Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:155. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Let me first extend my thanks to the Law and Order Committee for its work on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. The committee received 11 submissions on the bill and has recommended that it proceed without amendment.  
This bill demonstrates the Government’s support for front-line law enforcement staff. It helps to protect our police and corrections officers by explicitly denouncing those offenders who commit offences against these officers while acting in the course of their duties. Without this amendment the courts are not under any obligation to consider the fact that an offence has been committed against a police or corrections officer as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The current law includes a number of offences that apply specifically to police and corrections officers. However when an assault on a police or corrections officer is serious the offender is charged with a generic offence such as attempted murder or wounding with intent to injure. Generic offences do not specifically recognise that the victim in a particular case was a police or corrections officer acting in the course of his or her duty. The absence of a specific aggravating factor in section 9 of the Sentencing Act means this fact does not have to be considered by the courts at all when an offender has been convicted of a generic offence.  
This bill creates a specific aggravating factor for offences against police and corrections officers making it mandatory for judges to consider the fact that the victim was a police or corrections officer as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The bill sends a strong signal that assaults against police and corrections officers will not be tolerated. We know the number of assaults on police and corrections officers has increased over the years. The Government believes the role of police and corrections officers as the first line of defence for the public is deserving of enhanced protection. This bill ensures that our police and corrections officers are given the level of State protection that they deserve.  
Police and corrections officers have a legal obligation to deal with dangerous people in dangerous situations. This obligation is unlike that applicable to any other occupation. Where staff in other occupations can walk away police and corrections officers must move forward to deal with dangerous situations on behalf of the community as our front line of defence. Our police and corrections officers are responsible for keeping our communities safe from the most dangerous people in society so it is important that the Government reciprocates by taking a firm stance on assaults against our front-line officers and that the Government expressly denounces this abhorrent behaviour.  
This bill demonstrates this firm stance. This bill shows that the Government is taking assaults against our police and corrections officers seriously by requiring the courts to specifically consider this as an aggravating factor in sentencing offenders. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Sentencing Act contains a number of instructions from Parliament which is the supreme lawmaking body in our system to the judiciary as to how that branch of Government should carry out one of its most basic responsibilities: the sentencing of convicted persons. Section 7 of the Sentencing Act sets out the purposes this Parliament tells the courts they ought to observe in carrying out the act of sentencing. Section 8 sets out the principles that the courts are to take into account when sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders. Section 9(1) lists factors that judges are to take into account as aggravating ones when dealing with the exercise of sentencing. I want to list some of the aggravating factors that are currently in the Act so that members have a clear understanding of the context of what is being done by this amendment.  
The first aggravating factor is the actual or threatened use of violence in the conduct of the offence or the actual or threatened use of a weapon. The offence if it involves unlawful entry into or unlawful presence in a dwelling place will be aggravated. If the offence was committed while the offender was on bail or still subject to the sentence of the court that will also be an aggravating factor. The extent of any loss damage or harm resulting from the offence particular cruelty in the commission of the offence the abuse of a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim or the vulnerability of the victim by reason of his or her age or health or because of any other factor known to the offender are also aggravating factors that a judge must take into account in sentencing.  
Clause 5 of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill will add a new aggravating factor to section 9(1) and I am going to read the aggravating factor that we are contemplating here. We heard the Minister of Justice refer to it briefly in her speech. It is: “that the victim”—presumably the victim of the offence in question—“was a constable or a prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty:”. So that is expressly said to be a factor that the courts must take into account. This is in response to we learn from the regulatory impact statement a 13.9 percent increase between fiscal years 2004-05 and 2008-09 in assaults on police officers and a 56.3 percent increase in assaults on corrections officers over the same time. 
 Labour did not oppose this amendment on its first reading and our members listened carefully to the evidence at the Law and Order Committee. We will not oppose this bill at its second reading because it seems to us that it is a measure that can do little harm. But the question we really need to be asking ourselves at this juncture is whether the bill will do any good. It stands to reason that if there has been a marked increase in assaults on police and corrections officers over the last 5 or 6 years then we have a problem. But we also need to not ignore the evidence and the evidence is this. There are already a number of specific offences that exist on the statute book in respect of violence against uniformed service persons in the police or the corrections service. For example there is already a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment for using a firearm against any police traffic or prison officer. It is already the case that there is a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment provided for the aggravated assault of a constable in the execution of his or her duty. Under the Summary Offences Act it is already the case that 6 months’ imprisonment is prescribed for assaults on a police officer and elsewhere in the Summary Offences Act there are special provisions for resisting a police officer a prison officer or a traffic officer with a maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment.  
There is already a special regime in place. We put it in place to punish in particular assaults on front-line responders and yet we still have this big increase in assaults on them. That would tend to tell us that whatever appears in the law relating to sentencing is not a big deterrent to those who choose to assault police officers or corrections officers. The regulatory impact statement actually recognises that this is to be an Act of this Parliament that leads us very close to window dressing. I am going to read what is said in the regulatory impact statement: “The proposed amendment will not require the court to take any specific action in terms of the type or severity of sentence imposed. The court will be required to take this factor into account—along with other specified and unspecified aggravating factors—in arriving at the appropriate sentence to be imposed in a particular case. Because judges’ assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors are not amenable to empirical analysis and the proposed amendment does not entail specific action by the court no monitoring or evaluation of the proposed amendment is possible. As noted above the Government has decided to undertake the proposed amendment to the Sentencing Act. The narrow and specific nature of the proposal has restricted the range of options that can reasonably be considered.”  
The problem here is that the Minister has seen a practice that she rightly wishes to condemn. Nobody can support an increase in assaults on front-line responders. But then as so often happens in this Parliament the response that has been employed is suspect. It is not evidence based. In fact we know that there is no way to tell whether or not all the parliamentary time that we are now devoting to this measure will make one jot of difference to the safety of police or corrections officers. When we are in that situation we just need to ask ourselves why we are doing this: whether it is all about responding to particular interest groups and particular folk on a certain end of the political spectrum or whether we are actually sincere in trying to legislate for a solution.  
There are other questions about this bill. What about other first-line responders like nurses and ambulance officers who are also in danger of assault in their workplace? Why not provide for them in this sort of legislation? I think it would be an appropriate thing to consider amendments of that nature in the Committee of the whole House if this bill proceeds to that point.  
I think it is fair to say that as far as the cynicism inherent in this measure is concerned the Government knows what it is doing. This legislation has hardly been rushed through the House. It had its introduction on 13 October 2010 and it has wended its leisurely way through the processes of the Parliament since then. Clearly the Government does not feel there is any urgent need to move in this way. And that has been sadly typical of the Key Government’s approach to law and order—engage in window dressing and engage in legislation that sounds good on talkback radio and in sound bites but that makes no difference to safety on the streets. If we want any further evidence of that we can think of the three-strikes legislation we can think of the stalled alcohol law reform legislation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Would Labour repeal it? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Labour will repeal it; that is right. Labour will repeal all non - evidence-based measures that do not make one jot of difference to public safety. The three-strikes legislation the stalled alcohol law reform—all these measures have a common genesis. They are done because they are something that can be rehearsed in public and there can be chest-beating about it but actually there is very little difference that is made to law and order in the end. Now at the same time important measures like those defining the search and surveillance powers of our police languish on the Order Paper. We have a new Minister of Justice and she has the opportunity to make a new beginning. Sadly but perhaps not surprisingly we are not seeing it. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I must take issue with my colleague across the floor Charles Chauvel making the comments he did about this Government’s record on law and order. In 1854 William Howard Russell reporting on the Russian cavalry’s advance on Balaclava spoke: “They dashed on towards that thin red line tipped with steel.” In 2008 under the previous Government for the Russian cavalry read the assorted miscreants recidivists and gang members of the small villages towns and cities of New Zealand. The thin red line is now tinged with blue and made up of men and women armed with little more than their courage their hope and wooden batons against the relentless tide of crime. That was then in 2008 and this is now. Since then we have had an excellent Minister in charge of measures of law and order and corrections in the form of the Hon Judith Collins and huge gains have been made.  
I can speak from the heart on this having been based in Manurewa for 3 years. It is a wonderful diverse community full of people hard-working and ambitious for themselves with a small number who lack a sense of purpose and a feeling of belonging who become regrettably the object of the long arm of the law. It has to be said there are many more long arms of the law in Manurewa since this Government has been in power. In fact there are 300 more uniformed men and women—300 more uniformed men and women—in Manurewa Manukau and the Counties-Manukau Police District where crime has been shown to have fallen significantly. There are 300 more spread around the rest of New Zealand in our small towns and villages and urban centres such as New Plymouth; in places like Otago Dunedin and Wanaka where my colleague Jacqui Dean is based; and of course in our greater urban centres such as Auckland and Christchurch.  
This Government has done an enormous amount for law and order. Some of the tools that our police have got since 2008 include Tasers and police safety orders. I have been out with the police on a number of occasions in Manurewa. May I commend those men and women in the Counties-Manukau team who go out there risking their lives day and night to protect our community.  
This is one of the reasons this bill applies only to police and corrections officers because it is our Government’s view that it is the police and corrections officers who cannot hide behind anyone else. Nurses do a wonderful job. I have worked as a doctor at accident and emergency myself and I know what it is like on a Saturday night when the drunks come in. I know what it is like on a Saturday night when the drunks come in and the nursing staff and the medical staff in our hospitals do an outstanding job. But if they get into trouble who do they call? They call the police. It is the police who have to take the brunt of this unbridled aggression and appalling behaviour day in and day out. That is the reason that this is yet another layer of protection this Government is affording our men and women in the thin blue line.  
This is a denunciatory piece of legislation. This says it is not appropriate to assault the custodians of law and order—those people those men those women who time and time again go out there and put their lives on the line to keep us safe. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am actually very grateful to that member Cam Calder for his contribution to this debate because he has actually spelt out in his contribution exactly why the top priority for this Government in this area should have been the alcohol law reform bill and why this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill will not make the extent of difference it could make if in fact it was extended to first responders such as nurses in our emergency departments and other staff in that area.  
But more important and they have not been mentioned yet are our ambulance officers. They too are confronted with a situation and yes they may call the police. But the purpose of this is actually to state the abhorrence as the member said of the act of committing a criminal act against an individual who is acting in the course of their duty. A first responder in an accident situation will in fact be an ambulance officer more often than not. They will be there before the police are there and they are the ones who are subjected to outrageous attacks on occasions as well. And if the purpose of this legislation is as the member said—and I think this is the purpose of the legislation; it is not to act as a deterrent and thereby potentially reduce the number of assaults on anyone concerned; it is designed simply to state this Parliament’s abhorrence of such attacks being made on people in those positions—then there is no reason not to include people who work for our ambulance services and people who work at the front line of our health services. They are much more likely to come into contact with this kind of behaviour than any group other than obviously the police and the corrections officers themselves. So I think it would be a very good thing for us to expand this.  
Now I did see that the Justice and Electoral Committee considered this as an issue and its response to it was that the bill itself was to recognise the legal obligation of first responders to dangerous situations. Well I actually think that that language applies equally to our ambulance officers in particular but to emergency staff at our emergency departments as well.  
The other thing that I would just mention in relation to this is that when the select committee looked at this it felt that there was potentially a problem with the scope of the legislation and whether there was sufficient scope in the purpose of the law to recommend an amendment to extend it beyond that. I think the solution to that lies in this House because of course when it comes to the Committee stage it would be very easy for the Minister of Justice to move or seek leave of the House that any out-of-scope amendments extending the coverage of the legislation could be dealt with in the Committee stage. I certainly could speak for the Labour Opposition in saying that we would be very amenable to such an amendment. I think it would send a very powerful message if the House took that approach to our ambulance officers and to other staff as well. And if the reason is genuinely that the select committee felt that it could not go beyond the scope of the legislation as introduced well then the remedy lies in the House’s hands. That is something that I would ask the Minister to perhaps look at over the next wee while before we get to the Committee stage of the bill.  
The second issue that was looked at in select committee was the question of creating a reciprocal aggravating factor. Now I actually agree with the position that the select committee came to on this. As for the purpose of the legislation in sending a message in terms of how we feel about this kind of behaviour—that in itself—I do not think it is appropriate to reverse the obligation when that obligation already exists in fact. So I do believe that the select committee came to the right point of view on that.  
Now I want to turn to the regulatory impact statement. Those of you who know me know that I love regulatory impact statements. I think they are the most important part of the legislative process. I have been working very hard on ensuring that we have a really good process around regulatory impact statements and I know a good regulatory impact statement when I see one and I know a very poor one when I see one. I am sorry; this one fits into the very poor category. But that is because of the brief that the officials were given. I will just run through the regulatory impact statement because I notice some new members in the House and they will not have heard my speech before— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They will be invigorated. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: They will be invigorated by it—absolutely. My normal speech goes something like this: the purpose of the regulatory impact analysis is to one state the problem; two identify all of the options for addressing the problem; three undertake detailed analysis—and that means risk opportunity cost and benefits so you really do have to undertake the analysis with all of the options on the table—consult with relevant stakeholders and then recommend a particular course of action. The final point which people do not always remember is to follow it up with a process for the analysis of the efficacy of what you have done—so that you are actually looking back over a period of time seeing how the change has actually been implemented. Now that is a very good process.  
Unfortunately this statement has not done any of them except for stating the problem and the solution in one sentence which is that there has been an “increase in the number of assaults on police officers and prison officers over the past five years and a spate of serious incidents in recent months [therefore] the Government has decided that the Sentencing Act 2002 should be amended to ensure that the fact that an offence is committed against a law enforcement officer will be taken into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing.” So all of the in-between steps have been left out of the process and with regard to that final one about analysis of its impact afterwards it says here: “Because judges’ assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors are not amenable to empirical analysis and the proposed amendment does not entail specific action by the court no monitoring or evaluation of the proposed amendment is possible.” It is not even difficult; it is just not possible. So it fails on that final point as well. We have had a statement of the problem gone straight to the solution and unfortunately I think we have missed a bit of an opportunity to do something a little bit more than this.  
I am not opposed to the concept of setting out in the Sentencing Act another aggravating feature—I am not at all—but I do not want anyone to think that the aggravating features in the Sentencing Act are in any way a method by which we reduce the offending concerned because in actual fact it does not work like that. Usually when we are talking about assaults we are talking about things that are done on the spur of the moment. We have heard of alcohol involvement which is why I think the Alcohol Reform Bill would have been a better priority for us to be dealing with tonight. So there are not any occasions that I can think of where people in the circumstances of being engaged in an assault say “Gee I wonder what sentence I’ll get for this if I get caught?”. That is the problem with the concept of it not reducing the problem. I think there has to be more than this; it cannot just be this to deal with the underlying issue.  
When we look at how the High Court regards assaults on police officers again the regulatory impact statement is a great source of valuable information. This is how the High Court has described an attack on a police officer. The High Court has said it is the “equivalent to an attack on the community because our police are the representatives of the community in the matter of law and order in society. They are society’s frontline …”. The Court of Appeal has emphasised the gravity of using serious violence against police officers and upheld deterrent sentences in a number of cases. That was done on an ongoing basis. That case dated back to 1985. So if we had had the problem definition and the analysis done in between then we might have actually identified that in fact the law already allows the courts to take this matter into account and they usually do. In fact that has been the problem of the process—nobody has identified for us when they did not take it into account or whether they allowed a mitigating factor that this would not allow. This does still allow mitigating factors; it is only one of the aggravating factors to be considered and that is why it is very difficult to monitor. So I think that this whole legislation could have been improved and it can still be improved. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on this bill the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill for the first time and to state the Greens’ continuing support for the bill despite the fact that somewhat like the Labour Party we do not see any particular need for it in the form that it has been presented in. My esteemed colleague Keith Locke spoke during the earlier reading of this bill. With his departure to greener pastures I have inherited the task. It took of course remarkably little time to read the bill in its entirety—a very few number of paragraphs and one substantive clause. It is undoubtedly the shortest piece of legislation I have read in my admittedly limited experience.  
There seems to be no particular justification for this bill. Our reason essentially for supporting rather than opposing it is that to oppose it could be seen to oppose what is basically judicial practice of the time. The judiciary does acknowledge that assault on police or prison officers is a serious matter and is treated as if it is an aggravating issue and for that reason I guess we are continuing to support this.  
The Crown Law Office in its review of the bill was quite unequivocal and I quote: “New Zealand sentencing decisions take into account the fact that a victim of an offence was a police officer or a prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty as a matter of established practice. The Bill confirms the common law position.” This bill is almost superfluous so clearly there is opportunity within it to make it do something useful to make it do something better.  
Mr Chauvel has already listed some of the existing aggravating factors mentioned specifically in the Sentencing Act. These include the actual or threat of use of violence and the threat or use of a weapon and clearly these are appropriate to be referenced in sentencing legislation. People have the right to the security of their person. It is a basic tenet of our law that people ought to feel secure in themselves and to be safe from assault upon them.  
The aggravating factors include unlawful presence in a dwelling place. Again people have a right to feel secure in their own homes and in the places where they live and work and if that security is lost that is a significant issue. That is an important thing and it is a fundamental role of the State to protect the security of the person in their home. In that sense clearly these aggravating factors already identified are somewhat generic and less specific and that is as appropriate as one would want it to be.  
The list is clearly not definitive or exhaustive in the existing legislation. There has been no specific reference to date to police or corrections officers. It is acknowledged that police and prison officers do put themselves in harm’s way. Judges take that into consideration and we can demonstrate that through case law and through simple observation. In fact the case law quoted by the Crown Law Office goes back to at least 1980 and up to the early or mid-2000s. It is current practice it has been practice for quite some time and it is questionable that we really need to take this step.  
The judiciary do their best to protect police officers. They are not loath to impose quite significant sentences on people proven guilty of assaults on police or prison officers but we must also bear in mind that length and severity of sentence are not in any degree proven to be deterrents for potential offenders. The Police Association itself supports this view in its submission. It states there that it can see that simply adding longer or tougher sentences is not a deterrent particularly to violent crimes which as has been pointed out are typically irrational spontaneous actions. People plan burglaries; they plan to deal in drugs or other illegal activity. Violence particularly against police or corrections officers is often a reactive spontaneous action. You can have the longest toughest sentences in the world; it will make not a blind bit of difference in that moment when somebody offends against an officer. So let us not delude ourselves or be under any illusion that these sorts of measures that this bill would put in place will actually make our communities safer and our police and prison officers safer.  
I would add to that that in my belief—I say now and we have said consistently over the last several years—a lot of the actions of this Government the former Government have actually made our prisons and our streets more dangerous. I think of things like the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation like double-bunking and like the imposition of tougher penalties and more severe terms for inmates in our prisons. Those have all contributed to making the job of our corrections officers more dangerous. Words on paper will not remedy that. In that sense this will not be particularly effective.  
The Justice and Electoral Committee—it must be conceded that I did not sit on that committee and I am sure the House will be thrilled as we are that the Greens are now in sufficient numbers that we will have sitting members on every select committee and will be able to participate; we are very happy about that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We’re delighted for you. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Indeed I am sure you are! Thank you. The select committee did deal with these two issues. I made comment on the notion of reciprocal aggravating factors and this situation affecting other people in the public sector. The notion of reciprocity is suggesting that given that police are in a unique position we could say if they are to be uniquely protected then they should also bear unique responsibility shall we say. It was captured quite well by the Council for Civil Liberties in its submission where it said and I quote: “… if offences against police officer and prison officer are to be elevated to the status of ‘aggravating factors’ then it is logical that offences by police officers and prison officers are also elevated to the same status.” There is perhaps an implied suggestion in the existing aggravating factors that a person in a position of authority—a person in a position of trust—ought to be treated more severely by the courts and clearly that does encompass police and prison officers but we do think that there is an argument to be made that there ought to be that reciprocity. Given that the specific rights of police and corrections officers are to be embedded in law then it seems reasonable that the unique responsibilities of those roles also should be acknowledged in this law. That is something that we will be bringing to the Committee stage of this conversation.  
The matter of other public sector officers of various forms and the vulnerability of some of those people who are providing a very significant public service we think could also usefully be acknowledged in this legislation. We could start with nurses ambulance drivers doctors and people working in emergency departments at hospitals. We could think of people working in mental health services and things as basic as noise control officers and animal control officers. I would make a special case for an example like fisheries officers. The penalties for people offending against fisheries legislation are very very severe and can involve significant loss of property vehicles boats and dive gear and loss of liberty at the extreme. Fisheries officers are often working in very isolated situations against people who have considerable motivation dare I say to respond potentially violently against being restrained or arrested by a fisheries officer and taken to task by them.  
So I would suggest that there are cases where these sorts of aggravating factors ought to specifically cover some of these other public servants who are often doing a very difficult job in very vulnerable situations—situations where they are vulnerable to violence against them—and even in small communities to violence or threats of violence that could affect their family and their social life. I do think that if we are going to look at amending this part of the bill we should think a little more broadly.  
I think I will end my contribution there except to say that yes we will continue to support this legislation. In its current form it does no particular harm. It could be amended to do some positive good and we do look forward to suggesting some amendments some additions to it at the Committee stage. Thank you. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand in support of this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and note that parties on the other side of the House likewise are supporting it. I do want to say that we continually hear the comment that none of this legislation will act as a deterrent to those activities. There are times when a judgment from a court is not actually just to serve as a deterrent but as a protection to society particularly if somebody is prepared to assault a police officer or a corrections officer. We need to question whether that person ought to be at liberty to continue or to assault members of the public because assaulting a person in that level of authority shows that they have no regard at all to the rule of law. Let us not be mistaken—this bill is not about a soft counselling session to create a deterrent but about a protection. It is sending a signal. We are writing a line in the sand to say that the protection of our men and women in uniform—who represent the rule of law in our society—is something we take with the utmost seriousness. To think that this legislation is unimportant I believe is a travesty of the purposes of this House which is to protect our society.  
I am sure that each of us here in this House know men and women in our communities who are police officers or corrections officers. Let us not forget that they are our friends and our neighbours. They are sportsmen and women they are coaches they are sons and daughters mothers and fathers family members and brothers and sisters. They are people like us who want to make a contribution not only in their vocation but as contributors to our society. Their job unlike anyone else’s in our community pits them against the most violent in our communities something that none other is required to do.  
I would like to read out what the Police Association printed in its  
Police News 
 at the end of last year because this tells the story of two of its officers who received bravery awards. These are constables in Christchurch. Let me read: “Constable Wardle was speaking after receiving an New Zealand Police Association bravery award along with his colleague former constable Marty Stiles. The two officers were involved in an incident in the Christchurch suburb of Phillipstown in July last year during which Senior Constable Bruce Lamb was shot in the face his police dog Gage was killed and his colleague Constable Mitch Alatalo was shot in the leg. Constables Alatalo and Wardle were conducting a routine search under the Misuse of Drugs Act during which the aggressive manner of one of the occupants led them to call for backup. Constable Stiles and dog handler Senior Constable Lamb and his dog Gage responded. The occupant refused to come out of his room. When Senior Constable Lamb opened the door the man opened fire with a rifle shooting him through the face. His next shot killed police dog Gage. The gunman then came to the doorway and opened fire again this time hitting Constable Alatalo as the officer retreated escaping from the house … While under fire Constable Stiles grabbed his fallen colleague Senior Constable Lamb by the belt and dragged him back down the hallway towards safety. At the same time Constable Wardle (then acting as Sergeant) confronted the gunman with a Taser. As he did so the gunman aimed at Constable Wardle and pulled the trigger but the firearm jammed. The officer fired the Taser but it failed to incapacitate the offender. To buy enough time for Constable Stiles to evacuate the wounded Bruce Lamb Constable Wardle reloaded the Taser and continued to challenge the offender who briefly retreated before again following the officers out of the house and down the drive while pointing his rifle at them. Constable Wardle provided cover for his colleagues while they retreated. Following the officers’ retreat further armed police arrived. The offender rearmed himself with a higher powered rifle and was ultimately arrested by the Armed Offenders Squad.”  
This is the reason why this legislation is before the House because these men and women are facing life-threatening situations that can happen any moment of any day. As a Government we stand by our men and women in uniform who are there to protect the citizens of this nation. National is delivering on our promises to take action on violent crime. We have passed 18 new laws to make families safer in their homes and communities. We have made sentences tougher and strengthened bail law. We have boosted the number of police on the streets and given them new tools to tackle crime while improving services for victims. We are proud of the stance that we are taking. Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. It is absolutely essential that our police officers our prison officers and other staff who work in related roles in these areas are safe and are always as safe as possible in their workplace and that any offence that is committed against them will be taken into account at sentencing. The Government and the courts must take this seriously. Any workplace safety issue is viewed very very seriously and the same must apply here. We do not like to hear that the number of assaults on police officers and prison officers is increasing at the rate that it has done; figures suggest a 33 percent increase over the 2004 to 2009 period.  
It does raise a number of questions. Will the amendment make any difference? We are saying that hopefully it will because it is highlighting the issue to the public. But we ask what about the other related areas—for example the mental health workers the doctors and the psychologists who are employed in the prison service? They are not in uniform but they do need protection. This could be one bill where they actually are provided that protection. We would gladly support an amendment to that effect.  
Training is another area that actually makes us question what is happening in that area. We need to ensure that police and corrections staff have the best training they possibly can get. It needs to be robust it needs to be vigorous and it should be good enough to equip them to carry out their roles in the safest possible manner. If there has been this increase in assaults on police and corrections officers then that should be good reason to ensure that police recruitment and Department of Corrections recruitment is not being deferred and that the number of these people in these services remains high. We will be looking very carefully at the figures over the next wee while to ensure that they actually are.  
John Hayes 
: Bring back Ron Mark. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: We are bringing back a strong law and order focus.  
We will be looking very closely at these bills that the Government is actually pushing through and passing to ensure that they do meet the criteria of our particular law and order policy. New Zealand First has always prided itself on the strong stance it has taken in the law and order area and we will be continuing to do that. We will be supporting appropriate legislation in this area. At this point in time I know that my time is nearly up. New Zealand First will support the second reading of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 It gives me huge pleasure to speak in the last dying minutes of tonight about the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. You know we had a police officer in Oamaru who was going about his business late on a Friday night and these scumbags these local little scumbags thought they would beat him up when he stopped them to have a look at their brake lights which were not working properly. Do you know what these scumbags did to this police officer? They beat him into the gutter. Do you know what this lone police— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted.