Submission to Senate Inquiry about extending Mutual Obligation

For some time now there has been increasingly louder calls for a "stick" or a negative incentive/consequence to be applied to welfare recipients in the belief that most, if not all, are unmotivated and passively sitting around receiving benefits with no or little contribution back to society or their local community. Consistently I have run across the myth that if there is a form of coercion, a penalty then "these people will get a job." Consistently I have heard/read the barbs about children growing up in jobless families. Consistently I have read and heard the need to break intergenerational dependence on welfare with little probing into who are these intergenerational welfare dependents, and why it has occurred. Recently I had the unfortunate experience of a FaCS/Centrelink presentation that perpetuated the propaganda that so many just weren't doing anything about their situation and that's why mutual obligations measures are being implemented.

As one of those who will be targeted in extending participation requirements for parents I want to make this submission. I speak not only from my experience but also from involvement in two organisations that support and/or advocate on single parent issues. Further, I live in an area where many of my neighbours are single mothers and their children who are also to some degree dependent on Centrelink payments. I hope to describe through my own story and that of friends and neighbours why we do not need coercion, why this is push is way more about politics and bottom line fiscal spending/savings than addressing workforce participation or recognising the contribution single mothers make. Further I want to show how poor policy can be further damaging to our families because much of what the policy assumes is reasonable does not account for the daily concrete workings of family demands, for the families that are at risk of slipping between the cracks.

Currently I receive Parenting Payment Single (PPS). I am 37 years old. On becoming a sole parent in 1990 when I was four months pregnant with my second child I decided my best option was to obtain a higher education to maximise my earning capacity and provide for my soon-to-be one year old son and unborn child (daughter). I was reliant on Centrelink payments and sought assistance from JET (Jobs Education and Training) to ensure I had quality child care so I could attend lectures. The struggles that followed coping with extreme financial hardship, constant hospital and medical visits for my son (he had three hospitalisations, constant ear infections etc) and myself (depression), and occasionally my daughter (tonsillitis), being very isolated and unaware of what support was available compounded in the following three years until I was unable to continue. Studying was not enough. I suspended my university studies in 1994 (in 3^rd year) due to exhaustion and depression. So I have HECS debt but no degree.

At the period I was a full-time student, mother of two working casually at university (because Centrelink payments did not cover my rent, food and university expenses). Plus being involved in advocating for better and more affordable child care (childcare took up more than 50% of my income), a room to breast feed, and more equitable policies that took into account depression (including post-natal), and dependents impact on a student's performance (ie extension policy to essays and exams for single mothers, especially after being at a hospital with a sick child then having to attend lectures the next day without any sleep - I did this several times over the three years I spent at Uni). I would say this is beyond what most students go through and is a contribution that would satisfy participation. However, my point is that it all became too much. The state welfare department provided me with a priority rating for linking with the Aunties and Uncles program to help relieve the pressure of sole-caring for two toddlers - but the wait was 2 years. I had taken out numerous student loans to cope with the cost of being in the private rental market (public housing was a ten year wait) and cost of children. I was demoralised, in debt, and suffering severe depression.

When the help did come, I moved into the workforce full-time. Having worked part-time led to a full-time job and for three years I worked as an office administrator at the University often working from 8am- 6pm and sometimes longer. Earning meant that while I was not longer dependent on Social Security I've had to rely on others to care for my children for extended hours. I felt relieved of the Social Security dependent stigma because there was a strong media campaign by politicians, and commentators that sought to blame single mothers for their circumstances and perceived passivity at receiving benefits while raising their children. So I took pride in the trade off that I work to pay for others to look after my children. However in 1996 my daughter who had just turned 5 was sexually abused at an after-school care centre. Needless to say this was devastating for both my daughter and me.

This shook my children's and my faith in about secure child care and consequently left my daughter feeling very insecure unless I was with her. Obviously it impacted on my workplace as the fallout meant that she was often unsettled in class and required my assurances she'd be safe. Around the same time I stumbled across a sole parent organisation and through the peer support I was able to juggle negotiations between employer, school, the welfare department, and my doctor. I did not want to lose my job so I employed a university student to collect my children from school because my children wanted to be home where they felt safer.

In August 1996 the newly elected Howard led government delivered in the budget new measures that target social security payments. These measures moved towards a streamlined and simplified delivery of services and benefits with a focus on "savings", characterised by reductions in government expenditure and a tightening of eligibility requirements. Some of these policy changes have affected sole parents, both positively and negatively. One negative was to hit me particularly hard that of Income maintenance period. This is basically the period under which lump sum payments (such as a redundancy, accrued annual leave, long service leave, maternity leave, sick leave, rostered days off) is treated as income, for a period equal to the number of weeks of unused leave. Sole parents are now subject to income maintenance provisions. This measure was seen as levelling the playing field or making it equal but not taking into account that sole parents are often at a disadvantage as we do not have the same scale of economy that partnered parents have.

In 1998 the Aunty and Uncle who had been providing practical support (including looking after my daughter during my son's two week hospitalisation which enabled me to not only be at his bed side, but keep my job) came to end when they moved overseas. By that time I was no longer deemed as a "priority case" and my family was not linked with another Aunty and Uncle.

In January 1999 my workplace was restructured and my job no longer existed, I was unaware the income maintenance change had been implemented and how it would affect me. In losing my job I was given a small redundancy. I used this redundancy to pay off my immediate debts that had accumulated whilst studying, with the exception of my HECS debt. Competition for jobs was fierce as many people had been made redundant. I did not want to lose my job and again this triggered depression.

I applied to Centrelink for the sole parent pension (now PPS) and was told I would have to wait the three months as the new income maintenance test now applied. This caused me great anxiety because I had assumed I would be able to cover my rent with the Centrelink payment, while I looked for new work and used the remaining $2500 of the redundancy payment for food. Instead I found I did not have enough savings to cover the rent, little less food and other expenses for the three months that I now had to wait until May 1999.

My immediate concern then became housing. I found I was ineligible for public housing because I was not receiving an income given my ineligibility for Centrelink payments for four months. I then went to see my local State Member who helped me obtain housing as she realised that my child support counted as an income. Public housing was provided forty minutes outside the area I had resided in for the past ten years further isolating me from my small network of friends and my Centrelink social worker who was now out of area. The move removed my support systems and I had little money to establish myself.

My children did not take the uprooting from their friends, school, sporting and performing arts interests at all well. They needed my time. I believed given a little time they would soon settle so I tried only to look for work that would fit in with their needs. Six months later I found a job but it was both casual and weekend work.

Childcare then became the new problem. Despite my children being school aged the only child care I could find was family day care and the carer was not used to the needs of children over five. Also because the carer already provided care for children Monday to Friday caring for my two children meant that she was now working without a break. Six months later she declined to care for my children stating she was over-tired and feared burning out. The local Council's Family Day Care Coordinator then spread my need for child care across three carers. This was both confusing, and at times unreliable as the swapping, and carers having other commitments left me several times without care and unable to go to work.

I managed to find another job, again casual (although at the interview it was promised to be part-time), working Sunday - Wednesday locally. It seemed ideal. Also at this time the children's father transferred back from interstate and began to see the children every second weekend (after more than 8 years of being absent). This caused new problems particularly with my son manifesting mostly at school.

I thought I was juggling well the school, work, community health professionals and all others I was referred to for my son. Then in early 2001 I received a knock at my door one Monday (my daughter was sick so I was home from work) from two state welfare officers. They had received an anonymous report and were concerned about my arrangements with my children (walking home at 3.30pm and then looking after themselves until I arrived home shortly after 5.30pm), and further that on several occasions I had left sick children at home by themselves while going to work.

While the department was satisfied with my care arrangements it did unsettle my family. My son started having further difficulties as school and some with local children that further impacted on my working life. Again I started to feel depressed and isolated. My children and I felt we were being spied on by someone "anonymous". I felt that if I worked I was being deemed "a bad mother" for not being here when my 9 and 10 year old arrive home from school. My boss wanted me to stay after 5.30pm for product training (teamwork) but it was both unpaid, and beyond the undertaking I'd given to the department that my children were only left for two or so hours by themselves.

Then a neighbour on a violent and drunken binge physically attacked my son who was playing in the common area. The matter went to court and the neighbour was moved by the public housing. My son of course was traumatised. My boss was kind enough to keep me on but my work hours then dropped from 4 days per week at a full 8.5 hour day to 3 hours per day, 5 days per week. Again I felt defeated and feared that my children were being exposed to high risks. Work was becoming increasingly unsatisfactory (I was in sales) and many of my sales were taken by work colleagues. If I stay at home I'm "bludging". I began thinking of alternative ways to bring in an income including thinking of how I could work from home.

Mid 2001 my work place was taken over by a new owner and I found I was no longer receiving shifts. I was given no explanation although presumably it was to do with my sales figures or that he did not agree with the hours the previous owner had arranged.

Nevertheless I had come up with a business idea. I enquired into NEIS program because I met the programs criteria including coming up with a unique business idea. I ran the idea and sought advise from several key businesswomen in similar fields and all feed back I have is that it is both a sound business idea and a marketable product. I then spoke to a marketing executive who was quite excited by the product. In September 2001 after going to an business information session I began a three month program researching and developing the business idea. I expected to get into the next NEIS course which they ran in March 2002. At the time of writing it has been over 12 months since my initial inquiry and still I have not been offered any place in the program. The coordinator has advised me that demand outstrips their funding and he could not tell me when the next course would be held. How can we participate when there is insufficient funding?

In December 2001 I rang and received an appointment to see my local JET adviser on March 1 2002 about doing a private/alternative business course or some other help as I had now developed a sales presentation to sell my products in the hospitality sector and I needed more help. I was unhappy with the follow up I was receiving as mostly I was referred to former NEIS businesses and I had neither the capital nor the money to pay for the assistance I required. The JET adviser suggested I come back to her when I had a course that she might be able to possibly fund. My problem was I wasn't sure which course I needed or whether I needed several courses. I wanted to access a business adviser who knew about starting up a business and could help me through the steps. While I managed to find a business mentor, I have not been able to proceed with the sales presentation as I do not have the money to buy the materials to produce my products. No micro-business grants exist to my knowledge. My business idea is now shelved until I can do the NEIS program or a similar program.

The belief held by some policy makers and legislators that sole parents need coercion to participate is wrong. The main barriers to overcome are finding adequate support systems to obtain and sustain employment that works in with family demands. If support is insufficient for those who are self-motivated, how much further demoralising would it be for those who are quite defeated by their experiences of life. I am fortunate position not to have problems with housing, and transport like many sole parents I know. We need high quality child care and to be connected to peer support organisations. Finding information and resources is also another impediment. In the AWT/McClure papers there has been a constant push for individual interviews to be conducted with Centrelink as a "gateway" for referral to other organisations in the jobs network (or participation programs). However, my experience is that the best support is from peers and community support organisations in an informal setting.

Once a month I attend a picnic along with many other sole parents (both male and female) where we discuss all sort of issues we face. It was at such a gathering that I heard about business centres. Another single mother was starting up a business making greeting cards and spoke about similar problems to mine. I heard her tips and how she pushed through some of the barriers she'd encountered. Likewise I have seen other single mothers model their lives based on those who successfully juggling work, study and children. I have seen quite a few finish their degrees, or start studies when previously their highest level of school was to finish year 10. We share how raising or being the primary care giver is emotionally as well as being physically draining and tips for dealing with it, including surviving financially. We reach out to support one another. What impedes our participation is not a "welfare mentality" but rather the reality of keeping our lives and those of our children as happy and healthy as possible, emotionally, financially as well as physically.

My son turns 13 in January. He starts high school. He still faces difficulties at school and there are no local youth programs that I am aware of. According to legislation I will be called into account for my part in the mutual obligation equation. I would argue when I am not in the workforce it is because my child needs me. Being asked to attend an interview does not get me thinking about what will happen in three years time when PPS will no longer be the applicable benefit as I can only think about getting through this week, let alone next year or in three years time. I don't need coercion to plan as I've thought long and hard about ways to overcome of poverty traps, the work barriers and other hurdles. I need practical support that is cased in good policy. My workforce participation has been based on when my children can cope with me in the workforce, when they have a safe environment. The events of the last three years in my life have made it much harder to claw back my previous employment level and status. Particularly as my last two jobs have been casual, my wages have been much lower (so I have still had to rely on a top up of Centrelink support) and because I've had to accept any work that I can.

Another concern that has made it into FaCS/Centrelink propaganda is about my children growing up in a jobless family –again this is an unfounded concern. Not only do I work when family life allows, but this view discounts the value of my voluntary work for organisations working with sole parents and their children. My children sometimes complain "not more sole parent work" - they make no distinction between paid and unpaid work. Most of the sole parents I know do volunteer in some capacity usually at school, or in local organisations. Those who don't usually have either young children, or are healing/re-ordering their lives after finding themselves parenting solo.

We don't need coercion to participate in voluntary work either. In May this year I volunteered to be part of coordinating team for a single mother's art exhibition. The exhibition work gave me an opportunity to learn new public relations skills and bolstered my self-esteem more than anything else this year. The art gallery had two work- for -the -dole participants. Both said it was limiting as most of the time they were "cleaning up" or answering the phone. My point: a project that is voluntary is more likely to have higher ownership, challenge an extension of our skills and being highly rewarding than being made to participate in activity for the sake of activity to meet some ideal of mutual obligation.

My children's other parent works full-time. He has never been out of work and the children are conscious of his work-force participation as well as the demands of work on me. My children do not see me or our family as "jobless" rather they see me giving them a priority when they need it.

Further as I understood the original intention of the sole parent benefits was that our obligation was to raise happy healthy children. Often this requires me to drop whatever I'm doing and be there when my children need me. My children are acutely aware that should anything happen and I'm not there, their back-up is precarious. Their father lives two hours drive away, and their relationship with him is aloof (because he has chosen to be absent for so long in their lives). My only family member in the state, ismy mother who lives an hour and a half away when she is not visiting other relatives interstate. I still have not established a local support network.

When I look about me at my neighbours I see sole parents juggling their families, with some voluntary work, with study, with paid work (often part-time or casual) and some still recovering after escaping abusive relationships. There are a few dealing with difficult children (ADD/ADHD, 14 & 16 year olds who are not coping with high school and associated adolescent issues) which makes any participation extremely difficult. The few sole parents who I vaguely know because their children sometime turn up at my place distressed have families who would probably end up homeless if coercion were introduced. The woman is being harassed by her ex-partner who is violent. The stress of this and living in poverty means she is barely able to think beyond getting her child to school and keeping a very low profile. This parent is in need of an outreach program, and better protection. The threat of a hefty penalty might be the 'straw that breaks the camels back'. Penalties do nothing for a child's stability and media reports of removing such children would lead to higher out-of-home/foster care figures (currently there has been a sharp rise which is indicative of existing high family stresses).

Of those families that I know where there is intergenerational welfare dependence many face issues such as racial discrimination against their Aboriginality or disability issues or learning difficulties. In the case of Indigenous families, their lives have been severely affected by past disempowering policies such as child removal.

The idea that a penalty is the only thing (like a traffic infringement) to get people like me to comply is lacking in compassion and understanding of the difficulties and the pressures of surviving week to week. Such policy disregards the impact that other policies have made (such as a HECS debt, child support changes, and FBT) of the poverty traps that leave us sinking lower with each life's blow, and the demands of parenting on our own, particularly when support networks are not strong. It shows an ignorance of the contribution we make and how we organise our lives. It dismisses our ability as the best decision makers for our families. It presumes we are passively inactive about our circumstances. Further it doesn't account for some of the informal child care arrangements that some single mothers contribute while working neighbours utilise their stay at home status providing supervision to youth who would otherwise be self-supervising.

It is therefore my view that not only is coercion unnecessary, it would be counterproductive to our family life. Therefore the legislation as it stands is inadequate, ineffective, and unfair.

The proposed exemptions from participation would not make provision for the needs of my son as they only make provision for high care child/ren. However, from time to time my children have experienced high care needs, particularly in stressful times. My son is currently in an intergration program returning back to mainstream school in preparation for high school next year. While my daughter is experiencing bullying in school. Daily I give an assurance that should either child need me to attend the school (when it becomes to much for them to tolerate) I will be there. I do know if I were to be consistently unavailable for participation or had to leave especially when the school contacted me and then incurred a breach I would soon be caught in cross fire of competing meetings/obligations and very soon end up homeless or in tribunals to make some arrangement about arrears in housing.

The proposed legislation does little to assess what other factors may be a barrier to participation, such as the stress of the parent, or even the other factors that may impact on them.

Another example that shows how inadequate the above criteria is, is that my neighbour's 16 year old daughter suffers chronic asthma that sometimes results in her hospitalisation. Currently my neighbour is working casually and studying part-time but last year she was home as her daughter's asthma was particularly chronic resulting in her daughter missing weeks of schools. Added to that her daughter was also having anger management issues that resulted in the daughter being hospitalised and the family referred to counselling. One such rage resulted in her daughter being forcibly removed from the house after a rage that lasted some hours and affected not only my neighbour but our household too. Several times my neighbour was so anxious that she asked that I drive her to the local doctor/and or hospital as she was not coping and needed medical assistance. I believe further pressure of participation requirements and the fact that her daughter would not have met the above criteria would have exacerbated the parent's difficulties rather than relieve them. It took eight months before things have settled to a manageable state and again the mother has moved into the workforce. I asked her if today her circumstances were the same as last year would she be compelled to participate and she said "No. Not even if there was the threat of breaching, as I think I would've ended up in the psych ward."

When most parents face such problems it impacts on their workforce participation. In comparison to other workforce age income recipients we sole parents carry the additional responsibility of a caring role for our dependents. In couple families that caring role can often be shared to allow the recipient to participate in a workforce program. In the very least there is emotional support in a couple family, and some shared housework. One of the considerations I now take, after unsuccessfully juggling full-time work and family responsibilities is to now try to assess the emotional impact - in other words is the job/activity going to re-energise me or leave me feeling exhausted and so tired that I'm crabby at the kids? I cannot afford the negative impact on my family if I am constantly stress-out and exhausted - which is often how I feel just surviving on Centrelink payments (without any penalty/fine). The only way I held on last time I was actively looking for work/working was to resort to paid (unsubsidised private child care arrangements and out-sourcing my cooking resorting to take-away dinners three to four nights a week. Most jobs I've had do not pay well enough for me to outsource housework, and with GST on take-away food it is too expensive and the cost is facing hungry cranky children the minute I walk in the door from work. After a while it becomes so stressful.

So keep my toe in with at least trying to maintain workforce skills I resort to volunteering in areas that I feel I can make a valued contribution (such as writing this submission). To penalise me if I failed to comply (as would happen when I am suffering depression and not coping) would also be penalising my children - who I already feel are at a disadvantage through no fault of their own- and would be immoral and lead to government spending in other areas - such as foster care, inquiries into homelessness etc. As has been seen in the Pearce Report, penalties aimed at the welfare recipient cause hardship, do not encourage employment rather lead to further isolation and social disconnection and in the case of families the question must be asked what happens to the children we care for?

When I went to a financial counsellor late last year because I could not work out how to keep my expenses within the current level of income support, I was relieved to discover that it was not my poor budgeting. That, in fact, the cost of raising children exceeded the level of income, and that was why I had a short fall of $250 per month. How do I avoid going into deeper debt - our food is very basic (even fresh fruit and vegetables are a treat) I don't buy clothes, I don't repair broken appliances, I don't service my car or have third party property insurance. I skimp. Everyday I am aware of the need to get a job and to balance that with my children's needs (such as my son's need for medical attention this week (a suspected fractured bone in his foot). I don't need a Centrelink staff member to tell me this. I don't need the extra stress.

What is needed is better family support and outreach programs; employers who are encouraged to create flexible work places; better micro-business support and funding and a system that overcomes some of the poverty traps (such as the minute you start earning the rent jumps, the tax rate (including HECS) is higher because the HECS repayment now kicks in if income is over $23K, the loss of child support because if we try to earn over $30K, the payer gets a reduction and the loss of additional benefits such as a health care card. Those who are being dragged through the family courts or who are negotiating with the Child Support Agency to try to get them to act to collect child support should also be able to count these as activity (other than their sole parenting).

Stop thinking of ways to penalise and punish parents and start thinking of ways to help!

Thank You . Confidential Identity Single Mother.