As part of the royal visit to Australia commencing tomorrow, Queen Camilla will be involved in a “discussion about domestic violence”, reportedly a cause Her Majesty is passionate about. But many of the main organisations and experts involved in Australia’s plan to address gendered violence say they have not been invited, and don’t know any others who will be attending. 

Kerry Staines, CEO of First Nations Advocates Against Family Violence (FNAAFV), says despite working closely with the government on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, the organisation didn’t know anyone who made the guest list. “Given that we’re the only Aboriginal, community-controlled peak organisation that specialises in family violence, you would think if someone was gonna be invited it would be ourselves or one of our members.”

Perhaps it’s for the best that this ceremonial meeting won’t put the queen in a room with the sector’s leading voices, as the aftermath of the Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches report in August has seen disagreements and brewing tensions spill out into the media.

It’s a sign that policy making has reached a crucial juncture. With limited funding and urgent public need, whose approach will the federal government follow towards the goal of ending gender-based violence in one generation?

What is the conflict about?

The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, the Labor government’s landmark policy, details strategies under four domains: primary prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery. At the heart of this conflict sits the disputed definition of primary prevention. 

As Michael Flood, gender and violence researcher from the Queensland University of Technology, explains, if early intervention is “pulling people out of the river”, primary prevention means “[stopping] what pushes them into the river in the first place”.

“In the last year or so there’s been a significant misrepresentation of what primary prevention looks like,” he tells Crikey. 

The classic view of primary prevention

The national plan defines primary prevention as “stopping violence before it starts”, consistent with how the term is defined in the health sector. The strategies detailed are based on the “Change the Story” primary prevention framework developed by Our Watch, the national gendered violence research and advocacy organisation. Change the Story positions addressing gender inequality as the key to preventing violence.

In a statement provided to Crikey, Our Watch CEO Patty Kinnersly said: “Violence against women is one of the most complex social issues of our time, but the evidence is clear that gender-based violence is driven by rigid gender stereotypes, sexism, and forms of masculinity that emphasise disrespect and control. It is crucial that tackling these drivers is a key focus of prevention action. 

“These drivers are present throughout our society and change needs to occur at every level, from policies and structures right through to individual attitudes and behaviours. This is why primary prevention is focused on long term socio-cultural change.”

The relationship between male violence and factors including drugs and alcohol, gambling, and financial hardship are included in the framework for their impact on the broader culture of misogyny. Focusing on gender inequality over these factors also prevents people bringing stereotypes about perpetrators and victims to the work; it reiterates that, in an unequal society, violence will persist even without substance abuse or gambling. 

An alternative view of prevention

Led by researchers including Jess Hill, Michael Salter and Dr Anne Summers, a new view of primary prevention is gaining traction with the government and attracting public visibility. The emphasis here is on perpetrators, aiming for violence reduction in the short term rather than long-term sociocultural change. 

Drug and alcohol use, gambling, socioeconomic status, and childhood experiences of family violence are deemed “co-determinants” and “accelerants” to violence, so it argues primary prevention efforts should be targeted at these groups regardless of whether that plays into potential stereotypes. 

It also puts strategies that typically come in the “early intervention”, “response” or “recovery” domains — like alternative justice pathways or healing from childhood trauma — under the primary prevention banner. 

For those in this camp, the prevailing approach has been too slow, the focus on gender inequality too abstract (and, perhaps, politically convenient for an easy-does-it government). Hill told Guardian Australia she felt there was “an undue primacy being put on the gender equality approach” in the national plan.

Hill did not respond to questions sent by Crikey and Summers declined to comment.

Does this difference matter?

Ideally, the more research-backed strategies to reduce violence being implemented — in all four phases — the better. But there is not enough public funding for it all; demand is so high and money so tight, researcher Hayley Boxall told The Sydney Morning Herald, “that’s why everyone is treating this as if it was the Hunger Games”.

She was referring to the criticisms publicly traded between the two camps of late. The delivery of the final report and recommendations from the Rapid Review panel in late August was followed a week later by a report in The Saturday Paper amplifying Hill and Summers’ (both panel members) view that the national plan and Change the Story framework are “just not cutting the mustard”. The panel recommended an independent review of the framework, despite one having been conducted in 2021 with another scheduled for 2026.

This was followed by the report in The Sydney Morning Herald detailing texts Rosie Batty sent to Hill and Summers about her anger at their “attack on Our Watch” and attempts to undermine its decades of work.

If stopping gender-based violence before it starts is the ultimate goal, how we define, fund and measure it matters. Disagreement among those directly advising the government about something so foundational could affect the roll out and effectiveness of the plan’s implementation. 

Flood says that the idea that primary prevention efforts have failed is mistaken — it’s hardly been tried. “I don’t think we’ve yet seen the political will or the funding to support the kind of large-scale, comprehensive social change that Change the Story proposes. It has produced positive change in community attitudes towards domestic and sexual violence, but there’s much more work to do.”

The government did not respond to Crikey’s request to confirm the guest list for Queen Camilla’s event in time for publication.

If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.

For counselling, advice and support for men in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania who have anger, relationship or parenting issues, call the Men’s Referral Service on 1300 766 491. Men in WA can contact the Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline on 1800 000 599.