Uncensored Money Season Eight: Financial Coercive Control: The 6 Red Flags Every Woman Needs to Know

Melissa Browne: Ex-Accountant, Ex-Financial Advisor, Ex-Working Till I Drop, Now Serial Entrepreneur & Author, Financial Wellness Advocate, Living a Life by Design | 11/06/2026

Show Notes

Content warning: This episode discusses financial abuse, coercive control, and intimate partner violence. Support services are listed at the end of these notes, including 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732. If anything in this episode is distressing, please reach out.

In New South Wales, on 1 July 2024, coercive control became a criminal offence in intimate partner relationships. Queensland followed in May 2025. In 2026, the federal family law reform formally recognised financial abuse for the first time in Australian history. Which means a lot of the behaviours we've spent decades calling "a controlling marriage" or "he's just careful with money" are now, in a pattern — illegal.

In this episode, Mel and Lawsie walk through the six signs of financial coercive control. Some you'll recognise. Some you'll have lived through and never had a word for. All of them are named in the legislation, the BOCSAR research, or both.

The six signs covered

The six signs of financial coercive control: 1. A lack of control over your own income — or a strict, often small, allowance that is tracked

2. Sabotaging your career or education to keep you financially reliant

3. Surveillance of every dollar you spend — big or small

4. Pressuring or tricking you into signing for loans and credit in your name 5. His money pays for him; your money pays for the kids, the groceries, and the essentials 6. Keeping you in the dark about household finances, debt, and investments

Plus: Mel reclaims the term sexually transmitted debt: and explains why it's never been more relevant. Including the three things every Australian woman needs in her own name, no matter her relationship status.

Save this episode, send it to a woman in your life, and we'll see you next week.

For more tips and resources, visit us at melissabrowne.com.au, on Facebook, Instagram or TikTok @MelBrowne.Money or send us an email at hello@melissabrowne.com.au.

Links mentioned in the episode are below

https://www.mamamia.com.au/podcasts/what-the-finance/sexually-transmitted-debt/  

1800RESPECTNational sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service. 24/7, free, confidential. 1800 737 732
1800respect.org.au

National Debt HelplineFree, independent financial counsellors. Specialists in financial abuse. 1800 007 007
ndh.org.au

Centre for Women's Economic SafetyNational charity focused on economic abuse. Runs free Money Clinics — one-on-one sessions with a trauma-informed female financial counsellor. Bookable online from anywhere in Australia.
cwes.org.au · financialsafety.org.au

Lifeline24/7 crisis support. 13 11 14
lifeline.org.au

Your bank's DV teamEvery major Australian bank has a specialist domestic and family violence assistance team. Call your bank's main customer service line and ask to be referred — they will help with account separation, hardship arrangements, and credit reporting.

Finally, if you love this episode please make sure you subscribe, share it with a friend and leave us a review.

Transcription

Mel: If you have to ask permission to spend your own money, I want you to pay attention to the next 30 or so minutes. And if you don't know what's in your joint account or whether there is what even is in there, again, I want you to pay attention to the next 30 minutes. If you've ever signed something because it was easier than pushing back or asking the question,

Pay attention to the next 30 minutes because today Lawsie and I are talking about financial coercive control and in particular six signs of financial coercive control. Some of them you'll recognize. One of them might be the reason you felt off about your relationship for a long time and couldn't name why. And it's an exercise, it's an episode that has been a long time coming, and one I'm really

I wouldn't use the word excited, ⁓ but really wanting to get into today. But before we do, the information in this episode is general financial information only. As always, it does not take into account your personal circumstances. We're a corporate authorized rep of RASK licensing. And please speak to a financial advisor, ⁓ family lawyer or financial counsellor about your specific situation if something has turned up here today ⁓ that really resonates with you. And we're gonna give you some phone numbers at the end as well that you can talk to. So Lawsie as I said, today's episode has been a long time coming.

Lawsie: It has. ⁓ and no, I mean you've been writing about money and relationships for years. there's a whole chapter on sexually transmitted debt in Unfuck Your Finances, ⁓ which you released quite some time ago now. ⁓ and you covered it in the Mama Mia podcast a few years back as well. As well as writing about the red flags for this in the Australian Financial Review back in 2022. Got quite the issue with it.

Mel: Gosh, you have been just a little squirrel over my stuff.

Lawsie: I know, right? Diligent as ever. ⁓ so what's different? Why are we doing this episode today?

Mel: Well, two things. Like firstly, the laws have changed around this and and not before time. So in New South Wales, on the first of July 2024, coercive control became a criminal offence in intimate partner relationships, and the maximum penalty was seven years. So we were actually the first state in Australia to do it. Which, you know, proud New South Wales Welshman, Welsh person. ⁓ Queensland followed in May twenty-five. Interestingly, there's this double, so fourteen years for financial coercive for coercive.

Lawsie: Ten years.

Mel: Coercive control. Then in 2026, the federal family law reforms formally recognized financial abuse for the first time. Like 2026 only just recognized formally financial abuse. And the federal budget put 182 million towards child support reform, and the government was explicit that this was about addressing weaponization and financial abuse. So things that five years ago we called like a controlling marriage or just careful with money, in a pattern in this country, they are now considered a lead.

Lawsie: And the second thing?

Mel: Well the second thing's the data. So the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures say 1.6 million, like one I'm gonna say that again. 1.6 million Australian women have experienced financial abuse from a partner. And I remember where I saw that stat and I like my jaw hit the ground. That's such a massive, so many women. 2.3 million have experienced emotional abuse.

And in the first twelve months that coercive control was a criminal offence in New South Wales, so we've actually started to gather data on this now, ninety-one percent of recorded victims were women, probably unsurprisingly. And financial abuse was a feature of ha almost half of that.

So 46% of those incidents. So we're not talking about a fringe issue here, I guess is the point. We're talking about something that's happened or is happening potentially to someone you know. And if I think about people I know, I can absolutely hide, I can absolutely identify where this is happening in relationships that I know.

Lawsie: Yeah. As well as, you know, I think anecdotally when we hear it within people within our community as well, which I think just highlights ⁓ sort of how prolific it is when you can see it within your own, you know, social circles and in your the own worlds that you're living and breathing in, but also when we're seeing it within the community as well.

Mel: And chances are people are seeing this, they just don't realise that it's financial coercive control because we don't talk about money, we don't talk about what's normal about in money relationships. And we might have seen a parent do something that actually looking back was financial coercive control and we think that's normal and actually it's not. So yeah, it's it's just something I think that we need to be talking about more.

Lawsie: Yeah. And what's the most confronting number with this when you've been looking at the data?

Mel: Well, probably the fact that in New South Wales ⁓ they did a domestic violence death review ⁓ and they found that ninety-seven percent of women killed by an intimate partner had experienced coercive control beforehand. And financial control is almost always part of that pattern of coercive control. So when we talk about this, we're not being dramatic. We're simply talking about the leading indicator. And these aren't as we said, as I said, this isn't a fringe issue. This is massive numbers, millions of women being affected.

Lawsie: Before we dive into the six signs, can you define what financial coercive control is? And with that sort of make it really clear as to what it is and what it isn't. Because I think, you know, we hear these terms and sometimes knowing what it isn't is just as important as knowing what it is, just to sort of really clarify.

Mel: No, I love that. So the law defines it is when someone intentionally tries to control you or make you behave in a certain way by doing or saying things that make you feel afraid, ashamed, anxious, unsure, or upset. ⁓ it's a pattern of behavior that can involve many different forms of abuse. And I guess the key word there is it's a pattern.

Because that word really matters. And the law specifically requires a pattern. So like just not one fight, not one uncomfortable tight conversation about the credit card bill, a pattern of behavior intended to control or coerce a partner.

And if we get to financial coercive control is when that pattern shows up for money. So when that coercive control pattern shows up for money. So things like restricting access to money, sabotaging your partner's ability to earn, monitoring their spending, putting debt in their name, keeping them in the dark. They're all examples of what it could be. And it's a pattern of that, not as I said, not just once. ⁓

Repeatedly. But what it isn't to your question is it's not disagreeing about money. You know, wanting to budget and my partner doesn't, having different attitudes to spending. You know, those are compatibility issues. And a lot of relationships have them. We see that a lot in the work that we do. But just because your partner disagrees with you doesn't mean that this is coercive control. The line is where the one person is systematically using money to control the other.

Lawsie: Yeah. So if someone's listening to this and thinking we argue about money sometimes, that's not what we're talking about here.

Mel: Yeah, definitely not. We're talking about the women who've stopped arguing 'cause it's not safe to. Who don't ask because they already know the answer, who've adjusted their lives around their partner's rules for so long, often they've forgotten there was ever a version where they had their own money or in their own name that they could spend without explaining. And chances are they have normalized this to themselves because it's simply like that's just how we do money in our household. And I want to highlight that this is not normal. So today we're going to look at six signs. Each one is legislated, named in the research, or both. So, number one. The first one is a lack of control over your own income or a strict, often small allowance that is tracked. And again, sometimes these things in isolation don't seem like much, but it's that it paints a picture right.

So sign one, I'm gonna use she because 97% is women. So she earns the money but doesn't control it. Or there's an allowance, usually small, usually monitored. Every dollar she spends is itemized. She has to justify a coffee or a haircut or a present for her own sister. Section 54D of the New South Crimes Act names this directly. So it talks about limiting access to money for reasonable living expenses. And that is a behavior that constitutes coercive control. So the law was written to recognize this.

Lawsie: And so how do you tell that apart from a couple who have agreed on a budget? Because in some, you know, so I guess we could look at that and go, if we're on a budget, we've agreed to limit our spending. So how is that different to an allowance?

Mel: Yeah. And this is where I am not a lawyer. It is just my research into this. I study law, but I'm not a lawyer. So it is important to sp if you think you are being affected by this, to safely contact one of the ⁓ numbers we will give you. It's like 1-800 full stop, to safely contact ⁓ perhaps a family lawyer and say to them, This is what I'm experiencing.

I think it might be coercive control. What do you think? So I would have that conversation. ⁓ but how do you tell how do you how do you tell it apart? Well, a budget is a tool both people use, right? An allowance is a tool one person uses on the other. So I guess the test is, does she have the same access and information that he does? You know, does she know what's in the accounts or does she prevent her from knowing? And does she have her own card with no questions asked? Can she spend 50 bucks on something she wants without explaining?

And if the answer's yes, then that's a budget. If the answer's no, that's not a budget. It's potentially something else. And it Yes.

Lawsie: Yeah, and just I guess that word allowance too, because I know like obviously with the people that I work with, ⁓ particularly in couples, they might go, yes, most of our stuff is drunk, but we both receive an allowance to spend whatever we want on. So I think just to clarify that for people as well, that there's allowance and allowance. So in this instance where you've both agreed on it, where it is part of your budget, where you're looking at it going.

Mel: Yes, that's totally different. Yeah.

Lawsie: Yes, I have an allowance and my partner has an allowance and we can spend on whatever the hell we want. That's not this. That's not what we're talking about here as being that coercive control. But if the allowance, like you said, is being used to control and sort of, you know, all of those things he said where it is getting tracked and, you know, expected to cover certain things and all that kind of stuff, then that's where it could be potentially something else.

Mel: Yeah. Even goes so far to say that if you both agreed, and it used to get called cat housekeeping back in the day, if you both agree that you're the one managing the household budget, which 90% of women are, and that amount is going to you for that, then that's not necessarily an allowance because you've both agreed on it. So this that's also not we're talking about here.

Lawsie: Really. Yeah, a hundred percent. I think it's just that language. Yeah.

Mel: It's the language. And also if you're being given that and then the expect expectation is like so if you agreed on that but you didn't agree on the grilling that came after around and what is this and what is this and what is this and why'd you do this and blah blah blah that you know that's where it could. But also I would argue that it's the extra. It's the if you're given the allowance but also not so what do we have in that account? Well that's not that you don't need to worry about that.

Lawsie: Yeah.

Mel: And I think it's hard because the p your partner might think they're actually doing you a favor by saying, you don't need to worry about that. But the danger is it moves into coercive control if you're being denied access to knowledge of something that is also yours. ⁓ so again, we are not lawyers. We're highlighting ⁓ the importance of this. And I think it would be really good to bring on a lawyer in a future week to talk about this more, but also for you to

To you, if you think this is affecting you, to 1-800 full stop, talk to ⁓ or talk to a family lawyer safely.

So, number two is sabotage, and we said we're talking about six things that are signs of financial coercive control. So, two is sabotaging your career or your education to keep you financially reliant on them. So, the in this sign, like he undermines her job, he dismisses her promotion, he tells her she doesn't really need the additional qualifications she's been standing for, discourages her from going back to work after kids, makes her side hustle the punchline at dinner with friends. You know, this New South Wales legislation specifically.

Lists preventing a person from accessing or seeking employment as a coercive control behavior. So does, interestingly, shaming, degrading, or humiliating another person. So both fit. And I was really shocked by this. And again, these are not all things in isolation, right? But they paint a picture and it's the pattern. It's not that they did it once, it's a pattern of this.

Lawsie: Yeah, it's not that you're having an argument around something and someone, you know, belittles your business or, you know, is like, No, you don't need to study and all those things. Like it is, like you said, it's that pattern. Yeah.

Mel: Yeah. Like they're being protective because the framing is often I just don't want you to get burned out, or you don't need to do that. I earn enough for both of us, or the kids in need you here, and all of which can be said with love, and all of which can also be said to keep her dependent. So I guess it's if your partner says, I just don't want you to get burned out, and you're able to have a conversation back where you can say, ⁓ no, I totally get that. I love that you're saying that, but it's really lights me up to go back to work. But thank you for saying that.

And your partner goes, Great, I just really wanted you to know that I've got you if you need me to have you. Like that for me is not coercive control. That's just perhaps a partner that's grown up with that mentality of, but that's what a bloke does. ⁓ and they're able to have a conversation about it. She's able to go, I love that, but actually, this is what's right for me. Like, I wouldn't suggest in any case that that would be. But the actually you don't need to go back control to go, and you not going back. Like you're not. The end. End of discussion. Ooh. Yeah.

Lawsie: Yeah, you can hear the level of control in that. Yeah.

Mel: And the test isn't what I guess the test isn't what they your partner says. The test is what she can end up with. and you know, a smaller income, smaller super balance, you know, a smaller world. And I guess it's the control. With all of this it's the control. And can can you safely have a conversation about it?

Lawsie: Yeah. And it's the things where it's like you said, it's not there could be small things in isolation that they're literally just that and it is just in isolation and it doesn't amount to anything, but it is like that pattern or it's that build up and that almost collection of things over a period of time that then this can sort of start to, yeah, raise a few more flags. But again, like it can be hard to spot these particular things in isolation or from the outside and it is just being, yeah, aware of it, I guess.

Mel: Yeah. And it depends how you grew up. Like him back in the day, my parents' generation, you know, he gave her household income. He said sign here on documents. she she wanted to go to part-time work and he said, well you can as long as nothing changes. I want dinner on the table, blah blah blah.

Like looking back, he probably ticked a lot of boxes on this, but it was a different time. And I guess that's where it's recognizing, like with a lot of behavior, whether it's in workplaces, whether it's in relationships, what was maybe acceptable in other times is no longer acceptable. So it's asking the question, I might have grown up with that and it seemed normal, but actually it's not okay anymore.

And so being aware of what is okay and what is simply not acceptable. the third one is surveillance of every dollar your partner spends, big or small.

So again, I'm going to use the language of he because 97% of this affects women. So he audits her bank accounts, he logs bank statements, he logs, he's logged into her accounts, he questions her transactions. She finds herself buying things in cash because the credit card creates a fight. She lies about the $7 coffee. You know, this is essentially harassment, monitoring, or tracking in the language of the act. And in the New South Wales Bureau of Crimes, I'll say that three times fast.

In the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Data from the first year of this law being passed, monitoring and tracking was the single most common behaviour recorded. So as we said, this this this legislation's been here for a year now in New South Wales. This was the biggest one recorded. So it was present in 60% of all coercive control incidents.

Lawsie: Yeah, so that line between like we share access to our accounts because we're a partnership versus he's surveilling my spending. Where do you like where do you see that that is?

Mel: Yeah, well if you look at the legislation, it seems to be that sharing access goes both ways. So ⁓ like I and I can look at Toni's info. We have like a transparent policy. You can look at mine, I can look at his. Like it goes both ways. If I wanted to look at his and he went to look at mine, I'm like, nah, this ⁓ but I'm the I'm looking at yours because we need to watch your spending, but you don't need to worry about me. Like that

Lawsie: Can I be a fly on the ball with that combo?

Mel: Can you imagine? But that would be monitoring or tracking. And I guess it's the line is sharing access goes both ways, and neither person is being audited. Surveillance is one way and ends in interrogation. So if she's logged into his account but never looks because nothing's ever questioned, and he's logged into hers and questions everything, that's not shared access. ⁓ that's monitoring. So it's just being aware of the difference.

Lawsie: Yeah, a hundred percent. Yeah. And I think it's yeah, with that shared access to like there's some partners that'd be like, I don't care. Like they don't necessarily log in. They still actually have access though. So I think it's there's the ability there, whether or not they choose to be totally hands off and go, I don't care. Total different conversation to this. ⁓ but yeah, it is that thing around, as long as you both do have.

Mel: Yes. Yeah. They have access, yes.

Lawsie: And there is not that yeah, interrogation, you know, one-way interrogation and things. Cause I think also with that, sometimes it can be okay to have interrogation of each other, particularly if you are working towards shared goals and it, you know, these things that you're both doing.

Mel: Totally. Towards a goal. Yeah. Hey, we I thought this you said this was important. What the hell are you bringing in your bike home from for? Like that's fair. Yeah.

Lawsie: Yeah, like it's there's accountability in it because the behaviour is going against something that you've both agreed on. ⁓ so just I guess highlighting that difference there or like some nuances with that as well. But yeah, for the most part it's yeah.

Mel: Yeah, I agree.

Lawsie: As long as there is some form like you both can have access and you're both sort of I guess acting in the way that is consistent with what you've said that you're both doing and how you're wanting to behave, then that's yeah, very different to someone questioning every dollar. And yeah, the conversations that happen from that.

Mel: You both can interrogate each other. Mmm. Yeah, I so agree. That that's a great nuance number four is pressuring or trickering trickering, pressuring or tricking her into signing for loans and credit in her name. So this is a big one, and I want everyone listening to understand because it's a one that follows women for decades, even after the relationship ends. So it looks like sign here, it's easier in your name because your credit's better. A car loan ⁓ for a car he drives in her name, a credit card she didn't apply for that's been put in her name, or for a joint card, but she's the primary cardholder, a guarantee she sign on his business without really understanding it. A mortgage she's liable for that's serviced from an account she has no view of. So I've been calling this sexually transmitted debt long before it was fashionable to discuss. And there's a whole chapter on it in Unfuck Your Finances, my book. And I think the analogy still holds because it's debt you acquire through a relationship. You often don't know you have it and by the time you find out the damage is done.

Lawsie: And this disproportionately lands on a particular kind of woman, doesn't it?

Mel: Yeah, look, it does. I think so I talk about four different money types and it's the relator. So the woman whose money story is generosity and community and not wanting to seem selfish and just going with the flow. I feel like she's often most at risk because she'll sign because not signing feels mean. ⁓ and if you've ever thought, I don't want to make this weird when someone hands you paperwork, that's the moment I want you to choose to make it weird. Because my new rule for you, if you're listening, is do not sign anything you haven't read that hasn't been explained to you by someone other than your partner and that you wouldn't sign for a stranger. So if you wouldn't lend 50k to your colleague, don't go sign 50k to your partner. You know, the bank doesn't care that you're in love. And I think that's a really important distinction to make because you might go, no, no, no, I want the best for them. No ⁓

But is that? And that's where there's a reason why the bank for you, yeah, and the r there's a reason the bank is supposed to explain and you're supposed to get legal advice. So get it. Like it's not weird to get it. It's not selfish to want to understand it. And it's not selfish to say no. You know, my ⁓ mum and dad

Lawsie: Is that the best for you?

Mel: They they have a different they have a revision of history. ⁓ but my dad tells a story. I remember distinctly him telling me the story of that when he retired, he said to my mum, Look, there's so there might be some things that you didn't wear weren't aware of. And it was more that he was getting to sign stuff without properly explaining it because he was an accountant and it was kind of a trust me thing.

Like that's an example of her she's really fortunate that the trust me thing ended up being that they were in a good financial position. That so many women and blokes end up being in a position where they definitely ⁓ were not. Yeah.

Lawsie: Yeah, I mean, I remember that we saw that ⁓ when you had the accounting firm, we had a client and it was the opposite way, like it was their wife that was yeah, and it was, you know, they were blindly going, yeah, well I I do the you know, the guy's doing the business, the wife was the one that was doing the books and doing all those things and living in the fun as well to totally I've got this, I've got this and they did not have that and there was, you know, serious issues.

Mel: Yes. It was a woman doing it to the blow, yeah paying the builds and doing the books. Yep. Mm. She was gambling it.

Lawsie: Yeah, happening under and behind that, whereas, you know, the guy that was just he was out doing all things, like, well I'm doing all this work, this should be all this money and was just totally unaware. So again it's that thing of, yes, overall happens. You know, women are the ones that experience this more, but it can absolutely happen both ways.

Mel: Yeah, yeah. And we did a whole episode on this. I did a whole episode on Mamma Mia what the finance podcast with Catherine Fitzpatrick, who I love, ⁓ that was with Westpac, and the family lawyer Mel Melanie Tanazi. So we'll actually link that in the show notes for anyone that wants to dive deeper ⁓ on that. So number five is his money pays for him.

Her money pays for the kids, the groceries, and the essentials. So sci-five. So this is number five, where he buys himself a new bike, a new car, a new piece of tech. That's his money. No permission needed. She wants to buy a winter coat for one of the kids or replace her own work shoes, and there's a conversation, a request, an assessment. And this is a quieter sign than some of the others, I feel. And it's not always intentional. Sometimes, as I said, it's that leftover of a 1970s arrangement that we watched.

That nobody thought to challenge, but the structure's the same. His earnings are his, her earnings fund the household, and over time, her share approaches zero, and his approaches everything he wants, he wants. And I absolutely see friends in this. Like I I see them behaving this way financially. And it's just so apparent to me that this that their behavior is.

Firmly within this one. But I don't think he would he would just think, but it's no, it's my money. She wants to spend it on the kids, but also she has to spend her money on the kids because there's not extra for it. And I don't think he he thinks, Yeah, but you're choosing to do that. ⁓ Yes and no. Like the kids need that, or we've agreed that they would have that. And if I don't if I don't, then they won't have it. So yeah.

Lawsie: Need stuff. Yeah, it is an interesting one and I think there's also just there is that whole mothering thing and you know, women naturally just say, no, that's what they need and I will do it without necessarily stepping back to look at that bigger picture to be like actually what is happening here and kind of put that, is this fair? Is this, you know, those lens. And yes, of course it can lead to uncomfortable conversations and things around that. And it could be, like you said, it could be something that is totally unintentional, like it is just the default behaviors that they've both fallen into, you know, a product of how they'll bought up, you know, everything that they say. And even just that might be how it is happening around them as well. So it's just that.

Mel: Yes. Other couples are doing it, so we've fallen into it. Yep. Yep.

Lawsie: Compounding effect. So it just it seems normal. ⁓whereas if you you know stop and you take a step back, you might start to question and go, hmm, maybe not. So and there could be this again, it is a sign. It's not saying it is a definite. It is just something to be aware of that for some people this sign is actually an indication that there's something else going on rather than just a default behaviour pattern that no one's questioned.

Mel: Yeah. And the consequences of this ⁓ often the gaps that we deal with, you know, because ⁓ he might be able to invest some of his money because he's got extra, which she's spending it on the kids and everything else that's needed. So you have an investment gap, you have an asset gap, you have a potentially super gap, you know, and a meaningful chunk of what's decided inside relationships where one person's money was treated as discretionary and the other person's money was treated as obligation. Like that can be that gap.

So, if your spending is for the household and he's spending this for himself, it's not a partnership. That's an arrangement. And it's just simply, it can be a sign of financial coercive control. So the sixth one is keeping her in the dark about household finances, debt, and investments. And this is the important bit, and refusing to discuss it.

So consequently, she doesn't know what they owe, she doesn't know what they own, she doesn't know where the super is, who the accountant is, what's in the offset, whether the will exists. She's been told for years not to worry about it, I'll handle it. Which often presents as kindness, because you know, I love that he doesn't want to stress me out. And he's just good at this stuff. Whereas I'm creative, I'm not a numbers person. But the outcome is the same. She has no autonomy because she has no information.

Lawsie: Yeah, and this is the one that hurts the most when a relationship ends.

Mel: Absolutely. And every financial advisor, family lawyer, financial counselor in Australia will tell you the same thing. When a women be woman becomes single again, the first six months are spent learning what she should have known the whole time, where everything is, what it's worth, what the depths are, and the fact that this is so common that it has a predictable timeline tells you everything about how widespread this is. So if you remember nothing else, remember this: that information is autonomy, and not knowing.

It isn't restful or ⁓ or giving you peace, not knowing it is actually risk.

Lawsie: Yeah, and I guess tying that back to the one of the earlier signs that we were talking about where if it's you know, you're asked to sign things that you don't know and all this kind of stuff where you end up with these potential debts and things that are in your name that you don't know. And this is when it's coming out. ⁓ you know, if the relationship does end and suddenly you're like, huh, what? How have I ended up with all of this debt, you know, and all of those kind of things. So yeah, staying on top of your facts and figures. Very, very important. ⁓ So Mel, what's five things that every woman should know by next Sunday? Love that you've given a deadline.

Mel: So if I was going to look for this, or if someone was listening going, well, yeah, but what should I need to know? We'll go and I would want to know the name of your super fund and the balance, ⁓ at the very least, the household debt, ⁓ where the will is, and if there is even is one, who has power of attorney and login access to your own bank account and your joint bank accounts and transparency over your partners. Like minimum. Not a power play, just adulthood. So

Lawsie: Definitely. ⁓ and then I want to come back to the sexually transmitted debt before we close because I think a lot of women hear the term and think, that's not me. I haven't been forced to do anything.

Mel: Yeah, and I guess it's really important to understand that sexually transmitted debt, unlike coercive control, doesn't require force. So that's the thing. Like ex sexually transmitted debt happens through small agreements that don't feel like necess ⁓ they can feel like agreements at the time, but you know, a signature on a refinance, your name on a business loan because his credit history was bad, or agreeing to be guarantor for his car, or taking on the mortgage in your name for tax reasons or because you have a better income.

Or your partner not disclosing that they have a massive tax bill until you joined lives together and went to go for a mortgage. Like all of those things we have seen at some point. And each one, except for the last one, might feel reasonable in the moment. Yeah.

Lawsie: Yeah, there's like a reason for it. Like it's yeah yeah, we're doing this because of this and whatever. Yeah.

Mel: But each one is enforceable forever. So the bank doesn't care that you didn't understand. The bank doesn't care that you signed because you didn't want to seem unsupportive. All the bank cares about is that you signed it. Or all the landlord cares. Yeah. So therefore, you're up for it.

Lawsie: No one damn it.

Yeah, and what's the prevention for this?

Mel: So I think three things, no matter your age, no matter how long you've been together or how much you love your partner.

One, you ha wanna make sure you have that credit score in your own name and check it once a year. So that means you can see what's actually been applied for in your own name. So you can see, ⁓ I didn't realize that I had applied for that. ⁓ or I didn't realize that's been defaulted on. So really important, ⁓ and it's completely free. To have a bank account in your own name with a balance only you can see. So I think it's really important that you both have your own money. ⁓

And Claire Booth Loose once said that the most important thing a woman can have is a little ⁓ little money of her own. Because I know right now too many women that are staying where they are because they can't afford to leave. So it's about having ⁓ that financial independence. And I and your partner can have that as well. Amazing. It's you both are having financial independence. Three have a s Absolutely.

Lawsie: Yeah, you can both have joint accounts and you can have separate yeah.

Mel: And three, have a super fund you've contributed to that's yours. And if you had a creed app that you've both agreed to, your partner should be super splitting with you during those years. So five-minute ⁓ payment, a five-minute form on their super fund, super easy. So

I guess the thing I I want to end or say as we close is if some of this episode landed in a way you didn't expect, I want to say a few things directly. Firstly, you're not crazy. You're not making it up. You're not the first woman who's re recognized her relationship is in a list of behaviors that are now in this country against the law. So let's just I want you to really hear and feel that today.

Two, I don't want you to act alone. So leaving an abusive relationship or even quietly preparing to is statistically the most dangerous time. And the professionals who do this work know what they're doing in a way that none of us can guess from the outside. So three is that there are specific numbers to call to help. So 1-800 full stop, which is 1-800-385-578. They're free 24 hours and they exist for exactly this. The national debt helpline.

Which is 1-800-007-007. Independent free financial counselors, which you will find on their free website or you or ring any of those numbers. And the Center for Women's Economic Safety, which we'll link in the show notes, has resources specifically on financial abuse. As does most of the major banks now. They have specialist domestic and family violence teams. So you can call your bank and ask, and they absolutely will help.

⁓ there's obviously also shelters and women's shelters, etc., which you can look for in your state as well. And there's f there's money that's available to help you you leave, depending on the state that you're in. One eight hundred will stop will help you with all of that.

Lawsie: Yeah. And for the women who recognize one or two signs but think, it's not abuse, that's not right, but it's not right either, like what what do you think with that? Like if you're feeling in that grey kind of area. Hmm.

Mel: Yeah. And that's probably a lot of it. So I think it's booking it's actually booking a money date with your partner. Maybe say, look, let's bring the story of our of what how we grew up doing money. So that we start a curious conversation and then maybe we bring three numbers each. Like what you own, what you owe, what you earn. Like let's start to be transparent. No commentary, no defensiveness, and start to agree with what you need to know about each other.

So money stories so that you understand how you both grew grew up. Thinking and talking about money, so you can start to get on the same page and curious. You've got a little pet bit of transparency. And I'd throw in another thing that you start to think about what you excited to build together.

Like what's some shared goals that you would be excited to do together so that you can start to get on the pay same page financially. But if you don't start to have the conversation, that's the most important start. We want to have a conversation about money without fighting. We want to start to have a conversation about money where it becomes a partnership again rather than an arrangement where one person is really dictating the other.

So, for most women listening to this episode, I want today's content to be like a checklist. You'll get to the end, you'll look at your relationship and think, well, we're fine, but we could do money better. So great. Do like that, you can start. Do work. But for some of you, today's episode gave you words for something you've been living with. And the law has caught up. So the conversation has caught up and the support now exists. So that number again is 1-800 full stop or 1-800-385-578. I would love you to save this episode. I'd love you to send it to your sister, your best friend, your 25-year-old niece who has just moved in with someone. We don't get to fix this individually. We'll fix it by passing this language on. See you all next week. Thanks, Law-Dog

Lawsie: Thank you.

 

Get the podcast at all your favourite locations, or jump through here: