This bill became law on Nov 27th, 2023.
Law, justice & rights
Judges in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThe federal court that hears family law and some other federal disputes; this page is about how immunity works inside its two divisions.’s Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. now get the same legal protection from personal lawsuits over their judicial work as Division 1The part of the court treated as the superior court side, whose judges already had the broader immunity the bill extends to Division 2. judges.
A 2023 Federal Court decision exposed uncertainty about whether Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges had the same protection from personal lawsuits as superior court judges. The bill fixes that gap by giving Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges, and related court officers doing similar work, matching immunity while leaving appeals untouched.
For years, judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. was a common lawJudge-made law developed through past cases, which is the source of the immunity rule the bill is clarifying. protection, but because the Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThe federal court that hears family law and some other federal disputes; this page is about how immunity works inside its two divisions.’s Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. is the federal system’s only inferior court, its judges were understood to sit on less certain ground than Division 1The part of the court treated as the superior court side, whose judges already had the broader immunity the bill extends to Division 2. judges. After the Federal Court’s August 2023 decision in Stradford v Judge VastaThe 2023 Federal Court case that raised doubt about how far judicial immunity protected Division 2 judges. exposed that uncertainty, the government moved quickly to give Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges and related officers matching protection, and Parliament passed the change in November 2023 so it would apply only to future judicial acts while leaving appeal rights unchanged.
The main criticism was that extending judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. could shield judges from personal accountability and leave families with little practical recourse after harmful or wrong decisions. That case against the bill was limited rather than broad, being argued directly by Pauline Hanson, while the Greens backed the bill but warned stronger independent complaints oversight was still needed.
Senator Anthony Chisholm introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 27 Nov 2023
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
Members called out ‘aye’ or ‘no’ — no individual votes were recorded.
Passage speed
20 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Judges in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThe federal court that hears family law and some other federal disputes; this page is about how immunity works inside its two divisions.’s Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. now get the same legal protection from personal lawsuits over their judicial work as Division 1The part of the court treated as the superior court side, whose judges already had the broader immunity the bill extends to Division 2. judges.
Arbitrators, mediators, registrars and the court’s chief executive keep matching judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. when they carry out similar family law or federal law duties.
The change only applies to judicial functions performed after the law started, so it does not alter earlier conduct or past legal claims.
People can still challenge a judge’s decision through an appeal, because this law only changes personal immunity and not appeal rights.
A Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has the same protection and immunity as a Judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1).Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Act 2023 final Act text
The Bill would also make consequential amendments to four provisions across the FCFCOA Act and the Family Law Act 1975 to retain the current equivalence of immunity as the judge would receive undertaking those functions or exercising the same powers. These four provisions currently provide arbitrators, mediators, registrars and the FCFCOA Chief Executive Officer with the same immunity as a judge of the FCFCOA (Division 2) when performing certain functions or exercising delegated powers. The Bill would substitute references in these provisions to the immunity of a Division 2 judge with references to the immunity of a federal superior court judge in either the FCFCOA (Division 1) or the Federal Court of Australia, therefore providing a level of immunity consistent with other provisions in this legislation. The reference to the immunity of either an FCFCOA (Division 1) judge or a Federal Court judge depends on whether the functions being performed, or the powers being exercised, are in relation to a family law or general federal law proceeding.Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) explanatory memorandum
The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to functions performed on or after the day this Schedule commences.Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Act 2023 final Act text
The Bill would not impact on a litigant’s right to challenge judicial decision-making through the appeal process.Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) explanatory memorandum
Context
For years, judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. was a common lawJudge-made law developed through past cases, which is the source of the immunity rule the bill is clarifying. protection, but because the Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThe federal court that hears family law and some other federal disputes; this page is about how immunity works inside its two divisions.’s Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. is the federal system’s only inferior court, its judges were understood to sit on less certain ground than Division 1The part of the court treated as the superior court side, whose judges already had the broader immunity the bill extends to Division 2. judges. After the Federal Court’s August 2023 decision in Stradford v Judge VastaThe 2023 Federal Court case that raised doubt about how far judicial immunity protected Division 2 judges. exposed that uncertainty, the government moved quickly to give Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges and related officers matching protection, and Parliament passed the change in November 2023 so it would apply only to future judicial acts while leaving appeal rights unchanged.
Federal Court decision in Stradford v Judge VastaThe 2023 Federal Court case that raised doubt about how far judicial immunity protected Division 2 judges. exposes uncertainty
The Federal Court’s decision highlighted uncertainty about the scope of judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. for Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of AustraliaThe federal court that hears family law and some other federal disputes; this page is about how immunity works inside its two divisions..
Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) explanatory memorandum ↗Government introduces the bill to restore matching immunity
The bill was introduced to confirm that Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges would have the same immunity as Division 1The part of the court treated as the superior court side, whose judges already had the broader immunity the bill extends to Division 2. judges and to preserve equivalent protection for related court officers performing similar functions.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the uncertainty identified after Stradford to be addressed in legislation.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law, which is when this change became an Act. locks in a prospective-only change
Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law, which is when this change became an Act. turned the bill into law, with the amendment applying only to judicial functions performed after commencement and not altering existing matters or accrued claims.
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 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 chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
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 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 agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law, which is when this change became an Act., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that extending judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. could shield judges from personal accountability and leave families with little practical recourse after harmful or wrong decisions. That case against the bill was limited rather than broad, being argued directly by Pauline Hanson, while the Greens backed the bill but warned stronger independent complaints oversight was still needed.
Criticism was narrow, with most parliamentary speakers backing the change.
Less practical accountability for bad judicial decisions
Critics argued the bill would make it harder to hold judges personally accountable for harmful decisions and would leave affected families with few real options beyond appeal after serious mistakes.
Immunity should be matched by stronger complaints oversight
A narrower reservation was that if judges are protected from personal lawsuits, the federal system also needs a credible independent body to investigate complaints about judicial conduct so misconduct concerns do not go unanswered.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage.
Senate 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.
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.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Chisholm supports the bill, saying it will remove uncertainty by extending settled judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. to Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. judges and strengthen judicial independence without changing accountability for misconduct.
Read in Hansard ↗Pauline Hanson opposes the bill, arguing that judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. would remove accountability for judges and leave families with little practical recourse after bad decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗Michaelia Cash supports the bill and says it is a good, sensible and overdue fix to restore judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. after the Stratford decision created uncertainty and practical harm.
Read in Hansard ↗Tehan supports the bill and says it is a simple, sensible and overdue fix to restore certainty around judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. after the Stradford decision.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“The approach in the Bill is simple. It would extend the more settled and broader common law immunity that applies to a judge of a federal superior court to judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). This achieves the aim of providing clarity, without unduly attempting to codify the scope of judicial immunity for federal judges. It will also allow for the doctrine to be refined over time by future decisions of the courts.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Mark Dreyfus on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill, saying it will clarify and extend judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. for judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court’s Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. so they can perform their functions without uncertainty. He says it is prospective, preserves existing accountability mechanisms, and will help uphold judicial independence and the timely administration of justice.
“Judicial immunity plays an important role in upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. By providing judges of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) with legislative clarity about what protections are available to them when they exercise their judicial functions, this bill will uphold the independence of the judiciary, encourage the finality of legal proceedings and support the timely and effective administration of justice. I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Mark Dreyfus supports the bill because he says it clarifies judicial immunityThe rule that stops judges being personally sued for what they do as part of deciding cases, so they can decide matters without fear of private lawsuits. for Division 2The lower-court part of the federal family law system; the bill says its judges get the same immunity as Division 1 judges for future judicial acts. of the Federal Circuit and Family Court, strengthens judicial independence, and improves the timely administration of justice. He argues the change preserves accountability through appeals and constitutional processes while removing uncertainty about the law.
“The Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 will make an important amendment to ensure judicial independence and support access to justice in our largest and busiest federal court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 2. The bill will achieve this by clarifying the scope of judicial immunity for judges of this court.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“The Federal Courts Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023 would make an important amendment to ensure judicial independence and support access to justice in our largest and busiest federal court: the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, division 2. The bill would achieve this by clarifying the scope of judicial immunity for judges of this court.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“The bill makes the very simple fix that we have been calling for. It puts division 2 judges on the same footing as their counterparts in division 1, and like every other superior court established under Commonwealth legislation. And it extends those protections to arbitrators, to registrars and to mediators in appropriate circumstances. This is a good, sensible and overdue change. But, in stating that, I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is a good, simple, sensible and overdue change, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“So we say to the Attorney-General and the Albanese government, yes, we will support this bill. But this is all carrot and no stick when it comes to the judiciary. There needs to be a clear timetable for the delivery of an independent federal judicial commission, matched and mirrored on the New South Wales independent judicial commission.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“I've heard also, 'Well, the judges will be in fear of handing down their decisions because there's not going to be immunity.' I hear of a class action against some of these judges and the decisions being made. If you actually bring this in, they will not be able to have a class action against these judges and the decisions that they've made, so, for the Australian people, you're shutting down an opportunity to hold them accountable for the decisions that they have made. This affects so many families and so many people out there. I'd like this to go to committee. I would like to be able to ask the minister some questions with regard to this. I won't be supporting this to be shut down. I'd like it to go to committee so that I can ask some further questions of the minister with regard to this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
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 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 · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 · 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.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
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 AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law, which is when this change became an Act., turning the bill into an Act.
