A. Purpose of this Report *

B. Approach *

C. Responses *

D. Complexity of the Issues *

E. Themes and suggested outcomes *

1. Overall policy framework *

2. Availability, location and dissemination of information *

3. Property design, technology, signage and provision of security services *

4. Resolution phase - conferences (case assessment conferences, conciliation conferences and pre-trial conferences – children and financial matters) *

5. Determination phase - decision making (interim and final hearings) *

6. Awareness and understanding - training *

7. Legislative Amendment - Reforms *

8. Key outcomes from consultation with Indigenous Communities *

9. Key outcomes from consultation with Culturally Diverse Communities *

SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED STRATEGIES *

We have previously advised the Committee’s terms of reference and of our intention to undertake the task set us by a process of consultation. The purposes of this report are two-fold: to draw attention to the major areas of concern identified in the course of the consultation process undertaken; and to suggest some strategies which the Court might consider in addressing those concerns. If inadvertently there has been omitted any point central to a submission made or misconstruction of information previously given, we would welcome your drawing this to our attention upon receipt of this report – in any event before 31 July - so that the Committee might complete its task and prepare its report to the Chief Justice's Consultative Council.

The Committee is grateful to those who took the time to complete questionnaires, prepare submissions and attend workshops. Your input has provided us with invaluable information about many aspects of the Court's family violence policy, and has enabled us to consider a number of ways in which various procedures and processes may be improved.

In framing the consultative process, considered critical to the re-assessment of existing policy, we gave the Court’s varied users – clients, support and allied organisations, the legal profession, staff and judicial officers - the opportunity to convey their experiences and to suggest improvements. To that end, the Committee devised and distributed several separate questionnaires to Judicial officers and staff, clients and various external organisations. This was also placed on the Court’s web site. Many replied in that form; others made more detailed submissions.

Integral to the consultative approach, the Committee was concerned to see that the process did not exclude the Court’s obviously diverse client base, including clients from Indigenous communities and those for whom English is not their first language (or at all) and who come from culturally diverse backgrounds. To receive the benefit of their experience and views, we conducted a series of workshops with Indigenous, Immigrant and Refugee communities. Ms Maria Dimopoulos was engaged for that purpose and, in consultation with representatives from local communities, she facilitated a series of workshops with the assistance of either a Committee member or a Judge of the Court, or both. Of course there were practical constraints on how widely this could be done and that compelled a selection of locations for the workshops.

Ms Dimopoulos facilitated workshops and interviews with Indigenous workers and clients in Adelaide, Alice Springs, Darwin, Melbourne, Sydney, and Townsville, arranged in various of those locations with assistance from the Court’s Indigenous Family Consultants. Workshops with Immigrant and Refugee communities were conducted in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Melbourne, and Sydney. Representatives and clients from a range of communities participated and the process had the added advantage of providing an opportunity to build relationships between the Court, clients and workers from those community organisations. There was diversity of background, culture, language, location and resources amongst participants from those communities. Not unexpectedly, they presented differences in their experiences and views. Ms Dimopoulos’ full reports will be attached to our final report, but here we summarise the points they highlighted and the key outcomes she identified.

In addition to the feedback from these community consultations, the Committee received 107 submissions from individuals or organisations external to the Court, 73 clients responded and 146 judicial officers and staff members responded to the questionnaire and made supplementary submissions – a total of 326. In some instances, the submission from community organisations was based upon consultative workshops undertaken by that organisation, and so we were given the benefit of an even wider viewpoint than the number of submissions suggests. The final report will provide a list of the submissions received.

After considering and analysing all of this material, it was apparent that concerns exist in all of the areas covered by the questionnaires developed for the purpose, and there was a considerable degree of consistency across the board on some topics, reflecting similar experiences and views. Some submissions also covered areas of law reform or legislative amendment, not a topic canvassed in our questionaries. Not to be forgotten, a considerable number of responses made positive remarks about the Court’s performance, or had neutral responses, or saw no need for change or improvement. Yet we have focussed here on those that took a contrary view. We have not analysed the responses statistically, but each Committee member assumed responsibility for a particular section of the questionnaires and carefully read the comments relating to that section before summarising them. Generally, the responses indicated a lack of consistency of service depending on the location of the registry. Undoubtedly some registries have separate entrances and exits for clients, staff liaise well in community agencies and are particularly sensitive to family violence issues. But obviously practices are far from uniform and are frequently dependent on the activities of particular individuals rather than a comprehensive system or policy across the Court as a whole.

Family violence is a subject that impacts upon all areas of operation of the Court in undertaking its functions; for example, to identify just a few, policies directed to providing an effective response have implications for building design and use; security measures, by personnel and electronic means; operational decisions at local registry level; information, both as to content, location and availability; staff training and professional development programs, by increasing awareness and pointing the way to effective responses; the role of mediators and how they carry out their professional functions; case management and case flow; as well as the process of determining disputes where this issue features, both on an interim and final basis, whether clients are legally represented or self-represented. That is to say nothing of the current law and its application in matters where clients litigate their dispute before a Judicial officer.

The Committee perceives its role in the final report to suggest an over-arching policy framework and to signpost systems that ought to be developed in all areas of operation effected. In the Committee’s view, any system designed to respond to this serious and important issue needs to be owned by those with designated responsibilities for areas of concern identified, and therefore the detail needs to be developed by those with that responsibility, consistent with the direction flagged by the Committee, should that be accepted by CJCC. That activity might take various forms: the development of formal documents, such as protocols or guidelines or manuals, or constitute operational procedures of one kind or another. In some cases that involves the discharge of professional duties (eg. report writing by mediators) and it is only appropriate that procedures there be developed by the professional group involved.

To summarise, for the issue to be effectively addressed, staff and other personnel will need to be involved in developing, recording and implementing the strategies, the processes or the procedures that will impact on their area of operation, whatever that be. In doing so, we see it as essential that decisions taken in individual sectors of operation fit within the whole-of-Court framework in an integrated way.

We collated the information given to us, grouped it into various areas, and present it here in a summary form. Following each area we will present what we have called ‘suggested strategies’. These arise either directly from suggestions by respondents or the Committee itself has formulated suggestions to deal with the issue of concern following consideration of the submissions received and its own deliberations. We have adopted the term ‘strategies’ rather than ‘recommendations’ to re-enforce the fact that none of what appears here should be taken to be such at this stage. The formulation of recommendations will follow consideration of any further feedback from this consultation report.

We have not seen it as part of our role to weigh up and evaluate the implications for the Court, by resources or otherwise, of implementing any of the strategies, should they take on the character of recommendations at a later stage. We merely present the information gathered from many and varied sources with a good deal of synthesis, but with what we believe is little culling, and to add to it our own consideration of the courses the Court might adopt in various areas of its operations and functions.

The summary discussion and suggested strategies cover these areas:

1. the importance of a sound policy framework;

2. availability, location and dissemination of information;

3. security and safety measures, including building design and use, practices and procedures;

4. practices and procedures in the resolution phase of passage through the Court;

5. practices and procedures in the determination phase of passage through the Court;

6. raising awareness in all personnel;

7. law reform;

8. key outcomes of consultation with Indigenous communities and representatives;

9. key outcomes of consultation with culturally diverse communities and representatives.

It became immediately apparent to us that few of those who responded (whether Court staff or others) had any knowledge of the purpose or detail of the Court’s current policy or the Guideline documents prepared under it.

In line with suggestions made by some respondents, we propose reviewing the terms of the overall policy document. Once in place, it should ensure that all operational decisions are taken under a soundly expressed philosophy where safety is given priority. That will occur after the consultation process is complete. The Committee sees that as setting a comprehensive conceptual and practical framework for all areas of its operation.

It may well be, as suggested by carefully considered submissions, that the present framework within which the Court operates is one of ‘relationship breakdown’ where the language of ‘conflict’ prevails. Yet this is also language applied when there is family violence. But a ‘relationship breakdown’ perspective, using language common to both, may tend to lead to the assumption that problems are related to the partnership, and dissolving the partnership will therefore dissolve the problems. This is by no means necessarily so when violent conduct is involved. So a ‘relationship breakdown’ framework, it was suggested, is inadequate and unsuited to setting effective responses to the issue of violence. If the focus were shifted more to a family violence framework, where safety is given priority, there would be less likelihood of it being left out as a relevant consideration when decisions are being taken.

Such a framework, it was suggested, would require (a) the development of risk assessment tools; (b) the Court to become more participatory in an integrated community response; and (c) a safety and accountability audit in due course.

Risk assessment tools require the development of questionnaires designed to determine the safety needs of a client subjected to family violence, with that information being used to develop a monitored safety plan responsive to safety needs within the Court environs and travelling to and from Court.

As for developing a more integrated response, this contemplates the Court collaborating more with other agencies by having an aligned set of principles, goals and protocols with the aim of maximising safety and attempting to reduce the incidence of violence. Shared objectives would be: regarding the safety of the victim as paramount; treating family violence as serious; not reflecting the community’s historical tolerance of it by delivering mixed messages about its acceptability; providing consistency in policies and procedures across agencies involved in the justice system; recognising that victims need to be informed and empowered to make their own decisions; tailoring services to meet the needs of individual clients; providing a genuinely responsive service to the expressed needs of victims; and for services to be culturally appropriate.

Once an appropriate framework is in place, it needs to be matched against all of the Court’s operations and procedures by a safety and accountability audit of its materials, operations and procedures. The expectation is that such an audit would expose unspoken assumptions and provide a measure of how effective decisions have been in achieving the principles related to safety and accountability. The audit would consider safety issues from the perspective of all users, including staff and those accessing the Court’s services as clients, workers, and legal practitioners.

1. review its principal formal policy document, including the definition of family violence, to set an appropriate framework for all areas of its operations;

2. re-evaluate and, if necessary, redraft its current guidelines and create other guideline documents directed to various areas of its operation to ensure proper protocols are in place for staff to be responsive to family violence by treating safety as a priority;

3. make such documents readily available to staff and to the public;

4. develop risk assessment tools so as to identify concerns about family violence and to assist in the development and delivery of a safety plan;

5. develop an integrated response to family violence with local agencies;

6. commission a consultancy to undertake a family violence safety and accountability audit of all of its processes, procedures and operations on a regular basis.

   2. Availability, location and dissemination of information

   The consultation process identified a significant lack of information and awareness about the Court’s family violence policy, the Court’s position in relation to family violence, and its information and procedures about available security measures. Many Court staff were unaware of it, and it had not been drawn to the attention of new staff in any induction program.

   Many people identified a contradiction in the information that was provided and the practice or service received; for example, not being given separate counselling sessions even after requesting it ie. suggesting the Court raised expectations but then did not deliver on the promise.

   Culturally appropriate information and culturally appropriate methods of delivering the information were identified as a significant gap.

   The Court website, while acknowledged as a valuable resource, was not considered appropriate or accessible to a significant number of Court clients, including those with low literacy, NESB and Indigenous people as well as those with no access to the internet or with limited computer literacy. The subject of family violence was also considered not to be sufficiently prominent on the website.

   Lack of communication between the Court and the community sector was also identified as a key issue. The dissemination of information is closely associated with the relationship between the Court and agencies that provide a support role to Court clients. An overwhelming number of respondents strongly supported the development of closer working relationships between community agencies and local registries. Many workers said the information they did know about Court processes and security measures were learnt through experience and/or necessity. Particular concerns were raised for self-representing clients, whom service providers believed were further disadvantaged if they were without a support worker, demonstrating the lack of information available to the general community. This is further exacerbated for NESB and Indigenous clients.

   Workers from community agencies want training from the Court, dialogue with the Court, Court representatives on inter-agency and community networks, partnerships and formal links. Indigenous communities and workers from diverse cultural groups expressed particular needs in this area, to be better able to assist with family law issues their clients who are significantly disadvantaged by a culturally unfamiliar system.

   While there are a lot of positive links already established with the community sector, the overwhelming response was that the Court needs to be pro-active in establishing further links with a range of agencies, including the legal profession. Lack of referrals from the Court to appropriate support services was identified as an area needing considerable work. Clients, in particular, raised the lack of referral as an area that would have significantly assisted them through the Court process. Establishing formal links with community organisations would assist Court staff to provide informed referrals to clients.

   Staff were strongly in favour of developing closer relations with community agencies, but identified lack of resources as being the key issue preventing this.

   The need for a designated Court person in each registry, responsible for providing clients with information about family violence, as well as being responsible for establishing and maintaining links with local services/networks, was a strong theme identified by staff, service providers and clients.

   Suggested Strategies

7. A comprehensive information and communication strategy be developed and implemented that includes information about the Court’s position on family violence, its response to family violence, Court processes and safety measures. The strategy include the development of:

Waiting areas were raised as a significant issue: their design as well as the surveillance provided both electronically and by the presence of security guards. The lack of duress alarms or other means by which clients could signify difficulties when in the waiting area was a common staff comment.

It was suggested by staff that there needs to be a review of all aspects of signage, the wording, the location, and usefulness to clients who do not speak English.

It was further suggested that the toilets are a vulnerable area for some and should have the means of signalling security concerns while inside. There was further identified a need for safe areas within the waiting area, such as a safe room, and for those rooms to be equipped properly and made comfortable. Lifts were identified as a vulnerable area and their lack of proximity to security services commented upon.

It was said that large crowds at Court events such as duty lists have the potential for problems. Rooms designed for mediators and deputy registrars for conferences need to have sufficient space so clients do not feel ‘on top of each other’.

There was also identified a need for the Court in an appropriate case to hold hearings with one client in a separate secure area, but able to fully observe and participate through closed circuit TV.

Separate entrances and exits should be available at all premises. The lack of airport style security was a matter of concern from some quarters. There was also some concern expressed by several staff members about the removal of glass barriers at filing counters.

Training for Court staff was identified as a significant issue, including by staff themselves. There is a need for client service procedures to be reviewed to ensure that concerns regarding violence are able to be identified at all points of client contact.

It was said by staff that there are problems with notification on Casetrack of family violence issues and there were a number of reports of mediators not accepting a client’s request to be seen separately, even in some instances when a protection order is in place.

The factors identified by clients as making them feel safe inside the Court building included having a lawyer or support person with them; availability of a separate waiting room; metal detectors; visible security guards; signs on the wall; and plenty of people around.

What made clients feel unsafe were the proximity of the perpetrator; being in the waiting area; not being able to be in separate Court room and participate in the hearing by use of video; intimidating Court procedures; unsafe toilets; walking to and from the building; and only one exit from the building being available.

From the clients’ point of view, it would help to have an escort to the car park; to have separate waiting rooms; technology used for Court events; not having to be in the courtroom; more visible security and having security in the courtroom; to have separate entrances; support workers being available; having a dedicated lift to enter and leave the area; and safe parking.

Further submissions covered these areas:

• Limitations with the services provided within the Court’s premises by contracted security guards as well as Federal Police were commented upon. Shortcomings included an overall lack of numbers and also concerns that the guards lacked an understanding of the dynamics of violence situations that resulted in less than adequate protection being provided at times. The lack of numbers of security guards was also seen as linked to instances of inadequate response times to particular incidents. There were also concerns expressed about the visibility of the on site security services and their clear identification as people who can provide assistance rather than being part of the Court’s administrative workforce. The difficulty of identifying Federal Police officers who are in plain clothes was noted.

• There were safety concerns related to clients arriving at and leaving Court premises. The fact that there is in most registries some form of on site security was seen as of little assistance when their influence began and ended at the door of the Court. The lack of escort facilities to and from court premises was seen as a significant safety shortfall. There were also concerns expressed regarding a lack of available information regarding the procedures involved in notifying Court administrative staff in advance of Court events of safety concerns for the client.

• The safety issues outside Court premises were further commented on in submissions that highlighted the vulnerability of women and children having contact with violent ex partners during contact handovers in open settings such as fast food outlets etc.

• There was a wide range of issues identified with the design of Court premises, with particular emphasis on the problems in waiting areas and the pressure on clients in facing their violent partners during the conduct of mediation and events within court rooms.

1. That airport style security be provided at all metropolitan Court premises and there be a review of security at rural and regional registries and circuit locations where airport security may not be feasible.

2. Measures to address the concerns identified be incorporated into future designs for new Court premises and refits. Waiting areas be recognised by registry staff and contracted security staff as areas that require monitoring to ensure that they operate as safe environments.

3. All Court registries provide a "safe room" within the secure perimeter where clients who have expressed a concern regarding their safety can wait for their Court event. These rooms should be comfortable, where possible be in close proximity to a toilet and be monitored by security staff.

4. All aspects of Court signage relating to security concerns be reviewed. This would include the actual wording, the location of the signage and the translation of the signage into the languages used by the majority of the Court’s clients in that location. This information can be gained from the figures of interpreter usage.

5. In all future refits and new Court premises the location of toilets be recognised as a significant security issue. Feedback indicates the need to have significant distance between men’s and women’s toilets and for attention to be paid to the location of toilets if possible in close proximity to security points.

6. In all future refits and new Court premises the location of lifts be recognised as a significant security issue. Feedback indicated that they should be in clearly visible areas of the registries and that they be identified as areas requiring monitoring by security staff.

7. Rooms for the conduct of mediation and conciliation events by Deputy Registrars and Mediators have sufficient space to ensure clients do not feel their safety is compromised. Future refits and new registry building designs incorporate specially designed interview rooms separate from the Mediator and Deputy Registrar offices for this purpose.

8. All Court premises, including circuit locations where possible, have the capacity for separate entrance and exit points for use by clients concerned about their safety.

9. All Court registries have the capacity to hold hearings with one client in a separate secure area but able to fully observe and participate through closed circuit TV.

10. In all future refits and new Court premises it be recognised that current court room design means that in many instances witnesses, when entering and leaving the witness box, often have to come in close physical contact with the other party. In the interim, Court staff should be trained in how to support clients in these circumstances and clients should be advised by the Court of support available for them.

11. The role of Casetrack and "file marking" in documenting client safety concerns be clarified and, once settled, instructions on its use in this area be sent to all relevant staff.

12. All Court listing practices be reviewed to ensure that wherever possible staggered lists are employed to minimise the numbers of clients waiting together for Court events. The Court work with the FMS on the adoption of a similar practice in relation to their listing practices.

13. The way the Court obtains information regarding client safety concerns be reviewed to ensure that it is as effective as possible. This includes the information contained in appointment letters sent to clients, the protocols for clients at the filing counter and Mediators and Deputy Registrars in the conduct of all events in both the resolution and determination phase of the Court’s case management pathway. The aim is that clients have clear, easily understood instructions for alerting the Court of their concern, in sufficient time to enable appropriate arrangement to be made and that staff are appropriately trained to be able to take and act on the information given to them.

14. All changes to Court practices in the area of family violence are preceded by effective training for all staff. The Court recognise that such training is being requested strongly by staff themselves.

15. Part of the program of training for judicial officers highlights safety issues involved in the making of contact arrangements that require ‘handovers’ in unsupervised settings in situations where there is a history of high conflict between the parents.

16. The Court review the number of security guards provided at registries, the information that is provided to clients regarding their role and their ‘identification’ to the public and require, through its tendering process, on going education to be provided to the guards on the dynamics of the violence situations they are likely to encounter in the course of their duties.

17. The issues identified in the submissions by the Australian Federal Police, the Northern Territory, Victorian and New South Wales Police force, as well as other client and service provider submissions that commented on the role of the Federal and State Police, be further considered by the Marshal of the Court and recommendations made in the final report.

18. The issue of safety concerns for clients immediately before and after they enter Court premises be considered in the discussions held with State and Federal Police Forces to explore what assistance could be provided.

    4. Resolution phase - conferences (case assessment conferences, conciliation conferences and pre-trial conferences – children and financial matters)

    The question of whether conciliation and mediation are ever appropriate where there are allegations of family violence was raised in a number of submissions. Not surprisingly, given the name changes in the Court, some submissions confuse conciliation (where the "mediator" may give advice or intervene in relation to children’s best interests for example) and mediation (where the "mediator" is not to proffer an opinion).

    Experiences of inconsistent practices by Counsellors and Deputy Registrars in relation to requests for separate interviews were also noted in a number of submissions. Many clients experienced various levels of pressure to agree to joint sessions by both Counsellors and Deputy Registrars.

    The problems that arose for victims, as a consequence, included feeling unsafe arriving, being present with or leaving at the same or similar time as their ex-partners. Within joint sessions some clients felt they could not disclose information lest it further jeopardise their or their children’s safety, and/or experienced a lack of confidence expressing themselves and feeling intimidated by alleged perpetrators. These difficulties were compounded for women of Indigenous or non-English speaking backgrounds.

    There was a sense that clients experienced many Court staff as de-sensitised to the feelings joint sessions can elicit and that staff perceived the presence of Apprehended
    Violence Orders and/or the requests for separate interviews as a further, and/or unnecessary, demand or complication to their workload.

    A number of submissions suggested that clients, particularly from non-English speaking and Indigenous backgrounds, would benefit from the inclusion of support people in mediation appointments. Were it to be usual practice for at least a component of all initial conferences to include individual consultations with each party, the inclusion of support people would be more easily facilitated. It is often not appropriate to include support people in the joint mediation component as, to enhance children’s well being and safety, all parties to the proceedings may need to fully participate in the dispute resolution processes. A perception by one party of biased or favoured treatment of the other by someone being seen to assist them can hinder this.

    Other submissions advocate the use of structured risk assessments of family violence. Individual interviews would enable this to be done.

    Suggested strategies:

19. A working party be formed to consider:

Various topics raised by respondents have been grouped together as bearing more particularly upon the determination phase of proceedings.

A repeated theme in the submissions was the demonstrated lack of awareness at all levels of the Court about the dynamics of family violence, its impact on victims and, in the case of parent victims, their children. Those dynamics include the extent to which the presence of violence may affect the capacity of a victim to effectively participate in Court hearings or to present their case for determination - all the more so when a victim is self-represented. It was suggested that this lack of awareness about the cornerstones of violence too often led to the dismissal of fears, to the tendency to require a criminal standard of proof, and to make orders that place victims and children in potentially dangerous situations.

Moreover, reluctance to provide contact for fear of safety being compromised often reflects negatively on a parent in the course of decision making. This negative perception may not only influence the outcome of Court proceedings, it may also affect the perceptions of those determining legal aid (which can be denied because contact is not being proposed by the victim), the opinions and assessments of report writers, and of children’s representatives.

There appears frequently to be little understanding of the impact upon a victim of a violent partner, including the stress and exhaustion of separation and starting again, accompanied by fear. Respondents also reported little understanding of decisions a victim might make about the children’s care in these circumstances. This may result in allegations of violent conduct being discredited. Instead, the ‘status quo’ frequently prevails at interim hearings, inappropriate orders exposing victims and children to continuing violence are made, and violence is effectively ignored as an issue as it remains untested. It was suggested by some that the failure to structure interim hearings so as to squarely address the issue at that stage is leaving victims and children at risk of ongoing violence, and contributes to the perception that the Court does not take the issue seriously.

It was also said that often victims are still affected by the violence and the impact that may have had on their parenting while they are being assessed in the litigation process. The violence undermines their ability to cope and parent and they have frequently had to cope with the dislocation and upheaval associated with leaving the relationship. In substance, victims can be seriously jeopardised by the failure to recognise that parenting skills may be effected by violence. An appropriate time frame for hearings should therefore be considered in these circumstances, to enable help to be sought with recovery.

The role of the children’s representative was seen as important both as to the information given to the Family Report writer and to the conduct of hearings. Some respondents were critical of the role of some children’s representatives and reported negative experiences. Reports included the representatives not making effective use of mediators’ knowledge of the children and the family, not being supportive of children’s wishes, and ignoring recommendations of the children’s counsellors and other professionals involved with the family.

It was suggested that children’s representatives require more training on issues related to family violence, in particular the effects of violence on all those who have been subjected to it, and on strategies for best ensuring the safety of children.

Other critical comments included difficulties in accessing the children’s representative, particularly by those who are self-represented. In some instances it was said that the practice of the children’s representative not meeting the children was described as causing anxiety for a parent and for the children.

It was suggested that the current Guidelines being developed for children’s representatives be reviewed so as to ensure they complement the Court’s family violence policy.

(Note: The Committee has had input into the review of Guidelines for Child Representatives).

Family Reports featured in many submissions and the issues raised are addressed according to source.

The majority of client respondents had had a Family Report prepared. The overwhelming majority of those considered the impact of family violence was not reflected in the Report. This suggests that family violence is not being identified during the interviews or, if it is being identified, is not being included in Family Reports. The reasons clients gave for its exclusion included: generally they did not feel listened to; they also thought their partners could be manipulative; legislation now made shared parenting a priority over safety concerns; and Court reporters did not have an adequate understanding of the impact of violence on children.

A general theme in both the client and service provider feedback was how other aspects of family functioning are emphasised at the expense of family violence issues in Family Reports. Such reports typically focus primarily on the issues in dispute and the aspects of family/psychological functioning that revolve around those issues. It is a narrowing down process but, in addition, Court Mediators are often loathe to include untested, potentially inflammatory, allegations by one party in a Report as it is frequently seen as a negotiating tool; hence, the conclusion by clients that even when family violence is mentioned during an interview, the allegations tend to be trivialised.

Another theme that emerged from the client feedback is that unless the abuse is ‘serious’ (ie. physical), many of the non-physical forms of abuse such as emotional abuse, threats etc. are not seen to be taken seriously by Report writers.

Some respondents recommended more qualified Report writing, more training for Report writers generally, and the idea of using more than one professional in complex cases. Other recommendations included spending more time with parties before preparing a Report, being more child focused, and adopting an investigative approach to Reports.

Service provider feedback suggested that the quality of Reports varied considerably among professionals, with some addressing violence/abuse and others not. This may depend upon the level of training, experience and awareness of family violence issues.

In the same vein were comments on the lack of a standardised Report writing format, as well as inconsistent quality. This included both in-house and external Reports.

Another point made was the short turn around times for Court-based Report writers which allows insufficient opportunities to explore the family violence issues thoroughly. Consequently, they focus on the particular contact/residence issues in dispute to the exclusion of other issues.

There was a perception that family violence issues will often be interpreted by professionals as tangential to the real issues, or perceived as ‘tactical’. This perception was borne out also in some of the Court staff responses.

Some respondents felt that the Court culture did not allow an emphasis on gathering information on family violence or reporting it, but instead adopted the more traditional approach of remaining neutral and encouraging conciliation. It was said that a neutral approach often advantages the alleged perpetrator.

Reference was also made to the overlap between child abuse and spouse abuse. Several respondents questioned whether Report writers understood the connections between the various types of abuse or understood the connection between power imbalances and family violence, as well as the ability to differentiate between different types of conflict. Relationships, they reported, were often characterised generally as ‘volatile’, with no probing to understand what that means or describing it in more detail.

The primary thrust of the responses related to Reports focussed upon the Family Report produced by a Court Mediator. Nonetheless it was suggested by some respondents that in matters where violence was raised as an issue, any Order 30A expert appointed ought to be appropriately qualified and experienced so as to be aware of the issue of violence, its implications and impact. It was commented that the awareness levels of experts presently is generally quite variable.

It was suggested that those acting for parties who have been subjected to violence should obtain Reports from witnesses expert in this field and that these should be considered where the Family Report does not address the issue. Where that evidence is available it can assist with a new understanding of events that have occurred and put those events in their proper context. That said, problems were identified with getting evidence before the Court about a victim’s experience of violence. It was said that refuge workers have considerable experience and more use should be made of their expertise, with appropriate payment as professional witnesses. Those who had acted as professional witnesses reported the need to educate judicial officers on basic issues and their implications, commenting adversely upon the need to justify the relevance of violence to the determination being made.

Concern was expressed by some about the practice of government child protection agencies withdrawing and not investigating complaints when proceedings are before the Court. Yet, contrary to this practice, it was suggested that their increased involvement in those families and the potential for important information becoming available from that source would very likely assist the decision making process.

A familiar theme running through responses was that violence as an issue was largely disregarded at interim hearings. There is little investigation into issues of violence, assuming they have been put before the Court by legal representatives in the first place, and there is little impact on the orders made if violence is alleged. There was more of an emphasis on preserving the right to contact, and insufficient exploration of the safety of a victim and children.

Some respondents argued strongly for a special pathway for matters in which family violence is identified as an issue. The Magellan project was identified as a model, as was the Columbus project undertaken by the Family Court in Western Australia. This would involve not only judicial monitoring because of the likelihood of continuing violence and abuse, but would result in speedier determination of those cases. It was also said that judicial intervention should not just be seen as a last resort or required only in urgent circumstances because for those who have experienced violence, mediation, negotiation and bargaining can be intimidating and inappropriate. Many are looking for a judicial determination.

There was a strong argument from some respondents for the introduction of Guidelines for decision making similar to those in the United Kingdom - Guidelines for Good Practice on Parental Contact where there is Domestic Violence – adapted to an Australian context and broadened to include not only contact proceedings but also residence.

These Guidelines were the result of a consultation process undertaken over a period of time by the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law on issues around domestic violence and contact. Under those Guidelines (see http://www.lcd.gov.uk/family/abfldomviol.htm):

• the Court is required to give early consideration to allegations of domestic violence;

• they set out the steps to be taken where the Court forms the view that its order is likely to be affected if allegations of domestic violence are proved;

• the orders of the Court for a Report should contain specific directions to address the issue of domestic violence;

• considerations relevant to deciding any question of interim contact are set out;

• matters to be considered and steps to be taken at the final hearing are set out;

• where findings of domestic violence are made, the matters to be considered are particularised;

• where findings of domestic violence have been made, there are set out various matters to be considered where contact is ordered;

• There is a requirement for the Court to inform itself of the facilities available locally to assist parents;

• in giving reasons, the Court should always explain how its findings have influenced its decision on the issue of contact.

Contact Centres are seen as providing a valuable and necessary service in cases where contact is ordered notwithstanding the allegation of violence by one parent. However, there are too few of them and those available are often limited by insufficient resources. Moreover, too often there is inadequate understanding by judicial officers of the services provided by these Centres and what assistance they can provide for handover or supervision.

It was also said that workers from community support organisations had reported instances where orders had been made naming individual workers for a particular purpose (e.g. supervising contact or continuing counselling) or where information disclosing workers identities had been made available via subpoenaed material. Workers expressed the view that often these orders were made without reference to the service or to the worker and that in many instances the practice of naming individual workers was contrary to organisational safety procedures for workers.

1. A working party be formed to consider:

1. That possible strategies and protocols regarding the release of Family Reports where there are concerns for the well being of family members be included in the "Guidelines for Family Reports".

2. The child representative Guidelines be reviewed for the purpose of complementing the family violence policies of the Court and providing a coordinated response to family violence.

   6. Awareness and understanding - training

   The lack of awareness of family violence and its implications and impact was a strong recurring theme in many of the submissions received from all sectors. Concerns were raised about Court decisions and contact orders that seemed to focus more on the rights of the child to know both its parents than the child’s safety. A lack of understanding of the effects of family violence on children, whether they are directly injured or witnesses to the violence, the links between child abuse and family violence, and the ongoing implication of contact with a violent parent were also identified as areas of concern. Those comments were directed to Judicial officers, Family Report writers, Order 30A experts, children’s representatives, Court staff, and legal representatives. The need for appropriate training was emphasised repeatedly. Considerations identified as pertinent to effective training were (a) programs to be designed to improve levels of awareness and maintain motivation; (b) generic and specific programs to be considered; (c) programs need to be re-assessed to ensure high quality; and (d) they need to be ongoing.

   Staff

   Staff responses in particular provided valuable insights. The preponderance of responses indicated that the vast majority of the Court’s Client Services and Caseflow staff had undergone little or no training in relation to family violence and what had been offered was piecemeal and uncoordinated (for example, an occasional address by the Marshal focusing on security and staff safety). Training for Mediators and Deputy Registrars seemed to be marginally better, tending to be focussed on periodic national conferences, but there appeared to be little or no induction training. Much of the training and expertise of Mediators appeared to have been derived from previous employment. Mediators (including Deputy Registrars) appeared to generally appreciate the significance of family violence, but often felt that they had to keep abreast of developments in the field of their own accord, though this was not necessarily seen as a bad thing, as it was generally perceived to be part of their professional responsibility.

   There was a complaint that the training provided was sometimes of insufficient depth for the particular audience. It was suggested that whatever training packages or materials are developed, they should be continually updated and provide two levels of training: practical training about dealing with families where violence was an issue (eg. dealing with stressed clients, maintaining staff safety, making the appropriate appointments and so on); and focus upon the more ‘theoretical’ and family dynamic issues (eg. the effect of family violence upon the children, how parties negotiate in such situations and the like). A number of responses included suggestions for this subject matter to be included in any training package. The role of the Marshall in training Court staff in relation to safety issues was raised.

   Legal Practitioners

   An issue strongly emphasised was the importance of the legal profession in matters in which they are involved. Many clients related that their legal representative was a "filter" for information and that they relied upon their legal representative to point out and deal with family violence issues and concerns. They are a significant reference point for their clients and are relied upon to provide information regarding the Court’s facilities and services. Many responses indicated that the level of awareness of family violence issues by the legal profession is extremely variable. Suggestions were made about the role of legal practitioners and the importance of a solid appreciation by them of the effects of family violence upon their client and the children.

   There was general support for a requirement that all child representatives have a good appreciation of the impact and dynamics of family violence.

   Support/Community Workers

   It was said that community and support workers are starved of information about the Court and its processes. It was also said that the Court would benefit significantly from their input. Community workers represent a significant link between the clients who have been subjected to family violence and the Court system. These workers often assist parties through the Court process, they often assume the role of "community advocate", and they have a significant role to play; therefore, it is important they have accurate and up-to-date knowledge about the Court and its processes.

   Suggested Strategies

   Court Staff

3. The Court develop a (possibly modular) training package specifically addressing the issue of family violence which includes modules specifically addressing issues of family violence in NESB and indigenous contexts and:

1. All new members of Court staff be made aware of the existence and importance of the Court’s Family Violence Policy as part of the standard induction program.

2. All members of Court staff regularly undergo refresher or updating training;

3. The importance of on-going professional development for Mediators and Deputy Registrars be recognised and a system be developed and implemented whereby relevant up-to-date information and research material is made readily accessible through benchbooks, the intranet and other relevant material.

4. In developing training packages, consideration be given to examining the content and availability of other relevant training currently in use in the community..

   Cooperation with other Courts exercising jurisdiction

5. Consideration be given to the sharing of training materials or packages and identifying opportunities for the Court to collaborate with other relevant Courts in the delivery of training where appropriate.

   Order 30A Experts

6. Appointments as experts under Order 30A be made in cases where violence is an issue only where the proposed expert has established credentials in that area.

   Support/Community Workers

7. The Court build on the collaborative partnerships referred to in Information Strategies to develop training opportunities for relevant community legal centres, bi-lingual community workers, Indigenous services and support groups , which acknowledge the expertise of any and each of the partners and create opportunities for that expertise to be shared through collaboration in training delivery.

   Legal Practitioners

8. That appropriate legal professional bodies collaborate with the Court in the development and delivery of a training package for legal practitioners about family violence.

9. The Court invite legal practitioners to participate in the ongoing training developed for Court staff as appropriate.

10. That legal professional bodies responsible for the development of formal training of Child representatives collaborate with the Court and Legal Aid bodies responsible for the provision/appointment of Child Representatives and that it be a mandatory requirement of the appointment of a Child Representative that he/she must have undertaken training in family violence, including family violence in cross-cultural contexts.

Several detailed and comprehensive submissions drew attention to the need for the Family Law Act to be amended in various areas to provide more adequate protection from violence than the current Act allows. It was suggested that provisions which purport to render family violence important to decision making – s 43(ca), s 60B, s 65E, s 68F(2), and s 68K – have shortcomings and they do not provide a sufficient framework for decision making.

Although such amendments are obviously outside the control of the Committee – indeed of the Court - they are included in a summary way here so as to fully capture observations and submissions made to the Committee. It may be they need to be considered within the context of possible longer term improvements. The Family Violence committee of the Family Law Council has also widened its family violence brief from its original focus on Division 11 of the Act. Submissions in this area will be referred on to the Family Law Council for its consideration.

One strong theme running through many of the submissions was that the Court is ‘soft’ on violence, and continues to make orders in favour of parents against whom allegations of violence have been made. This complaint is made particularly in relation to the outcomes of interim proceedings. It also involves a concern that the references in the 1995 reforms to the importance of contact, (combined with the emphasis on shared parenting), have introduced a de facto presumption in favour of contact. Moreover, this presumption is seen by many as being given precedence over other provisions which are intended to protect adults and children from harm.

Suggestion was made that the Family Law Act be amended to accord with the 1995 amendments to the New Zealand Guardianship Act. These amendments were introduced to ‘clarify’ (ie restrict) the Court’s discretion to make orders which are in the best interests of children. Specifically, the Act provides a rebuttable presumption that where violence has been established, the perpetrator is considered to be an unsafe parent and cannot have custody or unsupervised access to the child unless he or she can satisfy the Court that the child can safely be entrusted into their care. The Act also restricts the ability of parents to make a private agreement regarding their children where allegations of violence have been flagged by them seeking some form of Court assistance. In such circumstances the Court may not approve agreements unless the safety factors have been considered and it is satisfied that the children will be safe.

Parenting disputes involving an allegation of violence are determined under the Guardianship Act in a two stage process. During the first stage, the Court considers the evidence of violence and makes findings, the burden of proof resting on the victim to satisfy the Court as to the existence of violence. Where there is a finding that it has occurred, the focus shifts to considerations of the child’s safety, with the violent party now required to persuade the Court that unsupervised access will not compromise that safety. The Court may order a psychological assessment of the child and child representation (the latter is provided automatically) to determine safety.

The Act requires the Court in determining safety to first determine if the allegation of violence is proved, and then must consider the following;

1. the nature and seriousness of the violence

2. how recently it occurred

3. how frequently it occurred

4. the likelihood of further violence

5. the emotional and physical harm caused to the child by the violence

6. the view of the victim party in relation to the safety of the child

7. the wishes of the child

(h) steps taken by the violent party to prevent further violence

(i) such other matters as the court considers relevant

Some respondents suggested there be inserted in Part VII of the Act an objects clause specifically referring to family violence. This would include a broad definition of family violence that would also impart information about the impact of violence on children. It would give priority to the safety of children and other family members.

The division 11 provisions were introduced into the Family Law Act in mid 1996 as part of the substantial amendments to Part VII of the Act.

Several submissions referred to these provisions being poorly understood, to the legislation being unclear and/or ambiguous and to Magistrates being very reluctant to exercise their powers to vary contact orders which are inconsistent with AVOs as section 68T permits. Nonetheless, there is no support from organisations representing women for the Division to be repealed, but rather a suggestion that the Court work with Magistrates to ensure that sections such as 68T are better understood, and applied more frequently and consistently. It may also be necessary for State Acts to be amended to incorporate the powers granted to Magistrates by section 68T, expose Magistrates to the provision and its rationale, and increase the chance of the intent of the legislation being translated into practice.

Section 75 (2) of the Act requires the Court to take into account a number of factors when it considers an application for property adjustment. These include (a) the age and state of health of the parties, (b) their respective income, property and financial resources and their physical and mental capacity for gainful employment and (e) the responsibilities of either party to support any other person. Sub-section (o) allows the Court to consider any fact or circumstance which it considers the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. In late 2000 section 75(2) (p) was added to give effect to the pre- and post- nuptial financial agreements provisions which came into operation simultaneously.

There have been suggestions that the financial consequences of violence to a victim be added to the section’s existing list of factors. These consequences could include loss of future earnings, future medical and counselling expenses and lost opportunities.

Before the High Court rejected the cross vesting scheme in Re Wakim [1999] HCA 77 the Family Court was able to (and on several rare occasions did) award damages for personal injury when hearing ancillary proceedings.

Thus in Marsh v Marsh (1994) FLC 92-443 exemplary ($3000), aggravated ($2000) and general ($2000) damages for assault were awarded to a wife against her husband. His assault on her was found to have been deliberate, unprovoked and violent. The husband was ordered to pay the amount of $7000 due from his proceeds of the sale of the house.

In W v W (1994) FLC 92-475 the Court heard claims by a wife’s daughters (by way of a next friend) against their stepfather for damages for assault, the injuries including pain and suffering, post traumatic stress and, for one child, $10,000 for medical and psychological treatment. Liability was admitted by the husband and property proceedings between the parties were finalised by way of consent orders. Damages in the sum of $90,000 were awarded to one child and $80,000 to the other.

In the absence of this remedy, with the demise of cross-vesting, some have recommended that the Family Law Act be amended to provide a statutory right of action to compensate a victim of family violence. This would allow the Court to consider property and damage proceedings simultaneously, as it previously did under cross vesting. This right of action might be framed to provide damages for pain and suffering, or as a particular course of conduct.

Indigenous participants reported an overwhelming lack of awareness of the Court’s policy in relation to family violence and it was said that if workers in the community are not aware of it, clients were even less likely to be so. By the same token, in many instances, workers in the field were aware of the 'practice' often surrounding the way Court staff responded to issues about family violence.

The important role played by Indigenous workers and organisations in informing and supporting Indigenous clients through the Court was regularly highlighted and participants repeatedly commended the role played by the Indigenous Family Consultants in disseminating important information about the Court and available services.

It was also reported that many Indigenous people have little knowledge of the legal system generally and in particular, they do not distinguish between the Court’s function and proceedings in other Courts involving police and crime. Many believe that the Court is 'prosecuting' them or 'taking them to court'. Many participants, (when asked to respond to the consultation questions), referred to matters relating to State and Territory applications for domestic violence orders and were unclear as to what related to the work of this Court and to other State or Territory Courts.

Concepts such as ‘family violence’ and ‘best interests of the child’ are often not conveyed in a culturally relevant and appropriate way, and so are not readily understood. Some participants discussed the use of terminology such as the distinction between 'family' and 'domestic violence', with some suggesting the reintroduction of the use of the word 'domestic' to capture the specifics of spousal violence. However, others argued strongly that this would diminish the importance of extended families and kinship structure, and the need to encompass the whole gamut of abuse that Indigenous women and children might be exposed to. This discussion and debate seems also to be very much informed by the specific local areas, and the preferred terminology used in that particular region/locality. The consultant suggested that the Court should 'test' any terminology it might use with local communities/workers for understanding.

Other participants suggested using words that might assist Indigenous women to more readily identify the nature of the abuse they are being subjected to. For example, participants in Alice Springs suggested that the use of words such as 'humbug' or 'hitting and punching' might be more effective in leaflets or brochures. It was suggested that wherever possible concepts should be explained and the act described, particularly where it may relate to concepts such as 'emotional abuse'.

Language, literacy, geographical isolation and lack of resources were all seen as factors contributing to the lack of understanding. Interpreters were also identified as vitally important. Participants, particularly in Alice Springs, Darwin and Townsville, highlighted the importance of recognising that English is a second language for many Indigenous people. This implies both a language barrier and probable cultural differences that may also limit access to information and services.

A range of measures for disseminating information to Indigenous communities was canvassed, these included:

• information sessions and workshops covering the legal system generally (and highlighting the distinctions between each of the jurisdictions) as well as family law and family violence – targeting Indigenous people in communities and more broadly;

• use of visual information such as videos, diagrams, posters and mock courts.

• use of local radio in local languages, local TV, local newspapers and tele-conferencing;

• access to interpreters throughout proceedings;

• signs in the court outlining the family violence policy;

• training for workers;

• brochures explaining family violence.

Levels of awareness of safety and security measures varied, but few participants knew of safety and security policies, though some had found them to be effective. Some registries were seen as making efforts to identify women who may be at risk, though there are barriers to this: language and cultural differences mean women are not aware of what measures are available; concerns were expressed that clients have to identify themselves as needing security before it is made available; and expressions such as ‘family violence’ are not always readily understood.

A range of significant security concerns were raised about country registries including:

• lack of security staff

• cramped facilities requiring women to come in close proximity to perpetrators

• too few private rooms

• no screening for weapons

• narrow exits and passages

Other security concerns, not specific to country registries, included:

• lack of security outside the court building, eg. car parks

• no police visibility

• no measures to address threatening or intimidating gestures

• no court support workers

There were concerns that security measures for Court staff (eg alarms) were not available to support workers or legal representatives, and staff indicated a need for safety training, including the management of aggressive clients.

Concerns were also discussed about the length of time women must wait in the Court building and when clients do not understand the Court process, they sometimes become agitated. The absence of Indigenous workers may contribute to this.

In registries where Indigenous Family Consultants are available, participants highlighted the importance of their role in increasing awareness of staff about Indigenous specific issues. The Alice Springs forum also reported positively on the Court’s handing of family violence cases, citing a number of examples where clients were assured high levels of personal safety. More commonly, however, participants felt that Court staff and judicial officers often lacked awareness of the impact of family violence, particularly where Indigenous clients are involved.

Stress was placed on the importance of measures to identify and respond to the needs of victims of family violence. Examples were given of women forced into mediation with violent ex-partners and of orders being made which left women and children vulnerable to further abuse. Court personnel were seen as often failing to consider the impact of abuse on women who may lack confidence to express themselves. The Indigenous specific context of these issues further compounded the obstacles experienced by women and children.

The Sydney forum voiced concerns about the treatment of Apprehended Violence Orders by the Court, specifically that they are not considered as evidence of violence or the need for safety measures, and may be seen by the Court as an attempt to get an unfair advantage. This forum suggested that Court staff and judicial officers adopt the converse; that is, those orders do infer there is family violence.

The need for Court personnel to develop an understanding of Indigenous cultural issues was expressed repeatedly, and strongly, throughout all forums. Some participants mentioned the difficulty for Indigenous women in identifying themselves as victims of family violence. The need to appreciate geographical issues for people living in remote communities was also consistently raised.

Staff training in family violence and cultural awareness was suggested in most forums, as was the suggestion that Indigenous people be employed at every level of the Court.

The lack of awareness of family violence issues runs throughout the Court’s processes, according to most forums. Examples were given of violence during contact exchange and the need for hand-over centres to be more accessible and appropriate for Aboriginal families was identified. It was suggested that the Court should become aware of the inadvertent role it plays in creating a means for the violence of one partner to continue. It was also suggested that the Court develop ways of obtaining feedback from clients about the outcome of Court proceedings.

Problems were identified in accessing legal aid and the Aboriginal Legal Service when women have property or when their partner is an ALS client. Most forums believed that lawyers have little awareness of cultural and family violence issues.

There was a perception that the Court delivers differential treatment to Aboriginal families and it was suggested that in cases involving mixed relationships, the Court is likely to give preference to the non-Aboriginal partner.

The need for cultural issues to be acknowledged in Court proceedings was raised repeatedly, particularly in relation to children and the importance of extended family to Indigenous people. The use of Indigenous mediators was suggested as one means of addressing these issues.

A range of strategies was offered for the effective provision of Court services to Indigenous families. The potential role of traditional law and conflict resolution processes was raised in most forums. Participants pointed out that Court processes are very different from traditional Indigenous conflict resolution processes of ‘open conflict’ and quick resolution. Indigenous people were seen as having the skills to manage conflict themselves, and should be empowered to do so.

Those consulted repeatedly raised the need to acknowledge the particular difficulties experienced by Indigenous people in accessing the Court’s processes. As well as a lack of information and understanding, people experience humiliation and shame about having to use the white legal system and raising their issues in public. Potential repercussions from both communities and family members of perpetrators make accessing Court services even more difficult. Some participants said that for an Indigenous woman to resort to using the Family Court indicates that she is in a very serious situation.

Many participants also raised the need for the Court to recognise that the best interests of Indigenous children must include their right to have access to traditional customary values and ceremonies.

The need for the Court to incorporate a consideration of distance and geography in its proceedings was also raised repeatedly, as was the importance of support workers being available to assist Indigenous people through the Court process.

The need for a flexible and holistic approach was also stressed. Participants warned against implementing blanket policies for Indigenous people, pointing out that cultural issues vary between groups. Further consultation with communities was suggested as an effective means of identifying strategies.

Participants in each of the forums suggested a range of measures to ensure effective use of community resources. It was suggested that information and educational packages would be most effective if the content and structure was appropriate to local Indigenous people. Suggestions regarding this included:

• cartoons or other visual format

• locally material produced to ensure a sense of ownership

• use of local languages

• victims of violence to have input

Existing resources such as the Court’s Indigenous Family Consultants and Indigenous Court Liaison Officers in NSW were offered as examples of models that have been effective. It was also suggested that the Court talk to Indigenous community workers to learn about clients’ experiences with the Court. The development of links between services was a means of avoiding duplication and assisting clients who require help. Mediation and other proceedings which take place in communities or other non-court locations were identified as helping to ensure issues were resolved pre-court. The need for mainstream services to be culturally appropriate for Indigenous people was stressed.

Similar to the Indigenous communities consulted, a major issue was said to be a lack of awareness about Court processes generally, not just about the Court’s processes in response to violence amongst culturally diverse clients. There was considerable discussion about providing information and communication strategies to increase awareness of the Court’s policy and procedures amongst NESB communities. As the workshops were attended by community representatives and workers in the field, their lack of awareness of the existence of the policy itself suggests even less knowledge amongst clients who are not supported by community workers and who attend individually. (cf. Indigenous workshops)

Participants also frequently mentioned that the very definition of ‘domestic and family violence’ may be understood differently in different cultural contexts and that the Court needs to be aware of this when it reviews the guidelines and practices. Any examination should be done in a way that includes cultural considerations, such as different notions of ‘family’ which are often culturally specific.

Participants identified a range of 'cultural' issues that should be considered when seeking to 'translate' information in relation to family violence:

• issues considered private and taboo for public disclosure, such as sexuality, family discord, and rape;

• the roles and expectations of women in the community;

• responsibility to community, i.e. ancestor image, loyalty to ethnic/racial identity and community, and the desire to avoid shaming the family and community.

At the same time, however, a number of participants also expressed concerns that placing domestic violence in a cultural context, or characterising it as a product of culture, custom, and tradition, inadvertently lessens outrage over violence against women. Cultural explanations have been used to justify violence against women and children; for example, some perpetrators have used "cultural defences" to justify violent acts against their female partners. The Court will need to be sensitive to such issues when considering culturally relevant ways of disseminating information.

Many participants had been involved in some kind of information or education campaign targeting NESB communities, and had used a range of different strategies to ensure the information was distributed and conveyed effectively. An overwhelming majority expressed a genuine willingness to assist the Court with information distribution and with advice about the most effective means of communication.

Common to many participants, was the importance of ensuring that education strategies are flexible, multifaceted and developed in close consultation with Migrant Resource Centres, and other multicultural and ethno-specific organisations.

The Court must be aware when developing an information strategy that not all information sources are effective for all culturally and linguistically diverse communities at all times.

Participants from all States said that communication difficulties made the Court process all that more difficult. Written information provided was invariably in English, and Court staff frequently did not take the time to communicate orally in ‘plain’ English. Those not fluent in English, or illiterate, were consequently disadvantaged.

The second greatest concern was difficulty gaining access to appropriately qualified interpreters during Court proceedings. The importance of women from NESB utilising the services of a female, rather than a male, interpreter was also repeatedly emphasised. Participants in the Darwin consultations also highlighted the specific issue of safety for interpreters, particularly within the context of smaller communities.

Lack of training for bilingual workers supporting women during Court proceedings. Consultation participants in both Adelaide and Sydney mentioned that bilingual workers who support women during Court proceedings do not themselves have much knowledge about Court processes. This hampers their preparation for the Court session and their ability to support their clients.

Lack of awareness of Court safety and security measures: Participants in all states were unaware of the Court’s safety measures. Several reported that many of their clients, particularly women, feel unsafe while on Court premises. The importance of separate waiting rooms was repeatedly emphasised, and the use of teleconferencing or videoconferencing was suggested as an alternative.

Lack of cross-cultural awareness in staff and judicial officers: Participants from all States, excluding Adelaide, said that Court staff and judicial officers do not have an understanding of family violence in the cross-cultural context and are unaware of the repercussions for women of NESB initiating Court proceedings. To overcome this, an increased participation by Court staff in local networks was suggested.

Lack of empathy: Participants from Sydney and Brisbane said that Court staff and judicial officers were not aware of how intimidating Court can be for people from NESB, particularly women.

The key theme was the importance of developing culturally relevant and appropriate information strategies. However, it was stressed that this would be ineffective unless trust was established, together with a relationship within which information was then conveyed.

It was clear from the consultations that the relationship between the Court and various multicultural and ethno specific organisations must be understood, and then carefully nurtured and sustained if any communication methods are to have long term effect.

Many participants emphasised the need for greater collaboration between the Court and these organisations to get the message across, and many were very willing to assist with information distribution and advice around the most effective means of communication. This might extend to the distribution of Court material through the Ethnic Communities Councils. A number of other ways in which community resources could be used were suggested.

The following suggested strategies have been drawn together from a number of areas. Some may be duplicated or overlap with other areas. These will all be considered in due course.

1. That possible strategies and protocols regarding the release of Family Reports where there are concerns for the well being of family members be included in the "Guidelines for Family Reports".

2. The child representative Guidelines be reviewed for the purpose of complementing the family violence policies of the Court and providing a co-ordinated response to family violence.

   Training

   Court Staff

3. The Court develop a (possibly modular) training package specifically addressing the issue of family violence which includes modules specifically addressing issues of family violence in NESB and indigenous contexts and:

1. All new members of Court staff be made aware of the existence and importance of the Court’s Family Violence Policy as part of the standard induction program.

2. All members of Court staff regularly undergo refresher or updating training;

3. The importance of on-going professional development for Mediators and Deputy Registrars be recognised and a system be developed and implemented whereby relevant up-to-date information and research material is made readily accessible through benchbooks, the intranet and other relevant material.

4. In developing training packages, consideration be given to examining the content and availability of other relevant training currently in use in the community.

   Cooperation with other Courts exercising jurisdiction

5. Consideration be given to the sharing of training materials or packages and identifying opportunities for the Court to collaborate with other relevant Courts in the delivery of training where appropriate.

   Order 30A Experts

6. Appointments as experts under Order 30A be made in cases where violence is an issue only where the proposed expert has established credentials in that area.

   Support/Community Workers

7. The Court build on the collaborative partnerships referred to in Information Strategies to develop training opportunities for relevant community legal centres, bi-lingual community workers, Indigenous services and support groups, which acknowledge the expertise of any and each of the partners and create opportunities for that expertise to be shared through collaboration in training delivery.

   Legal Practitioners

8. That appropriate legal professional bodies collaborate with the Court in the development and delivery of a training package for legal practitioners about family violence.

9. The Court invite legal practitioners to participate in the ongoing training developed for Court staff as appropriate.

10. That legal professional bodies responsible for the development of formal training of Child representatives collaborate with the Court and Legal Aid bodies responsible for the provision/appointment of Child Representatives and that it be a mandatory requirement of the appointment of a Child Representative that he/she must have undertaken training in family violence, including family violence in cross-cultural contexts.

-----------------------