|
Recently, I attended two meetings instigated by the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children (NCSMC). One, late last year, with the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews; and one this year, with the Parent Policy Branch of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), about the potential negative impact of the proposed welfare reform changes on single parents.
The proposed changes in the name of ‘welfare reform’ have alarming implications for single parents and their children, who could be significantly worse off under the new regime. These changes were announced in the 2005 budget—and include: new workforce participation requirements for parenting payment recipients once their youngest child turns six, changes to payment rates, taper rates on earnings, an indexation base, and changes to compliance requirements.
Research evidence (National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, 2005; Smyth & Weston, 2000) tells us that single parents are at the highest risk of poverty, yet parents applying on or after 1 July 2006 for income support will receive less. The effect will be to increase the risk of poverty for sole parent households.
Participation requirements and activity tests—including the requirement that the single parent does 15 hours of paid work or face a reduction in their parenting payments—will place unreasonable pressure on single parents’ families. All parents’ first obligation is to parent their children. This policy creates a real tension between that obligation and meeting the workforce participation requirements of the welfare reform policy.
The policy assumes that there are part-time jobs that these parents will be able to get easily and still meet their parenting obligations. Where are these part-time jobs? The likelihood is that many, many of them will be casual, low-paid and non-permanent. Many are likely to be at night, at weekends and at times when children are home. How are these parents meant to manage school holidays, before- and after-school care, sick children, without actually being in a worse financial position than they were prior to the implementation of this policy? At the same time, there are real additional costs associated with going to work, such as transport, clothing, child care etc. The jobs these parents are likely to get are unlikely to be well-paid. Children will be the real losers as a result of this policy.
Just to spell it out. If parents do not do 15 hours paid work, their parenting payment will be reduced. If, after 12 weeks of paid employment, the job they get fails for one reason or another they will get a reduced parenting payment. Even if they do get work, there is a real likelihood that they will be worse off financially, see their children less and often have to make hard choices between work and meeting their children’s needs. Increase in family stress is a likely outcome for many of these families, potentially increasing child and parent health problems.
Workforce and Job Network outcomes may pressure agencies to push parents into work activities that are against their own or their children’s needs and interests. There is also the concern that newly separated families will be afforded no reasonable time to address family needs such as re-housing, family law, dealing with domestic violence etc.
As Dr Elspeth McInnes, the Convenor of NCSMC says, ‘If we follow the experience and evidence of workforce policies in North America, we will find children receive less parental care, they experience more family stress and minimal or temporary gains in income.’
McInnes says, ‘Parents seeking to return to paid work (and most want to and do once their children start school) need the support of family-friendly workplace reforms, appropriate child care, and access to skills education, adequate housing and transport for their barriers to paid work to be properly addressed.’
‘We have a problem when punishment becomes the principal policy response to social disadvantage, while the support to help parents receive their career aspirations are limited.’
We must have legislation that protects the rights of parents to provide care to their children without the added risk of loss or reduction in income support. We know these children are our most vulnerable. Yet the new workforce participation requirements and compliance regimes will expose children to even greater risk.
Most parents want to be out of the poverty cycle. This will not be achieved by policies which are insensitive to the real pressures these families face. What is needed are policies which can be responsive to each families’ circumstances and which support rather than coerce parents into the workforce.
The wellbeing of our nation’s children must be the first priority of any government, not labour force participation. I urge Every Child readers, Early Childhood Australia members and friends to find out more about these reforms and to stand up for these children. A child has no choice about who their parent is—we need a policy that reflects the Government’s obligation to protect and support our youngest citizens no matter what the situation of his/her parent/s. In fact, to speak out on this subject, visit www.acoss.org.au, and in 3 quick steps tell your politicians of your concerns. The more people who participate, the more politicians understand that many people care about disadvantaged Australians.
For more comprehensive information, visit the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children website
Judy Radich
National President
Early Childhood Australia
Parents applying on or after 1 July 2006 for income support will be financially disadvantaged in many aspects as will existing parents who go off payments for 12 or more weeks. The table below compares notes on just a couple of the changes:
| Payment Changes |
|
Prior 1/7/06 |
On or after 1/7/06 |
| Type of payment |
Parenting payment single |
Newstart allowance |
| Current payment amount |
Up to $476.30 per fortnight |
$432.00 per fortnight |
Income test
|
$146.60 + $24.60 each additional child pf |
$62.00 pf |
| Taper rate |
40 cents in the dollar |
Over $62 - $250: 50 cents in the dollarOver $250: 60 cents in the dollar |
Don't forget, Every Child is tax deductible for early childhood professionals
You can purchase this issue of Every Child magazine now.
If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer.
Read more about social bookmarks
|
|
