Domestic violence program debated
By Emma Webb and Kathy Newnam
ADELAIDE — A trial project targeting repeat domestic violence offenders is under way in the Port Adelaide and Adelaide south coast areas.
The 12-month trial gives increased powers to the police in domestic violence call-outs. A key aspect of the project is that on a third call-out to deal with a particular offender the police will automatically lay charges, with or without the victim's consent.
The project has been developed by the attorney-general's department based on a 1997 project in Killenbeck, Britain. According to the department, the Killenbeck project resulted in a decrease in both the number of repeat attacks and police call-outs to deal with domestic violence.
The coordinator of Port Adelaide's Dale Street Women's Health Centre, Vanessa Swan, told Green Left Weekly that she supports the project in so far as it "puts the emphasis on having the perpetrator be more responsible for his action, rather than increasing the pressure on women to leave and therefore making them feel yet more responsible". This addresses one aspect of domestic violence, says Swan. "In a situation where it is up to women, there is immense pressure not to lay charges."
Asked about the contradiction entailed in removing victims' choice about whether or not to lay charges, Swan said, "The notion of choice [not to charge the perpetrator] is unreal because in domestic violence situations there was no free choice in the first place".
Angela Nesci from the Adelaide Women's Legal Service and Non-English Speaking Background Domestic Violence Action Group also believes that it is sometimes a good thing to take control out of women's hands. Nesci emphasised the complicated nature of the project's aims and noted that its success or otherwise would depend on how it took into consideration cultural diversity.
She raised concerns about the project's impact on people from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) and questioned whether it would incorporate services for NESB women and facilities for counselling NESB offenders, such as interpreters and special police training.
Swan echoed these concerns, questioning whether the project would address the complexity of the domestic violence issue in the Aboriginal community.
Aileen Robertson, a project consultant with Nunga Miminis, a domestic violence crisis service for Aboriginal women, is optimistic about the program. She told Green Left Weekly, "The current system has traditionally not worked for the Aboriginal community", and added that the attorney-general's department had worked closely with the Nunga Miminis in the development of the project.
Maria Voukelatos makes a different assessment. A member of the Democratic Socialist Party and the National Organisation of Women Students Australia 2000 collective, Voukelatos criticised the withdrawal of choice from women about laying charges. "This further dis-empowers the woman", she said, "and sets a dangerous precedent for eroding civil liberties. In no other crime of assault does the victim not have a choice about whether or not to pursue charges."
While recognising the inherent pressures on women not to charge the perpetrators because of the personal relationships involved, Voukelatos noted that this aspect of the project "implies that women are better off having some 'wiser', more powerful person making the decisions for them". Yet, "there's no reason to assume that representatives of the state will consistently do what's in the best interests of every woman in this situation. Why will the application of this law be any more pro-women than the law is in rape cases? We cannot side-step the fact that we are dealing with a profoundly unjust, racist and misogynist legal system."
Swan pointed out that the project limits individual police officers' discretion about how to deal with domestic violence call-outs and that police communications will be monitored by the attorney-general's department. This, along with further training of police and magistrates, she said, will increase the positive impact of the project.
However, Voukelatos questioned whether mandatory charging will lessen the danger to women in violent relationships. "As is so often the case, the offender's anger about being charged will be taken out on the victim, causing her more grief. Even if the perpetrator is taken away from the situation, he would have access to the woman pending the trial. Restraining orders have been shown to be largely ineffective in protecting women from violence by people known to them."
Fear of the consequences of the offender being automatically charged could affect women's willingness to report a repeat incident of violence to the police, Voukelatos said. "For example, given Australia's record of Aboriginal deaths in custody, a women may fear for her Aboriginal partner's life if he is charged and jailed. Because a woman is repeatedly beaten by her partner does not mean she should have less of a right than any other victim of a crime to try to prevent her abuser from being possibly condemned to death."
Speaking about the NESB Domestic Violence Action Group's work with both men and women, Nesci said that in dealing with domestic violence, "Innovation and lateral thinking are necessary and funding very rarely allows that to happen".
Voukelatos too stressed the need for better funding and woman-centred programs and services. "It is only when women have the material means, and the social support and personal confidence, to leave a violent domestic situation that they will have truly free choice", she said. "It is these prerequisites for choice that the government should be ensuring exist."
The trial will run until March 2001, when there will be a five-month evaluation with the possibility of broader implementation across South Australia.