11 February 2019

 
 
An NGO Alliance working to end violence against women has welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement of $78 million to increase accommodation for women and children facing family violence, but has raised questions about how the funds will be delivered.

Australian Women Against Violence Alliance has also questioned whether other services and prevention programs will be adequately funded under the yet-to-be released Fourth Action Plan* of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

“It is good that Government has heard the message about the critical need for additional crisis accommodation, and is also continuing to invest in safe-at-home programs,” said Dr Merrindahl Andrew, Program Manager of Australian Women Against Violence Alliance.

“However, any reforms to increase support to victims/survivors of family violence need to be integrated with the existing specialist women’s services sector, rather than creating discrete new services,” Dr Andrew said.

“We are seeking answers to the many questions that are being raised about this announcement, and we look forward to providing strong input from the sector as the policy detail is worked out.”

“For example, grants will be made to ‘eligible organisations’ but we do not know what the criteria are.”

“Funding to support victims/survivors should go to specialist women’s services, who are qualified and have the skills to assist women through the complex process of building a life free of violence.”

“How is this announcement going to assist women on temporary visas, many of whom are currently unable to access crisis accommodation because of migration and welfare rules?”

“We share the commitment to shift to a situation where women and children are supported to remain safely in their home if that is their choice, rather than being forced to leave, and we welcome the continuation of funding to safe-at-home programs.”

“However, these programs need to be integrated with existing specialist services, and provide funding for case management. Changing locks or installing CCTV are only one part of the support that women and children need.”

“Violence against women is a complex and massive issue that goes beyond family violence crisis responses and housing.”

“The Fourth Action Plan will need to encompass sexual violence, harassment and assault against women on campus, violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and women with disability, trafficking and exploitation, primary prevention, women’s diverse backgrounds and situations, and the many types of violence to which women are subjected, including technology-facilitated abuse.”

“Other programs funded under the previous Women’s Safety Package also need ongoing investment, such as those for technology safety training and which provide safe phones for victims/survivors of family violence.”

“All of these issues require Commonwealth funding, so we will be looking for substantial funding commitments to bring a holistic Fourth Action Plan into place later this year,” Dr Andrew said.

Contact: Dr Merrindahl Andrew, AWAVA Program Manager

[email protected]

ph: 0428 541 396

*Download our position paper that offers a comprehensive structure that policy-makers might find useful in conceptualising the priority areas for the Fourth Action Plan.

AWAVA’s Program Manager, Merrindahl Andrew  delivered  her speech during the closing day of the Prevalent and Preventable Violence against Women conference which was held in Adelaide from 19 to 22 of September 2016.

I want to address a question that’s been raised several times in the conference, which is how to build on the momentum we have at the moment, and keep it going: how to push for the social change that is required to meet our shared goal.

Worldwide, the most important factor influencing government responses to violence against women is the presence of a strong, autonomous feminist movement.

In their study of 70 countries Laurel Weldon & Mala Htun found that the presence of such a movement was more influential than any other factor in achieving the broad range of government responses that support victims and survivors, and work towards eliminating violence.

Strong, autonomous women’s movements make more of a difference than national wealth, left-wing parties, or the number of women legislators.

However, Weldon & Htun did also find that women’s policy agencies and international norms strengthen feminist efforts, as movements work within and across borders and demand the creation of new institutions to advance feminist interests.

What does autonomous mean? Well, Weldon & Htun defined it simply as meaning autonomous from organisations that do not have gender equality as their primary goal, such as political parties and unions. So it doesn’t necessarily mean small, or non-hierarchical, or having a philosophy of any particular degree of radical-ness: it just means not subsumed within a broader organisation that’s not focused specifically on gender equality.

But social science can only give findings about past patterns of how people achieved social change. There is no instruction manual; we still have to decide what to do in the present, with incomplete information. Partly because things change even as we’re trying to change them, and because we also change in that process.

An image that came to me in one of the sleepless nights leading up to this conference is that doing this kind of social change is like trying to stir a pot of hot custard with a spoon made of chocolate.

It can be frustrating and messy, and you might end up holding nothing, but what we’re making is pretty good.

Beyond that, I do not advise relying on this metaphor!

Weldon and Htun’s research was limited, as all research must be, by certain definitions: in their case they were focused on what determined the extent of governments’ responses to violence against women. They were mainly measuring things like government funding for refuges, shelters and rape crisis centres, law reform, and training for workers such as police. All things that still concern us today.

But what about the next step that we’re trying to make: to a national and local focus on prevention, to a concerted effort to change the underlying drivers of violence. An effort that obviously involves a wide range of actors beyond as well as including governments.

As we have seen at this conference, and as Our Watch has articulated so well in Change the Story – this involves working towards a situation where messages and influences about equality, respect and non-violence are coming from all directions and in all settings – reinforcing and multiple.

What is the factor that is going to get us there? Our Watch plays a key role, and its member governments can be hugely influential if they bring that influence to bear – but who is going to persuade them to bring that influence to bear? Change needs to come from so many more people and institutions. It’s almost as if what we need is – An autonomous feminist movement! Or something new along those lines that is being created right now.

Actually – this kind of systemic change is something that the Australian feminist movement has always been working towards. The great debates about ‘reform vs revolution’ in the 1970s and 1980s were basically resolved along the lines of:

It’s OK to work for reform as long as by doing so you’re strengthening and not undermining the chances for revolution.

It’s a question that’s still worth asking – what are the implications of our actions?

Meanwhile, the feminist movement itself has changed. Is that the term we even want to use now?

You could say that the groups that are organised towards reform (and maybe still revolution!) are now less autonomous than in the past, because they’re more linked in with other institutions – which is partly a gain, since that kind of institutionalisation is one of the ways feminist movements ultimately achieve change.

You could say that AWAVA falls into that category.

On the other hand, the newer and more autonomous groups – often operating through social media and localised/informal networks, and in various specific settings – are mobilising opinion, leading through influence, creating connections and giving voice to experiences that are deeply relevant but not represented in mainstream portrayals of violence against women.

One of the constructive things that we can do to strengthen the links between the more institutionalised parts of the movement – the parts that have a degree of legitimacy or power because of our place in broader institutions – and the more autonomous and perhaps less powerful parts.

But without trying to force everybody into some grand scheme, and with the kind of respect that makes it safe and humane for everyone.

Another constructive thing we can do is look to the contribution of women’s organisations and women’s services over the last forty years, and re-articulate the principles developed:

• individual and systemic advocacy,
• contributing to social change and policy development while drawing on women’s experiences,
• non-victim-blaming,
• recognising the individual woman as the expert in her situation
• knowledgeable about the patterns of violence and what’s required for healing

– a powerful, effective model that goes way beyond the shorthand description of ‘response’, as it’s used to distinguish services from ‘prevention’.

Wherever it works to do so, let’s make sure that prevention efforts and broader advocacy are linked to this model.

On Tuesday, Maha Abdo from the Muslim Women’s Association encouraged us to acknowledge and sit with what is uncomfortable. In that spirit, I want to acknowledge that every time I say ‘we’, I feel uncomfortable because I have not defined ‘we’, or asked any of you on what terms you might like to be included in this ‘we’.

It’s the poetic, political ‘we’ of ‘we, the people’, it’s an attempt to construct a collective – and it always threatens to be a form of domination: as in, ‘are you with us, or against us?’

This is part of the history of the women’s movement, and why intersectionality is so important.

The other problem with ‘we’ is the tendency towards a kind of romanticised notion of ‘us against the world’ – or worse still: ‘we few, we happy few’, glorious and honourable even in our likely failure.

We do not want to be few! We want to be many! We do not intend to fail; we plan to succeed!

That’s one of the great contributions of Our Watch, among others: to have such big and open ambition about the scale that we want to have, the number of people we want to mobilise, beyond our own groups, backgrounds and political positions.

So, please take my use of ‘we’ as contingent, as provisional, if possible as an opening rather than a closure. And I will continue to acknowledge the discomfort.

As good as recent developments have been, sometimes in our area it feels as if there’s a terrible lack of traction. We can see the urgency and the horror of what we’re dealing with, but it feels like our wheels are spinning –the institutions around us often fail to respond with commensurate attention – sustained attention, realistic resources, an extra shoulder to the bumper of a badly bogged car.

There is progress, and at times there are hope-inspiring leaps of progress –

• like when Our Watch produced Change the Story;
• like when Australia’s Prime Minister acknowledged that gender inequality underpins this violence;
• like when the Victorian Government commissioned and then committed to implementing – and funding! – perhaps the most extensive and systematic inquiry into domestic and family violence ever undertaken.

And then – perhaps even at the same time – we are confronted by the sheer inadequacy of every step taken so far.

There are two things I think that can give us comfort and hope.

One thing is to look to each other for inspiration and to honour each other’s work, acknowledging that we all sit in different positions, with different roles and limitations, and with lives beyond as well as linked to violence.

The other thing is that it all adds up. We don’t have to do it all ourselves – we can’t.

I went to a great speech once by Mark Yettica-Paulson, and to encourage the audience he quoted the song by Kev Carmody and Paul Kelly – not the famous line ‘from little things big things grow’ – but the line that says:

‘If we fall others are rising.’

In the song, that’s Vincent Lingiarri’s defiance, his warning to the powerful land-holders that the Gurindji’s efforts will be sustained beyond individuals. We have some of that same determination, that longevity, in our efforts to eliminate violence.

Marai Larasi reminded us that ultimately we want to be out of a job. The double bind is that in order to get there, we need to be able to do our jobs.

We have to acknowledge that our world is quite harsh in rewarding status and credibility, and punishing those who lack it, or are seen to lack it.

We have to not let our own need for status and credibility, as organisations and individuals, squeeze out, push down on others.

We have to make space for those others who are rising, and we have to create enough shared resources, networks, knowledge, goodwill, trust, friendships – so that they’re rising into something they can take hold of and make something from.

The Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA) has expressed serious concern about the national commitment to supporting women and children facing violence.

AWAVA welcomed the small additional commitment to implementing the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children ($33 million in 2016-17), as we welcomed the Women’s Safety Package last year. However, these commitments are just a tiny fraction of what is needed.

AWAVA Program Manager Merrindahl Andrew said, “After the issue was deemed a ‘national priority’ by the Australian Government, AWAVA together with other advocates hoped this priority would be reflected in the Budget. Once again, however, the Government has deferred the challenge to a later date. A dedicated funding stream for preventing and responding to violence, together with a major funding boost and financial security for services, are among the minimum responses needed to truly make a difference.”

The previously-declared “national emergency” of domestic and family violence kills on average one woman in Australia each week, while sexual violence continues to have widespread and devastating impacts on women and children. The scale of the Budget’s response is not proportionate. The Victorian Government recently recognised the scale and urgency of family violence as a problem and responded accordingly. This Budget is a missed opportunity to do the same at a national level. Fair Agenda has estimated that $4 billion over two years is required to match the Victorian response.

For example, Family Violence Prevention Legal Services need an extra $28 million to ensure national coverage for their legal services and supports to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims/survivors of family violence. This Budget leaves hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait women without access to the services they need.

“Not only is the Budget a missed opportunity; it entrenches cuts to the services that work directly with victims/survivors,” Ms Andrew said. “Cuts to legal assistance, including women’s legal services that support victims/survivors, are going ahead, reducing community legal centres’ capacity by one third ($34 million over the forward estimates). And homelessness service funding, including funding for women’s refuges, is still due to end at June 2017. This kind of funding uncertainty is exactly what we don’t need.”

AWAVA calls on the Australian Government to undertake more transparent reporting that accurately represents the full picture of spending on measures to address violence against women, as well as bringing back a rigorous gender budgeting process. For example, Minister Porter recently noted that homelessness funding had a “specific focus on domestic violence”, but there is no public information on how much homelessness funding is going to specialist women’s services or services targeting women facing violence. If we are serious about addressing violence, such information needs to be public.

AWAVA Media Contact and Spokesperson

Merrindahl Andrew, AWAVA Program Manager

Ph: 0428 541 396  [email protected]

Click here to download a pdf version of the media release.

Click here to download our interim analysis paper of the budget

21 April 2016

AWAVA welcomes the report of the Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence and the Victorian Government’s response

The Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA) welcomes the report of the Victorian Royal Commission on Family Violence. We applaud the Victorian Government for its constructive response in accepting all 227 recommendations and taking up the challenge of adequately funding a comprehensive effort to overcome the failings of the past.

We congratulate the Commission on its detailed findings. We also acknowledge the work of other organisations who, like AWAVA, devoted time and resources to informing the Commission.

AWAVA encourages other governments and organisations to draw on the Royal Commission report as a resource and potential model for future work.

AWAVA is particularly pleased that the report addresses the different forms and complexity of family violence across a range of communities, and the need to entrench standards of service delivery that are accessible, inclusive and non-discriminatory.

We welcome the fact that the Commission recommended a dedicated funding stream for preventing family violence be introduced in Victoria. We urge the Commonwealth government to take parallel steps to create a dedicated and recurrent funding stream through partnership between the Commonwealth and the states and territories that supports the breadth of work specialist women and children’s family violence services do to respond to family violence.

AWAVA condemns the sexual violence and abuse in offshore detention sites and requests urgent action by the Australian government, including bringing refugee women who have been sexually assaulted to Australia for appropriate care and access to abortion in cases of pregnancy if they choose.

The Australian government should also take further action to help prevent future assaults. This requires an end to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers in offshore facilities where there is clearly no adequate protection or avenues for redress.

Media contacts

Merrindahl Andrew, AWAVA Program Manager

Ph: 0428 541 396

The Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA) welcomes the release today of the Federal Government’s Women’s Safety Package, and acknowledges the leadership shown by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in moving emphatically to make violence against women and gender equality a priority.

AWAVA is pleased that the package includes steps towards using technology for women’s safety, extra funding for school anti-violence programs and programs to improve the capacity of GPs and other service providers to respond effectively to women living in violence.

We also welcome the fact that the package clearly identifies women’s safety as its focus, and that it includes some measures recognising the different experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women living in remote locations and women from marginalised cultural or linguistic backgrounds (although not of women with disabilities).

However, we also reiterate our call and that of many other organisations for adequate resourcing for the full range of programs and services needed to support women. These include domestic violence support and outreach services, services against sexual violence, refuges, and women’s legal services.

We hope that the focused nature of this morning’s announcement means that we can expect a broader commitment in the near future, ensuring all levels of government work together to provide realistic funding of services.

While relieving pressure on services such as refuges is a worthy goal, this should be done by funding increases; it should not be assumed that ‘safe at home’ programs can offset the severe shortfall in resourcing experienced by services.

Even if programs to support women to stay safe in their homes are effective, the level of demand is so extreme that continued under-funding will continue to turn women away from the services that should be empowered to help us.

AWAVA also warns that a genuinely holistic approach will need to empower women economically and give women realistic and well-resourced legal options.

These broader supports will require policy-makers to improve women’s experiences across a range of areas and portfolios, especially:

• employment (in relation to awards, minimum wage cases and parental leave),
• law (in relation to the funding of legal services and enforcement of apprehended     violence orders) and
• income support (in relation to the level of payments and the conditions imposed on women receiving them).

We look forward to the longer-term social change work that we hope will develop from the national campaign.

As Rosie Batty stated at the press conference, decades of work have gotten us to where we are today, and we need to continue the collective effort and have the difficult debates that are the only way to achieve change. AWAVA urges local groups, activists and advocates both within and beyond government to continue their efforts so that the current up-swelling of awareness makes a lasting positive difference.

Media contacts

Julie Oberin, AWAVA Chair

Ph: 0419 539 346

Merrindahl Andrew, AWAVA Program Manager

Ph: 0428 541 396

AWAVA has joined with other key women’s organisations to respond to the release of the Federal Government’s 2015-16 budget and assess the funding allocations for anti-violence against women initiatives.

Read our Joint Press Release – Federal Budget delivers no relief for women and children experiencing violence.