Web resource:	https://archive.sclqld.org.au/judgepub/irwin190806.pdf
Type:	Conference Paper
Title:	Domestic violence: implications of the new legislation
Other Titles:	Calabro Consulting family law residential, Novatel Twin Towers, Sunshine C[cut]
Authors:	Irwin, Marshall
Keywords:	Legislation analysis;Family law;Protection orders
Year:	2006
Publisher:	Queensland Courts
Notes:	General Overview :This paper by Chief Magistrate Marshall Irwin compares the Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act:1989 and New Zealand Domestic Violence Act:1995, in terms of how they address domestic violence. Implications of new Australian federal, Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility):Act 2006 (the SPRA) and the Family Law Act:1975 (FLA), and how they sit with state based legislation are also considered. Objective :The paper examines implications of the new federal legislation for state and territory courts, in family violence cases. * the relationship between parenting orders (federal) and family violence orders (state or territory), and how an inconsistency between the two types of orders will mean that the family violence orders yield to the parenting orders * the differences in the definition of ‘family violence’ between the federal legislation for the purpose of exercising family law jurisdiction, and the state and territory legislation for their purpose of exercising family violence jurisdiction * the need to undertake family dispute resolution before filing an application for a parenting order and how this does not apply if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been family violence or a risk of family violence. Yet, this raises the question as to whether the exception would exacerbate family violence litigation in state and territory courts. The paper calls for a long term integrated response, which recognises that the Court alone cannot solve the problem of family violence but that integrated strategies are required to (1) promote the safety of persons, (2) increase the accountability of people who are violent, (3) encourage behavioural changes, and (4) increase the protection of children. This includes a discussion on specialist domestic and family violence courts, drawing on examples of the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Service and the Victorian Family Violence Division of the Magistrates Court. Comparisons between the Queensland legislation and the New Zealand legislation are also made. Conclusions :The paper concludes that because family violence orders have to yield to parenting orders, state and territory courts will need to be cautious when including exceptions in family violence orders to avoid inconsistency with subsequent parenting orders. The new federal legislation has clarified the ability of state and territory courts to hear family violence applications to revive, vary, discharge or suspend a family order but it is suggested that in Queensland, this power will not be regularly exercised. The paper also concludes that for a court to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that family violence has occurred, it is likely to require evidence underlying any obtained family violence order, instead of just relying on the existence of the order itself.
URI:	https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/21122
Physical description:	23 p.
Appears in Collections:	Conference Papers

Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.