abc.net.au/news/tas-family-violence-harm-to-pets-david-obyrne-law-changes/104181698Copy link

Link copiedShare article

In short:

Independent MP David O’Byrne is proposing a change to Tasmania’s family violence laws to include harming, or threatening to harm, animals as a form of family violence.

Support services say instances of threats to harm pets are “incredibly common” in abusive relationships.

What’s next?

Mr O’Byrne plans to table his proposal in state parliament this week, with the government saying it is willing to “consider” the legislation and let parliament decide.

Harm to animals is not explicitly recognised as a potential form of family violence in Tasmania.

Independent state MP David O’Byrne is hoping to change that.

Mr O’Byrne said he would bring a proposal to the state parliament this week that would make harming or threatening to harm pets a type of family violence.

“Causing injury to an animal, including a pet, can be an incredibly distressing form of emotional abuse or intimidation,” he said.

“It should be defined as family violence.”

He said Tasmania and Western Australia were the only two Australian jurisdictions where this was not already the case in family violence laws.

However, WA does include “causing death or injury to an animal that is the property of the family member” in its restraining order laws.

While harming a pet could be considered emotional abuse or damage caused to property under current laws, Mr O’Byrne said his proposed change would make harm or threats of harm to an animal with the intent to coerce, intimidate or control a spouse or partner, a form of family violence.

He said it would also make it easier for police and courts to act.

The law change was recommended in an Australian Law Reform Commission report in 2010.

“Here we are [in] 2024 and it’s not been done in Tasmania. I can’t explain that. I can’t defend that,” Mr O’Byrne said.

Where to get help:

• In an emergency call Triple Zero (000)
• For non-urgent matters, call Tasmania Police on 131 444
• The Family Violence Response and Referral Line (1800 633 937) offers an information and referral service by which callers are able to access the full range of response, counselling, information and other support services
• 1800 Respect National Helpline on 1800 737 732
• Lifeline on 131 114
• Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491
• Mensline on 1300 789 978
• Full Stop Australia on 1800 385 578

Threats to animals ‘incredibly common’ in abusive relationships

Family violence support service Engender Equality sees the impact of using animals in coercive control.

“It’s incredibly common. By far the majority of people who are accessing our service are also concerned about their animals,” Engender Equality chief executive Alina Thomas said.

“People will use whatever mechanism they can to control their partner. Pets are a very effective mechanism. It can be very, very subtle.”

Ms Thomas said it could take various forms, including a pet having rights taken away from it, being exposed to angry outbursts, threats to a pet’s safety or physical harm.

“Actually killing pets is not unheard of,” she said.

Concerns for pets’ safety delays women from leaving violent situations

One in three female pet owners in violent relationships delayed leaving because of concerns for their pet’s welfare, according to RSPCA figures.

Half reported that their partner had hurt or killed one of their pets.

“When somebody is in a crisis and is needing to leave their home, it can be difficult to also be thinking about how they’re going to be accommodating their pets,” Ms Thomas said.

If you have the choice of either leaving and your pet being harmed or staying and your pet being safe, you’re going to stay … And that’s why it’s such an effective way of controlling somebody.”

Government willing to ‘consider’ changes

Premier Jeremy Rockliff said the government welcomed “good ideas coming to the parliament”, and was willing to consider Mr O’Byrne’s proposal.

“We will consider it, and naturally we will get advice, talk to David, and, of course, the parliament will decide.”

Tasmania’s Justice Department said “a specific definition of harming animals” had not previously been considered necessary, “as family violence specifically includes damage to ‘animate or inanimate property’.”

A department spokesperson said Tasmania was a “leading jurisdiction in introducing emotional abuse, threats or intimidation as family violence offences”, which they said included abuse related to pets.

“Tasmania later responded to the Australian Law Reform Commission report by specifically introducing damage to property in the definition of family violence, whether jointly owned property or the victim’s or an affected child’s property.

“Property is defined as ‘animate or inanimate’, to include animals.”

Call for crisis housing to include pets

Ms Thomas said while recognising harm to animals as a form of family violence was a good step, there was a great need for housing and specialist support services.

“We need to be able to have crisis housing responses where animals can be also housed alongside of their owners, and longer-term housing options as well,” she said.

“We need to be able to have access to specialist services and specialist workers who really understand what family violence looks like how it presents, how it impacts on families so that we can be there to be able to support victim-survivors into safer situations.”

29 July 2024

Media Release

Everyone in Australia should be free to choose if, who and when they marry.

In 2013 the former Labor government inserted a new offence of forced marriage into the Criminal Code through the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013, making it illegal for a person to be forced into a marriage without their free and full consent.

More than a decade on, forced marriage is the most reported slavery-like offence to the Australian Federal Police.

The Australian Government is working with state and territory governments to tackle the issue of forced marriage, including by exploring enhanced civil protections and remedies for those affected.

Today a public consultation process has been launched to progress this work, following agreement at a recent meeting of the Standing Council of Attorneys‑General.

We want to hear from all interested stakeholders and members of the community on how enhanced civil protections could meet the needs of those at risk, particularly young women and girls.

The Government is committed to addressing the crime of forced marriage and supporting victims and survivors, including by establishing a new Forced Marriage Specialist Support Program from January 2025 to provide individualised need-based and early intervention support.

The Government last week announced the commencement of the Additional Referral Pathway pilot to facilitate access to the Support for Trafficked People Program for victims and survivors through referral from select community providers, removing the need for initial engagement with law enforcement.

For more details on the consultation, visit Enhancing Civil Protections and Remedies for Forced Marriage.

The consultation will close on Monday 23 September 2024.

Getting help

Help is available for any person in or at risk of forced marriage.

If you think you, or someone you know, is being forced to marry, help is available. If there is an immediate risk of harm, contact police on 000 (triple zero). If you have information about a forced marriage, you can make a report to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) by calling 131 237 (131 AFP) or use the AFP’s confidential online form. You can also report anonymously via Crime Stoppers (1800 333 000 or crimestoppers.com.au).

For more information, see My Blue Sky, Australia’s national forced marriage service. Call (02) 9514 8115, text +61 481 070 844 (9am–5pm Monday to Friday, AEST), email help@mybluesky.org.au or visit www.mybluesky.org.au for support and free, confidential legal advice.

By Jamie McKinnell

Posted Sun 7 Jul 2024

In short:

New defamation laws introduced this week are aiming to provide greater protections for digital defamation in NSW and the ACT.

The changes aim to provide a new defence for those running online communities and message boards, as well as major media companies.

The legislation comes after a high court ruling that found those who run online forums are liable for any defamatory content, even if it was posted by a third party. 

It started simply enough: a frustrated Facebook user complaining about a woman who’d been using a stick to keep cyclists away from her during COVID lockdowns.

The cyclist — who twice encountered the walker — took her photo and published it on Facebook with his version of the incidents, calling her a “vigilante” on his personal page.

The reaction escalated when another Facebook user took the cyclist’s personal post and shared it to a wider group for residents of Warners Bay in the NSW Lake Macquarie region.

The so-called “stick lady” launched defamation proceedings in the NSW District Court, claiming she was unfairly portrayed as a vigilante, had deliberately assaulted a cyclist because she didn’t like cyclists, and was a “serious threat” to the community.

The case was only resolved last month, when a judge found the cyclist was still liable for publication in the group when it was shared by third parties, but the post was found to be justified and a defence of honest opinion was made out.

It’s a situation legislators hope will be avoided under new defamation laws introduced in NSW and the ACT this week.

The ‘stick lady’ case

Those laws include specific protection for so-called “digital intermediaries”, which includes everyone from those who run Reddit communities or Facebook groups, to Google and major media companies.

Why ‘digital vigilantism’ is risky

Communities are going online to help catch alleged criminals at work in their neighbourhoods. But experts say “digital vigilantism” can be risky.

Read more

To rely on the defence, “digital intermediaries” must provide an accessible complaint mechanism like an email address and act on a complaint within a week.

Michael Douglas, a consultant from Perth defamation firm Bennett, has mixed feelings about the new defence.

“Whereas seven days might be vaguely reasonable for a very occasional subreddit moderator, seven days is way too slow when you’re talking about like a massive media company,” Dr Douglas said.

“Most defamation plaintiffs, the vast, vast majority of them … they’re not after money at all. They usually just want their name protected and in the case of online publication, that usually means get the thing removed ASAP.

“Within seven days, the poison’s spread and the reputational damage might be permanent.”

On the positive side, the defence creates an incentive for people to moderate actively, he said.

In the “stick lady” case, the court heard that within hours of the initial post, one of the group’s admins became concerned about the volume of “stick lady story” material and turned on post approval, preventing anyone else from publishing without approval.

The admins also manually deleted about a dozen separate posts about the topic.

Lawyers for the defendant in that case told the court publication was “effectively stopped in its tracks by the prompt action of [the administrator]”.

NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley said the new laws aimed to address challenges of the “rapid spread of defamatory information online” and clarify the law for both complainants and publishers.

“It was essential to strike a balance between not unreasonably limiting freedom of expression in circumstances where third parties publish defamatory matter via digital intermediaries and protecting reputations,” he said in a statement.

Moderator anxiety eased

Carrington Brigham is the administrator of a popular Sydney Facebook group and can relate to the challenges posed by online groups, particularly during COVID lockdowns, when people were hyper-aware of rules and any transgressions.

The pandemic triggered an increase in posts complaining about people using a local oval for their own purposes and some included photos.

“From a moral perspective, if someone requests you take photo down, you take the photo down,” Mr Brigham said.

He founded the now-18,000-member Potts Pointers group in 2015 to “bring people together” as the inner Sydney area was drastically changed by lockout laws.

In his Potts Pointers group, a team of volunteer moderators keeps an eye out for potentially defamatory posts and privately discusses material that could be problematic.

Material that is suspected to be the product of tiffs between neighbours, for example, isn’t published.

Mr Brigham said the reforms are a huge relief for moderators.

“It means that we will have options to protect ourselves through the law,” he said

“Now administrators and moderators know they won’t be liable. Their livelihoods, their reputation will not be at stake based on somebody else’s ill-founded or defamatory posts.”

People in an administrator role may now feel they have more power to let content through, but having already operated under the previous laws, Mr Brigham believes a cautious attitude will prevail.

“You might find that people will still be more risk averse in allowing potentially defamatory posts into a group that they own or run, but it certainly takes a lot of weight and pressure off us as well as the ISPs and tech companies.”

‘More problematic now than it used to be’

The process of reforming Australia’s defamation laws began in 2020, when changes including a new public interest defence were introduced in every state and territory except WA and the NT.

The latest changes in NSW and the ACT also extend the defence of absolute privilege in relation to reports made to police, such as a sexual assault.

Courts in these jurisdictions are also now empowered to order intermediaries not involved in defamation cases to remove defamatory content.

This means that there are now effectively three sets of defamation laws in Australia; WA and NT which haven’t changed since 2006, NSW and the ACT which have introduced two waves of reform, and all other jurisdictions which have (so far) introduced only the first phase.

According to Dr Douglas, the process has seen states abdicate their interest in defamation law and let NSW “run with the ball” — which he noted may make sense to some extent, given Sydney’s reputation as the defamation capital.

Dr Douglas said the system has once again “fragmented”, as it was in the early 2000s, which creates problems when media is viewed across multiple states or territories (as most is).

“The difference, though, is back then the internet was obviously around but its role in everyday life and media consumption was quite different,’ he said.

“Having different systems is more problematic now than it used to be.”

Posted 7 Jul 20247 Jul 2024, updated 7 Jul 2024

Couples remain under same roof or delay official divorce due to cost-of-living pressures

ABC Wide Bay By Nikki Sorbello

abc.net.au/news/couples-delay-official-divorce-due-to-cost-of-living-pressures/104086442Copy link

Link copiedShare article

In short:

Separating couples are choosing to delay their official divorce due to financial concerns.

Many people remain living under the same roof while separated, which may add cost to the process.

What’s next?

Experts say having paperwork in order and seeking advice early will make divorce as cost effective as possible.

After more than a decade of being legally married, Sandra* says she is finally free.

The 57-year-old Gold Coast woman escaped an abusive relationship in 2016 with her daughter and a few belongings, and later took out a domestic violence order (DVO).

It took her three years to finalise her divorce last month.

“I have a new lease on life knowing that we are finally safe,” Sandra said.

“It’s given me more strength than I thought I had.”

For Sandra, getting a divorce was important because remaining legally married to her now ex-husband had made her feel “disgusted, humiliated, and sad”.

It cost her $1,200 in fees and charges, and because she does not work it has taken her a long time to save the money.

“My vertigo has gone through the roof stressing on how I [was] going to pay this money,” she said.

Filing for divorce

Dissolving marriages comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

Applications can be lodged solely or jointly with the separated spouse.

A $1,100 court fee is payable, but some applicants like Sandra are eligible for a reduction — for example, those on a health care card or suffering financial hardship.

If children, joint finances, debt, or property are involved the process becomes more complicated and expensive.

Gail, 73, is living proof that age matters when it comes to divorce

Gail Cocksedge says she has built “a beautiful little nest of people” around her since her husband left her 40 years ago. She is glad she was younger when they separated, given the financial impact.

Read more

Applicants are strongly advised to seek legal advice, which can also add to the cost.

Sandra chose to go through an online legal service and her $1,200 bill included the concessional court fee, a fee to track down her former husband, as well as legal fees.

To afford it she paid it off in fortnightly instalments when she could.

“This entails not eating,” she said.

“I have to give my daughter food because she’s a 15-year-old. But I’m in my 50s, I can deal with not eating for four days.

“I was determined to get it done … but I feel very sorry for the women that don’t have the strength.”

A ‘discretionary spend’

Bundaberg-based solicitor Geoff Ebert, whose firm managed Sandra’s divorce, said divorce was becoming a “discretionary spend” amid the cost-of-living crisis.

“Once people understand the cost it might be that they have to kick the divorce down the road for six months because they’ve got rates to pay and electricity to pay,” Mr Ebert said.

“We’re seeing a lot of couples separate but continue to live under the same roof.

“There’s a lose-lose in the sense that you’re still needing to live together, and then it costs you even more to get divorced because there’s more paperwork that has to be generated.”

Keeping costs down

Divorce rates in Australia hit a peak in 2021 with 56,244 finalised, partly due to administrative changes that helped clear a pandemic backlog.

But the overall divorce rate has been trending downwards since the 1990s, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

In 2022, Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows 49,241 divorces were formalised.

Family and domestic violence support services:

If you need help immediately call emergency services on triple-0

• 1800 Respect National Helpline: 1800 737 732
• Women’s Crisis Line: 1800 811 811
• Men’s Referral Service: 1300 766 491
• Lifeline: 131 114

Danielle Bozin from Queensland University of Technology’s School of Law said the data did not capture the finalisation of de facto separations, which had similar financial costs.

Dr Bozin said most family law disputes were settled through negotiation or mediation and the legal system was designed to encourage that.

“If people end up going further into the court system and have to go to final hearing they are looking at in excess of $30,000,” she said.

The deputy president of the Queensland Law Society, Genevieve Dee, said cost pressures in separation and divorce were much more prevalent than “five or 10 years ago because money isn’t as readily available”.

“So, you will see people often engaged in very lengthy negotiations which often can be counterintuitive to what you’re trying to do, which is save money,” Ms Dee said.

Get your paperwork in order

When it comes to making divorce as cost effective as possible, all three legal experts say preparation and paperwork are paramount.

“‘Do I have evidence of the separation if I need to? Do I have my marriage certificate, photographic ID, or passports to show you are an Australian citizen?’,” Mr Ebert said.

People can seek free advice and information through community legal centres, Legal Aid Commissions, the national Family Relationship Advice service, or pay for a private lawyer.

“Early advice is helpful for people to understand the length of time the process is going to take, the likely cost of the process, and decisions they can make early on to try and keep that matter out of litigation — which is the most costly part of separation,” Ms Dee said.

Sandra said going through a lengthy divorce process added to the trauma from the abuse.

“It’s like a big washing machine on the never-ending cycle,” she said.

Now on the other side, Sandra is proud to have had the strength and support to persevere.

“I am healing and we have survived,” she said.

*Sandra’s name has been changed to protect her privacy.

More than 80 per cent of cases in the family court involve allegations of family violence. Are you one of them?

The ABC would like to hear from anyone over 16 who has been through the family court system.

You can share your stories with us by emailing: SRTcourt@abc.net.au

Please note: No information will be shared with third parties. The ABC upholds Section 121 of the Family Law Act prohibiting the identification of any parties in a family law matter.

By Geraden Cann posted by Elena Leonardos

Wed 5 Jun 2024

• In short: Lawyers say there has been a substantial increase in people requesting a binding financial agreement (BFA), Australia’s version of a “prenup”.
• The increase follows a spike in couples applying for divorce during the pandemic. 
• Drivers for BFAs include an economic environment that is pushing more people to protect their wealth and assets, as well as growing use of the “bank of mum and dad”.

Antoinette Sagaria and her wife have been married for five years, have a daughter and are very much in love, but they are getting a binding financial agreement (BFA) — Australia’s equivalent of a prenup.

To many, getting a BFA after you are already married may seem odd, but Ms Sagaria has seen how bad things can get when relationships break down.

She is the director of property at mortgage brokerage Entourage and, as well as advising homebuyers on BFAs, she is often appointed by court order when a partnership ends and couples have to sell property.

It was witnessing how “agonising and expensive” separation could be without a BFA that “massively contributed” to her and her wife’s decision to get one.

“Seeing how hard those conversations were initially made us realise there is no way you could have these conversations when you don’t love each other and it not become a disaster,” she said.

“Everyone knows someone who has been through a messy divorce.”

She and her partner want safety and security, and to have the discussion while in love, and wanting the best for each other.

Ms Sagaria is not alone. Several law firms told the ABC requests for BFAs had increased substantially.

One of the country’s largest family law firms reports requests for BFAs jumped 79 per cent in a year, while multiple others reported a doubling of requests since the pandemic.

Lawyers said drivers included the “bank of mum and dad” insisting upon them in return for helping their children purchase a home, increased demand from those entering second and third marriages, and an economic environment that pushing more people to protect their wealth and assets.

Divorce rates rise and the number of BFA enquiries follow

Divorce rates hit an all-time high in 2021, with 56,244 finalised, although the Bureau of Statistics attributed this partly to administrative changes that helped clear a pandemic backlog.

The number of couples applying for divorce also spiked during this period.

ASX-listed firm Australian Family Lawyers reported enquiries for BFAs rose from 153 in the first half of 2022 to 274 in the same period of 2023 across its 22 national offices. The firm’s head of family law in Victoria, Bill Kordos, said demand had continued to rise since.

There is no register of BFAs, so official statistics are hard to come by, but Mr Kordos said the firm’s lawyers were writing BFAs daily.

“It’s really coming from the bank of mum and dad because young people are entering into their homes with the biggest transition of generational wealth we have ever seen,” he said.

“It’s the wealthier parties that are providing the significant injection of funds who are saying, ‘We don’t mind giving it to you, but we don’t want it flushed down the drain if something goes south. We worked hard for that money, so there’s a conditional string attached to the gifting.’

“It is a mood killer, but I think romance and relationship psychology isn’t what it used to be.”

Mr Kordos said the cost of living and exclusionary house prices meant anyone with wealth was increasingly concerned about holding onto it.

The bank of mum and dad is becoming an increasingly powerful force within the market as well, with a Productivity Commission report estimating it to be between the fifth- and ninth-largest home mortgage lender by book value.

Young Australians also appear to increasingly feel they need help, with 2021 research reported by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) showing 40 per cent of early-career adults (aged 25-34) surveyed in Sydney and Perth expected family assistance to buy a house.

Mr Kordos’s experience concurs with the data.

“With most of my cases, I believe most of the couples would never be able to get into the property market without the assistance of the bank of mum and dad,” he said.

Mr Kordos said that while in some rare cases a discussion about a BFA led to a split for his firm’s clients, he said most couples told him it had enhanced their relationship because everyone knew where they stood.

Most people still avoid tough conversations, experts say

The bank of mum and dad might be a driving force behind BFAs, but University of Newcastle youth sociologist Julia Cook said most people were still avoiding tough conversations about money.

Dr Cook recently completed a three-year study of 80 people who either received or lent money to a family member to buy a home.

Despite sums often being large, none of the 80 participants got a BFA, and most relied on verbal agreements.

Where any form of written agreement was in place, it was an email or a short document that both parties signed and then left in a drawer.

“I did kind of gently ask some of the parents, ‘Have you considered what might happen to this assistance you’re providing if your child was to break up with their partner?'” Dr Cook said.

“They would generally say, ‘Yes, I’ve thought about it and thought about asking them to sign something, but I just ultimately felt like I couldn’t bring that up because it would be questioning their relationship and it would be inappropriate.'”

She said the lenders and borrowers often viewed things differently, with one seeing the money as a gift, and the other as a loan.

“There are hints of things that could go wrong in quite a few of the situations,” she said.

The limitations of BFAs

Barry Nilsson family law principal Will Stidston estimated demand for BFAs had doubled since the pandemic, but clients sometimes had the incorrect assumption they were straightforward.

In reality, there are a lot of technicalities involved to ensure they are enforceable.

“They shouldn’t be cookie cutter,” he said.

He said clients should also revisit the document periodically or after large life events, such as the birth of a child, the purchase of a home the or sale of a business, to check it was still fair and to minimise the risk either partner might challenge it in the event of a split.

Mr Nilsson said BFAs usually cost a minimum of $10,000, but could be substantially more depending on the assets the parties held and the complexity of their situation.

Sydney-based firm Barkus Doolan Winning partner Melinda Winning said cultural awareness about BFAs was increasing, and they were increasingly viewed as an effective legal agreement.

She said in the 24 years since BFAs were first introduced, case law had developed to the point that lawyers were much clearer on the dos and don’ts of writing up an effective agreement.

Geoffrey Dickson KC is a barrister and chair of the Family Law Bar Association of Victoria.

As a barrister his involvement usually starts during a separation, although increasingly he is asked by solicitors to vet BFAs they are writing up.

He estimated a 20 per cent rise in such requests and said demand for BFAs could have jumped more significantly because he was usually only consulted on agreements involving the very wealthy.

Mr Dickson said for BFAs to remain effective, signatories had to live by the rules they set out, particularly when it came to how they acquired and held assets post-union.

More couples are splitting later in life

More older couples in relationships that span over decades are splitting up. But experts warn it could have significant implications for the wider society.

Read more

For example, if a couple agreed the wealth they brought into a relationship would be protected in the event of a split, and then used one partner’s money to buy a home that was jointly owned, that could create an issue enforcing a BFA.

“They’re only as good as the way you live your life, unfortunately,” Mr Dickson said.

The most common mistake made when creating a BFA was not including a provision for what happened if a couple had children.

“If you don’t do that, the agreement is pretty dead,” he said.

He said buyer’s remorse was the most common reason for challenging a BFA, and a deal that was too good for one party could be a pitfall because judges would look at such BFAs more critically.

It is not a judge’s job to rule on whether an agreement is fair but they can assess whether a BFA is appropriately written up and administered and set a BFA aside if it is not.

“They have to do so within the confines of the law, but if you make it too one-sided, they’ll try particularly hard to find a chink in the armour,” Mr Dickson said.

He said if there was the prospect of a BFA being challenged, most would still try to resolve a split out of court because the stakes were high in such situations.

Parents encouraged to suggest BFAs when lending to children

Caroline Counsel, principal at Caroline Counsel Family Lawyers and a spokesperson for the Law Institute of Victoria, said she had also noted a steady increase in requests but put the rate considerably lower than the other firms spoken to, estimating a 25 per cent rise over five years.

How divorce changed my relationship with money

The biggest change for me after my divorce was becoming “fiscally single” — going from a multiple income household to having absolutely no safety net if anything should happen to my job.

Read more

She preferred not to refer to BFAs simply as financial agreements because ultimately it was the court that would decide if they were binding, should either party challenge them.

Ms Counsel said realistically there were not any alternatives to a BFA if the agreement was just between two partners, but other arrangements were possible where the “bank of mum and dad” were involved, including a registered or unregistered mortgage, where the parents were the mortgagee.

These gave parents security of repayment if, for example, a marriage failed, and the property was sold.

However, the legitimacy of the mortgage could be challenged if compliance with the terms of the mortgage were allowed to slide — for example if the parents allowed skipped repayments.

Another alternative was some form of loan agreement, but this too could be subject to attack, depending on the behaviour of the parties.

Ms Counsel said if parents were concerned, she would always recommend a BFA because they could be direct parties in the agreement and because the terms could be constructed to be more enduring.

Ultimately, it was security that Sagaria and her wife also wanted, and she likened a BFA to marriage insurance.

“It is confronting, and they are not cheap to get in the first place, but then neither is house insurance, neither is car insurance, neither is medical insurance,” she said.

“The Parliament has today passed two significant pieces of legislation to make Australia’s family law system simpler, safer and more accessible for separating families and their children.

Family Law Amendment Bill

The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 will ensure the best interests of children are at the centre of all parenting decisions made inside or outside the courtroom and will make the system easier to navigate.

Significantly, the amendments passed today repeal the presumption of ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ provisions in the Family Law Act 1975. In 2017, a bipartisan parliamentary committee found that these provisions were confusing, that they failed to prioritise the safety of children and that they were being improperly applied in a way that put children at risk. These findings are consistent with the overwhelming consensus of family law experts.

Under the new laws, parenting decisions will have to be based solely on what is in the best interests of the child.

The new laws also include:

• requiring Independent Children’s Lawyers to meet directly with children;
• greater powers to protect parties and children from harmful effects of protracted and adversarial litigation;
• a definition of ‘member of the family’ in the Family Law Act that is inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander concepts of family and kinship;
• simplified compliance and enforcement provisions for child-related orders;
• powers to enable government to regulate family report writers;
• ensuring that children’s voices are heard more easily in matters under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

These reforms are long overdue and will improve the lives of Australian families. In the nine years the former government was in office there were more than two dozen reviews into the family law system, with hundreds of recommendations that were simply ignored.

The Albanese Government is ensuring separating families are safer by acting where the former government failed to deliver for so many years.

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

The Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023 will ensure courts have access to the full picture of family safety risk in order to prioritise the safety of children and families, particularly in circumstances where there is risk of child abuse, neglect or family violence.

This important change progresses the Government’s commitment to ending gender-based violence in a generation.

The Bill:

• establishes two new information sharing orders to allow courts to directly and quickly seek information from police, child protection and firearms agencies about family violence, child abuse and neglect that could place children at risk;
• allows a court to make these orders at any point during proceedings so information is accurate and up-to-date; and
• will ensure sensitive information is only disclosed in a safe and appropriate manner.

This Bill is informed by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2019 report Family Law for the Future – An inquiry into the Family Law System and reflects the Government Response to the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Family Law System.

The Government’s legislation will see more family law matters resolved quickly, safely and inexpensively without compromising the safety of family members.

The Government recognises the advocacy of those with lived experiences of family and domestic violence. Their stories have been central to the development and passage of these important reforms and I thank them for their contributions.

These long-overdue reforms are significant but we know there is more work to be done. An exposure draft of a second Family Law Bill has already been released for consultation to further improve the family law system.”