SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Madam Chair I would be appreciative if the Minister could have a look at clause 5 of the bill. Now actually before I begin I do also want to say it's lovely to see you Madam Chair in your albeit temporary ascension to this new role.I have a background as a prosecutor as the Minister is aware. I'm also a defence counsel's daughter and was brought up on stories of inappropriate searches so I note my colleague Mr Mitchell's comments across there about the overreach that can occur with police powers being misused and sitting between those two stools one familial and one professional it's always an interesting balance.But the particular issue I'm interested in is in new section 308A. For those watching this is the new offence of discharging a firearm with the intention to intimidate. Now as the Minister will be aware we already have in the Crimes Act 1961 section 198 which is the discharge of a firearm or doing of a dangerous act with intent. Now this makes a 14-year maximum penalty for those who with intent to do grievous bodily harm" discharge a firearm. But here we have the change to a person who "commits an offence who discharges a firearm intending to intimidate 1 or more persons." Now I do note to the Minister that of course the penalty is significantly lesser. It is under 308A(2) "A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (1)"—which is the substantive section that I referred to—"is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years." So obviously as my colleague Mr Mitchell alluded to earlier we have a situation where we have behaviour happening in the community and we over this side of the House have a very different perspective as to the roots of that behaviour why these things have happened why we have this rise in antisocial behaviour—as opposed to our friends across the House. But it is important that we give police powers to deal with bad behaviour. It is important that those powers be proportionate. I think that it is of interest and it is relevant if the Minister would talk to the difference in the standard there: the intent to intimidate as opposed to the intent to commit grievous bodily harm. Because obviously what we're talking about in my perspective as a member of the Justice Committee who worked through this bill is those situations where someone does a drive-by fires out the window and is intending to put fear into people but is not in fact caught by section 198. Now that's my understanding of where this comes into. It is to curb that reckless appalling behaviour but where the intent does not actually exist to cause grievous bodily harm. So you know I would be very keen to hear the Minister talk about that because I think there is a—it behoves us not to go creating crimes willy-nilly. We don't need to load the statute book with more that are not actually going to be relevant and important. I think that's a principle of which my father would be quite keen. It behoves us to make sure that when we do create a new penalty it has the appropriate sentence there. I think that this is something that will get used and I would like to hear a bit more about why it was felt to be important to do and why it was felt to be proportionate. That is my question."