The cornerstone of ACCESS was that, i n the face of continued unemployment for young people, there should be a broadened availability of training and education options:
We are firmly of the view that young people leaving school should select one of two options: employment or further education and vocational training. We do not mean by this that either of those options should be compulsory, for that would be counterproductive in all sorts of ways. What we want to see is a
sufficient array of attractive and relevant possibilities that young people will participate in by choice" (pp.l2-13).
The notion that the requirement to register as unemployed with the Department of Labour was unnecessarily restrictive, claimed in the Scott Committee report, was reiterated in the pink paper. Registration requirements were to be abolished and replaced with the ACCESS liaison service, to be developed out of existing vocational guidance services. The role of this service would be to guide young people into appropriate training areas, to ensure that all young people leaving schools were adequately catered for and to liaise with other groups in the community.
A series of hypothetical 'case-studies' were presented to "illustrate some of the possibilities which might be available under ACCESS". For example:
Mary has seen the ACCESS trainees based at her local marae, and with two of her friends, asks if she can join the group. All three start on a programme to learn the techniques of traditional weaving, and they find their self-confidence growing as the course progresses. She talks about her future with one of the trainers, and together they work out a programme for Mary to learn about horticultural occupations. She spends most of her time on the horticultural scheme on the marae but intersperses that with work experience training provided by local horticulturalists (p.21).
An issue that the pink paper addressed is that under the old schemes some young people were doing 'job creation' projects at award wages whilst other groups were getting only an allowance for undertaking training courses in practically the same skills. ·The pink paper noted that certain anomalies existed within this system and proposed a 'unified' system of training allowances. As well, the Report discussed
how much, in relation to existing levels of unemployment benefit, young people on training programmes should be paid - less, the same or more. A significant factor is that it was on these issues that community submissions were specifically requested; the general shape of ACCESS was already determined. These issues were considered in a depth quite out of proportion to their importance within the overall framework, the main consideration apparently being a concern that the unemployment benefit should not act as a disincentive to training (p.23).
The abolition of fully subsidised 'job creation' programmes - Work Skills Development, Project Employment and Voluntary Organisation Training - had been foreshadowed in the 'Grey Booklet'. The central argument in this document had been that job creation did not, in fact, produce (permanent) new jobs and that the emphasis should therefore be switched to promoting growth in the economy that would eventually lead to full employment. This had, as noted above, been argued against at the Employment Promotion Conference; nevertheless, the pink paper announced a new focus on integrated training rather than job creation. The abolition of full-subsidised programmes, however, was not to be formally announced for another six months.
The whole argument of the pink paper rested on the claim that young people lack work and life skills. However there was no attempt to specify precisely what skills were actually required. In Britain, research on this topic has shown that employers tend to look not so much for specific vocational skills, but rather for a set of "attitudes" (CCCS 198 1 pp.234-235). The existence of school qualifications was frequently seen by employers as an indication of the existence of these attitudes. A recent study in New Zealand, although of limited value due to the small numbers of employers inteiViewed, tends to back up this view:
However, qualifications were generally taken as an indication that a young person could 'stick to a task'. Many of the skills required by employers seemed to be the same as those required to pass School Certificate and University Entrance .. . . several employers wanted employees who were not
over qualified/or their job - especially in less skilled jobs and jobs requiring a narrow, specialised range of skills (DETAC 1986 p.24).
The pink paper constantly talked of opening out opportunities for groups of people who, in practice, were experiencing a decreasing range of options. Catherwood's ( 1 985) Report, i n which he showed real changes in the structure of the youth employment market, demonstrated clearly the material nature of the foreclosure of work opportunities through the decreasing avenues of entry to the labour market.
At the same time that the pink paper was released, the Minister of Employment announced the setting up of several pilot programmes to test in practice the ideas contained in the report. Two types of programmes were identified. The first involved testing various transition education and training programmes, whilst the second concentrated on developing aspects of the regional structures that would meet the ACCE SS requirement that all young people, on leaving school, would receive appropriate help and opportunities, including further education and training. The Levin Youth Learnin g Centre was identified as being a site for a 'phase 2' pilot programme, concentrating in p articular on community liaison and funded by the Department of Education.
4 . Levin sta ge two: the ACCESS Liaison Service
At this time, no details were provided to the ACCESS steering committee about their role or how the pilot project was to be implemented. The steering committee, however, went ahead and constituted itself as the interim ACCESS committee to oversee the development of the ACCESS Liaison Centre in the Horowhenua.
Ann Hinch, as Director of the Youth Learning Centre, was invited to a meeting in Wellington hosted jointly by the Departments of Education and Labour on 1 August 1985. The purpose of this meeting was expected to be a discussion of the
implementation of the p ilot project, in particular of how much money had been allocated and when it could begin. Ann Hinch, however, discovered that:
(a) no clear guidelines had been set up about the purpose and functions of the ACCESS Liaison Centre
(b) no extra funding or resources were to be made available for the pilot projects
(c) no date for implementation had been developed but pilots were to finish by mid- 1986
(d) the Depanment of Labour was clearly concerned to maintain its 'gatekeeping' role in relation to training and job creation schemes. About 25 Department of Labour representatives attended the meeting23.
The relative roles of the Depanments of Labour and Educiuion at this time require further analysis. The pink paper was a joint discussion paper, with both a labour market and an educative focus. The pilot programmes were to be split into two; those relating to transition training structures and procedures, to be funded by the Department of Labour, and those relating to community liaison on education and training (a new area for the state), to be funded by the Department of Education.
The 1 August meeting was intended to be a briefing by the Departments of Labour and Education to the 'phase 2' pilot project convenors, but was totally dominated by the 25 Department of Labour officials, who outnumbered the 1 3 Department of Education officials (and the ACCESS panicipants). The meeting turned out to be an exercise in control by the Depanment of Labour, who kept emphasising that "as far as financial
structure was concerned, nothing changed; the Department of Labour to continue to retain full control, status quo to continue"24. No indication of how the ACCESS Liaison Service pilot projects would be funded were given to the participants. They were " sent home and told to come back again in three weeks [to Lopdell House] to consult further"25. Back in Levin, local groups urgently sought clarification from the Minister of Employment:
It is indeed apparent that there have been misunderstandings and there still exists much confusion about just what is involved in at least some of the pilot schemes. There is also considerable concern on a number of other fronts .. . 26.
A week-long workshop was held from August 26-30 at Lopdell House in Auckland. Again, Ann Hinch was to represent the Horowhenua ACCESS pilot. It was decided by the steering committee that a specific plan should be developed for the Horowhenua and taken to the workshop. The plan27 listed the objectives of the ACCESS Liaison Centre as:
a) to increase the training and work options for our young people, with'
particular emphasis o n those groups who are at present at a disadvantage;
b) to enable those responsible for the training programmes to better share their knowledge and resources.
The plan considered how the Centre could meet these objectives, the resources that would be required and how funding could be allocated.