Actions for the 48th Parliament of Australia
Prevent people who use violence from weaponising laws and government and legal systems to continue or hide their harmful behaviour
People who use violence can too easily weaponise legal and support systems to perpetuate coercion and financial abuse, and to silence victim-survivors.
Problem: Non-payment of child support as a form of systems abuse
Non-payment, delayed payment, and underpayment of Child Support is a gendered issue, which disproportionately impacts women and children. It is a form of post-separation coercion and financial abuse, which contributes to high rates of poverty amongst women, particularly single mothers, and their children.
Parents, mostly fathers, weaponise Child Support by deliberately not making payments or not lodging tax returns, lying to reduce income or about care arrangements, and being abusive or violent to stop the impacted parent from asking for help.
Despite a current debt of $2 billion in unpaid Child Support, the Federal Government has not adequately addressed the link between non-payment of child support and economic abuse. Instead, its ‘hands off’ approach encourages private agreements between separated parents and results in inadequate action being taken against parents (mostly fathers) who avoid their obligations. This approach perpetuates systemic economic inequalities and power imbalances between men and women, and results in a system that fails to prioritise children’s best interests. On the other hand, parents (mostly mothers) who try to challenge Child Support assessments or enforce payments bear the onus of proof and are faced with onerous administrative burdens.
Solution:
Accept and implement recommendations 49 – 54 of the 2024 parliamentary inquiry, Financial abuse: an insidious form of domestic violence, to give the Australian Taxation Office a greater role in collecting and enforcing Child Support payments and ensure the system better protects victim-survivors of financial abuse.
Remove the Maintenance Income Test from calculating Family Tax Benefit Part A for child support payees
Increase resourcing for Services Australia to improve its Child Support Scheme services, including debt enforcement.
Problem: Weaponisation of defamation claims in response to allegations of sexual violence
Defamation claims are increasingly being weaponised against people, mostly women, who have experienced and reported sexual assault and sexual harassment across all jurisdictions. Defending defamation suits can be costly, time-consuming, and re-traumatising. Australia’s defamation laws place the onus of proving the harassment or assault occurred on victim-survivors. Damages in defamation lawsuits are generally four times the amount awarded in sexual harassment complaints under anti-discrimination laws.
The weaponisation of defamation law against women reporting sexual violence and harassment is well documented. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s Sexual Harassment Inquiry (Respect@Work) heard that women reporting workplace sexual harassment to their employers were being threatened with and sued for defamation and found Australia’s defamation laws “discourage sexual harassment victims from making a complaint”.
Research by the University of Sydney in 2024 found that threatening or commencing defamation proceedings is a tactic widely used by people against whom allegations of sexual harassment or assault have been made to silence victim-survivors and pressure them to withdraw complaints.
In response to findings like these and several high-profile defamation cases involving allegations of sexual violence, the Standing Council of Attorneys-General agreed to extend absolute privilege to reports of sexual violence to the police. To date, only three jurisdictions have amended their defamation laws to introduce this protection for victim-survivors. However, the Standing Council declined to extend absolute privilege to reports of sexual violence by victim-survivors to other entities and professionals, including their employers, healthcare professionals, counsellors, and lawyers.
This means that people alleged to have caused harm can still too readily weaponise defamation laws to silence victim-survivors of sexual violence.
Solution:
Work with state and territory Attorneys-General through the Standing Council of Attorneys-General to prioritise further reforms to Australia’s national model defamation provisions, and ensure consistency across all jurisdictions, to prevent systems abuse of victim-survivors of sexual violence, including:
- Ensure all jurisdictions implement the Stage 2 Defamation Reforms, including extending absolute immunity to reports of sexual violence made by victim-survivors to police
- During the 48th parliament, agree to extend absolute immunity to reports made to employers, medical or psychological professionals, education providers, and lawyers so that people who have been sexually harassed or assaulted can seek healing and justice without fear of a defamation suit. Set a clear timeframe for implementation and work with the states and territories to ensure consistency across jurisdictions.
Problem: Non-Disclosure Agreements
Despite the landmark Respect@Work inquiry, and legislative changes introduced by the Federal Government in response, workplace sexual harassment remains far too common and those who experience it have little or no recourse.
Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) remain accepted practice for settling workplace sexual harassment cases out of court. NDAs are often misused to silence victims and protect employers’ reputations. They can also be used to hide serial offending and prevent the identification of other systemic factors that enable people who cause harm to act with impunity in the workplace.
Solution:
Amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and relevant industrial laws to restrict the use of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements in workplace sexual harassment cases unless requested by the complainant.