WA’s coercive-control campaign: four films, no male victims.

1. What the WA Government claims

Coercion Hurts launched on 30 September 2024 under Premier Roger Cook and then Minister Sabine Winton. It was presented as education helping victims, perpetrators and the public recognise coercive control. The same announcement cited partner emotional-abuse estimates of 23% of women and 16% of men since age 15. Male victims were part of the Government’s own account of the problem. Official launch statement

The campaign was developed through a partnership between Communities and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The public record also identifies 303 MullenLowe as its developer and manager of campaign research. Document 004: dated sources and responsibilities

The question is what happened between acknowledging male victims and choosing whose experiences to show.

Minister Jessica Stojkovski now holds the Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence portfolio. Atlas’s invitation concerns current responsibility for the campaign and its continuation. The original commission, later approvals and present responsibility must each be established from their own records.

2. What the evidence and maths say

The defined advertising review

Atlas’s initial review examined visual scenarios and on-screen captions in four films grouped on the official WA resource page. The roles below describe the characters depicted.

Male-to-female partner control: 4 ÷ 4 = 100%.
Adult male partner victim of a woman: 0 ÷ 4 = 0%.

The films use three couple scenarios, with the young-adult couple appearing twice. These percentages describe the four reviewed assets, not total campaign spending or audience exposure. The affected boy in the family film is not an adult male intimate-partner victim.

The expanded toolkit contains six general-population video links. The two additional cut-downs were inspected through frames and captions, not fully transcribed and independently coded. Six versions comprise 2 × 30 + 4 × 15 = 120 seconds of nominal creative duration, not purchased airtime. Generic resources, translations, banners and the Aboriginal campaign are recorded separately, with incomplete checks identified. Document 003: audit and scope · Document 008: extracted links

The research recognises male victims

The US CDC’s 2016/17 survey reported lifetime coercive-control victimisation of 42.8% among men and 46.2% among women under its behavioural measure. The gap is 46.2 − 42.8 = 3.4 percentage points; the male rate is 42.8 ÷ 46.2 = 92.6% of the female rate. These are US within-sex victimisation estimates, not a WA prevalence calculation or a measure of female-to-male perpetration. CDC report, Tables 5–6

Research by Hines and Douglas separately documents sustained female-perpetrated abuse of men, using 302 male help-seekers and 520 community men. Several comparative studies report similar levels of particular controlling behaviours. Other studies find greater repeated or extensive victimisation among women. Definitions, frequency and severity matter; the evidence does not establish universal equality across every measure. Document 005: 18-source evidence review, calculations and contrary findings

Male victimisation is established. Men’s inclusion in public education should not depend on proving identical prevalence.

The studies reporting higher female perpetration

A UK university study by Bates, Graham-Kevan and Archer classified 144 of 706 women (20.4%) and 62 of 398 men (15.6%) as high-control perpetrators. Using the rounded reported rates, 20.4 − 15.6 = 4.8 percentage points in the female direction. This was a university sample, not a population estimate. Study abstract

Hilton and Radatz’s US study reported perpetration among 26% of women and 14% of men: 26 − 14 = 12 percentage points; 26 ÷ 14 = 1.86. The measure included any reported threatening or demeaning behaviour of the specified types, rather than establishing sustained coercive domination in every case. Study abstract

These are the study findings referenced in the headline. The evidence dossier sets them beside studies finding greater repeated or extensive victimisation among women. Atlas asks what research informed the Government’s portrayal choices and how it considered documented female perpetration.

The funding and exposure

The parliamentary record identifies an initial $5 million commitment and a further $3.9 million public-awareness allocation, comprising $2.8 million and $1.1 million. At May 2026 estimates, the Minister linked the continuation to Coercion Hurts and A Story That’s Not Ours. $5m + $2.8m + $1.1m = $8.9m in identified initial and continuation funding. This is not audited expenditure or money attributable solely to the four films. December 2025 answer · May 2026 estimates

In October 2025, the Government reported more than 27.3 million message deliveries for Coercion Hurts and more than 8 million for the Aboriginal campaign. 27.3m + 8m = 35.3m: a combined lower bound of more than 35.3 million deliveries, not unique people. These broader campaign figures predate some reviewed films and cannot be allocated to them. Official results

The dollar-for-dollar calculation

Let A be verified spending on male-perpetrator/female-victim advertising during AFL coverage. Let R be spending on reverse portrayals in programmes reaching predominantly female audiences. Atlas seeks R = A. The additional reverse-portrayal allocation needed is max(A − R, 0).

Neither input has been obtained. No zero-spend finding or dollar shortfall is asserted. The placement and expenditure records are part of both prepared information requests.

3. What did they know, when did they know it, and what did they fund?

This is a public-accountability case about the use of government money after male victims had already been acknowledged. Atlas is examining the sequence from evidence to research, from research to creative choices, and from approval to paid distribution.

Document 004 links the dated knowledge evidence. May 2026 estimates records continuation and adaptation.

The Government’s public acknowledgement establishes institutional recognition of male victims. Atlas seeks the briefs, research, advice and approval records showing how that knowledge informed the campaign and who took responsibility for its portrayal choices.

The money matters because this is government-funded public education, not an incidental portrayal in private entertainment. Atlas has identified $8.9 million in initial and continuation funding across the campaign work described in Parliament. That figure is not all attributable to the four reviewed films. We seek the actual expenditure by campaign, advertisement, placement and audience so the funding can be matched to what the public was shown.

Atlas regards the one-directional partner portrayal in the reviewed films as discriminatory representation against adult male victims. Its practical effects on recognition and help-seeking require audience evidence. The behaviour is the warning sign. The sex of the person doing it should not determine whether the public is taught to recognise it.

The proposed human-rights approach will be grounded in this record: the recognised problem, the evidence available to decision-makers, the publicly funded choices, and the practical treatment of adult male victims.

4. What we want disclosed

Alongside its campaign material, the Government should publish who is depicted as a victim and perpetrator, which audiences each version targets, and where the paid advertising ran. Neutral material should be identified separately from explicit male-victim and female-victim portrayals.

Where a phase contains no adult male partner victim of a woman, say so plainly. Where a reverse portrayal exists, identify the exact asset and its paid distribution. Availability on a website is different from funded exposure.

Publish the research briefs and reports, proposed creative options, representation criteria, consultation findings and approval records. Distinguish who supplied advice, who recommended a decision, who approved it and who merely noted it.

This disclosure should let the public test the claim of community-wide recognition against the campaign’s actual content and delivery.

5. The changes and remedies Atlas seeks

Disclosure alone does not make unequal representation fair. Atlas seeks four concrete outcomes:

1. A public apology from Premier Roger Cook and Minister Jessica Stojkovski to adult male victims for the campaign’s failures to recognise them.
2. Dollar-for-dollar reverse advertising. Commission clear female-perpetrator/adult-male-victim scenarios. Match verified spending on male-perpetrator portrayals during AFL coverage with reverse portrayals in predominantly female-audience programming. Publish comparable reach, prominence and frequency alongside costs.
3. Compensation directed to adult men’s initiatives. Atlas seeks a compensatory allocation for victim support, recognition and prevention, additional to corrective advertising and existing funding. The amount should be assessed against the established failures, their effects and unmet needs. This is a remedy sought, not compensation already awarded.
4. Independent scrutiny and published results. Review the evidence, decisions, allocation and audience testing. Test whether viewers recognise the same controlling conduct when the sexes are reversed.

Dollar-for-dollar corrective advertising is Atlas’s policy demand. The Government should explain how it will deliver equal recognition and comparable reach for male victims.

6. Rules, legal justification and independent assessment

Practical recognition and legal compliance are separate questions. The Government should identify the rules, evidence and public-interest reasoning behind its choices. If it relies on a legal provision, exception or special measure to justify sex-specific treatment, identify it and explain how it applies.

Atlas will refer this matter first to the Australian Human Rights Commission, then pursue appropriate international human-rights avenues. The referral will put the advertising, research, knowledge timeline and use of public money before an independent body and seek examination of the treatment of adult male victims.

The Australian referral must identify an applicable discrimination jurisdiction and, where required, an affected person and the alleged disadvantage. Acceptance has not been established. The Commission can investigate and conciliate matters within its jurisdiction; it does not itself make a court ruling that discrimination occurred. Commission guidance

The international avenue will be selected to fit its mandate and admissibility requirements. This is a planned sequence, not a claim that an international appeal or investigation is already available. Atlas’s representation finding is not a ruling of unlawfulness. Document 006: route assessment · Document 007: earlier, unsent Human Rights Watch draft

7. The evidence needed to answer this case

1. Research: campaign-development reports, questionnaires, sample profiles and existing results by sex, including recognition of adult male victims and female perpetrators.
2. Creative choices: approved briefs, proposed scripts, storyboards, substantive revisions and recorded reasons for selecting or rejecting portrayals.
3. Knowledge and responsibility: advice received, its recipients and dates, approval papers, final sign-offs and ministerial noting.
4. Money and distribution: reconciled commitments and expenditure by campaign, year, asset, channel and audience, including AFL placements and reverse portrayals.
5. Results and corrections: evaluations, relevant complaints, responses and subsequent decisions to retain or change campaign material.

The prepared DPC and Communities requests set out the precise records being sought. They seek existing documents, not a newly invented retrospective explanation. Document 001 · Document 002

At May 2026 estimates, recognition of the term was reported to have risen from about six in ten to eight in ten: approximately 80% − 60% = 20 percentage points. Knowing the term is not the same as recognising a man subjected to it. Publish the questions and results that test that distinction. Estimates record

The WA Government can answer this case with evidence.

If it maintains that its campaign adequately recognises adult male victims of female partners, it should identify the advertisements, publish their exposure and provide the relevant audience-testing results.

A statement of good intentions, a commitment to inclusion or an assurance of legal compliance does not answer the practical question.

The question is whether being male affects a victim’s recognition in the public campaign.

If the answer is no, the advertisements and data should demonstrate that. If the answer is yes, the public should be told clearly, and Atlas calls on the Government to address the unequal representation and explain what changes it is willing to make.

8. Meaningful dialogue and the public record

Minister Jessica Stojkovski, let’s discuss male victims’ representation in WA’s campaigns.

Atlas welcomes evidence from the Government, researchers, advocates and independent human-rights organisations. Identify errors with supporting material, supply the missing comparisons and discuss practical improvements. Substantive responses will be assessed and published where permitted.

What Atlas will do next

1. Complete the information-request process. Resolve Communities’ payment instructions and lodge both prepared applications. Record the actual submission and acknowledgement dates when they occur.
2. Reconstruct the decision sequence. Match each research finding and warning to its recipients, dates, creative proposals, approvals and subsequent action.
3. Follow the public money. Reconcile commitments with actual expenditure and identify what was paid to produce and distribute each portrayal, including the AFL comparison.
4. Finish the outstanding asset checks. Complete the expanded film, translation and other-material review and seek independent checking of the classifications.
5. Refer the matter through human-rights channels. Prepare the Australian Human Rights Commission referral, then pursue the appropriate international avenue. Seek an apology from the Premier and Minister, dollar-for-dollar reverse advertising, compensation directed to adult men’s initiatives and independent scrutiny. Publish actual referral dates and responses when they occur.

Documents received, unanswered requests, material corrections and substantive responses will be added to this case and the public activity log. Atlas will distinguish a missing record, a withheld record and a document that contradicts our present assessment.

The documents below show the evidence assembled, the work completed and the remaining requests. Each has a dated activity entry. activity log

Review record and supporting evidence

Reviewed 19 September 2026. The counted set comprises the four videos embedded together under “Videos” on the official resource page, identified by their titles and video IDs in the downloadable review ledger. Atlas examined the visual scenarios, key sequences and burned-in captions. Roles refer to the characters portrayed, not claims about the performers’ personal identities. This was one editorial review, not independent multi-reviewer coding.

Separate social-video material, radio, translations, Aboriginal-language films and historical placements are outside this four-film denominator. Reused poster imagery and the associated toolkit were checked as supporting context, not added to the video count. The expanded partial audit and toolkit inventory are now published as Documents 003 and 008. A complete programme-wide exposure audit remains a disclosure request.

Publication history

Opened 13 September 2026; historical research added 14 September. Rebuilt 19 September using the eight-section Atlas framework, a newly defined WA film review, parliamentary funding evidence and later reported campaign exposure. The earlier SA and NSW counts remain separate. The previous statement that WA role assessment was unfinished is replaced by this bounded four-film result. Later on 19 September, nine supporting documents were assembled in the public record and this case was rewritten to include international evidence, the knowledge chronology, four requested remedies and the current application and human-rights-draft status.

Atlas Evidence Standard · Send evidence or a correction

Public record

Case documents

Open the complete public document register. Each record has its own page and download. Drafts, partial reviews and superseded records are labelled.