A FEDERAL Government plan to force teenage mothers back to school or training within 12 months after the birth of their child contains both danger and opportunity, according to officials from two Catholic welfare organisations.
Brisbane Centacare Catholic Family and Community Services director Christine Hodge and St Vincent de Paul Society national council chief executive officer Dr John Falzon have both warned that coercive and punitive measures for the young mothers may cause more problems than they solve.
At the same time Ms Hodge and Dr Falzon agree there is an urgent need for supports and resources to help such young women into education and training.
However, Cherish Life Queensland president Teresa Martin has questioned the intent of the scheme and believes it is part of a much bigger Government agenda to force mothers to place their children into childcare.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced the scheme which will strip parenting payments from teen mums who refuse to return to school or training.
Young parents will receive free childcare and those who lose welfare payments will be able to claim back-pay if they later meet tough new “learn or earn” rules.
Under the plans, young parents will be forced to draw up study and work plans with Centrelink once their baby turns six months and return to school or job training a year after their birth.
About 4000 of Australia’s 11,000 teenage parents will participate in the trial from January 1 next year in 10 disadvantaged areas.
Teenage parents currently receive the parenting payment and do not have to look for work until their child turns six.
The scheme, which was to be formally announced on Budget night on Tuesday, is part of a Government focus on training and skills programs.
Ms Hodge said “there is a chance the scheme could be very positive if handled sensitively”.
“Certainly the right of disadvantaged young women to have access to education and training is to be supported,” she said.
“However, we need to be sure this is not just another ‘teen mum bashing exercise’ picking on a very visible and vulnerable social group to win votes.
“My concern is that coercive and punitive measures have been built in to the scheme – these can cause what is potentially a good policy to come unstuck.”
The whole scheme should be built around increasing evidence of the importance of the child’s first two years of development to the rest of life, Ms Hodge said.
“All policy decisions need to be developed through the lens of this understanding,” she said.
“If this latest policy comes wrapped up in good healthy support for mother and baby it has a chance of being a good policy.
“If this does not happen, the danger is it will lead to potentially bigger problems down the track through creating greater social disadvantage for children.
“Certainly, I don’t think cutting off welfare payments is any solution … other better tailored ways might cost more, but may have a better long-term outcome.”
Another reality, Ms Hodge said, was that “some young women may still struggle to meet the requirements”.
“It’s to be hoped supportive and well-informed policy would also look at the barriers stopping their entry into the workplace,” she said.
Dr Falzon said the St Vincent de Paul Society completely supported the allocation of resources to help teenage mums into education and training.
However, he opposed the “big stick” approach.
“What we cannot support is the use of a teenage mother’s sole income as a bargaining chip by the Government,” he said.
“We believe in the use of positive incentives and top-up payments to achieve the laudable outcome of education and training participation.
“You don’t achieve positive outcomes by threatening vulnerable people with destitution; you only shift the problem and intensify it.”
Dr Falzon said the organisation was also deeply concerned that this approach would have “some dire child protection consequences”.
“It might be fashionable for both Government and Opposition to use the populist rhetoric of ‘tough love’.
“But if they were serious about genuine outcomes rather than political point-scoring, they would be approaching this problem very differently.”
Ms Martin questioned why the Federal Government should be picking on “young mums”.
“It’s ludicrous,” she said.
“The Government should be focusing on those who are blatantly saying they don’t want to work and have no intention of ever finding a job.
“I believe such schemes are part of a much bigger agenda to force these mothers to place their children into child care.”
Ms Martin said she would have no concerns if young parents were able to bring their children along with them to school or training.
“However, it would have to be a fairly light load of education or training so the young person could keep up their parental responsibilities,” she said.
