HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NEWSTART

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:42): I move:

That this council notes that—

1. The recent federal amendments to the Social Security Act will further impoverish already struggling single parent families when their youngest child turns eight by moving from the parenting payment and on to Newstart over 100,000 single parents who were previously protected from the Howard government's Welfare to Work reforms;

2. Support for this move was at odds with both the Senate committee and the Joint Parliamentary Human Rights Committee which stated that it could 'deprive' single parent families and their children 'of minimum essential levels of social security'; and

3. This attack on single parents has drawn concern from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights.

I rise today to talk about an issue which in some ways is a national and federal parliament issue, but it has caught the attention of the United Nations and it certainly will become a state issue as we see the impacts of the federal government amendments to the Social Security Act with regard to those single parents whose children turn eight.

As of this year, when the youngest child of a cohort of single parents in Australia turns eight, over 100,000 of that group will be moved off the parenting payment and on to Newstart. Obviously already many have, for those who have children over eight, and increasingly, as their children grow older, that group, which was originally grandfathered and protected under the Howard government's regressive Welfare to Work reforms, will also be moved to Newstart.

What is the problem with that, one might wonder? Newstart means that those children and those single parent families will be condemned to live in poverty. The move was actually at odds with both the Senate committee and the Joint Parliamentary Human Rights Committee which stated that should such a measure be undertaken by the Gillard federal government it would deprive single parent families and their children of 'minimum essential levels of social security'.

Newstart is in fact 77 per cent of the poverty line. In fact, Newstart is no start for any child. It is touted that this is an effort to move these single parents into work. The reality is that approximately 68 per cent of those single parents are already in some form of paid employment. They are the ones who are the most financially disadvantaged by these so-called reforms. They are the ones who will be most penalised. There will be no pensioner education supplement under Newstart for those who wish to engage in future or further study. I have spoken to parents in this state who have now dropped out of their studies as of this year and have given up on pursuing educational training as an option for better employment.

I have heard from parents who have been advised by Centrelink that in order to raise their income to levels at which they can continue to pay their bills, pay the rent, feed their children, that they should leave their children at bus stops after school because they cannot afford the after school hours care. These parents are expected, somehow, to find work—mythical work—that would be incredibly flexible around the needs of a single parent, a single parent who has a child or children to care for as well as undertake all the other activities, whether that be education or training.

I observe that it has drawn the attention of the United Nations and, in fact, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has asked the Gillard government to justify this measure. The only justification I have seen from the Prime Minister so far is that it already applies to a different cohort of parents who are affected adversely under the welfare to work payments. Well two wrongs don't make a right.

I remember the days when the then prime minister actually promised that no child would live in poverty in this country. Now that was a vision to be proud of. Of course, it is well known and much celebrated, I think, that he actually strayed from the script that day and he had, of course, meant to promise that no child need live in poverty. The Gillard government is ensuring that children will live in poverty and that their parents may have little choice about the matter. Should they be unable to get employment which ensures they can afford quality care for their children, they will be forced to make difficult decisions. I have been speaking to many of these parents and I would advise members to check out the single parents action group websites. They are around the country in both rural and regional and metropolitan areas.

These single parents, with the load that they carry, are fighting back. They are wondering what they did on the day the Prime Minister made her now infamous around the world misogyny speech to cop these particular cuts. These cuts did not make worldwide media but they have now drawn the attention of the United Nations. These cuts, I believe, are misogyny in policy and practice of the federal government. These cuts significantly attack women and the most vulnerable women in our country and, of course, they plunge children into poverty. The repercussions for non-government organisations and our state institutions will be felt over coming months and years should these cuts not be reversed.

Over the Christmas/New Year break Greens' member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was our acting leader for the party and he challenged the minister responsible for these cuts, Jenny Macklin to live a week on Newstart.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: And she said she could.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: And she said she could, as the Hon. Robert Brokenshire rightly observes. She did say she could, except then apparently, according to the transcript the minister put out to the media later that day, that question and answer were inaudible. I would say the answer to that question was untenable and impossible because it is impossible to raise a child and to live on what equates to—when you pay all of your bills and you meet all of your commitments—$35 a day. I would not do that to my child as a single mother; I would never take that challenge. However, to their credit, both Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne and, previously, the Greens' senator, Rachel Siewert, have taken that challenge and discovered what I think anyone in this chamber would, that is, it is almost impossible to live on $35 a day, even as a single person let alone when you have kids to support.

One thing goes wrong—somebody's glasses break, somebody has a car accident, your child, as happened in that week to mine, gets head lice and you have to go out and buy some Quit Nits, which costs quite a pretty penny—and that $35 a day is looking completely untenable. This measure is putting those parents under enormous stress, many of whom believe that it will put other parents in a position where they may stay in situations of domestic violence to escape and avoid this poverty. They believe it has also heightened anger and hatred towards single parents in our community.

On this I want to mention a particular single mother who went on Today Tonight to put the case of single parents under these cuts, pushing them off parenting payments and onto Newstart. That particular program chose to focus not on the poverty and the struggle she was facing but on the fact that she had had her nails done that day and used that to vilify and, I believe, demonise single parents. The back story to that was that she rarely gets her nails done, and her sister did the nails for free because she is a nail technician and because she was going on television and therefore wanted to look her best. That is just one example of the many stories I have heard from single parents around this country about the backlash they are facing.

I urge members of the opposition and the government to look at the Facebook pages and the hatred that is being spewed forth at these single parents who are trying to stand up for themselves and their kids not to live in poverty. Enabling that vilification to be given credence is the fact that it is getting support in our federal parliament. But, I commend them and I have been inspired by many of the single parents I have been working with, and I look forward to the national day of action on 13 April. They will not let this issue rest; they know it is too important for their children not to live in poverty. They know this is not the Australia where the former prime minister promised that no child shall live in poverty.

They know that it is not only the Prime Minister slipping up on the wording of the script but it is that she is reading from the entirely wrong document on this. They know that this move is wrong, as do the Greens, and the United Nations have called into question what is going on in this country where children are being forced to live in poverty.

On a more positive note, they have creative ways of bringing attention to their cause, and I wish to commend them for the resilience they are showing and the inspiration they provide. They have created a campaign called 'the government do not care bears', and they have basically taken stuffed toys, soft toys, that have been donated through many of the charities that are now having to find extra food parcels, and so on, to help support these families. If you see them, they are often taped to the window of the Prime Minister's office, but increasingly around the country they are being positioned in prime spots near local MPs' offices, and they have a little slip of information. Each bear is different: I have seen Scooby Doos and various Disney characters and also traditional teddy bears, but they are fighting back with their 'government do not care bears' and they are putting them out there and spreading the word.

On that, I had a Twitter altercation with a Labor supporter on this issue. He took me to task because he was a little annoyed that I was advocating for the rights of single parents, and he did not really seem to think that that was necessarily appropriate. He thought that perhaps, as many people seem to think, they should get out there and get a job. Then he had a little look into the issue and we actually had a meeting and a discussion about it, and the more he looked into the issue, the more he realised that these were not Labor values that were being implemented here.

As I say, on the very day that the Prime Minister delivered her now infamous misogyny speech, she stripped the rights of these single parents to live a life with dignity, to live a life above the poverty line. I hope there are more Labor members like him in the party's rank and file who are willing to have a look at these issues, who are willing to look at the real statistics, who are willing to actually acknowledge that many of these parents are in fact working and that it is the ones who are working who will be most punished by the new regime and who are willing to reverse this decision.

I think if members opposite have any faith and commitment to the promise made by Bob Hawke back when he was prime minister, which I believe was an inspirational promise, they will go back to basics and they will go back to their grassroots and they will revisit this decision. With that, I commend the motion to the chamber.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT