Teen Mother Prison State

“I was appalled by the recent interim recommendations of the Welfare Working Group (WWG) suggesting the Government require teen parents under 18 to live with their parents or a responsible adult, and requiring the teens to immunise their babies, attend Plunket regularly, attend parenting programmes and take their children to early childhood education,” says Rebecca Occleston speaker for Beneficiary Advisory Service in Christchurch.

“We are very worried about many of the suggestions of the WWG, but this one really hit a nerve for me. Many of them start from the assumption that beneficiaries are bad and bludgers rather than people who need temporary financial support in this part of their life. The WWG assume they need to be pushed into work, whereas most beneficiaries would much prefer to work rather than being on the inadequate income the benefit provides. Quite apart from financial gain, many people would rather work just for the variety of life and mental stimulation. The WWG saying people would be better off in work is quite true for many people; however, what people need is the opportunity for suitable work, not huge punishments if they don’t find it!

“All of their ideas above are good, but requiring a parent to do these things is basically like saying they are in home-detention and if they do not do what is required of them, serious consequences ensue. This worries me greatly. For example, I am not against immunisation, but the point of it is there is a choice in this country whether to immunise or not; requiring people to do so just feels scarily wrong to me, like a dictatorship.

“In addition, if people under 18 are not living with their parents, there is generally a Very Good Reason. Producing another “responsible adult” out of (often) nowhere could cause problems for WINZ! Many young people will be better off without adults (that they may not get on with) second-guessing everything they do – it would be too hard to be competent parents and their confidence would be undermined. Hardly an ideal outcome.

“Whilst parenting programmes are no doubt helpful, I wonder if they are a bit like counselling where the person doesn’t get much out of it unless they want to be there. Also, they would need to be able to choose one that is appropriate to their own culture and ethics etc so that they can feel right there and the method suits them.

“Moreover, are the consequences of not doing these things a reduction of benefit? How does this benefit the child?! I, personally, am a big fan of nursery/preschool or playgroups etc as they allow children to socialise with people their own age. Again, this should not be compulsory, but encouraged and there needs to be something appropriate available. Parents have to feel okay with the arrangements. If you don’t like a particular playgroup / coffee-group, you should not feel obliged to continue attending. Parents should never be forced to leave their children in care when they are not comfortable with the carers – this could lead to extremely bad consequences.

“What we also notice is that all the recommendations are not addressing the real needs of these parents which are health, housing, affordable child care, liveable benefit levels etc. What kind of society do we live in if we do not support the members who need assistance?

“I consider this another petty attack on beneficiaries, unworthy of people who have been paid to help them.”

Beneficiary Advisory Service (BAS) is based in Christchurch and has clients from all over Canterbury and often other regions. BAS provides information, advice, support and advocacy for people on benefits and low incomes. This work ranges from simple queries of entitlement to complex legal issues. BAS more broadly advocates for better policies and conditions for the poor in our community.

ends

© Scoop Media