Women fleeing violent relationships will be able to access $5000 financial support through an almost $1 billion package, as part of national cabinet measures tackling domestic abuse.
The package was unveiled after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met state and territory leaders in Sydney on Wednesday to discuss ways to resolve Australia’s gender violence crisis.
National cabinet also agreed to implement measures aimed at reducing misogyny online, specifically targeting young people.
As part of the move, laws will be introduced to ban the creation and distribution of deepfake pornography.
A pilot program will be set up for age-assurance technology to block access for children to online content such as pornography.
There will also be a review of the Online Safety Act a year ahead of schedule.
Far better to tighten the welfare safety net, scrap the partner income threshold and treat all individuals (regardless of sex/gender) as worthy of social support and at least some degree of financial independence. This temporary $1B measure does nothing to ameliorate the effects of government having foisted its welfare responsibilities onto the breadwinner in a married or de facto couple. By treating individuals (not couples) as economic entities in their own right, the government could have alleviated domestic tensions that threaten to spill over into violence. To that extent, this $1B proposal addresses the symptoms, not causes, of domestic violence. That said, crisis accommodation and other services are sorely needed. Piecemeal crisis payments are better than nothing. Good luck accessing them in a timely and sustainable fashion.
Why does everyone (as it appears) endorse the notion that the woman it is who must leave? Way back when it was recognised that the woman (and children – for whom she inevitably has responsibility plus seeking to keep them from harm) has a right to remain in her own home rather than vacate. Remove the violent man and ensure that a backup team is available 24/7 to ensure she and the children are safe in their own home. Moving out removes the children from their home surrounds, from their school, pre-school, friends and neighbourhood. No wonder the woman returns – she is removed from her neighbourhood, familiar surroundings and her goods and chattels … Think of the woman who returns because the children want their school, their friends, their bedroom, their toys and goods – all left behind bar the few items it may be possible to take in the dead of night or more likely (and more – though minimally – safely) when he is not at home. Why this notion that there are no homes available for women escaping violence? The home is right there, from which she is, apparently, expected to move. Surely it’s easier, in the end, to protect the woman and children’s safety in their own home with him out of it and back-up teams assigned to provide safety. This is what needs to be funded, with the mandatory removal of the man. Surely we’ve moved beyod the Coke 1604 mantra of ‘a man’s home is his castle’ …. Surely we can acknowledge the home is her castle for once?!