Thinking in terms of accountability and obtaining value for (taxpayers') money, I would be much happier if the $100million was going direct to known reputable helping organisations that are NOT single interest.

It is not in the interests of the victims of violence nor the taxpayer for the feds to be throwing money at noisy lobbyists (and to line their pockets!), but it is clever politics to do so.

Without doubt I would estimate that very little if any of the money will reach the victims. -Unless consultants and 'administration' are to be regarded by victims as practical outcomes/services.

Fact is, 'domestic violence' could be reduced considerably if the social factors behind 'Struggle Streets' could be addressed.

Then again, to some such as the 'Progressives' who decide Labor's social policy, gay marriage is vastly more important than that. To some, 'DV' is another hammer to bash society into their vision of what should be (and suits them).

Violence is violence and a victim is a victim is a victim. -At least, shouldn't victims of violence enjoy equal status?

Domestic Violence is all about wounded men lashing out inappropriately - not that I am making 'excuses' for violence.

More $$ spent on women's refuges where they and any children can 'escape' to hardly addresses the problem of why their male partners feel that violence against females is a 'valid masculine' response to perceived 'nagging', 'bitchiness and retaliatory punishment’, etc., etc.

Men who have these warped views and actions need help to 'see the light' and this can be assisted by them possibly recognizing that their dv is linked to dysfunctional role modelling by watching their dv fathers and hearing from dysfunctional dv mates advising, "Just give her a smack around the head!" to sort her out!

Instead they may be more assisted by viewing a range of short video clips and testimonies from men who have finally addressed long-term personal issues such as their own witnessing of dv sometimes 'aided' by being abused by other males as children themselves.

Having counselling perpetrators of domestic violence I agree with views espoused by Des Bowman, a Queensland author and speaker who finally got counselling help at aged 62 for his dysfunctional addictive and violent behaviours caused by his background including being sexually abused by other men. He has now taken up the challenge of "Helping Kids [and Men] Choose Life" rather than endless cycles of frustration and violence. The government should be funding 'male friendly' counselling rather than being routinely denounced as 'animals'. Des Bowman has a website www.desbowman.com.au with downloadable resources. He needs support to continue to go into schools to advise of his own 'journey' and offer support to male and female students with 'personal problems' to get healing so that the entire family unit works towards living as a family with respect and love rather than conflict and/or separation.

Equality exists when it suites the author, Why should women be seen as “equivalent” as a man when it comes to DV.

They are not seen as an equal anywhere else. I don’t see the comparison at all when talking about DV. It is a lopsided argument to say women and man can go at it in a violent way and all is equal.

If a man and woman are ferociously violent, the outcome is predictable.

So I can not see how you can mix other causes of death as relevant to DV. If men are inclined to suicide as a result of disputes, it is a mental failing on the behalf of the man, and likely to occur in any case.

If a female is the subject of suicidal tendencies, as a result of being man handled or sociological trauma it is a case of being trapped, a DV merry go round, in any case the female is more likely to put up with the violence because of kids at home, and that makes the trauma worse.

A man is far more capable of coping away from the home, than a woman so that is a major concern for DV sufferers.

Well said ZhanPintu, obviously preventing the violence happening in the first place would be the most ideal situation of all.
I am glad to see this thread take a positive turn.
Thank you.
See you all on another thread.
Suse.

RObert, your raw figure of 25%, obviously came from the stat under 'intimate partners' male 166 25%, female 488 75%. That in itself does not prove, or disprove, that in 25% of DV cases the female is the aggressor, thus leading to the death of the male partner.

You may see this site as biased in favor of women, but domestic violence is very much biased against women.

http://www.domesticviolence.com.au/index.php

"Let me (Turnbull) say this to you: disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women. But all violence against women begins with disrespecting women," the new Prime Minister said on Thursday morning.
This is not just some throwaway talking point.
While Turnbull was quickly applauded by Batty, Cash and former Victorian police chief Ken Lay, make no mistake, there will be others who hate what he had to say.
SMH.

To me that is fair comment by Turnbull on DV,

ZhanPintu, "Men who have these warped views and actions need help to 'see the light' and this can be assisted by them possibly recognizing that their dv is linked to dysfunctional role modelling by watching their dv fathers and hearing from dysfunctional dv mates advising, "Just give her a smack around the head!" to sort her out!"

That is far too narrow and value laden. What other contributors might there be?

Here take a minute to broaden your perspective,

What Causes Domestic Violence?
http://psychcentral.com/lib/what-causes-domestic-violence/