Well I wonder will the bill actually assist lawyers to increase the current bottom limit to their $200k bribe, forcing women to concede to shared custody court orders currently, or actually will it work in the opposite direction, when fathers see more plainly now the hopeless quest it is to gain contact with their separated children?

Michaela Cash is one of two women who might make better opposition leaders and future PMs than the current Opposition Leader.

Children need full time mothers and fathers: male and female parents; not just one or the other, and not two of the same sex.

And not just children, but all of us, would be better off without ratbags like Greens, Pocock and Lambie in Parliament; and the gutless Opposition Senators, led by the dripping wet Simon Birmingham.

But wait! Then we read on and see that Cash also voted for the Bill!

Then, on we go, and find that only One Nation and UAP voted against in the Senate!

God help Australia, because the political class will not.

I really cannot understand my fellow Australians any more - at least not those who stupidly continue to vote for Liberal, Labor, Greens or oddball independents.

The changes to the family law act do not “severely reduce” the chances of divorced men being “proper parents” after a divorce. The essentially clarify what the law has always said – that parents have equal shared responsibility for parenting (Section 61DA), and that courts must consider (but not necessarily agree to) children spending equal time with both parents if it is in the interests of the child and it is reasonably practicable (section 65DAA). This has sometimes been confused to mistakenly assume that parents have a right to equal time with children in custody disputes. This has never been the case – for good and obvious reasons. The law reforms make this clearer. It remains the case that giving children the opportunity to spend significant time with both parents is almost always in their best interests, and the family court understands this. But neither parent has an automatic right to 50% of custody, and cases where domestic violence is a real risk must surely be where exceptions are sometimes made.

That Arndt should sneering disparage ‘the "keeping-children-safe" mantra’ shows her moral bankruptcy. The safety, interests and rights of children should always come first in disputed custody questions, with the rights of parents a very distant second. But then again, if the family court does follow mantras, "keeping-children-safe" is a pretty good one.

Disagree with most of this and applaud Jacki Lambi, the Greens and Pocock for a principled stand.
Alan B.

What Rhain says!
Alan B.

If we had a Gap year National Service wherein young people can gain a mentality their parents haven't, family break-ups would be less common.
A healthier mentality of new Public Servants would morph into more sensible & responsible bureaucay & gradually weed out the corrupt incompetent ones as natural attrition does its thing.
A healthier mentality is really all that's needed to get mere humans to become people !
Growing up with no concept of responsibility has produced the self-centred, uncaring society we are experiencing now !
Fatherless children are not ideal but better than running away from home & living on the streets, becoming a burden on the rest. Mothers too must not automatically be afforded victim status as in many family break-ups they are the actual cause !