In a paper presented to the Australian Institute of Family Studies conference in late 1998, Kate Rodgers from the parenting branch of the Department of Family and Community Services and her co-director Karen Wilson presented their views on how "mutual obligation" should apply in the family welfare payments arena.
The concept (although not the term) of "mutual obligation" was introduced by the federal Labor government during the late 1980s in its "work for the dole" scheme. In November 1987, the Bob Hawke government legislated an activities test amendment to the social security act which allowed the work for the dole concept to be extended to all recipients of welfare, including sole parents and some of those receiving sickness benefits.
This provision has not yet been applied beyond the unemployed, although in 1989 the Labor government introduced the Jobs, Employment and Training program designed primarily to get single parents off the welfare books and into jobs or training, without meeting the parents' real needs.
At the time, the feminist magazine Refractory Girl commented that any decline in the number of sole parents seeking help was related more to the government's cost-cutting methods than to help no longer being needed. Indeed, when treasurer Paul Keating's 1987 mini-budget reduced from 18 to 16 the maximum age of children for whom sole parents (usually women) could receive parenting benefits, he projected that it would save the government $7.5 million in the following financial year, then $17 million the year after.
Ideological and material attacks on single mothers have continued ever since, but the idea of a mutual obligation scheme has not been publicly discussed — until this year.
In February, the New Zealand government introduced the requirement that if the youngest child of a parenting welfare recipient is aged between six and 13, the parent will have to search for and take part-time work in order to continue receiving any assistance from the government.
Inspired by this "work for sole-parent benefits" scheme, Rodgers questions the "no strings attached" nature of parenting payments in Australia, and asks: "Is it unreasonable for a government to specify how parents on income support divide their time between child-care and other activities? ...
"The principle of community choice must be seen in the context of community norms. Should it, for example, include the choice of labour force non-participation and consequent reliance on income support from the birth of the first child until the last child turns 16?" (quoted in the Bulletin magazine, February 9).
To support her case, Rodgers quotes Department of Social Security figures which show that the average length of time for which people receive the parenting payment (single) is 3.4 years, and that 20% of recipients have been on the payment for more than five years. However, if these figures make anything clear it is that only a minority of individuals receive benefits for the entire childhood of each of their children.
Contrary to the assertions of the anti-welfare ideologues, the decision to raise a child alone is not taken lightly by those who choose (or have no choice) to do so. Parental responsibility does not end once a child starts schooling. Many single parents welcome the opportunity to work part-time, but most work situations are not "family friendly" and if a child is sick or away from school for any other reason, child-care provisions are inadequate or expensive.
Sole parents' participation in the labor market on equal terms with all others will depend on the government extending women's access to well-paid, secure jobs and increasing funding to public child-care services.
However, it is also important that parents have the option of full-time parenting. Under last week's federal budget, full-time parents in two-parent households received an increase in their family allowance payment, but there was no increase in the parenting allowance for single parents.
Our society should provide a livable income for all its members, including those taking on the huge responsibility of raising the next generation. The only "obligation" in this regard is society's obligation to ensure that all parents are able to fulfill this role to the best of their ability and that no child grows up in poverty or need.
by Margaret Allum