Effective access to services: What does it mean for sexual assault?

Elizabeth Broderick

Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission

Canberra Rape Crisis Centre Gala Fundraising Lunch

10 November 2011

---

Acknowledgments

Thank you, Suzanne, for that generous introduction and warm welcome.

Let me also acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of
Ngunnawal people. I pay my respects to their elders past and present, and all
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and women who have worked so
committedly to eliminating sexual assault.

Let me also acknowledge the members of parliament and their representatives,
the CEOs of Canberra Institute of Technology and Lifeline, as well as all the
staff and volunteers at the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre.

In my time travelling the length and breadth of Australia as Sex
Discrimination Commissioner, I have visited many domestic violence and sexual
assault services. I am in awe of the people I meet and constantly inspired by
the services I have seen—services just like Canberra Rape Crisis
Centre—that work tirelessly to support individual victims and survivors
and also to prevent violence and sexual assault before it occurs.

Yet, it strikes me that we do not often stop to acknowledge the essential
work performed by these services, or to consider what it might be like for
victims and survivors of sexual assault if they could no longer access those
services.

That is why I am so pleased to be able to join you for this year’s
Canberra Rape Crisis Centre Gala Fundraising Lunch.

This is an occasion to acknowledge and celebrate the important achievements
of the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre – and it should be said at the outset
that there are many to acknowledge and celebrate, and no doubt there will be
many more in the future.

This lunch provides us an opportunity for reflection, something that is often
hard to come by with the time and resource constraints many of us face. It is
an occasion to consider how we personally and through our organisations can
better support the important work of assisting victims and survivors of sexual
assault.

Introduction

I want to talk to you today about the concept of effective access to
services.

What do we mean when we talk about “effective access to
services” in the context of sexual assault? What measures are needed to
ensure that victims and survivors can access sexual assault services
effectively?

And, relevantly, considering that today’s Gala is a fundraising lunch,
what role does adequate funding—or the lack thereof—play in the
effective provision of sexual assault services?

The answers to these questions may seem obvious at first glance. But I would
like to suggest that how we answer these questions will influence the
effectiveness of our responses to sexual assault over the coming decades.

Effective access to sexual assault services

So, what do we mean when we talk about effective access to services for
victims and survivors of sexual assault?

When I reflected on this question in preparing for today’s Gala event,
I was reminded of a story I heard when visiting a sexual assault centre in
Victoria just over a year ago.

It is the story of a 10 year old girl, who I will call Emma.

On the evening before I arrived, Emma had rung the crisis centre while her
mother was being sexually assaulted. Because of her call, Emma, her mother and
siblings were transported to the safety of the crisis centre in the early hours
of the morning. By 10.30 that same morning, all the locks on Emma’s
family home had been changed, counselling had been arranged for Emma, her mother
and her siblings, an apprehended violence order was underway, and a plan of
action had been implemented to address the assault and ensure the ongoing safety
of Emma and her family.

As I reflected on Emma’s story, trying to imagine what that experience
must have been like for her, especially given her very young age, I wondered
what we could learn from Emma about effective access to sexual assault services.

What was it about Emma’s experiences that meant she could access
services on behalf of her family and herself so quickly and effectively? Was it
that, even at just ten years of age, Emma knew about the crisis centre, the
services it offered and how to contact it? Was it that the response relied on
the links between different services?

Drawing from the field of human rights—which recongises sexual assault
as a human rights violation and has developed a human rights-based approach to
service delivery—I’d like to suggest that at least four elements
must exist in order for there to be effective access to sexual assault services.
Sexual assault services must be (1) available, (2) accessible, (3) acceptable,
and (4) of good quality.^[1]

Let me explain.

Sexual assault services must be available.

This means that there must be enough sexual assault services throughout all
areas of the country to meet the needs of victims and survivors.

In areas where there are no or few sexual assault services or we see sexual
assault services turn victims and survivors away, due to a lack of resources or
capacity – sexual assault services are not available.

Support services need to be available not only during the times of crisis,
but also in the days, weeks, months and years that follow an assault. And there
needs to be effective links with other services, including legal and housing
services.

A service is not available in the true sense of the word if it is not
adequately resourced to provide the ongoing and holistic support that victims
and survivors of sexual assault need.

Sexual assault services must be accessible in that they:

• are available to everyone without discrimination;
• are in safe, physical reach;
• are affordable; and
• provide evidence-based information and resources about sexual assault.

When victims of sexual assault in rural areas are unable to access
counselling services or when they have to travel long distances to obtain
forensic testing after being assaulted or, for example, when women with a
disability are unable to access premises, sexual assault services are not
accessible.

Sexual assault services must be acceptable.

This means that services must be respectful of medical ethics and their
clients’ culture, and also be sensitive to gender and life-cycle
requirements.

Sexual assault can affect anyone. It crosses all ages, races and cultures,
socioeconomic and geographic barriers. It is important that these differences
are taken into account in the provision of services to sexual assault victims
and survivors.

The Nguru Program, a dedicated service run by Canberra Rape Crisis Centre for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, is an example of an
initiative that seeks to provide culturally appropriate counselling for victims
and survivors of sexual assault. It also seeks to improve awareness of sexual
violence within those communities.

The use of a feminist lens in the Rape Crisis Centre’s service delivery
is a further example of an attempt to provide acceptable services, one that
should also be commended. It acknowledges the gendered nature of sexual assault
in this country – where, as I am sure you already know, nearly one in five
women over the age of 15 has experienced sexual
assault.^[2] But, through its Service
Assisting Male Survivors of Sexual Assault, the Crisis Centre still recognises
that men can be victims and survivors and may, therefore, need support and
assistance.

Finally, sexual assault services must be quality services. Among
other things, this means that staff at sexual assault services must be
appropriately trained and developed and the facilities used to house sexual
assault services must be appropriate.

Difficulties in recruiting and retaining appropriately skilled workers
– due, at least in part, to inadequate funding – are having a real
impact on the capacity of sexual assault services to offer a quality service in
Australia. In Time for Action, The National Council to Reduce Violence
against Women and their Children reiterated community and sectoral concerns that
“under-resourcing is already leading to limited service delivery, so that
a consistently professional, high quality, and coherent response to sexual
assault and domestic and family violence is, at best, uneven across the
nation”.^[3]

Primary prevention: attitudinal and behavioural change

When we talk about effective responses to sexual assault, we are not just
referring to the ability of people like Emma and her family to benefit from
individual services that are available, accessible, acceptable, and of good
quality.

As emphasised in the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and
Their Children, effective access also means that sexual assault services are
delivered in conjunction with efforts aimed at primary prevention.

Primary prevention is not just about educating the community about the
nature, prevalence and harms of sexual assault, though that is certainly part of
it. It is also about creating an environment to facilitate attitudinal and
behaviour change.

Primary prevention requires us to tackle the gender stereotypes and
prejudicial and sexist attitudes that

• give rise to sexual assault;
• place blame for sexual assault on victims and survivors;
• excuse the criminal behaviour of perpetrators; and
• influence low rates of reporting, prosecution and conviction of sexual
  assault in Australia.

I am reminded, here, of a recent international
case, Karen Tayag Vertido v. The
Philippines.^[4]

In many respects, this case is unremarkable. In fact, I am sure that, for
many of you here today, the facts of the case will sound eerily familiar and
perhaps invoke memories of the experiences of a client or a friend, or maybe
even your own experiences.

Although the facts of the Vertido case are not extraordinary, the case
is noteworthy for two important reasons.

The first is the way sexual stereotypes influenced the reasoning of
the trial judge and enabled the accused to be acquitted in the first instance.

The second is the way the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women—the UN treaty body responsible for monitoring
states’ compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women—named the sexual stereotypes relied on
by the trial judge and discredited her reasoning and findings.

Very briefly, the facts are that Karen Vertido was allegedly raped by her
superior following a work function. Vertido alleged that, rather than giving
her a lift home as promised, the accused took her to a nearby motel where he
dragged her to a motel room.

Unable to escape, Vertido locked herself in the bathroom. She emerged only
after she thought the accused had left. However, unbeknown to her, the accused
was still there. He reportedly forcibly pinned Vertido to the bed, where his
weight caused her to lose consciousness. Vertido alleged that the accused was
already raping her when she “came to.” The accused ignored
Vertido’s pleas to stop and she was initially unsuccessful in her attempts
to push him off her.

When Vertido eventually succeeded in freeing herself, she reported the rape
to police and underwent medical and legal exams.

When the matter finally came to trial more than eight years later, the
accused was acquitted of raping Karen Vertido. The trial judge cited
insufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was
guilty of rape.

The trial judge’s decision to acquit was based, among other things, on
her unfavourable assessment of Vertido’s testimony. The trial judge
formed this assessment based on Vertido’s failure to behave as Her Honour
expected an ideal rape victim to behave. She had not, for example, taken
advantage of perceived opportunities to escape from the accused.

Left with no other means of recourse at the domestic level, Karen Vertido
took her matter to the UN using the Optional Protocol to the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The CEDAW Committee found that the Philippines had violated its human rights
obligations under CEDAW by acquitting the accused on the basis of gender
stereotypes, rather than law or fact, and failing to provide Vertido an
effective remedy for being raped.

The Committee explained that

the assessment of the credibility of the author’s version of events,
was influenced by a number of stereotypes, the author in this situation not
having followed what was expected from a rational and “ideal victim”
or what the judge considered to be the rational and ideal response of a woman in
a rape situation.^[5]

The Committee went on to say that the trial judge’s decision contained
“several references to stereotypes about male and female sexuality being
more supportive for the credibility of the alleged perpetrator than for the
credibility of the victim.”^[6]

Singling out the trial judges reliance on the prescriptive stereotype that
women should physically resist rape and other forms of sexual assault at every
opportunity, the Committee reasoned that to expect the author to have physically
resisted the accused perpetuates that stereotypical belief.

The CEDAW Committee cautioned that judges

must take caution not to create inflexible standards of what women or girls
should be or what they should have done when confronted with a situation of rape
based merely on preconceived notions of what defines a rape victim or a victim
of gender-based violence, in
general.^[7]

As part of its recommendations, the Committee called on the Philippines to
ensure “that all legal procedures in cases involving crimes of rape and
other sexual offenses are impartial and fair, and not affected by prejudices or
stereotypical gender
notions.”^[8]

As we here know too well, victims and survivors of sexual assault are
frequently forced to deal with stereotypical beliefs and prejudicial and sexist
assumptions, and not just those held by judges.

Australian society is saturated with gender stereotypes and discriminatory
assumptions that affect everything from whether or not a person is sexually
assaulted to whether or not and how the sexual assault is reported and
prosecuted to whether the accused is convicted or acquitted of sexual assault.

The National Survey on Community Attitudes to Violence against Women
2009 shows we have made some important progress on this front but we still
have a long way to go.^[9]

In regards to sexual assault, just over one in 10 people still think that
“women often say no when they mean
yes”.^[10] One in three people think that rape occurs because of men “not being able
to control their need for
sex”.^[11] And we still have
5% of Australians believing that women cannot be raped by someone with whom they
have been sexually
intimate.^[12]

The survey also showed that rates of false allegations of sexual assault
remain low and are comparable with rates found for other person-related offences
like mugging. Yet one in four Australians disagree with the statement that
“women rarely make false claims of being
raped”.^[13]

It is not just stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes related to rape and
sexual assault that we need to be concerned with, but general stereotypes and
assumptions about what it means to be a man or woman in Australian society, and
socially and culturally acceptable forms of sexual expression and behaviour.

It seems to me that (male) sexual aggression is celebrated with frightening
regularity in Australian society.

Think of the “pro-rape” Facebook page set up a couple of years
ago by a group of past and present University of Sydney
students.^[14]

Think, also, of the example of “The Brocial Network” from earlier
this year, which circulated images of scantily clad women without their
knowledge through a private “men’s only” Facebook
group.^[15]

There’s also the example, which emerged only weeks ago, of a Facebook
page entitled “[y]ou know shes [sic] playing hard to get when your [sic]
chasing her down an
alleyway”.^[16]

These kinds of pages are proliferating at disturbing rates, with many more
people visiting the sites and “liking them”, many of them teenagers
and young adults. “The Brocial Network”, for example, attracted
more than 8,000 members in just two
weeks.^[17]

I mention these examples not to single out Facebook. Facebook is the medium
being used to express sexual aggression, though it certainly has a social
corporate, moral and possibly legal responsibility to address such behaviour.

I mention these examples because they show so clearly why we need to combine
efforts to ensure effective access to services with strategies aimed at primary
prevention. I think they also show the need and urgency for work targeted at
gender stereotypes and behavioural change.

After learning of what I can only describe as these disturbing examples, I
was heartened to learn that Canberra Rape Crisis Centre has made primary
prevention a focus of its work. Their vision statement notes that the Centre
will work within a feminist framework to be an active, visible catalyst for
social change, including by challenging societal values and inequitable
structures that perpetuate violence against women, and others.

Its leadership role in this area is to be commended.

The role of fundraising

I want to touch briefly on the final question I posed at the very beginning
of my speech – what role does adequate funding play in the effective
provision of sexual assault services?

Adequate and ongoing funding is vital. I know from my own experiences
visiting domestic violence and sexual assault services throughout Australia the
real difference such funding can make in the lives of victims and survivors.

Without it, it will simply not be possible for victims and survivors to
access sexual assault services that are equipped to effectively address their
varied and complex short-, medium- and long-term needs.

Evidence is already emerging that victims and survivors who are not able to
recover fully from sexual assault because they cannot access all the services
they need, are presenting at sexual assault services re-traumatised and often
with significant mental health, drug and alcohol problems.

The difficulties I mentioned earlier in recruiting and retaining
appropriately skilled workers will not ease in the absence of a real commitment
from government to adequately fund sexual assault services. This includes
properly valuing the work of SACS workers and paying them appropriately.

Funding ad hoc programmes or providing funding in crisis mode only, is not
the answer. In fact, it will only undermine the provision of effective sexual
assault services.

Without adequate and ongoing funding, primary prevention strategies will also
struggle.

There is no doubt in mind; it’s time to take action. The announcement
from Minister Ellis last week of additional funding for Canberra Rape Crisis
Centre is an important step in the right direction. The funding, which has been
made available under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and
their Children, will support a sexual assault primary prevention
program for students in ACT high schools. A great initiative.

However, the fight to address and reduce sexual assault is an ongoing one.
Therefore, we need to ensure that there is adequate funding on an ongoing basis.
In addition to adequate and ongoing funding, we also need to ensure that the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is
independently monitored and evaluated.

The lives and safety of men, women and children depend on us getting the
implementation of the National Plan right.

Conclusion

I’d like to finish by taking a moment to acknowledge the incredible
work and dedication of the staff and volunteers at Canberra Rape Crisis Centre,
as well all the individuals who work or volunteer at other domestic violence and
sexual assault services.

You fill me with admiration: your commitment, your dedication, your
compassion, and the personal sacrifices you make. You work day in and day out
doing such important work and deliver so much with so little.

You perform some of the most valuable and unrecognised work in this country.
On behalf of the Australian Human Rights Commission and women all across
Australia can I say thank you.

Thank you for the work you do every day, for the invaluable support you
provide to people when they are at their most vulnerable, for continuing to care
and through your efforts for creating a more equal and just Australia.

Thank you.

---

^[1] Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable
Standard of Health, UN Doc. E/CN.12/2000/4 (2000), para. 12.

^[2] ABS, Personal Safety,
Australia, 2005 (Reissue), Catalogue No. 4906.0 (2006).

^[3] The National Council to Reduce
Violence against Women and their Children, Time
for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against
Women and their Children, 2009-2021 (2009), p. 75.

^[4] Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women, Karen Tayag Vertido v. The Philippines,
Communication No. 18/2008, UN Doc CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008 (2010). At: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/545/58/PDF/N1054558.pdf?OpenElement (viewed 4 November 2011).

^[5] Above, para. 8.5.

^[6] Above, para. 8.6.

^[7] Above, para. 8.4.

^[8] Above, para. 8.9(b).

^[9] See VicHealth, National
Survey on Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women 2009 (2010). At: http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/ResourceCentre/PublicationsandResources/NCAS_CommunityAttitudes_report_2010.ashx (viewed 2 November 2011).

^[10] See above, p. 8.

^[11] See above.

^[12] See above.

^[13] See above.

^[14] Ruth Pollard, “Elite
college students proud of ‘pro-rape’ Facebook page,” The
Sydney Morning Herald, 9 November 2009. At: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/elite-college-students-proud-of-prorape-facebook-page-20091108-i3js.html (viewed 2 November 2011).

^[15] Kara Irving, “Facebook
trade in female images”, The Sydney Morning Herald,18 May 2011. At: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-trade-in-female-images-20110517-1erfu.html (viewed 2 November 2011).

^[16] Philip Sherwell,
“Facebook refuses to shut rape page run by schoolboy” The Sydney
Morning Herald, 17 October 2011. At: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-refuses-to-shut-rape-page-run-by-schoolboy-20111017-1lsde.html#ixzz1cWVZqVjM (viewed 2 November 2011).

^[17] Kara Irving, “Facebook
trade in female images”, The Sydney Morning Herald,18 May 2011. At: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-trade-in-female-images-20110517-1erfu.html (viewed 2 November 2011).