# Document 004: Government knowledge and decision-record timeline

Atlas Men’s Advocacy | 19 September 2026 | Public version 1

**Status: Public-source research assessment. Internal decision records remain outstanding.**

# WA coercive-control campaign: what the public record establishes about knowledge

Atlas research note | 19 September 2026

## 1. Assessment

**There is documentary evidence that the WA Government acknowledged male partner-abuse victims at campaign launch, and that an earlier government consultation recorded the exclusion risk of a narrow male-perpetrator account. There is also confirmation that campaign-specific research reports exist.**

This goes beyond showing that international research was available. It establishes institutional acknowledgement and an identifiable research and approval trail. It does not yet establish that an individual minister read a particular study, received a warning specifically about heterosexual male victims, or rejected a proposed male-victim advertisement.

The next evidential step is to connect the acknowledged problem to the actual creative brief, research findings and approval decisions.

## 2. Dated findings

### 1. November 2023: exclusion concerns were recorded before campaign launch

The Office of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime's consultation report records, on printed page 10, concerns that discussing coercive control only through heterosexual male perpetrators can exclude other experiences. Its examples focus on LGBTQIA+ relationships, cultural groups, older people and disability. Do not recast this as an explicit warning about heterosexual male victims. Recommendation 1 calls for community education campaigns. [Consultation report](https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2023-11/coercive-control-consultation-outcomes-report.pdf).

This is evidence that exclusion was already an identified policy issue. Commissioner **Kati Kraszlan** signed the foreword; the review was commissioned by Attorney General **John Quigley**. Their roles establish responsibility for the review, not authorship of the later advertisements.

On **28 November 2023**, Quigley told Parliament Cabinet had accepted the report. That establishes institutional receipt and acceptance, not proof that every member read every passage. [Question without notice 897](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/pquest.nsf/viewLAPQuestByDate/4EFA2567EF2F5AA448258A78002C3A92).

### 2. September 2024: the launch statement acknowledged male victims

The **30 September 2024** launch statement cited partner emotional-abuse estimates of **23% of women and 16% of men**, since age 15. It described a campaign intended to help victim-survivors, perpetrators and the public recognise coercive control. Premier **Roger Cook** and Minister **Sabine Winton** were the launch principals. [Official launch statement](https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook-Labor-Government/New-education-campaign-to-raise-awareness-of-coercive-control-20240930).

**Maths:** 16 ÷ 23 = **69.6%**. That compares the two within-sex emotional-abuse rates cited by government. It is neither men's share of all victims nor a coercive-control prevalence ratio.

The document establishes official acknowledgement of male partner-abuse victims in the campaign's own explanation. It does not prove officials accepted equal coercive-control prevalence or intentionally excluded men.

### 3. November 2024: the agency and approval framework were identified

In a parliamentary answer on **26 November 2024**, Winton identified **303 MullenLowe** as campaign developer and said approvals followed government campaign advertising guidelines. The answer described a two-year $5 million campaign across several media. It did not provide the requested agency cost as a separate figure. [Hansard, search within document for 303 MullenLowe](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/aaffa08e584b5eff48257f4c001e18aa/9a7b4081e27fa2e148258c3c000940a2/%24FILE/A41%20S1%2020241126%20All.pdf).

The **2024/25 Department of Communities annual report**, printed page 21, identifies a partnership with the **Department of the Premier and Cabinet**, informed by victim-survivors, stakeholders, advocates and taskforce discussions. These are the two principal government record-holders to investigate. [Annual report](https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2025-10/communities_annual_report_2025.pdf).

### 4. December 2025: Parliament asked for surveys and actual spending

On **4 December 2025**, Michelle Boylan asked whether further surveys existed, requested the initial and follow-up survey reports, and asked how much had been spent. The answer supplied by the responsible minister through Jackie Jarvis referred to the **$5 million commitment** and ongoing omnibus surveys. It did not supply the reports or actual expenditure in that answer. [Question without notice 1220](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2025-12-04/extract/29/download/pdf).

This establishes a specific unanswered disclosure request in the published answer. It is not proof that the documents were never released elsewhere, nor proof of concealment.

### 5. February 2026: campaign research reports were expressly confirmed

The Assembly questions booklet dated **17 February 2026**, printed page **383**, records question **1603** from Basil Zempilas. The Premier's answer identifies **303 MullenLowe Australia Pty Ltd** as managing research for the campaign and confirms that reports were produced to inform development. The answer does not attach those reports. [Official questions booklet](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/sitsched.nsf/AllDocs/562B138D2E47A39248258D2B001415B2/%24file/AQ421046.pdf?OpenElement=).

This is the strongest new document lead. Research reports, rather than speculation about what officials might have read, could show what concepts were tested, who participated, and whether male-victim portrayals were considered.

The booklet's date is the verified publication date used here; the exact original answer date should be checked before assigning it a different date.

### 6. Current campaign materials require a larger asset audit

The live toolkit page was updated **18 September 2026** and links a **Fourth Edition, April 2026** toolkit. It includes additional videos, carousels, translated materials and bystander messages. The cover date and webpage update date are different facts. [Toolkit page](https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/coercion-hurts-campaign-stakeholder-toolkit); [current PDF](https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2026-09/coercion-hurts-campaign-stakeholder-toolkit-april-2026-final.pdf).

The toolkit's purpose and key messages are expressed without specifying a perpetrator's sex. That does not answer whether the acted portrayals represent male victims. It means Atlas should distinguish generic wording from recognisable portrayals and audit the expanded materials before describing the whole campaign. The previous four-film assessment is not a complete inventory of this toolkit.

## 3. Approval responsibility: what can and cannot be inferred

The Auditor General's **15 May 2024** report describes the government campaign process, including Independent Communications Review Committee consideration for larger campaigns, final agency CEO/director-general approval and ministerial noting. The framework is useful for locating the records. It does not identify the actual signatories for this campaign. Also, ministerial noting must not be described as personal creative approval without the documents. [Auditor General report](https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-publications/reports/government-campaign-advertising/).

| Person or organisation | Documented connection | Evidence still needed |
|---|---|---|
| Roger Cook | Launch statement; Premier's campaign-research answer | Briefings, noting and any actual creative decisions |
| Sabine Winton | Launch minister; November 2024 answer on development and approvals | Campaign brief, advice received, approval/noting record |
| John Quigley | Commissioned legislative review; confirmed Cabinet acceptance | Any role in advertising content or campaign brief |
| Kati Kraszlan / Office of the Commissioner for Victims of Crime | Consultation report and recommendations | Advice supplied specifically to campaign planners |
| Department of Communities | Campaign development partnership and policy responsibility | Research, stakeholder consultation, assets, evaluation and approval files |
| Department of the Premier and Cabinet | Development partnership and campaign administration | Agency instructions, research contract, committee papers and sign-offs |
| 303 MullenLowe Australia | Campaign development and research management | Research instruments, findings, creative options and revisions |

Responsibility for later continuation should be documented separately from the original commission. Do not transfer the original commissioning decision to a successor minister merely because she holds the portfolio now.

## 4. Priority document schedule

This research/disclosure schedule informed the prepared applications. It is not a submitted request. Prefer the records themselves over requests for explanations.

| Priority | Records sought | What they could establish |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Research reports identified in question 1603, with briefs, discussion guides, questionnaires and sample profiles | Whether male victims/female perpetrators were tested or discussed; who was included |
| 2 | Original campaign brief, audience strategy, creative concepts, storyboards and revision history | Whether reverse portrayals were proposed, rejected or omitted from scope |
| 3 | Approval applications, committee assessments, final sign-offs and ministerial noting | Who saw which materials and when |
| 4 | Advice from victim-survivors, advocates, taskforce and subject experts supplied to campaign planners | What planners were told about male victims, recognition barriers and exclusion |
| 5 | August and December 2024 survey reports and subsequent evaluations, with questions and sex-separated results | Whether success measured only term recognition or recognition of male victims too |
| 6 | Correspondence about complaints or requests for male-victim/female-perpetrator representation, plus recorded responses | Actual notice of this specific concern and subsequent decisions |
| 7 | Media plans, placement logs and actual expenditure by creative, channel and audience | Scope of portrayals, reach and the AFL spending comparison |

Suggested initial date scope: **1 July 2023 to 19 September 2026**, including earlier documents incorporated into a later brief. Separate campaign phases and distinguish Coercion Hurts from A Story That's Not Ours. Request anonymised research results and role-level participant information where sufficient; private survivor identities are unnecessary.

## 5. Claims ready to use and claims not yet established

**Ready:** The government's own launch material acknowledged male victims of partner emotional abuse. Its earlier consultation had recorded exclusion concerns about a narrow framing. Parliament confirms campaign-development research reports exist. Those reports and the decision records should show how male victims were considered.

**Not yet established:** A named minister knowingly rejected male-victim advertisements; officials accepted equal prevalence; research recommended reverse portrayals; the entire campaign contains no male victims; a particular official intended harm; or awareness of a problem proves a legal violation.

**Recommended line of inquiry:** Having acknowledged male victims in its own campaign launch material, how did the government carry that recognition through its research, creative brief, portrayals and evaluation?

## 6. Retrieval and remaining limits

Searches covered official government releases, consultation documents, parliamentary questions, annual reports, campaign toolkits and advertising governance. Some parliamentary PDFs were available through indexed primary-source extracts although direct download was blocked. Older toolkit links returned 404; their indexed text was available but a current download was not. The live 2026 toolkit and launch HTML were saved with retrieval hashes; the consultation PDF was also saved locally for research.

No internal briefing, campaign research report, approval file or complaint response has been obtained. Public records establish the route to those documents, not their undisclosed contents. No claim is made that the public-record search is exhaustive.

Publication status: this chronology is now part of the public record. The FOI applications remain pending submission. A Communities payment enquiry has been sent; that enquiry is not an FOI lodgement or human-rights submission.