2. Better protecting victim-survivors with family violence orders
   1. As the previous chapter established, the Australian Government is responsible for the federal family law system, while the states and territories are responsible for most laws relating to family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV) in Australia, including the making of family violence orders (FVOs), and the enforcement of breaches and associated criminal offences.
   2. FVOs can be applied for by individuals and/or the police through magistrates or local courts in all states and territories. Legal services usually advise victim-survivors of FDSV to consider obtaining an FVO prior to making any attempts to contact the perpetrator about parenting arrangements or property settlement because of the increased risk of an escalation in violence.[1]
   3. The Committee heard that state and territory courts are generally well-suited to making FVOs because they:

• have established jurisprudence for assessing claims of FDSV and determining whether an order should be made[2]
• are accessible in locations across Australia, and many have wrap-around support services to assist victim-survivors.[3]
  4. Key issues examined in this chapter are:
• variations in FVO laws and responses, which mean there are inconsistent protections for victim-survivors, including children, across Australia
• barriers to accessing FVOs for victim-survivors including a lack of accessible information, and safety at court locations
• inconsistencies between parenting orders and FVOs, and the reluctance of state and territory courts to amend parenting orders to prioritise the safety of children and their caregivers
• animal abuse and FDSV.
  5. Opportunities to better protect victim-survivors and children using FVOs are considered.

Variations in laws and responses

2.6It is widely acknowledged that variations in FVO laws across state and territory jurisdictions, as well as systemic issues, may put the safety of victim-survivors and their children at risk. While there are some similarities in FVO laws and their application across jurisdictions, such as the capacity for courts to make interim and final orders, there are also significant differences. Inconsistencies include:

• protection of children
• duration of FVOs
• effective information sharing
• recognition of coercive control
• police responses, including the misidentification of perpetrators and reluctance to intervene in matters involving children.
  7. The Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) described the variations in FVO laws across jurisdictions as being ‘not reasonably consistent.’[4]
  8. Differences between FVOs across the states and territories can:
• mean different outcomes for victim-survivors depending on where they live[5]
• make it difficult for people to understand how FVOs will work when they move to a different state or territory[6]
• make it difficult to measure the effectiveness of FVOs nationally to inform policy and best practice.[7]
  9. Differences in FVO laws can be particularly problematic for Australians living in border communities. Difficulties in determining where an FVO breach took place may mean that reported breaches are not investigated.[8]
  10. There were concerns that perpetrators are too often released from custody before victim-survivors have enough time to organise their affairs and move to safety, and there was support for tougher bail laws.[9]
  11. There was strong support for:
• shared, consistent definitions of FDSV across state, territory and federal laws[10]
• national harmonisation of FVO laws and consistency in access, application processes and enforcement, and messaging of FVO requirements.[11]
  12. The Law Council of Australia (LCA) cautioned that ‘care must be taken to ensure that any broadening of the accessibility of FVOs—or of the ability to enforce them—does not result in undue limitations on the rights of respondents in relation to those orders, including the right to a fair hearing.’[12]

Protection of children

2.13In most jurisdictions, children can apply for an FVO on their own behalf against a parent or carer, while in other states the requirements are more restrictive.[13] Some jurisdictions restrict the duration of FVOs for children and young people.[14]

2.14The Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC) advocated for children to be recognised as primary victims and, where they are named in FVOs, children’s ‘well-being and safety must be given paramount consideration.’[15]

2.15Interim FVOs can provide timely and effective short-term protection of children from FDSV while long-term parenting arrangements are being determined through family law proceedings.[16] However, state and territory courts are reluctant to include children on FVOs, particularly where family law proceedings are underway, or parenting orders are already in place.[17] For example, Pilbara Community Legal Service (PCLS) reported that the Magistrate’s Court of Western Australia will often refuse to include children on FVOs and instead, victim-survivors are encouraged to seek family law advice. PCLS said:

This means changeovers may be volatile, dangerous and traumatising for children. During time with the perpetrator, the children are scared, confused or are questioned about the victim-survivor. Times of contact as well as telephone and video communication can be used to continue perpetrating abuse.[18]

2.16The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland suggested police be able to temporarily suspend a child’s time with a parent, noting this would require education for police about the limited ability for the family law courts to respond in the short term.[19]

Duration of FVOs in different jurisdictions

2.17There is significant variation in the duration of FVOs available to victim-survivors across the states and territories.[20] Some jurisdictions only allow FVOs to be extended for short periods.[21] For example, in Western Australia, police-initiated FVOs provide protection for no more than 72 hours.[22]

2.18Short term FVOs can cause stress, financial cost[23] and ongoing fear for victim-survivors since they must be renewed regularly, and applications may be blocked or obstructed by perpetrators. Short-term FVOs may not adequately protect victim-survivors navigating complex, drawn-out family law and other legal matters.[24]

2.19National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Alliance (NATSIWA) recommended that police-initiated orders extend until FVO court proceedings are finalised to keep victim-survivors and children safe.[25]

2.20There was support for a minimum default duration for final FVOs.[26] South-East Monash Legal Services (SMLS) said this offers several benefits, including better protecting victim-survivors and giving them time to recover without the immediate threat of violence, reducing the administrative burden on victim-survivors, and providing security and stability.[27]

2.21Lifetime bans may be needed to prevent perpetrators having any contact with victim-survivors, including children.[28] Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS) said that while lifetime FVOs may provide necessary protection in severe cases, they do not address the underlying issues that perpetuate violence. VALS suggested that individuals under lifetime FVOs may lack motivation to change their behaviours, as they may see little incentive once such an order is in place. VALS said a review process is needed for lifetime FVOs, with both parties’ consent.[29]

2.22NATSIWA noted the Victorian Government was considering extending police powers to ban FDSV perpetrators permanently from interacting with their victims and identified several benefits of this approach. However, NATSIWA warned that ‘extending police powers in this way would bring a crucial responsibility for police to identify perpetrators correctly when investigating a family violence situation’.[30]

Effective information sharing about FVOs across jurisdictions

2.23Effective information sharing between police in different jurisdictions about FVOs is critical for ensuring victim-survivors’ safety. According to AGD, the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme (NDVOS) enables automatic mutual recognition, enforcement and registration of variations of FVOs across all Australian jurisdictions. Information about FVOs is available to law enforcement and state and territory judicial officers through NDVOS.[31]

2.24However, many victim-survivors do not understand FVOs are nationally recognised[32], and information is not always being shared effectively by police between jurisdictions.[33] Forexample, Hume Riverina Community Legal Service reported:

It is not unusual for victim survivors with family law proceedings to have FVOs on one side of the border, that are breached on the other. HRCLS has had multiple clients who have reported breaches to police on the other side of the border to where the order was obtained, and when time has come to extend the order, the police have had no record of the breach from the other State and do not extend the order. While this situation is unique to cross-border communities it requires greater attention and adds an additional layer of complexity for victim survivors to navigate, and reduces their safety where FVOs are not extended because information was not shared between State police.[34]

2.25There was support for NDVOS to be extended to enable real-time updating of orders, conditions and breaches, and for it to developed into a national database that all relevant justice bodies can access[35], including service providers, with appropriate safeguards.[36]

2.26AGD is currently conducting a national review of FVO frameworks, which is considering opportunities for greater consistency across jurisdictions and potential reform options, including in relation to the scope of NDVOS.[37] This work was funded in the 2022-23 Budget in response to recommendation 13 of the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System.[38] The review will include a comparative analysis to identify inconsistencies and potential reform options. The outcomes of the review will be provided to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and Police Ministers Council by July 2026.[39]

2.27Further work to raise awareness of how FVOs are recognised and enforced across jurisdictions through NDVOS may be of assistance to both victim-survivors and perpetrators in understanding their rights and obligations.[40]

Recognition of coercive control

2.28Coercive control is where perpetrators exert power and dominance over victim-survivors using patterns of abusive, manipulative behaviours over time. These patterns of behaviour create fear and deny liberty and autonomy. Coercive control is almost always a feature of relationships involving FDSV and can include many different types of physical and non-physical abusive behaviours.[41]

2.29Coercive control includes the manipulation of legal processes to cause harm, which is referred to in this report as systems abuse.[42] It is important that all people working in the justice system have an improved understanding of coercive control and be skilled in identifying tactics of legal systems abuse.[43]

2.30Since coercive control can include a wide variety of individual experiences of abuse, the identification of coercive control and reporting can be challenging, and allegations of coercive control can be difficult to substantiate with evidence.[44]

2.31Concerns were raised that some police do not understand the role of coercive control in family dynamics, which can be subtle actions that are part of an overall pattern of FDSV and may therefore constitute breaches of FVOs.[45]

2.32Perpetrators of coercive control often use digital technology to surveil their victim’s location; to spy on them; to abuse them; to circulate images or videos of them without their permission; or to control or take over online accounts.[46] In cases of technology-facilitated coercive control, a lack of visible physical injury may mean that police or the judiciary underestimate the severity of abuse, and this can leave victim-survivors vulnerable.[47]

2.33It is the responsibility of individual states and territories to implement the NationalPrinciples to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence (National Principles), which all governments endorsed in 2023.[48] The National Principles recognise that ‘an absence of physical abuse does not diminish the seriousness of non-physical behaviour and its impacts for the victim-survivor’ and that the abuse can be subtle and insidious.[49] The National Principles aim to help raise awareness of coercive control, inform more effective responses to FDSV, and promote more consistent support and safer outcomes for victim-survivors.[50]

2.34The 2022-23 Budget provided $900,000 for the development and delivery of a training package on coercive control for legal practitioners, which aims to embed the National Principles as a common foundation in the legal sector.[51] AGD has also released resources about coercive control targeting a range of audiences, including health professionals and young people.[52]

2.35State and territory governments are at different stages of considering how to address coercive control.[53] The Committee heard there is a lack of consistency in responses to FDSV in Western Australia with the rest of the country, particularly in relation to the recognition of coercive control.[54] Pilbara Community Legal Service said that a key priority in Western Australia should be improving the ability of magistrates to apply FVOs in matters involving coercive control.[55]

2.36The Western Australian Government amended its FVO legislation in September 2024 to define a coercive control offence and is one of few jurisdictions that has a persistent family violence offence.[56] Further work is being progressed in Western Australia including training for legal professionals, a review of the persistent family violence offence, and the creation of a standalone coercive control offence.[57]

2.37Relationships Australia called for an urgent research program ‘to ensure that legislation targeting the use of coercive control succeeds in its safety objectives and does not inadvertently harm victim survivors or entrench marginalisation and exclusion.’[58]

Police responses

2.38State and territory police are responsible for enforcing the criminal law, which includes breaches of FVOs, and may issue temporary FVOs in most jurisdictions. While many police have good judgment in relation to matters involving FDSV[61], the Committee heard that police responses are inconsistent across Australia.[62] Some police:

• will not believe reports of FDSV
• will downplay the seriousness of an incident and make victim-survivors feel silly or unheard, or simply refuse to take a complaint
• are unable to confidently identify coercive control and the person most in need of protection
• have biases or beliefs about victim-survivors and perpetrators of FDSV
• do not recognise the effects of trauma or respond to traumatised people in an appropriate way.[63]
  39. CSMC said that FDSV ‘…would not be the scourge it is in Australia if systems were reoriented to ensure that protection from family violence is taken seriously and acted on when reported by the victim.[64]
  40. Police may need to better manage conflicts of interest. The Committee heard privately from a victim-survivor who was abused by a police officer and who then faced barriers to safety and justice, and from victim-survivors who were misidentified as perpetrators and allege that police knew their abusers.[65]
  41. There was strong support for improved education and training of police to better support the effectiveness and enforcement of FVOs.[66] This may require a broader review of police processes and responses to FDSV.[67]
  42. In the 2022-23 Budget, the Australian Government provided $4.1 million over four years to develop and deliver a national training and education package to enhance the effectiveness of police responses to FDSV. The training is expected to focus on identifying the primary aggressor to reduce instances of misidentification, coercive control, culturally safe policing responses and trauma informed models of response. The training will be piloted in 2025 before being made available to police in all jurisdictions. An evaluation framework for the training is being developed, which will support ongoing improvement. According to AGD, the evaluation will be informed by diverse perspectives.[68]

Police applications for orders on their own motion

2.43While all jurisdictions allow police to apply for FVOs on their own motion, only some jurisdictions require police to do so (if certain conditions are met) to keep victim-survivors safe.[69] While police officers in Western Australia may take out FVOs on behalf of victim-survivors under certain circumstances[70], the Committee heard they rarely do.[71] In other jurisdictions police-initiated FVOs are much more common[72], particularly in Queensland.[73]

2.44According to Sexual Safety Australia (SSA), a safety educational consultancy, in many cases police do not initiate FVOs despite having the capacity to do so.[74] SSA described Australia as having a two-tier FVO system where some victim-survivors may have FVOs taken out on their behalf by police, while others must apply for FVOs privately. SSA observed that forcing vulnerable and frightened victim-survivors to apply for FVOs privately can be extremely costly for them, may place them in a more precarious situation, or the application for the FVO may not be taken as seriously by the perpetrator. Where victim-survivors are told by police to take out their own FVOs, ‘the police officer on the day makes the decision and not all police believe all victims.’[75] This can leave victim-survivors ‘feeling unworthy/invalidated/in more fear and many gave up when they realised how private FVO/DVO applications and process works.’[76]

2.45Djirra, a specialist Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation based in Victoria, reported that it regularly assists First Nations clients to apply for FVOs where they do not feel safe asking for help from police, or where police have denied them assistance. Djirra said:

In our work, women tell us that VicPol regularly minimise or do not believe their allegations of violence, refuse to take their statements, fail to investigate or pursue their perpetrators, and refuse to apply for FVOs for their protection. VicPol’s reluctance to assist Aboriginal women experiencing family violence and take on the role of the applicant in FVO proceedings, means that women must apply for protection themselves. As the applicant, women risk their safety in preparing evidence and facing their perpetrators at court hearings. In our experience, applications applied for by VicPol are also given greater weight by Magistrates when making FVOs and by the FCFCOA [Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia] when making parenting orders.[77]

Misidentification of victim-survivors as primary perpetrators

2.46Perpetrators of FDSV often make unfounded cross-allegations against victim-survivors, which is a common form of systems abuse.[79] This can lead to victim-survivors being misidentified as primary perpetrators and then facing significant barriers in obtaining the protection needed to stay safe.[80]

2.47Misidentification can have serious and lasting impacts on victim-survivors including vulnerability to further violence, criminalisation and risk of other harms including losing access to housing, children and work, and years of legal battles.[81] Misidentification undermines trust in the legal system and reduces the likelihood of a victim-survivor seeking protection again in the future.[82]

2.48Concerns were raised that serial perpetrators can currently submit a successful cross-application even when they have serious assault charges and lengthy no contact orders against them. The cross application will then proceed through the court system, further traumatising the victim-survivor.[83] Where false allegations are not questioned by police and magistrates, misidentification can be reinforced by courts and can lead to unfavourable outcomes for victim-survivors when parenting and property orders are made in the family law system.[84]

2.49Misidentification occurs in a range of circumstances. Police responses to FDSV can focus on isolated incidents of violence and this can result in misidentification. For example, a person using violence in a single incident may be considered the perpetrator, but when viewed in context, that person may be the victim of a pattern of coercive control and could be retaliating or protecting themselves.[85] When called to an incident, one person may appear to police as calm and reasonable, while the other may appear emotionally dysregulated, more difficult to deal with and vulnerable to being perceived as being mentally unwell.[86]

2.50Assumptions about the behaviours of victim-survivors affect policing practice.[87] Forexample, FirstNations women may be more likely than non-Indigenous women to fight back and use resistive violence, encounter bias for not being an ‘ideal victim’[88], and are more likely to be misidentified as the primary aggressor.[89]

2.51The Committee heard that misidentification impacts First Nations and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women disproportionately.[90] Migrant women are often served with cross-applications for FVOs by perpetrators who leverage their greater knowledge of, and resources in, Australia to portray the victim-survivor as the abuser or an unfit mother. This can result in migrant women losing access to their children and to vital services and may impact their visa status.[91]

2.52There may be a greater risk of misidentification in the making of interim FVOs, which are designed to be obtained on relatively limited evidence. Interim orders can impose wide-ranging conditions that impact respondents’ freedom of movement or limit access to their children, and can have wide-ranging consequences, particularly for respondents who do not understand the legal process and conditions of FVOs.[92]

2.53There was support for greater education and training for police, legal practitioners and the judiciary to better understand coercive control, to recognise the primary victim and perpetrator of FDSV, and to have greater awareness of, and to respond appropriately to, systems abuse.[93] There was also support for more effective policies and procedures to prevent and rectify misidentification of victim-survivors within both the FVO and family law systems.[94]

Reluctance to intervene in matters involving children

2.54Some police will refuse to act on reported breaches of FVOs they consider to be family law matters.[95] Instead, police will tell complainants to seek assistance from their lawyer or the family law courts. Some police decline to act because they believe the complainant is trying to gain advantage in family law proceedings.[96] The Committee heard this approach is unsatisfactory and police should instead be assisting victim-survivors to obtain FVOs where the statutory basis is met, and for state and territory courts to make the final decision on FVO applications.[97]

2.55A lack of information about family law court orders can impede police responses to FDSV matters. Family law court orders are neither routinely uploaded to any police system, nor to the National Police Reference System.[98] Better information sharing, including any existing family law court orders and evidence of FDSV risk, would support the safety of victim-survivors, including children.[99]

Barriers to accessing FVOs

2.56For many victim-survivors, the experience of navigating a complex legal system without enough support to access FVOs is overwhelming, resulting in poor court outcomes, them giving up, or returning to violent relationships.[100] Victim-survivors may be hesitant to engage with police and the court system because they fear reprisal, believe an FVO is unlikely to protect them, or have had a previous negative court experience.[101] Some may fear the continuation of coercive and controlling behaviours through the court process.[102]

2.57To ensure FVOs are accessible, the Committee heard that victim-survivors must be supported by police and other key services with accessible information and culturally responsive and trauma-informed practices.[103]

Lack of resources and legal advice

2.58Many victim-survivors of FDSV agree to FVOs made by consent due to a lack of resources, legal advice or pre-court engagement with services, or a desire to avoid court because of what they see as the danger, delay and trauma of court proceedings.[104] This can lead to unsafe consent negotiations and orders.[105]

2.59Victim-survivors often try to avoid hearings due to legal costs and the trauma and stress of retelling their experiences and being cross-examined. Some agree to a lesser FVO duration due to coercion or to avoid the cost and stress of a trial.[106]

2.60Although FVOs themselves are not expensive, the cost of legal representation in court system interactions can be financially prohibitive.[107] Where an FVO is contested, the cost of legal representation for the making or extending of an FVO was estimated at between $30,000 and $50,000 in 2024.[108] Some jurisdictions may charge a fee for online applications. While fees may be waived on determination of personal circumstances, victim-survivors must be able pay the fee to start with, which can be a barrier for many.[109]

Lack of accessible information

2.61A lack of accessible information, interpreters and culturally safe, wrap-around support services that meet individual needs can be barriers to seeking and gaining the protection of FVOs.[110]

2.62While FVOs may be accessible for many victim-survivors[111], the process of obtaining FVOs and the conditions and consequences of FVOs are often difficult to understand.[112] The use of jargon and complicated English in FVO information and forms can be intimidating and a barrier for victim-survivors considering applying for an FVO, making it seem ‘complicated, difficult and not worth it.’[113] Completing the application form to apply for an FVO without help can be impossible for CALD people, those with low digital literacy skills or poor online access, or who are living with disability.[114]

2.63Victim-survivors are required to fill out an FVO application, file it, and then serve it on the respondent, unless the FVO is being applied for on their behalf by the police. This process is complex to follow correctly and traumatic for victim-survivors, who may not have legal assistance or will be relying on a duty lawyer they have only just met.[115] Victim-survivors may be retraumatised by having to recall the details of their abuse multiple times, particularly if they have matters before the family courts at the same time as they are seeking FVOs.[116]

2.64First Nations victim-survivors can be reluctant to report violence because they do not trust police and fear community retribution.[117] A lack of trust in the police and the justice system can also be a barrier for migrants and refugees who have experienced harm from authorities in other countries.[118]

2.65Additionally, the disproportionate harm from FDSV experienced by women and children with insecure visa status is compounded by barriers to reporting abuse, inaccessible systems and a lack of information, and the threat of forced, permanent family separation.[119] The Committee heard that the removal of barriers to visa security is needed to help ensure the safety, security and empowerment of women and children with insecure visa status.[120]

2.66Of the 674 women supported by inTouch Women’s Legal Centre in 2023-24, 91percent spoke a language other than English as their first language and 87different languages were spoken by clients.[121] Language barriers prevent these women from accessing mainstream legal services. inTouch Women’s Legal Centre said this means that without their services, many women would ‘likely miss out on legal representation altogether’, stating:

Many try to self-represent, affecting court time and resulting in poor individual outcomes. Further, where interpreters are available, the additional time required to explain legal proceedings and prepare court documentation via an interpreter often means sufficient time with lawyers is not accessible due to limited funding.[122]

2.67SMLS reported that FVO application forms in Victoria are only available in complex, legal English and, when combined with a shortage of interpreters, this means it can be impossible for many victim-survivors to interact with the justice system without further assistance. Often there may be no direct translations for the legal terms in other languages.[123]

2.68Interpreters are essential to ensuring procedural fairness in the justice system, particularly for First Nations and CALD people. However, there are gaps in the availability of qualified interpreter services, particularly outside of the major cities and for certain language groups, which significantly impacts access to justice.[124] LCA said:

Concerningly, if a victim-survivor of family violence is unable to access a suitably qualified interpreter, especially at an early stage, they may be unable to engage meaningfully with the justice system, and may not receive the protection or remedies that they require—ultimately putting their safety and wellbeing at risk.[125]

2.69The broader trend towards information only being available online and the mandated use of online systems, including online application forms for FVOs, adds additional challenges for victim-survivors with low English language and digital literacy skills, and people with disability. The Committee heard that, in Victoria, courts have shifted towards online FVO application forms that are only available in English, and there has been a reduction in court staff support. This has increased pressure on services that support migrant and refugee women to navigate online systems.[126] Requiring users to navigate digital technology and forms that are only available in English can further marginalise victim-survivors who are migrants or refugees.[127]

2.70SMLS called for:

• explanatory statements to be available in plain English and translated into other languages to educate people of their rights and responsibilities
• information to be culturally informed and adapted to what each community needs
• grassroots organisations to be resourced to help share information.[128]
  71. There was support for police and court services to have a uniform policy and training program for working with interpreters[129], for there to be CALD community liaison officers in all police stations and courts, and for regular community legal education to be provided in key languages.[130]

Safety at court

2.72Victim-survivors often feel unsafe during court appearances and may be frightened and traumatised by having to be in the same room as their perpetrator. Having access to separate entrances and safe waiting areas is important for victim-survivors, however this depends largely on the court’s location. Courts in regional and rural areas are smaller and often lack the safety measures found in city courts.[131]

2.73There was support for courts in all locations to have separate entrances and safe waiting areas for victim-survivors[132], as well as other measures that support safety such as shuttle conferencing.[133] However, the effectiveness of safety measures depends on court and other support staff having knowledge of those measures to assist victim-survivors with safety planning, as well as clear communication and signage.[134]

2.74The inclusion of court locations on FVOs may put victim-survivors at risk, because perpetrators may use this information to locate victim-survivors.[135] However, it was noted that a respondent must know what court they need to lodge their objection to.[136]

Remote participation in online hearings

2.75There was support for all victim-survivors to be able to participate in FVO proceedings remotely, either by phone or video link.[137] When implemented well, remote participation in hearings can enhance access to legal protection while reducing risks for victim-survivors.[138] Remote hearings can remove barriers for FirstNations women reporting abuse and participating in court proceedings, can be safer and less traumatic, can reduce travel and disruption for families and may reduce security requirements for the court.[139]

2.76However, some victim-survivors may be fearful that engaging in remote hearings can undermine their credibility and seriousness, and may not fully convey their personal presence and demeanour to a magistrate.[140] Other issues with remote proceedings, such as long wait times and exposure to unrelated and often traumatising court matters, and difficulties communicating with lawyers and interpreters, add to the distress and frustration of victim-survivors.[141]

Inconsistency between parenting orders and FVOs

2.77As previously noted, the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act) allows the family law courts to make parenting orders setting out arrangements for children, such as who they will live with and when. These orders may override state or territory FVOs, for example to grant access to children, can put victim-survivors at risk of harm and may anchor them to their abusers.

2.78The Committee heard that where parenting orders are inconsistent with FVOs, the safety of victim-survivors and children should be consistently prioritised by state and territory courts through referral to section 68R of the Act.[142] There was support for the 2010 Australian Law Reform Commission recommendations to be implemented, which would:

• require state and territory judicial officers making or varying an FVO to consider altering parenting orders under section 68R
• include an option to apply for changes to parenting orders in application forms for FVOs.[143]
  79. State and territory courts have the capacity, under section 68R of the Act to revive, vary, discharge or suspend a parenting order that provides for a child to spend time with a person. However, the Committee heard they are reluctant to do so, meaning that applicants will typically be referred to the family law courts[144], and commonly be ‘kicked between the two courts’.[145] Single Mother Families Australia said there is a ‘timidness’ around prioritising FVOs:

Under the parenting orders, the non-custodial parent can go to the court and deny any sort of relocation, irrespective of how many [FVOs] there have been or how unsafe the women and children are. Currently, I'm working with a woman … over the years, there have been 10 [FVOs]. He doesn't see the children, nor does he pay child support. She lives in a place where she's always one small breath away from being homeless, with four children, because of the high rent and the lack of family. She's not allowed to leave to go and have that family support. That's not unusual …There is a real timidness … We see the police who have done the work to get that [FVO] just go: 'Ugh, okay, so now he's got access to you at a McDonald's carpark at nine o'clock at night or eight o'clock in the morning. You must be terrified.'[146]

2.80AGD said there could be ‘… a lack of understanding or a cultural impediment to stepping into the shoes of the family law court system, which obviously makes those orders based on quite a lot of knowledge and expertise around how to assess what might be in the best interests of children, for example.’[147]

2.81There was also support for enhanced education, training, guidelines and resources about resolving inconsistencies between FVO and parenting orders for judicial officers and legal practitioners.[148] For example, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria (FCLCV) said that improving the knowledge of judicial officers and legal practitioners on the appropriate use of section 68R may help safeguard against systems abuse and the undermining or devaluing of parenting orders.[149]

2.82LCA called for clear and accessible guidance and educational resources on the legal intersection of FVOs and parenting orders for police and the broader community.[150]

2.83AGD advised that state and territory magistrates have access to guidance on the application of section 68R in the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (the Bench Book) and the Family Violence in the Court (FVitC) training program, which are co-funded by the Australian, state and territory governments:

• The Bench Book is available to judicial officers in all Australian jurisdictions and aims to promote best practice, develop consistency in judicial decision-making and improve court experiences for victim-survivors. The Bench Book provides an overview of section 68R of the Act and highlights important considerations for its application.
• FVitC is delivered to judicial officers across Australia in all jurisdictions on a periodic basis and includes training on the application of section 68R.[151]
  84. Australian Government is contributing $400,000 over five years in 2022-23 for the maintenance of the Bench Book and the development and delivery of FVitC.[152]
  85. Where FCFCOA makes parenting orders that are inconsistent with FVOs, FCFCOA is required under section 68P of the Act to give a comprehensive explanation for the order and advise the police, child protection and the court that made the FVO that the change has been made. By contrast, where a state or territory court varies or overrides a family law order (under section 68R) there is no legislative requirement for it to notify the court that made the original order. FCFCOA said it ‘would benefit from being provided with any State or Territory orders which impact existing parenting orders in making informed case management and substantive parenting decisions.’[153]

Animal abuse and FDSV

2.86Animal abuse and FDSV commonly co-occur.[154] Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA) said its clients frequently report intentional animal abuse as a form of FDSV, in which ‘abusers exploit the close emotional bond shared by them, their children, and their animals, to inflict significant harm upon our clients. Clients have disclosed various abuse, torture, and death of their animals at the hands of their abusers.’[155] Threats to harm pets are a powerful tool that perpetrators of FDSV use to control victim-survivors and may prevent or delay them from leaving an abusive relationship.[156] According to Lucy’s project, a national charity that aims to improve the safety and wellbeing of people and animals impacted by domestic and family violence, finding crisis accommodation that will allow pets is difficult and can be a reason for victim-survivors to stay in unsafe housing.[157] Amendments to the Act were passed by both Houses in November 2024 that will require the family law courts to consider FDSV when determining pet ownership.[158]

2.87Some inquiry participants argued that state and territory courts may be better suited to addressing the safety and care of animals in the context of FDSV because of the time and costs associated with pursuing orders through the family courts, and the need for victim-survivors to interact with their abusers again in the separate family law system.[159]

2.88The Committee heard that animal abuse is not adequately recognised as FDSV in state and territory laws. WLSA noted that animal abuse is only recognised as a form of family violence in Victoria and New South Wales, and even in those states ‘the definitions are inadequate as they are piecemeal and do not provide positive obligations for animals to be protected from abusers.’[160]

2.89Victim-survivors are currently limited in their ability to recover their animals through current FVO processes. For example, victim-survivors in New South Wales may seek an ancillary property recovery order to recover their animals during FVO proceedings, but only if the FVO has not been finalised and where there is no dispute over the animal's ownership.[161]

2.90There was support for:

• FVO legislation in all states and territories to be amended to explicitly recognise animal abuse as a form of FDSV, and to include an order for the protection of animals in FVOs[162]
• laws that would enable the state and territory courts to make orders for the transfer of an animal’s registration[163]
• resources and education to raise awareness of animal abuse in the context of FDSV and coercive control[164]
• wrap-around services to provide animal-inclusive support for victim-survivors fleeing abusive relationships.[165]
  91. Recent amendments to the Act will mean that animals will be treated by the family law courts as ‘a special form of property’ and the courts will be required to consider FDSV when determining pet ownership. While it is important that the family law courts can make orders for who pets will live with following separation, and to consider the abuse of animals as FDSV, state and territory courts could intervene more swiftly to prevent harm during FVO proceedings. However, it is beyond the scope of this inquiry to consider whether treating pets as ‘a special form of property’ precludes the ability of state and territory courts to make animal custody orders, where there is a risk of animal abuse, during FVO proceedings. There may be merit in exploring the feasibility of state and territory courts being able to make animal custody orders as part of FVO proceedings.

Committee comment

2.92There is a crisis of gendered violence in this country and weaknesses in the laws and responses that are intended to keep women and children safe. Testimonies from victim-survivors show how serious and unacceptable the consequences of inadequate laws and responses can be.

2.93While the Committee has no power to make recommendations to the states and territories, the effectiveness of FVOs and their intersection with the family law system are central to this inquiry’s terms of reference and critical to ending violence against women and children in one generation under the National Plan. There is urgency in the task ahead, and this is recognised by the Australian Government’s family law reforms, measures supporting the National Plan, and commitments agreed by NationalCabinet.

2.94The findings of the National Review of FVO frameworks will be important in identifying opportunities for greater consistency across jurisdictions and areas for reform, including in relation to the scope of NDVOS. Currently, the degree of variation in FDSV and FVO laws and police responses across Australia is unreasonable and a barrier to safety and justice for victim-survivors. Australians have a right to expect access to the same protections, regardless of where they live.

2.95While the Committee recognises it will be up to the states and territories to consider the findings of the National Review, the Attorney-General should advocate for shared, consistent definitions of FDSV, nationally harmonised FVO laws, and consistency in access, application processes and enforcement, and messaging of FVO requirements.

2.96Children and young people should be able to apply for FVOs and to be named as protected persons on FVOs. The greater use of interim FVOs may be needed to protect children until parenting orders have been finalised.

2.97Many police officers are committed to keeping women and children safe in Australia and their important work is valued and respected. However, women are frequently being dismissed or disbelieved by police when they report FDSV and breaches of FVOs and are being put at risk when no action is taken. Victim-survivors are being misidentified as primary perpetrators. Police are refusing to act in matters involving children. These policing practices put women and children at risk, corrode trust in the justice system, are incompatible with the National Plan and must be addressed by the states and territories urgently.

2.98Rapidly improving the capacity of police to make own-motion FVOs should be prioritised. However, this is contingent on improved training to minimise the risk of misidentification and the legal intersection between FVOs and parenting orders. The police training being developed by AGD in conjunction with the states and territories will be critical in overcoming barriers to safety for victim-survivors and its success will require strong buy-in by police in all jurisdictions. However, education and training should be combined with examination by states and territories of their police responses to FDSV to ensure systemic issues are addressed.

2.99The Committee is concerned that crucial information about FVOs and breaches is not being shared between police in different jurisdictions, and family law court orders are not being routinely shared with police. It is critical that NDVOS be enhanced to increase the visibility of violent offenders across jurisdictions. NDVOS must enable and require real-time updating of FVOs, conditions and breaches. The review of FVO frameworks should consider including real-time updating of family law orders in NDVOS and developing NDVOS into a national database that all relevant justice bodies can access, with appropriate safeguards.[166]

2.100The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Australian Government work with the states and territories to increase the visibility of violent offenders across jurisdictions through the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme (NDVOS). NDVOS should enable and require real-time updating of family violence orders (FVOs), conditions and breaches.

2.101Further work is required to raise awareness of how FVOs are recognised and enforced across jurisdictions through NDVOS, and the legal intersection between FVOs and parenting orders.

2.102The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Attorney-General work with the states and territories to develop and implement a community education program to raise awareness of how FVOs are recognised and enforced across Australia through NDVOS, and the legal intersection between FVOs and parenting orders.

2.103Many victim-survivors find the process of applying for an FVO confusing and intimidating. All governments need to ensure that the process is as easy to navigate as possible for people at the most stressful and traumatic times of their lives. Victim-survivors must be supported by police and courts with culturally safe and trauma-informed practices.

2.104Further work is needed to build trust between First Nations, refugee and migrant communities and the justice system, including having First Nations and CALD community liaison officers in all police stations and courts.

2.105FVO application forms and information must be accessible to FirstNations, CALD people, those with low digital literacy skills or poor online access, or who are living with disability. All jurisdictions should have training and protocols for the mandatory use of interpreters in the justice system when they are required.

2.106Safety measures are needed at all courts, including separate entrances and safe waiting areas for victim-survivors, to be complemented by staff training on safety planning, communication and signage. Remote hearings should be an option for all victim-survivors, however further work is needed to ensure remote hearings are accessible for all.

2.107Parenting orders that are inconsistent with FVOs can put victim-survivors and children at risk. The state and territory courts should be amending parenting orders that are inconsistent with FVOs to prioritise the safety of children and their caregivers. There are already resources and training to build the capacity of state and territory courts to vary parenting orders under section 68R of the Act, yet courts remain reluctant step into the shoes of the family law courts. Legislative change, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2010, is needed.

2.108Evidence to this inquiry suggests that coercive control remains poorly recognised and progress towards implementing the National Principles is uneven. The delivery of training for legal practitioners and police on coercive control will be critical for ensuring the aims of the National Principles are realised. There is a need for research evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of the National Principles to ensure positive change and sustained results, and so that any unintended effects can be identified.

2.109The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Attorney-General advocate for, and assist all states and territories to:

• adopt nationally harmonised:

• legal definitions of family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV)
• family violence laws and consistency in access, application processes and enforcement, and messaging of FVO requirements

• allow children and young people to apply for FVOs and to be named as protected persons on FVOs
• rapidly improve police responses to reports of FDSV and police recognition of coercive control, including:

• the capacity of police to make own-motion FVOs
• minimising the risk of misidentification of victim-survivors as primary perpetrators and systems abuse
• implementing culturally safe and trauma informed models of response
• improving knowledge of the legal intersection between FVOs and parenting orders, and the obligation for police to assist victim-survivors to obtain FVOs and respond to breaches of FVOs in matters involving children where the statutory basis is met

• ensure information, application forms and court proceedings are accessible for First Nations and culturally or linguistically diverse people, those with low digital literacy skills or poor online access, or who are living with disability
• make court proceedings safer by:

• supporting all applicants to participate in hearings remotely if they wish
• ensuring there are safe entrances and waiting areas, and safety protocols in all courts for applicants in FDSV matters

• make amendments to laws to require courts making or varying an FVO to consider varying parenting orders to prioritise the safety of victim-survivors and children under section 68R of the Family Law Act 1975, and to notify the court that made the original parenting order if the parenting order is varied
• include an option to apply for changes to parenting orders in application forms for FVOs.

Footnotes

[1]Westjustice, Submission 68, page 4.

[2]Mr Harry McDonald, Board Member, Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland (FLPA), CommitteeHansard, 30August 2024, page 13.

[3]Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA), Submission 69, page 14.

[4]Mrs Samantha Byng, Assistant Secretary, Family and Community Safety Branch, Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, page 8.

[5]Barnardos Australia, Submission 49, page 4.

[6]Mrs Byng, AGD, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, page 8; Sexual Safety Australia (SSA), Submission9, page3.

[7]Full Stop Australia, Submission 14, page 6.

[8]Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page 11.

[9]National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Alliance (NATSIWA), Submission 60, page4; Bayside Peninsula Integrated Family Violence Partnership and the Southern Melbourne Family Violence Regional Integration Committee (BPIFVP and SMFVRIC), Submission 41, page 16.

[10]Domestic Violence Advocacy Australia (DVAA), Submission 38, page 2; Nerang Neighbourhood Centre, Submission 3, page 3; MsJaquiePalavra, Executive Member, Family Law Section, Law Council of Australia (LCA), CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, page 7; Ms Rachael Pliner, Director, Policy and Advocacy, Federation of Community Legal Centres Vic. (FCLCV), CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, page 20; MsErin Quilliam, Lawyer, Family Law, Hume Riverina Community Legal Service (HRCLS), CommitteeHansard, 30August 2024, page 26; Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page18; Djirra, Submission74, page 6.

[11]FLPA, Submission12, page 11; Name withheld, Submission 82, page1; SSA, Submission 9, page 4; DVAA, Submission 38, page 2; Pilbara Community Legal Service (PCLS), Submission 78, page 4.

[12]LCA, Submission 67, page 26.

[13]WLSA, Submission 69, page 11; Queensland Indigenous Family Violence Legal Service (QIFVLS), Submission 70, page 12.

[14]Mrs Byng, AGD, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, page 9.

[15]Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC), Submission 37, page 10. See also: QIFVLS, Submission 70, page 12.

[16]Fitzroy Legal Service, Submission 44, page 6.

[17]Relationships Australia, Submission 7, page 22; PCLS, Submission 78, page 7.

[18]PCLS, Submission 78, page 7.

[19]FLPA, Submission 12, page 6.

[20]Mrs Byng, AGD, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, pages 8-9.

[21]Name withheld, Submission 82.1, page 1.

[22]Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88.1, pages 2-3.

[23]Where an FVO is contested, the cost of private legal representation for the making or extending of an FVO was estimated at between $30,000 and $50,000 in 2024. See: Name withheld, Submission 82, page 11.

[24]Name withheld, Submission 82, pages 8-9.

[25]NATSIWA, Submission 60, page 4.

[26]South-East Monash Legal Service (SMLS), Submission 80, page 15; BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission41, page13; Name withheld, Submission 82, pages 1 and 9.

[27]SMLS, Submission 80, page 15.

[28]Name withheld, Submission 82, pages 1 and 9.

[29]Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS), Submission 81, pages 13-14. VALS advocated for Aboriginal-led behaviour change programs for First Nations perpetrators, which are discussed in chapter four.

[30]NATSIWA, Submission 60, page 9.

[31]AGD, Submission 15, page 3.

[32]PCLS, Submission 78, page 4.

[33]HRCLS, Submission 72, page 4.

[34]HRCLS, Submission 72, page 4.

[35]PCLS, Submission 78, page 4. Information-sharing between state and territory police, courts and other agencies and services is examined further in chapter three.

[36]Relationships Australia, Submission 7, page 3.

[37]AGD, Submission 15, page 14.

[38]AGD, Australian Government response to the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System, January 2023, page 31.

[39]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [16].

[40]Mrs Byng, AGD, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, page 9; PCLS, Submission 78, page 4.

[41]AGD, National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence, September 2023, page 1.

[42]Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), Submission 62, page 9. Systems abuse is examined further in the section on misidentification in this chapter and is also examined in chapter three in the context of the family law system.

[43]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 4.

[44]DVConnect, Submission 56, page 6.

[45]Peninsula Community Legal Service (PCLC), Submission 17, page 14; SMLS, Submission 80, page 16.

[46]AGD, Understanding technology-facilitated coercive control, March 2024, page 1.

[47]Australian Services Union, Submission 63, page 5.

[48]AGD, National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence, September 2023, page 1.

[49]AGD, National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence, September 2023, page 1.

[50]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [17].

[51]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [17].

[52]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [18].

[53]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [17].

[54]CSMC, Submission 37, page 6.

[55]Ms Sara Makeham, Family and Domestic Violence Advocate, PCLS, CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, page 42.

[56]Three or more offences will raise a charge of persistent family violence.

[57]Ms Kati Kraszlan, Commissioner for Victims of Crime, Western Australian Department of Justice, CommitteeHansard, 11 October 2024, page 5.

[58]Relationships Australia, Submission 7, pages 4, 34.

[59]Name withheld, Submission 8, page 1.

[60]Name withheld, Submission 71, page 1.

[61]FLPA, Submission 12, page 2.

[62]SMLS, Submission 80, page 16.

[63]Ms Thelma Schwartz, Principal Legal Officer, QIFVLS, Committee Hansard, 30 August 2024, page 35; CSMC, Submission 37, page 6; Relationships Australia, Submission 7, page 35; SMLS, Submission 80, page 16.

[64]CSMC, Submission 37, page 6.

[65]Confidential, Submission 22; Confidential, Submission 95; Confidential, Submission 96.

[66]WLSA, Submission 69, page 13; LCA, Submission 67, page17; PCLC, Submission 17, page 14; National Legal Aid, Submission 61, page 4; Name withheld, Submission 43, pages 4-5.

[67]SMLS, Submission 80, page 16.

[68]AGD, Submission 15, page 15; AGD, Submission 15.1, page [5].

[69]AGD, Submission 15.1, page 3.

[70]AGD, Submission 15.1, pages 2-3. Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88.1, page 1.

[71]Mr Mark Jeffreys, Principal Solicitor and Ms Makeham, PCLS, CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, page36.

[72]Mrs Gail Dodd, Principal Legal Officer, Aboriginal Family Legal Service Western Australia, CommitteeHansard, 30August 2024, page 36.

[73]FLPA, Submission 12, page 2.

[74]SSA, Submission 9, page 2.

[75]SSA, Submission 9, page 1.

[76]SSA, Submission 9, page 1.

[77]Djirra, Submission 74, page 3.

[78]Name withheld, Submission 2, page 1.

[79]Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page 8; QIFVLS, Submission70, page 5; inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 11; ANROWS, Submission62, page 9; Elizabeth Morgan House, Submission 13, page3. ‘Systems abuse’ is discussed in more detail in chapter three.

[80]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 15.

[81]Department of Social Services (DSS), Submission 16, page 4; Elizabeth Morgan House, Submission 13, page 3; Victorian Legal Aid, Submission 40, page [9]; Djirra, Submission 74, page 3; Aboriginal Legal Service NSW ACT Limited, Submission 86, page 3.

[82]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 10.

[83]Elizabeth Morgan House, Submission 13, page 3.

[84]DVAA, Submission 38, page 7.

[85]DSS, Submission 16, page 4.

[86]Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), Submission 54, page 7.

[87]DSS, Submission 16, page 5.

[88]Elizabeth Morgan House, Submission 13, page 3.

[89]Djirra, Submission 74, page 3; Aboriginal Legal Service NSW ACT Limited, Submission 86, page 3.

[90]Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page 8; inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 12.

[91]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 10.

[92]LCA, Submission 67, page 26.

[93]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 9; GenWest, Submission 91, page 6; Tasmania Legal Aid, Submission 35, page 14.

[94]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 15. Reducing opportunities for systems abuse in the family law system is examined in chapter three.

[95]PCLC, Submission 17, page 14

[96]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 7.

[97]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 7; FLPA, Submission 12, page 5.

[98]South Australia Police, Submission 59, page 2; Tasmanian Government, Submission 51, page 2.

[99]Tasmanian Government, Submission 51, page 2. Information sharing is examined further in chapter three.

[100]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 16.

[101]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 6.

[102]AGD, Submission 15, page 12.

[103]Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Submission 66, pages 3-4; RelationshipsAustralia, Submission 7, pages 1, 2 and 9; inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 9; Djirra, Submission 74, page 2; Aboriginal Legal Service NSW ACT Limited, Submission 86, page 3.

[104]Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), Submission 52, page 8.

[105]AIFS, Submission 52, page 8.

[106]Name withheld, Submission 82.1, page 1. Costs and financial impacts of proceedings on victim-survivors are discussed further in chapter three.

[107]Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, Submission 55, page 2.

[108]Estimate based on quotes from two different private law firms. Name withheld, Submission 82, page 11.

[109]VALS, Submission 81, page 10.

[110]The need to enhance wraparound support for victim-survivors is examined further in chapter four.

[111]FLPA, Submission 12, page 2.

[112]Barnardos Australia, Submission 49, page 6.

[113]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 23.

[114]WLSA, Submission 69, page 14.

[115]VALS, Submission 81, page 10.

[116]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 15; Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre, Submission 39, page 6.

[117]NATSIWA, Submission 60, page3.

[118]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), Submission 42, page 4.

[119]ASRC, Submission 42, page 1.

[120]ASRC, Submission 42, page 2.

[121]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 5.

[122]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 16.

[123]SMLS, Submission 80, page 10.

[124]LCA, Submission 67, pages 24-25.

[125]LCA, Submission 67, page 25.

[126]Northern Community Legal Centre (NCLC), Submission 75, page 5.

[127]NCLC, Submission 75, page 6; SMLS, Submission80, page 10.

[128]SMLS, Submission 80, page 10.

[129]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 9.

[130]ASRC, Submission 42, pages 2-3.

[131]VALS, Submission 81, pages 9-10.

[132]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 21.

[133]PCLS, Submission 78, page 10.

[134]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 20.

[135]PCLS, Submission 78, page 2.

[136]Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88.1, page 3.

[137]BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 13; NATSIWA, Submission60, page4.

[138]SMLS, Submission 80, page 12.

[139]NATSIWA, Submission 60, page4.

[140]SMLS, Submission 80, page 10.

[141]SMLS, Submission 80, page 11.

[142]PCLC, Submission 77, page 3; FCLCV, Submission 79, page 8; NWSA, Submission 50, pages4and6; FLPA, Submission 12, page 6.

[143]WLSA, Submission 69, page 9; Associate Professor Miranda Kaye, Submission 6, page 3. See also: Seealso: Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: A National Legal Response, ALRC Report 114, 2010, pages 56-57.

[144]NWSA, Submission 50, page 4; WLSA, Submission 69, pages 8-9; Westjustice, Submission 68, page 8; MsAjsela Siskovic, Executive Manager of Legal Services and Principal Lawyer, inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, Committee Hansard, 23August2024, page 11.

[145]MsSiskovic, inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, Committee Hansard, 23August2024, page 11.

[146]Terese Edwards, Chief Executive Officer, Single Mother Families Australia, Committee Hansard, 23August2024, page 12.

[147]Mrs Byng, AGD, Committee Hansard, 11 October 2024, page 15.

[148]PCLC, Submission 77, page 3; WLSA, Submission 69, page 9; FCLCV, Submission 79, page 18; NWSA, Submission 50, page 4; HRCLS, Submission 72, page 7. Seealso: ALRC and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: A National Legal Response, ALRC Report 114, 2010, pages 56-57.

[149]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 18.

[150]LCA, Submission 67, page 20.

[151]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [23].

[152]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [23].

[153]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 5.

[154]Lucy’s Project, Submission 47, page 1.

[155]WLSA, Submission 69, page 16.

[156]WLSA, Submission 69, page 16; Lucy’s Project, Submission 47, page 1.

[157]Lucy’s Project, Submission 47, page 6.

[158]The Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, Attorney-General, ‘More reform delivers a simpler, safer and fairer family law system’, Mediarelease, 29 November 2024.

[159]WLSA, Submission 69, pages 17-18; FCLCV, Submission 79, page 27.

[160]WLSA, Submission 69, page 16.

[161]WLSA, Submission 69, page 17.

[162]WLSA, Submission 69, page 19; Lucy’s Project, Submission 47, page 4; FCLCV, Submission 79, page 27; Domestic Violence NSW, Submission 57, pages 2-3.

[163]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 27; WLSA, Submission 69, page 19.

[164]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 27.

[165]Lucy’s Project, Submission 47, page 3.

[166]The next chapter makes further findings relating to information sharing.