Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's a pleasure to be able to take a call on this bill. Can I just start by acknowledging those who have put this bill together: a former MP from New Zealand First Darroch Ball who chaired the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that I sat on. I know that he was passionate about all things related to things like this and he's not here but I acknowledge Mark Mitchell for taking this forward. Also I put an acknowledgment in for the Justice Committee. I know they've looked at this bill twice over. I'm not a member of that select committee but I know there's been a lot of work and rework on that to ensure the best possible outcome could be achieved. Unfortunately as the House has heard on this side of the House we will be opposing the bill and you've heard many good reasons. Part of this the inspiration for me has been that previous colleagues have talked about why we are opposing this and one of the big impetuses for this has been when I heard my colleague from Whangārei Emily Henderson who really—and I want to sum this up as a prevention first" mantra. As she said she talked about if we wanted real change we would be looking at the causes of offending first. They've been summed up unfortunately by some as us being soft on crime. I reject that because those comments in my view they lack authenticity. When I hear that it's a slogan it's unreal it's not true it's inaccurate it's almost cheap because the bottom line—and I know that the police have this as part of their value system—is prevention first. So what are the causes of offending: very much to stop the old ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. And what a slogan—I mean "ambulance at the bottom of the cliff" because this very much is that; it doesn't address the root causes. It doesn't do anything deep. It doesn't really do anything other than what—sometimes I think you know and I don't want to discredit the member who brought this forward but maybe it was just easy to put this back in the box and to get this through. I'm not sure. But we also heard that we've got some big numbers. I reflect just on Sunday I was at one of the largest community events in New Zealand being Newtown Festival and there you get a really good experience of our first responders who are there in action be it the St John Ambulance service—obviously in Wellington here we have Wellington Free Ambulance as well but St John Ambulance do the event services part of the operation here in the city. We also saw the fire guys and the extent of the parade stretches right up to Newtown fire station for those that know that part of Wellington and you see them. And very much one thing I like about both of those entities is the effort that they put in for education. I think often education and responding in that way is seen as soft. And I look at so many cases where if we just simply took some time to educate people around some of these things and maybe then you wouldn't get the outcome or the crime that comes. To call that soft is really unfair to those first responders because they don't deserve that. The police were there a small crew—estimate for 100000 people. I know our police department really well. I know the four: there were two constables senior sergeant and an inspector. I know them well. To have only four tells me that it's a community that they feel safe in. And also our Māori wardens I feel they take an active role through the Maori Community Development Act. They have the respect and mana now that goes well beyond just dealing with our Māori communities; much more in dealing with communities in general. They know the whānau and families and I treat them as first responders also. But I knew I was probably going to be speaking on this and I observed them closely during the—it seemed like a lifetime I was there but 12 hours standing on my feet at that festival. I was thinking "What would happen if anyone did try to do anything to them apart from the community responding and saying and preventing anything hopefully too bad?" But this bill reminds you of how they would feel. I relate the conversation back to my colleague Emily Henderson who really said you know "I don't think this would be the sort of thing that they would want. They would want more resourcing." And we see that with the police service now where we've got more police be it sworn or unsworn. I mean on that side of the House let me tell you this. They'd always want more human resource whatever—sworn non-sworn any bits and pieces dare I say it that make their lives easier. But this would be the last thing on their mind. I don't think they would go to work thinking "Thank Christ we've got a piece of legislation there that will help us if anything goes wrong." That's not their kaupapa. They are there to help people and serve them and if things do go wrong they're there to simply do their job—and I think without asking them I must say because it's our role to facilitate these outcomes on their behalf. And with my many years of knowledge working with each of these organisations—even dare I say it and the previous speakers have spoken about nurses too. We've got a hospital there in Rongotai. We've got the emergency department and observing our nurses and our medical staff in action I think this would be the last thing on their mind. What they would like to see is more resource more effort more equipment and luckily this is a Government that cares for core public services and those resources are and will be available. When I look through some of the detail I think a lot has been said and I'm just going to reinforce some of the things that have been said. I want to reaffirm to those who may be listening here tonight—those first responders are probably out working or taking time off or resting from their shifts—but any assault or any misdemeanour on a first responder regardless of role is completely unacceptable. I think the select committee—I know and I had a lengthy chat with the chair the member for Hutt South Ginny Andersen saying "Why? What happened here?" Why did this not get through despite having a lot of work done to it in terms of what she said to it going through the select committee process twice? So how does something go through a process twice and still not get to an outcome where both sides can agree? And that puzzled me. That puzzled me. I thought "Hold on a minute. How did we get to that?" And I thought then "OK so we've got to that stage. It's still coming to the House and it will come here knowing that we will oppose it. And why was that?" And I thought. "Because the amendments that were put forward they still didn't address the significant issues that this bill should have addressed—the fundamentals that we've heard previously." I thought "Well that could have been better with extra work but hei aha—that's how it is. So I come back to that fundamental around saying: what I guess with a prevention-first approach is the need for this? I can't see it. Madam Speaker kia ora."