What the latest data say about male victims of family violence in Australia

Julian Talbot
6 days ago
3 min read

If you only know one line about family violence in Australia, make it this: at least one in three victims is male. That’s not a slogan; it’s a summary of multiple official datasets and peer-reviewed studies. The reality is complex, often uncomfortable, and it demands policy responses that support all victims, regardless of gender.

Why this article

Public policy should follow evidence, not narratives. Below is a concise review of key statistics on male victimisation, with links to the underlying sources. We also thank and acknowledge the One in Three Campaign for their long-running work collating national statistics and references across ABS, AIC, AIHW, AIFS and peer-reviewed research. Their statistics hub is a valuable jumping-off point for anyone who wants to verify claims and read the underlying studies.

Key points at a glance

At least one in three victims of family violence is male. This claim is supported across multiple national series (ABS Personal Safety Survey; Recorded Crime—Victims; AIHW hospitalisations) and is reflected in the One in Three statistics hub.
Emotional abuse: men and women report emotional/psychological abuse at comparably high rates in several datasets and surveys summarised by One in Three. These findings reinforce that coercive control and non-physical abuse are not gender-exclusive.
Homicide: recent ABS victimisation data show substantial male victimisation within FDV-related homicide. Trend pages are updated annually; check 2024 for the newest counts and proportions.
Hospitalisations: AIHW analyses of FDV-related hospital stays show roughly one-third of victims are male across long time frames.
Help-seeking: male victims are less likely to disclose, seek support, or contact police—a barrier that likely depresses official counts and service utilisation, and that needs direct policy attention.

What’s new in 2025: two large studies worth knowing

Medical Journal of Australia national survey (2025). A large probability-based study estimated lifetime intimate partner violence (IPV)—physical, sexual and psychological—across Australian adults with intimate partners. The authors report high prevalence overall and substantial male victimisation; the paper’s headline comparisons emphasise higher prevalence among women, but the male share of those reporting IPV remains large and policy-relevant. Read the study and its discussion for design and limitations.
AIFS “Ten to Men” (2025) Insights #3. Using longitudinal data, AIFS reports that about one in three Australian men (35%) self-report having used some form of IPV across their lifetime, with an estimated ~120,000 starting each year for the first time. Whatever one’s priors, this is sobering. It also highlights protective factors (mental health, social support, positive father–son bonds) that reduce perpetration risk—critical for prevention policy.

How these findings fit together

Taken together, the data show two things can be true at once:

IPV is highly prevalent and often gendered in pattern and severity (particularly for sexual violence and poly-victimisation among women).
Male victimisation is substantial, persistent and systematically under-served—especially in non-physical abuse, help-seeking, and post-separation harms. Ignoring this reality leaves a large cohort without adequate services.

Implications for policy and services

Build truly inclusive services. Commission and fund services that explicitly support male victims alongside women and children. Intake, screening and referral pathways should be gender-inclusive and trauma-informed.
Improve measurement. Mandate gender-inclusive screening and consistent perpetrator coding in hospitals and police data to reduce “unknown” fields and under-ascertainment for men.
Focus on prevention levers that work. AIFS highlights protective factors linked to lower perpetration (mental health, social support, healthy male role models). Fund what reduces first-time violence and recidivism.
Support post-separation safety for fathers. Post-separation coercion, control and fear are not gender-exclusive; service design and court practice should reflect this.
Keep debates evidence-anchored. Use primary sources (ABS/AIC/AIHW/AIFS, peer-reviewed studies) and transparent methods; avoid cherry-picking. Where estimates diverge, explain why (definitions, recall windows, sampling, instrument design).

About those “headline” disagreements

Different organisations emphasise different metrics (e.g., lifetime vs 12-month, any IPV vs injury-causing violence, police-recorded incidents vs surveys). That’s not a conspiracy; it’s methodology. Readers should compare like-with-like and read the footnotes. The safest approach is to hold multiple truths simultaneously: women are disproportionately affected in several high-harm categories, and a very large minority of victims are men. Good policy serves both realities.

A note of thanks

Family Law Reform thanks the One in Three Campaign for maintaining a comprehensive, referenced statistics hub on male victimisation. Their long-standing work helps journalists, policymakers and the public find and verify primary sources quickly. Any errors in synthesis here are ours; readers are encouraged to consult One in Three and the linked primary sources directly.

Family Law Reform