Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Tēnā koutou. I want to join with my other colleagues who have spent the beginning of their contributions acknowledging the roles that many of the messengers who are departing from this House have played in keeping this place ticking over. I personally consider them not just friendly faces but I consider many of them friends and I am very sad at their departure. I want to respond to some of the points that the member who has just resumed his seat Alfred Ngaro made. The first point—there are a number of them so I will start with the first. One of the points that the member made was that it was an election promise to raise the age of care and protection so that the Government played a support role for rangatahi right up to the age of 18 because it is currently 17. I feel like at this point I know the Government's policies better than he does. If it was an election promise it was one the Government has failed to implement for 8 long years because anyone who has been following this issue will know that the bill to lift that age was on the Order Paper. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No. 6) if my memory serves was on the Order Paper on the Table ready to be debated by this House when National won the election in 2008 and that amendment was dumped. So not only did the Government not implement it but it actively voted against an amendment that would have brought that change into place back in 2008. Not only that but the Government voted against multiple attempts by Labour to raise the age in a number of amendments that we put before the House. It was only after significant lobbying by Labour by Dingwall Trust and by Lifewise and the Greens also supported that raise in age. That was the point at which finally Anne Tolley—and I acknowledge that she accepted the advice of the expert working group—agreed that the age should be raised. So an election promise? That could not be further from the truth and I wanted to correct the record. The second part of the record that I believe needs to be corrected is this notion that the Government is somehow supporting increasingly early intervention. What are the markers of that—what are the markers of that—because specific to this bill one of the things that the Government was very quick to get rid of when it first came in was Youth Transition Services. So to create this notion that we never had anything for young people who are not in employment education or training before the Youth Service came along is patently incorrect. Not only was there a service available for young people that the Government dumped but it was a service that was available for 24-year-olds and younger and it did not create a prerequisite where you needed to be on a benefit to access that service. I want to say that again: you did not have to be on a benefit as a young person to access Youth Transition Services. What is important about that? Well my colleague Carmel Sepuloni spoke to the issues around a deficit approach which this Government is taking and that was a big part of it. But actually it acknowledged that some young people never access a benefit because firstly it is so hard to access Government support and secondly they might actually just simply be at home not having a particular plan in place living on a couch—support from whānau in some other form. But the benefit is not the predeterminant as to whether or not they need support; it is simply that they are not in education or training. Should that not be our concern? Should that not be our measure? It is not whether they are a drain on the State via a benefit; it is whether or not they are not using their potential. That should be our concern because that costs us in other ways and it costs them. So this notion as well that there are other forms of early intervention particularly around sole parent support and so on that are going on—well actually in the last month alone we have seen this Government dump Parents as First Teachers. It has dumped Strengthening Families. This idea that it is somehow investing in early intervention is factually incorrect. It is narrowing down further and further the scope of whom it provides services for and by default that means that people will be left behind and young people in particular. But should not a measure of success if we are talking about Youth Service and whether or not we are engaging and assisting young people be how many young people are not in education and training? Would that not be a measure of success? Because on that basis as has been canvassed in the House the number of young people from 15 to 24 years of age who are not in education training or employment since this Government has taken office is now at 87200. There are 87200 young people who are not in education training or employment. That number devastates me. It devastates me in particular because when I first came into Parliament I was our youth affairs spokesperson a job now ably done by Louisa Wall. At that time the numbers were lower than they are now and they were devastating but they have increased by 26500 young people. That is five times the size of the town I grew up in. I can barely fathom that number of young people not being in education employment or training. Our concern should not just be those who are on a benefit; it should be every single one of those young people. That is one of the reasons—in fact that is one of the most significant reasons—we cannot vote in favour of this bill. The Youth Service is being extended in this bill for another 2000 young people—2000—but that is not the full extent of the need that exists out there and if the Government truly backed itself that the Youth Service is the answer to everything then it should offer it to everyone. Give it to everyone who is in need and whose potential is being wasted because it goes much further than those 2000 young people. But actually what I want to speak to in my last contribution in the debate on this bill is what the alternative could have looked like. What in our view would a comprehensive service for young people not in education or training look like? Well it would not be contingent on you walking through a Work and Income door. It would not be contingent on you seeking support; in fact it would be much more proactive than that. Labour's plan has always been that we need to make sure that every young person has a plan to be earning or learning. That means that at the point that a young person leaves school we check that they have a plan. We ask at the school gate where they are going what they are doing and whether they need support and we do not just leave it there because we know from the experiences of those who work in this space that actually a young person might have a plan when they leave school but that it can quickly fall over. In fact one of the most vulnerable points is usually 6 months to a year out of school so we check back in. We check back in and we make sure that they have something to occupy their time and if they do not what do we do? We do not give up. I still remember the experience that I had relayed to me once when I was visiting a comprehensive youth transition service that was operating in a small town. I will not name the town in case I give away any personal details but there was a particular young woman who when she left school said she did not need help. She got a call from Youth Transition Services and said: No I don't need help." She was doing nothing. The youth workers contacted her again a month later and asked: "Do you need anything?". She said: "No I'm fine." This young woman was growing up in a gang family. Not one of her whānau members were in employment—not one. She said she was fine. The youth workers did not give up. They called her again a month later and this time she confessed that she needed money. So they talked to her about some of the options that she had and before long convinced her that maybe she should apply for a job at the local supermarket. They picked her up they worked through interview questions for her they made sure she had an outfit for the interview they took her there and she got the job. She was the first one in a long time in her family to have employment and it came purely out of the persistence of those youth workers who were absolutely convinced that it did not matter whether she was on a benefit or not and it did not matter if she said she was OK. They kept up their contact and they offered their support. A comprehensive youth transition service is what we need. It is not just about markers of whether or not you are a drain on the State via a benefit. It has got to be more comprehensive than that. It is absolutely Labour's intention when we take office to reintroduce a comprehensive service like that again for every under-24-year-old to ensure that once again they are earning and learning and we can reduce those devastating statistics of "neets" in New Zealand."