Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker. No softness on this side of the House. We're here to bring out some of the hardliners and so all the way from Wellington's south-east here we are today. Labour is not supporting this bill tonight as many of my colleagues have already said. So that's fairly clear. The reasons are fairly clear too. I do want to commend the member in charge Erica Stanford who's just left the House—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! A member may not refer to the absence of another member.PAUL EAGLE: Sure. Thank you Madam Speaker. I have had some time—many years—working in and for the New Zealand Police serving New Zealanders and it wouldn't be unfair to say that that was probably one of my most interesting and favourite roles in terms of dealing with communities on the front line on a whole range of different issues. The best part of the role which is how the New Zealand Police sum it up now is that prevention first" mantra—so doing the stuff now that that side of the House are quite opposed to in many ways.I'm always stunned at how you implement initiatives that say this will prevent crimes even happening yet when they're put up they're deemed to be soft and all the accusations come out. That's saddening because if you talk to those on the front line those in police national headquarters who have done their time they'll often say actually that these are some of the things that should have and could have happened many many years ago and that's my memories of working for New Zealand Police. There's nothing soft with them; they take things seriously. They are some of the best men and women that New Zealand has put together and put on our front line but there's also those behind the scenes that do the mahi and do a whole lot of the work that needs to be done to free up the front line so to speak which often these get compared to when we start talking about statistics.So I've had a brief look at this and robbery involving motor vehicles is certainly at an alarming rate and look that's upsetting. I know having had a vehicle stolen myself—or someone's decided to use it for some other purpose other than take another car but they chose mine—that it was stressful at the time and luckily it was found in the process. Apart from some damaged locks and the ignition I'm probably one of the lucky ones who got them back and that was done by actually someone reporting the vehicle to the police and getting a phone call. I thought actually the whole thing was quite efficient but a crime did happen. But I don't think that this bill is going to properly address the problem. So I agree with the concept behind the bill. I certainly think however that the changes envisaged to the Crimes Act will not achieve the stated objectives.I looked at the general policy statement—the GPS—where the member argues that it is difficult to make out the offence of robbery in the case of a motor vehicle because the current definition requires an intent to permanently deprive the victim of their vehicle. And to rectify this the member has proposed clarifying the current definition of robbery proposing that aside from theft the words "or unlawful taking" be added. But the problem is that the bill provides no definition of what unlawful taking is thereby not offering any clarification at all. There's no reference to where the definition of "unlawful taking" can be found and that is really just the start of—really sums up for me—why Labour is not supporting this bill. In my look through it I don't think it stacks up and to be worthy. But I have commended the member. I do congratulate her for being the winner for getting it out of the box. But tonight's not the night and I do not commend the bill. Kia ora."