The ACT Government’s Domestic Violence “Risk Framework” — A Case Study in Incompetence and Bias

An expert review has revealed that the ACT Government’s Domestic and Family Violence Risk Assessment and Management Framework (DFV-RAMF) is not fit for purpose.

In plain English: it’s a mess — one that mixes ideology with guesswork and breaches the ACT Government’s own mandatory risk management standards.

You can read the DFV-RAMF yourself on the ACT Government site: act.gov.au/DFVrisk. You might want to download it now before they take down this shameful document.

A Framework That Isn’t a Framework

The DFV-RAMF was supposed to help frontline workers identify and manage risk in domestic and family violence cases. But according to the expert affidavit, it doesn’t actually manage risk in any professional sense.

It ignores the ACT Government’s own Risk Management Framework and Policy — a system based on the international standard ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management – Guidelines (ISO standard summary here) — and replaces evidence-based practice with subjective opinion and gender politics.

Under ISO 31000, risk is defined as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives.”

The DFV-RAMF, instead, labels almost every situation as “at risk,” “elevated,” or “high,” without defining what those words mean, how serious the consequences are, or how likely they are to occur.

That’s not risk management; that’s storytelling.

Eleven Out of Ten on the Incompetence Scale

The ACT Government’s own Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTEDD) requires all agencies to align with ISO 31000 and the ACT Government Risk Management Policy (2023).

The DFV-RAMF doesn’t even mention these documents.

It has no scales, no assurance process, no monitoring loop, no integration with enterprise governance, and no compliance mechanism.

In any other industry, a framework like this would fail an internal audit before it reached the first draft.

Gender Bias Masquerading as Risk Assessment

Perhaps most disturbing is the open sexism embedded in the DFV-RAMF’s assumptions.

It explicitly focuses on “men’s violence against women” while claiming to be “gender inclusive.”

On one page it says:

“All violence is wrong, and all victims need access to support regardless of sex or gender,”

but in the next breath:

“We focus on men’s violence against women in intimate partner relationships.”

Elsewhere it instructs practitioners that:

“If the victim minimises the violence and risk, you might need to discuss the nature and dynamics of domestic violence.”

In other words, if a client’s account doesn’t fit the expected narrative, the practitioner is told to correct them until it does.

That’s not assessment; that’s indoctrination.

Biased Sources, Flawed Foundations

The DFV-RAMF leans heavily on documents from the Australian National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) — notably the National Risk Assessment Principles — and Victoria’s MARAM framework.

None of these are peer-reviewed, validated, or supported by empirical evidence.

They’re policy papers written within a gender-advocacy context, not scientific tools.

There’s no proof that their so-called “14 key risk factors” actually predict anything.

In ISO 31000 terms, that means the DFV-RAMF fails the basic principles of integrity, transparency, and comparability— and introduces confirmation bias right into the heart of government decision-making.

Training Without Competence

The affidavit also highlights that ACT’s domestic-violence “training” programs aren’t nationally accredited, competency-based, or independently moderated.

In other words, staff making high-stakes risk calls may have no verifiable qualifications at all.

Meanwhile, the national vocational standard — such as CHCDFV011 Manage Responses to Domestic and Family Violence — requires exactly the kind of structured, evidence-based training the ACT model ignores.

The result? Thousands of practitioners assessing family-violence risk without accredited training, consistent methodology, or accountability.

Why It Matters

This isn’t just bureaucratic sloppiness — it affects real people.

When untrained officials use biased templates to make risk judgments, men can be wrongly labelled as perpetrators, women can be patronised or manipulated, and children can be drawn into prolonged litigation based on flawed assessments.

It also means the ACT Government’s multi-million-dollar domestic-violence program is operating outside its own legal risk framework — the same one every other agency is required to follow.

A Call for Accountability

The expert’s conclusion is blunt:

“The DFV-RAMF is not fit for purpose and non-compliant with the ACT Government Risk Management Framework.”

“It fails basic integrity tests by embedding gender-based presumptions that men are perpetrators and women victims.”

The recommendation?

Shut it down. Replace it with an ISO 31000-compliant framework built on evidence, not ideology.

Until that happens, the ACT’s family-violence system will remain a dangerous blend of incompetence, bias, and bureaucratic self-delusion — one that harms both men and women and erodes public trust in justice.

Key Sources

• ACT Government Domestic & Family Violence Risk Framework (DFV-RAMF): act.gov.au/dfvrisk

• ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management – Guidelines: iso.org/standard/65694.html

• CMTEDD Risk Management Framework (ACT): cmtedd.act.gov.au

• Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT): legislation.act.gov.au/a/2004-5