In May 2023, changes were made to the Social Security Guide to require Centrelink decision-makers to take into account the presence of family and domestic violence when making assessments about whether a person is a ‘member of a couple’ for social security purposes. The Social Security Guide is an online policy document published by Services Australia that provides guidance to decision-makers (including Centrelink officers and Tribunal Members) on how to apply and administer social security legislation.

These are important changes, aimed at better supporting people escaping family violence.

The Guide now explicitly provides that the presence of family violence in a relationship may indicate that two people should not be defined as being a ‘member of a couple’ under section 4 the Social Security Act 1991. 

It also provides that decision-makers should consider family violence as a special reason to treat someone as not being a member of a couple under section 24 of the Social Security Act 1991.

The changes are critical because they enable family violence to be properly considered; supporting more victim-survivors to access the ‘single’ rate of payment which is unaffected by their partner’s income and assets. 

Key changes to the Social Security Guide

Here are some of the significant changes that have been made to the Social Security Guide. You can read the full guide here.

1: Determining member of a couple relationships

The presence of family violence, may indicate that a person is not a member of a couple and needs to be considered when assessing each of the five factors. Evidence may be required to support the presence of the family violence.

Family violence includes, but is not limited to physical, sexual, financial, emotional and psychological abuse. All types of family violence should be considered, together with the five factors.

• Financial aspects of the relationship: The presence of financial abuse may indicate a person is not a member of a couple. A person experiencing financial abuse may be subject to coercion and threats, which has led to their existing financial arrangements.

• Nature of the household: Due to the presence of family violence, the nature of the household may present in a way that does not reflect the realities of the relationship and needs to be considered in the overall assessment.

• Social aspects of the relationship: Family violence may lead a person to falsely present themselves as a member of a couple to family and friends. Therefore, merely presenting in public as a couple is not necessarily indicative that two people are members of a couple.

• Any sexual relationship: As the nature of a person’s sexual relationship may be a sensitive subject, care should be exercised with inquiries into its existence, considering the person’s particular circumstances, such as the presence of family violence.

• A coercive or non-consensual sexual relationship may be regarded as family and/or domestic violence and indicate a member of a couple relationship does not exist.

• Nature of commitment: The presence of family violence may indicate there is no genuine commitment in the relationship and that the person is not a member of a couple. In cases where the person presents themselves as a member couple, consideration should be a given to whether this is a result of coercion.

2: Discretion to treat a person as not being a member of a couple for a special reason

The presence of family violence in a relationship may indicate that a person is not a member of a couple under the five factors. However, there may be situations where section 24 should be applied due to a person’s particular circumstances.

In general, the application of section 24 should only be considered in circumstances where:

• the person who is experiencing family identifies as partnered, or
• a member of a couple assessment has resulted in finding the 2 people are a couple, but due to the existence of family violence both members of the couple should be treated as single.

When a person experiencing family violence is not subject to the partnered income and asset test and is paid a higher rate, it could enable them to leave a situation they would not have been able to otherwise.

Failure to advise of a change in circumstances: Where family violence exists, a person may be coerced into to providing false or misleading statements about their relationship out of duress or fear. The person’s full circumstances must be considered and a determination made about whether they are a member of a couple or if section 24 should be applied.

3: Determining separated under one roof

Separated under one-roof assessments are made under the same principles as determining if a member of a couple relationship exists.

When assessing separated under one roof, the decision-maker may interview both parties or ask them to provide additional information about their circumstances. Sensitivity is needed when gathering evidence and consideration should be given to the presence of family violence.

A person who has experienced family violence may be less able to financially support themselves. As a result, it is not uncommon for a person who has experienced family violence to remain living under the same roof as the alleged perpetrator, which should be considered in determining if a person is separated under one roof.

Alisha is on the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and receives Family Tax Benefit (FTB). She also has significant consumer debt and, like so many on a low income, has struggled to find affordable accommodation. As a result, she shares a house with her ex-partner, while searching for a rental.

Centrelink made the decision that Alisha and her ex-partner were a member of a couple. This meant her rate of both Disability Support Pension and Family Tax Benefit were reduced from the single rate of payment to the couple rate, and her ex-partner’s income and assets affected her rate of payment.

In fact, Alisha and her ex-partner were not a couple. They were, however, living under the one roof.

Ex-partners continuing to live together in the same house is becoming increasingly common, and SSRV is sometimes contacted by people who are experiencing Centrelink issues because of this.

Victoria is currently experiencing a rental crisis which is seeing many people unable to afford to rent, and long waiting periods to access social and government housing. This means that ex-partners may need to continue living with one another after separation, this is often considered as ‘separated under one roof’.

If Centrelink decides an individual is a member of a couple, it is assumed they are pooling resources and sharing income. The assets and income of a partner are considered by Centrelink when determining eligibility for payments, and also results in a partnered rate of payment, which is lower than the single rate.

Centrelink is guided by five factors for consideration when making ‘member of a couple’ determinations, and can sometimes incorrectly classify people as being partnered. SSRV is able to provide legal advice on this point, and has successfully supported individuals to appeal these decisions.

When Centrelink decided that Alisha and her ex-partner were a member of a couple, Alisha sought an internal review by an Authorised Review Officer. The review officer affirmed the decision and found she was a member of a couple. Alisha lodged an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). Alisha approached SSRV looking for advice and representation at the hearing date. She was very stressed as her disability meant she could not read the documents sent to her by Centrelink and the Tribunal, and her support workers were unsure how best to assist her.

The SSRV lawyer worked with Alisha to draft her statement and submissions for the hearing. SSRV contacted five of Alisha’s support workers and sought letters of support for the hearing. An SSRV lawyer attended the hearing with Alisha and provided oral submissions on her behalf. 

In the meantime, Alisha’s housing situation became worse, and she was forced to move into a caravan. Social workers intervened and moved Alisha in to an emergency motel where she lived with her children. The SSRV lawyer supported Alisha by working with her social worker, applying for the Centrelink Fleeing Family Violence Crisis Payment, and updating Centrelink as Alisha changed addresses multiple times.

Alisha was successful at the Tribunal hearing and was found to be single for the purposes of social security law. Alisha was granted $14,000 in back payments. Alisha’s application for government housing was also successful, and she and her children moved into stable long-term accommodation.

Integrated service delivery

Despite the win, Alisha still had significant personal debt, which was causing her financial hardship and stress.

The SSRV lawyer referred Alisha to the SSRV financial counsellor to create a plan for how to use the $14,000 of back payment to pay off some of the consumer debt and save a portion of the money for basics and essentials for her new government housing.

SSRV recognises that individuals who are unable to access adequate income support through Centrelink often have issues relating to housing stability, financial stability, safety, health and general welfare. For this reason, it is a priority for SSRV to deliver integrated services.

Alisha’s story is an example of how integrated services deliver holistic care to clients to achieve better outcomes.

Alisha was incredibly grateful for the assistance provided to her. She said she had found her experiences with Centrelink overwhelmingly stressful and often left her in tears because she did not understand what they wanted from her. Now, she says, she can see a pathway forward.

It was a scathing report on an illegal and damaging scheme that harmed some of the most vulnerable people in Australia, and when the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme released its comprehensive report last month, it was welcomed by many community legal centres, including SSRV, who supported condemnation of the scheme and calls for it to be scrapped.

The report details the many injustices involved in rollout of the Robodebt scheme. It also highlights areas in need of urgent reform. 

Key recommendations include:

• Designing and administering systems with users in mind, especially for people in the most vulnerable groups
• Addressing the continued stigma around social security as shameful
• Recognising the role of community legal centres, and enabling advocates access to Centrelink decision-makers though a national advocates line
• Establishing a body to monitor automated decision-making

This last point is particularly important. Many of the automation and service-delivery issues raised during the Royal Commission remain even now, resulting in unfair and non-transparent decision making. Without necessary safeguards in place, the risk of another devastating scheme like Robodebt remains real.

SSRV believe the implementation of the recommendations will achieve real systemic change to social security policy development and Centrelink service delivery.

Completing our yearly tax returns is one of those life admin tasks that seem to come around too quickly and can be a bit of a nuisance. For many, the anticipation of a tax refund is an incentive to get it done. Every year at SSRV though, we speak to people who, despite being required to submit an income return, don’t do it.

Some feel the task is overwhelming or simply haven’t got around to it. Others, though, may have been coerced into not submitting an income tax return, or be under the misconception that they do not need to complete it.

At SSRV, we know the value of preventative actions and we do our best to ensure that clients will not need our services – and completing an income tax return is an important step in making sure you, or the person you are supporting, don’t end up in a Centrelink dispute.

A common reason workers and individuals call SSRV, is debts or ongoing payment issues relating to lodgement or non-lodgement of a tax return. Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Subsidy cancellation and debts, related to the absence of a return being lodged, or of making Centrelink aware that lodgement is not required, is a common theme.

The message from Services Australia is clear: If you receive a Centrelink payment or pay or receive child support, you should check to see if you need to lodge a tax return.

Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Subsidy

If you receive Family Tax Benefit or Child Care Subsidy, you need to tell Centrelink if you are not required to lodge a tax return.  You can update Centrelink about non-lodgement of a tax return via your MyGov account, or by speaking with a Centrelink officer. You can find more information here.

If you don’t lodge a tax return as required, or you don’t tell Centrelink that you aren’t required to lodge a tax return, your ongoing payments may stop and you may receive a debt notice. For Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Subsidy, Centrelink relies upon lodgement or non-lodgement of tax returns to recalculate payment entitlements. If you don’t give Centrelink the information they need to recalculate and confirm your entitlements, it’s likely Centrelink will cancel ongoing payments and require you to pay back any FTB or CCS you have received.

Tools

The ATO have recently developed a step-by-step tool to assess whether a return needs to be lodged. 

There is also assistance in completing a return when required and help for those facing particular challenges.

So, if you or someone you are supporting, is receiving a Centrelink payment, now is the time to check if an income tax return needs to be submitted, and if so, don’t put it off.

From 20 September 2023, the eligibility for Parenting Payment Single is being extended to when the youngest child turns 14. This eligibility increase followed a prolonged campaign from community groups, including SSRV, concerned that being moved onto a lower payment was contributing to families experiencing poverty. Single mother advocacy groups also argued that single mothers are not unemployed, they are performing unpaid work.

For many single parents receiving Centrelink payments, a child’s impending eighth birthday has been a cause of anxiety, with the knowledge that they would be moved off Parenting Payment Single (PPS) and onto JobSeeker Payment, at a rate of $204 less per fortnight.  Many of our clients have reported that this drop in income has caused them financial stress and made it challenging to balance work and family responsibilities.

It’s anticipated that the changes to PPS eligibility will benefit around 57,000 people, 52,000 of whom are women. The change to PPS will increase the maximum basic rate of payment for eligible parents, from $745.20 per fortnight on JobSeeker Payment to $922.10 per fortnight on PPS.

In the lead up to the Federal Election, SSRV also supported a campaign by the Council of Single Mothers and their Children to end the ParentsNext program. The scheme, introduced in 2018, required parenting payment recipients to attend job agencies and participate in prescribed activities in order to keep their welfare payments. The program was continually criticised by community and welfare organisations and also faced criticism from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Women’s Equality Taskforce, and the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee.

From 5 May 2023, compulsory participation in ParentsNext has been paused and the Government has announced intention to abolish the program altogether from 1 July 2024. Parents can volunteer to participate in ParentsNext up until 1 July 2024, but it is not compulsory in order to receive PPS.

Transitioning from JobSeeker to Parenting Payment Single

So how will the transition to the new PPS eligibility requirements work?

The Department of Services Australia has provided guidance on the transition from JobSeeker Payment to PPS, which will take effect on 20 September 2023:

• Individuals who become eligible for PPS and are currently receiving JobSeeker Payment should be automatically transferred by Centrelink to PPS from 20 September 2023. No action is required for these individuals, and they should not have to lodge a new application. This includes those who had been previously transferred from PPS to Jobseeker Payment due to the age of their youngest child surpassing eight years old.

• Impacted individuals can expect to receive a letter in mid-August 2023 outlining this process. There is also planned online communications and social media messaging.

• Individuals receiving PPS whose youngest qualifying child turns 8 between now and 19 September 2023 will need to transfer to JobSeeker Payment until 20 September 2023. These individuals should receive an online task 28 days before their child turn 8 to facilitate the transfer process. They should then be automatically transferred to PPS from 20 September 2023.

• If an individual’s JobSeeker Payment is suspended come 20 September 2023 (for example, for failing to meet mutual obligations) they will not automatically be transferred to PPS on 20 September 2023. The reason for the suspension will need to be addressed first. If the individual is not entitled to JobSeeker Payment at 20 September 2023, they will need to lodge a new claim for PPS.

You find more information here:

1. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Budget/reviews/2023-24/ExpandingEligibilityParentingPayment
2. https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-05/budget-2023-24-may-raising-kids-1.pdf
3. https://ministers.dss.gov.au/media-releases/11121

Our recommendation

If you, or your client, is transferring from Jobseeker Payment to PPS in September 2023, we recommend keeping a close eye on your Centrelink payments and MyGov account to ensure the transfer does occur automatically, or to pick up any issues that do arise.

Centrelink payments, eligibility and the use of technology can be complicated. It is likely that some individuals will expect the transfer to occur automatically for them, but in practice there may be an issue which they need to identify and resolve.

If your Jobseeker Payment is suspended or cancelled leading up to or on 20 September 2023, we recommend taking an active role in ensuring your transfer to PPS takes place. It is likely that you will experience issues with an automatic transfer. We recommend you speak with a Centrelink officer and ensure you know what is happening in your Centrelink account. This will assist you to identify and address any issues and minimise the risk of missing out on payments.

SSRV can assist if you, or your client, experiences issues with the PPS transfer that you are unable to resolve quickly with Centrelink. SSRV is an independent community legal centre, as such we don’t have access to Centrelink systems. We can, however, talk you through the processes available to resolve your dispute with Centrelink, and give you advice on your rights of review.

This month the Federal Parliament passed the Strengthening the Safety Net Bill. This legislation, according to the Government, will deliver small but much needed improvements to the social security system. While much attention is being paid to the extension of eligibility to Parenting Payment Single, the Bill also contains changes that will impact other Centrelink payments.

The Bill also legislates payment rate increases to JobSeeker Payment and related payments, as well as Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

Once the changes come into effect on 20 September 2023, the new rate of JobSeeker Payment will rise to $56 a day, up from $50.

This is well below the $76 a day rate that community organisations were calling for, and is also below the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee’s finding that an adequate unemployment rate would mean raising JobSeeker Payment to 90 per cent of the Age Pension.

The Australian Council of Social Service describes the new payment increases as continuing to be a ‘poverty payment’.

While SSRV welcomes the increase in the JobSeeker Payment, we support calls for further increases to the rate of working age payments to help address the ongoing issue of poverty.

Circumstances of poverty and homeless are issues that SSRV commonly sees. Without secure ongoing income support at a rate above the poverty line, individuals are at significant risk of falling behind in rental payments. This can quickly lead to eviction and homelessness. SSRV supports clients, and works in conjunction with other support services, to help people in these situations and will continue to call for further increases to working age payments.

Watch SSRV’s short video explaining the Centrelink appeals process.

Appealing a Centrelink Decision from SSRV on Vimeo.

Social Security Rights Victoria supports the proposal to alter the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia and to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. This is an important step toward implementing the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Social Security Rights Victoria is committed to collaborating closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and organisations to identify and address systemic disadvantage and to work to ensure equitable access to, and outcomes from, the social security and legal systems. Therefore, Social Security Rights Victoria supports the Voice as an important practical mechanism for enhancing the principle of self-determination and for recognising and advancing the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, through more inclusive policy development and decision-making by the Commonwealth Government.

In taking this position Social Security Rights Victoria respectfully acknowledges that others may have different views regarding the proposed Constitutional amendment.

Last month, SSRV was invited to attend Economic Justice Australia’s (EJA) bi-annual meetings with the Department of Social Services and Services Australia.

During these meetings, Laura Jordan, SSRV Principal Lawyer, discussed SSRV’s work on disaster preparedness and response, and presented SSRV’s brief on social security disaster-related reform. 

Drawing on the experiences of SSRV’s clients, the brief was drafted in collaboration with EJA and member centres. It highlights the relationship between disasters and legal disputes relating to social security law, policy and administration. The brief uses case study examples to suggest specific and achievable legislative and policy reform that would prepare the Australian social security system to better respond to the needs of people affected by disasters.

As an example, the brief suggests the inclusion in the Social Security Guide of disasters as a consideration when deciding upon social security matters such as special circumstances, and member of a couple decisions. Without direction in the Guide to consider the impact of disasters, SSRV has found decision makers often give little to no regard to disasters when making payment decisions.

In many cases, this results in the applicant/recipient having to unnecessarily pursue review of a decision whilst often simultaneously facing the stress and pressure of recovering from a disaster.

SSRV is grateful to EJA for the opportunity to attend the bi-annual meetings and looks forward to future collaboration to work towards socials security disaster-related reform.

In May 2023, we welcomed a new cohort of Monash Law students to SSRV’s Social Security Advocacy Clinic. The clinic is run in partnership with Monash University Law Clinics and provides experiential based learning for the students. Their involvement in the clinic forms part of their studies and allows them an opportunity to develop critical skills they will use as lawyers.  

At the same time, the clinic provides SSRV the opportunity to extend services and provide important information and advice to more clients. 

During their time with SSRV, the students are undertaking supervised legal advice appointments, legal research relating to SSRV’s case work, policy work and advocacy, and drafting letters of advice.   

SSRV’s partnership with Monash Law Clinics continues to support the work of SSRV by increasing our capacity to offer legal advice and assistance to the most vulnerable members of our community.  We are so pleased to be able to offer this opportunity to our next generation of lawyers and at the same time increase access to justice.