ALP National Conference: How do you change a bad law?

Thanks so much, Verity. And thanks, everyone, for coming and giving, I guess me the opportunity to say a few words today about this. But obviously, all the expertise and knowledge is sits on that panel. So I've prepared some notes. I think probably in hindsight, it's a bit long. They're a bit long for the purposes of today. But so I'll try and whip through it a bit, because I really try, I guess, trying to outline my thinking in relation to this important change and how that occurred across government. But I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners on whose land we gather this afternoon. And I extend pay my respects to elder's past, present and emerging, thank Verity for asking me to be here. And to the panelists who really are the heroes of this result in when it comes to parenting payments single to Anne Therese and Karen. I think Where should I begin with this story? I think maybe I start and I'm going to use a bit of a bit of the work that Therese did in women to Whitlam book or your essay in that book, but talking about the, I guess, the history of, of payments to women and single women with children in particular. But when we look back at that history of that payment, and I highly recommend that essay to

you, I think the fact that there even is a payment was the result of a very hard fought campaign, largely run by women and successfully translated into a payment through decisions of a Labour Government and protecting the payments successfully has been the result of community campaigns, and changing the payment was the result of community campaigning. One of the things that struck me when I was reading Therese's chapter or essay, I think, probably more appropriate was the social stigma, the origins of how their social stigma really influenced decisions of government about how they respond to it in with with in relation to the payment. So the fact that where it began, you know, the fact that women single women with kids had been largely ignored or given some derisory kind of payment of what was the 18 weeks, I think, six weeks or 12 weeks before you had the baby And then six weeks afterwards, before you were you receive no payment really reflected, I think all community sentiment at the time that time, you know, in the 60s, around views about what an appropriate family was and views of women who were unmarried with children. And it struck me about the naming of the payment to, you know, it was when it when that sort of derisory payment came in as a special benefit. Now, I don't know about you, but there's nothing to make it a like a name like that to make you feel valued. But you were kind of special, and you were given this payment for a very short period of time. I don't know about many of you. But six weeks postnatal, I was lucky to be out of my pajamas, let alone receiving absolutely no income support. But I think this was a deliberate decision of government to not provide single moms with the support they needed to care for their children. And we know that that harsh approach really reflected community attitudes at the time, which just didn't recognize the legitimacy of single parent families. We now of course, have a much better understanding of the generational damage that that sort of moral attitude had, and that what has been caused by those harsh uncaring and demeaning attitudes, which were backed up and reinforced by government policies. And we've had no official apologies, essentially given to deal with some of that, the harm that has been caused by those policies. But importantly, I think for me, you know, the policies could also work the other way around in in turning attitudes and, and views around. And that's, I think, when we look back at the history of, of, you know, the work that Mary Coleman did, in the lead up to Bill Hayden pursuing it in in government under the Whitlam government, when you've got a title of the payment, like supporting mothers benefit, again, legitimized women in those positions, and it was an entirely different approach supported those families financially. And we know and the work that Mary did, and many of those women who sat on the various committees that led up to the commission that Mary led, and then flowed on through decisions that the Whitlam government took. So I feel like the on this payments been a roller coaster ride in many ways, because, of course, you know, when Howard, and unfortunately later there was, the Gilad government made some changes to that payment, there was gains made and losses incurred. But running alongside some of those choices were often underlying and interrelated social and community attitudes to single parents and single mothers in particular, about their worth about their value, or about the value of their role as carers, and about their contribution to the economy. Now, it was not long after that I became Minister for Women that Anne Summers released both shocking and groundbreaking report that called the choice poverty or violence. I know, and we'll talk about that today. But it's incredibly compelling reading, using ABS data for the first time to show how those you know how, well I'll let you talk to your work. And but just suffice to say that that report the evidence, and the arguments outlined in that had a significant impact on the consideration of this issue, by myself by the treasurer by the ERC and by the Prime Minister. And I think it's fair to say the case for change that the case for change to the parenting payment single was very compelling. When I think from my point of view, change often requires a few elements coming together at the right time. I think

Aaron's work was the right time was the right report at the right time, but also the persistence and determination from advocates, particularly single mums was ever present. And I would like to, and I know we're going to hear from Karen later, but I would also like to acknowledge the very considerable contribution that Therese Edwards has made, she is in everyone's door all the time she is on the phone. She is backing up that lobbying with, you know, relationship building, but also her writing, which is very influential as well. So I do want to acknowledge that I mean, in terms this hasn't been a one or two or three or four year commitment for you. You've been at the table for decades on this arguing in support of recognition in the value of sole parent families. I think what I'm trying to race through because I don't I've got a very long speech that I don't really think is going to interest everybody for the course of today, but I just I think from the Prime Minister down, we wanted to do something about this payment, I think we there was recognition that the decision that was taken in the Gilad government, and this is often really difficult when you're a member of political party that's taken a particular view. And in the Prime Minister's case, when you were a member of the cabinet that took that decision to, to say that that decision was wrong, and to change it. And I think for us when we were looking through it forward, and there's no shortage of areas where we would want to make improvements to women's economic equality. The focus isn't always on these payments, because these payments can be demonized. So it's easier to fund other things. But it was clear when we review triaged the list of things where you could for a particular investment make deliver a particular outcome, this was very high on at least, you know, the numbers, the 1000s of family, single parent families involved, the percentage of those single parent families that were headed by women. And the benefit you could provide by putting that investment in and acknowledging that up to the age of 14, and I know there's been, you know, discussion about that, but up to the age of 14, that you are financially supported and respected for that role as carers and and mothers in this instance. And so no doubt, we had the PM on board, I think, I have no doubt Terese and Anne are here as well, and others. And I hadn't really thought about it to this point. But I think Patricia Carvela said to me on radio one morning, you know, how many finance ministers have there been who have lived on a single parent payment? And I kind of was like, oh, yeah, I guess so. Probably none other than me. And for me, that payment was life changing. So I think we do bring our own experience to the table like so we had evidence. We had community campaigning, we had a decision to make, and then, you know, what value do we bring, you know, as politicians, that is, we we try and represent our communities, but we also bring our own life experience to the table. And I think, no doubt that had had a hand in helping with that decision as well. Because I think, you know, it's a very real, the idea of, of understanding how people make ends meet week by week when they're on the payment and what a reversion to a lower payment would do in those instance, to those families and the pressure that that would place those families under. I think the other thing which we aligned with this program was the other and again Therese and Anne have been big campaign is on this is the parents next program, which no doubt will come up as well. But also having the opportunity to abolish that payment. And to again, say and this comes back to how we speak about the social welfare system, why we have it, what it's for, is the fact that we had, and it's linked to our parenting payments single because, you know, a decision had been taken to put in place a very punitive program that targeted in, you know, young and vulnerable parents of children. On the other hand, we had taken a decision that mutual obligation shouldn't kick when your child's sick. On this hand, we took a particularly vulnerable group with many with higher needs than than the general population and applied that mutual obligation to those babies from, I think six months old. It's nuts when you try and break it down like that. And I have to say, after the budget, when we made the decision to abolish it. I think it was the one major in

the budget that I got most correspondence on and most of the correspondence was from people on the program. In fact, I had an email sent to me that I was driving home for a budget event, not driving and reading at the same time, but I got it when I got home. And it was from a woman who had heard it on the radio, that that program was being abolished, had just been breached that day, had a six, four, and one year old, I think and was homeless. And because she hadn't attended a particular appointment had been told that she'd have her income suspended. And she said she nearly drove off the road. Thankfully, she didn't. But she was you know, and it's things like this, and particularly when you're in the federal government and you're a little bit more removed from service delivery. It's feedback like that way which again reinforces that, you know, good policy, good government, responding to issues where you can not, not to everyone's entire satisfaction, but making progress And that translates directly almost immediately into an improvement in in, you know, a vulnerable family's life is very, I know, reaffirming that the work we're doing whilst unfinished is important and makes a difference. So I'll leave it there. Verity. But thank you for the opportunity. And again, it's these great women here, really who should be getting any applause because it's their work that has led to this change. Thank you.