislation; family law always is. We want the very best outcomes for parents—of course, parents come in many different ways and forms these days—and, as I said at the outset and as the member for Moreton also contended, for the children. At the end of the day, they are the ones who are most important, and they deserve the very best outcomes for this particular legislation. I certainly commend that this bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further investigation and inquiry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“For very many parents who negotiate in the shadow of the law without lawyers or courts, this is a profoundly damaging change. The genuine best interests of Australian children must be provided for, but Labor has taken a heavy-handed, sloppy approach that will do harm to children and to parents experiencing the awful trauma of family breakdown and divorce.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition's very real concern, though, is that although we join with the government in recognising the problems, many of the solutions presented in the bill remain untested and may make things worse for Australian families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does make sense. This bill is a welcome development.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We as a coalition are extremely concerned about provisions of the bill that significantly cut the objects and principles of the parenting framework in the act.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, although we recognise the problems, the coalition has real concerns that some of the measures put forward by the government through these bills will actually make things worse for Australian families.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We absolutely understand that this bill has been moved with the best of intentions, and much of it we will support. In fact, we join with the government in recognising that many of the problems that are sought to be addressed in this bill are problems that confront Australians and the legal system, and they do need solutions. We do have concerns over some of the solutions proposed in this bill, and I wish to speak briefly about the area that Senator Birmingham was cogently going through, which is the presumption around parental responsibility and equal and shared parenting. I will get to that in a moment. But we do need to understand the potential for unintended consequences in this area. The signals sent by legislative changes in this area are important to the legal profession. They are important to the way families interact. They are important to the way parents perhaps approach these circumstances, so we do have to be extraordinarily careful about how we handle these very sensitive issues.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I would ask Labor to reconsider some of these amendments. I'm not sure that they're in the best interests of the entire family outfit, whether it's together or separated. Reconsider these amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“This bill makes some welcome changes, but so much more needs to be done to support women like Witness A and their children across family law, housing and income support. So I urge the government to treat this bill as another small step forward and to commit themselves to make the holistic changes that are still required, particularly with income support and in investment in public, social and affordable housing.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, and I note at the outset that the Greens will be supporting both of these bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These bills and these changes are long overdue and provide much-needed modernisation to this legal framework. Of course there's still a lot of work to be done in the family courts but this is a step in the right direction. In particular, I want to focus on two elements of these bills. The first is the requirement for a standalone best-interest factor to promote the best interests of First Nations children and their rights to connection, culture, family, community and language, and the second is the broadening of the definition of 'family' to include the concept of kinship.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“I will never stop fighting for fairness and for the best outcomes for children and families in the Australian family law system. I will be moving amendments to this bill—on domestic violence matters requiring proof, not just allegations, and on children's lawyers requiring further training—and I would like to see a sliding scale or a cap on legal costs. Too many parents out there are suffering because of this. This is a backward step, as I've said. It will just hurt those fathers who are already hurting from not being able to see their children, for no reason whatsoever. You're going to keep people going through the court system. Lawyers are going to make a lot of money out of this. I feel sorry for the children. You're not considering the children at all. You're a selfish bunch.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
6 speakers · 6 support
“I do support what the bill is addressing, but I have got a couple of areas where I raise concern that there isn't sufficient clarity. I will propose amendments to that effect, but I also note from discussions with the Attorney-General that these will hopefully be considered during an inquiry process.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“To this end, I support the proposed amendments to the family law framework because I believe the changes, including those which cover the factors to be considered when making parenting arrangements in the best interests of the child, will lead to the creation of better parenting orders. Bringing the best interests of the child to the centre of the decision-making is crucial to protecting children and is consistent with Australia's international obligations under article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend the government on the strengths in this bill. It directly responds to many pressing problems in our family law system and does a great deal for adult and child victims-survivors of domestic and family violence. It removes the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, and this is key. The current law has created a well-entrenched misunderstanding in the community that both parents are entitled to equal time with their children, regardless of domestic and family violence or abuse. However, in families with a history of abuse this may not be appropriate or safe.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 does some really good things. This bill intends to place children's rights in the centre of the family law system and give them an increased voice in decision-making. It simplifies the factors considered in the best-interest test. It expands the notion of family. It gives increased weight to connection to culture for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Importantly, it amends clause 60B, which has led to confusion about a presumption of equal time.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to support the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 because of the crucial changes it makes to the Family Law Act and the focus on the best interests and wellbeing of children. Divorce is an incredibly challenging time for all parties involved, but the safety and wellbeing of children caught in the middle are the utmost priority.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The changes made by these bills are made in response to recent inquiries into the family law system, most notably by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. The Family Law Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to the Family Law Act. Perhaps most importantly, it replaces the presumption of shared parental responsibility with a new paramount consideration for resolving family law disputes: the best interests of the child. I support this bill. The information sharing bill also makes changes to how information about family violence, child abuse and neglect is shared between state, territory and federal authorities and the courts. I also support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 88 to 55.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail debate
Consideration in detail
The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Amendments considered
Recorded vote: 38 to 3.
Amendment packages agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (24/08/2023)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (11 May 2023): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (24 Aug 2023)
APH bill page notes
