Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): Louisa Wall earlier this evening said she hoped that there are people listening across the Chamber. I have been listening intently to what has been said here this evening at this Committee stage of this bill and I have got to say I have really been somewhat taken aback by what I have heard from the other side of the Chamber. If you follow through the logic of what has been said there is almost a judgment on parents who would go back to work before their children have turned 3. Actually there are parents who do that all the time and their children cope OK but those people over there have basically said that that is a bad thing to do. You shouldn't go back to work until your child's 3 because developmentally that's not good for them."—I have been quite surprised I have got to say to hear that coming from the other side of the Chamber. Personally in our own household that is exactly what we did do. We went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that one of us would be home with our kids when they were young. I spent a fair bit of time at home myself with our kids when they were little. That was what we valued doing.But there are some absolutely definite reasons why in this legislation this policy is a beneficial thing for these young parents. Yes—guess what—there are some expectations that we are putting on some people. Yes there are some requirements of things that we expect them to do. We want them to actually take some responsibility and so there are some requirements for them to get back into learning and otherwise.What has been asked by other members opposite me this evening is how it is going to benefit the children if a young mother is going back to school full-time. Well I will tell you how it benefits the children. It benefits the children because if that parent is getting an education their chances of providing for those children further down the track—spending less time simply relying on a Government benefit to get them through—will mean that those kids are going to be better off in the long term.The beauty about the teen parent units—and the ones I have visited and had the opportunity to go and speak with young parents at—is that the parents are not just sitting at home isolated with their small young child which they potentially will be if they are not involved in education but are actually there mixing with other mothers. They are there mixing with their teachers and have the opportunities as the day goes through to still actually have some connection with their children. The teen parenting unit and the model for education that is being provided there is not simply about a mother leaving their child behind going away and ignoring them. No—in what I have seen in what I have experienced and in the conversations that I have had with those mums who are there they like the opportunity to be able to learn. They have aspirations for themselves and I support them in that. The ones I have talked to want to go further they want to do more and they really appreciate the fact that more often than not their child is in a room just next door or a couple of doors down. They have the opportunity to see them and to do feeds if they are still at the stage of feeding them. They can actually catch up with them at morning teatime lunchtime or whatever and they are supported in that.The other thing that has been questioned is where the proof is that this is working. I want to just make mention of what the main benefit client numbers for 18 to 24-year-olds are doing. In March of 2016 the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who were on the main benefit was 45493. In March of 2014 that number was 50000. There are roughly 5000 fewer—or 10 percent less—young people aged 18 to 24 on benefits. Getting people off benefits and into work into education is going to be beneficial to them—absolutely beneficial to them—in the long term.The other thing that has been said from across the Chamber tonight is that we are putting labels on that we are painting young people into a corner that we are not being aspirational for them. I have just got to say that that shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is to work with young people. To work with young people you have got to identify which ones to start with and there have to be assessment criteria. When I was working in the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service—it was a tertiary mental health service—we did not have our doors wide open for everybody to come along. No you had to be referred there either by a GP a guidance counsellor or by somebody else and that was the form of assessment. Somebody had to meet certain criteria before that service would actually intervene.Then of course—as anybody who works with a young person knows—you do not stay in that place. You do not stay with identifying them and saying: "You're a high-risk person now I'm going to treat you like this." No you work with them on their strengths. A good mentor—and we have got some great mentors who are working through our youth services right now who are doing great work with our young people working with them identifying their strengths and believing in them. But guess what—we are aspiring for them more. We are suggesting to them that they can actually take some responsibility in their own lives. We are giving that to them bit by bit as they prove that they can manage on their own.This is a good bill. It is going to ensure that more young people are going to go further that more young parents are going to do better with their families and that those children within those families will have a better shot at a better life within Aotearoa New Zealand. I am delighted to support this. I think it has been really well thought through. It is evidence-based. It is not about just sitting back and saying: "Actually you know what? This is acceptable. We're just going to leave things how they were." It is really interesting—I have heard people say: "You know what? It's getting worse. It's getting worse let's do nothing." Well actually we are not going to do nothing. We are going to do something. We are going to invest in these young people. We are going to provide them with good services we are going to provide them with good support and we are going to see great young New Zealanders come through as a result of this intervention.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I make the next call I am just going to make a brief explanation for my reasoning behind making the call. Carmel Sepuloni took the initial two calls before leave was given to take Parts 1 and 2 together. I am ruling that since that leave was given there is a new question and therefore Ms Sepuloni's earlier calls do not count against this question."