‘Grandfather’ arrangements for PPS – entitlement or inequity?

Parliament house flag post

‘Grandfather’ arrangements for PPS – entitlement or inequity?

Posted 11/04/2013 by Carol Ey

Since it was announced in the 2012-13 Budget that ‘grandfathering’ arrangements for single parents receiving Parenting Payment Single (PPS) would cease on 1 January 2013, there has been considerable concern expressed at the plight of these recipients who would see their weekly income support payments reduced by over $130 per fortnight for those on the maximum rate, and in some cases not be entitled to any income support and associated benefits if they had high enough earnings. However there appears to have been little recognition that these changes also mean that those who have been in receipt of PPS continuously since June 2006 are now being treated equally to the majority of single parents on income support.

‘Grandfathering’ arrangements are common in the social security system. They arise when changes to the conditions for a payment mean that some current recipients would be worse off. They are therefore allowed to continue under their existing arrangements until they move to another payment (for example, the Age Pension) or cease to be eligible through a change in their circumstances (such as getting a job or single parents who partner). For example, Partner Allowance was closed to new entrants on 20 September 2003 but there were still 17 147 recipients as at June 2011. Similarly when the work test for the Disability Support Pension (DSP) was changed in July 2006 from a threshold of those unable to work 30 hours per week being eligibile for DSP (with others placed on Newstart) to only those unable to work 15 hours per week, people already in receipt of DSP remained on the payment and were not reassessed against the new tighter work test.

The rationale for preserving the conditions of existing recipients is that it may be difficult for people to adjust to changed conditions, and in particular a reduced level of payment, when they have been used to living on the previous arrangements. However it does lead to inequity where those who have applied for a payment prior to a particular date may be significantly better off than people in the same situation who apply after the date. In the case of DSP, a single adult who was assessed as being able to work 20 hours per week and claimed DSP on 30 June 2006 would have been $89 per fortnight better off than someone in the same situation who claimed on 1 July and was placed on Newstart. If both remained on payment since then, the difference in fortnightly pay would now be nearly $300.

For PPS the situation is slightly different. While two single parents each with a youngest child aged 10 who applied for PPS on 30 June and 1 July 2006 respectively would have been treated differently at the time (the first would have received PPS but with participation requirements until their youngest child reached 16, while the second would have been placed on Newstart), for those with younger children there was no immediate impact. Two single parents each with a four year old child, one claiming before and the other after 1 July 2006 would have both received PPS initially. The difference would have been that the one who claimed before 1 July would have continued to receive PPS until their youngest child turned 16 (although with participation requirements once the child turned 8), while the other recipient would have been moved onto Newstart when their youngest child turned 8.

So for PPS recipients the argument about existing recipients having difficulty adjusting to a lower income level is not relevant as at some stage all recipients would have been moved to Newstart – the only change has been the age of their youngest child at the time this happened. Therefore the outcry about how single parents will find it difficult to live on Newstart should not be restricted to the estimated 122 630 who have been effected by the 2012-13 Budget measures. In fact, this represents only about one-third of those currently receiving PPS – the remainder would have lost eligibility for the payment once their youngest child reached 8 even without the latest changes. Of the 122 630, around a half lost eligibility for PPS on 1 January 2013, and will join the estimated 48 000 principal carer parents who were already receiving Newstart. The remainder still have a child under the age of 8 and hence will only lose eligibility once their youngest child turns 8 – that is, under the same conditions as the other 200 000 PPS recipients.


  • 21/01/2014 1:58 PM
    Buster said:

    If only the media were able to understand this before they started spouting off about all single parents being affected. I don't recall as much of an outcry in 2006, but then there wasn't such a big payment rate difference between Newstart and PPS then. To me the argument should be about how low the Newstart payment is in comparison to other income support payments, something that few from any side are willing to talk about.

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment Sport illicit drugs people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget health financing gambling school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA emissions trading Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations people smuggling dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission slavery Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure poker machines ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth paid parental leave Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy violence against women domestic violence mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing money laundering Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights citizenship Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals

Show all
Show less
Back to top