
By Women’s House, Woollongabba
Across Australia, on average, one woman is killed every week by a violent partner or ex-partner.
In Queensland this year, to date, domestic violence has been responsible for 18 deaths.
The most dangerous time for women and children attempting to leave violent partners is at the time of separation; of those women killed, it is usually within three months of their leaving the relationship. Women’s refuges provide a safe space for women and children who need to escape from persistent and dangerous perpetrators.
Women’s refuges in Australia have a proud legacy and wealth of experience and skills in working with women and children who have experienced violence and abuse. Refuge workers have a well developed understanding of the nature and impact of violence against women and children. They understand that women are not to blame for the violence perpetrated against them and that rather, it is part of a much wider systemic problem.
Refuges provide more than just a bed. They provide 24 hour support to vulnerable and isolated women who may be facing harassment and pursuit by controlling ex-partners.
Domestic violence refuges support women to obtain Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPO) and address the issue of lack of police response to breaches of DVPOs. They provide advocacy to enable access to housing, healthcare, independent income and relief from debt caused by DV.
Refuges provide assistance to women whose visas make them ineligible for social security support or public housing and assist with immigration issues. They provide advocacy in relation to children with Child Protection authorities’ involvement due to domestic violence, assistance to deal with continuing violence post separation, including the abuse of children on contact visits.
Further, refuges offer assistance to women whose DV experience is compounded by drug and alcohol issues, mental health issues or intellectual/physical disabilities which make it more difficult to establish a life free from violence.
Women’s refuges aim to be responsive to the needs of women whose lives have been affected by domestic violence and therefore will attempt to provide advocacy to access everything needed to build an independent and violence free life.
In addition to advocating on behalf of individuals, women’s refuges have a strong tradition of lobbying and campaigning for law reform and improved institutional responses to domestic violence (e.g. CentreLink, Police, Immigration, Child Safety etc.), as well as providing community education about domestic violence. From their activism and inspiration, other specialist domestic violence services have emerged, laws have been established and lives have been saved.
Women’s House opened the first domestic violence refuge in Queensland in 1974. It has a public office in Woolloongabba and provides services for women who have experienced domestic violence and sexual assault.
Women’s House is outraged at the recent loss of many valuable services for women and children, in particular, domestic violence refuges in New South Wales. Staff at Women’s House believe that women’s refuges in Queensland will be put out to tender next year.
Women’s refuges were put out to tender earlier this year in NSW. This process saw the redirection of funding away from smaller specialist domestic violence refuges to big generic religious charities (which, as the recent Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has revealed, have an appalling record in relation to survivors of violence).
These organisations are able to submit cheaper tenders by cutting specialised support available to women and children. Over 20 women’s refuges have been defunded. In stripping funding from specialist domestic violence refuges, the NSW government has put the lives of women and children at risk.
Without specialist domestic violence support, women and children are less likely to leave abusive relationships and far more likely to return to abusive relationships, thus compounding the devastating effects that violence has on their lives. Ironically, for a government focused on cutting costs, this will, in the longer term, result in greater costs to statutory services including police, health departments and social services.
For the sake of women and their children who are desperate to break free from abuse, Women’s House urges the Queensland government not to follow the course taken by NSW. It is essential that the Queensland government funds refuges that have a specialised focus on women and children and a diversity of services which meet the variety of needs required by those affected by violence.
Womens House is a cooperative that runs Women’s Shelters in and around Woollongabba in Brisbane’s inner South.











Please login or subscribe to post comments
Comments Policy »
I cannot believe what I just read and if it’s true Mr Warburton should be ashamed of himself for being led right royally down the garden path at best, showing his complete ineptitude on the subject and brief he’s been dealing with and more bizarrely allowing him and his reputation to be abused by the government in what is clearly a sham panel review with an planned outcome from the very beginning……and I’m seeing my business go down the drain because of this? I think not. There will be repercussions!!
Even the star commentator Mr Swill (or shrill) cannot be happy with this!!
Why thank you. In truth I doubt many people read these comments – and given my views are unlikely to cut it with most of Tristan’s entourage, they are likely the least read. I like Fran by the way. She is a good journalist with a feisty no nonsense way about her.
Warburton’s behaviour is entirely consistent with the Coalition’s actual position on climate change, which was most accurately described by Malcolm Turnbull in this article –
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-climate…
It just goes to show what a waist of time and money this review has been. The government thought this review would have given them a just reason to break yet another promise and scrap or reduce the RET. Even their own hand picked bias mates couldn’t fudge the facts and figures to suite the government’s agenda. Warburton has been caught with his pants down and shown to be a bias fool who should never have been involved in this RET review.
The government may have scrapped the carbon tax but they are showing no decisive action to meet their carbon reduction targets. They are running around in circles and their “direct action” policy is just what most expected from this lying mob “no action.”
A storm in a teacup. Probably just nerves from the poor old duffer.
But he is clearly on the right side of history by searching for the most effective means of abatement and suggesting that it is unlikely to come from a policy that preferences renewables above the cheapest available means.
Dragging down someone who is seeking the best bang for the community’s buck is an unlikely popular cause. He may be a skeptic but he appears to have a degree of common sense about him that is sadly lacking in his critics.
You commented quite a bit that the RET isn’t the cheapest way to achieve cuts in greenhouse gasses. Just wondering what you think the other options are…
haha, nice one “Utility PR Shill”!
Utility PR Shill is right – not many people read this rag or the comments. You can tell because of the dramatic decline in the Comments section since the LNP was elected and particularly since the Carbon Tax was blown away with the dust of Labor history. And today the Mining Tax went, so Labor’s massive negative footprint is being gradually filled in. Soon the RET will go, taking with it the beggars who benefited from it. Now that we have years of measurement showing that dangerous Climate Change exists only in the minds and the models of the anti-Carbon zealots, there is less reason to monitor the “debate”. In fact there is no longer a debate. Rational people are able to confidently shrug and walk away from the placard carriers like the writers in this journal. The one area where this journal and the departed readers can agree is that we all hope the Government drops the “Direct Action” plan. Labor’s opposition will be an accidental force for good if the DA plan is also consigned to the dust of history.
Rational people eh? I’d actually put the people with those kind of views in the same boat as creationists and other such flat earth believers. Bill Maher’s program last night where he interviewed a lot of the religious leaders from these groups was entertaining viewing, and in fact I hope he does a similar one on climate sceptics such as yourself. Be good for a chuckle.
I do like the beggar reference too. How does that comment fit with the Billions of dollars in subsidies that flow to the coal and gas industries? In reality, the RET has merely leveled the playing field for renewable energy, and the main reason they are trying to remove it is because the renewable energy industry does not have the political pull, lobbying power or tax base of the fossil fuel energy sector.
Yours truly – A dedicated anti-carbon zealot (should we call the the church of climatology?!).
Are you encouraging the Coalition to break their promise on Direct Action?
I would suggest caution regarding the use of ClimateWorks work for anything at all until they have released their final report, detail of the actual work done, and responded to our critique. At this time, we are very concerned about that work and the implications it may have treated seriously.
A critique of the draft is published here http://decarbonisesa.com/2014/08/28/critiquing-deep-deep-decarbonisation…
Should “unlikely to save energy consumers money” be “likely to save energy consumers money”?
I like the way Nivek writes. If he wrote for this “rag” maybe some of the ex readers would come back.
Shill – you don’t need to be an apologist for Tricky Dicky – more than capable of handling himself or so he thinks……….or maybe its brain drain, followed closely by his report !
– currently Chairman of Westfield Retail Trust, Magellan Flagship Fund and Citigroup Pty Ltd.
He also serves as Chairman of the Commonwealth Studies Conference, Vice Chair of the Council on Australian Latin American Relations and a Member of the Advisory Council of the Centre for Social Impact.
Dick is a former Chairman and CEO of Dupont Australia and New Zealand, and worked with Dupont for 30 years in marketing, manufacturing, technical and management roles in Australia, USA and Thailand.
He was a Board Member of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Chairman of the Australian Board of Taxation and Chairman of Caltex Australia Ltd, David Jones Ltd, Goldfields Ltd, Tandou Ltd and Wool International and a Director of Southcorp Ltd, Tabcorp Holdings Ltd, Nufarm Ltd and other companies.
Mr Richard Warburton is an advisor to government – yet doesn’t seem to know his way around a financial report!
He tells us in his May 8 interview :
CHRIS UHLMANN: What kind of effect is it having? Just give us a sense of the cost of power and how the renewable energy target has driven that up over time.
DICK WARBURTON: Well, we’re looking at emission, we’ve got a target for an emission control of 5 per cent. That’s a bipartisan approach. And certainly renewables have their place in that particular equation.
I’d like to believe that we’ll look at this and say, now, is the cost of the RET worth the economic pain that you get by imposing it on the electricity consumers?
CHRIS UHLMANN: And there’s no doubt that there is economic pain because of that?
DICK WARBURTON: Yes there is, yes there is economic pain. It is one part of the equation. It is not the whole part of the equation.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Is the cost of energy doing damage to business in Australia?
DICK WARBURTON: Depends on the business, Chris. Some of the businesses that use relatively small bits of electricity, obviously it hasn’t got a great effect. But there are industries that use large quantities of electricity and in those place they’ve been telling us this is having a major impact on their cost side of the balance sheet.
–> Dick – There is NO “cost side” of a balance sheet, you are looking at the P&L.
The RET was killed about 18 months ago when Abbott first flagged he was not completely supportive. The RET will only work when investors are confident re durable bipartisan support. The Senate can’t enforce durable bipartisanship any more than a change of government at the next election will revive the RET.
We have to look at things like the ACT solar auction scheme (which doesn’t need bipartisanship) to drive investment in utility scale renewables. See: http://www.climateplus.info/2014/08/13/replacing-the-ret/