Logie Jan: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Logie Jan: Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2872. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise to anyone in this House I suspect that the Green Party will be voting against this bill the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill tonight. We oppose this bill for many reasons many of which were just listed by my colleague Su’a William Sio. They reflect the concerns of the people and organisations that got their submissions in but also those that we consulted directly because we were not satisfied that 10 days to get in submissions was long enough. I will be sharing some of those comments directly this evening. 
The Green Party does not believe welfare is all about the individual and our belief is based on several pieces of evidence. Between 1999 and 2008 the number of people on the unemployment benefit plummeted from 161000 to 17000 because the economy was doing better. The number of young girls having babies is trending down without Government intervention. The proportion of sole parents with jobs has increased since the 1990s and has started levelling off only as job growth has slowed.  
 Most people on the DPB are on it for a very limited period of time. Less than 10 percent of current recipients have received the DPB continuously for 10 years or more. We also know that there are really significant and valid actually reasons for people needing the DPB. A large percentage of women accessing the DPB do so for reasons of domestic violence and CCS Disability Action told us during submissions that 25.8 percent of people on the DPB have children with disabilities whom they are caring for. There have also been numerous pieces of research in this country that have clearly demonstrated discrimination in the job market especially based on race age and ability. All of this evidence speaks to structural issues that will not be addressed by this legislation. 
Although the Green Party rejects the individualistic approach for the reasons mentioned above I do understand that at least it is a consistent philosophy for the National Party even if it is not supported by all the evidence. But in the words of the feminist icon John Armstrong National appears to have one rule for women and no rules for men. Mr Key said last year 4300 children were born to mothers on a benefit—a shockingly high figure 4300—so this Government is changing the law to try to stop this changing the law in a way that will potentially take mothers away from their babies once they are 1 year old. Yet all the while the Government is not doing anything to track down the estimated 30000—yes 30000—or so fathers who have left it to the State to pay for the upbringing of their children leaving us with a debt of $2.3 billion. In the words of a woman who has used the services of Women’s Refuge: “I’ve a $30000 debt from studying a level 4 course. My ex has reduced child support to nothing while he continues to travel around the world and tell the kids he doesn’t have any money because he’s giving it all to me. My ex is on over $120000 and honestly thinks he’s poor. I honestly don’t think they know what it’s like not to have $3 to buy milk or to have your phone cut off because you can’t pay the bill what it’s like to have to go through the systems and beg just to look after your kids.” For this House to be considering easing up on child support payments while increasing work testing for women on the DPB and cutting the training incentive allowance for higher-level courses is a validation of that man’s disproportionate sense of entitlement. 
Several submitters through the submission period spoke about the punishment of beneficiaries and the stigmatisation. John Key and the Minister for Social Development have said that beneficiaries need a kick in the pants that beneficiaries are living a dream choosing a lifestyle and have to use a food bank only because they are making poor choices or do not know how to budget. These comments alongside the vilification and misrepresentation of beneficiaries who dare to put their name to their concerns create the context of this bill. This lifestyle or dream has been described by one of the women I spoke to: “When I left”—a violent relationship—“I looked online for forms and information and went in. But it turned out I hadn’t filled in the right forms or didn’t have the right ID or something so I had to get another appointment. That happened so often. It’s really humiliating and demoralising sitting waiting always waiting then having to tell a random person your story in front of the whole office. The other day I was telling my story again and the woman next to me was saying ‘Oh that’s terrible! They really have to give it to you.’ That was nice but sometimes you just don’t want everyone knowing your story.” That is the dream. 
The new model of a wraparound service for young people is promising a lot—except jobs—but in the words of a young woman who used the independent youth benefit recently: “I have friends who go to places and they promise promise promise and then more people come in and they forget and my friends just get lost.” Although tying funding to outcomes may be a motivator for the organisations to get their act together this is really specialised work and trust is particularly hard to build especially when you are going to have to report the young person to Work and Income if they do not comply. In the words of another young woman who knows: “Service providers need to take time to get behind the front. We learn to have a front to be tough. Once you cut their benefit they’ll just get more gangster—more crazy. More crime is going to happen for sure. You can always swap your food card for drugs and smokers will just go to the dairy and steal them.” 
The Green Party agreed with the presenters who wanted to see the successful schemes like the one in Otorohanga and Southland’s Work’n it Out replicated. We believe in investing in young people. Rather than create a whole new scheme that is not grounded in evidence and that creates ethical challenges that have meant that a lot of respected providers have not applied for contracts we would replicate the programmes that work. 
Another submitter talked about the difficulties created by the payment cards. They worried about the extra level of bureaucracy being placed between a young person and finding a new place to live when their flatting situations are often pretty unstable and the mixed message that a payment card sends by locking young people into more expensive shopping options compared with farmers’ markets or second-hand stores while supposedly teaching them good financial management. 
Other youth workers and the Children’s Commissioner raised concerns about setting National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 as the benchmark. For young people who have been out of the school system for long periods of their life—and some of them have not ever been in it from being refugees—this is likely to be demotivating to say the least. 
Young mothers and other submitters all raised concerns regarding the lack of availability of appropriate courses in childcare. Along with numerous submitters we reject the view that parenting is not valuable work. In the words of another woman: “And honestly monitoring and caring for a teenager can be a full-time job. I am actually really frightened about going back to work. Even my parents who are very conservative anti-welfare churchgoing people have told me I need to stay off work. They said—which hurt at the time—that ‘You’ve been so focused on managing your relationship for the last 13 years that your kids haven’t had the love and attention that they’ve been waiting for.’ If I worked I’d have some more money but no time. The kids need anger management counselling and help with managing their father as well as just some focus.” 
The drivers for welfare are many and complex and so the answers need to be comprehensive. The Green Party is ambitious enough to believe that we can work together with business local government and community to create a productive economy that in turn feeds an inclusive society.