Russell Rodenberry
The Coalition government has finally released a new advertising campaign targeting violence against women, after abandoning the original "No Respect — No Relationships" campaign last December.
This campaign is little more than a bandaid measure to cover the fact that the legal system is struggling to protect women from violence.
In 2001, a report released by Partnerships Against Domestic Violence revealed that "in practice, protection orders are easily flouted without legal consequence". PADV is the federally funded organisation responsible for researching and documenting methods aimed at reducing domestic violence.
Investigation into a Brisbane magistrate's court by Heather Douglas and Lee Godden in 2002 found that only 1% of domestic violence orders are identified for criminal investigation, and that 0.4% result in criminal prosecution. This is of particular concern given that violence tends to increase after separation. In fact, approximately one-third of women murdered by male partners are killed after trying to leave.
The first priority for future action put forward in a 2003 overview of PADV was that "Government and service sectors work towards viable and safe strategies where women and children are able to remain safely in the home whilst the perpetrator is removed". Imagine that — a system that punishes the perpetrators rather than the victims.
This system would greatly benefit children. On June 17, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that nearly 54,000 children used homelessness services in 2002-03 — 3000 more than the year before and most as a direct result of domestic violence.
Removing the perpetrators allows women and children to stay in their own home, saving millions of dollars presently consumed by the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Part of this saving could be redirected toward reforming the perpetrators.
The Coalition government's own hypocrisy was made apparent in its recent push to disregard sex discrimination laws to increase male teacher numbers — supposedly in the interest of establishing male role models. If the government believes that it is so important to provide good male role models then surely bad male role models need to be removed?
Recently we were all sent a booklet by the federal government, which states that "the experience of your own family and friends can be a good starting point". Unfortunately these experiences are often the problem. Many young men hit their female partners because they have grown up watching their fathers hit their mothers. And many young women accept it because, like their mothers, they have little choice.
On July 1, 2002, Coalition MP Tony Abbott stated that "if we're honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband, not withstanding all his faults, you find that he tends to do more good than harm".
This misguided attitude is indicative of the federal government. Indeed their motivation for PADV is clearly stated in an overview released in 2003 — "the prevention of domestic violence is part of the government's strategy for strengthening families and preventing family breakdown".
This is why the federal government refuses to consider the proposal to remove the perpetrators. It prefers the current system because it keeps the divorce rate down by forcing women and children to choose between enduring violence and homelessness.
[To contact the author, email <waft1@yahoo.com.au>.]
From Green Left Weekly, June 30, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.