Obligations on state and territory courts making protection orders

16.128 The previous section of this chapter focused on the ability of state and territory magistrates courts to make or amend parenting orders. This section examines the obligations on magistrates when making protection orders, and the extent to which they must take account of current or pending family law orders.

Relevant considerations when making a protection order

16.129 The family violence legislation in all jurisdictions requires courts to consider relevant parenting orders or arrangements when making or varying final or interim protection orders.[130] Some family violence legislation requires the court to consider whether contact between the person protected by the order, or the person against whom an order is made, and a child, is relevant to the making or variation of the order.[131] Other provisions require a court to consider any relevant family law order.[132]

16.130 The Kearney McKenzie Report noted some concerns that such provisions, by requiring a magistrate to consider a parenting order, may lead a court to use the existence of a parenting order to justify not making a protection order. The report stated that:

it is important to remember that State and Territory family violence proceedings are not about ensuring children have contact with both parents; they are about protecting women and children who are at risk of violence at the hands of the respondent.[133]

16.131 The Victorian legislation takes a more prescriptive approach than the legislation in other jurisdictions. The Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) requires the court to decide whether or not it will jeopardise the safety of the child or the protected person for the child to spend time or communicate with the respondent to the protection order.[134] If there is no family law order in place, and the court decides there is no risk to safety, then the court must include conditions in the protection order that arrangements for the child to live with, spend time or communicate with the respondent are to be negotiated and put in writing.[135] If there is a risk to the safety of the child or the protected person the court must include a condition in the protection order prohibiting the respondent from living with, spending time or communicating with the child.[136]

16.132 As noted above, the Victorian legislation also requires the court to exercise its powers under s 68R of the Family Law Act to revive, vary, discharge or suspend inconsistent parenting orders.[137] The Commissions note that the majority of protection order proceedings are heard by a magistrates court when there are no family law orders in place, so the circumstances in which a magistrates court would be asked to vary a current parenting order are not common.

16.133 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions expressed the view that, while state and territory judicial officers should be aware of, and consider, any parenting orders in order to ensure the orders are consistent, judicial officers should not feel obliged to defer to pre-existing parenting orders where they have the potential to jeopardise the safety of victims of family violence. Where necessary, judicial officers should consider exercising powers under s 68R of the Family Law Act to make, revive, vary, discharge or suspend an inconsistent parenting order.

16.134 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions expressed the view that there should be a clear policy that state and territory courts hearing protection order proceedings should not significantly lower the standard of protection afforded by a protection order for the purpose of facilitating consistency with a current parenting order. The Commissions asked whether this should be put in legislation or as guidance in relevant court bench books.[138]

Submissions and consultations

16.135 All stakeholders who commented on this proposal agreed that state and territory courts hearing protection order proceedings should not significantly lower the standard of protection afforded by a protection order for the purpose of facilitating consistency with a current parenting order.[139]

16.136 Some stakeholders submitted that a legislative provision of this kind is necessary to ensure that state and territory courts make the orders that are necessary and appropriate for the protection of victims of family violence.[140] For example, the Queensland Commissioner for Children submitted that:

protection order proceedings need to maintain a protective focus to prevent confusion. Clarity of legislative focus is important to prevent state or territory courts feeling pressured to lower the standard of protection required in an attempt to achieve consistency with a parenting order or to avoid having to vary it.[141]

16.137 The Law Council of Australia agreed conditionally with the proposal, noting that the court should allow an applicant to request that the protection order does not affect certain matters relating to parenting. In addition, the Law Council submitted that ‘state and territory courts should also be entitled to infer that courts issuing parenting orders have adequately dealt with issues of family violence when making those orders’.[142]

16.138 Some stakeholders considered that this principle should be included in legislation,[143] because a legislative provision is a stronger requirement than guidance in bench books,[144] while other stakeholders preferred that the principle be included as guidance in court bench books.[145] A number of stakeholders submitted that it would be beneficial if the principle was included both in legislation and as guidance in bench books.[146] Women’s Legal Services NSW supported both approaches and submitted that while guidance alone was unlikely to be sufficient, guidance would be quicker and easier to implement.[147] Some stakeholders considered that training and support for judicial officers and legal practitioners was also important in changing the culture in state and territory courts.[148]

16.139 A number of submissions noted that, in order for a provision of this kind to be effective, it is also necessary to improve the exercise of the power under s 68R by state and territory courts to amend parenting orders.[149]

Commissions’ views

16.140 In the Commissions’ view, magistrates courts should consider existing parenting orders to identify any inconsistencies between them and protection orders they propose to make. However, the consideration of parenting order conditions should not cause a state or territory court to lower the standard of protection afforded by the protection order for the purpose of facilitating consistency with the parenting order. Instead, courts faced with making a protection order that is inconsistent with a parenting order should consider whether to make, revive, vary, discharge or suspend the parenting order in accordance with s 68R of the Family Law Act, amended as recommended in this chapter.

16.141 Accordingly, the Commissions recommend that state and territory family violence legislation should provide that courts should not significantly diminishr the standard of protection afforded by a protection order for the purpose of facilitating consistency with a parenting order.

16.142 The Commissions acknowledge that, while the practices of state and territory magistrates courts vary, there is a widespread view in the community that some state and territory courts exercising jurisdiction under family violence legislation regularly defer to family law orders. Later in this chapter, the Commissions discuss the importance of providing training and education to judicial officers and the development of materials for inclusion in a bench book to assist judicial officers dealing with matters that raise issues of family violence. As recommended below, bench books should include guidance about the relevant considerations and options available when making protection orders that are inconsistent with current family law orders.

Recommendation 16–6 State and territory family violence legislation should provide that courts not significantly diminish the standard of protection afforded by a protection order for the purpose of facilitating consistency with a parenting order.

Exceptions for court-ordered contact with a child

16.143 Some protection orders prohibit a person from communicating with the person protected by the order or approaching or entering particular premises where the person protected lives or works. Protection orders of this kind often include an exception for contact required or authorised by an order made under the Family Law Act. Sometimes, protection orders are made with an exception for ‘child contact’, which encompasses contact with a child where there are no formal arrangements for how contact is to occur between a violent parent and a child. Including an exception of this kind has the potential to compromise the safety of victims of family violence and children, because a person who has used violence may contact and harass the victim on the pretext of spending time with the child.[150]

16.144 Including an exception for court-ordered contact has the potential to compromise the safety of victims of family violence and their children, particularly when family violence has arisen after family law orders have been made, or when the family court has made interim orders and not yet fully considered allegations of family violence.

16.145 In addition, by including an exception for court-ordered contact in a protection order, formal inconsistency between a protection order and a family law order will never arise. In these circumstances, the provisions that require a federal family court to specify and address the inconsistency do not apply.[151] The Kearney McKenzie Report noted that:

if the Family Court is satisfied that whatever order it makes is not going to be inconsistent with the family violence order and does not consider the violence issue, the outcome may well be that woman and children are left unprotected. This is particularly so at the interim stage because the Court does not have a lot of information. It is not enough merely to eliminate inconsistency; contact orders must not expose people to violence.[152]

16.146 One way to minimise the potential for exceptions in protection orders to lead to a gap in the protection of victims of family violence is for courts exercising family law jurisdiction to consider the issue of family violence, not just issues of inconsistency, as required by the Family Law Act.[153] This issue is discussed in Chapter 17.

16.147 However, there is also a concern that state and territory courts exercising jurisdiction under family violence legislation automatically include an exception for court-ordered contact whenever there are family law orders relating to children, or where such orders are pending. In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions discussed some reforms to encourage courts to apply an exception for court-ordered contact only where appropriate.

16.148 One option is to ensure that application forms include an option for applicants to indicate their preference that there should be no exception in the protection order for contact required or authorised by a parenting order.[154]

16.149 All application forms for protection orders include an option for applicants to indicate that they seek the protection order to prohibit a person from contacting them. In most jurisdictions, the application forms allow the applicant to select an exception to this prohibition. For example, the Tasmanian application form allows the applicant to select from a range of conditions that the person ‘not approach [the applicant] directly or indirectly including by telephone, email, facsimile or letter’. Applicants can then choose whether to seek an exception ‘for the purpose of contact with the children named above as agreed or as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction’.[155] Most other jurisdictions take a similar approach.

16.150 In Victoria, the Information for an Application for an Intervention Order form takes a different approach, and asks whether the applicant does or does not believe that the applicant’s own safety, or that of the children will be jeopardised by the children living with, spending time with or communicating with the respondent.[156]

16.151 In contrast, in the Northern Territory, application forms only allow an applicant to select a prohibition on contact that includes, as a matter of course, exceptions for contact in accordance with a parenting plan or family law order.[157]

16.152 The second option considered in the Consultation Paper was to remove contact required or authorised by a parenting order from the standard exceptions to prohibited conduct under state and territory protection orders.[158]

Submissions and consultations

16.153 Many submissions supported the proposal that application forms should allow applicants to indicate whether they wish to seek an exception to permit contact required or authorised by another court.[159] For example, the Queensland Commissioner for Children considered that this would be a ‘helpful prompt for parties and the court in protection order matters to consider the safety implications for existing parenting orders’.[160]

16.154 Similarly, a confidential submission noted that:

It is important that those applying for protection orders are made aware and have the option of expressing their preference that there be no such exception as currently victims of violence are often unaware of the consequences of such an exception or feel compelled to agree to such an exception. Courts should always examine the potential risks associated with making exemptions within protection orders.[161]

16.155 However a number of stakeholders cautioned that a court should not overly rely on what is expressed in application forms. One stakeholder noted that too many options on application forms may be confusing for some parties,[162] while others stated that it is important for applicants to state why they wish to seek an exception for court ordered contact so the court can make an informed decision.[163]

16.156 A number of stakeholders emphasised that it is primarily the role of the court to consider the risks of making an exception in a protection order in each particular case.[164] Professor Julie Stubbs cautioned that, while allowing applicants to indicate a preference for an exception for contact may be useful, ‘one unintended consequence may be that where no application is made that judicial officers do not consider this issue adequately or at all’.[165]

16.157 Stubbs also drew attention to the need for any conditions about contact to be clearly set out in the order:

The preferred option is one in which the timing and conditions of any contact that is permitted needs to be specified clearly otherwise police indicate that they cannot determine when a breach occurs. In cases where contact is unsafe, the order should specify that clearly, together with any requirements that contact must occur through a third party or at a supervised contact centre, or that there should be no contact.[166]

16.158 Some stakeholders considered that contact required or authorised by a parenting order should be removed from the standard exceptions to prohibited contact under state and territory protection orders.[167] For example, a confidential submission stated that the presumption, that an exception for court-ordered contact is always appropriate,

has become entrenched with the danger that situations where it is not appropriate will be missed. Where the violence is such that contact between children and a violent parent would place the parent or children at risk, inclusion of the exception clause actually indicates the opposite—ie that it is envisaged and appropriate that such orders be made. Whether orders are appropriate at a given point in time will be up to the Family Courts if and when an application by the violent parent is made.[168]

16.159 Other stakeholders opposed removing court-ordered contact from the standard exceptions in a protection order. In particular, a number of stakeholders expressed the view that it was important for the court to consider whether an order prohibiting all contact, or contact with certain exceptions, was appropriate in each particular case.[169]

16.160 Legal Aid NSW submitted that each case needs to be considered in its particular circumstances and that:

in many cases, the condition provides necessary boundaries and protection for victims whilst facilitating the children having a relationship with the defendant in situations where the victim does not have concerns about the safety of the children spending time with the defendant. This is especially the case if the two sets of orders are made with the other set of orders in mind.[170]

16.161 Legal Aid NSW noted that, in its experience, an exception for contact as authorised by a parenting order would not be included where there have been serious assaults. It noted that in other cases, such as where there is verbal abuse at changeover, the harm caused by such conduct could be addressed by using another mechanism, such as changeover via a third person or at a contact centre.[171]

16.162 Women’s Legal Centre ACT also submitted that the matter should be considered on the facts of the case and commented that it

is aware of clients who do need to have arrangements for the children in place. Having the exception worded as it is mandates some formal action around arrangements for the children which can provide certainty to both parties whilst still taking into account safety of the victim.

Arguably the prospect of having no arrangements for the children heightens tension and increases the safety risk for women. Simply removing this exception does not address the problem. The issue is having the appropriate parenting orders that properly reflect all safety concerns of women and children.[172]

16.163 Similarly, Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre noted that:

We speak to some Aboriginal women who say that they want the father/defendant to maintain a relationship with, and have contact with, the children of the relationship. However, these women tell us that they want this to be done in a safe and controlled way.[173]

Commissions’ views

16.164 The Commissions note the concerns expressed by stakeholders that an exception for contact authorised or required by a family law order is often automatically included in protection orders where children are involved.

16.165 The Commissions are of the view that the exception for court-ordered contact should be retained as an exception that can be included in protection orders but should not be automatically included in all cases. The concern is not that such an exception exists, but that the exception is included without due consideration of the evidence and the safety of all parties. As noted above, state and territory courts exercising jurisdiction under family violence legislation should make orders necessary for the safety of victims of family violence. This includes, where appropriate, making orders that a parent not have contact with a child. In such cases, a state or territory court may also amend a current parenting order using s 68R of the Family Law Act, or make an interim parenting order as recommended in Recommendation 16–3.

16.166 The Commissions consider that application forms that ask the applicant whether he or she wishes the court to make an exception for court-ordered contact with a child in the protection order would encourage the applicant, and the court, to consider the implications of making such an exception or ordering no contact, as the case may be. The Commissions note that the application forms in a number of jurisdictions already ask the applicant if they would like to opt-in to an exception for court-ordered contact in the protection order.

16.167 The Commissions emphasise that amending application forms will not, in itself, change the practices of people involved in family violence proceedings in state and territory magistrates courts. In particular, the Commissions acknowledge that applicants for protection orders may not have received legal advice, are often stressed and may not be able to consider the parenting issues carefully at the time of making an order. Magistrates, court staff and practitioners need to be provided with education, training and resources to consider family violence and family law issues in a way that ensures families are safe from violence. Ways to improve this practice are discussed in the following section of this chapter.

Recommendation 16–7 Application forms for protection orders under state and territory family violence legislation should include an option for applicants to indicate their preference that there should be no exception in the protection order for contact required or authorised by a parenting order made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

[130]Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 42(3); Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) s 46C; Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 12(1)(f); Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 10(2); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 18(1); Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) ss 31(1), 47(1)(f), 71(1); Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 19(2)(a).

[131] See, eg, Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 42(3)(a); Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) s 46C(1); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 18(1)(b); Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT) ss 31(1), 47(1)(f), 71(1).

[132] See, eg, Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 42(3)(b); Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) s 46C(2); Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 12(1)(f); Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 10(2); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 18(1)(c); Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 19(2)(a).

[133] Kearney McKenzie & Associates, Review of Division 11 (1998), [2.15].

[134]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 91.

[135] Ibid s 92.

[136] Ibid s 93.

[137] Ibid s 90.

[138] Consultation Paper, Proposal 8–7.

[139] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; The Australian Association of Social Workers, Submission FV 224, 2 July 2010; Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 189, 25 June 2010; NSW Women’s Refuge Movement Working Party Inc, Submission FV 188, 25 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 183, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Law Council of Australia, Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 171, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit Aboriginal Corporation, Submission FV 149, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010; National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June 2010; C Humphreys, Submission FV 131, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; K Johnstone, Submission FV 107, 7 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 40, 14 May 2010.

[140] The Australian Association of Social Workers, Submission FV 224, 2 July 2010, Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; NSW Women’s Refuge Movement Working Party Inc, Submission FV 188, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010, National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June 2010; K Johnstone, Submission FV 107, 7 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.

[141] Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010.

[142] Law Council of Australia, Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010.

[143] The Australian Association of Social Workers, Submission FV 224, 2 July 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June 2010; K Johnstone, Submission FV 107, 7 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010.

[144] The Australian Association of Social Workers, Submission FV 224, 2 July 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 40, 14 May 2010.

[145] J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 183, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010.

[146] Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; NSW Women’s Refuge Movement Working Party Inc, Submission FV 188, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010.

[147] Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010.

[148] Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 183, 25 June 2010; Murray Mallee Community Legal Service, Submission FV 167, 25 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010.

[149] Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Submission FV 216, 30 June 2010; Law Council of Australia, Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[150] See Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of Family Violence Laws: Report (2006), [9.80]–[9.98].

[151] The Family Law Act imposes certain requirements on courts when making a parenting order that is inconsistent with a protection order. These requirements are discussed in Ch 17.

[152] Kearney McKenzie & Associates, Review of Division 11 (1998), [3.10].

[153] Family Law Council, Review of Division 11—Family Violence (2004), [37]–[38]; Kearney McKenzie & Associates, Review of Division 11 (1998), [4.14].

[154] Consultation Paper, Proposal 8–12.

[155] Magistrates Court of Tasmania, Application for a Family Violence Order <www.magistratescourt.tas.
gov.au/divisions/family_violence/forms> at 29 March 2010.

[156] Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Information for Application for an Intervention Order (2009) <www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au> at 2 February 2010.

[157] Northern Territory Magistrates Courts, Application for Domestic Violence Order <www.nt.gov.au/justice/
ntmc/forms_fees.shtml> at 29 March 2010.

[158] Consultation Paper, Question 8–13.

[159] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Law Council of Australia, Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 171, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; N Ross, Submission FV 129, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 96, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 89, 3 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 69, 2 June 2010; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.

[160] Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010.

[161] Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010.

[162] Confidential, Submission FV 183, 25 June 2010.

[163] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010.

[164] National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June 2010.

[165] J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010.

[166] Ibid.

[167] Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 171, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, Submission FV 146, 24 June 2010; K Johnstone, Submission FV 107, 7 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 40, 14 May 2010.

[168] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010.

[169] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 25 June 2010; Law Council of Australia, Submission FV 180, 25 June 2010; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Centre (ACT & Region) Inc, Submission FV 175, 25 June 2010; Commissioner for Children (Tas), Submission FV 62, 1 June 2010.

[170] Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010.

[171] Ibid. See also Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June 2010.

[172] Women’s Legal Centre (ACT & Region) Inc, Submission FV 175, 25 June 2010.

[173] Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010. See also Women’s Legal Services NSW, Submission FV 182, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010.