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: 18 July 2012. Volume:681;Page:3674. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to now talk to the title of the bill which is the Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill and to take us back in time a little bit to actually look at what the original Social Security Act was about so that we have a bit more of a sense of the context of this.  
Back in 1972 the National Government put together a Royal Commission on Social Security in New Zealand. This commission after extensive thinking and consultation advocated that as a country we move from security to welfare—to quote it—“to ensure … that everyone is able to enjoy a standard of living much like that of the rest of the community and thus is able to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community;”. In the commission’s thinking there was a need to shift from the very basic safety net against unforeseen or unavoidable misfortune. Welfare was to be an agency for the promotion of the welfare of every one of our citizens. Although I can hear the Government saying that we just want to go back in time it is not true. I would note that in this bill and the previous Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill it has been the Government that has been regressing even further back in time almost back to the 1950s. To me it harks back to a time when single mothers were scorned and put under undue economic pressure to stay in bad relationships and to a time when women who dared to speak up were slapped right back down again. But back in the 1970s they seemed to have understood a basic truth that this Government seems to have lost—that we all benefit socially and economically when we invest in our people. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Two matters under the Standing Orders: not relevant and reading from a text. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is the presiding officer’s prerogative to make those calls. The reason for that and the Standing Orders at the select committee made it quite clear is that such mechanisms can be used to interrupt a speech. So it is the prerogative of the presiding officer. 
JAN LOGIE 
: And we have recent research that backs this up. University of Otago research published just this year in  
Social Science and Medicine 
 investigated the impacts of family poverty on children up to the ages of 10 and how this reflected in later life. It showed that poverty and low income during childhood is associated in adolescence and adulthood with poorer educational achievement lower earnings and higher rates of welfare dependency up to the age of 30. The results held true even when a range of childhood and other family factors were taken into account. For this cohort of 987 individuals the major effects of being brought up in a poor family appear to be a significant reduction in both educational achievement and earning opportunities that is still evident at 30 noted the professor. In contrast the children of families who were in the top 25 percent of income earners were more likely to leave school with high qualifications and more likely to go to university and have higher incomes. These results reflect a wide range of other international studies demonstrating the impact of childhood poverty on later life outcomes.  
So for the purpose of this bill to say it is about social security about a work focus and in the content of the bill to be extending work sanctions and for the Government not to be willing to accept our Supplementary Order Papers on the training incentive allowance or the absolute protection for children to ensure that they are fed clothed and their well-being is taken care of to me seems to be pretty much of a guarantee that we are going to keep on seeing these negative outcomes flow through for people later in life. This is the absolute opposite of an investment approach. We are introducing a deficit analysis and approach to our young people. This Government’s approach is a wilful ignorance of the need for money to function in our society. The only mention of financial support in this bill is the preference not to provide it. We do not want anyone stuck on a benefit. In fact we absolutely believe that most people want to work and contribute.