Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Madam Speaker. I have just a short call this evening but first I wanted to acknowledge like many others have in the debate tonight those people in our communities who are working on the front line to protect our communities. I stand here tonight and acknowledge the many cousins friends and people in our community who are part of the ambulance service who are part of the fire and emergency service who are in the police who are corrections officers and who are in A & E. I am related to many; many are my friends. I would not stand here in this House and deliver a speech which I don't believe to be true that I believe is going to protect those members of my whānau of my friends and of my community.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did you vote for it at first reading?WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Now I want to correct something that Dr Nick Smith said. Let's correct the record because anybody listening might take what you just said as the truth. It is not. Let's go back to the beginning of the process. Yes we supported it to first reading. If you go and look at the Hansard debates you will see in those debates that we had concerns and—Erica Stanford: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member just said that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith had said something that was not true and I understand it to be a breach of Standing Orders to claim that a member has wilfully misled this House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I thank the member. It is up to the member concerned to take a point of order on that. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Indeed the member said just that and also breached Standing Orders in respect of referring to you when you were distracted. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Willow-Jean Prime.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to make it clear and put it on record for anybody who might be confused by the prior contribution that yes we did support this to first reading but we noted our concerns with the member's bill in those debates. We supported the first reading because—and let me say—we believe that the issue of ensuring our first responders are protected is important so we wanted a select committee process—we wanted to hear submissions. But I say we noted that we had numerous concerns with the bill.So when it went through that process—when it went through that process; when we heard the submissions; when we looked at what things might be done to rectify the situation—we could not support it at second reading. We were not confident that our concerns had been addressed. So it proceeded because National in fact supported it. It is an unusual case where we have had two select committee processes on it. We reopened it for submissions—we heard further submissions. Now I wasn't a member of the committee in the last Parliament but I am a member of the Justice Committee in this Parliament. One of the things that has been highlighted by many of the speakers on our side of the House this evening is that once you remove what really was one of the fundamental proposals in the member's bill—which was mandatory sentencing—it really doesn't leave much to achieve in terms of this. Why is that? The other side would have you believe that we don't want to support our first responders at all—right? But we actually already have legislative provisions to be able to weigh that into the consideration of sentencing and the appropriate people to do that are the judges. They already have the ability to do that; they do not need this piece of legislation to give them the power and the ability to do that. That already exists. When you take one of the main proposals out of the member's bill—which was around mandatory sentencing which the other side also doesn't support—then it really doesn't leave much else. I am confident that what already exists in the legislation will support our first responders. The judges are able to take into consideration the aggravating factors when determining sentencing and therefore our side of the House—the members of our select committee from the Government—do not support this bill.I do want to just finally acknowledge that many of those who we are talking about tonight will probably not be tuned into this debate this evening because they'll be undertaking their good work but I do not want it to be misunderstood or misconstrued.