Perhaps this is a controversial take, but I’m finding that the national conversation on gendered and family violence has become very noisy. Am I alone in feeling this way? It’s such an important issue that is getting deserved attention, but figuring out what to make of moments like Friday’s $4.7 billion government funding announcement has become… difficult. The reporting on it was so confusing, but that’s a conversation for another day. Right now, let’s unpack what this new funding package means, and whether it’s ‘enough’ (a concept I’ve been reflecting on a lot lately).

First, the essential details*. 

• The total funding package announced yesterday is $4.7 billion, spread over five years. The money will begin to flow from July 1, 2025 (as the current funding agreements apply up to June 30)

• The money breaks down like this:

  • $3.9 billion over five years in funding for legal assistance services that specifically respond to gender-based and family violence (roughly 60% increase from the 2020-2025 funding for overall legal assistance);

    • This includes $800m to address indexation, pay parity and expansion.

  • $700 million in funding for a five-year National Partnership Agreement on Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence Responses ($350m from the Commonwealth, with and $350m from states and territories);

    • This will provide funding for support and recovery/healing services for women and children affected by family, domestic or sexual violence, and behaviour change programs for perpetrators.

  • And $80 million for “trauma-informed supports for children and young people”

*The official government statement on the package was the most straightforward source for this above, if you want to read it yourself here.

Overall, the focus is on the immediate legal needs of women and children experiencing violence, with a bit extra to help all involved recover in the aftermath. This package does not address all the other components that feed into gendered and family violence, nor does it intend to.

Now for the question that comes with any funding announcement: Is it enough?

Although this is a 60% increase on the previous five-year funding commitment, in that time the demand for these services has only increased with more women needing help, not less. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS) say their caseload has tripled; in NSW, Legal Aid domestic violence lawyers have seen a 61% increase in demand; Women’s Legal Services Australia say they are forced to turn away 52,000 women a year due to lack of resources. The costs of delivering the services has also increased (inflation 😭), which eats into any additional funding.

To put it in more concrete terms: a 2023 report found that Legal Aid alone needs an additional $484 million per year to meet the current demand – that would be 60% of the entire funding announcement, for only one part of the sector.

On top of that, Australia has 179 community legal centres. The Central Tablelands and Blue Mountains Community Legal Centre says it currently needs $550,000 per year to run – even if we assume that the costs of every centre are the same (which they obviously won’t be), centres across the country will need about $100m just for the next year. 

As the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service points out, this is essentially “existing funding plus funding for indexation and wage parity – which should always have been part of the funding… [It] will not allow us to cover the growing cost of corporate, administrative and finance services that we need to support our legal services.” 

Again, the government has upped their funding by 60%, but for this one provider the demand increased by 200%. 

So yeah, clearly not enough. That doesn’t mean no good will come from this funding – the money will help people. It will save lives. But breaking down the numbers helped me better understand the response from experts in this space, who’ve been saying this move is “welcomed” while still calling for more attention, more money, better and faster delivery.

Heavy topic, but I hope this helped! Enjoy the rest of your weekend,

– Crystal
Founder & Chief of Everything at Zee Feed
Follow me on Instagram or TikTok

Smart stuff on the Internet 💭

All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:

Anna Delvey Is Far From the Shittiest Person to Compete on ‘Dancing With the Stars’ on Rolling Stone
“What is clear is that the girls, gays, and theys are absolutely tickled pink by her casting. ‘Anna Delvey having to wear an ankle monitor in her #DWTS promo photo is absolute perfection,’ reads one viral tweet. Slay kween! It’s giving multiple counts of grand larceny and theft of services! Mother is mothering! The truth is, DWTS has a lengthy history of laundering terrible people’s reputations by forcing them to wear ruffled shirts and do the flamenco with Val Chmerkovskiy, and Anna Delvey is no exception.”

Can Substack replace our doomscrolling? on Harpers Bazaar Australia
“In a quest to quash my growing TikTok usage and adopt a more considered approach to my screen time numbers, I traded my morning and pre-sleep social media scrolling with something new: reading Substacks, and my brain is thanking me for it. From cultural tidbits to book reviews, personal essays to fashion commentary, I’ve noticed a considered ‘slowing down’ when it comes to consuming content on my phone.”

I don’t want to pile on Elle, but if I’d ignored the doctors I’d be dead on the Sydney Morning Herald
“Macpherson says in the interview that she doesn’t want to give people advice, then proceeds to. In an era of anti-scientific propaganda, every claim of self-healing must be forensically examined before being published or promoted. Especially when those making the claims have global profiles and are selling books, lucrative elixirs and other expensive wellness products.”

Why would anyone join a youth advisory group on climate change? on Crikey
“Rather than implementing a mechanism by which they would have to consider the needs and interests of young people, it seems the government prefers to give themselves a choice. They can take this advice, or they can do the polar opposite. A member of the Office for Youth’s now-disbanded climate change advisory group stated that in their experience of the group, ‘tokenism won out once again.’”

If you found this email thought-provoking, will you share it with a friend? Sharing helps us grow 🌱 and makes you look really smart.