Martin Tracey: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Martin Tracey: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3583. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 Kia ora. I rise to speak to section 123F in clause 18 particularly in Part 1 of the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I rise to speak as New Zealand First spokesperson on youth; as a mother of a 17-year-old who is about to be affected by this bill as he leaves school at the end of this year; as a woman working with the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs; as somebody who spent some time with Dale Williams down in Otorohanga— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The House in Committee is resumed on the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Members when we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 1 and Tracey Martin had the call; she has about 4½ minutes left. But just before the member takes the call I should inform the Committee about a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Jan Logie—an amendment that is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78. I have received a certification where the Government is exercising a financial veto which rules that particular amendment out of order. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just to seek clarification does the ruling out of order of that amendment thereby mean that reference to it in the debate is also out of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Technically yes. So I call Tracey Martin. Yes—the answer is yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I was going to say! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look OK. Sorry. Just for clarification it is my hope that when I say: “Speak to the bill.” or “It is out of order.” the Committee actually acknowledges that. I was being a little subtle and I apologise to the Committee. The answer is yes. 
TRACEY MARTIN 
: Kia ora. As I was saying before the break I rise to speak as New Zealand First’s youth spokesperson I rise as a mother of a 17-year-old I rise as the chairman of the board of Mahurangi College I rise as a person working on the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs and I rise as the holder of the youth portfolio for the Rodney local board of the Auckland Council. So this is an area I have a great deal of passion about. I am dealing particularly with section 123F in clause 18; there is a lot in this bill but I am going to focus on just 123F. The regulatory impact statement refers to 3307 sixteen and seventeen-year-olds whom this youth package will affect. The Minister and Mr Macindoe in his second reading speech referred to the 14000 young people not in employment education or training which is “neet”. And the suggestion through those references is that those are the young people whom this bill will affect. Those are the young people—that is the extent of the young people whom this bill will affect. 
In reality there are 188470 sixteen to eighteen-year-olds in New Zealand who when this bill passes will be tracked by their National Student Number through the Ministry of Social Development and the country does not know that. The country does not know that every single one of those 16 and 17-year-olds when they leave school no matter where they leave school to go to—whether that be a job whether that be into tertiary education or into a tech or on to a benefit—will have their data handed over to the Ministry of Social Development and then a risk analysis will be done on them. A risk analysis will be done on them and their families and that risk analysis is to figure out what sort of risk they are to us as a nation of ever going on a benefit. Then they will be categorised through that risk analysis—188470 citizens will have a risk analysis done on them by the Ministry of Social Development when this bill passes. However the Ministry of Social Development does not have the workforce to do it so the Ministry of Social Development is going to have to contract out that analysis to private providers. 
I pick up on this point now about providers. I am a person who also spent some time with Dale Williams down in Otorohanga looking at that model and I can understand that the Minister has attempted to take what is a highly successful model. The Otorohanga model is built on a community that gives a damn and actually has wrapped around their young people and come up with solutions for their town but you cannot take a community-based model and stretch it across the country Minister. I am sorry you cannot. 
I appreciate also that those contracts have recently gone out and again I point to the fact that I work in the Rodney local board area of Auckland City which is 46 percent of the land mass of Auckland. Four contracts were given out around for the provisions inside this bill to work with youth in this area and to cover the Auckland region: two of them in South Auckland one of them in central Auckland and one of them that reaches as far as Takapuna. There are no provisions inside the Rodney local board area—covering 46 percent of the land mass of Auckland City—inside the current contracts that have been handed out and actually provision has been removed. Springboard and the men’s centre in Helensville and the others working in Wellsford—two areas particularly that have social deprivation scores of 8 and some severe youth issues—are now going to have to seek other funding. They are going to have to fight for other funding Minister. I think that is a shame and we are frightened. We are actually frightened that this model which is being stretched across the country which is being delivered in this way is going to leave us out in the cold. And we want to participate. Our communities want to duplicate replicate and work with the Otorohanga model. We care for our young. We want to participate and we feel shut out in the way that the model in this bill currently puts that provision into our space. So I speak out of all those things.