« 'It doesn't have to end here': ACT anti-domestic violence campaign unveiled | Canberra Times | Main | The shame of being a male victim of domestic violence | The Sunday Age »

Anti-violence group slams ‘sexist’ Human Rights Commission decision

Media release - for immediate release - Monday September 19th 2016

Anti-violence group slams ‘sexist’ Human Rights Commission decision

The One in Three Campaign, Australia’s key advocacy organisation for male victims of family violence, has criticized the extraordinary move by Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs to ban male researchers from the 2017 Personal Safety Survey.

“This seems nothing more than an attempt to protect the already heavy gender discrimination influencing and distorting this key survey of violence in Australia,” said campaign researcher Mr Paul Ross.

The survey, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is a vitally important piece of research regularly used as the best barometer of family and domestic violence and therefore dictating government policy, resources and funding.

“The public who fund this survey have a right to facts and information that is not distorted by gender-political interests or ideology,” said Mr Ross.

“Few people would be aware that the terms of the survey are dictated and controlled by an advisory group made up of 22 organisations, many of them strongly influenced by feminist ideology. There is not a single organisation representing the interests of men and boys on the group.”

The survey has a long history of gender imbalance, bias and discrimination. The first survey in 1995 was the Women’s Safety Survey, funded by the then Federal Office For Women. It surveyed only women’s experiences of violence.

Following public and academic criticism that it needed gender balance in order to be accurate, males made up a third of respondents to the 2005 Personal Safety Survey, which surprised many by showing that 29.8% (almost a third) of victims of current partner violence since the age of 15 were male.

Ignoring further requests for a 50 – 50 gender split, the 2012 survey featured a vastly-increased female sample – effectively reducing the male sample size to only 22 per cent (around one in five).

The surprise result again was that the rate of men reporting current partner violence since the age of 15 had risen alarmingly by 175% since the 2005 survey. The rate of men reporting current partner violence in the 12 months prior to interview quadrupled (a rise of 394%), however these estimates were considered “too unreliable for general use” because of the tiny number of men interviewed.

Mr Ross says, “It seems Ms Triggs is bowing to pressure from gender-political lobby groups to maintain and protect the questionable and flawed methodology being used to produce desired results for the planned 2017 survey.”

The Federal Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee’s August 2015 report into domestic violence noted that:

“Further work is required to address domestic and family violence against men and the data on its prevalence, noting that only 22 per cent of the respondents in the Personal Safety Survey undertaken by the ABS were male.”

“With so much at stake in dictating Government policy, including allocating hundreds of millions in funding for services to protect all Australians from family violence, Ms Triggs has a duty of care to taxpayers to ensure transparency, accountability, fairness and integrity in the way this landmark survey is conducted,” said Mr Ross.

“A truly accurate picture of family and domestic violence can only be produced by having gender equity in the advisory group, the survey sample and the research team. Turning it into a survey ‘for women by women’ is not in keeping with the spirit or obligations of human rights and anti-discrimination legislation.”


Paul Ross, Researcher, One in Three Campaign, 0429 478 129 or p9rite@yahoo.com.au.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

Confirmed via email response, indeed the ABS will be using female only interviewers. We were sent this official response. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/Australian+Human+Rights+Commission+decision+regarding+Personal+Safety+Survey

September 19, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterWSU Sceptic Soicety

This is outrageous! How dare Gillian Trigg ban male researchers, representing half the Australian population, from having input into conducting a survey on 'Personal Safety'.

How long will Australia's governing bodies continue to ignore the issues that face ALL Australians. My personal safety and your personal safety are paramount. I have a right to facts and information that is not distorted by gender-political interests.

As we each care for ourselves properly, then we can care for others.
We are all in this together!

September 19, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterAlison

Thankyou Paul for speaking on behalf of myself, and I imagine many other men and women who are shocked by this abhorrent attempt to influence the outcomes of supposedly neutral research.
The PSS survey is intended to provide a picture of the extent of safety / violence in the Australian community. Distorting the research process to favour a particular outcome clearly undermines this aim.
The Commissioner, Professor Gillian Triggs, as an academic should be embarrassed to be advocating for a flawed research process, and as a presumed champion for human rights her willing collaboration in promoting gender bias is a cause for shame.

September 19, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterMicheal Woods

This doesn't surprise me at all. Feminists have control of the narrative, and are cooking the books to ensure males are only ever recognized as perpetrators and females are only recognized as victims. They have altered the definition of DV to such an extent that nobody can have an intimate partner without being guilty of DV by their ridiculous definitions. This has been done of course, because they want every man possible tarred with the brush of DV perpetrator. It is nothing but a witch hunt. On the other hand, a woman must be video taped sticking an exe into her partners head before any consideration that she is a perpetrator enters into it, and even then, only if they can not make any half arsed excuses for her.

I don't think this witch hunt is going to end until things are so bad for men that they finally lose their fear of being labelled misogynists and all the other knee jerk labels the femocracy automatically sticks on anybody who gives the slightest damn about the welfare of men and boys.

September 20, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterStu

The blatant rigging of the one last vestige of statistical information that provides a factual snapshot of personal safety in Aust. has now been co-opted by the misandric,iniquitous hate movement of feminism. Expect to have the" male perpetrator,women victim"mantra perpetuated to ensure the tax payers dollars continue to flow to all those feminist snouts in troughs.
Ironically, it took a human rights commissioner to overturn a sex discrimination law to ensure sex discrimination occurred against men .
No intelligent person could take the results seriously,so watch the feminist media run with it. George Orwell would've been fascinated.

September 20, 2016 | Unregistered Commenterbloke

I am not surprised at all by this development. The Bureau of Stats Personal Safety Survey has been a corrupt piece of pseudo scientific surveying junk, since the day they first started doing it. The govt dept itself is loaded with feminists, just like all govt depts. And they have feminist politicians deciding what they will do. How can we expect anything different, unless we decide to get off our backsides and start demanding it!

There is only one reason why they don't want parity with regard people being surveyed, is because THEY KNOW they will end up with findings that there is actually parity between the sexes when it comes to IPV. They know. They ALL KNOW that women are more violent than men are.

Here, look at this site that uses 1,700 peer reviewed studies to prove parity: http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/

They above organisation have found women to mostly be the first to hit and use violence, including weapons. Women perpetrate over 80% of all child abuse, which I believe also includes raping of children. However, because all countries refuse to actually go looking for that huge dirty secret of stats, we will never know how many women do this. It is only logical to assume that women rape children more than men. They murder more children and they abuse children the most. Saying they don't rape them, is just idiotic!

If these ridiculous personal safety surveys were done properly and with balance, the lie that 1 in 3 men are affected by DV, would have been debunked years ago and the name of this website would have been 50/50!

September 20, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterPeter

My first reaction was just like Paul's in the article. I am sceptical of Gillian's motives for excluding male researchers.. In spite of this, however, it might turn out to be more beneficial to male victims than detrimental. Many of us who are angry at the minimization of DV perpetrated against men, are also of the view that it is mainly male leaders and politicians, who are intentionally denying that males can be victims of DV by females. There is still a very strong 'pioneer' culture in Australia that despises weak men as useless human beings. If you are not sacrificing yourself on the sportsfield, in your job or in the military, then you are not a man. Therefore men who are beaten up by women are simply pathetic and do not deserve society's sympathy or support from the justice system. This heartless and callous attitude towards vulnerable men is quite widespread in Australian culture and is very difficult to change because of the frequent reinforcement through media and social events of Australian 'manhood' as being tough and independent. Ironically, it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise that women mostly do the interviewing for the research, because women might be more sympathetic to 'weaker' male human beings. Of course, if the female interviewers are selected for their bias against male victims, then this theory about more sensitive females, will not be valid.

September 20, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterFactsseeker

Very interesting to read this quote on the Human Rights website:

"This decision has been reviewed and tested during the development of each subsequent survey, including through consultation with a number of men's counselling services."

It would be good to know which men's counselling services they consulted, and how many. Were they feminist-run?

And also what the female / male balance will be in the upcoming survey, whether it has been improved to include more males.

Would they allow a Freedom Of Information request, or block it? That would be the interesting test of transparency.

September 24, 2016 | Unregistered CommenterPaul Ross

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>