comes into effect where possible, to enable greater access to this system by more victim- survivors of family violence. Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing? Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that the courts can be satisfied that any cross-examination of the parties that occurs through a court-appointed person will enable the judicial officer to accord procedural fairness to the parties? Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that the courts are able to make informed decisions? Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that they do not have any unintended consequences for victims of family violence? Any general comments. In response to Questions 17 to 21: please to our Introductory Statement. Productivity Commission (2014) Access to Justice Arrangements: Overview, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra i p69 Productivity Commission (2014) Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra, p862 ii ibid, p863 citing Chisholm, Richard (2010) Courts violence review’. ‘Family iii Ibid, p864 iv Productivity Commission 2014, Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra, p491; v referencing QPILCH, submission 58 pp21-22. Ibid; referencing Hunter, R, Giddings, J and Chrzanowski, A, 2003, Aid and Self-Representation in the vi ‘Legal Family Court of Australia’, Socio-Legal Research Centre, Griffith University (for National Legal Aid) Ibid. vii Ibid., referencing Judiciary of England and Wales (2013) Judicial Working Group on Litigants in ‘The viii Person: Report’. Ibid p496, referencing Dr Julie Macfarlane (2013) National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying ‘The ix and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants, Final Report’ Ibid p499. x Attorney-General for Australia, Senator the Hon George Brandis (9 May 2017) the family law xi ‘Transforming system’,
comes into effect where possible, to enable greater access to this system by more victim- survivors of family violence. Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing? Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that the courts can be satisfied that any cross-examination of the parties that occurs through a court-appointed person will enable the judicial officer to accord procedural fairness to the parties? Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that the courts are able to make informed decisions? Should any changes be made to the proposed amendments to ensure that they do not have any unintended consequences for victims of family violence? Any general comments. In response to Questions 17 to 21: please to our Introductory Statement. i Productivity Commission (2014) Access to Justice Arrangements: Overview, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra p69 ii Productivity Commission (2014) Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra, p862 iii ibid, p863 citing Chisholm, Richard (2010) ‘Family Courts violence review’. iv Ibid, p864 v Productivity Commission 2014, Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No. 72, Canberra, p491; referencing QPILCH, submission 58 pp21-22. vi Ibid; referencing Hunter, R, Giddings, J and Chrzanowski, A, 2003, ‘Legal Aid and Self-Representation in the Family Court of Australia’, Socio-Legal Research Centre, Griffith University (for National Legal Aid) vii Ibid. viii Ibid., referencing Judiciary of England and Wales (2013) ‘The Judicial Working Group on Litigants in Person: Report’. ix Ibid p496, referencing Dr Julie Macfarlane (2013) ‘The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants, Final Report’ x Ibid p499. xi Attorney-General for Australia, Senator the Hon George Brandis (9 May 2017) ‘Transforming the family law system’,
SafeNET-Australia-Submission.DOCX