The psychology experts were mixed, but some were supportive of men's issues (and the role of mutual violence), and other just ignored it. As far as I can tell, no-one credible (no psychology expert) seemed to think the Duluth Model was much good.

Everything (mostly "advocates") - http://www.rcfv.com.au/Public-Hearings

I just searched for "Psychologist" to avoid reading through statements by cops, lobbyists, and other people with little academic credibility. Some interesting statements.

2 of 4 of the psychology experts noted violence against men as an issue, 2 ignored it (unless it was fathers hitting boys), and as far as I can tell, none of them seemed terribly supportive of the Duluth Model.

There were 5 psychologists I could spot, 4 had statments to read:

Assoc. Prof. Peter Miller, Principal Research Fellow & Co-Director of the Violence Prevention Group, School of Psychology, Deakin University - http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0048-001-0001-Miller-5.pdf

Interesting take, separating "intimate terrorism" (controlling abuse) from "situational couple violence" (SCV) - people hitting each other).

To our knowledge, there have been very few studies describing the levels at which these categories appear in the community in Australia. There have been several investigations out of the US using the National Violence Against Women Survey (Anderson, 2008; Felson & Outlaw, 2007; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnson et al., 2014). Johnson and Leone (2005) and Anderson (2008) found that approximately 2% of the sample were victims of intimate terrorism and 3% of were victims of SCV. Utilising the same sample, distinguishing between current and expartners, Johnson et al. (2014) corrected previous findings instead reporting that between 0.5% and 0.7% of current wives and husbands were classified as intimate terrorism perpetrators. 5.3% of ex-wives and 22.0% ex-husbands were classified as intimate terrorism perpetrators. Further, 1.7% of current wives and 3.9% of current husbands reported being involved in SCV incidents, compared with 3.9% of ex-wives and 7.4% of ex-husbands. Importantly, the authors note that these findings demonstrate “that we have to stop thinking of general survey data on family violence as unbiased”. Such surveys demonstrate the existence of different types of violence, but do not accurately show prevalence.

There's the Duluth model dead.

Then there's masculinity:

The literature, which was mostly qualitative, says that masculinity causes aggression. However, in working with colleagues in Canada, namely Professor Kate Graham and Dr Samantha Wells, we were prompted to consider this notion further and examine whether aggression could be caused by an experience of violence in childhood.

What we find overwhelming is that if you are someone who is aggressive and you drink, that virtually explains whether you will perpetrate a fight. Trait aggression, heavy episodic drinking and if you experienced violence in the home as a child are the key predictors of whether you will be violent in later life, not masculinity.

Oh look - violent people were beaten as a child (or witnessed violence at home), and / or are off their tits. Shock, horror. And masculinity isn't a big factor.

And then there's this:

It is important not to conflate this data. Each typology is associated with different predictors and harms and is likely to require a different response, if the violence is to be reduced. For example, a Men’s Behaviour Change program is unlikely to be effective for mutually violent relationships if it denies the violence the person may also be experiencing, and does not work with both partners to deal with the conflictual, possibly toxic, relationship. Even if the man is receptive to changing his own behaviour, he is unlikely to be able to put anything he learns into practice within the same negative and conflictual relationship.

Dr Katreena Scott, Assoc. Prof. & clinical psychologist, Dept. of Human Development & Applied Psychology, University of Toronto -

Across developed nations, government legislated and funded services are in place to respond to the maltreatment of children in their families. Although these services are ostensibly meant for the entire family, in practice, the focus of intervention is predominantly on mothers (Featherstone et al., 2010; Smith, Duggan, Bair-Merritt & Cox, 2012; Strega et al., 2008). The problem with this model of service is that fathers are identified as perpetrators in approximately half of substantiated cases of maltreatment overall, they predominate as perpetrators of injury-causing and lethal child abuse, and they make up the majority of perpetrators of child exposure to domestic violence (Sinha, 2012).

Basically she just talks about how to stop men abusing kids. It's not that bad, other than her completely ignoring women's bad behavior. Like the statistics she used (Sinha, 2012) seeming to suggest women were about 40% of homicides (mostly 1 year or younger, though the presentation of statistics make this hard to see), with fathers (biological, step, adoptive) being the other 60%. "Predominate" seems a bit melodramatic.

Prof. Andrew Day, Prof. of Psychology, Deakin University - http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0008-001-0001-Day-10.pdf

Focuses on effective interventions (which ones work) and perpetrators (mostly focusing on men, but notes it's thought men and women are equal perpetrators in situational couple violence). Doesn't exactly call the Duluth Model shit, but you could draw that conclusion.

Dr Melisa Wood, Senior Clinical & Forensic Psychologist, Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (Forensicare) - http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0080-001-0001-Wood-11.pdf

Not much in her statement. Talks about the difficulty in assessing whether an offender is high or low risk, and what possible risk factors are, but it's extremely vague. Her written submission is better, but not light reading - http://www.rcfv.com.au/getattachment/0D9DC8A2-8655-4048-B3DB-BE5AA51E8A3C/Centre-for-Forensic-Behavioural-Science---Swinburne-University;-Victorian-Institute-of-Forensic-Mental-Health-(Forensicare)

It says all the obvious things - feminist programs to "teach men not to abuse women" are a waste of time, research is poor, different offenders need to be treated differently, and a lot of abuse is mutual (men and women hitting each other).

Also, if you want to rage, here's one of the few people in the state who is fighting violence against men: Stephen Lillie, Men's Health Coordinator, Hawkesbury District Health Service - http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0123-001-0001-Lillie-17.pdf

Men's health is not supported the public health system, it's done by private practitioners or corporate health, such as Movember, Beyond Blue or Black Dog. There is nobody on the floor in a public setting with a generalist men's health service and there are no day or afterhours services for men. The consequences of that is that anyone who comes into the system who doesn't have funds and can't afford private counselling doesn't get support.

The national domestic violence hotline doesn't accept calls from men. It's generically a female service, if you call up as a male victim of domestic violence, they basically tell you 'we can't help you'.