Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Wentworth for the chance to discuss this amendment with her. The government is broadly supportive of the direction she's seeking to take, but there are a couple of things I need to draw to the attention of the House.

We completely agree that someone who's fleeing a violent living situation should be able to focus on their safety first and apply for the crisis payment once they're able to do so. Since this crisis payment was introduced, however, the government has also, in addition, introduced the leaving violence payment, which is up to $5,000 for someone who's fleeing violence. The leaving violence payment is much more flexible than the crisis payment.

I'd also note that there is already flexibility built into the application process for the crisis payment for people who've experienced family, domestic or sexual violence. For example, for a person who has left their home due to family, domestic or sexual violence, it's not that they have seven days to apply for it; they have seven days from the date they decide they cannot return to their home to submit a claim. That might be several weeks after they've left their home. In addition, Services Australia can also provide an additional 14 days to submit a claim where a person has experienced family and domestic violence. We're prepared to look at the suggestion to standardise the 14 days, but I think it's important to note that there is already flexibility and that an additional payment has been introduced since the crisis payment first became available.

So we won't support the amendment but we will continue to work with the member for Wentworth on the intention that she is pursuing. Our view is similar in relation to expanding eligibility for the payment to a broader set of living arrangements—for example, those fleeing violence who are living in temporary accommodation. We're looking at this as part of future work to expand protection for victims and survivors of family, domestic and sexual violence, wherever they are, and we plan to consult further in relation to the changes. Unfortunately, our view is that this amendment, as it's currently drafted, may inadvertently offer benefits to perpetrators of violence in some situations. I know that's not the intent of the member, so we would have to be a little bit more careful in the drafting of the amendment to acknowledge the intent of the member for Wentworth.

While I won't be supporting this second amendment from the member for Wentworth, I do think that we can work together to progress the intention of her amendments.

Question negatived.

See this speech in context