SpeechPROTECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND PRISON OFFICERS BILLSecond ReadingDARROCH BALL (NZ First): I move That the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill be now read a second time.Firstly what I'd like to do is just very briefly outline what the bill intends to do. There are two main things. The first is to create a new offence of injuring a first responder or a prison officer with intent which has a mandatory minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment and also to include emergency health and fire service staff in the offence of assault on police prison or traffic officers currently provided for in the Summary Offences Act. I have tabled already three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we will be discussing in the next phase of the bill going through the House. The first is to ensure we change the term prison officers" to "corrections officers". That might sound like a small issue but to the corrections officers it is quite a large deal and very important for them. The second SOP deals with and ensures that any sentence that is handed out to a prisoner who is found guilty of this charge actually is cumulative and not concurrent. And the third would basically include or ensure that nurses and doctors that work in emergency departments are included under this legislation. So that hopefully will be discussed in the next phase.First of all before I get into some of the submissions from the select committee I would just like to say that I am utterly disappointed in the Justice Committee and the fact that they after nearly 6½ months of deliberating this very important piece of legislation—and they know that it's very important legislation due not only to the number of submissions that we've had but to the backing of the most important ones of those submissions which were the stakeholders and the victims which this bill tries to protect; the St John paramedics the Corrections Association the Police Association and the nurses and doctors themselves. What I find not only astonishing but utterly disappointing and frustrating is that there is no report from the select committee to be debated here today and I hope that those organisations are watching and can get some sort of explanation from those members of the Justice Committee.The only thing that anybody needs to do to understand why we need this legislation why we need legislation for a minimum mandatory sentence why we need to create a different law that identifies and protects our first responders our men and women who put a uniform on every day and who put their life on the line their safety on the line to protect us and the community—all we have to do to understand why is read and listen to their submissions. Every single one of them—and this is what's quite telling: we had a number of bureaucrats that came in and gave submissions a number of people who are involved with the creation of laws in this country and give commentary on the creation of laws in this country; we had a number of submissions from victims' advocates and the offenders' advocates—groups that advocate for offenders—and then we had the stakeholders give their submissions the ones that are the actual victims of the crimes that this legislation aims to protect.We've had all those bureaucrats on the one side and most if not all submitted against this legislation and gave varying degrees of reasons why. But if you look at all of those if you look at all of the submissions from St John from the Corrections Association from the Police Association from the nurses and the doctors who work in emergency departments they all submitted in favour of this bill. And it wasn't just in favour; it was in strong favour of this bill. What that highlighted to me and it should have highlighted to the entirety of the Justice Committee was that this not only is a bill that they backed and that they need that they know that they need right now but whatever the current law is isn't working isn't helping them and isn't protecting them. During the select committee phase and listening to the submissions it became quite clear to me that there were a number of arguments—and I know that there are some parties in this House today that will vote against this bill moving to the next stage. And those arguments against putting through this legislation simply do not stack up and do not make sense and do not compare to the submissions from our first responders.I'd like to quickly go through the reasons why in their own submissions our first responders want this bill to pass. The submission from St John: every year approximately 3000 instances of abuse and assault for our St John paramedics—every single year. And approximately 80 of those physical assaults reported every month—around 10 of them are very serious. We actually had a submission from a paramedic come through who was assaulted and the sentence that that offender got was a fine—was just a fine. We heard issues recently of a paramedic in Warkworth who was pulled from her vehicle punched until she got to the ground and stomped on the face until she was unconscious. What we've got here is a current situation and an environment where not only do people think that it's acceptable that our first responders are assaulted but there is no deterrent and the current law is simply not working not only to deter but to draw a line in the sand as a society and say that this isn't acceptable that we do take assaults on our first responders seriously. That's what this legislation is trying to address.For our corrections officers between 2016 and 2019 the total number of days lost as a result of assaults on prison staff went from 770 to over 1500 hours lost. They note that the number of assaults on prison officers increased from 2013 from just over 300 to over 650 in that time period until 2019—with the same ratio for serious offences. And as a union the Corrections Association noticed that there are far more pack attacks on staff and the use of weapons especially stabbing weapons focusing on the face head and neck area.The most important submission was actually from our Police Association. These are the guys and girls in uniform that stand in between us and the people that we don't want to deal with that protect the community and have to deal with the people that we don't want to deal with. The Police Association note in their submission that there is an underestimation of the frequency and seriousness of attacks on our first responders and while the risks are acknowledged there should not be an expectation of being assaulted. That's a common theme: that there's an unwritten expectation that our first responders should just have to put up with it; that our corrections officers should just have to put up with it.I'd note a couple of cases of how this current legislation is not working how the current sentencing regime is not working. In April 2019 an offender punched a police officer in the head knocked him to the ground and got 140 hours' community service. In May 2017 an offender caught in the midst of a burglary threw acidic white powder in the constable's face—first charged with aggravated wounding with a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment; at trial it was downgraded to injuring with intent and carried a maximum of seven years and the offender was finally convicted and sentenced to four months in prison which served concurrently with a four-month sentence for burglary.There are countless numbers of examples of our legislation our current law and the way that it's applied failing our first responders our corrections officers and our nurses and doctors in our emergency departments. We have seen an increase not only in assaults across the board but also most astonishingly in serious assaults. Whatever is happening now whatever legislation we have in place now whatever sentencing regime we have in place now is not working. We need to draw a line in the sand and say this is unacceptable and we need to protect our protectors. I commend this bill to the House."