Dr Hayley Boxall is a Research Fellow with the ANU and has undertaken research on domestic and family violence and sexual violence for over 10 years. She has published extensively on these topics, with a primary focus on pathways/trajectories into and out of DFV offending. After watching Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin’s National Press Club a few days ago, she was moved to respond.
Last week, Micaela Cronin, Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, addressed the National Press Club of Australia on the ‘Inaugural Yearly Report to Parliament on the Progress of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.’
The speech covered a lot of ground, ranging from the importance of using non-passive language when we’re talking about DFSV, through to the processes for developing programs for people using violence within Australia. If you’d like to watch the talk in its entirety, find it here.
As someone who has researched in this space for more than a decade, I have thoughts!
A few key things to note: I agree with everything that was discussed in the room and I also share Commissioner Cronin’s sense of hope that we could be the generation who makes a difference in stemming the tide of domestic and family and sexual violence in Australia. But in particular, I wanted to elaborate on three points that were raised by the Commissioner because they made my heart so happy to hear them raised in such a public forum by someone who has the ear of government.
Who stops using abusive behaviours and why?
Commissioner Cronin said that we need to understand pathways OUT of offending. It was only a brief mention, but it is such an important area of research which has so often been overlooked. As a society, we don’t have high hopes for the ability of people to stop using violence.
One research participant I spoke to a few years ago – let’s call her Jane – said the violence had stopped for three-years within her previously very violent relationship. Jane was very surprised that her partner was capable of being non-violent and said her experiences were an “were an ‘anomaly’ and ‘weird’” It was actually why she chose to speak to me as part of research! She saw herself as a fascinating case study worthy of closer examination.
Jane was very interesting and I learnt a lot from speaking to her. But her experiences were not an anomaly. Many men who use violence are capable of change. We know this from interviews with victim-survivors and longitudinal studies conducted internationally.
But our understanding of WHY is very under-developed. That means our responses are focused on mitigating risk, rather than promoting desistance.
Intervening early with young people using violence
This is a bit of a passion area, so bear with me. Again and again, I am so disappointed and confused by the lack of focus on young people who are at risk of using DFSV but either have not used them yet, or may be showing the first signs of these behaviours. I have spoken to many carers of young people who are using violence in the home, and the consistent feedback I get is the lack of services for these families and young people, and how soul-crushing it is to want to support your loved one to get help when there is nothing available for them.
Young people who use violence are typically in distress. Research has shown that they are likely to have been exposed to family violence in the home, death of family members and other traumatic events, as well as social exclusion, poor self-esteem and mental health.
But intervening early is not only a social good, it could also have longer term implications for the volume of DFSV within the community. “A recent study I conducted while I was the Australian of Criminology found that only 7% of all juvenile offenders had been proceeded against for DFV offending in NSW. However, this cohort accounted for 33% of all DFV-related offences perpetrated during young adulthood by the juvenile offending population. We need to get that piece of the puzzle right if we want to disrupt pathways into offending and support pathways out of offending.
Having conversations that make us uncomfortable *whispers* (about sexual coercion)
Commissioner Cronin was spot on when she said that we ‘don’t really talk about sexual violence’. Historically we have not really included sexual violence, abuse and coercion within our analysis of DFV, or collapsed it into other categories of behaviour. I myself have been guilty of collapsing sexual violence experiences into the general category of physical violence. Shame!
However, really important evidence has demonstrated that the risk factors associated with sexual violence are actually more similar to emotional and verbal abuse than physical violence. For example, Anthony Morgan and I analysed a survey of 10,000 women finding that those who were the primary breadwinner in their relationship were more likely to be subjected to sexual violence, but not physical violence.
Broader research has suggested that abusers weaponise sex as a way of degrading women, making them feel ashamed and small and to put them back in their box. I have spoken to several women who said that their partner were sexually coercive as a way of making them feel like ‘more of a man’ because they weren’t earning as much as them, or their career was floundering.
I also remember speaking to one woman – let’s call her Sam – who said her partner purposefully pressured her to have unprotected sex and gave her an STI which he knew he had but failed to tell her about. When she called him in tears after being diagnosed with the STI, her partner said “Well now you’ll have to stay with me – no one else will have you”.
Sexual violence is also a really important risk factor for homicide. Why important? Because unlike other risk factors which may only emerge in the weeks and months leading up to the murder, sexual abuse and coercion is likely to be present throughout the entire relationship. So it could be viewed as an early risk factor for homicide in the life of the relationship.
People feel icky talking about sexual coercion and abuse. It feels intrusive and not our business. But it is another vital part of the puzzle. We need to do better on this dimension of IPV.
Dr Hayley Boxall says the risk factors associated with sexual violence are actually more similar to emotional and verbal abuse than physical violence. Picture: Supplied
A little more action please?
Nothing Commissioner Cronin said during her speech was revolutionary, but that’s not really her job is it? Her job is to listen, to listen and engage with the community and experts, to consolidate that information, share it within government, advocate and hold the government to account. However, as someone who has been waiting years for people to talk about pathways out of offending, for the need to focus on young people and sexual violence, her speech was very powerful.
But what next? Ideally what will flow from this speech will be tangible actions, such as funding for programs that support young people who are at risk of or using violence in the home. For research that really tries to unpack the factors that are linked to men choosing to stop using violence, and support for organisations to have difficult conversations about sexual coercion within intimate relationships.
I am hopeful that this generation can make a difference, so let’s crack on with some action.
- Picture at top: Micaela Cronin/Supplied
Dr Hayley Boxall (she/her) is a Research Fellow with the ANU and has undertaken research on domestic and family violence and sexual violence for over 10 years. She has published extensively on these topics, with a primary focus on pathways/trajectories into and out of DFV offending.
