‘Morally questionable’: compliance element should be scrapped from controversial ParentsNext scheme, MPs told

Job agencies running the contentious ParentsNext program have called on the Albanese government to scrap compliance from the scheme, with one suggesting the current system is "morally questionable".

In submissions to a parliamentary inquiry looking at the employment services system, the Human Rights Commission has also argued stopping social security payments under the program was "contrary to Australia's human rights obligations".

The parliamentary inquiry examining the new Workforce Australia services system is currently investigating the $110m-a-year ParentsNext program, which is mostly aimed at single parents, most of whom are mothers, who receive parenting payments.

The program, which was established by the former Coalition government, is controversial because it requires people on parenting payments with children as young as nine months to attend compulsory appointments and activities. They can have their payments suspended if they do not meet these obligations.

While a number of job agencies called on the government to keep the controversial "targeted compliance framework" that can see a participant's welfare suspended or cut completely, others were scathing of the system. Those job agencies did not go as far as advocates, such as the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children and the Australian Council of Social Service, which have called on the government to redesign the scheme as voluntary and scrap all compliance.

The Salvation Army's Employment Plus organisation, which is among the several providers administering ParentsNext, said the compliance system could "create damaging additional stress during a potentially already difficult time of a parent's life" and "undermine individual agency, optimism and self-determination".

However, it still suggested it should be compulsory for participants to attend an initial appointment and at least one every 12 months.

Another non-profit provider, Campbell Page, went further, saying parents should not be "compelled to attend ParentsNext or subject to the Targeted Compliance Framework".

The Campbell Page submission said parenting payments were not "contingent upon seeking employment".

"The threat of removing money from parents and their children - even if not executed - is morally questionable and not conducive to a collaborative, positive relationship between provider and participant," the submission said.

SYC, also a non-profit, said the use of the compliance system to "compel participants to attend ParentsNext is generally counterproductive". It said an incentive attendance payment could be more effective.

Major for-profit providers APM and Max Employment supported the current program. APM said it was "good policy", while Max Employment said the compulsory nature was "instrumental" in getting participants to engage.

One provider, CatholicCare Wollongong, said compliance was useful in engaging participants who were hard to reach, "usually because they are homeless or experiencing domestic violence".

"By our staff entering non-compliance with appointment attendance, these participants are required to reach out to us to restart their payments," CatholicCare Wollongong said. "This instance of reengaging with clients allows us to check on the welfare and safety of participants and their families. Without this function of the program, we believe that we would not be able to support the most vulnerable of our participants."

That is at odds with the submissions of some of Australia's top domestic violence advocacy groups and experts, who have savaged the program for the fact it can suspend the welfare payments of those experiencing domestic violence.

Supporters of the scheme, including several providers, argue it has put participants on a path towards employment and breaks the cycle of disadvantage. Several providers offered case studies of individuals whose lives were changed by the scheme.

But critics say the scheme has caused stress, anxiety and financial harm to others. Payment suspensions are small as a total percentage, but the threat of this occurring can in itself cause harm, critics argue.

In the past, Guardian Australia has reported how participants can have their payments stopped for failing to attending compulsory activities such as playgroups or storytime at libraries. One woman told a legal centre she had her payment suspended while she was in hospital.

One case reported by Guardian Australia saw a mother forced to miss work so she could attend an appointment with her ParentsNext provider.

The Human Rights Commission said the compliance aspects of the program had the "effect of penalising parents, overwhelmingly mothers". "This has the potential to cause harm to children because of the extra stress experienced by parents, and the impacts on access to food, safe housing, and other basic needs," the submission said.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence, which does not administer ParentsNext but runs other employment services programs, said the scheme was "pernicious and compliance-focused".