Ticehurst’s murder has led to welcome calls to revisit our approach to family violence in NSW – starting with a royal commission. A leading proponent is one of Australia’s bravest and most powerful campaigners for women’s safety and equality,. I thus hesitate to disagree with her.
Thousands join the No More:National Rally Against Violence rally on Saturday.Dion Georgopoulos
However,a royal commission is an extremely costly and slow institutional tool for responding to an urgent problem – a problem that demands a major set of law reform measures and an increase in funding.
As Commonwealth Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus noted in rejecting calls for a federal royal commission,we already have a large amount of evidence about what needs to be done. The challenge is largely one of funding,and disagreement about the proper balance to be struck between the rights of victims and alleged perpetrators.
Better,therefore,for NSW to appoint an expert panel to report to the premier and minister for women on how to implement the Victorian royal commission findings – and do better based on current global best practice.
The expert panel mechanism was used in the lead-up to the Voice referendum,and has been deployed in other policy areas. Indeed,a similar mechanism was used federally to develop the National Plan To Reduce Violence Against Women And Their Children.
Like a royal commission,an expert panel or council allows for the possibility of multiple viewpoints to be put to the government. This includes differences among experts,as well as those with lived experience of family violence.
But it could report much faster and thus deliver the urgent change we need. It is also substantially cheaper. One of the striking things about NSW versus Victoria in this context is an annual funding gap of approximately $200 million. And the price of a royal commission? It is almost certainly larger than that.
An expert panel could be asked to examine several things without limiting its terms of reference.
How can we do more to address the role of mental health,and drug and alcohol addiction? This should include greater attention to the role of support services and state-funded rehabilitation.
But it would also need to involve a discussion about increasing the powers of police and health care providers to order short-term periods of involuntary detention and treatment for those affected by drugs and alcohol and at risk of harming others.
At present,it is extremely difficult to have someone committed to involuntary treatment for drug and alcohol use. Even the decision to section someone for mental health reasons can lead to them being back in the community 24 hours later. This is not enough to protect them,or women,against the risk of family and community violence.
How can we make it easier for women to leave abusive relationships? This surely means a focus on increasing funding for domestic violence shelters and social housing for victims,access to emergency financial support,and better funding for legal support. Community legal centres often provide critical advice but have seen major. Specialised legal support services for victims within local courts are also important.
The Commonwealth once offered a lot more legal aid funding in family law matters,but now only in a limited number of cases involving strict means and merits-testing. It may be time to rethink that – at least in cases involving child custody and allegations of violence.
There are also even harder questions about access to shared property. At present,a woman cannot exclude her partner from joint property without an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) – no matter what the reason. Perhaps it is time to change that,at least for a short cooling-off period.
Perhaps the hardest question of all is how we make the AVO system more effective. It may mean tougher penalties or stricter limits on bail for those who violate an AVO or who are identified as at high risk of committing family violence.
Even more controversially,the discussion should include attention to the possibility of GPS monitoring for those subject to an AVO,at least with certain high-risk markers. The evidence suggests this may not be easy to predict,and it is a serious limitation on civil liberties with the potential for abuse. But it is an option that must be part of the conversation,given how badly the current system is working for women.
These are all tough questions that require true community debate – informed by experts,research,and lived experience.
But above all else,we need urgent legal change and much more funding to flow to the area.
Both will be difficult for a royal commission to deliver expeditiously. In NSW,we have the benefit of the lessons from Victoria – a great place to start in making our own form of positive change.
Professor Rosalind Dixon is a director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW.
Correction:An earlier version of this piece said the Commonwealth did not offer legal aid funding for family law matters. This was incorrect. It offers a limited amount of funding subject to strict means and merits-testing.