Sepuloni Carmel: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sepuloni Carmel: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17958] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. Labour supports the bill going to the Law and Order Committee. We agree despite what a previous National speaker said earlier in the debate that assaults on police officers and prison officers should be taken very seriously. We have no problem with supporting the bill. However we are concerned that it will not really make any difference as the courts already can and usually do take consideration of assaults as an aggravating factor in sentencing. It is interesting that the Government is taking the issue of the safety of prison officers and police officers so seriously when with the legislation that has been passed and some of the changes the Minister of Corrections has made we have to question whether she has taken the issue seriously in the past. 
I was a member of the Law and Order Committee about 6 months ago. A few things came to the select committee that really put at risk the safety of prison guards. I will mention just one thing to start with: double-bunking which the Minister of Corrections thought she would introduce and which had evidence against it suggesting that it would jeopardise the safety of prison guards. We have seen the privatisation of prisons legislation go through and we had submissions at that time that suggested that in the past when we had a private prison in New Zealand it was a safety risk to the prison officers who were in there at the time. The submissions stated that because of the performance bonus environment the prison guards were working in unfortunately a lot of what should have been reported was not reported and their safety was directly at risk. 
Here we are tonight discussing the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill and members on the other side of the House are discussing the fact that it is all about the safety of prison guards. Very clear legislation has gone through the House that puts their safety at risk. 
As I said we support the safety of our police officers. We along with every other member of Parliament in this House are appalled at the statistics in respect of the increase in assaults that have occurred for police officers over the last 5 years and that have occurred for prison officers over the last 5 years. The reality is that although we support this bill because it does no harm it actually will not do any good either. The unfortunate reality is that in 2 years’ time when we look back at the statistics from now to 2 years moving forward we will see that there is no change in the number of assault cases occurring and unfortunately we will probably see a continued steady incline of the actual assault cases that take place. 
When we talk about police officers and prison guards as victims of assault we take that very seriously; we take it very seriously when we are talking about victims of any crime. We are disappointed on this side of the House that the National Government seems to pick and choose when victims’ rights and when victims’ safety are of importance. We have seen in recent weeks a real undermining of the safety of everyday New Zealanders with the cuts to family violence prevention programmes. That will not do any good for those women who are in situations where they are victims of domestic violence. We will see resourcing and funding taken away so they will no longer have the support they need if they find themselves in that situation. That is a clear indication that the National Government is not looking after victims. 
Another case where it is not looking after victims is in regard to the Domestic Violence Reform Bill which is languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper which was consulted on with the sector widely and which had much time and resources invested in it yet that side of the House does not take it seriously enough to move it up the Order Paper quickly. I think in that first 100 days of office the things that the Government prioritised at that time were from memory not even very important. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Workers’ rights. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Attacking workers’ rights. What else did it do in that first 100 days? 
Carol Beaumont 
: Tax cuts. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Tax cuts for the rich. I think in that first 100 days it gave $30 million to private schools and it did a whole lot of things that were not priorities. That is another example of the National Government not prioritising victims. It did not prioritise the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. Instead we saw attacks on workers’ rights. 
The Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill purports to be an indication of the Government’s support for the safety of police officers and prison guards. Yet as I said every other victim has been hung out to dry by the National Government. The reality is—and I say this sadly because we wish that it would help—that the bill will not make a difference at all. We do not have any objection to this bill as I said. Our real concern is that it will not make a difference. The Sentencing Act already provides that the court may take into account any aggravating or mitigating factor that it thinks fits in addition to the specific factors listed in section 9 of the Act. That is something that is already happening. In terms of aggravating factors and in terms of looking at that when sentencing takes place we do not need this bill to make that happen. It is something that is already happening in our courts. 
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 simply be required to take this factor into account along with other specified and unspecified aggravating factors and to arrive at the appropriate sentence to be imposed in a particular case. In most circumstances the process considerations and conclusion that the courts come to will not be in the slightest bit affected by this proposed amendment because the fact that an offence has been committed against a police or prison officer is something that the courts would usually already—as I said before—take into consideration. 
The Ministry of Justice pointed out in the regulatory impact statement to this bill that courts have traditionally regarded assaults on law enforcement officers as serious. The High Court has described an attack on a police officer as equivalent to an attack on the community because our police officers are the representatives of the community on the matter of law and order in society. They are society’s front line. The Court of Appeal has emphasised the gravity of using serious violence against police officers and has upheld deterrent sentences in a number of cases. 
This bill certainly will not have any effect on the likelihood that an offender will assault a police officer or prison officer. Offenders do not stop to consider mitigating and aggravating factors that may be taken into consideration by the court when committing an offence. It is another example of the National Government doing things like this in a punitive manner where it does not make a difference. We saw it with the “three strikes” bill and we know from the submissions that came before the Law and Order Committee that having “three strikes” legislation will not make an offender stop and think before committing a crime. Basically it is not effective at all. This bill is another meaningless piece of law and order legislation from a Government that does not seem to have any ideas for reducing crime other than increasing sentences. 
In terms of what is going on at the moment out there such as people struggling because the cost of living is going up the Government proposing State asset sales despite the fact that 60 percent of New Zealanders say they do not want it and only 10 percent say they do the fact that increasingly children are showing up at our schools without having had breakfast and without lunch in their bags it makes members on this side of the House wonder why legislation like this which we know will not be effective should be a priority of the National Government. It is window dressing. It is about the National Government trying to look like it is being hard on crime trying to look like it is dong something in respect of law and order but at the end of the day we on this side of the House know—and time will tell—that none of these measures that the Government is putting into place will be effective in any way. Thank you.