Centrelink Grandfather Scheme in Need of Urgent Reform

The following is a letter I have sent to Centrelink concerning the Grandfather Scheme causing disadvantages for parents on a financial scale, especially effecting parents so far away from a Centrelink and/or Work Place Office.

C/- The Federal Manager/Complaints
Centrelink
13th November 2007



To Whom It May Concern:

I would like to bring to your attention the faults of the Grandfather Scheme. It is not a scheme that intakes and distributes to the needs of the parent/s and guardian/s, and their children, so they obtain their full fortnightly pension. This scheme is placing some of us at a distinct disadvantage or being taken advantage of by some of the private work place offices.

Grandfather Scheme July 2006 Register

I will begin, and for this, I will also sarcome to stating that ‘being taken advantage of’ may in fact have been ill informed and incorrectly educated personnel at private work placement facilities by way of giving these work place offices ‘a fair go’, to even the scales of opinion.

In July 2006, parents who were new to the Centrelink system, immediately started the Grandfather Scheme. This was prejudice towards these parents and such advantages to be given to parents, like myself, should not have happened. These parents had to go through changes, usually very emotional, on top of this disadvantage, where registered parents before this date only had to ‘adapt’ their way of life.

In July 2006, some pre-registered parents also thought that the scheme took place immediately on July 2006, and they went in to work place offices and registered, and were not told differently. Once registered these parents were ‘forced’ by the work place offices to attend with threat of their payments being cut off.

When these parents were asked what they wanted to ‘learn’, they were then told what they had to ‘learn’ first before attending courses that were of their interests. Even if these parents had ‘background’ in any of the courses, they still had to attend the course, by way of the previous threat mentioned. The advantage was for the private institutes, not the parent, who were just a source of ‘money’ for these institutes.

I made a couple of complaints to the front counter staff at Centrelink, Maryborough, in regards to this issue, and each person I spoke to confirmed this procedure was incorrect, but stated they couldn’t do anything about it. When the complete change over to the Grandfather Scheme took place in July 2007, I spoke to a Grandfather Scheme Coordinator what had been previous happening and the gentleman agreed that this had happen as he had received a number of complaints during the pre-interviews about this mistreatment. Again, there was nothing that could be done about ‘the past’ treatment of these parents.

Only because it is in the ‘past’ doesn’t mean you can’t do something about this unfair treatment and threats. I suggest that you do a survey to all parents and find out a bit more about this, and action taken if necessary towards work place offices who took advantage of the change of law, accidental or otherwise. Parents need to know that they are supported by law, and by Centrelink, when such incidents occur in relation to Centrelink.

Grandfather Scheme July 2007 Register

The main complaint I have is the form system. Dropping the form in two days before being paid is putting myself at a financial disadvantage. I live at Brooweena, 45 kms from Maryborough. I’m not just down the road from a branch, and frankly there would be few people who wouldn’t need to take transport of some kind into Centrelink to deposit the form. With me, however, it can cost between $8 to $13 approximately (depending on fuel prices) to just ‘drop in a form’ every fortnight. I only go into to Maryborough once a week for food, every Tuesday night for my children to attend St. Johns (there’s no entertainment or sporting facility for children in remote areas like ours, and once a fortnight, on a Saturday, to visit family and friends. I’m very restricted on when I spend money on petrol, and now I have to find extra money to ‘slot in’ the dropping off of a form.

I’ve been informed that I can post or fax it in. Posting the form in means I don’t get paid until two days after my regular pension day, which puts me at a risk of bank fees, due to my bills and house payments coming out on my regular pension day. For each ‘bill’ or ‘house payment’ that’s not in there it’s a $30 fine/fee. So I have no choice but to ‘get it in’, wasting money that I don’t have to waste, so not to put us into a scary debt!

To fax it in it costs $6 from a normal Post Office - $4 for the first sheet and a $1 for every sheet after. To fax it in, however, doesn’t mean I know for certain if something is ‘wrong’ or ‘unreadable’ on the sheet. It’s not worth taking the risk of non-payment to save $4, when you’re risking $60 (Centrelink fine).

Then there is the extra money to ‘attend’ private workplace assistant offices. My previous knowledge of these facilities is not an encouraging one, but I am not like many of the parents who have been ‘taken advantage of’ as I am well educated and I have been searching for work since 2004. Not finding work I went into a TAFE course , paying $1600 (approximately) for it. Unfortunately when I was on the last six books, I have not been able to find Vocational Placement to assist in the completion of those books.

I also have an ‘unstable’ and ‘unreliable’ 11 year old son, and that’s putting it nicely seeing twice he’s nearly set fire to the house in the last three months. They have been accidents, he is impulsive, does first and panics later. This means I have to take risks when leaving him at home alone, to his own devices, and while he’s not one to ‘get into mischief’, he does, unthinkingly, places himself into danger.

This is an issue that is not going to be solved easily, but until I can obtain employment in an area, which will allow me to afford private babysitting, I’m at disadvantage in respect to employment. There is no babysitting facility, before and after school, out here, and the last time he was placed in an after school facility he ran away from the Daycare Mother. He had to stop going because she couldn’t safely look after the other children if chasing after my son.

This doesn’t mean that I won’t keep looking for work or going back to studies. I have worked out some things in respect to this, but I use my situation as an example for other parents, who have similar situations. I will also be ‘sticking to my guns’ when attending work place assistance offices, and I will not stand to be punished by the system because I’m a ‘good’ mother working to the benefit of her children!

Talking about punishments, my first form was left in Brooweena when I was in Brisbane. I had to get a copy from Chermside office – not an issue. Since then I have lost or haven’t even had sent out to me forms and have only put in two of the sent forms. I have been warned that if I get a ‘not so nice’ front counter assistant that I may be refused a form, so fined, even if I have come in to the office, with my list of researched jobs, all the way from Brooweena! What right does anyone have to refused the print out of a form!!!!! Sorry that is not even close to fair and I will make a lot of noise in the media on that one if I’m ever in that position. Don’t try to punish me for trying to do the right thing! Heaven’s know who else have been the unfortunate person to cope that one. You really do need to be respectful.

The complete system should have not been placed on parents with children under 12 years of age. It’s just not viable or workable in many situations. My suggestions are as follows on the improvement of the Grandfather Scheme, which makes a heck of a lot more sense, doesn’t place families at a financial disadvantage, or causes/increases an unstable family life.

Reconstruction of the Grandfather Scheme

The 1st mistake of the Grandfather Scheme was that prejudice was involved. This needs to be investigated. Ask for any parents who where registered with a work place assistance office, from July 2006 to complete, at Centrelink, a questionnaire concerning their registration and attendance at these centres; why they attended, how were they treated, were their needs attended to, etc… If there were parents who were taken advantage with, then deal with those involved and show that your centre is not a bully, but as supporter of parents!
I am a firm supporter in respect to parents needing to prepare for the event of going into the workforce when they have no children relying on them at home. What’s wrong with the scheme is that you’re bulling parents to ‘go into the workforce’ with young children who are in serious need of mum/dad through their Lower Primary Years. The age of the youngest child should not be 7! Parents, to support their children through school, actually have to learn to ‘write’ all over again, assist in home reading, learn course instruction that is not what it was when parents where at school! There are very few parents that I have ever known, during six years of volunteering at my children’s primary schools, that don’t do this. You are not only punishing the many parents for the very few parents who don’t ‘interact’ with their children’s schooling, but you’re also putting these many children at an extreme educational disadvantage! There are three things you can do here: a) You put the age up to youngest child turning 9 or 10 years of age (Grade 4 or 5) or better still if the child is in Grade 4 or 5 (this is better for parents who have children who need to be ‘kept back’ due their education. In my case, the youngest child being 12 is a better outlook for my family. b) If you stick to the youngest child being 7 then make it that there is a course for parents with this age group of children about what their children are learning and why it’s in place for their education, but I’d still suggest the 15 hours a week should be reduced to 5 (yes five) hours a fortnight, a better induction into the workforce than this larger amount of hours. c) If the youngest child has proven or needs to have proven behaviour issues (like my son impulsive behaviour) then the responsibility in the Grandfather Scheme should reflect the parents’ need to attend to the child, during school hours and outside school hours AND give them support with this – you don’t need a child on a disability/carers pension to have a ‘problem child’ you’re in need of attend to! I have enough educational supportive material to show my son’s issues and I’ve got enough proof to show that I’ve been working within their schools to support my son in ATTENDING school and yet, you don’t take any of this into consideration. If I have to give up on my son because you’ve told me I have to due this Grandfather Scheme then – sorry - but you’re department is looking at a law suit! A better age would be 12, but what would I know, me a mother with a issues as pre-mentioned! Beside a child at this age, in most cases, can be responsible enough to be alone for an hour after school (wouldn’t dare consider before school; not locking the house up safely, turning off heaters, stoves or similar in their rush to leave the house, getting to school late, nightmares, nightmares, nightmares, nightmares. It’s scary enough to consider after school! Most parents ARE NOT going to fork out money for before and after school care for older children – it costs too much considering that all institutes add other costs NOT covered by the government! It’s just not financially viable in most, low paid positions.
Forms should be considered from the time the youngest child turns 7, but the form should be put in/sent in after a parent’s pension day. This gives time for Centrelink to process the forms without putting a curfew of two days before pension day. I don’t get why on earth you didn’t do this in the first place! Why wasn’t the ‘first meeting’ we had considered the first form and then the arrangement of forms take place on the day of payment or after payment, these are the days we are IN town, so if you’re not going to financially reimburse us for travel, then change the form process! It’s not going to harm anyone to keep the form process from the age of youngest child at 7, just change the ‘when to put the form in’ process.
You need to have a tighter communication process with the work place assistance offices. As before mentioned, the process is at present, go into town to put a form in, on a different day, attend a work place assistance office, and on another completely different day, attend the work place assistance office again. If you were enrolled in a course you’re entitled to additive money to support your needs towards the attendance, equipment/stationary for the course or postage, etc … Why is it that these work place office attendances aren’t considered putting families into a financially stressful situation? The pension is there to cover the cost of living! It doesn’t cover these additive costs. You need to set up a reimbursement of travel and costs of study/attendance. In my case, I choose to buy a house for the future stability of my family, which, by moving to a country area has given me that opportunity and has even helped in the social interactions and stabilising of my children. I chose this position because it was the same cost of buying as it was in renting, even without rent assistance, but that choice should not mean I should be punished by a system that is not taking my family’s living position into consideration. Also, being a remote area, there is only a school bus that goes into Maryborough once a day and returns once a day on school days only! On public holidays and school holidays there is no alternative transport. My car is old and at this time needs $1100 in repairs. I believe it is reliable and safe enough at present, but what if it breaks down! I can arrange to go shopping once a week, but I can’t attend Maryborough more than that if I have no car. With school holidays as of the 14th December, please explain to me how I will be able to say I’m reliable enough for form and meeting attendance, let alone work attendance. I’m not going to go into a panic of the what ifs, but you are not placing safe guards down for people like myself.
Get rid of the ridiculous punishment of ‘refusal of a replacement form’!

Conclusion

When I go into to my workplace assistance meeting on the 14th November, I will be asking for reimbursement for my petrol, and for any other meetings that take place after. Put it this way, if an employed person was told that they had to attend a seminar, once a month, costing $40 to $75 every month and not being reimbursed on the cost of travel or other (comes out of their own pocket), and they’re not getting paid to attend, how on earth do you think this situation would play out? Is it fair? Is it legal? This is how much it costs at the end of the month to put a form in and attend these meetings!

I have been informed that I can go to St. Vincent DePaul for travelling assistance. I have twice had to ask for help towards food assistance in the last 3 years from this wonderful charity. I will avoid going back because it is on the other side of town (more petrol), and it’s a set time and day when to attend (more petrol to go in just to ask for help – where does that make sense?), and an hour or two waiting at times, to get assistance. I, nor should any other parent, have to go through this routine every fortnight just to survive just to put a form in!

Again, in my case, I will hopefully become employed as soon as possible, because, like any home owner, there’s a few things around the house that are in serious need of attention, especially as I’m on tank water and my plumbing needs to be improved for the purpose of rain water reliability. Yes, this private information is of no concern to Centrelink, but during this letter I have given you insights into my life to show how the Grandfather Scheme is putting my family at risk, when there wasn’t any risks when I choose to move out here in November 2006.

I knew or guess at many of the issues that had arisen or about to arise with the Grandfather Scheme, but I couldn’t tell you anything officially until I was more informed by others, and had personal experiences of the issues, so I could ‘raise’ them with your department with more true prior knowledge.

If this scheme is to continue, you are going to have to consider parents and their children as human being, not just a form or number. You need to teach some of your staff about respecting each case individually, not as an over view of all parents, and you’re going to have to keep a close eye on the private work place offices. In reality, this scheme would be better off if you brought back the government work place offices of the 80s (CES?). The Grandfather Scheme is more suited to this original work placement than private work place offices plying for funds from the government. With technology today, I suspect it would be more successful and viable for parents.

I look forward to your reply/replies and to future developments of the Grandfather Scheme, though, unfortunately, you’re likely to hear from me or about me sooner than you will be able to reply to this letter, or consider and/or implement improvements towards the scheme, either from my suggestions or your own determinates. I will continue to keep track of what I’m told by others and may even offer my assistance to others in similar situations to my own. I can promise you that I’m no trouble maker, just someone who cares enough about the positions of others, and my family, that are punished or placed into financial hardship, for the most ridiculous reasons in regards to this scheme.

I can only hope that you will take these insights and suggestions as serious, and that you will act as quickly as possible in rectifying and improving the scheme, which in itself, is not a bad idea, just not thought through thoroughly.