Family Violence and Social Security - Good Shepherd Youth ...

Family Violence and Social Security
Submission by
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service,
McAuley Community Services for Women
and
Kildonan UnitingCare
3 May 2011
Further information
Kathy Landvogt
Acting Manager, Social Policy and Research Unit
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service
Tel (03) 9418 3015, k.landvogt@goodshepvic.org.au

1. Introduction and capacity to comment
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, McAuley Community Services for Women and Kildonan
UnitingCare (Kildonan) welcome the opportunity to comment on legal reform needed in the social
security provisions for victims of family violence. Our organisations work separately and together on
improving the policy and service responses to family violence. In this submission our comments focus
more on women experiencing intimate partner violence but we recognize that other family members
perpetrate and suffer from violence in the home.
In 2009 the Researching the gaps report was published by Good Shepherd, outlining the need for more
long-term supports for women and children experiencing domestic violence, such as group work and
children’s support services. This echoed the findings of previous research undertaken by McAuley (then
Mercy Care) in 2006, Mind the Gap: addressing service gaps in family violence. In 2010 this goal was
pursued by Good Shepherd and McAuley through the Filling the Gap project which brought together a
broad coalition of peak bodies and other key advocates to develop a service model (shortly to be
published) to meet that need. Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service is currently also working in
partnership with Kildonen UnitingCare to develop the community sector’s capacity to understand and
respond to economic violence.
Good Shepherd’s mission is to work to ensure that all people can “enjoy the fullness of life, which is the
right of every human being”, and to “challenge those structures and beliefs that diminish human
dignity”. We have a particular focus, historically and into the future, on working with the most
marginalised women and girls. Each year we support more than 18,000 women, families and young
people across Melbourne and the Mornington Peninsula including health and well being programs for
vulnerable women and refuge services and support for women who are survivors of domestic violence.
We are committed to helping strengthen families through family programs such as foster care, intensive
family support and community programs including kindergarten and childcare. We also work with young
people in providing housing, training, skills education and one off support. We underpin these services
with a broad commitment to economic participation for all, through our no interest and low interest
loans, financial counselling and buying services. The agency also supports independent research and
policy advocacy work through its Social Policy Research Unit which has made a number of policy
submissions to government in the areas of both family violence and social security, most recently and
relevantly:
• Response to Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws issues – Paper 37 Immigration (2011)
• Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand response to Federal Government Discussion Paper on
The Criminal Justice Response to Slavery and People Trafficking, Reparations, and Vulnerable
Witness Protections (2011)
• Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand response to Federal Government Discussion paper on
Forced and Servile Marriage (2011)
• Response to the national Exposure Draft Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill 2010
• Submission to the Review of Job Seeker Compliance System (2010)
• Response to the Federal Government’s proposed ‘Income management’ legislation 2010
• Submission to the Federal Government’s Human Rights consultation 2009
2

• Submission to the Victorian Government’s Homelessness 2020 Strategy, 2009.
With programs spanning both family violence and financial support, we have been able to contribute to
recent knowledge-building about the links between financial dependence, financial abuse and family
violence in general. We are engaged in conducting a literature review for Women’s Health Goulburn
North East in their Tools for Change pilot program of financial mentoring for women who have
experienced domestic violence. We have also contributed to the research reference group in a study
conducted by Camcare into the financial literacy needs of women who have left violent relationships.
McAuley Community Services for Women has more than twenty years experience assisting women
who have experienced family violence through its Mercy Care crisis accommodation program for
women and children experiencing family violence. McAuley Community Services for Women also has
an advocacy program which supports women on an individual basis as well as on a broader policy
level. McAuley Community Services for Women has recently participated in the following government
inquiries and activities:
• New Zealand Women and Family Violence
• Inquiry into the adequacy and future directions of public housing
• McAuley Community Services for Women’s Response to the Inquiry into Homelessness
Legislation.
• Public Housing Segmented Waiting List Review
• Family Violence and Immigration.
Kildonan is one of Australia's oldest community organisations, being first established in 1881. Kildonan
services assist children, young people, individuals and families, in particular those facing economic
hardship or social disadvantage. Programs span the primary, secondary and tertiary continuum from
early years to more intensive and crisis support for families. The services areas of Inclusion & Energy,
Clinical programs, Enterprise partnerships, Family and youth services and Community development
enables the approaches of information provision, advocacy, case management and support services
and group programs to feature at Kildonan. In 2010 Kildonan provides support and assistance to almost
5000 individuals and their families.
Over time, Kildonan has developed a platform of programs and services, which provide a holistic,
streamlined, wrap-around response to the growing number of families and individuals seeking support
and access to services. For example, men and women referred to family violence services at Kildonan
can also access family support, financial counselling, individual counselling and group programs to help
manage their unique situation and specifically behaviour change.
3

2. Response to questions
Definition of family violence
Question 1: Definition of family violence
A best practice definition adopted nationally including within all states and territories will aid victims to
achieve justice and be adequately supported in their journey away from violence, as well as increasing
community awareness and prevention.
Victoria’s family violence reforms include a strong and comprehensive definition. The Code of Practice
for Specialist Family Violence Services for Women and Children (DV Vic 2006) defines family violence
as:
the repeated use of violent, threatening, coercive or controlling behaviour by an individual
against a family member(s), or someone with whom they have, or have had, an intimate
relationship. Violent behaviour includes not only physical assaults but an array of power and
control tactics used along a continuum in concert with one another, including direct or indirect
threats, sexual assault, emotional and psychological torment, economic control, property
damage, social isolation and behaviour which causes a person to live in fear. (Practice
Guidelines: Women and children’s family violence counselling and support programs DHS
2008)
Victoria’s Family Violence Protection Act (2008) defines family violence as:
a. behaviour by a person towards a family member if that behaviour
(i) is physically or sexually abusive; or
(ii) is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or
(iii) is economically abusive; or
(iv) is threatening; or
(v) is coercive; or
(vi) in any other way controls or dominates the family member and
causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or wellbeing of
that family member or another person; or
b. behaviour by a person that causes a child to hear or witness, or otherwise be exposed to the
effects of, behaviour referred to in paragraph (a).
The Victorian Indigenous Family Violence Taskforce has defined family violence as:
An issue focused around a wide range of physical, emotional, sexual, social, spiritual, cultural,
psychological and economic abuses that occur within families, intimate relationships, extended families,
kinship networks and communities. It extends to one-on-one fighting, abuse of Indigenous community
4

workers, as well as self-harm, injury and suicide. (Practice Guidelines: Women and children’s family
violence counselling and support programs DHS 2008)
Recommendation 1:
A broader definition of family violence as provided in the Family Violence – A National Legal
Response report should be inserted into the Social Security Acts, including not only physical
forms of abuse and intimidation, but also emotional, psychological, sexual and financial abuse
to describe the range of ways in which power and control are used by perpetrators.
Identifying, informing and collecting information about family violence
Questions 2 and 3: Centrelink staff inquiries and prompts about family violence
Multiple barriers prevent victims from disclosing family violence. Shame at disclosing the violence is the
main barrier, but also significant are lack of knowledge both of what constitutes family violence legally
and of the significance of family violence in obtaining social security entitlements. Very often those who
are affected by violence have not been service users in the past so are completely unfamiliar with the
system. There is a tendency in Centrelink personnel to assume that people know the system, and to
forget that people ‘do not know what they do not know’.
In particular financial or economic abuse is often unrecognised, even by the victim themselves.
Financial abuse occurs across all groups of women but is often less readily identified than other forms
of abuse, partly because it is relatively recently included in commonly accepted definitions of domestic
violence. While community awareness of other forms of domestic violence is increasing, awareness of
forms of financial abuse lags behind (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2010). For women
leaving an abusive relationship a key task is to disentangle themselves from their former partner’s life,
and financial issues can present special difficulties which are often compounded by the victim’s lack of
financial experience and knowledge. These issues particularly impact on social security entitlements.
The results of economic abuse can be extreme deprivation. Economic abuse erodes financial
resources and undermines employment and education, resulting in longer term financial insecurity and
thereby increases the risk of returning to abusive partners and to a cycle of violence. Financial abuse
can also continue after the relationship ends. After separation, bureaucracies can sometimes add to
rather than reduce problems, for example, Child Support is often not paid (Branigan, 2007).
Recommendation 2:
Centrelink staff should routinely screen customers for family violence and Centrelink application
forms, correspondence and telephone prompts should include questions about family violence,
including financial abuse, as a matter of course.
Question 4: Centrelink’s response to victims – notification of eligibility
Victims of family violence are not always informed adequately of their entitlements to social security
resulting from the violence, and this can have very damaging effects. Centrelink is notorious in some
circles for not volunteering information about eligibility and exemptions. This applies across all benefits
but in family violence situations can have drastic and insidious consequences. Women report that it is
5

often extremely difficult to obtain adequate or consistent information about entitlements or get
personalised support from Centrelink: "the system is punitive, not supportive…” according to one
woman (Australian Government Office for Women 2007). The research supports what practitioners
already know, that income security is of pivotal importance to women leaving an abusive relationship.
Centrelink policies and processes need to keep up with the growing understandings of financial abuse
and financial dependence in DV situations (Braaf, 2009; Meyering, 2010; Braaf and Meyering, 2011).
One community agency that interviewed women who have experienced domestic violence about their
financial needs found that
“the women reported how they often found out about financial supports well after the time they
needed them. The women gave an example of the difference it would have made if they had
been informed of the Centrelink Crisis Payment at the time of leaving the relationship and their
disappointment about finding out about it later.”
On the other hand, in general when our case workers have been in conversation with Centrelink
workers about exemptions periods they are usually helpful and flexible. However we are not confident
that this would be the same case if the woman was to be self advocating with Centrelink as they do not
have the same knowledge.
Recommendation 3:
Centrelink workers be trained and supervised to be better informed and forthcoming with
entitlement information, and/or a specifically trained Centrelink officer/social worker be allocated
to a victim form the time they first disclose the violence.
Question 5: Information sharing between government agencies
As argued in the Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand submission to ALRC on family violence and
immigration law (2011), it is important as far as possible to avoid the trauma to victims of having to retell
their story repeatedly to different government or legal agencies.
As one community agency (Camcare, unpublished research, 2010) relates it, women commonly
claimed that the trauma and complexity of domestic violence is not really understood in government
procedures and “women feel ‘belittled’, ‘humiliated’ and ‘abused’ by the Child Support Agency and
Centrelink”. Looking at the procedures from the point of view of the victims of family violence would
reveal ways in which those procedures could be improved, including minimising the requirement to
repeatedly relate the nature and circumstances of their abuse.
Recommendation 4:
Procedures need be developed for information about family violence to be shared, with
appropriate consent from the victim and/or legal safeguards, between relevant government
bodies, and between Centrelink and the Child Support Agency in particular.
6

Question 6: How Centrelink collects information about family violence when it is identified
There is evidence from interviews with women affected by family violence that Centrelink officers do not
always adequately consider the existence of family violence. In particular the primordial importance of
safety considerations is not enshrined as it should be in procedures.
For example, in one community-based study a woman reported being asked to retrieve documents
from the family home even though she had left to escape domestic violence perpetrated by her
husband (Camcare, unpublished research 2010).
At times victims may not be at liberty to seek information from Centrelink without the perpetrator being
present. The inability to have a private conversation should be a trigger to Centrelink staff to seek to
check if family violence is present.
Recommendation 5:
Centrelink staff receive additional training and supervision to ensure they follow and interpret
procedures to ensure as best they can the safety of victims and their access to income security
entitlements and/or a specifically trained Centrelink officer/social worker be allocated to a victim
from the time they first disclose the violence.
Question 7: Centrelink access to other information about family violence
The national register recommended in Family Violence – A National Legal Response would be a
suitable source of information about family violence victims as reported to, and acted upon by, other
government systems (e.g. legal, paralegal, financial). As safety is the paramount concern access to this
information would need proper training and security and may be best limited to Centrelink social
workers, who should deal with all initial applications and significant follow-up contacts with victims of
family violence.
Recommendation 6:
A national register be created to expedite the access to family violence information relevant to
making social security assessments and ensuring other government entitlements, and
processes to ensure privacy and safety in the course of its use be developed and implemented.
Question 8: Centrelink staff considering family violence when seeking information from a
partner
Our workers report that inappropriate and unsafe interviewing of abusive family members (partners) in
family violence situations has occurred in the past. Practices in this regard may be improving. However,
the practice of Centrelink staff assisting victims of family violence is highly variable, ranging from
exceptionally knowledgeable and skillful to inadequate and unjust. Given this, there are no doubt
instances where information is inappropriately sought from partners or family members, thus
endangering victims.
Recommendation 7:
7

Further and regular training and supervision of all Centrelink staff needs to include:
understandings of family violence as the exercise of power and control; risk assessments and
safety priorities; and social security law and regulations relating to family violence.
Question 9: Centrelink methods of assessing family violence
In situations where contact with a partner or other family member is not appropriate due to family
violence, claims may be verified through assessments by an independent expert, facilitated by a
Centrelink social worker. If no independent expert is available or in situations of urgency, a Centrelink
social worker professional assessment should be regarded as sufficient to verify the circumstances.
Anecdotal information from a number of women interviewed through our research projects (Healey,
2009; Landvogt, 2008) and in our direct service contexts points to the responsiveness of Centrelink
social workers to individual situations of trauma, and of their importance to disempowered individuals in
navigating the social security system. For this reason we place particular importance on supporting and
strengthening the Centrelink social work services as an integral part of the family violence response.
Recommendation 8:
The role of Centrelink social work services as an integral and leading part of the family violence
service response needs to be supported and strengthened.
Question 10: Ensuring that victims know they will not contact a partner if family violence exists
It seems clear from instances reported through research and practice that many victims of family
violence would not be aware that Centrelink will not automatically contact a partner to verify the need
for an application, and that this would keep them from accessing their entitlements, or even keep them
in an abusive situation. It is certainly the case that many women do not attempt to secure their Child
Support entitlements because they do not wish to open the way for any contact with the perpetrator, so
we know this concern is very present amongst victims.
Recommendation 9:
Centrelink staff members need to be trained to ensure the victims know that abusive family
members will not be contacted in relation to their claim for income security and/or a specifically
trained Centrelink officer/social worker needs to be allocated to a victim form the time they first
disclose the violence.
Question 11: Consideration of family violence by Centrelink decision-makers
There is variation in the way family violence is taken into account by Centrelink decision-makers,
resulting in lack of natural justice, in material deprivation, and in some cases in increased exposure to
violence. For example, women on a sole parent payment are denied access to Crisis Payment when
they reveal they have a partner, albeit an abusive one. Assumptions are made that these women are in
de facto relationships with financial support and therefore wrongly claiming sole parent payment. In
many cases there may be little or no financial support from the partner, in fact financial abuse and
exploitation commonly occur as part of the pattern of violence.
8

In other situations, people who have no address due to homelessness resulting from family violence
are denied access to the Crisis Payment. Staff need to be made aware that people who are homeless,
or temporarily so, can still be entitled to Centrelink payments. Computer record systems need to be
changed to ensure this is readily achieved where necessary, and then reviewed within a reasonable
period of time.
Recommendation 10:
Procedures, IT systems and regular staff training and supervision need to be reviewed and
modified to ensure that due processes and natural justice are applied to victims of family
violence.
Relationships and social security law
Questions 12 and 13: ‘Member of a couple’ criteria to take account of family violence
Given the high incidence of financial abuse coming to light within family violence, a thorough review of
income security policies and procedures is required to bring them into line with current knowledge. AS
income security is primarily a financial resource, the ways in which it intersects with, impacts on, and is
exploited within family violence need to be better understood.
Recommendation 11:
New research is required to investigate and document the ways in which economic /financial
abuse interact with income security, in particular in the Australian context.
The high incidence of economic abuse in family violence means that the automatic treatment of
financial resources in a couple as pooled should not occur. The assumption needs to be reversed in
instances of family violence, and financial resources within a couple should be treated as separate until
proven otherwise in a thorough assessment. The risk of further abuse needs to be weighed against the
risk of providing income security when the victim has access to other resources, but the government’s
responsibility not to further endanger victims is paramount. An early review conducted by a Centrelink
social worker can recommend if the income security should not continue.
Recommendation 12:
Centrelink policies and procedures need to be thoroughly reviewed and changed to reflect the
current knowledge of the incidence and types of economic/financial abuse and re-training and
further guidance should be instituted to reflect these changes.
9

Q 13 to 18: Family violence considerations in determining ‘separation under one roof’ and as a
‘special reason’
Family violence is not currently adequately considered in determining separation under one roof in the
experience of our agencies’ workers. In some instances a victim of family violence is unable to make
plans to leave and/or to change names or beneficiaries on wills, superannuation, joint accounts, and
other financial products or services. Even though evidence shows it is not as ‘unusual, uncommon or
exceptional’ as perhaps believed in the past, family violence should be explicitly regarded as a ‘special
reason’ for not being treated as a member of a couple under the Social Security Act.
This can be very difficult to assess with confidence, due in part to the complexity and lack of
transparency of some financial arrangements and in part to the use of power and control by one of the
parties over the other. This becomes an area requiring additional expertise. Where the abusive partner
cannot be interviewed to determine the existence of separation under one roof, a professional
assessment by a trained Centrelink social worker is required.
Recommendation 13:
Centrelink policies and procedures should be reviewed to explicitly treat family violence as a
valid reason for being regarded as ‘separated under one roof’, and as a ‘special reason’ for not
being treated as a member of a couple, as assessed by a Centrelink social worker, and further
guidance should be provided to Centrelink officers in keeping with this.
Questions 19 - 23 regarding young people experiencing family violence and access to social
security
Unfortunately time constraints prevent us commenting on these very important questions. However we
support the ALRC to thoroughly review these areas of social security.
Eligibility requirements
Question 24: Documentary proof requirements and safety
If the family violence victim has left the family home she often does not have access to documents
required such as the partner’s income, and details of other assets, loans, or external expenses such as
gambling. Even if the abused person is still in an unsafe environment it does not mean she has access
to relevant documents. Whether living within or away from the home, trying to secure those documents
may place them in an unsafe environment.
We are aware of instances where Centrelink has denied crisis payments to victims of family violence
on the basis that there was no police involvement (that is, no intervention order, safety notice or police
documentation was available). This forces the woman to choose between involving police and having
no economic assistance.
Recommendation 14:
Centrelink officers need further training and supervision about the range of possible evidence
testifying that family violence has occurred.
10

Women are often in such a state of transition that they cannot give Centrelink an address which always
causes an issue. When women provide PO Boxes whilst residing in a crisis service or refuge, mail is
long delayed before it gets to them. This can be because they leave and go to a motel, another refuge
etc.
Recommendation 15:
Centrelink needs to cater for women who are in a state of transition between residences and are
not able to provide an address at the present time including developing methods of processing
applications without a current residential address (such as email).
In addition, Centrelink sometimes continues to send mail to the women’s former address creating safety
risks as often the perpetrator of violence will then know the women’s affairs. Further, our workers have
experienced Centrelink staff who have refused to remove the women’s previous address until a new
address has provided. This results in the mail being sent to the old address and raises the same issues
as above (delays in applications as well as placing the women at further risk through the perpetrator of
violence knowing her affairs).
Recommendation 16:
Case study:
Centrelink needs to be more diligent in not sending mail to the former address of victims.
A deaf client had her payments suspended when she did not provide a recent medical review to
prove she was deaf. She did not know this was requested because she was in crisis
accommodation and her mail was being sent to previous address. The woman could not speak
to Centrelink as she did not have access to a TTY. The worker spoke to Centrelink on her
behalf and with her consent and was told a medical review for DSP payment was needed for
her application to continue.
Question 25: Exemptions from waiting periods for newly arrived
We refer the ALRC to the Submission by Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand on Family Violence
and Immigration (April 2011) for consideration of issues affecting women on visas who experience
family violence.
Question 26 and 27: Activity and participation tests
Income security policies in Australia have been moving towards the US approach which assumes that
virtually everyone is capable of being financially independent through paid work, but this policy
seriously underestimates the effect of personal and family barriers on employment. "Welfare recipients
are often treated as if their employment and welfare trajectories were solely the result of personal
characteristics. Clearly, family variables affect individual choices and constraints" (Taylor, 2004 p.179).
Women parenting alone may have very limited opportunities for suitable paid work that can fit in with
caring responsibilities. For women whose health, social capital, and finances are compromised by
11

suffering DV, employment may well be even less obtainable. Domestic violence and its health aftereffects
are identified as an obstacle to employment in numerous studies, along with physical disabilities
and health limitations, mental health problems, substance abuse, children's health or behavioural
problems, housing instability, involvement with child protection, low education/skill level, etc., which
often occur in association with domestic violence.
If the ‘welfare to work’ approach is too severe women who are not in a position to be financially
independent are forced back into dependency on abusive men (Scott et al, 2002). Some women need
to rely on income security as a result of domestic violence for only a short period, but for others the
damage is such that it takes several years for them to re-establish stability in their lives. This is
especially the case if family violence is layered on top of a lack of social capital and multiple types of
disadvantage and social exclusion (Healey, 2009).
If exemption periods for ‘activity and participation’ need to be further extended because of family
violence, Centrelink could require a medical certificate. Medical practitioners may be accepted in the
household by the perpetrator to a degree greater than other professionals.
Recommendation 17:
Centrelink policies and procedures should be reviewed to bring them in line with current
understandings of family violence and its impact on ability to participate in education and
employment, including the possible multiple long term health and social impacts.
Recommendation 18:
Duress
Centrelink should introduce a procedure for the exemption period being extended subject to a
medical report and Centrelink social worker assessment.
Question 28: Debts
It is vital that Centrelink officers gathering information and making determinations about entitlements
based on family violence have a thorough understanding of economic violence as being fundamentally
the exercise of power and control over a person. Furthermore, in a market-based society there are any
number of ways of exercising power and control using money, access to it, and its uses. Financial or
economic abuse includes but is not limited to:
• control over day-to-day household finances and material wellbeing, for example
o denying the woman access to any money of her own, to the family’s money, or to bank
accounts
o making her ask/beg for money from him
o unilaterally setting an inadequate figure to cover household costs
o stealing from the woman
o denying access to financial information and decision-making
o making the woman financially dependent and unable to meet basic needs
12

o subjecting the woman to food insecurity
• denying accumulation of personal assets or eroding those assets, for example
o exerting power and control over a woman's salary, savings, debt, credit, and
employment through actions or threats
o bleeding dry the woman’s personal financial resources
o using joint funds to gamble
o destroying the woman’s possessions
• manipulating credit and debt to the abused partner’s disadvantage, for example
o making the woman financially responsible for debt
o building up debt and affecting a woman's credit rating
o utilities or loans being registered in only the woman's name
o the woman being forced to survive by accumulating debt
o the woman being made bankrupt for his debts
• blocking access to social and economic participation, for example
o sabotaging education or employment through diverse tactics
o not allowing the woman to work
o denying access to means of transport or communication
• monitoring, over-controlling and scrutinizing the woman, for example
o maintaining dominance without physical contact
o exerting control after the woman has left
• refusing to contribute, for example
o not being accountable for his own spending
o refusing to work or claim benefits
o refusing to pay bills
• exploiting women sexually in exchange for money
(compiled from a number of Australian and international sources including Branigan, 2007;
Australian Government Office for Women, 2007; Schobe and Dienemann, 2007; Saunders at al
2007; Sharp, 2008)
A UK study looked at the financial wellbeing of women over time who had been subjected to economic
abuse (Sharp 2008). The changing percentages tell their own story and raise many questions for
further research:
Positive responses to
whether they were/had:
Before
meeting
abuser
Whilst with
abuser
After
leaving
abuser
Undertaking education 37% 18% 30%
In paid employment 47% 37% 16%
Receiving benefits 18% 51% 84%
Savings 37% 20% 20%
Loan/credit card/ overdraft 12% 39% 30%
Rent arrears 20% 33% 55%
Other debts 8% 41% 37%
13

Because social security is a source of money, duress in relation to accessing social security
entitlements can be exercised by the perpetrator in most of the above manifestations of abuse. Debt
can be put into the victim’s name directly or she can be reduced to a situation of debt if, for example,
the perpetrator prevents her working, or forces her to take on an unfair proportion of household costs. If
she resists abuse she may be punished financially. Where there is a joint debt, a violent partner may
not be making payments, thus financially disadvantaging the abused family member.
It is also well-established that women often stay in, and return to, abusive relationships due to lack of
sufficient financial resources to live independently (Meyering, 2010). Fear of the repercussions of a
Centrelink debt, where one exists, could well contribute to this.
The Social Security Act should therefore be amended to expressly provide for the waiver of Centrelink
debt in such situations, after suitable assessment. In the immediate situation, there should be a
moratorium on all pursuit of such debts and the victim should be informed of this.
Recommendation 19:
The Social Security Act should be amended expressly to provide for debts to be waived in
situations where a person has been subjected to duress or financial abuse in relation to the
debt, as determined by a Centrelink social worker and wherever possible a financial counsellor
or other relevant third party.
Question 29:
Some of our financial counselling services are currently dealing with instances where abusive partners
use stand-over tactics to get access to a woman’s Crisis Payment and/or advance payment. Although
we are not aware of any specific nominee problems, given the vulnerability to economic abuse created
by having a nominee receiving the payments, additional checks should be put in place. Potentially
elders and disabled clients are perhaps especially open to this form of abuse.
Recommendation 20:
Centrelink should introduce additional checks to ensure that nominees are acting in the best
interests of the person on whose authority they are acting.
Payments and payment arrangements
Questions 30-33 Crisis Payments
Women are often not aware of the fact that they are entitled to a Crisis Payment, or that they can
receive up to four payments in a twelve month period.
Recommendation 21:
Centrelink staff need to receive adequate training and supervision to ensure they proactively
provide this information.
14

Currently Crisis Payment is an additional payment to an income support payment. A person not on any
income support has to apply for and be eligible for this before being allowed to apply for a Crisis
Payment. This creates an unduly long, time-consuming and arduous process of registering with
Centrelink before they are able to receive a Crisis Payment. It also may contribute to lack of knowledge
of this form of financial assistance. Financial hardship should be the trigger for receiving Crisis
Payment. Consideration for the material needs of children is often a primary reason for staying in a
violent relationship if the mother cannot meet these needs herself.
This money is often vital for a women’s independence and ultimately her safety. In our experiences
women are spending their Crisis Payments on the following:
Bonds for refuges (often $100 is required for linen etc)
Petrol to get to the refuge
Food toiletries
Clothing
Baby needs
These are items that are considered basic needs and are urgently required.
Family violence often also includes economic abuse and the Crisis Payment can be the determining
factor as to whether she returns to the perpetrator of violence or not. The purpose of the Crisis
Payment is to provide instantaneous relief, but in effect this often does not occur. Family violence
victims are dealing with a great deal in the first week: the extreme safety concerns, disruption to normal
life commonly including household relocation, difficulties accessing documents, necessary dealings
with multiple legal, health and other services, and the priority concern of care for children. This makes
the Crisis Payment application’s ‘7 day from when the violence occurred rule’ unreasonable.
Recommendation 22:
Case study:
Crisis Payment needs to be made more available to victims of family violence by becoming a
stand-alone payment and having a faster and more flexible registration process including
greater time to claim.
“A woman spent more than one week in hospital due to domestic violence and upon leaving
hospital was taken to MCSW crisis accommodation program. She was 38 weeks pregnant and
was suffering from Gestational Diabetes. She was denied a crisis payment for two primary
reasons:
The incidence of violence had occurred more than 7 days ago (it had occurred 10 days ago
when she made the application. The fact she was in unconscious and hospitalized due to the
act of family violence was disregarded). The MCSW staff member advocating on behalf of the
women pleaded with City of Yarra Centrelink and offered hospital certificates. Payment was
denied.
15

The act of family violence did not occur in her home, therefore Centrelink, City of Yarra stated,
‘If it is outside the home it is an assault and not domestic violence’. Upon contesting this the
MCSW staff member was told, ‘Imagine if every person who was assaulted got a crisis
payment, how many people would be entitled to crisis payments?’. The MCSW staff member
argued that firstly the perpetrator of violence (as disclosed in the police report) was known to
Centrelink as the women’s partner and in addition the women had to leave the home and was
residing (via the hospital) at a crisis accommodation program for women and children who have
experienced family violence. Payment was denied.
The MCSW staff member spent six hours in one day on the phone to Centrelink, speaking to
general staff from the call centre, staff from the relevant office, team leaders and then finally
management who also denied the claim. A final, and desperate phone call was made at the end
of the day to the manager of the above office with a promise that MCSW would be in contact
with the media due to the absurdity of the decision. With this threat a crisis payment was issued
to the women.”
Case study:
“Prior to arriving at MCSW crisis accommodation program, a Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis
Service worker had enquired about crisis payment days prior for a women who was deaf. When
the MCSW case worker enquired about the status of the application the worker was told there
was no such enquiry in the system and that the 7 day period had now expired and client would
not be eligible. The worker argued that the enquiry had been made and went back through and
referred to client case notes. The worker was then told that there was an application in the
system and all the client had to do was present at an office with ID and she would receive cash
or an EBT card.
The MCSW worker took the client into a Centrelink office where she was told that was not the
case and she would need to speak to a social worker on the phone – but the client was not able
to do this as she is deaf. Centrelink worker suggested the client’s 12 year old daughter speak to
the social worker, the client did not want this responsibility placed on her daughter and
consented to the worker speaking on her behalf. A four-way phone conversation was had with
the worker, the client, the Centrelink worker and the social worker and the conversation was
written for the client to understand. Centrelink questioned the 7 day period for a long-time based
on when the client entered the service even though the office worker could see she was eligible
based on dates given. Crisis payment was granted and the Centrelink worker updated mailing
details and DSP payment.”
Eligibility criteria require the perpetrator to have lived with the victim immediately before leaving the
violence (or the perpetrator leaves). This unreasonably restricts eligibility for income security. Post
separation violence is a very common and serious form of family violence. The Victorian family violence
16

legislation provides a broad definition of who may be included as a family member for the purposes of
the legislation, for example including in some cases live-in carers.
Recommendation 23:
Eligibility for Crisis Payment needs to be broadened to ensure victims of family violence are not
prevented from accessing it, regardless of where they are living or who the perpetrator was.
Support workers in family violence services report that nearly every member of Centrelink staff
contacted has a different opinion as to the availability and entitlements to Crisis Payment. Centrelink
social worker assessments, plus wherever possible a third party report, should be used to determine
that the victim is in crisis and that she does not have adequate access to financial resources to provide
for herself and her family. Not all Centrelink offices have social workers on site, delaying the process if
women go into an office to apply. Further, women are often requested to go into an office that is not
safe as the perpetrator of violence might also be there.
Recommendation 24:
Ensure social workers are more accessible and available from more offices and/or via the
telephone.
Recommendation 25:
Centrelink staff need to be better trained and made aware of the policies and guidelines and the
discretion they have in applying these.
Question 34: Rent assistance
Given that family violence occurs across all socio-economic groups in society, and the prevalence of
financial abuse already noted which keeps many abused women particularly in a financially dependent
position, Rent Assistance should also apply to mortgage repayments in situations of family violence
where there is risk that the family home will be lost due to inability to keep up mortgage payments.
Recommendation 26:
The definition of rent in the Social Security Act should expressly include mortgage repayments
where family violence is an issue.
Questions 35-37 Weekly payments and urgent payments
Family violence victims are often not aware of the availability of either weekly payments, or urgent
hardship payments (i.e. payments in advance). In principle, they should be given as many options as
possible in relation to payment methods and timing, as they need to make a number of difficult
decisions and juggle children’s needs and safety considerations. Inflexibility from Centrelink at this time
can exacerbate their difficulties.
17

Recommendation 27:
Where family violence is an issue Centrelink officers should make weekly payment options and
urgent payments an accessible option.
Income management
Question 38-44
People experiencing family violence should be exempted from the income management regime except
in cases where individual determinations are made within a statutory case management process. We
recognise the difficulty and urgency of responding to family violence in general, and the particular
difficulties experienced in some remote communities. As agencies based in and around Melbourne we
have no specific programs working with these Indigenous communities so do not address the issues
from this perspective. However, in addition to our experience and research with women who have
experienced family violence, we have extensive experience in building financial capability with low
income women, especially single mothers, which gives us insight into their generally high levels of
financial skill in juggling rising living costs on low and limited budgets (Mouy, 2010).
Our concerns about compulsory income management run deep, and have been expressed in the Good
Shepherd Youth & Family Service submission to the Federal Government on that legislation (2010). We
believe that fundamental principles of justice and human rights to dignity are undermined by
compulsory income management applied across any whole population group (now amended to be on
geographic grounds rather than racial grounds, but still applying to whole groups).
Family violence, the exercise of power and control of one person over another, is an attack on the
individual autonomy, agency, and freedom of the victim. In this context, the risks of further
disempowerment and loss of independence from compulsory income management are high. Replacing
individual power and control with state power and control is at best only a risky stop-gap and at worst a
further abuse.
When any family members need protection from another family member, the state has a responsibility
to intervene to ensure they are not abused. Where compulsory income management is needed to
protect children, child protection legislation has powers to require income management on a case by
case basis. This always requires an individual assessment of the unique complexities of each situation
to determine the most effective ways to ensure protection. Situations of family violence should be
treated in the same way, on a case by case basis. If individual women want to use income
management to prevent financial exploitation and the violence and duress that accompanies it, they
can request income management. To avoid further abuse resulting from this decision will require
careful procedures and communication strategies, including ensuring privacy about the voluntary nature
of the income management (i.e. when ‘compulsory’ income management is the victims’ preferred option
this decision can be signed off by a case manager in a way that makes it indistinguishable from a
statutory order for income management, except to the recipient).
Victims of family violence are financially vulnerable, but compulsory income management does not
address their vulnerability in a long-term, substantive or respectful way. In fact a greater focus on
18

justice may require that the perpetrator’s rather than the victim’s financial resources are managed
compulsorily, through legal mechanisms. As awareness of economic abuse grows there are calls for
measures to ensure perpetrators are held financially accountable for this abuse (Braaf and Meyering
2011).
Recommendation 28:
Compulsory income management should only be applied on a case by case basis to protect
children or other vulnerable families members from abusers, and in general should not be
applied to the victims but to the perpetrators of any abuse or neglect.
Recommendation 29:
Compulsory and voluntary income management should include the most effective local
arrangements for providing for household needs rather than one size fits all.
Recommendation 30:
Voluntary income management should be adopted more broadly for victims of family violence,
with adequate privacy provisions to ensure perpetrators cannot know that the abused person
initiated it.
In conclusion
Family violence requires renewed and careful consideration in relation to social security law, especially
given current income management policies and increasing knowledge of financial abuse and other
financial aspects of family violence. Safety is probably a more fundamental consideration for family
violence victims than for any other social security applicants, and all Centrelink procedures therefore
need to place safety as the uppermost consideration. With intimate partner violence responsible for
approximately one murder a week across the nation, the responsibility of the social security system to
assist women wherever necessary to leave and re-build their lives is clear.
The Australian Government’s National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women states that while
domestic violence affects women across all socio-economic groups, Australian women who have lived
with a violent partner are more likely than other women to experience financial difficulty. The Plan
therefore argues that “because financial dependence is a major factor influencing a woman’s decision
to remain with a violent partner, and domestic violence is also often associated with poverty and
homelessness, financial independence and security are essential for leaving an abusive relationship”
(Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and
their Children, 2009-2021). To break this nexus between financial insecurity and domestic violence,
financial capital (income and assets) should be included amongst the protective factors for domestic
violence, along with social capital (family, friends and community connections) and human capital
(education and employability) (Schobe and Dienemann 2007). It is vital that social security provides an
alternative source of financial security while women re-establish their lives after family violence.
19

References
Australian Government Office for Women, Financial Literacy among Marginalised Women,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra 2007
Australian Government Time for Action: The National Council's Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence
against Women and their Children, 2009-2021
Braaf, R. Addressing abused women's financial security: securing safer outcomes, Australian Social
Policy Conference 2009, UNSW Sydney
Braaf, R. and Meyering, I. Seeking Security: promoting women’s economic wellbeing following
domestic violence, Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2011
Branigan, E. ‘'Who Pays in the End?' The Personal and Political Implications of Financial Abuse of
Women in Intimate Partner Relationships’, Just Policy, Vol 44 June 2007, pp 31-36
Camcare, unpublished research, 2010
Department of Human Services Practice Guidelines: Women and children’s family violence counselling
and support programs Victorian Government, 2008
Desmond, K. Filling the Gap Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, 2011 (publication imminent)
Domestic Violence Victoria The Code of Practice for Specialist Family Violence Services for Women
and Children 2006
Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand Submission to Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws
Issues – Paper 37 Immigration, March 2011
Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Community
Affairs (‘Income management legislation’), 2010
Healey, L. Researching the Gaps Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, 2009
Landvogt, K. Money Dignity and Inclusion Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, 2008
Meyering, I Employment as a path to financial independence: why work matters to women experiencing
domestic violence, Our Work Our Lives Conference Darwin NT, NT Working Women’s Centre, August
2010
Mouy, B. Just credit, good practice. Case studies about building financial capability with microfinance
loans, Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service, 2010
Women’s Health Goulburn North East A powerful journey: women reflect on what helped them leave,
2004
21

Saunders, C., Weaver, T., Schnabel, M. Economic Education for Battered Women: An Evaluation of
Outcomes, Affilia, pp 240-254, Vol 22, No 3, 2007
Sharp, N. 'What's Yours is Mine' The different forms of economic abuse and its impact on
women and children experiencing domestic violence, Refuge, UK, 2008
Scott, E., London, A., and Myers, N. ‘Dangerous Dependencies: The Intersection of Welfare Reform
and Domestic Violence’ Gender and Society, pp 878-897, Vol 16, No 6, December 2002
Taylor, M. and Barusch, A. Personal, ‘Family, and Multiple Barriers of Long-Term Welfare Recipients’,
Social Work, pp 175-183, Vol 49 Issue 2, April 2004
Victorian Government Practice Guidelines: Women and children’s family violence counselling and
support programs, Department of Human Services, 2008
Victorian Health Promotion Foundation National Survey on Community Attitudes to Violence Against
Women 2009 - Changing cultures, changing attitudes - preventing violence against women- A summary
of findings, VicHealth, 2009
22