Flaws in Centrelink system need fixing so people leaving violent partners don’t end up in poverty

A domestic violence victim-survivor and mother of three was left without vital Centrelink payments for six weeks after the perpetrator exploited social security rules and the fraud tip-off line, a legal centre says.

In another case, a fleeing woman was knocked back for a Centrelink crisis payment because she retained hope she could one day return to the home, making her ineligible under social security rules.

Community legal centres say the cases show how the design and administration of the social security system affects those experiencing domestic violence.

Federal, state and territory ministers will meet on Friday to discuss the new 10-year National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

The draft national plan released by the former Coalition government this year did not reference the social security system, while a national plan stakeholder consultation report published last week also made few references to the issue.

"The plan is currently missing any elements of economic security," said Leanne Ho, the executive director of Economic Justice Australia (EJA), the peak body for social security-focused community legal centres. "Social security is a really fundamental part of economic security, and that it not only helps victim-survivors re-establish their lives, but also is critical for them to be able to escape in the first place, and even to prevent violence."

In a case handled by the New South Wales-based Welfare Rights Centre, a mother of three was denied family payments for six weeks after a false tip-off believed to be from the perpetrator, who was subject to an apprehended domestic violence order.

The children, aged between eight and 17, had been placed with their father due to child protection issues, but soon returned of their own accord to their mother. This was accepted by child protection, the Welfare Rights Centre said.

The woman subsequently learned Centrelink had stopped her payments. Welfare Rights said a freedom of information request later revealed there was no evidence child protection had been in contact with Centrelink, but there was reference to a "dob-in". The documents showed Centrelink had not contacted the woman to confirm where her children were living before they cut her payments.

The Welfare Rights Centre said the woman subsequently learned through community networks that her ex-partner had contacted Centrelink out of revenge to say the children were not living with her, when in fact they were.

The case was resolved late last year with the help of the centre, but with her family payments stopped, she was forced to rely on the jobseeker payment and some part-time work to support her three children for six weeks.

Katherine Boyle, the executive director at the Welfare Rights Centre, said another recent client who had fled home was barred from receiving Centrelink's one-off crisis payment because "she retained the hope that she could one day return".

This did not fit the rules of social security act, which suggest a person must leave their home "permanently", Boyle said.

"This is just one example of the unjust laws and policies we see that we can't do anything about for our individual clients, and which need systemic change to make sure women are able to leave violence and not live in poverty," Boyle said.

Other cases included a migrant single mother denied access to income support payments due to her visa status, despite her Australian ex-partner being jailed for violence against her and the fact she had no income or savings.

The woman was later granted a special benefit payment - which can be paid to people ineligible for other welfare support - but this was cancelled when she was granted permanent residency.

She was then knocked back from parenting payment due to the newly arrived residents waiting period, which dictates that new residents must wait up to four years to get some payments.

The woman was eventually re-granted special benefit - paid at a lower rate than the parenting payment - in April.

Another case handled by Illawarra Legal Centre involved a 62-year-old woman who was rejected for jobseeker payments due to assets jointly owned with her controlling partner. She left the home in May with only a few hundred dollars in her personal bank account. Before leaving, she had to ask her husband for money and account for her expenditure, the legal centre said.

After assistance from the legal centre and a social worker, the woman, who is currently couch-surfing, is expected to gain access to the jobseeker payment this week, about two months after she left the home.

Guardian Australia has previously reported other cases including an alleged domestic violence victim-survivor wrongly issued a $50,000 Centrelink debt and another victim-survivor who was wrongly denied carer payments due to a road compensation payout.

The cases point to what victim-survivors told the national plan consultation process, which was that Centrelink processes are "out of touch with the nuances of family, domestic and sexual violence".

The victim-survivor advocates consultation report, released in April, found many believed dealing with Centrelink could "further harm victim-survivors" and "often serves as a significant stressor in their lives".

Ho said her members strongly supported increasing welfare payments, but that social security law and Centrelink processes were also a big factor.

"A lot of the problems that women have with securing independent income support is that their income and assets is assessed as a couple, not as an individual," Ho said.

"So if someone is trying to leave a violent relationship, and their partner is earning too much, that will reduce or knock out their individual entitlement for a payment."

An EJA report released last year found the couples rule "effectively tethers women to their abuser, even in circumstances where income is not shared between the couple".

In other cases, victim-survivors unfairly incur social security debts including as "a direct result of the actions of abusers", who might provide false information to Centrelink or coerce their partners into doing so.

Hank Jongen, a spokesperson for Services Australia, said the agency was committed to ensuring those affected by family and domestic violence "receive the help they need, where and when they need it".

"While we have a responsibility to assess fraud allegations, if a person is affected by family and domestic violence, supporting them is our first priority. We will not change a customer's payment following a fraud allegation without reaching out to them to investigate first," Jongen said.

"If someone thinks we have made the wrong decision about their payment, we encourage them to contact us as soon as possible."

The social services minister, Amanda Rishworth, said women's safety was a "high-order priority".

"I have been working hard on the next national plan and we will be discussing the latest draft at Friday's meeting of ministers responsible for women and women's safety in Adelaide," she said.

"Already I have met with both advisory groups on the next National Plan and I am working in genuine partnership with stakeholders, victim-survivors and First Nations communities in order to develop a plan that will help to end violence against women and children."