Last week, Professor Anne Summers AO presented the groundbreaking findings of her report, The Cost of Domestic Violence to Women’s Employment and Education, conducted alongside Thomas Shortridge and Kristen Sobeck. The research is the first to examine the economic and educational impact of domestic violence on women in Australia.
The findings were presented to a packed room at UTS on Friday, and highlighted some grim realities despite the limited data available. Summers expressed her appreciation for how many are showing interest in the issue, but called out the lack of previous research.
According to the report, women who’ve experienced domestic violence suffer significant gaps in employment and education. Economic abuse, a major factor, leaves women 9.4 per cent less likely to be employed than those who haven’t experienced abuse. Women who experience domestic abuse are also 15 per cent less likely to attain a university degree by age 25. The full report can be accessed here.
As Summers stated, “Too many women are being forced to choose between enduring violence or leaving and facing severe economic consequences.” She emphasised that “employment and education are not just tools for empowerment – they’re lifelines.”
Anne Summers has long been a trailblazer for women’s rights, including establishing the Elsie Women’s Refuge in 1974, the first of its kind in Australia. It would be easy to think we’ve come a long way since then. But progress in public life means little if a woman experiences coercive control in personal life. A well-paying job doesn’t help if her abusive partner takes all the money. A university degree offers no future if she is too debilitated by abuse to graduate.
After presenting her findings, Summers was interviewed by Jess Hill, investigative journalist and author of See What You Made Me Do. They discussed urgent actions that workplaces, governments, and universities must take — such as extending domestic violence leave beyond the current 10 days, which is often insufficient. They also emphasised that universities need to address not only sexual assault among students, but domestic violence affecting both students and staff.
Last year, both Summers and Hill participated in an expert panel that conducted a rapid review of domestic violence prevention approaches. Their report prompted National Cabinet to announce a five-year funding package to address gendered violence. However, in their discussion, they questioned whether the government is meaningfully acting on the report’s recommendations. These included better support for children and prioritising First Nations and other marginalised communities.
Hill has previously called for better-targeted government funding for frontline services, especially wrap-around services in refuges. In an ABC interview, she described how refuges are forced to rely on motels due to a lack of beds, which are not only more expensive but also inadequate as crisis accommodation for vulnerable women and families.
“Why is it that you’re so willing to bleed money into these programs that just expand beyond what their original intention was,” she pressed the government, “but so unwilling to make the upfront capital investment to establish systems that will be safer and less expensive?”
The findings of Summers’ report raise similar concerns about not only the cost to women, but the cost to society — the strain on healthcare, policing, courts, and frontline services, and the enormous burden on our economy. If governments won’t act to ensure women’s safety, even when it’s in their best economic interests, what will make them take action?
Research like The Cost of Domestic Violence report is both vital and long overdue. Despite limited data to work with, it has revealed critical truths. But the full scope of domestic violence’s cost remains to be fully counted.