Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a call to speak against the Youth Employment Training and Education Bill. Can I first acknowledge Darroch Ball for reflecting on the opportunity to connect young people with the benefit of discipline and for putting forward this bill. I acknowledge that he shared with us when he first came here 2¾ years ago his own life journey—that the military was a key part of what he believes looking back has made him the person he is today. I acknowledge that and I appreciate that that no doubt was no small part in the thinking that he brought to this piece of legislation. But I do have three or four points that I would like to explore in respect of this bill that underpin why I am not able to support it. Firstly and this is linked to the previous conversation around how formed or otherwise this bill is from what I can see—and there is very limited explicit information around this bill—this is hellishly expensive. It could potentially be north of $20 million even for a pilot for 500-plus people. That is a significant cost particularly when there is no detailed business case if you like to underpin it. Our side has just been criticised for opposing something that is not perfectly formed. I would counter that by saying that in my view there is actually a threshold of working through how the legislation would actually be operationalised and how it would actually work and the associated costs which it is reasonable to assume has been done as one considers legislation for the first time. In my view that is absent and for me personally that is part of the reason that I cannot support the bill.The second issue for me is there have been conversations already this afternoon that the Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) model does work and it does. It is a short 6-week programme and for some of those participants it has been life changing. They have been able to move from that programme after 6 weeks and on to work and full-time work. But there is a significant involvement by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in picking the individuals who are most likely to succeed within that LSV framework and there is a significant amount of wraparound services that are provided by MSD for these people as they progress through the 6-week course. At the core of this bill is a vision that our Defence Force essentially has the capability—and indeed should prioritise its capability—in providing those wraparound services and support over the 3 years that these students would be required to go through this programme. That is a very large leap in my view and one that I do not think is sufficiently substantiated to warrant support through a first reading. Our Defence Force has a very clear mandate and is appropriately focused on delivering that for the benefit of New Zealand. Asking it to participate in a 3-year trial with the level of need that these people inherently require in terms of wraparound services I think is a step too far. Finally there is the view—it has been expressed and I agree with it—that in terms of priorities the No. 1 priority must still remain that we keep our 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds at school for as long as possible to give them the opportunity to get access to as many skills as possible to enable them to move into effective employment. This bill obviously has a lot of passion behind it but I think that when you reflect on what we are currently doing—the significant number of projects that the Government has in this space and the intensity that LSV requires in terms of wraparound services—the assumption that that is therefore a model that is best placed for our Defence Force to apply is ultimately flawed and that is why I will be voting against it. Thank you.