Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill

E Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I move, That the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill fulfils our commitment to extend the Youth Service to a broader group of young beneficiaries to give them access to the support they need to build their life skills, to engage in education and training, or to prepare them for employment. The Government is investing $61.2 million to support changes, in this bill, through Budget 2016. The bill extends the Youth Service to all 19-year-old parents and to 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries who are at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.

This initiative represents the social investment approach in action—making an upfront investment in vulnerable New Zealanders so that they can go on to lead fulfilling and strong lives. We know that when teenagers have low education levels, poor financial skills, and a lack of support to engage in education or training and prepare themselves for employment it can lead to adverse outcomes and long-term benefit dependence. The future prospects for these young people and for their children are not bright. We want them to have a better chance of success and we also want to reduce the long-term costs to the taxpayer.

The Youth Service is already making a significant difference in the lives of young New Zealanders every day by helping them overcome barriers in order to reach their life goals. By having access to this extended Youth Service these at-risk 18 and 19-year-old young people get wraparound support from a youth coach, budgeting help, and then support to engage in education in particular, and in training or employment. Young parents are also referred to a parenting programme to help them develop good parenting skills. This is a significant step towards supporting these young people to move off the benefit and gain the skills and intuition they need to make good decisions for themselves and to get on to a better life pathway. The bill also clarifies three matters in the Social Security Act and ensures that there is alignment between policy intent and practice.

The Social Services Committee examined the bill and it recommended a number of improvements. I do want to highlight a couple of those. The first was to add a requirement to consult with at-risk 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries on their referral to the Youth Service so that they have an opportunity to comment, first of all, on the indicators that have given rise to that risk assessment and also to provide information about themselves that indicates what level of support they might need. I thought that was a very sensible suggestion put forward by the committee, and the bill before the House reflects that. Young people should have a say in the support that they get, and we also want to make sure that the young people who are receiving this support are in genuine need of it, and also that the support is effective for them as individuals.

Another amendment to the bill that I considered of value is to use ministerial direction to set those risk factors that may be used in the risk model to determine which young beneficiaries are referred to the Youth Service. This will enable us to be quite transparent so that people know what information is considered in that risk modelling, but it also provides some flexibility so that the risk model can be kept up to date and fit for purpose and is also informed, then, by the voice of the young people themselves. The bill passed through the Committee of the whole House and I am pleased to speak to it today at its third reading.

I want to reiterate that this Government has high aspirations for young people, particularly those young people who have talent and potential but are at risk of poor outcomes without support. So we want to invest in them early in their lives, at that critical time when they are making their transition into adulthood, so that they do have the right supports they need to make that transition successfully. This is a $61.2 million initiative—an investment that we know, based on results to date, will help prevent young people from becoming embedded in a lifetime of poor outcomes, both for themselves and for their families. As a Government we are confident that extending the Youth Service to more at-risk young beneficiaries is an important investment that will support them to get better educated and have a much better chance, then, of being employed themselves and going on to live a full life.

For teen parents in particular, the evidence suggests that it is important to engage them in education as soon as possible, with the right supports put around them, both for themselves and for their children. It means, of course, that those children get better outcomes too if we are able to assist their parents to get on to that better, sustainable life pathway.

I want to conclude today by acknowledging the hard work and compassion of the 44 Youth Service providers we currently contract and the around 300 youth coaches across New Zealand who every day are working to change the lives of thousands of these vulnerable young people. I have absolute confidence in the capability and the expertise of these providers and also in the passion that they bring to the relationships they have to form with these young people in order to be effective.

These youth coaches take on these at-risk 18 and 19-year-olds and they will motivate them and inspire them in a caring and professional way, and they will walk with them, side by side, towards a much more prosperous future. These are some of the most vulnerable young people in our communities and they deserve the very best support that we can wrap around them. I commend the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill to the House.

I want to start with a quote that is relevant to this bill, and that quote is: “I have learnt through my own experiences and the experiences of others around me that our young in particular can quickly begin to self-stigmatise when the media and society stigmatise them. When the media portrays only a picture of a ghettoised, poverty-stricken group of troublemakers, then our youth can resign themselves to the fact that this is what they are.” In relation to this bill I just want to say this: is it not so sad that it is not the media or external society that we are talking about here? We are talking about the Government stigmatising our young people, and that is why we cannot support this bill. That quote was actually from my maiden speech, and young people—the education of them and them going into employment—is something that has always been important to me, and it is also very important to the Labour Party.

We heard the Minister for Social Development talking about the social investment approach and how this particular initiative, this particular bill, is in line with that social investment approach. Clearly, this is an indication of how flawed that social investment approach is, that that social investment approach is short-sighted, and that it takes a deficit approach to our young people. The social investment approach talks all about negative measures in relation to a person. It depicts people as liabilities to this country, rather than focusing on the fact that people—particularly our young people—are the biggest resource and asset that this country has. So we will not be supporting this bill.

The Minister talked about the fact that the Youth Service has been successful to date. Well, I am on the Social Services Committee. We have asked for evidence of that and there is no evidence to suggest that what we currently have in place is actually successful, and now we have the Minister putting more money into something when there is no evidence to support that it has been successful and she is looking to extend it. To us, that makes very little sense.

We put up three amendments at the Committee stage that we thought were fair, and they were not supported by the National Government. I think, really, those amendments, when we look at them, would make sense to a lot of New Zealanders, hence why they were supported by a large number of the parties in the House and were maybe one vote short of actually being able to get through.

The first of those amendments was in relation to education. One of the issues that we have with this bill is that it encourages education up to only National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, and after NCEA level 2 is attained the focus goes primarily on employment. We are not opposed to young people going into work but, first and foremost, we want to get behind young people to get the highest level of education that they can, hence why we put up an amendment in the Committee stage to say it actually should not just be NCEA level 2; it should be NCEA level 3 or higher. The Government decided to vote that down, and what we have instead is a bill that does not support educational achievement any higher than NCEA level 2.

Another amendment that we put up was an amendment that would have enabled young people who were not identified through the Government’s predictive risk modelling to actually opt into the Youth Service programme if they thought it would be of benefit to them. Part of the reason why we put that particular amendment up was that we want to take the stigma out of this programme. Enabling young people who have not been identified by the Government’s predictive risk modelling as being at risk to actually opt in would go some way to removing the stigma attached to this programme, but, again, the Government voted against that amendment.

The third amendment we put up was in relation to the expectations of young parents who participate in this programme. The concern that we have about young parents was that the expectation on them to return to work or to return to study is much greater than what it is for any other parent. As was pointed out by the Human Rights Commission, it discriminates against young parents. So, instead of having 3 years to be able to stay home, if you wish, to care for your child, the expectation here is that if there is a teen parent support unit within the vicinity of where that person lives, they have 6 months and then they will have to go back. If there is not a teen parent support unit within the vicinity of where they live, then the expectation is 1 year.

Of course, if a young person wants to return to work or study at an early stage, we would support that—in fact, we would create that opportunity—but forcing them to do that when that expectation is not put on older parents is unfair and, in fact, discriminates against them. We put that amendment up, but, again, that was voted down.

There are other issues that we have in relation to this particular bill, and one of them is the fact that the Government is pushing for young people to go into work and study, which is not a bad thing necessarily—as I said before, we support young people being given the opportunities—but what the Government denied and what it failed to recognise is that there are fewer opportunities for young people to be able to go into employment under this Government. What it failed to acknowledge is that the number of young persons not in education, training, or employment is currently at 87,200. That is over 26,500 more than when National took office in 2008. The National Government needs to take responsibility for the fact that the unemployment rate for young people is actually in a worse state now than it was when it took office in 2008.

So when those members turn round and say to us “Actually, we’re going to extend this programme because it’s been successful.”, then, of course, we are saying: “Well, hang on a second, how can it be successful when we have 26,500 more young people who are not in employment or education now than what we had when they took office in 2008?”. They are failing our young people.

The other issue that we have in relation to the Government, its Youth Service programme, and what has been suggested here in the bill is that there are rising concerns about the ability of the National Government services to support youth into quality, stable employment, given the failure of the Government to facilitate benefit-to-work transitions for the main benefits. I am not talking about youth benefits here; I am talking about main benefits. Based on the March 2016 figures, with only 19,730 of the 49,907 benefit cancellations going into work, of course we are concerned because only 7 percent of total beneficiaries were actually going into employment.

We have got concerns that the Government’s whole purpose is not necessarily to ensure that these young people go on into employment or on to having better lives but—as seems to be the case with the main benefits—just to get people off benefits with no actual concern for where they go on to or concern for whether or not their lives are actually better. We have got concerns that there has been very little tracking and monitoring in respect of whether or not the lives of young people, or even older people, who are on benefits have improved and whether or not there have been successful employment outcomes when they have left the benefit. We can see that in terms of the Government’s agenda even when we look at just its Better Public Services target, which is to reduce welfare dependency—not to make people’s lives better, but just to get people off benefits.

We will not be supporting this bill. We did support it at its first reading because we wanted to give it a chance, but we are disappointed that the Government was not willing to work with the other parties to actually improve the content of this bill and to improve the services that are provided to our youth in this country.

E Te Mana Whakawā, tēna koe, huri noa i Te Whare Pāremata me ngā mihi ki ngā mema katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all, members throughout Parliament; greetings.]

I rise to take a call on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading. Can I acknowledge the rangatahi and young people whom we work with in our communities—I hold the cup of Matipō Primary School, out in west Auckland—and the role that they play. I was also gifted this brooch by a rangatahi, Anahare Harris—knowing some of the work that we are doing that is included in this bill—and this is part of a Young Enterprise scheme and work that she is doing to make a difference in her life as well. I want to acknowledge these gifts, because they are working with young people. They are talking about the aspirations that they have for the future of their lives. The intent of this bill is very much in that vein. The previous speaker talked about the things that the Government was not doing—and when you are in Opposition it can be a speech about all risk and no responsibility—but we know that when you are in Government you have to look at the track record of the responsibility that you are undertaking. [Interruption] I do apologise, Mr Assistant Speaker.

In regard to this bill, which was an election promise in 2014—I was on the select committee in the 50th Parliament, where we had young people from the Dingwall Trust and others who came to talk about the challenges that they had when they came out of State care at the age of 17 and needed extra support in order to guide them through their transition into adulthood, into employment, and into forms of training. This Government heard that and has taken that on board, as well as some other issues. So I want to declare that today, in this third reading, as this bill passes through the House, No. 1, it is completing an election promise to ensure that we will raise the age of eligibility from 17 to 18. I want to also declare that there is also a provision still there in the Act for the chief executive to be able—if there is a risk factor where added support is needed—to extend that care on to other ages and even up to 21. So we think that is absolutely important as well. And $61.2 million over 4 years is significant—it is to provide the ability for 44 youth services, to ensure that they have wraparound support.

The whole issue around youth coaching becomes important. We know that young people at this age—many of us who have our own young children and young people who are young adults, young rangatahi as well. They need that added support. It does not matter where they are, whether they are in State care or children of our own from good homes, from good families. The youth coach is no different to that. What youth coaching does is to provide for them the ability to be able to look at their finances, and how they can manage them with good budgeting to ensure that they pay off the things that are important for them, that are needed.

The other thing that it provides for is parenting. That is quite critically important. All of us who have been in the role of being parents—who are still in the roles of being parents—know that it is not something where you sort of wake up and you have your children, and you are automatically a good parent. You have to learn that along the way. This is the important role that coaching plays. This is not some overbearing role of responsibility; instead, it is support that we think is critically important.

I think it is also imperative to note the reasons why we are intervening early. The New Zealand Productivity Commission’s report quite clearly stated that, No. 1, we need to target our approach. We make no excuses about the fact that we are targeting early. We know that we are targeting early because it says this.

💬 Darroch Ball: It’s not early, Alfred.

Mr Darroch Ball might want to listen to this, if he has read the Productivity Commission’s report. What it says is that if you are a job seeker between the age of 19 years—

💬 Darroch Ball: But they’re on the benefit already.

Mr Ball may not know this, but the length of that period of time is, on average, 13 years.

💬 Darroch Ball: Well, stop them from getting on the job seeker’s benefit in the first place.

Those who are 19 years of age, who have been sole parents, the average of that period of time—Mr Ball, you may be interested—is 18 years. The speakers on the other side have said that if we are taking on our roles and responsibilities to care for our young in their times of need then we should show some responsibility, and that is what we are doing. We are giving them a wraparound approach with a life coach, we are going in and intervening early, and we are putting in support services for those youth services that do make a difference. We think that is significant.

Our desire through this legislation is to enable all young people, even young people like Anahera Harris, who has a dream and a desire to be able to own her own business. These are the same dreams and desires that we have for our young people, and our young rangatahi as well. We believe that this bill is part of the process—part of the way that we believe will make a difference. I commend this bill, in its third reading, to the House.

Tēnā koutou. I want to join with my other colleagues who have spent the beginning of their contributions acknowledging the roles that many of the messengers who are departing from this House have played in keeping this place ticking over. I personally consider them not just friendly faces but I consider many of them friends, and I am very sad at their departure.

I want to respond to some of the points that the member who has just resumed his seat, Alfred Ngaro, made. The first point—there are a number of them so I will start with the first. One of the points that the member made was that it was an election promise to raise the age of care and protection so that the Government played a support role for rangatahi right up to the age of 18, because it is currently 17. I feel like at this point I know the Government’s policies better than he does. If it was an election promise, it was one the Government has failed to implement for 8 long years, because anyone who has been following this issue will know that the bill to lift that age was on the Order Paper. The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No. 6), if my memory serves, was on the Order Paper, on the Table, ready to be debated by this House, when National won the election in 2008, and that amendment was dumped. So not only did the Government not implement it but it actively voted against an amendment that would have brought that change into place back in 2008.

Not only that, but the Government voted against multiple attempts by Labour to raise the age, in a number of amendments that we put before the House. It was only after significant lobbying by Labour, by Dingwall Trust, and by Lifewise, and the Greens also supported that raise in age. That was the point at which finally Anne Tolley—and I acknowledge that she accepted the advice of the expert working group—agreed that the age should be raised. So, an election promise? That could not be further from the truth, and I wanted to correct the record.

The second part of the record that I believe needs to be corrected is this notion that the Government is somehow supporting increasingly early intervention. What are the markers of that—what are the markers of that—because, specific to this bill, one of the things that the Government was very quick to get rid of when it first came in was Youth Transition Services. So to create this notion that we never had anything for young people who are not in employment, education, or training before the Youth Service came along is patently incorrect. Not only was there a service available for young people that the Government dumped but it was a service that was available for 24-year-olds and younger, and it did not create a prerequisite where you needed to be on a benefit to access that service. I want to say that again: you did not have to be on a benefit, as a young person, to access Youth Transition Services.

What is important about that? Well, my colleague Carmel Sepuloni spoke to the issues around a deficit approach, which this Government is taking, and that was a big part of it. But, actually, it acknowledged that some young people never access a benefit because, firstly, it is so hard to access Government support, and, secondly, they might actually just simply be at home, not having a particular plan in place, living on a couch—support from whānau in some other form. But the benefit is not the predeterminant as to whether or not they need support; it is simply that they are not in education or training. Should that not be our concern? Should that not be our measure? It is not whether they are a drain on the State via a benefit; it is whether or not they are not using their potential. That should be our concern because that costs us in other ways and it costs them.

So this notion, as well, that there are other forms of early intervention, particularly around sole parent support and so on, that are going on—well, actually, in the last month alone we have seen this Government dump Parents as First Teachers. It has dumped Strengthening Families. This idea that it is somehow investing in early intervention is factually incorrect. It is narrowing down further and further the scope of whom it provides services for, and by default that means that people will be left behind, and young people in particular.

But should not a measure of success, if we are talking about Youth Service and whether or not we are engaging and assisting young people, be how many young people are not in education and training? Would that not be a measure of success? Because on that basis, as has been canvassed in the House, the number of young people from 15 to 24 years of age who are not in education, training, or employment since this Government has taken office is now at 87,200. There are 87,200 young people who are not in education, training, or employment. That number devastates me. It devastates me in particular because when I first came into Parliament I was our youth affairs spokesperson, a job now ably done by Louisa Wall. At that time the numbers were lower than they are now and they were devastating, but they have increased by 26,500 young people. That is five times the size of the town I grew up in. I can barely fathom that number of young people not being in education, employment, or training. Our concern should not just be those who are on a benefit; it should be every single one of those young people. That is one of the reasons—in fact, that is one of the most significant reasons—we cannot vote in favour of this bill.

The Youth Service is being extended in this bill for another 2,000 young people—2,000—but that is not the full extent of the need that exists out there, and if the Government truly backed itself that the Youth Service is the answer to everything, then it should offer it to everyone. Give it to everyone who is in need and whose potential is being wasted, because it goes much further than those 2,000 young people.

But, actually, what I want to speak to in my last contribution in the debate on this bill is what the alternative could have looked like. What, in our view, would a comprehensive service for young people not in education or training look like? Well, it would not be contingent on you walking through a Work and Income door. It would not be contingent on you seeking support; in fact, it would be much more proactive than that. Labour’s plan has always been that we need to make sure that every young person has a plan to be earning or learning. That means that at the point that a young person leaves school, we check that they have a plan. We ask at the school gate where they are going, what they are doing, and whether they need support, and we do not just leave it there, because we know from the experiences of those who work in this space that, actually, a young person might have a plan when they leave school but that it can quickly fall over. In fact, one of the most vulnerable points is usually 6 months to a year out of school, so we check back in. We check back in and we make sure that they have something to occupy their time, and if they do not, what do we do? We do not give up.

I still remember the experience that I had relayed to me once when I was visiting a comprehensive youth transition service that was operating in a small town. I will not name the town in case I give away any personal details, but there was a particular young woman, who, when she left school, said she did not need help. She got a call from Youth Transition Services, and said: “No, I don’t need help.” She was doing nothing. The youth workers contacted her again, a month later, and asked: “Do you need anything?”. She said: “No, I’m fine.” This young woman was growing up in a gang family. Not one of her whānau members were in employment—not one. She said she was fine.

The youth workers did not give up. They called her again, a month later, and this time she confessed that she needed money. So they talked to her about some of the options that she had and, before long, convinced her that maybe she should apply for a job at the local supermarket. They picked her up, they worked through interview questions for her, they made sure she had an outfit for the interview, they took her there, and she got the job. She was the first one in a long time in her family to have employment, and it came purely out of the persistence of those youth workers, who were absolutely convinced that it did not matter whether she was on a benefit or not and it did not matter if she said she was OK. They kept up their contact and they offered their support.

A comprehensive youth transition service is what we need. It is not just about markers of whether or not you are a drain on the State via a benefit. It has got to be more comprehensive than that. It is absolutely Labour’s intention, when we take office, to reintroduce a comprehensive service like that again for every under-24-year-old, to ensure that once again they are earning and learning, and we can reduce those devastating statistics of “neets” in New Zealand.

It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in wholehearted support of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I would just like to say what an exciting piece of legislation it is, and what an exciting project to back youth services. I would just like to acknowledge all those people who work in the youth services and the hard work they do. What we do know is that when we look at the review of youth services in 2014, it found that four out of five of all the young people were in education, were in training, or were in part-time or full-time employment. What a great initiative and what great services to support some of the most vulnerable young people we have, because we on this side of the House know that the way to get these vulnerable young people back on track is to get them into employment, get them into education, and get them into training so that they will go on to be productive members in New Zealand society.

I would just like to let those vulnerable young people know that it was the Opposition that said no to this bill. The Opposition does not want them to engage in youth services that will provide them with vital education, employment, and training and that will help them go on and be productive members of society. How arrogant. What an arrogant Opposition, which is preventing vulnerable young adults from gaining what they need to succeed in life. Well, I am proud to be on this side of the House, which is backing those young people and backing those youth services. That is making such a vital difference in our young people’s lives.

When you look at those young people and the complexity of working with those young people, 38 percent are victims of domestic violence, 76 percent are victims of emotional neglect, 5 percent are homeless or are victims of sexual abuse, and pretty much all of them have disengaged from mainstream education, and that is why it is right that we invest in these social services. They provide intensive and active wraparound services that will put these young people at the heart of the care that they need to help them get out of benefit dependency. We know, when we look at people who go on the job seeker’s benefit, that there is about a 6-month window of opportunity. If we can get in there in those first 6 months, we can steer them into a direction of employment, training, and education, because we do know that when you look at the future liability of dependence of beneficiaries, most of them have got on the benefit at an early age in life. If you go on at the age of 18 or 19, you are resigned to being on there for 13 years, and that is what the Opposition wants. It is happy for those people to languish there for over 13 years, and that is an arrogant Opposition.

So on this side of the House—

💬 Louisa Wall: No one believes you.

—we are investing in youth services. We are opening up the provision and the entitlement that our vulnerable young—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am just going to interrupt the member and ask my colleague Louisa Wall not to indicate that about the Speaker. Thank you. Tom Doocey.

Tom Doocey? Matt Doocey—thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, Matt Doocey. I remember the talented one.

But it is good to hear my father getting good name recognition after those 22 international games that he refereed.

So, back to this bill, when we look at these young people what we want to do is to get them into education, employment, and training. We know that when we put $1 into these youth services, it will result in a reduction of $2.53 of future liability. This is about social investment. We are investing in projects that will go on and benefit young people and, ultimately, with our Better Public Services targets—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. Order! I regret interrupting the member again. I am going to have to warn my colleague Louisa Wall now that one cannot interject across the House asking for members to be honest, because what that implies is that they are being dishonest, and if one believes that, then the appropriate approach is to write a letter to the Speaker on a privileges matter or to debate it, if the member thinks that the person is being accidental rather than deliberate in their approach. So I will not have that sort of interjection.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a $61 million investment into young people. The sooner we pass this legislation the better. That is why I will sit down and that is why I urge Opposition speakers to take a short call, so that this legislation can be passed tonight and our young people will be supported into being productive members of society. Thank you.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe, ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Kāti! Ka kōrero au mō ngā Kākāriki i roto i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei te pire, Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou!

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker and to all of you throughout the House, well done and good tidings to us all for Māori Language Week. Enough! I will speak for the Green Party in this, the third reading of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to us all!]

Excuse my mangling of the language. The Green Party is voting against the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill, and for many of the reasons that were demonstrated by that previous speaker, Matt Doocey, who stood up and listed statistic after statistic of the problems with our young people. That member demonstrated so clearly the Government’s deficit model when it comes to understanding the potential of our young people. This piece of legislation does a disservice to our young people, and we will not be supporting it.

I must say, I have spent almost a decade of my life working alongside young people in education, youth health, and development organisations, and I have loved that work. I felt it a complete privilege to work alongside young people and experience the inspiration of their resilience, their creativity, and their smarts when they have been given the opportunity to deliver based on the belief that they can. This legislation is the antithesis of that experience. I think it is a generally well-understood concept that if you treat a person, particularly a young person, like an idiot, they are probably going to fulfil your expectations. This was proven, actually, in the years of research and experience that led to the development of a strength-based approach to youth development. Old approaches to youth development focused on problems. They were reactive, targeted tightly, and intended to deliver programmes with professional providers putting young people in the place of being recipients of services. This approach took lots of resources, but the results tended to be short term or not so successful.

Positive youth development, strength-based youth development, turned this on its head. The initiatives were developed in partnership with young people. They involved community members and sought to develop a community response to supporting young people. It was proactive, not targeted, and looked towards positive outcomes rather than looking at problems or deficit models. If you start with focusing on what someone is good at and go from there—ehara! They are more likely to believe that they have possibilities.

Conversely, if you start with a focus on risk, then—surprise! There is a much higher chance that young people will either just do what they are told for as long as they are made to, rebel, or give up hope in themselves, rather than develop the skills and attributes in themselves that will sustain them throughout their lives. This we know from practice; this we know from evidence. This is not what this legislation is about, and when the chair of the Social Services Committee stood up previously and told us that we had obviously not read the Productivity Commission’s report around how to work with young people—I have got to say, I read the report, but I do not think that it is the expert on strength-based youth development and how to work with young people. It is not.

This legislation extends the bad old ways of working. It starts from the point of telling us that some young people are at risk of being a long-term liability to the State—of being beneficiaries. This legislation assumes that all parents who have their children before the age of 20, who are not working enough hours, or who are not being supported by a partner who is earning enough are at risk. We are no longer talking about children under the age of 18 here; we are talking about young parents up to the age of 20. It is even more tightly targeted and risk-based too when it comes to young adults without children, because to develop this legislation the Government is going to use predictive risk modelling, taking information from other State services like education and the existing Child, Youth and Family—or whatever it might become—to decide which young people might be at risk of long-term welfare dependence.

The chances are—and we have to keep acknowledging this—that most of these young people will be Māori rangatahi, because contact with Child, Youth and Family is one of the factors that the Government has said it will use to define risk. Almost 60 percent of those young people in care are Māori. Those young people will be separated from their peers who are not deemed to be a risk, and, without any choice on their part, they will be subject, in addition to the work test or work preparation obligations, to budgeting, interviews, and reporting obligations, alongside money management supervision, which will pay most of their bills for them and require them to shop primarily at certain stores.

These are adults we are talking about—19 and 20-year-olds. Of course, if they miss an interview or do not provide the information required in enough time, their benefit will be cut completely. As well as this increased scrutiny, young parents up to the age of 20 will need to go to work or into low-level stage study from when their baby is the age of 1, or, if a teen parent unit is available, from when their baby is the age of 6 months old. These are young adults who we know are so likely to have been told that they are a problem—at school, in society—over a long period of time already and now they are going to be told it again, by this Government.

Let me be clear: this is not a strength-based approach. Let me be clear: this is not an empowering piece of legislation. What this legislation does is it infantilises and stigmatises young people. It entrenches and exacerbates already painful inequalities. It makes young people the problem and fundamentally alters their relationship with people in their community who could have worked alongside them in a positive way. Increasingly, international evidence shows that the interventions that work best are less targeted, unconditional, and involve extra money—the exact opposite of this programme—so we in the Green Party do not support a measure that uses our precious resources to increase targeting and conditions and is strongly risk-based rather than strength-based.

The Government tells us that despite not having a comprehensive evaluation of its initial programme, it is extending it because it has aspiration for these young parents and young people and it is willing to invest in them now. Well, I do just want to remind this House that repeatedly, when this Government has been given the opportunity to increase those young people’s access to higher education above the level of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, which we know is likely to get them off these benefits 6 months earlier and enable them to stay off these benefits longer, it has turned down that opportunity. The costing of how much extra it would have cost to be able to extend it to higher level courses was only $10 million, but apparently these young people are not worth that $10 million. Although the Government tells us that it has high aspirations—well, not that high.

Again, when this Government has been given the opportunity to put safeguards in place to protect the children of these parents—to give the person who may end up applying sanctions the discretion to not apply that sanction if it would make it difficult to feed, clothe, or care for the well-being of that child—this Government turned down that opportunity. It demonstrated that, fundamentally, it does not put children first. It does not have aspirations for our young people or our society. The Greens will be strongly opposing this bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. I will get into the main reason why in a second, but I would just like to make it clear, as I did in my first and second reading speeches, that New Zealand First does agree with the intent and the purpose of this bill. The fact that the legislation aims to improve educational and social outcomes for young beneficiaries—of course New Zealand First supports that intent and purpose. It wants to provide youth coaching along with other services, such as budgeting help and parenting courses.

The two main things that this legislation wants to do is to extend the Youth Service to include all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and also 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency. New Zealand First agrees with all of that intent and purpose, but what we have got to remember is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is what I am reminded of when I read this bill. Even though we do agree with the intent, it is not the “what” that is the intent and purpose; it is the “how” and the “why” that New Zealand First has some challenges with.

The main issue that we have heard from Labour and the Greens and the entire Opposition is the one about the social investment approach. When we hear Government members talking about evidence and data and investment, they fail to mention a whole heap of evidence that is available, and has been available, to the select committee about why the social investment approach does not work. I have got a stack of evidence here, and I just hope I have got time to get through it all. Hopefully, the National Party members and the Minister for Social Development can hear the reasons why New Zealand First and various Opposition parties oppose this bill.

But, first, I would like to point out the fact that—this is the third reading, but if we talk about the first reading, the second reading, and the Committee stage—we have got 5 hours of debate. Throughout that entire 5 hours of debate, the number of times that members on the Government benches have mentioned the social investment approach is a grand total of twice—that is, twice. In the entire first reading, only Matt Doocey mentioned the social investment approach. Not even the Minister mentioned the social investment approach during the whole entire first reading. During the entire second reading it was mentioned only once, and that was by the Minister. Funnily enough, what the Minister said was exactly what she said in the third reading, and it was word for word because I read it when she was reading it out.

The problem with it is that they have got it entirely wrong, unless they are mistaken or they are deliberately misleading on what the intention of the social investment approach is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member cannot say that another member or members are deliberately misleading the House. As I indicated earlier, if he believes that, then the appropriate thing is to write a letter to the Speaker on the matter of a breach of privilege. But he has himself breached the Standing Orders, and will withdraw.

I withdraw. What I would like to do is quote Mr Doocey—what he said in the first reading debate. He said: “If we take a social investment approach—and that is what this Government is doing—we know that if we can focus on the most vulnerable and give them the resources, it will make them more productive later in life.” The problem is that the social investment approach does not focus on the most vulnerable.

All you have to do is take a look at the regulatory impact statement. The first sentence of the first paragraph, which is about supporting the investment approach, states that the investment approach applies a long-term liability perspective to the cost to the benefit system. That is what the social investment approach is about. It is about the long-term liability perspective to the cost of the benefit system, not targeting the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, that is what the Minister said, that it is about talking about vulnerable New Zealanders—about targeting vulnerable New Zealanders. That is not true.

The second thing that the Minister said in her second reading speech was that “Evidence shows that young people under 20 are likely to remain on benefit long term if they do not receive the support they need at this early age.” What that implies is that the support they need at this early age is through the benefits and through this legislation to extend the young persons’ services. However, when you go and have a look at the evidence and what it says in the regulatory impact statement it states that “Ideally this regulatory impact analysis would have measured the Net Present Value of the predicted change in lifetime costs to the welfare system ... It is too early to accurately measure the reduction in average years on benefit … It is not possible at this stage to isolate the effects of the Youth Service interventions on the above factors … It is difficult at this stage to accurately predict how well the impact the Youth Service is having on those it currently serves will translate to other groups.”

This is in the regulatory impact statement, and it has not been mentioned once by the Government. It also goes on to say that “It is not possible to apply a rigorous comparison of the expected changes in liability to the operational costs.” So even if we take what it says in the regulatory impact statement—which I have quoted—which is that it is about the long-term liability to the benefit system, according to this it does not even measure that. It does not even stack up to that. The regulatory impact statement says that it is not possible to apply a rigorous comparison. So I am not sure what the Government is talking about in regard to the evidence that all of this works. It states quite demonstrably that it does not. It does not have the evidence there to show that it does work.

When we are talking about the social investment approach, we are talking about targets. I have mentioned this ad nauseam through the first and second readings of this legislation. We are talking about Better Public Services targets, data collection, and issues with predictive models. We have heard previous speakers talk about the predictive models and the issues with them. But even if we go into the departmental disclosure statement, the information that all of the Government backbenchers who have spoken today and spoken in the last few weeks had available to them, the Ministry of Social Development says that the risk model for Youth Service extension is still in development—it is still in development—and will likely be finalised prior to implementation. The risk model that this Government is intending to use on this benefit is still being developed. It does not even know what risk modelling it is going to be using.

The problem extends out to the fact that, and this is the ministry’s statement, the model will be similar to the “neets” predictive model—the predictive model that is used for “neets”. We have heard today that there are over 87,000 “neets”—youth who are not in education, employment, or training. That is the highest it has been in 3 years—the highest it has been in 3 years. It has never been lower than it was before this Government came into power in 2008—it has never been lower than in 2008. It has always been on the upward trajectory. The Government wants to use this risk predictive model for this new piece of legislation. It is no wonder that New Zealand First and the rest of the Opposition are not supporting this bill.

If we go on to Treasury, Treasury, when stating the social investment approach, is talking about the fact that the social investment approach is about “improving the lives of New Zealanders by applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services.”—rigorous and evidence-based investment practices to social services. However, if you continue to read about this piece of legislation, and the evidence and the advice that is given to it, it is still too early to assess the impact of the service. Findings to date suggest that the service is effective in engaging young people in education and training—they suggest. But Treasury and the Government itself say that it is about applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices. Obviously, New Zealand First cannot be put into a position where we are going to support a piece of legislation where the evidence that the Government says exists literally does not exist—literally does not exist.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through all of the evidence that I have got here, because there is a mountain of it, but there are studies that have been conducted, not only internationally but locally. I would like to mention just one briefly, from the University of Otago, by Emily Keddell, about the ethics of predictive risk modelling in the New Zealand child welfare context. She states that the problem with it is that data exists in silos. We have got the issue where we can concentrate on the victim, and not on the surrounding information—the surrounding data that creates the environment for them to be victims in the first place. She goes on to say that what this Government is doing is focusing on the needles in the haystack instead of on the haystack itself, and not stopping the hay from turning into those needles in the first place.

We have tried, throughout the process of this bill from the first reading through to its third reading, to get the Government to answer those concerns and address the evidence that we have got and present it, and it has failed. The Government has mentioned the social investment approach twice throughout the entire three readings, including the Committee stage. We are disappointed with that, because the Government has not made any progress whatsoever. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koutou ki ngā hoa o Te Whare Pāremata. He ture pai rawa tēnei, ka whakatutuki Te Reipa he mea pai mō te rangatahi.

[Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you fellow colleagues of Parliament. Labour concludes that this is a good legislation for young people.]

This is a good bill and it will do some good things for our young people. It is a positive bill for our young people, quite simply because as a result of this bill, more young people are going to get more services wrapped around them to enable them to achieve more qualifications, to get more of them into work, and to build better lives for themselves and for their families. That is what this bill is about—it is about getting them into a position where they can build better lives for themselves. I think, ultimately, that is what we want for them.

How will they achieve this? More of them will have access to those 44 youth services that are operating around the country, and those over 300 youth workers who are working within those youth services, to be able to give them the confidence and the assistance that they need to be able to build better lives for themselves and for their children.

We know that this is successful because, actually, instead of burying ourselves in reading reports—instead of burying ourselves in reading bits of paper—some of us have actually got out and talked to some of those young people who are in those services and who are in those teen parent units. I can tell you that the ones whom I have spoken to think this is great. They actually love the fact that there is a youth mentor who believes in them, who is prepared to spend time with them, and who believes in them enough to invest in them.

I have been a little bit saddened to hear from the opposite side of the House some of the things that I have heard said in other readings and today. Those members have used words like “stigma” and “deficit”, and they have used words like those to say that we are going to leave these young people where they are.

We have heard people say that in the almost 10 years they have been involved in youth work they have used the strengths-based approach, or otherwise. Well, in the 18 years that I spent in social and youth work, working with young people, I can tell you that every youth worker whom I have ever come across, and the ones I see working within our youth programmes now—of course they use strengths-based approaches. Of course they work with young people on their strengths and say: “We believe in you. We can take you further. We can assist you and we will assist you to go further and build better pathways for your life.”

Every service that I have ever worked in, or ever had any association with, has a threshold for you to get into that service. When I was a school guidance counsellor it was pretty open—you could walk in the door and sit down and have a chat. The threshold was not too high to access that service. But, that said, if they were wasting my time and theirs, they did not stay there very long.

When I worked in child and adolescent mental health, for a tertiary mental health service, people had to meet certain thresholds in order to receive service from that particular service. In the same way, there will be some thresholds for people to access this Youth Service. They will be teen parents, and the ones who are there now are 16 and 17—we are just looking to extend that up to 18 and 19-year-olds. They will be teen parents, or they will have been identified as being at risk of long-term welfare dependency.

The social investment approach that we are taking is not simply saying that we are going to do something with these young people, so that they will cost us more money. No, the social investment strategy says that, actually, we are going to invest in these people up front, so that they can have better lives. The social investment strategy uses words like “long-term dependency on welfare”—it uses those criteria. But let me tell you something: when you are 17 or 18 years old, if the Government has to spend lots of money on you, it is probably because there is not going to be a lot of opportunity or good success there for you later in life. The social investment strategy is about investing up front to give those people better lives, and that is exactly what we are doing. I will tell you now, if I were in their shoes I would not want to be sitting back and having the Government spending money on me for ever and ever and ever because, guess what? The Government generally spends money on people when the outcomes for their lives are not as good as they could be. So we are going to invest in them.

When those youth workers—those 300-odd youth workers in those 44 services—keep working across those young people, they will believe in them. It will be strengths-based; it will be focused on the positive things that they can contribute to society. We believe in those young people—we are aspirational for them. That is what this bill is about. It is about getting behind young people who need some help, to help them to do better in their lives. Thank you for this opportunity. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa, ngā mihi o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori ki a tātou katoa. Ka tū au mō Ngā Kākāriki ki te kōrero i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei Te Pire Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to you all around the House, and accolades of Māori Language Week for all of us. I stand on behalf of the Greens to speak in the third reading of this Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. My appreciation to us all.]

The Green Party is here in Parliament because we want a fair society. We want to look after our people and our planet, and we know that can be done with smarter policies. We are opposing this bill because it is not best practice and it is not going to take us in the direction of a fairer society, unfortunately. I am sure that members on the Government side really believe that this bill is the best way to achieve it.

The previous speaker, Jono Naylor, gave a really passionate speech, and I really agree with the aims that he articulated in his speech, but I think that he is mistaken about the effectiveness of this particular bill. It was telling that he said that, rather than burying ourselves in reports and reading the evidence, we should just get out there and talk to some people anecdotally. I think that sums up the problem with the National Party’s approach to governing in general. It tends to take a blindly ideological approach, particularly when it is about social security.

This particular approach, which is evidenced in this bill, is punitive and it is controlling. It is both reacting to and perpetuating the myth that people who need help—those young people, some of whom are parents—are irresponsible and have not worked hard enough. That myth has really been abounding in New Zealand for several decades now. The reality is that the neo-liberal policies that were embraced in the 1980s and 1990s in New Zealand have led to a stark increase in inequality, and that inequality means that the playing field is just not level.

It is easier, I think, for those people who are doing well in Aotearoa New Zealand to tell themselves that the people who are not doing well are not doing well because they deserve to be poor or deserve to be punished for their lack of work ethic. It is oversimplistic. I have seen the same thing in America.

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: This is so arrogant. I find that offensive.

It is not arrogant; it is just how it is, and I am sure that the Minister is offended because it is true. In fact, she finds it offensive because it is so on-point. It is very hard for people to confront the truth—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Oh, really? I find it offensive that you would stand up in this House and accuse us, on this side, of trying to do something to help people.

I am sure that the Minister and the other MPs on the National Government side of the House believe that they are doing the best for people, but I think that, unfortunately, they are very wrong and they do not want to listen to the evidence and accept that.

I am going to quote Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw, who is a researcher specialising in this, at the Morgan Foundation. She says that 40 percent to 60 percent of New Zealanders believe that parents who do not have enough are irresponsible people who have not worked hard enough. The research shows that there is a belief in New Zealand that those people are losers and, by implication, the parents of healthy, well-off children are hard-working winners.

The National Government regularly buys into this meme in this way of describing what is happening in society, saying that in order to move parents to a winning frame of mind, a firm hand is needed, and we need to push them into work and off the benefits that could help them. “It is extraordinary that these Victorian values continue to inform our social policies,” says Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw, “especially given that research from all over the world shows that moving low income parents into work through use of sanctions does not often improve economic positions overall, and children suffer associated pressures.”

So, the truth is that this National Government’s approach is paternalistic and the approach in this bill is paternalistic. The reality, articulated many times by my colleague Jan Logie during the debates on this bill, is that people tend to do best when they are given both freedom and responsibility, when they are treated with respect, and when they feel that they can trust those who are there to help them and not that those people are there to chase them up and check on them and make sure they are complying with a whole lot of bureaucratic requirements.

The best practice from around the world shows there are two principles. They are that the help is better when it is less targeted and when it is unconditional. “It is a highly disruptive concept;”, according to Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw, “our entire social welfare system is built on the provision of conditional aid.” The Green Party supports a smarter approach.

He Reo Māori katoa, ā, tēnā tātau e Te Whare. Anei te mihi atu ki a koutou i runga i Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. Tēnei pire kai taku ngākau, he aha ai? Kai te tautohetohe tātau mō te tamaiti, mō te hunga rangatahi, kia tupu pai ake i runga i Te Whenua o Aotearoa. Kāre au i te whakahē ki te ngākau o Te Minita. Kāre au i te whakahē ki te ngākau o te pire. Kua kite atu au i ngā hua kai roto, he hua kai roto mō ngā tamariki, mokopuna e hāngai ana ki te kaupapa. Kāre au e whakahē ki te hiahia me te wawata o te kāwanatanga hai āwhina i ngā tamariki, mokopuna. Kai te tautoko au i tēnā.

Kua kōrero atu au ki Te Minita; kua whakawhiti kōrero e pā ana ki aku āwangawanga e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Ā, kua rangona au ki tōna ngākau nui ki ngā tamariki, mokopuna me ngā rangatahi o Te Whenua. Hoi anō rā, kāre au i whakaae ki te pūnaha whakahaere whakatutuki i ngā wawata o Te Kāwanatanga. Kāre au i te tautoko katoa i ngā kōrero o tēnei taha, a te taha mauī o Te Whare ēngari anō, kua rangona au ki tā Darroch, me ōna whakatūpato mai i te pānuitanga mai i te rīpoata e kī nei kia tūpato. Koinei hoki tāku, kai te pīrangi au kia tautoko i Te Kāwanatanga. Kai te pīrangi au te tautoko i te wawata kia tipu pai ngā rangatahi i runga i te whenua.

I tērā wiki, i kite atu au i tētahi tamaiti, 16 noa iho te pakeke. Ko ia tēnā, nā tana kuia i whakatipu. Kāre i haere ki te kura i te nuinga o te wā. Kua puta kē i te kura i tēnei wā. Kua tae atu tōna kuia ki te penihana, kāre tēnei tamaiti i hiahia kia noho taumaha tōna nohonga ki te taha o tana kuia i roto i tōna whare. Nā reira, i puta kē atu te tamaiti ki te rapu mahi, kia kore e taumaha te noho o tōna kuia. Ā, i aukatingia e WINZ tōna penihana. Nā reira, i te tiriti tēnei tamaiti e moe ana. I te rapu mahi ēngari, kei hea tōna māngai tautoko? Kai hea te youth worker e tautoko nei i tēnei tamaiti? Kai te tiriti moe ai! Kai te rapu—[Interruption]—kai te whakahē te pire! Kāre e kore! Ēngari kei te whakaaro au mō te hunga rangatahi. Tēnei tamaiti, kei hea tōna ringa āwhina? I hoki atu ia ki te whare o tōna kuia, he aha ai? I rapu mahi, i rapu mahi i runga i tēnā ka taea te hoki atu ki te whare o tōna kuia ki te āwhina i a ia. Koirā tōna ngākau nui.

I a au e kite atu i a ia, e whakaaro ana au tēnei pire, mehemea e whakahē tēnei tamaiti i ngā whakaritenga o te pire, ka aukatingia te penihana ki a ia, kei hea a ia? Kai te tiriti! Kai te whakahē te ture. Ko ngā pirihimana kei te whaiwhai atu i a ia! Nā reira, āe, kua kite au i te wawata, kua kite au i te hiahia, kua kite au i te ngākau o Te Minita i roto i te pire nei. Hoi anō rā, kua kite au i te hunga rangatahi, mehemea kāre i hāngai ki ngā ture e whakarite nei, ā, kai hea rātau? Kai raro putu ai! Ko wai kei te tiaki i a rātau? Kai hea tōna ringa āwhina? Anō nā ka tuku whakaaro ki a rātau mehemea ka whānau tamaiti ana, kotahi tau te pakeke o te tamaiti, 14 pea te pakeke kua whānau mai tōna pēpi, ā, 15 te pakeke, ā, me haere ki te rapu mahi. Ki raro i tēnei ture, me haere taua tamaiti ki te rapu mahi. Koirā te kōrero, kia eke ki te 1 tau, me haere ki te rapu mahi, āe, mehemea kua eke atu ki te NCEA reanga 2. Hoi anō, kia eke ki te 19 te pakeke, rerekē rawa atu.

Mō taua take, kāre e taea e Te Pāti Māori te tautoko i te pire ēngari, kai te tautoko i te wawata, kai te tautoko te ringa āwhina i a koutou, i runga i te aha? Te ngākau nui ki te hunga rangatahi! Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā.

[It is totally in Māori, and so acknowledgments to us, the House. I greet you in regard to Māori Language Week. This bill is in the bosom of my heart, and why is it? Because our debate is about the child, about youth growing up well in the country of New Zealand. I am not opposing what is in the Minister’s heart or that of the bill. I have seen the benefits in it, and there are benefits there for children and grandchildren about the matter. I endorse that.

I have spoken with the Minister; we have exchanged views about my concerns relating to this bill. I have heard about her commitment to children, grandchildren, and young people of the country, but I do not agree with the administrative instrument to fulfil Government aspirations. I do not endorse everything the left side of the House is saying, but I do heed Darroch Ball’s cautionary words about reading the report more carefully. That is my view as well, I want to support the Government. I want to support the desire for the young people to grow up well in this country.

Last week I saw a kid about 16 years old, who was being raised by her nanny. Most of the time she was not going to school and, at the present time, she has left school. Her nanny is now eligible for the pension and this child does not want to be a burden to her nanny in her home. So that kid has left and gone out to look for work. WINZ, as a consequence, cut off her benefit and so the child is now sleeping on the street. She is looking for work, but where is her support? Where is the youth worker supporting this kid? She is sleeping on the street, she is looking—[Interruption]—the bill opposes! Without a doubt! But I do have a view about the young ones, about this kid—where is her helping hand? She went back to her nanny’s home, and why? To look for work, with the thought in her mind that by going back to her nanny’s place, she would be helping her nanny. That was her big wish.

As I look at her situation, I think about this bill and say to myself: now, if this kid is opposing the provisions of this bill and her benefit is denied, where is she? On the street! The law opposes this! The police will be after her! On that point, I can see the aspiration, the desire, and the heart of the Minister as far as this bill is concerned. However, I have also seen the youth who may have been out of line with the law as it stands. Where are they now? They have gone under! Who is looking after them? Where is their helper? I also think about those young ones who have a child, where the mother was 14 years old when the child was born, and a year later, when the mother is 15 years old, she has had to go out to look for work. Under this law, that young mother must go and look for work. That is the story, after 1 year she must go and look for work and, yes, if she has gained NCEA level 2. The situation changes completely when she becomes 19 years of age.

For that reason, we, the Māori Party, do not support the bill but endorse the aspiration and will continue to lend a helping hand, and for what reason? The commitment to the younger people! Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.]

Thank you for the opportunity to take this call to support the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to extend the Youth Service to 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered to be at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency.

For 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries there will be risk assessments done. We heard from Opposition members that that will stigmatise young people. Actually, these young people need help, and we want to help them. The risk assessment will be a very transparent process. It will include factors that are well accepted—for example, the level of education, involvement in employment or training, and contact with Child, Youth and Family or the justice system. These kinds of factors will be used for the risk assessment model.

Once a young person is referred to the Youth Service they will go through a consultation process, which will give them an opportunity to comment and also provide extra information about their background. Based on a risk assessment during the consultation process, Youth Service providers will also have an opportunity to understand the needs of that young person who is referred to the Youth Service. It is quite possible that during that consultation process Youth Service providers may feel that the young person being referred to the Youth Service actually does not need that referral, and the Ministry of Social Development can consider that recommendation and can actually withdraw the referral if appropriate.

We also heard about sanctions. Yes, when these young people are referred to the Youth Service they will have obligations to meet. If they meet their obligations, there will be incentives, and if they do not, there will be sanctions. Nineteen-year-old beneficiaries with children will be required to work towards the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 if they do not have NCEA level 2, and they will be required to take a budgeting and parenting course. Eighteen- and 19-year-old beneficiaries will also be required to work towards NCEA level 2 and take a budgeting course. If they do not meet their obligations, there will be sanctions. Sanctions are an important part of the Youth Service, because having sanctions has shown us an improvement in the level of compliance for the requirements that are there for Youth Service.

This is a great bill, which is to support young people so that they can have a better future. This Government is committed to providing that support to our young people. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I understand this is a split call from the Labour Party—Louisa Wall.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, nō reira, tōku tika ki te kōrero i runga i Te Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill hei māngai mā Te Reipa mō ngā tamariki.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and so, as spokesperson for Labour on children, it is my right to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill.]

I am the Labour spokesperson for youth affairs. Mahi pakeke tēnei pire. [This bill creates a lot of hard work.] Labour opposes this bill. We do so because from our perspective the intent of this bill is all wrong. I would like to quote: “One of the Government’s priority results for Better Public Services is to reduce long-term welfare dependence.” In February 2015 the Government set the following target for this result area: “By June 2018, a 25 per cent reduction (from 295,000 people in June 2014) in the total number of people receiving main benefits, and a $13 billion reduction in the long-term cost of benefit dependence.”, as measured by an accumulated actuarial release. So from our perspective children are not at the heart of this piece of legislation, in spite of what the Minister for Social Development and her Government say.

What is at the heart of this piece of legislation is saving $13 billion.

💬 Jono Naylor: No, it’s not.

That is the driving force behind that Better Public Services target, and other people may want to debate that, but if you truly did want to put children at the centre of policy, then you would find this side of the House 100 percent in support—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish.

—of any initiative that you proposed—100 percent supportive. So when you look at pieces of research like The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis by the Urban Institute, which was released in September 2013—if the Minister had read this piece of research, what it says is that obstacles for our tamariki’s healthy development are about the instabilities in their lives. The most important factor is actually having stable accommodation. Let us make sure that all of our children have a home, Minister. Let us make sure that all of our children have a home and that their parents can provide for them. Let us make sure that all of our parents have access to parental courses that are going to enable them to be the best possible parents that they can be.

That is not what this piece of legislation is committing to, or what it will provide for our most disadvantaged families. Kay Brereton from the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultation Group highlighted that through the select committee process for this legislation. We also heard from the Salvation Army, the Human Rights Commission, and the Attorney-General themselves, which said that this Government was actively discriminating against 18 and 19-year-old citizens. So for the Government to say that children are at the heart of everything that it does is actually factually incorrect, based on submissions that we had from number of parties.

So if we want to work alongside our children—and we heard from my colleague Jan Logie earlier—then the empowerment model that we would use is not punitive. We would not be penalising our young parents who do not want to leave their babies who are 6 months old. That is what this piece of legislation forces our young parents to do—to leave their 6-month-old babies and seek either full-time study or work-based training opportunities. What I say to this Minister and that Government is, what about that 6-month-old baby? What if we put that 6-month-old baby at the heart of this piece of legislation? What would we do? We would make sure that 6-month-old baby had a home.

So if this Government said that every child who has a child is going to have secure accommodation, that those children are going to be looked after, that their parents will be entitled to every single piece of support that they are eligible for, and that we are not going to put ceilings on them, and did not say that we will support your education only if you can get to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 but, actually, that we fully and totally supported them to have dreams and aspirations, then this side of the House would be voting in support of this piece of legislation. But that is not what this piece of legislation is doing. That is not the intent of this piece of legislation.

Some people on the other side need to read their Better Public Services targets, because all of the targets are about money. It is all about saving money for the Government so that next year you can give big tax cuts to New Zealanders who do not need them, because you do not want to provide services to those who are most in need. So I am really proud to stand on the side of the House that puts children at the centre of what we do. Thank you.

Tēnā koe. That was a very impassioned speech by my colleague Louisa Wall, and I could not agree more. I want to take a slightly different tack in my contribution, and this is to address a concern that I have raised in many debates on this particular piece of legislation. It is about the evaluation of the effectiveness of this particular programme, because, frankly, we have not seen any evaluation that this programme actually does what it has been designed to do. Despite numerous calls from this side of the House to see the evidence that this programme actually works, we have yet to actually see that evidence in action.

I want to discuss this from the point of view of supporting community agencies that every single day support young people to parent well, to get education, and to do the best that they can. Every single agency that I have ever worked for as a community services person, if it has any contributory Government funding, has had to have a stringent requirement that the programmes that it delivers are not only evaluated but are evaluated towards their effectiveness. Every single partner to the Government in the community sector has to do that, yet this Government can stand by and say that it can deliver programmes that have not had full evaluation. We do not know that this programme will actually deliver what it says it is going to deliver, yet the Government requires community partners to jump through hoops every single day to ensure that they can get contributory funding—not full funding from the Government, but contributory funding.

So I believe that what is happening here is that the Government, in many of its conversations about partnerships with community agencies, is talking about softening up the people of New Zealand to dumping some of those smaller agencies and going to the super-agencies, because this Government does not know how to partner with communities. It cannot partner with multiple agencies to deal with the breadth of issues that this piece of legislation is designed to correct. This Government just does not know how to have relationships with communities, so it sets up these super-agencies, bypassing all of the good work that our community agencies have been required to do, year in, year out. It does not know how to have relationships with communities.

It does not know the complexity of issues that surround young people who are wanting to get into education or employment, or to parent well. It is not just about reaching National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. As my colleague says, it is about getting into decent housing that they know that they can be in for a period of time that they determine, and building connections into their communities. That is actually what sits at the heart of sustainability. That is what will develop those young people into people who can be good parents and go on to have fulfilling lives.

Do not get me wrong—the Government has taken some measures to look at programmes. Let us not forget that this Government has embarked upon a reform programme for some time. I recall when this Government started looking at vulnerable children in 2011 and 2012. We all recall the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children, which then became the Children’s Action Plan. At that time it promised much. I remember talking to Minister Paula Bennett at the time, saying: “Thank you for giving us the opportunity to do this piece of work.” Unfortunately, the Government did not deliver on what was promised. It did not deliver an action plan that will support our children to grow up to lead the fulfilling lives that they deserve.

We cannot support this bill. It is a shame, because our young people and our children deserve so much better.

It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the Hon Anne Tolley on caring so much about our young people, in bringing this bill to its third reading today.

We know that the social investment approach works because more than half of those who exit the programme remain independent of benefits 3 months later. We believe in the potential of all of our young people, and we want to support those most at risk to be meaningful contributors to society as a whole but, more important, to their families and to their own children. That is why Budget 2016 included a $652 million social investment package. This bill will make a positive difference and I commend it to the House.