Little Andrew: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues I simply make the point that of course it is great to have an opportunity to support those who take on the very hazardous very difficult roles in our community of providing security and safety to the people in our community which is something that Minister Finlayson finds enormously humorous obviously. These are the people who take on a trusted role and a difficult role and they are entitled at least from the lawmakers of this country to have a signal of support and confidence. 
The problem is that until Charles Chauvel’s Supplementary Order Paper 14 this legislation did not have that. This legislation as my colleague Phil Goff has talked about did not add anything to the fabric of our criminal law. We have laws already that deal specifically with crimes against certainly police officers and also prison officers—for example section 10 of the Summary Offences Act which is a specific crime of assault against a police officer and also section 23 of the Summary Offences Act which relates to resisting either a police officer or a prison officer. We also have in addition to the provisions that Phil Goff talked about section 98E of the Crimes Act which provides for a broad range of aggravating factors as escalating or elevating a particular crime. So that is already there including those provisions that the regulatory impact statement refers to and it is entirely appropriate. 
The courts should take cognisance of the fact that a victim is a serving officer who is dealing with those who would commit crime and who would undermine the fabric of our society and our communities and they should be dealt with and treated accordingly. Those who are there to uphold and enforce our laws must be given proper protection in the law by the judiciary and indeed by this House. But that was already there. Until this piece of legislation was changed in the Committee stage in this House to incorporate protections for other front-line emergency staff it added nothing. It is important that when we utilise the important institution that is this House and its time and the time of the people in it we actually do something that is meaningful rather than the gesture politics that we have become so used to over the last few years. So it is good that that amendment was put forward and it is good that the Minister of Justice accepted it in good grace saw the wisdom of it adopted the change and incorporated it into the legislation. 
For those who are dealing with people in the community who—whether they are drunk at the time whether they are unwell at the time or for whatever other reason—become violent and difficult and commit crimes against the person and whatever other crimes against those who are there to assist those in need in the community there must be a signal that those sorts of actions will not be tolerated by the community. There must be a community sanction and this piece of legislation now does that. Those who are charged with those important responsibilities of preserving community safety and providing help and assistance—first response—must be afforded that protection. 
Those who are working in our prisons—and let us face it serious assaults in prisons have been escalating rapidly over the last few years. I know that Jami-Lee Ross and indeed Mark Mitchell talked about the rise in assaults on police officers but in fact the figures that relate to assaults on prison officers over the same period have been much more dramatic with a 100 percent increase in assaults on prison officers over that same 5-year period and a 120 percent increase in serious assaults on prison officers over that time. 
Although it is good that this legislation acknowledges that and will acknowledge and take into account in sentencing now the fact that the victim is a prison officer let us not get complacent about the real demand and the real need of prison officers—that is for good proper protective equipment and enough prison officers I might add too. It has been the claim of prison officers for some time that they need to be properly equipped with proper protective equipment and other gear that can assist them to restrain and manage the extraordinarily violent criminals who are entering the prison system and are increasingly becoming a problem. We need to be cognisant of that. This legislation will send a signal that when it comes to sentencing people who behave in that way in the custody of Her Majesty at least that might make a difference. But as we know an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure and it might help our prison officer population if we actually focused on a bit of prevention as opposed to cure through the sentencing process. So it is good that the legislation as it appears now before the House has taken that into account. 
It has also offered greater protection for those who are sent out to preserve life to pick people up and to scrape them up off the roads. It is important to protect them through the signals through sentencing from being assaulted and obstructed and harassed as they sometimes are and that there is proper recognition given to the important role that they play and the protection that they are entitled to have when they are going about their difficult jobs. It was only in today’s tabloid  
New Zealand Herald 
—with the big giant “H” on the front of it—that a report ran about the ambulance officers in Auckland. A lone ambulance officer was assaulted and confronted and she had to push her assailant out of the ambulance and drive to the nearest police station to get protection. She as a lone ambulance officer simply should not be in that position. So this bill as the members opposite have said hopefully will help. I would like to think that we bank less on hope and more on certainty—planned certainty; good evidence-based legislation—but this is not a bad piece of legislation in the state that it is in thanks to the extensions that have now been added into it. 
I simply reiterate the point that in sentencing with regard to those important officials in our community who are victims of crime sending a signal through the sentencing laws to afford them greater protection is one thing. Putting in place proper measures to provide protection against and to provide prevention of assaults and harassment and violence would be a much more effective approach. Perhaps that might be the next project of this Minister and her colleague the Attorney-General when they come to review the laws and the resourcing of our front-line emergency personnel because that must be more important than—dare I use the pun—the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff that sometimes sentencing laws provide in these sorts of circumstances. 
On that basis as we have said this legislation in its form now before the House will afford a signal—a strong signal—to the courts that this conduct against these important people in our community is not to be tolerated. The legislation will be supported on that basis.