Clendon David: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:161. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.