25/08/2026
Update from our meeting with the Minister’s office
Last week, members of the End Partner Income Testing campaign met with Alice, an adviser who works directly with Minister Tanya Plibersek, to discuss the ongoing harm caused by partner income testing and the urgent need for reform.
I (Elle, she/her) raised the financial dependence created by partner income testing, particularly for disabled people who may be unable to work. I questioned why PIT should continue to apply to the DSP and other long-term payments, as well as all other income-support payments affected by partner income testing. A person’s disability, inability to work or need for financial independence does not disappear when they enter a relationship.
Laura (she/her) challenged the assumption that couples automatically pool their resources and highlighted the additional cost of living experienced by disabled people. She raised the lack of safeguards ensuring that a partner actually provides financial support, the ambiguity surrounding Centrelink’s relationship rules, and the loss of financial autonomy these policies can create. Laura also questioned the evidence behind assumptions that have underpinned the system for so long.
Sophia Redjeb (they/them), author of the independent report The Human Cost of the Partner Income Test, presented evidence from their research on the real-world impacts of partner income testing. Their report documented financial dependency, difficulty paying essential bills, delayed healthcare, housing insecurity and safety concerns. It also found that 44% of respondents said partner income testing had made them feel unsafe or prevented them from leaving a relationship.
During this discussion, Sophia directly challenged the underlying assumption that partnered people can safely and reliably pool their financial resources. They asked whether there was data, research or other evidence demonstrating that couples do in fact pool resources in a way that ensures both partners have genuine access to money and financial security.
The response was that there was no such evidence or data available to substantiate that assumption.
This is significant. Partner income testing can determine whether someone receives an independent income and how much based on an assumption about how money operates within their relationship. Yet when our campaign directly asked for evidence supporting the assumption that couples can safely and reliably pool their resources, none was provided.
Sophia’s report recommends abolishing partner income testing across affected Centrelink payments and moving towards a system where adults are assessed as financially independent individuals, regardless of relationship status.
One of our volunteers also bravely shared their lived experience. They spoke about the impact domestic and family violence and partner income testing have had on their financial independence, safety and wellbeing. We are deliberately keeping the details of their experience private, but their testimony demonstrated why discretionary protections such as Section 24 cannot be the only safeguard for people facing serious harm.
A major point we put to the Minister’s office was that partner income testing does not exist in a vacuum. Australia is facing both a domestic and family violence crisis and a cost-of-living crisis, and we told them that a policy which can remove or reduce a person’s independent income based on what their partner earns risks fuelling both.
At a time when rent, groceries, utilities, healthcare and other basic costs have risen significantly, assuming that one partner can simply financially support another places further pressure on households. At the same time, creating financial dependence can make it harder for people experiencing abuse or coercive control to maintain independence or leave an unsafe relationship.
What we heard in response
Alice acknowledged that partner income testing is a longstanding policy.
We recognise that it has existed for a long time, but longevity does not make a policy fair, effective or right. Many policies throughout history were longstanding before governments recognised the harm they caused and ultimately reformed or abolished them.
“This is how it has always been done” cannot be the end of the conversation when people are being harmed by the current system.
The question now is whether this policy remains appropriate for Australia today,particularly during a cost-of-living crisis and a domestic and family violence crisis and what the Government is prepared to do to change it.
We stressed that while crisis services and supports are important, they largely respond after harm has occurred.
When Section 24 was discussed, Alice noted that provisions exist for circumstances where someone is considered partnered but is not receiving financial support from their partner. We raised our concerns that these provisions are discretionary, can be difficult to navigate and cannot be relied upon as the primary protection for people experiencing financial abuse, coercive control or other complex circumstances.
We also discussed the significant cost associated with full abolition. Our position remains that the financial cost of reform must be considered alongside the human and social cost of maintaining the current system ,including poverty, financial dependence, pressure on households and increased vulnerability to domestic and family violence.
I ended the meeting by reiterating that real people are being hurt by this policy right now.
I asked what interim measures and harm-reduction measures the Government is prepared to take now to reduce that harm while we work towards broader reform.
Our ultimate goal remains clear: moving Australia towards a better, individualised social security system where people are assessed on their own circumstances and have genuine financial autonomy, with the full abolition of partner income testing across all affected payments.
Since the meeting, we have emailed the Minister’s office seeking further clarification and answers to issues raised. We will continue to pursue further meetings, explanations and meaningful action.
We appreciate that Alice took the time to hear directly from our campaign and listen to the research, evidence and lived experience presented by our team. This was one meeting in an ongoing process, and our work does not stop here.
We will continue pushing for immediate harm reduction, meaningful reform and ultimately full abolition.
People receiving income support deserve financial autonomy, safety and a social security system that treats them as individuals.
Elle, Laura and Sophia Abolish the Partner Income Test
