2. Policy objectives

Policy drivers for pre‑employment programs

2.1According to the most recent evaluation of ParentsNext, the Australian Government is committed to ensuring that parents receive the assistance they need to prepare for employment by the time their children reach school age. Parents often take time out of the workforce, which can result in the loss of work‑specific skills and diminished confidence to enter or re‑enter paid employment.[1]

2.2The policy drivers which underpin ParentsNext include:

• reducing joblessness, welfare reliance and intergenerational welfare dependency;
• increasing female labour force participation; and
• helping to Close the Gap in employment outcomes for First Nations peoples.[2]
  3. Two of these policy drivers — reducing poverty and intergenerational disadvantage, and barriers to labour force participation — are discussed below. This is followed by a discussion of the role and functions of pre‑employment programs and analysis of the current iteration of ParentsNext.

Poverty and intergenerational disadvantage

2.4According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data, 90.2per cent of jobless, one‑parent families had children under 15 years of age as of June 2022. There were also 410,000 children aged 0–14 years living in a jobless family in Australia at that time. Approximately 276,000 of these children were in one‑parent families.[3]In addition, in more than 90 per of those families the sole parent was a woman.[4]

2.5Evidence indicates that sustained disconnection from the labour market has a range of negative impacts on parents, children, and families. These impacts are compounded for single‑parent families, and particularly for single mothers.

2.6The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) drew attention to its analysis of the Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth. That survey found that children in jobless families are more than four times more likely to be homeless, almost 2.5times more likely to be missing out on learning at home, and almost twice as likely to experience bullying or social exclusion, than children in families where at least one adult works.[5]

2.7Evaluations conducted by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and its predecessors found that persistent joblessness is more prevalent in single‑parent families and that sustained disconnection from the workforce results in higher risks of welfare dependency, financial stress, and poor physical and mental health. The evaluations also highlighted several studies detailing the challenges experienced by children in jobless families.[6] One study, by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), found that:

[O]ne of the two most important factors which can contribute to child poverty is whether or not children are living with parents who are jobless.[7]

2.8The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (CECFW) observed that single‑parent parent households experience higher levels of poverty compared to the general population, noting that 32 per cent of single parent households live in poverty, rising to 59 per cent where the parent is unemployed.[8]

2.9The National Women’s Safety Alliance (NWSA) echoed these concerns, noting that poverty and disadvantage are especially pronounced for single mothers, who make up around 80 per cent of single-parent households in Australia.[9] The NWSA also observed that around 60 per cent of single mothers are single parenting as they have made the decision to leave a violent relationship or household, stating:

The lived reality for…women who become single parents after leaving violence can be one where they have insufficient income to support their families, with half relying on welfare payments as their main source of income. For women who leave a household due to violence, the deprivation they encounter is so severe it is estimated that around 8,000 [per year] are forced to return to their perpetrators to avoid homelessness and more than 9,000 [per year] become homeless.[10]

2.10Mature age jobseekers (aged over 55 years) are also at increased risk of long-term unemployment and economic disadvantage. Research by the National Skills Commission found that older jobseekers experience substantially longer periods of unemployment than other age groups (76 weeks for mature aged jobseekers, compared to 54 weeks for people aged between 25 and 54 years and 33 weeks for people aged 26 years and under).[11]

2.11Analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that the proportion of people accessing Jobseeker payment who are women aged 45 more than tripled in the period from 2001 to 2019, and now stands at 27.7 per cent. Policy changes contributing to this increase include the closure of Partner Allowance, reforms to Parenting Payment, ‘tightening’ of eligibility criteria for the Disability Support Pension, and an increase to the minimum age for the Age Pension.[12]

2.12Mature age jobseekers—and particularly women—also face a range of other barriers to finding and keeping employment. These include discrimination (including the view that older people are less productive than their younger counterparts); a lack of up-to-date skills; caring responsibilities; and a lack of flexible, age-friendly jobs.[13] These barriers are not new and, in at least some cases, can result in situations of extreme hardship for vulnerable women. For example, the Age Discrimination Commissioner stated in 2011:

For some women in later life—when the impacts of this disadvantage accumulate—it reaches a crisis point. This is why we see a growth in the numbers of homeless women, of women living in poverty. And without effective policy and attitudinal change these distressing trends will grow.[14]

Barriers to labour force participation

2.13Evidence highlighted barriers to labour force participation — particularly for single parents — and suggested incentives to address them.[15]

2.14According to ABS data, the primary reason for women not participating in the labour force (including starting a job and working additional hours) is caring for children. Caring responsibilities have a particular impact on women with children aged under 15 years. Many women who cited caring responsibilities as a barrier to participation also indicated that they would prefer to remain home to care for their children, and that their children were either too young or too old for formal childcare.[16]

2.15For parents with children under 15, the most important incentives to join or participate in the labour force were jobs with part‑time and flexible hours, and jobs which match the person’s skills and experience. Mothers of children aged under 15 especially valued the ability to work part‑time hours, while mothers and fathers equally valued jobs which matched their skills and experience.[17]

2.16Analysis by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare notes that caring responsibilities are also a key barrier to workforce participation for First Nations women. This cohort is more likely than the rest of the population to have unpaid caring responsibilities for their own children and the children of others, as well as for those with disability or illness related to old age, reflecting the significantly different cultural and caring responsibilities that many First Nations peoples have which are not always adequately accommodated and respected.[18] These findings were reflected in testimony from participants and staff to whom the Committee spoke during site visits.

2.17Submitters highlighted the importance of flexible jobs which can accommodate caring responsibilities to encouraging women’s labour force participation — particularly for single mothers. For example, the Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC) stated:

Single mothers have immutable family responsibilities that they generally have to work around… [Single mothers] need permanent part‑time roles, with flexible leave provisions built in to help deal with sick children and other caring responsibilities, and for those with younger children, ideally school hours.[19]

2.18The CSMC raised concern that many jobs do not accommodate caring responsibilities. Moreover, with the increased casualisation of the workforce, permanent part‑time positions are rare, and most roles do not offer the leave entitlements necessary to enable working while caring for children.[20]

2.19The NWSA observed that barriers to workforce participation can be still more pronounced for women in receipt of Parenting Payment, stating that the low payment rate ‘entrenches poverty and makes routine job search activities impossible’.[21]

2.20Many parents in receipt of Parenting Payment who are already in employment may make the decision not to increase their work hours to the point at which they are no longer eligible for income support. This is because, at that point, the person will also lose access to other government benefits they may need to support themselves or their families.[22]

2.21Submitters also noted that a lack of affordable, accessible childcare is a major barrier to workforce participation. For example, one single mother, whose testimony appeared in Associate Professor Elise Klein’s submission, stated:

[I]f there was another single mum who was job ready, had all the degrees, had everything ready but then you give her free childcare. So, she doesn't have to think [that] out of the AU$200 she makes, AU$75 is going to go into childcare. [Then] out of the AU$125 left. She's got to pay her rent; she's got to pay for transport. She's got to pay for all the utilities. And food…there's nothing left.[23]

2.22In addition, while the costs of childcare can be met through government benefits such as Child Care Subsidy (CCS), navigating the childcare system can be prohibitively challenging.[24] Moreover, even when a parent is able to afford childcare, accessing it will be difficult if their work is casual or shift based.[25]

2.23The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) observed that labour market engagement for parents — particularly single parents — can be further limited by the fragmentation of pre‑employment and pre‑vocational services for parents of young children. Services are provided across multiple government jurisdictions (Federal, State, and local), and are often labour market‑oriented rather than properly situated in the ecosystem of other services such as family support and vocational training.[26]

2.24Other barriers to labour force participation highlighted in evidence included access to affordable transport, mental health challenges, and financial hardship.[27]

Roles and functions of pre‑employment programs

2.25Pre‑employment programs perform an important function in addressing barriers to labour force participation, supporting financial independence, and breaking cycles of intergenerational disadvantage.

2.26Many of the barriers faced by parents are not adequately addressed by ‘mainstream’ employment services. For example, OCTEC Limited (OCTEC) stated:

[Parents] have previously been underserviced by mainstream employment programs, which may not consider their experience and barriers, nor their need to balance work with their ongoing childcare responsibilities.[28]

2.27The Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) observed that a high‑quality pre‑employment service should support parents to enter or re‑enter the workforce, and where relevant retrain for a more financially secure career. Such a program should offer:

• coaching to build confidence and self‑esteem and to realise employment goals;
• empowerment pathways support;
• access to literacy and numeracy support;
• career guidance to expand participants’ understanding of employment, education and training in sectors of interest, as well as job prospects in these sectors;
• networking opportunities with employers and social activities with other parents to build social capital and connections;
• job preparation workshops and support with digital skills;
• support to navigate pathways from pre‑accredited to accredited training;
• information on and connection to relevant accredited courses/training institutions;
• curated work taster and work experience opportunities;
• interview preparation and résumé writing services;
• finding local jobs, job placements and connections to local employers or agencies;
• post‑placement support; and
• flexible funds to provide childcare and education subsidies that enable parents to take up study and employment opportunities.[29]
  28. Several submitters and witnesses praised former pre‑employment programs, in particular Jobs, Education and Training and Helping Young Parents. They drew attention to the flexibility of service delivery, limited compliance and compulsion, and wrap‑around service models.[30]
  29. Some of the key functions, objectives, and benefits of pre‑employment programs are discussed below.

Identifying and realising education and employment goals

2.30There was consensus among submitters and witnesses, including vocal critics of the current ParentsNext program, that pre‑employment programs can be useful in helping parents reach their education and employment goals. Such programs offer career advice informed by the local labour market; build participants’ confidence and readiness for work; and assist participants to upskill and re‑skill (including by enabling participants to pursue qualifications).[31]

2.31BSL observed that helping parents to identify and achieve their education and employment goals has a ‘clear logic’ for a program designed to advance workforce participation, noting that many parents lack access to necessary assistance. BSL also expressed support for a program that connects parents to other services and supports, noting that such programs recognise that workforce participation is conditional on personal and family wellbeing.[32]

2.32Sarina Russo Job Access (SRJA) stated that a pre‑employment program should, first and foremost, help build parents’ aspirations to engage in and return to work, as well as their confidence to do so. According to SRJA, the program should:

…paint a picture of a better life through providing information about the improved financial position, for the household, of paid work as opposed to reliance on income support. including by providing clear and simple information about how…paid work will interact with taxes, concessions, and benefits. It should [also] help with career counselling and understanding of the types of work that will likely be available, locally, when the person is ready to return to work.[33]

2.33Supporting participants to identify career aspirations and build their confidence to re‑engage with the workforce was also highlighted as a function of pre‑employment services during the Committee’s visits to ParentsNext providers and alternative services. Many participants commented that they had not previously been supported in their aspirations (and in some cases had been discouraged from aspiring to certain vocations or professions).

2.34These benefits were reflected in evidence provided by DEWR, which stated that pre‑employment programs help participants to achieve their educational and employment outcomes as well as to build and maintain their confidence.[34]

Preparing participants to transition to Workforce Australia

2.35Once a ParentsNext participant’s youngest child reaches six years of age, the participant is typically exited from the program and (assuming the person is still in receipt of income support) transitions to Workforce Australia. Workforce Australia is an employment program (as opposed to a pre‑employment program) and most participants have compulsory job search requirements.[35]

2.36A person is eligible for Parenting Payment only until their youngest child reaches six years of age (for Parenting Payment—Partnered) or eight years of age (for Parenting Payment—Single). At that point, many Parenting Payment recipients transition to another form of income support such as the JobSeeker payment. Most recipients of that payment are required to participate in Workforce Australia.[36]

2.37Some stakeholders observed that pre‑employment programs have a key role in preparing participants for the transition to mainstream employment services such as Workforce Australia.[37] For example, Djerriwarrh Community and Education Services (Djerriwarrh) stated:

Without the structured support and assistance of the ParentsNext program, many …parents may have chosen to continue to forgo their education and career aspirations because they did not have the guidance and support to assist them balance their parenting responsibilities with study and learning opportunities. This would result in a much‑weakened Workforce Australia employment services system as there would be many thousands of parents not ready and able to take up employment opportunities when their children commence school.[38]

2.38Roseberry Queensland (Roseberry) indicated that to most effectively support the transition to employment services, compulsory activity requirements associated with employment should commence towards the end of a ParentsNext participant’s journey with a pre‑employment program. This would increase the participant’s understanding of system requirements when transitioning to Workforce Australia.[39]

The role of a pre‑vocational program

2.39Some submitters and witnesses asserted that a pre‑vocational program, rather than a pre‑employment program, would be the more effective, appropriate means of supporting parents into secure, paid employment and improving families’ financial positions. The CSMC stated that placing parents on a pre‑employment program:

…indicates a drive to move them off social security payments while not actually improving the families’ financial position, short or long term, as minimum wage employment does not position parents to ‘work their way out of poverty’.[40]

2.40The CSMC observed that, by contrast, a pre‑vocational program involves ‘taking a step back from pre‑employment’ to focus on the participant’s circumstances and individual needs, as well as their right to parent young children.[41]

2.41The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC) indicated that one model for a pre‑vocational program is a ‘future planning service’, which provides targeted support for parents and families and — critically — has a strong focus on enabling parents to plan for their futures.[42] ACOSS expressed support for this or a similar service, stating that:

[E]ach individual who engages in [the service] needs to be part of [the] planning, so they need to decide what goes into their plans. [The service] needs to be individualised and personalised according to [the] person's own views of where they want to go—if they're going to go back into work or go into the labour market later on. I don't think you can be particularly prescriptive about which activities benefit people most.[43]

2.42The BSL also supported a pre‑vocational program, stating that such a program should reflect mutual investment and genuine partnerships between participants and the program provider(s).[44]

2.43The Brave Foundation drew attention to its Supporting Expecting and Pregnant Teens (SEPT) program as an example of a successful pre‑employment program, emphasising that the program is voluntary and supports participants to identify and achieve goals that are matched to life stages. Participants who are work‑ready are supported directly into employment, while more vulnerable participants access support to address non‑vocational barriers before considering employment‑related goals. The Brave Foundation stated that the SEPT program:

… has achieved great success by viewing the holistic needs of young parents—our participants have pursued their education and workforce participation goals, addressing financial, housing, mental health and wellbeing, and family and domestic violence challenges. In doing so, we have noted increased participant attendance and connection with maternal and child health services and enhanced their overall confidence in parenting.[45]

2.44Support for a pre‑vocational program was also broadly reflected in evidence from the CECFW, which indicated that if a program is to genuinely contribute to gender equity, it should not only offer education and training but support women to address and heal from trauma.[46]

Connecting parents to services and supports

2.45The Committee heard that pre‑employment programs also have a critical role in connecting participants to local activities and services.[47] This is particularly important in the context of the service fragmentation noted above.

2.46ACOSS emphasised that a pre‑employment program must be integrated with the service ecosystems that exist across Australia, which might already be addressing aspects of the needs of parents, families, and children.[48] ACOSS noted that examples of relevant services include primary health, mental health, adult education, TAFEs, local councils, and domestic and family violence.[49]

2.47The CECFW observed that, in Victoria, there are approximately 2,500 family service workers based in the community. The workers and the organisations they represent work with families to address issues associated with parenting, family violence, and child protection (among others). The CECFW indicated that a pre‑employment program should ‘link very closely’ with the family services ecosystem, and that closer links between that ecosystem and local Centrelink offices should be considered.[50]

2.48The Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS) similarly emphasised the importance of investing in the broader social support ecosystem, as well as the importance of wrap‑around services and early engagement to addressing barriers to workforce participation — particularly for young mothers. WACOSS stated:

[E]vidence has shown that if you're supporting a young woman before she is pregnant and certainly when she is pregnant, for example, and continue those supports, you get really positive outcomes.[51]

2.49SRJA stated that pre‑employment programs should form part of a suite of policies and programs that support women’s workforce participation.[52]

Addressing poverty and disadvantage

2.50The Committee heard that by enabling parents to achieve their education and employment goals and ultimately to achieve financial security, pre‑employment programs have the indirect, though significant, effect of addressing poverty and intergenerational disadvantage.[53]

2.51For example, SRJA stated that a well‑designed pre‑employment program should:

• Reduce the risk of long‑term economic disengagement, disadvantage, and future unemployment… (particularly for those who at greatest risk).

…

• Promote the wellbeing of children and reduce child poverty by improving parents’ future ability to earn a liveable income while not impeding their present ability to meeting their parenting responsibilities.[54]
  52. Pre‑employment programs play a key role in providing targeted support at certain transition points, which can be critical to breaking cycles of poverty and disadvantage and enabling parents to achieve their economic, heath, and wellbeing aspirations.[55] For example, Campbell Page stated:

[T]he transition from youth to adulthood involves several social and developmental milestones including job exploration, personal development, securing employment, completing education in post‑secondary studies or vocational training, and gaining independent living skills. However, some young people do not have a smooth transition and if not provided with relevant and effective interventions and support, they can experience challenges such as dropping out of education, unemployment, crime, early or unplanned pregnancy and housing instability or homelessness.[56]

2.53Campbell Page emphasised that supports for parents — particularly young parents — should be place‑based, individualised, and involve collaboration, stating that this approach helps the person and their family feel empowered, understand their rights, voice their opinions, and engage with the services and supports that are available.[57]

2.54Notwithstanding the role of pre‑employment programs in addressing poverty and disadvantage (and the objectives of the current ParentsNext program), several submitters and witnesses stated that the objectives of such programs should not use the language of intergenerational welfare dependence. The Committee heard that this language risks stigmatising participants and may diminish the importance of raising children as legitimate, important work.

2.55For example, BSL stated that referring to reducing long‑term welfare dependency:

…casts the problem as adult dependence on welfare payments, rather than as disadvantage or lack of opportunity to pursue education, training, and employment goals. Such framing presents participants as the problem, and they are cast as lacking capability, motivation, and agency to improve their circumstances. This framing has resulted in program design and practice that causes stigma and harm.[58]

2.56Submitters and witnesses asserted that the objectives and goals of pre‑employment programs should focus on the strengths of participants and the benefits they may derive from the program, rather than on participants’ vulnerabilities and on social and economic constraints.[59] For example, Dr Ann Nevile stated:

I believe it is better to design a program which maximises opportunities for participants to get value from the program, rather than embedding structural constraints which reduce the likelihood of the program achieving policy goals.[60]

Valuing the role of parenting

2.57Several stakeholders asserted that a pre‑employment program must value caring for children as legitimate and important work and must enable parents and carers — irrespective if background or circumstances — to make their own decisions as to whether they connect with the labour market or remain at home to parent their children.[61]

2.58Associate Professor Klein emphasised that unpaid care work and raising the next generation on which the economy and society depends is ‘extremely important and crucial’, stating that:

This work should be valued and people undertaking it should be given the space, economic security, support, and time needed to undertake it. Government must accept and make policy that appreciates workforce participation as just one form of work, amongst many forms of work, which whilst being extremely critical for the economy and society, are often unpaid.[62]

2.59Submitters and witnesses also highlighted the importance of parents being present during the vital early stages of a child’s learning and development, noting the long‑term negative impacts on children — particularly children living in disadvantage — that can occur when the parent is not present during these stages.[63]

2.60The CECFW observed that the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, from conception to two years of age, is a critically important time that shapes the child’s wellbeing and development. It is also during this period that the child forms strong, secure attachment to their parent.[64]

2.61The CSMC noted that many parents access income support during the early stages of their child’s life, emphasising that drawing on social security assistance must not be viewed as a risk indicator for welfare dependency. The CSMC stated:

We can't allow it to become a privilege only of higher income mothers with a breadwinning partner to raise their own children. This is the risk we're running by penalising women at this phase of their life, when what they want to do is invest their time and energy into the wellbeing and future of their own children.[65]

The current ParentsNext program

2.62As noted at the outset, ParentsNext is a divisive and controversial program. This was clearly reflected in the fact that while many participants with whom the Committee met during its site visits commented very positively on ParentsNext and detailed the benefits of the program, other stakeholders — including advocacy bodies and participants who made submissions or appeared at the Committee’s hearings — expressed very negative views, including that the program is punitive and causes harm to vulnerable women.

2.63During the Committee’s visits to ParentsNext providers, the Committee heard from a significant number of participants about their experiences with the program. While these participants highlighted areas in which ParentsNext could be improved, many observed that ParentsNext had helped them to build confidence, connected them with education and employment opportunities, supported them to connect with employers, and in many cases enabled them to obtain paid work. Several stated that their experience with ParentsNext had been life‑changing.

2.64These positive experiences were reflected in some participants’ written evidence.[66] For example, one participant stated:

ParentsNext…is more than a simple job provider, it is a helping hand and a supportive voice, it is the encouragement to further a career, a chance to learn, and it was a literal life saver for me.[67]

2.65ParentsNext providers also highlighted the benefits of the program, noting that it has been successful in addressing barriers to labour market participation, supporting participants to develop community networks, and building participants’ confidence and skills. Most of those providers submitted case studies to support their claims.[68] One provider sent the Committee more than 150 feedback forms completed by participants. These forms identified areas in which ParentsNext could be improved, but overwhelmingly reflected positive experiences.

2.66Positive experiences of ParentsNext were broadly reflected in an evaluation of the program over the period 2018 to 2021. Key findings of the evaluation included:

• Almost 75 per cent of participants saw an improvement in their work readiness and reported an increase in motivation to achieve work and study goals;
• ParentsNext had a positive impact on education and employment — particularly for early school leavers and parents with children under 5 years old; and
• Almost all providers surveyed as part of the evaluation agreed that ParentsNext was meeting its objectives effectively.[69]
  67. However, the evaluation was unable to establish whether ParentsNext had a long‑term impact on joblessness or intergenerational welfare dependence, largely due to the difficulty in detecting these types of changes over the short term. International research indicates that the return on investment for ParentsNext‑type programs may not be apparent for many years.[70]
  68. In contrast to the positive experiences of ParentsNext shared with the Committee, many other stakeholders raised concerns about ParentsNext and the way it is delivered. Many advocated for significant changes to the program,[71] with some calling for it to be abolished.[72] Common among stakeholders opposing ParentsNext was the view that while the objectives of the program are appropriate, the program is designed and delivered in such a way that the objectives are not realised.[73]
  69. In addition, participants who spoke to the Committee during site visits observed that the quality of their experience in ParentsNext depended heavily on their provider and the provider’s staff, including case managers. This was reflected in evidence before the Committee.[74] For example, the Settlement Council of Australia (SCA) stated:

The likelihood of a positive outcome is dependent on the skills and responsiveness of the workers delivering the service. This can be highly variable. For migrant and refugee women the likelihood of a mainstream provider not being responsive to their needs is even higher.[75]

2.70Case managers and frontline staff to whom the Committee spoke during site visits noted that they frequently used ‘work arounds’ to ensure participants would not be subject to undue compliance activity and could continue to benefit from the program. This suggested that operating within the design parameters of ParentsNext is not always conducive to positive outcomes.

2.71The use of these ‘work arounds’ was also reflected in evidence before the Committee. For example, YFS Limited (YFS) stated:

Some ParentsNext providers have developed work‑arounds for participants who struggle to meet reporting requirements, such as linking the reporting date with the date parents have to report income.[76]

2.72Mission Australia similarly noted that its staff exercise discretion to minimise risks to participants while working within the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF) and their contractual obligations, and rarely apply sanctions for noncompliance.[77]

2.73The design of ParentsNext, including the fundamental question of the program’s purpose, was a matter of considerable concern for many stakeholders. For example, ACOSS stated that ParentsNext:

…does not meet its policy objective of providing useful pre‑employment support to parents of young children who need it. It has been designed unhelpfully with a broad‑brush approach and resources are wasted on administration and enforcement of program rules that are not helping those that most need it.[78]

2.74Per Capita highlighted similar issues with ParentsNext next, stating that the program:

…is too focused on managing parents’ behaviour and time use, and it assigns to a complex web of government agents and information system processes the power to cause uncertainty, stress and harm, by suspending payments for non‑attendance backed up by the risk of payment cancellation. The activities the program proposes and includes in participants’ plans are too limited and are driven more by mutual obligation requirements than by an effective strategy to encourage and enable preparation for employment.[79]

2.75The Committee also heard that ParentsNext, at least as currently designed and delivered, is not appropriate for First Nations peoples. For example, Dr Curchin stated:

The paternalist framing of the existing ParentsNext program makes it particularly inappropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants. Concerns that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents might be reluctant to engage with government‑funded employment programs need to be addressed by engaging with Aboriginal‑controlled organisations to create programs that are trustworthy and culturally safe.[80]

2.76Submitters and witnesses also raised concern in relation to specific elements of the program — particularly compulsory participation and reporting, and the application of the TCF.[81] One former participant stated that:

[ParentsNext] is coercive control…it's government sanctioned abuse…There's no option out; you're totally controlled and there are people who don't know you and don't know your situation making decisions about whether you're allowed to pay your rent or feed your children.[82]

2.77Economic Justice Australia (EJA) stated that parents and other carers are referred to ParentsNext despite not satisfying the eligibility criteria for the program and having little or no capacity to benefit. Examples provided by EJA included:

• Parents have been referred to ParentsNext despite having completed Year 12 and being engaged in part‑time TAFE or University courses. One client was in the final year of a degree.
• Grandparents caring for young grandchildren have been referred, despite being single and under 55 years.
• A grandmother caring for three young children referred to the ParentsNext program had given up work and claimed Parenting Payment (Single) and Family Tax Benefit as she could not cope with working and caring for the children. The children were traumatised by the family violence they experienced before being taken into care by their grandmother.[83]
  78. In addition, the Committee heard that Participation Plans are not tailored to the needs of participants, and often include activities which are not effective in helping to achieve the participant’s goals.[84] Moreover, Plans often include activities which the participant is already undertaking. The NWSA observed that this can:

…[Create] the spectre of surveillance over routine parenting activities that [are then] perceived by authorities as being ‘job ready’ activities, draining the enjoyment a parent may otherwise have derived.[85]

2.79Evidence also indicated that the Participation Fund — which is intended to be used to purchase support and resources to help participants achieve their goals — is under‑utilised, due at least in part to a lack of flexibility in the rules that govern its use.[86] This was highlighted as a particular issue in the context of supporting participants to gain driver licences, which can be essential in regional and remote areas where many people lack access to reliable public transport.[87]

2.80The current program may also fail to give sufficient value to caring for children as a form of work.[88] For example, Associate Professor Klein stated:

ParentsNext is premised on an assumption that reproductive labour is not work—indeed, this is a structuring principle of the program as it overlooks and undervalues the gendered division of labour resulting in discarding the amount of labour that single mothers engage in on a daily basis by deeming them unemployed and not working.[89]

2.81Issues with specific elements of ParentsNext, including compulsory participation and the application of the TCF, eligibility criteria and their application, the Participation Plan and the appropriateness of activities, and the Participation Fund, are discussed in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4.

2.82Submitters and witnesses further observed that there is significant stigma attached to ParentsNext, noting that participants can be painted as lazy, lacking motivation, and incapable of improving their situation without government intervention. Accordingly, a common view was that ParentsNext’s reputation is too damaged for the program to continue in its current form.[90]

Alternative programs

2.83Some submitters and witnesses drew attention to alternative pre‑employment and pre‑vocational programs, noting that these might serve either as replacements for ParentsNext or as models for the design and delivery of a replacement. Typically, these programs were voluntary.

2.84For example, the BSL drew attention to its Sustaining Empowerment and Economic Dignity (SEED) project, delivered in Seymour, Victoria. The BSL explained that the SEED project, which is place‑based and designed to respond to local conditions, aims to tackle barriers to women’s economic security and financial wellbeing. Key elements of the SEED project include:

• a 6‑week Empowerment Pathway Program which supports participants to rediscover strengths and skills and to increase their confidence;
• mentoring and leadership opportunities, wrap around personal and economic support, referrals to employers, and referrals to social, employment, education, housing, and financial support services;
• leveraging of a Community Investment Committee designed to identify barriers to workforce participation in the local area such as a lack of childcare or insufficient flexible work opportunities;
• research and analysis relating to women's economic security and wellbeing; and
• monitoring and evaluation to enable tracking of multidimensional needs and outcomes at both an individual and local community level.[91]
  85. The Committee visited the SEED program and heard directly from participants about its positive impacts. Participants especially valued the welcoming environment where services are delivered and the focus on empowering women to achieve their goals. Participants drew a contrast between SEED and government‑funded employment and pre‑employment services, noting that while interactions with government providers can be brusque or even dehumanising, SEED values participants as people and takes a holistic approach to service delivery.
  86. Campbell Page drew attention to its Young Mothers Pathway Program (YMPP). This is a pilot program delivered in Deception Bay, Queensland, and uses a wrap‑around approach to support mothers aged 15 to 30 to identify a career and actively move towards financial independence for their families. Campbell Page noted that the program has supported 52 single mothers since commencing in 2015.[92]
  87. Recent evaluations of the YMPP determined that a wrap‑around model is appropriate when working with young mothers who have individualised, complex support needs. Of the participants in the program:
• 45 per cent had increased workforce participation, in employment which fits with their parenting priorities;
• 39 per cent are working towards 26 weeks in employment;
• 50 per cent are studying towards their career of choice; and
• Of the school‑aged mothers in the program, 58 per cent are completing Year 12 or VET qualifications.[93]
  88. Dr Curchin highlighted the Scottish Making it Work program as an example of an effective pre‑employment program for parents, stating that the program:

[E]mpowers participants to find a pathway out of poverty by gaining employment that they could make fit with their caring responsibilities. The program was tailored to the needs of individuals, [and] was specifically designed to support inter‑agency collaboration not competition. It facilitated group interactions of participants to counteract the social isolation that many parents experience. It helped parents find childcare and meet the costs of childcare while they were in the process of training or starting work.[94]

Designing a replacement service

2.89As outlined above, several submitters and witnesses have called for ParentsNext to be abolished and replaced with a new pre‑employment or pre‑vocational service. A key point made by many stakeholders is that any replacement program or service must centre the experiences and needs of participants, empower parents to achieve their goals (rather than focusing only on education and employment outcomes), and value caring for children as important, legitimate work.

2.90Elements of the proposed new service — including eligibility criteria, participation requirements, compliance and enforcement, and service delivery — are discussed in subsequent chapters.

Co‑designing the service

2.91A common theme — particularly among stakeholders who advocated for a service to replace ParentsNext — was that any replacement service must be developed through a genuine process of co‑design, to ensure that it captures and responds to the circumstances of those likely to be impacted, and to ensure that services and supports are tailored, effective, and culturally appropriate.[95]

2.92The Committee heard that, at a minimum, the co‑design process must involve parents and carers, their advocates, providers, and policy experts. It must also capture the voices of specific cohorts, including young parents, First Nations peoples, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, and those who have experienced family violence.[96]

2.93A key reason for a co‑design process is ensuring that services delivered to participants are tailored to participants’ individual needs, rather than taking the ‘one size fits all approach’ that has often characterised the current ParentsNext program. As WACOSS stated:

[I]f the program is reinvented, it needs to be co‑designed by the people that will be participating in the program—and that one size not does not fit all …Certainly from what I have heard over many years of involvement [with the current] program, it is too one‑size‑fits‑all.[97]

2.94WACOSS also asserted that, for First Nations peoples, services should be designed and delivered by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations.[98]

2.95As well as emphasising the importance of co‑design, submitters and witnesses articulated some of the key principles which should underpin a replacement service. These broadly reflected the functions and objectives of pre‑vocational and pre‑employment programs outlined earlier in this chapter, and included:

• targeted services which respond to individual needs, build confidence, combat isolation, and support aspirations;
• valuing unpaid care (caring for and raising children) as legitimate, important work;
• a focus on job quality and security, as well as intersections between employment and social security, where a participant has employment as a goal; and
• a focus on participants’ strengths, on addressing barriers to social and economic participation, and on achieving financial security.[99]
  96. Submitters and witnesses also stressed the importance of situating any replacement service within existing ecosystems of social support in different jurisdictions and employment regions, and of involving social support organisations in the co‑design process. For example, ACOSS stated:

[P]rograms for parents on income support [must be] culturally safe and… planned from the bottom up in partnership with organisations that provide high‑quality care and support, sometimes for families who are in very vulnerable situations, including in family and domestic violence services. [They] need to be designed very closely with those who know best how to provide the right supports.[100]

[A]t one level we're saying, 'co‑design the actual program,' but also…'situate that program within the kinds of ecosystems of support that already exist in different regions, and which might be addressing other aspects of the needs of families and parents of young children in those communities’.[101]

Monitoring and evaluation

2.97The Committee heard that any pre‑employment or pre‑vocational program or service must be supported by transparent, independent monitoring and evaluation, to ensure it is achieving its intended objectives and to inform any necessary improvements.[102]

2.98Some stakeholders contended that evaluations conducted to date by DEWR have not been sufficiently reliable or evidence based.[103] For example, Per Capita stated:

[T]he Department of Jobs and Small Business [2017] evaluation of ParentsNext did not appear to be willing to apply any lessons it could have readily picked up from community stakeholders, or parents themselves in the program. [It also] manifested several methodological failures and an obvious determination to justify taking the program from pilot phase to national rollout. The AHRC’s careful analysis pointed out inadequacies around data sampling, transparency around research and survey design, and the way qualitative interviews were reported.[104]

2.99Submitters and witnesses also asserted that stakeholders should have access to accurate, reliable data about the program — particularly data held by DEWR and other public agencies.[105] For example, ACOSS recommended that DEWR provide:

• detailed analysis on the specific activities engaged in and their direct impact on outcomes such as improvements to income and well‑being.
• monthly information on payment suspensions, holds and demerit points, compliance interviews and payment preclusions, caused by either the [TCF] or Centrelink reporting, and the collection of qualitative data on the effects of this.
• detailed data on program participants, including demographics on referrals, exemption reasons, activities and exits.[106]

Supporting young and teenage parents

2.100Submitters and witnesses observed that younger and teenage parents often face different and more significant challenges than other parents and expressed concern at the dearth of targeted interventions and support for this cohort.

2.101For example, the Brave Foundation observed that young mothers are one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australian society. This cohort is more likely to be in receipt of income support, to have lower levels of education, and less likely to be partnered than other women. The cohort is also more likely to experience housing insecurity, family violence, and substance addiction. Accordingly, this cohort should be provided with additional support:

In the absence of support, the likelihood is that the behaviours and symptoms of their trauma survival is passed onto their children who may then continue to pass this along the family line as intergenerational trauma. Given the particular needs and developmental changes of this group of parents, support services need to be designed and delivered to meet their needs.[107]

2.102The Committee heard that that the Helping Young Parents program (trialled between 2012 and 2016) was successful in supporting teenage parents. Some submitters and witnesses indicated that there may be value in reinstating a similar program.[108]

2.103There were divergent views as to the extent to which a program for teenage parents should be compulsory. For example, the National Employment Services Association (NESA) supported a more active or intensive approach, stating:

If the benefit of having some of our most disadvantaged and vulnerable principal carer parents participate in the program is of greater value than having a level of compellability to ensure engagement; then the element of compellability should be retained.[109]

2.104The Brave Foundation also supported a more active approach to supporting young parents, but indicated that, in most cases, there should not be any requirement to engage with services and supports. In this respect, the Brave Foundation stated:

[P]reference [should be given to] voluntary participation for younger age groups in particular because we know building relationships and trust is coming at a really critically important time in their journey…[W]e want to be encouraging young people to be part of something, to know that they can trust, to know that they have people in their corner who are working alongside and encouraging them, because that is important to see good outcomes for the young person, not because it's an obligation to have good outcomes for that person.[110]

2.105The BSL similarly stated that while there would be merit in a program targeted to teenage parents, such a program should be voluntary. The BSL noted that so long as the program is seen as welcoming and inclusive and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate caring and other responsibilities, participants will typically want to engage. The BSL drew attention to its own programs in this regard, stating:

In our…employment programs like [Jobs Victoria Employment Services] and the Work and Learning Centre, in our Stepping Stones program we've run for 10 years, we don't have a problem engaging because it's seen as a support. If you put in that the first meeting is compulsory, you're at risk of having a different engagement.[111]

Committee view

2.106There is a long history to the provision of targeted programs which aim to build the capacity of parents and support them to prepare for employment. The Committee has sought to understand whether there remains a need for such programs in the current labour market and, if so, to articulate what such programs should aim to achieve.

2.107The Committee has firmly concluded that there is a need for a pre‑employment or pre‑vocational services for disadvantaged parents. Such services can be effective in addressing barriers to social and economic participation, enabling financial security for participants, and ultimately in helping to break intergenerational cycles of poverty and disadvantage.

2.108There are multiple barriers to labour force participation for parents and carers, and particularly for single parents who have been disconnected from the labour force for a sustained period. Chief among these is the task of caring for and raising children, which — while invaluable to society as a whole — can make starting and remaining in work very challenging, particularly where affordable, accessible childcare is not available, and jobs are insufficiently flexible to accommodate caring responsibilities. The Committee also understands that sustained disconnection from the workforce may result in a variety of negative consequences, including severe financial hardship and poor physical and mental health. The Committee is also deeply concerned by the large and growing proportion of long-term unemployed women aged over 45. Many of these women have had significant time out of the workforce caring for children and lack formal skills or education.

2.109ParentsNext has been at least moderately successful in achieving its stated goals. Participants (through written submissions, in case studies from providers, and by speaking directly to the Committee) commented very positively on ParentsNext, stating that the program has helped them build confidence, gain skills and qualifications, access supports and connect with employers. Despite questions as to their reliability, evaluations of ParentsNext by DEWR and its predecessors also found that the program has been effective in supporting many participants to achieve education and employment outcomes.

2.110Unfortunately, positive experiences of ParentsNext are all too often overshadowed by evidence of the harms caused to many participants. Much of the harm is associated with onerous participation and reporting requirements and the harsh compliance regime, including payment suspensions and financial penalties (discussed in subsequent chapters).

2.111The Committee also heard that the design of ParentsNext is not always sufficiently tailored to the individual needs of participants, has too heavy a focus on achieving employment and education outcomes that may not be appropriate for all parents, and fails to properly value the task of caring for children. The Committee acknowledges that there is some flexibility in the program, and appreciates that many skilled and caring consultants flexibly and sensitively apply program requirements and develop Participation Plans. However, this experience is not universal.

2.112Many concerns about ParentsNext raised in evidence to this inquiry were reflected in previous inquiries by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. These concerns suggest that trust in ParentsNext is broken, and that — whatever benefits ParentsNext is delivering — the program should not continue in its current form.

2.113While acknowledging the benefits of the current program, given the serious design flaws, unduly harsh reporting and compliance regimes and the damaged community trust, the Committee strongly considers that ParentsNext should not continue past the end of the current contracts.

2.114The Committee recommends that ParentsNext be abolished at the end of its current contract and be replaced with a new pre-vocational service.

2.115The Committee acknowledges that if the many other recommendations in this report are adopted then it will be necessary to extend the current ParentsNext contracts to allow a replacement service to be designed and commissioned. Contract extensions should only occur for the shortest time necessary to co-design and implement a replacement service. The Committee estimates that the co-design process is likely to take nine to 12 months.

2.116Contract extensions mean that the current program would continue on an interim basis. As such and noting significant stakeholder concern about the punitive nature of the program and its adverse impacts on participants, significant changes should be made to ParentsNext’s participation, reporting and compliance arrangements. These changes should make the current program more supportive and reduce to the greatest extent possible the punitive aspects that are doing the greatest harm. Recommended and suggested interim changes are outlined in Chapter 6 of this report.

2.117The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:

• extend existing ParentsNext contracts for the shortest time possible to allow for the co-design and implementation of a replacement service; and
• make significant changes on an interim basis to the current ParentsNext program to address the serious concerns outlined in this report, with a particular focus on limiting participation and reporting requirements and reducing the impacts of the unreasonably harsh compliance regime.
  118. At the end of the current contract, ParentsNext should be replaced with a new pre‑vocational service focused on building the confidence and capacity of parents, addressing barriers to social and economic participation, and supporting parents to identify and achieve their individual goals, including those relating to education and employment.
  119. The Committee suggests ‘Your Future Planning’ as the title of the new service, to emphasise the focus on supporting people as individuals (not just as parents) as they consider their future aspirations and the steps they will take to achieve their goals.
  120. As a matter of principle, parents must have the right to choose to actively parent their children, particularly where the child is very young. Accordingly, any replacement service for ParentsNext must be designed to value the role of parenting, and must help restore decency and respect to the role that parents, and particularly single mothers, have in raising future generations. The Committee agrees with submitters that it should not only be wealthy women who can choose to actively parent their very young children, and that too great a focus on future employment for parents of very young children fails to recognise the reality of caring. This focus on future employment is a very patriarchal view.
  121. Given the ongoing concern that the focus and objectives of ParentsNext need to change, the new service must have clearly defined objectives to guide design and implementation. The Committee considers the language of welfare dependence is wrong and unhelpful, as it may unfairly stigmatise and ‘victim blame’ people trapped in poverty or disadvantage. The new service should instead focus on enhancing economic security and addressing entrenched disadvantage.
  122. Draft objectives for a new service, subject to refinement during a co-design process, could be for a supportive service which targets early intervention assistance to parents at greatest risk of entrenched disadvantage, and helps to enhance their long-term economic security, including by:

• assisting parents to identify their future aspirations and education and employment goals that will lead to secure and decent work that fits with their caring responsibilities;
• supporting parents to progress towards their skills and education goals and to access suitable employment opportunities; and
• supporting parents to access other services and supports to help them to care for their family and advance and address barriers to their education and employment goals, taking account of caring responsibilities.
  123. The Committee acknowledges the many excellent alternative programs aimed at improving women’s economic security, supporting young parents, and supporting single or disadvantaged parents, which are delivered by not-for-profit entities. These programs are diverse, usually place-based, and often relatively expensive in terms of unit cost per person. However, they may deliver better results in building aspirations and goals from a more immersive, supportive experience—often in group settings. One example is the BSL’s ‘SEED’ project, which has much broader eligibility and provides more intensive support than ParentsNext.
  124. The Committee does not consider it realistic, desirable, or necessary to copy or standardise those programs, or to replicate them on a national level, particularly given fiscal constraints and the disparate support needs of parents and carers. However, those programs include design elements that may be used as models for a replacement service for ParentsNext.
  125. The Committee also sees benefit and merit in parents being able to choose to participate in one of the many excellent alternative and complementary programs in fulfilment of their participation requirements. Such programs could also be considered as eligible for the application of a person’s Skills Passport (a financial entitlement to be spent on education and training, detailed in Chapter 3), and the use of resources from the Participation Fund where appropriate and beneficial.

2.126The Committee recommends that the service which replaces ParentsNext value caring for children as important, and focus on:

• assisting parents to identify future aspirations and education and employment goals that will lead to secure, meaningful work that fits with their caring responsibilities;
• supporting parents to progress towards their skills and education goals and to access suitable employment opportunities; and
• supporting parents to access other services and supports to help them to care for their family and advance and address barriers to their education and employment goals, taking account of caring responsibilities.

2.127The Committee recommends that complementary and alternative programs delivered by not-for-profit entities be recognised as fulfilling participation requirements for ParentsNext and for any service which replaces it. Participants should also be enabled to use the Participation Fund, as well as funding allocated to the proposed ‘Skills Passport’, to support participation in programs deemed appropriate and beneficial.

2.128Heightened levels of disadvantage experienced by teenage and young parents suggest that Government should be more active in its support for this cohort. A program focused on supporting young and teenage parents should be implemented as a targeted stream or standalone program. The program must be adapted to the needs and circumstances of this cohort and should have a focus on helping participants to identify and achieve personal goals and address barriers to social and economic participation before considering specific education or employment outcomes.

2.129The Committee considers that the objectives and design of the former Helping Young Parents program remain appropriate for teenage parents, and notes that there is clear evidence that the former program was effective in supporting teenage parents to complete their education and improve their long‑term prospects. The Committee suggests this service should focus on parents aged 20 or below with similar targeting criteria, participation requirements and support options as the previous Helping Young Parents program.

2.130The Committee recommends that the Australian Government design and implement a specific program focused on young and teenage parents. The program should have the objective of assisting young and teenage parents to complete their studies and improve their long‑term prospects, as well as the long‑term prospects of their children.

2.131Both the new ‘Your Future Planning’ service and the program to support teenage parents should be the product of a robust and comprehensive co‑design process, to ensure the voices of those most likely to be impacted by programs are captured.

2.132While acknowledging that the participants in a co‑design process will vary according to the nature of the program, the co‑design process must involve, at a minimum, parents and carers, advocates, policy experts, employer organisations, service providers, parents from CALD backgrounds, First Nations peoples, and family and domestic violence support services.

2.133The Committee recommends that the program to replace ParentsNext, as well as the program to support teenage parents, be co‑designed with key stakeholders, including:

• parents, carers, and their advocates;
• service providers, including in family and domestic violence support;
• employer organisations;
• policy experts;
• First Nations communities and First Nations‑led organisations; and
• people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds and multicultural organisations.
  134. If the Committee’s recommendations are broadly implemented via a new co-designed service, there will be some aspects that may be more costly to deliver. These are outlined throughout the report but include a greater role for Services Australia in many areas, additional capacity for providers in the initial engagement with participants to set goals, greater use of incentives, and support to work with First Nations communities and families. These costs would be offset to some degree by changes to eligibility (likely resulting in fewer participants) and simpler compliance requirements. If, however, additional funding is required and not available, the Committee is firmly of the view that quality should be prioritised over quantity.
  135. The Committee considers that it is better to provide a higher quality service to a narrower group of people than to compromise on critical design principles so that more parents can participate in the service. The Committee notes that the introduction of new eligibility criteria (discussed in Chapter 3), and a greater focus on ensuring that parents are not inappropriately referred to the program, should help reduce the number of participants overall.

2.136The Committee recommends that where budget limitations restrict the ability to implement key recommendations, the Australian Government prioritise, at least initially, a higher quality service to a narrower group of parents rather than compromise on critical service design principles.

2.137The new ‘Your Future Planning’ service must be subject to regular, independent monitoring and evaluation. This should include making data about the service publicly available. A monitoring and evaluation strategy should be captured in the co‑design process for the new service. This is likely to assist the credibility and acceptance of the evaluations.

2.138The potential for an independent regulator and broader issues of assurance, research and evaluation will be further covered in the Committee’s final report.

2.139The Committee recommends that the service to replace ParentsNext, as well as the program to support young and teenage parents, be subject to robust and transparent and monitoring and evaluation, accompanied by open data sharing, which also enables external scrutiny and evaluation.

Footnotes

[1]See Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), Submission 77 (Attachment 2), p. 21.

[2]See DEWR, Submission 77 (Attachment 2), p. 21. These drivers have shifted slightly from the drivers set out in the first evaluation report, which did not include a specific focus on employment outcomes for First Nations peoples. See Department of Jobs and Small Business (DJSB), ParentsNext Evaluation Report, September2018, p.16, https://www.dewr.gov.au/parentsnext/resources/parentsnext-evaluation-report, viewed 14February 2023.

[3]Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Labour Force Status of Families, June 2022, www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment‑and‑unemployment/labour‑force‑status‑families, viewed 20November 2022.

[4]See Campbell Page, Submission 57, p.[3].

[5]Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY), Submission 37, p.1.

[6]See DJSB, ParentsNext Evaluation Report, September 2018, pages 17–20, 58–60; DEWR, Submission 77 (Attachment 2), pages 21–22.

[7]See DJSB, ParentsNext Evaluation Report, p.17.

[8]Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (CECFW), Submission 74, p.2.

[9]National Women’s Safety Alliance (NWSA), Submission 27, pages [3–5]. The NWSA highlighted a survey of women living in Canberra conducted by the YWCA, in which 61 per cent of single mother respondents reported that they did not have sufficient savings to pay their housing costs for two payment cycles, and 30 per cent described their financial circumstances as being either ‘financial crisis’ or ‘financial stress’.

[10]NWSA, Submission 27, p. [4].

[11]National Skills Commission, The state of Australia’s Skills 2021: now and into the future, February 2020, p.30, https://www.nationalskillscommission.gov.au/reports/state-of-australia-skills-2021, viewed 14February2023.

[12]Parliamentary Budget Office, JobSeeker Payment: Understanding economic and policy trends affecting Commonwealth Expenditure, Report No. 03/2020, pages 10–12, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Budget_Office/Publications/Research_reports/JobSeeker_Payment, viewed 13 February 2023.

[13]See, for example, Ms Natalie James, Secretary, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 3 November 2022, p. 13; Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL), Too old to work, too young to retire, p. [2], 2015, https://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/7905/4/Workforce_vulnerabilities_in_midlife_and_beyond_research_summary_2015.pdf, viewed 14 February 2023; Outpost Consulting (2021), Research into employment barriers for mature age Australians – Final Report, pages 4–5, https://www.dewr.gov.au/mature-age-hub/resources/employment-barriers-mature-age-australians-research-project, viewed 14 February 2023.

[14]The Hon. Susan Ryan AO (2021), Age Discrimination Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Barriers facing older women’s workforce participation, International Association for Feminist Economics Symposium on Valuing Care Work, 5December2011 https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/barriers-facing-older-womens-workforce-participation-2011, viewed 14 February 2023.

[15]Evidence also indicated that women’s disconnection from the workforce has a substantial economic impact. For example, research by the Grattan Institute found that for each 6 per cent increase to women’s workforce participation, there would be a 1 per cent increase in Australia’s Gross Domestic Product. See Campbell Page, Submission 57, p. [4].

[16]ABS, Barriers and Incentives to Labour Force Participation, Australia, 2021–22, November 2022. www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment‑and‑unemployment/barriers‑and‑incentives‑labour‑force‑participation‑australia/2020–21, viewed 13 February 2023.

[17]ABS, Barriers and Incentives to Labour Force Participation, Australia, 2021–22, November 2022.

[18]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, The health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 9 June 2015. www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-australians/indigenous-health-welfare-2015/contents/overview, viewed 13 February 2023.

[19]Council of Single Mothers and their Children (CSMC), Submission 25, p.[7].

[20]CSMC, Submission 25, p.[7].

[21]NWSA, Submission 27, p.[3].

[22]Per Capita, Submission 78, p.11. Examples of these benefits include Family Tax Benefit, Child Care Subsidy, Rent Assistance, and the Health Care Card. See Department of Social Services (DSS), Social Security Guide, 1.2.4.10 Parenting Payment (PP), https://guides.dss.gov.au/social‑security‑guide/1/2/4/10, viewed 14 February 2023.

[23]Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Submission 6, p. 4.

[24]Ms Kelly Millar, National Social Policy Manager, Goodstart Early Learning (Goodstart), Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 13.

[25]Economic Justice Australia (EJA), Submission 11, p. [8]. It is not the role of this Committee to make recommendations in relation to the childcare system. However, it is noted that the Australian Government has announced increases to the CCS to commence from July 2023. See also atWork Australia, Submission34, p.3, Goodstart, Submission 75, p.6.

[26]Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Submission 62, p. 10.

[27]See, for example, EJA, Submission 11, pages [8–9]; Djerriwarrh Community and Education Services (Djerriwarrh) Submission 28, p. 8; BSL, Submission 59, p. 6.

[28]OCTEC Limited (OCTEC), Submission 53, p.2.

[29]BSL, Submission 59, p. 11.

[30]See, for example, Settlement Services International (SSI), Submission 16, p.[3]; YFS Limited (YFS), Submission 31, p.[2]; Settlement Council of Australia (SCA), Submission 85, p.[1]; Ms Linda Forbes, Law Reform Officer, EJA, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.25.

[31]See, for example, Australian Women Against Violence Alliance (AWAVA), Submission 3, p.[1]; National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children (NCSMC), Submission 5, p.3; Dr Eve Vincent, Submission 10, p.1; EJA, Submission 11, p.[1]; Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Submission 24, p.2; DrKatherine Curchin, Submission 26, p.1.

[32]BSL, Submission 59, p.5.

[33]Sarina Russo Job Access (SRJA), Submission 23, p. 5. SRJA noted in this regard that while the program design of ParentsNext anticipates a return to paid work when the youngest child is old enough to start school, parents may in some cases prefer to return to work sooner, depending on their circumstances.

[34]DEWR, Submission 74, p.12.

[35]See Ms Beneditke Jensen, First Assistant Secretary—Employment Policy and Analytics, DEWR, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 40.

[36]See Mr Matt Flavel, Deputy Secretary—Social Security, DSS, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, pages43–45. Mr Flavel also noted that over the period from 2014 to 2019, the proportion of Parenting Payment—Single recipients who transitioned onto the Newstart Allowance (now the JobSeeker payment) fell from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. Evidence indicated that the fall was due to more recipients of Parenting Payment moving directly into employment.

[37]See, for example, SSI, Submission 16, p. [3]; Dr Simone Casey, Senior Advisor–Employment, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p. 21.

[38]Djerriwarrh, Submission 28, p. 5. Djerriwarrh indicated that a failure to adequately prepare parents for the transition to Workforce Australia further compounds long‑term welfare dependency and multigenerational joblessness and could stifle Australia’s economic growth.

[39]Roseberry Queensland (Roseberry), Submission 71, p. 2.

[40]CSMC, Submission 25, p.[6].

[41]Ms Jenny Davidson, Chief Executive Officer, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.3. Notwithstanding their support for a pre‑vocational program, the CSMC also observed that ‘employment is fundamental for single mothers’ and noted that the CSMC is developing a program to support women to enter or re‑entre the workforce.

[42]NCSMC, Submission 5, p. 3. The NCSMC provided further detail on the features of a future planning service in response to questions on notice. See NCSMC, Submission 6.1, p. [1].

[43]Dr Casey, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 14.

[44]Ms Rebecca Pinney Meddings, Senior Manager, Financial Inclusion, BSL, Committee Hansard, 11November 2022, p. 24.

[45]Brave Foundation, Submission 56, p. 8.

[46]Ms Deb Tsorbaris, Chief Executive Officer, CECFW, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.15.

[47]See, for example, Mission Australia, Submission 76, p. 9; Roseberry, Submission 71, pages. 3–4; The Parenthood, Submission 61, p. 2.

[48]Dr Casey, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, pages 13, 15.

[49]ACOSS, Submission 62, p.10.

[50]Ms Tsorbaris, CECFW, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.15.

[51]Ms Rachel Siewert, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Western Australian Council of Social Service (WACOSS), Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 10.

[52]SRJA, Submission 23, p. 3.

[53]See, for example, Jobs Australia, Submission 80, p. 16; Workskil Australia (Workskil), Submission 21, p. 1; Mission Australia, Submission 76, p. 2.

[54]SRJA, Submission 23, pages 2–3.

[55]See, for example, My Pathway, Submission 35, p.5; APM,Submission 42, p.5. The importance of providing support at key transition points (including pregnancy and childbirth, the point at which a person’s youngest child reaches school age, and the point at which a parent engages with education or begins searching for employment) was also considered in the inquiry conducted by the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. See Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence, Living on the Edge, February 2019, p. xx.

[56]Campbell Page, Submission 57, p. [3].

[57]Campbell Page, Submission 57, p. [3].

[58]BSL, Submission 59, pp.5–6.

[59]See, for example, Ms Millar, Goodstart, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 13; Mr Simon (‘Sam’) Tracy, Practice Director, Basic Rights Queensland, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 26; Ms Tsorbaris, CECFW, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.12.

[60]Dr Ann Nevile, Submission 14, p.2.

[61]See, for example, Dr Eve Vincent, Submission 10, p.2; CSMC Submission 25, p.[3]; ARACY, Submission37, p.4; Family and Relationship Services Australia (FRSA), Submission 60, p.8; Australian Unemployed Workers Union (AUWU), Submission 70, p. [1].

[62]Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Submission 6.1, p. [1]

[63]See, for example, Wesley Mission, Submission 55, p.[6]; Ms Millar, Goodstart, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.13.

[64]CECFW, Submission 74, p.5. Additional information is available via DSS, The First 1000 Days, www.dss.gov.au/families‑and‑children‑programs‑services‑children‑protecting‑australias‑children/the‑first–1000‑days, viewed 14 February 2023.

[65]Ms Davidson, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.2.

[66]See, for example, Name withheld, Submission 9, p.[1]; Name withheld, Submission 29, pages[1–2]; Name Withheld, Submission 66, p.[1].

[67]Name Withheld, Submission 8, p. [1].

[68]See, for example, SSI, Submission 16, p. [5]; Djerriwarrh, Submission 28, p.9; yourtown, Submission 36, p.4; UnitingCare Australia, Submission 49, p.3; Roseberry, Submission 71, pages 5–7; Mission Australia, Submission 76(Attachment 1), pages 1–3.

[69]DEWR, Submission 77 (Attachment 2), pages 2–5.The evaluation related to the program as it existed before July 2021. As outlined in Chapter 1, from July 2021 several changes were made to the program, including to eligibility criteria and service delivery mechanisms.

[70]DEWR, Submission 77 (Attachment 1), p. 8.

[71]See for example, Workskil, Submission 21, p.2; Name withheld, Submission 22, pages3–4.

[72]See, for example, AWAVA, Submission 3, p.[1]; Professor Beth Goldblatt, Submission 4, p.1; NCSMC, Submission 5, p.3; EJA, Submission 11, p.[1]; Full Stop Australia, Submission 12, p.1; Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p.1; BSL, Submission 56, p.1; AUWU, Submission 70, p. [1]; Change the Record, Submission 103, p. 2.

[73]See, for example, Dr Travers McLeod, Executive Director, BSL, Committee Hansard, 11November2022, p.21; Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher, President, AHRC, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.11.

[74]See, for example, Ms Davidson, CSMC, Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 5; Ms Jill Roche, Chief Executive Officer, Brave Foundation, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 3

[75]SCA, Submission 85, p. [3].

[76]YFS, Submission 31, p.3.

[77]Mission Australia, Submission 76, p. 7.

[78]ACOSS, Submission 62, pages 4–5.

[79]Per Capita, Submission 78, p.5.

[80]Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p. 5. See also Dr Eve Vincent, Submission 10, p. 5.

[81]See, for example, AWAVA, Submission 3, p.1; NCSMC, Submission 5, p.5; FRSA, Submission 60, p6; Ms Ella Buckland, Submission 13, pages [1–2].

[82]Angela, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 7 December 2022, p. 2.

[83]EJA, Submission 11, p. [5]. See also ACOSS, Submission 62, p. 8.

[84]See, for example, Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p. 3; Wesley Mission, Submission 55, p. 8.

[85]NWSA, Submission 27, p. [3].

[86]See, for example, NCSMC, Submission 5, p. 5; NWSA, Submission 27, p. [3].

[87]See, for example, Women’s Health and Family Services (WHFS), Submission 45, p. [3].

[88]See, for example, Dr Eve Vincent, Submission 10, pp. 1–2; CSMC, Submission 25, p. [4].

[89]Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Submission 6, p. 1.

[90]See, for example, Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Submission 6, p.2; Dr Eve Vincent, Submission 10, p.2; CSMC, Submission 25, p.[4]; Ms Davidson, CSMC Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.4. Ms Davidson called for a replacement program to be designed and implemented, suggesting that the new program be called a ‘future planning service’, reflecting a focus on supporting parents to identify, plan and achieve their goals.

[91]BSL, Submission 59, p. 9. Additional information is available at www.bsl.org.au/services/saving‑and‑managing‑money/the‑seed‑project, viewed 14 February 2023.

[92]Campbell Page, Submission 57, p. [3]. Additional information is available at https://campbellpage.com.au/youth‑and‑family/young‑mothers‑pathways‑project, viewed 14 February 2023.

[93]See Campbell Page, Progress Report: Young Mothers Pathway Project, October 2022, p. 2, https://campbellpage.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/YMPP-Interim-Report.pdf, viewed 24February2023. See also Campbell Page, Submission 57.1, p. [1].

[94]Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p.5. Additionalinformation is available at https://opfs.org.uk/policy‑and‑campaigns/policy‑research/making‑it‑work‑evaluations, viewed 19 January 2023.

[95]See, for example, Dr Katherine Curchin, Submission 26, p.1; CSMC, Submission 25, p.[5]; ACOSS, Submission 62, p.2. CORE Community Services (CORE), Submission 33, p.[3]; Salvation Army Employment Plus, Submission 48, p.3.

[96]See, for example, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), Submission 88, p.3; ARACY, Submission 37, p.1; BSL, Submission 59, p.1; EJA, Submission 11, p. [12].

[97]Ms Siewert, WACOSS, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 3.

[98]Ms Siewert, WACOSS, Proof Committee Hansard, 1 February 2023, p. 4. See also ACOSS, Submission 62, p. 11. An Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation is an incorporated organisation initiated by a First Nations community and is governed by an Aboriginal Body elected by the First Nations community.

[99]See BSL, Submission 59, p.7; CORE, Submission 33, p.[3]; yourtown, Submission 36, p.6; Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Submission 6.1, pages [1–2].

[100]Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 13.

[101]Dr Casey, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6 December 2022, p. 15.

[102]See, for example, SSI, Submission 16, p.[4]; Domestic Violence NSW (DVNSW), Submission 44, p.4; ACOSS, Submission 62, pages9–10; Per Capita, Submission 78, pages17–18, 21; MrChristopher Clark, Manager, Employment and Training, OCTEC, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.22.

[103]See, for example, BSL, Submission 59, p. 5; AHRC, Submission 24, p.2. Criticisms largely related to the evaluation of the trial programs, published in 2018. The more recent evaluation of the national program from 2018 to 2021 was published in November 2022 and was generally not discussed in evidence.

[104]Per Capita, Submission 78, p.13. Per Capita stated that despite the inadequacies around data sampling, research, and survey design, the evaluation stated the relevant qualitative and quantitative assessments supported a conclusion that the program was effective.

[105]See, for example, APM, Submission 42, p.7; Ms Terese Edwards, Chief Executive Officer, NCSMC, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.6.

[106]ACOSS, Submission 62, pages 9–10.

[107]Brave Foundation, Submission 56, p. 4.

[108]See, for example, Dr Casey, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 6December2022, p.18; Ms Ella Buckland, Committee Hansard, 7December2022, p.8.

[109]National Employment Services Association (NESA), Submission 83, p.9.

[110]Ms Roche, Brave Foundation, Proof Committee Hansard, 18 January 2023, p. 4.

[111]Ms Pinney Meddings, BSL, Committee Hansard, 11 November 2022, p. 28.