Intentionally misleading a Royal Commission is a serious crime, though obviously ignorance and insanity are perfectly sound defences. As is opinion vs fact. And IANAL.

"Give funding, never blame women, women are more important" is not a good excuse to lie, though.

I'm also not looking at the feminist evidence, because talk about low-hanging fruit.

From one psychologist:

http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0064-001-0001-Ogloff-9.pdf

Our estimate is that at least 30% of family violence situations are not characterised by conventional male to female partner violence. Given the volume of cases, this is a significant number. Moreover, it is simplistic and misleading to say that domestic violence is caused be patriarchal attitudes, a need for power and control, and a sense of entitlement. While these factors are necessary and sufficient explanations in some case, in many other cases these factors are neither a necessary or sufficient explanation of the violence perpetrated.

The literature on family violence shows high rates of violence – of differing levels of severity – in both male and female partners, in heterosexual and same-sex relationships. The message that needs to be emphasised is that violence in all relationships is unacceptable, irrespective of the gender or sexual orientation of the perpetrator. Critical literature notes that there are different expectations around gender and violence: if a female does something violent, that may be seen as less serious than a male. However that behaviour is equally problematic and boys learn from their mother’s behaviour as much as they do from their father’s. Statistically, women kill almost as many of their children as men, often due to circumstances of depression or mental illness, however this does not fit with the gendered view of violence and it is not acknowledged in the public domain.

Another psychologist:http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0048-001-0001-Miller-5.pdf

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.

(patriarchy is noted as a possible factor, but not as the major one)

From the Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (the top public servant in Victoria): http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-3049-002-0001_R-Eccles.pdf

As the Royal Commission has heard, family violence is a complex problem that manifests across all parts of the Australian community. Violence against women by men is by far the most common form. Gender inequality and negative attitudes towards women are a major driver of family violence.

All forms of family violence need to be addressed as part of our response. Family violence can affect a range of specific cohorts differently, including the elderly (where family violence is commonly known as elder abuse), LGBTI families, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds and people with disability and complex needs, as well as those living in rural and regional locations. Our response must be tailored to meet the needs of these cohorts.

Despite their importance, neither child abuse nor violence against men is noted as a factor, despite men and boys being abused is one of the primary drivers of family violence.

And from another psychologist: http://www.rcfv.com.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Statements/WIT-0036-001-0001-Scott-10.pdf

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).

(It seems in contradiction to the claim that it's more equal - omitting the actual figure make it easy to misinterpret, and she's omitting that the source of her statistic includes non-biological fathers. She does raise some good points in regard to interventions though - none of the psychologists were raving loonies)

I'm not 100% sure, but it seems these statements are somewhat contradictory. To some extent, they are simply opinion, of course.

Fun fact - "misleading" in Australian law does not always mean "a bald-faced lie". It can include lies by omission. Though I'm not sure if this applies to Royal Commissions (not that it really matters, since it's likely a moot point - ignorance is often easy to claim).

Example - consumer law can find "health claims" to be misleading, if not backed by scientific evidence - https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/advertising-selling/advertising-and-selling-guide/marketing-claims-that-require-extra-care-premium-and-credence-claims/health-claims-and-other-benefits

Creating a false impression is another basis for conduct to be found misleading, in consumer law.