The government’s response to baseless concerns that teenagers are now going to be out in force trying to procreate thanks to increases in the baby bonus is to hire young mums to go and talk some sense into these teens. Reported here.
On the surface, it appears like a standard and valuable policy idea. But, given the research that came out of the NSW Young Parents Forums last year it only goes to show how little respect young people are given.
The idea that young women are having babies purely for the baby bonus is ridiculous.
A vast majority of teenage mums (which are a pretty small group anyway) have diverse and different motivations for having children. They realise
If anything, the baby bonus/teen mum issue is a socio-economic issue that comes from people already having a damn tough time. It isn’t their young motherhood that is the problem it is leaving school early, inadequate services to support them, family issues and the associated million and one problems that come with having barely enough money to survive in a consumer society.
My concern sending young mums into say “being a teenage mum is bad” is the impact that had on them. Many teenage mums say the experience was difficult, but was really valuable and worthwhile for them. It would have been better with less stereotyping and a bit more support. Many of these mums were out studying and working and contributing to society in a far more significant way that many other women their age.
No one wants teenagers to be in the situation, but surely good sex and relationship education is a far better preventative measure than sending young mums in to talk about how bad it is to be a teenage mum.
The idea of the Young Parents Forum was to begin shifting simplistic policy ideas like these ones. Obviously, there is more work to do.
How do you have a balanced policy if you throw away maternity leave?
March 26th, 2007
The ALP women over at Emily’s List should be angry. I know their focus is on getting more women elected to parliament, but someone has to ask exactly what do Labor think they are doing?
They have dropped their two-year unpaid maternity leave policy.
The idea is that it will give Rudd more “family-friendly flexibility”. But, all that gives him his some fancy alliteration.
In any decent suite of policies supporting families and supporting the development of children requires a decent policy on maternity leave.
I noted Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne the other day questioning whether Rudd is just a “lighter shade” of John Howard. If policy decisions like this keep being made there will be no doubt.
The ALP maternity leave policy was the backbone to their support for those families out there in the mortgage belts. That was the policy that says we value the fact you want to have children, we value the fact you feel over worked and want to spend more time with them, we value parents and we respect children enough to give them policies that mean working mums and dads can try as best they can to spend more time with their children - especially when they are very young.
This move has barely registered in the pages of the daily newspapers.
Of course, the policy is yet to be adopted at the national conference next month. I’d be urging Labor member’s to let those currently steering the ship that policies like this are not in the interests of their core constituents - working families.