Presentation to the 54th Session
of the
UN Committee for the Status of Women
______________________________________________________________
 
Presentation by:
 

• Julie Oberin, National Chairperson, WESNET, Women’s Services Network Australia
• Margaret Augerinos, Victorian Representative, WESNET, Women’s Services Network Australia

______________________________________________________________
 
Thankyou for the opportunity to present to you today.
 
We have travelled a long way, but appreciate the opportunity to feel part of a global community which is committed to advancing the status of women, and to working towards a safer, equal and just world for all women.
 
Introduction to WESNET
 
We are here representing WESNET[1], Women’s Services Network Australia. 
 
Established in 1992, WESNET is the national women’s peak advocacy body which works on behalf of women and children who are experiencing or have experienced domestic or family violence.
 
With almost 400 members, primarily organisations, across Australia, WESNET represents a range of organisations including women’s refuges, shelters, safe houses, women’s housing services and information/ referral services.
 
Through its large national network of members and associate members, WESNET plays an important role in identifying unmet needs, canvassing new and emerging issues, facilitating policy and sector debate and lobbying government to provide improved responses to the problem of domestic and family violence.  We do this within our communities and in partnership with non-government stakeholders.
 
WESNET seeks to ensure that all women and children live free of domestic and family violence and its consequences. 
 
WESNET works within a feminist framework which promotes an understanding of domestic and family violence as gendered violence against women, because they are women.  In addition WESNET acknowledges that women's and children’s experiences are also intrinsically shaped by their ethnicity, ability, age, sexuality and class.
 
Unfortunately, WESNET lost national peak body funding from Australia’s previous conservative government and even though we now have the most promising national context for reform in the domestic and family violence arena, disappointingly we remain unfunded. We are hoping that the Australian Government will follow the steps of the Canadian and US governments and restore our peak body funding so that we can become more effective in the work that we attempt to do.
 
Whilst we are here to represent the Oceania region, there unfortunately is no Oceania network to refer to in developing this presentation. We are hopeful that our presence here will help facilitate such a regional network and encourage collaboration between countries in the Oceania region.
 
Given this, we will speak primarily about the Australian experience and context.
 
The Oceania Region
 
The Oceania region covers the following countries/regions:
 

• Australia
• Papua New Guinea
• New Zealand
• and the Pacific Islands.

Specific island countries/localities included in the Oceania Region are:

• Campbell Island
• Chatham Island
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Cook Islands
• Fiji
• Kermadec Islands
• Kiribati
• Lord Howe Island
• Macquarie Island
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia
• Nauru
• New Caledonia
• Niue
• Norfolk Island
• Palau
• Samoa
• Solomon Islands
• Tonga
• Tuvalu
• Vanuatu
• Wallis and Futuna 

The Australian Context
 
Australia is a vast country, with most of the population residing in cities on the eastern seaboard. Most of our services are located in large metropolitan and regional cities. However, many of our members are delivering services in remote and rural locations to some of the most disadvantaged communities in our country - indigenous women and their children.
 
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) Personal Safety Survey[2] reveals the gendered nature of domestic and family violence in Australia.
 
Sexual assault and domestic and family violence are crimes most often perpetrated by men against women. This violence is usually perpetrated by men whom women know, in their own home and often repeatedly.
 
One in three Australian women will report being a victim of physical violence and almost one in five will report being a victim of sexual violence in their lifetime.
 
Some groups of women experience higher rates of violence. These include:
 
·         Indigenous women
·         women with disabilities
·         women from immigrant, refugee and non-English speaking backgrounds
·         younger women
·         older women and
·         women from rural and remote areas
 
Violence against women also comes at an enormous economic cost. Research released by the Australian Government shows that each year violence against women costs the nation $13.6 billion. This figure is expected to rise to $15.6 billion by 2021.[3]
 
Recent Developments
 
In the last 8 to 10 years both at a state, territory and national level there have been unprecedented levels of reform and investment in working towards ending violence against women and children.
 
On a National level, the Federal Government established a National Council in 2008 to explore ways in which we could work towards ending violence against women and their children and to provide advice in developing a national plan to reduce violence against women and their children.
 
The resulting report “Time For Action”[4] outlined six key outcome areas and twenty high priority actions.
 
The six key outcome areas identified are:
 

• communities are safe and free from violence
• relationships are respectful
• services meet the needs of women and their children
• responses are just
• perpetrators stop their violence
• systems work together effectively

 
The government has committed to working towards the 20 priority actions and has made significant new investment in this area including:
 

• investing 12.5 million in developing a new 24 hour national telephone crisis service
• $26 million to be allocated to violence prevention activities
• Research activities
• Greater collaboration and co-ordination between the commonwealth, states and territories in legislative and civil, criminal and family court jurisdictions

 
However, to date, very little of these new funds have found their way into the specialist domestic violence sector, nor has the Federal Government committed to increasing support and resources to the agencies doing life saving work on the ground.
 
The current Federal Government is also committed to reducing homelessness and addressing the factors that contribute to homelessness.
 
As domestic and family violence is the leading driver of homelessness in our country, this is a very positive step.
 
Much of the funding for efforts to reduce and address violence against women and children is currently located within the housing and homelessness funding stream. This is not always a comfortable fit, as efforts to address the causes of violence, and to provide a just and effective response, is tied into other systems such as the criminal justice system, family law and child protection jurisdictions.
 
However, The Road Home – The Homelessness White Paper[5] also presents a very real opportunity to heighten awareness about violence against women and their children, and to ensure increased resources and attention is provided to the sector and community.
 
The White Paper sets an ambitious target to halve homelessness by 2020 and offer supported accommodation to all those experiencing primary homelessness who need it. 
 
The Federal Government has stated that they will deliver a 55 per cent increase on the current investment in homelessness. According to government figures, this represents an additional $800 million over four years and is a down payment on the 12 year reform agenda. It also includes a $400 million over the next two financial years for additional social housing for the homeless. 
 
Much of this is admirable and to be commended, however, as with the funding directed in the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, specialist services such as domestic violence agencies, will miss out on the bulk of these funds.    Instead, greater amounts will be provided to mainstream organisations – health and generalist welfare – to boost their capacity to respond to homelessness.
 
The specialist homelessness and domestic violence sector has been struggling to keep afloat. Government reviews of the homelessness service system including domestic violence services have repeatedly shown that the system is working beyond capacity, is underfunded and requires an immediate 40% injection of funds just to meet existing service demand.
 
Whilst there have been many positive developments on a state and national level in social policy and legislative reform, we must not lose sight of the work that still needs to be done.
 
As stated in the National Council’s background papers[6]:
·         Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report higher levels of physical violence during their lifetime than do non-Aboriginal and non-Torres Strait Islander Australian women, and they are much more likely to experience sexual violence and to sustain serious injury.
·         The prevalence and seriousness of Indigenous family violence must be seen in the context of the historical, political, social and cultural environments in which it occurs.
·          Similarly, women with disability are more likely to experience partner or sexual violence, of great severity, and over a longer period of time, than women without disability.
·         For women who identify themselves as lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex, more than a third has been in a relationship in which their partner has abused them.  
·         Immigrant women are more likely than other women to be murdered as a result of domestic and family violence and are less likely to receive appropriate assistance from services when they attempt to leave a violent relationship.
Issues of isolation, poverty, homelessness and the prevailing culture in which violence occurs in and is part of broader systems of social control, all need to be resolved so that women and their children can live their lives free of violence.
 
The Northern Territory Intervention
 
In its efforts to address indigenous disadvantage, including violence against women and children, the Federal government has undertaken some steps that unfortunately breach the basic human rights of many indigenous Australians.
 
The social policy initiative, broadly referred to as the Northern Territory Intervention was implemented in 2007 primarily to respond to issues of widespread child abuse in indigenous communities. The government was spurred into action through the release of the “Little Children Are Sacred”[7] report.
 
A key feature of the intervention was the government assuming control of local community land leases and removal of permit systems that enabled indigenous communities to control access to their land. This opened the way for the Federal government to effectively come onto aboriginal land and direct community affairs.
 
There is much to be cautious about in this intervention including restrictions on alcohol in communities, removal of customary law/lore and cultural practice considerations from bail applications and sentencing within criminal proceedings, quarantining a proportion of welfare benefits to all recipients in designated communities and of all benefits of those who allegedly neglect their children.
 
The intervention has been widely criticised both nationally and internationally, particularly in relation to the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, a move of concern to the UN.
 
Professor Alastair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia has expressed significant concern about the intervention. In a report he co-authored he states:
“The breadth of the legislation is frightening and it significantly overrides the rights of many Indigenous people in ways that would not be tolerated by the ordinary Australian community. It is discriminatory and racist and bundles all Indigenous people together as potential pornographers, child molesters and persons habitually addicted to the excessive consumption of alcohol.”[8]
Proposed Income Management
Aspects of the intervention have now found their way into other matters impacting on women who have experienced domestic and family violence.
The Federal government is currently considering the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform and Reinstatement of Racial Discrimination Act) Bill 2009.
This bill proposes to roll out compulsory income management for certain income recipient groups, specifically people assessed by Centrelink social workers as requiring income management due to vulnerability to financial crisis, domestic violence or economic abuse and where Child Protection is involved or concerns have been raised.[9]
We believe that such an intervention will have a disempowering impact for victims of domestic violence, primarily women who have already been significantly disempowered by their controlling and abusive partners. It will also adversely impact on the children affected by the violence and abuse because of the negative impact it has on their mother.
 
We are concerned that implicit in the introduction of the legislation is an inherent perception (and this perception will be perpetuated) that women experience financial problems after their experience of violence and abuse because they are poor at managing their finances. Not because of the violence and abuse per se.
 
It is well documented and understood that experiencing violence and abuse, and leaving an abusive relationship causes a great financial toll on a woman and her children. 
 
The list includes costs related to property damage, rent or mortgage arrears, relocation, setting up a new household, buying replacement clothes and personal items for herself and her children, legal costs, non-payment of child support, loss of employment income, medical and other health costs, counselling and other support for herself and her children, and we could go on. The Access Economics report has detailed these costs at great length. The primary cost is borne by the victim and strongly related to the consequences of pain and suffering. It does not make any sense at all to ignore these findings and again blame the victims for not ‘managing’ their finances rather than acknowledge the real financial cost of being a victim of violence and abuse.
This intervention is counterproductive and the cost of its introduction and implementation would be better spent supporting the victims of violence and abuse to get on their feet financially, as quickly as possible, with material aid. It would also be better spent providing sufficient resources to specialist domestic and family violence support services to provide additional programs focused on financial independence and management skills, where necessary, along with strengthening the work already undertaken to alleviate the impacts of the violence and abuse on the children and young people involved.
 
Family Law
 
Another area that has impacted greatly on women who have experienced domestic and family violence have been the 2006 amendments to family law and in particular provisions relating to shared parenting.
 
In late January, the Federal Attorney General released 3 reports into the family law system. The reports identified that shared parenting is sometimes being used in a way that is harmful to children, particularly where family violence has been an issue. Many women are under pressure to agree to shared parenting provisions without a full and proper assessment about the range of factors that impact on a child.
 
As reported in “The Age” newspaper:
 
“The legal starting point is in fact equal shared parental responsibility or major decision-making. Factors including the risk of violence, or that shared responsibility isn't in the child's best interests, make it non-applicable and when this happens the courts don't have to consider ordering shared time.”[10]
 
The Australian Institute of Family Studies report evaluating the 2006 Family Law reforms[11] concluded:
 
“Generally, shared care time did not appear to have a negative impact on the wellbeing of children except where mothers had safety concerns. Irrespective of care-time arrangements, safety concerns had a negative impact on children’s wellbeing. However, the negative impact of mothers’ safety concerns on children’s wellbeing was exacerbated where they experienced shared care-time arrangements.”
 
 
 
 
The report goes on to say:
 
“The link between mothers’ safety concerns and poorer child wellbeing outcomes, especially where there was a shared care-time arrangement, underlines the need for these sectors to have a more explicit focus on identifying the minority of highly vulnerable cases in which concerns about child or parental safety must take priority in decisions about care-time arrangements.”
 
Professor Richard Chisholm, a former Family court judge who conducted a review into the Family court has made a number of recommendations to government about changes to shared parenting – suggesting that the legislation be amended to remove shared care and instead replace it with “shared responsibility”.[12]
 
Professor Chisholm, together with Dr . Jennifer McIntosh have repeatedly expressed concern about these matters. In their paper “Shared Care and Children’s Best Interests in Conflicted Separation”[13], they state that shared care is a:
 
“viable arrangement for a small and distinct group of families, who self-selected into shared care arrangements and who had the following relational and structural profile:

• Geographical proximity;
• The ability of parents to get along sufficiently well to develop a business-like working relationship;
• Child-focused arrangements (with children kept ‘out of the middle’, and with children’s activities forming an integral part of the way in which the parenting schedule is developed);
• A commitment by everyone to make shared care work;
• Family-friendly work practices for both mothers and fathers;
• Financial comfort (particularly for women);and
• Shared confidence that the father is a competent parent.

 
Professor Chisholm and Dr. McIntosh go on to say:
 
“Many separating parents who require Court or formal dispute resolution involvement to determine their contact and care arrangements unfortunately do not share these characteristics.
 
Studies that have specifically addressed the dynamics of uncooperative post separation family care, involving protracted and/or serious levels of parental conflict, support the need for careful consideration of the impact upon children of acrimonious co-parenting arrangements. These studies have shown that shared parental care is unlikely to be appropriate in high conflict situations where parental attunement is compromised, and where the child, in order to maintain a relationship with both parents, develops conditional, high maintenance loyalties to each parent.”
 
Conclusion
 
Whilst progress has been made in Australia, it is clear that we must remain vigilant and be ready to advocate for ongoing system changes and reforms so that we can work towards eliminating violence against women and their children.
 
We thank you for your time.
 
Julie Oberin & Margaret Augerinos
WESNET, Women’s Services Network Australia

[1] WESNET – www.wesnet.org.au

[2] http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4906.02005%20%28Reissue%29?OpenDocument

[3] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/economic_costs/Documents/VAWC_Economic_Report.PDF

[4] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/Pages/default.aspx

[5] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepaper/Documents/default.htm

[6] http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/background/Documents/Background_Paper_to_Time_for_Action.PDF

[7] http://www.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au/

[8] http://intranet.law.unimelb.edu.au/staff/events/files/Willtheybeheard%20Report.pdf

[9]Macklin J, (25.11.09) Major welfare reforms to protect children and strengthen families Press Release, Accessed at:http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/welfare_reforms_protect_children_25nov2009.htm [retrieved 18.02.10]

[10] http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/reports-show-shared-care-needs-fixing-20100203-nd7a.html

[11] http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fle/evaluationreport.pdf

[12] http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%283273BD3F76A7A5DEDAE36942A54D7D90%29~Chisholm_report.pdf/$file/Chisholm_report.pdf

[13] http://www.familylawsection.org.au/resource/SharedCare.pdf