The issue of what to do with the 74,000 young New Zealanders who are not in employment, education or training (NEETs) is a tricky one. Labour correctly pointed out in its conference how difficult and despairing it can be for young people in this situation and what a waste this represents to society.

It is good that Labour has set its sights on helping this group. However, the policy ideas are not the neatest.

To start with the bad, the proposed ‘training levy’ on employers who are not training young New Zealanders makes no sense. Why punish them for failing to hire young New Zealanders when employers are complaining about how difficult it is to do exactly that? This seems like a major own goal for a party trying to shed its image of being out of touch with business.

The proposed six-month job scheme for young NEETs makes more sense. The devil, as always, will be in the details. And the fact that the proposal does not seem to have been properly costed means we should be very sceptical that they have banished the detail devils. However, the idea of providing more opportunities for work experience to young NEETs is appealing.

There has been a lot of mud-slinging at employers for not doing their bit to help train these people. To which employers counter that their efforts to do so are met with apathy. If Labour is right when they defend NEETs against accusations of laziness and bad attitudes, then this programme could well be a success.

To someone who has never been able to obtain a job, opportunities for work experience can be invaluable. And if it helps young people make the step from long-term welfare dependency into a career, then the societal value is potentially huge. Collecting data on the economic and psychological outcomes for participants will be helpful to determine whether it is providing value for money.

It will cost more than they have advertised, especially once administration and other non-wage costs are considered. However, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to how much the Government spends on tertiary students. And the cost-benefit ratio for the marginal student would likely be comparable.

So while the policy is not worthy of a ringing endorsement, the direction Labour is taking is commendable. Let’s reserve full judgement until more details are available.