Punishing the poor
The Pauline Hanson/John Howard/Bettina Arndt pact has been sealed in blood. Not their blood, of course, but that of sole mothers who are being sacrificed on the altar of "family values".
Hanson on July 16 called for the withdrawal of government assistance to unmarried mothers with more than one child.
Hanson is "particularly disturbed" by the "young girls or women who go on to have more children from different fathers and then finish up in a de facto relationship with a man not related to any of the children ... it is a serious breakdown of the family unit and a practice we must not support".
"Stable and united functioning families represent the most effective welfare system a nation can devise" was the way Howard put the same idea in his family policy launch in 1996.
Fortunately, One Nation is not in power, so its policies remain, for now, a reactionary wish list of punishments for the disadvantaged.
The Liberals, however, despite social security minister Jocelyn Newman's pretence of outrage at Hanson's comments, have already begun to implement the Hanson plan.
On March 20, the first of the federal government's assaults on sole parents, 85% of whom are women, came into force. In the process of merging the sole parent pension into the parenting payment, a new assets test was introduced which means that mothers who leave a family home valued at more than $430,000 cannot receive the payment.
This exclusion applies regardless of the mortgage, or that it may be the family farm, or that she may be fleeing domestic violence, or that her husband may not cooperate in a quick house sale and settlement. Her only option is to apply for the parenting payment under the "hardship" provisions — which can take up to six weeks, with no guarantee of success.
At the same time, the government introduced a waiting period for sole parents who have more than $2500 in savings and/or have left a job and received annual leave or severance pay.
Single women do not have babies, and married mothers do not get divorced, in order to rort taxpayers. Only 51% of sole parents claim payments (and only 49% of these have more than one child). They are hardly going to get rich, or even live comfortably, on $173.50 a week, plus $46.50 for each child.
Nevertheless, a second government assault is now before the Senate. Proposed changes to the child support scheme will reduce the amount of child support paid by non-custodial parents by 50 cents in the dollar as soon as the custodial parent earns over $29,598 a year (previously $37,424). This reduction applies regardless of the non-custodial parent's income.
Predictably, Arndt applauds the new assets test, as well as the increase from $9006 to $9960 in the income non-custodial single parents can keep before maintenance is deducted. But she claims that these changes are insufficient to remedy a situation in which "the custodial parent [read mother] often fares well at the expense of the non-custodial parent". Consistently conservative, Arndt also applauds the requirement that unemployed men now pay at least $5 a week in child support.
If women are ever to achieve equality in all spheres, fathers must take equal responsibility for their children, including economically. This is still a long way off: according to the ABS, 41% of separated women are still denied maintenance. Until all women are able to find work that is secure, has convenient hours and is sufficiently well paid to cover all living expenses, including child-rearing, they have a right to social support.
Hanson argues that single mothers shouldn't get additional assistance when they have another child because "a married man can't go to his boss after having another baby and ask for a rise".
Well, he should be able to. The next generation is not the sole responsibility of individual parents and families. Society has a responsibility to ensure the well-being of all its members, and that means ensuring that all parents have the means to give their children a good quality of life.
Forcing unemployed and other low-income fathers into greater poverty does little to alleviate the poverty of their former partners, but it does serve the government's purpose of reinforcing the idea that individuals, not the state, must bear all responsibility for child-rearing.
Non-custodial parents with the means to do so must contribute substantially to the upkeep of their children, and the state should have the power to enforce this payment on sole mothers' behalf.
But rather than adding poor fathers to the long list of poor mothers who are being penalised for their decision to divorce, sole parent payments for those who do not have an income adequate to meet their needs should be increased — to the level of the average wage would be a good start, funded by reducing all politicians' salaries to the same level.
By Lisa Macdonald