Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill

I am very pleased to speak in support of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. We have a superb police force and corrections service in our country, and it is very important and imperative that as a Government we back up those men and women who, on a daily basis, put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of our society. We ought not to be negligent in these matters. This bill is to include an offence against a police or prison officer acting in the course of his or her duty as an aggravating factor at sentencing. That means it will be taken into account at sentencing that this is a more serious crime.

We have, in the past, seen many situations over the last 4 or 5 years where such situations of risk have occurred and where men and women who serve our country have been injured. Some have, sadly, lost their lives. Between 2005 and 2009, the total number of assaults on police increased by a third, from 1,869 to 2,481. Serious assaults increased by 38 percent, from 298 to 304. These are significant numbers. I think it is also interesting to note, at this point in time, that we are very thankful that crime has decreased in this last year—there has been a 6.7 percent decrease across the whole country. However, at the same time we are finding that assaults against police have increased.

It would seem to me that we have a very effective police force, which is our thin blue line that is standing as the buffer between lawbreakers and law-abiding citizens. Therefore, it is our imperative that we strengthen their stance, and back them up with legislation and laws that will protect them. The Opposition has made the claim that putting this law in place, and making it a mandatory consideration in sentencing, will not change the situation. I totally disagree with that. I believe that it is incredibly important we back up our men and women in blue with such laws.

The term “thin blue line” is very interesting. Where did it come from? It came from the “thin red line”. It is interesting, is it not: back in the Crimean War the British and Turks were standing against a Russian cavalry but the British and Turks had very depleted numbers; instead of having four lines in rank they had only two lines. When the Russian cavalry charged them, they saw such a thin red line that they thought it was a ploy—in fact, they thought it was a diversion and a trick! Behind the thin red line stood what they perceived to be huge ranks of reinforcements, and because of that the Russian cavalry turned back.

Our thin blue line needs to have reinforcements, not figments of imagination, or a case of “This is what the courts may do if they want to.” We need to have solid reinforcement behind the men and women who stand on that thin blue line in our nation, and that will be a bill that will protect them and, indeed, send the message to those who find it an easy thing to consider disrespecting authority, and attacking those people who uphold the law, that we as a country will not tolerate that sort of behaviour.

Police and corrections staff play a vital role in keeping us safe in our communities, and it is important that we continue to support that role. We have heard of many tragic situations that have taken the breath away from the people of New Zealand, as we have seen pictures of these fine men and women who have been assaulted. I went out with the New Plymouth police one Friday evening not so long ago. We went around all the different places where, perhaps, infringement of the law and breaking of the law take place, and I was incredibly impressed with the calibre of the New Zealand Police.

We need to realise that at the end of their day these men and women go home and are ordinary citizens. We need to have laws in place that protect them, and laws that state that an assault against a police officer or a corrections officer is a serious factor that will be taken into consideration when it comes to sentencing. I am very happy to support this legislation as it proceeds through the House.

That presentation from Jonathan Young deserves and requires a response. Firstly, I think the underlying assumption behind the explanatory note of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill is that the current sentencing regime does not take into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer as an aggravating factor. One could make that assumption by reading this legislation, and I want to say that it is completely wrong—completely wrong. If we go out and talk to anybody on the street and ask them whether they are more likely to get into trouble if they assault a police officer or corrections officer, the answer will unanimously be yes.

The second thing I think is wrong with this legislation is the implication that the judiciary have not been taking into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer when they are making their decisions. I think that is completely wrong as well. In some ways, this bill could be interpreted as a slur on the integrity and the decision making of our judiciary. It could be taken that way, because by implication it says that an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer is not being taken into account now, and that Parliament is so concerned about it not being taken into account it will pass a law requiring the judiciary to take assault on a police officer or corrections officer as an aggravating factor, because they have not been doing it to date. I say to the Government that that is not correct—that is not correct. Any simple analysis of the decisions of the judiciary will show that, in fact, judges have been doing that to date.

So if the judges have been doing it to date, and it is an aggravating factor, what is the motivation for this legislation? Many things come to mind. It could be that it is simply about politics. Jonathan Young gives us the clue to this. Jonathan Young asserts in this House that this legislation is necessary to protect police officers and corrections officers from assault. That is a very powerful assertion, but he does not then say how this legislation will do that. There is nothing there at all. There is no analysis, no logic, and no process to show that this legislation will fulfil his assertion that it will protect police officers and corrections officers. Anybody reading the legislation will see that it does not.

This is not defensive legislation; this legislation will take effect after the prospective assault on either a police officer or a corrections officer. For Jonathan Young’s proposition to have any effect, a person who is contemplating assaulting a police officer or a corrections officer must think in a logical way, like this: “I am about to assault a police officer. This is different from assaulting another member of the public, as Parliament has passed legislation saying that this will be an aggravating factor when I am up on the charge if I am detected, prosecuted, and convicted.” They will then have to work out what the cost or tariff is likely to be for an ordinary assault, plus the aggravating circumstances now that Parliament has passed this bill, and decide that maybe this is not a good idea. I say to National and Jonathan Young that no one goes through that calculation when they are about to embark upon a crime. An assault on a police officer, or a murder, is an irrational act. It is not an act of a rational person, so a rational calculation is simply unthinkable.

When National claims that Labour does not support the bill and does not care, I disagree with that absolutely. That is a slur on the Labour Party. We are as offended as anybody else by assaults on the police. We are as offended as anybody else about assaults on our corrections staff. To imply that we are not is simply wrong, and it is simply playing politics to do so. Like the rest of our community, we value the role that our police play in protecting our communities. In fact our record shows that we had a record increase in the number of police staff and in investment in police to make our communities safer—any analysis will show that. The Labour Party does not tolerate violence in our community.

Having said that, I will make another observation. An important process is happening here. Parliament is passing more and more legislation that puts an obligation on judicial decisions. I think in some way that that is a reflection of parliamentarians really wanting to be court judges. They say they are unhappy with a situation and will fix it by passing laws to require the judges to make decisions. I say to National that that is getting closer and closer to impinging upon the freedom of judges to make decisions. Our democracy is based on the separation of powers. One of those powers is the power of Parliament to legislate, and the second is the power of the judiciary to make independent decisions. In passing this bill in conjunction with the “three strikes” legislation and other legislation, we are now in danger of getting closer and closer to having judicial decisions made by simply filling in an equation box. In doing that we are restricting, in some ways, the independence of the judiciary to make independent decisions. If parliamentarians want to become judges and want to impose sentences, I suggest that they get a law degree, serve in the legal profession for a while, then apply to become a court judge. If those people do not want to be judges, and want to pass statutes, they should join a political party and come here and pass laws. Those are two separate things. Parliament is not here to restrict the independence of judicial decision-making.

I will come back to summarise the points I have made. It is our contention, and everything on the public record will show, that judges today take into account an assault on a police officer or a corrections officer as an aggravating factor. They do that today. The implication made by this legislation is that the judges do not, and I reject that. The implication from National is that this bill will make people safer, and I do not agree with that, because no analysis has been shown, particularly by Jonathan Young, whom I listened to very carefully, and who is usually a thoughtful contributor to this House. In making the assertion that the bill will protect police officers he offered no analysis and no logic to show that that would be the case.

The value of this legislation is that it makes a statement of intent, and for that purpose, and because it is about a statement of intent, in many ways, the Labour Party will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, I think I have said enough, and it is a welcome sight to see you here on this fine Wednesday morning.

I start by acknowledging the Hon Rick Barker in his new role as the senior whip for Labour. I look forward to working with him as we progress through the rest of the year. The Hon Rick Barker will stand in just a few short minutes to vote in favour of this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill on behalf of Labour, but if we had listened to his speech, with the exception of the closing 10 to 20 seconds we would have thought that Labour was opposed to this legislation.

💬 David Shearer: Keep you guessing, Chris—keep you guessing.

Yes, I guess it did keep me guessing right to the end. It is good that we have wide-ranging support around the House for this legislation. The public would be forgiven for thinking that every piece of legislation in this House is opposed, but up to 70 percent of legislation—certainly at its first reading—is supported by at least the main parties. In many cases there is wide-ranging support.

In regard to this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill, I rise to say how important it is to me that this legislation goes through the House. As a local MP, the MP for Napier and Wairoa—and the same could be said for any member of Parliament who is out there in the wider New Zealand—I have got to know many members of the public. Members of the police force are members of the community whom MPs get to know very well. I have got to know many of the local police. Our families interact in many situations—on the sports field, in ballet classes. We are part of the community together. The point I want to make is that when one of our local police officers is assaulted, it hits home pretty loud and clear. When I get up in the morning and go to work for the day as a member of Parliament, the last thing I expect is to be assaulted in my job. However, for the local constabulary that is often part of their job. We get situations like the one that occurred in July of 2010 in Clive. A constable I know, Senior Constable Alan Daly, who was out doing his normal job for the citizens of Hawke’s Bay, had to chase down a car that happened to have two P-riddled druggies in it. He approached them, and the male in the car came round the back of the car and king-hit him in the back of the head, knocking him to the ground. His partner got out of her side of the car and started smacking the officer in the head and bashing him with his radio. That was from a simple arrest—no, he was not even looking to arrest them at first. These situations arise, unfortunately, on a nearly daily basis for our police constables.

We as a Parliament need to be looking for solutions that reduce the level of assaults. I accept that this bill is not the only solution. The Minister of Police has taken steps in regard to giving the police access to Tasers—which I might say the Greens opposed throughout the process—and giving them access to weapons in police vehicles. The Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice have introduced a range of laws, and they all create a package that is helping our police force members to be better protected when they are out there in the community looking after us as citizens and going about their job to the best of their abilities. The last thing that we should expect of them is to be thinking they will be assaulted when they go out in their daily role.

I am proud to support this Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. It is great that despite some of the rhetoric from the other side of the House, Labour is supporting this bill, as well. I think it sends a message to our community that we are 110 percent behind our police force and the outstanding job it does in our communities around New Zealand. Thank you.

I seek leave to take a call on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I realise that all of the slots have been taken.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Would the member like to determine the time—is it a 10-minute call the member is seeking?

It is about 6 minutes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the member needs to seek leave, because I do not believe that all the slots are gone.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, all the slots are gone.

Oh, are they?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Yes, they are. If the member wants a call she has to seek leave, so I will put leave for her to speak for 6 minutes. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Leave is opposed. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] No, any single member can oppose the leave. Leave was opposed. I am now putting the question. I think members lost track of what I was doing. I will restate the question.

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Law and Order Committee consider the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill , that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 August 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.