29. Integrated Responses

(1)

Introduction

29.1 This chapter examines integrated responses across Australia to issues of family violence and child maltreatment, including the essential elements of such responses: common policies and objectives; inter-agency collaboration; and the provision of victim support, including legal services and victims’ compensation. Information sharing, which underpins effective integrated responses, is discussed in Chapter 30. Specialisation—in particular specialised courts—which may also be a feature of integrated responses, is discussed in Chapter 32.

Integrated responses

29.2 ‘Integrated responses’ to family violence have flourished since a pioneering model, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, was established in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981 (the Duluth Model). This model is based on four key principles: the need for coordination and cooperation between agencies; the need for collaboration between partners; a focus on victim safety; and the need for offenders to be held accountable for their actions.1 The Duluth model features offender programs, community awareness-raising and training, and case management. It works in tandem with, and monitors,

1 Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Duluth Model on Public Intervention <www.theduluthmodel. org/duluthmodelonpublic.php> at 11 January 2010.

(2)

criminal justice services. A similar model was adopted in Hamilton, New Zealand in 1991.2

Terminology

Integration

29.3 ‘Integration’ is sometimes considered synonymous with the terms

‘coordination’, ‘cooperation’ and ‘collaboration’. These latter terms tend to indicate degrees of integration. Agencies that coordinate service delivery ‘might share information and dovetail their processes but they do so essentially in order to each pursue their own goals more efficiently’.3 Integration, on the other hand, requires

agencies to decide on and articulate common goals and agree on ways to pursue those goals. Integration of services is more than coordinated service delivery—it is a whole new service. Co-location of agencies, agreed protocols and codes of practice, joint service delivery, agencies reconstituting or realigning their core business to confront the challenges posed by a broadened conception of the problem: these are the key indicators of an integrated response.4

29.4 Cooperation, coordination and integration may be conceptualised as part of a scale of integration, as set out below:

Autonomy Cooperative links Coordination Integration

Parties/agencies act without reference to each other, although the actions of one may affect the other(s).

Parties establish ongoing ties, but formal surrender of independence does not occur. A willingness to work together for some common goals. Communication emphasised. Requires goodwill and some mutual understanding.

Planned harmonisation of activities between the separate parties. Duplication of activities and resources is minimised. Requires agreed plans and protocols or appointment of an external coordinator or (case) manager.

Links between the separate parties draw them into a single system. Boundaries between parties begin to dissolve as they become effectively work units of sub groups within a single larger organisation.

Source: M Fine, P Kuru and C Thomson, Coordinated and Integrated Human Service Delivery Models: Final Report (2005) Social Policy Research Centre, University of NSW, 4.

29.5 According to this scale, most of the ‘integrated responses’ described in this chapter are more accurately characterised as forming cooperative links or coordination, rather than integration.

29.6 Integration may occur at different levels, including national, state government or local level, and between individual consumers and staff. The degree of integration may

2 J Mulroney, Trends in Interagency Work (2003), prepared for the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, 3.

3 Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, Developing an Integrated Response to Family Violence in Victoria: Issues and Directions (2004), 11.

(3)

be loose—where there are independent decentralised organisations ‘interacting as the occasion arises’: or tight, where there are centralised independent organisational units acting in a coordinated or collaborative way.5

29.7 There are also different models of integration. A report produced for the NSW Cabinet Office and Premier’s Department in 2005 identified 10 different models of service delivery, including ‘one stop shops’ (involving co-location of services), ‘case management’ (integrated delivery of services focusing on client outcomes) and ‘inter-agency collaboration’.6 The report noted that most projects tend to combine elements of these different conceptual models.

Integrated responses

29.8 The term ‘integrated responses’ is typically used in the literature to refer specifically to inter-agency models of collaboration, often based on the Duluth model. They may be distinguished from ‘whole of government’ responses to family violence, which are government policy frameworks that span a range of departments and agencies. Whole of government responses may form an element of an integrated response (as discussed below), but they do not necessarily exhibit other features of an integrated response such as mechanisms for inter-agency collaboration and service delivery.

29.9 Features of an integrated response may include:

• common policies and objectives, potentially including pro-arrest and prosecution policies;7

• inter-agency collaboration and information sharing, which may include: coordinated leadership across services and resources; sharing of resources and protocols; and inter-agency tracking and management of family violence incidents;

• the provision of victim support;

• commitment to ongoing training and education;8

• ongoing data collection and evaluation, with a view to system review and process improvements;9 and

• specialised family violence courts, lists, and offender programs for those who engage in family violence.10

29.10 While a comprehensive integrated response has all of these features, not all features are required for a project to be considered an integrated response. Both

5 Ibid, 5.

6 Ibid.

7 Pro-arrest and pro-prosecution policies are discussed in Chs 8 and 9. 8 Discussed in Ch 31.

9 Discussed in Ch 31.

10 Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Family Violence, Reforming the Family Violence System in Victoria (2007), 19. Specialisation is discussed in Ch 32.

(4)

comprehensive, and more limited, integrated responses in the family violence and child protection contexts in Australia are discussed below.

Integrated responses in the context of family violence

29.11 Integrated responses to family violence in Australia have flourished in the past decade. The most comprehensive responses operate in the smaller jurisdictions of the ACT and Tasmania, combining both policy and operational elements. In Victoria, a broader policy response has been initiated, with funding for smaller-scale local partnerships as part of an Integrated Family Violence Service program. In other Australian jurisdictions, the focus has been on small-scale projects. The following is a brief overview of the large-scale projects, and notable smaller-scale projects, in each Australian jurisdiction.11

Australian Capital Territory

29.12 The Family Violence Intervention Program (FVIP) is a coordinated criminal justice response established in 1998, following recommendations of the ACT Community Law Reform Committee in 1995.12_{It includes most of the key elements of} the Duluth model. Its focus is the criminal justice system in the context of family violence. The FVIP operates within the context of an overarching ACT Government policy framework oriented towards the safety of women and children.13

29.13 The FVIP has no legislative basis and operates under protocols established in 1998 and under a 2006 Memorandum of Agreement. The key agencies involved are the Australian Federal Police (ACT Policing); Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP); ACT Magistrates Court; ACT Corrective Services; Domestic Violence Crisis Service (DVCS); Office for Children, Youth and Family Support; the Department of Justice and Community Safety; and the Office of the Victims of Crime Coordinator.

29.14 At the policy level, the FVIP is steered by a coordinating committee chaired by the Victims of Crime Coordinator (acting as the Domestic Violence Project Coordinator).14 The role of the committee is to act as the forum for discussion about strategic planning and coordination, as well as policy and procedural frameworks. 29.15 The core components of the FVIP are:

• pro-charge, pro-arrest policies with a presumption against bail;

11 Descriptions of these projects are usefully compiled by the Australian Domestic Violence Clearinghouse in its Good Practice Database: see Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Good Practice Database <www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/good_practice.html> at 11 January 2010. 12 Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory, Domestic Violence, Report 9

(1995).

13 ACT Government, Justice, Options and Prevention: Working to Make the Lives of ACT Women Safe

(2003).

14 The Domestic Violence Project Coordinator is a statutory appointment under the Domestic Violence Agencies Act 1986 (ACT), and the Victims of Crime Coordinator is a statutory appointment under the

(5)

• early provision of victim support (by DVCS);

• pro-prosecution policies;

• coordination and case management; and

• an offender program as a sentencing option.15

29.16 Under the FVIP, police are encouraged to lay charges and arrest offenders when they are called to an incident. They are trained in evidence collection methods particular to family violence and equipped with Family Violence Investigation Kits. DVCS workers are contacted to attend all family-violence related incidents and offer victim support services at the time of the incident, as well as ongoing victim support. The police identify all family violence incidents and these are transferred to a specialist list for family violence matters in the Magistrates Court.

29.17 The ODPP is responsible for prosecuting offences and their policy is to continue prosecutions even where victims are reluctant or give unfavourable evidence. Evidence is disclosed earlier, in line with a practice direction, and all pre-trial matters are managed by a single magistrate, although trials are heard by other magistrates in the court. If a person is found guilty, the usual result is the imposition of a good behaviour bond with a number of conditions, and may include a mandated referral to a behaviour change program for offenders run by ACT Corrective Services.

29.18 The FVIP was implemented in phases, and a key feature is the periodic evaluation of the program. The evaluations indicate that the FVIP has helped to establish better relations between agencies; has contributed to victim safety and protection; has contributed to offender accountability by ensuring incidents are charged and processed in court; and has implemented practices to improve and develop the program.16

New South Wales

29.19 In New South Wales, integrated responses to family violence have tended to be localised, smaller-scale and focused on service delivery. These projects include:

• Mt Druitt Family Violence Response and Support Strategy;

• Canterbury Bankstown Inter-Agency Domestic Violence Response Team;

• Green Valley Domestic Violence Service;

• Domestic Assault Response Team (Tuggerah Lakes);

• Domestic Violence Intervention Response Team (Brisbane Waters);

• Staying Home Leaving Violence (Bega and East Sydney);

• Operation Choice (Shoalhaven and Lake Illawarra);

15 See Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Good Practice Database

<www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/good_practice.html> at 11 January 2010.

(6)

• Manning/Great Lakes Police and Women’s Refuge Partnership Against Domestic Violence Project; and

• Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model (Wagga Wagga and

Campbelltown) (discussed in Chapter 32).17

29.20 Some of these, such as the Domestic Violence Intervention Response Team, involve police referring victims to victim support workers. The Green Valley project refers victims of family violence to a specialist team of family violence, drug and alcohol and child protection workers located within NSW Health, and also facilitates applications for housing.

29.21 The Wyong and Tuggerah Lakes Domestic Assault Response Team (DART) combines police and Community Services caseworkers. When police apply for a protection order in relation to family violence, the DART is alerted and performs an extensive background check on the parties, including any child protection interventions and outcomes and current or pending Family Court orders. The police conduct home visits or contact victims and, if children are involved, a DART caseworker also comes to explain child protection issues and make appropriate referrals. In joint meetings between Community Services and police, high-risk families are identified for support through ‘intensive case management’.18

29.22 In 2007, an independent review emphasised the need for coordination in the delivery of services in relation to family violence in NSW.19 This has led to the establishment of both a centralised Violence Prevention Coordination Unit (VPCU) within the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, and an expert advisory committee, the Premier’s Council on Preventing Violence against Women. The VPCU and the Premier’s Council are currently developing a Strategic Framework for addressing family violence in NSW, which is likely to strengthen inter-agency responses.20

Northern Territory

29.23 In the Northern Territory, the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council (NPY Women’s Council) has established the Cross Borders Domestic Violence Service, which covers a remote area crossing the borders of the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. It provides access to

17 The projects are listed in NSW Ombudsman, Domestic Violence: Improving Police Practice (2006), 47. The Commissions are aware that other arrangements may apply informally, such as a protocol for expediting information exchange in family violence matters on the Katoomba and Lithgow circuit of the Local Court, which developed from a court users’ meeting.

18 Ibid, 50–51. Child protection is discussed in Chs 19–20.

19 ARTD Consultants, Report on Coordinating NSW Government Action Against Domestic and Family Violence (2007), prepared for the Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW).

20 Office For Women’s Policy (NSW), Discussion Paper on NSW Domestic and Family Violence Strategic Framework (2008).

(7)

medical and legal services, and also focuses on the development of inter-agency protocols.21

Queensland

29.24 In 2009, Queensland released a whole of government strategy for addressing family violence.22_{This focused on five areas of reform: prevention; early identification} and intervention; connected victim support services; perpetrator accountability; and system planning and coordination.23 It also included a focus on improving integrated responses.24 As part of the Queensland Government’s 2009–10 program of action, one key measure is to test an enhanced integrated response in Rockhampton comprising: case management services for those with multiple support needs; a specialised court program; enhanced legal services; offender programs; community awareness raising and capacity building of the service sector.25

29.25 A long-running integrated response in Queensland is theGold Coast Domestic Violence Integrated Response (GCDVIR), a community-based program that has been operating since 1996. It has a coordinating committee with representatives from family violence centres and shelters; police; the Gold Coast Hospital; the Southport Magistrates Court; Legal Aid; the offenders’ program service provider; and government departments for corrective services, justice, child safety, community services, and housing.

29.26 The GCDVIR has developed a number of programs, including:

• the Police Fax Back Project;

• Domestic Violence Court Assistance Program: a secure and specially designed family violence office at the Southport Magistrates Court, staffed by the Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast Inc (DVPC), which provides victim support, information and advocacy;

• Mandated Men’s Program: a 24-week court-ordered family violence program for offenders, run collaboratively by Community Correction Southport and DVPC;

• the Safety First Project: a service where basic information and a comprehensive risk assessment about women leaving refuges is faxed to the DVPC for quicker access to its services;

21 Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council, NPYWC Domestic Violence Service

(2010) <www.waru.org/organisations/npywc/npy_domestic.php> at 30 January 2010.

22 Queensland Government, For Our Sons and Daughters: A Queensland Government Strategy to Reduce Domestic and Family Violence 2009–2014 (2009).

23 Ibid, 8–9.

24 Ibid, 11.

25 Queensland Government, For Our Sons and Daughters: A Queensland Government Strategy to Reduce Domestic and Family Violence Program of Action 2009–2010 (2009), 5. The specialised court in Rockhampton is described in Ch 32.

(8)

• inter-agency protocols on communication and inter-agency training; and

• development of family violence resources.26

29.27 Townsville and Thuringowa in northern Queensland have developed an integrated response to family violence, known as Dovetail. Government partners include Centrelink, Corrective Services, Department of Child Safety, Department of Communities and Department of Housing. Dovetail partners also include the legal sector—Family Court, Legal Aid, Legal Services, Townsville Magistrates Court—as well as the police; city councils; and non-government services, including the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, Salvation Army, and women’s services.27

29.28 These agencies commit to key principles and goals, including the development of protocols for all services, and monitoring of the legislation and family violence systems. Agencies meet regularly and monitor relevant programs, which include fax-back protocols with the police; court support; and offender programs.

29.29 The Logan River Valley Integrated Community Response to Domestic Violence Group Fax-Back Project also provides a fax-back process in that region.28

South Australia

29.30 The South Australian Government, as part of its Women’s Safety Strategy and Keeping them Safe—Child Protection Agenda, piloted the Family Safety Framework (FSF) in Holden Hill, the South Coast Local Service area and the Far North Local Service Area between late 2007 and 2008.

29.31 The FSF involves an inter-agency agreement on key principles and is focused on targeting high risk families for risk assessment by a local Family Safety Meeting, attended by a range of agencies. The sharing of information in that meeting is governed by a specially developed Information Protocol, and an Action Plan is prepared for each referral. The agencies involved in the Protocol include the police, a range of government departments, and non-government family violence services. No additional funding was allocated to agencies.

29.32 The FSF was evaluated in November 2008 and was found to have achieved improved responses to victims and their children and enhanced victim safety and reduced re-victimisation.29_{In October 2009, the FSF was expanded to three other} regions.30

26 Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast, Domestic Violence Prevention Centre Gold Coast

<www.domesticviolence.com.au/GoldCoastPartnerships.htm#overview> at 2 February 2010.

27 Northern Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, Dovetail <www.nqdvrs.org.au/Dovetail.htm> at 11 January 2010.

28 Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Good Practice Database <www. austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/good_practice.html> at 11 January 2010.

29 J Marshall, E Ziersch and N Hudson, Family Safety Framework: Final Evaluation Report (2008), prepared for the Office of Crime Statistics and Research (SA).

30 Office for Women (SA), Women’s Safety Strategy <www.officeforwomen.sa.gov.au/index .php?section=970> at 2 February 2010.

(9)

Tasmania

29.33 Tasmania has implemented ‘Safe at Home’, an integrated whole of government criminal justice response to family violence. Safe at Home comprises 16 funded initiatives across the Departments of Justice; Police and Public Safety; Health and Human Services; and Premier and Cabinet. Part of the response included the reforms that led to the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas). The Department of Justice is responsible for its implementation; a Statewide Steering Committee chaired by the Department of Premier and Cabinet is responsible for high level issues including resource distribution; and an Inter-Departmental Committee chaired by the Department of Justice is responsible for operational planning and development, supported by Regional Coordinating Committees.31

29.34 In respect of police, initiatives include a Family Violence Response and Referral Line, which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and refers callers either to police, counselling or support services; specialist Victim Safety Response Teams (VSRT) in each policing district; and specialist police prosecutors. Police attending family violence incidents play a key role in identifying the presence of family violence; administering risk assessment tools; and entering a Family Violence Management System report which is quality assured by a VSRT or supervising Sergeant. Operational police also issue police-initiated Family Violence Orders, apply for Family Violence Orders, determine bail, and prepare oppositions to bail. Police are also responsible for notifying Children and Family Services if a child is affected by family violence.32

29.35 There are weekly Integrated Case Coordination (ICC) meetings attended by relevant agencies to consider all new and ‘active’ family violence cases in each policing district, supported by an ICC database linking police and Department of Justice databases.33

29.36 Victim support is provided by a Court Support and Liaison Service, a Child Witness Service and a Special Needs Liaison Service, which provide support to victims, children and people with special needs such as drug and alcohol problems. In addition, there is a specialist Children and Young Person’s Program counselling service. For offenders, there is a Family Violence Offender Intervention Program. 29.37 Specific additional funding has been provided for legal aid, the Tasmanian Magistrates Court and the Department responsible for child protection. There has also been specific funding for alternative accommodation for offenders removed from their homes,34 and for the Ya Pulingina Kani Aboriginal Advisory Group, to advise on the most culturally appropriate ways to manage Indigenous offenders and provide support to victims.

31 Successworks, Review of the Integrated Response to Family Violence: Final Report (2009), 19–20. 32 Ibid, 12.

33 Funding has been provided for an Integrated Case Coordination Management System as the next stage: Ibid, 13.

34 Ibid, 15. However, this funding was returned from the contracted non-government service provider as the service was unsuccessful.

(10)

29.38 The Safe at Home initiative was independently reviewed in June 2009.35 The review found evidence that the objectives were being achieved, but made 37 recommendations for improvement, including: the adoption of family safety as a unifying paradigm; a strengthened risk assessment program; a Victims’ Rights Charter; case management for high-risk offenders; establishment of a specialist family violence court and use of specialist prosecutors; and improved support for child witnesses.

Victoria

29.39 In 2002, the Victorian Government established a Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Family Violence, including representatives from police, government departments, family violence services, the courts, peak bodies for family violence, support organisations for sexual assault victims, the No to Violence Male Family Violence Prevention Association, legal services and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.36 This Committee advised on the need for, and developed a model for, an integrated response in Victoria. The Government also established an Indigenous Family Violence Task Force in 2002, which reported in 2003.37

29.40 Since 2005, the Victorian Government has invested $140 million in whole of government policies to address violence against women.38 These initiatives include:

• reforms to family violence and sexual offences legislation, based on the recommendations in two reports of the Victorian Law Reform Commission;39

• a new Code of Practice and five-year strategy plan for the Victorian police in respect of family violence;40

• the establishment of specialist family violence courts, as well as sexual assault lists and prosecution teams and multi-disciplinary sexual assault centres;

• the provision of counselling and offender treatment programs in the context of family violence and sexual assault;

• the establishment and funding of a child witness service;

• funding for the Department of Human Services to develop partnerships with community and local organisations to provide integrated services such as housing, counselling and treatment programs (known as the Integrated Family Violence Service program);

35 Ibid.

36 Department of Human Services (Vic), Changing Lives—A New Approach to Family Violence in Victoria

(2007).

37 Victorian Indigenous Family Taskforce, Final Report (2003).

38 Office of Women’s Policy (Vic), Right to Respect: Victoria’s Plan to Prevent Violence Against Women 2010–2020 (2009), 4. These strategies involve the Minister for Housing and Minister for Local Government; the Minister for Women’s Affairs; the Attorney-General; the Minister for Police and Emergency Services; and the Minister for Community Services and Children.

39 Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of Family Violence Laws: Report (2006); Victorian Law Reform Commission, Sexual Offences: Final Report (2004).

40 Victoria Police, Living Free from Violence, Upholding the Right: Victoria Police Strategy to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children 2009–2014 (2009); Victoria Police, Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence (2005).

(11)

• the development of a comprehensive risk assessment framework and tools;41 and

• ten-year plans to: address Indigenous family violence;42 prevent violence against women;43 and the forthcoming Strategic Framework for Family Violence Reform 2010–2020 to build on existing reforms for the handling of family violence.

29.41 The Integrated Family Violence Service program includes common risk assessment tools, protocols, and accreditation and funding for specialist family violence services according to a Code of Practice.44

29.42 One notable multi-agency local project in Victoria is the Violence Against Women Integrated Services Partnership project in Warrnambool. The key focus of this partnership has been the establishment of protocols responding to family violence with the police, the Magistrates’ Court, Accident and Emergency Department at South West Healthcare, Emma House Domestic Violence Services and the Salvation Army. These partners refer victims, with their consent, to Emma House, through a fax-back service. Services such as counselling, referrals to mental health and sexual assault services, and a children’s worker are provided. The Salvation Army provides emergency accommodation for offenders; the Warrnambool Magistrates’ Court operates a special family violence list to enable victim support on-site; the RSPCA provides emergency accommodation for pets; and the partnership meets monthly to discuss broader strategic issues.45

Western Australia

29.43 In Western Australia, an integrated response is developing through whole of government strategic plans to address family violence, developed and implemented by a Senior Officers’ Group, consisting of senior state and Australian Government departmental representatives as well as the community sector. As part of the 2004–08 plan, the Western Australian Government developed specialist Family Violence Courts and protocols between the police and child protection authorities.46

29.44 The 2009–13 plan commits to a range of initiatives, including a focus on prevention and early intervention strategies; and a ‘statewide integrated response’ for victims of family violence, including an accessible, integrated 24-hour response throughout the state.47

41 Government of Victoria, Family Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Supporting an Integrated Family Violence Service System (undated).

42 Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Strong Culture, Strong Peoples, Strong Families: Towards a Safer Future for Indigenous Families and Communities, 2nd ed (2008).

43 Office of Women’s Policy (Vic), Right to Respect: Victoria’s Plan to Prevent Violence Against Women 2010–2020 (2009).

44 Children Youth and Families (Vic), Integrated Family Violence (2008).

45 Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Good Practice Database <www. austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/good_practice.html> at 11 January 2010.

46 Department for Child Protection (WA), WA Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013

(2009). 47 Ibid.

(12)

29.45 There are two notable local multi-agency projects in Western Australia. The first inter-agency model adopted in Western Australia was the Armadale Domestic Violence Intervention Project (ADVIP), established in 1993. It includes representatives from the police, women’s refuges, community corrections, the hospital and Curtin University. Fortnightly Core Group meetings are held to discuss problems in specific cases and to coordinate interventions in particular cases, while monthly meetings of the Inter-agency Safety Committee focus on broader systemic issues.48 An accountability audit has been conducted of the ADVIP.49

29.46 Domestic Violence Advocacy Support Central in Perth provides a ‘one stop shop’ for family violence services, through the co-location of refuge, legal, family support, police and counselling services. The agencies involved include Orana Women’s Refuge, Legal Aid, Police and Department for Community Development, with visiting sessions from Centrecare and the Domestic Violence Children’s Counselling Service.50

Integrated responses in the context of child protection

29.47 In the child protection context, a number of the states and territories have established inter-agency models to deliver coordinated services to children and young people who have been abused, or who are at risk of abuse. Each state and territory has developed specific investigative models based on its own child protection legislation and discrete definitions of abuse and neglect. These deal with the way in which abuse of children and young people is reported, referrals to other agencies, information exchange between agencies, the conduct of investigations and interviews, and how services are delivered. While some of these processes are legislatively based, practical guidance is often provided through a variety of protocols, inter-agency guidelines and memorandums of understanding (MOUs).

29.48 In addition, the Family Court of Australia has developed a case management model, the Magellan project—which is discussed further below—to address the needs of children and families where serious allegations of sexual or physical abuse are raised during parenting disputes in the Family Court.51

Intake process

29.49 In several jurisdictions—including South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory—reports of child abuse are directed to a centralised intake service or hotline.52_{In Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, reports are directed to the}

48 E Pence, S Mitchell and A Aoina, Western Australian Safety and Accountability Audit of the Armadale Domestic Violence Intervention Project (2007), prepared for the Department for Communities (WA). 49 Ibid.

50 Legal Aid Western Australia, Domestic Violence Advocacy Support Central (2006) <www.legalaid.wa .gov.au/annualreport/section1/7dvasc.html> at 2 February 2010.

51 The Magellan project was initiated by Nicholson CJ of the Family Court and Dessau J: D Higgins,

Cooperation and Coordination: An Evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan Case-Management Model (2007), prepared for the Family Court of Australia, 14.

52 See, eg, Department for Families and Communities (SA), Reporting Child Abuse (2010)

(13)

district child protection department office closest to the child’s location, from which they are then referred to the police and/or an inter-agency team.53

29.50 In Victoria, reports can either be made to the child protection agency or the community-based Child and Family Information Referral Support Teams (Child FIRST). Where the initial assessment reveals safety concerns for the child, the matter is referred to the child protection agency. Where the concerns are more about a child’s wellbeing, the matter will be referred to Child FIRST (or another community service organisation).54 A similar community-based intake model has recently been adopted in Tasmania.55

29.51 In NSW, mandatory reporters who work in one of the six government agencies where there is a Child Wellbeing Unit (CWU)56 may make a report to their CWU. With the assistance of the specially trained staff at the CWU, the reporter will apply the Mandatory Reporters Guidance assessment tool to determine whether their concerns for the safety of the child meet the legislative threshold for intervention. Where the tool indicates that there is a ‘risk of significant harm’, the CWU will make a report to the Child Protection Helpline. If, on the other hand, the tool indicates that the matter does not satisfy the threshold, and the CWU does not have concerns about accumulated harm, CWU staff and the reporter will work together to determine where best to refer the child and the family for appropriate support and assistance.

Initial assessment and referral to police

29.52 The systems in place for initial assessment of a report and its referral to the police and/or the inter-agency team differ in each state and territory. In a number of jurisdictions, there is a positive obligation on the child protection agency to refer a report immediately to the police where the report contains allegations of harm that may involve a criminal offence.57

29.53 Generally, the initial assessment involves obtaining more detailed information about the child who is the subject of the report, and making an assessment of the degree of harm that the child has suffered, or the degree of risk of harm, to determine whether the report satisfies the reporting threshold. The criteria for referring cases to the police vary between jurisdictions, and sometimes even within jurisdictions. A criticism of some child protection systems has been that there is inconsistency in the

Services (Tas), Making a Notification to the Child Protection Intake (2010) <www.dhhs. tas.gov.au/service_information> at 12 April 2010 although in Tasmania, reports may also be made to community based Gateway Services.

53 See, eg, Department of Communities (Qld), Reporting Child Abuse (2010) <www.childsafety.qld.gov.au /child-abuse/report/index.html> at 12 April 2010.

54 Department of Human Services, Children, Youth and Families (Vic), Reporting Concerns about Children or Young People: A Guide for Professionals (2007) <www.cyf.vic.gov.au> at 12 April 2010.

55 Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 (Tas) pt 5B, as amended by Children, Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Act 2009 (Tas).

56 These have been created within NSW Health (Area Health Services and the Children’s Hospital at Westmead), NSW Police, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Housing, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care and the Department of Juvenile Justice.

(14)

assessment of reports between district offices or different entry points. For example, in a review of the Victorian child protection service, the Victorian Ombudsman stated:

Evidence obtained during my investigation shows that the degree of tolerance of risk to children, referred to as the ‘threshold’, varies across the state according to the local office’s ability to respond. I located many examples of cases where I consider that the risk of harm to children was unacceptable and the department had not intervened.58

29.54 To address this issue, a number of jurisdictions have developed and implemented diagnostic assessment tools to ensure that assessments are performed accurately and consistently across the various entry points.59

Police response to reports

29.55 The police must investigate allegations of abuse or neglect when there is a reason to believe that a criminal offence may have been committed. Invariably this involves interviewing the child or young person. The child or young person must also usually submit to an interview by community services caseworkers to assess whether there are legislative grounds for making an application to the court for a care and protection order, and to determine what family, social support and medical services should be provided.

29.56 Across the states and territories, there are different models of police responses to reports of child abuse and neglect. Essentially these can be divided into three types:

• inter-agency teams, involving police and other agencies;

• joint investigations between police and other agencies; and

• specialised police units.

29.57 Five states and territories have inter-agency teams, as follows:

• New South Wales—Joint Investigation Response Team (JIRT);

• Queensland—Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN);

• Western Australia—ChildFirst Assessment and Interview Team (CAIT);

• Northern Territory—Child Abuse Taskforce (CAT); and

• Victoria—Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team (SOCIT). 29.58 All inter-agency teams include, as core members, the child protection agency and the police in each state and territory, but some jurisdictions also include other agencies or persons. For example:

• JIRT includes the health department as a core team member (although it is not co-located with the others);

58 Ombudsman Victoria, Own Motion Investigation into the Department of Human Services Child Protection Program (2009), [170].

59 See, eg, NSW Health, NSW Police, Department of Community Services (NSW), NSW Joint Investigative Response Team (JIRT) Review, unpublished (2006), [7.2].

(15)

• SCAN includes the health and education departments as core team members, as well as Indigenous representatives and other agencies as required;

• CAIT has included the health and justice departments in training programs;

• CAT includes Indigenous representatives and other agencies as required;

• SOCIT includes sexual assault counsellors as core team members, and forensic medical officers as required.

29.59 Inter-agency teams have the potential to increase the types of services and support that victims receive in addition to child protection and police assistance; and to allow access to greater information and resources by the child protection agency and the police.

29.60 Some inter-agency teams, such as SCAN in Queensland, have a legislative basis. Part 3 of the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) sets out the membership and responsibilities of the core members of SCAN and states that its purpose is to enable a coordinated response to the protection needs of children, by facilitating:

• information sharing between members;

• planning and coordination of actions; and

• responding in a holistic and culturally responsive way to children’s protection needs.60

29.61 The JIRT program in NSW is policy-based. It provides services exclusively to children and young people aged under 18 years. The roles and responsibilities of each of the agency members are outlined in an MOU between them, which provides:

The role of the NSW Police is to detect and investigate alleged child abuse and neglect. Where appropriate they are to initiate legal proceedings against identified offenders.

The role of [Community Services] is to receive and assess reports of risk of harm to children and young people. [Community Services] also ensure the safety of children and their ongoing care. Where appropriate they initiate Children’s Court proceedings. The role of Health is to identify and report risk of harm to children and young people. They provide treatment, crisis and ongoing counselling as well as medical examinations.61

29.62 Caseworkers with the NSW child protection agency and police officers, who are specially trained in interviewing child victims, are jointly responsible for investigating allegations of abuse to determine whether a care and protection order is warranted and whether a criminal offence may have been committed.

60 Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) s 159J.

61 The original MOU was signed in 1997 and was revised in August 2006 following an inter-agency review of JIRT in 2006: see NSW Health, NSW Police, Department of Community Services (NSW), NSW Joint Investigative Response Team (JIRT) Review, unpublished (2006).

(16)

29.63 A joint response from the three agencies means that a victim is interviewed once and the information is shared among the agencies so that appropriate services are provided to the child or young person and their family members. Not having to repeat his or her story to officers from different agencies significantly reduces trauma and distress to the abuse victim.

29.64 Queensland and Victoria on occasions also organise joint investigations, sometimes between the child protection agency and the police or, in Victoria, between the child protection agency and the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse units.

Submissions and consultations

29.65 In the course of the Inquiry, a number of issues were raised in relation to the operation of inter-agency teams, for example, that the police may not always be aware of the impact of their actions in collecting evidence of abuse when matters of family violence or child abuse are raised in family law proceedings. In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions asked whether the existing inter-agency arrangements were effective in practice to ensure that victims are better protected, and that professionals in each part of the system understand the consequences of their actions for other parts of the system.

29.66 A number of stakeholders suggested that parties to inter-agency arrangements, including the police, should receive ongoing training to ensure that each party clearly understands the impact of their actions for other parts of the system, and to ensure that inter-agency teams work effectively.62 One stakeholder noted that high staff turnover was a problem and that inter-agency arrangements could not rely on particular individuals to make them work.63 Legal Aid NSW commented that such arrangements have assisted professionals in different parts of the system to a limited extent to understand each others’ work and its consequences, but noted that there was scope for an improved level of cooperation.64

29.67 The Queensland Government’s view was that effective relationships between agencies are best achieved by fostering local agency connections supported by a centrally led agenda.65

Commissions’ views

29.68 In Chapter 30, the Commissions express the view that information-sharing protocols and MOUs are important, but cannot stand alone, and are dependent on the knowledge and involvement of officers and staff. Simply putting protocols in place is not sufficient. In the same way, integrated response arrangements are not simply formal arrangements between agencies. They must be given an ongoing profile among court and agency officers; they must form the basis of an ongoing and responsive

62 Confidential, SubmissionFV 184, 25 June 2010; C Humphreys, SubmissionFV 131, 21 June 2010; Education Centre Against Violence, SubmissionFV 90, 3 June 2010; Commissioner for Children (Tas),

SubmissionFV 62, 1 June 2010.

63 F Hardy, SubmissionFV 126, 16 June 2010. 64 Legal Aid NSW, SubmissionFV 219, 1 July 2010. 65 Queensland Government, SubmissionFV 229, 14 July 2010.

(17)

relationship between the parties and must be supported and implemented in practice. Therefore, the Commissions recommend, below, that integrated responses include a set of common policies and objectives; mechanisms for inter-agency collaboration— including information-sharing protocols, regular inter-agency meetings and liaison officers—and provision for victim support. Chapter 31 acknowledges the importance of ongoing training and education programs.

The Magellan project

29.69 The Magellan project involves special management of cases where serious allegations of sexual or physical abuse of children are raised during parenting disputes in the Family Court of Australia.66 Once a case is identified as suitable for the Magellan pathway, it is dealt with by a small, designated team of judges, registrars and family consultants. The Magellan project relies on a collaborative and coordinated set of processes and procedures, with significant resources directed to each case in the early stages.67_{A crucial aspect is strong inter-agency coordination, in particular with} state and territory child protection agencies, which helps to ensure that problems are dealt with efficiently and that information sharing is of high quality. An independent children’s lawyer is appointed to every Magellan case. Formal protocols for information sharing between child protection agencies and federal family courts apply. 29.70 A pilot program of 100 cases was conducted in Victoria from June 1998 to December 2000,68 after which the project was rolled out by the Family Court in all states and territories, except Western Australia.

29.71 The Magellan approach commences when a Form 4 is filed with an application for parenting orders.69 The application is referred to the Family Court Magellan Registrar to be considered for inclusion in the Magellan list.70_{If the court is made} aware of allegations of sexual or physical abuse that it deems ‘serious’, it can request the intervention of the relevant child protection agency as a party under s 91B of the

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The state or territory agency then assesses the allegations of abuse and reports its findings to the Family Court. This report (the Magellan Report) is the key mechanism for sharing information and includes information about the history of abuse in the family, any previous notifications, and subsequent action by the child protection agency. It is a significant factor in encouraging parties to settle matters, as such reports often either support or contradict a party’s assertion of abuse.71

66 The project was initiated by Nicholson CJ of the Family Court and Dessau J: D Higgins, Cooperation and Coordination: An Evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan Case-Management Model

(2007), prepared for the Family Court of Australia, 14.

67 Ibid, 21.

68 T Brown, R Sheehan, M Frederico and L Hewitt, Resolving Family Violence to Children: An Evaluation of Project Magellan (2001).

69 Family Court of Australia, Form 4—Notice of Child Abuse or Family Violence <www.familylawcourts .gov.au> at 9 February 2010.

70 Family Court of Australia, Fact Sheet: Magellan Program <www.familycourt.gov.au> at 17 October 2009.

71 D Higgins, Cooperation and Coordination: An Evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan Case-Management Model (2007), prepared for the Family Court of Australia, 83.

(18)

In non-Magellan cases, the child protection agency does not make a report, and merely proffers information it has in respect of the child.72

29.72 A team of Magellan judges, registrars and family consultants at each family law registry manages the cases. Generally, the aim is to complete Magellan cases within six months from the case being listed. Early steps in a Magellan case include:

• making appropriate interim orders to protect the child until the matter comes on for trial;

• ordering a Magellan report from the respective state or territory child protection agency including whether it intends to intervene in the Family Court proceedings, whether it has previously investigated these or other allegations, the conclusion and the reasons for the conclusion of the investigation, and any recommendations or other relevant information;

• ordering a subpoena of the child protection agency file;

• ordering the appointment of an independent children’s lawyer; and

• ordering a detailed family report, where appropriate, analysing the family dynamics and the needs of the children.

Reviews of the Magellan project

29.73 The Magellan project was reviewed in 2001 and 2007. Both reviews noted the information-sharing and cooperative arrangements between government agencies and the courts significantly reduced friction between the child protection and family law systems.

29.74 The 2001 review found that:

• the child protection services and family court interface was much improved— the time taken by the child protection service to submit a report fell from an average of 42 days to 32 days, meaning that the reports were undertaken well within the time frame set up for their completion;

• the substantiation rate by child protection staff rose from 23% to 48%;

• disputes were resolved far more quickly, with the average time being taken falling from 17.5 months to 8.7 months;

• the average number of court events fell from an average of five to three events;

• far fewer cases proceeded to a judicial determination—only 13% proceeded this far, compared with 30% previously;

• court orders broke down less frequently—previously some 37% of final orders broke down, while 5% broke down in the new program;

(19)

• the amount Victoria Legal Aid spent on all parties per case averaged over all cases in the pilot program was $13,770 per case—well under the cap allowed for legal aid expenditure on family law cases and compared to the $19,867 in the non-Magellan comparison group of cases;

• the proportion of highly distressed children fell from 28% to 4%; and

• the parental and legal practitioner levels of satisfaction were high.73

29.75 The 2007 review—conducted by Dr Daryl Higgins—also concluded that the Magellan project encourages a greater involvement of child protection agencies in the family law system.74 In particular:

• Magellan cases were investigated by child protection agencies in 80% of cases, compared to 26.3% of non-Magellan cases; and

• the child protection agency planned to give evidence at trial in 22.5% of cases, compared to 1.3% of non-Magellan cases.75

29.76 Both reviews indicate that the interactions of the family law and child protection systems have improved as a result of the project and its method of intensive and coordinated case management of child abuse cases.

29.77 Higgins found that child protection agency compliance with subpoenas in Magellan cases was generally high, and that this was a result of the funded role of independent children’s lawyers in:

• gathering information about the proceedings and facilitated discussions between parents where appropriate;

• procuring funding for family reports in cases where the Family Court’s internal family consultants were not used;

• approaching relevant experts to give evidence in proceedings, ascertaining their availability to give evidence and providing them with documentation relating to the matter; and

• liaising between the parties to ensure that experts selected were not opposed.76

Federal Magistrates Court

29.78 The Federal Magistrates Court (FMC) has no current involvement with the Magellan project. The FMC has adopted provisions for the transfer of more complex matters that are filed in the FMC to the Family Court. This includes matters identified for the Magellan list. The court has adopted a benchmark of two days for hearing a family law matter itself or transferring the proceedings to the Family Court. With the

73 T Brown et al, Resolving Family Violence to Children: An Evaluation of Project Magellan (2001), 132. 74 D Higgins, Cooperation and Coordination: An Evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan

Case-Management Model (2007), prepared for the Family Court of Australia, 12. 75 Ibid, 70 (table 5.10) and 214 (table 8.3).

(20)

implementation of a common registry for the Family Court of Australia and the FMC, the transfer of matters between the courts appears to have become less of an issue for complex child abuse cases which are part of the Magellan project.

29.79 In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions asked whether the gap between the family law and child protection systems could be resolved by collaborative arrangements, such as the Magellan project, and whether the principles of the Magellan project could be applied in the FMC.77

29.80 There was some support for extending the principles of the Magellan project to the FMC,78 although the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department noted that any such extension would have resource implications.79 Legal Aid NSW was of the view that the Magellan principles could be applied in the FMC, including the appointment of a nominated judicial officer and registrar to case manage matters, the determination of interim and final applications in a more reasonable time frame, and the development of protocols between the courts and agencies. The submission expressed the view, however, that a Magellan report—summarising the child protection agency file—was insufficient and that child protection agencies should be more closely involved in the management of Magellan cases.80

29.81 The Chief Justice of the Family Court and the Chief Federal Magistrate stated, however:

As the Family Court deals with the most complex disputes, it is appropriate for Magellan and ‘Magellan-type’ cases … to be dealt with by the Family Court. There are doubts about the effectiveness of Magellan type principles in a high volume court like the FMC.81

29.82 The Queensland Law Society was of the view that, given the resource implications for the FMC, Magellan matters should remain with the Family Court.82 The Law Society of NSW suggested that the proposed integration of the two courts may eliminate this issue.83 In the interim, protocols between the two courts should ensure that cases involving serious abuse are transferred to the Family Court Magellan

77 Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks, ALRC Consultation Paper 1, NSWLRC Consultation Paper 9 (2010), Questions 14–15, 14–16 and 14–17.

78 Magistrates’ Court and the Children’s Court of Victoria, SubmissionFV 220, 1 July 2010; Wirringa Baiya Aboriginal Women’s Legal Centre Inc, SubmissionFV 212, 28 June 2010.

79 Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, SubmissionFV 166, 25 June 2010. 80 Legal Aid NSW, SubmissionFV 219, 1 July 2010.

81 D Bryant, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and J Pascoe, Chief Federal Magistrate of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, SubmissionFV 168, 25 June 2010.

82 Queensland Law Society, SubmissionFV 178, 25 June 2010.

83 R McClelland (Attorney-General), ‘Rudd Government to Reform Federal Courts’ (Press Release, 5 May 2009).

(21)

list.84 One stakeholder expressed the view that it was important to clarify when cases should be transferred from the FMC to the Family Court.85

29.83 The Commissions note the positive outcomes associated with the Magellan project reflected in the two reviews discussed above. While there was some support for extending the principles of the Magellan project to the FMC, the majority of stakeholders were of the view that Magellan matters—where serious allegations of sexual or physical abuse of children are raised during parenting disputes—should be referred to and dealt with by the Family Court of Australia, applying the full range of Magellan project initiatives. In particular, the Commissions note the views of the Chief Justice of the Family Court and the Chief Federal Magistrate that the Magellan principles might not be effective in a high volume court like the FMC. The Commissions are not, therefore, recommending that the full range of Magellan project principles be formally applied in the FMC.

29.84 On the other hand, collaborative relationships between courts and agencies involved in family law and child protection matters are important to ensure that child abuse is identified and responded to in an appropriate way. This applies in the FMC, as well as in the Family Court. In Chapter 30, the Commissions note that the FMC has protocols in place with child protection agencies in a number of jurisdictions—NSW and Queensland. These arrangements are intended to facilitate cooperation and sharing of information to ensure that the protective needs of children are met.86 In that chapter, the Commissions recommend that the federal family courts, including the FMC, and child protection agencies develop protocols to provide a framework for the exchange of information in those jurisdictions that do not yet have such arrangements in place. The Commissions also recommend that parties to such protocols should receive ongoing training to ensure that the arrangements are effectively implemented.87

29.85 The Commissions note, in addition, the arrangements for the transfer of more complex matters, including Magellan matters, that are filed in the FMC to the Family Court of Australia and that the court has adopted a benchmark of two days for hearing a family law matter itself or transferring the proceedings to the Family Court. In the Commissions’ view, these arrangements and the benchmarked timeframe for transfer to the Family Court are appropriate.

Essential elements of integrated responses

29.86 Integrated responses offer clear benefits for service delivery to victims, including—importantly for this Inquiry—improving the experience of victims involved in multiple proceedings across different legal frameworks. For example, fax-back protocols between police and victim support services, and co-location of services,

84 Law Society of New South Wales, SubmissionFV 205, 30 June 2010.

85 Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria, SubmissionFV 173, 25 June 2010. 86 Family Court of Australia, Protocol between the Department of Child Safety Queensland, the Family

Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (2007), 1.1.

(22)

facilitate victims’ access to a range of options and referrals. Another benefit is that such responses enable networks to be formed across services and government departments at a local level, fostering collaboration and communication between key players in different legal frameworks, and providing ongoing improvements to practice and understanding.

29.87 As discussed above, a number of Australian jurisdictions have either implemented, or are in the process of implementing, various forms of integrated responses. Some of these are quite comprehensive, while others are smaller in scale, for example, liaison arrangements between police and victim support services.

29.88 In the course of the Inquiry, the Commissions sought feedback on what key features were required to ensure the success of an integrated response. The elements that emerged most clearly from consultations and submissions, which are discussed below, are: common principles and objectives; mechanisms for inter-agency collaboration; and provision of victim support, including legal representation. Information sharing, which is another essential element of integrated responses, is discussed separately in Chapter 30. Specialised courts and offender programs, which may also be features of integrated responses, are discussed in Chapter 32.

Common principles and objectives

29.89 One of the first steps in developing any integrated response is for key players to agree upon shared principles and objectives, which are sometimes set out in legislation.88 The Safe at Home program in Tasmania is based on the following principles:

• family violence is a crime and where evidence exists that it has been committed arrest and prosecution will occur;

• police are responsible for providing immediate intervention to secure victim safety and manage the risk that the offender might repeat or escalate the violence;

• the safety of victims is paramount;

• the victim does not determine the response of the justice system;

• wherever possible, victims should be able to choose to remain in or return (as soon as possible) to their own homes; and

• the criminal justice response to family violence should be seamless and the roles and responsibilities of each participating agency and service should be clear.89 29.90 The objectives of the Program are to:

• achieve a reduction in the level of family violence in the medium to long term;

88 See, eg, Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 1.

(23)

• improve safety for adult and child victims of family violence; and

• change the offending behaviour of those responsible for the violence.90

29.91 Principles and objectives are sometimes set out in state and territory strategic plans or responses to family violence. For example, similar principles and objectives have been stated as part of the NSW Strategy to Reduce Violence against Women; Queensland’s whole of government response to family violence, released in July 2009;91 South Australia’s statement on the Women’s Safety Agenda;92 and Western Australia’s strategic plan for family violence.93 At the time of writing, both Victoria and the Northern Territory were preparing similar strategic plans. It is likely that these will also include shared principles and objectives, as in other state and territory plans or strategies.

29.92 Ensuring a shared understanding of the nature of family violence is a foundational step in ensuring integration. In Chapters 5 and 6, the Commissions recommend a common definition of family violence across state and territory family violence legislation, the Family Law Act and other legislation.94 In addition, in Chapter 18, the Commissions examine the need for a common approach to risk assessment for family violence based on that common definition. The Commissions consider the Victorian framework for common risk assessment to be a good model, and suggest that other state and territory governments consider the development of similar frameworks to assess and manage the risk of family violence in their jurisdictions.

29.93 In the Commissions view, this shared understanding of the nature of family violence and shared approach to risk assessment must then be reflected in the objectives and principles that underpin state and territory strategic plans and inter-agency programs. In the Consultation Paper, the Commissions proposed that integrated responses should be underpinned by common policies and objectives.95

29.94 The Sydney Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service submitted that:

A common set of domestic and family violence policies and objectives be adopted Australia-wide, emphasising the criminal nature of domestic and family violence; the safety of victims and accountability for perpetrators; and the need for a coordinated and integrated response to domestic and family violence which emphasises victim support.96

90 Ibid.

91 Queensland Government, For Our Sons and Daughters: A Queensland Government Strategy to Reduce Domestic and Family Violence 2009–2014 (2009).

92 South Australian Government, Our Commitment to Women’s Safety in South Australia (2005)

93 Department for Child Protection (WA), WA Strategic Plan for Family and Domestic Violence 2009–2013

(2009), 7.

94 Rec 5–1.

95 Consultation Paper, Proposal 19–1(a).

(24)

29.95 The joint submission from Domestic Violence Victoria and others noted that the Victorian family violence integrated model is based on a whole of government approach in which five ministers—the Attorney-General, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Minister for Community Services, and the Minister for Women’s Affairs and Children and Early Childhood Development—and their departments work within a single policy framework. The Family Violence Ministers Group meets quarterly, provides leadership and oversees family violence reforms:

Multi-ministerial responsibility provides a holistic approach to addressing the issue and encourages mutual accountability. Within this model Victoria has benefited from high-level leadership and the weight this carries in driving reform.97

29.96 The National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence noted that in the ACT a ‘Wraparound’ Charter had been developed to provide an underpinning set of standards for the FVIP and expressed the view that the Charter and program represented best practice in this area.98

29.97 The NPY Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service noted that it was particularly important to the work of that Service that Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory have common policies and objectives.99

29.98 The Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria (AFVPLS Victoria) stated that integrated family violence responses were critical. Importantly, any such response required dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander strategies and services to be developed, but then incorporated into mainstream strategy. Developing dedicated strategies and services provides an opportunity for Indigenous communities to participate and lead change. The submission indicated, however, that incorporating such strategies and services into the mainstream was likely to strengthen the response of mainstream agencies to Indigenous victims of family violence.100

29.99 Where organisations work together to develop and deliver integrated responses to family violence—whether this involves just two organisations or many more—there is value in coming to an agreement about the principles and objectives that are to underpin the response. In Chapters 5 and 6, the Commissions discuss the importance of developing a shared understanding of what amounts to family violence across the different legal frameworks considered in this Report, to help close gaps between the systems. The Commissions are also of the view that developing common principles and objectives when integrating the work of different agencies and organisations in

97 Domestic Violence Victoria, Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria, Victorian Women with Disabilities Network, SubmissionFV 146, 24 June 2010.

98 National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence, SubmissionFV 195, 25 June 2010.

99 Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Domestic and Family Violence Service,

SubmissionFV 117, 15 June 2010.

(25)

response to family violence will help to ensure that all the parties involved in the integrated response understand what they are working together to achieve.

29.100 The Commissions note that the process of developing common principles and objectives should involve all the agencies and organisations that are to be involved in the integrated response, including those working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, CALD communities and the disability sector. As noted by the AFVPLS Victoria, the development process itself is an important point of contact and empowerment for those involved. It may also provide a basis for ongoing and active collaboration between the parties, which is essential to the success of any integrated response. Inter-agency collaboration is discussed further below.

29.101 The Commissions note that there are a number of ways in which the Australian, state and territory governments may foster the development and dissemination of common principles and objectives to underpin integrated responses to family violence. These include developing strategic plans and creating regional, state and territory or national steering committees. Any such process should, however, involve close consultation with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the principles and objectives of any particular integrated response mechanism accurately reflect and respond to the diversity of local conditions and needs.

Recommendation 29–1 The Australian, state and territory governments, in

establishing or further developing integrated responses to family violence, should ensure that any such response is based on common principles and objectives, developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Inter-agency collaboration

29.102 Inter-agency collaboration is an essential feature of integrated responses. The need for collaboration between agencies, including the courts, is one of the most important issues raised in this Inquiry. In particular, the need to share information in appropriate circumstances to ensure that people do not fall into gaps between the family law, family violence and child protection systems is discussed in detail in Chapter 30. That discussion canvasses issues including the impact of privacy legislation on the sharing of agency information; information sharing protocols and MOUs; and the development of a national database.

29.103 In this chapter, the Commissions consider other issues that arise in relation to inter-agency collaboration. These include the advantages and challenges of collaboration, as well as some of the methods of collaboration.

Advantages of collaboration

29.104 The way government services are delivered tends to follow the structure of government. For example, services for child protection are typically delivered by a different department from that responsible for crime and justice. Similarly, the delivery of legal services reflects both jurisdictional divisions and different governing legal frameworks.