Wage Theft

The A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? Exposing the true cost of wage theft in Queensland report by the Queensland Parliament's Education, Employment and Small Business Committee comments

A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, is an ideal deeply rooted in Australia’s labour history and egalitarian values. To most, it is an indisputable right that a worker is fairly and duly remunerated in accordance with their effort and the law. Yet recent public high-profile cases of significant worker exploitation, federal inquiries, and academic studies have found that wage theft is prevalent and going largely unanswered. 

The task given to the committee was to inquire into the incidence, forms and impacts of wage theft in Queensland. To let Queenslanders tell their story. And, to report on the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework at state and federal level in dealing with wage theft, and recommend options for eradicating the practice into the future. ... 

Overwhelmingly, the committee heard that wage theft is imposing significant costs on Queensland workers, their families, businesses and the economy. Conservative estimates suggest that over 437,000 Queensland workers are not receiving their full wages, and that a resulting five percent loss in income for these individuals would amount to an aggregate $1.22 billion loss annually. In terms of superannuation, the annual loss associated with the underpayment or non-payment of superannuation has been estimated at $1.12 billion. Further, annual reductions in consumer spending in Queensland and in federal tax revenue have respectively been estimated at $100 million and $60 million. Taken together, these losses could amount to almost $2.5 billion stripped from the Queensland economy every year. 

The committee heard that affected workers feel powerless to reclaim their lost wages and entitlements, and have been largely left alone to do so by an under resourced federal regulatory system. We can and must do more.

The Committee's recommendations are -

Recommendation 1 

The Committee recommends the Queensland Government conduct a public education campaign to assist in the fight against wage theft, including outlining information on the findings from this inquiry and the measures the Queensland Government is taking in response, and how and where affected workers can go for help to recover their lost wages. 

Recommendation 2 

The committee recommends the Queensland Government re-establish the tripartite Industrial Relations Education Committee under the auspices of the Office of the Industrial Relations to conduct visits to schools, TAFE and VET providers, and universities. The visits would be conducted on an optin basis and provide information focusing on the rights and responsibilities of both workers and employers. 

Recommendation 3 

The committee recommends the Queensland Government, through the Department of Education, work with the higher education sector in Queensland to ensure international students have access to relevant information and advice on their workplace rights in Australia, including the right to join a union and where to go for further information. 

Recommendation 4 

The committee recommends the Federal Government introduce a national labour hire licensing scheme so the benefits of the Queensland scheme can apply across the country. 

Recommendation 5 

The committee recommends the Queensland Government ensure its current procurement policies allow for appropriate and proportionate action to be taken against companies that have underpaid workers. 

Recommendation 6 

The committee recommends the Federal Government consider measures to improve worker access to representation in the workplace and ensure compliance with industrial instruments, using the model of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld). 

Recommendation 7 

The committee recommends the Federal Government appoint additional Federal Circuit Court Judges in Queensland, and ensure Queensland retains its proportionate share of Federal Circuit Court judges. 

Recommendation 8 

The committee recommends the Queensland Government review and take actions available to it, to ensure that wage recovery processes for Queensland workers are simple, quick and low-cost. This should include further investigation of the following options: a) establishing a dedicated industrial division within the Queensland Magistrates Court, in line with the example in Victoria b) investigating the inclusion of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission or Industrial Court as an eligible state court under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) c) reviewing relevant forms and processes to ensure the legal process is simple and user friendly for workers and their representatives d) waiving or reducing current court filing fees for wage theft matters. Inquiry into wage theft in Queensland 

Recommendation 9 

The Committee recommends unpaid superannuation be included as a recoverable entitlement under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme and the Fair Entitlements Guarantee scheme be extended to temporary overseas visa workers who are currently denied access. 

Recommendation 10 

The committee recommends that the Federal Government fund a workplace rights information and support service based in Queensland, as is funded for other Australian jurisdictions and was formerly the case, up until the removal of funding in 2016 by the then Federal Government. 

Recommendation 11 

The committee recommends the Federal Government take immediate steps to appoint additional Fair Work inspectors in Queensland under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). 

Recommendation 12 

The committee recommends the Federal Government establish a full, independent review into the performance, resourcing and culture of the Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure that it can respond to wage theft and support affected workers in an effective and timely fashion. Among other things, the review should consider the findings and recommendations of the Best Practice Review into Workplace Health and Safety Queensland which have driven a cultural shift from education to compliance. 

Recommendation 13 

The committee recommends superannuation be included as an industrial entitlement in the National Employment Standards. 

Recommendation 14 

The committee recommends the Fair Work Commission be given the power to assess the status of an employment contract similar to that available to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), and, further consideration be given to removing the ‘reckless defence’ from the offence of sham contracting under section 357(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and introducing a new ‘reasonable person’ test for determining whether an employer has engaged in sham contracting. 

Recommendation 15 

The committee recommends the Queensland Government legislate to make wage theft a criminal offence, where the conduct is proven to be deliberate or reckless. The Queensland Government should consider the variety of models and approaches for criminalising wage theft that were presented to the inquiry and consult further with stakeholders in regard to a preferred model. 

Recommendation 16 

The committee recommends an automatic termination date be legislated for remaining Work Choices ‘zombie’ agreements, with consideration given to necessary transitional arrangements and protections to ensure no workers are disadvantaged as a result. 

Recommendation 17 

The committee recommends reform of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to more adequately accommodate emerging forms of non-traditional employment. This should include consideration of law reform to broaden the definition of worker and provide broader access to the benefits of collective bargaining, minimum standards for pay and conditions, and access to the Fair Work Commission.

Furness Report

The NSW Medical Council has released final report by Gail Furness SC into the Council's processes with respect to Dr Emil Gayed.

The Council states

 In June 2018, the Medical Council requested Ms Gail Furness SC inquire into the actions of the former Medical Board, now the Medical Council, in response to concerns raised about the professional performance of a NSW obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Dr Emil Gayed. 

Ms Furness has now completed her inquiry and has prepared a report which deals with the response of one component of the regulatory system, the former Medical Board, which became the Medical Council of NSW in 2010. 

The report covers the period from 1994 to 2017 when the Council suspended Dr Gayed’s registration. At the same time, the NSW Health Secretary appointed Ms Furness to review the actions of five Local Health Districts at which Dr Gayed was appointed between 1990 and 2016 in respect of their management of him. The time for delivery of that report has now been extended to 31 January 2019. 

The Council acknowledges that the response of health regulators to numerous complaints about Dr Gayed did not prevent his substandard professional performance for several years. Aspects of his management by the Medical Board, and later the Council, were unsatisfactory. 

The Council recognises the importance of prompt, relevant action in response to a finding of unsatisfactory performance by medical practitioners and is committed to improving the effectiveness of its regulatory functions in protecting the public. 

Since it was established in 2010, the Council has made necessary modifications to its performance and monitoring programs. 

Ms Furness’ recommendations are a valuable contribution to the revision of the performance program, currently underway. 

The Medical Council recognises that in discharging its functions, it is ultimately accountable to the public of NSW. The report is therefore released in full in the interests of transparency.

The report is a damning indictment of systemic failures in information sharing, including misunderstanding/misuse of privacy law.

Campus Free Speech

Former HCA Chief Justice  the Hon Robert French AC has been appointed by the national Education Minister Dan Tehan to conduct a review of 'the rules and regulations protecting freedom of speech on university campuses',  including codes of conduct, enterprise agreements, policy statements and strategic plans.

 The review will:

• Assess the effectiveness of the Higher Education Standards Framework (the Standards) to promote and protect freedom of expression and freedom of intellectual inquiry in higher education. 
• Assess the effectiveness of the policies and practices to address the requirements of the Standards, to promote and protect freedom of expression and intellectual inquiry. 
• Assess international approaches to the promotion and protection of free expression and free intellectual inquiry in higher education settings, and consider whether any of these approaches would add to protections already in place in the Australian context.  
• Outline realistic and practical options that could be considered to better promote and protect freedom of expression and freedom of intellectual inquiry, including: revision/clarification of the Standards development of a sector-led code of conduct. 

The Minister's media release states  -

Australian universities were [sic]  autonomous bodies that have their own policies, procedures and practices regarding freedom of speech on campus. 

"Universities are important institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure our universities are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging," Mr Tehan said. 

"The best university education is one where students are taught to think for themselves, and protecting freedom of speech is how to guarantee that. "If necessary, the French Review could lead to the development of an Australian version of the Chicago Statement, which is a voluntary framework that clearly sets out a university’s commitment to promoting freedom of speech." 

Mr French said: "I have agreed to undertake the Review requested by the Government on a cooperative and consultative basis with the university sector and respecting the legitimate institutional autonomy of Australian universities. An important object of the review will be the production of a resource including a Model Code which can be used as a point of reference in any consideration by universities of their existing rules and guidelines relating to the protection of freedom of speech on campus."

Gendered AI

From Alexa to Siri and the GDPR: The Gendering of Virtual Personal Assistants and the Role of EU Data Protection Law' by Nora Ni Loideain and Rachel Adams comments

With female names, voices and characters, artificially intelligent Virtual Personal Assistants such as Siri, Alexa and Cortana, appear to be decisively gendered female. Through an exploration of the various facets of gendering at play in the design of Siri, Alexa and Cortana, we argue that this can be understood as posing a societal harm, insofar as they reproduce normative assumptions about the role of women as submissive and secondary to men. As a potential solution to this problem, this article then turns to explore the scope and potential of data protection law. In particular, we examine the role of data privacy impact assessments that highlight the need to go beyond the data privacy paradigm.

Family Law Review

The ALRC Discussion paper regarding the Review of the Family Law System (submissions due this week) offers the following proposals and questions

2. Education, Awareness and Information 

Proposal 2–1 The Australian Government should develop a national education and awareness campaign to enhance community understanding of the family law system. This should include information about: · the benefits of seeking information, advice and support when contemplating or experiencing separation; · the duties and responsibilities of parents and the importance of taking a child- centred approach to post-separation parenting that prioritises children’s safety and best interests; · the existence and location of the proposed Families Hubs (Proposals 4–1 to 4–4) as a place where people experiencing separation can access advice and support services; · the availability of the proposed family law system information package (Proposals 2–5 to 2–8) that provides practical information to assist people, including children and young people, to understand and navigate the family law system, including how to access the package; and · the availability of alternative dispute resolution processes to assist and empower people experiencing separation to reach agreement about arrangements for their children and property outside of court proceedings. 

Proposal2–2 The national education and awareness campaign should be developed in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTIQ and disability organisations and be available in a range of languages and formats. 

Proposal 2–3 The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to facilitate the promotion of the national education and awareness campaign through the health and education systems and any other relevant agencies or bodies. 

Proposal 2–4 The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to support the development of referral relationships to family law services, including the proposed Families Hubs (Proposals 4–1 to 4–4), from: · universal services that work with children and families, such as schools, childcare facilities and health services; and x Review of the Family Law System · first point of contact services for people who have experienced family violence, including state and territory specialist family violence services and state and territory police and child protection agencies. 

Proposal 2–5 The Australian Government should convene a standing working group with representatives from government and non-government organisations from each state and territory to: · advise on the development of a family law system information package to facilitate easy access for people to clear, consistent, legally sound and nationally endorsed information about the family law system; and · review the information package on a regular basis to ensure that it remains up- to-date. 

Proposal 2–6 The family law system information package should be tailored to take into account jurisdictional differences and should include information about: · the legal framework for resolving parenting and property matters; · the range of legal and support services available to help separating families and their children and how to access these services; and · the different forums and processes for resolving disputes. 

Proposal 2–7 The family law system information package should be accessible in a range of languages and formats, including: · electronically via a central website; · as printed material available at key entry points to the family law system and universal services; and · through interactive means, including a national telephone helpline and a national web-chat service. 

Proposal 2–8 The family law system information package should be: · developed with reference to existing government and non-government information resources and services; · developed in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTIQ and disability organisations; and · user-tested for accessibility by community groups including children and young people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, LGBTIQ people and people with disability. 

Simpler and Clearer Legislation 

Proposal 3–1 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and its subordinate legislation should be comprehensively redrafted with the aim of simplification and assisting readability, by: · simplifying provisions to the greatest extent possible; · restructuring legislation to assist readability, for example by placing the most important substantive provisions as early as possible; · redrafting the Act, Regulations and Rules in ordinary English, by modernising language, and as far as possible removing terms that are unlikely to be understood by general readers, such as legal Latin, archaisms, and unnecessarily technical terms; · user testing key provisions for reader comprehension during the drafting process, for example, through focus groups, to ensure that the legislation is understood as intended; · removing or rationalising overlapping or duplicative provisions as far as possible; · removing provisions establishing the Family Court of Australia and the Australian Institute of Family Studies to separate legislation; · removing provisions defining parentage for the purposes of Commonwealth law to separate legislation; and · considering what provisions should be contained in subordinate legislation rather than the Act. 

Proposal 3–2 Family law court forms should be comprehensively reviewed to improve usability, including through: · only gathering information that is absolutely required, and simplifying how information is gathered (eg through use of check-boxes); · using smart forms, to pre-populate information from previously completed forms (such as name and address), ask contextual questions based on previous answers, and provide contextual help within the form; · using real-time help functions, such as a live-chat functionality, and links to audio-visual help; · providing collaborative functions in circumstances where forms require information from both parties to allow them both to easily enter information; · ensuring that all forms are drafted in ordinary English and where possible providing alternative forms in Easy English to assist litigants with limited literacy or English skills; · providing a paper form for use by individuals without access to technology; and  · providing a single set of forms for all courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). 

Proposal 3–3 The principle (currently set out in s 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) that the child’s best interests must be the paramount consideration in making decisions about children should be retained but amended to refer to ‘safety and best interests’. 

Proposal 3–4 The objects and principles underlying pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) set out in s 60B should be amended to assist the interpretation of the provisions governing parenting arrangements as follows: · arrangements for children should be designed to advance the child’s safety and best interests; · arrangements for children should not expose children or their carers to abuse or family violence or otherwise impair their safety; · children should be supported to maintain relationships with parents and other people who are significant in their lives where maintaining a relationship does not expose them to abuse, family violence or harmful levels of ongoing conflict; · decisions about children should support their human rights as set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and · decisions about the care of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child should support the child’s right to maintain and develop the child’s cultural identity, including the right to: (a) maintain a connection with family, community, culture and country; and (b) have the support, opportunity and encouragement necessary to participate in that culture, consistent with the child’s age and developmental level and the child’s views, and to develop a positive appreciation of that culture. 

Proposal 3–5 The guidance in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for determining the arrangements that best promote the child’s safety and best interests (currently set out mainly in s 60CC), should be simplified to provide that the following matters must be considered: · any relevant views expressed by the child; · whether particular arrangements are safe for the child and the child’s carers, including safety from family violence or abuse; · the developmental, psychological and emotional needs of the child; · the capacity of each proposed carer of the child to provide for the developmental, psychological and emotional needs of the child;  · the benefit to a child of being able to maintain relationships that are significant to them, including relationships with their parents, where it is safe to do so; and · anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child. 

Proposal3–6 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide that, in determining what arrangements best promote the safety and best interests of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, the maintenance of the child’s connection to their family, community, culture and country must be considered. 

Proposal 3–7 The decision making framework for parenting arrangements in pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be further clarified by: · replacing the term ‘parental responsibility’ with a more easily understood term, such as ‘decision making responsibility’; and · making it clear that in determining what arrangements best promote the child’s safety and best interests, decision makers must consider what arrangements would be best for each child in their particular circumstances. 

Question3–1 How should confusion about what matters require consultation between parents be resolved? 

Proposal 3–8 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to explicitly state that, where there is already a final parenting order in force, parties must seek leave to apply for a new parenting order, and that in considering whether to allow a new application, consideration should be given to whether: · there has been a change of circumstances that, in the opinion of the court, is significant; and · it is safe and in the best interests of the child for the order to be reconsidered. 

Proposal 3–9 The Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) should commission a body with relevant expertise, including in psychology, social science and family violence, to develop, in consultation with key stakeholders, evidence-based information resources to assist families in formulating care arrangements for children after separation that support children’s wellbeing. This resource should be publicly available and easily accessible, and regularly updated. 

Proposal 3–10 The provisions for property division in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to more clearly articulate the process used by the courts for determining the division of property. 

Proposal 3–11 The provisions for property division in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to provide that courts must: · in determining the contributions of the parties, take into account the effect of family violence on a party’s contributions; and · in determining the future needs of the parties, take into account the effect of any family violence on the future needs of a party. 

Proposal 3–12 The Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) should commission further research on property and financial matters after separation, including property adjustment after separation, spousal maintenance, and the economic wellbeing of former partners and their children after separation. 

Proposal 3–13 The Australian Government should work with the financial sector to establish protocols for dividing debt on relationship breakdown to avoid hardship for vulnerable parties, including for victims of family violence. 

Proposal3–14 If evaluation of action flowing from this Inquiry finds that voluntary industry action has not adequately assisted vulnerable parties, the Australian Government should consider relaxing the requirement that it not be foreseeable, at the time the order is made, that to make the order would result in the debt not being paid in full. 

Proposal 3–15 The Australian Government should develop information resources for separating couples to assist them to understand superannuation, and how and why superannuation splitting might occur. 

Proposal 3–16 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should require superannuation trustees to develop standard superannuation splitting orders on common scenarios. Procedural fairness should be deemed to be satisfied where parties develop orders based on these standard templates. The templates should be published on a central register. 

Proposal 3–17 The Australian Government should develop tools to assist parties to create superannuation splitting orders. These could include: · a tool to look up the legal name and contact details of superannuation funds; · a tool, with appropriate safeguards, to identify the superannuation accounts held by a former partner from Australian Tax Office records, with necessary amendments to the taxation law to support this; · tools to assist parties with process requirements, such as making superannuation information requests, providing draft orders to superannuation trustees for comment where standard orders are not used, and providing final orders to trustees; and · allowing auto-generation of standard form orders based on the standard orders provided by the superannuation trustee and user-entered data. 

Question 3–2 Should provision be made for early release of superannuation to assist a party experiencing hardship as a result of separation? If so, what limitations should be placed on the ability to access superannuation in this way? How should this relate to superannuation splitting provisions? 

Question 3–3 Which, if any, of the following approaches should be adopted to reform provisions about financial agreements in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth): · amendments to increase certainty about when financial agreements are binding; Proposals and 

Questions xv · amendments to broaden the scope for setting aside an agreement where it is unjust to enforce the agreement, for example, because there has been family violence, or a change of circumstances that was unforeseen when the agreement was entered into; · replacing existing provisions about financial agreements with an ability to make court-approved agreements; or · removing the ability to make binding pre-nuptial financial agreements from family law legislation, and preserving the operation of any existing valid agreements? 

Proposal3–18 The considerations that are applicable to spousal maintenance (presently located in s 75 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)) should be located in a separate section of family law legislation that is dedicated to spousal maintenance applications (‘dedicated spousal maintenance considerations’). 

Proposal 3–19 The dedicated spousal maintenance considerations should include a requirement that the court consider the impact of any family violence on the ability of the applicant to adequately support themselves. 

Question 3–4 What options should be pursued to improve the accessibility of spousal maintenance to individuals in need of income support? Should consideration be given to: · greater use of registrars to consider urgent applications for interim spousal maintenance; · administrative assessment of spousal maintenance; or · another option? 

4. Getting Advice and Support 

Proposal 4–1 The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to establish community-based Families Hubs that will provide separating families and their children with a visible entry point for accessing a range of legal and support services. These Hubs should be designed to: · identify the person’s safety, support and advice needs and those of their children; · assist clients to develop plans to address their safety, support and advice needs and those of their children; · connect clients with relevant services; and · coordinate the client’s engagement with multiple services. 

Proposal 4–2 The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to explore the use of digital technologies to support the assessment of xvi Review of the Family Law System client needs, including their safety, support and advice needs, within the Families Hubs. 

Proposal4–3 Families Hubs should advance the safety and wellbeing of separating families and their children while supporting them through separation. They should include on-site out-posted workers from a range of relevant services, including: · specialist family violence services; · legal assistance services (such as community legal centres); · family dispute resolution services; · therapeutic services (such as family counselling and specialised services for children); · financial counselling services; · housing assistance services; · health services (such as mental health services and alcohol and other drug services); · gambling help services; · children’s contact services; and · parenting support programs or parenting education services (including a program for fathers). 

Proposal 4–4 Local service providers, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTIQ and disability organisations, specialist family violence services and legal assistance services, including community legal services, should play a central role in the design of Families Hubs, to ensure that each hub is culturally safe and accessible, responsive to local needs, and builds on existing networks and relationships between local services. 

Proposal 4–5 The Australian Government should, subject to positive evaluation, expand the Family Advocacy and Support Service (FASS) in each state and territory to include: · an information and referral officer to conduct intake, risk and needs screening and triage, as well as providing information and resources; · a family violence specialist legal service and a family violence specialist support service to assist clients who have experienced or are experiencing family violence; and · an additional legal service and support service, to assist clients who are alleged to have used family violence and clients who are not affected by family violence but have other complex needs. 

Proposal 4–6 The FASS support services should be expanded to provide case management where a client has complex needs and cannot be linked with an appropriate support service providing ongoing case management. 

Proposal 4–7 The level and duration of support provided by the FASS should be flexible depending on client need and vulnerability, as well as legal aid eligibility for ongoing legal services. 

Proposal 4–8 The Australian Government should, subject to positive evaluation, roll out the expanded FASS to a greater number of family court locations, including in rural, regional and remote locations. 

5. Dispute Resolution 

Proposal 5–1 The guidance as to assessment of suitability for family dispute resolution that is presently contained in reg 25 of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (Cth) should be relocated to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). 

Proposal 5–2 The new legislative provision proposed in Proposal 5–1 should provide that, in addition to the existing matters that a family dispute resolution provider must consider when determining whether family dispute resolution is appropriate, the family dispute resolution provider should consider the parties’ respective levels of knowledge of the matters in dispute, including an imbalance in knowledge of relevant financial arrangements. 

Proposal 5–3 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to require parties to attempt family dispute resolution prior to lodging a court application for property and financial matters. There should be a limited range of exceptions to this requirement, including: · urgency, including where orders in relation to the ownership or disposal of assets are required or a party needs access to financial resources for day to day needs; · the complexity of the asset pool, including circumstances involving third party interests (apart from superannuation trustees); · where there is an imbalance of power, including as a result of family violence; · where there are reasonable grounds to believe non-disclosure may be occurring; · where one party has attempted to delay or frustrate the resolution of the matter; and · where there are allegations of fraud. 

Proposal 5–4 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to specify that a court must not hear an application for orders in relation to property and financial matters unless the parties have lodged a genuine steps statement at the time of filing the application. The relevant provision should indicate that if a court finds that a party has xviii Review of the Family Law System not made a genuine effort to resolve a matter in good faith, they may take this into account in determining how the costs of litigation should be apportioned. 

Proposal 5–5 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should include a requirement that family dispute resolution providers in property and financial matters should be required to provide a certificate to the parties where the issues in dispute have not been resolved. The certificate should indicate that: · the matter was assessed as not suitable for family dispute resolution; · the person to whom the certificate was issued had attempted to initiate a family dispute resolution process but the other party has not responded; · the parties had commenced family dispute resolution and the process had been terminated; or · the matter had commenced and concluded with partial resolution of the issues in dispute. 

Question 5–1 Should the requirement in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) that proceedings in property and financial matters must be instigated within twelve months of divorce or two years of separation from a de facto relationship be revised? 

Proposal 5–6 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should set out the duties of parties involved in family dispute resolution or court proceedings for property and financial matters to provide early, full and continuing disclosure of all information relevant to the case. For parties involved in family dispute resolution or court proceedings, disclosure duties should apply to: · earnings, including those paid or assigned to another party; · vested or contingent interests in property, including that which is owned by a legal entity that is fully or partially owned or partially controlled by a party; · income earned by a legal entity fully or partially owned or controlled by a party, including income that is paid or assigned to any other party, person or legal entity; · superannuation interests; and · liabilities and contingent liabilities. 

Proposal 5–7 The provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) setting out disclosure duties should also specify that if a court finds that a party has intentionally failed to provide full, frank and timely disclosure it may: · impose a consequence, including punishment for contempt of court; · take the party’s non-disclosure into account when determining how costs are to be apportioned; · stay or dismiss all or part of the party’s case; or  · take the party’s non-disclosure into account when determining how the financial pool is to be divided. 

Question 5–2 Should the provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) setting out disclosure duties be supported by civil or criminal penalties for non-disclosure? 

Proposal5–8 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should set out advisers’ obligations in relation to providing advice to parties contemplating or undertaking family dispute resolution, negotiation or court proceedings about property and financial matters. Advisers (defined as a legal practitioner or a family dispute resolution practitioner) must advise parties that: · they have a duty of full, frank and continuing disclosure, and, in the case of family dispute resolution, that compliance with this duty is essential to the family dispute resolution process; and · if the matter proceeds to court and a party fails to observe this duty, courts have the power to: (a) impose a consequence, including punishment for contempt of court; (b) take the party’s non-disclosure into account when determining how costs are to be apportioned; (c) stay or dismiss all or part of the party’s case; and (d) take the party’s non-disclosure into account when determining how the financial pool is to be divided. 

Question 5–3 Is there a need to review the process for showing that the legal requirement to attempt family dispute resolution prior to lodging a court application for parenting orders has been satisfied? Should this process be aligned with the process proposed for property and financial matters? 

Proposal 5–9 The Australian Government should work with providers of family dispute resolution services, legal assistance services, specialist family violence services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTIQ and disability organisations to support the further development of culturally appropriate and safe models of family dispute resolution for parenting and financial matters. This should include: · examining the feasibility of means-tested fee for service and cost recovery models to be provided by legal aid commissions and community organisations such as Family Relationship Centres; · the further development of dispute resolution models for property and financial matters involving, where necessary, support by financial counsellors and the provision of legal advice by private practitioners and legal assistance services, such as legal aid commissions, community legal centres and the Legal Advice Line that is part of Family Relationships Advice Line; and · amendments to existing funding agreements and practice agreements to support this work. 

Proposal 5–10 The Australian Government should work with providers of family dispute resolution services, private legal services, financial services, legal assistance services, specialist family violence services and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTIQ and disability organisations to develop effective practice guidelines for the delivery of legally assisted dispute resolution (LADR) for parenting and property matters. These Guidelines should include: · guidance as to when LADR should not be applied in matters involving family violence and other risk related issues; · effective practice in screening, assessing and responding to risk arising from family violence, child safety concerns, mental ill-health, substance misuse and other issues that raise questions of risk; · the respective roles and responsibilities of the professionals involved; · the application of child-inclusive practice; · the application of approaches to support cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; · the application of approaches to support cultural safety for families from culturally and linguistically diverse communities; · the application of approaches to support effective participation for LGBTIQ families; · the application of approaches that support effective participation for families where parents or children have disability; · practices relating to referral to other services, including health services, specialist family violence services and men’s behaviour change programs; · practices relating to referrals from and to the family courts; and · information sharing and collaboration with other services involved with the family. 

Proposal5–11 These Guidelines should be regularly reviewed to support evidence-informed policy and practice in this area. 

6. Reshaping the Adjudication Landscape 

Proposal 6–1 The family courts should establish a triage process to ensure that matters are directed to appropriate alternative dispute resolution processes and specialist pathways within the court as needed. 

Proposal6–2 The triage process should involve a team-based approach combining the expertise of the court’s registrars and family consultants to ensure initial and ongoing risk and needs assessment and case management of the matter, continuing, if required, until final decision. 

Proposal 6–3 Specialist court pathways should include: · a simplified small property claims process; · a specialist family violence list; and · the Indigenous List. 

Proposal 6–4 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide for a simplified court process for matters involving smaller property pools. The provisions should allow for: · the court to have discretion, subject to the requirements of procedural fairness, not to apply formal rules of evidence and procedure in a given case; · the proceedings to be conducted without legal technicality; and · the simplified court procedure to be applied by the court on its own motion or on application by a party. 

Proposal 6–5 In considering whether the simplified court procedure should be applied in a particular matter, the court should have regard to: · the relative financial circumstances of the parties; · the parties’ relative levels of knowledge of their financial circumstances; · whether either party is in need of urgent access to financial resources to meet the day to day needs of themselves and their children; · the size and complexity of the asset pool; and · whether there are reasonable grounds to believe there is history of family violence involving the parties, or risk of family violence. The court should give weight to each of these factors as it sees fit. 

Proposal 6–6 The family courts should consider developing case management protocols to support implementation of the simplified process for matters with smaller property pools, including provision for: · case management by court registrars to establish, monitor and enforce timelines for procedural steps, including disclosure; · conducting a conciliation conference once the asset pool has been identified; and · establishing a standard timetable for processing claims with expected timeframes for case management of events (mentions, conciliation conferences and trial). 

Proposal 6–7 The family courts should consider establishing a specialist list for the hearing of high risk family violence matters in each registry. The list should have the following features: · a lead judge with oversight of the list; · a registrar with responsibility for triaging matters into the list and ongoing case management; · family consultants to prepare short and long reports on families whose matters are heard in the list; and · a cap on the number of matters listed in each daily hearing list. All of the professionals in these roles should have specialist family violence knowledge and experience. 

Question 6–1 What criteria should be used to establish eligibility for the family violence list? 

Question 6–2 What are the risks and benefits of early fact finding hearings? How could an early fact finding process be designed to limit risks? 

Proposal 6–8 The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to develop and implement models for co-location of family law registries and judicial officers in local court registries. This should include local courts in rural, regional and remote locations. 

Question 6–3 What changes to the design of the Parenting Management Hearings process are needed to strengthen its capacity to apply a problem-solving approach in children’s matters? Are other changes needed to this model? 

Question 6–4 What other ways of developing a less adversarial decision making process for children’s matters should be considered? 

Proposal 6–9 The Australian Government should develop a post-order parenting support service to assist parties to parenting orders to implement the orders and manage their co-parenting relationship by providing services including: · education about child development and conflict management; · dispute resolution; and · decision making in relation to implementation of parenting orders. 

Proposal6–10 The Australian Government should work with relevant stakeholders, including the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council, the Australian Psychological Society, the Australian Association of Social Workers, the Mediator Standards Board, Family & Relationship Services Australia and specialist family violence services peak bodies, to develop intake assessment processes for the post-order parenting support service. 

Proposal 6–11 The proposed Family Law Commission (Proposal 12–1) should develop accreditation and training requirements for professionals working in the post-order parenting support service. 

Proposal 6–12 The Australian Government should ensure that all family court premises, including circuit locations and state and territory court buildings that are used for family law matters, are safe for attendees, including ensuring the availability and suitability of: · waiting areas and rooms for co-located service providers, including the extent to which waiting areas can accommodate large family groups; · safe waiting areas and rooms for court attendees who have concerns for their safety while they are at court; · private interview rooms; · multiple entrances and exits; · child-friendly spaces and waiting rooms; · security staffing and equipment; · multi-lingual and multi-format signage; · remote witness facilities for witnesses to give evidence off site and from court- based interview rooms; and · facilities accessible for people with disability. 

7. Children in the Family Law System 

Proposal 7–1 Information about family law processes and legal and support services should be available to children in a range of age-appropriate and culturally appropriate forms. 

Proposal 7–2 The proposed Families Hubs (Proposals 4–1 to 4–4) should include out-posted workers from specialised services for children and young people, such as counselling services and peer support programs. 

Proposal7–3 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide that, in proceedings concerning a child, an affected child must be given an opportunity (so far as practicable) to express their views. 

Proposal 7–4 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide that, in any family dispute resolution process concerning arrangements for a child, the affected child must be given an opportunity (so far as practicable) to express any views about those arrangements. 

Proposal 7–5 The Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) should work with the family relationship services sector to develop best practice guidance on child-inclusive family dispute resolution, including in relation to participation support where child- inclusive family dispute resolution is not appropriate. 

Proposal 7–6 There should be an initial and ongoing assessment of risk to the child of participating in family law proceedings or family dispute resolution, and processes put in place to manage any identified risk. 

Proposal 7–7 Children should not be required to express any views in family law proceedings or family dispute resolution. 

Proposal 7–8 Children involved in family law proceedings should be supported by a ‘children’s advocate’: a social science professional with training and expertise in child development and working with children. The role of the children’s advocate should be to: · explain to the child their options for making their views heard; · support the child to understand their options and express their views; · ensure that the child’s views are communicated to the decision maker; and · keep the child informed of the progress of a matter, and to explain any outcomes and decisions made in a developmentally appropriate way. 

Proposal 7–9 Where a child is not able to be supported to express a view, the children’s advocate should: · support the child’s participation to the greatest extent possible; and · advocate for the child’s interests based on an assessment of what would best promote the child’s safety and developmental needs. 

Proposal 7–10 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should make provision for the appointment of a legal representative for children involved in family law proceedings (a ‘separate legal representative’) in appropriate circumstances, whose role is to: · gather evidence that is relevant to an assessment of a child’s safety and best interests; and · assist in managing litigation, including acting as an ‘honest broker’ in litigation. 

Question 7–1 In what circumstances should a separate legal representative for a child be appointed in addition to a children’s advocate? 

Question7–2 How should the appointment, management and coordination of children’s advocates and separate legal representatives be overseen? For example, should a new body be created to undertake this task? 

Question 7–3 What approach should be taken to forensic issues relating to the role of the children’s advocate, including: · admissibility of communications between the children’s advocate and a child; and · whether the children’s advocate may become a witness in a matter? 

Proposal 7–11 Children should be able to express their views in court proceedings and family dispute resolution processes in a range of ways, including through: · a report prepared by the children’s advocate; · meeting with a decision maker, supported by a children’s advocate; or · directly appearing, supported by a children’s advocate. 

Proposal 7–12 Guidance should be developed to assist judicial officers where children seek to meet with them or otherwise participate in proceedings. This guidance should cover matters including how views expressed by children in any such meeting should be communicated to other parties to the proceeding. 

Proposal 7–13 There should be a Children and Young People’s Advisory Board for the family law system. The Advisory Board should provide advice about children’s experiences of the family law system to inform policy and practice development in the system. 

8. Reducing Harm 

Proposal 8–1 The definition of family violence in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to: · clarify some terms used in the list of examples of family violence and to include other behaviours (in addition to misuse of systems and processes (Proposal 8– 3)) including emotional and psychological abuse and technology facilitated abuse; and · include an explicit cross-reference between the definitions of family violence and abuse to ensure it is clear that the definition of abuse encompasses direct or indirect exposure to family violence. 

Question 8–1 What are the strengths and limitations of the present format of the family violence definition? Question 8–2 Are there issues or behaviours that should be referred to in the definition, in addition to those proposed? 

Proposal 8–2 The Australian Government should commission research projects to examine the strengths and limitations of the definition of family violence in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in relation to the experiences of: · Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; · people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; and · LGBTIQ people. 

Proposal 8–3 The definition of family violence in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to include misuse of legal and other systems and processes in the list of examples of acts that can constitute family violence in s 4AB(2) by inserting  a new subsection referring to the ‘use of systems or processes to cause harm, distress or financial loss’. 

Proposal8–4 The existing provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process or have no reasonable prospect of success (‘unmeritorious proceedings’) should be rationalised. 

Proposal 8–5 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide that, in considering whether to deem proceedings as unmeritorious, a court may have regard to evidence of a history of family violence and in children’s cases must consider the safety and best interests of the child and the impact of the proceedings on the other party when they are the main caregiver for the child. 

Question 8–3 Should the requirement for proceedings to have been instituted ‘frequently’ be removed from provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) setting out courts powers to address vexatious litigation? Should another term, such as ‘repeated’ be substituted? 

Question 8–4 What, if any, changes should be made to the courts’ powers to apportion costs in s 117 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)? 

Proposal 8–6 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide that courts have the power to exclude evidence of ‘protected confidences’: that is, communications made by a person in confidence to another person acting in a professional capacity who has an express or implied duty of confidence. The Act should provide that: · Subpoenas in relation to evidence of protected confidences should not be issued without leave of the court. · The court should exclude evidence of protected confidences where it is satisfied that it is likely that harm would or might be caused, directly or indirectly, to a protected confider, and the nature and extent of the harm outweighs the desirability of the evidence being given. Harm should be defined to include actual physical bodily harm, financial loss, stress or shock, damage to reputation or emotional or psychological harm (such as shame, humiliation and fear). · In exercising this power, the court should consider the probative value and importance of the evidence to the proceedings and the effect that allowing the evidence would have on the protected confider. · In family law proceedings concerning children, the safety and best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration when deciding whether to exclude evidence of protected confidences. Such evidence should be excluded where a court is satisfied that admitting it would not promote the safety and best interests of the child. · The protected confider may consent to the evidence being admitted. · The court should have the power to disallow such evidence on its own motion or by application of the protected confider or the confidant. Where a child is the protected confider, a representative of the child may make the claim for protection on behalf of the child. · The court is obliged to give reasons for its decision. 

Proposal8–7 The Attorney-General’s Department (Cth) should convene a working group comprised of the family courts, the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Australian Psychological Society, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Family & Relationship Services Australia, National Legal Aid, Women’s Legal Services Australia and specialist family violence services peak bodies and providers to develop guidelines in relation to the use of sensitive records in family law proceedings. These guidelines should identify: · principles to consider when a subpoena of sensitive records is in contemplation; · obligations of professionals who are custodians of sensitive records in relation to the provision of those records; · processes for objecting to a subpoena of sensitive records; and · how services and professionals need to manage implications for their clients regarding the possibility that material may be subpoenaed and any potential consequences for their clients if a subpoena is issued. 

9. Additional Legislative Issues 

Proposal 9–1 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should include a supported decision making framework for people with disability to recognise they have the right to make choices for themselves. The provisions should be in a form consistent with the following recommendations of the ALRC Report 124, Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws: · Recommendations 3–1 to 3–4 on National Decision Making Principles and Guidelines; and · Recommendations 4–3 to 4–5 on the appointment, recognition, functions and duties of a ‘supporter’. 

Proposal 9–2 The Australian Government should ensure that people who require decision making support in family law matters, and their supporters, are provided with information and guidance to enable them to understand their functions and duties. 

Proposal 9–3 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should include provisions for the appointment of a litigation representative where a person with disability, who is involved in family law proceedings, is unable to be supported to make their own decisions. The Act should set out the circumstances for a person to have a litigation representative and the functions of the litigation representative. These provisions should be in a form consistent with recommendations 7–3 to 7–4 recommendations of ALRC Report 124, Equality, Capacity and Disability in Commonwealth Laws. 

Proposal 9–4 Family courts should develop practice notes explaining the duties that litigation representatives have to the person they represent and to the court. 

Proposal 9–5 The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to facilitate the appointment of statutory authorities as litigation representatives in family law proceedings. 

Proposal9–6 The Australian Government should work with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to consider how referrals can be made to the NDIA by family law professionals, and how the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) could be used to fund appropriate supports for eligible people with disability to: · build parenting abilities; · access early intervention parenting supports; · carry out their parenting responsibilities; · access family support services and alternative dispute resolution processes; and · navigate the family law system. 

Proposal 9–7 The Australian Government should ensure that the family law system has specialist professionals and services to support people with disability to engage with the family law system. 

Question 9–1 In relation to the welfare jurisdiction: · Should authorisation by a court, tribunal, or other regulatory body be required for procedures such as sterilisation of children with disability or intersex medical procedures? What body would be most appropriate to undertake this function? · In what circumstances should it be possible for this body to authorise sterilisation procedures or intersex medical procedures before a child is legally able to personally make these decisions? · What additional legislative, procedural or other safeguards, if any, should be put in place to ensure that the human rights of children are protected in these cases? 

Proposal 9–8 The definition of family member in s 4(1AB) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to be inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family. 

Question 9–2 How should a provision be worded to ensure the definition of family member covers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family? 

10. A Skilled and Supported Workforce 

Proposal10–1 The Australian Government should work with relevant non- government or ganisations and key professional bodies to develop a workforce capability plan for the family law system. 

Proposal 10–2 The workforce capability plan for the family law system should identify: · the different professional groups working in the family law system; · the core competencies that particular professional groups need; and · the training and accreditation needed for different professional groups. 

Proposal 10–3 The identification of core competencies for the family law system workforce should include consideration of the need for family law system professionals to have: · an understanding of family violence; · an understanding of child abuse, including child sexual abuse and neglect; · an understanding of trauma-informed practice, including an understanding of the impacts of trauma on adults and children; · an ability to identify and respond to risk, including the risk of suicide; · an understanding of the impact on children of exposure to ongoing conflict; · cultural competency, in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities and LGBTIQ people; · disability awareness; and · an understanding of the family violence and child protection systems and their intersections with the family law system. 

Question10–1 Are there any additional core competencies that should be considered in the workforce capability plan for the family law system? 

Proposal 10–4 The Family Law Commission proposed in Proposal 12–1 should oversee the implementation of the workforce capability plan through training— including cross-disciplinary training—and accreditation of family law system professionals. 

Proposal10–5 In developing the workforce capability plan, the capacity for family dispute resolution practitioners to conduct family dispute resolution in property and financial matters should be considered. This should include consideration of existing training and accreditation requirements. 

Question10–2 What qualifications and training should be required for family dispute resolution practitioners in relation to family law disputes involving property and financial issues? 

Proposal 10–6 State and territory law societies should amend their continuing professional development requirements to require all legal practitioners undertaking family law work to complete at least one unit of family violence training annually. This  training should be in addition to any other core competencies required for legal practitioners under the workforce capability plan. 

Proposal10–7 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide for the accreditation of Children’s Contact Service workers and impose a requirement that these workers hold a valid Working with Children Check. 

Question10–3 Should people who work at Children’s Contact Services be required to hold other qualifications, such as a Certificate IV in Community Services or a Diploma of Community Services? 

Proposal10–8 All future appointments of federal judicial officers exercising family law jurisdiction should include consideration of the person’s knowledge, experience and aptitude in relation to family violence. 

Question 10–4 What, if any, other changes should be made to the criteria for appointment of federal judicial officers exercising family law jurisdiction? 

Question10–5 What, if any, changes should be made to the process for appointment of federal judicial officers exercising family law jurisdiction? 

Proposal10–9 The Australian Government should task the Family Law Commission (Proposal 12–1) with the development a national accreditation system with minimum standards for private family report writers as part of the newly developed Accreditation Rules. 

Proposal 10–10 The Family Law Commission (Proposal 12–1) should maintain a publicly available list of accredited private family report writers with information about their qualifications and experience as part of the Accreditation Register. 

Proposal 10–11 When requesting the preparation of a report under s 62G of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the family courts should provide clear instructions about why the report is being sought and the particular issues that should be reported on. 

Proposal 10–12 In appropriate matters involving the care, welfare and development of a child, judges should consider appointing an assessor with expert knowledge in relation to the child’s particular needs to assist in the hearing and determination of the matter. 

Proposal10–13 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should provide that, where concerns are raised about the parenting ability of a person with disability in proceedings for parenting orders, a report writer with requisite skills should: · prepare a report for the court about the person’s parenting ability, including what supports could be provided to improve their parenting; and · make recommendations about how that person’s disability may, or may not, affect their parenting. 

Proposal 10–14 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be amended to provide that in parenting proceedings involving an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, a cultural report should be prepared, including a cultural plan that sets out how the child’s ongoing connection with kinship networks and country may be maintained. 

Question 10–6 Should cultural reports be mandatory in all parenting proceedings involving an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child? 

Proposal 10–15 The Australian Government should, as a condition of its funding agreements, require that all government funded family relationships services and family law legal assistance services develop and implement wellbeing programs for their staff. 

11. Information Sharing 

Proposal 11–1 State and territory child protection, family violence and other relevant legislation should be amended to: · remove any provisions that prevent state and territory agencies from disclosing relevant information, including experts’ reports, to courts, bodies and agencies in the family law system in appropriate circumstances; and · include provisions that explicitly authorise state and territory agencies to disclose relevant information to courts, bodies and agencies in the family law system in appropriate circumstances. The relevant agencies can be identified through the proposed information sharing framework (Proposals 11–2 and 11–3). 

Question 11–1 What other information should be shared or sought about persons involved in family law proceedings? For example, should: · State and territory police be required to enquire about whether a person is currently involved in family law proceedings before they issue or renew a gun licence? · State and territory legislation require police to inform family courts if a person makes an application for a gun licence and they have disclosed they are involved in family law proceedings? · The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) require family courts to notify police if a party to proceedings makes an allegation of current family violence? · The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) give family law professionals discretion to notify police if they fear for a person’s safety and should such professionals be provided with immunity against actions against them, including defamation, if they make such a notification? 

Proposal 11–2 

The Australian Government should work with state and territory governments to develop and implement a national information sharing framework to guide the sharing of information about the safety, welfare and wellbeing of families and children between the family law, family violence and child protection systems. The framework should include: · relevant federal, state and territory court documents; · child protection records; · police records; · experts’ reports; and · other relevant information. 

Proposal11–3 The information sharing framework should include the legal framework for sharing information and information sharing principles, as well as guidance about: · why information needs to be shared; · what information should be shared; · circumstances when information should be shared; · mechanisms for information sharing, including technological solutions; · how information that is shared can be used; · who is able to share information; · roles and responsibilities of professionals in the system in relation to information sharing; · interagency education and training; · interagency collaboration; and · monitoring and evaluation of information sharing initiatives. 

Question 11–2 Should the information sharing framework include health records? If so, what health records should be shared? 

Question 11–3 Should records be shared with family relationships services such as family dispute resolution services, Children’s Contact Services, and parenting order program services? 

Proposal 11–4 The Australian Government and state and territory governments should consider expanding the information sharing platform as part of the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme to include family court orders and orders issued under state and territory child protection legislation. 

Proposal 11–5 State and territory governments should consider providing access for family courts and appropriate bodies and agencies in the family law system to  relevant inter-jurisdictional and intra-jurisdictional child protection and family violence information sharing platforms. 

Proposal 11–6 The family courts should provide relevant professionals in the family violence and child protection systems with access to the Commonwealth Courts Portal to enable them to have reliable and timely access to relevant information about existing family court orders and pending proceedings. 

Proposal 11–7 The Australian Government should work with states and territory governments to co-locate child protection and family violence support workers at each of the family law court premises. 

Proposal 11–8 The Australian Government and state and territory governments should work together to facilitate relevant entities, including courts and agencies in the family law, family violence and child protection systems, entering into information sharing agreements for the sharing of relevant information about families and children. 

Proposal 11–9 The Australian Government and state and territory governments should work together to develop a template document to support the provision of a brief summary of child protection department or police involvement with a child and family to family courts. 

Question 11–4 If a child protection agency has referred a parent to the family courts to obtain parenting orders, what, if any, evidence should they provide the courts? For example, should they provide the courts with any recommendations they may have in relation to the care arrangements of the children? 

Proposal 11–10 The Australian Government should develop and implement an information sharing scheme to guide the sharing of relevant information about families and children between courts, bodies, agencies and services within the family law system.  

Proposal 11–11 The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should support the sharing of relevant information between entities within the family law system. The information sharing scheme should include such matters as: · what information should be shared; · why information should be shared; · circumstances when information should be shared; · mechanisms for information sharing; · how information that is shared can be used; · who is able to share information; and · roles and responsibilities of professionals in the system in relation to information sharing. 

Proposal 11–12 The Australian Government should work with states and territories to ensure that the family relationships services they fund are captured by, and comply with, the information sharing scheme. 

Question 11–5 What information should be shared between the Families Hubs (Proposals 4–1 to 4–4) and the family courts, and what safeguards should be put in place to protect privacy? For example: · Should all the information about services within the Families Hubs that were accessed by parties be able to be shared freely with the family courts? · What information should the family courts receive (ie services accessed, number of times accessed, or more detailed information about treatment plans etc)? · Should client consent be needed to share this information? · Who would have access to the information at the family courts? · Would the other party get access to any information provided by the Families Hubs services to the family courts? · Should there be capacity for services provided through the Families Hubs to provide written or verbal evidence to the family courts? 

12. System Oversight and Reform Evaluation 

Proposal 12–1 The Australian Government should establish a new independent statutory body, the Family Law Commission, to oversee the family law system. The aims of the Family Law Commission should be to ensure that the family law system operates effectively in accordance with the objectives of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and to promote public confidence in the family law system. The responsibilities of the Family Law Commission should be to: · monitor the performance of the system; · manage accreditation of professionals and agencies across the system, including oversight of training requirements; · issue guidelines to family law professionals and service providers to assist them to understand their legislative duties; · resolve complaints about professionals and services within the family law system, including through the use of enforcement powers; · improve the functioning of the family law system through inquiries, either of its own motion or at the request of government; · be informed by the work of the Children and Young People’s Advisory Board (Proposal 7–13); · raise public awareness about the roles and responsibilities of professionals and service providers within the family law system; and  make recommendations about research and law reform proposals to improve the system. 

Proposal12–2 The Family Law Commission should have responsibility for accreditation and oversight of professionals working across the system. In discharging its function to accredit and oversee family law system professionals, the Family Law Commission should: · develop Accreditation Rules; · administer the Accreditation Rules including the establishment and maintenance of an Accreditation Register; · establish standards and other obligations that accredited persons must continue to meet to remain accredited, including oversight of training requirements; · establish and administer processes for the suspension or cancellation of accreditation; and · establish and administer a process for receiving and resolving complaints against practitioners accredited under the Accreditation Rules. 

Proposal 12–3 The Family Law Commission should have power to: · conduct own motion inquiries into issues relevant to the performance of any aspect of the family law system; · conduct inquiries into issues referred by government relevant to the performance of any aspect of the family law system; and · make recommendations to improve the performance of an aspect of the family law system as a result of an inquiry. 

Proposal12–4 The Family Law Commission should have responsibility for raising public awareness about the family law system and the roles and responsibilities of professionals and services within the system. 

Proposal12–5 The Family Law Commission should have responsibility for providing information and education to family law professionals and service providers about their legislative duties and functions. 

Proposal 12–6 The Family Law Commission should identify research priorities that will help inform whether the family law system is meeting both its legislative requirements and its public health goals. 

Proposal12–7 The Australian Government should build into its reform implementation plan a rigorous evaluation program to be conducted by an appropriate organisation. 

Proposal12–8 The Australian Government should develop a cultural safety framework to guide the development, implementation and monitoring of reforms to the family law system arising from this review to ensure they support the cultural safety and responsiveness of the family law system for client families and their children. The framework should be developed in consultation with relevant organisations, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse, and LGBTIQ organisations. 

Proposal 12–9 The cultural safety framework should address: · the provision of community education about the family law system; · the development of a culturally diverse and culturally competent workforce; · the provision of, and access to, culturally safe and responsive legal and support services; and · the provision of, and access to, culturally safe and responsive dispute resolution and adjudication processes. 

Proposal12–10 Family law service providers should be required to provide services that are compliant with relevant parts of the cultural safety framework. 

Proposal12–11 Privacy provisions that restrict publication of family law proceedings to the public, currently contained in s 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) should be maintained, with the following amendments: · s 121 should be redrafted to make the obligations it imposes easier to understand; · an explicit exemption to the restriction on publication or dissemination of accounts of proceedings should be provided for providing accounts of family law proceedings to professional regulators, and for use of accounts by professional regulators in connection with their regulatory functions; · an avoidance of doubt provision should be inserted to clarify that government agencies, family law services, service providers for children, and family violence service providers are not parts of the ‘public’ for the purposes of the provision; · the offence of publication or dissemination of accounts of proceedings should only apply to public communications, and legislative provisions should clarify that the offence does not apply to private communications; and · to ensure public confidence in family law decision making, an obligation should be placed on any courts exercising family law jurisdiction, other than courts of summary jurisdiction, to publish anonymised reports of reasons for decision for final orders. 

Question 12–1 Should privacy provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) be amended explicitly to apply to parties who disseminate identifying information about family law proceedings on social media or other internet-based media?  

Question12–2 Should a Judicial Commission be established to cover at least Commonwealth judicial officers exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)? If so, what should the functions of the Commission be?