Sepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11576. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We continue at this stage to support this bill but we do have major reservations. I am signalling now to the Government that at the Committee stage we will have amendments that we want made and it is likely that our support at the third reading will be contingent on those amendments. I want to talk to the reasons why we do have some level of support for this bill but also why we have such strong reservations.We know that the bill amends the Social Security Act 1964 to extend the existing Youth Service to all 19-year-old beneficiaries with children and 18 and 19-year-old beneficiaries without children who are considered at significant risk of long-term welfare dependency based on how the Government is choosing to measure the risk of long-term welfare dependency.Labour does support the extension of provisions for young people who may be at risk of long-term welfare dependency as the Government has put it and supporting them toward a better future through the Youth Service which offers assistance with educational aspirations employment opportunities budgeting and parenting support. Our concern is that the framework in which this has been placed is faulty and we have real concerns with the Government’s social investment approach or what it calls the social investment approach. We have real concerns with the predictive risk modelling and real concerns with the platform on which this so-called support for young people has been built.We have got concerns around the success of the Youth Service given that it is a relatively new intervention and comprehensive analysis is yet to be completed. We have asked for reports and evaluations on the existing Youth Service and have been given very little. So to think the Government is expecting this House to support further investment when we do not know whether or not it has been successful so far is a little bit presumptuous I think of the Government. Rather than being solely focused on employment outcomes for young people we think the Government needs to be equally supportive and encouraging of educational achievement and higher-level education for New Zealand youth especially in light of the expected decrease in tertiary student numbers forecast in the Budget. We are just really concerned that there are low expectations and a lack of aspiration from that side of the House for our young people.If we look at this bill the only expectation the Government has is that young people will achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 and after that there is no support for them to go on to further education. It is all about work obligations once NCEA level 2 has been achieved. We know that in this world that is not enough actually. If these young people have further education aspirations then they should be supported through the legislation to be able to go on and achieve higher than level 2 NCEA. So it is disappointing that that is not the case as it stands at the moment.Again I just want to reflect back on the social investment approach. Social investment should not just be about moving people off benefits in the short term. It should be about the long-term outcomes for these young people and the children they have or are going on to have. It should be about investing in them so that down the track their life their opportunities their life achievements—Hon Anne Tolley: That’s exactly what it is.CARMEL SEPULONI: —are going to be much greater because of the investment that a responsible Government makes up front. The Minister for Social Development is rolling her eyes at me but the bill supports education for these young people to only level 2 and after that it is work obligations that take precedence and we cannot support that on this side of the House.For those youth who are looking for paid employment there need to be the jobs for them to go into and the Government ignores the fact that actually it has failed to take responsibility in that department. It has not been creating jobs and it has not been creating job opportunities for these young people. In fact we have recently heard the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English talk about the fact that these people are “pretty damned hopeless” actually. He went on to say they are illiterate. He went on to say they are unemployable and then he went on to say that because of this the Government has made the immigration process or system a little bit more permissive. It has made it more permissive to make up for the fact this new generation of workers according to Bill English and the National Government is unemployable. I just think: where is the social investment approach in that when the expectations on these young people are so incredibly low? Where is the hope for those young people when they have got a Government that does not back them?Of further concern is the rising number of young persons—15 to 24-year-olds—not in education training or employment which is now at 87200. That is 87200 young people who are not in education or employment. That is over 26500 more than when National took office. So of course we on this side of the House are going to question that Government’s attempt to address this situation because it has been unsuccessful so far. There has been an increase of 26500 young people not in education or employment and the Government is telling us that its Youth Service to date has been successful. It is asking us in the House today to support a bill to extend the provisions of that Youth Service when clearly it has not been successful with a further 26500 young people not in employment or education under that National Government since it took office.There are rising concerns about the ability of the Government to support youth into quality stable employment given the failure of this Government to facilitate benefit-to-work transitions for main benefits. That is based on the March 2016 figures which have only 19730 of the 49907 benefit cancellations actually going into work. When we look at the number of beneficiaries overall who have had positive outcomes—if we are measuring positive outcomes in terms of employment outcomes—then we can see that a large number of the people who have gone off the benefit have not actually gone into work. So our concern for these young people is that success is going to be based solely on whether they go off the benefit rather than on whether or not they go on to anything better for them.Even when we look at the Better Public Services target that the Government has set in relation to this it is not about improved outcomes for those individuals or their families. All it is about is reducing risk of long-term welfare dependency not that they actually go on to anything else. I think that as a country we should be concerned that we have a whole lot of people going off the benefit who are not necessarily going into work who potentially not only do not get an income from a benefit but also have no income from employment and are potentially living off nothing. I think many of us can see that every day in the increase in numbers of people whom we see begging outside our shops and homeless thanks to the National Government.Labour supports the amendment that came out of the Social Services Committee’s report requiring consultation with the 18 or 19-year-olds in question about their referral to the Youth Service. However given the punitive culture of Work and Income with heavy-handed use of sanctions Labour must call into question what this consultation will look like. Labour therefore urges that youth are consulted in a way that ensures they feel empowered and understand both their obligations and their rights because even young people who have to access welfare have rights and I think we need to remind the National Government of that.Finally the other concern that I want to point out is my concern Labour’s concern about the discrimination really against young parents in this bill. Actually what we are doing is we are pushing them into work even sooner than is required for parents who are on sole parent support. This could have negative implications for their children’s well-being. This bill would require young parents to be in full-time education training or work-based learning from when their child is only 1 year old rather than 3 years old under sole parent support and it can be even earlier depending on whether there is a teen parent unit in that area.Of course we support young people to get education and training and to be supported to go back into work but young parents deserve the same rights as older parents to be able to stay home and care for their children if that is in the best interests of their children. We are concerned about the discrimination there. As I have said we will be putting up a number of Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage. At this stage after discussions with my colleagues I think it is unlikely that we are going to be able to support this bill at the third reading unless there is some support for the amendments that we make at the Committee stage. Thank you very much.