Domestic violence is a serious issue affecting
millions around the world. In 2013 the World Health Organisation (WHO)
published the first systematic international review on the prevalence of
intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence.[1] The review found that 35
per cent of women globally have experienced either physical and/or sexual
intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence, constituting
a violation of human rights for more than one-third of the world’s women. The
review also estimated that 38 per cent of all murders of women worldwide
and 6 per cent of all murders of men worldwide are committed by intimate partners.[2]
The prevalence and underlying causes of domestic violence
are complex with the result that there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation
reflected in the public debate. While there are no easy answers, this paper
provides information in a simplified format on issues surrounding domestic
violence drawing from key research (the paper focuses on Australia, but some
international research is cited where relevant).
The paper includes an overview of the prevalence of this
form of violence and some research findings on the underlying causes and the
significance of prevailing community attitudes, providing an insight into the
policy challenges facing any government that aims to reduce the levels of
domestic violence. An overview of current policy approaches (including some international
initiatives) and a brief overview of government policy responses to date are
also included.
These forms of violence occur in all
Australian communities and across all socio-economic groups. However, they are
described by the National Plan as gendered crimes as they are more commonly
experienced by women:
The most pervasive form of violence
experienced by women in Australia is violence perpetrated by an intimate partner,
commonly referred to as domestic violence—the focus of this paper.[5]
However, it is important to acknowledge that men and same sex relationships partners
can also experience this form of violence.[6]
Most incidents of domestic, family and sexual
violence go unreported with the result that it is not possible to measure the
true extent of the problem. However, surveys on the prevalence of these
forms of violence indicate that it is widespread across all cultures, ages and
socio-economic groups.[7]
The 2012 Personal Safety Survey conducted by
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) provides the most up-to-date
prevalence estimates in Australia.[8] The survey found that:
The Australian National Research Organisation
for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) provides a concise summary of the Personal Safety
Survey results, highlighting that since the age of 15:
While most women’s experiences of violence occur
in domestic settings perpetrated by someone known to them, it is important to
note that the majority of women are also concerned for their safety outside of
the home. For example, a recent Australian survey of 1,426 Australians found that nine in ten women had experienced street harassment
and modified their behaviour to protect their personal safety in response:
It would appear that many women (and some men)
are at risk of violence in their homes and the majority of women are fearful of
their safety and wellbeing outside the home.
While some individuals are more at risk than
others, domestic violence occurs in most communities and across all socio-economic
groups.[12]
It is possible to identify both social (structural) and individual causes.
Such power imbalances may be more pronounced
in certain societies than others and levels of violence against women in
certain regions are often correspondingly higher than others. The WHO
international review identifies some of these regions and notes that there is
growing evidence to show that global variation in the prevalence of violence is
almost certainly related to socio-cultural factors, particularly where there
are cultural views that support male authority and control over women or that foster
a culture of violence more generally.[14]
However, even in those countries with lower
rates of domestic violence and where women’s status in the workplace and other
public spheres may be relatively high, women still often do not enjoy equal
social status in the private domain. In Australia, community attitude surveys
outlined in the following section demonstrate that gender equality is often viewed
very differently in the home than it is in the workplace. It is argued that
such entrenched social inequality in the home, in combination with an
acceptance of the use of violence by some individuals, can be a volatile or
even lethal combination anywhere in the world, including Australia.[15]
Some are prepared to go further and argue that
gender inequality may pose a broader threat at the international level. Sweden’s
foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, recently argued that women are specifically
targeted in every war or conflict around the globe and yet are often
marginalised during the peace negotiation process and during the development of
national policy. She argues that defining gender equality as a peace and national
security issue should be taken into account as a matter of course when forming
foreign policy.[16]
However, domestic violence cannot simply be a
product of gender inequality since not all men are perpetrators of domestic
violence—even in the most violent of cultures. Rather, domestic violence is also
strongly associated with individual behaviours. The Australian
Government’s National Plan points out that ‘a central element of domestic
violence is that of an ongoing pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling one’s
partner through fear’.[17]
Such power imbalances within a relationship may be perpetrated by both men and
women through a range of controlling behaviours, including emotional or
psychological abuse. This central element of control is well recognised by
experts in the field and many intervention programs focus on assisting
perpetrators to recognise the need to let go of these controlling behaviours.
As one program coordinator and author explains, the problem is not ‘that you
lose control of yourself; it's that you take control of your partner. In order
to change, you don't need to gain control over yourself, you need to let go of
control’.[18]
More research is required on the causal
factors of domestic violence, but in summary, key research to date points to both
an imbalance of power and accompanying unequal rights and opportunities in
society; together with controlling behavioural patterns on the part of the
perpetrator as being the major contributors to the problem.[19]
Community attitudes towards gender roles, sexuality, domestic
violence and sexual assault can strongly influence both the prevalence
of domestic violence and disclosure/reporting rates.[20] A lack of understanding on why partners stay in violent relationships
continues to be common and a significant number of people believe that domestic
violence is excusable in certain circumstances. For example, some believe
that domestic violence is excusable if the perpetrator ‘truly regrets’ what
they have done.[21]
The language commonly used around this form of violence in the community can
also trivialise or minimise the seriousness of the experience—‘it was only a
slap’.[22]
Such views pose significant barriers for those seeking support or understanding
of their experiences.
In 2013 the Victorian Health Promotion
Foundation, the Social Research Centre and the University of Melbourne embarked
on an update of the National Community Attitudes Survey (NCAS) and in September
2014 the findings of the third survey were released. The report found that
understanding of, and attitudes towards, domestic violence had not changed
significantly since the previous survey was conducted in 2009 (although there
had been a decrease in knowledge of where to turn to for help). Many still
believed violence can sometimes be excused; there had been an increase in the
number of Australians believing that rape results from men not being able to
control their need for sex; nearly eight in ten had no understanding of why someone
might not feel able to leave a violent relationship; and more than half believed
that women often fabricate cases of domestic violence.[23]
The NCAS found that demographic factors such as age, country
of birth and socio-economic status had only a limited influence on attitudes,
but an important finding was that those with low levels of support for gender
equality were the strongest predictors for holding violence-supporting
attitudes.[24]
Interestingly, the NCAS found that while there were high
levels of support for gender equality in the workplace in Australia, almost 30
per cent of those surveyed were supportive of male dominance in private
relationships.[25]
One Australian survey exploring attitudes towards domestic violence by 16 to 25
year olds also found that one in five young men believed that men should take
charge of their relationships with women.[26]
Other surveys have found disparities in the attitudes men hold
towards individual women within a family depending on the relationship. For
example, one recent US survey (the Shriver Report) found that the
majority of men surveyed wanted their daughters to be ‘independent’ and
‘strong’, but far fewer wanted their wives or partners to be independent (34
per cent) or strong (28 per cent).[27]
Despite a series of gender equality and anti-violence
programs and initiatives in Australia and other comparable countries, it would
appear that many continue to support different standards in the home and there
remains a significant lack of understanding in the community of the issues
faced by those who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault. Many
argue that these entrenched attitudes and lack of understanding are the most
significant contributing factors discouraging the reporting of incidences of
violence, particularly when there may be great uncertainty on how family,
friends and others will respond.[28]
Certainly, the results of the ABS Personal Safety Survey in 2012 demonstrate a
continuing reluctance by both men and women to formally report incidences of
intimate partner violence to the relevant authorities.[29]
There are numerous reasons why a person who
experiences domestic or sexual violence might be reluctant to formally report such
incidences.[30]
Reasons may include fear of the perpetrator, fear of not being believed or of
being blamed, fear of approaching the police or medical profession, feelings of
confusion, shame and embarrassment, fear of psychologically reliving the
incident, or a reluctance to acknowledge the incident ever occurred,
particularly if sexual assault was involved.[31]
Some may be discouraged from formally reporting the incident due to a lack of
appropriate support. Others may feel that the incident is too trivial to report
and will try and deal with it privately.[32]
If sexual assault is involved, those affected
commonly experience a range of behavioural and psychological responses (lasting
months or even years) that are unique to this form of violence, discouraging
disclosure.[33]
Some US research has found that sexual assaults are less likely to be reported
than other physical assaults in many circumstances—unless force has been used
when those affected are more likely to classify the assault as a ‘real rape’.[34] However, in domestic
violence settings both physical and sexual assaults, even those perpetrated
with force, are less likely to be reported than assaults that occur outside of
the home.[35]
As mentioned previously, the National Plan
points out that ‘a central element of domestic violence is that of an ongoing
pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling one’s partner through fear’.[36] As a result, those who
experience this form of violence often report feelings of powerlessness and a
sense of loss of control over their bodies and personal safety. They also commonly
report feelings of emotional numbness, denial, guilt, self-blame, shame,
isolation and loss of confidence.[37]
Across the board those affected often report that the worst aspect of domestic
violence is the emotional and psychological and verbal abuse and not
necessarily the physical abuse.[38]
Such complex and varied emotional responses all
contribute to reluctance by the majority to formally report domestic violence. The
ABS Personal Safety Survey 2012 estimated that 80 per cent of women and 95 per
cent of men had never reported an incident of violence by a current partner to
police and 58 per cent of women and 80 per cent of men who experienced violence
committed by a previous partner had never reported it to the police.[39] In 2013 the NSW Bureau
of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) published a study examining this
issue, finding that the most common reasons for not reporting domestic violence
to the police were fear of further violence from the perpetrator, shame or
embarrassment, and a belief that the incident was not serious enough to report.
Some said that they were reluctant to approach the police, but would have if
they had felt that police would be more understanding.[40]
While most do not report incidences of
domestic violence to the authorities, many seek advice or support from family
members, friends or community services.[41]
According to the ABS survey, 74 per cent of women had confided in someone about
violence experienced at the hands of a current partner while only 20 per cent
had reported it to the police. In the case of violence committed by a former
partner, 93 per cent of women had told someone about it.[42] Although men were less
likely to have ever told anyone about violence experienced by a current partner
(46 per cent), 79 per cent of men reported telling someone about violence
committed by a previous partner.[43]
Given that the majority are often prepared to
discuss domestic violence in an informal or community setting, experts in the
field suggest that it is unsurprising that those affected often prefer to seek
support, not from the criminal justice system, but from elsewhere in the
community where their experiences will be understood and validated by a friend
or a community services professional who understands the complexities of
domestic violence.[44]
One Australian social commentator specifically discussing why women do
not report sexual assault argues that the safety of women cannot be addressed
exclusively in terms of law and order due to the adversarial system that often
treats such personal assaults that violate intimate physical and psychological
boundaries no differently from other types of crime.[45] It could be argued
that these comments are just as applicable to those affected by domestic
violence more generally and many assert that more community-based interventions or services focusing on the individual
may be a better way to encourage disclosure and provide support.[46]
There are many different approaches that take
such sensitivities into account, including services based around ‘narrative
therapy’ which acknowledges the importance of telling your story in your own
way in a supportive setting.[47] Other approaches can include ‘restorative justice conferencing’
or ‘family group conferencing’ where all parties, including the perpetrator, receive
counselling together in a supportive setting where the importance of ‘ownership’
of the narratives and processes is acknowledged and respected.[48]
Even in the highly sensitive area of sexual assault, such approaches have been
found to be an effective way to respond to violence outside of the formal criminal
justice system in some instances.[49]
Similarly, ‘transformative justice’ is an approach that focuses on dignity,
respect and healing for those affected and accountability and transformation for
perpetrators and not retribution or punishment.[50]
Many often report a desire for their partners to receive such ‘transformative’
assistance within the community services environment in order to help them
change their behaviour and stop the violence—they are not necessarily focused
on a punitive, criminal justice response.[51]
In summary, domestic violence reporting rates to the
authorities are very low, but the majority of those affected eventually discuss
the violence or the controlling behaviour with someone in the community. Given
that psychological responses to domestic violence can be complex, experts in
the field argue that proactive support services focusing on therapeutic
emotional and psychological interventions may be more effective in encouraging
disclosure and providing assistance than the criminal justice system that
focuses on an incident and the appropriate punishment.[52]
Certainly many of those who access such services generally speak very highly of
the community-based support sector which treated them with respect and provided
non-judgemental support.[53]
Although a criminal justice response may be necessary or
preferable in many cases, perhaps better coordination and integration between
community support and police services, together with a radical change in focus
from punitive to non-judgemental, transformative responses and interventions
more generally, might encourage higher reporting rates. It is argued that this
is important since a lack of reporting results in a lack of consequences for
offenders.[54]
However, as the following sections illustrate, there is still limited research
to support the effectiveness of community-based and other interventions and more
analysis is required in order to inform policy makers searching for lasting
solutions.
A wide variety of strategies have been employed to tackle
domestic violence in Australia and internationally. These include:
The evidence for the effectiveness of any one class of
programs is mixed, partly at least due to methodological difficulties with
measuring effectiveness. None of these strategies alone has been definitively
demonstrated to be the most effective way to stop domestic violence, and it
seems likely that some combination of all of these approaches is necessary to
make a difference.
A public health approach to preventing domestic violence
classifies preventative strategies into primary, secondary and tertiary
strategy, although the differences between the levels are not always clear-cut.
Primary prevention strategies aim to prevent domestic violence before it begins,
whereas secondary prevention is focused on at-risk populations and tertiary
prevention aims to prevent reoccurrence of violence after it has occurred.[55]
Primary prevention can encompass a range of approaches, a
number of which are listed as part of the ‘spectrum of prevention’—a tool used
for developing comprehensive prevention strategies in relation to sexual
violence. These are:
Perhaps the highest profile community attitude campaign
operating in Australia targeting domestic violence is the White Ribbon
campaign. White Ribbon describes itself as ‘Australia’s only national, male led
Campaign to end men’s violence against women.’[57]
White Ribbon is a primary prevention campaign that ‘seeks to change the
attitudes and behaviours that lead to and perpetuate men’s violence against
women, by engaging boys and men to lead social change.’[58]
A researcher provides a concise explanation of the logic
behind domestic violence primary prevention strategies targeting men:
There appears to be little in the way of independent
evaluation of the success of the White Ribbon campaign in reducing levels of
domestic violence; however this tends to be true of primary prevention programs
targeting violence generally.[60]
For example, independent analysis of a 2006 campaign White Ribbon ran in
Australia featuring self-harm suggested this particular campaign was not
effective at conveying the intended messages.[61]
Some components of the program, such as the schools program, have had more
targeted evaluations, which found educators who ‘focused on respectful behaviours
and promoting a culture of respect in their school communities had greater
success with their programs’.[62]
One common approach taken for is to target programs at young
people, particularly school students. The primary prevention of domestic
violence programs targeted at students typically adopt a feminist-based
approach and emphasise the role of power and control and gender norms in
domestic violence. The programs aim to prevent domestic violence through
education and changing attitudes towards domestic violence, for example through
‘respectful relationships’ programs.[63]
Since 2010 the Australian Government has funded The Line,
which is an evidence-based social marketing campaign that
‘encourages healthy, equal and respectful relationships by challenging and
changing attitudes and behaviours that support violence against women’.[64]
The campaign is targeted towards people aged 12 to 20, and
also provides information for parents and teachers. In addition, in 2015
the Australian Government announced $5 million funding to expand the Safer
Schools website to include resources on respectful relationships and ‘change
the attitudes of young people to violence’.[65]
Evaluations of the effectiveness of school-based respectful
relationships programs are often equivocal. A systematic review by US-based
researchers published in 2006 examined 11 studies of primary prevention
programs for domestic violence targeting school students. The researchers found
that there were some promising results; however the studies were generally of
poor quality with short follow-up periods and lack of assessments of relevant
behaviour. Even where the evaluations were more thorough, there remained
questions about why the programs worked or whether the results were likely to
also apply to other similar programs.[66]
A more recent review found two programs that appeared to be effective in
reducing intimate partner violence, but conceded that generally evidence for
the effectiveness of school-based programs was not encouraging.[67]
The effectiveness of relationships education programs in
Australia has also been uneven. In 2015 the advocacy organisation ‘Our Watch’
argued that, in Australia, ‘less-than-ideal practice remains the norm, and
factors such as constraints on school time and limited resources of both
schools and support organisations mean that many schools struggle to implement
good-practice programs’.[68]
Our Watch further cautions that substandard relationships education programs
can be ‘ineffective and in some cases even harmful’.[69]
However, it also notes that ‘nationally, there are several well-evaluated
examples of such good-practice schools-based programs’.[70]
Current research into best practice delivery of relationships education in
schools promotes the ‘whole-school’ approach. This involves the ‘engagement of
school leadership, parents and community organisations, as well as
classroom-based learning across curriculum subjects, teacher training and
supportive school policies’.[71]
There has been an increased focus on respectful
relationship programs in the last five years in Australia. Between 2009 and
2014, the Australian Government invested in 32 one-off Respectful Relationships
projects across three funding rounds in school and non-school settings.[72]
Following this, relationships education in schools has been funded by state and
territory governments. Respectful relationships education is included in the
Australian curriculum Health and Physical Education (F–10) area,
and a 2014 review found ‘quite a lot of support’ for
its inclusion, though recommended schools should be given greater
flexibility to determine the level where the topic was introduced and how
education was delivered’.[73]
Only some states and territories currently teach this
aspect of the Australian Curriculum, so while all state and territory
government school curricula currently include some level of relationship
education, there continues to be variation.[74]
In 2015, New South Wales (NSW), Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria announced the
addition of new respectful relationships education components to their school
curricula, which will address domestic and gender-based violence.[75]
The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) also announced funding for respectful
relationships.[76]
These announcements illustrate a desire to improve community
attitudes on violence against women. As outlined above, recent Australian
surveys on attitudes towards violence against women have found that the
majority of Australians do not endorse attitudes supportive of violence against
women. Half of the respondents, however, believed that women fabricate cases of
domestic violence to assist them in family law cases, and that young people,
and particularly young men, were more likely to endorse attitudes supportive of
violence.[77]
This suggests that there is still an important role to play for effective
programs targeting community attitudes, however these primary prevention
campaigns are not designed to help those already affected by domestic violence
and they do not replace programs aimed at perpetrators or women who have been
abused.
There are two main approaches to intervention programs (which
usually take the form of group programs) that target perpetrators:
In recent years there have been a number of literature
reviews and meta-analyses (studies that collate large numbers of similar
studies to increase the statistical power of the analysis) of domestic violence
perpetrator programs. The evaluation of these programs is complicated by the
variety of different program approaches and the lack of high quality research.
In general, the research has found that there is little difference between the
effectiveness of psychoeducational and cognitive behavioural interventions. [79]
Most of the research on these programs has been undertaken
in the United States, and there is little work on how applicable the results of
the research might be to the effectiveness of similar programs run in an
Australian context. A review of evaluations of Australian sex offender
treatment programs, which share many features with cognitive behavioural
approaches to domestic violence, found small reductions in re-offending in most
of the programs. However, most evaluations did not use control groups (groups
of offenders who did not receive the treatment for the purposes of comparison),
and were therefore unable to demonstrate that it was the program that caused
the reduction in offending.[80]
While evaluations tend to find that men who complete
interventions programs often have lower levels of recidivism, drop-out rates
are very high. Systematic evaluations have found few rigorous studies of
perpetrator programs that reported significant positive results. Overseas
studies that have looked at perpetrator programs combined with other
interventions such as substance abuse programs or couples therapy have been
inconclusive.[81]
Studies have tended to find that, in terms of effectiveness,
men who were older, more educated, and more likely to be employed are more
likely to complete programs. Men who are younger and have a history of alcohol
or substance abuse are most likely to re-offend.[82]
There is increasing evidence that it is important to match programs to offender
characteristics, highlighting the need for accurate screening and assessment
tools, which are discussed in more detail below.[83]
While perpetrator programs play an obvious role in
preventing domestic violence, they only address one aspect of the broader issue
of domestic violence. Questions arise as to how best to ensure that the men who
need these programs get referred to them, and that the women who are abused by
these men have access to appropriate services. This has led to the development
of integrated approaches, which encompass the responses of police, courts and
social services to preventing and stopping domestic violence.
One of the recommendations from the joint Australian Law
Reform Commission (ALRC) and New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC)
report into family violence was the development of an integrated response:
The prime model for integrated intervention programs is a
program originally established in Duluth in Minnesota in the United States,
commonly referred to as the ‘Duluth program’:
The Duluth approach includes a high level of integration
with the criminal justice system, particularly in terms of referrals of
perpetrators to programs by police and the courts, and may feature mandatory
arrest policies for police encountering domestic violence.[86]
The intervention involves group counselling for perpetrators using a feminist-informed
psychoeducational approach which places the primary cause of domestic violence
as patriarchal ideology and conceptualises violence as being the exercise of
power and control over women.[87]
While having an integrated approach is seen as important, research has
determined that the group intervention component of the Duluth approach appears
to have at best a very small effect on recidivism.[88]
Many Australian intervention programs have been heavily
influenced by the Duluth Model, offering a wide variety of integrated responses
and programs.[89]
Some of the Australian evaluation notes that physical safety, housing stability
and emotional wellbeing can greatly improve under the integrated model
approach, but that more needs to be done in terms of integrating increased
perpetrator responsibility to ensure ongoing safety and wellbeing of those
affected by domestic violence.[90]
There have been some recent moves to adopt integrated
responses more widely in Australia, and the 2010 ALRC/NSWLRC report noted that
the most comprehensive integrated responses operated in the ACT and Tasmania.
While most other Australian states and territories had some form of integrated
program, and many had whole of government strategies or policy documents, in
most cases the programs were only in operation in a small number of local
areas. Well developed, well established state-wide programs, as opposed to
isolated trial sites, appear to be much more the exception than the rule.[91]
Both the ACT and Tasmanian integrated responses include both
policy and operational elements. The ACT Family Violence Intervention Project
(FVIP) has a policy, rather than legislative basis, and involves policing,
prosecutions, the courts, corrective services, youth and family services, and
victims of crime organisations. The efforts are coordinated by a committee and chaired
by the Victims of Crime Coordinator and it operates with a Duluth-style
approach including pro-arrest policies, victim support, and perpetrator
programs as a sentencing option. Tasmania has adopted a whole-of-government
approach, with the Department of Justice responsible for implementation.
Components include a 24 hour Family Violence Response and Referral Line,
specialist domestic violence police teams and police prosecutors, and weekly
case coordination meetings attended by relevant agencies concerning all active
cases in each policing district. In general, both the ACT and Tasmanian
approaches are characterised by a high level of organisation and coordination
between agencies, tied together by a wide-ranging policy approach.[92]
As a recent example of an integrated approach to domestic
violence, the NSW government has introduced a scheme called It Stops Here:
Safer Pathway, which is ‘a shared commitment to improving the response to
domestic and family violence through collaborative, integrated service
provision and improved information sharing’—initially introduced at two sites
for the first nine months, the program will eventually be in operation at 28
sites across NSW by 2019.[93]
Prior to the development of this program the integrated approaches used in NSW
tended to be small and localised.[94]
The ongoing evaluation of this program also highlights the
extent to which the issue of domestic violence crosses social groups in
Australia. Rather than being an issue constrained to women in lower
socioeconomic groups, reporting on referral rates at the two trial sites of
Waverly and Orange demonstrates that women in more affluent areas are still at
substantial risk from domestic violence:
One of the interesting features of the NSW scheme is the
integration of a risk assessment tool, the Domestic Violence Safety Assessment
Tool (DVSAT). The tool is used to identify the level of threat to the victim,
allowing resources to be prioritised for victims for whom the threat is most
serious. The tool must be used by police responding to all instances of
domestic violence.[96]
Generally, these tools have not received thorough evaluation in terms of
effectiveness.[97]
While integrated programs seem obvious from a public policy
perspective, coordinating the many services that may be involved, potentially
across local, state and the federal governments, has considerable challenges, possibly
explaining the tentative moves towards integrated approaches in many states and
territories.
An important component of any intervention into domestic
violence is to identify when violence is occurring. While the integrated
responses discussed above generally deal with domestic violence that has come
to the attention of the police or criminal justice system, a large amount of
domestic violence goes unreported. One way of identifying some of this
unreported violence is through other services used by those at high risk.
The Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antenatal
Care (Australian Guidelines) state that domestic violence is relatively common
during pregnancy and that ‘[a]ntenatal care provides an opportunity to ask
women about exposure to violence especially at home or in their family.’ The Australian
Guidelines note that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women may not
disclose domestic violence to health professionals, and that any responses to
these women need to be appropriate to the woman and her community.[98]
The Australian Guidelines do not recommend a particular
screening tool, however a recent review looked at screening tools for domestic
violence that were designed for large-scale community screening programs in
healthcare settings. The review examined four tools, all of which ranged from
three to eight questions. Two instruments were designed to be administered by
family doctors, one was designed for emergency departments, and one designed to
be used with pregnant women. The review concluded that good evidence showing the
effectiveness of these screening tools was currently lacking. While many of the
current screening tools are promising, more research with diverse populations
is needed before they should be relied upon for screening programs.[99]
There appears to be little evidence, beyond the NSW screening program discussed
below, as to the extent or effectiveness of screening for domestic violence in
Australia.
As an example of the otherwise undetected domestic violence
that is identified by screening programs, the NSW Area Health Services have
been undertaking routine screening of female clients for domestic violence from
2001, and the Local Health Districts from 2011. Screening is undertaken with
all women who attend antenatal and early childhood health services and women
aged 16 and over who attend alcohol and other drug and mental health services.
The screening instrument is a relatively straightforward four questions asking
the woman if they have been hit, slapped or hurt in other ways by their
partner, if they are afraid of their partner, whether they are safe to go home,
and whether they would like some assistance.
The snapshot data for November 2011 revealed that 68 per
cent of the approximately 22,000 women who attended a participating service
were screened. Just under 1,000 (6.1 per cent of screened women) had
experienced domestic violence in the past 12 months, and just over 1,000
resulted in a referral or a notification (to police, community services, etc.).[100]
In a discussion about domestic violence risk assessment
tools, a report prepared for the Department of Justice in Canada states that
they have strengths and limitations. The strengths include providing a common
language among professionals, ensuring that services are allocated on the basis
of need, removing the reliance on professional judgement, and allowing
transparency and accountability for decision makers and the criminal justice
system. The limitations include the lack of professional standards for the
application of the instruments, the lack of empirical research on the
reliability, validity and accuracy of the scales, and the risk of false
positives or false negatives, unnecessarily adding to fear of the offender, or
underestimating the risk of violence.[101]
Those affected by domestic violence require a wide range of
support services, including assistance to remove themselves and their children from
a violent partner and maintain their safety in some instances. Many are at
particular risk of violence, including lethal violence, when they attempt to
leave a violent partner, so the availability of appropriate support services
may literally be a matter of life and death.[102]
There is little in the way of systematic reviews of support
services for those affected by domestic violence and what research does exist
tends to be from the United States. One of the reasons for the lack of
evaluation is that support services are often not funded to undertake
evaluations as well as service provision, and that the transient nature and
safety concerns of the clients make evaluation challenging.[103]
Even less research has been conducted on the appropriate
support programs that should be provided specifically for same sex partners or men
affected by domestic violence. Given that men are often reluctant to access
community services more generally, it is likely that there are very specific
challenges in this category.[104]
A recent literature review on coordinated community
responses to domestic violence, including shelters, advocacy and legal
protection found a notable lack of research on the topic, and that there was
little in the way of theory to guide the programs.[105]
While studies of support programs have found some evidence for positive
outcomes such as reductions in depression and decreased usage of health care,
few demonstrated significant decreases in violence re-victimisation.[106]
Shelters for abused women are one of the key support
services. In addition to crisis accommodation, they often also provide
telephone help lines, programs for children, transition housing services and
outreach programs for abused women who are not staying at the shelter. A study
of shelters in Ontario, Canada, found that shelters often offered these other
services because no other service providers did, particularly in rural and
remote areas. Funders and policy makers often had a poor grasp of the range of
services that shelters provided, resulting in services being underfunded.[107]
A 2013 review of the NSW Domestic Violence Pro-Active
Support Service (DVPASS), a program through which NSW police refer domestic
violence victims to specialist support services, examined the effectiveness of
a number of similar domestic violence support programs across Australia, New
Zealand, the US, and the United Kingdom. The evaluations found that the
programs tended to raise public awareness of the issues, but that more support
and training for police was necessary to maximise the effectiveness of the programs.
Factors such as joint training between police and domestic violence workers,
the need to gain the consent of the victim before involving other services, and
having a range of services available to victims were considered to be
important. However the review concluded that there was no clear evidence as to
which of the various models generated the best outcomes for women.[108]
A recent Australian study looked at the experiences of
victims of domestic violence supported through a 24 month police-led integrated
domestic violence pilot program in Queensland. During the program’s intensive six
week support period the women reported improvements in their safety and
wellbeing. However in follow-up interviews three months after the program the
women reported substantial issues with securing accommodation for themselves
and their children. Several women also reported ongoing abuse from their former
partner, including stalking, physical and verbal abuse. The study highlights
the importance, and difficulty, of these programs providing safe and
sustainable housing arrangements, and the importance of these arrangements for
their ongoing safety.[109]
The intersection of domestic violence support services and
homelessness services was highlighted by recent reforms to homelessness
services in in NSW. The reforms were criticised for reducing the number of
domestic violence shelters for women due to a greater emphasis on early
intervention services. Both Labor and the Greens made commitments at the 2015
NSW election to restore funding to specialist services, and the re-elected
Baird government restored $8.6 million in funding to a number of inner-city
shelters.[110]
As noted previously, conduct constituting domestic
violence can encompass varying degrees of severity and take many forms—physical
abuse, sexual abuse, damage to property, emotional abuse, social abuse,
economic abuse, psychological abuse, and spiritual abuse. Whatever forms the
violence takes, a central feature is that it involves a person exercising
control and power by inducing fear, for example by using threatening behaviour.
Definitions of domestic violence usually recognise that violence can constitute
more than single ‘incidents’. It can involve ‘a continuum of controlling
behaviour and violence, which can occur over a number of years’.[111]
However, the definitions of domestic violence used in the
various domestic and family violence statutes across Australian jurisdictions are
not uniform and there is a great deal of overlap and confusion between
state/federal legislators over which avenue should or could be pursued by the
relevant decision makers.
Some offences are covered by specific domestic or family
violence laws, while other offences are covered by the relevant crimes
legislation. The specific state and territory laws currently are:
There are also a number of federal offences within the
Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 which could potentially give rise to
a protection order in the context of domestic violence. For example,
threatening behaviour or harassment that can form the basis for a protection
order can also fall within the ambit of the federal offences which relate to
using carriage services, such as mobile phones or computers, or postal
services.[112]
Another area of potential overlap is in relation to conduct
constituting economic abuse. For example, coercing a family member to claim a
social security payment is recognised as economic abuse amounting to domestic
or family violence in some jurisdictions. Such behaviour could also constitute
offences under social security legislation as well as the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) relating to
fraudulent conduct—such as obtaining a financial advantage by deception or
making false or misleading statements in applications.[113]
The interaction and linkages between domestic or family
violence legislation and the criminal law was considered by the ALRC/NSWLRC report
into family violence in 2010.[114]
A perpetrator may be subject to a protection order or to criminal
prosecution—or to both. However, in practice, decision makers (such as police)
may choose to pursue one avenue over another. The ALRC/NSWLRC report noted that
‘federal offences committed in a family violence context should also be more
widely recognised and understood amongst lawyers, police, prosecutors and the
judiciary. Arguably, they should also be more widely prosecuted, assuming the
criteria for instituting federal prosecutions are met’.[115]
Across all Australian jurisdictions protection
orders (enforceable court orders) are designed to provide a better, more
responsive approach to domestic violence than is provided by the criminal law.[116] They are relatively easy
to obtain, address a range of behaviours beyond physical violence, look beyond
incidents to the pattern of behaviour, and can be ‘tailor-made’ to fit the
needs of the victim. However, breaches have long been seen as one of the
weakest links in the effectiveness of protection orders. When a breach is not
acted on appropriately, either by the police or the legal system, it undermines
the effectiveness of the order, not only for that victim, but the system as a
whole.[117]
Each jurisdiction has its own laws providing for
protection orders.[118]
While there is much that is common among these laws, there are also key
differences meaning that it can be difficult to compare statistics on orders
sought and any breaches of those orders, or to evaluate their effectiveness.[119]
As stated in the ALRC/NSWLRC report, the police play a key
role in responding to domestic violence, and are often the first point of
contact for many. Police are responsible for recording incidents, interviewing
victims and collecting evidence to support charges and applying for protection
orders in the civil system. It is well recognised that initial positive police
response is vital not only to the safety of those affected, but also to whether
they report any further victimisation, or seek engagement with the legal system
more generally.[120] In most jurisdictions in
Australia, there are specialised police units in the areas of domestic or
family violence, sexual assault and child protection.[121]
In responding to domestic violence and in obtaining civil
protection orders, police may use powers and procedures mainly designed to
enforce criminal laws—powers of entry, search, seizure, arrest, direction and
detention.[122]
In all jurisdictions the police have powers to issue protection orders, police
safety notices or domestic violence safety notice directly at an incident,
without the approval of a judicial officer. These orders are issued to people
who have used violence, however the duration and conditions attached to these
orders can vary across the jurisdictions.[123]
Recent data indicates that across Australia police are
dealing with an estimated 657 domestic violence matters on average every day of
the year.[124]
Currently specialised family violence courts (family
violence is the term commonly used by the courts) operate in NSW, Victoria,
Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT.[125]
All these are part of the local or magistrate court in the relevant
jurisdiction.These specialised family violence courts provide, to
various extents, specialised personnel; procedures; support services; special
arrangements for victim safety; offender programs and broader problem-solving
approaches.
Although all state and territory local or magistrates courts
have broad jurisdiction over a range of matters—including criminal matters,
family violence protection orders, and family law (to the extent that this is
conferred)—the full extent of this jurisdiction is not necessarily exercised in
specialised family violence courts. The extent to which jurisdiction is exercised
in these specialised courts depends largely on the practical and administrative
arrangements of the court. For example, many local and magistrates courts in
Australia operate a specialised list for protection orders, where matters are
listed and heard on a particular day. Family
violence courts in NSW, Western Australia and the ACT follow the ‘criminal
model’, in that these lists deal exclusively with criminal matters related to
family violence. The South Australian specialised family violence court deals
with both criminal matters and applications for protection orders. Only the
Family Violence Court Division (FVCD) of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria
exercises jurisdiction over protection orders; summary criminal proceedings;
committals for indictable offences; civil personal injury claims; compensation
and restitution; and (to the extent conferred upon the Magistrates’ Court)
jurisdiction over family law and child support.[126]
Currently, Victoria is the only jurisdiction to provide family
violence training for all magistrates. The other jurisdictions provide
this training for judicial officers that are working in this area.
The Australian Government has recently announced that it
will commence work on a National Family Violence Bench Book. The Bench Book
will be a comprehensive online tool for judges across Australia, covering civil
and criminal laws in federal, state and territory jurisdictions. It will
promote consistency in judicial decision making in cases involving family
violence. This work is due to be completed by June 2017.[127]
At the Council of Australian Governments’
(COAG) meeting in April 2015, various efforts to reduce violence against women
were discussed, including the progress of the National Domestic Violence
Order (DVO) scheme and an information sharing system. This national scheme will
allow DVOs to be automatically recognised and enforceable in any state or
territory of Australia.[128]
At present, only once a DVO is registered in another state
is it recognised and can be enforced as if it had been made there. The onus is
on the victim to register their DVO in their new state or a border state. This
application is then listed before a court to ensure that it complies with the
law in that new location and can be enforced.[129]
A national information system that will enable courts and
police in different states and territories to share information on active DVOs
is also due to be implemented through a trial program involving NSW, Queensland
and Tasmania.[130]
In May 2015, the NSW Minister for the Prevention of Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault announced the NSW Government would pilot a Domestic
Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) enabling people to find out whether their
partner has a history of domestic violence offending.[131]
A discussion paper issued on the DVDS notes that this initiative is based on a
UK model known as Clare’s Law.[132]
The ACT Government recently announced amendments
to interim domestic violence orders and changes to the definition of family
violence to ensure victims receive greater support. The new class of interim
domestic violence order will apply when a respondent has current criminal
charges, and the applicant for the DVO is the victim of those charges. The
extended interim DVO will help prevent further abuse that may
be perpetrated on victims when they apply for repeat DVOs while criminal
charges are being dealt with.[133]
The ACT Government also established the position of Coordinator-General
for Domestic and Family Violence.[134]
The Australian Government is responsible for
the over-arching government programs designed to reduce domestic violence. Through
its national initiatives, the Commonwealth sponsors state and territory
government cooperation in the development and implementation of models for
addressing and preventing this form of violence. However, the state and
territory governments, not the Commonwealth Government, have the law
enforcement responsibilities in relation to policing and prosecuting instances
of domestic violence.[135]
Although there are Australian Government
funded programs operating in the states and territories, for example supported
accommodation, each jurisdiction funds and administers its own programs and
services aimed at preventing domestic violence and supporting those affected
through their community service/human services and health departments together
with police and other agencies.[136]
Inter-government liaison on domestic violence and violence
against women more broadly is coordinated through the Council of Australian
Governments (COAG) and its Select Council on Women’s Issues. The Council on
Women’s Issues is a ministerial forum that reports to COAG and works
collaboratively at all levels of government. Commonwealth, state and territory
ministers with the responsibility for women’s issues make up the membership of
this forum.[137]
The Australian Government’s central initiative designed to
address domestic violence is the National Plan to Reduce Violence against
Women and their Children—endorsed by COAG in February 2011.[138]
The federal Department of Social Services (DSS) works together with the Office
for Women (OfW) within the Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet to
implement the National Plan in partnership with the state and territory
governments.
The National Plan has established an
ambitious ‘framework for social change’ and sets out six national
outcomes to be delivered over a 12-year period: communities are safe and free
from violence; relationships are respectful; Indigenous communities are
strengthened; services meet the needs of women and their children experiencing
violence; justice responses are effective; and perpetrators stop their violence
and are held to account.[139]
The National Plan is to be driven by a series of four three-year action plans
over the 12 years—so far two actions plans have been produced.
The First Action Plan 2010-2013–building
a strong foundation, published in 2012, outlined ‘how all Australian
governments and the community will work together to lay the groundwork for the
future and sets the scene for the life of the National Plan’. It focused on ‘primary
prevention, attitudinal change and building a solid evidence base’. The first
action plan had four priorities: building the evidence base; building primary
prevention capacity; enhancing service delivery; and strengthening justice
responses.[140]
The first in a series of planned progress reports, Progress Report to the
Council of Australian Governments 2010–2012 (published in May 2013), detailed
some of the progress made by the first action plan such as the establishment of
a National Plan Implementation Panel in April 2012; an agreement to establish a
National Centre of Excellence in 2013; the development of respectful
relationships education projects across the country; and many other initiatives
and intervention programs in the states and territories.[141]
The Progress review of the first action plan (May 2014), acknowledged further
progress made through the establishment of the National Centre of Excellence to
Reduce Violence (now ANROWS—see below); the foundation work to develop a
National Data Collection and Reporting Framework; the completion of the ABS
Personal Safety Survey 2012 (released in December 2013) and progress made on a
new National Survey of Community Attitudes to Violence against Women (NCAS).[142]
The Second Action Plan 2013–2016: moving
ahead was released in June 2014 and reported on progress to
date—such as the establishment of the Australian National Research Organisation
for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and
Children and The Line social marketing campaign that aims to encourage
young people to challenge gender stereotypes and break the cycle of violence.[143]
However, the second action plan expressly aims to build on this progress by
increasing community involvement, intensifying the focus on diverse communities
and improving perpetrator-based responses and programs. Accordingly, the second
action plan includes five ‘national priorities’: driving whole of community
action to prevent violence; understanding diverse experiences of violence; supporting
innovative services and integrated systems; improving perpetrator interventions
and continuing to build the evidence base.[144]
The second action plan also notes progress and consultation processes to date
such as the expected completion of the National Survey on Community Attitudes
towards Violence against Women and Children; the completion of the ABS Personal
Safety Survey 2012 and an impending update in 2016; progress made in building
the National Data Collection and Reporting Framework in partnership with the
ABS; and impending annual national round tables of key experts and national
conferences to be held in 2015 and 2016. A National Domestic Violence Summit
was subsequently held on 8 December 2014 and the 2013 National Survey of
Community Attitudes to Violence against Women (NCAS) was launched in September
2014.[145]
Also released in June 2014 was an independent Evaluation
Plan for the National Plan, produced by healthcare consultancy Health
Outcomes International.[146]
This report sets out how the plan will be evaluated over its 12 year lifespan.
Under the evaluation plan there will be three-yearly reviews of the action
plans; annual progress reporting; evaluation of key national activities under
the plan; and analysis of available data. Commonwealth, state and territory
ministers responsible for reducing domestic violence will oversee the
evaluation process supported by government officials in collaboration with key
stakeholders. An independent expert was also to be engaged at each evaluation
phase to conduct reviews, collate evaluation reporting and conduct reviews of
consultations.
Other progress and
initiatives since June 2014 include:
-
the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their
Children, chaired by Australian Ambassador for Women and Girls, Natasha Stott Despoja,
launched the anti-violence campaign ‘Our Watch’ on 5 September 2014.[147]
-
the ANROWS research program 2014–16 is launched to ‘build the
knowledge base’ around domestic violence in October 2014.[148]
-
New Zealand and Australian police commissioners gather at a
‘Stand Together’ event against violence in Parliament House on 24 November
2014.[149]
-
an advisory panel on violence against women is announced in
January 2015. Founding members are to be retiring Victorian Police
Commissioner, Ken Lay, and 2015 Australian of the Year and anti-domestic
violence campaigner, Rosie Batty. In addition a national Domestic Violence
Order (DVO) scheme is to be established.[150]
The DVO scheme was subsequently agreed to at the COAG meeting in April 2015.[151]
The full membership of the Advisory Panel to reduce violence against women was
provided in May 2015.[152]
-
a National Awareness Campaign to Reduce Violence
Against Women and their Children is announced with a commitment of $30.0 million
to be funded jointly with the states and territories over three years.[153] The 2015–16 Budget
papers outline that the states and territories will contribute $15.0 million
towards the total of $30 million for the National Awareness Campaign to Reduce
Violence Against Women and their Children (subsequently agreed to at the
COAG meeting in April 2015).[154]
The Australian Government will provide the remaining $15.0
million, together with a further $1.7 million for administration costs.[155] It is envisaged that the
campaign will ‘drive nation-wide change in the culture, attitudes and
behaviours that underpin violence against women and their children’.[156]
-
an increase of $4 million in funding for the 1800RESPECT hotline
is announced in May 2015.[157]
- ‘Our Watch’ awards to recognise excellence in media coverage of
violence against women.[158]
-
an annual progress report (2014–15) of the Second Action Plan was
released by the Government (29 June 2015).[159]
The report acknowledged that ‘there is still a long way to go’, but outlined
further progress, including consultations with leaders from indigenous,
disability and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds.
-
in August 2015, the Senate Finance and Public Administration
References Committee released Australia’s first parliamentary report on
domestic violence in Australia.[160]
The Committee made 25 recommendations, including the need to provide sufficient
resources for increased demand for services.
-
in September 2015, Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced a Women’s
Safety Package.[161]
The package includes $100 million in funding for measures such as:
- $12
million for innovative technologies, for example GPS trackers for perpetrators
- $5
million for safer technologies including safe phones for women
- $17
million for programs like the Safer in the Home to install CCTV etc
- $5
million to expand 1800RESPECT online phone line and counselling
- $2
million for Mensline to support perpetrators to not re-offend
- $3.6
million for cross border sharing of intelligence between agencies
- $5
million to expand Safer Schools and respectful relationships resources and
- funding
specifically to support Indigenous women and women from CALD backgrounds.[162]
-
in November 2015, Our Watch, VicHealth and ANROWS released Change
the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against
women and their children in Australia, an initiative under the National
Plan.[163]
Reducing violence against women has been a priority for the
Commonwealth Government since the 1980s—the Commonwealth's role in addressing
domestic violence commenced formally with the National Agenda for Women
consultations in 1986.[164]
However, funding for anti-violence initiatives is not
usually identified in the Budget (only a total figure for women’s funding is
provided). Funding for the National Plan to Reduce Violence
against Women and their Children is not specifically identified either, only a
total for ‘National Initiatives’ is provided.[165] Other relevant
Commonwealth funding is provided for individual community service providers as
outlined below.
Funding for the National Plan is provided
under the National Initiatives program component of the Social Services
portfolio. In the 2015–16 Budget a total of $119.5 million over four years was
allocated to National Initiatives (in the previous 2014–15 Budget $117.9
million was allocated to National Initiatives for 2014–15 to 2017–18).[166]
It would appear that the bulk of this funding
goes to the National Plan to Reduce Violence against
Women and their Children.[167]
In the 2015–16 Budget approximately $100.0 million of the $119.5
million allocated to National Initiatives was designated for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.[168]
As mentioned previously, in
September 2015 Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced a Women’s Safety
Package that included an additional $100 million in funding for a variety of
measures, such as $12 million for innovative technologies to assist in the
prevention of domestic violence and funding specifically to support Indigenous
women and women from CALD backgrounds.[169]
The Commonwealth Government has provided funding to
individual specialist family violence services through its community grants
programs for some years.[170]
In the 2014–15 Budget it was announced that existing
community grants programs would be streamlined and reduced from 18 to seven—it
was argued that these new arrangements would remove duplication and reduce red
tape.[171]
It was intended that the reforms were to achieve savings of $240.0 million over
four years.[172]
In July 2014, the new streamlined grants programs were introduced, comprising
aged care; families and communities; housing and homelessness; and disability,
mental health and carers streams.[173]
In December 2014, many community services providers were advised that their
applications for funding under the new arrangements had been unsuccessful.[174]
According to an answer to a Question on Notice (QON) in
February 2015 Senate Estimates, 395 organisations, including 27 specialist
family violence services, were instead offered bridging funding of four months
duration.[175]
This bridging funding, announced by the Minister for Social Services in January
2015, was provided for critical community services (including specialist family
violence service providers) to ‘ensure continuity of front line community
services ... as we transition to new arrangements’.[176]
In April 2015, the Minister for Social Services announced
that the Government would allocate $15 million over two years towards the
delivery of 27 Specialist Family Violence services provided by 23 organisations
and eight (Kids in Focus) family early intervention alcohol and drug services.[177]
At the time it was not clear what the future funding arrangements would be for
other organisations considered to be critical community services some of which
may provide projects related to reducing domestic violence such as healthy
relationships education programs.[178]
The 2015–16 Budget allocated $55.6 million
over three years from 2014–15 to ‘ensure continuity of front line community
services as funding arrangements transition to the New Way of Working for
Grants framework’.[179]
However, it was not clear how much of this funding would go towards specialist
family violence service providers.[180]
Presumably it includes the $15 million over two years towards the
delivery of 27 Specialist Family Violence services and eight family early
intervention alcohol and drug services announced in April 2015 as outlined
above.
The National Plan aims to improve access to justice for
those experiencing domestic violence.[181]
The Commonwealth Government provides funding to the states and territories for
legal assistance services through the National Partnership Agreement on Legal
Assistance Services. This assistance includes services provided by legal aid
commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
legal services and family violence prevention legal services.[182]
The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Year Outlook 2013–14
included $43.1 million in savings over four years by removing funding support
for policy reform and advocacy for four legal assistance programs, although
what this meant in practice was not specified.[183]
In March 2015 the Attorney-General announced that proposed changes
due to take effect on 1 July 2015 would not proceed and that the Government
would restore $25.5 million in legal support funding over
two years.[184]
The 2015–16 Budget included $12.0 million in funding for
community legal centres and $11.5 million for Indigenous Legal Assistance,
including domestic violence-related legal assistance.[185]
The Australian Government’s Women’s Safety
package announced in September 2015 included $15 million for specialist
domestic violence legal support.[186]
The funding would establish 12 new specialist domestic violence units located
in areas with high reported rates of domestic violence and build four new
health justice partnerships. Through these health partnerships legal
professionals would provide onsite legal assistance and train medical
professionals to better identify and respond to domestic violence.
Women and children fleeing violent domestic
situations are heavy users of homelessness services and are particularly
vulnerable to shortages in crisis accommodation. The 2014–15 Budget provided
$115.0 million to extend the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness
(NPAH) for 2014–15.[187]
This measure was announced previously by Social Services Minister, Kevin Andrews,
in March 2014.[188]
The one year extension represented a drop in funding of $44.0 million from the
$159 million allocated the previous year. Providers of
homelessness services were concerned that there could be a crisis in service
delivery should ongoing NPAH funding beyond June 2014 not eventuate.[189] The Government
also discontinued funding rounds for homelessness research and peak bodies on
22 December 2014.[190]
In April 2015 the Minister for Social Services announced
that the Government would allocate $230 million towards extending the NPAH over
two years.[191]
Accordingly this funding was allocated in the 2015–16 Budget.[192]
Domestic violence occurs almost everywhere around the globe,
including in those countries with higher levels of gender equality than others.
In response, international bodies such as UN Women encourage governments to
develop dedicated action plans to prevent and address this form of violence.[193] Many
governments recognise that domestic violence is a significant issue that needs
to be addressed and some are developing action plans as the Australian
Government has done.[194]
In the UK for example, the Government has produced a series
of action plans, including A Call to End Violence against Women and Girls
Action Plan 2014.[195]
The central themes of the plans are prevention, provision of good
quality services, improved partnerships, better justice outcomes and risk
reduction. Supporting documentation include a series of ‘What works’ guidance
notes for policy makers and practitioners.[196]
In Europe, many countries are stepping up their responses in
an attempt to further curb domestic violence, particularly since the
release in 2014 of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) major
survey on violence which found one in three women in Europe had experienced
some form of physical and/or sexual assault since the age of 15.[197]
Even in Eastern Europe where resources are often scarcer, several countries have
introduced practices in recent years that aim to reduce domestic violence, such
as ‘partnering with men’ programs.[198]
One US community response model mentioned previously that is
often cited as ‘best-practice’ is the ‘Duluth Model of Coordinated Community Response
to Domestic Violence’. In the 1980s, the city of Duluth in Minnesota pioneered
a partnership between relevant agencies, including domestic violence
intervention community organisations and criminal justice agencies. The model revolves
around the provision of courses for perpetrators aimed at encouraging behavioural
change and the premise that male violence is an expression of men’s power and
control over women and focuses on modifying and changing these violent patterns
of behaviour.[199]
The Duluth model has inspired many similar domestic violence
program responses around the world, and there is a substantial body of
literature discussing the effectiveness of these programs. Some are critical,
claiming that the model is ineffective and even unethical given that some
perpetrators are required to attend courses in lieu of custodial sentences.[200]
Others argue that much of this criticism is based on flawed research, and point
to other studies which have found Duluth model programs to be effective in
reducing male offending against women. They also argue that many of the
criticisms are based on evaluation of programs which do not strictly adhere to
Duluth principles—where the Duluth model is followed exactly, they argue, it is
very effective.[201]
The Duluth model is essentially the only therapeutic intervention approach
which has been replicated across communities and countries, making it an
obvious candidate for cross-national comparisons, but also a focal point for
criticism.
Although attempts such as those outlined above to prevent
and stop domestic violence have now been ongoing for some decades, there is
still a lack of reliable evidence as to what works and for whom. It should be
noted that this does not mean that nothing works and all interventions are
bound to be ineffective, however it does make it difficult to either recommend
specific approaches over others, or suggest how to make particular
interventions more effective, as evidence-based policy. It is also noted that the
effectiveness of some types of interventions at actually preventing or reducing
violence, such as large-scale public awareness campaigns and screening
programs, is inherently hard to measure.
Research into perpetrator programs is plagued by
methodological issues, including accounting for changes in behaviour of men who
drop out of the program. The major issue is that the research is unable to
demonstrate whether men who complete programs come out less violent, or whether
men who are likely to desist in their violence are more likely to complete
perpetrator programs. That is, are the programs doing anything more than
identifying to men that their abusive behaviour is unacceptable, particularly
non-physical forms of abusive behaviour, which in itself might lead some men to
cease the behaviour. A recent analysis of a domestic violence program
illustrated how one outcome of the programs is providing perpetrators with a
greater insight into what behaviour is abusive:
At a local men’s behaviour change program, Nick and the other
men in the group were astonished to learn that in the eyes of the law, verbal,
emotional, psychological and even financial abuse count as domestic violence.[202]
Despite the inevitable methodological issues and questions
of effectiveness, some have argued that it is worth pursing these efforts,
particularly if the alternative is to not do anything. For example, a recent
report by the Centre for Innovative Justice at RMIT University argues that the
lack of hard experimental evidence that these programs may not reduce
recidivism does not mean they should be abandoned:
It is important to note, however, that the elusive nature of
‘proof’ that [Men’s Behaviour Change Programs] work should not detract from
many studies which indicate that these programs do have a significant positive
impact.[203]
In particular, they note that measured decreases in the
incidences of violence (recidivism) is only one way in which the effectiveness
of programs can be measured, and that more qualitative assessments reveal that
such programs can still play a role in improving peoples’ lives. This is
particularly important given that measuring recidivism is so difficult. Research
from the UK has indicated that apart from reducing violence, women who are
partners of men involved in domestic violence behaviour change programs
considered the following issues important for measuring program success:
-
respectful/improved relationships
-
expanded space for action
- support/decreased isolation
-
enhanced parenting and
-
perpetrators understanding the impact of domestic violence.[204]
The rates of women being killed by their male intimate
partners, the form of domestic violence that is least subject to reporting
biases, has decreased in recent years. However it has decreased at roughly the same
rate of all other forms of homicide (see Figure 1), and is therefore difficult
to associate with increased awareness or integrated responses.[205]
Changes in the more hidden forms of domestic violence are even more difficult
to tie to any particular intervention.
Figure 1: Homicide type by
year, 1989–90 to 2011–12 (n)
Source: Australian Institute of Criminology[206]
This uncertainty is a strong argument for increased
evaluation and research into program effectiveness. However there is inevitably
a finite amount of resourcing available to combat social problems such as
domestic violence, and robust evaluation can be expensive. Debates persist
about whether perpetrator programs divert resources that could be better spent
supporting those who have suffered domestic violence through community support
services or criminal justice responses.[207]
The exact mix of interventions and who they target is more a
political question than one that can easily be answered with research—it is
certainly a significant policy challenge for governments everywhere. Policy
responses can be framed in terms of law and order, through increased policing
resources and mandatory sentencing, as a health issue, focusing on ameliorating
the harm done to victims, as a social justice issue, highlighting a largely
hidden crime with vulnerable victims, or even as an economic issue, with
consequences for productivity. Domestic violence is not inevitably an issue
tied to a particular political outlook, but how it is tackled can be consistent
with certain overarching political agendas.
The WHO international review on the prevalence
of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence points out that
the high prevalence of domestic violence around the globe illustrates why there
is a need for governments to focus more on prevention strategies and not only provide
support services for those affected.[208]
However, the report also notes that the global
variation in the prevalence of violence against women highlights that this form
of violence is not inevitable and can be prevented or reduced. The study recommends
several key prevention interventions and states that ‘it is time for the world
to take action’:
Interventions for prevention include:
challenging social norms that support male authority and control over women and
that condone violence against women; reducing levels of childhood exposure to
violence; reforming discriminatory family law; strengthening women’s economic
rights; eliminating gender inequalities in access to formal wage employment and
secondary education; and, at an individual level, addressing harmful use of
alcohol. Growing evidence from surveys of men asking about perpetration of
rape/sexual assault against non-partners and physical and sexual violence
against partners also points to the need to address social and cultural norms
around masculinity, gender power relationships and violence...it is time for the
world to take action: a life free of violence is a basic human rights, one that
every women, man and child deserves.[209]
A major series in the Lancet on the
prevention of violence against women and girls argued that this form of violence
is preventable, noting that ‘research shows that several multi-component
interventions achieve substantial reductions’ in levels of
violence in low and middle income countries, although a similar result is yet
to be demonstrated in high income countries. The series noted that
political leadership and governmental investment are essential to reducing
violence and recommend that governments ‘take leadership in promoting change
and supporting a coordinated, national response’.[210]
Many other experts in the field agree, arguing that integrating responses and
initiatives across the community, all jurisdictions and all levels of
government is the best way to promote equality and reduce violence:
Violence against women is both a consequence
and cause of gender inequality interacting in complex ways with other social
inequalities in all sectors of society and so it must be addressed by promoting
women’s equality and empowerment. Equality and empowerment can only be promoted
by the mainstreaming of primary prevention philosophies, practices, principles
and programs within all anti-violence initiatives, across jurisdictions and all
aspects of society.[211]
Most stakeholders acknowledge that this is a difficult
problem requiring complex and coordinated responses not one-off, sporadic
responses and argue that lasting change is possible requiring:
-
ongoing national frameworks to reduce domestic violence in
cooperation with all relevant jurisdictions and ongoing resourcing and funding
to implement and evaluate the frameworks
-
ongoing, integrated support service provision across
jurisdictions
-
ongoing resourcing and funding to implement and evaluate services
-
ongoing ‘big picture’ education initiatives designed to change
community attitudes (not sporadic campaigns) and ongoing resourcing and funding
to implement and evaluate the initiatives
-
coordinated, ‘best-practice’ perpetrator programs across all
jurisdictions and
-
improved legal and police responses across all jurisdictions that
are sensitive to the needs of those affected.[212]
Certainly it would appear that ongoing funding to support
and implement services may be a crucial component in reducing the levels of
domestic violence. Many of the US initiatives targeting domestic violence were
funded under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Originally authorising
US$1.6 billion in funding over five years, it has since been reauthorised three
more times. Many experts believe this may have directly contributed to the
decline in domestic violence in the US of 53 per cent and domestic homicides of
women by 26 per cent between 1993 and 2008, with evidence that the US
jurisdictions that received VAWA funding saw significantly greater decreases in
sexual and aggravated assaults than those that did not.[213]
The success of VAWA in similarly reducing sexual violence has, however, been
questioned.[214]
In a 2012 interview the Director of the United States
Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women discussed the
wide-ranging impact of the VAWA:
As a result of this comprehensive legislative package aimed
at eradicating violence against women, we have witnessed a paradigm shift in
how the issue of violence against women is addressed in the United States, and
countless lives have been positively impacted. VAWA has led to significant
improvements in the criminal and civil justice systems, encouraging victims to
file complaints, improving evidence collection, and increasing access to
protection orders. Victims now can reach out for help, call the police, find
24-hour emergency services, and take steps to leave abusive relationships.
Domestic violence is no longer considered a private family matter, and is being
addressed as a serious public health and criminal justice issue. Stalking is
recognized as a dangerous crime, not just something that happens to
celebrities. Schools are developing polices to respond to teen dating
violence. The prevalence and devastation of sexual assault is finally being
recognized. Thousands of women, men, and children have received life-saving
services from rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters.[215]
Improved data collection is another crucial element and the
National Plan includes a focus on building the evidence base. The Victorian
government has also recently announced the development of a ‘domestic violence
index’, in recognition of the fact that reporting rates underestimate the true
rate of domestic violence. The index will include factors such as community
attitudes about violence towards women, conviction rates, police data and
hospital presentations. It is hoped that the index will allow more detailed
measurement of the effectiveness of difference responses to domestic violence.[216]
It is clear that domestic violence is a complex social
problem that affects the perpetrator, the abused person, any children that
might be present, and the wider social environment of those affected.
Addressing the many aspects of the problem requires a number of different
approaches that cater to the differing needs of different communities,
including Indigenous and CALD women. Funding to establish, evaluate, and
continue effective or promising programs across the criminal justice and
community sectors will inevitably be an important contributor to the solution.
The interim report from Australia’s first parliamentary
inquiry into domestic violence acknowledged that ‘addressing domestic violence
is an issue that requires long-term commitment from governments, stakeholders
and the broader community’. The interim report welcomed ‘the current momentum
and significant effort occurring to address domestic violence’ and notes that
the provision of adequate resources will be key to achieving real progress.[217]
The Committee’s final report recognised ‘the long term effort required to
address domestic and family violence and recommends that the current
Commonwealth short-term funding arrangements should be extended to a multi-year
approach to reduce the level of uncertainty for services and to allow for
adequate future planning in the sector.’[218]
Domestic violence is a serious issue affecting
millions around the world and international governments continue to employ a
variety of strategies to try and reduce the levels of this form of violence.
Although many of these strategies have been ongoing for some decades, there is
still a lack of reliable evidence as to what works.
However, it is argued that the global
variation in the prevalence of violence against women highlights that this form
of violence is not inevitable and can be prevented or reduced, particularly
with the support of integrated cross-jurisdictional responses and
sustained government funding.
While many of the more innovative measures and programs
discussed in this paper may appear to be the way forward from a public policy
perspective in tackling and reducing the levels of domestic violence, the
practicalities of coordinating and resourcing the many services that may be
involved pose considerable and complex policy challenges across all
jurisdictions.
The Australian Government has acknowledged the
seriousness of the problem and the Prime Minister has stated that ‘We must
elevate this issue to our national consciousness and make it clear that
domestic, family or sexual violence is unacceptable in any circumstances’.[219] The Opposition is also
committed to reducing domestic violence and recently announced that a future
Labor Government would provide funding of $70 million over three years,
targeting investments for legal services; Safe at Home grants; perpetrator
interaction mapping; and funding for a National Crisis Summit.[220]
However, while most commentary on efforts to
reduce this form of violence, including the National Plan, is largely positive,
many stakeholders and commentators argue that ongoing, integrated resourcing
and funding across all jurisdictions is crucial in order to effect long-term
change.[221]
It is argued that Commonwealth/state/territory funding
arrangements are often ad-hoc or inadequate, negatively affecting service
provision at the community level.[222]
In addition, uncertainty around ongoing funding for Commonwealth/state and
territory partnership agreements (such as the homelessness agreement) can also
affect certain domestic violence support services.
It is acknowledged by most stakeholders that this is a
difficult policy challenge requiring complex and coordinated responses. However, most are in agreement that more effectively funding and integrating
responses and initiatives across the community, all jurisdictions and all
levels of government would be a positive step in the right direction in order to
reduce the levels of this form of violence.
[1]. World Health Organisation (WHO), London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine and South African Medical Research Council, Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and
health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence and Executive summary, WHO, Geneva, 2013.
[2]. Ibid., pp. 2, 26 and 31.
[3]. Council
of Australian Governments (COAG) , National plan to reduce violence against women and their children
2010–2022, Department of
Social Services (DSS), website, p. 2.
[4]. Ibid., p. 1.
[5]. For more
detail on domestic, family and sexual violence, including references to the
levels of violence experienced by men, see J Phillips and P Vandenbroek, Domestic,
family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues,
Research paper series, 2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014; A
Dunkley and J Phillips, Domestic
violence in Australia: a quick guide to the issues,
Research paper series, 2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 26 March 2015.
[6]. See J
Mulroney and C Chan, Men as
victims of domestic violence, Australian Domestic Violence Clearinghouse,
2005; C Chan, Domestic
violence in gay and lesbian relationships, Australian Domestic and
Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2005.
[7]. Ibid.
[8]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Personal safety survey Australia 2012, cat. no. 4906.0, ABS, Canberra, 2013.
[9]. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS),
Violence against women: key statistics,
ANROWS website; and J Phillips and P Vandenbroek, Domestic,
family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, op.
cit. Note: the ABS Personal Safety Survey results are often interpreted and
analysed very differently by stakeholders with varying viewpoints. See for
example, J Gilmore, ‘The ‘one in three’ claim about male domestic violence victims is a myth’, Daily Life (Canberra Times online) 30 April 2015.
[10]. A
Dunkley and J Phillips, Domestic
violence in Australia: a quick guide to the issues, op.
cit.; and ANROWS, Violence
against women: key statistics, op. cit.
[11]. M Johnson
and E Bennett, Everyday
sexism: Australian women’s experiences of street harassment, Briefing
note, The Australia Institute, March 2015. Note: in other online surveys
women have reported that unwanted harassment can start as young as eight years
old. See K Edwards, ‘The Reddit question no one should ignore’, Daily
Life (Canberra Times online), 13 April 2015.
[12]. See J
Phillips and P Vandenbroek, Domestic,
family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, op.
cit.
[13]. L Wall, Gender equality and violence against women: what’s the connection?, Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA), ACSSA
research summary, June 2014. See also A Powell, ‘Rape culture: why our community attitudes to sexual violence matter’, The Conversation, 17 September 2014; J Oberin and T Mitra-Kahn, ‘Stopping violence before it occurs: responding to the pathways into
gendered homelessness’, Parity,
26(7), 2013.
[14]. WHO, Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and
health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence and Executive summary, op.
cit.
[15]. L Wall, Gender equality and violence against women: what’s the connection?, op. cit.
[16]. L Tung, ‘No
offence meant: Sweden’s feminist foreign policy’, The Sydney Morning Herald,
4 July 2015.
[17]. See National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children, The
National Council’s plan for Australia to reduce violence against women and
their children, 2009–2012, Background paper to Time for Action, Attachment
A, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, March 2009, p. 13.
[18]. L Bancroft,
Why does he do that? Inside the minds of angry and controlling men, New
York, 2002; cited in C Ford, ‘Australian
men are still using this defence to justify violence’, Daily Life( Canberra
Times online), 3 June 2015.
[19]. Ibid.
[20]. J Cale et.
al., Gender,
age and the perceived causes, nature and extent of domestic and dating violence
in Australian society, UNSW, prepared for White Ribbon Australia, March
2015; K Diemer, Women’s
safety is a men’s issue: men’s attitudes to violence against women and what
that means for men, White Ribbon Research Series, December 2014.
[21]. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the Social Research Centre and
the University of Melbourne, National Community Attitudes Survey, 2014,
VicHealth website. For follow-up analysis see Many young people ready to attribute blame to victims and think
tracking a partner is acceptable, media release,
24 September 2015, VicHealth website.
[22]. S Fisher, From
violence to coercive control: renaming men’s abuse of women, White
Ribbon Research series, 2011.
[23]. Ibid.
[24]. Ibid.
[25]. Ibid.
[26]. White
Ribbon Australia, Australian
young people deem domestic violence as commonplace in Australian society today,
media release, 24 March 2015; and J Cale et al, Gender,
age and the perceived causes, nature and extent of domestic and dating violence
in Australian society, op. cit.
[27]. K Edwards, ‘Men want their daughters to be independent and strong’, Daily Life (Canberra Times online), 28 April 2015; The Shriver
report snapshot: an insight into the 21st century man, A Women’s Nation website.
[28]. A Powell, ‘Rape culture: why our community attitudes to sexual violence matter’, The Conversation, 17 September 2014.
[29]. J Phillips
and P Vandenbroek, Domestic,
family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, op.
cit.
[30]. For
example, see D Lievore, Non-reporting and hidden recording of sexual assault: an international
literature review, Australian Institute of
Criminology (AIC), Canberra, June 2003; J Mouzos and T
Makkai, Women’s experience of male violence: findings from the Australian
component of the International Violence against Women Survey (IVAWS), AIC, Canberra, 2011.
[31]. D Lievore,
Recidivism of sexual assault offenders: rates, risk factors and treatment
efficacy, AIC, Canberra, May 2004; and A Lizotte, ‘The uniqueness of rape:
reporting assaultive violence to the police’, Crime and Delinquency,
31(2), 1985.
[32]. J Mouzos and T Makkai, op. cit.
[33]. A Lizotte,
op. cit.
[34]. Y Chen and
A Ullman, ‘Women’s
reporting of sexual and physical assaults to police in the National Violence
against Women Survey’, Violence Against Women, 16(3), March 2010; K
Wolitzky-Taylor et al, ‘Is
reporting of rape on the rise? A comparison of women with reported versus
unreported rape experiences in the national women’s study replication’, Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 2011.
[35]. Y Chen and
A Ullman, op. cit.
[36]. See The
National Council’s plan for Australia to reduce violence against women and
their children, 2009–2012, Background paper to Time for Action, Attachment
A, March 2009, p. 13.
[37]. The
National Council’s plan for Australia to reduce violence against women and
their children, 2009–2012, Background paper to Time for Action, op.
cit.
[38]. J Howard
and M Wright, Listening
to what matters: a report on the partner contact component of a men’s behaviour
change program, 2008, pp. 20 and 31; J Hill, A
cycle of violence, Background briefing, ABC website, 3 May 2015.
[39]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Personal safety survey Australia 2012, ‘Actions taken in response to partner violence’, cat. no. 4906.0, ABS, Canberra, 2013.
[40]. E Birdsey
and L Snowball, Reporting
violence to police: a survey of victims attending domestic violence services,
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) website, October 2013.
[41]. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Personal safety survey Australia 2012, op. cit.
[42]. Ibid.
[43]. Ibid.
[44]. J Howard
and M Wright, op. cit., p. 23.
[45]. F Measham, Adrian
Bailey, recidivism and structural responses to sexual violence against women,
‘This is complicated’ blog, 27 March 2015. Fatima Meashan is a Melbourne-based
writer who also contributes to online magazine, Eureka
Street and opinion
pieces on the ABC news blog.
[46]. M Kim, ‘Alternative interventions to violence: creative interventions’, International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community
Work, 4, 2006.
[47]. For
example; Victorian Department of Human Services, Practice
guidelines: women’s and children’s family violence counselling and support
programs. Safety, dignity, empowerment and human rights, Victorian
Department of Human Services website, 2008; K Muller, ‘Journeys of freedoms: responding to the effects of domestic violence’, International Journal of Narrative Therapy
and Community Work, 3/4, 2005; S Broderick and P Bazeley, ‘Outcomes of explicit affective practice: an evaluation of the
counselling practice of the Goulburn family support service’, Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work
Journal, 35, Winter 2013; A Burton, ‘From Restorative justice to an explicit affective practice’, Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work
Journal, 15, Autumn 2006; H Clark and A
Quadara, Insights into sexual assault perpetration: giving voice to
victims/survivors knowledge, Research report 18,
Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), December 2010.
[48]. S Broderick and P Bazeley, op. cit.; A Burton, op. cit.
[49]. ‘I
just wanted him to hear me: sexual violence and the possibilities of restorative
justice’, Journal of Law and Society, 39(2), 8 May 2012; Dr L Huntsman, Family group conferencing in a child welfare context, Literature review research report, NSW Department of Community
Services (DOCS), July 2006.
[50]. A Nocella,
‘An
overview of the history and theory of transformative justice’, Peace and
Conflict Review, 6(1), 2011.
[51]. H Douglas
and T Stark, Stories
from survivors: domestic violence and criminal justice interventions, T
C Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, 2010, p. 89. See also ‘Changing
men’, Four Corners, ABC, 25 February 2008.
[52]. A Burton, ‘From restorative justice to an explicit affective practice’, op. cit.
[53]. H Douglas
and T Stark, Stories
from survivors: domestic violence and criminal justice interventions,
op. cit., pp. 39–41.
[54]. F Measham,
op. cit.
[55]. I Walden
and L Wall, Reflecting
on primary prevention of violence against women: the public health approach,
ACSSA Issues, 19, 2014; L Chamberlain and JA Rivers-Cochran, A
prevention primer for domestic violence: terminology, tools, and the public
health approach, National Resource Centre on Violence Against Women
website, 2011.
[56]. R David, LF
Parks and L Cohen, Sexual
violence and the spectrum of prevention: towards a community solution,
National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 2006.
[57]. White
Ribbon Australia, ‘What
is White Ribbon?’, 2014, White Ribbon website.
[58]. White
Ribbon Australia, ‘FAQ’, 2014,
White Ribbon website.
[59]. M Flood, ‘Involving
men in efforts to end violence against women’, Men and masculinities,
14(3), 2011, pp. 358–377, p. 372.
[60]. Ibid., pp.
358–377.
[61]. RJ Donovan,
G Jalleh, L Fielder and R Ouschan, ‘Ethical issues in pro-social advertising:
the Australian 2006 White Ribbon Day campaign’, Journal of Public Affairs,
9, 2009, pp. 5–19.
[62]. S Dyson, C
Barrett and M Platt, The
school’s a calmer place: Promoting cultures of respect in schools (White Ribbon
Foundation: 2009 primary prevention training program for principals – an
evaluation), 2011.
[63]. For more
detail see the Governments’ Our Watch website which highlights the respectful
relationships programs in Victoria
in particular.
[64]. Australian
Government, ‘The
Line webpage’, National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their
Children website.
[65]. M Turnbull
(Prime Minister), M Cash (Minister for Women, Minister for Employment, Minister
Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service), G Brandis
(Attorney-General), S Ley (Minister for Health), C Porter (Minister for Social
Services), N Scullion (Minister for Indigenous Affairs), M Fifield (Minister
for Communications) and S Birmingham (Minister for Education), ‘Women’s
Safety Package to Stop the Violence’, media release, 24 September 2015.
[66]. DJ
Whitaker, S Morrison, C Lindquist, SR Hawkins, JA O’Neil, AM Nesius, A Matthew
and L Reese, ‘A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of
perpetration of partner violence, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 11,
2006, pp. 151–166.
[67]. M Ellsberg,
DJ Arango, M Morton, F Gennari, S Kiplesund, M Contreras and C Watts,
‘Prevention of violence against women and girls: what does the evidence say?’, The
Lancet, 21 November 2014, pp. 1–12.
[68]. Our Watch, Working
with children and young people, Policy brief 5, May 2015, pp. 6–9.
[69]. Ibid., p.
6.
[70]. Ibid.
[71]. Ibid., p.
1.
[72]. Senate
Community Affairs Committee, Answers to Question on Notice, Social Services
Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2015–16, 15 July 2015, Question
No: SQ15-000575.
[73]. Australian
Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), ‘News:
Sexuality in the Australian Curriculum webpage’, Australian Curriculum
Assessment and Reporting Authority website, 22 July 2014; Department of
Education and Training, Review
of the Australian Curriculum: Final Report, Australian Government,
October 2014, p. 205.
[74]. A Mitchell,
K Patrick, W Heywood, P Blackman and M Pitts, National
Survey of Australian Secondary Students and Sexual Health 2013,
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, April
2014, pp. 67–69.
[75]. P Goward
(NSW Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Medical Research, Assistant
Minister for Health, Minister for Women, Minister for the Prevention of
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) and A Piccoli (Minister for Education), ‘NSW
Syllabus Stronger on Domestic Violence Prevention’, media release, 3 July
2015; A Palaszczuk (Queensland Premier and Minister for the Arts) and S
Fentiman (Queensland Minister for Communities, Women and Youth, Minister for
Child Safety and Minister for Multicultural Affairs), ‘Palaszczuk
Government says Not Now, Not Ever’, media release, 18 August 2015; J
Rockliff (Tasmanian Minister for Education and Training), ‘Family
Violence Action Plan: Education’, media release, 13 August 2015; J Merlino
(Victorian Minister for Education) and F Richardson (Victorian Minister for the
Prevention of Family Violence), ‘New
Curriculum Supports Students to Build Healthy Relationships and Understanding’,
media release, 21 August 2015.
[76]. Australian
Capital Territory (ACT) Government, ‘Budget
2015–2016: Domestic Violence Statement’, Treasury website.
[77]. C Angus, ‘Domestic
and family violence’, Briefing paper no 5/2015, NSW Parliamentary
Research Service, May 2015.
[78]. JC Babcock,
CE Green and C Robie, ‘Does
batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence
treatment’, Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 2004, pp. 1023–1053.
[79]. Ibid.
[80]. Urbis, Literature
review on domestic violence perpetrators, Department of Social Services
(DSS) website.
[81]. M Ellsberg,
DJ Arango, M Morton, F Gennari, S Kiplesund, M Contreras and C Watts, op. cit.,
pp. 1–12.
[82]. R Jewkes, ‘What
works to prevent violence against women and girls? Evidence review of the
effectiveness of response mechanisms in preventing violence against women and
girls’, June 2014.
[83]. Urbis, op.
cit.
[84]. Australian
Law Reform Commission and NSW Law Reform Commission, Family
Violence – A National Legal Response (Summary Report), ALRC Final
Report Summary 114/NSWLRC Final Report Summary 128, October 2010, p. 38.
[85]. A Day, D
Chung, P O’Leary and E Carson, ‘Programs
for men who perpetrate domestic violence: an examination of the issues
underlying the effectiveness of intervention programs’, Journal of
Family Violence, 24, 2009, pp. 203–212.
[86]. RM Sartin,
DJ Hansen, MT Huss, ‘Domestic
violence treatment response and recidivism: a review and implications for the
study of family violence’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5),
September–October 2006, pp. 425–440.
[87]. JC Babcock,
CE Green, C Robie, ‘Does
batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence
treatment’, op. cit.
[88]. A Day, D
Chung, P O’Leary and E Carson, op. cit.
[89]. A Day et.
al., Integrated
responses to domestic violence: legally mandated intervention programs for male
perpetrators, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice no. 404,
Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), Canberra, December 2010.
[90]. S Meyer, Victims
experiences of short-term and long-term safety and wellbeing: findings from an
examination of an integrated response to domestic violence, Trends and
issues in crime and criminal justice no. 478, Australian Institute of
Criminology (AIC), Canberra, June 2014.
[91]. Australian
Law Reform Commission and NSW Law Reform Commission, Family
Violence – A National Legal Response (Final Report), Volume 1, ALRC
Report 114/NSWLRC Report 128, October 2010.
[92]. Ibid.
[93]. New South
Wales, Department of Justice, It
stops here: safer pathways overview, September 2014.
[94]. Australian
Law Reform Commission and NSW Law Reform Commission, Family
Violence – A National Legal Response (Final Report), op. cit. Note:
however, some other NSW programs such as the ‘Going Home Staying Home’ have not
been received favourably with stakeholders arguing that the tender process has
forced some of the oldest women’s refuges in Australia to close in favour of
larger faith-based organisations offering mainly generalist services. See J Hill, ‘Home truths: the cost and causes of domestic violence’, Monthly, 1 March 2015; and A Summers, ‘Opinion: Fresh struggle to save women's services’, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June 2015.
[95]. R Olding,
‘Domestic abuse exposed in the eastern suburbs’, Sun Herald, 15 March
2015, p. 9.
[96]. NSW
Government, Domestic
Violence Safety Assessment Tool, August 2014.
[97]. Australian Institute
of Family Studies, ‘Family
violence: Towards a holistic approach to screening and risk assessment in
family support services’, AFRC Briefing No. 17, September 2010.
[98]. Department
of Health, ‘Domestic
Violence’, Clinical Practice Guidelines Antenatal Care – Module 1, 23 April
2013.
[99]. R F Rabin,
J M Jennings, J C Campbell and M H Bair-Merritt, ‘Intimate partner
violence screening tools’, American Journal of Preventative Medicine,
36(5), May 2009, pp. 439–445.
[100]. New South
Wales, Ministry of Health, Domestic
Violence Routine Screening Program, Snapshot Report 9, November 2011,
Violence Prevention and Response Unit, NSW Kids and Families, 2012.
[101]. M Northcott, Intimate
partner violence risk assessment tools: a review, Research and
Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada.
[102]. I Barrett
Meyering, ‘Staying/leaving:
barriers to ending violent relationships’, Fast facts 7, Australian
Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, July 2012.
[103]. CM Sullivan,
‘Evaluating
domestic violence support service programs: Waste of time, necessary evil, or
opportunity for growth?’, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 16(4),
July–August 2011, pp. 354–360.
[104]. J Mulroney
and C Chan, Men as
victims of domestic violence, op. cit.
[105]. RC Shorey, V
Tirone and GL Stuart, ‘Coordinated
community response components for victims of intimate partner violence: A
review of the literature’, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 19(4),
July–August 2014, pp. 363–371.
[106]. M Ellsberg,
DJ Arango, M Morton, F Gennari, S Kiplesund, M Contreras and C Watts,
‘Prevention of violence against women and girls: what does the evidence say?’, op.
cit.; R Constantino, Y Kim, and PA Crane, ‘Effects of social support
interventions on health outcomes in residents of a domestic violence shelter: A
pilot study’, Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 26, pp. 575–590.
[107]. CN Wathen, RM
Harris, M Ford-Gilbor and M Hansen, ‘What
counts? A mixed-methods study to inform evaluations of shelters for abused
women’, Violence Against Women, 21(1), 2015, pp. 125–146.
[108]. Urbis, Evaluation
of the State-wide Domestic Violence Pro Active Support Service (Final Report),
February 2013.
[109]. S Meyer, ‘Victims’
experiences of short- and long-term safety and wellbeing: Findings from an
examination of an integrated response to domestic violence’, Current
Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 478, June 2014.
[110]. C Angus, ‘Domestic
and family violence’, op. cit.
[111]. Australian
Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and NSW Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC), Family
Violence–A National Response, ALRC Report 114, October 2010, p. 189.
[112]. Criminal
Code Act 1995 (Cth), sections 474.15, 474.17, 471.11, 471.12.
[113]. ALRC and
NSWLRC, Family violence–a national legal response, op. cit., p. 195.
[114]. Ibid.
[115]. Ibid., p.
350.
[116]. Protection
orders may also be referred to as domestic violence orders (DVO),
apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVO), intervention orders and family
violence orders (FVO).
[117]. J Wangmann, ‘Domestic
violence orders need stronger enforcement’, The Conversation, 8
August 2014.
[118]. Domestic
Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT); Domestic and Family Violence Act
2007 (NT); Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW); Domestic and
Family Violence Protection Act 1989 (Qld); Intervention Orders (Prevention of
Abuse) Act 2009 (SA); Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas.); Family Violence
Protection Act 2008 (Vic.); Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA).
[119]. K Wilcox, ‘Recent
innovations in Australian protection order law-a comparative discussion’,
Topic paper, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2010.
[120]. ALRC and
NSWLRC, Family violence–a national legal response, op. cit., p. 1514.
[121]. Ibid., p.
1515.
[122]. Ibid., p.
367.
[123]. Ibid., pp.
368–371. For a discussion of the different types of orders available to the
police.
[124]. C Blumer, ‘Australian
police deal with a domestic violence matter every two minutes’, ABC News,
website, 29 May 2015.
[125]. ALRC and
NSWLRC, Family violence–a national legal response, op. cit., pp.
1488–1489.
[126]. Ibid., p.
1494.
[127]. G Brandis
(Attorney-General) and M Cash (Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for
Women), National
family violence bench book, media release, 9 June 2015.
[128]. Council of
Australian Governments (COAG), Communique,
17 April 2015.
[129]. J Wangmann, Australia’s
‘urgent’ action on family violence has fallen years behind, The
Conversation, 22 April 2015.
[130]. Ibid.
[131]. ‘NSW
Government pushes ahead with proposed domestic violence disclosure scheme’,
ABC News, website, 21 May 2015.
[132]. NSW Government,
NSW
Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme: Discussion paper, May 2015.
[133]. S Corbell,
(Attorney-General, ACT), Interim
Domestic Violence Order to better protect victims, media release, 12
May 2015.
[134]. S Corbell
(Attorney-General, ACT), New
appointment to focus on domestic and family violence, media release, 1
June 2015.
[135]. J Phillips
and P Vandenbroek, Domestic,
family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues, op.
cit., p. 20.
[136]. Ibid.
[137]. Australian
Government, Progress
Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2010–2012, DSS
website, May 2013, p. 21.
[138]. Australian
Government, National
Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, DSS website.
[139]. Ibid., pp.
14–31.
[140]. Australian
Government, First
Action Plan 2010-2013–building a strong foundation, DSS website, 2012.
[141]. Australian
Government, Progress
Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2010–2012, op. cit.
[142]. Australian
Government, Progress
review of the first action plan, DSS website, May 2014.
[143]. M Cash
(Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women), Addressing
violence against women and their children, media release, 27 June 2014;
Australian Government, Second
action plan 2013–2016—moving ahead–—of the National Plan to reduce
Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022, DSS website; The Line website.
[144]. Australian
Government, Second
action plan 2013–2016—moving ahead–—of the National Plan to reduce
Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022, National
Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, June 2014, DSS
website. DSS also produced a comprehensive summary of the Second
Action Plan—Second Action Plan 2013–2016: moving ahead—in brief, 2014, DSS website.
[145]. M Cash
(Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women), National
Domestic Violence Summit, media release, 8 December 2014; What
Australians think about violence against women, media release, 17
September 2014.
[146]. Health
Outcomes International, Evaluation
Plan for the National Plan, developed by Health Outcomes International, June 2014, DSS website.
[147]. H Grant, New
initiative to end violence against Australian women and their children on Our
Watch, media release, Our Watch website, 5 September 2014.
[148]. M Cash
(Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women), New
family and domestic violence research, media release, 31 October 2014.
[149]. M Cash
(Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women), Standing
together to tackle violence against women and children, media release,
24 November 2014.
[150]. M Cash
(Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women), COAG
agenda to address ending violence against women, media release, 28 January
2015.
[151]. COAG, Communique,
17 April 2015, op. cit.
[152]. T Abbott
(Prime Minister), Advisory panel announced to reduce violence against women, media release, 15 May 2015.
[153]. T Abbott (Prime Minister) and M Cash (Minister Assisting the Prime
Minister for Women), National
awareness campaign to reduce violence against women and children, media release, 4 March 2015.
[154]. COAG, Communique,
17 April 2015, op. cit.
[155]. Australian Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, p. 163.
[156]. Ibid. For
further detail see M Thomas and A Dunkley, ‘Domestic
violence’, Budget Review 2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,
May 2015.
[157]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services) and M Cash (Minister Assisting the
Prime Minister for Women), Abbott Government delivers funding boost for 1800RESPECT, media release, 17 May 2015.
[158]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services) and M Cash (Minister Assisting the
Prime Minister for Women), Nominations
called for national media awards to reduce domestic violence, media
release, 3 June 2015.
[159]. Australian
Government, 2014–15
Annual progress report, Second Action Plan: 2013–16, June 2015, DSS
website.
[160]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Domestic
violence in Australia, Final report, The Senate, Canberra, August 2015.
[161]. M Turnbull
(Prime Minister), Women’s
safety package to stop the violence, op. cit.
[162]. Ibid.
[163]. ANROWS, Our
Watch and VicHealth, Change
the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against
women and their children in Australia, November 2015.
[164]. J Phillips
and P Vandenbroek, op. cit.
[165]. For more
detail on the national initiatives see DSS, National
initiatives, DSS website.
[166]. Australian Government, Portfolio
budgets statements 2015–16: budget related paper no. 1.15A: Social Services
Portfolio, p. 92; and M Thomas and A Dunkley,
‘Domestic
violence’, op. cit.
[167]. An answer to a question on notice (QON) asked
in Senate Estimates in May 2014 noted that a total of $104.0 million (from
2014–15 to 2017–18) had been allocated to the National Plan—the remainder of
the $117.9 million was allocated to support trafficking victims and the
National Framework to Protect Australia’s Children. Senate Community
Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Social Services Portfolio,
Budget Estimates 2014–15, May 2014, Question
116.
[168]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services) and M Cash (Minister Assisting the
Prime Minister for Women), Abbott Government delivers funding boost for 1800RESPECT, op. cit.
[169]. M Turnbull
(Prime Minister), Women’s
safety package to stop the violence, op. cit.
[170]. DSS, Grants
report, DSS website.
[171]. K Andrews
(Minister for Social Services), Budget 2014: Long-term certainty and less red tape for social
service providers, media release, 13 May
2014.
[172]. Australian
Government, ‘Part 2:
expense measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, p.
197.
[173]. See DSS, Grant programs, DSS website.
[174]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services), Department
of Social Services grant funding offers, media release, 24 December
2015.
[175]. Senate
Estimates, Community Affairs Committee, Additional Estimates, answer to QON SQ15–000003,
February 2015. Note: a more detailed list of organisations provided with
bridging funding was also provided in Senate Estimates, Community Affairs
Committee, Additional Estimates, answer to QON SQ15-000295,
February 2015.
[176]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services), Morrison
to fill critical front line service gaps in Social Service grants,
media release, 30 January 2015; and DSS, 2014 grant
rounds—outcomes and funding offers faq, DSS website.
[177]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services), Coalition
Government boosts funding support for vulnerable children and their families,
media release, 17 April 2015.
[178]. DSS, 2014 grant
rounds—outcomes and funding offers faq, DSS website.
[179]. M Thomas and
A Dunkley, ‘Domestic
violence’, op. cit.; and Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, op. cit., p. 166.
[180]. M Thomas and
A Dunkley, ‘Domestic
violence’, op. cit.; and Portfolio budget statements 2015–16: budget related paper no.
1.15A: Social Services Portfolio, p. 33.
[181]. COAG, National
Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children,
op. cit., p. 26.
[182]. J Murphy, ‘Legal
aid and legal assistance services’, Budget Review 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, May 2015.
[183]. J Hockey
(Treasurer) and M Cormann (Minister for Finance), Mid-year economic
and fiscal year outlook 2013–14, Appendix
A, Expense measures, December 2013, p. 119.
[184]. G Brandis
(Attorney-General), Legal
aid funding assured to support the most vulnerable in our community,
media release, 26 March 2015.
[185]. M Thomas and
A Dunkley, ‘Domestic
violence’, op. cit.
[186]. G Brandis
(Attorney-General), $15
million for specialist domestic violence legal support, media release,
24 September 2015.
[187]. Australian
Government, 2014–15
Budget Paper no. 2, p. 205.
[188]. K Andrews
(Minister for Social Services), Coalition
government to renew homelessness funding, media release, 30 March 2014.
[189]. M Thomas, Housing
and homelessness, Budget review, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,
May 2014.
[190]. DSS, Housing
and homelessness—research; peak bodies; innovative projects; emerging Australian
Government priorities, DSS website.
[191]. S Morrison
(Minister for Social Services), Coalition
Government boosts funding support for vulnerable children and their families,
media release, 17 April 2015.
[192]. Budget
Measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, op. cit., p. 165. For more detail of these issues across the
last two budgets see the analysis provided by the National Foundation for
Australian Women (NFAW), Budget 2014–15: a
gender lens, May 2014; Budget 2015–16: a
gender lens, May 2015.
[193]. UN Women, Ending
violence against women; and Handbook
for national action plans on violence against women, New York, 2012,
UN Women website.
[194]. J Ransley and
C Bond, ‘Cancel
the inquiries: we don’t need more reports on domestic violence’, The
Conversation, 12 March 2015.
[195]. UK
Government, Ending
violence against women and girls: action plans, Home Office website.
[196]. UK
Government, Violence
against women and girls guidance notes, UK Government website.
[197]. For example
see Norway Mission to the EU, Violence
against women—our response, Norway Mission to the EU website. See also the European
Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), Violence
against women: an EU wide survey results at a glance, FRA website,
2014.
[198]. For example
see United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Partnering
with men to end gender-based violence, UNFPA website, 2009.
[199]. See the Duluth Model website for
more detail.
[200]. K Corvo, D Dutton
and W Chen, ‘Do
Duluth Model interventions with perpetrators of domestic violence violate
mental health professional ethics?’, Ethics and Behaviour, 2009; M Labriola,
M Rempel and R Davis, Testing
the effectiveness of Batterer Programs and Judicial Monitoring, Final
report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, November 2005; P Cluss
and A Boadea, The
effectiveness of batter intervention programs: a literature review and
recommendations for next steps, University of Pittsburgh, 2011.
[201]. M Paymar and
G Barnes, Countering
confusion about the Duluth Model, Battered Women’s Justice Project,
Minnesota.
[202]. J Hill, ‘A
cycle of violence’, Background briefing, Radio National, 3 May 2015.
[203]. Centre for
Innovative Justice, Opportunities
for early intervention: Bringing perpetrators of family violence into view,
RMIT, Melbourne, March 2015.
[204]. N
Westmarland, L Kelly and J Chadler-Mills, Domestic
violence perpetrator programs: What counts as success?, Briefing note
1, Respect, London, August 2010.
[205]. T Cussen and
W Bryant, ‘Domestic/family
homicide in Australia’, Research in Practice no 38, AIC,
Canberra, May 2015.
[206]. W Bryant and
T Cussen, Homicide
in Australia: 2010–11 to 2011–12: National Homicide Monitoring Project Report,
Monitoring report no. 23, AIC, Canberra, February 2015.
[207]. Centre for
Innovative Justice, Opportunities
for early intervention: Bringing perpetrators of family violence into view,
March 2015.
[208]. WHO, Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and
health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence,
op. cit., p. 36.
[209]. Ibid., p. 36
[210]. M Moore, Prevention
of violence against women and girls: what does the evidence say?,
Lancet series on violence against women and girls, The Lancet online, 26
November 2014.
[211]. J Oberin and T Mitra-Kahn, op. cit., p. 17.
[212]. See J Ransley
and C Bond, op. cit.
[213]. M Ellsberg,
DJ Arango, M Morton, F Gennari, S Kiplesund, M Contreras and C Watts,
‘Prevention of violence against women and girls: what does the evidence say?’, The
Lancet, 21 November 2014, pp. 1–12.
[214]. KJ Roe, The
Violence Against Women Act and Its Impact on Sexual Violence Public Policy:
Looking Back and Looking Forward, September 2004.
[215]. R Kanani, DOJ
Director on Violence Against Women in the United States, Forbes, 3
August 2012.
[216]. AAP, ‘Victoria
to introduce world-first domestic violence index’, The Age, 17 May
2015; S Anderson, ‘Domestic
violence: Victorian Government launches family violence index to track scale of
crisis’, ABC News, 18 May 2015.
[217]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Domestic
violence in Australia, Interim report, The Senate, Canberra, March
2015, pp. 3 and 13.
[218]. Senate
Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Domestic
violence in Australia, Final report, op. cit., p. xii.
[219]. M Turnbull
(Prime Minister), Women’s
safety package to stop the violence, op. cit.
[220]. Australian
Labor Party (ALP), Our
initial investment to address family violence; and National crisis summit on
family violence, ALP policy documents, June 2015. See also B Shorten
(Leader of the Opposition), Speech to the local government NGA, Canberra, 16 June 2015.
[221]. J Ransley and
C Bond, op. cit.; ACOSS, Funding
uncertainty hurting Australia’s community sector, fact sheet, ACOSS
website, December 2014.
[222]. For example, J Hill, ‘Home truths: the cost and causes of domestic violence’, Monthly, 1 March 2015.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.