Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): When I was listening to the first speech on this debate from the member sponsoring the bill Darroch Ball it felt a little bit like I was sitting in a silversmith's workshop watching a craftsman with his lathe fashioning the ultimate silver bullet that was going to fix the woes of New Zealand's young people who are not in education employment or training. It was a very passionate speech; one that I guess really highlighted the benefits that have come from the Limited Service Volunteer programme and the benefits there are in military training for young people. That is not what I think any of us are in dispute about today.I can think of numerous people who have been through military training. I think of my own colleague Andrew Bayly. I think you would look at the fact that he has managed to get to both poles in his lifetime—probably his military training was useful for that and other things in his career. Other members of this House including this bill's sponsor have had military training and it has been very beneficial to them. There is no doubt in my mind that for individuals who undergo military training there are some benefits.I also have lived for the last 30-odd years in the city of Palmerston North and over that time have come into contact with many many people from the New Zealand Defence Force who have been through military training. I look at some of the jobs that they are doing now and cannot disagree with the fact that the training they have had is very very beneficial that it equips them for a huge number of different things in their lives. As I said very good training—very good for our community in Palmerston North very good in so many ways.However there is a little bit of an issue that I have around this particular proposal. The first one is this: to simply say that because a programme that lasts for 6 weeks is successful we should somehow just say Oh well let's do it for 150 weeks."—that therefore it would be better as well to simply say "Let's take something based off 6 weeks and do it for 3 years."—to me that seems like a little bit of a leap. Why is the magic number 3 years? Why not 12 months? Why not 24 months? Those sorts of things have not necessarily been outlined and so I think there is—Darroch Ball: 15 to 18 is 3 years. Wake up Jono.JONO NAYLOR: I can do my maths. I can do my maths but just because—why not let them out when they are 17 or 18?The issue that I have around this too is that introducing something where we are actually promoting young people to leave school at 15 sends a very different message from what we are trying to say at the moment. We are saying to young people: "Stay in school. Keep going to school. Get NCEA level 2." And I know that the member has said that they would receive literacy and numeracy education to get their NCEA level 2 literacy and numeracy levels done. But it does not necessarily mean that they have achieved NCEA level 2 in its entirety just because they have achieved the literacy and numeracy credits. I think there is potential under a programme like this that we actually short-change young people from potentially having the types of broader experience that they might get by remaining in school and potentially going on to other programmes.I would also have a little bit more sympathy for this programme—because I am not saying that it is a bad programme in its own right—if there was nothing going on in this space already. But there is. As Jo Hayes indicated earlier there are the Youth Guarantee programmes going on there is Gateway there are youth services going on. I know in particular the success—again talking back to the benefits of some of the military training of service academies I think of Queen Elizabeth College in Palmerston North where I live and being able to go and visit that school. I have seen the great work they are doing with the service academy—the great sense of pride that those young people are gaining from the level of training they are getting through the military service academy the discipline they are learning. But guess what they do not have to leave school to achieve that. Just because military-style training is beneficial it does not mean we have to extract people from a school environment and stick them into another environment for them to receive that.Finally 15- and 16-year-olds in my opinion are ultimately still better off in their families where possible where it is applicable and where it is beneficial for them rather than being shipped off to go and live somewhere else. I think there are some custodial issues that we would need to address in a programme like this. If we are asking the military to take sort of a loco parentis over this situation with these young people I think that is a lot to ask of it. I will not be supporting this bill well intentioned though it is."