Family First Dissenting Report [259]

Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and other Measures) Bill 2005

Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005

Family First believes people with children are parents first, workers second. We also believe people on welfare who can undertake paid work, should work. The difficulty is in finding the right balance between personal responsibility and community obligation.

As a result of time constraints, this report will focus on the effect of the proposed changes on sole parents.

There was general agreement among groups making submissions to the inquiry that jobless families would be better off if at least one parent were employed in paid work. For example, the National Welfare Rights Network stated that:

The overwhelming majority of Australians would be better off in suitable employment, if they have the capacity to work and where this is suitable to their circumstances, rather than remaining on the very low level of income support payments available in Australia.[260]

However, groups making submissions also had concerns about how the Government planned to encourage people into employment:

... the Bill unnecessarily places many sole parents and people with disabilities onto lower payments so they will have less to live on until they secure employment, and reduces incentives to work and study. It exposes them to harsh penalties if they fail to meet new activity requirements.[261]

Focus on child wellbeing

One central consideration for Family First is the effect of unemployment and low household income on children.

There is no doubt that children from low income households suffer as a result of not having a parent in employment.

There is a growing body of literature both in Australia and internationally documenting the association between socioeconomic status and mortality, with disadvantaged groups experiencing higher death rates for most major causes of death at all ages. ... It has been calculated that each year in Australia 1500 deaths of children aged 0-14 years can be attributed to socioeconomic disadvantage.[262]

There is particular risk for children if there is no employed parent in the household because:

...the absence of a resident employed parent may negatively impact on the child's immediate material wellbeing as well as adversely affecting their future income, 'social class' and economic success.[263]

Eighteen per cent of children live in a household where there isn't a parent with a job. That's over 660,000 children across Australia. More than sixty per cent of these children are in single parent households.[264]

Over two thirds of sole parent families where the parent is not employed had their youngest child aged less than ten years old. [265]

These are compelling reasons to help parents into employment. But these reasons have to be balanced with children's need for parental contact and supervision.

A systematic review of the qualitative evidence suggests that good family relationships, friendships and neighbourhood networks help to mitigate the impact of disadvantage on the wellbeing of children and young people.[266]

Parenting is a job

Family First believes that "parenting is a job"[267] in its own right.

The Council of Single Mothers and their Children emphasised that "... single parents are already doing a job. They are raising their children, which is the most important job in the world."[268]

The Government has recognised some parents may be unavailable for work because for example they are home schooling their children, they have a child with a disability or because they are foster carers.[269]

Family First supports Recommendation 4 of the Chair's Report that parents caring for four or more children should be given an exemption from the activity requirements.

Difficulties facing sole parents

Sole parents face particular difficulties because they do not have the support of a spouse or partner. Typically they have much greater difficulty in meeting competing demands for the immediate needs of their children and finding time for paid work.

Time use research shows that sole mothers carry a much greater burden for child care than partnered mothers. Time constraints on sole mothers are greater than those for partnered mothers in that sole mothers are in the company of their children and no other adult for many more hours per day. Sole mothers make up for the absence of a partner through increased activity. As sole mothers spend more time than partnered mothers supervising their children as a primary or secondary activity, this limits their opportunities to engage in paid work. Without a partner to help supervise their children sole mothers cannot allocate as much time as partnered mothers to paid work.[270]

Being a sole parent also often means there is more difficulty in accessing informal child care. Sole parent status may be a result of domestic violence which means time is required both for the parent to heal and to nurture children who may be traumatised.[271]

Sole parents in paid work also face the difficulty of working out what to do with their children during school holidays when they are not being supervised in school.

Some people are very lucky and they have fabulous employers who allow them that time off [during school holidays]. Ninety-five per cent of them are not that lucky, and that is a big concern. Especially with the move to casualising the work force, people can be just slipped out of a roster so very easily and that is what our members report to us happens. You say, 'sorry, I cannot come to this shift,' and then you refuse two or three more and that is it: you are not put on the roster again.[272]

One witness highlighted the difficulty of accessing vacation care during school holidays:

The parents who work in my agency mostly have to take school holidays off. They are professional, trained, middle-class workers, and they cannot find appropriate vacation care.[273]

One study found that of all single parent families, 55 per cent could not afford a week's holiday away from home each year, 46 per cent had not been able to pay utility bills at some time during the year leading up to the survey, 36 per cent usually bought second hand clothes and 33 per cent had sought financial help from family or friends in the year leading up to the survey.[274]

Changes will cut income

The most obvious and perhaps most important impact of the proposed changes is that from 1 July 2006 new applicants for Parenting Payment Single (PPS) will be switched to Newstart allowance (NSA) when their youngest child turns 8. This results in an immediate cut in income.

NSA provides a lower payment rate than PPS and DSP, has a much harsher income test, and is associated with much less generous income tax concessions. As a result, many sole parents with school age children and many people with disabilities will receive much lower incomes than under the current rules.[275]

The practical effect is that sole parents have $29 less each week, full time students have $60 less each week and someone earning $200 a week will be $96 worse off.[276]

This change would hit families hard:

A jobless single parent family spends half of its income on utilities, food and housing, compared to one-third for other families. With the cut to household income from changes in Government benefits, this family will have even less income to pay for child care, transport, and other incidentals when looking for, and participating in, the paid workforce.[277]

So rather than receiving a payment more attuned to the needs of a family, the family receives "Newstart allowance [which] was designed for the short-term income support of individuals without significant caring or health or disability issues seeking full-time employment."[278]

One agency stated that:

[The $29 a week reduction in income] is huge. It always strikes me in the office when we give somebody a $50 food voucher. I think, 'God, is that all we can manage?' and they think they have won the lottery. That means the difference between eating tonight or not. That means that they can afford the petrol to put in the car to get the kids to school or child care so they can go to work.[279]

The change will also affect a significant number of people. The number of single parents who will receive Newstart allowance instead of Parenting Payment Single is estimated to be 85,000.[280]

When the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations was asked whether it had done research on how well single parents could cope with a cut in their benefits, the Department confirmed it had not done research on that point.[281]

Further, the Department argued that sole parents were no different to any other unemployed person:

They are basically job seekers, or should be construed as job seekers while there is appropriate child care and schooling available. In that context, I guess the question is: what is the rationale for paying them differently to other job seekers?[282]

But parents are different. They have a significant personal and community obligation to look after their children. A cut in payments – which happens whether or not a parent has good employment prospects - undermines that crucial role.

The question as to whether suitable jobs for sole parents are available is an important one. Witnesses at the Albury Wodonga hearing indicated that the proportion of jobs that would be available for sole parents in school hours between nine in the morning and three in the afternoon ranged from two[283] to five[284] to 10 per cent[285] of all jobs available.

Pre-natal and post-natal relief

There is a provision in the legislation (section 502G, EWR Legislation Amendment Bill) which gives new mothers an exemption from the activity test for six weeks before and after birth. It is not clear why this provision exists, given mothers with their youngest child under 6 years of age are not covered by the activity test.[286] However, exemption from the activity test for six weeks after birth is not sufficient. The World Health Organisation recommends that women cease work 4-6 weeks before the expected delivery date and return to work approximately sixteen weeks after childbirth.[287]

The World Health Organisation stated that:

[a] period of absence from work after birth is of utmost importance to the health of the mother and the infant. This is conducive to both the optimal growth of the infant and the bonding between mother and infant. Absence from work also allows the mother to recover. The time needed depends on her health before, during and after birth, as well as on the health of the infant and whether or not the birth was complicated. After delivery maternal health problems that may arise include infections, anaemia, depression, backache, anxiety and extreme tiredness.[288]

An extension in the provided time from six to up to sixteen weeks is important for the health of both mothers and newborn children.

Conclusion

Family First believes that families benefit from paid work. While recognising the vital role of parents in looking after children at home, those receiving welfare payments also have an obligation to find work if they can work.

However, sole parents should not be penalised if they make every reasonable effort to find work and cannot find a job. It would be unreasonable if it were recognised there was no suitable employment in a particular area, yet a sole parent was still being paid $29 per week less than Parenting Payment Single (PPS). Instead, the value of their Newstart allowance (single with children) should be raised to the value of PPS and the parent should be asked to undertake 15 hours a week of voluntary work in a community organisation.

Family First supports Recommendation 4 of the Chair's report. This recommendation provides that parents caring for four or more children should be given an exemption from participation requirements.

Steve Fielding
Family First Senator for Victoria

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page