Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Astonishing Recommendation By Parliamentarians
Wednesday, 4 April 2007, 12:46 pm
Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
Media Release

Astonishing Recommendation By Parliamentarians

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

A newly-released report on youth sexual health, prepared by the cross-party New Zealand Parliamentarian's Group on Population and Development (NZPPD) has highlighted New Zealand's high teenage fertility rate as a major concern and recommended increasing benefit levels and extending assistance to a younger age.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell was astonished by the recommendation."The link between teenage birth and the availability of benefits is obvious to those people who live and work in the communities where rates of teenage birth are highest. Increasing benefit levels would have the opposite effect to what the Parliamentarians are trying to achieve."

"Teen parents frequently are, or become, single parents. European research released late last year, based on a sample of 6,580 single mothers, showed that the level and availability of benefits corresponds to the number of lone parents. Where benefits were increased the number of recipients went up."

"The Parliamentarian's report also claims that, 'poverty is a major issue for teenage parents as little or no benefits are available until they reach 18.' "

"This is simply untrue. Sixteen and 17 year-old teenage parents are eligible for the Emergency Maintenance Allowance which pays the same rate as the DPB. At June 2006, 612 single teenage parents received this benefit. A further 2,947 single teenage parents received the DPB."

"So the recommendation is not only flawed but based on misinformation. Increasing benefits to teen parents is not the way to reduce the teenage birthrate."


1 comment:

mojo said...

You almost sound surprised by this Lindsay?
But really, if you wanted to programme for the demise of the nuclear family, could you really suggest a better approach?
I think it has something to do with defining the offspring as being victims that should not be penalised by & for the excess of their parents ... sort of a, 'I disapprove of your behaviour, not of you,' ... or 'your punishment is going to prison, not being in, or what happens in prison,' ... or even moreso ... 'we cannot reveal his identity coz it will identify the abused (victim)' when the public nature of an offence is probably one of the main deterrents ... sooo many victims in need of protection, sooo much aberration we need to perpetuate.
Aside from that, you are right, it is simply misinformed.