Breaking Barriers: Protecting Migrant Women Facing Domestic Violence

Nashita Pasha, Menzies Leadership Foundation, UNGA 6th Committee Fellow

Executive Summary

Migrant women on temporary visas face structural barriers when seeking protection under the Family Violence Provisions (‘FVPs’). Although reforms in 2024 expanded eligibility, the evidentiary framework underpinning these provisions remains unchanged. Current requirements rely heavily on joint documents such as leases, bank statements, and utility bills - materials frequently withheld by perpetrators as a form of coercive control. As a result, this evidentiary regime risks institutionalising structural dependency on abusive partners. 

This paper recommends amending Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘Migration Regulations’) to introduce an evidentiary exception. Under the proposed reform, applicants would be permitted to submit any available evidence supported by a statement from an independent expert. The Department of Home Affairs would implement this measure through ImmiAccount updates and revised operational guidelines and processes. The amendment is expected to be low-cost, funded within existing commitments under the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children 2022–2032 (‘National Plan’).

Key barriers to implementation include operational inconsistency within the Department of Home Affairs and limited accessibility of independent, trauma-informed experts. These can be mitigated through clear guidance, oversight, and additional resourcing for frontline services. Risks include cultural stigma that may deter some migrant women from seeking professional assistance, as well as potential public and political criticism that the reform weakens the integrity of the migration system. Notwithstanding these risks and barriers, the proposed amendment is recommended as a targeted reform to strengthen protection pathways for migrant women. 

Problem Identification

In 2021, 40% of women on temporary visas reported experiencing domestic or family violence, with threats to withdraw sponsorship being the second most common form of coercive control (Segrave et al., 2021). The 2021 Inquiry into Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence similarly found that Australia’s migration framework is structured in a manner that enables perpetrators to maintain control over victim-survivors during their transition to permanent residency (Parliament of Australia, 2021). These findings expose a clear policy gap: the FVPs fail to account for how visa dependency and sponsorship can be weaponized, preventing women from escaping abusive relationships and securing independent residency. 

The FVPs under the Migration Regulations provide a pathway to permanent Australian residency for temporary partner visa holders who have experienced domestic violence. However, their operation reinforces structural dependency on sponsoring partners, particularly through evidentiary requirements that rely on joint financial and domestic documentation often withheld by perpetrators to ensure continued control (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2011).

Given that one in three migrant women in Australia have experienced domestic violence (Segrave et al., 2021), the consequences of a failure to address this issue are significant. Continued reliance on sponsoring partners for visa-related documentation exposes women to prolonged harm and limits their capacity to participate in work, education, and community life. 

Gender-based violence already costs the Australian economy $26 billion annually (National Plan, 2022). Excluding migrant women from effective protection under the FVPs contributes to this national burden and undermines Australia’s commitment under the National Plan to ensure all women can live free from violence (National Plan, 2022). 

While the National Plan identifies visa status as a key risk factor, it does not directly address the structural barriers preventing effective access to protection. This gap has persisted through the First Action Plan 2022–2025 and related initiatives. Without reform to the Migration Regulations, the National Plan’s commitments to safety and justice severely risk being undermined.

Context

Background

For women seeking permanent residency in Australia, visa status is often weaponised by perpetrators, forcing victim-survivors to choose between remaining in violent relationships or risking visa insecurity for themselves and their children. The FVPs were introduced to break this  cycle by allowing temporary partner visa holders who experience family violence to safely transition to permanent residency (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2011). 

Access to these protections, however, is bound by strict legal and evidentiary thresholds. Regulation 801.2221(6) of the Migration Regulations permits access to the FVPs where family violence is established, while Division 1.5 prescribes how such claims are assessed. Together, these provisions require proof that the relationship was genuine and continuing prior to its breakdown, and that the breakdown resulted from violence (Department of Home Affairs, 2025). Although designed to preserve the integrity of the immigration system, this framework fails to reflect contemporary understandings of coercive control where visa dependency itself is weaponised (Vasil, 2023).

Government action under the National Plan has largely prioritised service expansion over reform of the Migration Regulations themselves. This approach is reflected in the First Action Plan 2023-2027 and the 2025 Yearly Report of the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission, which acknowledge visa-based coercive control but stop short of legislative change (Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission, 2025). Consequently, while institutional awareness of visa-based abuse has increased, the evidentiary structure of the migration regime remains unchanged, making safety and independent residency difficult to attain for victim-survivors. 

Since this policy gap remains unaddressed, protections under the FVPs operate reactively and fail to disrupt visa-based coercive control. This is evident in the everyday tactics perpetrators use to maintain power. Withholding documentation, confiscating devices, and changing passwords can prevent victim-survivors from producing the formal evidence the FVPs require (Ore and Thou, 2024). Many are also socially isolated to the point that others cannot verify their relationship (DVConnect, 2020). Together, these dynamics leave the system inaccessible and insufficiently trauma-informed. 

Between July 2023 and April 2024, only 677 permanent visas were granted under the FVPs (Ore and Thou, 2024). Despite marking a slight increase from previous years, this figure remains starkly disproportionate to the estimated 40% of women on temporary visas who report experiencing domestic violence (Segrave et al., 2021). This gap suggests that many victim-survivors remain unable to access protection, particularly where traditional evidentiary standards cannot be met due to documentation withheld through coercive control. 

There is no direct penalty within the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’) for sponsors who misuse their position in family violence contexts. Although s 140K permits sanctions for breaches of sponsorship obligations, these primarily apply in the work-visa setting (Australian Border Force, 2024). In practice, partner-visa sponsors face minimal accountability for weaponising visa status.

In October and December 2024, amendments to the Migration Regulations expanded eligibility under the FVPs to certain secondary applications in skilled visa streams. Administrative reform in December 2024 also enabled applicants to “split” their ImmiAccount from a sponsoring partner to preserve privacy upon escaping violence. 

Despite recent reforms, the evidentiary burden continues to fall on victim-survivors, who must produce detailed relationship documentation such as joint bank account statements, lease or mortgage documents, and evidence of shared social activities (Department of Home Affairs, 2024). Perpetrators can, and often do, intentionally withhold or destroy these records through coercive control. As a result, this system remains reactive in nature, offering pathways for escape but imposing no direct accountability on those who weaponise sponsorship. 

International Policy Landscape

Australia can draw on international models that integrate evidentiary flexibility into permanent residency pathways in family violence contexts.

In the United Kingdom, applicants for Indefinite Leave to Remain (Domestic Violence or Abuse) are not required to prove the continuing validity of the relationship, provided they can demonstrate it ended due to abuse (UK Government, 2024). Evidence may include medical records, reports from support organisations, or statements from professionals (Richmond Chambers, 2022).

In New Zealand, applicants for the Victims of Family Violence Resident Visa may rely on statutory declarations from authorised third parties to evidence abuse (New Zealand Immigration, 2024). However, the requirement to demonstrate a genuine relationship remains, limiting its effectiveness for those affected by coercive control. 

These approaches illustrate that evidentiary flexibility can be embedded within migration frameworks, supporting protection without compromising system integrity.

Policy Options

An increase in visa grants would signal improved accessibility of the FVPs and reduced systemic barriers. Policy options that support this outcome include:

Option 1: Amend Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations to introduce an evidentiary exception for victim-survivors 

This option would insert a new subregulation into Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations establishing a legislative safeguard to ensure permanent visa applications are not refused solely because evidentiary requirements cannot be met where relevant documents have been withheld through coercive control. 

In practice, this would create an evidentiary exception for relationship documents such as joint leases, financial records, or utility bills where such materials are inaccessible due to a perpetrator’s actions. Applicants could instead submit any available relationship evidence, supported by a statement from an independent expert verifying that the absence of documentation is consistent with family violence. 

The amendment would directly support increased visa grants under the FVPs by promoting procedural fairness and trauma-informed decision-making, while ensuring the visa process does not reinforce dependency on perpetrators. As it builds on existing mechanisms, this measure is expected to be low-cost and straightforward to implement within existing administrative structures.

While the proposed evidentiary exception would create a formal pathway for victim-survivors who are unable to provide standard relationship documentation, it raises concerns regarding the discretionary powers of the Department of Home Affairs in assessing the credibility and sufficiency of the evidence submitted. Without clear operational guidance and a consistent decision-making framework, there is a risk that non-traditional forms of evidence may be undervalued or applied inconsistently, leading to uncertain and potentially inequitable outcomes. 

Option 2: Introduce a civil penalty under a new Division 3C of the Migration Act for sponsors who engage in coercive conduct that obstructs access to the Family Violence Provisions

This option proposes inserting a new Division 3C into Part 2 of the Migration Act to establish a civil penalty for sponsors who engage in coercive control that obstructs access to the FVPs, such as withholding documentation or threatening withdrawal of sponsorship. 

This amendment would empower the Minister to impose penalties similar to those available under s 140K of the Migration Act, with corresponding updates to Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations to prescribe the relevant conduct and criteria for enforcement of these penalties.

This option supports the critical measure of success by deterring visa-based coercive control and introducing a formal accountability mechanism. Further, it operates as a preventative measure that directly addresses the structural incentive for perpetrators to obstruct access to the FVPs.

However, this option would require Parliamentary approval which can act as a barrier to implementation. Further, it may be difficult to enforce in practice, as victim-survivors would continue to bear the burden of proving coercive conduct, which can be challenging to be evidence. 

Option 3: Amend regulation 801.221(6) of the Migration Regulations to introduce a trauma-informed test within the Family Violence Provisions

This option would involve amending regulation 801.221(6) of the Migration Regulations to introduce a trauma-informed test that better reflects the realities of family violence in the assessment of permanent partner visa applications. The reform would require the Department of Home Affairs to revise its assessment processes under the FVPs, shifting focus to the presence and impact of violence. 

Currently, applicants must satisfy the same “genuine and continuing relationship” standard set out in subclauses (2) or (2A), even where the relationship has ended due to violence. This is typically evidenced through joint financial, social, and domestic arrangements, forms of proof often inaccessible to victim-survivors. Under this option, the standard would be replaced with a threshold based on whether the relationship was entered into in good faith and later ended due to family violence. This would shift the assessment away from validating the continuity of the relationship and towards recognising the violence that caused its breakdown. 

In contrast to Option 1, which retains the existing test, this option alters the substantive criterion for assessment. By shifting focus away from private relationship dynamics, it would reduce visa refusals where victim-survivors cannot meet traditional evidentiary standards due to coercive control, and promote a pathway consistent with trauma-informed practice. While legislative amendment would be required, this option would be procedurally manageable and build on existing legislative frameworks.

However, removing reference to subclauses (2) and (2A) risks being perceived as undermining the integrity of the partner visa program, which is grounded in a model based on genuine and continuing relationships. 

Policy Recommendation

Option 1: “Amend Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations to introduce an evidentiary exception for victim-survivors” is recommended as the most effective strategy to address the structural dependency created by the evidentiary requirements under the FVPs. Unlike options 2 and 3, this option would directly reform the evidentiary process to provide a practical, survivor-centred safeguard.

The proposed amendment would create a legislative safeguard to ensure that permanent visa applications are not refused solely because standard documentation (such as joint leases or financial records) have been withheld or destroyed by a perpetrator. Instead, applicants could satisfy the evidentiary requirements by providing any available relationship evidence together with a statement from an independent expert. 

For the purposes of this exception, “any available relationship evidence” would be defined broadly to include any material capable of assisting an assessment of the nature of the relationship, including but not limited to, evidence of communication, household arrangements, social recognition of the relationship, or other relevant circumstances. This open-ended formulation ensures flexibility to avoid recreating existing barriers within the FVPs.

Independent experts would be defined as professionals with recognised expertise in domestic and family violence, who are not personally connected to the applicant, and who can provide an objective assessment of their circumstances. Examples include domestic and family violence caseworkers, registered social workers, medical practitioners, and community legal centre staff. 

This safeguard would recognise the ways in which perpetrators manipulate the Australian migration system, and would ensure protection is not contingent on materials victim-survivers are often structurally denied from accessing. 

Implementation

This reform would be implemented through the insertion of a new clause within Division 1.5 of the Migration Regulations creating the evidentiary safeguard. This amendment would be made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, under the power to make delegated legislation under s 504(1) of the Migration Act. 

Once enacted, the Department of Home Affairs would be tasked with implementing and administering the reform. Administrative implementation would involve two key processes:

1. System updates: The ImmiAccount platform would be updated to create a designated pathway for applicants relying on the evidentiary exception. This would involve changes to the online application interface as well as internal processing to ensure such applications are flagged for case officers and assessed appropriately. 

   
   

2. Operational guidance and training: The Department of Home Affairs would need to issue revised instructions and deliver targeted training to case managers to ensure the evidentiary exception is applied consistently across cases. This would involve incorporating guidance on how to weigh independent expert statements alongside partial relationship evidence to ensure case managers apply the safeguard in line with its intent.

Estimated Costs

The proposed amendment is expected to be relatively low-cost, as amending delegated legislation does not require parliamentary approval. 

Administrative costs would primarily arise from updating the ImmiAccount platform and delivering targeted training to case managers. These costs are expected to be modest and could be absorbed within existing and ongoing funding commitments under the National Plan, which has received over $4 billion in cumulative investment since the October 2022-23 Federal Budget (Federal Budget, 2025). The Federal Government further reaffirmed its commitment to addressing gender-based violence in the 2025-6 Federal Budget (Federal Budget, 2025). This reform aligns with national objectives and represents a low-cost measure to strengthen access to protection for migrant women.

Success Metrics

Success would be measured by improved access to permanent visas for victim-survivors unable to provide traditional relationship documentation. A key indicator would be closer alignment between the proportion of women on temporary visas who report domestic violence and the number of successful applications granted under the amended FVPs. 

Further, it will be critical for the Department of Home Affairs to conduct internal reviews of application outcomes under the amended framework. These reviews would assess the consistency and fairness in applying the evidentiary exception, ensuring refusals caused by documentation barriers are reduced. 

Risks

Barriers

A key barrier to implementation is operational inconsistency within the Department of Home Affairs. The 2024 Department of Home Affairs Capability Review identified uneven governance and variable practices across the department, with outcomes differing depending on staff interpretation (Department of Home Affairs, 2024). Introducing an evidentiary exception relying on non-traditional evidence could amplify these inconsistencies. Nevertheless, this risk can be mitigated through clear assessment guidelines, operational instructions, and oversight mechanisms.

A second barrier is the limited access to independent experts. This recommendation requires applicants to obtain verification from qualified, trauma-informed professionals. However, frontline services with the necessary expertise and capacity are already under significant strain (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2025). Without adequate resourcing, victim-survivors may struggle to access timely verification to support their claims. This barrier could be addressed by increased funding for domestic and family violence services, enabling them to expand capacity and provide reliable, trauma-informed support for applicants.

Risks

While the evidentiary exception would reduce structural dependency on perpetrators, two broader risks must be considered.

First, cultural stigma within some communities may deter migrant women from seeking external assistance. In certain cultural contexts, engaging with domestic violence services can be perceived as disloyalty to family or community norms (Heron & Eisma, 2021). Community stigma has been identified as a major contributor to the underreporting of family violence (Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission, 2025). As a result, the evidentiary exception risks not fully addressing the problem, as many migrant women may remain reluctant to seek verification from external professionals, limiting the extent to which the reform reaches those it is designed to protect.

Second, relaxing evidentiary standards in migration law risks generating criticism that the integrity of the partner visa process is being compromised. In particular, public or political debate may frame this reform as opening a pathway for fraudulent claims under the FVPs. However, this risk can be mitigated by maintaining safeguards through verification of independent experts as well as departmental oversight.

References

Australian Border Force. (2024). Sanctions imposed on sponsors of skilled foreign workers. https://www.abf.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/sponsor-sanctions/visas-and-sponsorship 

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2025). Family, domestic and sexual violence. https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/fdsv-workforce 

Australian Law Reform Commission. (2011). Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws Issues Paper. https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/IP37whole.pdf 

Chambers, R. (2022, 4 October). Evidencing a Domestic Violence ILR Application. https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/evidencing-a-domestic-violence-ilr-application/ 

Commonwealth Parliament. (2025). Budget 2025-26: Building Australia’s Future. https://budget.gov.au/content/overview/download/budget-overview.pdf 

Commonwealth Parliament. (2021). Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Familyviolence/Report 

Department of Home Affairs. (2024). Capability Review. https://www.apsc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/Department%20of%20Home%20Affairs%20Capability%20Review%20Report%202024.pdf 

Department of Home Affairs. (2025). Family Violence Provisions. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/domestic-family-violence-and-your-visa/family-violence-provisions

Department of Social Services. (2023). National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. https://www.dss.gov.au/national-plan-end-gender-based-violence 

Department of Social Services. (2023). National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children: First Action Plan and Implementation. https://www.dss.gov.au/national-plan-end-gender-based-violence/first-action-plan-and-implementation 

Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. (2025). Yearly Report to Parliament. https://www.dfsvc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/DFSVC-2024-25-YearlyReport.pdf 

DVConnect. (2020, 1 November). Social isolation can be domestic violence. https://www.dvconnect.org/social-isolation-can-be-domestic-violence/

Heron, R. L., & Eisma, M. C. (2021). Barriers and facilitators of disclosing domestic violence to the healthcare service: A systematic review of qualitative research. Health & social care in the community, 29(3), 612–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13282 

McIlwaine, C. J., Granada, L., & Valenzuela-Oblitas, I. (2019). The Right to be Believed: Migrant women facing Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in the ‘hostile immigration environment’ in London. Latin American Women's Rights Service. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/110500935/The_right_to_be_believed_Full_report_final.pdf

Ore, A., & Thou, S. (2024, 7 July). Aneeta’s violent husband tried to sabotage her Australian visa application. She’s one of hundreds to secure one anyway. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/07/aneetas-violent-husband-tried-to-sabotage-her-australian-visa-application-shes-one-of-hundreds-to-secure-one-anyway

Segrave, M., Wickes, R., & Keel, C. (2021). Migrant and refugee women in Australia: The safety and security study. Monash University. https://doi.org/10.26180/14863872 

The Migration Agency. (2025, 20 January). New family violence provisions for visa holders. https://www.themigrationagency.com.au/new-family-violence-provisions-for-visa-holders/#:~:text=The%20main%20purpose%20of%20the,permanent%20visa%20has%20ceased%3B%20and 

UK Government. (n.d.). Indefinite leave to remain or enter (domestic violence or abuse). https://www.gov.uk/indefinite-leave-to-remain-domestic-violence-abuse

Vasil, S. (2023). Understanding the Nature of Family Violence Against Women With Insecure Migration Status in Australia. Violence against women, 29(15), 3158-3181. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231199107

Young, E. (2025, 31 January). Expansion of Family Violence Provisions for Visa Applicants: Key Changes. Hannah Tew Lawyers. https://www.hannantew.com.au/blogs/immigration/expansion-of-family-violence-provisions-for-visa-applicants-key-changes-updated-31-january-2025/

Young, E. (2025, 31 January). What are the Family Violence provisions for Australian visa holders? Hannah Tew Lawyers. https://www.hannantew.com.au/blogs/family/partner/what-are-the-family-violence-provisions-for-australian-visa-holders/ 

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.