WA’s Safe at Home programme names “individuals who identify as women”, but not male victims.

1. What the WA Government says

The Department of Communities describes Safe at Home as helping people covered by the programme remain safely in their homes. Its eligibility wording expressly names:

“women (and individuals who identify as women), with or without accompanying children”

The page, updated 30 June 2026, lists security upgrades, safety planning, court support, informal counselling and case management. It reports 19 locations across WA. Source 1

The wording explicitly includes transgender women. It does not include men as adult victims. That is the published distinction the Minister needs to explain.

2. What the maths says

The government reports 19 Safe at Home locations, plus two separately identified Commonwealth-funded Keeping Women Safe in their Homes programmes. Those are location and programme counts, not a count of unique organisations. Source 1

The comparison needed is funding and practical access:

Male-victim funding share = expenditure attributable to male victims ÷ total expenditure in the defined service comparison × 100.

That calculation requires a disclosed funding total and an identifiable male-victim component. The programme page provides neither. Atlas therefore does not assign a percentage or treat the missing figure as zero.

Minister Stojkovski, please publish annual allocations and actual expenditure for Safe at Home, together with the funding and capacity of equivalent assistance open to male victims. Separate State and Commonwealth contributions and avoid counting the same money twice.

3. What Atlas believes

Atlas believes that men experiencing domestic violence should have access to practical protection according to their danger and needs.

The government has expressly considered who is included in this programme. Male victims deserve an equally explicit answer about their eligibility and support.

A broad service name is not evidence of broad access. Nor does inclusion of transgender women establish that men can receive assistance as victims.

The practical test is straightforward: can a man facing comparable abuse obtain comparable help, within a comparable time, in his area?

4. What we want: upfront disclosure

Minister Jessica Stojkovski, let’s discuss:

1. Are adult male victims eligible for Safe at Home? If they are, why does the published eligibility omit them?
2. If they are not, who approved that restriction, when, and on what evidence?
3. Which funded services provide equivalent help to men, including fathers protecting children?
4. What can those services actually deliver, where, and within what waiting time?

If men are ineligible, the programme page and referral materials should state that plainly:

Adult male victims are not eligible for this programme. The following funded services provide assistance to male victims: [name the services, locations, assistance and access requirements].

That proposed wording is conditional on confirmation of the operating rules. Any difference between published eligibility and actual practice should be corrected.

5. Changes Atlas demands from the government

Disclosure alone does not make unequal access fair.

Atlas calls on the government to ensure men facing domestic violence can obtain funded safety planning, home security assistance, court support, counselling and case management according to assessed need.

Where existing services do not provide equivalent access, Atlas calls on the government to close the gap through programme eligibility, service capacity and funding.

The WA Government’s Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline provides information, support and referrals for male victims. Source 4

That does not establish equivalent access to funded home security upgrades, safety planning, court support and case management.

Minister Stojkovski, identify the services those referrals lead to, what practical assistance male victims actually receive, and whether they receive it within comparable waiting times and locations.

Minister Stojkovski, let’s discuss what changes you are willing to make and the timetable for delivering them.

6. What rules or legal justification the government relies on

WA’s Equal Opportunity Act 1984 addresses sex discrimination in services. The Equal Opportunity Commission also identifies exceptions, including measures intended to achieve equality or meet special needs. Sources 2–3

Minister Stojkovski, please identify any legal provision, exception, exemption or special measure relied upon for these eligibility rules. Explain its requirements and the evidence supporting its application to this programme.

Legal compliance and fair practical access are separate questions. An assurance of compliance does not establish that male victims can obtain equivalent help.

7. What numbers and evidence we ask the Minister to publish

Atlas asks for:

1. Current eligibility rules, provider contract requirements and the records approving or amending them.
2. Annual budgets and actual expenditure, by provider, location and assistance type.
3. Enquiries, referrals, applications, acceptances and refusals by sex, with refusal reasons and the definitions used in recording sex and gender.
4. Waiting times, assistance delivered and expenditure attributable to recipients, using a disclosed allocation method for shared costs.
5. Equivalent figures for services cited as alternatives for male victims, including referral completion and actual assistance received.
6. Assessments of unmet need, geographic gaps and whether male victims receive comparable support for comparable needs.

Please identify which records are held, which are not collected, and how missing information will be addressed. Publish aggregate information that protects service users’ privacy.

Minister Jessica Stojkovski, you can answer this case with evidence.

If the government maintains that these arrangements do not disadvantage men, it should publish the relevant funding, access and service-delivery data and explain how the arrangements operate in practice.

A statement of good intentions, a commitment to inclusion or an assurance of legal compliance does not answer the practical question.

The question is whether being male affects access to this support.

If the answer is no, the rules and data should demonstrate that.

If the answer is yes, victims should be told clearly. Atlas calls on the government to address the unequal access and explain what changes it is willing to make.

8. An invitation to meaningful dialogue

Minister Stojkovski, Atlas invites your response to these findings, the disclosure we seek and the changes we encourage.

Please provide the relevant evidence, identify any factual or analytical errors with supporting material, and explain how male victims can obtain comparable funded assistance.

Atlas welcomes constructive, evidence-based dialogue. Substantive responses will be published alongside the case where publication is permitted. We will assess new evidence, correct factual errors and update our findings where warranted.

Sources and case record

1. Department of Communities: Safe at Home. Page updated 30 June 2026; checked 18 September 2026.

2. WA Equal Opportunity Commission: Sex Discrimination Information.

3. WA Equal Opportunity Commission: Measures Intended to Achieve Equality Information.

4. Department of Communities: Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline. Page updated 13 January 2025; checked 18 September 2026.

Publication record: Published 18 September 2026. This is a preliminary examination of published programme eligibility. Provider-level refusal rates and expenditure by sex have not been established.

Update, 18 September 2026: Added the Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline and an explicit comparison between referrals and delivered practical assistance following peer review.

Correspondence record: This published case invites the Minister’s response. No direct correspondence has been sent for this case as at publication.