Rhetoric and Reality - Labor must stand up for Sole Parents

above: A photo of the author, Denise Allen

In this latest 'Left Focus' article former Labor MP Denise Allen takes the Federal Government to task for its Sole Parents decision - but applauds Julia Gillard's stand against Abbott.  Cuts in the Sole Parents Pension will mean much hardship for our most vulnerable families.

Left-leaning people interested in progressive debate are also welcome to take part in our 'Left Focus' Facebook group - where among other things we promote new  posts at the blog, and debate important social themes and issues of the day. See:  http://www.facebook.com/groups/58243419565/



by Denise Allen,  October 2012

Some days the Prime Minister and the Labor Party make you so damn proud you want to shout it from the rooftops.

Last week for example, when our strong and inspiring Prime Minister ripped Tony Abbott a new one and called him out for the sexist bully he is.

It was a day all Australians, regardless of whether you like or support the PM or not – a moment in political history – no one will forget in a hurry.

It makes so many of us Labor supporters proud when the Prime Minister announces new wide sweeping progressive reforms like the NDIS, Carbon Pricing, Aged Care reform and the Gonski Report. Progressive Labor Party reforms akin to the Whitlam Governments Medicare and University reforms.

But on that very same day last week, without very much fanfare, the Labor Party passed – with the help of the Coalition – a continuation of a Howard Governments policy to reduce the income of single parents. 

This Single Parent Pensions Bill is one of the most regressive policy platforms ever introduced by a Labor Government.

This bill, by reverting the Single Parent Payment to Newstart allowance once the youngest child turns 8, reduces the income support of a single parent by up to $100 per week, in some cases more.

That said – it is a slight improvement on the similar policy the Howard Government introduced in 2005 and effective July 1 2006 whereby Supporting Parent payments reduced to Newstart allowance when the youngest child turned 6!

It is designed to coerce single parents back into the workforce.

Now I fully understand that there are many single parents in our society who do not attempt in any way to seek work regardless of the age of their children. But these people – both women and men – are in the minority.

Some are relatively uneducated, have very poor social and employment skills and even if they did have reasonable skills, many live in rural areas where employment vacancies are almost non-existent.

On the other hand, there are many single parents living in the city where rents are exorbitant; transport costs; after-school care costs are an added financial burden.

Taking away up to $100 per week, reduces a single parent’s ability to seek work or re-training and to function as a healthy, happy parent.

The stress that is going to be added to their daily struggle is going to be enormous.

I believe there should be “carrot” not “sticks” to encourage single parents into the work force.

Encouragement should be given to single parents to gain skills by returning to school, through our TAFE system (although now the Bailleau/O’Farrell/Newman Governments have slashed funding to TAFE’s that is going to be so much harder as well) or to enroll in a University.

How a single parent will be able to afford to do that now their income will be reduced by up to $100 per week is questionable – (especially given the funding slashes to TAFE’s).

How will someone without a car manage?

How will someone without extended family support manage?

How will someone who already pays exorbitant rent manage?

What if they can’t get a job for months/years on end no matter how hard they try?

Were these questions even considered when this legislation was being considered?

Whose idea was this to crucify struggling single parents even further?

If the Government is so desperate to find an extra $700m per four years why then didn’t they have the courage to finally attack the rort that is negative gearing, a wealth creation system for wealthy people?

It is true that some people only understand money as a motivation to do anything.

But instead of taking money away from single parents that they use for their everyday living costs, why not offer incentives akin to the baby bonus?  If Governments can offer a baby bonus handout and provide extremely wealthy private schools with huge publicly funded handouts, why can’t they come up with a policy that is more “carrot” and less “stick”; where single parents are encouraged to succeed, not threatened and deprived of vital dollars with which to raise their children on a daily basis.

Those who will scream the loudest about “lazy single parents” are the very same people who will still put their hand out for every subsidy at every opportunity. I have never seen or heard of anyone saying “No thanks, I don’t need the baby bonus” or a wealthy private school say “No thanks, we don’t need taxpayers money to build new a rowing course or swimming pool”…. “let the Government keep it for other more worthy causes.”

I expect this sort of policy from Conservative Governments as it is par for the course for them but not from a Labor Government.

A very wise person once told me that “Governments, in the race to be the ‘best economic manager’ make decisions from a economic rationalist point of view, and in doing so loose all humanity and compassion.  Saying they are “good economic managers” is rhetoric Governments of both persuasions bang on about all the time. The real challenge in being a good economic manager is implementing socially responsible policy that is passionate and well managed.”

This is not socially responsible policy.

It is cruel, heartless, regressive policy that will put many single parents further under the poverty line.

I want to see policy that will assist and inspire single parents to aspire to better opportunities.

This does not do that.

I would expect it of Conservatives but not the ALP.

(As an aside – I am yet to hear Tony Abbott give a commitment in blood to wind back this policy. Seems as far as Mr. Abbott is concerned, it is an outrage to tax multi-billion dollar mining oligarchs and put a price on big polluters spewing filthy toxic waste into our atmosphere, but its ok to reduce the income of some of the poorest, most struggling people in our society.)

Denise Allen 

Political/Social Commentator

Political Strategist

Disability Advocate

Former Vic State MP for Benalla

http://denniallen.wordpress.com

Poverty forces Australian Single Mothers to return to Activism

pls scroll down for article

above: Flyer for Melbourne demonstration May 6th for the rights of single mothers and their kids

Activist, Helen Said demands a fair go for single mothers and their families amidst unfair laws surrounding welfare and work.  Please show your support if you can by attending the rally - or if that is geographically impossible - by passing news of the rally to your friends and through your networks...

From Helen Said, single mother activist

Single mothers are to stage their biggest protest this decade at 11 am on Thursday 6th May in the Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne. The Council of Single Mothers and their Children’s Action Group have planned the rally to coincide with the Mother’s Day shopping frenzy. Calling for an end to poverty for single mother families, the Action Group is urging members and supporters to “dress in style” for the theme “Mothers Day Breakfast in Bed.”

Welfare to Work legislation and changes to the Child Support Payment formula, introduced by the Howard Government in 2006 and retained by the Rudd Government, have plunged many single mother families into dire poverty. ACOSS describes single mothers and their children as “our poorest families.” Single Mothers and their children are now the largest single group of homeless people in Australia. CSMC have experienced a massive increase in demand for food vouchers, shelter and assistance with back to school fees since the implementation of these changes.

Under Welfare to Work, women who separated from their partners after July 2006 are put on New Start Allowance rather than Parenting Payment Single. New Start is a lesser payment with a lower earning threshold before payments start being reduced. Single mothers on both New Start and PPS are classed as “Job Seekers with a part time work requirement”.

As “Job Seekers”, single mothers are forced to either work or search for work 52 weeks of the year, even if they satisfy Centrelink work requirements. There are no aftercare or holiday programs for secondary school children, which means that children as young as eleven are being forced to fend for themselves whilst Mum is pressured to work, under threat of losing her benefits. If a single mother doesn’t find a permanent job with paid holiday breaks it is technically illegal for her to take a holiday with her children. If a mother in casual employment takes time off work for any reason she is expected, as a “job seeker”, to apply for new jobs even if she has a job to return to. This puts more stress on her family and wastes employers’ time with bogus job applications.

The only way a single mother on income support can take a break from the part time work/jobsearch treadmill, for her own health and wellbeing, is to apply for an exemption, often by getting a doctor to declare that she is suffering from an anxiety related medical condition. My own observation as an activist, witnessing the increased pressures on single mothers, is that the “happy housewife pills” of the 1960’s are set to become the “post-separation medication” of the new century.

New Child Support Payment rules reduce the amount of money single mother families receive from their children’s fathers if the children spend increased time with Dad. Whilst this is works out well in families where Dad eagerly contributes to his children’s wellbeing, it has disadvantaged those children whose fathers refuse to foot the bill for their education, recreation or everyday needs.

Welfare to Work legislation was introduced during a period of labour shortage under the Howard Government. Traditional welfare agencies and other employment services are contracted to administer “one size fits all” services to the unemployed and under-employed. Injured workers, mothers returning to work and unemployed school leavers are forcibly lumped together in “job search training” classes regardless of their reasons for being out of work. In some cases these classes have disrupted existing work arrangements and caused people to lose their hard won part time jobs. Some of these employment service providers force job seekers to make ten “job contacts” a day under threat of losing their benefits. In my own case, one of these agencies rewrote my resume, without my knowledge or consent, saying that I was “physically fit for manual work” (when in fact I was a 50 year old university graduate) and put this bogus resume on a nationwide employment database.

Welfare to Work treats single mothers as a reserve army of labour, forcing us to take up menial jobs during labour shortages and granting us “retraining opportunities” when times are tough. Through classifying single mothers as Job Seekers, the nexus between single mother benefits and pension status has been all but broken, hence the government’s decision to deny single mothers the last pension increase in favour of these elusive “retraining opportunities”.

My own experience of such “retraining”, after spending ten years at home with a special needs child, was a seven week “taster course” in teachers aide training accompanied by an empty promise of a traineeship, when in fact underfunded schools are forced to advertise that “junior wages apply” and reject older applicants. After lobbying from unemployed students, the “taster course” was then followed by the offer of a free Cert III course from the Australian Education Industry Centre, which itself received no government funding, and consequently went into receivership half way through our course. This left many single mothers, older job seekers, disabled job seekers and new immigrants in limbo, back at the mercy of the Centrelink sausage machine.

Welfare to Work isn’t working. It has placed many single mother families in dire poverty whilst enabling employers to exploit single mothers as cheap labour in transient jobs. The Council of Single Mothers and their Children has been forced to return to the activism of forty years ago, when unmarried mothers fought for the right to keep their babies rather than giving them up for adoption. Single mothers have now been left with no choice but to take to the streets and protest against this government’s policies during an election year.

nb: the details for the coming single mothers' rally in Melbourne May 6th are above.  Scroll up for details - and PLS attend to show your support if you can!

AND ALSO: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.

see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

One last plea for justice and compassion

As the 2009 Federal Budget approaches, the fate of millions of pensioners hangs in the balance. The plight of aged pensioners in particular has captured the attention of the nation’s media. But in fact there is a broader crisis also affecting the disabled, carers, students, sole parents and the unemployed.

This paper is one last call to the Federal Government to enact comprehensive reform in the provision of pensions.

With only a few days to go, however, the findings of the government’s Pension Review have not even been made public. Indeed, upon calling the relevant help line, I was informed that the release of the Review’s report would only be released “at the Minister’s discretion” and indeed that it may not be released at all.

Meanwhile the circumstances I considered a few months ago in the Left Focus blog are still pressing and urgent.

The ranks of the unemployed are set to swell. The ABC has reported that the unemployment rate could rise to more than 1 million, or 8.5 per cent, in 2010. If the plight of aged pensioners is already an urgent matter of public interest, so too are the straits of the unemployed.

Nevertheless, while the Newstart payment for unemployed singles is $453.30 a fortnight, the single aged pension is $569.80. That’s a difference of more than $100 per fortnight. The National Welfare Rights Network has projected that a $30 increase to the Newstart and Youth Allowances would cost $800 million.

Assuming that these payments were brought “in line” with other pensions, after these had been raised by $30 a week, the cost would be in the vicinity of $3.2 billion.

This sounds daunting - but again - such figures must be taken in the context of an economy of over $1 trillion.

Wayne Swan is avoiding being “pinned down” emphasising the need for “responsible” financial management. There have been rumours suggesting that there will be a “scaled back” payment of an additional $20 a week for aged pensioners to pay for an increase to Newstart.

The Greens, in particular, have been concerned that pensioners of all types should not be divided against each other. Regarding aged pensioners and the unemployed, Bob Brown has suggested that it is a false dichotomy that we must choose “one or the other”.

In the context of a rising cost of living, though, there is a strong case for a significant increase in the base rate for aged pensioners, disability pensioners, carers, sole parents and also the unemployed.

Students, meanwhile, should also receive additional support so they are financially able to devote their full attention to study.

The argument for an increase in the base rate of all pensions: and an easing of means tests for those on meagre incomes is strong. Critically here there also needs to be additional assistance for the most vulnerable of all.

The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA) has argued for a tightly focused assistance package for the 1.5 million pensioners surviving on full rate pensions. The CPSA’s proposal covers aged, disability and carers' pensioners. Such a measure, according to CPSA, would cost about $3.2 billion: minimal in the “big picture” of the Federal Budget.

The CPSA has also suggested the needs of sole parents be seen to - and has criticised the absence of their needs from the Pension Review.

Prime Minsiter Kevin Rudd, however, is proving to have insufficient flexibility in the face of the financial crisis. Still he is insisting that taxes remain steady - not increasing as a proportion of GDP. Furthermore his suggestion that $2 billion for aged pension reform is “a truckload of money” is deceptive when that amount is considered in the context of an economy in excess of $1 trillion.

When the Greens suggested a $30 a week increase to pensions my immediate reaction was that surely such reform is insufficient to lift vulnerable Australians out of poverty, and keep pace with a cost-of-living “spiraling out of control”.

This remains the case - even if the Greens have taken a less equivocal position than Labor.

It is most important that we have formulae for calculating all pensions, which automatically adjust according to the cost-of-living; and which lift all Australians out of poverty.

The current formula for aged, disability and carers' pensions is 25 per cent of Male Average Total Weekly Earnings (MATWE). Given cost-of-living pressures, it is reasonable to suppose that this ought to be lifted to at least 30 per cent of MATWE.

It is critical that such adjustment includes the unemployed - who cannot be blamed for the world recession, and the resulting fall in employment levels.

This would lift such pensions (at the full single rate) to about $17,537 a year: a significant improvement - but still short of the CPSA’s figure of $19,399 (which they calculate as being “low income”).

The Rudd Labor Government’s pension reform agenda must begin by addressing the needs of the most vulnerable: those struggling on the full pension rate with no other source of income.

The CPSA’s proposal for an $80 a week supplement for these people should be implemented by the Rudd Labor Government if it is serious about fairness. Thereafter, the government needs to provide a fair means-testing formula that provides enough for all pensioners - that they are raised out of poverty.

To lift most pensioners out of poverty, the full single rate of $19,399 is desirable - but a formula of 30 per cent MATWE, with an immediate figure of about$17,537 would still be a significant and welcome improvement. Less than this simply does not do enough to address the cost-of-living pressures Australian pensioners face.

And as Charmaine Crowe of the CPSA has argued, further reform in other areas is also needed (for instance: abolition of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payment).

Pension reform has real consequences for the quality of life of millions of Australians.

Among other factors it determines whether or not these people can afford proper nutrition; enjoy heating and air-conditioning; have adequate shelter and access to water and energy; and also have access to information and communications technology others take for granted. It also influences access to transport and opportunities for social connectedness: as well as ability to deal with unexpected contingencies (for example, a broken-down car, fridge or TV).

Importantly, the formula for sole parents needs to be adjusted to accommodate the additional costs associated with raising a family.

It says something about the kind of society we live in that Bob Hawke’s statement in 1987 that “no child live in poverty” is looked upon as ludicrous.

It is within our means now, though, that the PPS (“Parenting Payment Single”) be raised according to a “basket of goods” necessary for sole parents and their children. It is within our means to provide for vulnerable sole parent families: the sole parent pension should be provided until the youngest child reaches the age of 16 not the threshold of 8-years-old introduced by the Howard government.

The domestic labour of sole parents in raising young families is just as important as labour market participation.

According to a May 2009 ACOSS (Australian Council of Social Services) factsheet, “there are about 360,000 sole parent families with around 600,000 children between them on this payment”.

The Federal Labor Government ignores this demographic at their own peril.

As the Federal Budget approaches, we cannot allow different pensioner groups to be divided against each other. With organisation and solidarity we can achieve change. Those concerned need to hold Rudd Labor accountable.

And the Opposition needs to be exposed for its hypocrisy in favouring the aged pension ahead of other pensions - for purposes of political opportunism.

The rights of the vulnerable and disadvantage must be prioritised. This includes the unemployed, the disabled, sole parents, the aged, carers, and students.

As I have written elsewhere: in a fair society “none ought to be left behind”.

Tristan Ewins, May 2009