Financial Assistance, Family Violence Orders, and the Growing Risk of Systemic Misuse

Recent reforms—such as the Leaving Violence Program and Victoria’s expanded Financial Assistance Scheme—are commendable progress. Providing immediate and meaningful financial support to genuine victim-survivors is critical. Yet, I must speak from experience: there’s another, darker side that demands scrutiny and reform.

Why I’m Growing Increasingly Concerned

1. Low evidentiary threshold for interim orders
   Interim Family Violence Intervention Orders (Victoria’s equivalent to AVOs) can be granted ex parte, often on the strength of a single affidavit. While this safeguards genuine victims, it also opens doors to misuse.
2. Perverse financial incentives
   With the availability of up to $5,000 (federal) and $85,000 (state), unscrupulous actors may see AVOs as a tactical tool rather than a genuine protection mechanism.
3. AO-enabled custody leverage
   Even temporary orders can influence family court proceedings disproportionately, restricting access to children long before the full facts are tested.
4. AVOs hamper legitimate investigation
   Crucially, when an AVO is active, professional investigators like myself are severely constrained. Any perceived attempt to contact or monitor the protected person risks breaching the order—potentially criminalising the respondent. This leaves many without the ability to legally gather the evidence they need to defend themselves.
5. Worried by precedent: NDIS and Healthcare Oversight Shortfalls
   The government’s history in managing flagship programs—NDIS and healthcare—has seen substantial funds disbursed with inadequate oversight. Examples include:
   • The NDIS losing up to A$1.4 billion last year to fraud and payment errors ABC.
   • Estimates suggesting up to $6 billion annually misused, often by organised syndicates Australian Human Rights Institute, Insights Magazine, Wikipedia.
   • High-profile fraud cases, including providers jailed over multi-million dollar scams News.com.au, Daily Telegraph.
   • Government efforts, such as the Fraud Fusion Taskforce, have yielded results, but only after considerable losses and reputational damage Department of Social Services Ministers, NDIS, The Australian.
   • An ANAO audit in mid-2025 found NDIS controls were only partially effective, with recommendations yet to be fully implemented Australian National Audit Office.

It is deeply troubling to think this emerging violence support framework could follow a similar path.

The Real-World Impact—and Why It Matters

Systems designed for protection can be weaponised—especially when tied to financial benefit and minimal trust vetting. Genuine survivors risk losing credibility, while falsely accused individuals—often fathers—face immense personal, legal, and emotional harm. The fallout is real.

At RIVICA Investigations, we support both sides. We assist genuine victims with safety assessments and evidence. And we stand by those whose lives have been upended by false or strategic claims. AVOs should never be used to obstruct justice—or child-parent relationships.

What Must Change

• Stronger verification for grant eligibility, beyond simply referencing an AVO.
• Enhanced oversight and fraud detection mechanisms, with lessons drawn from the NDIS example.
• Clearer guidelines for professional investigators to operate safely and within the law—even when an AVO exists.

Let’s Discuss

I welcome insights from peers in family law, investigation, social services, or policy. How can we refine these systems to protect the vulnerable without enabling tactics of retribution? Please share your perspectives—I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts and experiences.

Because support must be fair, effective, and above all, credible—for everyone.