Mark Ron: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16623] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I think having travelled to Auckland quite frequently and quite often into that member’s electorate that I can tell that member that what people in Auckland are sick of is piety pomposity and snobbishness. People in her electorate are saying to me that they are sick of pomposity piety and snobbishness and the higher-than-mighty attitude that she exudes all over the nation and the airways. And her comments about my hand gestures— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where’s this in Part 1 Ron? 
RON MARK 
: Well I tell Jonathan Coleman that we get what we deserve. He does not need to blow smoke in our faces over here to get away from the fact that his party’s speaker—the one who has just resumed her seat—was not even on the committee did not understand a piece of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill and did not even bother to read it. Part 1 I tell Dr Coleman is quite clear and quite specific. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Mark might think he knows a lot but he does not know the fact that I have read the bill. I do understand the issue and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am sorry the member will be seated; that is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: Perhaps in relation to National members’ speeches we could have given some recognition where it was due—that is to Chester Borrows. If Ms Collins had bothered to read Part 1 she would have seen standing out there new section 11B inserted by clause 4 “Possession of graffiti implements”. Ms Collins would have known had she read the report that her colleague Chester Borrows was the person who instigated and initiated much of the debate on this Part 1 as it resulted. The section there is quite clear for Ms Collins to read because it has a big black line underneath it and the big black line I tell Ms Collins indicates that it is a new section. I tell the member that it also indicates that Chester Borrows argued very well and very clearly. He drew upon his experience as a front-line police officer and as a lawyer who understands that simply prosecuting people and making illegal the activity of spraying someone else’s property with paint is not going to cut it. He pointed out quite clearly to the committee that we needed the powers to actually charge people who were found to be in possession of a can who were holding the can up to a wall but who had yet to press the button and begin their vandalism. It was a point that was well made and there was a lot of discussion in the committee about that. Hence we have the “Borrows clause” and it will sit there for all eternity. As the chairman of that committee I am very confident that that one clause in itself will do a lot—a great deal—to empower police officers to arrest detain and successfully prosecute graffiti vandals. 
Clause 4(1) deals with the issues of making it an offence—and it is making it a specific offence. I have to hand it to Mr Borrows again because here once more he made very clear to the officials who came before us that it was no longer acceptable just to deal with this issue under the Crimes Act but that we needed to be specific and clear that this act stands alone as an offence against property and people. The great thing about the Law and Order Committee is that it has an ability to work across parties very well and cooperatively. Again I thank the National Party team for its contribution in those two areas because it has added substance. 
The area where I tried to make some input was in dealing with the question of community-based sentencing. I have sat in this Chamber for 12 years now and time after time I have seen various members of the Opposition parties raising the question of unpaid fines. It seems ludicrous to New Zealand First to continue to impose more and more fine ceilings on people when we know full well they will not pay the fines and that simply eventually they will have those fines remitted. So taking away from young people who graffiti and vandalise walls the one thing they value more than anything—that is their time by requiring them to do community work—makes sense. I say at this point that I would hope we see them in pink vests. I would hope that the officer out in Porirua whose good work has been so severely undermined by the do-gooder critics there is able to continue doing what he has been doing—that is putting graffiti artists in pink vests and making it very very clear to the community they have vandalised that they have been caught tagging and have been sentenced to community service. We should give these people a taste of what they definitely need: a bit of humiliation.