Woman was signed up to program against government guidelines, 10 days after being assaulted by former partner

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

A ParentsNext provider signed a woman up to the controversial program less than two weeks after she was assaulted by a former partner, despite government guidelines providing exemptions for domestic violence.

In a case one policy expert described as “horrifying”, the woman then had her welfare payments suspended because she could not meet her “mutual obligations” while dealing with court, the police, her injuries and caring for her three children, the youngest of whom is two.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she had presented at a job centre in a small New South Wales town in early January for her first compulsory ParentsNext appointment. The program has come under fire after women told Guardian Australia last year they were being forced to attend activities such as playgroup and story time at local libraries to keep their welfare payments.

ParentsNext: Coalition makes changes to welfare program after scathing report Read more

Ten days earlier, the woman had been assaulted by a former partner. She had a black eye and her right arm was in a sling. The woman said she started to cry when her consultant noticed her injuries, before explaining what had happened.

Despite this, the consultant signed her up to the program. Providers receive a $600, bi-annual service fee for each participant on their books.

As the woman later learnt, things should have been very different.

Participants face mutual obligations while on the program, which is compulsory for about 75,000 people who receive parenting payment and are classified as at risk of “welfare dependence”.

But under social security guidelines, exemptions – for a period such as three months – are available to people facing personal crises including illness, pregnancy and domestic violence. The policy is there to protect the most vulnerable from having their payments cut if they miss compulsory activities.

The woman said she was not offered an exemption, nor was she referred to domestic violence support services. She was still in shock at the time.

“I was in a really bad state,” she said. “I turned up to the appointment, for an hour and a half, and I had to sign all this paperwork. She bombarded me with all this information. I just did not retain it.

“I also had police, and court, and my injured shoulder, it got away from me. So I emailed her back and said, ‘I can’t remember anything that happened [at that meeting].’”

In March, she was told to sign up to a first aid course. She attended, but failed to “report” this in the Centrelink app. Her payments were suspended, leaving her with about $100 in bank overdraft fees.

At the time, she said she felt like a “grey cloud” was following her around. “At any moment ... I am not going to get paid and I’m not going to be able to feed my kids. It is horrible.”

The head of women’s research, advocacy and policy at Good Shepherd Australia, Sarah Squire, described the case as “horrifying”.

It also exposed a potential loophole. There is no requirement for a provider to inform participants they are entitled to a reprieve from their obligations while they deal with a personal crisis.

And they have little incentive to do so, critics say, because they do not receive the service fee when a participant is exempt.

“People don’t know what their rights are,” Squire told Guardian Australia. “The biggest concern is where women are in immediate harm. The provider is supposed to refer them [to support services].”

The woman said she had no idea she could have accessed an exemption. She had never even heard of the program.

“If only I was allowed that three months to breathe,” she said. “As soon as she saw me and there was the opportunity to say, ‘I’m really sorry this has happened. This is the perfect time for me to inform you that you are actually eligible for an exemption.’”

She has since applied successfully for an exemption, which expires in July.

The provider, Verto, declined to comment on her case.

A spokesman said: “At Verto, we take domestic violence allegations very seriously and have established relationships with many domestic violence support services who we refer our clients to.

“As we are a provider contracted by the Australian government to deliver ParentsNext services, we are subject to stringent privacy requirements which prevent us from disclosing or discussing the personal circumstances or details of participants in this or any other case.”

'I can't help but worry': Sydney woman's battle to get out of ParentsNext Read more

A spokeswoman for the Department of Jobs and Small Business said providers and their clients were “expected to discuss parents’ circumstances and the extent to which they can participate”.

“Exemptions are discussed in that context,” she said. “The services guarantee, which providers are required to make available to parents, and to display at all sites, also requires providers to reassess a parent’s needs if the parent’s circumstances change.”

Last month a Senate report found ParentsNext was causing “anxiety, stress and harm” for many participants.

Guardian Australia has previously revealed that a Sydney mother spent months battling to get an exemption while she was pregnant. The department is also examining allegations one provider told staff to avoid granting medical exemptions to sick welfare recipients to keep them on the company’s books.

The Department of Jobs and Small Business went on to launch a review of exemptions decisions by providers.

Amid calls for the program to be scrapped or made voluntary, the Coalition announced a shake-up, including changes to the administration of exemptions. It also announced a crackdown on providers who flouted the rules. As of 10 April, no providers had been sanctioned.

Labor has said it will overhaul the program if elected. It would still remain compulsory in its initial stages under a Shorten government.