Parliamentary inquiries, experts, advocates, and Guardian Australia’s own reporting over the years revealed the same thing about the ParentsNext program: it was punitive and caused harm to some of the most vulnerable people in Australia.
Its abolition was long overdue and the Albanese government is to be commended for heeding the calls of those who argued for reform over many years.
In a budget that will probably let down advocates calling for an across-the-board increase to the jobseeker payment, the end of ParentsNext and moves to restore to parenting payment for those with children over eight years old represent a shift in thinking.
But it raises a question over whether the problems within ParentsNext still exist in other parts of our welfare system.
There were particularly pernicious aspects to ParentsNext. Guardian Australia revealed in late 2018 how the program saw single parents face the prospect of losing their income because they didn’t attend playgroup or the library.
Librarians said it turned their workplace into places of surveillance as job agency consultants sometimes turned up to check parents were attending story time. Aided by the persistence of advocates and participants, Guardian Australia’s reporting highlighted the cruelty of the scheme over many years.
Just a tiny snapshot of what’s happening on my fb group this morning. So much relief that #parentsnext has been cancelled. @lukehgomes @JeremyPoxon @terese_smfa pic.twitter.com/EcRT5OVfAX
— Ella Buckland (@ellaNbuckland) May 5, 2023
The minister for women, Katy Gallagher, neatly articulated the situation on Friday.
“I think the issue we have identified is we want this … vulnerable cohort to be able to get those opportunities without taking away their weekly money,” Gallagher said. “It’s a small group of vulnerable Australians who, when they didn’t show up to take their kid to the library for story time, had their money withheld.”
The end of ParentsNext also should draw attention to the broader mutual obligations regime governing the lives of people relying on social security payments.
In the case of ParentsNext, the government has acknowledged stopping welfare payments causes more harm than good. A part of that conversation is that these punishments were meted out on vulnerable parents – overwhelmingly single women – with children as young as nine months.
But it still begs the question: do jobseekers living hand-to-mouth benefit from having their income stopped? The system operates from a worrying premise: If a jobseeker doesn’t meet an obligation (whether meaningful or busywork), job agencies are essentially told: stop payments first, ask why later.
Like those in ParentsNext, many of those in the broader mutual obligations system are vulnerable. They might have a chronic illness or a mental health condition. Many are long-term unemployed, some are homeless or have just left the criminal justice system.
The data is shocking: among the 75,000 people experiencing or at risk of being homeless who were connected with a job agency in the second half of 2022, 76% had experienced a payment suspension. Among people with disability, the figure was nearly 60%. For Indigenous jobseekers, it was nearly 80%. Among the nearly 70,000 parents (who would have children aged six and over), nearly 70% had experienced at least one payment suspension. Only some of these individuals would have ultimately had their payments delayed, but many would have.
Workforce Australia payment suspensions from 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022 https://t.co/W4pesq2bBo pic.twitter.com/m2aKNpXOEJ
— Michael Klapdor (@whobekindto) May 3, 2023
Workforce Australia payment suspensions from 1 July 2022 to 31 December 2022 https://t.co/W4pesq2bBo pic.twitter.com/m2aKNpXOEJ
— Michael Klapdor (@whobekindto) May 3, 2023
Given these punitive approaches coincided with the ranks of long-term jobseeker recipients steadily increasing over a decade, the question must be asked: do these punishments help? It’s worth noting about $7bn in taxpayer funds will be poured into the private companies and non-profits that run the system.
A parliamentary inquiry set up by the government and chaired by Julian Hill, a Labor MP appears to be asking those questions. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, indicated on Friday that the government was looking closely at its work. Indeed, the same inquiry also called for ParentsNext to go. Meanwhile, even some job agencies, perhaps sensing the winds of change, appear to be shifting their public position on punitive compliance.
The government’s own advisory body has called for a substantial increase to the jobseeker payment for all, but it appears it will confine a rise to those over 55.
This is still an acknowledgement that jobseeker is inadequate. The argument put by Chalmers and others seems to be that people over 55 need extra support because they find it particularly hard to get back into work.
But while older jobseekers are most likely to have a disability or health condition, some 200,000 people under 55 are also in this position. Some data suggests long-term unemployment is broadly comparable among those on jobseeker in their 40s. In 2021, the average time on payments for the 45-54 year olds was close to six years.
The move to abolish ParentsNext shows the Albanese government is shifting the dial on social security. But, crucially, only for some.
The great fear is those not identified by the government as most in need – that is, single parents and older Australians – will be left behind.
