Logie Jan: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11582. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): Talofa lava Mr Speaker. The Green Party is voting against the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill.I just heard from the previous speaker Jono Naylor that the National Government has aspirations for young people yet it seems to believe they are incapable of having aspirations or achieving them themselves. I have to point out that its actions do not match its words. This is the Government that removed the training incentive allowance for higher-level courses which means that most sole parents who had aspirations to be able to get into well-paid jobs and to have a career that will support them properly and support their children are now stuck in lower-level education that is funnelling them into low-wage jobs that it will be very hard for them to get out of. That is not what I call aspiration.We are opposing this bill for many reasons. It is the flagship of the Government’s investment approach to everything which is increasingly being critiqued by a wide range of organisations from the Morgan Foundation to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to child advocacy organisations.I would like to comment on some of the analysis from the Morgan Foundation where it talked about what makes a data analytics or predictive risk modelling approach work—because that is what we are talking about. The Government uses the language “investment approach” but actually this is predictive risk modelling. Whether it will work depends on three things: whether the people running it can recognise the data that matters; whether the programmes that they then funnel people into are effective; and finally whether the outcomes that it is all driving towards are the right ones.The Green Party is concerned that this model effectively entrenches this predictive risk modelling with criteria that are open to change. This model will be used to decide which young people will have more obligations put on them and exceptional scrutiny and supervision by the State. We have been told that the modelling is likely to consider educational outcomes prior contact with the Department of Child Youth and Family gender and reasons for leaving school. And we do know that although ethnicity is not a criterion 58 percent of young people who are in Child Youth and Family care are Māori. We know there is a bias against Māori in policing and there is definite evidence to suggest a bias within Child Youth and Family. The Green Party is deeply concerned that existing biases within the system will be exacerbated by this initiative and that young people who have in all likelihood already had very negative experiences of the State will feel further marginalised.I raised this with an official during the Social Services Committee’s consideration of this bill: acknowledging that clearly they could not identify Māori as being a risk factor—because obviously that would be perceived as being racist—and asked whether they were concerned that the effect of using contact with Child Youth and Family as a risk factor might still target Māori. The official said: “Don’t worry we’ll get them anyway.” This did not inspire confidence in me. And considering the very negative experiences of Māori with State services real efforts need to be made to acknowledge the needs of Māori and address racism within the systems before creating another system that will channel Māori identify them as risks and increase the State’s supervision of them. On this basis alone the Green Party cannot support this bill.Further this risk modelling requires increased information sharing between education services Child Youth and Family and Work and Income and potentially other core social services in the future. Although health information is currently not included it could be in the future without parliamentary oversight in that decision-making process. We are concerned at this level of information sharing for the purpose of placing increased restrictions and supervision on to certain groups of people—particularly when the policy is yet to be proven effective. We are starting to hear more and more stories of people not going to Work and Income for housing or other help because they are worried that their personal information is going to be shared with other people—their employers or other agencies—and that that fear is stopping people from getting the help that they need. This initiative potentially increases that fear and the risk that people will not have confidence in the system and will not get the help that they are entitled to and that they need.This was all about the data going into the system. We also need to consider the effectiveness of these interventions. The first thing to consider is that we know that the numbers of young people who are not in employment education or training have gone up under this Government under this type of model and that the Youth Service is still a relatively new intervention and comprehensive data is not yet available to establish whether the service is even effective or not. That is not the time to be extending it to people who are actually considered adults in our law. When this Government says that it is all about the data it should apply that principle to its policy making and make sure it has the data before it extends any legislation.The Green Party shares the view of the Salvation Army that “the proposed extension of ‘young persons services’ and the associated obligation and sanctions to 18 and 19 year olds is a clear example of the State placing its policy objectives ahead of the legitimate rights of citizens and that as a practice this is unwise and unfair.” That is a very considered and measured commentary on what this is doing.Concerns were also raised by Kay Brereton on behalf of the National Beneficiary Advocacy Group about how the service currently operates. Clearly we all support wraparound services that are strength based for young people but she pointed out that making young people’s incomes dependent on meeting certain obligations fundamentally changed for worse the relationship between young people and the people who are supposed to be in the position of helping them. Community organisations and the people who are running these programmes have always been there traditionally alongside young people focusing on their strengths and helping them to build those strengths to move forward and achieve their aspirations. This bill puts those organisations into the role of police with the requirement to cut those young people’s incomes if they do not meet their obligations. That is absolutely changing the structure of our society for the worse.Increasing international evidence shows that interventions that work best are less targeted are unconditional and involve extra cash. So we do not support a measure that uses our precious resources to increase targeting and conditions. It is strongly risk based rather than strength based.Finally of course the usefulness of all of this modelling depends on what outcomes you are driving towards. This Government has set up a system where the goal of it all is to move people off benefits to save Government money. It is not about increasing skills in our society. It is not about even giving people access to higher-paid jobs or achieving their aspirations or even—in a very limited sense in terms of looking at children—access to quality accessible childcare. No it is only about reducing the future financial liability to this Government.That is not a society. That is not how we look after each other. In this country how you move ahead is by actually taking responsibility and making sure that people have the resources to participate and achieve their aspirations. We absolutely oppose this bill.There is one more aspect of this bill that is deeply offensive which is that it removes a right of appeal and limits the right of appeal in review to decisions about people only to the person involved. This has quite a significant impact when there are shared custody arrangements. In 2012 the Social Security Appeal Authority heard the case of a mother whose child was granted an unsupported child’s benefit payable to another caregiver and ruled that the law allowed affected people to appeal. This bill reverses and removes that right of appeal; it gives people only the right to judicial appeal which requires legal aid. And that is an offence to the rights of natural justice.