Family violence is a complex phenomenon which is hard to define and equally hard to measure. Not only is family violence broad in scope, existing across all cultures, ethnicities, religions, age groups, socio-economic groups and sexual orientations but it also covers a broad spectrum of actions in the form of physical, psychological, controlling or sexual abuse. For the sake of this paper, and for the relevancy of family violence in New Zealand context, I will define it as per the Domestic Violence Act (1995), which defines family violence as “violence against a person by any other person with whom that person is, or has been in a domestic relationship”.
The legal definition of violence is wide, including all forms of physical, sexual and psychological abuse. Whilst “domestic relationship”, includes any spouse, partner, family member, cohabitating household member and anyone you hold a personal relationship with. (Domestic Violence Act, S3,1995). Therefore, under the reign of the term “family violence” also includes various forms of intimate partner violence, dating violence, sibling abuse, child neglect and abuse and elder neglect and abuse.
Family violence is not a new phenomenon and has been strife in New Zealand for a long time. It wasn’t until recently however, that attention has been drawn to the seriousness of such issues and how widely impacting experience of such violence can be.
Data gathered by Police and statutory agencies are commonly used methods to indicate and measure the seriousness of family violence. A recent snapshot of data, collated by the New Zealand family violence clearinghouse (NZFVC) revealed that family violence is a serious issue in New Zealand. Not only do we have one of the highest reported rates of intimate partner violence in the developed world, but we have high rates of violence across all domains of related abuses, with police responding to over 111000 family violence incidents in 2015 alone. This is alarming as only an estimated 15-20% of all incidents are thought to be reported to police. (NZCASS) (Family violence death review committee, 2014) for many reasons such as victims are scared, financially dependent on perpetrator, have loyalties to perpetrator, worried about custodial battles or might just be unaware that their experiences are illegal behaviour.
Alarmingly, In the Family Violence Death Review Committee (2014) most recent report, findings revealed 47% of all offences related to homicides in the 2009-2012 period under review were family-violence-related deaths.
In 2012 there were 95,080 family violence investigations made by police and 59137 family violence investigations where at least one child aged 0-16 was linked to investigation. The same year, 3803 applications were made for protection orders of which 91% were females and 90% were male respondents. (Morgan, 2014). This is not uncommon. Whilst generally perpetrator and victim rates are similar between men and women, rates of fear and impact are far higher among females than males, due to the fact that men can perpetuate more damage. (Fanslow et al, 2007)
So why is family violence such an issue in New Zealand? Where does it stem from, how is it approached and are these methods in place effective?
Societal attitudes towards violence in the home, hold great importance as to how we view, respond to and understand violence within the family, and changes in these attitudes are vital for creating social change which can reduce family violence prevalence. According to the feminist approach, power imbalances found in patriarchal societies, are to blame for the creation and perpetuation of violence against women. These structural imbalances in society cause power differentials between men and women, whereby men exercise control and put women into a position of submission and subordination (Mary Allen, Year?).
Within the feminist perspective, there is the belief that socio-cultural context shapes, fosters and encourages the use of violence to maintain power relationships in the home and that these beliefs are reflected in our laws, such as how in the past, violence was seen as a legitimate means of enforcing male privilege and control over women (Mary Allen, Year?). Feminists look at these historical roots of society to explain the deeply gendered division of power in contemporary society which, they argue, perpetuate family violence against women and children in particular. (Theory-derived explanations of male violence against female partners (1998))
Traditionally, attitudes towards domestic violence between men and women in the 19th century NZ were shaped by ideas that settlers brought from Britain. Most notably, English common law, which promoted the idea that husbands had the right to “correct” their wife’s behaviour through physical punishment. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011). Early marriage laws not only gave men the legal right to hit their wives, but English common law held that women were inferior to men and that husbands effectively were in control of their wife’s behaviour; responsible for her actions. In this way the law allowed a great deal of latitude in using force to do so (Sigler, 1989)
Rape laws at the time also reflected the status of women as property or objects of their husband in that when a women was raped, appropriate restitution should be paid to her husband (Barnet et al, 2005). Rape within marriage did not become a criminal offence until 1986. Violence that occurred between adults in the home was seen as a private ordeal and not the business of anyone else. Behind this view was the deep-seated belief that women were inferior to men and consequently were legally, economically and social disadvantaged. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011)
Furthermore, Laws relating to property and inheritance, divorce and child custody all traditionally reinforced male privilege and ideals surrounding use of violence. Through realisation of these disempowering laws, feminist activities and various movements have sought to challenge ideas in society and raise public consciousness of the issue of violence within the household as a serious societal problem. (Theory-derived explanations of male violence against female partners (1998))
Whilst heretofore now, family violence was a myth –something that happened behind closed doors and was rarely talked about; today, thanks to various campaigns, lobbies and movements a new societal attitude has taken form, which emphasises the need for violence within the household to be dealt with strictly.
The feminist movement begun to force a new definition of how family violence is conceptualised and emphasised the idea that use of violence, for whatever reason is unacceptable behaviour (Moore, year?) As well as bringing recognition to the issue of family violence in society, Women refuges were established in the 1970s, which aimed to provide accommodation for women in violence relationships as well as offering a safe haven for victims, crisis telephone lines and counselling programmes for women and children to help make informed decisions about the future by providing advice on taking legal action and obtaining benefits. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011)
These changing societal views and rising awareness/understanding of violence as a serious issue have helped facilitate and spark legislative and policy changes by the government which aim to address problems of violence in families and now family violence is being understood as being a serious problem.
Law changes such as 1969 legal aid has assisted women trying to escape violence homes by providing financial support to those who could not afford a lawyer. The introduction of the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) for single parents in 1973, also meant women with dependent children were given the opportunity to leave abusive relationships and survive economically – where they couldn’t in the past – fear of lack of financial support is supposedly an important reason why people stay in violent relationships. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011)
More specifically to domestic violence itself, the Domestic protection act was passed in 1982, which meant victims could apply for non-violence and non-molestation orders, which effectively prevented a partner from entering the applicant’s property. This early act whilst good in theory, wasn’t exercised properly in practice however, and orders would cease to apply if the couple began living together again. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011). Furthermore, upon review of the breaches of orders, and findings of police pro-arrest policies being poorly implemented with offenders receiving light sentences or no sentence at all, this act was soon disregarded as ineffective and amended in the attempt to address these problems. Among the most significant outcome was the introduction of the domestic violence act (1995) which has had profound impacts on society’s views and the direction we are heading at tackling family violence.
The Domestic violence act, 1995, strongly denounces all forms of violence and aims to a) ensure effective legal protection for victims and b) promote the view that all forms of domestic violence are unacceptable behaviour. Central to this act was the introduction of protection orders, which are issued by the family court when there is evidence of domestic violence. These orders were designed to prevent perpetrators of abusing the protected person or any children covered under the order; threatening abuse or damaging property or encouraging a third party to abuse the protected person or children. (Morgan, 2014) Firm emphasis was on quick and decisive granting of protection orders, strong sanctions if protection orders are breached and attendance at programmes to prevent further violent are key characteristics of this act (Ballantyne & Henanghan, 2010)
Accompanying this act, definitions of domestic violence have been broadened to encompass a wider range of relationships and actions – to spark understandings that issues aren’t just between couples, but across various family relations and in many forms. Among these actions the causing or allowing a child to witness abuse was also defined as domestic violence. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011). This allows recognition that abuse can be systematic consisting of a series of behaviours, allowing for early intervention before violence escalates to more serious physical harms (Ballantyne & Henanghan, 2010)
Despite its strengths and sterner approach towards family violence, there are many limitations within the domestic violence act, which can account for why family violence rates in New Zealand are still so alarmingly high. For example, a 2007 review of the act, as per the cutting-edge report, concluded that the breaches of protection orders were not adequately dealt with and always followed up by police – particularly when there was the absence of physical violence. Men breaching protection orders rarely were convicted and if they often received light sentences. (Robertson et al, 2007). As a result, the domestic violence act does not effectively or successfully protect everyone and despite its efforts over 200 women and children have died due to domestic-violence-related homicides (Ballantyne & Henanghan, 2010)
As well as inadequacy in dealing with breaches, there also remain serious problems with the implementation of protection orders. Protection orders can be difficult to obtain and can be rather costly. Although they were intended to be easily accessible, and are free to apply for on your own, the process of doing so is complicated and lawyers are often needed to assist with applications. For victims facing financial difficulties, the legal costs involved for applying for a protection order can be a significant burden and in some cases a deterrent from seeking legal protection altogether (Pond & Morgan, 2005; Robertson et al, 2007).
Another major criticism of the act is that it is insufficient at addressing children rights, with few opportunities for children to attend programmes to help them deal with the violence that they have experienced. 172 Ministry of Justice statistics for example show that in 2005 a total of 6624 children were involved in 4 545 applications for protection orders. 173 Domestic Violence Reform Bill 2008 (NZ) (Ballantyne & Hannagan, 2010).
In response to this issue, in 2004, the Care of Children Act was passed, with the key principle of making the welfare of the child in a family environment the most important priority. This acts to shift the focus away from parents, to their responsibilities to their children by a) ensuring a child’s safety from all forms of violence, b) facilitating upbringing by ongoing consultation and co-operation between parents, guardians or any other person having a role in the child’s care under parenting order. C) The child should also continue to have a relationship with both parents (Care of Children Amendment Act (No 2) 2013 (2013 No 74).Whilst this act has extended to focus on children’s experiences with violence (be it first-hand or indirectly) this act too, however, is problematic as it gives the perpetrator of violence the opportunity, through the use of parenting arrangements under the act, to keep in regular contact with the child and parent, which can be used as an opportunity to continue abusive behaviour, despite the holding of a protection order. (Safer Sooner, Strengthening NZ family violence laws, Ministry of Justice, 2016)
Following the domestic violence act, 1995 a series of other political responses have perpetuated in response to family violence alarms such as the Domestic violence act 2009. This introduced police safety orders which enabled police to remove alleged offenders from the home for a period of up to 5 days to ensure immediate safety of the victims. These can be issued in situations when there is insufficient evidence to arrest a person but reasons to believe domestic violence could occur. Under this act, penalties for breaching protection orders were also stiffened and those failing to attend court-ordered programme could be imprisoned for up to 6 months. (source?)
The Crimes amendment act, also came into force in 2007, which removed the defence of using “reasonable force” against a child for the purpose of correction for parents prosecuted for assault on their children. This was in response to high levels of child abuse and infant mortality – aiming to stop cases of abuse slipping through gaps in the attempt to reduce the infant death rate. (police.govt.nz)
As well as various political responses to family violence, there have been various campaigns and social responses which have sparked rising awareness surrounding family violence. These campaigns are highly influential and aim to debunk myths held in society. Myths which help facilitate the continuation of violence by making the abuser’s actions seem okay or excusable, stopping victims from seeking help and stopping others from helping them.
Common myths as emphasised by Women’s refuge include
1. It’s a one of occurrence: When an act of violence occurs, its usually been prevalent for a long period over many domains of threats, controlling behaviour, mind games, verbal abuse etc.
2. If it was really that bad they would leave: It’s not the victims responsibility to avoid the violence, it’s the abuser’s responsibility to control themselves and stop being violent. There are many factors that cause victims to stay be it fear, pride, custody worries, financial support etc.
3. Violence is caused by substance abuse, stress, poverty, failed marriage whilst it is true that substance abuse can make violence worse, it is not the reason for it.
4. Men have a right to discipline their partners. Battering is not a crime: while society derives from patriarchal legal systems that afford men the right to physically chastise their wives and children, such a system is no longer accepted.
These campaigns aim to debunk these myths which deny the reality of family violence by taking to the media and presenting accurate statistics and information Women’s refuge for example which established in Christchurch in 1973, operates throughout NZ providing a wide range of services and programmes to victims such as safe houses, 24-hour crisis line, safety plans and support, advice about protection orders, childcare and much more, all of which aim to inform and educate the public about the issue of family violence. (Dobash, 2003)
White ribbon campaign alike, an international movement that began in Canada, took rise in NZ in 2004 and since has been funded by govt. agencies and other groups working to overcome violence against women. (Nancy Swarbrick, 2011)
Finally, the It’s not OK campaign -how does the media facilitate and spread the measure of family violence?
Therefore, whilst attitudes towards family violence are clearly alternating and awareness of the issue is growing, full understanding of the prevalence and seriousness of the issue still remains a problem and various measurements need to be in place to debunk the myths surrounding violence within the family. Through continuation of education through societal-based programmes and campaigns and various political reforms, the rate of family violence will hopefully decrease and people’s attitudes to such phenomenon become more stern.