Magistrates’ Court of Victoria’s

Response to Proposed Amendments to
Family law Act 1975 to respond to Family Violence

February 2017

Family Violence Programs and Initiatives Unit

Contents

1Introductionand Context...... 3

2Demandon theMCV...... 3

3Issues concerning Information-Sharing...... 3

3.1Issueswith Information-Sharing betweenFederal andStateCourts...... 3

4Conclusion...... 4

5Table1–OverviewofMCV’s comments...... 4

17 February 2017

Page 1 of 6

1IntroductionandContext

TheMagistrates’CourtofVictoria(MCV)welcomestheopportunitytorespondtotheCommonwealthGovernment’sConsultationpaperonAmendmentstotheFamilyLawAct1975tobetterrespondtofamilyviolence.

TheMCV(andtheChildren’sCourtofVictoria)madesubmissionstotheFamilyLawCouncil’sInquiryintoFamilieswithComplexNeedsandtheIntersectionoftheFamilyLawandChildProtectionSystemsandthisresponseshouldbeconsideredinconjunctionwiththosesubmissions.

2DemandontheMCV

ThebulkofthevolumeoffamilyviolencemattersworkingtheirwaythroughcourtsrestswiththeMCVandwhiletheMCVhascommittedtoimplementingthecourtrelatedrecommendationsarisingoutoftheRoyalCommissionintoFamilyViolence(RCFV),theMCVrequiresadequaterecognitionoftheresourcingandinfrastructurelimitationscurrentlyimpactingonitsoperations.Currently,theimmenseworkloadoftheMCV,anditsadditionalworkincreatingopportunitiestodriveinnovatechange,islimitedbyresourcingconstraints.

TheMCVisconsultedeverydayinrelationtoabroadrangeofproposedreformsflowingfrom theRCFVandothervariousproposedareasofdevelopment,allofwhichhavethepotentialtosignificantlyimpacttheoperationandmanagementoftheMCVwhetherdirectlyorindirectly.TheMCVhasalwaysbeenconcernedabouttheexperiencesofcourt-usersintheareaofFVandiscommittedtoensuringthattheMCVisaplacewhichreinforcesfamilymembers’rightstosafety,anddignityandholdsperpetratorsofviolencetoaccount.Still,littlehasbeendonetoadequatelyaddressthecurrentpressureswhichareburdeningthecourtsandimpactingontheexperiencesofcourt-users.

TheMCVsupportsthereformsarisingfromtherecommendationsmadeintheFamilyLawCouncil’sinterimandfinalreports,andthereareclearlywellarticulated,strongpolicyfoundationsforthoserecommendations.Careful,sequencedinfrastructuredevelopmentandresourcingsupportisrequiredforimplementationtoensureanyriskstothesafetyoffamiliesaremitigated.Failuretoimplementthisapproachislikelytoaggravatetheriskstofamilysafety..

3IssuesconcerningInformation-Sharing

TheMCVisgenerallysupportiveofalltheproposedareasofamendmentintheconsultationpaper(whichwehaveoutlinedinthetablebelow).However,untilissuesofadequateresourcingandthecomplexitiesaroundinformationsharingareaddressed,theMCVwillstruggletoprogresstheseareasofreform.Properconsultationandplanningpriortotheenactmentoftheseamendmentsisrequiredtoensuretheamendmentsareproperlyachievingtheiraims.TheMCVhavealreadyraisedwiththeFamilyLawBranchoftheCommonwealthAttorney-General’sDepartment,somesuggestedadditionalconsultationexercises,andtheMCVlooksforwardtocontinuingtoengageinthisprocess.

Limitationsonthesharingofinformationisanissueraisedseveraltimesthroughoutourcommentsbelow.WenotethattheRCFVreportalsorecommendedthatCommonwealthagenciescouldpotentiallyformpartofthe“prescribedorganisations”thatwouldbeabletoshareinformationunderanewFamilyViolenceInformationSharingprotocol.FurtherclarificationwouldbeneededinrespectofwhethertheCommonwealthissupportiveofthisapproach.

3.1IssueswithInformation-Sharing between Federal and StateCourts

AstheMCVismovingtowardsaspecialistfamilyviolencecourt(SFVC)model(whichisanintegrated,multi-jurisdictional,one-judge/one-familymodelofpracticeinrelationtoFVmatters),aproperevaluationoftheMCV’sexerciseoffamilylawjurisdictionwillneedtobeconducted,tobuildaproperevidence-baseforbroaderimplementation.CurrentlytheMCVexerciseslimitedandad-hocFamilyLawjurisdiction.Magistratesinregionalareasaremorelikelytoexercisetheselimitedpowers,primarilyinrelationtourgentparentingandrecoveryorderapplications.TherearefurtherlimitationswiththeMCV’sabilitytoextractfamilylawdatafromthesecourtlocationsduetoinconsistenciesinrecordkeepinganddifferentpracticesbetweenthesecourts.

17 February 2017

Page 1 of 6

TheMCVhasencounteredthatpresentlytheFederalCourtsonCircuitintheseareasareseeingfamiliesandhearingtheirfamilylawmattersmerelydaysapartfromtheirfamilyviolencerelatedmattersintheMCV.ThismeansthatprimeopportunitiestotrackfamiliescomingintocontactwiththeMCVaremissed.ThereisnosystematicwayfortheFederalCircuitCourtandMCVtocommunicatewithoneanotherinrelationtoinformationrelevanttorisk,eventhoughthefamiliesareaccessingthesamecourtbuilding.ThishighlightsthatinformationsharingprocessesbetweentheFamilyLawCourtsandtheMCVneedstobebroaderthanjustthesharingofcourtorders.

4Conclusion

TheMCVprovidesourin-principlesupporttotheproposedareasofamendmentbelowandwelcomestheopportunitytoworkwiththeCommonwealthGovernmentfurthertoallowfortheproperintegrationofbothjurisdictionsinaholistic,measuredandappropriateway.Thiswillimprovetheexperiencesoffamiliescomingintocontactwiththecourtsduetofamilyviolence,andplacesfamiliesatthecentreofreform.

5Table1–OverviewofMCV’scomments

LegislativeAmendment / Comments
Criminalisingbreachesofpersonalprotectioninjunctions /
  • Subjecttofunding,theMCVwouldsupportthisproposedamendment
  • FurtherclarificationshouldbegiventowherebreachproceedingsarebroughtifVictoriaPolicewillhavethepowertoenforcethosebreachesasthisislikelytoalsoincreasetheworkloadofMCVifheardintheMagistrates’Court
  • IfbreachproceedingsareenforcedbyVictoriaPoliceandbroughtintheMCV,willtheMCVhaveaccesstotheinjunctionsmade?HowdoestheCommonwealthGovernmentproposetoallowthistypeofinformationsharingbetweenthejurisdictions?
  • HowwillthisfitinwiththeSpecialistFamilyViolenceCourt(SFVC)model?

Strengtheningordersissuedbystateandterritorycourts /
  • Subjecttofundingandappropriateresourcing,theMCVsupportstheremovalofthe21daytimelimitonanapplicationtovary,reviveorsuspendafamilylawordermadeduringinterimfamilyviolenceproceedings
  • Thisis,however,likelytosignificantlyincreasetheworkloadoftheMCVaspartiesarelikelytoutilisethisprovisionmorereadilywherethereisgreatercertaintyarounditsapplicationandtherearelikelytobesignificantresourcingimplicationsasaresult;
  • InordertoeffectivelymaketheseorderstheMCVshouldthereforehaveaccesstoexistingFLAorderstoensurethatinexercisingitspowertosuspend,varyorreviveexistingFLAordersitisdoingsoconsistentlyandwithregardtothoseFLAorders,andnotrelyingonpartiesself-reporting,particularlywheretherearenotrepresented(typicallyonaninterimbasis).TheMCVthereforerecommendsinvestmentinbetterresourcingfortheMCVandrequiresfurtherclarificationaroundhowinformationistobesharedbetweentheMCV

andFCC/FamilyCourt
  • ItfollowsthatInordertoensuremagistratesaremakinginformeddecisionsinaccordancewithlegislationandfromaproblemsolvingapproach(whereappropriate),theCourtneedstobeabletohaveaccessto(andshare)anyinformation,includingordersmadeinotherjurisdictions,relevanttotheissuesbeforetheCourt
  • Howwillthisfitin withtheSFVCmodel?

Increasingthepowerofcourttosummarilydismissunmeritoriousclaims /
  • TheMCVdoesn’topposeamendmentwhichwouldgivetheFederalCircuitCourt/FamilyLawCourtspowertodismissmatterswhereitiscleartheyhavebeeninitiatedforanimproperpurpose,orwhereithasnoreasonableprospectofsuccess(asopposedtosomeonewhopresentsasunsophisticated,illpreparedorself-represented)
  • TheMCVhasexperienceoflegalproceedingsbeingusedasatoolforintimidationandharassmentintheFVcontext.ThisisconsistentwiththediscussionintheFamilyLawCouncil’sFinalreport,June2016–FamilieswithComplexNeedsandtheIntersectionoftheFamilyLawandchildprotectionsystems

Enablingthecourttoexplainordersinamannerthatsupportsthebestinterestsofthechild /
  • MCVsupportstheproposaltodispensewiththerequirementstoexplaintheorderstoimprovetheexperiencesofchildrenwhoarethesubjectoftheseproceedings,andalsodeferstoanycommentsraisedbytheChildren’sCourtofVictoriainresponsetothisissue.

Vestingstateandterritorychildren’scourtsascourtsofsummaryjurisdiction /
  • Subjecttofunding,theMCVsupportstheproposedreformwhichwouldallowtheMagistrates’CourttomakeordersunderPartVII,extendingbeyondthosesituationswherethepartiesconsenttothemakingoftheorders
  • MCVsupportstheChildren’sCourtexercisingfamilylawjurisdictionwhereit’salreadyhearingamatterinrelationtoafamilyandisalreadyawareofthefamily’scircumstancestoavoidorlimitduplicityofproceedings
  • Thisis,again,likelytosignificantlyincreasetheworkloadoftheMCVandCCVandtherearelikelytobesignificantresourcingimplicationsasaresult;theMCVthereforerecommendsinvestmentinbetterresourcingfortheMCVandCCVandrequiresfurtherclarificationaroundhowinformationistobesharedbetweentheMCVandFCC/FamilyCourt
  • Considerationshouldalsobegiventoclarifyingthelaw astothepowerofcourtsofsummaryjurisdictiontomakefinalordersinunopposedapplications.

Courtmaygivereasonsinshortformforadecisionitmakesinrelationtoaninterimparentingorder /
  • TheMCVseeksfurtherclarityinrelationtothefollowing(particularlyinthecontextofappealsfromMCVondecisionsoffactandlaw):
  • Whetherashortformjudgementtakestheform of astatementaroundthematerialfindingsoffactandanexplanationofhowtheywerereached;astatementoftherelevantlaw;andanexplanationofhowtheapplicationofthefactsandlawresultsinthedecision.Inwhichcase,thislookslikeanyotherformofjudgement;or
  • Whetherashortformjudgementtakestheform ofmerelystatingthefacts(andnotexplaininghowafactwasfound),

17 February 2017

Page 1 of 6

statingtherelevantlawandthedecision.
  • TheMCVnotesthatstatingthefactsandrelevantlawisarelativelystraightforwardexercise.Ontheotherhand,explaininghowfactswerefoundcanbealengthyexercise.
  • Explaininghowfactswerefoundandgivingreasonsisstillanecessarypartoftheinterlocutoryprocesstogiveeffecttotheprinciplethatjusticemustbedoneandbeseentobedone.
  • Withoutelaborationinthelegislation,theintentionbehindtheprovisionmaywellberenderedlargelymeaninglessbyacourtofappealorreview.

Propertyjurisdictionofstateandterritorycourts /
  • Subjecttofundingandappropriateresourcing,theMCVsupportsamendmenttosection46toremovethe$20,000monetarylimitandprovideforthelimittobeprescribedbyregulations
  • Again,ifthemonetarylimitisincreasedtoamorerealisticamount,itislikelythattheMagistrates’Courtwillbeutilisedmoreoftentoresolvefamily-propertyrelatedissuesandthatwithoutadequatefundingandresourcing,thecourtsarelikelytobecomeover-burdenedwiththesedisputestherebyleadingtorisksofdelays
  • Giventheprevalenceoffinancialhardshipandeconomicviolenceandgiventhepervasivenatureinwhichitisperpetrated/presents,thesematterscanbehighlytimeconsumingandacanbeasignificantsourceofstressandanxietyforpartiesinadditiontocontestedchildren’smatters
  • Whilepursuingpropertyordersthroughthemagistratescourtwillbemoreaccessibleforvictimsofviolencethaninstitutingfreshproceedingsinthefamilylawcourts,itisstillarelativelyunder-utilisedanduntestedareaandislikelytoplacesignificantpressureoncourtsandthedutylawyerswhoworkwithinthosecourtsuntilthereisadequatetrainingprovidedandadequateresourcing
  • WherewouldthisfitwithintheSFVCmodel?

Non-LegislativeAmendment / Comments
JudicialProfessionalDevelopment / Support
NationalDomesticandFamilyViolenceBenchbook / Support

17 February 2017

Page 1 of 6