Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare nō reira tōku tika ki te kōrero i runga i Te Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill hei māngai mā Te Reipa mō ngā tamariki.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and so as spokesperson for Labour on children it is my right to speak on the Social Security (Extension of Young Persons Services and Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill.]I am the Labour spokesperson for youth affairs. Mahi pakeke tēnei pire. [This bill creates a lot of hard work.] Labour opposes this bill. We do so because from our perspective the intent of this bill is all wrong. I would like to quote: One of the Government's priority results for Better Public Services is to reduce long-term welfare dependence." In February 2015 the Government set the following target for this result area: "By June 2018 a 25 per cent reduction (from 295000 people in June 2014) in the total number of people receiving main benefits and a $13 billion reduction in the long-term cost of benefit dependence." as measured by an accumulated actuarial release. So from our perspective children are not at the heart of this piece of legislation in spite of what the Minister for Social Development and her Government say. What is at the heart of this piece of legislation is saving $13 billion. Jono Naylor: No it's not.LOUISA WALL: That is the driving force behind that Better Public Services target and other people may want to debate that but if you truly did want to put children at the centre of policy then you would find this side of the House 100 percent in support—Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish.LOUISA WALL: —of any initiative that you proposed—100 percent supportive. So when you look at pieces of research like The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis by the Urban Institute which was released in September 2013—if the Minister had read this piece of research what it says is that obstacles for our tamariki's healthy development are about the instabilities in their lives. The most important factor is actually having stable accommodation. Let us make sure that all of our children have a home Minister. Let us make sure that all of our children have a home and that their parents can provide for them. Let us make sure that all of our parents have access to parental courses that are going to enable them to be the best possible parents that they can be. That is not what this piece of legislation is committing to or what it will provide for our most disadvantaged families. Kay Brereton from the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultation Group highlighted that through the select committee process for this legislation. We also heard from the Salvation Army the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General themselves which said that this Government was actively discriminating against 18 and 19-year-old citizens. So for the Government to say that children are at the heart of everything that it does is actually factually incorrect based on submissions that we had from number of parties. So if we want to work alongside our children—and we heard from my colleague Jan Logie earlier—then the empowerment model that we would use is not punitive. We would not be penalising our young parents who do not want to leave their babies who are 6 months old. That is what this piece of legislation forces our young parents to do—to leave their 6-month-old babies and seek either full-time study or work-based training opportunities. What I say to this Minister and that Government is what about that 6-month-old baby? What if we put that 6-month-old baby at the heart of this piece of legislation? What would we do? We would make sure that 6-month-old baby had a home. So if this Government said that every child who has a child is going to have secure accommodation that those children are going to be looked after that their parents will be entitled to every single piece of support that they are eligible for and that we are not going to put ceilings on them and did not say that we will support your education only if you can get to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 but actually that we fully and totally supported them to have dreams and aspirations then this side of the House would be voting in support of this piece of legislation. But that is not what this piece of legislation is doing. That is not the intent of this piece of legislation. Some people on the other side need to read their Better Public Services targets because all of the targets are about money. It is all about saving money for the Government so that next year you can give big tax cuts to New Zealanders who do not need them because you do not want to provide services to those who are most in need. So I am really proud to stand on the side of the House that puts children at the centre of what we do. Thank you."