“Although most people know intuitively how normal physical or social interaction and abuse differ, lack of specification means that perpetrators, authorities and even victims can dismiss episodes as ‘acceptable’, or fail to report them. Differences in community perceptions as to what is and is not acceptable are major factors supporting the persistence of domestic abuse.” Family Health and Safety Study 2000, Inquiry document 83 Case Study 5: Tina*, the silenced witness Tina was a medical student in a rural clinic in Samoa and one day a young boy of 14 years presented himself for examination. The boy had a laceration to the back of the head and Tina referred him to a nurse for treatment. While the nurse was suturing the wound Tina asked how it had occurred. The boy replied that his father had hit him across the head with a plank of 2 x 4 wood. Tina enquired whether he had told the nurse how it happened and the boy replied that he had. Tina asked the nurse whether they should report the matter but was told in no uncertain terms to mind her own business and that they shouldn’t become involved in family matters. *This case study was relayed to the Inquiry during the public evidence provided by Dr. Malama Tafunai and is detailed in document 5 of the Inquiry anthology. Names have been amended to protect the identity of those involved. Two elements of this story are alarming. The first is that the case above illustrates that a young boy being hit by his father with a plank of wood was considered ‘reasonable punishment’ not only by the father, but the nurse as well. The second is that by preventing this issue from being reported the nurse has contributed to the normalization of family violence by allowing the act to go unpunished, and therefore implicitly endorsing the behavior. The health services can also be a first responder to cases of violence against children. However, there is a view amongst some people that violence particularly involving children should remain a private matter. This is a significant barrier to proper response, as discovered in Tina’s experience above. This brings down a veil of silence around violence that allows the perpetrator to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and sends a message that society permits this type of behaviour. This could constitute a violation of the young boy’s right to equal protection under the law and certainly impacts the Fa’asamoa principle of amiotonu. There is no reconciling the widespread practice of treating family violence as a private matter and amiotonu as experience shows that in doing so justice is very rarely served and the abuse continues. The line between ‘reasonable punishment’ and violence against children is one which has yet to be defined in Samoa but the Report aims to do just that in the later sections. For now, the matter will continue to be referred to as physical and harsh verbal discipline / violence, until a clear definition has been arrived at and a determination made on a case by case basis as to whether an act amounts to discipline or violence.