All states and territories have recognised that a single-department approach to reducing violence against women and their children will not be effective and have implemented, or are implementing, cross-departmental and inter-agency approaches. Some jurisdictions have included non-government agencies as key partners in their approaches. No jurisdiction said it was directing considerable time or resources into interacting or coordinating with other jurisdictions. From the ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis, key areas have been highlighted for improvement.
Structural
All jurisdictions have some degree of cross-portfolio collaboration and harmonisation with a socio-structural approach to understanding and tackling violence against women and their children. This means they have strategies, services and laws that: address sex discrimination and inequality; include all forms of violence against women; prioritise women’s safety and empowerment; and adopt a collaborative and consultative approach with knowledgeable and informed stakeholders.
The ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis highlights the need for greater depth of collaboration and sharing of information and resources across jurisdictions.
Strategic
While all jurisdictions have plans to reduce violence against women and their children, their details vary. Some include specific actions; assign responsibility for completion to an agency and articulate targets and timelines. Others remain more strategic, containing global statements of intent rather than detailed actions. It is not standard practice to evaluate strategies.
The ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis highlights the need for consistent and integrated state and territory-based action plans that include responses from police, education, community services, health and human services and the justice system. These plans should clearly articulate key performance indicators, targets, and timelines. Appropriate monitoring, reporting and accountability measures, and on-going evaluation are essential components of successful strategic plans of action.
Sustained
Many initiatives to reduce violence against women and their children are funded and operated as pilot programs. Most jurisdictions have committed large amounts of funding to reducing violence against women but in some there appears no commitment to continuing funding. Activities to prevent violence against women and their children appear secondary to those responding to violence from a funding perspective.
The ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis highlights the need for continuing funding for activities that reduce, and prevent, violence against women and their children. Funding needs to be substantial, clearly designated, supported by the whole of government and directed by a permanent and well-resourced leadership body.
[ top ]
Prevention
All states and territories have developed and implemented preventative educational activities and campaigns to prevent violence against women and their children. Differences in campaign target audiences and sustainability tends to reflect funding cycles. Little information is available about the effectiveness of such initiatives.
The ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis highlights the need for continued funding and support for nationwide campaigns to prevent violence against women and their children, linked to state and territorial education initiatives.
Provision
The provision of services for women and their children, who have experienced, or are at risk of experiencing, sexual assault or domestic and family violence varies throughout Australia. All jurisdictions offer services for victims.
One area that could be improved is that of data collection and analysis. Robust data on violence against women and their children in Australia is limited. Information about which services victims seek and can access is not readily available, and the way it is reported does not always allow for a comprehensive exploration of the issue. For example, police data files would be the most likely source of information on domestic and family violence and sexual assault, but not all victims go to the police. This affects data estimates.
Variations in data estimates across Australia are affected by what is captured, counted and reported across jurisdictions. The difficulty in measuring the true extent of domestic and family violence and sexual assault in the community has meant many incidences go unreported. Personal and institutional barriers to reporting domestic and family violence and sexual assault also affect data collection.
The ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis highlights the need to strengthen prevention and early intervention services (crisis response) with robust collection systems including:
- the development of a national minimum data set, data dictionary and standard protocols for domestic and family violence and sexual assault to enable consistent and standardised data collection methods and analysis;
- the development of common online databases for national data collection that can monitor individuals across the service sector and across jurisdictions.
There is also a need for: increasing the number of safe houses for women and their children; integrated and specialised victim support; increasing professional training opportunities for professionals who work in the area of sexual assault or domestic and family violence; appropriate protection of survivors from further violence; and support for victims seeking compensation.
Prosecution
Limited information is available on the use of justice remedies by women and their children experiencing violence. While some states publish data on the number of domestic violence intervention or protection orders granted (e.g. New South Wales), only aggregate data is reported and therefore it is not easily interpreted. There is little comprehensive data relating to victims’ use of the court, nor the linkage of data with national registers or crime databanks.
Over the past 30 years, there have been major changes to the law concerning sexual offences in every state and territory. Every jurisdiction has created distinct legislation244. But systems vary in their processes, laws, provisions (e.g. evidence about past sexual experiences, corroboration, protection of sexual assault counselling communications, outlining of the offences, non-consent of the victim-complainant and mental state of the accused person, to name a few), and outcomes.
In the wake of rape law reforms, police responsiveness and sensitivity is widely believed to have improved. But charge and conviction rates in some English-speaking jurisdictions have fallen during the past 10-20 years. For example, in 1996-1997, the number of findings of guilty for ‘sexual assaults’ in New South Wales comprised just 10 per cent of offences reported. In Victoria, the number of convictions for rape in 1997-1999 was only 4.2 per cent of total reports245.
The ‘As Is’ jurisdictional analysis highlights the need for consistent legislation in relation to family violence and sexual assault across Australia, linked to robust justice data collection systems.
[ top ]