Ruth Herbert

Commentary on Domestic Violence for Owen Glenn's Consideration‏

Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012 10:44 p.m.

To: Wall, Mattie

Subject: RE: Commentary on Domestic Violence for Owen Glenn's Consideration

Hello again Mattie,

Apparently my partner xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx friend xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is a friend of yours, its a small world. Xx and I met Owen at his book launch in Christchurch along with xxxxxxxxxxx who runs quite a large stud. We thoroughly enjoyed reading his book.

I am Lecturing in China at present but the article I am enclosing the link for has just reached my attention

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/227441/children-most-often-killed-mothers

I realise that you have kindly responded that Owen is on top of things and I have read the appointments for his own enquiry.

I am impressed in Owens generosity and philanthropy and I am concerned that he is being run round in circles by academics that completely and continually overlook the basic issues here. They are giving him the 17 pages to describe the full stop.

The issues are spelled out clearly in the above Police Report, and are exactly what I have been saying to many people over the last 5 or so years. I do not disseminate information to pressure groups such a Bob Mcroskrie's Family First as I view them to be single issue fanatics, as a way to hype the issue but look for sensible allies such as Family Court judges and the like to have frank and objective discussions.

Our statistics look appalling because we are running the exact worst response to Domestic Violence it is possible to conceive and covering up at least 1/2 of its origin because of the "overly gender biased feminist view" of relationship issues.

A change ( return ) to a "road map" to assist stressed relationships to move on with the best interests of the children as the outcome rather than "throw the system at each other" has to be the starting point. We have created through dependency on welfare and state intervention, a blame partners in relationships rather than an individual accountability culture. The self interest of each partner then minimises the outcome for the children.

Secondly looking at our stress factors such as poverty, dependency and lack of education are the three big follow on items. You don't need a Phd in Social sciences to figure this out.

Owen observed this himself as he tells the story of the chap next door in Otara. Any community bound by dependency will exhibit the symptoms in overt behaviours. Owen figured out how to work the system to get out, the people around him knew how to work it to stay put.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Owen-Glenn-launches-violence-inquiry/tabid/423/articleID/270190/Default.aspx

With respect Ruth Herbert has a huge amount of "social engineering baggage" and if Owen really wishes to give a voice to the survivors of DV, I sincerely hope he considers the perspective of the NZ Police's hard data that is acquired from the front lines. To do any less is ignore his concept of a 2 page business plan and look at the cold hard facts...well in my humble opinion anyway....

yours faithfully

Christopher Smith

unofficial NZ representative for Shared Parenting Council of Australia.

**************************************************************************************************

Hello Christopher

Your email has been passed onto me from the team at Glenn Family Foundation. Thank you for taking the time to email us.

I expect that the inquiry panel will be established later this year and start to meet early in 2013 - they will be an expert panel and will be charged with considering all available evidence. I will ensure they are presented with the full spectrum of arguments around these issues, including the links you have sent.

I do not intend entering into an email debate with you about what you say is "social engineering baggage". But because I don't like being judged by people who don't know me I would like you to know that not only am I a survivor of severe domestic abuse from a male perpetrator but a close male member of my family is the survivor of domestic abuse from a female abuser. I was a member of the Governments independent panel reviewing ACC sensitive claims processes. As part of that work we heard the personal stories of many adult men who had been abused as children - some by men and some by women.

Kind regards

Ruth Herbert

Director

Glenn Inquiry

********************************************************************************************************************

Dear Ruth,

Thank you for your email of last week. I haven’t rushed to make a response as I wanted to be a little more considered and organise my thinking logically for you to assess. As we all know Paula Bennett herself has expressed exasperation over these very issues, as you are probably more than aware, and called for green and white papers so I assume you agree that we are in good company in the desire to look for solutions. It’s a shame we didn’t appear do this 20 years ago however and apply sensible democratic process to the original choices of action. I imagine you are far more connected that I realise in these issues but it’s the common perspective that seems to me to be missing in the big picture analysis.

Your early childhood experiences are probably not that unusual for many fellow countrypersons including myself. However I don’t equate the very American game of “my distress is bigger than your distress” as a productive conversation, and an emotive reply looking to acquire agreement isn’t something that I commonly use as a management technique as reality usually has a habit of invading such an informality, though I do appreciate your choice to offer it as an initiating reciprocal friendly gesture, as I view your reply actually.

The number of child deaths, the unfortunate Key Performance Indicator of policy for want of a better choice words, has actually remained fairly static over the last 20 or so years. This basic fact should have been front and centre through all the Marketing Communications that the population has been subjected to in the last 10 years. If you consider what we have spent in advertising, people like yourself to implement systems, support and policy promulgation it easily amounts something like 100 Million, or more, to support the current DV initiative. This represents something like 1 Million per 100 child deaths over 10 years. Imagine what 1 Million per disadvantaged child could have achieved if directed in an appropriate and meaningful manner, rather than implementing a shot gun scatter and bluster DV programme as we have done.

By now you are no doubt in denial and in auto pilot response mode, thinking that doing something has been far preferable to the pre existing situation. Well, the system you have put so much energy into has delivered nothing in productive terms because, as Professor Dutton himself experienced and re positioned himself over, is the reality that the Duluth system isn’t based on any sound scientific principals or research.

Unfortunately we seem to have some underlying DV rate that is fairly static. Much like other crimes that we legislate for in the general populations behaviours. Even more unfortunate is that the solution we continuing experiment with is causing very real and measurable collateral damage in addition to the underlying issues.

What has been done in the last few years to “tighten the noose” and redefine abuses and extend the faulty experiments reach, is causing exasperation, a lack of results and continuing angst. Hence my call to remove the Duluth system and replace it with Best Practice and Internationally accepted Relationship Counselling and a Roadmap of some sort for relationships in distress to progress with the interests of involved children at heart. Simply stating that Children are the first issue then delivering a faulty experimental framework then criminalising people for following this framework is to me the worst possible outcome of faulty bureaucratic thinking.

In effect Duluth is a PONZI scheme continually asking for more patience and input from Social Support services, the Government and the general Population and even recently the Coroner and the Medical Profession. Explaining the lack of results is met with Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, with well what else is there ?, we are doing our best, we just need more research whilst wilfully ignoring International findings and belatedly duplicating them unnecessarily, we should clamp down on “abuse wheel” behaviours, we should start a database, we should spy on at risk parents, the Medical Community should be the first contact point and so on. Soon there will be no new sector of the population to Include or Blame and the DULUTH PONZI scheme will collapse under its own weight. That is, if it isn’t doing so already.

Your choice as I see it is to either continue supporting it or be an active part in its erasure from our Legislation and Jurisprudence and apply your skills into constructing a workable framework for Relationships in distress to follow to minimise the “jostling” as Professor Dutton calls it so as to reduce as far as practical any DV effects of relationship issues.

You, and specifically your publications, seem to exhibit none of the outward signs of having reached the point where you realise a re-positioning attitude and subsequent decisions and action is necessary. We have researched this issue to death, not a pun, there are no easy answers. We are not offering Best Practice accepted methodologies, so this is surely the place to begin. Defending the efficacy of the implementations of a disproven and experimental system as per your paper is a sure sign that you are equivocating. I shudder to consider what we would be facing if we had more efficiently implemented it actually.

So for these reasons I restate my opinion that you carry “baggage”, in fact “unresolved baggage”, and that I find it unfortunate that Owen is now depending on this unresolved outlook to go spend 80 Million to assist, an assistance that seems just as likely to be as misdirected as the Government’s efforts to date, given he is now receiving effectively the same guidance.

The links I hope you will consider are Dr Dutton’s research and Journal publications on this issue, and there are plenty. He personally sent me copies some 5 years ago and I have them included in the web site and links on an open letter to Owen. They were for me a welcome respite of common sense when trying to make order out of a confused, misguided and blatantly destructive jurisdictional process. Of course you probably have had greater and earlier access to them than I was able. Asking me for them trivialised there import and informing me you will consider them via my channel, instead of via their Notable Publications of Academic Status Internationally is a deliberate academic slight, but since I’m not an academic it went completely over my head. I still choose to view your response as friendly despite this, as I hope you view this letter.

My friendly, and ever hopeful suggestion is to please re read Dr Dutton’s publications, consider his data sets in comparison with ours and have a quiet dispassionate degustation of his findings over the holidays.

I think in time we will come to view the whole DULUTH experiment as far more unfortunate experiment than Dr Herbert Greens’ well intended but confused and amateurish attempts of 30 years ago.

Sincerely yours Christopher Smith