Special payments and supplementary benefits

8.4 In addition to regular social security payments and entitlements, some payments are available under the Social Security Act 1999 (Cth) due to the occurrence of a specific circumstance, or are provided as a supplement to a person’s regular income support.

Crisis Payment

8.5 ‘Crisis Payment’ is a one-off payment, equivalent to one week of a person’s eligible fortnightly payment, that is payable to a person who is in ‘severe financial hardship’ at the time of a particular crisis, including family violence. Crisis Payment may be paid in addition to a person’s regular payment, to social security recipients, or those who have applied and qualify for social security payments. Claims must be made within seven days of an extreme circumstance.^[1]

8.6 A person cannot be paid more than four payments of Crisis Payment due to family violence in any 12 month period.^[2] For victims of family violence, one of the following circumstances must apply.

8.7 First, the person must have left his or her home, in circumstances where it is unreasonable to return, and intend to establish a new home. The ‘extreme circumstance’ is defined as the ‘period of time in which the person is abused, flees the home and, in many cases, includes a period of trauma following the person fleeing the home’.^[3] The claiming period begins when the person, having left home, decides that they cannot return home as a result of the ‘extreme circumstance’.^[4]

8.8 Secondly, the person remained in the home after the person using family violence is removed from, or leaves the home. It must be verified that the person using family violence actually lived with the victim in the home immediately before being removed. The claiming period begins when the family member leaves.^[5]

8.9 For the purposes of Crisis Payment, ‘home’ means the person’s house or other shelter that is the ‘fixed residence’ of a person for the foreseeable future. Fixed residence includes a house, apartment, on-site caravan, long-term boarding house or moored boat. A ‘home’ does not include a refuge, overnight hostel, squat or other temporary accommodation.^[6]

8.10 The family violence must be used by a ‘family member’, defined as a person’s partner, parent, sister, brother, child or any other person whom the Secretary deems should be treated as a family member.^[7]

8.11 In addition, Crisis Payment is only available to Australian residents, a Special Category visa holder or the holder of a specified subclass of visa that qualifies the person for Special Benefit (as discussed in Chapter 7).^[8]

Submissions and consultations

8.12 In Family Violence and Commonwealth Laws—Social Security Law, ALRC Issues Paper 39 (2011) (the Social Security Issues Paper), the ALRC asked a number of questions about Crisis Payment including: whether Crisis Payment should be available to those otherwise ineligible for a social security payment but due to extreme circumstances of family violence are placed in financial hardship; whether claim periods and eligibility criteria for Crisis Payment adequately reflects the breadth and nature of family violence; and how could access to Crisis Payment be improved for victims of family violence—for instance, should Crisis Payment be ‘wrapped up’ with Special Benefit.^[9]

8.13 Stakeholders identified a number of issues faced by victims of family violence in relation to Crisis Payment. Overall, stakeholders agreed that there needed to be more information available about Crisis Payment.^[10] Specifically, the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC) recommended the delivery of a comprehensive package of information and a dedicated case worker.^[11]

8.14 A number of concerns relating to the qualification criteria for Crisis Payment were also raised, including the:

• requirement to be on, or eligible for, income support;

• nexus with the home and the corresponding definition of ‘extreme circumstance’;

• seven day claiming period; and

• amount of payment.

Requirement to be on, or eligible for, income support

8.15 In the Social Security Issues Paper, the ALRC asked whether Crisis Payment should be made available to those who are otherwise ineligible for a social security pension or benefit but—due to extreme circumstances of family violence—are placed in financial hardship.^[12]

8.16 Most stakeholders supported the idea that financial hardship alone should be the trigger for Crisis Payment ,without the additional requirement of being on, or eligible for, income support.^[13] Stakeholders submitted that the limitation of Crisis Payment, to those already in receipt of social security payments or entitlements, excludes those who are financially dependent on the person using family violence and have no independent income.^[14]

8.17 In these circumstances, access to Crisis Payment may be critical. For example, as noted by the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC), it ‘may mean the difference between being homeless or not, returning to the violent partner or not, seeking assistance or not’.^[15]

8.18 In addition, if a person is not currently receiving a social security payment or entitlement, but is otherwise eligible, the requirement to apply for income support, before being able to access Crisis Payment, ‘creates an unduly long, time-consuming and arduous process of registering with Centrelink before they are able to receive a Crisis Payment’.^[16]

Nexus with the ‘home’

8.19 Crisis Payment for family violence currently turns on either the victim of family violence leaving the home, or the person using family violence being removed from, or leaving, the home. Some stakeholders indicated that this requirement is too restrictive and, as a result, there are people who are affected by family violence, but are not eligible for Crisis Payment.^[17] In particular, stakeholders identified the following scenarios that may affect the safety of a victim of family violence.

8.20 First, a victim of family violence may not have left the home shared with the person using family violence and cannot afford to do so without financial assistance.^[18] Secondly, although a person may have been forced to leave the home as a result of family violence, it may not be a home shared with the person using family violence. For example, there may be victims of family violence who have already moved out of the home to escape the person using family violence but the person using family violence, finds him or her at the new home.^[19] As noted in one submission, ‘[p]ost separation violence is a very common and serious form of family violence’.^[20]

8.21 Thirdly, there are people who do not have stable accommodation, as a result of family violence. The Commonwealth Ombudsman gave the example of homeless customers or customers who have resided in emergency accommodation who wish to establish stable accommodation in order to escape family violence.^[21] Similarly, NAAJA provided an example of a client who was refused payment because

she was living rough in a tent in the river bank in a small town. She couldn’t go back to her tent, or shift camps because the perpetrator would find it very easy to access her. She seemed like an ideal customer for crisis payment but it was refused even on review because her home didn’t fit into the definition.^[22]

8.22 Another example given by the Ombudsman is set out in the following case study.

8.23 The definition of ‘extreme circumstance’ is also linked either to the person using family violence being removed from, or leaving the home, or the victim leaving the home. The Sole Parents’ Union submitted that the definition of ‘extreme circumstance’ can work to prevent sole parents receiving a needed payment, because ‘[w]hat Centrelink considers the crucial crisis point is not necessarily the same as for the individual concerned’.^[24]

8.24 There may be additional concerns for people with disability where the person using family violence is also the carer. If the person using family violence is removed from the home, the person with disability may lose the necessary care.

Claiming period

8.25 Most stakeholders submitted that the current claim period of seven days was too short.^[25] The Welfare Rights Centre NSW recommended the claim period be extended to 21 days;^[26] the ADFVC recommended extending the period to six months.^[27]

8.26 In a joint submission, the Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service and others provided the following example to demonstrate the restrictiveness of the seven day claim period for victims of family violence and concerns with the nexus with the home requirement:

A woman spent more than one week in hospital due to domestic violence and upon leaving hospital was taken to [McAuley Community Services for Women] 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 hospitalised due to the act of family violence was disregarded [and 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.^[28]

Special Benefit

8.27 In the Social Security Issues Paper, the ALRC also asked whether Crisis Payment should be ‘wrapped up’ with Special Benefit.^[29] Most stakeholders did not consider that Crisis Payment should be ‘wrapped up’ with Special Benefit,^[30] because the qualification requirements differ markedly;^[31] and if it were ‘wrapped up’, Crisis Payment would be unavailable to victims of family violence who already receive a social security payment.^[32]

Amount of payment

8.28 Some stakeholders also mentioned that the amount of Crisis Payment is ‘insufficient to meet the needs of individuals escaping domestic violence’^[33] and that the limit of four payments in a 12 month period may be insufficient.^[34]

ALRC’s views

8.29 There may be persons who have experienced, or are experiencing, family violence but are unable to access Crisis Payment for a range of reasons. These include: that a victim may not have not lived with the person using violence; are in a form of accommodation which is not covered by the definition of ‘home’; or cannot afford to leave home without the assistance that Crisis Payment would provide.

8.30 The ALRC has identified two possibilities for reform. On the one hand, a series of amendments could assist victims of family violence in circumstances such as those identified by stakeholders. For example, if the definition of ‘home’ in the Guide to Social Security Law was broadened to include refuges, emergency accommodation and other temporary accommodation, this would address concerns of people fleeing family violence and going into emergency accommodation. However, as discussed above, the claiming period begins when the person, having left home, decides that they cannot return home as a result of the ‘extreme circumstance’.^[35] Therefore, if the definition of ‘home’ was expanded to include emergency accommodation, there may be circumstances where a victim of family violence does not qualify for Crisis Payment because of intending to return to the emergency accommodation.

8.31 Amending the Social Security Act to remove the requirement of the victim having lived with the person using family violence could also address the concerns regarding ‘post separation violence’. However, these amendments would not address the concerns that a victim of family violence may not be able to access financial assistance to leave the home and the violent relationship in the first place.

8.32 As an alternative, and as social security law is designed to provide for those in ‘need’, it may be preferable to remove the nexus to the home in its entirety and require that a person be ‘subject to’ or ‘experiencing’ family violence. The advantage of such a proposal is that it reflects the nature of the violence rather than focusing on the relationship or where the violence occurs. However, there may be concerns that such a proposal would be too broad.

8.33 The ALRC is also concerned that the seven day claim period for Crisis Payment is too short and may operate to restrict access to Crisis Payment for victims of family violence. The ALRC therefore proposes that FaHCSIA should review the claim period and the point at which the claiming period begins, to ensure a flexible response for victims of family violence. The ALRC considers that the above proposals should also address concerns regarding the definition of ‘extreme circumstance’.

8.34 Special Benefit provides a social security safety net, by providing income support for people who are in financial hardship due to reasons beyond their control and unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves and their dependants.^[36] One criterion for qualification is that a person is unable to receive any other social security pension or benefit.^[37] Arguably, this may mean that a person who is experiencing family violence could access Special Benefit and not Crisis Payment.

8.35 However, as discussed in Chapter 7, there may be concerns about residential requirements for Special Benefit. There may also be concerns that Crisis Payment is designed as a one-off payment and so should also be available to those on Special Benefit. The ALRC is therefore interested in comment whether—rather than Crisis Payment being ‘wrapped up’ with Special Benefit—Special Benefit would be sufficient as an alternative for victims of family violence who do not qualify for Crisis Payment.

8.36 In addition, the ALRC proposes that information about Crisis Payment be provided to all customers as considered.^[38]

Rent Assistance

8.37 Rent Assistance is not a separate social security payment. It is an increase in—or a supplement to—the rate of a person’s normal income support payment that is available in certain circumstances to a person who pays private rent.

8.38 Rent Assistance is available to social security recipients who:

• are not aged care residents;

• are not ‘ineligible homeowners’; and

• pay, or are liable to pay, rent and the fortnightly rent is more than the ‘rent threshold amount’.^[39]

8.39 Rent is defined broadly in the Social Security Act. It does not expressly extend to mortgage repayments.^[40] In comparison, New Zealand’s Social Security Act 1964 provides for an ‘Accommodation Supplement’ that is a non-taxable and asset-tested income supplement that provides assistance towards accommodation costs (excluding state housing), but includes rent, board and the costs of owner-occupied homes, including mortgage repayments.

Submissions and consultations

8.40 In the Social Security Issues Paper, the ALRC asked whether the provisions for Rent Assistance in the Social Security Act adequately addressed the situation where a person using family violence defaults on mortgage repayments on the house in which the victim is living, thereby jeopardising the victim’s safety. Specifically, the ALRC asked whether the definition of ‘rent’ should expressly include mortgage repayments where family violence is an issue.^[41]

8.41 Most stakeholders supported expanding the definition of ‘rent’ in the Social Security Act to include mortgage repayments where family violence is an issue.^[42] For example, the ADFVC noted that where a person using family violence defaults on a mortgage repayment may leave victims of family violence in danger of losing their home and unable to secure long term housing.^[43]

8.42 However, the Welfare Rights Centre NSW submitted that rather than this being a social security matter, ‘there may be role for the banking industry to play in this circumstance to relieve against mortgagee hardship’.^[44]

ALRC’s views

8.43 The ALRC considers that hardship concerning mortgage repayments should fall under the National Credit Code rather than social security law.^[45]Under the National Credit Code, a person who has:

• either borrowed money to buy a home for personal use (rather than an investment), or used their home as security to raise money for other household, personal or domestic purposes (rather than a business);^[46] and

• is unable to pay because of ‘illness, unemployment or other reasonable cause’; and

• can demonstrate if they receive a variation they will be able to repay the loan,

may be eligible for an extension of the term of the loan and reduction in the amount of each payment for that period, a postponement of due dates for payment, or an extension of the term of the contract and a postponement.^[47]

8.44 However the ALRC considers that where victims of family violence come within the social security system, they should be aware of the hardship options available in the National Credit Code, and therefore that information about the hardship provisions in the National Credit Code should be provided to customers as part of Proposal 4–8.