Logie Jan: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3580. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to join this conversation as well around the detail of this Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill which as we have stated before the Green Party is not supporting. It is quite difficult to speak to Part 1 of the bill because there are so many many points to make in relation to it all of which feel very important and quite substantive. So I am going to try to limit myself which is going to be difficult. I would just like to pick up on some of the comments that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development has made and speak a little bit to the idea of the wraparound service. It sounds fantastic. It sounds like a really good thing to get alongside young people and connect and help them build on their strengths to be able to achieve their potential which is that model of youth development that we have learnt over time is effective. 
The problem is that this bill is based on a deficit model. It is identifying young people who are on varying degrees of the scale of being at risk whereas with the strengths-based model that this whole sector has spent years developing it is recognised that when we focus on the risk we actually develop the risk. When we focus on the strengths we build the strengths. We need to be working with each young person where they are at and be building trust and relationships and giving young people things to do that they can do. They are the things that make a difference in youth development. 
This bill by setting the point of NCEA level 2 by requiring those community providers to report on the young people—potentially resulting in sanctions—undermines trust and relationship. This bill by defining young people on degrees of risks undermines the analysis of strength-based development. 
I will speak a little bit more to the NCEA level 2 challenge and particularly I would like to challenge the concept that all of the evidence tells us that NCEA level 2 is the point that makes the difference. When I was trying to get the evidence to show me that because I do believe in checking things out and making sure my assumptions are not wrong I tried to find the evidence around that and whether it was school-based NCEA level 2 or NCEA level 2 outside of school. It seems to me that the evidence is based on school because when you step outside of that school system it becomes a hotchpotch of unit standards that do not even guarantee that basic literacy and numeracy have been achieved. It could be a completely random collection of educational points that do not create a comprehensive pattern of learning. The comprehensive pattern of learning and development is what makes the difference. 
I have seen some of the educational providers and some of the outcomes for young people who are working in that system and it is not rigorous. So for those young people who are up to it that is not actually going to be aspirational for them at all. I do not believe that for every young person it is for us to strive for them when I hear from young people who have been refugees and who had never been to school before they came to New Zealand at say the age of 13 who do not even have reading or writing in their own first language. Their response to the idea of NCEA level 2 and their being helped to strive to achieve that was just no because that is actually overwhelming and demotivating whereas good teaching is based on a student-centred approach. We develop the strengths and the aspirations for those young people from where they are at. That is not about making assumptions. That is not about characterising them and not expecting enough for them in the world. That is just good practice. This bill undermines that good practice. 
I also have concerns around—oh so many things—the human rights. I will just touch on this briefly. This bill undermines and breaches human rights in terms of age in terms of marital status and in terms of several other points around gender and employment status. There have been conflicting views around this. Some people have said that it is justified because the end goal of getting people into work justifies that breach of human rights. The Minister for Social Development when there was a criticism by the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights said that if the committee had seen the detail of the bill it would not have had that criticism. The problem was that the committee had seen the detail of the bill in the draft form. So to stand up and say that there are not breaches of human rights in this is actually saying that this Government’s perspective holds primacy over the UN committee’s perspectives it holds primacy over the Human Rights Commission’s perspective and it holds primacy over the Children’s Commissioner’s perspective. It holds primacy over so many organisations whose daily bread is human rights. That to me seems arrogant. 
I believe that human rights are important. I do not believe that this Committee should be undermining people’s human rights blithely without exceptionally good reason. I do not believe that this bill has anything behind it that comes anywhere near exceptionally good reason. 
I would also like to just speak briefly to our Supplementary Order Paper 78 which is to extend the training incentive allowance and bring that back because currently level 4 study and above are not eligible for the training incentive allowance. When the Government talks about the answer to child poverty being getting parents off the DPB and getting them into work that sounds reasonable. But when the evidence shows us that one of the best ways of keeping people off the benefit—particularly women—is that level 4 and above study and the Government is not willing to actually fund that and include that in the bill then we really have to question the integrity of this approach. We are asking the Government to reconsider that and to extend it back up to degree-level courses because we know those higher-paid jobs actually give women that flexibility in terms of their employment that makes it so much easier for them to stay in employment and look after their kids. We know that higher-paid jobs are more likely to have those support mechanisms around them. 
I will end my speech there. We just encourage the Government to consider the underlying principles; reconsider the underlying principles of this bill and get back to the things that will make a difference.