Fox Marama; Mallard Trevor; Hayes JoanneMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Given that this piece of legislation is going to have a great impact on a number of young Māori children—that in fact the majority of the people whom this is targeting will be Māori—you would like to think that a Government support party that is the Māori Party which represents the aspirations of Māori people would also support this legislation and I wish I could say that that was the case. I truly do wish that that was the case because the intent of the bill we absolutely support. The intent of the investment model we absolutely support. If this is to reduce the number of young people who are going to be long-term beneficiaries we have no issue with that whatsoever because we do want to have an aspiration where our people are not co-dependent on the Government. But we are talking about the most at-risk group of young people. What we have done was we spoke with officials today to get some satisfaction around some of these sanctions and I have to say I was happy with the majority of the answers given that we were able to make a couple of suggestions like having face-to-face contact. There is a remarkable idea—having face-to-face contact before someone is actually removed from the benefit. That would be good because prior to that it was three strikes a phone call and a letter. Well I know that if I get a phone call to my cellphone that has an undisclosed number on it I am not answering it any time soon because it probably means that there is something going on—some sort of trouble that I do not want to know about. I put it over there in a box. I know that that is what our young people do. And a letter which may or may not go to the right address which they may or may not see any time soon and which they may or may not read is how they are going to be notified that they are off benefit.Then we asked what the follow-up was. So you kick someone off and then what—nothing? No. Actually we will go and see them in 6 weeks."—6 weeks when they have had no benefit. What are they going to do there? Well they will fall into some more criminal behaviour or into potentially criminal behaviour to try and sustain themselves. If these are the most—most—at-risk people I would think that it does not stop and in fact we have now been given some satisfaction that within the 5 days we have asked for that will be followed up face to face yet again. So actually there are a number of things here that I support but I cannot support the fact that we will hold a different yardstick up to these most at-risk vulnerable people from the one we do to a 20-year-old who has a child. A 20-year-old does not have obligations to go back to work or into training until their child is 3 years old. Yes Mr Jono Naylor has pointed out that he and his wife did everything they could to have one of the parents stay home with their children because they realised that that was important. Well what a luxury that is. What a luxury that is. It is a luxury but actually it is an investment is it not? Mr Naylor would say that that was an investment in their children's future to ensure that they had the best start. Well why are we not offering these most at-risk young people the same opportunity to put that emotional investment of bonding into their child and give them the choice not the yardstick or not the beating stick that we will threaten them with—threaten them into compliance? Give them the choice. Have some real belief in their own aspirations. They may want to do that. But if they do not why are we forcing them to go back to training at 6 months? Some of the most hideous crimes committed against children in this country have been carried out by people who did not form a bond with their babies—who did not form a bond—and were under stress because of the impoverished conditions that they may have been in from drug and alcohol abuse or from a number of things. But when you have a young person who is already struggling and you add more struggle on top of them by forcing them to take their baby at 6 months old and do all the things they need to do by themselves—to get to their course or to get to their job—it is hard and it hurts and we struggle with that. The young people who are the most vulnerable in this country—we are holding them to a different standard of more control and of more pressure. I understand that the Youth Service wants to try to make the change in these young people's lives but if you are putting those young people with those young children under stress the pressure will be heaped upon these young people who now have to have a whole other standard which they have to live up to or they will have portions of their benefit taken away from them. That is a threat and a stick and it is not the way we raise our young people to ensure that they can care for and nurture their children and grow a bond where in a moment of stress or a moment of panic they do not turn round and inflict harm and violence on these young babies. We all know what it is like to go through sleepless nights while we raise and feed our children and what if those mothers are feeding their children? Are they now going to have to go to the school toilet or somewhere else to express? Are they now going to have to do that in a public toilet if they are working? Or shall we just not bother to let them have the luxury—the luxury—of continuing to feed those children as they grow and strengthen and continue to build that bond? We are missing something in this country when our young people are being slaughtered through child abuse when our young children's lives are being taken. We are missing something and that is not about separating our children from their parents; it is about strengthening that relationship together. I understand that there are parenting courses and all of those sorts of things but it is not just the parent who raises our children. For Māori communities it has to be extended whānau who are involved. We need to think about the family unit as a whole and not the parent in isolation yet that is what we are doing. I wish—I do—that I could stand and support this bill but for that reason alone despite a number of other concerns that we have I simply cannot. I find that quite distressing considering that this is going to impact young Māori people more than any other group that this is going to be targeted to young Māori parents more than any other group and that these young Māori babies are going to be subjected to the stress of being hauled around from pillar to post. I know what that is like like many of the others. It is hard it is stressful and I do not believe that this bill alleviates that stress. I believe that it is adding to that stress and that reason beyond a whole raft of others is the simple reason why we cannot support this today. It goes against the very human rights of our country. Thank you. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can I just say that I would normally go across the aisle to Jan Logie but she has had four calls.JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is—well is there any point? No one else went for the call. Do people mind if I just go on to putting the questions? OK. The normal thing is that no one else goes for the call but I did see that one of her colleagues was—OK."