Defining family violence
The term ‘family violence’ covers psychological, physical, sexual and economic abuse that occurs among intimate partners, former partners, whānau/family members and others with whom a person has a close relationship, such as flatmates and carers. Family harm and violence is extremely common in New Zealand.
Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour that causes harm to someone in an intimate relationship. Police investigations of violence between intimate partners overwhelmingly identify male perpetrators. The 2022 New Zealand Crime and Victims survey found that 24% of New Zealand women had experienced intimate partner violence.
The term child abuse is used to refer to abuse of children inside or outside their families.
Physical assault (for example, hitting, stabbing, attempts at strangulation, sexual coercion) often occurs alongside attempts to control a partner or former partner. Coercive behaviour includes limiting contact with others, monitoring conversations with friends and family, financial control, stalking, killing or hurting pets, and threatening to kill children or other family members.
Gender issues
Police, courts and social services deal mainly with cases of men assaulting women and children. However, community surveys suggest women assault their partners as frequently as men do. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that people responding to surveys tend to report low-level situational partner violence and focus on specific incidents of conflict rather than patterns of control or threats of violence. Also, women assaulting men are less likely to cause serious harm, whereas men may inflict significant physical injuries on women.
Mind games
Psychological threats are often part of family violence. A woman who took out a protection order against her partner after he seriously assaulted her many times discovered he had been inside her house and done the dishes. Police were puzzled that she wanted him arrested for doing the dishes – but to her this was a chilling message that he could get to her whenever he wanted to.1
Features of family violence
Family violence differs from other violent behaviour. It is seldom a one-off act, but a pattern of repeated behaviour towards intimate or former partners or other family members that has wide-ranging negative effects. Because it occurs in private, even family and close friends may not be aware that it is happening, or may choose to ignore it. This makes it particularly difficult to assess and stop.
Family violence crosses ethnic and class boundaries, and occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It often happens in families with other problems, such as poverty, substance abuse or mental health issues.
Impacts
Increasingly a distinction is made between one-off acts of violence – situational couple violence – and coercively controlling violence, a systematic pattern of assaults and intimidation that creates a climate of fear and self-regulation.
Battered women live with fear so profound and demoralising that they can find it very difficult to leave the relationship. Their abusive partners may threaten to harm their children, other family members, their pets or their property if they leave. They often face economic uncertainty if they are in a low-paid job or reliant on benefit payments. Women who are sole parents may be stigmatised, especially if they are on state benefits. All these factors can deter women from leaving abusive relationships.
Women experiencing intimate partner violence may become increasingly cut off from friends and family, and lose self-worth and self-confidence, as well as a sense of their capacity to make decisions and exercise agency.
Women who live with ongoing family violence may develop trauma symptoms such as severe depression and anxiety. They may also use alcohol and drugs to numb their emotional and physical pain. If their partner or family member is known to the police for other reasons, they may not feel comfortable about reporting the abuse. These problems can make it difficult for women who are physically or psychologically abused to seek or accept help.
Hurting children
The impact of family violence on children is expressed in a letter written by a boy to the judge when his mother’s violent partner appeared in court: ‘I have tried to take my life because I haven’t been able to deal with the things he has done to me and my family. Sometimes I feel like I have failed my family because I haven’t been able to protect them from this man.’2
Often child abuse and violence between partners coexist. There is evidence that children are directly impacted by being exposed to family violence, and are emotionally damaged even if they are not physically harmed. Children in these situations may imitate the violent behaviour and become violent adults.
Incidence of intimate partner violence
Family violence is one of the most common forms of violent crime in New Zealand. In 2016 the New Zealand Police conducted 118,910 investigations relating to family violence. Fifty-five per cent of those who were violent towards females were partners, ex-partners, boy/girlfriends or ex-boy/girlfriends. Many cases are not reported, so these statistics may indicate just the tip of the iceberg. In 2022/23 there were almost 178,000 police investigations, with 29,299 resulting in a family violence charge being laid.
According to police figures, reported family violence more than doubled between the 1990s and the early 21st century. This reflected changes in police policy and recording practice, and growing public awareness of the problem and willingness to report incidents. Lower tolerance for family violence may also explain the growth in use of refuges. In 2015/16, women’s refuges affiliated to the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges received about 73,000 crisis calls and 2,446 women and children used their safe-house services. More than 11,000 women and children accessed advocacy services in the community in relation to experiences of family violence.
A troubling aspect of domestic violence in New Zealand is its prevalence among Māori. In 2017 Māori were more than twice as likely to be victims of intimate partner violence as other New Zealanders. They were also twice as likely to experience coercive and controlling behaviours. Māori women were 15% of the female population but 29% of those using refuge services. Between 2018 and 2022, 6.9% of all Māori women experienced an offence by a family member.
Other groups who are more likely to experience family violence than the average New Zealand adult – are females who identify as LGBT+ (8.2%), disabled females (6.6%), and females living in significant financial difficulty (6.5%). Those recently separated from a partner are also more vulnerable.
Footnotes
- Neville Robertson and others, Living at the cutting edge: women’s experience of protection orders, Vol. 1. Hamilton: University of Waikato, 2007, p.6. Back
- Quoted in Neville Robertson and others, Living at the cutting edge: women’s experience of protection orders, Vol. 1. Hamilton: University of Waikato, 2007, p.51. Back
Family violence in the 19th century
Attitudes
Attitudes to domestic violence between men and women in 19th-century New Zealand were shaped by ideas that settlers brought from Britain. Most believed that husbands were the head of the household and some thought this gave them the right, once part of English common law, to ‘correct’ their wives through physical punishment. Others rejected this, arguing that men were women’s ‘natural protectors’. Behind both views was a deep-seated belief that women were inferior to men. Consequently, women were legally, economically and socially disadvantaged. For example, husbands had the legal right to control their wives’ bodies and property. These attitudes were imposed on Māori society, in which violence towards women also occurred. Legal discrimination against women particularly affected Māori women in relationships with Pākehā men.
Prevalence
Family violence appears to have been widespread. Between 1850 and 1875, 11% of prosecutions for violence in Auckland were for domestic assaults. These prosecutions represented just a fraction of all assaults. Rape within marriage was not a criminal offence and was not reported.
Last resort
Many women endured serious, repeated violence – often with weapons including knives, bottles and hammers – before taking a prosecution. When Catherine Nicolson of Auckland prosecuted her husband John in 1855, she testified that he had beaten her ‘dozens of times’, once so badly that it was ‘more than nine days before I could show my face outside the door.’1
Taking a prosecution
Women usually had to lay a complaint of assault, rather than relying on police to prosecute. Once a woman had complained, her husband was summoned to appear before the police court. The case was heard and, if convicted, the man was required to keep the peace, fined or imprisoned. Few assault charges were referred on to the Supreme Court, and those deemed ‘trivial’ were dismissed.
Deterrents to legal action
Some women successfully prosecuted their husbands. However, the cost of taking proceedings, the possibility the case would be discharged, and the light sentences (three months’ imprisonment was typical) discouraged many from laying charges. Fear of ongoing violence was another deterrent. Women were sometimes assaulted by their husbands after a summons was issued.
There were other reasons for staying silent. Few married women had paid jobs, so most were financially dependent on their husbands. If a man was imprisoned, his wife had no income. Many women wanted to avoid the public shame of appearing in court and having the details published in the newspapers.
Alternatives
Women had some alternatives to legal action. One was to stay and tolerate the abuse. A few women sought shelter with friends or neighbours. Others entered new relationships. Some tried to survive alone, but this usually meant earning money, and job options for women were very limited and low-paid.
Is it right?
Women campaigning for the vote were acutely aware of the domestic issues many married women had to contend with. A pamphlet written by Kate Sheppard in 1892 asked: ‘Is it right that while the loafer, the gambler, the drunkard, and even the wife-beater has a vote, earnest, educated and refined women are denied it?’2
Divorce was expensive and difficult to obtain, making it an option only for the rich. Divorced people also risked becoming social outcasts, so divorce was rare.
Leaving a relationship was risky if a woman stayed in the same area. An estranged husband could hunt down and assault his wife, and until legal reforms occurred in stages between 1860 and 1882, he could still control his wife’s earnings and claim custody of their children. To avoid this, some women fled and changed their identity. For example, feminist Mary Ann Muller emigrated to New Zealand from England in 1850 to escape a cruel husband, presenting herself as a widow.
Temperance
Alcohol consumption was high in 19th-century New Zealand, and male drunkenness was often a factor in domestic violence. This was one reason women flocked to join temperance organisations. From 1885 until 1893 women’s groups, led by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, campaigned for the vote, believing that this reform would lead to sweeping political and social change.
Footnotes
- Quoted in Dean Wilson, ‘Community violence in Auckland, 1850–1875.’ MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1993, pp. 43, 51. Back
- Quoted in Patricia Grimshaw, Women’s suffrage in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1987, p. 81. Back
Changing attitudes to family violence, 1893 to 1985
Women were hampered in their attempts to get legal remedies for family violence. Winning the vote in 1893 gave them a say at the polling booth, but for years they remained unrepresented in the institutions where laws were made or administered. There was no woman member of Parliament until 1933, and for several more decades there were very few. Women could not sit on juries until 1942, and not on an equal basis with men until 1963. There were no women police until 1941, and few women lawyers until the 1980s.
Support for victims
After 1893, organisations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the National Council of Women called for political and legal action on a range of women’s issues, including family violence. This was the central concern of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children (SPWC), formed in Auckland in 1893, with branches set up later in Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. The SPWC assisted battered women and took prosecutions, but because of its few branches and scant funding it could give only limited help.
‘The sanctity of marriage’
For much of the 20th century, marriage was widely seen as the ultimate goal for women, whose educational and work opportunities were therefore restricted. Women’s lower status in society and within marriage continued. Family violence, which exploited and reinforced this power imbalance, remained common. Between 1956 and 1969, for example, 30% of all common assaults recorded occurred within families.
This violence was often trivialised or ignored. The main goal of the SPWC (later called the Home and Family Society) was to preserve the traditional family unit. It was interested only in cases of ‘excessive’ violence, and believed that some women had provoked their abuse. Police took a similar approach, and were reluctant to arrest violent men when called to ‘domestic disputes’. Many people regarded marriage as a special relationship in which other people should not interfere.
Women were often reluctant to report violence. They feared complaints not being taken seriously, renewed violence as a response, and turning in someone they still loved.
Refuges
When the women’s liberation movement began in New Zealand in the 1970s, feminists realised that domestic and sexual violence were major problems that had been hushed up. They believed that any violence – not just ‘excessive’ violence – towards women was unacceptable, and set up rape crisis centres and refuges.
Women’s refuges
The first women’s refuges opened in Christchurch (1974), Auckland (1975) and Dunedin (1976) to provide accommodation for women fleeing violent relationships. They were followed by others around the country, and in 1981 they joined together as the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges(NCIWR). In the 1980s refuges run by and for Māori women opened. Later refuges for Pacific women and women of other ethnic groups were started. A 1983 survey of refuges gave a more accurate idea of the level of domestic violence than prosecution statistics could, and led to some government funding for the NCIWR.
Rape in marriage
During the first decades of the 20th century several court cases questioned a married woman’s right to refuse sexual intercourse with her husband. Judges ruled differently in each case, but some supported the right of women to refuse. In the late 1930s, for instance, Justice Henry Ostler stated that ‘a woman on marriage does not sell her body’.1 However, rape within marriage was not made a criminal offence until 1985.
As well as offering a safe haven, refuges provided telephone crisis lines and counselling programmes for women and children. They helped women make informed decisions about the future by advising them on taking legal action and obtaining benefits and housing. They also ran community education programmes on domestic violence.
Rape Crisis
The first rape crisis telephone helpline was started by feminists in 1973, and the first rape crisis centre was set up in Auckland in 1978. More groups were set up and two collectives were established: Te Kakano o te Whanau (1985) for Māori women and the National Collective of Rape Crisis and Related Groups (1986). Like the refuges, Rape Crisis provided counselling, legal advice and support, and public education.
Stopping violence
In the 1980s, men started running non-violence programmes for other men. Organisations working to end domestic violence joined together as Te Kupenga Whakaoti Mahi Putunga/National Network of Stopping Violence Services. The network promoted social change to end men’s violence towards women and children.
Legal aid and the DPB
Law changes assisted women trying to escape violent home situations. In 1969, legal aid became available for those who could not afford a lawyer. The introduction of the domestic purposes benefit (DPB) for sole parents in 1973 made it easier for women with dependent children to leave abusive relationships.
Footnotes
- Quoted in Barbara Brookes, ‘A weakness for strong subjects: the women’s movement and sexuality.’ New Zealand Journal of History, 27, no. 2 (October 1993): p. 155. Back
Law and policing changes from the 1980s
Domestic Protection Act 1982
The first law to address family violence specifically was the Domestic Protection Act 1982. This provided for non-violence and non-molestation orders to be made on application to a district or family court.
A non-violence order applied to a person who had used or threatened violence against their partner or children living in the same household. This person could be arrested and held for 24 hours.
A non-molestation order prevented a separated partner from stalking the applicant or entering their property. It ceased to apply if the couple began living together again.
Occupation and tenancy orders enabled the applicant to keep living in a previously shared home. A 1986 amendment introduced mandatory stopping-violence programmes for perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
Police policy changes
Police adopted a more assertive approach to family violence in 1987 after a trial in Hamilton. Recognising the risk of retribution faced by women with violent partners, they decided to arrest offenders if an assault was detected, rather than waiting for the victim to make a complaint. They also began referring victims to Women’s Refuge for immediate support.
Domestic Violence Act 1995
A study of continued breaches of orders in 1992 found that the police pro-arrest policy was poorly implemented, offenders often received very light sentences, and intimidation and harassment were often not seen as sufficient reasons for granting orders. Many of the study’s recommendations were incorporated in the Domestic Violence Act 1995.
The definition of domestic violence was broadened to encompass psychological and sexual as well as physical violence. It was applied to a wider range of relationships, in recognition that family members, same-sex partners, flatmates, carers and anyone close to the victim could use power-and-control violence. Causing or allowing a child to witness abuse was defined as domestic violence.
Protection orders replaced non-violence and non-molestation orders. They applied equally to offenders living with or separated from the victim. Orders were now permanent unless challenged by the respondent, in which case a hearing was held . Penalties for breaching orders were raised, and increased in severity with each breach.
Mediation or murder?
Under the Domestic Protection Act 1982, the Family Court often tried to resolve conflict through counselling. This proved inappropriate in cases of domestic violence, as the meetings exposed women to potential abuse and intimidation. One woman was killed by her former partner as she left court-ordered counselling.1
An amendment to the Guardianship Act 1968 denied violent partners who had been served with a protection order access to their children unless the courts were satisfied they would be safe. This was to prevent people taking revenge on an estranged partner by killing or harming their children.
Reviewing the act
Many people working to reduce domestic violence agreed that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 was good legislation. However, more than 200 women and children died in domestic-violence-related homicides between 1995 and 2007.
Not stopping violence
Battered women surveyed for the 2007 review of the Domestic Violence Act often stated that, in their experience, court-ordered stopping-violence programmes for their partners did not work. Men refused to attend or did not complete the courses.
A 2007 review concluded that implementation of the act was often inadequate. The conditions for granting a temporary protection order had been narrowed, and breaches of orders were not always followed up by police, particularly if they did not involve physical violence. Men who breached orders were rarely convicted, and those who were received light sentences. Some men succeeded in having protection orders discharged, even when they had breached them, and gained custody of or continued access to their children.
Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Act 2009
This act introduced police safety orders, which enabled police to remove the alleged offender from the home for up to five days to ensure the immediate safety of the victim. These orders were to be used in situations where there was insufficient evidence to make an arrest, but reason to believe domestic violence could occur. Judges were allowed to issue protection orders when sentencing an offender, penalties for breaching orders were stiffened, and those failing to attend a court-ordered programme could be imprisoned for up to six months.
Family Violence Act 2018 and Domestic Violence Victims' Protection Act 2018
In 2016 the government announced a major overhaul of the legislation relating to family violence. A Ministerial Working Group on Family and Sexual Violence identified the need for 53 changes to a number of laws.
The Family Violence Act 2018 replaced the Domestic Violence Act 1995. The Crimes Act was also overhauled. These changes embodied a more sophisticated understanding of family violence than previous legislation, with a greater focus on victims and the intergenerational impacts of violence.
The new legislation recognised that coercive and controlling behaviour could be used over a long period to frighten and undermine a victim, and recognised suffocation and strangulation as family violence crimes. It also made it a crime to force someone into marriage. The effectiveness of protection orders was improved, by making contact over the internet or on social media a breach.
'Eyes wide open'
In the 2010s the New Zealand Police acknowledged that their focus on the isolated incidents they were called to, and their concern about whether an actual crime had been committed, did not help them get to the root of family harm. Police now undertook to take an ‘eyes wide open’ approach to family harm. They would look more broadly at patterns of abuse and control, with the goal of helping families more effectively.
The changes also better recognised the abuse of older, sick or disabled people. Disabled people had been found to have a higher risk of experiencing family and sexual violence than others. Better protections for women whose communities use bridal dowries were introduced.
The Domestic Violence – Victims’ Protection Act was passed in 2018 after many years of work by Green Party MP Jan Logie. This legislation allowed victims of domestic violence to take 10 days’ paid leave from work after violent incidents and provided other protections. Women’s support groups argued that victims would have more confidence about leaving difficult living situations if they did not risk losing their jobs by taking time off work.
The government provided more funding for family violence groups and police, and set up Te Puna Aonui, with responsibility for coordinating government agencies’ work against family and sexual violence.
Footnotes
- Neville Robertson and others, Living at the cutting edge: women’s experience of protection orders, Vol. 1. Hamilton: University of Waikato, 2007, p.6. Back
Family violence – 21st century
Family violence remains a major problem in New Zealand.
Protection order breaches
Many people continue to breach protection orders. Being served with a protection order encourages some to even greater violence, and domestic homicides continue to occur. Without a safety plan and support systems for the person under threat, a protection order is ‘just a piece of paper’.1 Used wisely, however, protection orders can be effective.
Getting help
While technology has extended the reach of abusers into victims’ lives, it can also be used to ask for help, with many websites providing advice for victims and their supporters. These websites can be accessed in ‘private’ or ‘incognito’ mode, which means the visit will not appear in the computer’s search history. Other websites have a ‘quick exit’ button which takes the user to a website that won’t raise suspicions.
If you need urgent help from the police but are afraid to speak, ring 111 and stay silent. The telephone operator will tell you what to do.
Barriers to escape
Many women do not apply for protection orders for the same reasons that they remain in abusive relationships: shame, dread of losing custody of their children, and above all else, fear. Not qualifying for legal aid may prevent some applying for a protection order. Lack of money limits options for women wanting to escape a violent situation and make a new life for themselves. Women in some ethnic and religious groups may be condemned rather than supported by their families and communities.
Whānau violence
Violence within whānau is a major concern in Māori communities. While family violence was apparently unknown before European settlement, Māori men are now five times as likely to commit homicide as men of other ethnicities. Māori intimate partner violence is frequently associated with poverty, poor housing, unemployment and marginalisation. This is an international trend among indigenous people.
Most of the women attending hospital emergency departments or Māori health providers after experiencing intimate partner violence have children living with them. Children’s exposure to violence among adults in their homes can lead to intergenerational transmission of family violence.
A response to whānau violence
In 2001 Māori health reformer Mason Durie wrote: 'There is no historical support for claims that traditional Mäori society tolerated violence and abuse towards children and women, or that some members of the group were of lesser value than others. An unsafe household demands a whänau response and, as an immediate priority, an assurance that safety can be provided – elsewhere if not at home. Then, safety guaranteed, the way is clear to embark on a journey which will relieve hurt, restore healthy relationships, and, in the process, strengthen personal and group identities.'2
Tikanga Māori-specific frameworks for understanding and addressing whānau violence have been developed and the inadequacies of mainstream Western approaches to family violence identified. Action in Māori communities to address whānau violence is not only directed towards keeping women and children safe, but also uses a kaupapa Māori (customary knowledge) approach to support mothers as parents of children who have been exposed to violence.
Interventions also focus on Māori working with Māori to change the behaviour of men who use violence or threats of violence to control family members. Men’s responsibility for the actions of other men is a major focus of stopping violence programmes among Māori.
Pacific Islands and immigrant women’s issues
Refuges and safe houses where people from their own communities support them have been established for Pacific Islands women. Immigrant women also face particular difficulties, including language problems and separation from family and culture. If their abuser is also the sponsor of their application for residence, they are especially vulnerable.
Shakti New Zealand was established to respond to the needs of immigrant women from Asia, Africa and the Middle East who experience intimate partner and family violence. It has campaigned to prevent forced and under-age marriages in New Zealand.
Outing violence
Recent research has highlighted the need to support people in sexually and gender-diverse relationships who experience intimate partner violence. Because they may have struggled to gain acceptance from others for their life choices, those who are sexually or gender diverse may be reluctant to talk about coercive control in their relationships. This may contribute to the invisibility of abuse in LGBT+, takatāpui and Rainbow relationships.
To find out more about experiences of unsafe relationships and issues with accessing support, 17 hui were held across the country with members of the Rainbow community. An anonymous survey was also distributed in 2015–16. Abuse was found to be present in relationships in this community, most frequently in the form of emotional, verbal and psychological abuse. There was little awareness of support services and an assumption that they were only available to cis (non-transgender) women. Sex-segregation of family violence services (only for women or men) was often an obstacle for those who did not identify with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura – Outing Violence was set up in 2015 as a hub for information and resources that could be used to improve response rates for Rainbow community members experiencing violence.
The New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, which has been examining the experiences of crime throughout people’s lifetimes since 2018, has found people in LGBT+ communities are much more likely to experience sexual and intimate partner violence than the average New Zealand adult.
Tolerance for violence
A key issue is the entrenched belief of some people that violence is acceptable or excusable, and that current or former husbands/partners with a history of intimate partner violence can be good fathers. Family violence is not just the responsibility of the perpetrator. It has been suggested that ‘men’s violence against women is largely sustained by the way the community and the state collude with the abuser.’3 An example of this is the court-ordered name suppression that has been granted to prominent men convicted of assault.
Coercive control
There is increasing recognition that intimate partner violence is not confined to physical violence, but includes the use of psychological, economic and emotional violence to control or coerce a partner or former partner. The exercise of coercive control has been documented among couples using the Family Court to resolve issues relating to the custody of their children and access arrangements.
Contestation about children following separation can involve ongoing legal disputes which are both emotionally challenging and financially costly. There may be harassing texts or emails, stalking and actions that make a woman fearful about her safety. Legal documents that threaten to disrupt existing arrangements for the care of children and contain negative statements about their parenting may also be experienced as threatening.
Support agencies and organisations
A range of agencies provide counselling and support to enable victims to leave violent situations. These include women’s refuges and Shine (formerly Preventing Violence in the Home). Visitors to these organisations’ websites can access information about their services and then conceal the fact that they have accessed the site. Shine also provides information on creating safe workplaces for staff experiencing abuse. Support programmes introduced under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 provide information and assistance for protected persons and their children.
Why doesn’t he stop hurting her?
Many people who do not understand the complex nature of family violence ask, ‘Why doesn’t she just leave?’ But it is more to the point to ask, ‘Why doesn’t he stop hurting her?’
Family violence: It's not OK
This community-driven, government-supported campaign directed at changing violent and abusive behaviour in intimate relationships and families grew out of the Campaign for Action on Family Violence in 2007. It stresses that family violence is not OK, that seeking help is OK, and that it is also OK to help. The focus is not just on physical violence, but on the damaging effects of one person using power and fear to control another. A website provides information about what to do to support those suffering abuse.
The White Ribbon Campaign
The White Ribbon Campaign in New Zealand is a branch of a movement founded in Canada in 1991. It seeks to change men’s attitudes and behaviours through men taking responsibility for their own actions and those of other men. Men and women work together to challenge violent behaviour.
The White Ribbon Campaign began in New Zealand in 2004, and since 2006 has been funded by government agencies and other groups working to overcome violence against women. In 2014 it was taken over by the White Rainbow Trust. On 25 November, International Day for the Eradication of Violence Against Women, supporters wear white ribbons to show their support for non-violent and respectful relationships between intimate partners. White Ribbon runs workshops and publishes information directed at improving relationships between women and men and protecting children from the effects of violence in the home.
Footnotes
- Quoted in Kerry Williamson, ‘We need to all have our eye out for violence’, Dominion Post, 4 July 2009, p. D3. Back
- Mason Durie, Mauri Ora: the dynamics of Māori health. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 208. Back
- Quoted in Neville Robertson and others, Living at the cutting edge: women’s experience of protection orders, Vol. 1. Hamilton: University of Waikato, 2007, p. 8. Back