Chapter 9

Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence

Julie Stubbs and Jane Wangmann

 he Historical Context of Responses to Domestic Violence

T
in Australia

From colonisation in the late eighteenth century, and for much of the nineteenth
century, there were few social or legal constraints on men’s violence against their
wives. Under the laws inherited from England, sexual and physical assault of
women were crimes in the colonies, with the exception of sexual assault committed
by a woman’s husband which was not criminalised in Australian States and
Territories until the 1980s.1 However, existing laws were rarely enforced and domes-
tic violence was considered to be a private matter and largely ignored by the police
unless it disturbed the peace. Throughout the latter part of the nineteenth century
women activists and their male supporters campaigned against wife beating and
argued for divorce law reform (Allen, 1990).
Since colonial times, and into the present, Indigenous2 people and their families
have often been subjected to surveillance and significant police intervention into

1
However see the recent decision by the High Court of Australia on the common law position:
PGA v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 355. This decision held that rape by a woman’s spouse in South
Australia was against the law at least by 1935. This decision has been criticised as rewriting history
and the practical reality of women’s experience of marital rape and legal immunity (Larcombe &
Heath 2012).
2
Within Australia, the term Indigenous includes both Aboriginal peoples, including many distinct
groups and languages, and Torres Strait Islander people. The Torres Strait Island people have a
heritage, identity and culture that is distinct from Aboriginal peoples. Political claims are some-
times pursued jointly by these groups. According to 2011 Census data, Indigenous people make up
approximately 3% of Australia’s population.
J. Stubbs
Faculty of Law, The University of New South Wales UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
J. Wangmann (*)
University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia
e-mail: Jane.Wangmann@uts.edu.au

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 167

E.S. Buzawa, C.G. Buzawa (eds.), Global Responses to Domestic Violence,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56721-1_9
168 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

their daily lives, but police largely have failed to act to protect victims of domestic
violence. Many Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families
under various laws and policies aimed at assimilation. This continued well into the
twentieth century and has come to be known as the Stolen Generations; the damag-
ing effects of these policies continue to play out for successive generations (Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997). Concerns about the dispropor-
tionate incarceration of Indigenous men and women and deaths of Indigenous peo-
ple in custody (Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, 1991) have
further undermined the confidence of Indigenous people in the criminal justice sys-
tem. The legacy of colonisation and negative experiences with the criminal justice
and child protection systems underpin antipathy between some Indigenous com-
munities and the police and continues to discourage some Indigenous women from
seeking assistance from the criminal justice system (Blagg, 2016; Cunneen, 2001).
Indigenous scholars and activists point to this experience of colonisation, including
dispossession of traditional lands, and the removal of children, as key factors that
contribute to the problem of family violence that must be acknowledged in any
policy response (Murray & Powell, 2011: 63–4).
In the 1970s, domestic violence and sexual violence were highlighted as matters
of significant public concern in Australia through feminist activism and the Royal
Commission on Human Relationships (Evatt, Arnott, & Deveson, 1977). The wom-
en’s refuge movement originated at this time, in recognition that shelter was funda-
mental to securing women’s safety. During the 1980s governments established
several major inquiries including the Commonwealth/State Co-ordination Task
Force on Domestic Violence, the National Committee on Violence (NCV) and sev-
eral taskforces and committees in States and Territories (Murray & Powell, 2011).
These inquiries typically offered wide ranging recommendations across areas of
public policy and law and were not limited to criminal justice responses. For
instance, the NCV noted that: ‘[a]ttitudes of gender inequality are deeply embedded
in Australian culture, and both rape and domestic assault can be viewed as violent
expression of this cultural norm’ (National Committee on Violence (NCV), 1990:
xxv). The NCV drew on emerging theories of masculinities in acknowledging that
reducing violence would require ‘confront[ing] our construction of masculinity’
(NCV, 1990: 101). The report concluded that ‘legislative and procedural changes
are essential’ but also recognised that ‘changes in community attitudes must pre-
cede changes in behaviour’ (NCV, 1990: 102). This report and others of the time
recognised a need for cooperation across government sectors and between govern-
ment and non-government agencies.
Australian policy developments also have been influenced by international
research and practice. Police failure to enforce the relevant domestic violence
laws has been a matter of substantial concern. In Australia, the Minneapolis
domestic violence experiment (Sherman & Berk, 1984), which purported to
demonstrate the deterrent effect of arrest, was one of the factors that encour-
aged greater emphasis on criminal justice responses to domestic violence.
While there was debate about the implications of the original research and
replication studies (Binder & Meeker, 1988; Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001),
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 169

the nuance and complexity of that debate was largely lost and the message
heard by many advocates, legislators and policy makers seemed to be that
arrest deterred domestic violence.
Throughout the 1980s legislative reforms across the country clarified and
extended police powers to encourage greater enforcement of the law and introduced
domestic violence protection orders. As a matter of policy, domestic violence pro-
tection orders were introduced as a supplement and not as an alternative to criminal
proceedings; both may be appropriate when there has been criminal conduct and
there is a need to protect the victim.
Since the 1990s Australian States and Territories have implemented policies
and strategies to address family violence in Indigenous communities. These poli-
cies typically recognise the need for a culturally appropriate framework that
acknowledges the historical context of colonisation, the Indigenous emphasis on
healing and the need for more holistic responses than that provided by main-
stream policies (Murray & Powell, 2011). For instance, in 2000 a major taskforce
made up predominantly of Indigenous women was established in Queensland to
examine domestic violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
(Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence, 2000).
The report documented very high levels of violence in some communities, espe-
cially against women and children. It identified factors that contribute to violence
in Indigenous communities including the legacy of colonialism, together with
structural disadvantage, but also held men accountable for their behaviour. The
Task Force made many recommendations directed towards improving govern-
ment service provision across health, education and the criminal justice system
as well as towards developing economic sustainability, healing and well-being in
Indigenous communities. However, Indigenous women and their communities
have identified ongoing concerns and have called for increased recognition of
violence against women, greater consultation with Indigenous communities
about programs and initiatives, support for Indigenous devised initiatives and
more adequate resourcing of specialist programs and services.

The Contemporary Policy Context

The ways in which debates about gender and violence are framed have conse-
quences for public discourse, policy and practice (Wright & Hearn, 2013:24).
Across Australia the terms domestic violence, family violence and intimate partner
violence are in common use and are sometimes used interchangeably. Domestic
violence is commonly understood to refer to violence between current or former
intimate partners, including in same-sex relationships, but sometimes is used to
incorporate a wider range of relationships (e.g. in the civil protection order legisla-
tion in NSW). Other jurisdictions use the term family violence (e.g. in Victoria and
at a federal level in terms of family law). Indigenous people often prefer the label
family violence to acknowledge Aboriginal kinship relationships and the wider
impact violence has on family and the community.
170 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

While these understandings of domestic and family violence are broad and the
terms are gender-neutral, the dominant way of framing discourse and policy is as
gendered violence. There has been growing awareness of the problem of same-sex
domestic violence but this has not necessarily been seen as inconsistent with a gen-
dered analysis of domestic violence. The national framework developed by the
Federal Government in partnership with the States and Territories is the National
Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022 which
focuses on domestic violence and sexual assault. The adoption of this national plan
has encouraged greater consistency in the overall policy approach to domestic vio-
lence across Australia, while allowing for local variation. The plan explicitly recog-
nises that domestic violence and sexual assault are primarily committed by men
against women and girls. Indeed in a background paper produced by the National
Council to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children it was noted that the
‘biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault and/or domestic and
family violence is being a woman’ (2009: 26). This is not universally accepted;
there are staunch critics of this approach including father’s rights and some men’s
activist groups, although there are also pro-feminist men’s groups who support the
approach.
Community attitude surveys also reflect some of this tension. While a majority
of the population ‘understand that partner violence is committed by men or mainly
by men’ (71%) and that women are more likely to ‘suffer physical harm’ (86%) and
experience fear as a result (52%), the surveys also document a steady decline in the
number of people who recognise that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by
men (a 15% decline since 1995) (VicHealth, 2014: 48).
Community activists have started to use social media in innovative ways to high-
light that domestic violence predominantly targets women. ‘Counting Dead Women’
is one such initiative. It was begun in August 2013 by a group known as Destroy the
Joint (a Facebook group that promotes gender equality and highlights examples of
sexism in daily and political life). Counting Dead Women maintains an ongoing
‘count’ of women who have been killed as a result of gender-based violence. In so
doing it names and makes visible each individual woman ‘giving face, identity, and
sometimes even a voice to the anonymous victims formerly represented only in the
endlessly repeated homicide statistics’ (Howe, 2014: 11). This initiative replicates a
UK project by Karen Ingala Smith.3 These projects are proving significant in gener-
ating media attention and placing pressure on governments to prioritise this area in
funding and services (Howe, 2014).

The Extent of Domestic Violence

Australia’s homicide victimisation rate is low and has been declining: in 2015 it was
1.7 per 100,000 (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016). National data based
on police and coroners’ reports indicate that homicides are mostly committed by

3
See <kareningalasmith.com/counting-dead-women/>
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 171

someone known to the victim, few homicides are committed by strangers, and only
a small proportion (around 14%) of homicides involve guns. Domestic homicides
make up the largest category of homicides in Australia (39%) and most (58%) of
these are intimate partner homicides (IPH). The majority of IPH are committed by
men (77%) and most victims (75%) are women (Cussen & Bryant, 2015: 4–5). Men
account for 88% of same-sex IPH, and like heterosexual cases, these commonly
have a history of prior domestic violence (Gannoni & Cussen, 2014). The proportion
of all homicides that are IPH is greater where both parties are Indigenous (38%) than
non-Indigenous (20%). A higher proportion of Indigenous victims (44% of males,
78% of females) than non-Indigenous victims (22% of males, 64% of females) are
killed in a domestic or family violence incident (Cussen & Bryant, 2015: 5).
The Personal Safety Survey ((PSS) (ABS) 2006, 2013) is a national survey that
was designed in response to feminist criticisms of conventional victimisation sur-
veys (Johnson, 2013) in order to more adequately measure violence against women,
and is the predominant measure of non-lethal domestic violence victimisation used
in Australia. While methodological refinements have improved the PSS, it has
weaknesses such as an act-based definition of violence and limited measures of the
context or impact of the violence (Cox, 2015: 5; Flood, 2006: 6–7); it does not
provide an adequate measure of coercive control. However, the PSS provides a
representative basis for comparing victimisation experienced by women and men.
The proportion of women and men victimised by a partner over the previous
12 months did not change between the two waves of the survey in 2005 and 2012
(ABS, 2013). Women were more likely than men to experience partner violence,
and with greater frequency (ABS, 2013, Table 22). The prevalence of partner vio-
lence for the last 12 months was 1.5% for women and 0.6% for men (with a high
standard error), and since the age 15 years was 16.9% for women and 5.3% for
men. Women were more likely than men to report emotional abuse by a partner,
often accompanied by physical abuse, and that they experienced fear or anxiety
associated with emotional abuse (ABS, 2013). However, most women do not report
violence perpetrated by their partner to the police; a re-analysis of the PSS found
that only one in five (20.1%) women who had been sexually assaulted by their
cohabitating partner reported the most recent incident to the police, and only one in
three (35.5%) women reported the most recent incident of physical assault to the
police (Cox, 2015: 105).
The PSS does not report data for Indigenous Australians, due to high stan-
dard errors for small sub-populations but evidence suggests that the rates and
severity of violence experienced by Indigenous women are much higher than
that experienced by other Australian women (Olsen & Lovett, 2016:1). The
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Issues survey (ATSISIS) in 2008
provided measures of IPV and family violence but these are not comparable to
the PSS due to methodological differences. The ATSISIS found that similar pro-
portions of Indigenous males (25%) and females (24%) aged 15 years and over
had experienced some form of physical violence – not necessarily domestic vio-
lence – in the previous 12 months ((ABS), 2009). Among those who had
172 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

e­xperienced violence, women were more likely than men to be a victim of

­partner violence (32% women; 2% men) or violence by another family member
(28% women; 20% men) (ABS, 2009).
Official statistics for criminal offences and civil protection orders are collected
from police and courts by some States or Territories but they differ in the definitions
and counting rules used and the way in which data are reported. Crime statistics
have generally provided a limited measure of domestic violence offences for a range
of reasons including the fact that most women do not report the violence they expe-
rience to the police, and because whether an offence (e.g. an assault) was perpe-
trated in a domestic violence context is typically not flagged. Recently this has
begun to change. The Royal Commission into Family Violence in Victoria heard
from Victoria Police that ‘over a third of charges for crimes against the person in
2013-14 arose from family violence incidents’ (Royal Commission into Family
Violence (RCFV), 2016: Vol III, 194). The Royal Commission went on to recom-
mend that all offences committed in the context of family violence be ‘flagged’ as
such (RCFV, 2016: Vol III, Rec 81, 229). In NSW offences have been flagged in this
way since 2008 and this has enabled a better picture of the criminal justice response
to domestic violence. For instance, from July 2015 to June 2016, females accounted
for almost 70% (n = 22,030) of victims of domestic violence–related assaults
recorded as crimes by the police (n = 9535 were male). A further 10,814 females
were victims of a breach of a civil protection order compared to 2217 males. In
terms of offenders, NSW Police commenced proceedings against 3654 females for
domestic violence–related assault compared to 15,563 males and 1453 females for
breach of a protection order compared to 9365 males (NSW BOCSAR, 2015).4

Cultural Diversity and Domestic Violence

Australia is very diverse; almost half of its population was born overseas or has one
or both parents born overseas and 3% are Indigenous. Research has repeatedly rein-
forced the need for strategies to reduce domestic violence and other forms of vio-
lence against women that are responsive to this diversity.
The historical impact of colonisation, the legacy of the Stolen Generations
and the current economic and political marginalisation experienced by many
Indigenous people and communities contribute to high levels of domestic and
family violence among Indigenous people in Australia. While family violence
appears to be associated with high levels of alcohol consumption in some com-
munities or situational contexts such as football carnivals, many Aboriginal com-
munities are alcohol free (Olsen & Lovett, 2016: 15). Indigenous women, and
some men, have been strong advocates for more effective responses to protect

4
NSW BOCSAR, Recorded Crime Statistics July 2015–June 2016. These figures include all the
relationships defined as domestic in NSW (i.e. they are not confined to intimate partner relation-
ships). The figures also include children.
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 173

Indigenous women and children from violence. They also have developed a
range of culturally appropriate responses to domestic and family violence such
as night patrols, safe houses, cultural awareness programs or community healing.
In some locations these operate in conjunction with mainstream criminal justice
responses while others are independent, but Indigenous control and self-determi-
nation are usually seen as fundamental to developing effective responses to vio-
lence (Blagg, 2016). Some jurisdictions have Indigenous courts or other processes
that involve Indigenous elders in sentencing (circle sentencing) or making deci-
sions about the care of children (care circles). However, there is also consider-
able diversity among Indigenous communities and different views about the
most appropriate interventions. The use of alternative approaches for domestic or
family violence remains controversial: some Indigenous women have cautioned
that some forms of Indigenous justice may be ill-equipped to deal with domestic
and family violence (Cripps & Adams, 2014; Olsen & Lovett 2016).
Data concerning the extent of domestic violence within immigrant communities
in Australia are limited, and the issue is a sensitive one. However, Filipino commu-
nity organisations advocated for research concerning intimate partner homicides
affecting Filipino women in Australia. While homicide is more often intra-racial
than inter-racial, homicides of Filipino women in Australia are an exception to the
pattern. Filipino women are approximately six times over-represented as victims of
homicide in Australia, and most are killed by current or former intimate partners
who are not Filipino. Research identified a number of factors that have contributed
to the high homicide rate (Cunneen & Stubbs, 2000). Gendered immigration pat-
terns have resulted in many more Filipino women than men in Australia, and many
of the women arrive as sponsored partners of Australian men. Some men who seek
partners from the Philippines act on gendered and racialised stereotypes of the
women as passive and compliant. Faced with such attitudes, inadequate services and
support, and the fact that their immigration status often relies on their relationship,
Filipino women who experience domestic violence may have limited options in
seeking safety. However, following changes in immigration policy, women on spou-
sal visas (and other visa categories) whose relationships break down due to domestic
violence may still be eligible for permanent residence if they can establish that they
have experienced domestic violence from their Australian sponsoring partner.
Recent work to develop prevention strategies in culturally and linguistically
diverse communities recommends a dual approach. Such communities may benefit
from mainstream initiatives but those initiatives need to be relevant to people from
diverse backgrounds. Strategies targeted to specific communities are also needed,
especially for communities with a large proportion of people who are newly arrived
in Australia, newly emerging communities, and those that have experienced social
exclusion. The researchers recognised the need to engage communities in this work,
include women, and work with men and boys to address aspects of masculine iden-
tities, roles and contexts that may be associated with violence, including at different
stages of the life cycle (AMES, 2016: 13–14).
174 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

Legal Responses to Domestic Violence

As in many other countries, historically the police were reluctant to intervene in

domestic violence incidents seeing them as private matters. This attitude was widely
documented in a number of inquiries conducted across the Australian States in the
1980s (Murray & Powell, 2011: 103–04). The major legal reform to emerge from
these reports was the introduction of civil domestic violence protection orders
across the jurisdictions (first in NSW in 1983); reforms to the criminal law were
given less emphasis. Commentators have noted the dominance of civil protection
orders in the policing and legal response to domestic violence in Australia (Douglas
& Godden, 2003; Murray & Powell, 2011: 100). Research in Queensland suggested
that the civil protection order system has been preferred over criminal action and
that this has reinforced notions that domestic violence is a private issue rather than
a ‘public, criminal issue’ (Douglas & Godden, 2003: 42). However, debate has
shifted from questions about the strengths and weaknesses of civil protection orders
as compared to the criminal law, to a focus on the ways in which both systems can
be strengthened in order to ensure safety by working in a complementary way.
Since the 1980s there have been significant changes in police practices in
responding to domestic violence, brought about by changes in legislation, policy
and police leadership. For instance, in Victoria there was a dramatic improvement
in police responses following the appointment of a new Chief Commissioner in
2001, the implementation of a new Code of Practice for the Investigation of
Family Violence in 2004 and dedicated training for police (Murray & Powell,
2011: 107). Following these developments, the percentage of family violence
incidents that resulted in the police laying charges jumped from 9.5% in 2003–04
to over 25% in 2010–11 (Murray & Powell, 2011: 108) and 38% in 2014–15
(RCFV, 2016: Vol III, 194) in that State. There also has been an increase in police
taking concurrent civil and criminal actions in response to an incident, often com-
bined with referrals to support services: in 2009–2010 10% of incidents in Victoria
received a combined civil and criminal response, but this increased to 13% in
2011–12 and almost 23% in 2013–14.5
While police responses to domestic violence have improved enormously, a num-
ber of concerns remain. Criticisms commonly include differences in the response
from one police station to the next, inconsistent recording of incidents reported to
the police, inconsistent use of risk assessment tools and lack of action on breaches
of protection orders (RCFV, 2016; Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) &
New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC), 2010; NSW Legislative
Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, 2012). Across Australia police have
the power to arrest without a warrant in a wide range of circumstances when they
consider it reasonably necessary to do so and this is not limited to domestic violence
matters (e.g. Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)

5
RCFV 2016, Victoria-Police-data July2009–June 2014 – excel spreadsheet Table 32: Combination
of actions taken by Victoria Police, July 2009 to June 2014.
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 175

s99). In contrast to the USA (Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina, & Faggiani, 2008),
Australian States and Territories have not adopted mandatory arrest policies for
domestic violence, but instead have policies that encourage arrest. However, con-
cerns have been raised that these pro-arrest policies have resulted in an unjustified
increase in arrests of women for domestic violence offences and as defendants in
protection order proceedings (Jillard & Mansour, 2014); however there is little evi-
dence available to examine this issue.
As Australia is a federal system, there are multiple jurisdictions which have a
role in responding to domestic violence. Criminal laws, civil protection orders and
child protection/welfare legislation are the responsibility of States and Territories,
whereas Family Law is a federal matter (except in Western Australia). Legal defini-
tions and provisions relating to domestic violence differ across jurisdictions. The
following discussion focuses on civil protection orders and criminal laws to illus-
trate some of the similarities and differences in laws across Australia.

Civil Protection Orders

Protection orders were first introduced in Australia in the 1980s and are known by a
variety of different names. They are widely used. For instance, in 2014 over 31,500
applications for protection orders were made in NSW (Local Court of NSW, 2014:
16), in 2013–14 nearly 30,000 original applications were finalised in Victoria,6 and
in Western Australia over 14,000 applications were made in 2012 (Western Australia
Law Reform Commission (WALRC), 2013: 56).
Generally, the laws that provide for civil protection orders are gender-neutral.
However, the civil protection order laws in some jurisdictions include an objects
clause or preamble that acknowledges the gendered nature of domestic violence.
For example, the legislation in NSW states that one of its objects is to ‘enact provi-
sions that are consistent with certain principles underlying the Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence against Women’7 and that in enacting these laws Parliament
recognises that ‘domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against
women and children’.8 Queensland legislation recognises that women may be one
group who ‘may be particularly vulnerable to domestic violence’. Other vulnerable
groups identified include children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,
people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people with a dis-
ability, LGBTI and older people.9
In all jurisdictions a victim may apply for their own order, or the police may
apply for an order on behalf of a victim. A smaller number of jurisdictions also

6
RCFV 2016, −Magistrates-Court-data-July-2009-to-June-2014 – Table 1 Finalised FV
Intervention order applications by type of application, July 2009 to June 2014.
7
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 9(1)(c).
8
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 9(3)(b).
9
Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) s 4(2)(d).
176 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

allow for other third parties to make applications on behalf of victims, but this is
more unusual. The role of the police in applying for civil protection orders, particu-
larly in those jurisdictions where there is a legislative obligation to do so, has meant
that the police are quite active in this area. For example, 66% of orders sought in
Victoria in 2013–14 were sought by the police on behalf of victims. (RCFV, 2016:
Vol I , 54). There are a number of benefits that flow from the police applying for
orders on behalf of a victim: it shifts responsibility away from victims to take action
on their own, it demonstrates the community’s lack of tolerance for domestic vio-
lence by mandating police action in this area (ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: 388) and
it ensures that victims have representation in court by a police prosecutor. It may
also facilitate the service of applications and orders on the defendant.
In several jurisdictions, recent reforms have enabled the police not only to apply
for orders, but to make orders. Generally, these orders are granted by a senior officer
on an application by a police officer who is responding to an incident. The duration
of the orders can vary considerably; in WA police issued orders may last between 24
and 72 hours but in Tasmania such orders can last for up to a year (Family Violence
Act 2004 (Tas) s 14(6)). The introduction of these orders has been controversial due
to the lack of judicial oversight and concern about the potential for increased police
intervention in the lives of already over-policed groups such as Indigenous people
(NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, 2012: 237).
Civil protection orders provide protection from violence to people in a broad
range of intimate and familial relationships. Intimate relationships include current
and former spousal relationships; current and former de facto relationships (includ-
ing same-sex relationships), and current and former girl/boyfriend relationships
(whether or not it has involved a sexual relationship). Familial relationships include
children, parents, aunts/uncles, nieces/nephews, grandparents, step-relatives and so
on, and in some jurisdictions also include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kin-
ship. Some jurisdictions extend protection to other relationships that are less com-
monly understood under the rubric of domestic violence. For example, Victorian
laws cover people who live in the same household or residential facility, a person
who someone regards as a ‘family member’, and dependent carer relationships.
Some commentators and professionals working in the sector have raised concern
that the breadth of relationships covered under some protection order regimes dif-
fuses the focus on intimate partner violence (NSW Legislative Council Standing
Committee on Social Issues, 2012: 225–26). The available data indicate that most
people who seek protection orders are, or have been, in an intimate partner relation-
ship with the defendant. For example, in 2013–14 almost 70% of applications
sought in Victoria were against current/former partners or people with whom the
victim had had an intimate personal relationship.10
Civil protection order laws in all jurisdictions recognise that domestic violence
comprises more than acts of physical violence and include such things as property
damage, economic abuse, emotional or psychological abuse, intimidation, stalking,

10
RCFV-Magistrates-Court-data-July-2009-to-June-2014 (excel spreadsheet) Table 9: Primary
affected family members on original applications by relationship to respondent.
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 177

causing injury to pets, threats, and so on. Some jurisdictions provide a broad general
definition of domestic or family violence and a non-exhaustive list of the types of
behaviours that the definition might encompass (e.g. Queensland, Victoria and
South Australia). One jurisdiction (NSW), however, does not define domestic vio-
lence in its civil protection order legislation, but instead defines a ‘domestic vio-
lence offence’ as any offence from a prescribed list of criminal offences that occurs
in the context of a domestic relationship. This approach has been criticised, particu-
larly because it omits mention of forms of behaviour, such as psychological abuse,
that are not criminal offences (unless they fit within the definition of stalking and
intimidation) (ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: 236).
Studies indicate that legal actions for domestic violence are dominated by allega-
tions of physical violence, often in combination with other forms of violence such
as threats, verbal abuse, stalking, harassment, property damage, emotional abuse,
and so on (on cross applications in NSW civil protection orders see Wangmann,
2010: 958–59; on allegations raised in family law parenting matters see Moloney,
Smyth, Weston, Richardson, Qu & Gray, 2007: 69, Table 5.2). These studies, how-
ever, found few allegations of sexual violence (Moloney et al., 2007: 69, Table 5.2;
Wangmann, 2010: 959). This stands in contrast to the findings of population survey
data which indicate that one in 11 women in Australia has been sexually assaulted
by a male intimate partner since the age of 15 years (Cox, 2015: 55). While the
absence of sexual violence in legal complaints might be explained by a victim’s
reluctance to report sexual violence by a partner, a lack of understanding about what
amounts to sexual violence, and the evidential requirements when these allegations
are raised in court, it is of concern that the reality of domestic violence experienced
by many women is not reflected in the main forms of legal redress that women use.
All jurisdictions provide for similar types of orders and conditions to enable a
civil protection order to be ‘tailor-made’ to fit the needs and circumstances of the
victim (ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: 461–62). For example, orders may prohibit the
defendant from committing criminal offences such as assault, property damage or
stalking; may prevent them from approaching the protected person’s workplace or
the children’s schools and from contacting the victim by telephone or other elec-
tronic means; and may exclude the defendant from residing in the family home. In
some jurisdictions orders can require the defendant to attend a rehabilitation program
(e.g. see Domestic and Family Violence Act 2007 (NT) s 24). In all jurisdictions the
relevant civil protection order or firearms legislation restricts or prohibits the posses-
sion of firearms and other weapons, and generally provide for the revocation or sus-
pension of any firearms license (e.g. in NSW see Crimes (Domestic and Personal
Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 35(2)(d) and Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 23–24).
A current failing of Australian laws is that civil protection orders made in one
jurisdiction are not automatically enforceable in other jurisdictions. A victim must
first apply to register their existing civil protection order in another State or Territory
and have the application reviewed by a court to ensure that the order complies with
the law in that jurisdiction in order for their existing order to be enforceable in that
178 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

new jurisdiction. Legislative reform is currently underway across all Australian

­jurisidictions to enable the automatic recognition of civil protection orders made in
one jurisdiction in another.
There have been few studies of the effectiveness of protection orders in
Australia. One of the earliest studies was conducted in 1997 in NSW and it found
that violence and other behaviours were reduced or stopped for the vast majority
of persons seeking a civil protection order (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997: vii).
Despite this, recent research indicates that breaches of orders are ‘very common’
(Trimboli, 2015: 1). In NSW in 2013, over 11,600 breach incidents were recorded
by the police and police took action against 8900 people for breaching a civil
protection order (Trimboli, 2015: 4).

Criminal Offences

No Australian jurisdiction has a distinct domestic violence offence. Domestic vio-

lence is addressed through the use of regular criminal offences such as assault,
property damage, sexual assault, stalking and breach of protection orders. There has
been discussion about whether a dedicated offence would be desirable; however, all
recent inquiries in this area have recommended against this on the basis that it is
difficult to conceptualise such an offence, and that work should be focused on
improving the current criminal law response (ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: 588; see
also RCFV, 2016: Vol III, 212).
Some jurisdictions have amended laws to better capture the acts and behaviours
that form domestic violence, or to convey the seriousness of violence perpetrated in
domestic relationships. For example, in 2003 Tasmania created two new offences,
economic abuse and emotional abuse, with penalties of a fine or up to 2 years
imprisonment. Some commentators have raised concerns that these offences ‘may
be difficult to enforce’ as they require intent and knowledge on the part of the per-
son accused of perpetrating that form of abuse (Douglas, 2015: 457). It is unclear
how often these new offences have been used in Tasmania (Douglas, 2015: 457). In
2016 following a recommendation by the Special Taskforce on Domestic and
Family Violence in Queensland (2015), a new offence of ‘choking, suffocation or
strangulation in a domestic setting’ was introduced which attracts a penalty of
imprisonment for up to 7 years.11 While strangulation is an offence in some other
Australian jurisdictions, these are general offences and not specific to domestic vio-
lence (Douglas & Fitzgerald, 2014).
A number of jurisdictions emphasise the seriousness of criminal offences perpe-
trated in the context of domestic violence by labelling this as an ‘aggravating cir-
cumstance’; this increases the potential penalty for an offence. For example, both
South Australia and Western Australia designate an offence as aggravated where it
has been committed against a person’s current/ former spouse or partner. Western
Australia also denotes a breach of a protection order as an aggravated offence.

11
Criminal Code (Qld) s 315A.
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 179

In all jurisdictions a breach of a civil protection order is a criminal offence. The

penalty for breach usually includes the possibility of imprisonment (of between one
and 5 years) and/or a fine (ranging from a small fine up to quite considerable
amounts). In some places higher penalties may apply for successive breaches of a
protection order (e.g. Tasmania and Victoria), or for breaches that involve an act of
violence (e.g. NSW), or where the offender intended to cause the victim physical or
mental harm or to fear for their safety (e.g. Victoria). There have been persistent
concerns about inadequate responses to breaches of protection orders, including
lack of police action on reported breaches and a perceived failure by judicial officers
to treat breaches of protection orders as seriously as other offences (see RCFV,
2016: Vol III, 23–24; ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: ch 12; NSW Legislative Council
Standing Committee on Social Issues, 2012: ch 10; New South Wales Law Reform
Commission (NSWLRC, 2003: ch 10). Concern also has been expressed that some
police lay charges for the breach of an order but not for any substantive offence and
that this may mean that the seriousness of the offence is minimised (Douglas, 2008).
In some jurisdictions the police have charged victims with aiding and abetting a
breach of the protection order, for example, because the victim agreed to meet the
offender (ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: 509–11). This practice has attracted consider-
able criticism (ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010: 512–17). Other jurisdictions (e.g. Victoria
and NSW) have adopted a distinctly different approach with the legislation explic-
itly providing that a victim cannot be found guilty of an offence of aiding and abet-
ting a breach of a protection order in place for their own benefit.

Perpetrator Programs

A diverse range of perpetrator programs operate across Australia (Mackay, Gibson,

Lam, & Beecham, 2015a, 2015b). These include programs delivered to prisoners or
offenders on community-based orders which may or may not be court mandated,
and voluntary programs offered by community agencies. In some States/Territories
police or courts may refer alleged perpetrators to a program pretrial or as a condition
of bail. Perpetrators are usually assessed for suitability before they are admitted to
a program. Not all offenders serving a prison sentence or community sanction for a
domestic violence–related offence are required to attend a perpetrator program, or
have access to such a program; offenders assessed as high or medium risk are more
likely than others to be placed on a perpetrator program. Some States have devel-
oped practice standards and referral protocols (Mackay et al., 2015b). While the
Duluth model has been particularly influential, other models used across Australia
include cognitive behavioural therapy, family therapy and couples counselling,
anger management, narrative therapy and holistic programs designed to be cultur-
ally appropriate for Indigenous people. However, there is a pressing need for further
research on the effectiveness of different models, how programs can best be deliv-
ered as part of an integrated response to domestic violence and how to develop best
practice models and outcome standards (Mackay et al., 2015a).
180 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

 evelopments to Enhance Integration of Services

D
and Criminal Justice Responses

Recent inquiries into domestic violence and legal responses have continued to high-
light considerable fragmentation in the service delivery system across Australia
(e.g. ALRC & NSWLRC, 2010). Concern about gaps and fragmentation operates
on multiple levels – for instance, between jurisdictions (e.g. between state-based
civil protection laws and the federal family law system; or between state-based child
protection laws and the family law system) and within a jurisdiction (e.g. across
multiple services that victims may need to access). Whilst there has been work over
many years to enhance integration, early work tended to be localised, jurisdiction-
ally specific, focused on engagement with the criminal justice system, and not nec-
essarily well equipped to address women with different needs and experiences
(Breckenridge, Rees, Valentine, & Murray, 2015). Policy documents have empha-
sised the continued need for more effective integration; for instance, the National
Plan ‘requires the Commonwealth, States and Territories to work together…..[and
recognizes that] that a whole of government and community response is required at
a systematic level’ to address violence against women (Breckenridge et al., 2015:
27). Work is under way in most jurisdictions to develop and use common risk
assessment tools, share information, establish partnerships between government
and non-government agencies, better integrate service delivery models, and improve
governance (Breckenridge et al., 2015: Table 3). However, this work has mostly
been confined to integration within jurisdictions, for example, by introducing a
state-wide risk assessment tool, rather than shared across Australia. A recent meta-­
evaluation of integrated projects documented the diversity of responses across
Australia – with different service models, entry points and focus of the intervention
(Breckenridge, Rees, Valentine, & Murray, 2016). All responses implemented some
type of ‘case coordination, information sharing and/or multidisciplinary service
delivery’. Most integrated models involved the police, with less participation by
housing and accommodation services, and few responses involved perpetrator pro-
grams. The meta-evaluation noted the absence of a shared definition of integration,
that few responses focused on sexual assault, and that few evaluations measured
outcomes (Breckenridge et al., 2016).
In some jurisdictions schemes exist to support victims of domestic violence
appearing in court seeking civil protection orders. These court advocacy or court
support schemes provide information about the court process, information on tailor-
ing an order to the woman’s needs and circumstances, as well as referrals to services
to assist women with other needs, such as counselling and accommodation. A num-
ber of schemes provide free legal representation, and some employ specialist work-
ers to assist Indigenous women and women from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds. The schemes may be provided through legal aid, community
legal services or a wide range of women’s support services. One of the most long-­
standing schemes is the Women’s Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Program
(WDVCAP) in NSW. Over time the WDVCAP has come to be seen as an integral
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 181

part of the civil protection order system ensuring women access to the legal system.
The schemes operate at 114 local courts in NSW, and under the NSW Domestic
Violence Strategy 2013–17, police who attend a domestic violence incident in NSW
now refer all women victims to their local WDVCAP scheme (NSW Department of
Attorney General and Justice, 2012: 4).
Funding also has been provided to specialist legal services to enhance Indigenous
women’s access to the law. A key example is the funding of Indigenous Family
Violence Prevention Legal Services in a number of locations around Australia.
These services ‘provide culturally appropriate and holistic assistance to victims of
family violence and/or sexual assault in the form of legal services, information,
counselling, referral and practical support’ (Cripps & Davis, 2012: 2). The work of
these services also includes work on prevention and community legal education
(Cripps & Davis, 2012: 2). Many of these legal services are located in remote and
regional locations.
NSW has begun to introduce Safer Action Meetings (SAMs) to support victims of
domestic violence who are assessed as being at serious risk as measured by a risk
assessment tool known as the Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool. SAMs are
modelled on similar initiatives in the United Kingdom and South Australia (New South
Wales Government, 2014: 8). They bring together key government and non-­government
service providers to discuss referrals, share information and develop a safety action
plan for each case. Importantly these plans document the steps that the service provid-
ers have agreed to take to reduce the risk to the victim; that is, they are not safety plans
for the victim to implement. As one member of a SAM has commented:
Safety Action Meetings have resulted in some important outcomes including: the rapid
rehousing of clients; locks being changed and safety audits completed within hours; urgent
parole revocations of dangerous perpetrators; the cessation of harassing phone calls and
letters to women from inside prison; connecting women with specialist domestic violence
counseling; and supporting women to relocate within the private rental market, to name just
a few (Farrell, 2015).

A victim’s case remains on the agenda for a SAM as long as they are assessed
as being at ‘serious risk’. The SAMs are currently being evaluated but are seen as
an important ‘wraparound’ initiative that responds to women’s needs that may
include criminal responses as well as other practical needs that also ensure safety
and well-­being in the long term. The work of the SAMs has been enabled by leg-
islative changes to permit information sharing between service providers in order
to provide support services to victims of domestic violence ‘and for the purpose
of preventing or lessening a serious threat to the persons’ life, health or safety’
(NSW Government, 2014: 10).
Routine screening for intimate partner violence has been undertaken in health
care settings such as antenatal, mental health and substance abuse services in some
parts of Australia for more than a decade with the aim of identifying victims, provid-
ing assistance and referring them to other services (Spangaro, Poulos, & Zwi, 2011).
182 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

Prevention of Domestic Violence

Recently, government programs and frameworks have given greater emphasis to the
primary prevention of domestic violence (Murray & Powell, 2011). Two new organ-
isations have been established arising from the National Plan to Reduce Violence
against Women and their Children 2010–2022. The first, Australia’s National
Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS <anrows.org.au>), has set
national research priorities, funded research to fill gaps in knowledge – for instance,
concerning vulnerable groups such as Indigenous women, women with disabilities
and Immigrant and refugee women - and facilitates the translation of research
knowledge into practice. The second, Our Watch, is a Commonwealth and Victorian
government partnership that promotes the prevention of violence against women
and children (<ourwatch.org.au>). A recent initiative from Our Watch is an ani-
mated video, Change the Story, that traces the cultural underpinnings of violence
against women, including gender inequality, and helps to identify prevention strate-
gies that are aligned with those factors.
The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation also has developed an innovative
program to prevent violence against women, which integrates approaches from pub-
lic health and epidemiology with social work, criminal justice and allied disciplines.
One outcome has been a primary prevention framework for violence against women
(VicHealth, 2007). This prevention framework, together with the findings of
National Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women (NCASVAW) surveys,
have been used to inform the National Plan and reflect on the extent to which its
objectives are being met and provide a strong basis for the development of preven-
tion programs. The NCASVAW surveys, using representative samples to measure
knowledge of violence against women and attitudes to such violence in the com-
munity, have found that violence supportive attitudes are associated with weak sup-
port for gender equality (VicHealth, 2014). Recently, this survey data and prevention
framework have been applied to develop targeted strategies for preventing violence
against women in culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia.
The researchers note the diversity within and between communities, and that while
they share many of the factors that underpin violence against women in the wider
community, women in some minority communities are more vulnerable to violence.
They also note that structural disadvantage, social exclusion and racism can exacer-
bate the risk of violence (AMES, 2016).
Other innovative research by VicHealth (2004: 10) established that violence
against women was ‘the leading preventable contributor to death, disability and ill-
ness’ among women aged 15–44 years. More recently, they developed Generating
Equality and Respect, a four-stage project that (1) provided seeded funding to 29
programs aimed to test models of prevention of violence against women; (2) selected
five promising programs for consolidating, evaluation and capacity building; (3)
funded programs to sustain practice and develop tools, resources and guidelines and
(4) transferred prevention programs into one community in partnership with local
government and health service providers with cross-sector engagement. The initial
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 183

evaluation demonstrates that partnerships between individuals and organisations

across the community had made progress towards building and sustaining gender
equality and respect and other preventive approaches (VicHealth, 2016).
Domestic violence (or family violence) death reviews which have been estab-
lished across Australia also aim to prevent domestic violence. They analyse factors
that contribute to domestic violence–related deaths, identify systemic gaps and fail-
ing in services and encourage improvements in practice (Bugeja, Butler, Buxton,
Ehrat, Hayes, Mcintyre & Walsh, 2013). Some schemes also review deaths of third
parties arising in the context of domestic violence, such as those of parents, friends
or new partners killed while providing support to victims of domestic violence. The
reviews have reinforced the need for greater integration of service delivery between
government and non-government providers and between criminal justice and other
sectors. There are gaps in data collection on domestic violence–related deaths
around Australia (RCFV, 2016: Vol IV, p. 236) and work is currently being under-
taken by the Australian Human Rights Commission to ensure better and standardised
data collection in this area.

Areas of Current Activity

There has been considerable activity in the domestic violence field in Australia over
the last 6 years. There have been multiple inquiries at a federal (e.g. the extensive
work of the ALRC and NSWLRC) and state level (e.g. the Royal Commission into
Family Violence in Victoria in 2015–16; and the Law Reform Commission in WA
in 2013–14) as well as work that has focused on particular legal responses (e.g. the
review of the civil protection order laws in NSW in 2015–16; and work of the
Family Law Council in 2009). These inquiries have continued to emphasise the
need to reduce fragmentation in the system, improve data collection, develop more
inclusive services, offer specialised services designed to meet the needs of particu-
lar groups of women, and further work on primary prevention. This intensified focus
on domestic violence in reports, the media and government policy has been associ-
ated with new developments and funding commitments announced across the coun-
try. However, these positive developments have occurred at the same time as
reductions in critical services that assist women escaping violence (e.g. funding cuts
to community legal services, specialist women’s crisis accommodation services and
income support that will adversely impact on single parents).
In the drive to be seen to be doing something new and innovative, there also have
been developments in some jurisdictions that do not appear to be well-founded or to
have a sound evidence base. A recent example of this is the piloting of a Domestic
Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) in NSW. The DVDS is modelled on a scheme
of the same name operating in England and Wales since 2012 (known colloquially
as Clare’s Law). The DVDS enables potential victims of domestic violence to apply
to the police to find out if their current or former intimate partner has any prior con-
victions for domestic violence–related offences. A number of concerns have been
raised about this scheme, including that convictions provide a limited picture of
184 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

domestic violence offending, that the absence of such convictions may provide
­victims with a false sense of security and that the ‘onus remains on the victim to
keep herself safe’ (RCFV Vol I 2016: 145). The evidence available from England
and Wales about the effectiveness of these schemes has been extremely limited to
date (see Home Office, 2013; Home Office, 2016). The two assessments that have
been conducted have been largely confined to detailing the use of the DVDS and its
processes. Very little information is available about whether the scheme has assisted
potential victims to make informed decisions and hence enhance their safety.
Despite this lack of evidence, other Australian states also have expressed an interest
in implementing disclosure schemes (in Queensland and South Australia) (see
Fitzgibbon & Walklate, 2016).
ANROWS, mentioned above, has established an extensive research agenda, doc-
umenting current knowledge and practice and identifying areas for future work.
Projects include media representations of domestic violence, domestic violence and
parenting, evaluation of programs that encourage women to stay in their homes and
policies and services to promote economic security. Several research projects exam-
ine violence experienced by specific groups of women (e.g. Indigenous women,
immigrant and refugee women and women with disabilities). The first reports from
those projects are beginning to be published. A recent round of funding was dedi-
cated to examining perpetrator interventions, including effectiveness and how pro-
grams address a diversity of perpetrators.

Concluding Comments

Australian developments in response to domestic violence have much in common

with those in other comparable countries. However, some aspects of the Australian
experience are distinctive. One of the prime areas of difference is the position of
Indigenous people; the impact of colonisation and the discriminatory policies that
followed continue to have ramifications for Indigenous peoples’ experiences of
legal and other services in Australia. This has been critical to the experience of fam-
ily violence by Indigenous women and the extent to which Indigenous women
engage with mainstream services. Dedicated policy statements and services have
been developed over time; however, more work needs to be undertaken in this area
to better meet the needs of Indigenous women and their communities. Another key
difference arises from the preference among many Indigenous communities for the
term family violence, rather than domestic violence. This has meant that across
Australia the terms domestic and family violence are often used interchangeably, or
in combination, in policy statements and legislation. Regardless of the term used,
this form of violence has been explicitly articulated in policy frameworks across
Australia as a gendered harm. The prominent position of domestic violence civil
protection orders, and particularly the police role in applying for and making these
orders, is also distinctive. This has led to some debate about whether civil protection
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 185

orders have displaced the use of the criminal law; however, we suggest that this
debate has subsided with both legal responses now being seen as critical and com-
plementary. The chapter also has presented examples of the breadth of activity
beyond law – for example, in terms of perpetrator programs, community awareness,
research programs and prevention initiatives. Domestic and family violence remains
a key priority for Australian governments with recent inquiries and research empha-
sising the need to reduce fragmentation and gaps in service delivery and legal
responses within and across the jurisdictions, the need to develop and assess the
responsiveness of programs for a diverse population, and more work on assessing
the effectiveness of perpetrator programs and developing national standards.

References

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence. (2000). Report of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’s task force on violence. Brisbane, QLD,
Australia: Department of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Policy & Development.
Allen, J. (1990). Sex & secrets: Crimes involving Australian women since 1880. Melbourne, VIC,
Australia: Oxford University Press.
AMES. (2016). Violence against women in CALD communities: Understandings and actions to
prevent violence against women in CALD communities. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: AMES
Australia.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2006). Personal safety survey 2005 (reissue Cat. 4906.0).
Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2009). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Issues
2008 (Cat. 4714.0). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2013). Personal safety survey 2012 (Cat. 4906.0). Canberra,
ACT, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2016). Recorded crime – Victims, Australia 2015 (Cat.
4510.0). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) & New South Wales Law Reform Commission
(NSWLRC). (2010). Family violence – A national legal response (ALRC Report No. 114;
NSWLRC Report No. 128). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Law Reform Commission.
Binder, A., & Meeker, J. W. (1988). Experiments as reforms. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16(4),
347–358.
Blagg, H. (2016). Crime, aboriginality and the decolonisation of justice. Annandale, VIC,
Australia: Hawkins Press.
Breckenridge, J., Rees, S., Valentine, K., & Murray, S. (2015). Meta-evaluation of existing inter-
agency partnerships, collaboration, coordination and/or integrated interventions and service
responses to violence against women: State of knowledge paper (ANROWS Landscapes Issue
11). Sydney, NSW, Australia: ANROWS.
Breckenridge, J., Rees, S., Valentine, K., Murray, S. (2016). Meta-evaluation of existing inter-
agency partnerships, collaboration, coordination and/or integrated interventions and service
responses to violence against women: Final report (ANROWS Horizons Research Report Issue
4). Sydney, NSW, Australia: ANROWS.
Bugeja, L., Butler, A., Buxton, E., Ehrat, H., Hayes, M., Mcintyre, S. J., et al. (2013). The imple-
mentation of domestic violence death reviews in Australia. Homicide Studies, 17(4),
353–374.
186 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

Cox, P. (2015). Violence against women in Australia: Additional analysis of the Australian Bureau
of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey 2012 (ANROWS Horizons Research Report, Issue 1).
Sydney, NSW, Australia: ANROWS.
Cripps, K., & Adams, M. (2014). Family violence: Pathways forward. In P. Dudgeon, H. Milroy,
& R. Walker (Eds.), Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and
wellbeing principles and practice (2nd ed., pp. 399–416). Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia. <aboriginal.telethonkids.org.au/media/673992/wt-part-5-chapt-
23-­final.pdf>. Accessed 1 June 2016.
Cripps, K. & Davis, M. (2012). Communities working to reduce Indigenous family violence
(Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse Brief 12). http://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/briefs/
brief012.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2016.
Cunneen, C. (2001). Conflict, politics and crime: Aboriginal communities and the police. Sydney,
NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Cunneen, C., & Stubbs, J. (2000). Male violence, male fantasy and the commodification of women
through the internet. International Review of Victimology, 7(1–3), 5–28.
Cussen, T. & Bryant, W. (2015). Domestic/family homicide in Australia (Research in Practice No.
38). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Douglas, H. (2008). The criminal law’s response to domestic violence: What’s going on? Sydney
Law Review, 30(3), 439–469.
Douglas, H. (2015). Do we need a specific domestic violence offence? Melbourne University Law
Review, 39(2), 434–471.
Douglas, H., & Fitzgerald, R. (2014). Strangulation, domestic violence and the legal response.
Sydney Law Review, 36(2), 231–254.
Douglas, H., & Godden, L. (2003). The decriminalisation of domestic violence: Examining the
interaction between the criminal law and domestic violence. Criminal Law Journal, 27(1),
32–43.
Evatt, E., Arnott, F., & Deveson, A. (1977). The Royal Commission on Human relationships.
Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Family Law Council. (2009). Improving responses to family violence in the family law system: An
advice on the intersection of family violence and family law issues. Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Attorney-General’s Department.
Farrell, S. (2015, September 28). NSW is leading Australia on tackling domestic violence. The
New Matilda. https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/28/nsw-leading-australia-tackling-domestic-­­
violence/. Accessed 5 Aug 2016.
Fitzgibbon, K., & Walklate, S. (2016). The efficacy of Clare’s law in domestic violence law reform
in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice (forthcoming).
Flood, M. (2006). Violence against women and men in Australia: What the personal safety survey
can and can’t tell us about domestic violence. Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre
Quarterly, 4, 3–10.
Gannoni, A., & Cussen, T. (2014). Same-sex intimate partner homicide in Australia (Trends &
issues in crime and criminal justice No. 469). Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., & Faggiani, D. (2008). Domestic violence and mandatory
arrest laws: To what extent do they influence police arrest decisions? Journal of Criminal Law
& Criminology, 98(1), 255–298.
Home Office. (2013). Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) Pilot Assessment. <https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-violence-disclosure-scheme-
pilot-assessment>.
Home Office. (2016). Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS): One year on – Home Office
assessment of national roll-out. <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/505434/2016-03-08_DVDS_report__final_.pdf>.
Howe, A. (2014). Fatal love. Griffith Journal of Law and Human Dignity, 2(1), 4–24.
9 Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence 187

Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). (1997). Bringing them home
(National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from
their Families). Sydney, NSW, Australia: Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.
Jillard, A., & Mansour, J. (2014). Women victims of violence defending intervention orders: The
latest developments in practice and policy in NSW. Alternative Law Journal, 38(4), 235–240.
Johnson, H. (2013). The gendered nature of violence: An international focus. In C. Renzetti,
S. Miller, & A. Glover (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of gender and crime studies
(pp. 91–114). London & New York: Routledge.
Larcombe, W., & Heath, M. (2012). Case note: Developing the common law and rewriting the his-
tory of rape in marriage in Australia: PGA v The Queen. Sydney Law Review, 34, 785–807.
Local Court of New South Wales. (2014). Annual review 2014. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Office of
the Chief Magistrate. http://www.localcourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/2014%20
Local%20Court%20Annual%20Review.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2016.
Mackay, E., Gibson, A., Lam, H. & Beecham, D. (2015a). Perpetrator interventions in Australia:
State of knowledge paper (Issue PP01/2015 Part one). Sydney, NSW, Australia: ANROWS.
Mackay, E., Gibson, A., Lam, H. & Beecham, D. (2015b). Perpetrator interventions in Australia:
Part two – Perpetrator pathways and mapping (Issue PP01/2015 Part two). Sydney, NSW,
Australia: ANROWS.
Maxwell, C., Garner, J., & Fagan, J. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence.
Washington, DC: NIJ, US Department of Justice.
Moloney, L., Smyth, B., Weston, R., Richardson, N., Qu, L. & Gray, M. (2007). Allegations of
family violence and child abuse in family law children’s proceedings: A pre-reform exploratory
study (Research Report No 15). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Institute of Family
Studies.
Murray, S., & Powell, A. (2011). Domestic violence: Australian public policy. Melbourne, VIC,
Australia: Australian Scholarly Publishing.
National Committee on Violence. (1990). Violence: Directions for Australia. Canberra, ACT,
Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (Australia). (2009).
Background paper to time for action The National Council’s plan to reduce violence against
women and their children, 2009–2021. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics & Research (NSW BOCSAR). (2015). Fast facts:
Domestic violence overview. http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Pages/bocsar_topics/bocsar_pub_
dtoh.aspx#domestic_violence. Accessed 5 Aug 2016.
New South Wales Department of Attorney General & Justice. (2012). The NSW domestic violence
justice strategy: Improving the NSW criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence
2013–2017. Sydney, NSW, Australia: NSW Attorney General & Justice.
New South Wales Government. (2014). Safety action meeting manual. Sydney, NSW, Australia:
NSW Government. http://www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0014/301181/
Safety_Action_Meeting_manual.pdf. Accessed 8 Aug 2016.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission. (2003). Apprehended violence orders: Part 15A of
the crimes act (report no. 103). Sydney, NSW, Australia: NSWLRC.
New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues. (2012). Domestic
violence trends and issues in NSW. Sydney, NSW, Australia: NSW Parliament.
Olsen, A. & Lovett, R. (2016). Existing knowledge, practice and responses to violence against
women in Australian Indigenous Communities: Key findings and future directions (ANROWS,
Issue 2/2016). Sydney, NSW, Australia: ANROWS.
Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. (1991). Royal Commission into aboriginal
deaths in custody, final report. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
188 J. Stubbs and J. Wangmann

Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV), Victoria. (2016). Royal Commission into
family violence: Summary and recommendations. http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/
RCFamilyViolence/Reports/RCFV_Full_Report_Interactive.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2016.
Sherman, L., & Berk, R. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault.
American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.
Spangaro, J., Poulos, R., & Zwi, A. (2011). Pandora doesn’t live here anymore: Normalization of
screening for intimate partner violence in Australian antenatal, mental health, and substance
abuse services. Violence and Victims, 26, 130–144.
Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland. (2015). Not now, not ever –
Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland. https://www.qld.gov.au/com-
munity/documents/getting-support-health-social-issue/dfv-report-vol-one.pdf. Accessed 5
Aug 2016.
Trimboli, L. (2015). Persons convicted of breaching apprehended domestic violence orders: Their
characteristics and penalties (Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief Issues Paper No 102).
Sydney, ACT, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Trimboli, L., & Bonney, R. (1997). An evaluation of the NSW apprehended violence order scheme.
Sydney, ACT, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
VicHealth. (2004). The health costs of violence: Measuring the burden of disease caused by inti-
mate partner violence. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
VicHealth. (2007). Preventing violence before it occurs: A framework and background paper to
guide the primary prevention of violence against women in Victoria. Melbourne, VIC, Australia:
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
VicHealth. (2014). Australians’ attitudes to violence against women. Findings from the 2013
National Community Attitudes towards violence against women survey (NCAS). Melbourne,
VIC, Australia: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
VicHealth. (2016). Generating equality and respect. A world-first model for the primary preven-
tion of violence against women: Full evaluation report. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Victorian
Health Promotion Foundation.
Wangmann, J. (2010). Gender and intimate partner violence: A case study from NSW. University
of New South Wales Law Journal, 33(3), 945–969.
Western Australia Law Reform Commission. (2013) Enhancing family and domestic violence
laws, Discussion Paper (WALRC Project 104 ). Perth, WA, Australia: Western Australia Law
Reform Commission.
Wright, C., & Hearn, J. (2013). Neutralizing gendered violence: Subsuming men’s violence
against women into gender-neutral language. In R. Klein (Ed.), Framing sexual and domestic
violence (pp. 21–40). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.