“When Hannah Clarke’s children died, there was only her footprint left to remember them by,” writes “The Gadfly” columnist ROBERT MACKLIN.

WE have a clear choice in deciding what we do about the murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children by the man who doused them with petrol and burned them to death. 

We can continue to bury it beneath the pathetic, self-serving platitudes of “thoughts and prayers” or we can do something that will put an end to Australia’s pandemic of domestic violence forever.

We can airbrush away that powerful image of Hannah’s footprint – the only part of her left unburned – or we can make it a symbol of our demand to end the slaughter.

I’m sure that others wiser than me will have their own solutions, but here is mine. It’s designed unashamedly to change the balance of power – to at last give the victims the means to defend themselves, to re-order the quality of our domestic relationships, hopefully to the benefit of all.

At the heart of it is the apprehended domestic violence order (DVO). Presently, they’re easily obtained by complaint to the police or a court. No conviction is registered, no crime committed. All they do is enrage the perpetrator and exhaust the police.

So, let’s get serious. Henceforth all DVOs should only be granted by a hearing before a special court established for the purpose. All hearings would be televised. And the victims in successful hearings would have the untrammelled right to post the televised proceedings either on social media or a public outlet designed specifically to broadcast them. The result would be the modern equivalent of outing the offender in stocks.

Moreover, the right to initiate a DVO hearing would be granted to all children 10 years and over. 

If a perpetrator breaches a DVO, the first offence would automatically attract weekend detention for three months in a centre designed specifically to deal with violent offenders, including psychological counselling. 

He would be denied all access to the children and his wage would be garnisheed to support the family. Should he be unemployed, the government would grant the family the average weekly wage.

For a second offence, he would automatically be convicted of a crime and sentenced to one year detention with a more stringent psychological regime; and the government would pay the victim(s) the average weekly wage. 

The surviving partner would be entitled to sue for divorce – and the perpetrator would lose all visitation rights to the children. If the detainee successfully completed the psychological regime – and provided the surviving partner agreed – the perpetrator could seek leave of the court to attempt a reconciliation. 

For a third offence, the sentence would be five years’ imprisonment. The marriage would be annulled, and the victim(s) would continue to receive the median wage unless or until a new marriage/partnership took place. No appeal for reconciliation would be available to the perpetrator.

Of course, the vast majority of marriages or partnerships would remain unaffected by the change, though I suspect that the signal it gave would bring a new appreciation of the rights of women in our society. At least it would obviate the sickening sight of politicians flaunting their white ribbons while refusing to take any real action against the domestic thugs and murderers.

And it just might remind women victims that they are not “protecting” their kids by taking the blows and hiding the scars. When Hannah Clarke’s children died, there was only her footprint left to remember them by.

robert@robertmacklin.com