National Cabinet has new plans to tackle gender-based violence. The test now is whether governments implement them fast enough to keep women and children safe.
On 26 August 2026, National Cabinet met in Sydney and once again put ending gender-based violence on the national agenda.
First Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to ending gender-based violence and agreed to accelerate efforts to keep women and girls safe.
There is much in the announcement that deserves to be acknowledged.
There is significant funding. There is greater recognition of the need for nationally consistent responses. There is an increased focus on earlier intervention, sexual violence, children and young people, perpetrator accountability, emergency accommodation and the systems that survivors encounter when they seek help.
These things matter.
But after years of inquiries, strategies, action plans, reviews, recommendations and promises, I think we have reached a point where governments must be judged by more than what they announce.
Plans are not safety.
Implementation is.
And the question now is not simply whether governments have a plan to address domestic, family and sexual violence.
The question is whether those plans will be implemented quickly enough, consistently enough and with sufficient resources to actually prevent violence and save lives.
There are important measures here
National Cabinet highlighted significant investment already underway, including more than $700 million in matched Commonwealth, state and territory funding for frontline domestic, family and sexual violence services.
It also pointed to $308 million recently announced for emergency and transitional housing, which the Commonwealth says will support 448 new homes and ultimately provide access to housing for more than 22,000 women and children escaping family and domestic violence.
That is meaningful investment.
Safe housing can be the difference between someone being able to leave an abusive relationship and being forced to remain because there is simply nowhere else to go.
National Cabinet also acknowledged the $3.9 billion National Access to Justice Partnership.
That figure needs some context.
The entire $3.9 billion is not specifically funding domestic, family and sexual violence services. It is a five-year national legal assistance agreement funding Legal Aid Commissions, Community Legal Centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Family Violence Prevention and Legal Services and Women's Legal Services.
People experiencing or at risk of domestic, family and sexual violence are among those the partnership is intended to support, and specialist family violence services are included, but describing the entire $3.9 billion as domestic violence funding would be misleading.
We should recognise investment while also being clear about what the figures actually represent.
A national risk framework could save lives
One of the most important developments from the meeting is the new National Family and Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Framework.
Its purpose is straightforward but potentially powerful.
When someone experiencing violence comes into contact with police, a GP, a hospital or another service, the warning signs should be recognised and responded to consistently.
A person's safety should not depend on whether the professional they encounter understands coercive control.
It should not depend on which hospital they attend.
It should not depend on which police station receives the report.
And it should not depend on which side of a state border they happen to live on.
The Department of Social Services says the framework has been designed to provide a nationally consistent best-practice approach to identifying, assessing and responding to family and domestic violence risk.
Importantly, it is intended to help professionals identify patterns of coercive control and escalating harm earlier, improve coordination between agencies and provide better support for victim-survivors, including children and young people.
That matters enormously.
Too often, different parts of the system see different pieces of the same story.
A GP sees anxiety.
A school sees a distressed child.
A hospital sees an injury.
Police attend an incident.
A family violence service hears about escalating control.
A court sees an application.
Individually, those encounters may appear disconnected.
Together, they may reveal something far more dangerous.
Every point of contact should be an opportunity to recognise risk.
Every point of contact should be an opportunity to intervene.
And every point of contact should be an opportunity to prevent violence from escalating.
A national framework that improves that recognition is something I welcome.
But a framework alone cannot protect anyone.
The people using it need training.
Services need adequate staffing.
Information must be shared appropriately.
Risk must be acted upon.
And when someone is identified as being in serious danger, there must actually be somewhere safe for them to go and services available to support them.
Otherwise, we simply become better at identifying danger without becoming better at preventing it.
What does “urgent” actually mean?
This is where I struggle with the National Cabinet announcement.
The communiqué repeatedly acknowledges urgency.
It recognises that rates of gendered violence, including intimate partner homicide and sexual violence, remain unacceptably high.
It describes the measures being progressed as urgent actions.
Yet states and territories have been given two years to align with the new National Family and Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Framework.
Two years.
That could take implementation through to August 2028.
There may be legitimate operational reasons why full national alignment cannot happen overnight. Different jurisdictions have different systems, legislation, training requirements and existing risk-assessment processes.
But when governments use the word urgent, people are entitled to ask what urgent means.
Particularly because this work did not begin yesterday.
Following National Cabinet on 6 September 2024, the Commonwealth committed $2 million to develop national best-practice risk-assessment principles and a model risk-assessment framework.
A government implementation update published in February 2026 said the principles and framework were expected to be completed by April 2026.
The framework was ultimately published on 26 August 2026.
We are therefore talking about work initiated almost two years ago, followed by a further period of up to two years for jurisdictions to align with it.
That does not mean the framework has no value.
It means we need to keep asking why measures described as urgent can take years to become fully operational.
Because violence is not waiting for governments to finish aligning systems.
There is still a great deal of “we will”
The priorities announced by National Cabinet are encouraging.
They include better responses to sexual violence, including within the judicial system.
They include ensuring respectful relationships education in schools is effective.
They include finalising National Standards for Men's Behaviour Change programs.
They include improving access to emergency accommodation.
They include implementing the risk-assessment framework within the health sector.
They include developing practice standards for professionals working with children who have experienced or been exposed to violence.
They include progressing recommendations from the Senate inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children.
And they include establishing further national standards for the quality, consistency and accessibility of frontline domestic, family and sexual violence responses.
I support those priorities.
But read the language carefully.
Finalising.
Developing.
Progressing.
Improving.
Implementing.
These are commitments to action.
They are not yet evidence of outcomes.
There is a difference.
A commitment to improve emergency accommodation is not the same as a victim-survivor being able to find somewhere safe tonight.
A commitment to improve judicial responses to sexual violence is not the same as a survivor experiencing a trauma-informed justice system.
A commitment to develop standards for working with children is not the same as every teacher, police officer, health professional and support worker recognising that children affected by domestic violence are victims in their own right.
A standard for behaviour-change programs does not itself stop a dangerous perpetrator.
And a risk assessment does not save a life unless somebody acts on what that assessment reveals.
Children must remain central to this work
I particularly welcome the increased focus on children and young people.
For too long, children have been described as witnesses to domestic and family violence.
They are not simply watching something happening between adults.
They are living within it.
They experience the fear.
They hear the threats.
They learn to recognise footsteps, voices and changes in atmosphere.
They may change their behaviour in an attempt to avoid triggering violence.
They may try to protect a parent or sibling.
They may carry the effects of that environment into school, friendships and eventually adulthood.
National Cabinet's priorities include enhancing support for children and young people who have experienced violence and developing practice standards for working with them.
That language matters.
But again, recognition must lead to action.
Children need access to specialist, trauma-informed support before their distress becomes entrenched.
They should not have to wait until adulthood to receive help for something they experienced throughout childhood.
Sexual violence and the justice system cannot be ignored
Another commitment I welcome is the focus on improving responses to sexual violence, including within the judicial system.
This is desperately needed.
For many survivors, reporting sexual violence begins another difficult journey.
They may face invasive questioning, lengthy delays, scrutiny of their behaviour, their memory, their relationships and their credibility.
The justice system must be capable of protecting the rights of an accused person while also recognising what trauma can do to memory, communication and behaviour.
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
Justice should not require survivors to behave like perfect witnesses.
National Cabinet has acknowledged the need for better responses.
Now we need to see what those reforms actually look like.
Funding announcements need to become accessible services
The $308 million commitment for emergency and transitional housing is welcome.
So is increased funding for frontline services.
But there is a question I think should sit underneath every funding announcement:
Can the person who needs help actually get it?
Not theoretically.
Not when the next facility is built.
Not when another funding round opens.
When they need it.
A dollar figure tells us what government intends to spend.
It does not tell us how many people called a service and were told there was no capacity.
It does not tell us how many people could not find emergency accommodation.
It does not tell us whether regional, rural and remote communities have adequate access.
It does not tell us how long someone waited for counselling.
And it does not tell us whether a survivor felt safer after entering the system than before.
Those are the outcomes we need to measure.
I welcome the action. Now show us the results.
I do not want to dismiss the National Cabinet announcement.
There are genuinely important measures within it.
I welcome investment in frontline services.
I welcome investment in housing.
I welcome greater national consistency.
I welcome earlier identification of risk.
I welcome recognition of coercive control and escalating harm.
I welcome the focus on children.
I welcome work to improve responses to sexual violence.
I welcome efforts to hold perpetrators accountable.
And I welcome any genuine attempt to prevent violence before someone is seriously harmed or killed.
But welcoming action does not mean abandoning scrutiny.
In fact, the seriousness of these commitments makes accountability even more important.
Governments have told Australians what they intend to do.
Now Australians should be able to see whether it is being done.
National Cabinet has already given us one accountability point.
First Ministers have agreed to report back on progress by the end of 2026.
When that report comes, I hope we do not simply receive another list of announcements.
I want to know what has changed.
How many jurisdictions have begun implementing the risk-assessment framework?
How many frontline professionals have been trained?
Has information sharing improved?
Has access to emergency accommodation increased?
What has changed for children?
What reforms are being made to the judicial response to sexual violence?
What progress has been made on perpetrator accountability?
What measurable difference are these investments making for victim-survivors?
Because ultimately, that is the standard that matters.
Not how many strategies have been written.
Not how many meetings have been held.
Not how many announcements have been made.
Not how impressive the funding figure looks in a media release.
Are people safer?
That must remain the measure of success.
Governments keep telling us that ending gender-based violence is urgent.
I agree.
So let us treat it like it is.
Plans are not safety.
Frameworks are not safety.
Announcements are not safety.
They can help create it.
But only when they become action.
Only when services can respond.
Only when risk is recognised and acted upon.
Only when survivors have somewhere safe to go.
Only when children receive the support they need.
Only when perpetrators are held accountable.
Only when prevention happens before another life is lost.
Commitments are a start.
Now we hold governments accountable for delivering them.
The key official sources are the 26 August 2026 National Cabinet communiqué, the National Family and Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Framework, and the National Access to Justice Partnership information.
