Consultation hub

We asked

On 16 September 2022, the Attorney-General of Australia, the Hon Mark Dreyfus KC MP, announced the commencement of a public consultation on a draft of the National Principles to Address Coercive Control.  The consultation process was open until 11 November 2022 and included an online survey, a series of targeted roundtable consultations and engagement with an expert Advisory Group comprised of victim-survivor advocates, family and domestic violence experts and representatives of people at increased risk of coercive control.

You said

We heard from more than 400 stakeholders through this consultation process. You can find a summary of the statistics and key findings from this consultation on the Attorney-General’s Department website.

We did

Feedback from this consultation is informing revisions to the National Principles. A revised version will be finalised by the Standing Council of Attorneys-General later in 2023.

We asked

The Australian Government’s first Implementation Plan under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap included funding for culturally safe and appropriate family dispute resolution (FDR) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. To design the new services, we engaged with stakeholders across government, the Coalition of Peaks, community organisations and interested community members between 1 February and 8 April 2022.

You said

Over 60 individuals and organisations participated in a number of virtual meetings and workshops during the consultation period. We also received 22 written submissions. Participants came from locations across Australia, and brought a wealth of experience and expertise. This included representatives from:

• the community 
• the service delivery sector
• courts 
• peak and professional bodies 
• training organisations
• Commonwealth and state governments.

Key findings from the consultation process included: 

• It is important to ensure funding is flexible enough to allow organisations to deliver tailored, culturally safe models of FDR appropriate to the unique needs of individuals, families and communities, while still meeting program requirements and the best interests of children.
• Funding amounts and short timeframes for implementation potentially limit the ability of the services to best support families and achieve desired outcomes.
• Definitions of ‘family’ should extend beyond notions of the nuclear family to include broader kinship networks and extended family. This includes provisions for multiple parties to be involved in the FDR process, and appropriate time, travel allowance and resourcing to accommodate this. 
• The extensive time and resources required to recruit and/or train FDR Practitioners, especially given current problems recruiting and housing staff, may lead to difficulties implementing the program.
• The requirements to become a FDR Practitioner may present a barrier to some First Nations people who have the lived/professional experience, rather than the qualifications required. 
• It is important to ensure appropriate arrangements are put in place (e.g. for reporting and evaluation purposes) to provide data sovereignty for ACCOs and communities.
• FDR has promising potential to resolve family arrangements in the best interests of children through an early-intervention approach, which may lead to reduced involvement by child protection authorities and youth courts in some cases.

We did

We have used the feedback and information shared during the consultation process to inform the Grant Opportunity Guidelines for the new First Nations Family Dispute Resolution services. The information will also continue to inform future policy development and decisions.

We recently ran a grant selection process for the new services. We ensured there was Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander representation on the Selection Advisory Panel for the grant round, as stakeholders identified this as important during the consultation process. The new services are expected to commence in early 2023.

We thank all those involved in the consultation process for their time and engagement with the project, and for sharing their views, information and ideas.

We asked

We asked people to share their views and feedback on any issues or impediments to people coming forward and sharing information with Royal Commissions. We did this as part of a review of how the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) operates to protect sensitive information given, or sought to be given, to a Royal Commission.

You said

Feedback in submissions to the review was generally positive and indicated that the new confidentiality protections implemented by the Royal Commissions Amendment (Protection of Information) Act 2021 have been helpful in terms of giving people greater confidence to share stories and experiences with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.

Thank you to everyone who provided a response.

We did

The feedback received has been used to inform the final report of the review.

The report identifies several possible legislative amendments to the Royal Commissions Act for further consideration:

• applying confidentiality protections to future royal commissions
• establishing processes for the operation of non-publication directions, including their lifting or amendment in appropriate circumstances
• the admissibility of evidence given to a Royal Commission in tribunal proceedings
• extending the scope of retribution protections for confidential submissions
• options for clarifying circumstances in which non‑disclosure agreements might restrict information being provided to a Royal Commission
• the possibility of allowing civil remedies to be sought within the Royal Commissions Act.