Résumé

Le système juridique fédéral de l’Australie a adopté diverses lois (parfois incohérentes) relatives à la réglementation des relations familiales, promulguées à la fois par le Commonwealth et par les gouvernements des États et des territoires. Au cours des dernières décennies, le gouvernement du Commonwealth a pris un certain nombre de mesures visant à remédier à cette fragmentation juridique. Dans la même période, une tendance à qualifier l’ensemble des lois relatives à la famille et aux questions connexes de « système de droit de la famille » s’est de plus en plus développée, ce qui a suscité de plus grandes attentes et une pression croissante pour améliorer l’homogénéité et la cohérence entre ces lois, les tribunaux et autres organismes qui les administrent. Cet article montre de quelle manière la défragmentation et l’harmonisation des lois relatives à la famille et aux questions connexes ont été réalisées en Australie, notamment la récente fusion des tribunaux fédéraux de droit de la famille.

INTRODUCTION

The law of marriage was first administered in Australia by the various states, which were then British colonies, prior to federation. The law was that brought from England, based upon a mixture of common law traditions, English legislation and the traditions of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Throughout the 1800s, there was a variety of state and territory marriage legislation.

Following federation in 1901, jurisdiction to make laws with respect to marriage and matrimonial causes was conferred upon the federal government, although this jurisdiction was barely exercised prior to 1959 when the Commonwealth passed the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth). However, from federation in 1901 until 1961 when the Commonwealth passed the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), each state and territory remained responsible for regulating marriage, resulting in the legal requirements for marriage varying from border to border.

Résumé

Les dispositions australiennes en matière de violences familiales sont brièvement passées en revue dans ce chapitre, avant d’envisager deux changements importants dans le fonctionnement des tribunaux de droit de la famille: En premier lieu, le filtrage des affaires au moment de leur dépôt et l’utilisation ultérieure des informations du filtrage pour des renvois et un processus de gestion des affaires plus ciblés; En second lieu, les restrictions du droit des parties au litige de se contre-interroger directement (plutôt que d’avoir recours à un avocat) dans les affaires graves de violences familiales.

This chapter explores procedural developments recently implemented in Australian family law courts, introduced to better address cases involving family violence.

In the first section, we undertake a brief overview of the law relating to family violence in Australia, identifying the broad legal definition and common forms of litigation involving family violence. In particular, we note the reality that family violence issues are often the subject of at least two proceedings across court jurisdictions, thus providing perpetrators of family violence with many opportunities to effect a form of systems abuse upon victims.

Next, we turn to consider the ‘Lighthouse Project’, an integrated court case management response designed to provide differentiated pathways and litigant support, based on the level of risk. This pilot is being trialled across Adelaide, Brisbane and Parramatta registries.

Finally, we outline changes made to the ways family law trials are heard in Australia, introduced to prevent perpetrators of family violence from directly cross-examining their alleged victims. The legislative scheme will be outlined, with particular attention to the balance that has been struck between principles of procedural fairness and protection of victims.

OVERVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN FAMILY VIOLENCE PROVISIONS

Family violence is now a well-recognised social problem in Australia, with many systems in place which attempt to address the issue. This is not unique to Australia, and many overseas jurisdictions have experienced the same challenge of dealing with a large and increasing volume of high-risk cases. The Australian Law Reform Commission has recognised the changing nature of the courts’ workload, which has seen an increasing number of complex cases involving family violence (often together with issues concerning mental health and substance abuse).

Résumé

L’utilisation de fiducies discrétionnaires pour protéger les richesses est devenu une obsession internationale. Dans l’organisation d’une fiducie, le fiduciaire détient le titre légal de propriété mais il doit consacrer les fruits et revenus de cette propriété aux buts de la fiducie. Ce principe est couramment utilisé dans les cas de fiducies prévoyant un important nombre de bénéficiaires, lesquels n’encaissent que ce que le fiduciaire décide de leur distribuer (jusqu’à ce que la fiducie s’éteigne après de longues années). Le recours à la fiducie discrétionnaire est très populaire en Australie et en Nouvelle-Zélande. Les tribunaux de ces pays ont fait les percées les plus importantes dans le développement d’approches pragmatiques qui permettent de conclure que les actifs détenus par des fiducies discrétionnaires font en réalité partie du patrimoine d’époux. Ces approches, aussi efficaces soient-elles, comportent toutefois des incohérences sur le plan général du droit. Le présent texte met en lumière les fondements de ces approches et il propose une théorie alternative permettant de réduire ces incohérences entre le droit de la famille et les principes généraux de l’équité.

When intimate partners separate there are inevitably disputes about access to and control over the wealth the parties enjoyed when together. In most cases wealth is held in the form of legal title to property (land or shares). Property rights are the central legal concept by which wealth is controlled and transferred in a modern legal system: the legal rules of the common law and legislation (such as taxation, bankruptcy and family law property statutes) operate through rules and provisions that rely upon the concept of ‘property’ as it is used in mature legal systems. Thus, there is a significant practical incentive to develop structures that separate ‘property’ (as defined in the legal system) from the ability to benefit from assets. Separation of title to ‘property’ from the benefits of ownership can enable the minimisation of taxation and avoidance of claims by creditors and spouses. For example, the rights to obtain a transfer of property from a spouse are of little use if the title to the property is held by another person or legal entity. In a trust the beneficiary does not hold title.

INTRODUCTION

At the conclusion of 2018, the future of the family law system in Australia was in a state of uncertainty, awaiting the outcome of a number of reforms ranging from Bills before Parliament to a wide-ranging review by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It seems unlikely that a radical overhaul or significant systemic change will result. Rather, the family law system will experience a continuation of incremental adjustments that have been occurring for many years. Thus, the theme that emerges in Australia for 2018 is that overwhelming complexity driven by incremental reforms continues, rather than any overall recasting of the law or underlying systems. In short, this is a time when there are many reformers but insufficient generalised reform.

In this chapter, the complexities of Australia's legal ‘pathway’ for the determination of parenting cases is first examined, together with some recent clarifications from the courts. It will be argued that the ‘pathway’ has reached a level of complexity that places it beyond the understanding of all but the most experienced family lawyers. It therefore also seems to impede movement toward litigation alternatives.

By way of an update, a summary of the two most significant specific reforms that have taken place in 2018 will be provided to demonstrate the wide array of reforms that continue to be pursued.

It is argued that whilst there has been much reform, the complexities of family law, and particularly the Australian legislation, are an under-acknowledged impediment to a functional family law system.

THE PROBLEM OF COMPLEXITY IN PARENTING LAWS

Like many legal systems, Australia's parenting provisions rest upon the fundamental concept of the ‘best interests’ of the child. This is expressed in the legislation as the ‘paramount consideration’. When Australia's Family Law Act commenced in 1975, the whole of the Part dealing with parenting was less than 2,700 words long. The key concept was then expressed in short compass:

If a theme must be identified in family law in Australia over 2017 it would be that the developments in the law have arguably shown an emerging role for the consideration of the rights of the individual adult, not only with respect to access to the status of marriage but also within marriage or de facto marriage relationships. In this chapter, a range of developments in Australian family law over the last year will be identified, which, it is argued, display aspects that bear out this theme.

The most significant development in 2017 has been the legislative changes to the institution of marriage to allow access to all citizens, removing the limitation upon formal recognition of marriages to spouses in the traditional male-female dyad. As will be discussed in the first section of this chapter, the process of legislative change was challenging for a variety of reasons, although ultimately ended quite simply. The changes clearly promote the rights of couples to have intimate relationships solemnised as marriages without gender limitations and thus achieve the same legal status as traditional marriages arguably carries prestige and demonstrates acceptance of the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships.

In the past 12 months, the parenting provisions in Australian legislation have not significantly altered; however, a number of difficult issues have been the subject of significant appeal court decisions. The difficulties of controlling the living arrangement of a child in their middle teenage years (on the motion of a parent), in the face of entrenched opposition from the child, was addressed by the High Court, affirming orders contrary to the child's wishes. Secondly, the Full Court of the Family Court has again considered the extent of parental authority to authorise medical procedures in cases where children are to have medical intervention concerning gender issues, confirming greater authority for parents and children to make decisions that may be irreversible for the child by the time the child is an adult.

The option of pre-nuptial agreements (known as Binding Financial Agreements in the Australian legislative scheme) has been available in Australia for many years. In 2017, the courts were required to consider the enforceability of such an agreement in light of alleged undue influence by a party.