Logie Jan; Hudson BrettJAN LOGIE (Green): There are a few different points I would like to make in this contribution. I would like to go back to the Minister's previous contribution when she started her speech by saying I don't know what the Opposition are talking about when they are talking about children and families and cars. This has got nothing to do with sole parents." I think I remember her saying. Well if you look at the front page of the bill and you look at the main purpose of it that being to extend the Youth Service "This bill would extend the existing Youth Service to: all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children; 18- and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency."Hon Anne Tolley: That's what I said.JAN LOGIE: Ha ha! No Minister that is not what came across in your speech. You were saying it was not about children and so the concerns of people talking about children and families were irrelevant to this. But actually when it covers all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children I think talking about families is relevant. When we talk about cars that is relevant because this is extending the sanction regime there are extended obligations and there are more opportunities for sanctions to a larger group of people. So therefore when people have the ability for their income to be cut it makes it harder to pay your rent and it makes it harder to keep a roof over your head. So it is not a long stretch to be talking about families and to be talking about cars. The Minister also talked about how it was more important to focus on the benefit rates rather than "neets" because for those young people who are not in employment education or training well that is just irrelevant because they might just be happy not to be in employment education or training. I still have not heard the argument about why the unemployment rates are more important than engaged young people who are either setting themselves up to further their education in order to participate in life or to do so through employment. Why—why—is the unemployed receiving a benefit the critical factor? I still have not heard the argument for that.Hon Hekia Parata: Because they cost money.JAN LOGIE: Because—pardon? I just heard some mumbling over there. I could not quite work that out. We also heard that the evidence is clear that this is the way to go forward except actually the evidence is deeply contested. It is not clear. What we know is that what the Government has conceptualised as an investment approach is actually predictive risk modelling. The quality of the information that you put into that model will affect the outcome—sorry Mr Chair not you. The quality of the information that the Government puts in will affect the outcome as well as the quality of the programme as well as what you are driving all of this towards. We know that the data that the Government is talking about at the moment that it is going to put into this is Child Youth and Family contact educational outcomes and gender. We know that that data shows 58 percent of young people who are in contact on a care and protection basis with Child Youth and Family are Māori. We heard very disturbing comments from officials regarding whether this may have significant consequences for Māori in terms of their alienation from the system and whether it may be perceived that you could not put in race as one of those factors because that would be perceived as racist—fairly—but whether actually you may have the same result because of that sway through Child Youth and Family in terms of the data. Their response was "Don't worry we'll get them anyway." That is of concern to the Green Party. There are so many stories that have been told in this House and all of us know of people in their experience at school in their experiences with the police and in their experiences with Child Youth and Family who recognise racism is a problem in our country. If we are putting data into this model that is reliant on the results of institutionalised racism then we are at risk of exacerbating the harm of that. We cannot allow that to happen. This legislation will do that. Also we do not have evidence that the programme which is the middle stage of this whole process is working. As we know the number of young people not in education and training is increasing. The analysis of the success of this scheme is not comprehensive. We do not have comprehensive data for that yet. This Government which continually tells us it is being data driven and it is all about the data is not giving us the data to be able to prove and justify this. It has been happening and available for this group of people and it is extending it to adults. That has been widely criticised by the Salvation Army by the Family Violence Clearinghouse and by other organisations that are very worried about this and rightly so. We do not have the evidence as yet that this approach and the programmes being provided work. I have given the critique already about where this is driving. There is no explicit target about improving the well-being opportunities or life outcomes of our young people. It is solely about reducing welfare financial liability. That drives the work. That is not for the benefit of us in this society. I also just want to pick up on the Government's Supplementary Order Papers and there is a fair stack of them that have been added I think in the last couple of days that have not actually been considered by the select committee. A significant number of them are technical but not all of them. Some of them actually have substantive impact and I would like to recognise the proposed new clause 27A on Supplementary Order Paper 182 which amends section 170 to require young people to provide details of accommodation costs service costs lawful debt and liabilities. I recognise that they are already required to provide that information but by moving that provision after section 170(1)(e) it clarifies that a failure to provide that information within 20 working days is an obligation failure and it may attract sanctions. There are two points I want to make about this amendment which has not been considered by the public and has not been considered by the Social Services Committee. I would suggest that the fact that the Government is moving this provision into the place that enables it to apply sanctions and that time frame of 20 days means that some young people are resisting providing that information. So these young people are not necessarily—despite what the Government would seem to suggest to us—loving this service and finding it fabulous and supportive and strength-based. Actually some of these young people who have been put into this service are resisting it and I can understand why they might and further sanctions have been put in place to force them to provide very personal details to these people who are supposed to be changing their lives. I suggest that this is actually an indication of the failure of the system. Another aspect that has been brought in in terms of these amendments which have been brought to this House very late in the day is a new provision extending the new sanctions regime to all young people on money management effectively. It also provides that if a young spouse or partner of a specified beneficiary who is not subject to money management fails to comply with an obligation placed on the young person under that same section that failure is again treated as failure to comply with the work test or with work preparation obligations and it attracts relevant sanctions. I think it is dodgy to bring amendments to the House that further extend the ability to apply sanctions without public scrutiny without proper process and without the consideration of the select committee. I really am quite concerned about what the Minister has brought to this House and I think people should be questioning the Government on that. I would also like to bring up another point which is not central—oh no actually I would like to go back to another point when the Minister was talking about how great this is and there was mention made of youth development. In our society we have an issue with violence. Many of these young people will have experienced violence in their childhood and what that does—BRETT HUDSON (National): I move That the question be now put."