The True Cost of Escaping: Why Leaving Domestic Violence Is a Financial Minefield

When radio host and former soap star Christie Hayes hears political figures suggest that victims of intimate partner violence should simply “not put up with it” and walk away, her reaction is sharp, visceral, and grounded in lived reality.

Hayes—now living in New Norfolk, Tasmania, with her husband Justin and her 11-year-old son Hendrix—is a survivor of an abusive relationship characterized by threat, coercion, and severe financial abuse. Despite incurring thousands of dollars in debt to secure her safety, Hayes considers herself “one of the lucky people” because she possessed an established credit history, steady employment, and access to loans and credit cards.

“Without all of that, I wouldn’t have been able to protect myself at all.”

— Christie Hayes

                  [ ANGLICARE: COST OF LEAVING REPORT ]
                                    │
       ┌────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┐
       ▼                                                         ▼
[ 10-YEAR ESCALATION ]                                  [ FINANCIAL RECOVERY ]
• Cost to escape & resettle: $7,000+                    • Federal Leaving Violence Program: Capped at $5,000
• Up 71% in the last decade                             • Shortfall: $2,000+ out-of-pocket
• Driven by housing crisis, legal costs, essentials     • Call to raise grant cap to $7,000

The stark reality of escaping domestic abuse was laid bare in Anglicare’s Cost of Leaving Report. The data reveals that the average cost for a victim-survivor to escape a violent partner and establish a safe, independent life has surged to more than $7,000—a 71% increase over the past decade.

Hours after the report’s release, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson ignited widespread backlash during a media appearance by arguing that women under threat should simply leave abusive households. While Hanson later clarified that she views domestic violence as a “scourge,” advocates and survivors swiftly condemned the remarks as grossly out of touch with the systemic financial and logistical barriers confronting victims.

The Anatomy of the Financial Barrier

As Anglicare General Manager of Relationships and Wellbeing Clare Dunlop noted, public discussions around domestic violence often focus on the physical and emotional trauma, frequently ignoring the crushing economic realities.

Adding to the crisis, social housing systems are pushed to breaking point. In New South Wales alone, over 70,000 households remain on social housing waitlists. While the federal government’s Leaving Violence Program provides financial grants capped at $5,000, Anglicare and advocates are calling for the payment threshold to be raised immediately to $7,000 to match current economic conditions.

The Hidden Mechanics of Financial Abuse

When you analyze domestic violence policy across decades, you realize that the phrase “Why doesn’t she just leave?” is not just insensitive—it fundamentally misunderstands how coercive control works.

Financial abuse is rarely about money in isolation; it is a calculated weapon designed to strip a victim of autonomy long before a physical hand is ever raised. By controlling bank accounts, blocking employment opportunities, or forcing a partner to take on debts in their own name, perpetrators deliberately destroy the financial scaffolding required for independence.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     THE SYSTEMIC PARADOX OF ESCAPING ABUSE                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| PERPETRATOR TACTICS                                | SYSTEMIC REALITIES           |
+----------------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| • Confiscates income & blocks bank accounts        | • Average cost to leave: $7,000+
| • Ruins victim's credit rating through forced debt | • Federal support grant cap: $5,000
| • Isolates victim from family/financial support    | • Housing waitlists: 70,000+ households
| • Result: Zero liquid cash reserves                | • Result: Trapped by economic necessity |
+----------------------------------------------------+------------------------------+

1. The Myth of “Spontaneous Mobility”

Politicians who suggest that victims should simply walk out are operating under the illusion of “spontaneous mobility”—the assumption that an individual can simply pack a bag, tap a bank card, and book temporary lodging.

In an economic environment defined by a severe housing crisis, rising inflation, and soaring rental costs, finding safe, immediate accommodation requires thousands of dollars in liquid capital. When a perpetrator has spent years systematically draining a partner’s financial reserves, demanding that the victim “just leave” is asking them to jump into complete homeless insecurity with minor children in tow.

               [ THE FINANCIAL TRAP DOOR ]

    INTRINSIC COERCIVE CONTROL           REAL-WORLD ECONOMIC BARRIER
    ┌─────────────────────────┐          ┌─────────────────────────┐
    │ • Zero savings          │          │ • Upfront bond & rent   │
    │ • Damaged credit rating │  ═════►  │ • Basic furniture       │
    │ • Restricted access     │          │ • Legal assistance      │
    └─────────────────────────┘          └─────────────────────────┘
                 │                                    │
                 └──────────────────┬─────────────────┘
                                    ▼
                      [ IMPOSSIBLE ESCAPE GAP ]

2. A Double Standard in Public Safety Intervention

Christie Hayes raised an incisive comparison regarding societal responses to public threats versus intimate partner violence:

“I lived in Woolloomooloo… when those really tragic coward punches happened. I welcomed the lockout laws, it was great, but it was also two men. There’s been 38 women killed this year alone… This is a serious crisis.”

When public safety incidents occur in nighttime entertainment districts between strangers, governments move with extraordinary speed to reform licensing laws, deploy heavy police resources, and restructure public infrastructure. Yet, when the mortality rate among women killed by intimate partners escalates year after year, public policy often responds with incremental funding increases and bureaucratic grant applications that force victims to navigate endless hurdles while perpetrators remain in the family home.

Unanswered Questions That Demand Policy Answers

1. Why is the burden of relocation placed on the victim rather than the perpetrator? Why do tenancy laws and legal systems still make it easier for a violent partner to remain in the home while forcing the victim and children to flee into temporary shelters?

2. How can federal grant programs keep pace with inflation? If the cost of living and resettlement has risen 71% over a decade, why are emergency relief funds capped at levels that leave a multi-thousand-dollar deficit?

3. What structural reforms are needed to repair credit scores ruined by coercive financial abuse? How can financial institutions be required to clear fraudulent debts incurred under duress so survivors can access housing and loans?

The debate surrounding the Cost of Leaving Report exposes a profound disconnect between political rhetoric and the day-to-day reality of domestic violence in Australia.

Telling victim-survivors to “not put up with it” without dismantling the financial and structural barriers that keep them trapped is not leadership—it is an avoidance of institutional responsibility. When escaping a violent home costs over $7,000 in an economy where millions of households lack basic emergency savings, safety becomes a luxury item reserved for those with independent financial means.

Until government policies shift from reactive emergency grants to systemic housing reform, rapid legal protections, and total financial support, thousands of women will remain trapped in dangerous homes—not because they lack the courage to leave, but because society has made leaving economically impossible.

It leaves us with a critical question for lawmakers and community leaders:

If we agree that safety is a fundamental human right, why are we still requiring victims of domestic violence to pay thousands of dollars just to survive?