We asked, you said, we did

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

We sought public submissions on behalf of the Legislation Act Review Committee as part of a broad review of all aspects of the operation of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth), which was required by section 59 of the Act.

The Review Committee received 33 written submissions from a range of stakeholders, including government agencies, interest groups and academics. Stakeholder submissions broadly acknowledged the important functions of the Act as a mechanism for managing Commonwealth Acts and instruments, and largely agreed that the existing objectives of the Act are being achieved and remain appropriate.

Thank you to all who provided a response.

The Review Committee considered all submissions received as part of the final report of the review. On 3 August 2022, the Attorney-General tabled the final report in Parliament.

The Review Committee found the Act remains fit for purpose. The report made 28 recommendations for further consideration. These include:

• amendments to the Act
• revised legislation approval processes
• improvements to guidance material
• education activities.

In the May 2021 Budget, the Australian Government announced increased funding for Children’s Contact Services (CCS), including funding to establish 20 additional CCS across Australia.

We sought your feedback on a draft methodology to estimate demand for new CCS by Statistical Level Area Level 4 (SA4) in order to determine the location for the new CCS. 

We received a total of 81 submissions to our consultation.  

Responses came from across Australia and included submissions from citizens, family law professionals and service providers.

Stakeholder feedback on the draft methodology indicated:  

• General support for the factors considered, with particular support for population per CCS, proximity, and disadvantage.
• Dissatisfaction with the measure used to determine proximity.
• Support for a more holistic measure of disadvantage.
• Support for a greater focus on proximity in the weighting of factors.

Other feedback included:

• Support for the inclusion of a factor considering domestic and family violence.  

The input we received made a substantial contribution to the final methodology used to determine the 20 locations selected.

The final methodology is based on the 3 factors that received the greatest amount of support in the consultation.

It includes a new proximity measure, and considers proximity to be the most significant factor in estimating demand. It also includes a more holistic measure of disadvantage.

The final 20 locations selected are:

1. Wide Bay, QLD
2. Queensland – Outback, QLD
3. Sydney – South West, NSW
4. Hunter Valley exc. Newcastle, NSW
5. Northern Territory – Outback, NT
6. Western Australia – Outback (North), WA
7. New England and North West, NSW
8. Melbourne – North West, VIC
9. Melbourne – Outer East, VIC
10. Adelaide – North, SA
11. North West, VIC
12. Gold Coast, QLD
13. Far West and Orana, NSW
14. Perth – North East, WA
15. Hume, VIC
16. Barossa – Yorke - Mid North, SA
17. Latrobe – Gippsland, VIC
18. Cairns, QLD
19. Sydney – North Sydney and Hornsby, NSW
20. Riverina, NSW