Domestic Violence — White Ribbon Day
HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [9.52 pm]: I also rise tonight because I wish to acknowledge that this week there will be an increased focus on domestic violence, specifically men’s violence against women, as Friday is White Ribbon Day. Tonight, during the dinner break, I attended a function to mark White Ribbon Day. Tomorrow, I will be amongst others from this place who will partake in the annual Silent Domestic Violence Memorial March for those who have died in the past year due to family and domestic violence.
According to WA Police crime statistics, there were 9 772 domestic assaults in WA in 2010–11. The government has responded to domestic violence in a range of ways over past decades, including funding shelters, support services and counselling programs, and using a variety of legislative approaches. There has also been a change in government service responses including responses by police, the courts, and health and child protection services. The statistics demonstrate there is still much more we need to do, particularly in the area of the prevention of domestic homicide. Approximately nine people died in WA from domestic homicide last year, yet we know there are more deaths generally attributed to domestic violence than are currently acknowledged. One of the difficulties with the statistics is they often do not take into account broader cases associated with incidents of domestic violence including new partners, friends, work colleagues, or bystanders. Other deaths may also be relevant, including those who suicide as a result of domestic violence, or who die in other circumstances, as well as relevant missing persons cases. In any event, I have always held the strong view that public responses should be evidence based. Unfortunately, domestic violence is an area in which the evidence continues to need to improve; we still do not have access to consistent and publicly available data.
Recognition of the need to have a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the events leading up to domestic homicides is one of the rationales behind the proposal to establish a domestic violence death review mechanism in Western Australia, and that is a move that I wholeheartedly support. The aim of the establishment of such panels, which exist elsewhere around the world, is to reduce domestic violence homicides by improving service provision and systemic responses, and to compile and interpret accurate detailed data.
A domestic violence death review panel would review systemic issues—where the system has failed or where the law has failed. For example, we know of recent cases of domestic homicide where it has been demonstrated that the legal system does not have the appropriate tools to ensure the perpetrators are adequately held to account for their actions. In other cases there has been a lack of follow-up or coordination between different agencies or service providers, and the capacity of these groups—or lack of capacity, as the case may be—may be able to be identified.
What we do know is that domestic violence deaths are predictable and therefore preventable. There are patterns of escalation, and victims usually tell people about their fears. It is common for victims of domestic homicide to have sought help from a variety of agencies and service providers prior to their deaths. In other countries—in particular, in many jurisdictions in the US, where there are more than 100 domestic violence death review panels—the application of recommendations from domestic violence death reviews has led to changes resulting in significant reductions in deaths. For example, the Santa Clara Domestic Violence Death Review Board showed a significant decrease in domestic and family homicides. Over a 10-year period, 1997 to 2007, there has been a 94 per cent decrease in domestic homicides.
Victoria first announced and established a review process, located out of the Coroner’s Court, which has a good reputation and a strong history of focusing on systemic issues. In Queensland, there is the newly established death review unit, and New South Wales enacted a death review unit through legislation in 2010. In Western Australia, at the annual family and domestic violence memorial march in 2009, a Department for Child Protection representative announced that a forum would be held to explore the introduction of a fatality review process in WA. A report on the findings of the forum was developed, outlining possible fatality review models for consideration by the government. It is my understanding that the recommendations were presented to the Minister for Child Protection in 2010 and we are still waiting to see what the final response will be. I know that some people who were involved in the forum were pushing strongly for a community-based review panel, to take into account the particular characteristics and circumstances in communities that led to the failures. This is particularly important, given the diversity of Aboriginal communities and the higher rates of domestic violence in these communities. Certainly, there was an argument that changes needed to be primarily driven at the community level; I note that that particular proposal did not get very far. In any event, the panel would ideally have broad input, including from government and non-government agencies, as well as representatives from significant groups, to provide specialist input including, where relevant, Aboriginal groups and members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, as well as appropriate independence and autonomy from the main agencies involved in domestic violence cases.
The two main models they looked at were to locate the review panel with either the State Coroner or the Ombudsman. I acknowledge that neither is perfect. One of the main concerns with the coroner’s office is that it uses the police for investigations, which is not necessarily appropriate given that improvements in police responses to domestic violence is one of the core areas the fatality review would need to look at. The decision has been made to locate it with the Ombudsman’s office, and I suggest that that was probably the best option of the two. I note there have been some concerns about the transparency of the Ombudsman’s office and certainly a desire that the reviews be put on the Ombudsman’s website, and also for there to be a requirement that the government respond within a certain time frame and for that response to be made public. I know there have been arguments that this could be done under existing legislation, but nevertheless a strong, clear legislative basis for this would be good, and the involvement of the Attorney General would also be good and would ensure that silos were prevented. I also know that significant questions are still being asked about how broad the parameters for review will be. Will it only capture those people who have been found to have been murdered, and by that I mean that the perpetrators have been convicted of murder or manslaughter? Will it capture people who have died but the perpetrator has been convicted of assault causing death? Is there potential for near fatalities to be investigated as well? We have had some horrendous cases in this state of women who have managed to survive by sheer luck; they have been the subject of absolutely horrendous attempted murder cases, and there is a question about whether those cases could be incorporated in the review as well.
In any event, we know that death review findings will serve to put domestic violence–related deaths on the public agenda where they certainly need to be. Domestic violence fatality review panels or boards or mechanisms—whichever one we look at—take a variety of forms. There are a range of terms of reference and methods of operating. In any event, it is very important that we have the model that will be most appropriate for WA. The domestic violence death review is very different from a coronial review investigation because it represents an opportunity to consider a much broader range of systemic failings, rather than focusing on the cause of death in isolation. The domestic violence death review process considers individual cases, but within the whole system, including taking into account the history of violence with a view to preventing and improving responses, and does not look to apportion blame or to shame individuals. We know that too many homicides, such as that of Saori Jones, who I have mentioned before in this place, are preceded by multiple efforts by the victim to get help and multiple failings by the system and the community to not only protect the victim, but also make the perpetrator accountable for the violence. Deaths from domestic violence are completely unacceptable. We have a social responsibility to prevent these deaths. The establishment of a domestic violence death review process is an important step in the right direction, but we will need to ensure that we get it right and we need to see it soon.
House adjourned at 10.02 pm