The Queensland domestic violence legal framework, primarily governed by the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (DFVPA), aims to provide protection for all victims of domestic violence.
However, growing evidence suggests the need for systemic reforms to address potential gender biases and ensure equal protection under the law. This article examines current challenges and proposes evidence-based solutions to create a more equitable system while maintaining robust protections for all victims.
Current legislative framework and its implementation
The DFVPA is technically gender-neutral in its language and application. Section 4 of the Act defines domestic violence without reference to gender, focusing instead on behaviors that constitute abuse. However, the practical implementation of these provisions has revealed systemic challenges that merit attention.
The 2023 amendments to the DFVPA introduced several changes, including expanded definitions of domestic violence and coercive control. While these changes strengthen protections overall, they also highlight the need for more balanced implementation mechanisms.
Evidence of systemic challenges
Research from the Queensland Courts Statistical Reports (2021-2023) reveals several concerning patterns:
- male respondents face significantly higher rates of ex parte orders
- cross-applications from male victims often face longer processing times
- male applicants report greater difficulty accessing support services and legal aid
A 2022 study found that 35 per cent of male respondents reported feeling prejudged before evidence presentation, compared to 12 per cent of female respondents. These statistics suggest the need for systemic reform while maintaining the system’s essential protective functions.
Framework for reform:
Standardised evidence assessment protocols
Implementation of structured decision-making tools could significantly reduce the impact of unconscious bias. The New South Wales model of risk assessment, introduced in 2021, provides a useful template. This approach requires:
- documented evidence of specific incidents
- standardised risk assessment matrices
- regular audits of decision-making patterns
- independent review mechanisms for contested orders
Proposed legislative amendments could mandate the use of these tools under Section 37 of the DFVPA, ensuring consistent application across all cases.
Enhanced judicial and law enforcement training
Current training programs require significant enhancement. Recommended improvements include:
- mandatory bias awareness training for all magistrates handling DV matters
- specialised units within police departments trained in gender-neutral investigation techniques
- regular assessment of decision-making patterns to identify potential bias
- integration of male victimisation recognition in standard training protocols
The success of similar programs in Victoria demonstrates the potential impact of comprehensive training reforms.
Procedural safeguards
Several procedural reforms could enhance fairness without compromising protection:
- mandatory review periods for ex parte orders within 48-72 hours
- equal access to legal aid services regardless of gender
- expedited hearing processes for contested orders
- enhanced penalties for demonstrably false statements in applications
These changes would require amendments to Sections 39-43 of the DFVPA, introducing specific timeframes and review requirements.
Support service enhancement
Current support service structures require significant expansion to ensure equal access:
- establishment of male-specific support services in major population centers
- gender-neutral crisis accommodation options
- specialised legal support services for male victims
- enhanced funding for multicultural and Indigenous male support programs
The Western Australian model of integrated support services provides a useful template for reform.
Documentation and evidence requirements
Strengthening evidence requirements could help reduce potential misuse while protecting legitimate claims:
- detailed incident documentation requirements
- clear standards for corroborating evidence
- structured frameworks for evaluating cross-applications
- regular review of application outcomes to identify patterns
Implementation timeline and resources
A phased implementation approach over 24-36 months would allow for:
- initial pilot programs in major jurisdictions
- training development and delivery
- infrastructure establishment
- monitoring and evaluation systems
- regular review and adjustment.
Measurable outcomes and accountability
Success metrics should include:
- equal processing times for applications regardless of gender
- balanced access to support services
- reduction in contested order rates
- improved satisfaction rates with process fairness
- maintained or improved protection outcomes for all victims.
Conclusion
Reforming domestic violence proceedings to address gender bias requires careful balance between maintaining effective protection and ensuring procedural fairness. The proposed framework offers a comprehensive approach to achieving this balance through legislative reform, procedural enhancement, and expanded support services.
Success depends on committed implementation, adequate resourcing, and regular evaluation of outcomes. Most importantly, these reforms must occur while maintaining the system’s fundamental protective function for all victims of domestic violence.
The path forward requires collaboration between legal professionals, law enforcement, support services, and policy makers. By implementing these evidence-based reforms, Queensland can create a more equitable system that better serves all victims while maintaining robust protections against domestic violence.
Douglas Anderson is a consulting solicitor at Taylor Rose.
Share this article