Tag Archives: trauma informed

The Yoorrook Justice Commission Report: Has Truth-Telling Met Its Mark?

Posted on by
Reply

By Imogen Stephenson

This post is part of a series of the best blog posts written by undergraduate law students enrolled in 2024 in Non-Adversarial Justice at Monash Law.

The establishment of the Yoorrook Justice Commission in 2021 as Australia’s first formal truth-telling process into historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Nations people marked a significant milestone in the nation’s journey towards reconciliation.  Before it publishes its final report later in 2025, it is time to reflect on the Commission’s contributions and whether it has fulfilled its ambitious mandate.

Chaired by Professor Aunty Eleanor Bourke, a Wergaia/Wamba Wamba Elder, the Yoorrook Justice Commission was established in May 2021 with a mandate to investigate systemic injustice through First Nations people’s stories, experiences and concerns.  A key goal in the mandate was to determine the causes and consequences of systemic injustice (including the role of State policies and laws), and to determine which entities bear responsibility for the harm suffered by First Nations people.  In practice, the Commission had a critical focus on child protection and criminal justice systems, both of which are long-standing sources of trauma for First Nations communities as a direct result of colonisation.  Now, with the hearing process complete, the Commission’s success can be qualified by its reception by the public, and most importantly, First Nations leaders and communities.

Significance of the Commission’s success

The deep-rooted trauma experienced by First Nations people is a backdrop to legal disputes in many jurisdictions, with a particularly pronounced effect in Australia.  In addressing this issue, the Yoorrook Justice Commission has garnered attention for its use of trauma-informed platforms to listen to people’s stories in a receptive and understanding way.

Importantly, the success of this approach is not limited to First Nations matters.  On a general scale, the Commission is a good demonstration of how processes aimed at bringing people together can help to address complex issues, including those involving significant trauma.

Emotionally informed approach to truth-telling

An overarching success regarding the Commission’s hearing process was the use of a social and emotional wellbeing support model, to avoid re-traumatisation of vulnerable communities.  This emotional sensitivity encouraged engagement by First Nations people, ensuring their voices were heard across each Traditional Owner country in Victoria.  By engaging with this broad range of communities, the Commission ensured its work was widespread and inclusive.

A significant outcome of this emotionally-driven hearing process was (then) Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton’s apology in his witness testimony, acknowledging that police uniform was a ‘symbol of fear’ for First Nations people.  He renewed a commitment to eliminating bias and racism against First Nations people within police ranks, and bluntly admitted to having no First Nations-led services in the department.  This public admission brought the existence of inequalities to the forefront of public consciousness, where they may otherwise have been viewed as ‘consigned to the past’.  From this perspective, the Commission’s public engagement with responsible institutions has launched critical steps towards the genuine reconciliation aspired to by the mandate.

A middle aged many on a black or dark navy police uniform sits at a desk. There is a microphone in front of him and some leaves on the table visible in front of him. The chair behind his has some kind of animal skin on it. He is clearly high ranking as there are metal insignia on his shoulders. his badge reads Shane Patton Chief Commissioner. His hands are folded and he is looking to his right.

Image: Yoorrook Justice Commission, Shane Patton speaking at Yoorrook Justice Commission, Accessed on 26 March 2025, used under CC BY 3.0

Focus on child protection and criminal justice systems

The Commission’s most prominent area of inquiry has been into child protection and criminal justice systems, through the Yoorrook for Justice Report.  This report exposed how Western conceptions of family continue to perpetuate racist systems of child removal – echoing the trauma associated with the ‘stolen generation’.  In the report, the Commission called for significant changes such as transferring decision-making power, control, and resources to First Nations people in these systems.  The report also recommended abolishing detention for children under 16 and urged Victoria Police to consider the unique backgrounds and systemic factors affecting First Nations people when making decisions.  By identifying and addressing how interactions with the police significantly contribute to perceived systemic injustice, these recommendations directly respond to the mandate.  However, despite the promising narrative propagated by the Commission, these recommendations have been met with substantial controversy – both by the public and by the government in response. 

Criticism of the Commission

Overall, the Commission has indeed been met with support from the public.  As stated by Uncle Bobby Nicholls, a Yorta Yorta, Dja Dja Wurrung and Wadjabalok man and previous Director of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, ‘With Yoorrook, that gives me faith that we will get answers’.

However, criticism of the Commission’s work has appeared from both First Nations people and other Australian voices.  Chris Meritt from the Rule of Law Institute of Australia criticised how the Yoorrook recommendations to introduce a First Nations-led system ‘would entrench racial division’, and how a ‘narrative of victimhood was set in train from the very beginning’ through the mandate itself. 

While this opinion is rooted in the European-Australian ‘rule of law’, its criticism of ‘victimhood’ is shared by several First Nations perspectives.  For instance, Nyunggai Warren Mundine, a Yuin, Bunjalung and Gumbaynggirr man and Executive Chairman of Nyungga Black Group Pty Ltd, has condemned the recommendation that the state’s police commissioner should understand the ‘role of Victoria Police in the dispossession, murder, and assimilation of First Peoples,’ by accusing the Commission of adopting a ‘grievance and victim approach.’ Mundine argues that such recommendations do not contribute to constructive solutions, and should instead consider the actions by First Nations people that cause them to be incarcerated: ‘What we look at in this area is the wrong target.  People look at incarceration rates.  We should be looking at lowering crime.  The majority of those in prison are there for serious violent crimes.’ Similarly, Dr Anthony Dillon, who identifies as an Aboriginal Australian man and is a researcher, commentator and practicing psychologist at Australian Catholic University, has described some of the recommendations as ‘way over the top,’ suggesting that allegations of racism can sometimes distract from the harm First Nations people inflict on each other.  These perspectives suggest that the root cause of First Nations people’s aggravated experiences in Australian legal system may go beyond what is acknowledged by the Commission.

From yet another First Nations perspective, some agree with the Commission’s routes of inquiry, yet question the constrictive framework for such an ambitious mandate.  Marcus Stewart, Nira illim bulluk man of the Taungurung Nation and the inaugural Co-Chair of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, encompassed this in the hard-hitting question: ‘How in a three-year period do you unpack 200-plus years of the impacts of colonialisation?’ This rushed investigation period may have further limited the depth of inquiry available to the Commission.

Despite these concerns about the institutional motivations and implementation of the Commission, Yoorrook continues to demonstrate a promising sense of integrity as an independent body.  The Commission has already obtained a year extension for its inquiries, and requested law-making to facilitate its operation, such as preserving confidentiality of truth-telling for at least 99 years. 

However, while the Commission represents a first step to cultural change, true success will only be achieved if the government is willing to rectify systemic issues – something that appears to be in question.

Disappointment with government response

Although the Commission’s activities in isolation have been generally well-received, the public has expressed disappointment surrounding the dissonance between the Commission’s objectives and government action.  The Allan Government has responded to Yoorrook’s 2023 Report with full support of less than 10% of the recommendations, and ‘in principle’ support of only half.  The government fully rejected three recommendations, including modifications to bail laws and raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

This unwillingness to support Commission-led changes has been met with backlash.  The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service stated the response was ‘unworthy of the heart wrenching truths that were told at the Yoorrook Justice Commission’.  According to Nerita Waight, Yorta Yorta and Narrandjeri woman with Taungurung connections and CEO of the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, ‘Promises have been delayed or shelved, and there’s no clear direction coming from the Government.’

The government’s reluctance to implement change poses a significant hurdle for the continuation, and ultimate success, of the Commission’s objectives – as well as First Nations confidence in the state government. 

Far from a failure

The above criticisms and reluctance to follow Commission recommendations clearly mark a dissonance between the aspirational approach of the Commission and the actual bandwidth for change within the existing system. 

However, even in these circumstances, it is important to recognise the Commission’s pioneering success in initiating dialogue about truth and reconciliation in Victoria.  Its underlying motivation is to distil issues as perceived by First Nations people, acting as a mouthpiece for First Nations interests.  If the resulting message speaks of trauma, rage and victimisation, even if not immediately actionable within the current framework, the Commission can nonetheless be seen as fulfilling its purpose by relaying it to the government. 

The Commission holds the confidence of many First Nations peoples. There is strong hope for the future of including First Nations perspectives in policy-making. 

All Victorians have been invited to join Kerrupmara Gunditjmara, Yoorrook Justice Commission Deputy Chair, Travis Lovett in the Walk for Truth to walk 370 kilometres from Gunditjmara Country in Portland to the Victorian Parliament on Wurundjeri Woi-Wurrung Country in May and June 2025. The walk will bring together people from all walks of life to build shared understanding. It will create a space for people to have meaningful conversations, share stories, experiences and knowledge, and learn and explore more about the importance of truth telling in the State of Victoria. You can register here.

About the Author

Imogen Stephenson is a final-year student at Monash University, studying a double degree in Law (Hons) and Physics (Hons). She currently works as a paralegal in Intellectual Property at Corrs Chambers Westgarth and performs clinical data analysis at Cyban. She has developed a keen interest in non-adversarial justice and therapeutic dispute resolution through her studies with Associate Professor Becky Batagol at Monash.


					

		
		
	


				
					
	

		

						
Designing a Trauma-Informed Family Dispute Resolution Process

			
						

				Posted on   by  			

			
						

				4			

					


				

			

By Shanza Shafeek       





This is the first blog post in a series written by undergraduate law students enrolled in Monash University’s Non-Adversarial Justice unit in 2024. The very best posts have been published here.










Family disputes are inherently stressful, but for those who have experienced trauma—especially from domestic and family violence—the process can be even more overwhelming.





While the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)  promotes Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) as a flexible, less adversarial alternative to litigation, it often fails to adequately address the unique needs of trauma survivors. This highlights the urgent need for a trauma-informed FDR service that supports victims while promoting healing.





In this blog post, we will explore the concept of FDR, the importance of a trauma-informed approach, the key elements that make it effective, the challenges it presents, and how these elements contribute to a more empathetic, supportive process.














What is Family Dispute Resolution?





FDR is a process where an accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner (‘FDRP’) helps families resolve disputes related to separation or divorce outside of court.





The FDRP assists in creating parenting plans that outline future arrangements based on the best interests of the children. The goal is to resolve issues through ‘genuine effort’before resorting to court orders, promoting ‘cooperative parenting’.





Mandatory FDR requirements include exemptions for cases involving child abuse, family violence, urgency, or an inability to participate, ensuring that FDR is only used when appropriate.





The Need for a Trauma-Informed FDR Service





Trauma-informed care recognises the profound impact trauma has on individuals and strives to create a safe, supportive environment for survivors. Despite some exemptions, around 41% of family violence victims still use FDR to address their needs. However, the adversarial nature of disputes, the presence of perpetrators, and the language used in FDR can trigger past trauma, making the process harmful for victims.





Philippa Davis from the Women’s Legal Service emphasises the importance of having ‘safe processes’ for family violence survivors. Around 23% of victims report feelings of fear and power imbalances during FDR, which often leads to pressure to accept unsafe and undesired agreements. A trauma-informed FDR service, on the other hand, facilitates safer participation, enhances communication, and increases the likelihood of reaching mutually satisfactory agreements.





For example, Rachael Field and Angela Lynch introduced the ‘Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution’ (CFDR) model in 2009—a trauma-informed, four-phase framework. Piloted in five Australian locations, this model was evaluated as ‘holistic and safe’ for victims, demonstrating the positive impact of trauma-informed practices in FDR.





Elements of a Trauma-Informed FDR Service





A trauma-informed FDR service must integrate six key elements to address trauma.





    

  1. Before the Session:
    2. 






Assessments:





A trauma-informed FDR service must start with comprehensive suitability and risk assessments to ensure the process is both safe and supportive for victims. These assessments should evaluate critical factors such as violence, power imbalances, and the psychological well-being of participants to determine whether FDR is suitable.





FDRPs should be trained to conduct trauma assessments effectively in cases involving trauma. Studies show that around 30% of parents feel FDRPs lack the necessary expertise to address abuse, highlighting a significant gap in knowledge. This points to an urgent need for targeted training in trauma-informed practices, including safety planning and psychological first aid, so FDRPs can perform these assessments effectively.





Cultural competence is also a key component of these assessments, especially when working with diverse trauma survivors. Susan Armstrong emphasises that FDRPs have reported ‘less confidence’ in cultural competence, indicating the need for cultural training (including First Nations traditions) to ensure parties feel understood, respected and supported from the outset.





Once FDR is deemed suitable, practitioners and domestic violence workers should adopt a ‘multidisciplinary’ approach to develop risk management plans that address the specific trauma needs identified during assessments. Andrew Bickerdike highlights that these plans may include measures such as separate waiting areas and virtual FDR options to create a more supportive environment for victims.





Information:





Clear and comprehensive information must be provided to participants before FDR sessions. As Joanne Law highlights, this information should include details on participation requirements, the roles of FDRPs and lawyers, any necessary religious or cultural accommodations, and the availability of breaks.





Participants should also be informed of their right to have a support person, their ability to express discomfort or withdraw from the process, and the trauma-informed practices in place, such as promoting autonomy and empowerment. Eugene Opperman emphasises that providing this information helps alleviate pre-session anxiety, as it ensures participants are fully aware of their rights and the measures in place to safeguard their well-being.





    

  • During the Session:
    • 






Safe Participation





During the sessions, it is crucial to create a safe environment that encourages active participation. A ‘co-mediation approach’ as suggested by Field and Lynch for the CFDR model, can be particularly effective. This approach involves using gender-balanced mediators and legal advocates for both parties to prevent ‘gender bias’– an issue highlighted in the Post-2006 Evaluation Report.





FDRPs must cultivate a welcoming atmosphere using calming language, offering private rooms to ensure confidentiality, and ‘giving ample time for each party to speak’—strategies emphasised by Dee Hardy. Such an environment helps parties make decisions that align with their own interests and the best interests of their children, rather than feeling pressured into ‘unfavourable choices’, which has been a noted concern.





Corinne Henderson and Isobel Everett further recommend minimising staffing changes, offering a variety of choices, and avoiding arbitrary rules to ensure consistent participation. These elements enhance trauma-management and foster open communication, ultimately making the process more effective for everyone involved.





Validation:





Validation is a crucial component of a trauma-informed FDR service. FDRPs should actively listen to participants, ask trauma-sensitive questions like “How did that make you feel?” and express genuine empathy. These actions help bolster participants’ self-worth and support their emotional well-being, addressing the high levels of acrimony and self-doubt reported by 17% of parties in family disputes.





FDRPs should also remain attuned to participants’ emotional states throughout the session. The concept of the ‘window of tolerance,’ as described by Pat Ogden, Clare Pain and Janina Fisher, is particularly useful. This framework helps FDRPs recognise when a participant is approaching the limits of their emotional regulation—whether in a state of hyperarousal (anxiety) or hypo-arousal (shutdown).





By adjusting the process to stay within the participant’s ‘their ‘optimal state of balance’, FDRPs create a supportive and constructive environment.





    

  • After the Session:
    • 






Summaries:





After each session, FDRPs should provide a clear summary of the outcomes and outline the next steps to ensure that all parties understand the progress made, helping to alleviate anxiety.





Conducting a debriefing immediately after the session allows participants to reflect on their experiences, validate their emotions, and address any lingering concerns. By actively involving them in determining the next steps, this trauma-informed approach enhances their sense of control and supports their healing.





Follow-Ups:





Follow-ups are essential for providing ongoing support and ensuring the long-term effectiveness of agreements. Around 19% of parents who reach an FDR agreement no longer have one a year later. To address this, a follow-up within 1-3 months should assess the agreement’s effectiveness and evaluate parties’ evolving needs. Itshould also include a specialist risk assessment for any new concerns and seek feedback on the trauma-informed FDR service.





A second follow-up, 6-12 months later, should focus on the long-term impact of the mediation, review any additional support needs (such as counselling), and explore the possibility of further mediation. Similar to the CFDR approach, this continued access to resources ensures that parties receive sustained support throughout their healing journey.





Challenges:





Designing a trauma-informed FDR service comes with its challenges. The AIFS evaluation of CFDR found that “some parents still experienced considerable emotional difficulty, even trauma, in mediation,” highlighting the ongoing challenge of effectively addressing trauma within FDR processes.





Additionally, Field and Lynch point out that trauma can significantly impair communication skills, suggesting that specialised training in ‘communication’ and negotiation strategies is essential for trauma-informed FDR services—though such training can be costly.





A trauma-informed FDR service also requires substantial resources, including ongoing, high-quality training for FDRPs and regular evaluations. These challenges must be carefully managed to ensure that trauma-informed FDR services are effective and sustainable.














A trauma-informed FDR service is crucial to effectively support trauma survivors. By integrating the six core elements, FDR can foster healing and achieve outcomes that the adversarial system often fails to provide. As our understanding of trauma continues to grow, FDR services must evolve to offer the compassionate care that victims truly need.










ChatGPT use:





This blog post was developed with the assistance of ChatGPT to identify key issues, which were subsequently fact-checked and supported with relevant journal articles. The insights provided by ChatGPT helped shape the initial framework, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the topic.





About the author:





My name is Shanza Shafeek, and I am a fourth-year Law/Arts student at Monash University, specialising in sociology. I am currently working as a paralegal in institutional abuse and as a marketing team member for the Muslim Legal Network. I have also been actively involved as a Monash Law Ambassador and a Human Rights Project member for Amnesty International. I am passionate about legal policy, family law, and promoting culturally responsive approaches within legal practice to support diverse communities. I can be found on Linked In.