Rethinking the Narrative: Intimate Partner Violence in New Zealand
By Sophia Lawrence
Globally, New Zealand was ranked to be the second safest country, yet, we have one of the highest rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the developed world. This is a fundamental issue which is often overlooked. The term describes the “behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship.” IPV involves a perpetrator carrying out a pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour that entraps their victim and makes it increasingly difficult for them to leave the relationship. Discussions surrounding IPV in New Zealand often focus on a largely gendered analysis as a result of women being at a statistically higher risk of being victimised.
New Zealand has the highest rate of family violence, including IPV, out of all countries within the OECD. Shockingly, 1 in 3 women in New Zealand are victims of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetime. When broken down by ethnicity, the statistics reveal that 58% of Māori women, 34% of European/other women, 32% of Pacific women, and 11.5% of Asian women experience IPV. Last year alone, 175,573 family harm investigations were recorded by NZ Police.
Despite the pervasiveness of IPV in New Zealand, an estimated 87% of female victims who experience physical and/or sexual violence from a partner do not report it to the police. This is a deeply concerning statistic, particularly when we consider that family violence accounted for 40% of all homicides nationally between 2009 - 2015. These statistics show that the current legal framework is simply not sufficient. The law is currently failing to adequately address the issue and is failing victims going through a period of trauma.
Steps to Change
Addressing New Zealand’s issue of IPV requires a comprehensive and multifaceted approach. The Offices of the Ministers of Justice and Social Development have called for "transformational change" across the system to tackle this problem. However, bringing about such change requires a significant shift in the way that society views intimate partner violence.
The current narrative often fails to acknowledge that IPV involves a harmful pattern of related, rather than isolated, incidents. In response to this, the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse has suggested that a ‘systems thinking’ approach should be adopted throughout the wider family violence response framework. In this approach, a system is defined as a set of interconnected individuals or things that produce their own pattern of behaviour over time. In the context of IPV, the ‘family violence system’ includes not only the criminal justice response but also structural inequalities and socio-cultural drivers of violence. This approach aims to catalyse ‘transformational systemic change’ through collective understanding, synthesis of the criminal justice system and effective use of resources. There is a wide range of potential outcomes from the systems thinking approach. Firstly, we would see greater collaboration between the organisations and agencies involved in addressing IPV. There would be a prioritisation of primary prevention, largely through advocacy and education. We would also see greater consideration of the systematic issues considered to be causative of violence. Lastly, the approach would encourage political and social accountability through law reform and increased funding.
We must be mindful that buzzwords such as ‘primary prevention’ and ‘systems thinking’ are prevalent in conversations surrounding system reform. These approaches are critical, however, when understood in isolation they result in little direct action. Bringing about social change takes time, and with New Zealand’s alarming statistics, time is a luxury we do not have. While an effective first step, we cannot solely rely on changing society’s (systemically misguided) understanding of gender and violence in order to reduce our IPV rates. Even if we see a paradigm shift in society’s broader thinking, the misconceptions of sexual violence and gendered assumptions remain ingrained within the ‘justice’ process.
It is clear that we need to engage in the primary prevention of IPV and advocate for a new narrative. However, we also need to question how we can amend the system for those who are already victims and develop a process where they can truly achieve justice.
Changes to the Court System
Victims of IPV who seek justice through the courts have described it as traumatic, re-victimising and harrowing. Confrontingly, almost half of the sexual violence complainants report that going to court is the most challenging part of their recovery process. When we pair this with the strikingly low conviction rates, it is no surprise that victims largely show unwillingness to report their experiences of IPV. The Sexual Violence Legislation Bill was enacted in 2021 in hopes of easing the court process for complainants. While it is a positive and helpful change, many aspects of the process remain brutal.
In response, Justice Minister Kiri Allan has promised a law change that will stop victims from being further traumatised and abused throughout the court process. The upcoming bill will have a particular focus on children. However, it also aims to “prevent litigation abuse, give victims of sexual abuse more control over suppression orders, and introduce new support for victims.”
This proposed legislation is a significant milestone and a hopeful sign of upcoming reforms and changes in the wider criminal justice system. Victim advocates encourage you to “get behind this” and send in submissions when the bill reaches the Select Committee. This will ensure that the laws are crafted to protect our needs as a community. If this change is enacted, it could mark the beginning of a new era where the court process advocates for its victims and begins to dismantle the broader system of intimate partner violence in New Zealand.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: : Pixabay.