A path to Australian apartheid

by Kyle Lovett

Tanya Plibersek, Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women in the Rudd Labor Government, wrote in 2002;

“At the weekend, the National Party voted against special measures to increase their number of women parliamentarians. The ALP and the Liberals, in contrast, want more women, but can’t agree on the best way to get them. This should be good news for the feminists who fought to make it happen, yet some – like the former federal MP Susan Ryan – ask whether it was worth it. After all, we haven’t defeated patriarchy. Yet.”[1]

Seven years later, Plibersek played a critical role in championing Australia’s new ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’. Plibersek, along side Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, put together a consortium of academics and domestic violence experts, to spearhead a team which would go on create the national report that became official policy. Since the early 2000′s, Plibersek never made it secret that she strongly supports feminist and even some radical feminist ideals. Indeed, in 2005, when Sheila Jeffreys came to Sydney to make a speech, it was Plibersek that introduced her with warm welcoming remarks.[2]

In April 1999, Plibersek gave an interview to Peter Lewis, during which she spoke about these ties of the Labor Party to the feminist community:

“I think that our historical relationships with groups outside the Labor Party like the peace movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the environment, the feminist movement. Our links with community feminist organisations have been about promoting grassroots activism around sexual assault services, domestic violence services; that sort of activism within the community and collective responsibility..”

She went on to weigh in about giving help to families with disabled children, but also clarified that she felt families are strictly women and children, and that any of their responsibilities should become the state’s responsibility;

“But it is also fair to say that the State owes a responsibility to those kids and their parents. We don’t want to return to a situation of voluntarism where individual parents may not have the skills or the patience or the time or the financial ability to look after their children in the ways that would benefit them the most. And I don’t know if it’s an ideal situation to necessarily throw the responsibility back on them. I don’t want to go back to a situation where families — and that means women — are being told its their responsibility all over again.”[3]

Plibersek’s special hand-picked legal advisor to the council was former Tasmanian Attorney-General Judith Jackson. Jackson, who labels herself as a “committed feminist,” has had a career filled with controversy. In the 2004 Tasmania Family Violence Act, [7] she was roundly criticized for her insistence that people accused of domestic violence not be granted bail before trial unless a series of nearly impossible steps were taken by the judge. When Jackson was criticized for attempting to bypass the Justice system, and for violating the human rights of men, she lashed out at her critics;

“How can anybody say that somebody should be let out on bail, so they can go back and re-offend and commit a crime again, and that’s what you’re saying and I find that disgusting.”[4]

But despite the fact that the data used as justification for the bill was based on very poor research, which according to many human rights advocates and several of her critics, never examined how often men were battered in similar circumstances, the bill was passed into law. The ramifications of the law went on to see hundreds of Tasmanian men spending weeks, many times months in prison before trial, for being accused of crimes like ‘economic’ or ‘emotional’ abuse. Ms. Jackson, when confronted about what the law was doing in practice, appeared quite amused and replied:

“We do have some of the best legislation in the world for protecting women and children,”[5]

The reality of the ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ is that it was promoted and shepherded through Australian government by Plibersek, a woman that admittedly was heavily biased towards a hardline feminist perspective that entailed a goal of destroying what she saw as a patriarchy and associated with radical feminists like Sheila Jeffreys. Plibersek also believed that women and children are the only parts that constituted a family and felt that the parental responsibly of raising disabled children lies solely with the state. Plibersek hand chosen, as her legal expert to the National Council, Judy Jackson, was a “committed feminist” who has openly disregarded due process of law for men, ignored compelling data or research when drafting radical legislation and has been often accused of “incessant sexism” by her fellow colleagues. [6]

It is not known exactly how the Rudd Labor Government choose the 11 members of the National Council in May 2008, but their members were: Libby Lloyd AM (Chair), Heather Nancarrow (Deputy Chair), Moira Carmody, Dorinda Cox, Maria Dimopoulos, Melanie Heenan, Rachel Kayrooz, Andrew O’Keefe, Vanessa Swan, Lisa Wilkinson and Pauline Woodbridge. [8][9] The council in conjunction with Plibersek, Jackson and Macklin, sought the help of several other academics, domestic violence experts and other individuals that the report refers to as “critical friends” to complete and finalize what became known as ‘Time for Action: the National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021‘.[19][20][27]

The Sources of New National Policy

The sources of data, research and analysis that were gathered and referenced by the national council and used as justification for their plan were formally acknowledged in the Government’s press releases in early 2009. Those sources were:[24][25][26]

• The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC)


• The Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA)


• The Women’s Services Network (WESNET)


• Women, Domestic Violence and Homelessness: A Synthesis Report


• National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence (NASSV)


• The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) were also used, but only as the information they provided was delivered via other research papers and analytical reports.

Another detailed list of the National Plan’s sources can be found here.

The Greater circle of Australian Radical Feminists

One little known portion of the website Radfemspeak.net, which is the site that hosts the Radfem forums, is a series of pages that they call ‘The Fury’.[10] The amount of information that is on The Fury is not large, but what is on there is very telling about Australian radical feminism and how the site’s members are connected outside of their small circle. On one of the pages, there is a list of names and short biographies, which the site considers to be radical feminists of note inside Australia. There list includes, Diane Bell, Susan Hawthorne, Sheila Jeffreys, Renate Klein, Jocelynne A. Scutt, Mary Lucille Sullivan, Denise Thompson, Bronwyn Winter and Betty McLellan.[11]

Several of these names were attendees of the 2011 Perth SCUM conference, including Hawthorne, Jeffreys and McLellan. Bell, Klein, Scutt, Sullivan and Thompson are also part of this close knit group of radical feminist authors, speakers and/or professors, each of whom have been published through Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press.[14] Two of these are of particular interest to this story for the moment; Dr. Bronwyn Winter, an Associate Professor at The University of Sydney,[12] and Dr.Betty Mclellan, who was the principle founder for ‘A Coalition for a Feminist Agenda‘.[13]

Dr. Winter has been a frequent guest speaker at several feminist and radical feminist gatherings, three of which were hosted or organized by Dr. Betty McLellan. [15][16] Dr. Winter also wrote an article in November of 2006 in support of White Ribbon Day for the website Online Opinion. [18] White Ribbon Day is an event that was created from the White Ribbon Foundation, which was founded in 2003 by a woman named Libby Lloyd. Lloyd is the current Chairperson for the National Council’s Violence Against Women Advisory Group. [17] More interesting however, is the end of the article, in which Dr. Winter and Ms. Green list who they feel are other leading voices for women. Most of the names are from the organization known as WESNET, but they also name a few other individual women’s rights advocates in Australia.

“Written by Bronwyn Winter, University of Sydney, and Betty Green, domestic violence advocate, on behalf of WESNET (Women’s Services Network): peak body grouping 380 women’s domestic and family violence services across Australia); Pauline Woodbridge, Coordinator, North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service; Julie Oberin, Manager, Annie North Women’s Refuge and Domestic Violence Service; Marie Hume, National Abuse Free Contact Campaign; Veronica Wensing, Executive Officer, Canberra Rape Crisis Centre; Beth Tinning, Facilitator, Domestic Violence and Family Law Support Action Group, Townsville; and women’s rights advocates Desi Achilleos and Julieanne Le Comte.”

Many of these names will reappear again, including WESNET and its role in Australia’s ‘National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’, but what is of primary note here the last name mentioned in the article, a women’s rights advocate named Julieanne Le Comte. I did an extensive search for a women’s rights advocate under that name in Australia, or indeed, anyone connected with a domestic violence or battered shelter group, and found nothing except some links to some very old internet list servs about feminist science fiction.

According to the AO files, Julieanne Le Comte is the person who is also known under the alias Rain Lewis. Rain is the owner and the main administrator of the Radfem Hub and forum, and she was also a speaker at the 2011 Pert SCUM conference. [19] Dr. Winter is also public friends on Facebook with Rain Lewis, as well as the organizers of the Perth SCUM conference Allecto and Amazon Mancrusher. Does this mean that Dr. Winter is saying that Le Comte is an Australian women’s rights advocate leader because she runs the Radfem hub and forum, which as we all know, often discusses things like violence against men and infanticide?

WESNET, Political Action and Patriarchy

Dr. Betty McLellan has been on the Australian feminist scene for some twenty years, and has written several books published under Susan Hawthorne’s Spinifex Press. [20] McLellan has also hosted or chaired several conferences and gatherings of mostly radical feminists, including the 2002 Townsville International Women’s Conference and the 2007 International Feminist Summit. [15][16] Her Feminist Agenda coalition was also co-founded in 2002 by Dr. Joanne Baker, a Senior Professor at James Cook University, Chantal Oxenham, who works for the Australian Department of Human Services in the Northern Queensland Service Zone as a Regional Manager and Coralie McLean. [21][22][23]

The 2002 Townsville International Women’s 5 day conference hosted about 50 different feminist speakers from 15 countries. Over a dozen panels and workshops took place as well, several of which took place in women only sessions. From the Australian speakers, a large portion of them were some of the same radical feminists we’ve seen above; McLellan, Jeffreys, Winter,Scutt, Renate Klein, Hawthorne, Sullivan, Baker and Oxenham.

What stands out was the large contingent of WESNET board members, who were part of four different panels. Over the past decade, WESNET has had only about two dozen board members, the most prominent two being Pauline Woodbridge and Julie Oberin. WESNET describes itself as:

“Established in 1992, the Women’s Services Network (WESNET) is a national women’s peak advocacy body which works on behalf of women and children who are experiencing or have experienced domestic or family violence. With almost 400 members across Australia, WESNET represents a range of organisations and individuals including women’s refuges, shelters, safe houses and information/ referral services.”[29]

While having individual speaking assignments, here are the four panels in which WESNET board members were involved. (WESNET board members in bold)

• Panel – “Many Pieces Make a Whole – Providers of Anti-violence Education (PAVE)” Members - Jennyne Dillon, Ines Zuchowski, Joanne Baker, John Brown, Catherine Bessant, Jo Stewart, Shirley Slann, Jane Collyer, Pauline Woodbridge

• Panel -”Joined Up Responses to Violence Against Women – Townsville Women’s Services Collaboration” Members - Lindy Edwards, Morgan King and Pauline Woodbridge

• Panel – “Domestic and Family Violence Peak Round Table – Reflections, Future Directions/Strategic Directions for Advocacy and Lobbying” Members - Julie Oberin, Pauline Woodbridge, Shirley Slann, Ara Cresswell, Maxene Schulte

• Panel – “National Strategy for Family Law Act Reform” Members - Julie Oberin, Ara Cresswell, Pauline Woodbridge

Obviously the focus of much of the conference was on consolidation of feminist groups within Australia, to lobby and advocate for new laws and new programs on a national level. Indeed, less than two years latter, in March 2004, five members of the 2002 Townsville Feminist conference (under the banner of the Feminist Agenda Coalition) went to the capital Canberra and met with several Labor Party leaders.[30] They discussed their idea for a blueprint of a national plan, which basic concepts were laid out in Townsville. Interestingly enough, many of the same 2002 Townsville plan basics were incorporated into the 2007 Rudd Labor Party platform, which led to the ‘National Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’.

This topic will be addressed further in the next article, but two items are very important from this 2004 Canberra trip:

• Only one of the five Feminist Agenda delegation that went was a WESNET representative. The other four were into differing degrees of radical feminism and were led by McLellan.

• The politicians the delegation met with are some of the politicians who were directly involved with the 2009 national plan, including Tanya Plibersek and Jenny Macklin.

At the 2007 International Feminist Summit, which was a far more radical feminist conference than 2002, saw Woodbridge and Oberin of WESNET take a much larger role individually. They both even gave back to back speeches:

Pauline Woodbridge – “Challenging Patriarchy in Men’s behaviour Change Programs”

Julie Oberin – “Perpetrators of domestic violence: Can we? Should we?”

Less than 6 months after this conference took place Rudd’s Labor party won the election and took power. And less than 10 months after the 2007 conference Pauline Woodbridge would be appointed (from all indications by Plibersek) to the National Council chaired by Libby Lloyd. Woodbridge and Oberin, under the banner of WESNET, would go on to play a crucial role in the analysis and direction of the National Council. In fact, not only is WESNET listed as one of the main sources for information, Woodbridge and Oberin, along with the WESNET organization were recognized and used extensively as references and analysis in the 2008 Flinders University Synthesis Report; another of the Council’s primary sources.

From Woodbridge and Plibersek past speeches and remarks, and by the policies outlines in the report, much of what was recommended seemed to draw heavily from the feminist theory of Patriarchy. Furthermore, if the 2007 International Feminist Summit was any indication, WESNET’s top two people were increasingly moving in radical feminist circles, including interaction with people like Jeffreys, McLellan, Winter, Bell, Sullivan, Hawthorne, Klein, Catharine MacKinnon, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Ryl Harrison and Beth Tinning.[16] The question is if they did become radicalized, how much? And to what extent did their influence with the National Council’s sources and analysis moved in a radical direction?

Other question remain, which we will examine in the next article:

• Who were the other members of the National Council and what is their story? Were any of them less than friendly to Feminist ideology than Plibersek, Jackson or Woodbridge?


• What exact data and statistics were used? Was the data accurate and factual? Was the information used honestly and in context?


• What did the 2004 Feminist Agenda delegation to Canberra produce, and how much of McLellan’s agenda did the Labor party buy into?


• What other feminists and radical feminists were used as sources for the study?


• What role did the White Ribbon Foundation play?


• What exactly is the plan, and how does the Australian government intend to enact it?


• How does this fit into the already extensive Australian governmental agencies dedicated to women?


• Have any men’s groups or father’s rights groups had a say in the plan?


• How much more marginalized will men become in Australia because of these actions?

This subject is complex, but hopefully many of these connections are a little more clear to everyone. I’ve been as detailed and thorough as possible to avoid any confusion, and to stay away from generalized accusations. The men’s rights movement is, for me, at its root about equal protection under the law. Much of Feminism has been about changing the way government operates to further their ideology, often with radical feminists leading the way. It’s happened in Sweden and I hope our research here shows how it is happening in Australia.

[1] http://evatt.org.au/news/womens-suffrage-100-years.html

[2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ausnews/message/7160

[3] http://workers.labor.net.au/9/print_index.html

[4] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1245028.htm

[5] http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200411/s1252626.htm

[6] http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2005/s1517030.htm

[7] http://www.safeathome.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/27585/Family_Violence_Act_2004.pdf

[8] http://www.dvirc.org.au/UpdateHub/FACS_37004_Violence_Against_Women.pdf

[9] http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/newdelhi11/lloyd.pdf

[10] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/

[11] http://radfemspeak.net/the-fury/aust-radfems.html

[12] http://sydney.edu.au/arts/french/staff/academic_profiles/winter.shtml

[13] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/

[14] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Authors/

[15] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/history/tiwc/list_of_abstracts.htm

[16] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Summit/detailedProgram.html

[17] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx

[18] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5212&page=0

[19] http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/the-scum-connection/

[20] http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/Bookstore/author/id=1/

[21] http://www.rural-leaders.com.au/programs/arlp/course-18-participants/488-chantal-oxenham

[22] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/aboutUs.htm

[23] http://www.jcu.edu.au/sass/staff/JCUPRD_016477.html

[24] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/acknowledgments.aspx

[25] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/research/Pages/default.aspx

[26] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/nat_plan_2010_bibliography.aspx

[27] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/vawag/Pages/default.aspx

[28] http://www.wwda.org.au/natviolplanrept1.pdf

[29] http://wesnet.org.au/about/

[30] http://www.feministagenda.org.au/Canberra%20Report1.html

Other links

(ADFVC) – http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/

(AIC) – http://www.aic.gov.au/

(WESNET) - http://wesnet.org.au/

Synthesis Report – http://fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/synthesis_report08/Pages/default.aspx

(NASSV) - http://www.nasasv.org.au/

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)

Fraud in Australia’s plan to reduce violence against women

by Kyle Lovett

The 2009 Australian project a ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′, was approved for implementation by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). The Plan, which is split into several parts, puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament.

The entire premise of the National Plan was underpinned by the belief in this statement: “While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know.”[27-pg1] But a quick examination of the statistics and data shows a much different picture to the rather sweeping indictment of Australian men the National Council paints.

The Data and Statistics

The National Council’s plan is put forth as a direct response to several academic papers and various activists around Australia, which purport data and statistics that claim to show an epidemic of men’s violence against women. However, the National Council readily admits its data on actual incidences of domestic violence and sexual assault is poor, sporadic and in some cases inaccurate. Nevertheless, the council makes most of their recommendations based on the conclusions of several academic papers and studies, and rarely address any comprehensive analysis of their own. Indeed, The Plan never addresses the topic of violence that women commit towards men or towards children, nor does it accurately state the facts as they are in Australia.

“Data relating to violence against women and their children in Australia is poor. Data on services sought by, and provided to, victims is not readily available, and the way in which information is reported is generally inconsistent and does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of violence against women. Variations in data estimates across Australia are affected by differences in what is captured, counted and reported across States and Territories.

There are also personal and institutional barriers in decision making within and across systems that reduce the extent to which sexual assault and domestic and family violence is disclosed and reported. This affects the capacity of data to accurately reflect the real numbers of women and children who experience this violence. The difficulty [is] in measuring the true extent of sexual assault and domestic [violence].”[1-pg47]

What The Plan lacks in substantial comparative statistical data, it makes up for with hyperbolic references to various academic publications which they imply contain extremely compelling data. However, when direct statistical data is mentioned, it is at best an out-of-context use of very some basic data; and at worst a deliberate obfuscation of the full picture of domestic violence. Here is an example of one statistic The Plan mentions over and over again in several of its various publications:

Violence in relationships remains high in our communities, and most would agree that unless the unequal power relations between women and men are more meaningfully addressed, the incidence will not change. Around one in three Australian women experience physical violence, and almost one in five experiences sexual violence over their lifetime.“[1-pg59]

What they don’t mention is this “1 in 3″ (or 29%) stat isn’t just domestic violence, or even violence men perpetrate against women – it’s all forms of violence women experience. Furthermore, it’s only violence that occurs after the age of 15, which we will examine in a later article, is yet another obfuscation of statistical data. The exact same data set from which the National Council used, shows that over 41% of Australian men experience violence in their lifetime’,(12% more than women) as men are much more likely to be the victims of violence than women.

This conduct, citing research as though it supports claims it does not, was identified and coined with the term, Creating “Evidence” by Citation by internationally recognized expert on domestic violence research Dr. Murray Straus, in his paper entitled “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, 2007,” which identifies various methods employed by unscrupulous activists and academicians to further assertions that are not supported by valid research.

Here is the complete data from the same Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) source, which shows a larger picture of data on violence for both women and men.[7]

Violence experienced since the age of 15:

• 29% (2,243,600) of women experienced physical assault


• 41% (3,031,800) of men experienced physical assault


• 17% (1,293,100) of women experienced sexual assault


• 4.8% (362,400) of men experienced sexual assault

In the 12 month data prior to the ABS survey:

• 4.7% (363,000) of women experienced physical violence


• 10% (779,800) of men experienced physical violence


• 1.6% (126,100) of women experienced sexual violence


• 0.6% (46,700) of men experienced sexual violence

Of these numbers:

• 79,500 men experienced physical assault by a female perpetrator


• 195,300 women experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator

What does The Plan have to say about violence against men?

“While a small proportion of men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the majority of people who experience this kind of violence are women in a home, at the hands of men they know. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence from strangers and in public, so different strategies are required to address these different types of violence.”[3-pg1]

• 77% of men (60,900) who experienced physical assault by a female which occurred in a home


• 64% of women (125,100) who experienced physical assault by a male which occurred in a home

Even if the ABS data is correct, which does not include abuse to children under the age of 15, who are abused at much higher rates by their mother than their father, men constituting one-third of all domestic abuse victims is not a “small proportion” in any sense of the meaning. In the prior 12 months to the survey for sexual assault, men experienced 27% of the incidents of sexual violence; again, not a “small proportion.” The question must be asked why a well funded government study on domestic violence doesn’t even begin to address the victimization of men when they do account for significant portion of domestic violence victims? According to the council:

“Enhanced community awareness and education programs are needed to change violence-supportive attitudes. These initiatives must be always based on the notion of gender equality and the need to shift men’s consciousness from one of privilege to one of mutuality. They need to make men question their own economic, social, and political power over women.“[1-pg47]

Does the National Council believe that the violence men endure is not as important as the violence women endure?

“Attitudes and beliefs about gender are learned, and society often teaches deeply held sexist views. Evidence shows that communities increase the risk of violence against women when they allow norms that support men’s controlling attitudes and behaviour over women, or attitudes that support the notion of male privilege. These norms include:

• “macho” constructions of masculinity


• ideas that “a woman’s place is in the home”


• notions that men should “wear the pants” as heads of the household and wage-earners


• standards that segregate male drinking and encourage excessive or


• binge drinking


• standards that create peer pressure to conform to these ideas of masculinity and male behaviour[1-pg39]

These definitions of what it means to be a man are from Dr Michael Flood, a person who posed as a member of the father’s rights group Fathers4Equality, and used the groups resources unethically and fraudulently. He sent distasteful and offensive letters to every member of the Australian federal parliament, in an effort to discredit and undermine the group’s efforts and reputation.[24][25][26] But more to the point, these stereotypes which Flood lists as the underlying cause of male violence are shallow and arguably paint an extremely biased and inaccurate picture of the vast variations of masculinity definitions that vary greatly from person to person. But let’s look at the basic statistics of men in Australia in terms of health, education and welfare when compared to women, to see the statistical evidence of “male privilege.”

• Men Live on average 5 years less than women - (in 2007-2009 men had a 40.9% chance of surviving to age 85 years compared with women’s 57.3% chance)[20]


• Men accounted for 93% of workplace fatalities in Australia in 2009-2010[21]


• Men die of suicide at 3 times the rate of women ( 2008 Men 16 and women 5 per 100,000 population)[19]


• At least 1 in 3 victims of family or domestic violence is a Man[7]


• Men are more frequently victims of violent assault (3.9 % man compared to 2.4 % women)[7]


• Men are more frequently threatened with violent assault ( 5.0 % men compared to 3.5% women)[7]


• Men’s enrollment in post secondary education for 2010 is 43.8%, women’s enrollment is at 56.2% [18]


• Men are more than twice as likely to be victims of homicide (1.8 victims per 100,000 population) than women (0.8 victims per 100,000 population)[22]


• The imprisonment rate for men in June 2009 was 13 times the rate for women (329 prisoners per 100,000 male adults versus 25 prisoners per 100,000 female adults)[23]

Men seem to be on the disadvantaged side of many basic areas of concern for any Australian citizen. It’s no secret that in the Western world, men have been falling behind for sometime now, which many would argue is due in large part to the emphasis on placing the needs of women above men. Moreover, the entire premise of this National Council’s Plan is predicated on the belief that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence. Their own data refutes that claim, and furthermore, several significant studies have been done that show domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women. [15][16][17] The statistics of domestic violence from the United States, Canada and United Kingdom shows domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women.

(There is additional information that has not been released yet, which will show an attempt by several employees of the AIWH and ABS to change, hide or ignore data relating to domestic violence towards men and children.)

Since the main underlying argument for such an enormous government undertaking is faulty, misleading and in many cases dishonest, what are the real motivations for the study and its findings? After close examination of the National Council’s drastic recommendations of judicial and legislative changes, which call for ‘gendered civil and criminal laws’ meant to enact a type of gender profiling against men, holding them to a lower standard of proof for incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault, one can only wonder how such a biased and bigoted study made it past the desks of some of Australia’s most prominent politicians without any protest.

I think many Australian men may be curious to ask if Prime Minister Julia Gillard knows the real facts about domestic violence and sexual assault, and if she is aware of the horrendous amounts of civil rights violations, against half their population, that the National Council’s plan so adamantly call for. Sadly, it now appears that hatred and bigotry are becoming government policy in Australia.

References

(1)The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx

(2) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx

(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397

(4) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf

(5) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(6) The Road Home http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics

(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)

(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)

(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2

(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies

(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.

(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml

(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71

(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

(18) http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx

(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument

(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6

(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical

(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

(23) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22

(24) Flood, M. (1998) ‘Mens’ Movements’, Community Quaterly, 46.

(25) Flood, M. and Pease, B. (2006) The Factors Influencing Community Attitudes in Relation to Violence Against Women: A Critical Review of the Literature, Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.

(26) http://acatalogueoflies.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/micheal-flood-poses-as-a-fathers-rights-activist-and-sends-offensive-emails-to-politicians-from-the-university-is-is-employed-at/

(27) http://www.facs.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Pages/default.aspx

Australia abandons its children to abuse

by Kyle Lovett

Simply put, the most puzzling thing about the Australian ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′ is that the plan doesn’t address the physical, emotional or sexual abuse of children. In fact, the actual incidence of various types of child abuse, and the profiles of the individuals abusing them have been intentionally omitted from the volumes of information that justify the National Council’s plan.

Understandably, many Australian men have expressed outrage that such a high profile government study would use the possessive pronoun “their,” regarding women, as though fathers did not exist in their childrens lives. But perhaps the government’s failure to include men as caretakers of their own children can be better explained with further investigation into The Plan. Let’s take a look at some statistics and studies about child abuse and neglect in Australia as well as the conspicuous absence of some key information. This may help to guage the severity of the problem, and to determine who is responsible.

The Exclusion of Child Abuse Statistics

While the architects of The Plan often mention how a life in an abusive home is detrimental to a cbild’s well-being, they lack any actual analysis of child abuse and the perpetrators.

In 1996, two quite detailed reports discussing the problem of child abuse in Australia were published, including in-depth analysis of the data that examined the sex and relationship of the perpetrators. Both Angus G & Hall G (1996) [8] and Tomison A (1996) [9] research papers showed an alarming amount of varying types of child abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, one of the more shocking pieces of information they supplied identified single parent mothers as the largest demographic of perpetrators of child abuse in Australia.

In 1997, the academic researchers Broadbent and Bentley published ‘Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996′ for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which confirmed what Angus & Hall as well as Tomison showed the year before. The report examined the national figures of child abuse for 1995-96, which showed 29,833 cases of substantiated child abuse or neglect in Australia. The split between the victims sexes, girls(51%) and boys(49%) under the age of 15 who were abused, was split almost evenly. [10-pg19]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Broadbent and Bentley went on to discuss the prevalence of the natural parent as it related to the perpetrators of the cases of child abuse.

“The data that are available indicate that the person believed responsible in 71% of substantiated notifications of abuse and neglect was the natural parent. This is not surprising given that child abuse and neglect is a child protection issue and that the natural parent is the person most likely to have care of a child. Step-parents were reported as the person responsible in 10% of substantiated notifications and a parent’s de facto partner in 7%. Parents were believed to be responsible for 66% of physical abuse substantiations, 77% of emotional abuse substantiations, 87% of neglect substantiations, but only 24% of sexual abuse substantiations.” [10-pg34]

The researchers further examined the sex and relationship of the responsible parties in which this data was readily available.

“In 1995–96, of finalised investigations in those States and Territories for which data were available (Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), 40% involved children living in single female parent families and 31% living in ‘two parent—natural’ families. A further 15% of finalised investigations involved children from ‘two parent—other’ families (such as families where there is one natural parent and a de facto or a step-parent)”[10-pg35]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

The breakdown of this data for the sex and relationship of child abusers was:

• 40% single parent female


• 46% two-parent families (both male and female parental perpetrators)


• 6% single parent male


• 8% Other

This means that in 86% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a female offender, while 52% of child abuse cases were perpetrated by or with a male offender. If past years of recorded child abuse in Australia are any indication, between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of substantiated incidents occur each year. This information did not sit well with several of the people inside the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) nor the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In fact, in 1997 the AIHW pulled the plug on recording any further data pertained to the sex or relationship of a child abuser, unless it was sexual abuse.[11]

(Source: Broadbent and Bentley 1997)

Click to enlarge

In 2003, another researcher for the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Fitzroy 2003 ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’, shed some further light on the statistics which continued to show mothers as the primary perpetrator of child abuse.

“Women commit between 31-50 percent of physical assaults on children. Mothers commit almost 50 percent of the recorded infanticide and women perpetrate between 2-7 percent of sexual assaults against children. It is worth noting that often researchers identify that, for example, 69 percent of perpetrators of such and such crime are men, but then fail to discuss who perpetrated the remaining 31 percent. Within family violence research often a gender-neutral term such as ‘parent’ or ‘care giver’ is used, however there is no further discussion as to whether it was a father or mother who perpetrated the assaults. This absence may reflect a general understanding that men are the majority of perpetrators of child assaults, however it may also reflect a denial of the assault of children by their mothers.”[11-pg2]

While Fitzroy criticizes the AIHW and ABS decision to not keep the data concerning the sex and relationship of child abusers, she gives a brief reasoning why she understands that many feel that women’s violence can be explained away.

“This paper positions women’s use of violence within a social context that includes historical, structural and institutional violence characterised by patterns of domination and oppression. This social context includes patriarchal, racist and classist ideologies whereby some people are defined as superior to ‘others’…..I would argue therefore that an analysis of women’s violence should be positioned within an analysis of the human capacity for violence. We can all desire retribution for perceived harms, experience rage and the wish to inflict pain on another.”[11-pg3]

The National Director of the Joint Parenting Association, Yuri Joakimidis, not only admonishes the Australian government for its refusal to keep these records, he claims that bias within the AIHW, to further a particular ideology, were compromising the integrity of all of its data collection.

“In this context, the decision taken in 1997 by the AIHW (Broadbent & Bentley 1997) to no longer publish data indicating the sex of perpetrators in substantiated child abuse cases must be reversed. The action was taken just one year after the data was first published in 1996 (968 men and 1138 women). The omission was justified on the wobbly basis that only one state (WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) had furnished statistics and a lack of publishing space. Interested parties were advised that they could obtain the data under a Freedom Of Information request at a cost of $200.

Curiously, these reasons did not preclude the publication of these data in 1996. In fact, Angus & Hall (1996) observed that “the information base provide an extra dimension to data previously presented.” Quite obviously, the non publication of these important statistics can negatively impact on child abuse policy and the allocation of resources. If the AIHW decision does indeed represent bias reporting then such slanted views clearly have no place in scientific endevours.” [11]

Indeed, looking at Western Australia’s numbers for 2005-06 and 2007-08 alone, they continue to show the same pattern of perpetrators of child abuse being overwhelmingly single females.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

For State government, or key members within, to intentionally cover up the sex and relationship of child abusers in reporting important child welfare statistics, simply because 40% of child abuse cases are perpetrated by single mothers, it may well constitute a criminal conspiracy. Particularly if children are harmed as a result. Since Parliament allocates monies to combat child abuse, decisions to stop keeping these crucial statistics must be seen as at least passively endangering the welfare of Australian children.

It is also important to note the hypocrisy of calling this major report on domestic violence ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’ when critical information concerning child abuse and neglect in Australia is concealed. Furthermore, there are compelling reasons to believe that the National Council left out key facts regarding women’s violence to satisfy an ideological and financial agenda that hinges on a false paradigm in which only men are violent in the home.

This kind of conduct has been previously identified and addressed in a paper by the internationally recognized expert researcher on Domestic Violence, Dr. Murray Straus. In his paper, Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence, he catalogs methods used to conceal and distort evidence on symmetry in partner violence, which has become a widespread corruption issue in western academe. As Straus writes:

Method 1. Suppress Evidence - Researchers who have an ideological commitment to the idea that men are almost always the sole perpetrator often conceal evidence that contradicts this belief. Among researchers not committed to that ideology, many (including me and some of my colleagues) have withheld results showing gende r symmetry to avoid becoming victims of vitriolic denunciations and ostracism. Thus, many researchers have published only the data on male perpetrators or female victims, deliberatcly omitting data on female perpetrators and male victims. This practice startcd with one of the first general population surveys on family violence. The survey done for the Kentucky Commission on the Status of Women obtained data on both men and women, but only the data on male perpetration was publishcd (Schulman 1979). Among the many other examples of respected researchers publishing only the data on assaults by men are Kennedy and Dutton (1989); Lackey and Williams (1995); Johnson and Leone (2005); and Kaufman Kantor and Straus (1987).[24]

Using this method and others, The National Council attempts to paint men as the monsters of domestic violence, who are responsible for almost all of Australia’s problems inside the home. The fact that women, not men, are responsible for the majority of actual child abuse has been intentionally removed from the parameters of their studies. Violence, a human problem, is one which both men and women perpetrate; we are all responsible for putting an end to it, not just in the home, but in society at large. For this council to deny the violence, neglect and other abuses that women commit codemns Australian children to lives of invisible pain, for which no help will be allowed, by edict of the government.

It is not only a disgrace to professional and academic integrity, it’s a slap in the face to those forgotten children of Australia who live the brutal reality of violence and abuse, day in and day out. It is time the men and women of Australia let their voices be heard, and instruct their government that this is not an acceptable situation. And it is time that the members of the National Council Advisory Board be held accountable to the public they purport to serve. The women, the men and the children of Australia deserve better than this. They deserve the truth

References

(1)The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx

(2) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx

(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397

(4) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf

(5) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(6) The Road Home http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics

(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)

(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)

(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2

(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies

(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.

(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml

(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71

(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

(18) http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx

(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument

(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6

(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical

(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

(23) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22

(24) http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

The vanishing civil rights of Australia’s men

by Kyle Lovett

The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children

In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) headed by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, approved a ‘framework for action’ called ‘Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009-2021′. The effort was spearheaded by Tanya Plibersek, former Australian Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women and Jenny Macklin, former Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The main body of work was completed by the National Council’s Advisory Group which is chaired by Libby Lloyd, who founded the White Ribbon Foundation in 2003.

The plan is split into several parts, which puts forth recommendations for new legislation, changes to judicial processes, requests for funding and ideas for domestic programs targeted at reducing domestic and sexual violence against women. The advisory council has some powers to implement programs through the Office of Women among other agencies, but much of what the government funded program calls for requires approval by Parliament. Since we have already explored the disingenuous and dishonest use of statistics, and the conscious decision to obfuscate the realities concerning child abuse, let’s take a look at what the National Advisory Council has recommended Australia enact in terms of judicial and legislative changes.

Components of The Plan

While ‘the Plan’ includes dozens of different recommendations to reduce violence against women and their children, many of the more controversial and contentious propositions are found in the following areas:

• Endorsement of civil and criminal laws to be made ‘gendered’ or ‘gender sensitive’


• Expanding the definition of what legally constitutes domestic violence


• Guidance on several changes to the Judicial processes and requests for new judicial entities


• Broadening of the State’s powers to allow for numerous different legally binding orders


• Granting the State broad powers over the relationships of children and their parents


• Formalizing new sexual assault laws, which define legally consensual sexual intercourse


• Recommend the State be granted new powers, to take extrajudicial actions against fathers and men

Gendering of Civil and Criminal Family Violence Laws

It’s important to note that the council members make it quite clear that all civil and criminal laws and procedures regarding domestic violence and sexual assault must become “gendered.” That is, the National Council recommends that the rule of law, both civil and criminal, will be greatly influenced based the sex of an accused person. In November, 2011 the council directly asked “Make criminal and civil laws gender sensitive.”[2] The Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry took up this issue of gendered laws in it’s 1,556 page report to the National Council.[13]

“The National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children acknowledged that while women as well as men can commit—as well as be victims of—family violence or sexual assault, the research shows that ‘the overwhelming majority of violence and abuse is perpetrated by men against women’. Put very simply, ‘[t]he biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault and/or domestic and family violence is being a woman’.”[13-pg51]

While the ALRC doesn’t commit to equal protection under the law, they attempt to say the gendered treatment for civil and criminal law benefits everyone, stipulating that “reforming legal frameworks with the aim of improving the safety of all victims of family violence—the effect will be to the benefit of all victims, whether male or female.”[13-pg51]

The ALRC again reaffirms that both men and women can be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but again, never affirms the legal principle of equal protection under the law stating that:

“‘the overwhelming majority of violence and abuse is perpetrated by men against women’, and that ‘[t]he biggest risk factor for becoming a victim of sexual assault and/or domestic and family violence is being a woman’. Such findings lie behind the National Council’s strategies that, in turn, led to the Terms of Reference for this Inquiry being focused on the reduction of violence against ‘women and their children’.” [13-pg102]

The first part of ALRC statement is false, as the “majority of violence is perpetrated by men against other men.” Their second point is contentious, as many studies show that domestic violence is perpetrated equally between men and women; however, even by their statistics, 1/3rd of domestic violence is committed by women against men. Furthermore, women are the overwhelmingly majority of perpetrators that commit violence, abuse and neglect against children, which is neither taken into account the number of young boys who are victims of abuse, nor that the National Advisory Council never actually addresses the “reduction of violence” against children. Indeed, the ALRC states that:

“The Commissions acknowledge that family violence occurs against men and in the gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex communities and, as such, family violence in such contexts may be matters which deserve separate consideration by government at an appropriate time.”[13-pg103]

I’m curious when the National Advisory Council will feel it is an appropriate time to address the disturbing issue of child abuse? The Council members argue in ‘The Plan’ why they think there is a legal power imbalance between the sexes, and the reasoning behind the gendering of civil and criminal laws:

“Women and men in our society have unequal access to social and economic power. The evidence demonstrates that while there is no single cause of sexual assault or domestic and family violence, many risk factors associated with these types of violence can be influenced by obvious and covert expressions of inequality in the community.”[1-pg37]

In reality, gendering civil and criminal laws is much like what State sponsored racial profiling would be, in that it demands the civil and criminal authorities presume there is a reasonable assumption of guilt of a person based solely on a human characteristic, in this case their sex. In regards to gendering law, the Council and the ALRC argue that “the measures recommended can be seen to be a ‘litmus test’ for how well the legal system is working.”[13-pg103] It is nothing less than a State mandated segregation of its citizens legal rights, which violates not only Australian laws and charters, but Article 55 of the United Nations Charter to which Australia is a signatory nation.[14]

The National Advisory Council gives one of many examples on how gendered laws will work, with its recommendation for a gendered policy of arrest.

“Efforts to increase the application of the criminal law have centred on ‘pro-arrest’ and ‘no-drop’ prosecution policies that remove or limit police and judicial discretion in decision-making. However, these policies have resulted in a number of unintended consequences, including the arrest of both parties after police intervention, commonly referred to as ‘dual arrests’. In effect, dual arrests are frequently re-victimising women who are the victims of domestic and family violence.”[1 -pg116]

It is not known if Australia’s Parliament will pass laws which constitute legal discrimination towards half its population, but there is no question that the government sanctioned National Advisory Council firmly believes that discrimination, legalized sexism and bigotry are required to make their plan successful.

Judicial Changes and New ‘Family Law’ or Domestic Violence Courts and Specialized Personnel

In outcome 4 of the National Plan, the council reiterates its insistence on further integration of State sanctioned gender bias into how the Judicial system in Australia works:[2]

• Make criminal and civil laws gender sensitive.
• Ensure access to justice for women.
• Provide civil remedies in conjunction with criminal penalties.
• Provide for adequate reparation and compensation.
• Enact national plans of action and gender mainstreaming.
• Undertake research and compilation of sex disaggregated data.

On page 95 of the Plan, the council lists out how they want wish to establish new specialized court offices and personnel to deal with cases of domestic and sexual violence against women.[1-pg95]

• widening the definition of offences so that women’s and children’s experiences of violence are more appropriately recognised and encompassed within the law;
• introducing pro-arrest policies and risk assessment tools to improve police practices when responding to reports of violence;
• introducing specialist approaches such as priority listing of sexual offence cases and of domestic and family violence hearings;
• establishing specialist court support services and introducing more flexible arrangements within courts to reduce the extent to which victims feel intimidated and alienated;
• attending to procedural reforms aimed at improving the experience of giving evidence (such as introducing alternative arrangements for giving evidence and prohibiting or limiting the extent to which the accused, or the defendant, can directly cross-examine the victim)

Broadened Definitions of Domestic Violence

The National Advisory Council also put forth their new and expanded definitions of what should be including in the legal definition of Domestic Violence and Abuse. Some of these items are considered criminal and other non-criminal. The use of these expanded definitions will be used for; cause for police to enter a residence, specialized Family Law courts issuance of various orders and injunctions, as add on incriminations against the accused in criminal proceedings, as guidelines for those under court ordered restrictions to conform to and as fair and acceptable reason for a woman to contact the authorities or Family Law Courts to initiate a formal investigation. It is important that these new rules will be considered ‘gendered’, therefore a lower standard of proof is needed to take action on these items, as men will face a “gendered” assumption of guilt . The definitions are (with the more contentious ones in bold):[1-Pg188-189]

Emotional abuse

• blaming the victim for all problems in the relationship, constantly comparing the victim with others to undermine self-esteem and self-worth, sporadic sulking, withdrawing all interest and engagement (for example weeks of silence), emotional blackmail.

Verbal abuse

• swearing and continual humiliation, either in private or in public, with attacks following clear themes that focus on intelligence, sexuality, body image and capacity as a parent and spouse

Social abuse

• systematic isolation from family and friends through techniques such as ongoing rudeness to family and friends to alienate them; instigating and controlling the move to a location where the victim has no established social circle or employment opportunities; and forbidding or physically preventing the victim from going out and meeting people.

Economic abuse

• complete control of all money, including: forbidding access to bank accounts; providing only an inadequate ‘allowance’; not allowing the victim to seek or hold employment; and using all wages earned by the victim for household expenses.

Psychological abuse

• includes: driving dangerously; destruction of property; abuse of pets in front of family members; making threats regarding custody of any children; asserting that the police and justice system will not assist, support or believe the victim; and denying an individual’s reality.

Spiritual abuse

• denial and/or misuse of religious beliefs or practices to force victims into subordinate roles; or misuse of religious or spiritual traditions to justify physical violence or other forms of abuse.

Physical abuse

• includes: direct assault on the body (strangulation or choking, shaking, eye injuries, slapping, pushing, spitting, punching, or kicking); use of weapons including objects; assault of children; locking the victim out of the house; and sleep and food deprivation.

Sexual abuse

• any form of pressured/unwanted sex or sexual degradation by an intimate partner or ex-partner, such as sexual activity without consent; causing pain during sex; assaulting genitals; coercive sex without protection against pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease; making the victim perform sexual acts unwillingly (including talking explicit photos without their consent); criticising, or using sexually degrading insults.

While almost all of these items would be considered by most people to be rude, inconsiderate or insulting , (though many of these things are absurd) it is not known why these actions would rise to the level of legal court intervention including issuing various protection orders. Many couples have arguments which often times involve several of these listed definitions, so it is unclear why the State would wish to dictate the personal actions of just the father/man (since these are gendered by law). Furthermore, since the National Advisory Council, in both ‘The Plan’ and the ALRC review stand by their gendered system of civil and criminal laws, and never stated that both parties in a relationship are held to the same standards nor are equally culpable under the law, aren’t these definitions in practice just granting women specialized permissions to abuse men without the same consequences that would be faced by their partner? Would the police come and investigate a ‘family abuse’ case if the husband contacted the authorities and stated that his wife was giving him the ‘silent treatment’ and ‘denying his reality’? By the letter of their law, no.

These kinds of polices and gendered laws are not only a violation of the essential civil rights of Australian men, they border on the State sanctioned violation of basic human rights.

National Council’sRecommendations for Legal and Procedural Reforms

The National Advisory Council in conjunction with the ALRC have proposed 187 recommendations for legal reform. Some of them are requests for new courts, some are changes to existing laws and others are proposals for procedural change. The most important items covered discuss new definitions of rape and sexual assault, expanding the State’s powers to issue protection type orders against men more liberally and most controversial of all are the child protection initiatives. Listed below are some of the more controversial recommendations from the National Advisory Council’s Plan and the ALRC. I’ve included a summary list up top, and the longer narrative and references below.

Summary Items:

(References to summary items if not listed here, are referenced in the narrative beneath)

• The State will ensure that a defense against the crime of homicide, must take into consideration the experiences of family violence of the “victim” who murdered their partner.(Standardizing the battered spouse defense in murder cases)


• As gendered civil and criminal laws, police have a greater latitude to enter the premise of a dwelling where they believe domestic or family violence may be occurring if they believe the perpatrator to be a man


• Special Courts, police prosecutors or a domestic violence specialist may submit a ‘No Contact Order’, even if no criminal charges are brought against the ‘accused’


• Special Courts, police prosecutors or a domestic violence specialist may submit a ‘Protection Order’, even if no criminal charges are brought against the ‘accused’


• Special Courts, police prosecutors or a domestic violence specialist may submit an ‘Ouster / Exclusion Order’, even if no criminal charges are brought against the ‘accused’


• An Ouster/Exclusion Order forces a man from his own premises and it is up to him to seek alternative shelter


• The Special Court have the power to amend the lease of the family dwelling to remove the name of the man. This does not release him from his financial responsibility to the residence


• Once a domestic of family violence complaint is lodged against a man, he must be placed on a nationwide Domestic Violence Registry


• The council reiterates its recommendation that calls for only the man to be arrested, and considers any violence the woman committed, except in extreme cases, was in self defense


• The Council recommends reversal of “pro-contact” laws which endorse the relationship between a father and his children. The Council asks that if the State believes the man could commit ‘family violence’ after a domestic violence order is issued, that his parental privilege to his children may be severed indefinitely. This does not release the man from his child support responsibilities


• Women are given priority over men when seeking domestic violence counseling or public services[1-pg78]


• While men constitute the vast majority of homeless in Australia, the council recommends direct action to ensure an end to homelessness among women[1-pg82]


• If a domestic violence order is issued against a man, the council recommends the State find funding (Crisis funding) for their housing, as well as security upgrades to their residence if the mother/wife cannot afford it[1-pg83]


• If the Mother attempts a reconciliation between the children and their father, the Council recommends that the State have the legal authority to remove the children from the mother, and into State care if they believe the father may commit “family violence”


• The Council recommends that legal sexual consent can only be given if a man asks the woman for permission to engage in sexual activity, and receives an affirmative verbal answer


• The Council recommends that silence equals non-consent


• The Council recommends that if a man is accused of rape or sexual assault, and he utilizes the “mistaken-belief” defense, that the onus is on him to prove consent was given


• If a woman has consumed drugs or alcohol prior to a sexual encounter, the Council recommends that she loses her ability to consent to any sexual activities


• The council recommends several changes to the procedures of a criminal case of rape or sexual assault, please see[13-pg40-43] for new recommended procedures

It is important to remember when examining these recommendations, that when they say “abuse or violence” may occur, this is using the expanding “family violence” definitions, and does not consider if the man has ever been tried or convicted for domestic abuse, (though a conviction will strengthen their decision); but only if their have been reports of family violence, if the wife/mother/partner feels safe or the specialized Family Law courts feel that the potential for danger to the female partner and her children are present.

Judicial Homicide Accommodations for Victims of Domestic Violence who Murder their Partner

Section 14 of the ALRC report asks “legislation should ensure that defences to homicide accommodate the experiences of family violence victims who kill, recognising the dynamics and features of family violence.”[13-pg27] The ALRC also recommends that the State must take into serious consideration the family dynamics when pursing a homicide case against “victim of family violence kills the person who was violent.” In essence, the National Council is asking that the battered spouse defense be more readily available for persons who commit murder. (See Sec 31-2 of the ALRC report)

Protection Orders / No Contact Orders

The National Council requests that Protection Orders and No Contact orders be issued with lowered standards of proof, such as an accusation or belief from a court, a police protection specialist or a domestic violence service specialist, that domestic violence has occurred or “might” occur in the future. The allowable reasonings in the consideration for a protection or no contact orders may fall into any violations stated in the expanding definitions of domestic violence.[1-pg188]

“The civil nature of the order allows for a lower standard of proof, making orders easier to obtain than a conviction and can be tailored to each situation, prohibiting behaviour not always covered by the criminal law.”[1- pg100-2]

National Registry of Domestic Violence

The council requests a national registry for those accused, have standing orders against them or have been convicted of domestic violence. Once any protection order or no contact order is issued, the burden of proof lays with the accused to prove that the accusations are false. A conviction is not necessary for these orders, but the orders themselves are legally binding.

“The issues of natural justice, safe transition and continued protection across jurisdictions, as well as supporting efficiency for courts, could be addressed through a national protection order registration scheme. Under this scheme, a domestic and family violence order would be automatically included on the national register upon being made by the relevant court, and subsequent registrations and adaptations in other jurisdictions would also be automatically registered and coordinated in the national registration system.”[1-pg100]

Ouster/Exclusion Orders

“This model assumes that the perpetrators of violence should be held accountable for their actions and removed from the family home, allowing women and children to stay. All Australian jurisdictions now have laws which provide for exclusion orders as a condition of domestic violence orders, allowing the person seeking protection from domestic violence to remain in the family home, while the perpetrator is required to seek other accommodation.”[3]

The National Council examined how best to utilize this order:

“In particular, The Road Home and the Plan of Action focus on the need to increase the application of ‘ouster’ or ‘exclusion’ orders provided for in all State and Territory domestic and family violence laws.”[1-pg85]

These order can force a man from his own property, who then must find alternative housing or shelter, based solely on the an allegation of abuse. The National Council wishes the Australian government to strengthen these ‘ouster’ or ‘exclusion orders’. They want to give social service workers and police prosecutors the legal authority to issue them liberally. ‘The Road Home’, a government report on homelessness explains how this would work.[5-p33]

Another Safe at Home provision, which falls within the scope of the Ouster/Exclusion Orders is increased police powers to detain men without charge and remove them from their property.

“Safe at Home legislation provides police with a considerable extension of their powers to detain a person without charge. Another key feature of the Safe at Home model is that it allows families to stay within the home while the perpetrators are removed.

Preambles within legislation that acknowledge the social realities and dynamics of violence, including the gendered nature of domestic and family violence.”[1 -pg115]

Examination of Exclusion Laws of Fathers from his Children’s Lives

The National Advisory Council believes that a father’s involvement in the life of their child can be considered harmful if they believe that abuse or violence has or will occur, therefore, they wish to revisit the “pro-contact” laws, and initiate a revision to forbid fathers any contact with their children indefinitely, even against the wishes of the mother.

“Under the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, it is left to the court to decide how to reconcile the objectives of a child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and the protection of the child from exposure to violence when there is conflict. Section 61DA also states that: “[w]hen making a parenting order in relation to a child, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for the child’s parents to have equal shared parental responsibility for the child.”

While the legislation does not necessarily privilege either of the primary considerations, it seems that there have been considerable problems in reconciling the two in practice. Under previous (almost identical) legislation, evidence emerged that a very strong pro-contact culture had arisen and that the “the opportunity for a significant relationship with both parents” took precedence over a history or even recent experiences of violence and abuse. Evidence from the Council’s consultations, and from the judiciary itself, tends to show that such a presumption is inappropriate for a great number of families using the Act.

Firstly, the legislation places the burden of rebutting this presumption on the most vulnerable people who are using the Act (namely women and children escaping violence and abuse). This is because evidence is required to show that there are reasonable grounds that the parent of the child has engaged in abuse, or family violence, or that it is not in the child’s best interests to have shared parental responsibility.

And, finally, the tension between the children’s long-term need to “know their father” in a “pro-contact” culture, over their safety and wellbeing and damage to their neurological development requires early evaluation and review. The Council therefore proposes that any future reform be informed by both empirical research and the views of those involved in the family law system.”[1-pg104-5]

State Intervention Against Mother’s Parental Decisions

Mothers who attempt to enable a relationship between their children and the father, can and will have the state take the children into their custody if the social workers or courts feel like their has been, or will be abuse or violence.

“Secondly, where there is violence, women are commonly unable to meet both the “protective parent” criteria and the criteria for a “friendly parent”, defined as “the willingness of each parent to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent”, and they risk state child protection intervention without a protective stance towards the safety and well-being of their children.”[1-pg105]

Formalized Method of Legal Consent for Sexual IntercourseAustralia is attempting to formalize a method in which it is legally acceptable for a man and a women to engage in sexual intercourse. Specifically, they are seeking to require the man to get verbal consent via requesting the consent to perform various acts which are done per a direct question to the woman. They wish to consider silence as non-consent. The man must, by the proposed rule, receive a verbal affirmative answer as consent.

“Most States and Territories have moved towards a definition of consent that applies a “communicative” model through defining consent as “free agreement” or “free and voluntary agreement”. These new definitions require juries to consider what a complainant has said or done to indicate their free agreement, rather than assume that silence or submission equals consent. Some also stipulate that inactivity and/or silence should be equated with non-consent.

For example, Victoria’s provisions state that: “the fact that a person did not say or do anything to indicate free agreement to a sexual act is normally enough to show that the act took place without that person’s free agreement”.[1-pg110]

Female Agency for Consent

Another adjustment the council wants to enact is a broader scope when the state feels that female agency is no longer hers, such as when drugs or alcohol have been consumed. Furthermore, consent can be removed after the fact if the woman claims she was coerced by the man under a broad range of vague or implied threats.

“A number of jurisdictions have also created lists of vitiating circumstances under which free agreement cannot be said to have been given (such as under force of threat or of physical or economic harm, under the influence of heavy drug or alcohol consumption, or if the complainant is asleep) and has introduced judicial directions to juries to help them apply these modern definitions. Mandatory jury directions are designed to ensure consistency and “formalise good practice”.[1-pg110]

Mistaken-Belief Consent – Burden of Proof on Accused

Accused must show proof of consent when using certain defenses in criminal proceedings such as the “mistaken-belief” defense. “Mistaken-belief” consent means he felt that she gave consent, and she denies giving consent.

“Another contentious aspect of rape law has been the extent to which an accused can claim to have held an honest, though unreasonable, belief in consent.

In the past, an honest, though unreasonable, belief in consent could amount to a complete defence, even if the accused had done nothing to find out whether the complainant was consenting. This provided poor protection for the law’s claim to protect sexual autonomy, placing “the onus on a person approached for sex to indicate lack of consent, instead of requiring the initiator to ascertain whether the other person is consenting”. Trials tended to focus on the complainant’s conduct and mental state rather than on that of the accused, often resulting in re-victimisation of the complainant.

These models represent different approaches to restricting the availability of mistaken-belief defences that are worthy of consideration by other jurisdictions.”[1 -pg111]

Conclusions? I have no conclusions, I have no words to describe how disturbing this stuff is. Let’s hope wiser heads prevail in Australia before any of this becomes law.

References

(1) The Plan http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/default.aspx

(2) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/national_plan/Pages/outcome_4.aspx

(3) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/DVAustralia.htm#_Toc309798397

(4) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/violence/nationalplan/Documents/national_plan.pdf

(5) http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(6) The Road Home http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Pages/default.aspx

(7) Australian Bureau of Statistics

(8) Angus G & Hall G (1996). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Series; no 16)

(9) Tomison A (1996). “Protecting Children: Updating The National Picture” in Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994-1995, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

(10) Broadbent A & Bentley R (1997). Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1995-1996. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Catalogue No CWS 1. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Child Welfare Series No 17)

(11) http://deltabravo.net/forum/index.php?topic=229.0;wap2

(12) Fitzroy 2003 – ‘The violence of women: Making sense of child abuse perpetrated by mothers’ Australian Institute of Family Studies

(13)Australian Law Reform Commission’s (ALRC) 2010 Inquiry, Family Violence Family Violence – A National Legal Response.

(14) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter9.shtml

(15) Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Social Monitor 2:57-62

(16) Dutton D. G. (2007). Female Intimate Partner Violence and Developmental Trajectories of Abusive Families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71

(17) Archer J (2000). Sex Differences in Physically Aggressive Acts between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680

(18) http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/Students.aspx

(19) http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/PrimaryMainFeatures/3309.0?OpenDocument

(20) http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=6

(21) http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb07.htm#statistical

(22) http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.aspx

(23) http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0058;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fe3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a%2F0003%22