Mitchell Mark; Rurawhe AdrianHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a call on this Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill and the second report of the Justice Committee. I'll address some of the points that were raised by the chair of the committee Ginny Andersen but firstly I just want to acknowledge Darroch Ball. Darroch Ball of course was a member of Parliament with the New Zealand First Party and part of the coalition that was formed between Labour and the Green Party in the last Government. Although Darroch and I sparred often across the House particularly on justice bills when I held the justice portfolio I never for one minute doubted his commitment—Greg O'Connor: You call that sparring?Hon MARK MITCHELL: —his genuine commitment to making New Zealand—Greg O'Connor: Open hatred—come on. Open hatred.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and his community safer. When I hear the barracking coming from Greg O'Connor against one of his own colleagues that now is no longer in this House it just probably reminds him and it could be a reminder to him that maybe they made the wrong decision in terms of who they went into coalition Government with because Darroch has received no support from his former colleagues at all with either of his two bills that have come into this House. So I want to acknowledge him and I want to acknowledge the policy intent that he always has which is fundamentally to make New Zealand a safer place and the community a safer place and just acknowledge the fact that he has now taken up a deputy chief executive role with the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Jess McVicar who in my view do tremendous work around advocacy for victims and their families and continue to work in that justice space. I don't understand the argument that the chair of the committee was trying to put up around disrupting the hierarchy of offending because ultimately in our criminal justice system the people that decide what charges to lay are the police. The police will do the investigation. The police will look at the ingredients that go towards the type of offending and the offence that's been committed and they'll take all those issues into account before they make a very clinical decision around what charges will actually be laid and what charges are most appropriate and what charges they feel will have the most success or are most appropriate when they go into our court system. So I think that the argument around disrupting the hierarchy of offending is a moot one and doesn't have any standing at all. I want to acknowledge my colleagues who have done all the work on this bill: the Hon Simon Bridges Simeon Brown and the Hon Nick Smith who sit on the Justice Committee. Around mandatory sentencing we actually feel that there is a place for that at times but the reason why we compromised on this—and we had a lot of discussion on this side of the House. It went back to the caucus. The reason why we made a compromise around mandatory sentencing is because we were committed and trying to do the best that we could in passing a bill that we think sends a very positive message from this our House of Representatives back to our corrections officers our first responders our nurses and emergency department (ED) staff in saying that we recognise and we support you. Because the Labour Party and the members of the committee took a very strong stance against mandatory sentencing we felt that if we moved on that we made a compromise and instead we put forward and made some changes around cumulative sentences then actually it would take away the barrier it would take away the argument from them around why they couldn't support the bill and they'd come in behind the bill. But as you've heard with the chair's speech tonight in the House they still haven't done that. Instead of getting on their feet and saying Yes the mandatory sentencing now has gone so actually it's a bill now that we could support." they've got up and said "No the mandatory sentencing now has gone so now we don't see that there's any value in the bill."Simeon Brown: It's a shocker. Hon Simon Bridges: Shocker.Hon MARK MITCHELL: And I'll tell you why that's a shocker—I'll tell you why it's a shocker. Because she was right: as of today an assault on a first responder or prison officer is actually treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing. But this bill goes a lot further. This bill actually makes it an offence to assault a first responder or a corrections officer. That is a big change. That is a significant change this House saying "Yes it's good to have it as an aggravating factor—there's no doubt about that. We're going to take a step further. We're actually going to make it an offence now something that someone can be charged with." I just find it very very puzzling when I hear my colleague and friend Simeon Brown on his feet just about every day in his role as our police spokesperson and corrections spokesperson highlighting the disturbing increase of assaults on our police on our corrections officers. I'll tell you what: it's not always immediately visible and it is actually hidden away to a certain extent. It's probably even under-reported. But you know what I do want to talk about our nurses and doctors and the medical staff that work in our emergency departments because if you go and visit an ED on probably sadly now just about any day of the week but certainly on a Friday or Saturday night you'll see them dealing with people that are under the influence of drugs. You'll see them the people that have been involved in assaults and domestic violence that have often injured themselves—they end up in the ED. In my own time as a front-line police officer I grew to have a very deep respect and admiration for them and the way that they were continuing to try and help and treat and do the best for someone that often was hurling verbal abuse at them was assaulting them whether they be minor or whether they were serious and major assaults. Actually this bill was sending a really positive message to them from this Parliament. It was saying that we recognise what you do for us. We recognise what you have to put up with what you have to deal with. When most of us leave home to go to work we like to think that we're going to go to a safe environment an environment where we feel safe. Actually a lot of these nurses they don't. They leave home when they're working on the ED—and even some of them working in the wards now sadly because even if you go to North Shore Hospital you'll see a very strong gang presence in a lot of those wards. They aren't always safe. Actually us representatives—and this puzzles me every single time when Labour take a position against these types of bills that we have an opportunity as representatives of this House to say that we ask those corrections officers to go out there and do a job for us as a country. We ask those police officers to work at night to keep our communities safe. We need those ED nurses and doctors and medical staff in there caring for and looking after people when they come through. Even our fire and emergency personnel the volunteers in my own electorate—often they're faced with the same situation: they're put in situations where they're dealing with aggressive violent drunk and drugged individuals. The one thing that we could have done as a Parliament—the opportunity that we were given by Darroch Ball with this bill—was to turn our minds to it was to put it into the select committee process was to make some changes to it. The changes have been made—the changes actually that the Labour Party and the Labour Government asked to be made. They've been made. There is no excuse now not to support this bill. You know that they're waffling. Hon Louise Upston: Why aren't they supporting it?Hon MARK MITCHELL: They aren't supporting it because it's disrupting the hierarchy of offending which—I don't know if anyone back home even knows what that means. I've got no idea how that applies to this bill. Because I'll go right back to the start. In terms of disrupting the hierarchy of offending I'll tell you—Hon Simon Bridges: I think it's the hierarchy of the Labour Party.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well that's very true. They've obviously been told what they're going to do with it. The reality of it is this: when the charges are laid the police decide what the appropriate charge is—not the judges not us as parliamentarians or legislators. It's the police that decide what charge is going to be applied. So to stand in this House—and I feel sorry for the other Labour speakers that are going to stand and respond to this because they've got their speaking notes and they're going to get up and say the same thing. They're going to say "Oh yes we didn't like the mandatory part of the bill." We've taken that out. Simeon's put a very good Supplementary Order Paper in around cumulative sentencing which we think goes a long way to actually sending that very positive message out there to our first responders. But they're going to get up and they're going to say "The mandatory piece has been taken out but actually now there's no substance to the bill." Yes it's true. We are creating an offence and actually that's substantive. That's important—that is important. But they're going to say it's disrupting the hierarchy of offending. Define that for this House and explain it to—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."