This week the Australian Government released new resources to help victims, their families, friends and frontline professionals identify patterns of behaviour that amount to coercive control.

This builds on efforts many states and territories are making to tackle coercive control – including Queensland criminalising it, and South Australia making moves to do the same.

The stage is set; now it’s up to each of us, as individuals, to better understand coercive control. Our recent report reveals that myths and misconceptions about coercive control are pervasive in the community, which is counter to these important inroads being made.

So what do we need to know, and why?

Coercive control is the ongoing and repetitive use of behaviours or strategies to control a current or ex intimate partner and make them feel inferior to, and dependent on, the perpetrator. It can include emotional, mental and financial abuse, isolation, intimidation, sexual coercion and cyberstalking.

Coercive control is comprised of many linked issues, and perpetrators can erode the confidence and autonomy of the victim-survivor, and enact or threaten harm, making it virtually impossible to leave. Many victims may not have the financial means to leave an abusive relationship, especially if financial abuse plays a role, as it often does with coercive control.

But, as our literature reviewed shows, this isn’t well understood. A 2018 study of 17,500 Australians showed around 1 in 3 Australians believe that women who do not leave an abusive relationship are partially responsible for the violence they experience. About 1 in 6 did not believe it was difficult for a woman to leave an abusive relationship.

These myths and misconceptions can perpetuate coercive control. Victim-survivors of coercive control should never be held responsible for their abuse. If victim-survivors are brushed aside, don’t have their experiences validated or are outright disbelieved, we have no hope of reducing abuse rates.  

There is growing recognition that these myths and misconceptions can also pervade legal systems and impact the experiences of victim-survivors. Recent national inquiries identify it as an emerging area where justice professionals – including police, lawyers, judges, magistrates and others – require increased training and education.

Recognising when it occurs is also critical. A 2019 Perth study showed that only 43% of family violence police reports in which stalking was reported were classified as coercive control. The fact that at that time many police didn’t recognise stalking is a means of coercive control highlights there is work to be done.

What are the consequences if coercive control is not properly understood, and family violence is responded to on an incident-by-incident basis? They can be extremely serious.

The victim-survivor may be open to unjust criminalisation if they use violence to defend themselves from a violent partner and there’s no recorded evidence of a pattern of abuse. Police and other response agencies might not refer the victim-survivor to critical support services.  

Signs of abuse can be missed even after separation; it’s not uncommon during custody disputes for perpetrators to request numerous last-minute adjournments of court cases or to extend mediation time, or use other strategies like notifying child protection agencies.

For these reasons and more the Australian Government’s new resources are much needed. Let’s read, watch and share them. Let’s invest in ongoing research to better understand the prevalence and patterns of coercive control, and ensure future education and training programs draw on that evidence.

And let’s support and validate the experiences of victim-survivors; that’s something we can all do right now.