Turnbull's response to domestic violence ignores the evidence

Common sense commonly goes out the window, when it comes to "women's issues".  The recently announced measures to combat violence against women are no exception.  They largely represent a knee-jerk response by politicians and their bureaucratic advisers (including the Office for Women) to populist demands that "something needs to be done".   

The Turnbull Government is endeavouring to increase its popularity among female voters and appease the women's lobby.  PM Turnbull had already increased the number of female ministers in his cabinet (not entirely without justification).  He now wants to be seen as dealing with the evil of violence against women.

"All violence against women begins with disrespecting women," Malcolm Turnbull told reporters.  "We as leaders, as a Government, must make it - and we will make it - a clear national objective of ours to ensure that Australia is more respecting of women."  Turnbull was effectively toeing the line pushed by feminists that intimate partner violence is the result of society condoning aggressive behaviours perpetrated by men, while socialising women to be non-violent.  The issue of women abusing men is not seen as a serious social problem so that "violence against women" is emphasised rather than "domestic violence", and the main solution (a la Turnbull) is to change attitudes on the part of males so that they are "respecting of women".

According to White Ribbon ("Australia's Campaign to Stop Violence Against Women") "domestic violence is a widespread though often hidden problem across Australia.  It occurs in all parts of society, regardless of geographic location, socio-economic status, age, cultural and ethnic background".  The organisation also notes that "in the large majority of cases the offender is male and the victim is female". 

The problem with this (and Turnbull's) characterisation of domestic violence (DV) is that it is unduly driven by ideology and supposition rather than grounded in hard reality.  In short, we are asked to believe that DV results from "men behaving badly" across all levels of society due to lack of respect for women, and that the problem can largely be addressed by changing male attitudes.  The reality is far different so that the proposed solution won't work because it targets the wrong causal factors.

Heterosexual males are not the sole perpetrators of DV, and other factors, including mental illness, substance abuse, and Aboriginality are more important contributors to domestic assaults than mere "lack of respect".  There is also evidence that those in low income households, those dependent on welfare, members of certain ethnic groups, and those in de-facto relationships are much more prone to domestic violence than those in educated, middle-class husband and wife families.

In individual cases, character defects, including poor impulse control, are not to be discounted, while (at macro level) widespread tolerance of violence per se (accompanied by soft penalties imposed by the Courts for assaults) may be just as important as attitudes towards women.  Stressful circumstances (e.g. family breakdown or an unfavourable Family Court outcome) are known trigger factors in more serious cases of domestic violence.  All these factors seem to be largely ignored in the current policy response.

In the landmark case involving Rosie Batty and her son Luke, it is accepted that the perpetrator (her former partner) suffered from untreated mental illness, a common contributor in more serious assaults.  It is also well documented, for example, that in this country domestic violence is far more prevalent in Indigenous communities.  According to the Creative Spirits website "An Aboriginal woman is 45 times more likely to experience domestic violence than a white woman", though state crime statistics suggest a less extreme gap in the more populous states.

It is true that male violence is both more prevalent and tends to be more lethal in the home than violence perpetrated by women.  Such greater incidence, however, seems to be by a factor of roughly three to one, instead of violence on the part of women being insignificant.  Men may also be more reluctant to admit to being a victim of violence than women. 

The ABS 2012 Personal Safety Survey found that one in three victims of current partner violence during the previous 12 months (33.3%) and since the age of 15 (33.5%) were male.  Men are alsomore likely than women to experience general violence.  In 2012 it was estimated that 8.7% of all men aged 18 years and over compared with 5.3% of all women aged 18 years and over (467,300) had experienced violence in the 12 months prior to the survey.  Women were more likely than men to experience violence by a partner.  In 2012, an estimated 17% of all women aged 18 years and over (1,479,900 women) and 5.3% of all men aged 18 years and over (448,000 men) said they had experienced violence by a partner since the age of 15.

An important phenomenon not often examined is the direction of violence.  In a very large proportion of violent households, the violence is actually perpetrated by BOTH partners.  An extensive study of dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations by Murray Straus (2008) found that, in Australia, 14% of physical violence between dating partners during the previous 12 months was perpetrated by males only, 21% by females only and 64.9% was mutual violence (where both partners used violence against each other).

The Australian Institute of Criminology in a study analysing homicides in Australia between 1989 and 1999 found that just over three-quarters (76.9%) of intimate partner homicides involved a male offender and a female victim.   SBS News, in collaboration with the Australian Institute of Criminology, published an overview of all victims of domestic or family homicide over the 23 year period 1989/90 to 2011/12.  They found that 408 male partners (24.8%) and 1237 female partners (75.2%) had been killed during this period.

The official response to DV in recent decades has supported measures such as funding refuges for battered wives, and enabling court orders that seek to keep violent ex-partners at bay.   These measures have worked only to a very limited degree.  We are also exposed to regular advertising campaigns, showing violent men bashing their wives (never the reverse), and there are annual street marches protesting violence against women.  Such exercises manage to capture attention but seem to do little else beyond stereotyping men as perpetrators and women as victims.

Large additional sums of money are now being thrown at the problem, despite past programmes appearing to have largely failed, and many people believing the new policies are just another waste of public money (our taxes). 

The latest plan involves the Commonwealth spending $100 million on such things as handing out mobile phones to women fleeing domestic violence (supposedly to help them escape ongoing abuse).  $36.5 million will also be spent over three years providing more training for police, social workers and emergency staff to better support women.  There will also be training for hospital staff to recognise the signs of domestic violence, as well as a duty lawyer at selected hospitals to provide legal assistance.  The Government will also move to put in place GPS tracking technology "to monitor abusers" and provide safety buttons for women, so they can call for help.  The Safer Schools website will also be expanded at a cost of $5 million, to teach about respectful relationships.

In my view the measures planned will make little difference in an environment, where victims are reluctant to report abusive partners to police and are reluctant to leave dysfunctional relationships.  A very basic problem also is that it is very difficult to prevent a crime that has not yet happened without unacceptable implications for civil liberties and for the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

In my view the government could do a lot to help reduce domestic violence by more directly targeting likely classes of perpetrators and DV hotspots.

1. Rather than tarring all men with the DV brush, society should be far stricter in punishing those guilty of any crime against the person.  It is hypocritical to condemn men that bash their wives, and simultaneously treat many serious assaults outside the home with a mere "rap over the knuckles".  Unprovoked violence against anyone is unacceptable full stop, and penalties should be relatively more severe than current practice.
2. There needs to be a Violent Offenders Register equivalent to the one that exists for sexual offenders.  Such information should be provided to intending spouses, and persons with a history of violence should lose the right to sponsor a fiancé visa.
3. There needs to be recognition that policies against DV need to be targeted.  The mentally ill, substance abusers and Indigenous families require special assistance measures, and a balance between civil liberties, equal rights, and the rights of victims needs to be struck.
4. It needs to be accepted that some people (both male and female) simply can't be lived with, and that separation may be the only option to avoid violence.
5. Some help could be provided to those at risk of perpetrating violence, particularly those affected by adverse Family Court decisions.  Separation can be devastating for many men, and a small minority are prone to striking out violently. 

Finally, it needs to be recognised that apparent quick fixes, like GPS bracelets (which are easily removed) for those subject to DVOs, can be easily overcome, and that no court order (no matter how severe its backup penalties) will prevent a determined offender from attacking their current or former partner. 

Separation is devastating for violent men, who respond with helplessness, manipulative pursuit techniques, and sometimes suicide threats. Perpetrators rarely seek help, even in crisis. When they do attend self-help or counselling sessions, the immediate goal is getting their wives back, not finding out how they can address their own problem.