Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Otago Law Review

Neave, Honourable Marcia --- "The Victorian Royal Commission into family violence - responding to an entrenched social problem" [2016] OtaLawRw 2; (2016) 14 Otago LR 229

Last Updated: 12 January 2018

20th Annual New Zealand Law Foundation Ethel

^{Benjamin Commemorative Address 2016}

The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence – Responding to an Entrenched Social Problem

The Honourable Marcia Neave AO* Introduction

Thank you, Kim and the Otago Women Lawyers’ Society, for your warm welcome. I also want to thank the New Zealand Law Foundation, the University of Otago Faculty of Law, and the Williams Trust for inviting me to give this address.

This is my first time in Dunedin. Over the last few days I have been

^{lucky enough to experience some aspects of your beautiful city.}

Dunedin boasts a university with a proud history and reputation for educating women in all professions. The first women graduate from the University of Otago graduated in 1885 with an arts degree. The University was also the first in Australasia to permit women to take a law degree. Ethel Benjamin graduated in 1897 and was, of course, New Zealand’s first women lawyer. I am proud to be giving this address today in Ms Benjamin’s honour.

As Ms Jarvis has touched upon, in March of this year, the Royal Commission into Family Violence delivered its final report to the Victorian Government. As far as I know this is the first Royal Commission to examine this issue. Our report made 227 recommendations to transform the prevention of, and response to, family violence in Victoria.

When the Royal Commission was announced in 2014, the Premier of Victoria identified family violence as a severe emergency and “the most unspeakable crime unfolding across [Australia].”¹ Like New Zealand, Victoria had strong foundations in dealing with family violence, but the systems which respond to it were struggling under the weight of demand

– overflowing courts, high demand on police resources, increasing reports to Child Protection, and under–resourced family violence services across the state.

The Royal Commission into Family Violence was established in the wake of a series of family violence–related deaths in Victoria.

^* This paper was originally presented by The Honourable Marcia Neave AO, former Chair of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, former Judge of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria, at the 20th Annual New Zealand Law Foundation Ethel Benjamin Commemorative Address, 14 July 2016. It is reproduced here in a slightly modified form with the permission of the New Zealand Law Foundation and the Otago Women Lawyers’ Society.

^{1 Hon Daniel Andrews MP “Premier Announces Royal Commission into}

^{Family Violence” (press release, 23 December 2014).}

In 2005 Robert Farquharson killed his young sons by driving them into a dam, where they drowned.²

In 2014, Luke Batty, an 11-year-old boy, was killed at a sporting ground by his father, in front of his mother, after Luke had finished cricket practice.³ His death occurred despite a Family Court parenting order which gave Luke’s father a right to see him,⁴ a Magistrates’ Court Intervention Order (a Victorian court order similar to the New Zealand protection order) limiting the circumstances in which contact could occur,⁵ and attempts by Luke’s mother, Ms Rosemary Batty, to seek help from the State child protection authority to manage the risk posed by his father.⁶ These are only two examples of recent cases in which men have killed their children, often in order to revenge themselves on the children’s mothers. Women also kill children, although their motivations for doing so tend to be different from those of men. In Victoria, a woman is currently on trial for murder for killing her children by driving them into a lake.⁷

In Victoria, existing policy responses had been insufficient to reduce the prevalence and severity of violence. Doing more of the same was unlikely to substantially improve the situation. The establishment of the Royal Commission acknowledged the seriousness of family violence and the consequences for individuals and the whole community. It also reflected a growing community awareness of the scale of the problem.

Every year significant numbers of women are killed by their violent partners. The Australian Institute of Criminology’s National Homicide Review shows that of the total 2,631 homicides which occurred in Australia over the 10 years between 2002–2003 and 2011–2012, 41 per cent were domestic/family-related homicides. Seventy-five per cent of victims who were killed by an intimate partner were women. Males also died in family-related homicides, but they were more likely to be killed by a parent, their child, a sibling or other family member, than by an intimate heterosexual partner. In a substantial proportion of intimate partner homicides there was a recorded history of prior violence and

² R v Farquharson [2010] VSC 462 at [45]–[53]. See also Freeman v The Queen [2011] VSCA 349 at [22]–[23], a case where a father killed his four–year–old daughter in Melbourne, Australia.

^{3 Coroner ’s Court “Inquest into the Death of Luke Geoffrey Batty” (28}

^{September 2015) <www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/resources/07cc4038-}

^{33f8-4e08-83b5-fd87bd386ccc/lukegeoffreybatty_085514.pdf> at 2.}

^{4 At 23.}

^{5 At 31.}

^{6 At 39.}

^{7 Cheryl Hall “Wyndham Vale Lake Crash: Mother Accused of Killing}

^{Children did Nothing as Others Tried to Help, Court Told” (30 June 2016)}

^{ABC News <www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-30/wyndham-vale-lake-}

^{crash-mother-did-nothing-to-help,-court-told/7558486>.}

prior court orders.⁸

New Zealand’s population is less than that of Victoria. The New Zealand figures show that of the 65 homicides recorded in 2012, 42 per cent involved a family relationship. Again, the majority of the victims of these family homicides were women.⁹

Although these death statistics are tragic, they are only the tip of the iceberg. Many people are tormented by persistent and cruel physical, emotional and financial abuse, often for many years. Adult women in heterosexual relationships are the majority of victims, but men, girls and boys may also be affected. We know that children who have been direct victims of violence or have been exposed to it, can go on to become victims or perpetrators of violence later in life.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, commencing in 1996,¹⁰ shows that about 1.5 per cent of Australian women have suffered physical or sexual violence, or emotional abuse by an intimate partner in the

^{12 months preceding the survey11 and around one in four women had}

⁸ Australian Institute of Criminology National Homicide Monitoring Program Report (Monitoring Reports No 23, 2015); Tracy Cussen and Willow Bryant Domestic/Family Homicide in Australia (Research in Practice No 38, 2015) at

2–3 and 6–7. These figures are discussed in more detail in State of Victoria Royal Commission into Family Violence: Report and Recommendations (Parl Paper No 132, 2014–2016) Vol IV at Chapter 25. (This report is hereafter cited as ‘RCFV Report’). See also: Coroners Court of Victoria Victorian Systemic Review of Family Violence Deaths: First Report (November 2012) at 18. This review includes a broader range of cases than the Australian Institute of Criminology Study including cases where there was no criminal responsibility, for example, because the perpetrator was found to be mentally impaired or because the person was acting in self-defence. It also includes deaths by suicide determined to be linked to family violence. According to this review over the period 1 January 2000 to 31

December 2010 there were 288 relevant Victorian deaths, of which 136 (47.2 per cent) were intimate partner homicides and 75 (26 per cent) were filicides.

⁹ New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse Data Summary 1: Family Violence Deaths (University of Auckland, July 2016) at 3. The Clearinghouse relies on three different statistical collections, which count numbers slightly differently. The Family Violence Death Review Committee statistics show that in 2012 50 per cent of culpable homicides arose out of family violence and the Ministry of Health Mortality Collection Data recorded 18 out of 56 (32 per cent) as due to assault by a family member perpetrator.

^{10 Australian Bureau of Statistics Women’s Safety Australia (No 4128, 1996).}

^{For more detailed discussion see Volume I of the RCFV Report, above}

^{n 8, at 48–51. Surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2012 and covered both}

^{men’s and women’s experience of violence.}

^{11 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Australia (Catalogue}

^{No 4906. December 2013).}

experienced violence by a male since the age of 15.¹²

Children and young people are the invisible victims of family violence. In Victoria, police data shows that over a three year period since 2009–

2010, there has been a reported 76 per cent increase in family violence incidents at which children were present.¹³ Exposure to family violence can result in children suffering from a variety of physical, emotional and mental health effects including depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, impaired cognitive functioning and mood problems. Additionally, their social skills may be affected and they may have difficulty in regulating their emotions, trusting others and forming relationships.¹⁴

One victim of family violence as a child told the Commission:¹⁵

I was incredibly suicidal from a very young age — it’s very painful to think about. I remember being what could only have been about 6 years old and just crying and crying and being so afraid, wondering how I could live if I ran away from home — I was also incredibly afraid of and obsessed by death. I was already starving and hurting myself when I was around 11.

Family violence – a ‘wicked problem.’

Family violence is what policy makers sometimes describe as a ‘wicked’

^{public policy problem.}

The term ‘wicked’ describes a problem which is particularly difficult to resolve – that is a problem for which there are no quick fixes or obvious solutions.¹⁶ The characteristics of ‘wicked problems’ were recently summarised in a policy paper prepared by the Australian Public Service Commission.¹⁷ The features of family violence which bring it into the category of ‘wicked problems’ include the following:

1. First, there are diverse views about what causes family violence and how it can be prevented.¹⁸

It was put strongly to the Royal Commission that family violence

¹² The figure is derived from a more detailed analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistic’s data conducted by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Ltd and reported in Volume I of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at 51. Of note, the definition of intimate partner included non-cohabiting partners.

^{13 Volume II of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at 103.}

^{14 At 106.}

^{15 At 106.}

^{16 The expression first appears in Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber “Dilemmas}

^{in a General Theory of Planning” (1973) 4 Policy Sci 185.}

^{17 Australian Public Service Commission “Tackling Wicked Problems:}

^{A Public Policy Perspective” (31 May 2012) <www.apsc.gov.au/}

^{publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/tackling-wicked-}

^{problems>. Examples of wicked problems given in that paper include}

^{climate change, indigenous disadvantage and land degradation.}

^{18 The causes of family violence were not within the terms of reference of}

^{the Commission, but are complex and include gender inequality and}

^{child abuse: Volume VI of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at 3–6.}

is largely, if not entirely, attributable to gender inequality and that the most effective strategy for reducing violence is to improve the situation of women in areas such as the workforce and public life.¹⁹

Other commentators argued that gender inequality does not necessarily account for violence by men and women against children, by adult children against older parents, or for violence against people with disabilities or within same sex relationships. It was also argued that improving gender equality would not address other factors which contribute to family violence or affect individual abusers, including social disadvantage and unemployment, mental illness, economic inequality, and drug and alcohol abuse.

It was fortunate that the Commission’s terms of reference did not require us to identify the cause of family violence. In my view this would be a fruitless task, because complex social phenomena like family violence usually involve an interaction between many factors.

Our recommendations sought to address all of the factors which contribute to family violence, not just to violence by men against their female partners. The Royal Commission addressed all its manifestations, including violence against children, older people and people with disabilities, and violence by adolescents and older children against parents and other family members.

2. Secondly, solving ‘wicked problems’ usually requires co–operation and integration between different parts of government and between government agencies and non-government organisations, including health and welfare service providers, courts and police.

For example, drug and alcohol treatment services often focus on helping clients to overcome their addiction but may not examine whether the client needs help as a victim or perpetrator of family violence, or the relationship between their addiction and the violence. As another example, courts may make a family violence intervention order excluding a perpetrator from a family home but this may be ineffective if the perpetrator has nowhere to go. Police failure to enforce breaches which occur when the perpetrator continues to harass the victim by constantly phoning or texting her or tracking her movements, may result in the victim continuing to be terrified and the perpetrator continuing to feel that a court order can safely

¹⁹ For discussion of the role of gender inequality see World Health Organisation and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Preventing Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence against Women: Taking Action and Generating Evidence (World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2010) at 6,

9, 24–26 and 29–32. See also UN Women A Framework to Underpin Action to Prevent Violence Against Women (November 2015) at 24–25; Lori Heise and Andreas Kotsadam “Cross-National and Multilevel Correlates of Partner Violence: An Analysis of Data From Population–Based Surveys” (2015) 3 Lancet Global Health e332; Mary Ellsberg et al “Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls: What Does the Evidence Say?” (2015)

^{385 Lancet 1555.}

^{be flouted.}

3. A third feature of ‘wicked problems’ is that there is often a lack of reliable data on aspects of the problem and inadequate evidence about the effectiveness of proposed solutions.

Lack of data was a significant problem faced by the Royal Commission. For example, there was little data on the rate of recidivism after a family violence intervention order was made, which is essential evidence in assessing the effectiveness of such orders. There was also a lack of evidence on the long-term effect of interventions, such as behaviour change programs and whether they were effective to change the behaviour of men who assault their female partners.

The evidence on approaches which may work to reduce violence in relationships, other than intimate partner relationships, is almost non-existent. Whilst we were able to commission research to fill some of these gaps, we know that solving a ‘wicked problem’ such as family violence requires on–going data and evidence collection.

4. Fourthly, addressing ‘wicked problems’ usually requires cultural,

^{attitudinal and behavioural change.}

We know that family violence requires sustained effort at a community level to ensure the problem is recognised and taken seriously, that victims are supported and that there is early intervention to prevent the problem escalating.

5. Fifthly, ‘wicked problems’ are usually entrenched.

Feminists first named violence by men against women in the nineteenth century, often attributing it to abuse of alcohol.²⁰ By the late nineteenth century, men who assaulted their wives or partners were theoretically criminally liable, but prosecutions were rare except in cases where victims suffered very serious injuries or death.²¹ Men who killed their wives were frequently able to rely on the partial excuse of provocation to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.

It was not until second wave feminists began to set up refuges and campaign for reforms in the 1960s that the law began to provide more effective remedies. At that time, Australia and many other common law countries had no effective remedies to protect women, or other

²⁰ Elizabeth Nelson Homefront Hostilities. The First World War and Domestic Violence (Australian Scholarly, North Melbourne, 2014) at 190, citing newspaper sources; Walter Phillips “Six O’Clock Swill: The Introduction of Early Closing of Hotel Bars in Australia” (1980) 19(75) Hist Stud 251; Marilyn Lake A Divided Society: Tasmania During World War I (Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 1975) at 45–46.

²¹ For reference to discussion of the criminal law response to ‘wife-beating’ in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century see Chapter 1 of Elizabeth Nelson Homefront Hostilities. The First World War and Domestic Violence (Australian Scholarly, North Melbourne, 2014) at 19–24.

adult victims of family violence, against future physical violence, let alone against further psychological or economic abuse.²² The child protection authorities could remove a child who was being harmed by a parent, but this was often at the cost of removing them from mothers who were victims of violence themselves.²³

6. Finally, ‘wicked problems’ are often characterised by the failure or

^{limited success of previous reform attempts.}

The limits of previous law and policy reforms

I will not describe the detailed history of the family violence reforms made in Victoria prior to the establishment of the Royal Commission, but will mention some landmark legislation and practice changes. In understanding the need for reform it is vital to understand the legal and policy foundation for the current situation, which can be built upon in the future.

In Victoria, legislative changes were made in 1987 and 2008. There

^{were also significant changes in public policy and practice in the early}

^{2000’s, including:24}

^{• a review of police practices, which led to the adoption of a Police}

^{Code of Practice to improve the police response;25}

• developing a Common Risk Assessment Framework to enable service providers to more accurately assess a victim’s risk of harm;²⁶

• establishing advisory bodies to encourage better integration between the systems providing services to victims and to obtain feedback from service providers and victims of violence on the successes and failures of these systems;²⁷

• establishing a family violence division in the Magistrates’ Court,

²² Historically an injunction could not be granted to prevent future criminal behaviour: Gee v Pritchard [1818] EngR 605; (1818) 36 ER 670 at [413].

²³ For discussion of the separate spheres in which child protection and family violence have traditionally operated see Chapters 10 and 11 of Volume II of the RCFV Report, above n 8.

²⁴ The history of these changes is explained in more detail in Volume I of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at 63–67.

²⁵ For instance, the Victorian Government issued the Women’s Safety Strategy 2002–2007, the first comprehensive strategy on violence against women since the early 1980s: Volume I of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at

^64.

^{26 This was part of the Women’s Safety Strategy 2002–2007, above n 8,}

^{Volume I at 65.}

^{27 A Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Family Violence was jointly}

^{convened by the Police and the State Office of Women’s Policy with}

^{the aim of creating an integrated response to family violence across}

^{government departments and other relevant agencies. The Committee}

^{included representatives from relevant government departments,}

^{magistrates and lawyers, and women’s services: RCFV Report, above}

^{n 8, Volume I at 64.}

which is where family violence intervention orders are made. The division includes specialist Magistrates and court staff to provide better support to victims of violence. This model gave Magistrates the power to require male perpetrators of family violence to attend counselling or what were later called behaviour change programs;

• recognising the high incidence of family violence in indigenous communities by creating structures which gave opportunities for indigenous leadership to support indigenous communities to prevent family violence and help victims.²⁸

In 2008, the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 was an important milestone. The Act was largely based on recommendations made by the Victorian Law Reform Commission.

The institutional and practical changes made in the early 2000s and the 2008 Act were positive developments. But as is often the case with

^{‘wicked problems’, their effect was limited.}

Although two-thirds of applications for family violence intervention orders were now initiated by police, many victims continued to be ashamed or too frightened to report violence. Despite the introduction of the Police Code of Practice, the introduction of family violence training for new police recruits and the creation of specialist family violence teams, some police remained ignorant of, or resistant to, the problems experienced by victims of violence, not regarding this as ‘real policing’.

Victims in different parts of the State experienced varying levels of police response to reports of violence and there was no mechanism for auditing and comparing police performance across regions. Indigenous women were often particularly critical of police responses.

Additionally, despite the trend towards family violence specialisation of some Magistrates’ Courts in Victoria, many applications were still heard by non–specialist Magistrates in crowded courts lacking proper facilities to support victims and keep them safe. Duty lawyers appointed by Legal Aid were often unable to provide an appropriate level of service because of the time pressures caused by a high level of demand.

Not all victims could get access to other relevant services, such as housing and support for further education or training to assist people who needed support to become economically independent. Victims in rural and regional areas often had to leave their homes and family or friendship networks and come to Melbourne to obtain emergency accommodation.

These failings were heightened by the increasing pressure placed on police, courts and service providers and the fact that funding could not

²⁸ The government established an Indigenous Family Violence Task Force, the recommendations of which resulted in a later Indigenous Family Violence Forum and the creation of regional committees to oversee family violence responses within particular areas: RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume I at 64.

keep up with demand. Between 2009–2010 and 2013–1014, the number of incidents recorded by the police increased by almost 83 per cent. The number of applications heard in the Magistrates’ Courts increased by 34.5 per cent over the same period.²⁹ Nearly 40 per cent of people seeking assistance for homelessness were affected by family violence, a level of demand which could not be met. The need to respond to calls for immediate help meant that there was little room to focus on prevention and early intervention to prevent family violence escalating, or on helping women, children and others affected by violence to recover from its effects once an immediate crisis had been resolved. Victoria’s response to family violence was sometimes characterised as an ‘ambulance at the bottom of the cliff’ scenario.

The Royal Commission’s approach

The Commission addressed the features which make family violence a

^{‘wicked problem’ in three main ways.}

1. First, because the questions were policy–based, we used well– established law reform processes.³⁰ Unlike many Royal Commissions, which are required to make factual findings and necessarily focus largely on evidence from hearings, our approach was non– adversarial. Counsel for the State, though present at all our public hearings, did not call witnesses or cross-examine.

Listening to the voice of people affected by family violence was also integral to our work. Their experiences helped us to identify the themes pursued in our public hearings and arrive at our final recommendations. Our aim was to ensure that psychological support was available to those who participated in our process to prevent them from experiencing further harm.

Our approach was also assisted by information and expertise garnered at our expert roundtables, which helped us to refine issues and test our tentative thinking. Our 25 days of public hearings were live-steamed.³¹ This allowed the public to follow our work and understand debates about contentious issues.

29. The implications of this increase in applications for intervention orders is further discussed in Volume VII of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at

^221–233.

^{30 I am referring here to law reform as undertaken by independent}

^{law reform commissions. In Australia most law reform commissions}

^{are limited to investigating issues referred to them by government.}

^{The techniques to which I refer may have been necessitated by the fact}

^{that governments began to give commissions references on broader social}

^{policy questions. Examples of broader social problems examined by a law}

^{reform commission include: Australian Law Reform Commission Access}

^{All Ages – Older Workers and Commonwealth Laws (ALRC Report 120, 2013)}

^{and Victorian Law Reform Commission People with Intellectual Disabilities}

^{at Risk: A Legal Framework for Compulsory Care (No 48, 2003).}

^{31 Volume I of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at 5-6.}

We found that allowing experts to give evidence concurrently in areas of controversy, for example on the effectiveness of men’s behaviour change programs, was an effective way of exploring differences of opinion. International experts gave evidence online and we were lucky enough to have some very helpful witnesses from New Zealand.

2. A second feature of our process involved ‘learning from history’ – that is examining the effects of past reforms in Victoria and elsewhere and trying to assess reasons for their failure or limited success.³²

We examined prevention and early intervention strategies and the adequacy of processes to help victims to recover from the effects of past violence. We considered the various pathways through which victims and perpetrators come in contact with particular systems and how institutions and systems responded to their needs or failed to do so. This enabled us to identify opportunities for earlier intervention.

3. Thirdly, as I will discuss further, we proposed government and non-government structures to support the proposed reforms. This was based on our recognition that law and public policy reform that stands alone without leadership, implementation strategies and a whole-of-government approach, would not enable the long-term strategy and change that Victoria needed.

There is no silver bullet that can bring about change to prevent and effectively respond to family violence, but we asked that the State Government implement our recommendations over a 10 year period and we set timelines within which particular recommendations should be implemented.

I want to conclude by making some very tentative comments about what New Zealand might learn from some of our recommendations. ³³

Some lessons for New Zealand?

A new governance structure

The Commission emphasised the importance of bi-partisan leadership to ensure that family violence remains on government policy agendas, regardless of the party which is in power.³⁴ Lack of bi–partisanship on important issues often produces policy discontinuity. The laudable desire of a new government to make its own mark on an area of community concern may result in defunding, abandonment and dilution of earlier initiatives even when they are working. Our recommendations included the establishment of a bi-partisan parliamentary committee on family violence, an approach which has proved successful in the area of road

³² At 63–90.

^{33 My familiarity with New Zealand systems which deal with family violence}

^{is limited and it would not be helpful for me to discuss the Commission’s}

^{227 recommendations.}

^{34 RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume VI at 117.}

safety in Victoria.³⁵

We also recognised that community leadership and the involvement of workplaces, sporting organisations, faith communities and other civil society institutions is vital in creating cultural and, consequently, practice change.³⁶ This is relevant both to culture in the sense of social values and the culture of particular professional groups, for example the culture of health service and housing providers, police, lawyers and judicial officers, which influences the way they go about their work. Important work on community values about gender inequality and family violence was underway well before the Royal Commission was established,³⁷ but we made recommendations to support and expand these activities. We recommended family violence training for all key work-forces, including hospitals and schools.³⁸ We also recommended that Respectful Relationships education for children and young people be a mandatory part of the curriculum at all year levels, to challenge negative attitudes to women and to change broader social attitudes to the use of violence.³⁹

Policy responses to a ‘wicked problem’ are unlikely to work unless there is a co-ordinated whole–of–government approach to implementation. Departmental lack of co–operation can undermine policy initiatives and make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, for people affected by family violence to receive the services they need. The important attempts to integrate the work done by government agencies and funded service providers, which were made in the 2000s, had dwindled over time.⁴⁰

We recommended a new ‘system architecture’ which included embedding a Cabinet sub–committee on family violence which would have responsibility for approving the ten–year family violence plan and arrangements for supporting regional structures.⁴¹ We recommended new governance structures in the senior bureaucracy to promote a whole– of–government approach and improve liaison between government agencies which fund services and the non–government bodies which provide them.⁴²

³⁵ Recommendation 193 at 130.

^{36 At 71.}

^{37 VicHealth Preventing Violence before it Occurs: A Framework and}

^{Backgrounds Paper to Guide the Primary Prevention of Violence Against}

^{Women in Victoria (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Carlton,}

^{2007); VicHealth Preventing Violence Against Women in Australia:}

^{Research Summary (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, Carlton,}

^2011).

^{38 Recommendation 212, RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume VI at 206–208.}

^{39 Recommendation 189 at 61.}

^{40 RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume VI at 100–101.}

^{41 At 118–121.}

^{42 At 119–120.}

Governance structures also need to be informed by feedback from victims of family violence about how the system is working.⁴³ Many victims of family violence told us about inadequate service integration, with systems such as housing, health and specialist family violence services operating in separate ‘silos’. One witness who had been subjected to very serious violence, lived in a car for a year with her four children because there was no suitable accommodation available for the family.⁴⁴

^{Similar findings about lack of service integration were made in the report}

^{of the New Zealand Productivity Commission Review of Social Services.45}

One of our important recommendations was to establish ‘Support and Safety Hubs’ in 17 regional areas throughout the State to receive referrals from police, service providers and family and friends, and ensure that victims receive direct assistance until they can be linked with longer term support.⁴⁶ The intake process will bring together information about victims and perpetrators to help with initial risk assessment.

The importance of data

We made recommendations to ensure that future family violence policies are based on evidence, rather than assertion or ideology. In Victoria, past strategies were often based on limited data.⁴⁷

Innovations lacked feedback and monitoring mechanisms so that success was not always recognised and new approaches could not be fine–tuned to make them more effective.

The Commission recommended an independent statutory Family Violence Agency to liaise with relevant groups, and to commission or undertake research on the operation of all the systems relevant to family violence so that their performance can be assessed.⁴⁸ The Agency will also encourage sharing of information about approaches which are showing promise.

Focus on perpetrators

Designing an effective family violence system requires much more focus on perpetrators. It should never be assumed that victims can manage their own safety without receiving the support they need. Although there are some perpetrator programs in Victoria, there is insufficient follow–up to monitor completion, inadequate oversight of the quality of programs and we do not know if existing programs are effective in preventing recidivism in the long–term.⁴⁹ All these matters need to be

⁴³ At 113.

^{44 Appendix F at 226–228.}

^{45 New Zealand Productivity Commission More Effective Social Services}

^{(August 2015).}

^{46 Recommendation 211, RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume VI at 206. See}

^{also Volume II at 263.}

^{47 RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume I at 47–48.}

^{48 Recommendation 199, RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume VI at 133. See}

^{also 122–124.}

^{49 RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume III at 260–267 and 273–277.}

^{at the centre of an effective family violence system.}

Protecting victims also requires collection of good information and risk management of perpetrators. A secure central information point, led by Victoria Police, will give staff from police, welfare services and justice, the ability to obtain information held in their separate databases so that all the material relevant to risk can be brought together.⁵⁰ This information will be made available to the recommended support and safety hubs and the risk assessment and management panels at regional level, which deal with very high risk cases. We also made recommendations to remove barriers to information sharing relevant to the risk of future violence, for example, to ensure that victims are informed when a perpetrator is released from prison or moves into the area.⁵¹

Protecting children

Our final report emphasises the importance of investing in the future by protecting children from violence and helping them recover from its longer term effects. A child who lives with violence may be forever changed, but should not be forever damaged. There is much that can be done to improve the child’s future and break the cycle of violence which may otherwise be repeated. Historically, there has been an insufficient focus on the effects of violence on children and young people.

Among our many child–focused recommendations, we recommended:

a) better information exchange between police, family violence services and child protection;⁵²

b) greater training for child protection practitioners about the nature and dynamics of family violence and better training for family violence services on the effects of violence on children;⁵³

c) funding of therapeutic interventions and counselling for children;⁵⁴

d) funding of youth homelessness services;⁵⁵ and

^{e) early intervention to provide a more effective response to children}

^{and young people who are using violence.56}

Government must fund and focus on prevention strategies which are a central plank in protecting children from future violence.

Funding stream

Finally, I want to mention our recommendation that transparent funding mechanisms be put in place to determine how much the

⁵⁰ Recommendation 7, RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume I at 195–197.

^{51 At 196.}

^{52 At 195–196.}

^{53 Recommendation 29, RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume II at 200–201.}

^{54 Recommendation 23 at 145.}

^{55 Recommendation 24 at 148.}

^{56 Recommendations 123–125, RCVF Report, above n 8, Volume IV at}

^167–171.

government spends on family violence policy responses.⁵⁷ The New Zealand Government is to be congratulated for attempting to ascertain its expenditure on family violence, sexual violence and child abuse services, which in 2014 amounted to about 1.4 billion dollars per year. Only a small proportion of this amount went to primary prevention.⁵⁸

We recommended a significant increase in the funding of relevant services, including an immediate housing ‘blitz’ and funding of a support package to assist victims of family violence to obtain housing, improve their work skills and provide psychological support when needed.⁵⁹

I am glad to report that in its recent budget the Victorian Government announced additional funding of about half a billion dollars to implement the Commission’s recommendations.⁶⁰

More money is an important part but not the whole of the solution to the ‘wicked problem’ of family violence. The Royal Commission exposed the pervasive nature and dreadful effects of family violence to the general community. As is often the case with effective public policy reform, the public identification of problems in the system through our hearings and consultations encouraged service providers, police and courts to begin working on change before we finally reported.

As I have touched upon, law reform standing alone cannot overcome the awful blight of family violence. Family violence can cause terrible physical and psychological harm to those directly affected. It also damages our communities and our nations.

I understand New Zealand is facing an increasing level of family violence. There is an opportunity to transform the way that we respond to and address this social evil.

As the Royal Commission’s final report observed:⁶¹

broadening responsibility for addressing family violence will require each sector or component part of the system to reinforce the work of others, to collaborate with and trust others, to understand the experience of family violence in all its forms, to look outwardly, and to be open to new ideas and new solutions.

Thank you for listening and I hope this address encourages your

^{discussion and reflection.}

⁵⁷ Recommendations 217–219, RCVF Report, above n 8, Volume VI at

^239–241.

^{58 Cabinet Social Policy Committee Progress Report on the Work Programme}

^{of the Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence (28 July}

^{2015) at [27], cited in Volume VI of the RCFV Report, above n 8, at 240.}

^{Note that this includes expenditure which in Australia would be borne}

^{by the federal rather than the state government, and also includes sexual}

^{violence, not all of which occurs within families.}

^{59 Recommendations 18–20, RCFV Report, above n 8, Volume II at 91–92.}

^{60 State of Victoria Getting it Done: Victorian Budget 16/17 (Department of}

^{Treasury and Finance, Melbourne, 2016) at 4.}

^{61 RCFV Report, Summary and Recommendations, above n 8, at 7.}