Access to Crisis Payment

9.4 ‘Crisis Payment’ is a one-off payment, equivalent to one week of a person’s eligible fortnightly social security 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.

9.5 There may be people who have experienced, or are experiencing, family violence but are unable to access Crisis Payment for a range of reasons. Overall, stakeholders agreed that there needed to be more information available to customers about Crisis Payment.^[1] The ALRC therefore recommends that information about Crisis Payment be provided to customers, in accordance with Recommendation 4–2.

9.6 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;
• the nexus with the home and the corresponding definition of ‘extreme circumstance’; and
• the seven day claim period.

Requirement to be on, or eligible for, income support

9.7 Due to the nature of Crisis Payment as an emergency payment, the ALRC recommends that the Australian Government consider making Crisis Payment available to those in severe financial hardship, without the additional need to be on, or eligible for, income support. The ALRC considers that this would address concerns that some victims of family violence who are in severe financial hardship are unable to access Crisis Payment. The criterion of severe financial hardship could still be maintained.^[2]

9.8 Crisis Payment requires an individual either to be currently in receipt of, or to be eligible for, income support. This requirement can limit the accessibility of Crisis Payment for victims of family violence. For example, 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’.^[3]

9.9 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.^[4] However, the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) did not support such an amendment.^[5]

9.10 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 who have no independent income.^[6] 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’.^[7]

9.11 This requirement may also limit the accessibility of Crisis Payment for those seeking it upon release from gaol or psychiatric confinement;^[8] humanitarian entrants;^[9] or other extreme circumstances forcing departure from home such as a person’s house being burnt down.^[10]

9.12 If such an amendment were made to Crisis Payment for family violence, and not for other circumstances in which Crisis Payment is available, it may lead to a two-tiered structure for Crisis Payment. While similar problems may be encountered with other categories of Crisis Payment, it is beyond the ALRC’s Terms of Reference to make recommendations of general application. However, amending other categories may help prevent family violence—improvements to Crisis Payment for those exiting prison may mean that they are ‘less likely to fall into old behaviours of being violent towards their former or current partners’.^[11]

Why not access Special Benefit instead?

9.13 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 are unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves and their dependants.^[12] One criterion for qualification is that a person is unable to receive any other social security pension or benefit.^[13] This may mean that a person who is experiencing family violence could access Special Benefit where they do not qualify for Crisis Payment.

9.14 However, as discussed in Chapter 7, there are concerns about residential requirements for Special Benefit. There are a number of additional concerns about access to Special Benefit which were raised by the National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN).^[14] However, to address these broad concerns would go beyond the ALRC’s Terms of Reference as they would have an impact on more than just victims of family violence.

Nexus with the ‘home’

9.15 Crisis Payment for family violence is only available where either the victim of family violence leaves the ‘home’, or the person using family violence is removed from, or leaves, the ‘home’.^[15] This requirement poses difficulties for victims of family violence in accessing Crisis Payment. For example, a person’s home may not fit within the relevant definition of ‘home’; the violence may occur post-separation; or a person may not be able to leave the violent home without access to independent financial assistance such as Crisis Payment.

9.16 In light of these difficulties, the ALRC recommends that the Social Security Act be amended to remove the nexus to the home requirement. The ALRC considers it more appropriate that a person be ‘subject to’ or ‘experiencing’ family violence rather than requiring the victim of family violence or the person using family violence to have left the home. The advantage of such an amendment is that it reflects the nature of the violence rather than focusing on the relationship or where the violence occurs. This received strong stakeholder support.^[16]

What is the ‘nexus with the home’ requirement?

9.17 For victims of family violence to be able to access Crisis Payment, one of the following circumstances must apply. 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’.^[17] The claiming period begins when the person, having left home, decides that he or she cannot return home as a result of the ‘extreme circumstance’.^[18]

9.18 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.^[19]

9.19 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.^[20]

What concerns are raised due to this requirement?

9.20 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.^[21] In particular, stakeholders identified the following scenarios that may affect the safety of a victim of family violence.

9.21 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.^[22]

9.22 Secondly, although a person may have been forced to leave a 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 tracks him or her to the new home.^[23] As noted in one submission, ‘[p]ost separation violence is a very common and serious form of family violence’.^[24]

9.23 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.^[25] Similarly, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (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.^[26]

9.24 Another example given by the Commonwealth Ombudsman is set out in the following case study:^[27]

Case Study—No home to leave

Ms H contacted Centrelink to advise that she was currently homeless and had recently been physically and sexually assaulted by a family member. She requested a Crisis Payment to assist her in establishing a new home, and complained to the Ombudsman’s office when this request was refused.

Our investigation identified that Centrelink refused Ms H’s request for a Crisis Payment because she had not left her home (she did not have one) as a result of the violence. We advised Ms H that this decision appeared to be consistent with the qualification requirements for Crisis Payment.

9.25 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’.^[28]

9.26 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. Similarly, a person with disability who is a victim of family violence may be unable to leave the home due to modifications that have been made to the home that are essential for daily life.

9.27 Accordingly, the ALRC recommends that the Social Security Act be amended to remove the nexus with the home requirement for Crisis Payment. The ALRC notes that this may lead to an unintended consequence whereby the person using family violence can then use economic abuse against the victim to access the money received through Crisis Payment as they may still be under the same roof. However, due to instances of post-separation violence—including economic abuse—this could occur regardless of this amendment.

Claim period for Crisis Payment

9.28 The Social Security Act requires that claims for Crisis Payment be made within seven days of an ‘extreme circumstance’.^[29] The ALRC is concerned that the seven day claim period is too short and may operate to restrict access to Crisis Payment for victims of family violence where it is applied too strictly. In addition, a person experiencing family violence may not reach a ‘crisis’ point until his or her finances have been exhausted. This may be longer than seven days. The ALRC therefore recommends that the Australian Government should review the claim period and the point at which the claiming period begins, to allow sufficient time to claim.

9.29 While FaHCSIA did not support the proposal to review the seven day claim period,^[30] it was supported by most stakeholders.^[31] Most stakeholders submitted that the current claim period of seven days was too short.^[32] 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:

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 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.^[33]

9.30 The Australian Association of Social Workers Queensland (AASW (Qld)) and the Welfare Rights Centre Inc Queensland (WRC Inc (Qld)) recommended that the claim period be extended to 13 weeks,^[34] while the NWRN suggested it should be increased to 21 days.^[35] The ADFVC recommended extending the period to six months.^[36]

9.31 The ALRC recognises that this recommendation, if implemented, may create a two-tier system for other circumstances in which Crisis Payment is available. However, revising what may constitute an ‘extreme circumstance’ for Crisis Payment for family violence may address this concern. For example, an ‘extreme circumstance’—and therefore the claiming period—may occur when a victim exhausts their finances due to family violence or requires independent financial assistance to leave a violent relationship.