DV doesn't exist in isolation. Happy couples don't assault each other; tolerably miserable couples might have a slanging match here and there but they don't hit each other and so on.. In order to reduce DV we have to work out ways in which couples can be happy with each other, or at least tolerably miserable together.

Telling either partner that they need have no tolerance for their partner's expression of their unhappiness is a damned fine way to increase that unhappiness and to ensure that violence increases.

That is precisely the message that the DV advocacy industry has been pushing for years and unsurprisingly, DV increases every year, followed rapidly by DV advocates calling for more funding...

Paul, this is not a matter of simply supporting victims so we feel good about ourselves, it should be about reducing the number of victims.

The primary causes of DV are social disadvantage, followed by financial insecurity, both of which are also highly correlated with substance abuse.

Over the last 6 years of leasing rooms in my home, I've hosted many substance abusers and I've made a point of trying to understand their stories. None of them want to be drunks or drug abusers, all of them are deeply ashamed of their "failure", nearly all of them have a tale of woe around a relationship breakdown, loss of a job and so on. Several of them have had criminal histories as a result of their behaviour while under the influence. None of them have been bad people, but all of them have been difficult to live with because of their addiction and associated behaviours.

They are the people who perpetrate DV, but they are much more victims of their behaviour than anyone else. Pretending otherwise is purely a political game.

Craig,

Lots of people have problems and issues, however, there is no excuse for violence, and to remain of the community one has to take responsibility for one's actions, and either control oneself or if one cannot then to remove oneself from the situation.

I struggle to see how the perpetrator of DV can be more of a victim than the recipient of the violence.

The violence is a symptom, Shadow Minister, just as empty-headed rants about "lefties" are a symptom of deeper problems.

Perhaps, if you'd like to understand the problem, you might go and volunteer at a homeless shelter for men or some similar organisation where you can learn a little at first hand. I didn't start out intending to do so, but the majority of people who seek rooming accommodation are either foreign students or middle-aged men down on their luck, in my experience. I've had many of both as tenants.

Psychoactive substances are popular because they reduce the pain that people feel, but they also reduce the inhibitions to acting out impulsively that prevent us from taking a swing at people who annoy us. People who become violent are not guilty of some form of "original sin", they are simply incapable of controlling themselves in the moment, for many reasons. Alcohol and some other drugs, when combined with stress, social isolation (far more common for men than women, yet we only hear about women in this regard), a complaining partner and a sense of futility are a potent cocktail.

The awareness of the intolerance of the law for minor DV infractions leads some to escalate to more serious violence and you have an ongoing problem that endlessly supplies a "cause" and a decent living for those who service the fallout.

There is so much sloppy 'research', how can anyone trust the numbers and policy?

<Help Change the Debate
..The most recent statistics from the ABS Personal Safety Survey show 1.06 per cent of women are physically assaulted by their partner or ex-partner each year in Australia. This figure is derived from the 2012 PSS and published in its Horizons report by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, available at http://bit.ly/1ZYSyEj. The rate is obtained by dividing cell B9 in Table 19 (93,400) by the total female residential population aged 18 and older (8,735,400).

One in 100 women experiencing this physical violence from their partners is obviously a matter of great concern. But this percentage is very different from the usual figures being trotted out. You’ll never find the figure of 1.06 per cent mentioned by any of the domestic violence organisations in this country. Their goal is to fuel the flames, to promote an alarmist reaction with the hope of attracting ever greater funding for the cause.

What we hear from them is that one in three women are victims of violence. But that’s utterly misleading because it doesn’t just refer to domestic violence. These statistics are also taken from the Personal Safety Survey but refer to the proportion of adult women who have experienced any type of physical violence at all (or threat of violence.) So we’re not just talking about violence by a partner or violence in the home but any aggressive incident, even involving a perfect stranger — such as an altercation with an aggressive shopping trolley driver or an incident of road rage.

That’s partly how the figure inflates to one in three, but it also doesn’t even refer to what’s happening now because these figures include lifetime incidents for adult women — so with our 70-year-olds the violence could have taken place more than 50 years ago. And the equivalent figure for men is worse — one in two."
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/help-change-debate/
tbc..

continued..

"As for the most horrific crimes, where domestic violence ends in homicide, we are constantly told that domestic violence kills one woman every week. That’s roughly true.

"According to AIC figures, one woman is killed by an intimate partner or ex-partner every nine days. One man is killed by his partner about every 30 days. So it is important to acknowledge that male violence is likelier to result in injury or death than female violence towards a partner.

The fact remains that almost a quarter (23.1 per cent) of victims of intimate partner homicide are male — and we hardly ever hear about these deaths."
http://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/news/help-change-debate/

Hi Craig,

What you describe may be so, but I'd suggest that what is euphemistically referred to as 'domestic violence' in remote Aboriginal communities lifts the concept up a couple of notches. Big Nana would have far more experience than me, as both a nurse and a community participant, but I would submit that the violence is more brutal, more drearily predictable, more regular and far more damaging long-term.

As to why such 'DV' occurs, I suspect that the perpetrators, usually men but not exclusively, can. They can get away with it. It's one of the more vicious and dreadful facets of traditional culture which is 'preserved'. Yes, it's kicked along by grog, and probably Ice as well these days. But the bottom line is that men do it because they can. They enjoy it. And they expect to get away with it. As, of course, they have done.

I'm sure that Big Nana could write up a sort of time sequence of events on pension day, when the first fights can be expected, perhaps first between a couple of young men at, say, 3 pm, then maybe between a couple of young women at 3.45 pm, then a bit more general, young and older, men and women by 5 pm, then more targeted and vicious through the night: men against their women, carrying on as long as the grog lasts. Of course, all accompanied by a growing Greek chorus of obscenities, epithets, screams, threats, and the sounds of hard objects coming into contact with bodies and heads. All bloody night. So one can imagine the kids sitting bolt-upright all night, powerless and terrified.

So no, Mosman and Toorak will never witness anything like that. I apologise for suggesting so, but blame Philip Adams.

Cheers,

Joe