Family And Domestic Violence Strategy 2016-2019

Overview of the Policy

Discuss about the Family and Domestic Violence Strategy 2016-2019.

Domestic violence is conducting violence, threatening or an intended to cause the family or the members of the house to be fearful. It includes physical violence, sexual abuse, financial abuse, emotional abuse, stalking, deprivation of liberty, serious negligence towards dependencies, and damage to property, verbal abuse, cultural abuse, spiritual abuse and exposing a child to these behaviours (Mulayim, Jackson & Lai, 2016). In 2011, council of Australian Government endorsed The National Plan to reduce violence against Women and their children 2010-2022 to acknowledge that further action was required urgently in three identified fields. Those are:

• National Domestic Violence Order of DVO national law model
• Maintaining the national standard to ensure the guilt in violence should get the same standard judgement across the nation.
• New strategies to keep women safe from cyber-abuse.

The department of human services is responsible for delivering all the health, social and welfare services and organises campaigns for the government of Australia. Their vision is to “excellence in the provision of government services to every Australian” and mission is to “connect all the Australians to the services they need” which they outlined in their strategic plan for 2015-2019 along with four other strategic themes to underpin their activities (Ogbo et al., 2017). Those are to support the ministries and the government in reducing violence ensuring support for the people, enhancing the capabilities of the staffs to provide the best services to the people, working with the government and non–government stakeholders to support people struggling with family and domestic violence, to develop innovative approach to improve and transform services and systems. The term “family and domestic violence” has been used in this case because of the reason that violent behaviours are not necessarily limited to the family members connected by marriage, instead they can also include current or past relationship where people were dating or living together, relationship involving carers where care is provided to older peoples (Hunter et al., 2016). Family and domestic violence can affect people belonging to any background, but in researches, it is found that some groups or individuals are more vulnerable that includes Torres Strait Islander Australians, women culturally and linguistically from diverse backgrounds especially immigrants, people with disabilities and belonging to the LGBT community. The department will always protect the privacy of the victims who have disclosed domestic violence issues. This strategy is inclusive of five principles.

Principle 1: Family and aggressive behaviour at home are never worthy – Family and abusive behaviour at home is inadmissible in any shape. Our first need when reacting to influenced clients and staff will be their security and prosperity (Lundqvist, 2016). We will give a steady administration condition to customers and a protected working environment for staff who have been influenced by family and aggressive behaviour at home.

Effect of the Policy

Principle 2: We abstain from setting fault – The obligation regarding family or aggressive behaviour at home dependably lies with the individual who utilises savagery. We will refrain from placing fault or a heavy weight of verification on the person influenced by family and abusive behaviour at home.

Principle 3: We react consciously – Family and abusive behaviour at home is horrible and sabotaging and can be hard to unveil. We will respond with deference and affect an ability to clients and staff influenced by family and abusive behaviour at home and will enable them to settle on educated choices to free of pressure.

Principle 4: We offer help – We will keep on building the attitudes of staff to perceive and react to family and abusive behaviour at home. We will provide support to clients influenced by family and aggressive behaviour at home, regardless of whether they are in danger of, encountering or individuals who utilise viciousness. We will bolster contrasts, including sex, sexuality, culture, age, capacity and foundation.

Principle 5: We work cooperatively – We will work cooperatively with government and non-government segments and will share our way to deal with decrease the effect of family and abusive behaviour at home.

Majority of the people would think positively about domestic violence strategy and agree that it violence in any form is not acceptable. Rather, they should get punishments for this kind of behaviour according to the law and it is fair concerning the mental and emotional health of the victim and well upbringing of the children with protection from the abusive partners (Ranstorp et al., 2016). Gender discrimination is the main reason behind domestic violence where in most cases males tends to believe they are superior than females and thus they suppresses the voice of the women. The problems and difficulties that make a man depressed or spark the anger and they take revenge for those small thinks by mistreating their women thinking that they are weak.

Dealing with diverse group of people was the biggest challenge before implementation of this law. However, the law succeeded to reach the diverse group of people through its dedicated channels. Now, availability of help in a range of different languages developed a new national platform where people who were detached from the mainstream society received the help that they needed. People of the Torres Strait Island who were linguistically and culturally different from other Australians got support also in the remote locations, earlier who were absolutely left behind.

Problems, issues, benefits of the policy

Implementation of these strict rules to protect the victims also reduced the number of crimes targeting women or olds at some point. Regularly engagement with the local people and national community support helped the victims to get assistance quickly like never before (Othman, Goddard & Piterman, 2014). Domestic Violence when tends to take place for a long period of time it badly affect the victims mental health too, also it causes negative changes in behaviour of the victims, Whereas this support system helped the victims to deal with situation along with rehabilitate them for their future.

Along them all the positive changes that this strategy made, there are some loopholes remained within this law. The more powerfully it condemns and takes action against when women and old are the target of the violence (Fisher, 2013). However, men are also prone to face the violence from their other counterpart that is not given more concern in this case.

Misuse of this law is also another negative effect in this case where in some case it is seen that women filed wrong accusation on men when they are not satisfied with their behaviour or something that they want (Lundqvist, 2016). When the men do not accept or agree with the women in any important matter that is related to the future of the women, the women tend to misuse this law to get benefits out of it.

There are some negative and positive effects of this strategy, one of the most positive changes that it made in the society is that earlier the victims could not share their problems publicly for getting the desired solution, but now seeing one people raising voice against the violence others also get the emotional courage to raise their voice against whatever being happened with them.

The problem regarding this strategy is that it more effectively condemns domestic violence and provides support for the victims to deal with the situation. In addition, making a better peaceful future for them but it does not give much effort on how the person who is the guilt in the violence should be treated or what punishment should be given to them (Roberts, Chamberlain & Delfabbro, 2015). Different ethnic groups living in Australia are also getting benefits from this strategy but where the ratio of violence is at its height there no action is being taken or those societies are not given any support to improve their mentality, as long as people does not change their mentality violence is not going to decrease (Fisher, 2013).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience both far higher rates and more severe forms of family violence compared to other women (Lundqvist, 2016). Acknowledge that family savagery is not a common part of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander societies. Family savagery is a major issue for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people group around the country.

Native and Torres Strait Islander individuals are in the vicinity of two and five times more probable than different Australians to encounter brutality as casualties are or guilty parties are. Native and Torres Strait Islander ladies are five times as liable to endure physical manhandle, and three times as prone to encounter sexual savagery, at that point other Australian women in the earlier year. Native and Torres Strait Islander women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised because of family viciousness related strikes than other Australian women (Goodey, 2017). As per the Australian Productivity Commission, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ladies are twice as liable to bite the dust as a result of family brutality contrasted with other Australian women. Family viciousness is a noteworthy supporter of kids being expelled from their families. Native and Torres Strait Islander children are more than nine times as prone to be on care and assurance requests and ten times more inclined to be in out of home care than non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youngsters (Jones, 2016). Without intercession, the cost of brutality executed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ladies is assessed to be $2.2 billion out of 2021-22, incorporating costs related with torment, enduring, sudden passing and well-being costs.

Family brutality is an altogether under-revealed wrongdoing. Native and Torres Strait Islander women have brought down announcing rates than non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women have and are known to confront appropriate and extra boundaries to detailing (Schnetler, 2015). Native and Torres Strait Islander women are five times more inclined to be casualties of manslaughter than other Australian women are. More than half (55%) of these murders are related to family violence.

The Queensland Government is additionally making a move to end political and family savagery using the methodologies by the administration of Australia. The Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Strategy 2016-2019 is a vehicle to drive change over all segments of the Queensland people group (Stubbs and Wangmann, 2017). It sets the direction for collaborative action to end domestic and family violence in Queensland, encouraging partnerships between the government, community and business. The Strategy outlines a shared vision and a set of principles to guide action across the administration and the community, including a staged 10-year plan on how we will get there.

Our reforms, outlined in the Strategy, will recognise the victim’s perspective, prioritise their safety, and reduce the onus on them to take action or leave their home (Walby et al., 2017). We will focus on educating frontline professionals to help them recognise and respond to domestic and family violence, creating safe communities and workplaces that support victims, providing efficient services that efficiently wrap around the victim, and ensuring our legal system supports victims and holds perpetrators to account (Wendt, Chung & Elder, 2015). The Strategy also continues to build on the productive work already being done by the community services sector to address domestic and family violence.

It covers a three year period from July 2016 to June 2019, continuing the essential work of implementing the recommendations of the landmark Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland report (Dural, 2016). The next three years will see enhanced action through new signature initiatives that will form the foundation for transformation. This includes the roll out of specialist domestic and family violence courts, integrated service responses with specialist teams to prioritise victims and their safety, and cultural transformation through communication and engagement program to help change attitudes and behaviours of Queenslanders toward domestic and family violence (Costa et al., 2015). The Queensland Government has demonstrated its commitment to this second action plan, announcing in the 2016-17 Budget a record $198.2 million over five years to tackle domestic and family in Queensland. This conveys add up to subsidising to date to execute the administration’s reaction to the Not Now, Not Ever answer to $233.8 million more than five years.

The year 2017 saw the development of government’s financial plan for the family and aggressive behaviour at home to bring activities and manage the issue consistently. Although for several year the federal government of Australia was negligent towards funding in this issue more seriously but now the national housing and homeless agreement will secure the long term funding for women’s refuge that will begin in 2018 (Cooke, 2017). Along with that the government also supported announcing comprehensive review of the family law system to make sure that domestic violence perpetrators are no given right to do cross-questioning on their victims in their family court. It is better to be understood that this will now be legislated and specialist units will be set up in the family court, these are victories for victims escaping violence. On the other hand, funding is also done to increase support and provide legal services for the groups who are most at the risk. The national leaders has always said that family violence is a national emergency but they have not invested much that was needed for the victims. According to the experts, an urgent injection of four billion dollar is required to deal with this most vital crisis (Chappell & Curtin, 2013). A continuing fight is needed to keep the family violence on the national level agenda so that the maximum supports services are taken from the global audience that will ensure safety for all people who will be able to stay safe escaping the danger from their home

References

Chappell, L., & Curtin, J. (2013). Does federalism matter? Evaluating state architecture and family and domestic violence policy in Australia and New Zealand. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(1), 24-43.

Cooke, L. (2017). Pathology of Patriarchy and Family Inequalities.

Costa, B. M., Kaestle, C. E., Walker, A., Curtis, A., Day, A., Toumbourou, J. W., & Miller, P. (2015). Longitudinal predictors of domestic violence perpetration and victimization: A systematic review. Aggression and violent behavior, 24, 261-272.

Dural, S. (2016). The violence against women policy of the AKP government and the diyanet (Master’s thesis).

Fisher, C. (2013). Changed and changing gender and family roles and domestic violence in African refugee background communities post-settlement in Perth, Australia. Violence Against Women, 19(7), 833-847.

Goodey, J. (2017). Violence Against Women: Placing Evidence From a European Union–Wide Survey in a Policy Context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(12), 1760-1791.

Hunter, T., Botfield, J. R., Estoesta, J., Markham, P., Robertson, S., & McGeechan, K. (2016). Experience of domestic violence routine screening in Family Planning NSW clinics. Sexual health, 14(2), 155-163.

Jones, I. (2016). De-escalating Interventions for Troubled Adolescents.

Lundqvist, E. (2016). Intervening Religious and Cultural Based Violence Against Children in Indonesia: A Theortical Analysis.

Mulayim, S., Jackson, M., & Lai, M. (2016). 10 Domestic violence in Australia. Domestic Violence in International Context, 27, 165.

Ogbo, F. A., Eastwood, J., Page, A., Arora, A., McKenzie, A., Jalaludin, B., … & Chaves, K. (2017). Prevalence and determinants of cessation of exclusive breastfeeding in the early postnatal period in Sydney, Australia. International breastfeeding journal, 12(1), 16.

Othman, S., Goddard, C., & Piterman, L. (2014). Victims’ barriers to discussing domestic violence in clinical consultations: A qualitative enquiry. Journal of interpersonal violence, 29(8), 1497-1513.

Ranstorp, M., Gustafsson, L., Hyllengren, P., & Ahlin, F. (2016). Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism.

Roberts, D., Chamberlain, P., & Delfabbro, P. (2015). Women’s experiences of the processes associated with the family court of Australia in the context of domestic violence: A thematic analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(4), 599-615.

Schnetler, J. (2015). Strategic direction of the Criminal Justice System 2015-2019: summation of official strategic documentation. Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology, 2015(Special Edition 4), 8-21.

Stubbs, J., & Wangmann, J. (2017). Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence. In Global Responses to Domestic Violence (pp. 167-188). Springer, Cham.

Walby, S., Towers, J., Balderston, S., Corradi, C., Francis, B., Heiskanen, M., … & Stöckl, H. (2017). The concept and measurement of violence against women and men (p. 192). Policy Press.

Wendt, S., Chung, D., & Elder, A. (2015). Understanding the effect of social and geographical isolation on women’s ability to seek help following domestic and family violence: A research project. Parity, 28(9), 75.