Victoria Ends LaunchVic and What It Means for Startup Founders

Victoria’s decision to close LaunchVic marks a shift in how the state supports startups. The announcement, delivered in December 2025 as part of the Silver Review’s cost-cutting recommendations, caught many in the innovation community by surprise. For nearly a decade, LaunchVic had served as the state’s dedicated startup support agency, helping more than 4,300 companies access funding, programs, and connections to private capital.

The closure doesn’t eliminate government support entirely. LaunchVic’s functions will transfer to Breakthrough Victoria and Invest Victoria, though how this consolidation will work in practice remains uncertain. The lack of detail has created planning challenges for founders—especially those with active applications, current program participation, or early-stage funding needs.

This guide brings together everything you need to understand the closure, evaluate your options, and navigate the transition. Whether you’re currently funded by LaunchVic, seeking capital, or planning your startup’s future in Victoria, you’ll find clear answers to the questions that matter most right now.

What you’ll find in this comprehensive guide:

• LaunchVic Program Transition Timeline – Track the status of 30×30, Basecamp, and other programs as they transfer to new agencies
• Funding Pathways After LaunchVic – Government, VC, angel, and accelerator funding sources still available
• Alice Anderson Fund Future – What happens to women-focused funding and where to find alternatives
• Victorian Startup Support Compared to Other States – Side-by-side state comparison to inform relocation decisions
• Victoria Startup Ecosystem Outlook – Forward-looking analysis of ecosystem health and consolidation risks

What is LaunchVic and why was it created?

LaunchVic was Victoria’s dedicated startup support agency, founded in 2016 and operational from 2017. It was established to grow Victoria’s innovation ecosystem through targeted programs, co-investment funds, and connections to private capital. Over eight years, LaunchVic helped Victoria’s startup ecosystem expand to more than 4,300 companies and unlocked $1.5 billion in private sector capital through its co-investment approach. Industry leaders called it “the gold-standard model” for government startup support.

The founding mission and approach

LaunchVic launched with a clear mandate: build Victoria’s startup ecosystem through coordinated government support that catalysed private investment rather than replacing it. Unlike traditional grant programs that simply distribute public money, LaunchVic pioneered a co-investment model where government funding attracted and matched private capital.

Victoria needed dedicated startup support that could operate separately from broader economic development agencies. The government created a standalone entity with its own team and clear strategy, giving LaunchVic the flexibility to respond quickly to ecosystem needs and build deep relationships with founders, investors, and support organisations.

What LaunchVic achieved

The numbers tell a compelling story. LaunchVic completed over 190 investments across 8 years of operations, directly supporting hundreds of startups while facilitating billions in private capital flow. The $1.5 billion in private sector capital unlocked through co-investment programs demonstrates the multiplier effect of well-designed public support.

Beyond direct funding, LaunchVic operated programs addressing specific gaps in the ecosystem. The 30×30 program supported high-growth companies, Basecamp provided early-stage accelerator support, and Press Play helped startups at the development phase. The agency also facilitated ecosystem development by supporting 8 new venture capital funds and 1 angel network, enabling $239 million in private capital flow.

During LaunchVic’s tenure, Melbourne gained seven ranks in global startup ecosystem rankings since 2022, rising to 16th globally. Victoria achieved $748 million in startup funding across 130 deals in 2024, a 29% increase from 2023. While correlation doesn’t prove causation, these achievements occurred during LaunchVic’s active period of ecosystem building.

Industry recognition

“Whenever I’m asked how government should support startups, I always point to LaunchVic. It’s the gold-standard model: public funding entrusted to an independent team with a clear strategy, real expertise and genuine accountability,” said Michael Batko, CEO of Startmate. This endorsement from one of Australia’s most respected accelerator leaders captures the broader industry sentiment about LaunchVic’s effectiveness.

Dr Kate Cornick, LaunchVic’s CEO, described the ecosystem results: “Victoria’s startup ecosystem is experiencing sustained, measured growth. Melbourne remains a leading place to launch a startup, underpinned by world-class research, education, a deep innovation network, and strong support.”

For a detailed look at how programs will transition, see our complete program timeline.

Why is the Victorian government closing LaunchVic?

The Victorian government is closing LaunchVic as part of broader cost-cutting measures recommended by the Silver Review. With Victoria facing $194 billion in projected state debt, the review recommended $4 billion in savings across the public sector, including consolidating startup support into existing agencies. The government accepted this recommendation, deciding to transfer LaunchVic’s equity investment functions to Breakthrough Victoria and its grant-making functions to Invest Victoria, eliminating LaunchVic as a standalone agency.

The Silver Review context

The Silver Review, led by senior bureaucrat Helen Silver, aimed to identify inefficiencies and potential cost savings in the public sector. The review found “substantial opportunities to reduce and streamline entities and their staff numbers through carefully targeted cessation, merging and streamlining.”

Victoria’s industry support expenditure ballooned from at least $236 million in 2014-15 to over $660 million in 2024-25. The review argued that execution of this support had been “messy” and made “government confusing and difficult for industry to deal with.” From a fiscal perspective, consolidating multiple entities into fewer, larger organisations promised administrative savings and clearer lines of accountability.

Broader fiscal pressures

The $194 billion projected state debt drove the Silver Review. The closure of LaunchVic wasn’t an isolated decision but part of a broader program of public sector reforms affecting more than 1,000 jobs across government. The review recommended a reduction of at least $350 million in funding over the next four years across innovation and industry support.

Given these fiscal pressures, a standalone startup agency became a target for consolidation. LaunchVic’s relatively modest budget and focused mission made it a candidate for merging into larger programs.

Government rationale

The government’s stated position emphasises that startup support will continue through the consolidated structure. Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs Danny Pearson said the government would retain startup support “through a single entity, bringing together the functions of Launch Vic and Breakthrough Victoria, streamlining support while continuing to grow the ecosystem in Victoria.”

The consolidation argument rests on several assumptions: that duplicate functions can be eliminated, that a larger entity can operate more efficiently, and that startup support doesn’t require dedicated focus separate from broader commercialisation and investment attraction functions.

Industry reaction

The industry response has been considerably less optimistic than the government’s framing. Founders backed by LaunchVic programs called the closure a “devastating decision.” Industry observers described it as “damaging, short-sighted” and a “real shame.”

Michael Batko’s critique went beyond disappointment: “I think it’s crazy. Unlike most government agencies that promise a lot but deliver little, LaunchVic consistently follows through, and the results speak for themselves.”

The timing particularly frustrated ecosystem participants. Speaking in January 2025 before the closure announcement, Kate Cornick had emphasised the importance of the work: “This isn’t just a nice little innovation thing on the side. This is about reshaping Australia’s economy and Victoria’s economy in our context. Normalising startups is a really important phase that we need to go through in Australia.” Just months later, that vision would be subsumed into a broader consolidation.

For program-specific transition details, see our comprehensive program guide. For long-term implications, read our ecosystem outlook analysis.

How will LaunchVic’s functions transfer to other agencies?

LaunchVic’s equity investment functions and existing investments to be absorbed by Breakthrough Victoria. Grant-making and facilitation programs to transfer to Invest Victoria. Breakthrough Victoria is a $2 billion government-backed technology fund focused on later-stage commercialisation, while Invest Victoria handles trade and investment attraction. The government has announced these transfers but hasn’t provided a detailed transition timeline or confirmed which specific programs will continue under the new structure.

Breakthrough Victoria’s role

Breakthrough Victoria will absorb LaunchVic’s equity investments and existing portfolio companies. As a $2 billion fund, Breakthrough Victoria operates at a significantly larger scale than LaunchVic, but with a different focus. The fund concentrates primarily on life sciences, food and agriculture, and advanced manufacturing sectors.

This focus raises questions about fit. LaunchVic specialised in early-stage, cross-sector support—high-risk, high-potential investments that larger commercialisation funds typically avoid. Breakthrough Victoria invests in companies that have progressed beyond the earliest stages and can demonstrate clearer paths to commercialisation. This approach differs fundamentally from LaunchVic’s early-stage, gap-filling role. Whether Breakthrough Victoria will maintain early-stage support remains unclear.

Breakthrough Victoria’s recent performance adds another layer of uncertainty. The fund posted a $5.7 million loss in the 2024-25 financial year, and even before the Silver Review, the Victorian government had planned to cut Breakthrough Victoria funding by an average of $90 million a year over four years. Absorbing LaunchVic’s functions while simultaneously facing budget cuts suggests challenging trade-offs ahead.

The fund’s projected $5.3 billion economic contribution by 2035 depends on successful commercialisation of later-stage ventures. How it will balance this mission with early-stage ecosystem building remains an open question.

Invest Victoria’s role

Invest Victoria will absorb LaunchVic’s grant-making and facilitation programs. However, Invest Victoria’s primary focus is trade and investment attraction—bringing foreign investment to Victoria and supporting Victorian companies in international markets. Startup support represents a new mandate grafted onto an organisation with different core expertise and objectives.

The Silver Review recommended that Invest Victoria become the “single entry point” for all government-provided industry support. This centralisation promises administrative simplicity but raises concerns about whether startup-specific needs will receive appropriate attention within a broader investment attraction agency.

Current equity investment landscape in Victoria already includes multiple entities: Breakthrough Victoria, Invest Victoria managing the $20 million Victorian Equity Investment Attraction Fund and $25 million Victorian Venture Growth Fund, plus the Department of Treasury and Finance overseeing the $250 million Victorian Business Growth Fund. Adding LaunchVic’s functions to this complex structure may create more confusion rather than the promised streamlining.

The consolidated entity

The government has announced plans to create “a single entity, bringing together the functions of Launch Vic and Breakthrough Victoria,” but the precise shape of this hybrid entity remains “under development.” No detailed transition timeline has been provided, leaving founders and current program participants in limbo.

Breakthrough Victoria posted a statement on LinkedIn emphasising continuity: “As Victoria moves to a new structure for innovation support, the mission remains clear: turbocharge investment, build future industries, and deliver lasting economic transformation for the state.” The statement focused on aspirations rather than specific operational details about how the transition will work.

The lack of detail extends to practical questions: Which programs will continue? What are the application processes? Who will manage the transition? When will the consolidated entity be fully operational? Until these questions receive answers, founders face planning uncertainty.

For specific funding alternatives during this transition, see our funding pathways guide. For analysis of whether this consolidation can succeed, read our ecosystem outlook.

What happens to current LaunchVic programs like 30×30 and Basecamp?

The fate of specific programs like 30×30, Basecamp, and Press Play remains uncertain as of the closure announcement. While the government states that startup support functions will transfer to Breakthrough Victoria and Invest Victoria, no program-by-program status has been confirmed. Current participants and applicants face uncertainty about program continuity, funding commitments, and transition timelines. The lack of detail in the announcement has created concern among founders with active applications or mid-program participation.

LaunchVic’s program portfolio

Before the closure announcement, LaunchVic operated a comprehensive suite of programs addressing different startup needs and stages. The 30×30 program supported high-growth startups, Basecamp provided early-stage accelerator support, and Press Play helped with startup development.

Earlier in 2025, before the December closure announcement, LaunchVic had launched the new Basecamp program to address startup leadership gaps, offered $300,000 grants to VCs and angels to attract them to Victoria, and announced $3.75 million in investment supporting VC funds, university pre-accelerator programs, and community events.

This breadth of activity—from direct company support to ecosystem capacity building—reflected LaunchVic’s role as an ecosystem orchestrator rather than just a funding source. Many of these programs addressed market gaps that private accelerators and investors don’t fill.

Current program status

The government has confirmed that startup support programs will transfer but hasn’t provided program-specific guidance. The recommendation to fold LaunchVic’s “grant and facilitation and capacity uplift program activity” into the new entity gained in-principle government support, but the precise shape of this transfer remains under development.

For current participants in programs like 30×30 or Basecamp, this creates practical challenges. Will cohorts complete as planned? What happens to commitments made to participants? Who should founders contact with questions? The absence of clear communication channels has left many founders navigating by guesswork.

For pending applications, the uncertainty is even more acute. Without knowing which programs will continue, applicants can’t assess whether to wait for decisions or pursue alternative funding sources immediately. The standard advice to maintain multiple funding pathways has become essential rather than merely prudent.

The early-stage support gap

A particularly concerning aspect of the program uncertainty centres on early-stage support. LaunchVic specialised in pre-seed and seed stage investments—precisely the highest-risk, hardest-to-fund phase of startup development. Given Breakthrough Victoria’s later-stage commercialisation focus, how these early programs will continue remains unclear.

The industry concern isn’t theoretical. Early-stage programs like Basecamp and the early components of 30×30 address funding gaps that private capital typically doesn’t fill. If these programs end without replacement, Victorian founders may face a shortage of early-stage support, pushing them toward interstate alternatives or delaying company formation.

What founders should do

If you have an active LaunchVic application or current program participation, take action now. Contact your program manager directly for status updates and document any commitments made to you in writing. These records may prove valuable if program continuity becomes disputed.

Don’t wait for transition clarity to pursue alternative funding sources. The uncertainty itself is information—it signals that counting on program continuity represents excessive risk. Develop backup funding plans that don’t depend on LaunchVic program completion.

Monitor official government channels for transition updates, but don’t expect rapid clarity. The consolidation process will likely take months to complete, and program-specific guidance may emerge slowly. Join founder communities and networks to share information and coordinate responses as details emerge.

For comprehensive information about alternative funding sources, see our complete funding guide. For the latest program transition details, check our program timeline.

What does this mean for the Alice Anderson Fund and women founders?

The Alice Anderson Fund, LaunchVic’s $10 million co-investment fund for women-led startups, will be absorbed into Breakthrough Victoria. However, whether Breakthrough Victoria will maintain the fund’s dedicated gender-lens investing approach remains unclear. This creates uncertainty for women founders, as the Alice Anderson Fund had backed 43 women-led startups through co-investment program deploying $10M government funding matched by $30M private capital (targeting $40M total). The loss of dedicated women-founder support raises concerns about equity in Victoria’s startup ecosystem.

The Alice Anderson Fund’s significance

Named after Alice Anderson, Australia’s first female garage owner in the 1920s, the fund represented more than just capital. The $10 million in government funding was designed to attract matching private capital, targeting $40 million in total investment. By the time of LaunchVic’s closure announcement, the fund had deployed capital across 43 women-led startups while attracting $30 million in private co-investment.

The fund addressed a well-documented funding gap. Women founders receive a disproportionately small share of venture capital, making targeted support programs essential for ecosystem diversity. Victoria led Australian states in funding women-led startups, with mixed-gender and all-women teams achieving 29% deal share and 9% of funding directed to all-women teams in 2024 (up from 3% in 2023).

Portfolio company impact and uncertainty about continuation

The Alice Anderson Fund’s portfolio included innovative companies across multiple sectors. Elita, a pet health startup, received funding in 2025, as did medtech company GonGlobal. Portfolio companies also included MoreGoodDays, which addresses chronic pain management, TalkiPlay, which tackles speech delays in children, and Neighbourlytics, an urban data startup.

These companies represent the kind of diverse innovation that gender-lens investing facilitates. The founders backed by the Alice Anderson Fund have criticised the closure as a “devastating decision,” highlighting not just the financial impact but the loss of specialised support and networks the fund provided.

The transfer of the fund to Breakthrough Victoria creates two layers of uncertainty. First, will the fund continue to exist as a distinct entity with dedicated gender-lens investing criteria? Second, if it does continue, will it maintain the same co-investment approach and accessibility for early-stage women founders?

Breakthrough Victoria has not made public statements about its approach to gender-lens investing or how it will handle the Alice Anderson Fund portfolio. The fund’s later-stage, commercialisation-focused mandate doesn’t obviously align with the early-stage, diversity-focused mission of the Alice Anderson Fund.

Even if Breakthrough Victoria maintains some form of women-focused funding, the loss of dedicated staff expertise and ecosystem relationships represents a setback. Gender-lens investing requires specific knowledge and networks that may not transfer easily to a larger, differently focused organisation.

Implications for ecosystem diversity

The Alice Anderson Fund’s uncertain future raises broader questions about Victoria’s commitment to ecosystem diversity. Women founders already face structural disadvantages in accessing capital. Just over 13% of total capital in the first quarter of 2025 went to all-women or mixed-gender teams, below the multi-year average.

Dedicated support programs help counteract these systemic biases. Without the Alice Anderson Fund, women founders in Victoria may face a more challenging funding environment, potentially slowing progress toward more equitable capital distribution.

The broader industry includes alternative gender-lens investors—Atto VC, Scale Investors, Shepreneur, Boosting Female Founders Initiative (national), and Carla Zampatti Fund (NSW) operate in Australia. However, these don’t directly replace Victoria-specific support or the ecosystem coordination role LaunchVic played.

What women founders should know

If you’re a woman founder in Victoria, don’t wait for clarity on the Alice Anderson Fund’s future. Research alternative funding sources now and build relationships with gender-lens investors and women founder networks. The uncertainty itself should prompt action rather than waiting.

National programs like the Boosting Female Founders Initiative continue to operate, and private gender-lens funds like Atto VC and Scale Investors actively invest in women-led startups. While not perfect substitutes for state-based support, these alternatives provide viable funding pathways.

Consider connecting with other women founders affected by the closure to share information and coordinate advocacy. The strength of the women founder community represents a valuable asset regardless of government program status.

For comprehensive coverage of women-specific funding alternatives, see our dedicated guide for women founders. For broader funding options, consult our complete funding pathways.

Where can Victorian startups find funding now?

Victorian startups still have access to multiple funding sources despite LaunchVic’s closure. Breakthrough Victoria continues to operate with a $2 billion fund, though focused on later-stage ventures, while private venture capital firms, angel investor networks, and accelerator programs remain active in Victoria’s ecosystem. The key change is losing LaunchVic’s dedicated early-stage focus and coordinated co-investment approach. Founders now need to navigate a more fragmented landscape and may need to rely more heavily on private capital sources.

Government funding pathways

Breakthrough Victoria remains the primary government funding vehicle, but the fund focuses predominantly on later-stage commercialisation rather than early-stage company building. The fund concentrates on life sciences, food and agriculture, and advanced manufacturing—a narrower sector focus than LaunchVic’s cross-sector approach.

The Breakthrough Victoria University Innovation Platform represents a $100 million initiative with partnerships across 7 Victorian universities. Through the BV Fellowship Program, the platform offers up to $150,000 per awarded startup, providing a pathway for university-connected ventures. This initiative may partially fill early-stage gaps for companies emerging from research institutions.

Invest Victoria manages additional funds, including the $20 million Victorian Equity Investment Attraction Fund and the $25 million Victorian Venture Growth Fund, though details about accessibility and focus for these programs remain less clear in the post-LaunchVic landscape.

Private venture capital

Victoria’s VC market held steady at approximately $748 million in 2024, with strong support in early-stage and growth rounds. Multiple VC firms actively invest in Victorian startups, though NSW has captured 62% of all venture investment since 2020 compared to Victoria’s 22%.

Victoria demonstrated particular strength in R&D-intensive sectors, particularly biotech, cleantech, and advanced hardware. If your startup operates in these sectors, you may find Victoria’s VC landscape remains competitive despite the loss of LaunchVic coordination.

Private VCs focus on returns rather than ecosystem building, which changes the dynamic from LaunchVic’s co-investment model. You’ll need stronger traction and clearer paths to scale to attract private capital without government co-investment de-risking the opportunity.

Angel investors and networks

Angel investor networks continue to operate in Victoria, providing early-stage capital that VCs often won’t. LaunchVic had facilitated ecosystem development by supporting one angel network, enabling capital flow at the earliest stages. While this support may discontinue, the networks themselves persist.

Finding angel investors requires building relationships and accessing networks. Warm introductions through accelerators, university connections, or other founders typically work better than cold outreach. The loss of LaunchVic’s coordination role means founders need to do more of this relationship building independently.

Accelerator programs

Victoria’s startup ecosystem includes numerous active accelerators that continue to operate independently of government funding changes. Startmate offers $120,000 AUD investment per startup with its 12-week program and has funded more than 160 startups resulting in 10 exits. This represents Australia’s leading accelerator and remains fully accessible to Victorian founders.

Additional active programs include Startupbootcamp Australia (134 investments), MTPConnect (23 investments focused on medical technology and pharmaceuticals), CyRise (35 investments in cybersecurity), and RMIT Activator (117 investments). These accelerators provide both capital and support, potentially filling some of the gap left by LaunchVic programs.

Antler recently expanded to Queensland, explicitly aiming to “bridge the early-stage funding gap.” While this expansion targets Queensland, it demonstrates that private accelerators recognise and respond to funding gaps—suggesting market-driven alternatives may emerge.

The co-investment challenge

LaunchVic’s most valuable role may have been connecting founders to private investors through co-investment programs. Government participation signalled quality and reduced perceived risk, making private investors more willing to participate in early-stage rounds. The consolidated structure hasn’t announced plans for this coordination role.

Without this coordination, founders face a more fragmented funding landscape. You’ll need to work harder to connect with investors, build credibility independently, and structure rounds without government participation as a quality signal.

Practical steps forward

Build direct relationships with multiple funding sources rather than depending on any single pathway. Attend pitch events, join founder communities, engage with accelerator programs, and create warm introductions to VCs and angels through your network.

Don’t wait for government program clarity. The time spent waiting represents time you could spend developing investor relationships and advancing your company. Pursue private funding sources immediately while monitoring government transition updates.

Consider whether your company fits Breakthrough Victoria’s focus areas and stage criteria. If so, begin researching their application processes and requirements. If not, concentrate effort on private funding sources where you have better alignment.

For detailed guidance on each funding pathway and stage-specific recommendations, see our comprehensive funding guide.

How does Victoria’s startup support now compare to other states?

Victoria’s competitive position relative to other Australian states has weakened with LaunchVic’s closure. NSW offers Tech Central and StartupNSW with substantial government backing and infrastructure investment. Queensland’s Advance Queensland program continues to support innovation across multiple sectors. South Australia maintains LaunchSA for dedicated startup support. Victoria’s shift to consolidated support through Breakthrough Victoria and Invest Victoria removes the dedicated, early-stage focus that other states maintain, potentially making interstate relocation more attractive for some founders.

New South Wales comparison

NSW has firmly established itself as Australia’s leading tech hub, capturing 62% of all venture investment since 2020 while Victoria captured 22%. This dominance reflects multiple advantages: Sydney’s larger capital city scale, concentrated VC presence, and sustained government investment in startup infrastructure.

Tech Central represents NSW’s flagship startup infrastructure initiative, creating a dedicated innovation precinct with government backing. StartupNSW continues to operate as a dedicated state agency—exactly the model Victoria is abandoning. The combination of infrastructure investment and dedicated agency support creates a comprehensive ecosystem support system.

Sydney’s startup ecosystem maintains a stronger global ranking than Melbourne, though Melbourne has been climbing. For founders whose companies depend on government programs or require deep co-investment relationships, NSW’s maintained dedicated support represents an advantage over Victoria’s consolidated approach.

Queensland comparison

Queensland’s Advance Queensland program provides multi-sector innovation support, continuing to operate as a dedicated initiative rather than being consolidated into broader economic development. Brisbane ranks third in the Oceania regional startup ecosystem rankings, demonstrating growing competitiveness.

Queensland offers lower costs of living and operating expenses compared to Melbourne or Sydney, creating attractive economics for early-stage startups watching burn rates carefully. Antler’s recent expansion into Queensland specifically targeted the early-stage funding gap, suggesting private capital recognises opportunity in Queensland’s growing ecosystem.

For founders in sectors aligned with Queensland’s industry strengths—agtech, cleantech, tourism tech—the combination of lower costs, government support, and growing ecosystem may make Brisbane a compelling alternative to Melbourne.

South Australia comparison

South Australia maintains LaunchSA for dedicated startup support, providing another example of the model Victoria is abandoning. While Adelaide’s ecosystem operates at smaller scale than Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane, the dedicated support combined with the lowest costs of living among capital cities creates niche advantages.

Perth ranks fifth and Adelaide sixth in the national ecosystem rankings. These smaller ecosystems may offer advantages for certain companies—less competition for talent, lower costs, and potentially stronger government attention to individual companies given the smaller pool of startups.

Victoria’s remaining strengths

Despite losing LaunchVic, Victoria maintains ecosystem advantages. The established base of more than 4,300 startups creates network effects and ecosystem depth that take years to build. Melbourne’s talent pool, driven by strong universities and established tech companies, continues to attract and develop skilled workers.

Victoria’s $748 million in startup funding in 2024—up 29% from 2023—demonstrates continued private capital interest. The ecosystem’s strength in research-intensive sectors like biotech, cleantech, and advanced hardware reflects world-class university research and established industry clusters.

Melbourne’s cultural assets, liveability rankings, and international connectivity provide quality of life advantages that matter for attracting and retaining talent. These factors don’t disappear with LaunchVic’s closure, though they may be insufficient to offset the loss of dedicated early-stage government support.

Beyond government support

Government programs represent only one factor in startup location decisions. Cost of living, talent availability, VC concentration, industry clusters, international connections, and team preferences all matter.

Victorian founders with established teams in Melbourne, strong private capital relationships, and integration into local industry clusters may find relocation costs outweigh benefits. Moving a company disrupts operations, requires rebuilding relationships, and creates transition risks.

Conversely, early-stage founders without established roots, those dependent on government co-investment, or companies in sectors better supported elsewhere should seriously evaluate interstate options. The calculation differs for each company based on specific circumstances.

Relocation decision factors

When evaluating whether to stay in Victoria or consider alternatives, assess these key areas:

How dependent is your funding strategy on government co-investment? If essential, other states’ dedicated programs create advantages.

Can you access the skills you need in Victoria’s talent pool? If your needs are highly specialised, compare talent availability across cities.

How much do cost differences matter at your stage? Early-stage companies with limited runway benefit more from lower costs than later-stage companies with substantial funding.

Does your sector align with Victoria’s strengths in research-intensive fields, or would you benefit from interstate industry clusters?

Where is your team based, and how disruptive would relocation be? Established team relationships create inertia that may outweigh program differences.

For detailed state-by-state program comparisons and relocation decision guidance, see our comprehensive interstate comparison.

Should startups consider leaving Victoria for another state?

The decision to relocate depends on your startup’s specific circumstances rather than an automatic response to LaunchVic’s closure. Victoria maintains strengths—an established ecosystem, Melbourne’s talent pool, and strong private capital presence. However, if you’re early-stage and dependent on government co-investment, or if specific programs were critical to your growth plans, you should evaluate interstate options. Most established startups will find Victoria’s fundamentals remain strong despite the structural changes.

When relocation makes sense

Early-stage startups dependent on government co-investment face the most compelling relocation case. If your funding strategy relied on LaunchVic programs, and Breakthrough Victoria’s later-stage focus doesn’t serve your needs, states maintaining dedicated early-stage support offer clear advantages.

Founders with specific program reliance should evaluate alternatives. If you were counting on Basecamp, 30×30, or Press Play participation, and those programs face uncertain futures, interstate programs with confirmed continuity reduce planning risk.

Companies in industries better supported elsewhere should assess sector-specific advantages. If your startup operates in agtech and Queensland offers stronger industry clusters and government support in that sector, relocation might accelerate growth regardless of general ecosystem comparisons.

When staying makes sense

Established teams in Melbourne face relocation costs. Moving disrupts operations, requires rebuilding professional and personal networks, and creates transition risks that may outweigh program benefits. If your team is settled and productive in Melbourne, the cost-benefit calculation shifts toward staying.

Startups with strong private capital relationships benefit less from government program changes. If you’ve successfully raised from VCs or angels without government co-investment, LaunchVic’s closure affects you less directly. Victoria’s $748 million in 2024 funding demonstrates continued private investor interest.

Companies integrated into industry clusters may find relocation counterproductive. If your startup benefits from Melbourne’s biotech, cleantech, or advanced hardware ecosystems—sectors where Victoria demonstrates particular strength—the industry-specific advantages may outweigh general program differences.

Interstate alternatives

NSW provides the most comprehensive alternative with Tech Central infrastructure, StartupNSW support, and the largest concentration of venture capital. Sydney’s higher costs and competitive talent market represent trade-offs against superior access to capital and government programs.

Queensland offers growing ecosystem strength, dedicated government support through Advance Queensland, and lower costs than Sydney or Melbourne. Brisbane’s smaller ecosystem means less competition but also fewer potential collaborators and partners.

South Australia maintains LaunchSA for dedicated startup support with the lowest costs among mainland capital cities. Adelaide’s smaller scale limits network effects but may provide advantages in attracting government attention and support.

The wait-and-see option

Given transition uncertainty, founders might reasonably choose to monitor how consolidation executes before making irreversible relocation decisions. Victoria’s fundamental strengths don’t disappear overnight, and the consolidated entity might deliver effective support despite current uncertainty.

This approach carries risks. If the consolidation works poorly, you’ll have lost time you could have spent building in a more supportive environment. If it works well, you’ll have avoided unnecessary disruption.

The wait-and-see calculus depends on your timeline. If you need government support immediately, you can’t afford to wait for clarity. If your next funding need is 12-18 months away, you have time to assess how the transition develops.

Hybrid approaches

Consider maintaining Melbourne presence while exploring interstate expansion. You might keep your core team in Melbourne while opening a Sydney office to access NSW programs and investors. This approach incurs higher costs but preserves optionality and allows you to benefit from multiple ecosystems.

For detailed state-by-state program comparisons and decision frameworks, see our comprehensive interstate analysis.

What are the biggest risks of this consolidation?

Breakthrough Victoria’s $2 billion fund focuses on later-stage commercialisation, not the pre-seed and seed investments LaunchVic specialised in. This creates a gap in early-stage startup support. Additional risks include: loss of dedicated ecosystem-building expertise as functions merge into broader agencies; reduced co-investment coordination with private capital; elimination of gender-lens investing through the Alice Anderson Fund; and decreased competitive positioning as other states maintain dedicated startup agencies. The consolidation may create efficiency but sacrifice effectiveness.

The early-stage funding gap

Breakthrough Victoria’s mandate focuses on later-stage commercialisation in specific sectors—life sciences, food and agriculture, advanced manufacturing. This focus serves economic development goals but doesn’t address the early-stage, cross-sector support that LaunchVic provided.

Pre-seed and seed companies are hardest to fund because they carry maximum risk with minimal traction. Private investors typically avoid these stages, making government support most valuable precisely where Breakthrough Victoria is least likely to invest. Without similar support, Victorian founders may struggle to access the initial capital needed to reach stages where private investors participate.

Expertise dilution

LaunchVic’s team developed deep expertise in startup support, ecosystem building, and co-investment coordination. This knowledge doesn’t automatically transfer when functions merge into larger organisations with different primary missions.

Breakthrough Victoria’s expertise centres on commercialisation of research and later-stage company building. Invest Victoria’s strength lies in investment attraction and trade facilitation. Neither organisation has spent years developing the relationship networks and support mechanisms that made LaunchVic effective.

Both organisations will likely execute their core missions well. The question is whether startup ecosystem building—not central to either entity’s primary purpose—will receive attention and resources when competing with core objectives.

Co-investment coordination loss

LaunchVic’s most valuable function may have been connecting founders to private investors through co-investment programs. Government participation signalled quality, reduced perceived risk, and brought together stakeholders who might not have connected otherwise.

Breakthrough Victoria invests for commercialisation returns rather than ecosystem catalysis. Invest Victoria focuses on attracting investment to Victoria rather than coordinating startup-investor connections.

Without this coordination role, the funding landscape becomes more fragmented. Founders must work harder to find investors, build credibility independently, and structure rounds without government participation as a quality signal. The total capital available may not change dramatically, but accessibility decreases.

Gender equity concerns

The Alice Anderson Fund’s uncertain future raises equity concerns. Women founders already receive disproportionately small shares of venture capital. Dedicated support programs help counteract systemic biases and improve ecosystem diversity.

If gender-lens investing doesn’t continue under Breakthrough Victoria, women founders lose support infrastructure. The $10 million fund leveraged $30 million in private co-investment while backing 43 women-led startups. Replacing this support with general programs that don’t account for gender-specific barriers likely means reduced capital access for women founders.

The broader implications extend beyond individual companies. Ecosystem diversity affects culture, innovation patterns, and long-term competitiveness. Losing dedicated women-founder support signals reduced government commitment to addressing structural inequities in startup funding.

Competitive disadvantage

Other Australian states maintain dedicated startup agencies: StartupNSW, Advance Queensland, LaunchSA. Victoria’s shift to consolidated support through broader economic development entities creates asymmetry.

Dedicated agencies can focus exclusively on startup ecosystem building, respond quickly to emerging needs, and build deep relationships with founders and investors. Consolidated structures must balance competing priorities and navigate broader bureaucratic processes.

This disadvantage matters most for early-stage founders comparing opportunities across states. If choosing where to start a company, the presence of dedicated support in NSW, Queensland, or South Australia versus consolidated support in Victoria tilts the calculation toward states maintaining focused programs.

Ecosystem fragmentation

LaunchVic served as a central coordinating body for Victoria’s startup ecosystem. The agency connected founders to investors, supported accelerators and incubators, facilitated networks, and identified gaps requiring intervention.

Without this central coordinator, support becomes more fragmented. Individual programs may continue, but the orchestration that made them work together effectively may disappear. The risk is evolution from a coordinated ecosystem to a collection of independent programs with limited integration.

Timeline uncertainty

The government hasn’t provided detailed transition timelines or operational guidance for the consolidated entity. This uncertainty creates planning challenges for founders who need to make funding decisions now based on unclear future support availability.

Extended transition periods increase risk. The longer the consolidation takes, the longer founders operate in uncertainty, the more programs remain in limbo, and the more damage occurs to ecosystem confidence. Even if the ultimate consolidated entity works well, a poorly managed transition can inflict lasting damage.

What history suggests

Government consolidations often reduce support despite stated intentions. Bureaucratic logic favours efficiency over effectiveness, measured in cost savings rather than ecosystem outcomes. The Silver Review’s mandate was finding savings, not optimising startup support.

When broader agencies absorb specialist functions, the specialist mission often receives reduced priority. The consolidated entity’s leadership will face pressure to demonstrate efficiency gains and cost reductions. Maintaining LaunchVic-level ecosystem investment while showing cost savings presents a challenging balancing act that may resolve toward reduced support.

For detailed analysis of whether the consolidation can overcome these risks, see our comprehensive ecosystem outlook. For interstate comparison showing how other states maintain dedicated support, see our state-by-state analysis.

What should founders do right now?

Founders should take three actions: diversify your funding plans beyond government sources, build direct relationships with private investors and accelerators, and monitor official announcements about program transitions. If you have active LaunchVic applications, follow up directly for status updates. If you’re planning to raise capital, don’t wait for transition clarity—pursue private funding sources now. Consider joining founder networks to share information and coordinate responses as the transition unfolds.

Immediate priorities

Diversify your funding strategy immediately. Don’t rely on government sources as your primary or only funding pathway. Map out multiple potential funding sources for your next round and actively pursue all viable options simultaneously. The consolidation uncertainty makes counting on government support excessively risky.

Strengthen private investor relationships now. Attend pitch events, join accelerator programs, and build warm introductions to VCs and angels through your network. The loss of LaunchVic’s co-investment coordination means you’ll need stronger direct relationships with private capital sources.

Identify alternative accelerator and support programs. Research which private accelerators, university programs, and industry-specific support organisations operate in Victoria or other states. Don’t wait until you need support to discover what’s available—build these relationships proactively.

Document any commitments from LaunchVic programs. If you’re a current participant or have received communications about application status, save all documentation. Written records may prove valuable if program continuity becomes disputed or if you need to demonstrate reliance on specific commitments.

Connect with other affected founders. Join founder communities, Slack channels, and networks to share information about the transition. Collective knowledge beats individual efforts when navigating uncertain situations. Other founders may have information or contacts you lack.

For current participants

Contact your program managers directly for status updates on your specific cohort or program participation. Don’t assume information will be proactively communicated—take initiative to understand your situation.

Document all obligations and commitments the program made to you. Save emails, contracts, and any written materials describing what support you were promised. This documentation protects you if program changes affect commitments made before the closure announcement.

Develop backup plans for any support or funding you expected from LaunchVic programs. If you were counting on program completion for specific milestones, identify alternative pathways to achieve those milestones without the program. Hope the program continues but plan as if it won’t.

For applicants

Pursue alternative funding sources immediately rather than waiting for application decisions. The timeline for resolving application backlogs is unclear, and waiting could mean missed funding opportunities elsewhere.

Don’t withdraw applications unless you have compelling reasons—they might still be processed. However, don’t count on them either. Treat pending applications as potential upside rather than likely outcomes.

If you receive communications about your application, respond promptly and ask specific questions about timeline and process. Clear information about your specific application status helps you plan more effectively than general uncertainty.

For women founders

Research alternative gender-lens funding sources immediately. Don’t wait for clarity on the Alice Anderson Fund’s future. Atto VC, Scale Investors, Boosting Female Founders Initiative, and other gender-lens investors continue to operate.

Connect with women founder networks and communities. These networks provide valuable information sharing, mutual support, and potential introductions to investors and resources. The strength of the women founder community represents an asset independent of government program status.

Consider interstate gender-lens funding programs. NSW’s Carla Zampatti Fund and national programs like Boosting Female Founders Initiative provide alternatives if Victoria-specific support becomes unavailable.

Communication strategy

Monitor official government channels for transition announcements. Follow Breakthrough Victoria, Invest Victoria, and relevant government ministry social media and websites for updates about the consolidation and program status.

Join founder communities and ecosystem newsletters. Organisations like Startup Victoria, accelerators, and industry groups often share transition updates and ecosystem news faster than official channels.

Subscribe to relevant publications covering Victorian startup ecosystem news. SmartCompany, Capital Brief, and similar outlets provide industry reporting that may surface information before official announcements.

Strategic planning

Evaluate interstate options without rushing to decisions. Research what other states offer but weigh relocation costs carefully. Understanding your options provides valuable perspective even if you ultimately decide to stay in Victoria.

Update business plans to reflect the new funding landscape. If your financial projections assumed government co-investment, revise those assumptions. Base planning on funding sources you can confidently access rather than uncertain government programs.

Build more runway if possible. Extended uncertainty argues for more conservative cash management. If you can reduce burn rate or extend runway through revenue or other means, that optionality becomes more valuable during transitions.

Advocacy opportunities

Engage with industry associations to share founder perspectives on the transition. Organisations like Startup Victoria can coordinate founder feedback and advocate for effective transition processes.

If government agencies offer consultation processes about the consolidation, participate and provide specific feedback. Concrete examples of how programs created value or how transition uncertainty affects planning help officials understand real-world impacts.

Share your story publicly if comfortable. Media coverage of founder experiences humanises the impact of policy decisions and may influence how the transition is managed.

For comprehensive funding alternatives and action-oriented guidance, see our detailed funding pathways guide. For program-specific status updates, check our program transition timeline.

Resource Hub: Complete LaunchVic Closure Guide

This comprehensive resource hub provides everything you need to navigate LaunchVic’s closure and Victoria’s changing startup support landscape. Each article addresses specific questions and provides actionable guidance for different aspects of the transition.

Understanding the Transition

LaunchVic Program Transition Timeline and What Continues Under New Agencies

Track the status of 30×30, Basecamp, Press Play, and other programs as they transfer to Breakthrough Victoria and Invest Victoria. Get specific timelines and contact points for program participants and applicants. This article provides the most current information about which programs will continue, which face uncertain futures, and what founders with active applications or current participation should do.

Read this if: You’re currently in a LaunchVic program, have a pending application, or need to understand specific program statuses.

Finding Funding After LaunchVic

Funding Pathways for Victorian Startups After LaunchVic Closes

Comprehensive guide to government, VC, angel, and accelerator funding sources still available in Victoria. Includes stage-by-stage breakdown from pre-seed through Series A, with application guidance and contact details. Learn which funding sources best match your stage, sector, and needs, plus practical advice for securing capital during the transition.

Read this if: You’re seeking funding at any stage, need to diversify your funding strategy, or want to understand the complete Victorian funding landscape.

Alice Anderson Fund Future and Support Options for Women Founders in Victoria

Dedicated coverage of the Alice Anderson Fund’s transition, impact on women founders, and alternative gender-lens funding sources in Australia. Includes portfolio company insights and strategic guidance for women-led startups. Learn about national and state-based alternatives, plus practical steps women founders should take during the transition.

Read this if: You’re a woman founder, considering women-specific funding sources, or concerned about ecosystem diversity impacts.

Evaluating Your Options

Victorian Startup Support Compared to NSW Queensland and Other States

Side-by-side comparison of startup programs, funding levels, talent pools, and costs across Australian states. Decision framework for evaluating whether to stay in Victoria or consider interstate relocation. Includes detailed analysis of Tech Central (NSW), Advance Queensland, LaunchSA (South Australia), and Victoria’s remaining strengths.

Read this if: You’re considering interstate relocation, want to understand competitive positioning across states, or need to make location decisions for your startup.

Victoria Startup Ecosystem Outlook and Whether Consolidation Will Work

Forward-looking analysis of Victoria’s startup ecosystem health, consolidation risks, and long-term outlook. Includes expert predictions and key indicators to monitor over the next 12-24 months. Examines what made LaunchVic effective, why consolidation carries risks, and what founders should watch for as the transition unfolds.

Read this if: You’re making strategic decisions about your startup’s future in Victoria, want to understand long-term ecosystem health, or need analytical perspective on the consolidation.

FAQ Section

Is LaunchVic closing immediately or gradually?

The Victorian government announced LaunchVic’s closure in December 2025 but hasn’t provided a specific wind-down timeline. Functions will transfer to Breakthrough Victoria and Invest Victoria, but the transition schedule for individual programs hasn’t been detailed. Current participants should contact program managers directly for specific guidance on their cohort or application status. The lack of timeline information creates planning challenges, so founders should assume uncertainty may persist for several months.

What happens to my current LaunchVic application or program participation?

The government hasn’t released program-specific guidance for current participants or applicants. Contact your program manager directly for status updates and document any commitments made to you in writing. Have backup funding plans in place while waiting for transition clarity, as program continuity isn’t guaranteed. Don’t rely exclusively on pending applications—pursue alternative funding sources simultaneously to avoid delays in your funding timeline.

Will Breakthrough Victoria support early-stage startups like LaunchVic did?

Breakthrough Victoria is a $2 billion fund focused primarily on later-stage commercialisation in life sciences, food and agriculture, and advanced manufacturing. Its historic focus differs from LaunchVic’s early-stage, cross-sector approach. Whether it will maintain early-stage support is uncertain and represents a key concern for the startup community. Early-stage founders should plan as if this gap will persist and focus on private capital sources and accelerator programs for pre-seed and seed funding.

Can women founders still access the Alice Anderson Fund?

The Alice Anderson Fund is being absorbed into Breakthrough Victoria, but whether it will continue as a dedicated gender-lens investing vehicle is unclear. Women founders should research alternative funding sources and not rely on Alice Anderson Fund continuity. See our detailed guide for women founders for alternative pathways, including national programs like Boosting Female Founders Initiative and private gender-lens investors like Atto VC and Scale Investors.

Should I relocate my startup to NSW or Queensland?

Relocation decisions should be based on your specific circumstances, not an automatic response to LaunchVic’s closure. Victoria maintains strong fundamentals—an established ecosystem, Melbourne’s talent pool, private capital presence. Early-stage startups heavily dependent on government funding may benefit from interstate options, while established startups with ecosystem integration will likely find Victoria still competitive. See our interstate comparison guide for detailed evaluation criteria covering funding, talent, costs, and industry clusters.

How does Victoria’s remaining startup support compare to other states?

With LaunchVic closing, Victoria loses its dedicated startup agency while NSW (StartupNSW), Queensland (Advance Queensland), and South Australia (LaunchSA) maintain theirs. Victoria’s support now flows through Breakthrough Victoria (later-stage focus) and Invest Victoria (broader investment attraction mandate). This weakens Victoria’s competitive position for early-stage startups but doesn’t eliminate the state’s ecosystem strengths. Victoria still offers strong private capital presence, world-class universities, and established industry clusters in research-intensive sectors.

Will private accelerators and VCs fill the gap LaunchVic leaves?

Private accelerators and VCs will continue operating in Victoria, but they can’t fully replace LaunchVic’s unique role in co-investment coordination and early-stage gap-filling. Private capital follows returns and concentrates on proven models, while LaunchVic could take risks on earlier ventures and catalyse private investment. The gap will be most noticeable at the pre-seed and seed stages where private capital is hardest to access. Founders should strengthen relationships with accelerators like Startmate, RMIT Activator, and others, but recognise these won’t perfectly substitute for government co-investment programs.

What’s the timeline for the consolidated entity to be fully operational?

The Victorian government hasn’t announced a timeline for when the consolidated entity combining Breakthrough Victoria and Invest Victoria functions will be fully operational. This uncertainty creates planning challenges for founders who need to know where to apply for support and when new programs will accept applications. Based on typical government reorganisation timelines, expect the transition to take several months to a year before the consolidated entity operates at full capacity. Don’t wait for this clarity to pursue funding—act on currently available options instead.

Conclusion

LaunchVic’s closure marks a transition for Victoria’s startup ecosystem, but it doesn’t eliminate the fundamental strengths that made Melbourne a leading startup hub. The ecosystem, world-class universities, strong private capital presence, and established industry clusters persist despite the structural changes.

The uncertainty about program transitions, early-stage funding gaps, and women-founder support creates concerns that founders should take seriously. Don’t wait for clarity that may be months away—diversify funding strategies now, strengthen private investor relationships, and evaluate all available options including interstate alternatives.

Victoria’s startup ecosystem has demonstrated resilience and adaptability throughout its growth. The community’s response to this transition will determine whether the consolidation ultimately strengthens or weakens startup support. By taking proactive steps, building strong networks, and making informed decisions, you can navigate this uncertainty successfully regardless of how the government transition ultimately unfolds.

Use the resources throughout this guide to understand your specific situation, explore funding alternatives, and make decisions that serve your startup’s unique needs. The landscape is changing, but opportunity remains for founders who adapt effectively to the new environment.