Context, they say, is everything. True or not, it certainly matters, and a glance at context illuminates Gough Whitlam’s decision in 1972 to introduce a special payment for single parents additional to the payments for couples with children.
The climate of the times from the 1960s through the 1970s helped legitimise Whitlam’s initiative and entrench it under subsequent governments. In 1960 a relatively cheap, reliable and convenient contraceptive pill was approved for use. It helped revolutionise established sexual attitudes and behaviour that were simultaneously under siege from a surge of ‘liberation’ movements in an increasingly ‘permissive society’. No-fault divorce became law in California in 1969 and steadily spread to other states and around the Western world, reaching Australia in 1975 under Labor. Even before then, the divorce rate was rising.
Quite rapidly, the stigma against having children out of wedlock disappeared. Also, in those years, the moving tide of feminism fostered the independence of women and public policies favourable to their interests. In brief, these were among the forces transforming conceptions of sexual morality, marriage and family life. This was the social and cultural atmosphere influencing both Whitlam and the nation itself.
The maximum payment for a single parent is $720-30 per fortnight (including pension supplement) and there may be further supplements available (such as rental support) depending upon the circumstances of the family. For a couple with dependent children the maximum fortnightly payment is $557-90.
The budget provision for the cost of single parent payments for 2014-2015 is $4.3 billion. In 2004 there were 450,000 single parents receiving the special payment, about 90 per cent of whom were mothers.
In a 2010 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics there were 441,000 lone mothers and 77,000 lone fathers, totalling 518,000 parents caring for a total of 883,000 children. However, only 336,000, or 65 per cent, of these parents were receiving the special single parent payment. So, the number receiving payments by 2010 had declined substantially since 2004. There was a further decline to 320,000 in single parents receiving payments by 2011-2012
The reasons for this decline in numbers and presumably increased movement into the workforce are not altogether clear. There are two possibilities. It might have had something to do with the period of prosperity and low unemployment from around 2001 to 2008 when per capita incomes increased by some 20 per cent. This, perhaps, allowed many to move off welfare.
Possibly more important was the move against the welfare bill by the Howard government. Effective from July, 2006, it introduced a ‘Welfare to Work’ policy, partly inspired by American precedents, in an attempt to move single parents into the workforce (and also some of those on disability pensions). From July 1, 2006, after a single parent’s child turned 6, the parent would be subjected to an ‘activity test’ and, if eligible, expected to seek employment; and when the child turned 8 would be removed to a single parent variation of New Start Allowance. The Gillard government made some policy amendments, including the removal of some ‘grandfathering’ provisions of the Howard policy, moving more mothers onto the more restrictive conditions.
The key intention of both governments was to get parents, particularly mothers, into paid employment.
A contentious issue has been the effects, for good or ill, upon working single mothers and the wellbeing of their children. Some argued that putting mothers to work would disadvantage their children’s development. A contrary view, which attracted the interest of Howard, argued for the benefits to children of working mothers. This was based on a body of respectable American research that showed work for a single mother was, on average, good for her children. The research indicated that the children of working mothers tend to do better at school, that a working mother is a good example to her child, and that a mother’s morale improves when she works—making her a better parent.
Clearly, there are no knock-out recommendations arising from this research, only some encouragement to continue to assess the merits of the scheme. In the present changed context of mounting welfare costs, population aging and revenues under pressure, there are grounds for placing Whitlam’s innovation under continuing scrutiny.
Barry Maley is a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > How the Whitlam mums have begun to vanish
How the Whitlam mums have begun to vanish
Context, they say, is everything. True or not, it certainly matters, and a glance at context illuminates Gough Whitlam’s decision in 1972 to introduce a special payment for single parents additional to the payments for couples with children.
The climate of the times from the 1960s through the 1970s helped legitimise Whitlam’s initiative and entrench it under subsequent governments. In 1960 a relatively cheap, reliable and convenient contraceptive pill was approved for use. It helped revolutionise established sexual attitudes and behaviour that were simultaneously under siege from a surge of ‘liberation’ movements in an increasingly ‘permissive society’. No-fault divorce became law in California in 1969 and steadily spread to other states and around the Western world, reaching Australia in 1975 under Labor. Even before then, the divorce rate was rising.
Quite rapidly, the stigma against having children out of wedlock disappeared. Also, in those years, the moving tide of feminism fostered the independence of women and public policies favourable to their interests. In brief, these were among the forces transforming conceptions of sexual morality, marriage and family life. This was the social and cultural atmosphere influencing both Whitlam and the nation itself.
The maximum payment for a single parent is $720-30 per fortnight (including pension supplement) and there may be further supplements available (such as rental support) depending upon the circumstances of the family. For a couple with dependent children the maximum fortnightly payment is $557-90.
The budget provision for the cost of single parent payments for 2014-2015 is $4.3 billion. In 2004 there were 450,000 single parents receiving the special payment, about 90 per cent of whom were mothers.
In a 2010 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics there were 441,000 lone mothers and 77,000 lone fathers, totalling 518,000 parents caring for a total of 883,000 children. However, only 336,000, or 65 per cent, of these parents were receiving the special single parent payment. So, the number receiving payments by 2010 had declined substantially since 2004. There was a further decline to 320,000 in single parents receiving payments by 2011-2012
The reasons for this decline in numbers and presumably increased movement into the workforce are not altogether clear. There are two possibilities. It might have had something to do with the period of prosperity and low unemployment from around 2001 to 2008 when per capita incomes increased by some 20 per cent. This, perhaps, allowed many to move off welfare.
Possibly more important was the move against the welfare bill by the Howard government. Effective from July, 2006, it introduced a ‘Welfare to Work’ policy, partly inspired by American precedents, in an attempt to move single parents into the workforce (and also some of those on disability pensions). From July 1, 2006, after a single parent’s child turned 6, the parent would be subjected to an ‘activity test’ and, if eligible, expected to seek employment; and when the child turned 8 would be removed to a single parent variation of New Start Allowance. The Gillard government made some policy amendments, including the removal of some ‘grandfathering’ provisions of the Howard policy, moving more mothers onto the more restrictive conditions.
The key intention of both governments was to get parents, particularly mothers, into paid employment.
A contentious issue has been the effects, for good or ill, upon working single mothers and the wellbeing of their children. Some argued that putting mothers to work would disadvantage their children’s development. A contrary view, which attracted the interest of Howard, argued for the benefits to children of working mothers. This was based on a body of respectable American research that showed work for a single mother was, on average, good for her children. The research indicated that the children of working mothers tend to do better at school, that a working mother is a good example to her child, and that a mother’s morale improves when she works—making her a better parent.
Clearly, there are no knock-out recommendations arising from this research, only some encouragement to continue to assess the merits of the scheme. In the present changed context of mounting welfare costs, population aging and revenues under pressure, there are grounds for placing Whitlam’s innovation under continuing scrutiny.
Barry Maley is a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: