Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Could the Minister explain to me in the last review period in the document that was provided to us under Our People. How we ensure our staff are well and safe" it says "We are committed to ensuring the wellness and safety of our people to enable them to remain fit for work and fit for life and are deployable through a prevention advisory and responsive service delivery model. We are creating and building on a culture where safety and wellness are part of every employee's DNA and intrinsic in everything we do and where they are valued and feel valued. Our priority of Be first then do is about focusing on our own people's wellbeing and their safety in order for them to be [able to do] their very best in their roles."How does that square Minister with the fact that on 9 February there was a meeting between the commissioner; the Attorney-General David Parker; the MP for Wellington Grant Robertson—and I'd like to hear your comments on this one why an MP is meeting with our Commissioner of Police—and the Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard and that that meeting as reported by the commissioner was uncomfortable. The police staff that were on site the following day their operations order was quite simply to continue to do what they had been doing and that was provide security perimeter security and observation. At 10 o'clock that night after that meeting with the Speaker the Attorney-General and the MP for Wellington those operation orders were changed and those officers were put out on a skirmish line without according to the Independent Police Conduct Authority report a proper plan without the proper training and actually without the proper equipment. Just about every single one of those officers that were deployed felt very strongly that the decision around that and the timing related directly to political pressure that was brought to bear on the commissioner. My question to the Minister is this: why were staff deployed into a situation that police already knew was dangerous for them? Because there had been two incidents prior to that where parliamentary security staff had gone out into the crowd and had had to withdraw because of the aggression and the violence shown towards them. There was a second incident where police staff were deployed into the crowd and had to do a tactical withdrawal because there was aggression shown towards them. They knew that there was an aggressive element of the protests. There were a lot of good people there. There were some people there that were looking for a confrontation with police officers without a doubt. Why were they deployed without the proper protective gear and why were they deployed into a skirmish line when that's not what the plan was for them on the 10th? How did those changes come about and why was there not investment made—in the year 2021-22—to ensure that there was enough protective equipment and that our staff was given it? Because everything that happened that day on the 10th flies in the face of this annual review in terms of what the police are saying around valuing their people and making sure that they're put in a situation where they are safe and they can return home to their families after they've finished their role."