A Tasmanian man allegedly murdered his mother, but it’s not legally considered family violence. Why?
- Written by: Weekend Times
Last week, another Australian community was left grappling with the death of a woman, allegedly at the hands of a man.
A 55-year-old man was charged with the murder of
his 85-year-old mother in southern Tasmania. Police have alleged the woman was found in her bed after being smothered by her son.
They have also said the murder will not be considered a family violence incident under Tasmanian law because of the state’s narrow definition of “family violence”.
While the case remains under investigation, it reveals a structural blind spot created by a family violence definition that excludes most forms of family. It’s out of step with other states and territories and makes it harder for victim-survivors to get the help they need.
Narrow definitions
Tasmania’s Family Violence Act constricts “family violence” to abuse “committed by a person, directly or indirectly, against that person’s spouse or partner”.
This means many kinds of familial relationships in which violence may occur go unrecognised. This includes violence between children and their parents, as well as between siblings, grandparents and grandchildren, cousins and extended family members, even if they live under one roof.
Tasmania’s definition is the narrowest in the country. For example, the Victorian Family Violence Protection Act states family violence can be perpetrated by any family members. This includes people you are related to, treat as family, have had an intimate relationship with or who are your carer or support worker.
Queensland’s laws cover intimate relationships and familial relationships, including extended family and carers.
Additionally, laws in the Northern Territory cover partners, dating relationships, housemates, carers, relatives and relatives of a child.
Why is this important?
This is not just semantics. Legal definitions determine which victim-survivors receive specialist support and safety planning, and who gets counted by the system at all.
Definitions that exclude people mean family violence incidents are being under-counted.
This has flow on effects for data reporting, funding and service provision. When the language is narrow, the system becomes narrow too.
This is reflected in my as yet unpublished research. I found many service providers took issue with this definition.
Mary, who has spent years supporting victim‑survivors, explained:
We see people who wouldn’t fit the categories of family violence […] dating relationships, abuse from a parent, or violence from an adolescent at home.
Lucy shared a case that still troubles her:
I’ve taken referrals for people who’ve experienced sexual violence from a sibling as an adult and are terrorised, but can’t seek support because it doesn’t fit the definition. What’s the point of it?
These aren’t rare exceptions. They are everyday examples of how definitions shape access to support. The 85-year-old woman’s murder is a stark reminder of what service providers see constantly: violence inside families that doesn’t always involve intimate partners.
Victoria put it bluntly:
When you hear about a death in a home, you don’t automatically think intimate partner violence. You think siblings, adult children, carers – all the relationships our policy doesn’t name.
As Fee explains:
If it was one of those relationships [outside of intimate partnerships], our services wouldn’t be funded to respond. We’d still respond, but without the resources or recognition.
Fixing the system
Expanding the definition would strengthen the system by:
recognising the full spectrum of harm occurring in families
capturing accurate incident and prevalence rates of all forms of family violence
resourcing services to meaningfully respond
ensuring victim-survivors aren’t excluded from support.
Tasmania’s current definition makes many forms of violence invisible to the family violence system. Invisible violence is the hardest to prevent and respond to.
Aligning the laws with the realities service providers see everyday and with the national standard of definitions would make it much easier to effectively protect and support victim-survivors.
Isabel Dunn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
