Purposes

7.50 Objects clauses which set out the purposes of family violence legislation are another important limb in achieving a common interpretative framework across the states and territories.

7.51 The various purposes of family violence legislation and the extent to which they are addressed in objects clauses are discussed in Chapter 4. Most family violence legislation contains object clauses. While the Western Australian legislation does not include an objects clause, it has a provision which sets out certain matters to be considered by the court when deciding whether to make a protection order, from which certain objects can be implied. [74]

7.52 Of those Acts that have objects clauses, the degree of articulation and specificity of identified objects differs. While most objects clauses set out the various purposes of family violence legislation, the Queensland legislation only sets out the purpose of ensuring the safety and protection of persons in particular relationships. The objects clause in the Tasmanian legislation is also relatively brief, in contrast with the family violence legislation of other states and territories. The Act highlights that ‘in the administration of [the] Act, the safety, psychological wellbeing and interests of people affected by family violence are the paramount considerations’.[75]

7.53 The objects clauses in most family violence legislation do not currently include a purpose aimed at increasing responsibility or accountability for those who use family violence.[76] In contrast, most jurisdictions—apart from Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania—express a purpose of reducing or preventing family violence and the exposure of children to such violence.

7.54 A potential purpose of family violence legislation is to ensure minimal disruption to the lives of families affected by violence. The expression of such a purpose is linked to the making of exclusion orders—that is, orders that exclude a person who has used family violence from a residence shared with the victim.[77] Courts have power to make exclusion orders in a number of state and territory jurisdictions. Research indicates that ‘there is a low utilisation of exclusion conditions in protection orders’ and that this may be attributed partly to ‘judicial unease’ in using them because of concern for the hardship of those who use family violence.[78]

7.55 A purpose about minimal disruption does not appear in the objects clause of family violence legislation of any state or territory. However, in the Second Reading Speech for the Domestic and Family Violence Bill 2007 (NT), the Attorney-General stated that:

Another central objective of the legislation is to ensure minimal disruption to the lives of families affected by violence. There will be a new presumption when making orders in favour of an applicant with children in their care remaining in the family home.[79]

7.56 While the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) does not expressly refer to minimal disruption, it includes a presumption that the protection of a victim and children living with a victim is best achieved by them continuing to live in their home.[80]

7.57 In Victoria, courts are required to consider the desirability of minimal disruption, although this consideration is not identified as an express purpose of the legislation. The court is required to consider making an exclusion order when making a protection order.[81] In doing so, the court must have regard to a number of factors, including the desirability of ensuring minimal disruption to the victim and any child living with the victim.[82]

7.58 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that state and territory family violence legislation should articulate core purposes, including the following aims:

  1. to ensure or maximise the safety and protection of persons who fear or experience family violence;
  2. to ensure that persons who use family violence accept responsibility—or are made accountable—for their conduct; and
  3. to reduce or prevent family violence and the exposure of children to family violence.[83]

7.59 The Commissions asked whether there are any other ‘core’ purposes that should be expressly recognised in family violence legislation of each of the states and territories. In particular, the Commissions asked whether family violence legislation should articulate a purpose about ensuring minimal disruption to the lives of families affected by violence. [84]

Submissions and consultations

Objects clauses in family violence legislation

7.60 The majority of stakeholders supported the proposal for family violence legislation to specify core purposes, as well as the proposed core purposes.[85] Stakeholders outlined the benefits of implementing core common purposes in enhancing consistency in decision-making,[86] consistency across jurisdictions and the facilitation of a national approach to family violence.[87] The Magistrates’ Court and Children’s Court of Victoria stated that the articulation of core purposes has been useful in the Victorian legislation.[88]

7.61 No stakeholders opposed the inclusion of core purposes in family violence legislation. Almost all stakeholders who supported the inclusion of core common purposes also supported the specific purposes proposed by the Commissions.

7.62 Stakeholders expressed a range of views about various aspects of the proposed clauses in general and with respect to the specific state and territory provisions. These are considered below.

Wording of core purposes

7.63 Some stakeholders expressed concerns about the wording of the proposed purposes. For example, the Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas) expressed concern with the drafting of (a): ‘to ensure or maximise the safety and protection of persons who fear or experience family violence’. It noted that anybody could fear family violence, and suggested the alternative wording: ‘to ensure or maximise the safety and protection of persons who are at risk of or experience family violence’.[89]

7.64 The Commissioner for Children (Tas) stated that difficulties arise with the wording of (b): ‘to ensure that persons who use family violence accept responsibility—or are made accountable—for their conduct’. The Commissioner stated that taking responsibility for family violence is a matter for an individual, and is not something that can be enforced by courts.[90]

Minimal disruption

7.65 Stakeholders expressed a variety of viewpoints on whether a purpose about minimal disruption should be included in family violence legislation. A number of stakeholders supported the inclusion of such a purpose.[91] For example, the Disability Services Commission (Western Australia) referred to the barriers facing victims of family violence who have a disability—or whose children have a disability—in leaving the family home:

laws that support victims to remain safely in the home may be more viable for people with disability, and including a purpose about ensuring minimal disruption to victims will go some way to furthering this.[92]

7.66 Several stakeholders submitted that a purpose about minimal disruption should clearly relate to the lives of the victims of family violence, rather than to the lives of those who use family violence.[93] Some stakeholders also expressed concern that a principle of minimal disruption should not operate to compromise the safety of victims and their children.[94]

7.67 Some stakeholders opposed or expressed reservations about including a principle about ensuring minimal disruption.[95] The Victorian Government, for example, pointed out that action

may be in the best interests of women and children but may have a large impact on their lives, both due to referral to refuge and through their participation in the criminal and civil justice system. The inclusion of the term ‘minimal disruption’ may be interpreted to mean ‘minimal action’. [96]

7.68 In a joint submission, Domestic Violence Victoria and others referred to the provisions regarding minimal disruption in Victorian family violence legislation. While Victorian courts are to take the desirability of minimising disruption into account in making exclusion orders, they are also required to have regard to a number of other specified factors and—more generally—all circumstances of the case.[97] The stakeholders argued that this approach is more appropriate, as it does not pre-empt consideration of the circumstances of individual cases with a core purpose favouring exclusion.[98]

Other core purposes

7.69 Some stakeholders proposed other objectives to be considered as core common purposes. The Law Society of NSW, for example, stated that a principle articulating the right to a fair trial should be included as a purpose of family violence legislation.[99] Similarly, National Legal Aid and Legal Aid NSW stated that the core purposes must ‘operate in the context of the fundamental right of a defendant to a fair trial’.[100]

7.70 Some stakeholders suggested purposes about supporting and encouraging the agency and independence of victims of family violence,[101] and treating their views with respect,[102] should be included.

7.71 Several stakeholders submitted that the protection of children should be included as a core purpose.[103] The Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian suggested a purpose of ‘enabling persons who experience or fear family violence to protect their children from experiencing or being exposed to family violence’.[104] It commented that the articulation of such a purpose would assist parents who experience family violence to protect their children and, in doing so, avoid the future involvement of child protection agencies.

7.72 Other stakeholders suggested restraint in the specification of further core purposes. Women’s Legal Services NSW argued that it is

important that protection order legislation does not become too complex to be applied in practice. In our experience, in busy courtrooms magistrates may not follow all aspects of the legislation.[105]

7.73 The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse and National Legal Aid cautioned against making legislative provisions too complex.[106] In a joint submission, Domestic Violence Victoria and others stated that there is probably no need for further core purposes,[107] while the Magistrates’ Court and Children’s Court of Victoria described the core purposes in Victoria as ‘succinct and sufficient’.[108]

Objects clause in Western Australian family violence legislation

7.74 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) should be amended to include an objects clause.[109] The majority of stakeholders who commented on this proposal expressed their support.[110] For example, the Gosnells Community Legal Centre stated that including an objects clause would guide interpretation of the legislation and foster consistency in decision making.[111] Two further submissions—while not wishing to comment on the laws of Western Australia—stated ‘in principle’ agreement to the inclusion of objects clauses.[112]

Objects clause in Queensland family violence legislation

7.75 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that the objects clause in the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) should be amended to specify core purposes, other than the existing main purpose of providing for the safety and protection of persons in particular relationships.[113]

7.76 Stakeholders who commented on this proposal overwhelmingly were in support.[114] The Queensland Government noted that, while an objects clause is not specifically referred to in the Queensland consultation paper on the review of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld), its consultation on legislative principles involves a consideration of other provisions which could make reference to the purposes and objectives of the legislation.[115]

Objects clause in Tasmanian family violence legislation

7.77 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that the objects clause in the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) should be amended to specify more clearly the core purposes of the Act.[116] All stakeholders who commented on this proposal were in support.[117] The Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas) considered that amending the objects clause may assist judicial officers in applying objectives to specific cases.[118]

Commissions’ views

Objects clauses in family violence legislation

7.78 The articulation of core common purposes across state and territory family violence legislation is a critical pillar of a common interpretative framework complementing the inclusion of guiding principles—as well as a shared understanding of family violence—across jurisdictions. Objects clauses serve an important educative function, and enhance consistency in decision making. It is essential that they are given some prominence in family violence legislation.

7.79 The Commissions consider that there should be a cluster of core purposes that are commonly acknowledged and articulated across each of the states and territories. The Commissions recommend that these purposes address the following aims:

  1. to ensure or maximise the safety and protection of persons who fear or experience family violence;

  2. to prevent or reduce family violence and the exposure of children to family violence; and

  3. to ensure that persons who use family violence are made accountable for their conduct.

Wording of core purposes

7.80 It is not necessary for objects clauses in family violence legislation to express purposes using precisely the same wording, nor is there a need for every purpose in one jurisdiction to be replicated in the others. In expressing the core purposes, the Commissions do not intend to set out a prescriptive formulation. The detailed drafting of core purposes is a matter for state and territory governments.

7.81 The Commissions note the submission of the Commissioner for Children (Tas), who expressed concerns about the wording of the following proposed core purpose:

to ensure that persons who use family violence accept responsibility—or are made accountable—for their conduct.[119]

7.82 The Commissions agree that family violence legislation can make persons who use family violence accountable for their behaviour, but it cannot ensure that they accept responsibility for their conduct, although judicial officers exercising their powers under the legislation may attempt to do so.

Minimal disruption as a core purpose

7.83 The Commissions note the concerns of some stakeholders in relation to the inclusion of a purpose regarding minimal disruption in family violence legislation. Appropriate steps to ensure the safety and wellbeing of victims of family violence may require action which leads to disruption and upheaval of their lives. In some cases, it may be safer for victims of family violence to leave the home than to remain.[120] A legislative purpose favouring minimal disruption therefore may not operate to the benefit of victims in all circumstances. The Commissions are concerned that, as submitted by the Victorian Government, including the term ‘minimal disruption’ may be interpreted to mean ‘minimal action’.[121] There are more appropriate ways to encourage judicial officers to consider making exclusion orders than including a purpose about minimal disruption in family violence legislation, including the measures recommended in Chapter 11.

Other core purposes

7.84 The Commissions do not wish to be overly prescriptive of the purposes that should be included in state and territory family violence for two reasons. First, the Commissions note the concerns expressed by some stakeholders regarding the complexity that may result from including numerous purposes. Secondly, the Commissions consider that states and territories should have flexibility to articulate additional purposes in addition to core ones. For example, one purpose that may be considered by states and territories is a purpose relating to treating the views of victims of family violence with respect. Alternatively, this could be located in the principles of the legislation, as in Victorian family violence legislation.[122]

7.85 The Commissions do not consider that it is necessary to recommend that a core purpose of family violence legislation is to ensure the right of an accused person to a fair trial. The primary purpose of family violence legislation is to provide protection from future violence, including in situations where the conduct constituting family violence is not criminal. The right of an accused to a fair trial is a crucial component of the rule of law, and is a principle which underpins the Australian legal system. However, it is unnecessary to articulate the right in family violence legislation which is primarily aimed at protecting persons from future family violence as a civil law matter.

7.86 The Commissions note that some stakeholders suggested that a core purpose should include the protection of children. This purpose is accommodated by recommending that a core purpose of family violence legislation is to reduce or prevent family violence and the exposure of children to family violence. In addition, the other two recommended core purposes—dealing with maximising the safety and protection of persons who fear or experience family violence and ensuring the accountability of those who use family violence—will have considerable direct and indirect benefits in protecting children from violence. Further, the Commissions also recommend that definitions of family violence in family violence legislation include the exposure of children to the effects of family violence.[123]

Objects clauses in family violence legislation: Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania

7.87 The Commissions’ general recommendation regarding objects clauses applies to all state and territory family violence legislation. The Commissions, therefore, do not make separate recommendations regarding the family violence legislation of Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania. However, the Commissions consider the following amendments should be made:

  • the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) should be amended to include an objects clause;

  • the objects clause in the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld) should be amended to specify core purposes, other than the existing main purpose of providing for the safety and protection of persons in particular relationships; and

  • the objects clause in the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) should be amended to specify more clearly the core purposes of the Act.

7.88 The objects clauses in the Queensland, Tasmanian and Western Australian family violence legislation should include core purposes recommended by the Commissions.

Recommendation 7–4 State and territory family violence legislation should articulate the following common set of core purposes:

  1. to ensure or maximise the safety and protection of persons who fear or experience family violence;
  2. to prevent or reduce family violence and the exposure of children to family violence; and
  3. to ensure that persons who use family violence are made accountable for their conduct.

[74]Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) s 12. Section 12 was amended in 2004 to insert a further paragraph (ba): ‘the need to ensure that children are not exposed to acts of family and domestic violence’.

[75]Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) s 3.

[76] Provisions of this kind are included in Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 3(1)(b); Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 1(c). See also Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 10(1)(d), which states that intervention should be designed to encourage defendants to accept responsibility and take steps to avoid engaging in family violence.

[77] Exclusion orders are discussed in Ch 11.

[78] See K Wilcox and L McFerran, ‘Staying Home, Staying Safe’ (2009) 94 Reform 24; L McFerran, Taking Back the Castle: How Australia is Making the Home Safer for Women and Children (2007) prepared for the Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.

[79] Northern Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 17 October 2007, 4846 (S Stirling—Attorney-General), 4848. A similar intention is expressed in the South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 10 September 2009, 3937 (M Atkinson—Attorney-General), 3943 and the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) s 10(1)(d) also expresses the principle that intervention should be designed to minimise disruption to protected persons and the children living with them.

[80]Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 20.

[81]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 82(1).

[82] Ibid s 82(2)(a).

[83] Consultation Paper, Proposal 4–25.

[84] Ibid, Question 4–8.

[85] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Women’s Legal Services Australia, Submission FV 225, 6 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; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; National Abuse Free Contact Campaign, Submission FV 196, 26 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; Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; N Norris, Submission FV 176, 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; K Greenland, Submission FV 161, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 160, 24 June 2010; UnitingCare Children Young People and Families, Submission FV 151, 24 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; Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010; National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc, Submission FV 144, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; N Ross, Submission FV 129, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 128, 22 June 2010; F Hardy, Submission FV 126, 16 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 125, 20 June 2010; Domestic Violence Prevention Council (ACT), Submission FV 124, 18 June 2010; Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010; Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service, Submission FV 117, 15 June 2010; Commissioner for Victims’ Rights (South Australia), Submission FV 111, 9 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 96, 2 June 2010; Education Centre Against Violence, Submission FV 90, 3 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 82, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 81, 2 June 2010; A Harland, Submission FV 80, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 78, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 77, 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 Confidential, Submission FV 68, 1 June 2010; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010; National Peak Body for Safety and Protection of Parents and Children, Submission FV 47, 24 May 2010; Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service Network, Submission FV 46, 24 May 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 37, 12 May 2010.

[86] UnitingCare Children Young People and Families, Submission FV 151, 24 June 2010, The Central Australian Aboriginal Family Legal Unit Aboriginal Corporation, Submission FV 149, 25 June 2010.

[87] Domestic Violence Prevention Council (ACT), Submission FV 124, 18 June 2010; Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service, Submission FV 117, 15 June 2010; Commissioner for Victims’ Rights (South Australia), Submission FV 111, 9 June 2010.

[88] Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010.

[89] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010.

[90] Commissioner for Children (Tas), Submission FV 62, 1 June 2010.

[91] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 162, 25 June 2010; Disability Services Commission (WA), Submission FV 138, 23 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; Domestic Violence Prevention Council (ACT), Submission FV 124, 18 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 109, 8 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 96, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 37, 12 May 2010.

[92] Disability Services Commission (WA), Submission FV 138, 23 June 2010.

[93] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010; Domestic Violence Prevention Council (ACT), Submission FV 124, 18 June 2010.

[94] Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, Submission FV 173, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Domestic Violence Prevention Council (ACT), Submission FV 124, 18 June 2010.

[95] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 198, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 164, 25 June 2010; K Greenland, Submission FV 161, 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; Confidential, Submission FV 128, 22 June 2010.

[96] Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.

[97]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 82(2).

[98] 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.

[99] Law Society of New South Wales, Submission FV 205, 30 June 2010.

[100] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010.

[101] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Legal Aid NSW, Submission FV 219, 1 July 2010.

[102] 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.

[103] Queensland Law Society, Submission FV 178, 25 June 2010; UnitingCare Children Young People and Families, Submission FV 151, 24 June 2010; Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, Submission FV 63, 1 June 2010.

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

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

[106] Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Submission FV 216, 30 June 2010; National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010.

[107] 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.

[108] Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010.

[109] Consultation Paper, Proposal 4–24.

[110] Crossroads Community Care Centre Inc, Submission FV 211, 25 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 184, 25 June 2010; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 89, 3 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 78, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 77, 2 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Gosnells Community Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 56, 31 May 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010.

[111] Gosnells Community Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 56, 31 May 2010.

[112] Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, Submission FV 220, 1 July 2010; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, Submission FV 212, 28 June 2010.

[113] Consultation Paper, Proposal 4–26(a).

[114] National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Crossroads Community Care Centre Inc, Submission FV 211, 25 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 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; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 128, 22 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 78, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 77, 2 June 2010; Better Care of Children, Submission FV 72, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 68, 1 June 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 37, 12 May 2010.

[115] Queensland Government, Submission FV 229, 14 July 2010.

[116] Consultation Paper, Proposal 4–26(b).

[117] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010; National Legal Aid, Submission FV 232, 15 July 2010; Crossroads Community Care Centre Inc, Submission FV 211, 25 June 2010; J Stubbs, Submission FV 186, 25 June 2010; Women’s Legal Service Queensland, Submission FV 185, 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; Berry Street Inc, Submission FV 163, 25 June 2010; Justice for Children, Submission FV 148, 24 June 2010; Police Association of New South Wales, Submission FV 145, 24 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 130, 21 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 105, 6 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 78, 2 June 2010 Confidential, Submission FV 77, 2 June 2010; Better Care of Children, Submission FV 72, 24 June 2010; C Pragnell, Submission FV 70, 2 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 71, 1 June 2010; Confidential, Submission FV 68, 1 June 2010; M Condon, Submission FV 45, 18 May 2010; P Easteal, Submission FV 37, 12 May 2010.

[118] Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tas), Submission FV 236, 20 July 2010.

[119] Consultation Paper, Proposal 4–25(b).

[120] See also Ch 11.

[121] Victorian Government, Submission FV 120, 15 June 2010.

[122]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) preamble (d).

[123] Rec 5–1(i).