O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I stand to speak on this bill as someone who's just completed 41 years' service in the New Zealand Police—the last 20 of it I was the spokesperson for police officers in the form of the president of the Police Association. During that time much of my work was concentrated in this area with ensuring that those who are out there on a daily and nightly basis protecting their fellow New Zealanders do get sufficient protection. Of course I do so standing here very proudly with the Huia pin which I also proudly say that I was responsible for instituting; I didn't design it but it became quite apparent that there were various ways in which police officers and members of the public did commemorate fallen colleagues and fallen police officers and bringing it all together. I see all members of the House proudly wearing this Huia pin over the last few days to commemorate the death of Constable Matthew Hunt and to remember him and just acknowledge his and that of those who went before him ultimate contribution made to New Zealand.I also recall my own experience of I suppose we'd call it the best hiding I ever got in the job just showing how quickly these things can come about. It was actually during an afternoon shift. I was called out from when we were at line-up. Myself and my colleague Constable Ross Lane were called to what was then called a domestic" on Mount Victoria. When we arrived there was a very drunk gentleman and two of his friends who had turned up to try and get hold of their child. I was thrown the child and as I was holding the child they set about attacking me and I couldn't do anything because I was standing holding the child. I do remember lying there and thinking "I wonder how this is going to end" because I couldn't defend myself. It was just one of those moments that I suppose anyone who's been through it will actually understand that there are times when you don't have control.Relating that to what we're here about today—on that occasion the offender was arrested charged and spent some time in Her Majesty's custody as a result. Generally in my time I found that where there were serious assaults on police—and I made a point of following up with the victims in that case—there was generally satisfaction with the sentence that the offender received. So it wasn't something that I have to say was necessarily a major issue. Saying that I echo those sentiments in the New Zealand Police Association's submission that an assault on a police officer is actually an assault on something larger: on society itself.Of course this bill goes further than that. This bill goes forward to prison officers—or I see it's going to be corrected to "corrections officers". Also I understand that there is going to be another Supplementary Order Paper to also include those who are working in hospitals—nurses etc. This sort of really does increase the scope of the bill considerably. I think we need to go back to I suppose first principles. Really what the difference with this bill is is a minimum sentence—it actually introduces a minimum six-month sentence. I think that's what I'd like to focus the rest of my speech on because minimum sentences have really brought about some of the most unfair decisions in courts. Like all these things you have to be very careful that you don't end up with a perverse outcome. The more you mess with sentencing the more perverse an outcome you can get.There was a member's bill brought by one of the opposite members Matt King recently. It was to introduce another sentencing option around I think it was the one hit the single hit or the king-hit bill. Again as I spoke then all that was going to do was going to confuse things more. I reminded that member Detective Matt King—a very good detective he was—that when he arrived at the Police College as a young detective constable having to learn the different sentences for wounding with intent injuring with intent—there was a whole layer of different offences that really didn't mean a great deal; they were as it turned out various offences that had been brought in at different times similar to now in an attempt to show outrage usually following an event and particularly with charges you could find out what the event was that brought it about.The reality of it is that the facts do remain the same. What's important is that when the judge sentencing is doing so they have all the facts available. That's really what the job of those bringing these cases before the court is; it's to ensure that all the facts are known and the degree of the injury—because the reality of it is that for many of the injuries that are caused as a result of these in my experience in the police some of the more long-lasting ones didn't really relate to the severity of the offending or the severity of the beating or the severity of the injury; it was the circumstances often around it. For many of my ex-colleagues who were forced to leave the police often it was relatively minor incidents that actually brought it about. So just taking a simplistic approach to think that we're going to solve it all is actually not the way that we really need to attack this. The important thing is that those making the decisions have all those facts in front of them. This is why I'm quite comfortable that we're not going to support this bill any further.I compliment the member Darroch Ball who has brought this bill. I know the member means well. I know he's doing this for all the right reasons. But again it may be somewhat a little arrogant to stand here and say that having seen these things evolve over years from being a young police officer where our real protection was the uniform—the fact that we came from a society where people didn't take on not only police officers but any authority figures whether it be doctors teachers or judges. A lot of the protection came from the status of the position that you have. That has certainly changed as society has changed; so we do have to be a little bit more definitive. But the reality of it again is that I again commend what the member is trying to achieve with this. We all want to make a difference.I do commend those members opposite. I think that the two speeches we've heard have been very sensible ones. It shows that they have been considered. I know that although the Justice Committee didn't report back there were some very good conversations that did take place and I think all those conversations came really back to that one point which was that minimum sentence. We do not have minimum sentences anywhere else. I think that if we're going to cross that barrier I'd like to see work done by the Law Commission and I'd like to see a lot more thought before this is done. We actually have what is going to be a whole new part of criminal offending. We've seen it happen.I'll tell you—minimum sentences. I know that our colleagues in the Northern Territory brought in a minimum sentence for any property crime where you went to basically prison if you got convicted of a property crime. What they didn't anticipate was a school teacher who was on her first weekend—she came up from up the south; I think Victoria—went out got a bit drunk and stole a bottle of whiskey from a bar. It was as much an act of bravado as it was anything else. As a result she was going to be forced to spend a minimum amount of time in prison. They slowly revoked that.So again let's focus this on why we're really opposing this. A minimum sentence—it shouldn't be done. If we're going to go down that path which other countries have it shouldn't be done through a member's bill; it should be done with far more thought far more research than is possible in a member's bill. Again I compliment the member on bringing this but I'm very comfortable that our party will not be able to support this bill beyond second reading. Thank you Mr Speaker."