Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

In essence, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (relieving Domestic Violence Victims of Debt) Bill 2017 would allow for Centrelink debts to be waived in situations where the debtor has been subjected to domestic violence.

The current legislation allows for a debt to be waived in 'special circumstances', but it is thought that this is vague and may not apply to some situations where a debtor has been a victim of domestic violence. The bill aims to create an explicit category of debt waiver which would assist people in these circumstances and create a clearer legislative basis for Centrelink to waive those debts.

The bill would also allow for Centrelink debts to be waived when a debtor has, due to being subject to domestic violence, either made a false representation or failed to comply with some other provision of the law.

There is a gap, regrettably, in the existing legislation which makes this necessary. Centrelink can currently waive a debt when it results from a person not 'knowingly' making a false statement. But this does not take into account people who have been forced to make false statements as a result of domestic violence, even when they may have known it to be false—for example, being forced to misrepresent earnings by an abusive partner. This bill would allow for debts to be waived in all of these circumstances.

I am sure all of us in this place have heard many stories about domestic and family violence. I was very moved by a particular episode quite recently, and I must say it was the final straw that stirred me to act today. I met a woman who had been in a violent relationship for nearly 20 years, during which time she was physically, sexually, emotionally and financially abused on a daily basis. I am pleased to say that this woman and her five children have now escaped that abusive relationship and partner. But she has been left with a $23,000 Centrelink debt, and she has this debt because when she was in that relationship she falsely claimed that she was single in order to receive more money from Centrelink. But she was forced to do this by her abusive partner, and to make other false claims to Centrelink. But, in essence, the woman did not receive the money, had no control of the money and had no option but to do what her abusive partner demanded that she do. Regrettably, though, because there was fraud involved in this episode, the current legislation does not allow for that debt to be waived, and this unfortunate soul has a debt of $23,000 which she somehow has to repay. I think we would all agree that that is a terrible situation and something we really should look to remedy.

The story I recount here about that woman is of course the tip of the iceberg. I am sure we have all heard all sorts of stories from our constituents about the troubles they have endured or still endure. I am mindful that domestic and family violence can be perpetrated by men against women and by women against men. But the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence and sexual assault are perpetrated by men against women, and that is a fact. When I talk about domestic violence I am using the broader definition, which I think is widely accepted these days, as being any act of gender based violence that causes or could cause physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering, including threats of harm or coercion in public or private life. As this definition makes clear, violence is not always physical but also includes psychological, economic, emotional and sexual violence and abuse and a wide range of controlling, coercive and intimidating behaviour.

To illustrate this point I would like to read some facts and figures published by Our Watch, and I will quote directly from their website. They are facts and figures to do with violence perpetrated by men against women, because, as I said, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of acts of domestic violence are perpetrated by men against women. In fact, if this bill was to receive the support of the parliament and become law, the overwhelming majority of people who would benefit from this reform would be women. But I acknowledge that there would also be some men to obtain some benefit from it. So, some facts and figures: on average, at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner in Australia; one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15; one in five Australian women has experienced sexual violence; one in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner; one in four Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner; women are at least three times as likely as men to experience violence from an intimate partner; and women are five times as likely as men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence and five times as likely to report fearing for their lives.

Of these women who experience violence, more than half have children in their care. Violence against women is not limited to the home or intimate relationships. Every year in Australia over 300,000 women experience violence, often sexual violence, from someone other than a partner. Eight out of 10 women aged 18 to 34 were harassed on the street in the past year. Young women, age 18 to 24, experience significantly higher rates of physical and sexual violence than women in older age groups. There is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence. And Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience both far higher rates and more severe forms of violence compared with other women.

I go through those figures to remind us of the problem we have had in this country. In fact, it would be fair to say that in this country we still have a family and domestic violence crisis. Now, I do acknowledge that the government has been acting in this space, and I credit the government for that. In fact, the Turnbull government has announced some $200 million of extra investment to try to do something about domestic and family violence.

That does suggest to me that there should be some interest from the government in supporting this bill today. I would say to the government that the community expects us to act in a collegiate way and to address problems that can be addressed. This can be easily addressed. For the want of support of this bill and simple legislative change, at virtually no significant cost to the federal budget, we could bring relief to those people in the community—often women—who, through no fault of their own, are now lumbered with often very large Centrelink debts. This is something that can be supported. It certainly has the support of many legal professionals and many people who work in the community. No less than the Australian Law Reform Commission, in fact, would like to see reform in this space.

It is consistent with government policy, it is at virtually nil cost and it is supported by the community and by the legal profession. It would be consistent with what the community is expecting us to achieve in this place. That is, to come together, take ideas from wherever they can be found and improve those ideas, if they can be improved. I am sure my bill could be improved in some way. Some of the bright sparks in the government could probably suggest some amendments to make it even more effective. But that is what the community is expecting us to do. The scale of this issue in the community and the scale of domestic and family violence is almost unfathomable. In a country like ours, a lawful and learned country, it is unfathomable that there can be so much domestic and family abuse going on.

It is surprising that we still have a gap in our legislation like this: quite simply if there is any Centrelink debt and fraud is involved in some way, then that debt cannot be waived—in law, it cannot be waived. Surely, we should give the secretary of the department the ability to waive debt. Think of that woman: 20 years in an abusive relationship—physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse. Through fear of her life, she was claiming money from Centrelink which went straight to her former abusive partner for him to spend and enjoy. But now not has she only got to overcome the emotional difficulties of that path but she has got to pay the debt.

Please, let the government and opposition get behind this bill. I would love to see it progressed. Thank you.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second this bill, acknowledge the proactive and solution-based approach of my colleague and seek the government's support for it. I reserve my right to speak.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.