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.
Tasmania’s Family Violence Act constricts “family violence” to abuse “committed by a person, directly or indirectly, against that person’s spouse or partner”.
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.
Source: A Tasmanian man allegedly murdered his mother, but it’s not legally considered family violence. Why?
In addition to the practical realities listed in The Conversation article, there’s the issue of considering criminal assault at home and other forms of domestic violence across state and territory boundaries. Australia needs to think more often in terms of ‘uniform laws’ that ensure (in the case of crime for example) statistical recording for the country as a whole. This is essential simply as a matter of record, however, it also matters (for example) in terms of reports to the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) Committee; as to whether some states and/or territories are ‘doing better’ than others – so that comparisons/contrasts can be made with service provision, funding, approaches to addressing the issue, etc; so as not to get in a muddle as to what is happening ‘out there’ Australia wide. Of course, consideration must be given, too, to the way reality is recorded: Australian Institute of Criminology, the government body in NSW (in Department of Justice and Attorney-General) that focuses on criminological research including recording statistics and other state/territory bodies that do this, as well (of course) as the Census and Australian Bureau of Statistics must start ensuring that they record women as women, men as men, and those who say they ‘identify’ as one or the other (albeit XY or XX biologically). What is happening is the disruption and misrepresentation of the reality of criminal conduct and all that flows from this – prison statistics, probation and parole, rehabilitation, recidivism, types of crime committed, criminal profiles etc. This is not only confusing and confusion rampant, it is downright unprofessional and the unprofessionals engaged in this misrepresentation of statistical reality should be relieved of their roles and transfer into a field where accurate recording is not required.