SpeechCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to start by acknowledging all of the first responders across this great nation of ours. These people do wonderful work in very selfless and sacrificial ways supported often by friends and whānau who themselves make sacrifices and themselves serve through their loved ones being on the front line in the call of duty and all too often being injured in that line of service. I'd be remiss if I were not to acknowledge in particular those within my own electorate who do that. It's somewhat an emotional point for those in West Auckland to be considering the subject of first responders and the protection thereof in the light of the incident of a week or so ago in Massey involving Constable Hunt. I'd like to acknowledge as others have done those who submitted to the Justice Committee. The chair has acknowledged them and she's right to do so. We heard from a range of different categories of those who serve us in that way and it was appropriate for them to be heard in a very respectful manner and I believe that that is the experience that they will have come away from the select committee with—again entirely appropriately. The proximity of the word Protection" and the phrase "First Responders and Prison Officers" in the name of the legislation itself indicates that serious consideration is due to the proposal of Mr Ball. I congratulate him for the intent underlying the bill. I think it's a worthy aim that he brings forward to this House to protect better than we currently do those who put themselves in the line of fire even literally for the benefit of all fellow Kiwis.If the question were simply whether we should do everything reasonable and possible within our power to protect first responders of course the answer would be yes. This is important for a number of reasons. One is simply that it is the right thing to do. Another is that we can think about the effect of the danger in which we place first responders and prison officers in terms of recruitment and retention of women and men within those services. Actually as the member points out in his explanatory note we also impede the ability of such people to help others if they themselves are injured in the act of violence against them when they're responding.Of course there are issues to be worked through in terms of the extent to which a bill such as this will provide effective deterrence or if it's another aim perhaps of criminal justice that would be served. Suffice to note at this point ahead of the committee stage I think a couple of issues do deserve serious attention. One is the question of who is a first responder. That was a subject of some debate at select committee and I note that the member has placed at least one Supplementary Order Paper on the Table that will provide a bit more guidance in that. We're talking about particular services that would be affected or potentially the principle at stake of what kind of person what kind of action might represent first response such that the bill should capture it.The chair of the select committee wearing her hat as a Labour Party member of this House has talked about the difficulties that were raised in relation to mandatory minimum sentences and that's again probably detail that we will look to get into at the committee stage and beyond. Actually I'd also like to mention in that connection the distinction between concurrent versus consecutive sentences—an important one as well. So with that I join with others in this House in expressing support for the aims of the bill. I'm looking forward to discussing the detail further. I will leave my contribution at this point for now on that note. Thank you."