Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to talk about a very important issue—in fact, to continue what I plan to be a series of commentaries and stories about people who are being adversely impacted by the Welfare to Work provisions. Last sitting I told the distressing story of a lady who had breast cancer and of her unfortunate interaction with Centrelink and I spoke of the unfortunate implications and impacts of the Welfare to Work provisions she had encountered. Today I would like to provide some information on the issue around principal carers, another issue I have been pursuing wherever I can, and also on the JET scheme. The JET scheme is highly relevant today, given the budget announcements—and I will go into that in a bit more detail. As I have said, in the past I have talked about Centrelink, about the health impacts on women with breast cancer and about the impacts of Welfare to Work on carers, family carers, people with disabilities and single mums. There is a continuing story about JET, which impacts very strongly on single mums.

Last week the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs heard a very interesting story about the impacts of the contradiction between the concept of ‘shared care’, now enacted in family law, and the idea that Welfare to Work will recognise only one parent as principal carer. In response to a question I asked Jac Taylor from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, Ms Taylor shared a story with us which I would like to use to highlight what it means in human terms when these policies are put in place. Asked about case studies, Ms Taylor said:

There is one in particular where a single mum in country Victoria has shared care of her toddler child, a very young child. She does not have principal carer status because her partner bullied her into making sure he got it. Centrelink assigned it to him.

I remind the Senate that only one parent can be declared a single carer. She went on:

They have within the 10 per cent range of the fifty-fifty—

that is, in care—

so Centrelink have made their decision against her in favour of him. So she is what is known as a generic job seeker where she is on Newstart with child rate but has full-time obligations to look for work and to do anything that the Job Network requires of her to accept full-time employment. She has none of the protections that you get with principal carer status such as part-time work, no suitable child care available, the 60-minute travel rule—hers is 90 minutes. She has no access to a pensioner concession card, so she is in a seriously disadvantaged situation.

This is a mother looking after a toddler—I understand the toddler is around two years old—who has now got full work obligations under Welfare to Work and is not receiving the concessions that as a single mum she would normally be entitled to. I put to this place that this will have serious consequences for her ability to support and look after her child—a situation where, now that the family law changes have been put in place, the starting position for looking after children is shared care between parents. Surely all our legislation in this country should embody that concept, and one parent should not be discriminated against through other pieces of legislation. It undermines people’s ability to look after their children.

I want to turn to the JET—Jobs, Education and Training—Child Care scheme to raise some issues about the changes that have been made to it to let the Senate see how this is adversely impacting on women with young children. These women are trying to turn their lives around through education so that they can have a better income and a better quality of life in the future for their children and themselves—most importantly, for their children. ABS data continues to show that single parents with primary care of dependent children are at the highest risk of poverty of all family types. Single mothers make up 86 per cent of the sole parent population. Income and housing research has identified that 46 per cent of all sole parents with dependent children live on very low incomes. With the changes that have been made in child support combined with Welfare to Work, where many single parents end up having their income further reduced, we are potentially making this situation worse.

From 1 July last year, JET Child Care fee assistance for new participants is only available for courses of study or training of up to 12 months duration. Remember that: 12 months. This policy severely limits the ability of single mothers to access important training or education opportunities. For example, it makes university study virtually impossible and may lead to young women dropping out of university courses. I will highlight some examples shortly where there is a very real danger of that. It also makes attaining higher level training certificates impossible—for example, certificate III or IV qualifications from TAFE. The budget provided—and there was some noise made about it—an extra 20,000 places for JET, but it is still only restricted to one year. Single mothers want to work and upskill, so why doesn’t the government provide them with pathways to do this properly? One year’s training in education is insufficient to assist single mothers into decent jobs with career paths. Rather, we see a policy leading single mothers to being condemned to unskilled, low-paid labour.

Child care is a pressing issue in this country, and we need to encourage and assist greater participation of women in the workforce. The government’s budget announcements on child care do not tell the real story. Here are some real stories from women caught up by this government’s policies that limit their access to education. This is a story from a lady called Peta who sent me an email. She wrote:

I am a single Mum of a 2 year old boy and I work 1 day per week. I am also a 1st year, mature age Psychology student at Murdoch University—

she is 30 years old—

I worked hard to get into Uni, received a 1st round offer & I felt really proud & optimistic about the future.

At the beginning of my studies I was given the impression that I met all the criteria & was eligible for Centerlink’s JET Child Care Assistance. From what my Child Care provider has told me, women that are studying and on JET were paying roughly $2 per day for Child Care.

In my 5th week of Uni I received a letter saying my application for JET had been declined, (after clocking up a $500+ bill at my day care centre assuming I was covered by JET). The reason: that I am enrolled in a course, the total duration of which exceeds 12 months.

The policy was only just changed July last year. As my whole course duration exceeds 12 months I am not eligible for any childcare assistance above the 100% for 50 hrs that I was entitled to before I began studying.

I feel that this change in legislation is very discriminatory. It gives extra support to [some] single parents, (women particularly) that are studying a short course, that will accordingly get them into a menial, low paid job.

However, a single parent (Mum) with any higher career aspirations, like becoming a Psychologist, is now being punished by the total withholding of the same extra support, thereby making it impossible to survive financially while studying.

I think it is extremely unfair that even though I would only require the JET assistance for 1-2 years anyway, (until my child was school age), I am still not afforded even the equal 12 months of JET assistance others doing a shorter course are receiving.

I am now facing the possibility of being forced to quit University: because I simply cannot afford to pay for child care.

In a big contrast to those on JET assistance that would be paying $10-$15 per week for child care, I currently have to pay $107.00 per week for the same amount of care. Furthermore, I am expected to pay this $107.00 p/w (+ the added expenses of fuel, books etc), out of my Parenting Payment on which I only just managed before I began to study. The extra $32 per week I receive for the Educational Supplement does not begin to cover this expense.

I believe there are many other single parents, (particularly women), that are in the same position as me as a result of this decision. I have spoken to the University Guild & Women’s Group who are supporting in every effort to try & reverse this decision.

They have begun circulating a petition to try and see if there are other people affected by this decision.

Surprise, surprise: there are many other women—this was just at Murdoch University—who are also affected. I have another story of another lady, who would prefer that I did not use her name. She writes:

I am a single mum and I live in a rural area, with limited child care services and virtually no local employment opportunities.

My decision to return to University studies came some 18 months after my separation from my partner, and 2 years after the birth of my last baby.

I have three children. I am now in receipt of Centrelink benefits—a humbling experience, but necessary none the less.

I am grateful that after two years of family court intervention and legal drama my ex-partner will be forced to contribute financially to our lives, and I will also receive property settlement.

I started a new course at Murdoch University, knowing that completing a degree was the only way I could improve my employment options to a level that would satisfy my family’s financial requirements and obligations.

…         …         …

When I enrolled at the start of this year, I spent 3 hours at my local Centrelink office (my 3 kids in paid care too) applying for the JET assistance, some weeks later I was sent a letter explaining why I was not eligible. DRAT—and my day care centre manager had purposely withheld my entire care bill until she could calculate it at the JET rate—

which was a very expensive mistake for her. She goes on to say:

I now use my scholarship funds to pay for my childcare. Not the most suitable scenario. I’d prefer to be able to buy textbooks, but I have to beg and borrow for them instead.

If there are ANY changes that can be made to allow for University students to access JET assistance- I KNOW I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL.

I do not have any alternatives which are suitable for the needs of my unique family. I’m sure that many families would benefit from fee relief.

As I said, I have many other stories. One of the other letters I have received in my office relates to Balga Senior High School in Western Australia, which has a number of single mothers attending. They are also affected by this. In theory they cannot get JET beyond 12 months even for completing their secondary education. Since they wrote to me, they have in fact received a letter from the minister saying that a secondary education is exempt, which is good. So they are getting child care for their children while they are in secondary school. But what happens when they leave secondary school?

Through this system we are condemning these women who are trying to get a better education and provide a better future for their children. We are condemning these young women, who are trying to turn their lives around and support their children, to low-paid, unskilled work. There is no way that these young women will be able to afford a university education because they cannot and will not be able to get childcare support for their children beyond 12 months. They will not be able to finish getting adequate skills through TAFE because they will only get support through JET for 12 months.

If we were really serious about supporting and helping Australian families, upskilling our workforce and training and skill development, we would be doing everything we could to support these families, these single mothers. As I said at the beginning, most of the people affected as single parents are single women, supporting mothers. They are in one of the most disadvantaged groups in this country yet we are further punishing them—that is all I can see it is—by not giving them access to the child care they need to enable them to get a qualification from a university. It basically bans single mothers from a university education, and in this country that is outrageous.