Page 669 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Prime Minister, Mr Keating, has stated that the judiciary should go back to school. I do not agree with the inference of learning politically correct thinking, but I do want magistrates and judges to be given the best information and training available in the area of domestic violence. I also want them to have on their reading lists not just legal precedents but victim impact statements and information which points out that human beings are not driven by absolute facts but are capable of being terrified and unable to present a coherent argument, as was the case in the example at page 51 of the discussion paper.
There are many issues which need to be taken into account in domestic violence cases, as many as there are domestic violence incidents, and I do not believe that we are yet aware of the extent of the problem. In connection with this point, I would like to express some views that are important in dealing with domestic violence. The first is training. Many agencies deal with domestic violence and most have training for their staff in dealing with traumatised women and children. But the commitment to reforming domestic violence responses in the ACT must include an acceptance of the fact that the problem is one of violence, not one of conflict mediation. There is no point in counselling victims alone. The perpetrators must be made to address their violence. Women must no longer be made to feel that they have failed to find the correct way to treat their attackers, or that they are the cause of the attack.
Therefore, there must be an agreed approach to the basic elements of the problem, and this means education that is consistent in its approach and accepts as its basic premise that survivors of domestic violence are not the cause of the problem and that mediation is not an acceptable solution until the perpetrator has accepted and addressed their own violent behaviour. Organisations can bring to this process any manner of approaches, but the nature of the problem must be recognised by all support providers. Recognised programs for helping perpetrators deal with their violence should also be part of the approach taken. But in the end the service delivered will be dependent on the training given to counsellors and support people.
In an associated matter, perpetrators must also be given support to recognise their violence. I recently attended a meeting organised by Parents Without Partners and the Lone Fathers Association.
Mr Moore: Was that the meeting when there were no Labor members present?
MS SZUTY: That is the one, yes; I believe so, Mr Moore. At that meeting, despite the vitriol poured on the system for accepting women's accusations of violence and not giving men the benefit of the doubt, one very worthwhile point was put. The ACT needs a refuge for families, particularly for men with children who find themselves temporarily homeless because of domestic violence. I feel that it is a worthwhile suggestion for the Government, whether through the Community Law Reform Committee or some other medium, to explore. Interstate there are men's shelters, established for many and varied reasons. Here in Canberra we do have one family orientated shelter. However, the needs of perpetrators need to be better met. Currently, aggression, feelings of denial of justice and hatred are exacerbated by the current system. We need to take a proactive approach to separating perpetrators from the people they have attacked, without escalating the violence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .