Bridges SimonHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It's good to take a call on this bill. I just want to start firstly though by acknowledging that the parliamentary cricket team played a game of cricket in Hamilton I think it was. And I just want to acknowledge the member for Hamilton West over there. I wasn't on the field I wasn't there but I understand that he was instrumental in the team winning in the weekend—and I just wanted to say that.I do want to talk about this bill though. It is an interesting bill. I want to start by saying that the member for Taieri I think it is gave possibly the most namby-pamby soft-on-crime speech I've heard in a decade. She fundamentally said No look if someone injures an ambulance officer we actually just need to kind of understand them and be nice to them and that is somehow going to solve it." Look I'm all for rehabilitation and reintegration but that kind of namby-pamby soft-on-crime approach does not work. We support this bill with amendments Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which we would at the committee of the whole House put forward to make this I think a good bill—and that is our proposal. I just want to make four or five points in the eight or nine minutes I've got. The first is that it is—despite the namby-pamby soft-on-crime speech that we've heard on the other side of the House—right to create an offence for injury of first responders and prison officers. I think the best point the other side could make is "Well actually it's already an aggravating factor at sentencing." So if you are sentenced for assault for assault with intent to injure for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or what have you well in those instances that it was a first responder would be an aggravating factor at sentencing—and it might be an uplift a relatively small one at that.But I want to say this to the other side as to why this offence is not only desirable actually it is necessary: because signalling in criminal law really matters. We have another bill before the Justice Committee in relation to insane offenders—that is the legal terminology—who are not guilty by reason of insanity. Well what we heard from I think in the end actually hundreds of submitters in that case was that that nomenclature that naming of the verdict in that: well it was offensive to them. It was effectively a revictimisation for them—not guilty by reason of insanity—and they want a name change. The signalling matters and it matters here as well because first responders and prison officers deserve—for their loyal hard service in our country—formal recognition by Parliament of that critical public service. Yes we can thank them but actually we should do better than that; we should try and help keep them safe with deterrent sentences in the courts. We have that opportunity to do that in this bill.I would also say look as an element of an offence—which we are doing: we are creating an offence here where it is an element of the offence that it is a first responder or a prison officer; in fact it is wider than that but I'll come to that point—it will mean that offenders in these situations and I make no apology for this to the soft-on-crime people on the other side of this House do receive higher more condign deterrent sentences. And that is actually right because what they are doing is wrong. We need to see harder sentences in this area because it is getting harder and harder worse and worse for first responders—whether they be prison officers policemen and policewomen you name it.If you don't think I'm right Simeon Brown told me a remarkable series of facts that he has worked out through his work as a member of Parliament: 92 percent; there has been an increase of 92 percent of prisoner assaults on corrections officers in the last three years. Right? In the last three years it has gone up 92 percent. And those requiring medical treatment in our prisons—that is the prison officers who have been assaulted—it is not as high as the 93 percent; it is up 33 percent and all the while Stuart Nash the prison population has dropped 15 percent. So the numbers have dropped but the assaults and the harm on officers is worse. Who would want to be a corrections officer in this country today? And actually the union is making that point clear with their vote of no confidence in the Minister of Corrections.That's not the point of this bill. But I simply make the point: actually it is right to have this offence; the symbolism of it matters; these are people great New Zealanders working hard for our country; it is dangerous; it is getting worse for them on their ground as I've demonstrated and we need this offence.The second point I want to make is that we support extending cover to a wider group of public services. And if we have the opportunity we'll have an SOP that does that so that it is not just first responders of a certain kind a strict kind and prison officers; we would extend this to police officers to general practitioners and the hospital staff that work in critical Public Service roles. I know from long experience that for so many of these people it is dangerous. I remember a jury trial in Pukehina I think it was it was a murder trial the ambulance officers were the first people on the scene they turned up there was a bit of a crowd it had been a party someone had been stabbed to death. As the ambulance officers got out to try and assist they were spat at and kicked and punched. And by the way that is not uncommon. That is happening as a matter of course around New Zealand—I'm not exaggerating to say—every single day. First responders are treated like crap by scumbags in the country when they are trying to save people's lives and do the right things. So I say—quite clearly actually—we should extend coverage in this bill. That is the right thing to do here. We have that opportunity if this bill were to pass.Thirdly it was New Zealand First and Darroch Ball as we've heard who proposed a mandatory minimum sentence. We don't support that. Most of National are against that in principal full stop. I'd say judges if I can put it this way are squiffy as a general rule of thumb when it comes to mandatory minimums. They think that and say that it gets in the way of their discretion when it comes to sentencing. I do just want to say this: I think on occasion mandatory minimum prison sentences are appropriate. I think that constitutionally it is entirely within Parliament's remit to pass them on occasion. Sentencing and what prisoners receive in court is constitutionally the right of Parliament not just the courts. And if I can name-drop for a second at Oxford the foremost expert in the area of sentencing around the common law world Professor Andrew Ashworth was quite clear on that. I do think there are occasions—not in this bill—where mandatory minimums are the right thing to do.Finally we do support cumulative sentencing for this new offence. As I say the good New Zealanders who work so hard in this area in dangerous difficult jobs seeing people at their worst turning up to crimes in our emergency departments in our prisons with the most dangerous New Zealanders—sadly there are and sadly these days a lot of Aussies as well—they deserve deterrent sentences in this area.In the last minute or so I do want to say—I haven't prepared this; listening to the speeches of the Labour Party members I feel somewhat obliged to do it—why on earth would the Labour Party vote against this bill? Well is it because they don't value first responders? Is that why they do it? They sneer on the other side but actually when they've got a good bill before them that would help protect first responders result in more deterrent sentences I just wonder. I think the ultimate reason is this: the Labour Party of New Zealand is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. They actually think like the member for Taieri that if they sort of hug a hoodie if they go along and have hui with patched gang members that somehow is going to make things better. Well we know that rehabilitation reintegration and setting people up in the prison system for success on the way out is the right thing to do. But you also have to sentence them and make sure they realise—and are punished for what are terrible crimes that make Kiwis less safe."