Sistema Regional

The women in this study encompassed a range of socio-economic groups, with annual household incomes ranging from less than $20 000 to $160 000 before or after leaving (see Table 3). Before leaving, women experiencing violence from a male partner were spread fairly evenly across all socio- economic groups. After leaving, those figures changed significantly, with women over represented in lower socio-economic groups, and over half (56%) of the women in receipt of incomes (joint or partner only) lower than $20 000. This represents a threefold increase in the number of women at this lowest income level.

Table 3: Participants’ incomes before and after leaving Previous

income

Number Percentage Current income Number Percentage

Not known 9 16 Not known 0 0

$10-19999 10 19 $10-19999 30 56 $20-29999 7 13 $20-29999 12 23 $30-39999 6 11 $30-39999 7 13 $40-49999 5 9 $40-49999 1 2 $50-59999 7 13 $50-59999 3 6 $60-999996 6 11 $60-99999 0 0 $100–160,000 3 6 $100–160,000 0 0 TOTAL 53 100 TOTAL 53 100

Among women of higher socio-economic status, some identified this as a pathway, enabling them to access the resources they needed in order to leave and establish a new life. At the same time, several identified barriers associated with a higher economic status and their beliefs in relation to

accessing formal supports and/or concern for their own, their partner’s or their family’s reputation in the community:

[I thought] these kinds of things don’t happen to people like me…I had [a] problem with getting…people to help me knowing…it must be embarrassing for [a family member involved in a senior position in the bureaucracy] to have me as a sister (Colleen, 34).

Eligibility for free legal support after leaving was also an issue for women who were legally ‘asset rich’ but actually ‘cash poor’ until property settlements (which were often protracted) were finalised. Many of these women were on low incomes. On the other hand, low economic status was a pathway for some women as it rendered them eligible for Legal Aid and public housing. For many, however, low socio-economic status after leaving was a major burden, and a barrier to establishing a new life. Women wept as they told of the loss of their homes and their precious belongings, of children doing

without, Christmases without toys and of ‘living on the breadline’. One woman reported leaving with nothing but ‘a pair of knickers and my son’; another, of

turning to prostitution to re-establish her and her children after leaving everything they owned behind interstate:

We had to gradually replace all [the] things that we had…I wanted [the children] to have…what their friends had… just what modern life has…but you can’t do that on the pension. I decided to work as a prostitute…then one of the girls introduced me to drugs…I was using morphine…I started scamming it from doctors and…they’d give it to me because I seemed so respectable and believable…I ended up in a psych hospital over it all (Marnie, 44).

In spite of well-established mechanisms such as the Child Support Scheme, only just over a quarter of women who were eligible were receiving

maintenance (27%). Monthly payments ranged from $13 to $375, averaging just over $100 for, on average, two children. There were various explanations for this low percentage. Some women drew attention to unintended

consequences of the Child Support Scheme’s provision for women not to have to seek maintenance if they believe it would put them in danger. This means not only that these women and their children are financially

disadvantaged, but also that men who are assaulting their female partner benefit financially from their violence. Some women’s ex-partners had been ordered by the Family Court to pay maintenance but refused to pay, and the women were too fearful of reprisals or financially unable to afford legal

support to pursue the matter. Other women said their ex-partners had claimed unemployment benefits to avoid paying maintenance whilst continuing to work illegally. Some women perceived a lack of action after they had provided the Child Support Agency with information on their ex-partner’s changed financial circumstances or failure to pay maintenance. The effect of socio-economic status on women’s housing options, after leaving, are considered further in the next section.

5.3.3.2 Housing

For a third of the women (34%), being able to stay in their own home was a key pathway. The woman’s socio-economic status was a significant factor in

this. There was a range of reasons why women were able to remain in their homes after the end of the relationship: the ex-partner didn’t want to continue paying the rent or the mortgage; the house belonged to the woman or was rented in her name; she helped the ex-partner find another place to live in and helped him move; she was able to demand or persuade him to leave; the ex- partner chose to leave; she called the police and had him removed; the ex- partner was arrested; the ex-partner was goaled; or she obtained a Restraint Order or a court order preventing contact:

I went to talk to [my general practitioner]…She sent me straight to the lawyer to get the police to get him out of the house…The lawyer [obtained] a Restraint Order…He had to move out…The

police…charged [him and he was placed] on a good behaviour bond (Nadia, 59).

The most common factors enabling women in this study to stay in their own home—identified by half of the women (50%) who were able to stay—were police initiating action and/or women obtaining a Restraint Order.

More than one in three women (36%) in this study had to access women’s shelters after an assault by their male partner, and two in every three women in the study (66%) had to leave their home to end their relationship with a violent partner. Over half of these women (53%) moved into rental

accommodation and of these, one-third (32%) were in government rental:

I applied to [an Aboriginal housing corporation] for a house, and I went on the emergency list because of the situation that we were in and I got a house from them.

For the latter group, accessing government rental accommodation was a key pathway to leaving, underpinned by government policy in relation to the provision of government housing; housing policy that gives higher priority to women escaping domestic violence; and public housing agencies having formal liaison with domestic violence crisis services. Most women preferred

public housing to be located throughout the suburbs rather than broad acre housing.

Approximately two-thirds (68%) were in private rental. Some of these women were experiencing financial hardship as a result of rental costs, either

because they were unable to access government housing; or they perceived broad acre housing as undesirable or they could not obtain government housing in a suitable location (near support networks or children’s schools). Some women on incomes lower than $20 000 identified as a barrier, the difficulty of moving out of broad acre housing due to a lack of affordable private rental.

Women were economically disadvantaged by having to leave their homes. Home ownership dropped by 14 per cent in the longer-term after women left their ex-partner,with about four in every ten women (43%) owning their home at the time of the research. Five of these women had remained in the home they had owned jointly or solely before leaving the relationship; nine had physically left the house of which they were an owner/buyer and later bought another, some through the proceeds of the sale of the house, their parent’s help or jointly with a new partner; and nine who had previously rented were now owner/buyers through help from parents, new partners or improved financial circumstances (e.g. employment).

Of the 28 women currently renting, 11 had previously been owner/buyers and, of those, seven left their homes to end the relationship. Two of these are in hiding and have never been able to apply for a settlement; three stayed until the house was sold for settlement and now can only afford to rent; and the jointly owned house of one is in bank receivership as her ex-partner refused to pay his share of the mortgage and she had to declare bankruptcy:

There should be some law that a man has to be taken out of the house…it’s wrong for the women to have to leave their home…Some women for safety reasons wouldn’t feel safe staying but…[they would] if the laws were upheld by the Restraint Orders…The woman has

to…change her whole life. It’s half the reason why you don’t want to leave…why did I have to go, why? He’s the one that’s been violent, why can’t he be removed? You don’t like to disrupt your kids’ lives. You want…to make their life as normal…as possible while all this is being sorted out (Lara, 44).

The consequences for women of having to leave their home comprise

significant factors relating either to leaving or to establishing a new life after leaving. They include: the fear that women experience in fleeing their homes and being unable to return; having to seek protection and accommodation in a women’s shelter; and having to sell the home a woman solely owns, as the only means of evicting her ex-partner. Other significant factors are fleeing interstate and, by going into hiding, being unable to make any claims on joint property through fear of discovery by the ex-partner; leaving behind all possessions; being prevented from obtaining possessions, even personal belongings, because the woman does not have occupancy or there has not yet been a property settlement; waiting months and years for a property settlement and, in the interim, having to repurchase all household goods and belongings, even clothing; having a woman’s household goods and personal belongings sold by her ex-partner without notice or recourse, or returning home and finding household goods destroyed or stolen by the ex-partner.

Women also reported the following as significant factors: having to pay rent because of a lease agreement, despite being unable to return to the house because of the ex-partner’s threats to kill them; going bankrupt and/or having the bank foreclose and having to sell the house with subsequent financial losses (due to the ex-partner remaining in the house but failing to pay his share of joint bills and the mortgage, and/or being unable to maintain or to begin to contribute her share due to her changed economic circumstances); having to pay rent while paying her share of the mortgage until the house was sold; and being unable to access affordable housing other than broad acre housing.

5.3.4 Informal support: Friends, family and community—Pathways and