It is universally agreed Newstart is inadequate, especially for the long-term support of individuals or families. The government says their solution is for recipients to get a job, but that is not easy or even possible for many Newstart recipients. Of more than 600,000 people on the payment, about half are not even required to look for work because they can’t.
They may be in training, sick, in deep distress, volunteering, needing treatment or just too old, so are exempted but still on the same low payment. The government focuses public attention on the other 300,000 plus who are registered as job seekers, ignoring the other half on the inadequate payment, often for the long-term.
Many official job seekers will have serious difficulties finding a job, particularly sole parents with family constraints on time and location. They compete with the rest of the 600,000 unemployed people that the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates are active job seekers, as well as those in a job but wanting to move, those wanting more hours and those who would take a job if offered one but are not counted as looking.
So there may be a million job seekers, chasing around the current 160,000 registered job vacancies, and falling. Even if there are some unregistered jobs, there may be a ratio of six seekers for each job.
There are around 100,000 sole parents officially looking for the few flexible jobs that fit school type hours competing with others fitting parenting around paid work who have partners!
Sole parents have to deal with employer prejudices against sole parents, lack of child care and how to manage sick kids. Maybe 10% of them will find secure jobs, more may find some casual work, but their chances of finding the right jobs are not high.
There is also no evidence that cutting their income increases their employment rates, in fact it may decrease them – looking for work costs money. Their numbers may increase if some of the holders of part-time jobs cut hours or jobs because their lower income doesn’t cover the costs of working.
Therefore it is hard to justify moving sole parents onto Newstart for their own good. The lack of data suggests that there are few benefits and policy that devalues parenting roles may backfire in other ways.
Cutting sole parent payments devalues social relationships and redefines parents as individual economic units. The primary carer is still usually the mother, so the cuts are sexist.
The policy also fails to recognise kids, even aged eight and above, need time, skill and social inputs as against just covering costs. These gendered prejudices against single mothers use a vulnerable group to make money savings.
The policy ignores serious barriers faced by conscientious parents looking for at least 15 hours of paid work that fit with school hours, the diverse needs of children, the skills and experience of parents and avoids prejudiced employers.
It’s really hard juggling kids and work if you are the only adult there. They get sick, they need extra attention sometimes, they may have minor disabilities or problems at school. They need care in holidays and often before and after school, as jobs fitting into school hours are rare.
Children need predictability, as do mothers, but often casual workers lack the control over their hours. There are serious structural difficulties of finding jobs that fit family needs, the time demands of children and the difficulties of good solo primary parenting.
I can remember my time as a sole parent in the 1970s on the what was then labelled the Widows Pension, when I returned to university with a primary school aged child. I’d already had some years of juggling day care and jobs and knew how to work the system. Day care was virtually nonexistent but I wheedled a place in a SDN centre, so later expiated my guilt at queue jumping by taking on child care and welfare payments as my policy area in the newly formed Women’s Electoral Lobby.
I am therefore both emotionally and professionally aware of the problems women face in combining paid work and child rearing. As a feminist, I am both aware of the benefits that come from the right to paid work, but not coercion into crappy insecure jobs.
in the last ten years, I have undertaken two research projects with Kathleen Swinbourne and Terry Priest. The first was a qualitative research project that found sole parents want a job, but one that fitted children’s needs as good parenting was their priority, as it should be.
The next research project looked at the new welfare to work policy in 2005. It showed parents face serious difficulties finding suitable jobs. Some have come out of difficult and violent relationships, some have children with a disability but not serious enough for a carer payment; some have limited language skills, chronic ill-health and other problems. All are treated as though it is their fault they can’t find work.
The Howard government reduced sole parent payments for new applicants once their child turned eight, and required they look for jobs once their child turned six. There are around 40,000 sole parents who have been transferred to Newstart but no evidence that this has improved their employment, compared to those still on parenting payment. They have already had two years of job seeking, so reducing their income does not create paid work.
The official claims that children benefit from an employed parent works for those who find good jobs. However, what if futile job seeking creates more stress and poverty for most of these families?
Many of those now transferred to Newstart are also older as they have been on the payments since before 2006! All this makes jobs harder to find, so they should be given an adequate income to live on. An alternate set of support carrots and changed employer attitudes would offer better outcomes.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Chris Weir
Analyst
Right on the money here, and by all forecasts the number of people seeking work will be increased in the first six months of 2013 so finding a job just became more difficult.
Jason Bryce
logged in via Twitter
Sexist - what a joke. You always have to throw that in even when there is no justification.
Here is a thorough run down of the changes:
http://singlemum.com.au/centrelink/new-centrelink-newstart-changes-20121121-jason-bryce.html
I'm not on Parenting Payment Single but I know its not too shabby when child support, rent assistance and family tax benefit A and B is all thrown in as well. Plus you could get large family supplement, schoolkids bonus, Education Maintenance Allowance, child care for $1 per hour and a Pension Card entitling you to cheaper electricity, gas, public transport and car rego.
Newstart though - that is brutal - and without kids there is basically nothing added on.
Your argument seems to be that cutting women's pay back to Newstart is sexist - that is ridiculous.
Just like we all support motherhood, welfare payments have supported parents and families pretty well in recent years.
David Clerke
Teacher
I have put the actual figures down below and know a couple of welfare recipients who are managing quiet well thank you including one blended family with neither parent working. Why would they? Don't forget CSA payments and that the custodial parent with two children would have received seventy per cent of the family assets including superannuation. Now am I right that only those who were on the Single Parents Benefits before a certain time were on the higher allowance and more recent recipients were already on the new start allowance?
Linda Cairnes
logged in via Facebook
Eva, as a woman who spent many years as a reluctant single mother , I am so grateful we have you to articulate the problems single parent families have with Newstart. The govt declared this decision at the same time Julia made her misogyny speech. How ironic that the govt has placed a large amount of single parents AND their children into impossible poverty, just so they could re- jig the budget. It's shameful.
In the UK in the 2000's, The Labour Govts priority was to stop the poverty and dysfunction in the vast swathes of social housing, by creating opportunities for families with young children. The nationwide project was called Surestart. I was one of their workers.It changed the lives of thousands, by providing support, education, more money, and an atmosphere of care and value and allowed these people to finally exit the poverty trap of single parenthood, allowing their kids to thrive. This govt is now doing the opposite. Shame on them and thank you Eva.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Excellent opportunities are to be found in the sex industry - escort & prostitution if you are attractive enough, phone-sex for those who possess the voice and tough titties for others who do not possess the necessary acting skills. Not exactly a career path but at least it pays the rent.
Just think, voting Labor out won't change anything for single parents.
Poor fellow, my country.
Jack Arnold
Director
This is the ramblings of a really sick puppy. Perhaps you might suggest that unemployed single parents throw away all morality by becoming politicians or better still priests.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I think you are missing Dianna's anger at this suggestion Jack. But it is a consequence of Eva's long held view and public advocacy for the industry - Scarlet Alliance in particular - characterising the industry as a model for economic independence and security... a viable career path. Safe.
Eva has a history here Jack - and for an otherwise most sensible woman - it is a very silly one.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Thanks Mr O.
Have need of clear and unambiguous Irony Symbol other than:
;P
Mike Swinbourne
logged in via Facebook
But now the subject has been brought up.....
Dianna may have been ironic in her original post, but then, what is wrong with a job in the sex industry?
Last time I checked, it was legal in many jurisdictions, and is something that almost anyone can get into with no qualifications. It may not be a suitable job for everyone, but it certainly is suitable for many.
Jack may have moral problems with the concept, but they're his morals, and are not shared by everyone. And given that the sex industry has been around for millenia, and it was a well respected occupation at many times in the past, maybe it is about time we got past our stupid victorian wowerism about it and accepted it as both perfectly normal and acceptable, Perhaps if we did so, many of the negative aspects of the industry could be overcome.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Okay. Single mothers can sell their bodies - Yay!
What about single dads? Not so much demand for male sex-workers and fathers would have to be prepared to go "both ways" to make a living wage. And again, Prostitution is not a great long term career and does nothing to stop the image of women as commodities. But, yes, it is legal here in Victoria so that makes it all warm and fluffy.
Mike Swinbourne
logged in via Facebook
I think you just proved my point Dianna.
The sex industry has been around for as long as humans have, and it is well past time when it should be accepted as a legitimate occupation - it certainly was at many times in the past. The very fact that you were disparaging about it says more about your morals and ideals than it does about the industry itself.
As I said, it is not for everyone, but then, no occupation is.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Mike
I was trying to present the sex industry as an emergency form of income as it offers no long term career prospects. I would rather recommend young people to seek a job that does not mess with a person's well being and self esteem. This not only includes prostitution but any work where a person is vulnerable to exploitation.\
Any one can choose do use their bodies, however, the monthly doctor's checks, the risk of abuse by clients and the difficulty of re-entering the mainstream workplace are considerations for any person who may see prostitution as a way to earn good money.
That you have chosen to cast aspersions on my character - knowing nothing about me - indicates that you are more concerned that sexual objectification continue to be a major part of our culture rather than look to ways for people to earn a living wage not just for the short term but for their working lives.
Mike Swinbourne
logged in via Facebook
So in which way have I cast aspersions on your character?
Is it that I have suggested that you are more concerned that sexual objectification continues to be a major part of our culture rather than look(ing) for ways to earn a living wage? Oh right, that would be you casting aspersions on my character - which are totally at odds with what my posts stated.
I would like to suggest that if you should take a good hard look at your hypocritical nature if you want to have a rational discussion on…
Read moreMitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
well you did question her morals and ideals
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
Mike, I think there may have been a subtle irony in much of Dianna's posts.
Realistically though, how could being something that is still frowned upon and regarded as taboo in many sections of society, not affect someones' self esteem? It's still very common for both men and women to label women as sl__s, when they feel the need to demean someone. A prostitute is just a paid sl__.
Mike Swinbourne
logged in via Facebook
Mitch
You might note that I have consistently stated that the sex industry has been around for a very long time, and at other times it has been considered a legitimate and honourable industry. And there is nothing other than attitudes and wowserism which prevent it from being so again. Almost all of the 'harmful' elements of the sex industry could be overcome if we simply accepted it as legitimate - as it should be - and dealt with it accordingly. And I am very disappointed by the attitudes of individuals who otherwise express progressive and open minds about many social issues, who still stigmatise sex workers.
And there are a lot of things which are frowned upon by sections of our society. But ask yourself, does your self esteem rely on what those sections of society think about you and what you do? Mine certainly doesn't.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
I am referring to the sex industry as it is right here, right now. Not in some idealistic utopia where there is no sexism, no homophobia, no exploitation (especially children), no trade into prostitution, where single parents can earn a living wage or seek further education and know they can afford child care while they do.
Julie Thomas
craftworker
Hi Mike, you said "the sex industry has been around for as long as humans have" and I am sorry to quibble, but I don't think there was a sex industry among hunter gatherers and they were human.
So perhaps, you are exaggerating for the purposes of showing off how clever and analytic you are? Or perhaps you really don't know as much as you think you do? Who can tell what goes on in your mind/brain?
I also have to quibble with your assumption that we all can ignore the people who make pejorative…
Read moreMitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
Best to ask those involved. But for myself, my self esteem depends on if i am doing something that is personally valued, socially valued and that has future.
Gary Myers
logged in via LinkedIn
There's an article suggesting some are following that route.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/single-mums-turn-to-brothels-and-stripping/story-e6frfku9-1226557580324
Not sure if it is accurate or a beatup
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
I am wondering if you would be happy for yourself, your daughter sister or wife to work in this "industry". I have had an partner who worked in this industry as well as having had clients ( I am a therapist). I can honestly share with you it is not just a simple case of taking the money and no costs personally!
For me the point of this article and discussion is is this something that we as Australians is this something that we agree with? $35 a day how can you possible raise you child on this or even get a job?
We need to support parents. We give a baby bonus then at a crucial stage we reduce the support and say get a job! I see no merit in this proposal.
If we are serious about supporting parents then we need to move on from the economic model of policy and begin to see the full social and personal costs of this policy.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
What - women still living in poverty? Unable to find gainful employment that fits with the demands of parenthood?
Whatever happened to Scarlet Alliance and the promise of economic liberation offered by their "decent, well-run and safe" industry?
Last time I read anything from Eva on this I thought she'd discovered the solution to female unemployment via the good orifices of the Federated Fork Hawkers' Union.
Why not? Nothing wrong with it at all apparently. Any of it.
Jack Arnold
Director
Perhaps Peter you need to get off the farm more often peter and discover that the 21st century has begun and society has progressed beyond 1757 when women were legally considered chattels.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Now now Jack - no need to be all "civilised" on me...
This 21st Century you're talking about - is this one where one of the most respected feminist critics of inequality and exploitation of the vulnerable chooses to become a mouthpiece for the industry - not for the workers in it - for the industry... refusing to acknowledge the role of dangerous and violent men, trafficking and abuse.
Jack Eva and Scarlet Alliance advocate a totally unregulated approach to the sex industry - no background checks on owners and managers for example. No licensing or supervision or scutiny whatsoever. It's essentially a libertarian viewpoint - or what has become libertarian in the modern era of narcissism - ie unbridled self-interest. The sort of stuff Adam Smith warned us about.
I am not a moralist Jack - far from it - nor am I wandering about in the garb of 1757... I just have issues about good folks selling themselves short, and in this case very short indeed.
Tania Shipman
logged in via Facebook
Bit simplistic but you should get the idea.
The costs for a single person looking for work involves a phone or walking in, looking for jobs, applying for jobs, getting to the interview, getting the job, starting, getting their first pay check and going off Newstart.
The costs for a single parent looking for work involves a phone or walking in, looking for jobs that are single parent friendly (ie between school hours), applying for jobs whilst looking after the children's needs, getting to the…
Read moreJack Arnold
Director
Thank you Eva for another valuable contribution to the debate about social justice.
I grew up in a single parent family struck unemployed for 13 week period by the 1961 'recession the English banks wanted'. It was sole destroying for my hardworking mother during this time of negligible government support for families. As it was, my mother worked at least three jobs simultaneously to keep us afloat & thought a 16 hour day was a holiday.
I believe that working families require the same full tax deductions for child care that have been enjoyed by politicians since the mid-70s.
At present my kids are working second jobs to pay child care rather than working to pay the house mortgage, school fees or improve the well being of my grandkids.
Cat Mack
logged in via Facebook
The fallacies of the New Start system are known to anyone who has had the misfortune to come into contact with the system. What is amazing is the mainstream media inability to actually address these issues in any rational way. If you have the power to set the agenda, even the obvious becomes invisible.
David Clerke
Teacher
What Eva conveniently forgets is that the average single mother stays on benefits for eleven and a half years. This was shown by the Gregory Report. Prior to this it seemed Social Security had hidden the figures or grossly misinterpreted them because the official figure was one and a half years. What the full single parent's benefit amounts to was shown by the CIS study, Google it and you will see why women who go onto the Sole Parent Benefit stay on it. This of course does not include CSA payments paid by the non custodial parent. Interestingly the Gregory study also showed only half of single mothers ever receive the benefit. The rest are self supporting. It is also interesting that until recently only three countries did not work test this benefit until the youngest child reached sixteen, (and this includes Scandinavia famous for its welfare schemes) UK, NZ and Australia.
David Clerke
Teacher
Just to save people looking it up this is the full benefit for a single parent
In fact, many will receive much more once additional welfare payments are taken into account.
For example, parents will also receive the following weekly payments: Family Tax Benefit Part A ($85); Family Tax Benefit B ($50); and Rent Assistance ($70).
Add other payments such as the Schoolkids Bonus, Telephone and Pharmaceutical Allowance, and the Clean Energy Supplement payments.
A single parent who has two children aged nine and 11 could take home more than $620 a week in welfare payments.
This works out to be worth nearly $90 a day -- and that's before taking into account the money they can earn from working.
Many of the children currently benefiting from Parenting Payment have grown up in welfare-dependent families, which increases the chance that they will be dependent on welfare when they grow up.
Georgina Hone
Lawyer
I'm not certain what you are trying to say, but with two kids at home and RENT of $480 a week, I am failing to see how $620 is a good deal.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
"RENT of $480 a week"
My rent is $450 a week, which would be crippling financially, so I have a couple of boarders, which means I pay around $180 net - much more affordable. It also provides accommodation for a couple of young men with few prospects of being able to afford a decent home on their own resources.
I'm not sure why sharing your home with other people is regarded as such an unconscionable imposition, although such an attitude might explain why some are single in the first place…
Read moreMitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
hi Craig,
how do your kids mesh with the boarders, do they get on?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Yeah, they're all fine. It's an important consideration though, for sure.
Noely
logged in via Twitter
True! I live in a regional area, the Howard change hurt people badly. So many single mothers were in housing commission (which was thankfully near the school), but next to no transport and NO before or after school care meant that year on, we now have a whole generation of kids who are roaming the streets getting into trouble because the Government forced mums to make their kids latchkey kids :( Socially this was one of the worst things to ever happen in my area and will only be worse now!
Tony Simons
Tony Simons is a Friend of The Conversation.
Accountant
Gillard has adopted Howard's punishers and straightener policies. She is following Howard's message of the deserving and undeserving. The more likely number of job seekers is two million. 40% of the workforce is in casual insecure work.
Geoff Taylor
Consultant
Spot on Eva.
Another factor of course is that the effective marginal tax rate if you move from support payments to a job is a huge disincentive.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
This may be a small bit mitigated by the increase of the Tax Free Threshold to $18000
Paul Wittwer
Orchardist
Great to read this update to Eva's previous article posted at newmatilda and which I have been reposting everywhere possible since then.
The government sure wants us to 'ignore' the inconvenient facts but there must be a better word than 'ignore' for what they are doing.
The government is like the parrot seller in Monty Python. "Of course there are jobs, beautiful jobs, lots of them. If only people would get off their Rses and look"
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Excellent - a fellow fruiterer ...
You've hit the nail on the head here Paul - this is all stick and no carrot.
To be honest I don't think parenthood entitles one to lifelong state support... not if there are alternatives? Are there alternatives? Not really. Not in the private sector.
It's not like are chronic labor shortages opening up in retail or services. No one is hiring. So what else can be done? Training? Disguised unemployment.
There is one are where there are labor supply…
Read moreJack Arnold
Director
OK Peter, I accept your earlier comments. Now about Macklin creating jobs, especially in urban regional centres.
How may any government create an internal job boom? Very easily now that Tony Windsor pushed the NBN through in 2010.
Every government job decentralised to an urban regional centre creates a further 3.5 private sector jobs to service the community. So, over time, decentralise 1,000 government jobs to an urban regional centre currently having a population over 25,000 and that centre…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
It will be interesting to watch what the NBN does to the economics of location decisions of what becomes possible to do in small towns with railheads.
With luck it will take the urban sprawl out of the driver's seat economically in NSW. It's built into the very fabric of the state budget and the economy. It would be a dreadful error to apply the same policies that gave us the great suburban wilderness of Sydney in miniature all over the state.
One challenge will be maintaining the essential character of these regional centres - the community and amenity of the place - while allowing growth and all the "opportunities" that brings - like local sprawl, supermarkets, an empty main street and Maccas. It's the end of the world!!!!!
Not really but we must be careful how we allow the pace of change and plan for an improvement rather than a reduction in our "happiness index" I reckon. More sustainable, less stark, bare and boxed.
Do we have a happiness index? Why not?
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
If the government is really serious in their belief that the best way to help sole parents is to get them work, instead of just chucking them on the Newstart heap, help them with training to acquire the skills to give them more options.
I don't mean those useles JSP how to write a resume courses, proper 3-4 year training in tafe in a subject that interests them, covered by the public purse (the long term return on this "investment" will more than outweigh the initial cost) maintain the current rates applicable to the Sole Parent Pension until such time as the course is either completed or they are no longer studying.. THEN onto Newstart.
This would provide the financial stability for the kids, increase the employability and confidence of the parent and is flexible enough to enable the parent to manage their time to meet their primary responsibility.. CARING for their kids.
We all benefit.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
That's part of it but it would be wrong to assume that single parents have no marketable skills or that a brush-up might not be adequate.
The big problem is that as you increase the skill levels required the flexibility seems to disappear. Employers want their quid's worth and you end up working 30 or 40 or 50 hours a week.
What we need are a lot of flexible easy access industries which - as training is established - can provide a secure career meeting a real and growing need.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
The real problem is that we have less and less work that needs doing and we have vastly expanded our pool of labour to do it.
There is no such thing as a "secure" job serving artificial needs, such as shuffling paper that only needs shuffling because of some arbitrary regulation, not because it enhances operations. The "care industry" has a very finite life expectancy that mirrors pretty closely that of the aged population it is based on. We have created an enormous bubble of people who are being…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
Eva fails to address the overall problem of how to reduce the number of single parent families.
The latest job figures show an increase in part time work instead of full time work, and any increase in job numbers just covers the increase in population due to immigration.
The future is less jobs and not more, and many jobs will hardly cover the cost of operating a car, so the eventual problem is to decrease the number of single parent families.
I’m sure feminists would want that.
Julie McNeill
I read and write
Eva, my first question with the reduction in payments was is somebody taking the evidence for how many are evicted because they can't keep up with the rent or mortgage anymore?
Read moreAlso many people are not thinking about the lack of childcare and transport available to women who live on the outer fringes of cities because thats the only housing there is.
The only work available in my area is casual - disability carer, childcare, aged care. This means from day to day you don't know if you are working…
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
There r always if's & but's & all manner of excuses that bleeding hearts use to excuse or wash over the social security recipients laziness, incompetence, & myriad of oft self inflicted problems.
The fact & reality remains that social security is not FREE. The tax payer has to work to earn an income, which is taxed, as are most goods/services purchased with the remaining funds. The tax payers family misses out on that tax just so single parents can abrogate their responsibilities to tough it out…
Read moreMitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
It's always been my ambition to open a pizza shop and be an imperfect parent. You must hate living here with all these anglo-saxon-derived bludgers who haven't achieved your goals.
Kim Bulwinkel
Kim Bulwinkel is a Friend of The Conversation.
Forcably retired!
Thank - you Rob K for your impassioned, perceptive and 'from the heart' comment. I expect that there will be little comment / reply to your statement because it is all so true. We live in a privileged country with wonderful opportunity for those of your ilk. We are, unfortunately, being exploited by many without the same"ethic". We are being governed by many who have the unhealthy ideal of wealth & 'product of effort' redistribution concept that failed monumentally 100 years ago in Eastern Europe.
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Your presumption is erroneous. Seeing error in other peoples desires to steal your $ doesn't equate to disliking the country. It also has nothing to do with nationality & its obvious you confused & equated my arguments with other debates. Your sarcasm is therefore misplaced and its obvious you misunderstood what i was trying to say.
My examples were not of one nationality being 'better' than another, but of some people 'working' for a living while others in effect 'stealing' for a living. My…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Thanks Kim, i always worry that with limited time my communication may not come across as intended.
:)
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
merely Tori politics
Eva Cox
Professorial Fellow Jumbunna IHL at University of Technology, Sydney
The constant claims that sole parents are relatively well off because of other payments fails to recognise these payments relate to outgoings like rent and education costs and are available to others, So they are still too poor in many cases to cover the costs of looking for work or decent living. No one addresses the question of why those already in paid work are being further financially penalised and may give up the jobs when they lose the concessions and can no longer afford to go to work. The…
Read moreJason Bryce
logged in via Twitter
No Eva with respect, you are very wrong.
Even without any add ons, Parenting Payment Single is higher - much higher - than the dole - read my article at singlemum.com.au to get the facts.
Plus it is indexed at a higher rate and there is no savings test and a more generous taper rate for income earned from work.
So there is no basis for your sexism claim. A good article about bad policy but you go to far when you cry sexism all the time - it's just not required.
Martha Kinsman
consultant
It seems to me that the main deficiency in this policy, as in many other policies of this government, is the singular lack of compassion for those who, for whatever reason, do not conform to the Government's ideal of Australian 'working familes'. This decision on single parents is not altogether different from the position on asylum seekers or on the 'Intervention'. Gillard seems to lead this, idealogy, for example,her sanctimonious dictum that, 'kids go to school, adults go to work'. She seems determined that everyone should fit this mould. As I recall, prior to Jenny Macklin's recent statement, the last Federal Minister to so boldly defend less than adequate unemployment benefits on the grounds that unemployment was 'temporary", was the Liberal 'dry', W.C. Wentworth in about 1968 or 1969. It might have been arguable then but Macklin needs to realise that this simply isn't the case now.
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
I agree with your comments. Where is the heart and compassion in this discussion. Belting people with a big stick of removing support doesn't create change. Change comes from education, encouragement and support.
I always find it interesting how the neo-cons argue for the dismantling of the social support system , expecting families to somehow take up this responsibility. This assumes that a) families are functional b) they have the capacity to support their "members"? Rarely are both true;)
It is also interesting that when their interests are damaged eg natural disasters and the GFC they expect tax-payer handouts!
Marcus L'Estrange
Teacher
Eva writes well but has missed a key point.
On 1/2/2011, Julia Gillard said in 'The Age' and elsewhere that:
‘Friends, we look with particular care and concern on the large number of working-age Australians, possibly as many as two million, who stand outside the full-time labour force, above and beyond those registered (600,000) as unemployed.
Around 800,000 (now a million) are in part-time jobs but want to work more. Another 800,000 are outside the labour market, including discouraged…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Eva, the intricacies of the payments for sole parenting or any other social security beneficiaries (SSB) assumes it is right & proper to be doling out benefits in the 1st place.
I would argue the purpose of SS is not for lifestyle choice, but as a measure of last & TEMPORARY support for EMERGENCY situations.
Read moreThe fact remains that SS recipients made choices throughout their lives, as we all do. The individual must be responsible the results of their decisions not the tax payer otherwise there…
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Rob, I agree with a lot of what you are saying about how a social security system could or should work.... right up to the point where you assert that you and the family have a 100% right to your worldly goods and income.
Nope. Not how it works. You only have these things because of the society around you. From obvious stuff like roads and hospitals and the like through to more subtle stuff like having enough money sloshing about in the economy to provide some of those businesses you analyse…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Peter, i try to keep things short so cant put in all the ifs n buts. So yes of course part of anyone's income must go to the 'common good' such as infrastructure, etc. No debate there.
Unfortunately only 33% of tax (& i'm being generous there) is going to community projects; 33% goes to run the govt, & 33% to social security. These are bad numbers, but much worse in the US, UK, Europe. But thats where we r headed.
Asia is much better off since they dont have SS. Thats where family steps in…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Around the 1780's, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise…
Read moreKim Bulwinkel
Kim Bulwinkel is a Friend of The Conversation.
Forcably retired!
Keep up the reasoned, educated, experienced and sensible dialogue Rob K. Following a a few more relevant quotes from history:-
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw
In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -- Voltaire (1764)
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -- James Bovard…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Couldn't agree more Rob - insurance - it's just socialism gone mad!!!! And the private sector does it for god's sake!
The risk averse - quiet living folks like myself - shell out to compensate the foolhardy and the accident-prone. It's just a redistribution of wealth from the timid to the stupid. Don't worry, we'll clean up dear.
(Incidentally have you ever noticed how amazingly efficient Australia is at whisking away the evidence of car crashes? 20 minutes and you'd never know it'd…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I've always been a big fan of Dickens' approach myself. See how Oliver Twist was incentivised by his workhouse experiences and the Beadle's tough love.
What would you be suggested as a reasonable approach to welfare dependency?
Should we send a message to all those long-lived pensioners who are clogging our hospitals and nursing homes with their decaying bodies? Get yourselves a wriggle on with those mortal coils or we'll be cutting you off.
I think the disabled and their carers have probably had it too good for too long as well. Luck of the draw I'm afraid.
Who are our deserving poor? Are any poor truly deserving in this Eden of opportunity?
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Hi All, i'll reply during lunch tomorrow. ;)
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Being poor in a capitalist nation should be a crime against humanity. At the very least it is unOrstrylian.
PS
"incentivised" even in jest I prefer "motivated", unless you were creating some sort of double irony subtext.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Ah yes Ms A it'd be that double irony subtext busines of yours fer sure.
I always have a mental image of someone being "incentivised" by being repeatedly kicked in the arse myself. A stupid, ugly new world for a stupid, ugly old idea.
Which of course is what I was trying to allude to with the use of that awful weasel word in the first place. It shall never cross my keyboard again.
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Thx Kim,
i was actually going to quote the last one as well... ;)
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Its interesting how societies swing form one extreme to the other, like a pendulum. But unlike a pendulum societies dont eventually find a happy medium, a balance.
We have moved from serfdom of a few centuries ago to socialism today. Both if you notice extract resources/wealth from the workers (be they rich or poor) & give to the conniving & lazy (the govt, welfare recipients, & the elite).
We dont have to go back to the era of Dickens but neither should we be aiming at George Orwell's 1985…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
I'm wondering wht these folks should do for a quid Rob? Mow lawns? Deliver advertising? Where do these jobs exist?
Or is it because they want too much and should work for less until someone hires them to do something? How low do we go?
Not ony that, but from an economic viewpoint, throwing folks into a somewhat more severe form of poverty than they were in previously just kicks your economy - your local shops, your green grocers - right in a sensitive bit of the anatomy. They won't be hiring - they'll be firing.
The back of the axe is a pretty poor policy instrument Rob.
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Mow? sure. Deliver? Why not?
Read moreWhy is it that these jobs r unacceptable for BBS, but ok for immigrants & graduates like me? Do they consider themselves above these sorts of jobs? R they above menial tasks? So its ok for rich people to do menial taks but not the saintly BBS? That cracks me up. They dont even want our charity clothes etc, they want cash. So its ok for workers to wear clothes from St Vinnies but not the precious BBS?
My answer is either the BBS find what jobs they want or take what…
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
was Orwells' 1985 the socialist sequel to the totalitarian 1984?
Awesome, going to order it now!
Chris Weir
Analyst
Fascinating how this article that is clearly about the current situation has found legs and turned into a lofty, sometimes waxing lyrical, blog type depository.
A reread for some might be in order to get back to the main point of the authors work.
All of the homespun stuff doesn't however address the immediate problem.
The malady lingers on.
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
And that is a serious problem Chris.
Looking at issues in isolation is bound to end in failure. Nothing exists in isolation in nature, business or politics. If you bestow riches upon single parents then other SS groups will demand more as well. And that is already happening.
So while in isolation it may seem reasonable & fair & cosy & lovy dovy to grant more $ to a SS group, whats a few more billion $, the negative consequences must also be considered not just the positive ones.
Only when…
Read moreChris Weir
Analyst
As the saying goes, 'you have two giraffes, the solution is harmonica lessons'.
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
hmm, i've never 'herd' that one... ;)
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
Respondents here have identified many community-based, low-skilled, employment options, most of which are presently undertaken by volunteers. Why not make it paid work, with variable hours for those in caring and other roles, so that they can work around their other varied demands and yet still participate in production that is valued from a community perspective?
Read moreMost respondents seem to acknowledge that there will always be a need for a social wage of several different shades. The only discussion…
Mitch Dillon
logged in via Facebook
thanks Rob, I'm a big history fan. Could you give me the references for those articles that have that perspective of Rome.
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Here's a cool idea. How about all us workers join the socialist party, quit our jobs, then demand to be kept in perpetual high lifestyle by our illustrious govt leaders & brilliant academics. They can pull out of their nether regions all the $ we could ever want now that all countries r off the gold standard. The last system that kept govts fiscally responsible.
oh, hang on... printing & giving us all endless $ would cause hyperinflation.... so our cash would become worthless, so we'd all be poor again....
oh, add since no one is working goods & services would disappear.. so again our cash would be worthless... nothing to buy...
why? because us worker slaves r tired of being exploited by parasites.
Eva, stop worrying about how to give people $ handouts, & worry more about how to 'enable' these people to become self sufficient, & to take personal responsibility..
Carolyn Morgan
mum
Has anyone considered the costs of "Child care" to the taxpayer to enable a single parent to work?
As an example,the tax payer pays a single parent $332 per week in "Parenting payment single" to stay at home and care for 2 young children BUT the tax payer could be paying $603 (or more) per week in child care rebates and benefits for the same parent if she were to work!
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
It is interesting how this discussion has become an us and them argument. I though that person working , whether they are a single parent male/female, is a taxpayer?
The money that the "taxpayer" pay via the government is creating economic activity and employment. I thought this was a good thing?
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Exactly, both payments should be abolished.
Once SS is eliminated for all but EMERGENCY situations the tax rate can drop by 30%.
The size of govt can also reduce by 50% without affecting essential services. Tax can then be cut a further 50%. We dont need departments on 'womens studies' or the complexities of modern art, & the many other ridiculous expenditures of public funds.
The above will allow personal & business income & other taxes to be dropped by at least 50%. The tax payer will…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Martin, that is a common fallacy taught by Keynesian socialist economists. It does produce 'some' benefit, about as much as burning down your home & rebuilding it will also create jobs. In fact these brilliant economists cite WW2 as the reason why the world came out of the great depression. But they lie, there were other reasons.
Read moreThey claim that destroyed buildings need to be replaced which creates employment & destroyed people too, & this got people working. No, the govt wasted millions while the…
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
So how does the GFC fit into this?? Should we have let your concept of capitalism rule and allow the collapse to continue? I don't agree with public money being used fro private capitalistic mistakes, by the way.
I am intrigued by your concept of what the function of government is. It seems that this model proports the market should be allowed to rule in all areas of life, unimpeded. The whole reason the GFC happened was a direct result of greed and unfettered capitalism. Doesn't appeal to me.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Should we be demanding Bushmasters or AK47s as part of the Family Assistance Package Bob? Get Peter Garret to organise a backyard bunker program? Do we surround the cities from the land or should we seize Sydney first?
Where are these odd ideas of yours coming from ... a curious jumbling of White American founding myths ... civil wars, a right to rise up ... and the spectre of Hayek still walking amongst us - chanting "kick the poor until they get rich" - long after he was pronounced formally dead.... what have you been watching?
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
Beautifully elegant . I am unable to see the logic or the humanity in Rob Ks arguments.
I am unable to see how this model would work in reality:(
I just checked Wikipedias definition of Keynesian economics "Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy – predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions" Seems a valid model, not that I totally support this, though.
I must admit I wouldn't say no to a Bushmaster though, if eligible:) I grew up in country NSW :)
Craig Minns
Self-employed
"the tax payer could be paying $603 (or more) per week in child care rebates and benefits for the same parent if she were to work!"
Child care is available to unemployed parents as well, so the situation isn't quite as cut and dried, but still a pretty good point. We spend a huge amount of money subsidising women into work (and especially into professional work at the expense of male opportunities), yet we have little evidence of a return on that investment.
It's become a simple article of faith that women working is good, yet all the evidence points to this being a very inefficient way of organising society that leads to greater unhappiness for all (see AWALI 2012).
I guess that's what happens when zealots take over - reality doesn't matter as much as ideology.
Carolyn Morgan
mum
Child care shouldn't be made so easily available to the unemployed.
Some situations might warrant it but not just because they "need" a regular break.
I have been a full time at home mum to five children for 10 years. I left my violent husband because I realized I was teaching my children that violence was an acceptable way to get what you want. I have never used child care. Much of my time has been taken up with home educating some of my kids but I have not raised a bunch of uneducated, violent…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Economics 101:
The GFC occurred because Bush wanted to keep the economy from declining by creating inflation (by lowering int rates) which allows people to borrow to buy houses which increases house prices. If the 'value' of homes increases then people think they r wealthier & hence spend more $, thus boosting employment blah blah blah. They also borrow more on plastic. Hence the housing bubble.
Before that it was the tech bubble caused by low int rates again set by Fed reserve doing govts…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
It may seem weird, but thats only because you are ignorant of the past & of the present (no offence intended btw). Ignore what is 'sounds' like. Im no red neck, or whatever it sounds like. Its just that i am am putting many ideas down in an unedited & fast manner.
Other than directing you to read economic theories like i did at Uni for my commerce degree, i'll point you to sites that even the mainstream financial shows on TV are now starting to agree with.
People r complacent now because they…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Commerce? We give out degrees for "commerce"? One can actually get a degree in how to make money (other than Law of course) ?
And part of that education is that the successful students walk away with a profound understanding of shopkeeper economics and self-interest, a jumbled sense of a some TV sort of history and a undisguised hatred of folks getting something you don't think they should be getting.
How is any of your alleged economic theory different to that of the Beadle in Oliver Twist? Seems to be a bit frozen in time.
Selfishness is not an economic theory Rob, it's just selfishness. Don't need to do much reading to get the gist of it.
Did you pay for this education? Perhaps we are all paying for it.
A "Commerce" degree ... who could have guessed? What do they do for the other 3 and a half years after they've mastered selfishness? Not much by the look of it.
Aren't Australian universities just the pits?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
"Child care shouldn't be made so easily available to the unemployed."
Couldn't agree more. There is a vastly unnecessary expense being incurred by the taxpayer paying people to look after the children of people perfectly capable of looking after their own families.
It's a stupid churn at every level, with jobs that have no real purpose being created to free the time of people who have no real purpose other than looking after the kids anyway.
I strongly support provision of Government assistance…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
How about we stick to facts instead of throwing insults at me and others that have achieved things, how about you present some reasoned arguments for a change supported by facts and figures. You obviously have none so rely on throwing mud in the incompetent hope that some of it will stick.
Tell us what you think should happen. Where should the $ come from to pay for it all? How would you tax people to get that $. What are the limits? There are more hands out asking for $ than $ available to…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
Elegant my backside. Its full of insults & exaggerations. It may rhyme to you but that doesnt make it a valid argument in any way. It highly childish in fact, but i suppose low brow people can relate to its jingoistic us vs them rhetoric.
There r no 'myths' just recorded history. So far its you two that have provided no facts or evidence, just personal opinions.
No one is advocating kicking anyone. Just leave them alone to get themselves out of their own mess they created.
Humanity? You…
Read moreRobert Attila
Business Analyst
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-01-03/how-profit-impending-bursting-education-bubble-pt-1-bubble-bigger-subprime-mo?page=1
Robert Attila
Business Analyst
Everyone, show me the MONEY!!
Who is going to pay for all the proposed social security spending?
Until you answer that question, AND get agreement from whomever is going to be asked to pay it, discussion increasing SS payments will just be a feel good talk fest.
I guarantee you the tax payer will not be asked but yet again forced to pay.
Sounds like totalitarianism to me.