Rurawhe Adrian: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 23 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5306. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon. It has been an interesting debate and I propose to add to it. We as my colleagues have already stated will support the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill through to a select committee. We do that with some trepidation and a lot of concern but we think that the best place to examine this further is at a select committee. There are some good things in this bill and as I have said there are some things that we are very concerned about. My overall comment on this is that although the age of eligibility has been increased to 19 years old by this bill it also seems that the Government is raising the threshold for qualifying for these services.I turn my attention to the regulatory impact statement. In point 87 it refers to the statistical risk model. In point 88 it states: “The risk model is purely a statistical tool so cannot include all factors that determine someone’s risk of remaining on benefit (eg gang affiliation or the presence of tattoos on the face may affect the chances of a person finding employment but cannot be captured by a risk model). However additional factors such as these will be able to be added manually by Work and Income case managements or Youth Services providers to indicate that a young person is at greater or lower risk than the risk model might suggest.” I think that we need to examine that really closely. It relies on the judgment of a Work and Income case manager and I think that more and more the feedback that I am getting from that sector is that the caseworkers are having to carry out the role of social workers and they are not appropriately qualified as social workers. I think it would be much better if this work were carried out by a social worker. There should not be judgment. They should be robust assessments by an appropriately qualified worker and I think this process is flawed and it needs to be examined more closely.I think also I am bound to ask the question and probably answer the question as well as to how this fits with the Government’s Whānau Ora policy. To me this is in direct conflict with the Government’s Whānau Ora policy. Let me explain. If we were applying a Whānau Ora model to making an assessment of all the benefits of these young people you would include the entire family and you would ask about the aspirations of that family not make judgments based on what a young person looks like because that is what this regulatory impact statement is saying. We are going to look at the person and there might be some things that are not captured within this statistical risk tool and that Work and Income worker will then make a judgment on whether that person is actually a low risk or a higher risk and then from that judgment determine whether they will qualify to participate or be required to participate in this programme or be excluded from it.The Whānau Ora model the Government’s policy that I am talking about says that it ought to be about the family’s the whānau’s aspirations—how you would work with just part of the whānau in this instance. As my colleague Jenny Salesa spoke about most of the people whom we are talking about are Pacific Islanders and Māori—a great percentage of them. Until we get to the stage—and the Auditor-General pointed this out in her report as the failing of the Government’s Whānau Ora policy—where there is communication between Work and Income New Zealand and the social services and as part of that Whānau Ora policy then we are not dealing with the fundamental issues that affect the members of our families. I propose to the select committee that it look very closely at these issues. They are not simple issues to be resolved overnight and certainly not by the bill as it stands at present.My colleague Carmel Sepuloni also raised some very valid issues which I totally endorse. The issues that the bill purports to address I think are only partially addressed. Of course I am also bound to comment on the level of payment. It is as Carmel Sepuloni pointed out more stick than carrot. I think that based on the members opposite and their contributions to this debate about the future savings within this bill surely how it is helping those parents who are required to engage in education which I think is a great thing to be able to do that ought to be looked at. I think $10 is at the very lowest level that you could possibly have. I suppose $9 $8 $7 or lower would be even worse but when you think about the costs that some parents will have to pay to actually get to their educational course $10 is not much to assist them. I think that the select committee should explore that. Also the regulatory impact statement has got some cost analysis. I have not had a lot of time to dig too deeply into it but it would seem to me that there is enough scope within the savings that will be made. As my colleague Jenny Salesa pointed out preventing people from going to prison is going to save our country a lot of money in the long term. I think that $10 is very much on the low side.I think also in respect of the requirement for someone to participate in this at the age of say 19 years and 8 months and someone who is at the age of 20 that there is a significant difference between what is required of the person 19 years and 8 months old and the 20-year-old person in terms of the age of their child as to when they then have to go to these courses. I think you cannot have a one-size-fits-all model and there should be some transition between those ages. I think that the select committee ought to look at those as well.Those are the main points that I want to make in this debate. I think there have been some comments made that are totally outside of this bill today and I am not proposing to add to them. But I just want to say that we are actually talking about real people’s lives—real people who matter. I can think of a whole host of constituents in my electorate who will be affected by this bill and I want it to be the best that it can be. That is why we are supporting the bill in its first reading.