SSRV is supporting a campaign by the Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, calling on the Government to raise the cut-off age for Parenting Payment Single.

Currently, Parenting Payment Single ends once the youngest child has turned eight, when many recipients are forced onto JobSeeker at a significantly lower rate.

Single mother families are the poorest family structure in Australia, with more than a third living in dire poverty.

SSRV believes that single mothers deserve to be given the chance to raise their children and provide the best possible life for them – they need access to Parenting Payment Single until their youngest finishes school, so they can afford to feed and house their children.

The Council of Single Mothers and Their Children (CSMC) has launched a petition asking the Government to help to change the lives of thousands of Australian women and children in the May 2023 budget.

The petition calls for the government to:

• Restore single mothers and their children to a livable level of income support.
• Give single mothers and their children a better chance by ending mutual obligations and keeping parents on Parenting Payment Single while their children are in school.
• Condemn the policy-induced choice between violence and poverty that hundreds of thousands of women face each year.

Research by Professor Anne Summers AO shows that as many as 60 per cent of single mothers are single because they fled violence.

According to CSMC, in 2023, single mothers are less supported than they were 50 years ago. They often cannot pay their rent, or their phone bills or register their cars. Too many go without meals so their kids can eat.

Sign the petition here. 

These recommendations are endorsed by the Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce, Unions NSW, the National and Victorian Councils of Single Mothers & their Children, UTS Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion and the National Council of Women of Australia.

The rate of Centrelink income support for a couple is less than the rate for two individuals. This is based on the premise that a couple living together can pool resources and expenses, and therefore have lower living costs compared to two single people.

The social security system assumes that people in relationships share income and assets. There is little discretion for the reality that, for many couples,  this is simply not the case. 

Member of a couple provisions

Section 4 of the Social Security Act 1991 defines what it means to be a member of a couple. Usually Centrelink will consider a person a member of a couple if they are legally married, or in a registered relationship or in a de facto relationship.

The member of a couple provisions allows little discretion to consider the gendered power imbalance that exists in many relationships and this is especially true in cases of family violence, where we know that women are often denied access to money and resources. They may actually have no access to money or assets, despite being in a relationship.

Section 24 of the Social Security Act 1991 provides decision-makers with limited discretion to treat someone as not being a member of a couple, even if they meet the definition of a couple. Centrelink will usually only treat a person as not a member of a couple if there are ‘special reasons’, including an inability to pool financial resources and financial difficulty.

The discretion to treat a person as not a member of a couple is an important safeguard for people experiencing family violence.

Family violence and updates to the Social Security Guide

When family violence is considered in the context of section 24, it can allow a person to access a single rate of payment despite being in a relationship, with their rate of payment unaffected by their partner’s income and assets. 

SSRV has supported moves for family violence to be highlighted as a reason to exercise such discretion in the updated text of the Social Security Guide (SSG).

The SSG provides guidance about the application of social security law for original decision-makers, review officers, and Administrative Appeals Tribunal members in relation to the discretion not to treat a person as a member of a couple. 

This year, we anticipate amendments will be made to the SSG to make references to family violence more explicit and to ensure that family violence is properly considered by decision-makers as a factor in making a member of a couple assessment. These amendments are yet to be released, keep an eye on our newsletter for further details of the changes when they occur.

We hope these changes will work to support family violence survivors who are reliant on social security, by enabling family violence to be properly considered in the decision-making process. 

SSRV believes responses to the endemic levels of family violence in Australia must take into account the significant intersections between family violence and the social security system.

Access to income support provides a vital safety net for women living with or escaping family violence. Income security is crucial to safety at times of greatest vulnerability, and social security support is often an essential resource for women to re-establish themselves as they rebuild their lives.

Perpetrators may also abuse the social security system to exert power and control over victim-survivors, which is why it is essential that the system is sufficiently sensitive to the prevalence of family violence and be flexible enough to respond to it in individual cases.

Reforms to the social security system have the potential to support many victim-survivors of violence, increasing their capacity to escape abuse and its ongoing effects.

Our interactions with people who have lived through disasters such as Black Summer, floods and the pandemic have told us that these events can have multiple enduring impacts on people’s lives.

A person’s home may be damaged or destroyed; their job may be affected, or their business closed. They may be concerned about the effects on their loved ones; they may be travel-limited due to road closure or public transport failure; their children’s school may be closed; their neighbour’s house may have been damaged rather than their own. 

In other words, they may be experiencing constant stress, even trauma – and this can lead to a reduced capacity to address Centrelink requirements for a considerable period. 

Mutual obligations suspension

Although the government has the power to suspend mutual obligations unilaterally and temporarily for disaster affected regions, this approach is often limited to an initial exemption of four weeks and restricted to ‘major declared natural disasters’ on a postcode basis. This often excludes people living in adjacent areas, or areas significantly affected by disaster but not included in the declared postcodes, despite being impacted as individuals and as a community. 

If not within the declared zones, individuals must approach Centrelink or their employment service provider, explain the impact of the disaster upon their ability to seek work and seek an individual mutual obligation exemption. The Social Security Guide suggests that if an individual exemption is granted for a natural disaster, a period of two weeks is ‘generally appropriate’.

These short periods of exemptions are inadequate and can contribute to the retraumatising of disaster affected people. Often an entire community is faced with recovering housing, businesses, essential services and infrastructure. This approach of short exemptions requiring multiple extensions places the responsibility on people likely experiencing considerable pressure and exposes them to risk of traumatisation by repeatedly being required to re-tell their story. If they are unable to, they face their income support payments being suspended or cancelled.

Those experiencing vulnerability, trauma, job loss, restricted access to vital support services and a reduced ability to rely on their community, friends and family, shouldn’t have to continuously plead special circumstances and should be granted relief commensurate with the duration of hardship they and their community are facing as a result of disaster.

During 2023 we are working to keep this issue in front of law and policy makers.

I started with SSRV in February this year as a community lawyer with a focus on family violence. In my role, I assist people with social security issues who have been impacted by family violence. I also work to raise community awareness, and support organisations that work with people affected by family violence. 

Family violence encompasses the physical and the psychological, and is widespread in our community. Many of us have direct experience or know someone who is affected. Despite this, it’s only relatively recently that family violence has begun to receive the attention it deserves. My work is about improving outcomes at the intersection between family violence and social security law and policy. 

With a long history working as a community lawyer in Legal Centre Land, coming to SSRV has felt a bit like returning home. Prior to that I was a policy adviser with the Victorian government working on mental health policy.

After hours, I like to go walking in places with spectacular views (hello New Zealand!) and I am also learning how to sail a dinghy.

In any given year, around a quarter of SSRV’s clients are in dispute with Centrelink about social security overpayments. We now know that a disaster can exacerbate these kinds of disputes.

Max* was in the process of seeking review of an overpayment raised against her by Centrelink seven years ago when she lost her rural property and most of her personal belongings in a bushfire. She was then diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Max told us that her capacity to engage with Centrelink and challenge the debt raised against her had significantly declined since the bushfire and the COVID-19 pandemic. SSRV ultimately persuaded the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that Max’s debt should be waived. 

According to the Services Australia Annual Report, in financial year 2021/2022 about one in four Centrelink decisions that were reviewed by the AAT were remitted. This means the AAT disagreed with Centrelink and changed the decision upon appeal.  

SSRV’s work in disaster preparedness and response has highlighted the need for Centrelink decision-making to be more considered and trauma informed, especially for people affected by disaster. Improved decision making at the outset will result in less Centrelink recipients having to pursue the process of appeal, to correct a Centrelink decision. SSRV is working to raise this need for change to the attention of legislation and policy makers.  

*Name has been changed

Robert*, a social worker, was working with a client who had come to Australia from Italy eight years ago and who had recently had her Disability Support Pension (DSP) application rejected on the basis that she didn’t meet the residency criteria. 

While Robert had some understanding of the DSP application process, he knew that it was a complicated and nuanced process, and he and his client would benefit from advice from a social security law expert – so he contacted SSRV’s Worker Helpline. 

SSRV’s Worker Helpline operates Monday to Friday, and is staffed by an SSRV lawyer. When Robert rang, the SSRV lawyer explained the 10-year qualifying residency requirement for DSP, how it is calculated and exceptions to the requirement.  They also talked through the appeal process available to Robert’s client.  

Finally, the SSRV lawyer suggested that Robert’s client could contact Centrelink’s International Services line to look at their eligibility under Australia’s international agreement with Italy.  

Following the phone call, the SSRV lawyer emailed Robert information and sections of the Guide to Social Security Law, Centrelink’s policy, to assist him in supporting his client.  

SSRV’s Worker Help Line aims to provide reliable and relevant information and guidance for community workers assisting clients experiencing social security problems. Workers can include social workers, health care workers, community legal centres, and housing organisations, to name a few.

When you call our Worker Helpline, an SSRV lawyer will talk through your client’s Centrelink issue and provide you with information and guidance on possible next steps to take. In some circumstances, we will also talk to you about referring your client for individual legal advice and assistance from us. We can also offer resources or discuss training opportunities for you and your organisation. 

Our Worker Helpline is a valuable, well-utilised resource for workers. In the 2021-22 financial year, SSRV delivered 423 Worker Help Line services to workers from 212 different organisations. Almost a quarter of workers who contacted us were in regional/rural Victoria.  

Some workers have been contacting us for many years, while others are contacting us for the very first time. 

Cathy*, a housing worker, contacted SSRV’s Worker Helpline because her client, Craig*, had a Centrelink debt. Craig couldn’t understand why he had a Centrelink debt and Cathy had tried assisting him in obtaining information by contacting Centrelink with him, but this had been unsuccessful.  

With Craig’s consent, the SSRV lawyer invited a referral and booked a legal advice appointment for Craig. At Craig’s request, Cathy also attended the appointment to support him. After the appointment, the SSRV lawyer assisted Craig by drafting an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) review request (the first stage in the appeal process) for him to lodge with Centrelink.  

Once Craig receives the outcome of the ARO review request, he or Cathy can contact SSRV for further advice or secondary consultation. 

Our Worker Helpline is a Victorian state-wide, free service available Monday – Friday between 9am and 5pm. You can contact us by calling 03 9481 0655. 

*Names have been changed

At SSRV we see the many ways in which social security law in Australia disproportionately and unfairly affects women. We want to shine a light on this inequality and call on everyone to see the bias and embrace change. So, in what ways does social security law disadvantage women over men? Here’s just two examples. 

Systemic bias to traditional finances  

There is a systemic bias towards traditional family structures in the social security system. A common example SSRV sees is the member of a couple provisions, which result in one partner’s income affecting the other parent’s social security eligibility and payment rate.  

SSRV often sees this situation come up when women are taking on a primary parenting role and are unable to access parenting payment due to their partner’s income.

The partnered income test is based on the assumption that finances are fairly shared, which we know isn’t always the case and is out of step with how modern couples organise their finances.

SSRV is often contacted by women who are seeking access to social security for their financial autonomy, but are unable to due to an inability to avoid the member of a couple provisions.  

Limiting women’s access to social security due to an assumption of shared finances can disempower women and decrease their autonomy, and in many cases fails to recognise the important role of raising children and its impacts on income earning.

Systemic bias to families’ traditional model of care 

Another way the social security system exacerbates inequality is through a bias towards a traditional model of parenting with one parent being the primary carer.  

Take for example Parenting Payment, which can only be paid to one parent (either at a single or a coupled rate). The payment can only be paid to the primary carer of the child, and in cases where both parents are in need and have 50/50 care, Centrelink must make an assessment of the party in greater need. 

This means many women with genuine equal responsibility for a child miss out on receiving payments, and many have told us that, as a result, they have been unable to afford medicine or foods for their children.  

Embrace Equality 

It’s the insidious nature of gender inequality that its causes are not always clear or obvious to all, and SSRV believes that it is beholden on all of us to call out inequity when we see it. 

We will continue to raise awareness of the gender biases that exist within Australia’s social security system, and advocate for a more equal and fair future for all. 

SSRV legal advice 

SSRV can provide advice to people who have experienced social security issues as a result of economic or other violence. Clients can call our Legal Assistance Line on 03 9481 0355 and workers can call 9481 0655.

I’ve been part of the SSRV team for a while now, starting back in 2017. In that time, I’ve had many roles, and even more than one identity.

I began at SSRV as an intern through Deakin’s internship program while I was studying my law degree. I stayed on as a paralegal, primarily helping with SSRV’s phone advice service before also helping with our Worker Help Line project.

After being admitted to the legal profession in late 2019 I led our DSP Help Project, where we used human-centred design and technology to help people better understand, apply for, and appeal rejections for the Disability Support Pension. 

This project concluded in March 2022 and I’ve been working in our Integrated Services Project since. DSP Help was and is still my ‘baby’, so it’s incredibly exciting to note that we’re now kicking off a sequel. We’ll be taking a similar approach to create a new resource helping people address Centrelink Debts. Stay tuned for more information about this!

As for identities, at the start of 2022 I came out as a trans and have been on that journey since. So, if you were thinking, ‘Hang on, wasn’t someone else doing that DSP Help thing?’ well you may not actually be misremembering.

Social security is such an important right, and an important part of the society we live in. I feel privileged to help our most vulnerable to enforce their rights within that system, but also to be able to contribute my expertise to our systemic advocacy efforts. Hopefully we can continue to make positive changes, and make sure we’re there for the people that need it.

Outside of work I collect gins, love to bake, and am teaching myself how to crochet.

In a much-publicised move, the Federal Government has announced refugees on temporary protection visas (TPV) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEV) will now have a pathway to permanent residency.

Around 20,000 people on these temporary visas will now be able to apply for a Resolution of Status Visa. This is a permanent visa and comes with the right to access social security in Australia.

Holders of TPVs and SHEVs have had very little access to social security in Australia. Holders of these visas could only access Special Benefit and Family Tax Benefit, which come with strict eligibility criteria.

Permanent residents have access to all social security payments and concession cards. Holders of Resolution of Status Visas are considered refugees, and as such are subject to exemptions to waiting periods for social security. This means once receiving their Resolution of Status Visa, holders should immediately meet the residency requirements for social security payments through Centrelink.

This is a significant step forward for thousands of refugees who have lived for years without access to social security in Australia. We get many calls through our Worker Help Line from worried workers, who are supporting refugees without social security access.  We know that without access to basic social security, people struggle to meet their daily needs and enjoy a decent standard of living.

We recognise these changes do not apply to, nor address lack of access to, social security for all refugees subject to the temporary protection regime reintroduced in 2013.

Information about specific visas and social security eligibility can be found in the Social Security Guide here.

If you, or your client, is having trouble understanding their rights to access social security you can call us on our Legal Assistance Line at 03 9481 0355, Workers can call our Worker Help Line on 03 9481 0655.

Poverty is a growing problem in Australia, with one in eight people, including one in six children, currently living in poverty – and the first step in dealing with poverty is to better understand it. 

At the end of last year, the Federal Government directed the Senate Community Affairs References Committee to undertake an Inquiry into poverty in Australia. 

The Inquiry is due to report by 31 October 2023. 

Poverty is an issue our clients know too well, and our staff see its impact daily. That’s why SSRV is making a submission to the Inquiry.

For people living in poverty an issue arising with social security payments or a debt raised by Centrelink can be a mental and emotional load simply too great to bear. 

Often by the time a person calls us, a Centrelink issue has been left unactioned for some time, not because the recipient has been remiss, but because when your mind is on how you are going to feed your children tomorrow, everything else tends to fall by the wayside.  

For people experiencing poverty, actually working to resolve a Centrelink issue can be particularly difficult. For example, while Centrelink may send some correspondence through the MyGov app, other correspondence is required to be sent by post. People experiencing homelessness or moving from one temporary accommodation to another are at risk of missing important information and essential time limits.   

What we also know is that the social security system itself can exacerbate poverty.  

Often debt repayments are automatically set to unreasonably high fortnightly amounts. There is often little consideration given to the fact that Centrelink income support payments are often received by people living below the poverty line, and fortnightly deductions in addition can cause severe financial distress.  

Some income support payments also carry mutual obligations that the recipient is required to shoulder the financial burden of meeting, such as travelling to appointments with service providers.  

Other payments, such as the Disability Support Pension, have stringent eligibility criteria which rely upon doctor appointments being attended and medical evidence being obtained by the applicant.  

The Poverty Inquiry has been charged with examining the extent and nature of poverty in Australia with particular reference to: 

• The rates and drivers of poverty in Australia; 
• The relationship between economic conditions (including fiscal policy, rising inflation and cost of living pressures) and poverty; 
• The impact of poverty on individuals in relation to employment outcomes, housing security, health outcomes, and education outcomes; 
• The impacts of poverty amongst different demographics and communities; 
• The relationship between income support payments and poverty; 
• Mechanisms to address and reduce poverty; and 
• Any other related matters. 

SSRV is not able to share our submission to the Poverty Inquiry until it has been approved by the Inquiry, but when we can, we’ll let you know. 

Meanwhile, if you, or someone you are helping, have been issued with a Centrelink debt that you disagree with, if Centrelink has organised a payment plan causing you financial distress, or if you are having difficulty accessing a Centrelink payment, you can call us today. Most Centrelink decisions can be appealed and repayment plans can be negotiated to be more manageable.