McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. You know the point of being a parliamentarian is to make good law and while I commend the member Matt King for having his bill pulled from the ballot we can't support a bill that is unnecessary. We can't support a bill that won't actually achieve and won't actually be what it says on the packet. The fact is that there have been over the past 10 years about 12 cases in New Zealand where the person has been convicted of manslaughter in cases of death caused by a single hit. That shows to me that this barbaric act—nobody is going to defend the act—is treated in law.Matt King: There's been a lot more than 12. There's been three in the last year.KIERAN McANULTY: And the member calls out that there were three in the last year. Well I am very pleased to inform him that that still does not negate the fact that there have been 12 in last 10 years. The fact is that this is yet again a member's bill that actually doesn't achieve what it says.Now I note that it has been modelled on the Australian bill. I also note that the law in Australia was passed in a package of law and order measures and it is actually difficult to ascertain how effective that law is so we can't go on the member's recommendations that this bill should be brought in on the basis of its success in Australia. Now if there were facts presented that could convince this side of the House to support it—perhaps the member could have presented to the House examples that this in Australia was successful that this was indeed a deterrent—then perhaps we would have supported it. But those crucial elements are missing and we can't simply support a bill just because we don't support the crime which it targets—of course we do not.But we can't also go around and increase penalties as we've seen in various other examples and then be accused of being soft on law and order. The fact is that if we want to have effective policies in law and order then we need to work on fact and the last thing that we as a Parliament as parliamentarians need to do is make laws in regards to law and order on emotion. I simply reject the notion that because this side of the House wants to make laws based on fact that that makes us soft. We have had that accusation all night. We've had it with the previous bill and we're having it now and I say to the other side of the House: that accusation does not resonate. Because the fact is if you apply an evidence-based approach—New Zealanders are not dumb. New Zealanders are a thinking people and they know a political stunt when they see it and they know a bill that is ineffective when one is presented. This is simply the case now.We say again: if the member had presented evidence and a compelling case that would suggest that this was needed there is no doubt that this side of the House would support it. A good example is livestock rustling. Now if you went out previously a few years ago—if all of us went out and asked the general public if there is a law against the theft of livestock then of course people would say yes. Now there are numerous examples to show that this is a serious issue in rural New Zealand but the sad fact of the matter was that there was no law against the theft of livestock. Ian McKelvie presented a member's bill to this House and unfortunately it wasn't drafted in a way that was workable. But I worked with him and presented a case to the justice Minister—presented fact and presented a compelling case—and the justice Minister included it in one of his bills and it is now law.So that is a pathway in which to achieve change when it comes to law and order—not going for emotion not sidetracking and sidestepping facts but looking at what is needed backing it up with the truth and presenting a compelling case. That has not happened in this case and therefore this side of the House and the Labour Party cannot support it.