The suitability of the model to represent Australian women, including underrepresented women, was assessed with reference to who is being represented and how they are being represented. With regards to who is being represented, the program has shifted over time from a focus on issue-based Alliances to one that is now dominated by cohort-based Alliances. In this way, the model is suitable for supporting the representation of underrepresented groups. 

In the context of this overall positive trajectory and position, there are gaps in representation across and within the Alliances. Of particular note was the lack of representation of LGBTQI+ individuals, including non-binary individuals and trans women, and young people. There was also uncertainty reported by some Alliances as to whether it was appropriate to incorporate men in the program, with the broader goal of enhancing gender equality. The need for representativeness is well understood amongst program stakeholders and gaps in representation are well recognised. However, there are various perspectives on how best to remedy gaps. There was discussion by some interviewees of ensuring these groups were represented within existing Alliances such as through the development of youth councils. There were multiple recommendations to create a new cohort Alliance to represent LGBTQI+, as this group is not well represented in the model and there may be barriers to participation for transgender and gender diverse people participating in the existing Alliance structure.

The co-existence of cohort and issues-based Alliances is also creating some inter-Alliance tension. There are size and power imbalances between Alliances that tend to favour issues-based Alliances. Some concerns were raised about size and scope of ERA compared with other Alliances, creating practical concerns about ERA’s workload and potential power-imbalances for smaller Alliances. Inter-Alliance collaboration has been proposed to improve this issue, but the acceptability and perceived value of collaborative approaches varied across the Alliances. There is a lack of clarity on appropriate formats and platforms for inter-Alliance engagement, but there was agreement that OfW facilitation would be important to support trust building in the current context.

Alliances’ ability to represent marginalised and underserved communities is complicated by a history of exclusion and discrimination that impedes trust in Government and may limit motivation to engage with Alliances as a conduit to Government. The NWA model requires Alliances to be both inward facing (members and the community) and outward facing (the Government). This can create tension in the activities of Alliances and perceived allegiances, and competing expectations of Alliances’ value proposition. Inward facing activity is necessary for Alliances to create trust with community and members, especially for cohort-based Alliances that directly represent marginalised women, and establish a value proposition for ongoing member participation. However, program objectives focus on outward facing achievements.

With regards to how women are being represented in the model, the NWA is designed as a conduit between Government and women and grassroots organisations. In this way, the NWA model provides the advantage of performing a centralising function that creates efficiency for Government. However, a possible disadvantage of a centralising function is that aggregations and translations of women’s diverse perspectives that may advertently or inadvertently advantage particular voices. A more comprehensive evaluation that directly captures the perspectives of women and the women’s sector is needed to assess the impact of Alliance’s centralisation function. In advance of such an evaluation, insights can be drawn from desktop review of the pathways of participation within different Alliances.

Through the Alliance model, the OfW and policymakers are connected to women and women’s sector organisations through a variety of pathways, with some closer to individual women than others, due to the structure and format of the membership models within the different Alliances. The ideas of individual women can, in some cases, be translated through multiple separate entities prior to reaching the OfW and policymakers; this is particularly common in Alliances with membership eligibility criteria that allow only organisations to join as opposed to individuals and organisations. Both longer and shorter translation pathways have advantages and disadvantages. Discourse, discussion and networking in each phase can add value but can also result in the loss or marginalisation of minoritised or underrepresented voices.

For example, the National Rural Women’s Coalition consists primarily of organisational members, with five peak-bodies forming the Alliance’s membership. One of these bodies, the National Rural Health Alliance, has its own member organisations, such as the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation, who then have individual members. The perspectives of individual women engaged in the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation can be synthesised and presented to the National Rural Health Alliance. The NRHA can then collate and synthesise the perspectives of each of their member organisations and present this to the NRWC. Although these organisations may, separately, liaise directly with government, within the NWA model they form part of a multiphase translation pathway. The NRWC can perform the same synthesis of the views their five member organization prior to delivering the voice of the women’s sector to the OfW and policymakers. From a network perspective, this pathway may be advantageous as the additional discourse and discussion in each phase can synthesise the advice provided to the OfW. However, from an individual voice perspective, this model may be less advantageous, as the multi-leveled pathway may result in the loss of information from minoritised perspectives.

In another example, members of the National Women’s Safety Alliance are mostly individuals with lived experience and/or subject matter experts in gender-based violence. NWSA also has organisations who are committed to their mission as members. NWSA is directly connected to the experiences of individual women, synthesising perspectives only once when presenting them to the OfW and policy makers. This model has advantages for the raising of individual voice, but may be less advantageous from an organisational networking perspective. There was suggestion in interviews that all Alliances should accept individual members to strengthen the voice of women’s lived experience within the NWA model.

More research is needed to more fully understand the nature of the various translation pathways within the NWA model and their implications for the delivery of model’s objective to represent women.