Thread by @AbigailLLew

I’m at the Senate Inquiry into #ParentsNext today. Thread 👇🏽

Hearing from @CSMCVIC, @GoodShepANZ & @CFECFW. Their key issues w #ParentsNext:
1) miscategorises parents as ‘unemployed’ - parenting is work
2) should be voluntary, inappropriate to link parent support to TCF
3) undermines human rights obligations, targets single & ATSI mothers

Question from @SenatorSiewert about privacy prompts testimony about single mothers being fearful about disclosing info about kids schools etc when their abusive ex partners are stalking them. Getting family violence survivors exempted from #ParentsNext described as a “minefield”

We're hearing about incredibly invasive reporting requirements under #ParentsNext - parents required to call or text to prove they've brought their kids to activities, sending photos in of their kids at swimming lessons etc.

Big issue with multiple private providers of #ParentsNext is inconsistency about what support is available, seemingly at provider's discretion. Some providers help parents get drivers license, for example, while other providers say that's out of scope.

The re-traumatisation of family violence survivors appears to be a mandatory feature of #ParentsNext 😡

https://twitter.com/lukehgomes/status/1100520942793502721

We're hearing about how blunt the TCF is. Single mothers sitting in fear all weekend that they won't be able to feed their kids on Monday bc their #ParentsNext provider forgot to log their attendance on Friday. @CSMCVIC has transferred emergency funds to parents in this scenario.

#ParentsNext providers meant to mutually agree 'activity plans' w parents & give 10 days to consider before signing. But parents feel pressured to sign plans immediately so they don't "upset their provider" and risk breaching (this also happens all the time with #jobactive plans)

The @ChangeAus & @ellaNbuckland petition to make #ParentsNext voluntary is going to be delivered to the inquiry in 20 minutes. That means you have 20 minutes to sign it and get it to 35,000. chng.it/fH6RmMqw

Petition delivered. #ParentsNext

During delivery @lukehgomes asked Senator @MurrayWatt if the ALP will be making #ParentsNext voluntary as the petition asks. He says as he’s not the shadow minister he can’t commit but they will be looking into it and we can expect a policy announcement before next election

Brave @ellaNbuckland is now sharing how she faced obstruction & abuse from the Dept of Jobs who 'collected background' on her bc of her campaign. She says if 'a single mother with 50 followers' can disrupt it so much, #ParentsNext can't have been fit for purpose to begin with.

Here's the story about what the Department did to her to discredit her. They reviewed her social media and emailed her #ParentsNext provider about a sexual harassment case she was involved in to discredit her.
theguardian.com/australia-news…

Via teleconference we're hearing from @kym_mercer who runs a Facebook group for #ParentsNext participants with 40k members. She's telling us about profound technical issues w the system - even logging onto the app/website is a constant struggle - & not just in regional areas.

Parents are NOT required to allow #ParentsNext providers access to their medical info - but they are REGULARLY forced to sign privacy waivers. Providers have contacted doctors to 'check' they're are telling the truth about medical conditions.

Next up: testimony from @AusHumanRights, @rightsagenda, @SNAICC, & @NationalFVPLS. Elements of #ParentsNext contravene human rights:
1) harsh punishments remove right to food/housing/health
2) it's discriminatory in targeting women (96% of participants) and ATSI people (19%)

3) targeting of #ParentsNext in locations with high proportions of single Aboriginal mothers
4) dearth of Aboriginal community-controlled providers & forcing Aboriginal parents to attend providers that are not culturally safe
5) family violence survivors not exempted

6) level of reporting required under #ParentsNext is disproportionate under human rights law & also contravenes human right to privacy
7) no human rights orgs were consulted in the program's development even though consultation with @AusHumanRights is best practice

8) privacy waiver is an 'unjustified intrusion' on human rights
9) mandatory nature of program violates our human rights obligations to mothers & their children
10) a UN Committee judged our compliance measures to be 'regressive' - i.e. rights are actually being stripped

This panel of esteemed human rights orgs is recommending that #ParentsNext be completely scrapped, as it's 'fundamentally flawed'. Instead, a parental support program should start by consulting parents especially women & Indigenous parents about their needs.

Up now: @ACOSS, @Brotherhoodinfo. @MissionAust. @cassandragoldie starting us off by placing #ParentsNext in the context of the decades of ever-more punitive welfare conditionality on vulnerable groups that have led us to this point.

These orgs do some delivery of #ParentsNext and they are testifying to the difference between the pilot (not subject to the TCF) and the rollout (which is). They saw potential in the pilot but since TCF was introduced they've seen highly negative impact on vulnerable people.

We're hearing that @MissionAust and @Brotherhoodinfo staff who deliver #ParentsNext feel uncomfortable delivering the program under the TCF. Case loads have increased and they can no longer work with parents in a positive way - they're forced to be administrators/enforcers.

But this panel wants to make clear that they're not just advocating a return to the #ParentsNext pilot, but a wholesale restructuring of the program using a co-design approach that involves single mothers.

Stressed by @cassandragoldie: this is all rooted in misogyny and discrimination against women, and outdated religious ideas about who is deserving or 'well behaved' and who is not (single mothers).

We're back with @JobsAustLtd and @nesa01.
NESA says #ParentsNext should be a pre-employment program without job search requirements, but claim the program has helped keep some family violence survivors safe - this doesn't seem to accord with evidence we heard earlier.

COO of @JobsAustLtd is adding to the criticism of operating #ParentsNext under the TCF. They point to high numbers of payment suspension & impossible reporting requirements. @nesa01 agrees that the TCF is inappropriate in the context of ParentsNext.

Staff in @nesa01's #ParentsNext providers are frustrated that they've had to change from working in an engaging and supportive way with parents to being "the cop on the beat". So providers don't like it either

Senator @MurrayWatt asks whether the payment structure for #ParentsNext providers (the govt gives them certain payments for certain placements) is an incentive for providers to place parents in those activities even when they're inappropriate. NESA denies that it does.

Now @SenatorSiewert asks what skills/quals front line staff have to work with vulnerable people. She says she assumes that #ParentsNext providers would have specific skills, different from ordinary #jobactive providers, but from NESA's answer that doesn't appear to be the case.

Sorry NESA is now clarifying and they say 85% of job service provider staff has at least a Cert IV. They think most quals are in social work or psychology, but they say this is anecdotal.

As this particular session runs out of time, @SenatorSiewert asks @nesa01 and @JobsAustLtd to take a look at the evidence from this morning around providers bullying parents/forcing them to sign plans/waivers and respond on notice. That will be worth looking at when it comes out.

Now we have more #ParentsNext providers: Yourtown, @SSI_tweets, @UCVT, & @PersonnelGroup. Yourtown recommends significant changes:
1) increase age of youngest child at which parents must attend program (currently 6mths)
2) should be voluntary
3) 'lighter touch' compliance

Now @SSI_tweets adds to evidence from providers that the trial/pilot had 'sound aims' and potential, but the changes made in the rollout (applying targeted compliance) undermines those aims. They say compulsory enrolment at 6mths does not work & age should be increased to 2yrs.

Another provider - @UCVT - recommends removing the TCF. Literally everybody who has testified so far has advised that this heavily punitive compliance framework is not fit for purpose. Will be interesting to hear the Department defend it at 4pm.

These providers (they are all broad community service providers, not job service providers) are disclosing how they're funded - they don't get outcome payments like JSPs do, they are paid $600 per participant per 6 months. They have no access to extra needs-based funds.

Govt is up next. Shame that this day has been structured with evidence from participants first and govt last. It means no one from the Dept was here to hear the compelling accounts of trauma under #ParentsNext, & few from this morn have the chance to hear the Dept defend itself.

We've got Depts of Jobs, HS, and SS here. Dept of Jobs starts by saying that Australia has one of the lowest OECD rates of mothers with young children in work. So off top, we're denying that mothering young children is work.

He's talking now about the high rate of Australian children that live in "jobless single parent households" and arguing that this leads to intergenerational joblessness. Even more so in Indigenous households, he says.

He's been cut off by @SenatorSiewert and asked to table the rest of his opening statement. She says "it's a very long opening statement when you know we don't have a lot of time left." 🌚

We're taking time to go through the timing of the #ParentsNext trial, evaluation, and rollout. Senator @MurrayWatt is highlighting that the decision to apply the TCF to the program >1yr before the eval of the trial was published. The Dept says they "shared insights" along the way

No one on the panel can explain what the evidence was that informed the decision to apply the TCF to #ParentsNext, nor any evidence since that the TCF is working. Their argument is that since the TCF was not in place before, there was nothing evaluate/no evidence to gather

Senator @MurrayWatt asks whether #ParentsNext helps parents get into jobs. The Dept says it's not an employment program. So Watt asks why, in that case, are we applying a compliance framework designed for employment programs to ParentsNext?

The panel appears to acknowledge that there are instances where providers are not applying compliance guidelines correctly. They say they will look at Hansard and get in touch w those providers. But they don't seem to recognise that the issue is SYSTEMIC to #ParentsNext.

The Dept says that compared to other countries, Aus compliance is light. In other countries, she says, the govt won't 'suspend' but goes straight to penalties. Well I'm from one of those countries, and people there are dying under a regime of austerity and welfare conditionality.

We've wrapped up now but we didn't get much else from them. @SenatorSiewert clearly frustrated at the end by the refusal to acknowledge how hard single mothers have it: "I don't have time to get into an argument over what it means to survive on a low income. Every dollar counts."

Thanks for following along and for the feedback along the way. I'm just the messenger; the credit for everything in this thread goes to the brave participants and advocates who testified today. And @SenatorSiewert is a tireless advocate for vulnerable people in this country.

Also, I wouldn't have been here without my job @percapita supporting me to spend a whole day at a senate inquiry for research, policy, and advocacy purposes. You'll see more from us on social security this year.