3. The family law system — barriers to safety and fairness for victim-survivors
   1. As earlier chapters have established, victim-survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV) must navigate two separate court systems to be protected by family violence orders (FVOs) under state and territory law and to resolve divorce, parenting arrangements for children, and property, spousal and child maintenance issues through the federal family law system under the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act). Thedual state and territory FVO and family law systems make it difficult for victim-survivors of FDSV to safely and fairly navigate separation.[1]
   2. Despite recent amendments to the Act that removed the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and which require courts to consider FDSV in parenting and property matters, the Committee heard more needs to be done to overcome a pro-contact culture that prioritises time spent with both parents.[2] For example, the LawCouncil of Australia (LCA) welcomed the recent reforms but said that ‘the family law system, as a whole, is not sufficiently equipped to address and respond appropriately to the complexities of family violence.’[3] The Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC) said it continues to receive reports of courts dismissing allegations of FDSV and refusing to consider risks to children.[4]
   3. Family law proceedings were described as inaccessible, drawn-out, expensive and adversarial, and may keep victim-survivors tied to their abusers despite the safety risks this poses.[5] This chapter considers barriers to safety and fairness for victim-survivors of FDSV in the family law system, including:

• the duration and cost of family law proceedings
• managing and responding to the escalation of FDSV risk in the family law system
• barriers to inclusive engagement in family law proceedings
• the family law courts’ ability to make orders for the protection of victim-survivors
• ensuring children are protected and their views represented safely
• eliminating opportunities for systems abuse.[6]

Duration and cost of family law proceedings

3.4Drawn-out family law proceedings expose victim-survivors and children to an extended period of elevated FDSV risk, including threats of physical violence to women and children, and financial and systems abuse. Victim-survivors will be told ‘…you will lose your child. I'm going to bankrupt you. I'll get every cent out of you.’[7] Delays in finalising proceedings extend victim-survivors’ trauma.[8]

3.5The length of proceedings increases the costs involved in obtaining parenting or property orders, and delaying tactics are a common form of systems abuse used by perpetrators of FDSV.[9] Where victim-survivors do not meet eligibility criteria to receive free legal representation or exhaust the support they are eligible to receive[10], the costs of private legal representation can be financially ruinous. Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland described the family law jurisdiction has having ‘an enormous capacity to run people out of money’ because of the duration of proceedings.[11]

3.6Applying for orders in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) means completing a minimum of three forms. The cost for a private solicitor to complete this process was estimated at between $3,000 and $10,000.[12] Overall costs of paying private legal fees for protracted FVO and family law matters were reported to be in the order of several hundreds of thousands of dollars.[13] These costs can be particularly crippling for low-income earners, families experiencing multiple vulnerabilities and disadvantage[14], and for victim-survivors who are primary caregivers for children and may be financially reliant on the perpetrator.[15]

3.7High legal costs can mean victim-survivors do not commence proceedings when they should, do not respond to proceedings brought by their perpetrators, or settle and agree to unsafe parenting arrangements simply because they cannot afford to continue proceedings.[16]

3.8CSMC reported many women having to sell their businesses or homes to pay for ‘the constant call back into the court’ because of family law proceedings being weaponised by their abusers.[17] CSMC said there is a public misconception that family law matters are relatively straightforward: ‘… firstly, you go to a lawyer and you get some advice; secondly, you do a bit of work and go to court; and thirdly, the orders are interpreted—that's it. That is so far from the truth and from the experience.’[18]

3.9Concerns were raised that some firms were inflating legal costs for their own benefit. Domestic Violence Advocacy Australia called for a cap on lawyer fees[19], and reported:

There are cases where it's six figures already and they've only had one mediation session and an interim hearing … I think a victim of domestic violence looks to their legal team for support and assistance, and that legal team then just drives up fees, possibly without considering whether there's a need, particularly if they think that there's a giant asset pool that they can pull from.[20]

3.10The cost of filing fees in FCFCOA can be a further barrier for those victim-survivors with limited financial resources.[21] For example, the current filing fee for an application for divorce is $1,100, while an initiating application for parenting and financial orders, including both interim and final orders, is $840.[22]

3.11Expediting family law proceedings can de-escalate the risk of harm and violence and reduce costs for victim-survivors.[23] However, the Committee heard FCFCOA does not currently have the capacity to expedite and prioritise all high-risk matters and further resourcing may be needed.[24] More judges and registries may reduce wait times and parties’ overall costs.[25]

Escalation of aggressive and violent behaviours in the family law system

3.12As noted in chapter one, the risk of escalation in the aggressive and violent behaviours of perpetrators of FDSV towards partners and children increases during and after relationship breakdown[26], and this risk is further heightened during family law proceedings.[27]

3.13While most families resolve separation without having to go to court, the matters that do proceed to FCFCOA and the Family Court of Western Australia (FCWA), referred to collectively as the family law courts, are complex and include multiple FDSV and child abuse risk factors.[28] In 2023-24, more than 8,400 applications were made to FCFCOA for final orders.[29] Of these:

• 73 per cent of matters involved allegations of child abuse
• 83 per cent of matters involved allegations a party had experienced family violence
• 77 per cent of matters involved allegations a child had experienced family violence
• 55 per cent of matters involved allegations that drug, alcohol or substance misuse by a party had caused harm to a child or posed a risk of harm to a child
• 61 per cent of matters involved allegations that mental health issues of a party had caused harm to a child or posed a risk of harm to a child
• 47 per cent of matters involved allegations that a child was at risk of being abducted
• 22 per cent of matters involved allegations that there had been recent threats made to harm a child or other person relevant to the proceedings.[30]
  14. This section considers approaches to managing and responding to the escalation of FDSV risk in the family law system, including risk assessment, triage and case management, effective information sharing between jurisdictions and key agencies such as police and child protection, and measures to ensure victim-survivors can safely engage in court proceedings.

Risk assessment, triage and case management

3.15The Act requires that the family law courts be informed about FDSV and child abuse risks and the courts have a mandatory obligation to report this information to child welfare authorities.[31] A notice of child abuse, family violence or risk (notice of risk) form must be filed by anyone seeking parenting orders through FCFCOA, and where allegations of child abuse, family violence or risk are made in relation to parenting orders sought through FCWA. The form must be served on all other parties to the proceedings.[32] This requirement can expose victim-survivors to further risk, particularly if they do not have legal representation.[33] Some perpetrators of FDSV seek to abuse the system by submitting a cross notice of risk describing the victim-survivor as violent, an alienator, liar or mentally unwell.[34]

3.16FCFOA has developed improvements to how it manages the high levels of risk in parenting matters. The Lighthouse Program, which includes risk screening, triage and case management, was implemented in 15 registries in 2022, following a pilot that began in 2020.[35] Lighthouse includes:

• voluntary risk screening via a confidential and secure online platform
• triage to direct cases into the most appropriate case management pathway, based on the level of risk, supported by a team of counsellors.[36]
  17. Courts use ‘lists’ to manage how some matters are handled and what resources are allocated to support them.[37]Matters with the highest levels of risk are placed on the Evatt List, which focuses on early information gathering and intervention. The Evatt List team has additional specialised training.[38] The Evatt List was expanded to 15registries in 2022 to support Lighthouse.[39]Funding for Lighthouse is currently due to expire in 2025-26.[40]
  18. FCFCOA reported that, since 2022, 88 per cent (5,189) of eligible matters have had at least one party being sent the risk screen and of these, 73percent have at least one party completing a risk screen.[41] Of the risk screens completed by parties, 59percent were classified as high risk.[42]
  19. In addition to the Evatt list, FCFCOA has other specialist lists that provide tailored case management processes that are responsive to family safety risks:
• The Magellan List is a case management pathway that aims to ensure cases involving alleged child abuse are dealt with as effectively and efficiently as possible.
• The Critical Incident List is designed for family law applications filed in circumstances where there is no parent available to care for children because of death, critical injury, or incarceration relating to family violence.[43]
  20. Other lists and programs include:
• Special Indigenous Lists, which are supported by Indigenous Family Liaison Officers (IFLOs) to support full participation of First Nations people in court proceedings.
• The Priority Property Pool program, which assists parties with small value property pools to resolve property disputes. This can minimise risk where matters involve FDSV.[44]
  21. CSMC were concerned that Lighthouse relies on a one-off assessment of risk, and this is not updated as those risks change over time.[45] FCFCOA acknowledged that risk is dynamic and can change during proceedings and advised it continually assesses risk over the course of proceedings.[46]
  22. FCFCOA said that it was a deliberate policy choice to make the risk screen voluntary and it did not support Lighthouse screening being made compulsory at this time, noting it may increase the risk of systems abuse.[47] FCFCOA suggested a research partnership could help ‘identify if and when any re-screen should occur, including what review, triage and support mechanisms should be in place and what that then means for any case management decisions, and to minimise the chance of re-traumatisation.’[48]
  23. Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA) said it is important there is robust ongoing monitoring and evaluation of risk assessment, triage and case management within FCFCOA, given the central role of Lighthouse in determining how FCFCOA manages and responds to risk.[49] According to the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), FCFCOA monitors Lighthouse and it has received positive feedback, particularly in relation to the role and support provided by triage counsellors.[50] Research is currently being conducted examining Lighthouse risk pathways.[51]
  24. WLSA called for wraparound support to be provided to parties in the Evatt List and suggested this be modelled on support provided in the Special Indigenous Lists. This support includes allowing parties to access support services like Family Advocacy and Support Service (FASS) at court events held via videoconference or teleconference.[52]
  25. As the previous chapter noted, animal abuse and threats to harm pets are commonly associated with FDSV, are used by perpetrators to control victim-survivors and may prevent or delay victim-survivors from leaving an abusive relationship.[53] There was support for animal-inclusive risk assessment and safety planning to be conducted to enhance the safety and wellbeing of women and children navigating proceedings in the family law courts.[54]
  26. FCWA has its own system for triaging and case managing matters involving FDSV, which AGD described as a relatively similar process.[55] The Western Australian Government said Lighthouse and the Evatt List are based on established FCWA processes that have been in place for over a decade.[56]
  27. The Western Australian Government has recently launched a system reform plan for strengthening responses to FDSV, which focuses on workforce development, information sharing, risk assessment and risk management.[57]

Information sharing between agencies and jurisdictions

3.28The Committee heard a range of evidence regarding the importance of appropriate, sensitive and integrated information sharing to improve the safety of those affected by FDSV. Children, families and individuals affected by family violence, child abuse or neglect often interact with both the federal family law system and state and territory systems and agencies responsible for responding to FDSV and child protection. AGD leads several projects to improve collaboration between these systems including the National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems (National Framework)[58] and the Co-location Program.[59] AGD is providing training about the Information Sharing Act for information sharing officers and has developed resources to educate legal professionals and the community.[60]

3.29As noted in chapter one, the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Act 2023 (Information Sharing Act) gave effect to key aspects of the National Framework and came into effect in May 2024. The Information Sharing Act broadened the scope of information that can be shared between the family law courts and state and territory policing, firearms and child protection agencies.[61] However, LCA said that information-sharing orders are not yet widely sought or made by FCFCOA.[62]

3.30The family law courts may share information with state and territory courts, including interim and final orders, written judgements and transcripts, notice of risk and information about the status or details of a family law matter or a party to proceedings. Likewise, state and territory courts can share information with the family law courts including applications, interim and final FVOs, and written judgements and transcripts.[63] Despite this, the Committee heard the courts often operate as silos.[64]

3.31There are restrictions on the sharing of evidence between state and territory courts and the family law courts in relation to FVO and family law proceedings. Evidence from family law proceedings such as risk assessments, child impact reports and family reports can provide insight into an alleged perpetrator’s behaviour and the risk factors to the children and victim-survivor, however this evidence cannot be shared during FVO proceedings. According to inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, this restriction is ‘often counterproductive’.[65]

3.32The Magistrates Court of Western Australia and FCWA have long-standing information-sharing arrangements about any relevant history of restraining orders and criminal offending concerning litigants. A family consultant is appointed for all applications for parenting orders, has access to the Western Australian Courts’ electronic case management system in the court room and can provide ‘live’ information to the family law magistrate and the parties.[66] Of the 1,507 parenting applications made to FCWA in 12 months to April 2024, 1,154 orders were made for police information.[67]

3.33As chapter two noted, the intersection between FVOs and parenting orders can put victim-survivors and children at further risk of FDSV. This issue is compounded by limited visibility of FVOs and parenting orders between state and territory courts and the family law courts. National Women’s Safety Alliance (NWSA) said:

… parenting orders can be manipulated in ways that force the relocation of children despite FVOs being in place. In these cases, the prospect of a survivor of family violence relocating away from their perpetrator is thwarted as a perpetrator can apply for their return based on the existing parenting orders. Similarly, the intersection between parenting orders and family violence orders can often mean that a perpetrator of violence may on the one-hand agree without admission to an FVO while simultaneously proffer parenting orders to maintain contact.[68]

3.34The consequences of a lack of integrated judicial oversight of matters between different courts can lead to inconsistent decision-making by courts and makes it more difficult for victim-survivors of FDSV to achieve safe and fair outcomes.[69] LCA said that:

… proper information sharing between courts would reduce the expense to parties and enhance safety, by ensuring that the FCFCOA has complete and current information about FVOs made in states/territories and can, therefore, make compatible parenting orders.[70]

3.35FCFCOA supported information-sharing protocols being expanded to include FASS and said this would allow FASS to reach at-risk families more effectively.[71] AGDnoted that any proposal to extend information-sharing beyond the National Framework to other frontline services that victim-survivors interact with would need to consider safety and privacy related concerns.[72]

3.36Australian, state and territory data and digital ministers[73] agreed in June 2024 that the Australian and Victorian Governments will lead work to improve information sharing across systems and jurisdictions about perpetrators of FDSV. Data and digital ministers will provide advice to National Cabinet on how to improve information sharing on perpetrators and will work with women and women’s safety ministers on this advice.[74]

Co-location Program

3.37The Co-location Program involves the co-location of state and territory child protection and policing officials in select family law registries around Australia. According to AGD, the Co-location Program supports the timely sharing of relevant information between family law courts, child protection and policing agencies, fostering a more coordinated response to family safety issues in family law disputes. This aims to ensure family law judges have relevant information about family violence and child-abuse risks as early as possible in proceedings.[75]

3.38The National Framework implementation includes extending Australian Government funding for the Co-location Program until 30June 2025[76], and there was support for funding to be extended beyond 2025.[77] The Tasmanian Government said the co-location program ‘assists in providing relevant, objective, detailed information’ about FDSV risks ‘directly into the family law system to the judicial officers overseeing matters and has a significant impact on improving safety for victim-survivors and their children.’[78]

3.39According to AGD, an evaluation of the National Framework and the Co-location Program will be undertaken three years following the commencement of the Information Sharing Act in May 2024. The evaluation will examine the impact and effectiveness of the National Framework and the Co-location Program. AGD said the evaluation will provide insight into how the information sharing framework may be broadened.[79]

Opportunities to improve risk assessment and information sharing

3.40There was strong support for developing and adopting:

• an enhanced FDSV risk assessment tool for the family law system, and more broadly across Australian courts[80]
• an enhanced national risk and information sharing scheme between state and territory courts and agencies, and the family law courts to help ensure the safety of victim-survivors and children, and for technological solutions to be progressed to facilitate this.[81]
  41. For example, WLSA advocated for a national risk framework to ensure all courts and agencies are speaking the same language regarding risk.[82]
  42. NWSA said a national scheme would ‘increase visibility of violent offenders, orders and accountability of the court and enforcement system more broadly. The existing framework limits visibility of orders to court officials and police to rely on the disclosures of parties, rather than have access to real time information.’[83] NWSA said that a national and real-time information sharing scheme and register should:
• include a real-time register or dashboard of existing family court orders, family violence orders and other information relating to child protection issues or services
• should go beyond court-initiated information-sharing orders under the Act and be available in real-time.[84]
  43. The Committee heard Victoria’s Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) was effective at assessing and responding to FDSV risk in that state. Many inquiry participants suggested MARAM be adapted and adopted as a multi-agency response by other jurisdictions.[85] MARAM was developed in response to the findings of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence.[86] It considers a range of evidence-based risk factors and recognises that family law proceedings can increase the risk of family violence escalating in a very short timeframe.[87] MARAM can help identify who the perpetrator is based on a pattern of behaviour.[88]
  44. LCA noted that most of the states and territories have their own FDSV risk assessment frameworks and described developing and implementing a national system that allows the different systems to talk to each other about FDSV risk as ‘a herculean task’.[89] LCA suggested a phased approach may be needed and noted that a common definition of FDSV would be required before establishing uniform risk assessment and safety frameworks.[90] Shared definitions of FSDV across jurisdictions was recommended in the previous chapter.
  45. In 2023, AGD commissioned a scoping study of a potential technological solution to support information sharing under the National Framework between the family law courts and the family violence and child protection systems. The scoping study found the digital landscape across the family law, family violence and child protection systems was complex, and noted any national solution would require:
• the coordination and agreement of jurisdictions
• changes to state and territory legislation and regulation
• working with different technologies across jurisdictions
• consideration of how to address privacy concerns.[91]
  46. On 6 September 2024, National Cabinet announced measures to better identify high risk perpetrators, to share information about perpetrators across systems and state boundaries and to intervene early to stop violence escalating.[92] First Ministers agreed to:
• develop new national best practice family and domestic violence risk assessment principles and a model best practice risk assessment framework
• support enhancements to the National Criminal Intelligence System, which enables information sharing across jurisdictions, to provide a ‘warning flag’ that will assist police responding to high-risk perpetrators
• extend and increase nationally-consistent, two-way information sharing between the family law courts and state and territory courts, child protection, policing and firearms agencies
• strengthen system responses to high-risk perpetrators to prevent homicides, by trialling new focussed deterrence models and Domestic Violence Threat Assessment Centres.[93]
  47. According to the Prime Minister, the new risk assessment principles and trials of focussed deterrence models will be developed in close consultation with First Nations communities.[94]

Safety at court

3.48Concerns were raised that not all family law courts have adequate safety features for victim-survivors of FDSV[96], and some existing safety features may not be effectively utilised.[97] Staff training, clear communication and signage are important for ensuring court safety measures are effective.[98]

3.49The Committee heard that the location of safe rooms and access arrangements in some courts present opportunities for victim-survivors of family violence to come into negative contact with perpetrators. For example, Peninsula Community Legal Centre reported:

The location of the safe room at the Dandenong Registry of the Federal Circuit Court, for example, requires clients to enter the court building through the main entrance, cross a public foyer and go up a floor to the court reception desk where they must request the use of the secure room which they need to have booked prior to the court date. Clients are advised to arrive early in the morning prior to their hearing time to avoid coming into contact with the perpetrator. Despite arriving early, a number of our clients have still had intimidating contact with perpetrators in these public areas on the way to the safe room.

In addition, there is only one public door to the secure room meaning users have to pass through the public waiting area in order to access the court. In practice, this means that perpetrators and their family and friends can sit outside the safe room door in order to intimidate clients as they leave the safe room to enter the court.[99]

3.50Bayside Peninsula Integrated Family Violence Partnership and the Southern Melbourne Family Violence Regional Integration Committee described ‘a notable absence’ of coordination of safety planning for the duration of family law proceedings. BPIFVP and SMFVRIC gave the example of a victim‑survivor, who had been placed in a safe room, being ordered to appear in the court room. The victim survivor was told that ‘the cameras would keep her safe’.[100] BPIFVP and SMFVRIC also noted that ‘separate entrances and exits ‘simply mean the perpetrator and/or connected family members wait for the victim survivor to exit to stalk and intimidate.’[101]

3.51Concerns were raised that opportunities to attend a court appointment remotely are inconsistently applied and that many victim-survivors are required to attend in person despite concerns for their or the children’s safety.[102]

3.52There was support for all courts to have adequate safety and security measures to minimise risk to victim-survivors FDSV including, separate entrances, safe rooms and secure areas, adequate security staff and facilities for online participation.[103]

3.53FCFCOA said that further resourcing would enable it to enhance the safety and accessibility of court rooms in regional and rural areas, to ensure courts are disability compliant, have adequate safe rooms and safe zones, and are staffed with additional security guards.[104]

Barriers to inclusive engagement

3.54The Committee heard there are barriers to engaging in family law proceedings for First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD), people with disability, and Australians living outside of the major cities. Concerns were raised about the accessibility of Lighthouse and key court information, gaps in the availability of interpreters, and opportunities to provide more targeted support for overrepresented and vulnerable cohorts.

3.55The Lighthouse risk screen questionnaire is currently not compulsory and is only available in English and online. Stakeholders said this limits the accessibility of Lighthouse for people with low English language and digital literacy, and people with disability.[105] WLSA reported that a ‘high number of clients’ are not completing the risk screen and recommended further work to ensure Lighthouse is accessible, including for CALD parties, those with low digital literacy and access, and people living with disability.[106]

3.56FCFCOA provides options for people who do not feel comfortable completing the risk screen online or who need support to complete the risk screen. According to FCFCOA, there are dedicated iPads for Lighthouse in all registries available for parties to use to complete the risk screen, with in-person support available, and risk screening can be conducted over the phone with the help of a Lighthouse support officer. FCFCOA said that, where parties request specific assistance, ‘the Lighthouse team will always endeavour to provide that solution where possible, or where not possible, explore options available for that party.’[107] FCFCOA advised that it offers high risk parties interpreters to engage with triage counsellors.[108]

3.57LCA identified significant gaps in the availability of appropriately qualified interpreters outside of major cities and for some language groups, especially where the availability of duty lawyers and interpreters does not align. Interpreters are essential at every stage of the justice process for ensuring access to justice and procedural fairness for First Nations and CALD people. 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.[109]

3.58According to FCFCOA, opportunities to improve the accessibility of risk screening include ongoing funding for Lighthouse and closing gaps in FCFCOA’s resourcing to better support:

• regional and rural communities — Lighthouse is only funded for 15 registries and is unavailable at circuit locations and some regional registries (Albury, Dubbo and Lismore)
• First Nations peoples
• CALD communities
• people with disability.[110]
  59. FCFCOA said there is a range of information resources, including information about Lighthouse and triage counselling, that has been translated into key languages.[111] Further funding would enable FCFCOA to translate support and guidance documents into more languages.[112]
  60. FCFCOA suggested setting up digital hubs in regional and rural Australia and said this may assist disadvantaged parties to engage in court processes.[113]

Targeted support for overrepresented and vulnerable cohorts

3.61In recognition of the overrepresentation of First Nations women as victim-survivors of FDSV, FCFCOA provides targeted support to some First Nations people to enable their full participation in court proceedings and reduce the cost and timeframes of proceedings. According to AGD, Special Indigenous Lists help address the barriers that can make it harder for First Nations people to file initiating applications and attend court by providing culturally responsive alternatives developed in collaboration with local communities and First Nations support services. Special Indigenous Lists are supported by IFLOs.[114]

3.62FCFCOA said it can currently support about half the First Nations families it engages with because there are not enough funded IFLO positions, and that further funding is needed to ensure all First Nations families receive targeted support.[115]

3.63FCFCOA has recently received funding to establish a Cultural Liaison Officer (CLO) for the Migration jurisdiction, which FCFCOA suggested could be considered for the family law jurisdiction.[116] FCFCOA said that establishing Disability Liaison Officer (DLO) positions in the family law jurisdiction would be ‘incredibly valuable’ given the increased risk and unique barriers experienced by people with disability.[117] The CLO and DLO roles would help FCFCOA support vulnerable court users to engage with family law proceedings and to connect them with important legal and social support services.[118]

Making orders for the protection of victim-survivors

3.64As earlier chapters have established, victim-survivors of FDSV must currently navigate two separate court systems to be protected by FVOs under state and territory law and to resolve parenting or property disputes arising from separation through the family law system. This fragmentation can be time consuming, confusing, costly, retraumatising and needlessly difficult for victim-survivors.[119] The process leaves victim-survivors, who are mostly women, distressed, exhausted and impoverished.[120]

3.65There was support for victim-survivors to be able to access the protection of FVOs as well as parenting and property orders, and appropriate supports, in one place.[121] However, concerns were raised about delays in the family law courts’ ability to make orders, which can compromise the safety of victim-survivors and children.[122]

Personal protection injunctions

3.66The family law courts can make civil orders for the protection of victim-survivors and children called personal protection injunctions (PPIs), however the Committee heard PPIs are limited in their effectiveness and are rarely acted upon by police.[123] The challenges and difficulties of enforcing a PPI means that victim-survivors generally seek FVOs through the state and territory courts.[124]

3.67The breach of a PPI is a civil rather than criminal matter and it is up to the victim-survivor to file an application in the family law courts seeking an order about the contravention. Furthermore, while police have the power to arrest someone if they believe on reasonable grounds that person has breached a PPI, they rarely do so.[125] South Australia Police said they will more likely act in response to an allegation of a criminal offence under state law, such as threats to harm, assault, or stalking, which may be part of a PPI breach.[126]

3.68There was support for criminalising breaches of PPIs[127], although National Legal Aid suggested further consultation was needed.[128] The former government proposed measures to criminalise breaches of PPIs in 2017, but this did not proceed. Concerns were raised about the enforceability of PPIs under the proposal, including:

• the family law courts may set conditions in PPIs that are unenforceable by police or may prohibit behaviour that does not warrant police intervention
• police may need to undertake time-consuming reviews of family law court orders to determine if a condition warranting arrest has been breached, which would delay police responses
• PPIs are not issued in a format that is compatible with police information sharing systems.[129]
  69. AGD said ‘in the absence of certainty about the existence, enforceability and terms of a PPI, there was concern that police would not be able to take action to enforce a breach without a high risk of unlawful arrest.’[130]
  70. LCA noted that the family law courts' ability to make personal protection injunctions, pursuant to section 114 of the Act may be diminished by the operation of section 114AB. LCA said this section is ‘out of step with the contemporary needs of litigants’ and recommended:
• amending section 114AB of the Act to ensure that the FCFCOA is empowered to grant injunctions in circumstances where this is necessary
• establishing and resourcing a separate court list in the FCFCOA, dedicated to applications for injunctions, with the capacity to hold urgent hearings.[131]
  71. AGD noted that establishing a separate court list for PPIs would have significant resourcing implications, noting that a significant number of the matters filed with the family law courts could potentially involve the seeking of an urgent PPI. Furthermore, FCFCOA questioned the extent to which such a list would be practically useful in circumstances where the evidence relied upon for the PPI would almost always be relevant to the substantive issues before the court. FCFCOA advised it would normally hear and determine applications for interim parenting orders and PPIs together and that a separate court list may lead to delays.[132]
  72. There was support for making it easier to apply for PPIs.[133] Pilbara Community Legal Service suggested:
• the inclusion of prompts for victim-survivors seeking PPIs in the notice of risk form
• the family law courts be able to make PPIs where required, without victim-survivors needing to apply for them.[134]

Federal FVOs

3.73There was some support for legislative changes that would allow the family law courts to make federal FVOs[135], however it was noted that any such reform would require careful consideration and consultation to avoid unintended consequences.[136]

3.74The Committee heard that the state and territory courts are accessible in more locations and are generally better suited to making FVOs than the family law courts.[137] According to FCFCOA, this is because:

• there is existing state and territory infrastructure to deal with large volume of FVO applications in a wide range of locations
• FVOs are made under state and territory laws
• FVO applications require urgent action, which FCFCOA is less suited to deliver because it has a much wider scope of enquiry.[138]
  75. Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria (FCLCV) warned that a system of federal FVOs ‘… could lead to uncertainty around the appropriate jurisdiction, challenges with enforcement of federal FVOs and additional opportunities for forum shopping and systems abuse by people who use violence.’[139]
  76. The previous government introduced the Family Law Amendment (Federal Family Violence Orders) Bill 2021 in March 2021, however, the bill lapsed at the dissolution of the Parliament in April 2022. The Federal Family Violence Orders Bill would have amended the Act to establish new federal family violence orders which, if breached, could be criminally enforced. Key issues raised by stakeholders about the bill included:
• the lack of interim federal FVOs[140]
• complexities and inconsistencies between state and territory and federal orders
• concerns about the misidentification of perpetrators and systems abuse
• the workload, resourcing and training implications of the bill
• the role of and resourcing for Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs)
• the accessibility of federal FVOs for applicants based in regional and remote areas
• consultation on the bill.[141]

Accessing state and territory FVOs in the family law courts

3.77NWSA recommended piloting a co-location model that would streamline access to FVO applications, via a magistrate court registrar, on site at a FCFCOA registry. According to NWSA, this ‘would reduce administrative touch points for applicants, by removing the requirement to attend a state or territory magistrate’s court for application. It would also validate the inherent link between family court proceedings and the potential for an escalation of violence.’[142] NWSA said the pilot must occur alongside a national and real-time information sharing scheme and register.[143]

3.78However, FCFCOA was sceptical there would be any significant advantages in developing co-location arrangements between the courts.[144] Similarly, WLSA said there are limited circumstances where the co-location of courts would increase access to justice for victim-survivors and that a range of safeguards would need to be considered.[145]

3.79AGD noted that any proposal to physically co-locate state and federal court facilities would require agreement between the Australian and relevant state or territory governments, and facilities would need to meet the needs of court users along with the operational needs of the respective courts.[146]

Ensuring children are protected and their views represented safely

3.80It is important that children and young people are recognised as victim-survivors of FDSV. Family law proceedings can have devastating impacts on children, particularly if their wishes and feelings are not heard or acknowledged.[149] The family law courts have a responsibility to provide ways for children’s voices to be heard and considered in the making of decisions in a way that is safe and child-centred, in keeping with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[150]

3.81The previous chapter found there was a need for children to be better protected by FVOs, including by being recognised as primary victims of FDSV. Concerns were raised that there was a similar lack of recognition of children as victim-survivors of FDSV in the family law courts. Domestic Violence Advocacy Australia (DVAA) said that, where the family law courts fail to acknowledge children as victims in their own right, ‘it fails to afford them protections which should be laser-focussed on their welfare.’[151]

3.82Family and Relationship Services Australia (FRSA) said its child contact services are reporting increasing numbers of children who do not want to see the parent perpetrating the abuse, that they are frightened, and their fear has not been considered by the family law courts.[152]

3.83CSMC said registrars, judges and ICLs[153] are dismissive of the harmful impact of witnessing and experiencing FDSV on children and reported:

Many judges have referred in court to children as ‘resilient’, who ‘will get over it’, even as they make orders which are entirely contrary to the child’s desire and assessed wellbeing. This blindness extends to refusing to consider evidence from sources such as police, school reports, doctor's letters, or other professionals involved in the child's safety and well-being.[154]

3.84There are concerns that ICLs are inconsistently representing children’s voices, safety, wellbeing, and trauma for consideration in family law court decisions[155], and that the advice ICLs give to the court may not always reflect the child’s views and wishes.[156] CSMC provided an example from August 2024, where the court relied on the recommendation of an ICL to make unsafe parenting orders, despite the ICL having never spoken to the child.[157] This is despite changes to the Act that commenced in May 2024 requiring ICLs to meet with children to allow them to express their views.[158]

3.85FCLCV said that, ‘where an ICL is not appointed and the representation of the child’s view in a family report is inadequate, the court should consider other avenues for understanding the views of the child in a safe and child-centred way.’[159] FCLCV called for ‘robust monitoring and evaluation to assess the efficacy of recent legislative reforms in ensuring that children’s views and best interests are put before the court.’[160]

3.86There was support for establishing a new children’s advocate role in the family law courts. FRSA said that while it is now a legislative requirement for an ICL to meet with a child, the information the ICL presents to the court is their legal advice about what would be in the best interest of the child. By contrast, a children’s advocate would be a psychologist or a social worker who ‘would essentially be representing the views of the child and making those known to the court.’[161] FRSA noted that ICLs are already under enormous pressure and suggested that a children’s advocate could support the ICL role, be specifically trained and have an interest in working with children.[162]

3.87National Cabinet has agreed to new initiatives to support children and young people affected by FDSV. According to DSS, this includes:

• identifying gaps in supports for children and young people who have experienced or witnessed FDSV, to inform the design and implementation of new and revised initiatives and interventions
• a focus on First Nations children and young people through culturally safe consultation and expertise
• over $80million to enhance and expand child-centric trauma-informed supports for children and young people.[163]

Eliminating opportunities for systems abuse

3.88Systems abuse is a form of FDSV perpetrated during family law, FVO and other proceedings, where legal and administrative systems are manipulated to control, threaten or harass a current or former partner.[165] Systems abuse is a common form of coercive control[166] and undermines a victim-survivors’ ability to secure protection through FVOs and establish safe parenting arrangements.[167] As a consequence of systems abuse, the length and cost of proceedings is extended[168] and parenting orders are made that do not reflect the safety needs of victim-survivors and children.[169] CALD, First Nations and people with disability are more vulnerable to systems abuse.[170]

3.89Systems abuse takes many different forms and can involve a pattern of seemingly minor actions.[171] Tactics identified by Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS) include:

• exhausting women’s legal, financial and emotional resources
• pressuring victim-survivors to withdraw their FVOs
• non-compliance with court orders
• raising counter-allegations or unfounded applications in legal processes
• using legal processes to gain access to victim-survivor’s medical or therapeutic records to harass, threaten or inflict harm
• exploiting the intersections between family law, child protection and criminal legal systems to their advantage.[172]
  90. There are limited options for review of family law cases where there has been injustice, including because of systems abuse. Appeals in the family law courts are costly and involve family law court judges examining the work of their own colleagues. The only other avenue for appeal is the High Court, which has a high bar for entry and is prohibitively expensive.[173]
  91. The Committee heard that the current system, which can involve state and territory courts as well as the family law courts making decisions about family arrangements, provides too many opportunities for systems abuse.[174] Systems abuse was described as ‘entrenched and endemic’[175]and it was reported that perpetrators are playing the system on the basis that a breach in one jurisdiction will not be considered in another.[176]
  92. Some perpetrators seek legal advantage by deliberately engaging with multiple law firms and then claim a conflict of interest if the victim-survivor attempts to engage with the firm. This tactic, referred to as ‘conflicting out’ blocks access to legal representation and is particularly harmful for victim-survivors in rural or remote areas, where there are fewer firms to choose from.[177]
  93. Parenting orders provide opportunities for perpetrating systems abuse.[178] NWSA reported that parenting orders are ‘manipulated in ways that force the relocation of children despite FVOs being in place.’[179] This means that attempts by a victim-survivor to safely relocate from their perpetrator can be foiled as the latter ‘can apply for their return based on the existing parenting orders.’[180]
  94. Perpetrators of systems abuse often make vexatious applications with the aim of disrupting or prolonging proceedings, which increases the financial cost and trauma for victim-survivors[181] and may mean that legal support is discontinued before the end of proceedings.[182] Changes to the Act that took effect in May 2024 enabled the family law courts to make harmful proceedings orders, which complement existing provisions that allow for vexatious proceedings orders to be made. The aim of harmful proceedings orders is to restrict the filing and serving of new applications without obtaining prior leave of the court where there has been repeated filing of unmeritorious applications to harass or intimidate another party.[183] While there was support for this reform[184], the Committee heard it is too early to assess its effectiveness.[185]

Deny, attack, reverse victim offender

3.95As noted in the previous chapter, cross-allegations of violence are often used by perpetrators as way to continue their abuse[186] and can lead to FVOs being made that protect the perpetrator, rather than the victim-survivor.[187] The misidentification of victim-survivors as perpetrators is often the result of systems abuse.[188]

3.96Many of tactics of systems abuse used by perpetrators in the family law system are known as ‘deny, attack, reverse victim offender’, or ‘DARVO’.[189] For example, perpetrators can intentionally manipulate the family law system and undermine decision-makers’ ability to determine the primary aggressor. Manipulation can involve perpetrators injuring themselves, minimising their role in the incident, contacting police first and appearing calm in front of police[190], as well as applying for cross orders of protection and making false allegations of violence[191] and doctoring photos of injuries that are then presented as evidence.[192]

3.97Perpetrators will commonly enter a cross notice of risk in response to allegations of violence describing the victim-survivor as violent, an alienator, liar or mentally unwell.[193] Perpetrators will often claim victim-survivors are trying to block access to children and claims of parental alienation are a common form of systems abuse in the family law system.[194] Victim-survivors can be discouraged from reporting FDSV when legal representatives and judicial officers lend credibility to allegations of parental alienation.[195]

Financial abuse

3.98The Committee heard that male perpetrators of FDSV often have access to greater financial resources, such as a full time-job, than their former partners who are the primary carers of children. The perpetrator can afford a barrister or lawyer of choice and have the resources to prolong family law proceedings to control and inflict harm.[196]

3.99Perpetrator tactics, such as the late disclosure of documents, increase the legal costs of separation matters for victim-survivors. Perpetrators avoid making payments, for example to maintain the family home, and cut off access to shared financial resources without facing any consequences for doing so.[197] Financial abuse can result in an increased risk of homelessness for victim-survivors following separation. In 2021-22, 42 percent of specialist homelessness service clients identified as victim-survivors of family violence.[198] The financial abuse of migrant and refugee women may occur under the pretence of cultural practice.[199]

3.100Some suggestions for combatting financial abuse in the family law system include early identification of financial abuse, where significant income inequality is acknowledged as a risk factor, and measures to address the risk of financial abuse, such as:

• penalties and cost orders for dishonest disclosures and repeated delays in disclosure
• the appointment of a trustee and the maintenance of the financial status quo until family law matters are resolved
• the appointment of a forensic accountant to assist in determining spousal maintenance.[200]
  101. The intent of the Family Law Amendment Act 2024, which recently passed both Houses, is to better account for FDSV in the property decision-making framework and in spousal maintenance proceedings. The reforms aim to ensure that financial information is disclosed at the earliest opportunity to promote the early resolution of disputes, however these reforms are yet to commence.[201]
  102. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services recently concluded an inquiry into financial abuse. That committee examined the role of financial institutions in identifying and preventing financial abuse, the effectiveness of existing laws governing how the banks to deal with financial abuse, and potential areas for reform.[202]
  103. The Office for Women will be leading an audit of key Australian Government systems to identify areas where they are being weaponised by perpetrators of FDSV. The audit will initially focus on the child support and social security systems.[203]

Beliefs, attitudes and a lack of awareness that enable systems abuse

3.104Concerns were raised that some members of the judiciary and court staff, such as family report writers, have biases or inadequate knowledge about the dynamics and risks of FDSV[204], especially non-physical forms of abuse such as coercive control.[205] There may be harmful beliefs and attitudes that lead to unfavourable outcomes for female victim-survivors, including the belief that women and children lie about male violence.[206]

3.105A lack of understanding of FDSV and the risk of systems abuse can mean the family law courts fail to respond to risk and escalations in perpetrator behaviours, including the control of victims and the narratives of children.[207] For example, DVAA provided an analysis of 40 family law cases where violence was described as ‘situational’ in court judgements. ‘Situational violence’ is the idea that violence which occurs during a relationship is unlikely to continue after court orders are in place.[208] DVAA explained:

[FCFCOA Judges] …have described that [the abuse] only exists in the family home, that it's only when the husband and the wife or the parents are together. This has then led to contact being provided to the abuser of the children, and then this, in turn, has led to those children being used as vehicles of abuse for the abuser.[209]

3.106Some legal professionals may have deep-seated attitudes and beliefs about the behaviour of victim-survivors that influence legal proceedings.[210] Some may believe women make false or exaggerated claims of violence to gain a tactical advantage in family law proceedings. Research from 2012 found that concerns about false or exaggerated claims were more likely to be raised by lawyers in private practice, who were also more likely not to have undertaken family violence training and professional development.[211]

3.107This may be part of a broader cultural problem in the Australian community, which diminishes the credibility of victim-survivors.[212] NWSA said there is an ‘ingrained opinion in our culture [about FDSV] that women make up lies to destroy the lives of men’, which NSWA described as a ‘pervasive argument’ despite statistical research from ANROWS that demonstrates it is untrue.[213]

Continuing professional development for judicial and legal professionals

3.108There was strong support for requiring all judicial and legal professionals hearing or supporting FDSV matters in the state and territory and family law courts to undertake comprehensive, culturally safe, and trauma-informed continuing professional development (CPD) on the dynamics, complexities, identification and appropriate responses to FDSV, including systems abuse.[214]

3.109For example, ANROWS called for a national approach to legal workforce development, including a capacity-building service for judicial officers and other court staff.[215]

3.110According to stakeholders, education, training and professional development should:

• be evidence-informed[216], created and delivered by subject matter experts[217] and those with lived experience[218], and be regularly evaluated[219]
• include specific First Nations training which is designed and delivered in partnership with Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations[220], as well as specific training on the unique issues that migrant and refugee women experience.[221]
  111. While there were calls for mandated CPD for judicial officers, the Committee noted that the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers is set out in the Australian Constitution and means that, in interpreting and applying the law, judges must act independently and without interference from the Parliament or the Australian Government. Matters relating to the operation and administration of the courts, such as CPD requirements, adherence to best practice principles, conduct issues and the handling of complaints are matters for the courts.[222]
  112. There is significant work being undertaken by the Australian, state and territory governments to develop FDSV training for the courts and legal professionals in a nationally consistent way, however concerns were raised this has not yet been realised.[223]
  113. FCFCOA provides trauma-informed FDSV training for judicial officers, judges and staff[224], training on inclusive practice and cultural responsiveness when working with migrant and refugee communities, and First Nations communities[225], and provides guidance to support staff awareness and capability in addressing FDSV.[226] FCFCOA said that current training packages and guidelines all include comprehensive information on non-physical forms of FDSV, including coercive control.[227]Further training may require additional funding.[228]
  114. The Australian Government funds the National Judicial College of Australia which has been providing the Family Violence in the Court Training program to federal, state and territory judicial officers, including magistrates and tribunal members, since 2016, and supports the CPD of judicial officers.[229] As noted in the previous chapter, the Australian Government co-funds measures with the states and territories to strengthen the family safety competency of judicial officers, including the development and maintenance of the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book.[230] AGD is developing a national judicial officer training package (commenced in 2024), and a national justice sector education and training package on the nature and impacts of sexual assault.[231]
  115. As noted in the chapter two, a training program on coercive control is being developed for legal practitioners,[232] which will embed the National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence as a common national foundation for legal practitioners.[233]
  116. The requirement for specialist training, ongoing professional development and accreditation for lawyers working on FDSV matters is a matter for the relevant bodies in each state and territory.[234] The Australian Government is working with states and territories to improve legal practitioners’ capabilities in FDSV through CPD frameworks.[235]
  117. There was some scepticism that further training and guidance will eliminate beliefs and attitudes that hinder the recognition of FDSV and enable systems abuse in the family law system[236], and there were calls for broader reviews to be conducted into FCFCOA and FCWA’s handling of family law matters.[237]

Other measures to eliminate opportunities for systems abuse in the family law system

3.118Other measures that may eliminate opportunities for systems abuse in FDSV matters in the family law system include:

• implementing a screening tool that identifies systems abuse and developing specialised processes and interventions that enable the court to intervene to protect victim-survivors in high-risk matters involving systems abuse[238]
• amending the Act to clarify that systems abuse is family violence in section 4AB[239]
• supporting research into the extent and impacts of misidentification at the intersection of FVO and family law proceedings and designing measures to strengthen the early identification and response to systems abuse[240]
• implementing a national outcomes measurement framework to monitor the outcomes of the family law courts’ decisions to determine the impact on victim-survivors. This could include reviewing decisions for instances of systems abuse and misidentification.[241]

Committee comment

3.119Serious concerns have been raised that the family law system is unsafe for victim-survivors of FDSV and their children despite successive reforms to the way that the family law courts manage and respond to FDSV risk and share information with state and territory courts and agencies.

3.120The duration and cost of family law proceedings is a key barrier to safety and fairness for victim-survivors of FDSV. Further resources are needed to increase the family law courts’ capacity to expedite and prioritise all high-risk matters and, in doing so, reduce wait times, the risk of systems abuse, and overall costs for victim-survivors. Consideration should be given to reducing the cost of fees in FCFCOA, which can be a significant barrier for women fleeing abusive relationships with few financial resources.

3.121The Committee recognises that the cost of private legal representation in navigating the FVO and family law systems is a key barrier to safety and fairness for victim-survivors. However, it is outside the scope of this inquiry to consider whether caps on legal fees are justified and what the workforce implications of caps would be for legal services.

3.122Current programs to manage and respond to FDSV risk in FCFCOA, such as Lighthouse and the co-location program should be extended. Research is needed to identify if, when and how any re-screen should occur in Lighthouse. The Evatt List should be resourced to provide similar wraparound support in high-risk matters as the Special Indigenous List, including supporting parties to access services like FASS at court events held via videoconference or teleconference.

3.123The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Australian Government increase the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA)’s capacity to identify, respond and expedite high-risk FDSV and child abuse matters, including:

• reducing wait times and overall costs for victim-survivors
• extending Lighthouse and the co-location program
• enhancing the support provided in Evatt List matters
• supporting research into the circumstances where re-screening for FDSV risk in Lighthouse would be appropriate.
  124. The Committee supports the work of National Cabinet in developing a new national best practice family and domestic violence risk assessment principles and a model best practice risk assessment framework, and to extend and increase nationally consistent, information sharing between FCFCOA and state and territory courts, child protection, policing and firearms agencies. This work is necessary for creating a system where real-time information about FDSV risk is collected and shared consistently across the agencies and services that matter and is used to inform all decisions that risk the safety of victim-survivors of FDSV and children, and to provide a strong referral pathway. It is important that the risk assessment principles and framework address systems abuse and the abuse or risk of harm to animals. The goal should be establishing a live dashboard that all decision-makers in FDSV matters can access.

3.125The Committee recommends the Australian Government continue to lead the development and implementation of an enhanced national FDSV risk and information sharing framework, with the goal of establishing, in the next Parliament, a live dashboard that all decision-makers in FDSV and child abuse matters can access, noting:

• the information sharing framework should go beyond court-initiated orders and the self-disclosure of parties and include existing FVOs and breaches, criminal matters, child protection issues, family law orders, and other information relating to FDSV and child abuse risks
• the risk assessment principles and framework must address systems abuse and the abuse or risk of harm to animals, and provide strong referral pathways
• consideration should be given to expanding information-sharing beyond current information-sharing protocols, with appropriate safeguards.
  126. The Committee received concerning evidence that courts do not always have adequate safety planning and safety and security measures to minimise risk to victim-survivors of FDSV. Victim‑survivors should not have to face their perpetrators at court, and opportunities to attend a court appointment remotely must be consistently applied where there are safety concerns. Further resourcing is needed to enhance the safety and accessibility of all court rooms, particularly outside of the major city centres.

3.127The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Australian Government introduce measures to improve the safety of victim-survivors of FDSV at court during family law proceedings, including:

• ensuring victim-survivors can attend court appointments remotely where there are safety concerns
• meeting accessibility requirements for people with disability
• ensure court facilities have adequate safe rooms, safe zones and security staff
• enhanced protocols and training about safety planning for victim-survivors of FDSV.
  128. Further work is needed to ensure the family law courts and Lighthouse are accessible for CALD people, those with low digital literacy and access, and people living with disability. Court staff must be available to support individuals with low English and/or digital literacy to complete relevant online forms such as the Lighthouse triage tool. Interpreters must be provided when they are needed to ensure safety and procedural fairness. Further resources are required to ensure court information is accessible and translated into key languages.
  129. There is a need to increase the number of IFLO positions to ensure all First Nations families receive targeted support, and potential benefits in establishing Cultural Liaison Officer (CLO) and Disability Liaison Officer (DLO) positions in the family law jurisdiction.

3.130The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the AustralianGovernment introduce measures to improve the accessibility of FCFCOA proceedings and the support provided to vulnerable groups, including:

• supporting individuals with low English and/or digital literacy to complete relevant online forms such as the Lighthouse triage tool and to fully engage in court proceedings, including:

• access to interpreters when needed to ensure safety and procedural fairness
• the translation of information resources into key languages

• expanding the number of Indigenous Family Liaison Officer positions to meet demand
• piloting and evaluating Disability Liaison Officer and Cultural Liaison Officer positions within the family law jurisdiction.
  131. There is a need to address the fragmentation associated with victim-survivors having to navigate two separate court systems for FVOs and parenting orders. Yet, the state and territory courts already deal with a high volume of FVO matters and are accessible in more places than the family law courts. There may be merit in piloting the co-location of a magistrates court registrar at a FCFCOA registry to assist with FVO applications. However, there is limited evidence this would greatly improve access to FVOs.
  132. Improving connections between existing elements in the two systems was overwhelmingly supported by stakeholders and should remain the highest priority at this time to address system fragmentation. This includes improvements in how risk is identified and responded to, the information that is shared and the supports provided to victim-survivors and children, which are examined in the next chapter.
  133. The family law courts already have the capacity to make orders for the protection of victim-survivors, although PPIs are currently ineffective and largely unenforceable. There are concerns about the workability, enforceability and accessibility of proposals to introduce federal FVOs.
  134. Section 114AB of the Act should be amended to ensure that family law courts are empowered to make PPIs where necessary to protect victim-survivors and children. Establishing a separate court list to deal with PPIs in FCFCOA may be unnecessary and unworkable, however additional resourcing for the family law courts may need to be considered to address potential increases in workload associated with any increase in PPI applications. While the Committee supports breaches of PPIs being made a criminal offence, further work is needed to resolve enforceability issues.

3.135The Committee recommends that, during the next Parliament, the Australian Government amend section 114AB of the Family Law Act 1975 to ensure that the family law courts are empowered to make personal protection injunctions (PPIs) where necessary to protect victim-survivors and children.

3.136The Australian Government should work with the states and territories to resolve enforceability issues and consider developing amendments to the Act that criminalise breaches of PPIs.

3.137It is too early to tell whether recent reforms to the Act that codify requirements for ICLs will improve the protection of children and ensure their views are represented as victim-survivors of FDSV in their own right. The Committee supports piloting and evaluating a children’s advocate role to support ICLs and ensure children have their voices heard.

3.138The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Australian Government pilot and evaluate a children’s advocate position in FCFCOA to support Independent Children’s Lawyers and ensure children’s voices are heard during parenting matters.

3.139Evidence to this inquiry shows that systems abuse in FDSV matters in all jurisdictions is rife. There is a need for a holistic approach to eliminate opportunities for systems abuse, and this has been recognised by the Australian Government through reforms to the Act and other measures. However, it is too early to tell how effective the family law courts’ new power to make harmful proceedings orders, and reforms to address financial abuse, will be. The audit being led by the Office for Women will identify how the social security and child support systems are being weaponised by perpetrators of FDSV. The findings of the inquiry into financial abuse will be important for making sure the banks better identify and prevent financial abuse.

3.140The Committee acknowledges the commitment of many police, lawyers and barristers, court staff, registrars, magistrates and judges to delivering safe and fair outcomes for victim-survivors of FDSV, and the pressure they are under. Their decisions in FDSV matters can save lives and empower victim-survivors but can also put victim-survivors and children at further risk. Low levels of awareness and harmful attitudes and beliefs about the dynamics of FDSV, particularly coercive control, by some individuals in key roles undermine the purpose of legislative reforms that seek to put safety at the heart of every family law decision and enable systems abuse.

3.141There is already training and guidance available to build capacity in the justice and legal systems. However, more needs to be done. Coercive control, animal abuse and the many tactics of legal and financial systems abuse must be better recognised as FDSV by the courts, police and legal services.

3.142There is a need to better address financial abuse, and this is recognised by the important reforms to the Act that passed both houses in November 2024. These reforms will mean that, for the first time, FDSV can be considered by the family law courts in financial and property decisions and will help ensure timely disclosure of financial information. It is too early to tell if these changes will reduce financial abuse in the family law system, however comprehensive training on the reforms will be needed to better enable the family law courts to identify financial abuse early.

3.143The Committee recognises that training requirements for judges, magistrates and court staff is a matter for the courts. The Australian Government’s role is to support the development of high-quality resources and training for the courts.

3.144The Australian Government should continue to work with the relevant state and territory legal bodies in developing high-quality CPD frameworks, however the goal of this work must be to mandate CPD for all legal professionals engaged in FVO and family law matters.

3.145The Committee recommends that, in the next Parliament, the Australian Government lead the development and implementation of a package of reforms to eliminate opportunities for systems abuse in the family law and state and territory FVO systems. Development of the reforms should consider:

• evaluating the effectiveness of recent reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 and whether further changes are needed, for example clarifying that systems abuse is family violence in section 4AB
• developing comprehensive, culturally safe, and trauma-informed training and resources for judicial officers and legal professionals on the dynamics, complexities, identification and appropriate responses to FDSV, including financial and legal systems abuse and animal abuse, that:

• is created and delivered by subject matter experts and those with lived experience and be regularly evaluated
• includes specific First Nations training which is designed and delivered in partnership with Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations, as well as specific training on the unique issues that migrant and refugee women experience

• implementing mandatory continuing professional development for all legal professionals engaged in FVO and family law matters
• establishing a capacity-building service for judicial officers and other court staff
• implementing a screening tool that identifies systems abuse and unmeritorious applications, and developing specialised processes and interventions that enable courts to intervene to protect victim-survivors in high-risk matters involving systems abuse
• conducting research into the extent and impacts of misidentification at the intersection of FVO and family law proceedings and designing measures to strengthen the early identification and response to systems abuse
• implementing a national outcomes measurement framework to monitor the outcomes of the family law courts’ decisions to determine the impact on victim-survivors. This could include reviewing decisions for instances of systems abuse and misidentification.

Footnotes

[1]Law Council of Australia (LCA), Submission 67, page 5; Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA), Submission69, page10; Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), Submission52, page 7; DrRachelCarson, ExecutiveManager, Family Law, Family Violence and Elder Abuse Research Program, AIFS, CommitteeHansard, 23August2024, page 5; Mr Nick Tebbey, NationalExecutive Director, RelationshipsAustralia, CommitteeHansard, 23 August 2024, page 35; UnitingVic. Tas, Submission 65, page 9.

[2]AIFS, Submission 52, page 7.

[3]LCA, Submission 67, page 10.

[4]Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC), Submission 37, page 3.

[5]Ms Lara Glasson, Director and Secretary, Domestic Violence Advocacy Australia (DVAA), CommitteeHansard, 23 August 2024. page 14.

[6]Some of the key weaknesses in the family law system that were identified by stakeholders, such as the misidentification of victim-survivors as perpetrators and systems abuse, reflect weaknesses in the state and territory justice systems and were discussed in the previous chapter.

[7]Ms Andi Sebastian, Communication and Policy Coordinator, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 21.

[8]Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry, Submission 66, page 4.

[9]Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS), Submission 62, page 9; MsEmma Husar, Chair and Founder, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 18; Federation of Community Legal Centres Vic. (FCLCV), Submission 79, page 14; Peninsula Community Legal Centre (PCLC), Submission 77, page 8; WLSA, Submission 69, page 5.

[10]The importance of legal and other supports for victim-survivors is examined further in the next chapter.

[11]Mr Matthew Taylor, Secretary and Board Member, Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland (FLPA), CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, page 18.

[12]FLPA, Submission 12, page 3.

[13]Name withheld, Submission 82, page11.

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

[15]South-East Monash Legal Service (SMLS), Submission 80, page 9.

[16]WLSA, Submission 69, page 3; Mr Harry McDonald, Board Member, FLPA, Committee Hansard, 30August2024, page 18.

[17]Ms Sebastian, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 21.

[18]Ms Sebastian, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 21.

[19]Ms Husar, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 23.

[20]Ms Glasson, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 24.

[21]Ms Cleona Feuerring, Legal Director, Family Violence and Family Law Program, Westjustice, CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, pages 27-28.

[22]Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), Family law fees, www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fl/fees/fl-fees, accessed 3December 2024. A reduced filing fee of $365 for divorce is available for concession card holders and where applicants can demonstrate financial hardship.

[23]Name withheld, Submission 82, page 5.

[24]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 13.

[25]Mr Taylor, FLPA, Committee Hansard, 30 August 2024, page 18.

[26]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 8.

[27]WLSA, Submission 69, page 3.

[28]About three per cent of separated parents use courts as their main pathway to resolving parenting arrangements, while 16 per cent are assisted by family dispute resolution services or lawyers. See: Attorney-General’s Department (AGD), Submission 15, page 4.

[29]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 8.

[30]FCFCOA, Submission 54, pages 2 and 8. Most of these matters involved multiple, different risk factors being alleged by one or both of the parties and 70 percent involve four of more of such risk factors.

[31]Family Law Act 1975, sections 67Z, 67ZBA and 69ZQ(1)(aa).

[32]FCFCOA, Notice of child abuse, family violence or risk, www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fl/forms/notice-cafvor, accessed 30 October 2024; Family Court of Western Australia (FCWA), Notice of child abuse and family violence (or risk) — form 4, www.familycourt.wa.gov.au/ _files/Forms/Form_4_Notice_Child_Abuse_Family_Violence.pdf, accessed 30 October 2024.

[33]Protective Collective, Submission 92, page 2; Nerang Neighbourhood Centre, Submission 3, page 7. Theimportance of legal representation for victim-survivors is examined further in the next chapter.

[34]Protective Collective, Submission 92, page 2.

[35]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 2.

[36]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 1.

[37]FCFCOA, Submission 54, pages 1 and 3.

[38]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 1.

[39]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 2.

[40]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 4.

[41]FCFCOA, Annual Report 2022-23, page 16.

[42]FCFCOA, Annual Report 2022-23, page 16.

[43]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 3.

[44]AGD, Submission 15, page 9.

[45]CSMC, Submission 37, page 2.

[46]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 5.

[47]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, pages 2-3.

[48]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, pages 3-4.

[49]WLSA, Submission 69, page 8.

[50]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [13]

[51]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [14]

[52]WLSA, Submission 69, page 12.

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

[54]Lucy’s Project, Submission 47, page 2; FCLCV, Submission 79, page27.

[55]Ms Claire Crawford, Director, Information Sharing Section, Family and Community Safety Branch, AGD, Committee Hansard, 11October2024, page 15.

[56]Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88.1, page 5.

[57]Ms Kylie Maj, Director General, Western Australian Department of Justice, Committee Hansard, 11October2024, page 6.

[58]AGD, National Strategic Framework for Information Sharing between the Family Law and Family Violence and Child Protection Systems (National Framework) May 2023. The National Framework was endorsed by all Australian, state and territory Attorneys-General in November 2021.

[59]AGD, Submission 15, page 7.

[60]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [15].

[61]AGD, Submission 15, page 7.

[62]LCA, Submission 67, page 16.

[63]AGD, Submission 15.1, pages 14-15.

[64]LCA, Submission 67, page 15.

[65]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 28. See also: Name withheld, Submission 82, page 7.

[66]FCWA, Submission 10, page 5.

[67]Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88.1, page 2.

[68]National Women’s Safety Alliance (NWSA), Submission 50, page 5.

[69]LCA, Submission 67, page 15.

[70]LCA, Submission 67, page 15.

[71]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 10.

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

[73]Data and digital ministers’ meetings are chaired by the Finance Minister and include ministerial representation from all Australian states and territories, and New Zealand. The meetings provide a forum to progress cross-government collaboration on data and digital transformation. See: Department of Finance, Data and Digital Ministers Meeting, www.finance.gov.au/government/public-data/data-and-digital-ministers-meeting, accessed 11 December 2024.

[74]Department of Finance, Data and Digital Ministers Meeting Communiqué, 21 June 2024.

[75]AGD, Family law information sharing, www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/families/family-law-information-sharing, accessed 4 July 2024. The Co-location Pilot has been independently evaluated. See: AGD,Co-location Pilot Evaluation – Final Report, August 2023.

[76]AGD, Family law information sharing, www.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/families/family-law-information-sharing, accessed 4 July 2024.

[77]LCA, Submission 67, page 16; Relationships Australia (Submission 7, page 4) called for the co-location program to be funded as an ongoing element of the family law system.

[78]Tasmanian Government, Submission 51, page 3.

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

[80]Bayside Peninsula Integrated Family Violence Partnership and the Southern Melbourne Family Violence Regional Integration Committee (BPIFVP and SMFVRIC), Submission 41, page 14; Uniting Vic. Tas, Submission 54, page 7; Ms Husar, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 22; DVAA, Submission38, page 2; Name withheld, Submission82, page 3; MsKaren Bevan, ChiefExecutive Officer, Full Stop Australia, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 22; ANROWS, Submission 62, page 4.

[81]LCA, Submission 67, pages 15-16; WLSA, Submission 69, pages 6-8; Ms Bernadette Grandinetti, Acting Associate Director, Family Law, Victoria Legal Aid, Committee Hansard, 30 August 2024, page 6; FCLCV, Submission 79, pages 5 and8; National Legal Aid, Submission 61, page 5; NWSA, Submission 50, pages5-6; DVAA, Submission 38, pages 5-6; InTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, pages 8 and 27; SMLS, Submission 80, page 14.

[82]Mrs Meaghan Bradshaw, Chair, Family Law and Domestic and Family Violence Committee, WLSA, Committee Hansard, 30 August 2024, page 2.

[83]NWSA, Submission 50, pages 5-6.

[84]NWSA, Submission 50, page 6.

[85]Uniting Vic. Tas., Submission 65, page 7; Ms Bevan, Full Stop Australia, Committee Hansard, 23August2024, page 22; Ms Bronwyn Pike, Chief Executive Officer, Uniting Vic. Tas., Committee Hansard, 23August2024, page 36; GenWest, Submission 91, page 3; NameWithheld, Submission 82, page 3; BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 6, DVAA, Submission 38.1, page 1. See also: VictorianGovernment, Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework, www.vic.gov.au/family-violence-multi-agency-risk-assessment-and-management, accessed 22November2024.

[86]Uniting Vic. Tas., Submission 65, page 6. See: RoyalCommission into Family Violence, Summary and Recommendations, Parliamentary Paper No. 132 (2014-16), Victoria,March 2016, page 46.

[87]WLSA, Submission 69, page 4; Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page 16.

[88]Ms Husar, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 22.

[89]Ms Jaquie Palavra, Executive Member, Family Law Section, LCA, CommitteeHansard, 30 August 2024, pages 6-7.

[90]Ms Palavra, LCA, Committee Hansard, 30 August 2024, pages 6-7.

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

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

[93]The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, PrimeMinister of Australia, ‘Meeting of National Cabinet’, Media release, 6September 2024.

[94]The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, PrimeMinister of Australia, ‘Meeting of National Cabinet’, Media release, 6September 2024.

[95]PCLC, Submission 77, page 9

[96]PCLC, Submission 77, page 9; Victoria Legal Aid, Submission 40, page [11].

[97]BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 9; PCLC, Submission 77, page9; Victoria Legal Aid, Submission 40, page [11].

[98]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 20.

[99]PCLC, Submission 77, page 9.

[100]BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 9.

[101]BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 9.

[102]PCLC, Submission 77, page 9; BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page9.

[103]inTouch Women’s Legal Centre, Submission 84, page 8.

[104]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 4.

[105]WLSA, Submission 69, page 6; FCLCV, Submission 79, pages 12-13.

[106]WLSA, Submission 69, page 8.

[107]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 1.

[108]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 1.

[109]LCA, Submission 67, page 25.

[110]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 2.

[111]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 1.

[112]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 5.

[113]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 4.

[114]AGD, Submission 15, page 9.

[115]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 5.

[116]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 5.

[117]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 6.

[118]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, pages 5-6.

[119]LCA, Submission 67, page 5; WLSA, Submission 69, page10; AIFS, Submission52, page 7; DrCarson, AIFS, CommitteeHansard, 23August2024, page 5; Mr Tebbey, RelationshipsAustralia, CommitteeHansard, 23 August 2024, page 35; UnitingVic. Tas, Submission 65, page 9.

[120]Feminist Legal Clinic Inc, Submission 76, page 2.

[121]National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Alliance, Submission 60, page 11.

[122]Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS), Submission 81, page 8.

[123]WLSA, Submission 69, page 10.

[124]See, for example, Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88, page 2. Personal protection injunctions (PPIs) are not commonly made by FCWA and it is rare that an order for a PPI is sought by a party. See: Attorney-General of Western Australia, Submission 88.1, page 8. FCFCOA were unable to provide information on the number of PPIs sought or made during family law proceedings. See: AGD, Submission 15.1, page [6].

[125]South Australia Police, Submission 59, page 2; WLSA, Submission 69, page 10.

[126]South Australia Police, Submission 59, page 2.

[127]Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, Submission 72, page 8.

[128]National Legal Aid (NLA), Submission 61, page 8.

[129]AGD, Submission 15, page 13; AGD, Submission 15.1, page [21].

[130]AGD, Submission 15, pages 13-14.

[131]LCA, Submission 67, page 34.

[132]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [12].

[133]NLA, Submission 61, page 8; Pilbara Community Legal Service (PCLS), Submission 78, page9.

[134]PCLS, Submission 78, page 9.

[135]Relationships Australia, Submission 7, page 22.

[136]Westjustice, Submission 68, pages 8-9; WLSA, Submission 69, pages 13-14.

[137]Mr McDonald, FLPA, Committee Hansard, 30August 2024, page 13; FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 4.

[138]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 4.

[139]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 16.

[140]The bill would only have allowed for final FVOs to be made, which could mean delays for victim-survivors requiring immediate assistance. See: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiryinto the Family Law Amendment (Federal Family Violence Orders) Bill 2021, July 2021, page 8.

[141]Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Family Law Amendment (Federal Family Violence Orders) Bill 2021, July 2021, page 7. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended the bill be passed, subject to further consideration and safeguards, however the bill did not proceed. Additional comments from Labor and Australian Greens Senators (pages33 and 41) argued that proper consultation with stakeholders was not conducted in developing the bill.

[142]NWSA, Submission 50, page 5.

[143]NWSA, Submission 50, page 6.

[144]FCFCOA, Submission 54, page 6.

[145]WLSA, Submission 69, page 14.

[146]AGD, Submission 15, page 12.

[147]CSMC, Submission 37, page 8.

[148]Ms Sebastian, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 15.

[149]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 25.

[150]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 25; Dr Georgina Dimopoulos, Submission 58, page 1; United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 1989.

[151]DVAA, Submission 38.1, page 2.

[152]Dr Robyn Clough, Manager, Policy and Research, Family and Relationship Services Australia (FRSA), Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 32.

[153]Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs) are appointed upon an order of the court to represent the best interests of the child in family law proceedings. ICLs are often appointed in matters where there are allegations of FDSV or other forms of maltreatment or risks to the child. See: AGD, Submission 15,pages9-10.

[154]CSMC, Submission 37, pages 7-8.

[155]BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 10; CSMC, Submission 37, page 9.

[156]Mrs Jacqueline Brady, Executive Director, FRSA, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 31.

[157]Ms Sebastian, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 15.

[158]FCFCOA, Guidelines for Independent Children's Lawyers, October 2024, page 5.

[159]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 25.

[160]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 25.

[161]Mrs Brady, FRSA, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 30.

[162]Dr Clough, FRSA, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 32.

[163]Department of Social Services (DSS), Submission 16.1, pages 4-5.

[164]Name withheld, Submission 85, page 2.

[165]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 14.

[166]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 9.

[167]FCLSV, Submission 79, page 14.

[168]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 9; Ms Husar, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 18; FCLCV, Submission 79, page 14; Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Submission 77, page 8; WLSA, Submission 69, page 5.

[169]Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page 9-10.

[170]DVConnect, Submission 56, page 8.

[171]Ms Husar, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 18.

[172]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 9.

[173]DVAA, Submission 38.1, page 2.

[174]Westjustice, Submission 68, page 5.

[175]Uniting Vic. Tas, Submission 65, page 10.

[176]Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre, Submission 39, page 5.

[177]Name withheld, Submission 82.1, page 4.

[178]VALS, Submission 81, page 9; Fitzroy Legal Service, Submission 44, page 7.

[179]NWSA, Submission 50, page 4.

[180]NWSA, Submission 50, page 5.

[181]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 14; Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Submission 77, page 8.

[182]WLSA, Submission 69, page 5.

[183]AGD, Submission 15, page 6.

[184]Uniting Vic. Tas, Submission 65, page 10; Safe and Equal, Submission 83, page 10; Westjustice, Submission68, page 5; FCLCV, Submission 79, page 14.

[185]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 14; Uniting Vic. Tas, Submission 65, page 10.

[186]SMLS, Submission 80, page 7; AIFS, Submission 52, page 4.

[187]FRSA, Submission 83, page 3.

[188]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 9.

[189]CSMC, Exhibit 1, page 2; Sisters in Law Project, Submission 87, page3; Protective Collective, Submission92, page 2.

[190]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 9.

[191]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 10.

[192]Ms Glasson, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 18.

[193]Protective Collective, Submission 92, page 2.

[194]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 15; Ms Sebastian, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page16.

[195]FCLCV, Submission 79, page 15.

[196]Uniting Vic. Tas., Submission 65, page 12; BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 12.

[197]DVAA, Submission 38, page 8.

[198]Northern Community Legal Centre, Submission 75, page 8.

[199]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 10.

[200]DVAA, Submission 38, page 2.

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

[202]Senator Deborah O’Neill and Ms Zaneta Mascarenhas MP, ‘New inquiry into financial abuse in Australia’, Media release, 4 April 2024.

[203]DSS, Submission 16.1, pages 4-5.

[204]Ms Glasson, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 15; Sisters in Law Project, Submission 87, page 4; Confidential, Submission 17; Confidential, Submission 22; Confidential, Submission30; Confidential, Submission32; Confidential, Submission 33; Name withheld, Submission 43, page 3; Confidential, Submission 90.

[205]DVAA, Submission 38, page 3; Name withheld, Submission 85, page 4-5; Confidential, Submission 24; Confidential, Submission27; Confidential, Submission 31.

[206]Protective Collective, Submission 92, pages 1, 9-11.

[207]BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission 41, page 10.

[208]DVAA, Submission 38.1, page 2. See also: SMLS, Submission 80, page8.

[209]Ms Glasson, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 20.

[210]Relationships Australia, Submission 7, page 16.

[211]AIFS, Submission 52, page 8.

[212]Ms Sebastian, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 23August 2024, page 16; Ms Bevan, Full Stop Australia, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 17.

[213]Ms Katherine Berney, Executive Director, NSWA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, pages 10-11.

[214]Fitzroy Legal Service, Submission44, page 4;BPIFVP and SMFVRIC, Submission41, page 5; PCLC, Submission 77, page 3; VALS, Submission 81, page 7; FCLCV, Submission79, page 14, 15; Ms Berney, NSWA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 11; CSMC, Submission 37, page 10; FRSA, Submission53, page 3; Relationships Australia, Submission 7, page 17;Ms Bevan, FullStop Australia, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 17; NLA, Submission 61, page [7]; ANROWS, Submission 62, page 4; Mrs Bradshaw, WLSA, Committee Hansard, 30August 2024, page 1; Dr Carson, AIFS, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 4.

[215]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 4.

[216]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 4.

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

[218]FCLCV, Submission79, page 13-14; NLA, Submission 61, page [7].

[219]NLA, Submission 61, page [7]; FCLCV, Submission79, page 14.

[220]Aboriginal Legal Service NSW ACT Limited, Submission 86, page 2.

[221]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 11.

[222]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, pages 6-9 and 12-14.

[223]NLA, Submission 61, page [7].

[224]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 6.

[225]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 8.

[226]FCFCOA, Submission54.1, page 9.

[227]FCFCOA, Submission 54.1, page 7.

[228]FCFCOA, Submission54.1, page 9.

[229]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [10-11].

[230]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [11].

[231]AGD, Submission15.1, page [10].

[232]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [10].

[233]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [11].

[234]AGD, Submission15.1, page [11].

[235]AGD, Submission 15.1, page [11].

[236]Ms Husar, DVAA, Committee Hansard, 23 August 2024, page 21.

[237]Protective Collective, Submission 92, pages 7-9; Dr Miles Sowden, Submission 93, page 2.

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

[239]Redfern Legal Centre’s Financial Abuse Service NSW, Submission 36, page 3.

[240]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 4.

[241]ANROWS, Submission 62, page 15.