No one can bring back those who died.

After graduating from law school in 1985, I could scarcely imagine that for greater than a generation I would be dealing with an evil I had never seen when growing up- domestic violence. And yet here I am again addressing it.

This morning’s Courier-Mail column: “Close loophole that costs innocent lives” argues: “It is now clear that alleged acts of violence against partners or ex-partners must be taken out of the civil jurisdiction and put into the criminal sphere. Police are frustrated at this anomaly.” Too often, it argues, are allegations of violence raised in protection order applications, and too rarely are the perpetrators charged. Somehow, the author argues, this is the fault of the Queensland Government and Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman, who “could change the law today and help save the lives of innocent women.”

Getting rid of a civil response to domestic violence would mean the reverse is true. More women and children would die - and more men. 76% of protection orders are made to protect women. In the last twenty years (the same time there have been domestic violence laws) the domestic homicide rate for women is now 40% of what it was, and the domestic homicide rate for men is half what it was (although twice as many women get killed than men). It is suggested that the number of men who have been killed has halved because women have a greater ability to get out- and are not instead killing their husbands in desperation as there is no other alternative.

There isn’t any anomaly as suggested by the author. Police have full powers to investigate crimes- as they have always had. The law also requires them to take action about domestic violence- as it has done since 1990. That dual role should remain. Victims of domestic violence deserve this.

Anyone who has seen the horrors of domestic violence, as I have done for so many years, knows that to charge perpetrators of domestic violence helps end domestic violence. However, that is not the end of the story. Way back in 1988, a taskforce report commissioned by the then National Party government, Beyond These Walls, noted the continued failure by police to charge perpetrators of domestic violence with criminal offences, such as assault, rape and deprivation of liberty, and argued that a civil response was also required. That led to the enactment of what was then the Domestic Violence (Family Protection) Act 1989. It was the forerunner of the domestic violence legislation we have today. Police did not consider that domestic violence was core business. Why put themselves at risk, so the argument went, when we all know she will just go back to him?

Too often I have heard the voices of clients saying that they had been to the police station to complain about domestic violence, to be met with: “Go to the courthouse and get an order” (when the police were duty bound under the law to seek such an order) or “It’s your word against his”, when there was no investigation about hospital or doctor records, looking at the pattern of behaviour, or the obtaining of statements that back up the word of the victim. This isn’t rocket science. This is just doing your job. All too often, report after report showed that the number of prosecutions for domestic violence offences lagged way behind the number of protection order applications.

Similarly back in 1988, as opposed to now, aside from domestic homicides, the media did not touch domestic violence. This reflects societal attitudes. Domestic violence was a taboo subject. If I went to a barbecue- and talked about how I worked dealing with domestic violence- the others would walk away, or politely change the topic. Thankfully, domestic violence can now be talked about openly. Being open about the topic helps raise awareness- and in turn helps those who need help to get it.

Too often women escaping from a violent relationship may not want the man charged. They might be happy to have a protection order, but they fear the consequences of automatic criminal action. The interests of victims of domestic violence, whether men, women or children, should always be put first.

Twenty years ago, domestic violence advocates argued that strangulation in a domestic setting should be a separate criminal offence. Those efforts have been successful- and have resulted in many perpetrators being charged and convicted. Which begs the question- if assault was always a criminal offence, why weren’t the perpetrators charged with assault?

In recent years, it seemed pre-Covid that we had finally turned the corner. Given that police now recognise that domestic violence is core business, applications for protection orders have gone down- at the same time as prosecutions have gone up. The two are not coincidental- but go hand in hand.

Following Covid, both rates of obtaining protection orders and prosecution of breaches are up- although with the latter the results are patchy. Applications for protection orders are up one eighth from last year. Convictions for breach of protection orders are up one third. Police responses have varied dramatically- breaches up a whopping 116% in Maroochydore, but also up 90% in Richlands, 71% in Beenleigh but down minus 4% in Caboolture, minus 4% in Ipswich, and minus 2% in Rockhampton. It beggars belief that there would be such differences between adjoining districts such as Richlands and Ipswich- save for police action in investigating prosecutions. More consistency by police in responding to domestic violence, by listening to survivors, properly investigating and doing their job- will help drive the rate of domestic violence down- and keep more people alive. No one can bring back those who have died.

Survivors of domestic violence- primarily women and children- need both a civil and a criminal response. Police have a dual role- both to seek protection orders and to investigate offences. If they do their job properly, they will do both. Stopping domestic violence is not merely a simple step to close a “loophole” that does not exist.