Barker Rick: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17964] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 That presentation from Jonathan Young deserves and requires a response. Firstly I think the underlying assumption behind the explanatory note of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill is that the current sentencing regime does not take into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer as an aggravating factor. One could make that assumption by reading this legislation and I want to say that it is completely wrong—completely wrong. If we go out and talk to anybody on the street and ask them whether they are more likely to get into trouble if they assault a police officer or corrections officer the answer will unanimously be yes. 
The second thing I think is wrong with this legislation is the implication that the judiciary have not been taking into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer when they are making their decisions. I think that is completely wrong as well. In some ways this bill could be interpreted as a slur on the integrity and the decision making of our judiciary. It could be taken that way because by implication it says that an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer is not being taken into account now and that Parliament is so concerned about it not being taken into account it will pass a law requiring the judiciary to take assault on a police officer or corrections officer as an aggravating factor because they have not been doing it to date. I say to the Government that that is not correct—that is not correct. Any simple analysis of the decisions of the judiciary will show that in fact judges have been doing that to date. 
So if the judges have been doing it to date and it is an aggravating factor what is the motivation for this legislation? Many things come to mind. It could be that it is simply about politics. Jonathan Young gives us the clue to this. Jonathan Young asserts in this House that this legislation is necessary to protect police officers and corrections officers from assault. That is a very powerful assertion but he does not then say how this legislation will do that. There is nothing there at all. There is no analysis no logic and no process to show that this legislation will fulfil his assertion that it will protect police officers and corrections officers. Anybody reading the legislation will see that it does not. 
This is not defensive legislation; this legislation will take effect after the prospective assault on either a police officer or a corrections officer. For Jonathan Young’s proposition to have any effect a person who is contemplating assaulting a police officer or a corrections officer must think in a logical way like this: “I am about to assault a police officer. This is different from assaulting another member of the public as Parliament has passed legislation saying that this will be an aggravating factor when I am up on the charge if I am detected prosecuted and convicted.” They will then have to work out what the cost or tariff is likely to be for an ordinary assault plus the aggravating circumstances now that Parliament has passed this bill and decide that maybe this is not a good idea. I say to National and Jonathan Young that no one goes through that calculation when they are about to embark upon a crime. An assault on a police officer or a murder is an irrational act. It is not an act of a rational person so a rational calculation is simply unthinkable. 
When National claims that Labour does not support the bill and does not care I disagree with that absolutely. That is a slur on the Labour Party. We are as offended as anybody else by assaults on the police. We are as offended as anybody else about assaults on our corrections staff. To imply that we are not is simply wrong and it is simply playing politics to do so. Like the rest of our community we value the role that our police play in protecting our communities. In fact our record shows that we had a record increase in the number of police staff and in investment in police to make our communities safer—any analysis will show that. The Labour Party does not tolerate violence in our community. 
Having said that I will make another observation. An important process is happening here. Parliament is passing more and more legislation that puts an obligation on judicial decisions. I think in some way that that is a reflection of parliamentarians really wanting to be court judges. They say they are unhappy with a situation and will fix it by passing laws to require the judges to make decisions. I say to National that that is getting closer and closer to impinging upon the freedom of judges to make decisions. Our democracy is based on the separation of powers. One of those powers is the power of Parliament to legislate and the second is the power of the judiciary to make independent decisions. In passing this bill in conjunction with the “three strikes” legislation and other legislation we are now in danger of getting closer and closer to having judicial decisions made by simply filling in an equation box. In doing that we are restricting in some ways the independence of the judiciary to make independent decisions. If parliamentarians want to become judges and want to impose sentences I suggest that they get a law degree serve in the legal profession for a while then apply to become a court judge. If those people do not want to be judges and want to pass statutes they should join a political party and come here and pass laws. Those are two separate things. Parliament is not here to restrict the independence of judicial decision-making. 
I will come back to summarise the points I have made. It is our contention and everything on the public record will show that judges today take into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer as an aggravating factor. They do that today. The implication made by this legislation is that the judges do not and I reject that. The implication from National is that this bill will make people safer and I do not agree with that because no analysis has been shown particularly by Jonathan Young whom I listened to very carefully and who is usually a thoughtful contributor to this House. In making the assertion that the bill will protect police officers he offered no analysis and no logic to show that that would be the case. 
The value of this legislation is that it makes a statement of intent and for that purpose and because it is about a statement of intent in many ways the Labour Party will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy I think I have said enough and it is a welcome sight to see you here on this fine Wednesday morning.