A System That Cannot See Itself
Domestic and family violence in the Australian Capital Territory, 2016–2026, and how to fix it
Julian Talbot
Central Finding
“Promising architecture. Incomplete implementation. Unproven aggregate impact. And a system that, by its own records, cannot yet tell whether it has caused harm.”
Between 2016 and 2026, the ACT built most of the components of a serious domestic and family violence response. What it did not build was the measurement system needed to demonstrate whether those measures worked, identify unintended harm, or reliably learn from error.
0
No performance monitoring strategy or evaluation framework for the Safer Families Levy, according to the ACT Auditor-General in 2024.
8
Of 13 deceased victims examined in the ACT’s 2025 death review had previously been misidentified as the aggressor.
0
Of 17 assessed requirements of AS ISO 31000:2018 were fully met by the July 2022 ACT family violence risk framework.
1
2019–20 was the last year in which the ACT Magistrates Court published protection-order application statistics.
What this work proposes
The work identifies seven actions that could begin immediately and five structural reforms, including improved measurement, validation of the risk framework, structured risk assessment, faster review, safety and support at service of orders, and transparent reporting of expenditure and outcomes.
These proposals are designed to address the systemic gaps in the ACT domestic and family violence response. By focusing on evidence-led improvements and structural integrity, the work aims to provide a clear roadmap for policymakers and practitioners to build a more effective, accountable, and resilient system for the future.
What the work does NOT argue
This analysis is grounded in the public record and evidence-based risk assessment. It does not make claims that are unsupported by data or that would constitute advocacy for a particular outcome.
•
It does not argue that domestic violence funding was wasted.
•
It does not argue that the system is biased against men or women.
•
It does not argue that family violence orders cause deaths.
•
It does not argue that false allegations are common.
•
It does not argue that officials have acted in bad faith.
Methodology
The analysis is based on the public record, publishes its verification methodology, identifies its own corrected errors, distinguishes findings from hypotheses, and uses 'not proven' where the evidence cannot support a conclusion. This evidence-led approach ensures that every claim is grounded in verifiable data and transparent reporting.
Julian Talbot is a risk management specialist and author with decades of strategic expertise in complex system evaluations.
He is the lead author of the Risk Management Body of Knowledge (RMBOK) and the Security Risk Management Body of Knowledge (SRMBOK).
Four numbers, each checkable in an afternoon.
Independent evidence-based findings from the 2024 ACT Auditor-General report.
0
AS ISO 31000:2018 requirements fully met by July 2022 framework.
8
Of 13 deceased victims examined in 2025, previously misidentified as aggressors.
0
Performance monitoring strategy or evaluation framework for the Safer Families Levy.
2019–20
The last year in which the ACT Magistrates Court published protection-order application statistics.