Promoting the disclosure of family violence

5.61 Promoting the disclosure of family violence by Centrelink is discussed in detail in Chapter 4. As discussed in that chapter, Centrelink relies on self-disclosure of family violence and does not appear to promote disclosure of family violence.

5.62 Stakeholders considered a number of intervention points for promoting the disclosure of family violence and considered that there should not be a ‘wrong time’; and that ‘all Centrelink forms, correspondence and telephone prompts should directly seek information about family violence to facilitate victims of family violence overcoming their reluctance to disclose their experiences’.^[65] DEEWR, however, considered that existing processes were sufficient to identify victims in circumstances where a victim chooses to disclose.^[66] Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) members submitted that

it is current practice for these questions to be asked, with all Centrelink staff are required to explore a customer’s current circumstances at all points of contact. This includes exploring relationship status and family violence incidents.^[67]

5.63 However, existing processes rely on self-disclosure of family violence. Stakeholders identified a number of barriers to self-disclosure of family violence to Centrelink including:

• lack of confidence to classify what they are experiencing as family violence,^[68] such as financial or economic abuse^[69]—in particular, those from non-English speaking background with disability ‘may not interpret threats of abandonment, withdrawal of services or tampering with aids as family violence, even though such acts are designed to threaten and control the person’;^[70]
• lack of knowledge—both of what constitutes family violence legally, and of the significance of family violence in obtaining entitlements;^[71]
• the person using family violence supervises all contact with the service agency;^[72]
• fear of adverse consequences such as being ‘punished’ by not receiving payments or more stringent work requirements;^[73]
• having to repeat an account of family violence multiple times;^[74]
• lack of privacy at Centrelink offices;^[75] and
• concerns that disclosure of family violence will not be believed or their experiences trivialised.^[76]

5.64 The ALRC therefore considers actively promoting the disclosure of family violence is necessary. This was supported by most stakeholders^[77]—while ensuring that autonomy is left with the victim as to whether to disclose or not.^[78]

Intervention points

5.65 Chapter 4 recommends that Centrelink promote the disclosure of family violence at defined ‘intervention points’. In addition to those identified in Chapter 4, the ALRC considers that there may be other ‘intervention points’ in the social security process for Centrelink to promote the disclosure of family violence. The negotiation and revision of a person’s Employment Pathway Plan,^[79] and the consideration of imposing a 26 week exclusion period when a person moves to an area of lower employment prospects,^[80] may be two such intervention points.

5.66 Other intervention points identified by stakeholders included:

• changes in the types of payment claims, address details, illness reports, non-compliance with requirements;^[81]
• at regular intervals or at points of change;^[82]
• where young people are identified as at risk and/or unable to live at home;^[83] and
• in cases where debts are sought to be or have been waived for recipients of Parenting Payment (Single).^[84]

Deny Access Facility

5.67 Centrelink has a ‘Deny Access Facility’ (DAF), which provides additional security to the records of customers who have genuine fears for their safety. Only designated Centrelink officers are able to access DAF records, which thereby limits the potential for the computer records of DAF clients to be accessed inappropriately by Centrelink staff, either inadvertently or by reason of a deliberate breach. Customers who may be eligible to have their personal information on the DAF include customers who are escaping domestic or physical violence.

5.68 In Family Violence—Commonwealth Laws, ALRC Discussion Paper 76 (2011), the ALRC asked whether a person should be placed on the DAF upon the request of a person who has disclosed safety concerns. The ALRC does not consider this appropriate. This reform may have resource implications, as the number of Centrelink staff with DAF access, while necessarily limited, may need to increase to deal with a corresponding increase in people whose information is on the DAF. Further, if more people were placed on the DAF, the system would become unworkable, customers would encounter delays and the underlying purpose of the DAF would be defeated.