Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 3 and 4", substitute "Schedules 3, 4 and 5".

In brief, I'm going to move an amendment after this, but I have moved this amendment separately because I understand that the government is going to support this amendment. I'll speak to all amendments in my second speech.

Question agreed to.

I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name:

(2) Page 37 (after line 11), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Extreme circumstances forcing departure from place of residence

Social Security Act 1991

1 Section 1061JH (heading)

Omit "home", substitute "place of residence".

2 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(a)

Omit "his or her home", substitute "where the person has been residing".

3 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(b)

Omit "remain in, or return to, the home", substitute "remain, or return to, where the person has been residing".

4 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

5 Paragraph 1061JH(1)(e)

Omit "7 days", substitute "14 days".

It is no secret that Australia is in a domestic and family violence crisis. One in four women and one in 14 men have experienced violence by an intimate partner. According to the Status of women report card, 37 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner in 2024. This is why I welcome this legislation, particularly the extension of the special circumstances waiver. This will finally make provision for victims-survivors of financial abuse who have provided false information as a result of coercive control. It was a key recommendation of the 2024 parliamentary inquiry into financial abuse.

When I speak to community legal centres, peak bodies and survivor advocates, the message is clear: we must not only support those in crisis but ensure that systems are there for people when they have made the brave decision to leave. That is what my amendment seeks to do. It focuses on the family violence crisis payment, a one-off non-taxable payment designed to support people experiencing extreme circumstances and severe financial hardship. Right now, it is not working the way it should. According to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee 2025 report, only half of potentially eligible people access the crisis payment and many are rejected on technical grounds. That is not what crisis response should do. Victims-survivors who are navigating police reports, relocating children, enrolling in new schools or seeking medical support are being penalised because they do not file paperwork in time or because their housing situation does not meet the outdated bureaucratic definition. This must change.

Firstly, I'm calling on the government to extend the seven-day claim period. Seven days is an incredibly short period of time when someone is in trauma and in chaos. Survivors often do not know the payment even exists within that timeframe, let alone have the capacity to fill out the Centrelink paperwork and navigate online portals or prove the case while they're in hiding. The 2025 report found that 7.7 per cent of rejections were due to missed deadlines, including many more who had never applied because they were already outside the time limit. A short window should not be the reason why someone cannot receive help in a moment of need.

Secondly, my amendment covers the definition of 'home'. Under the current rules, it is too narrow. Many of the most vulnerable victims-survivors live or are forced to move to informal, temporary or unsafe accommodation such as tents, hostels or crisis refuges, which are not legally defined as 'home' in the act. This disproportionately effects people who are already on the margins. I urge the government to replace the word 'home' with 'place of residence' in the legislation, to ensure we do not exclude those most in need.

Thirdly, the current rules require that the applicants show they're establishing a new home. This is unnecessary. Under the Social Security Act, a person must already demonstrate they cannot return to their previous home. It is unreasonable to expect them to. Requiring evidence that a person is setting up a new permanent home, especially in the middle of a housing crisis, is unrealistic and counterproductive. The government's own figures show that 13.8 per cent of crisis payment claims were rejected due to this condition or because the perpetrator was not formally registered as living with the applicant. Survivors may be moving from couch to couch, refuge to refuge. The system should recognise that fleeing violence, not whether the new lease has been signed, is the crisis.

These changes are small, commonsense adjustments, but they could be the difference between someone getting real support when they need it and falling through the cracks. It is all about the detail for them. This payment can be life-saving. It helps pay for housing bonds, new school uniforms, urgent medical costs or simply a safe night in a motel. It can offer a moment of dignity in a moment of chaos and can help a survivor and their children take their first steps on a life free from violence.

I thank the government for its ongoing commitment to addressing family and domestic violence. I thank the minister for the constructive engagement we have had on this amendment. I urge the government and the minister to adopt this amendment and to support these changes that have been recommended by experts, including the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and been well supported by the people I speak to in the sector, including those who have survived this experience themselves. Let's make the crisis payment work for the people it's meant to serve. I commend this amendment.

See this speech in context