Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lole-Taylor Asenati: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 17 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the party that takes pride in its good judgment on genuine practical policies that help address the social security issues of this country New Zealand. That party is New Zealand First—of course. Allow me to say that when people try to tell me how bad things are right now I have to say “Tell that to the National Government; tell that to the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett; and of course tell that especially to Peseta Lotu-Iiga who chairs the Social Services Committee.” because those are the people who have ignored 99 percent of the submitters who opposed the bill. This bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is being sold to the people of New Zealand using the phrase “transforming the benefit system into one that is modern active and work-focused for adults and education-focused for young people.” I want to acknowledge the Minister for her efforts in acknowledging that this is an issue in our country of Aotearoa; I want to acknowledge her for that. One thing I know for sure is that the intention behind this bill is a good idea. However any good idea must have good strategies for a successful delivery in order to achieve the best outcomes. 
Part 1 of this bill focuses on substantive provisions taking effect on 30 July now 20 August—in other words as soon as possible. It also means that time management and organisational skills are probably not high on the Minister’s agenda I must say. National intends to rush this legislation through without informing the public especially those individuals who would be affected by the changes in the bill. 
 We know of course that the aim of the bill is “to provide services to encourage and help young persons to move to education training and employment rather than to receiving financial support under this Act. The interpretation of “contracted service provider”—mentioned in section 125A(1) and in section 123E which are both inserted in Part 1—is extremely broad. It is extremely broad and allows for any party that can be seen to assist in the aim of this bill to be contracted. So we do have a concern in this area. If we are to allow these third parties to be contracted to provide services surely we also need to put in place ways to assess and test these service providers’ work and performance. Sufficient audits and safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that these service providers are actually assisting young people into employment and training—proper training that is. 
It is admirable that we spend money and that young people spend time with these providers but at the end of the day if there are no jobs this whole operation fails. There is an apprehension as to whether these service providers are even competent enough. That is the question we need to ask. Are they competent enough in providing helpful services? And what will make these services any different from someone sitting today at a desk at Work and Income and telling a young person to go on to the website seek.co.nz for a job while knowing full well that there are thousands of others in the same position? What is the difference? 
The aim “to encourage and help young persons to move to education training and employment” is a very broad definition. What defines “encourage” and “help”? That is another question. The aim “to move to education training employment” is reiterated in the section dealing with contracted service providers. I am just wondering. Are we looking at not training young people not educating young people or not employing young people but rather at encouraging and helping?