In interviews there was almost unanimous agreement that current funding of the NWA does not align with the performance expectations of the NWA model. More specifically, the level of expertise required for NWA activity completion, particularly around research and policy activity, was described as greater than the funding designated for personnel. Interviewees also noted that the funding available for personnel is below market rates for qualified policy and advisory positions. 

There was a general acknowledgement from interviewees that a key consequence of NWAs’ limited funding is the NWAs heavily reliance on the unpaid labour from the women’s sector. This work is largely provided by volunteer workers, paid employees working longer hours than they are remunerated for, and donated staff time from the auspicing agencies. NWA interviewees expressed gratitude for this work, but noted that the voluntary nature of the work left Alliances lacking sustainability. To allow Alliances to succeed in informing policy and decision making, and to future-proof the voice of under-represented women in government, greater funding is required.

Interviewees noted that greater funding would allow the Alliances to fund member engagement activities and fully pay current or hire more personnel, which would in turn enable them to provide better in-depth advice to government (including both the OfW and other government departments). Additional personnel would also allow the Alliances to provide advice to government in a timely manner, which would be particularly valuable given the increasing requests for quick policy advice from government. Overall, NWA interviewees noted that they could imagine significantly greater engagement with government and more imaginative and sustained policy impact if they were better resourced. Examples for funding increases proposed in interviews include substantial increases in direct funding for staff (e.g., 2-3 times current funding), OfW provision of administrative and communications support, and top-up funding for program accessibility requirements (e.g. travel to regional and remote areas, language translation and disability accessibility). 

Both Government and Alliance interviewees noted that longer funding cycles would also maximise the NWAs impact. The short-term nature of existing funding led to insecurities about the Alliances’ futures, which made long-term planning difficult. The worry and planning about the future distracted Alliances from their core tasks. Longer-term funding would allow for more imaginative policy initiatives, and longer-term thinking about how to enhance gender equality in Australia. 

Another theme that emerged throughout interviews concerned funding inequities across Alliances. Some Alliances that have membership bases that require more resource intensive forms of communication (i.e., language translation, cultural safety, disability accessibility requirements, and/or remote locations) noted that the extra funds required to adequately represent their members and support staff put them at a funding disadvantage, and hampered the involvement of marginal women. Interviewees noted that while all Alliances have accessibility requirements, additional funds for more substantial accessibility requirements would increase equity and inclusivity within the NWA model.