Power Simon: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14481] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of the National Party to speak in the first reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill to advise the House that National will support this bill at its first reading. But there are many many aspects to it that have been less than transparent in explanation. Some of the matters that have been discussed in the release of this policy are not as close to the mark as the Minister and the Government have indicated and I am going to spend some time today on those issues. 
National is keen to go through these issues in some detail at the select committee and to ensure that we are not dealing with another Organised Crime Agency announcement—that is a Government announcement being made without any background work being completed or without any detailed policy work on stream. I have to say as a byline that we are still waiting to find out the detail of the so-called Organised Crime Agency and what the future of the Serious Fraud Office is going to be even though that announcement was made in September last year. 
I send a warning to Government members: this had better not be in the same category as the last suggestion made in the area of law and order. Labour promised in its 1999 manifesto to introduce a programme of restorative justice “in which young offenders and their families can opt for community work such as cleaning up graffiti as an alternative to prosecution.” That did not happen. We are still waiting 8 years later for the Government to take substantial steps towards dealing with the issue of graffiti. It is only now after George Hawkins introduced his Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill that Labour has changed its tune. Labour voted for that bill at its first reading but when it came out of the Local Government and Environment Committee the committee stated that it had “examined the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill and recommends that it not be passed.” 
Well that is not what Annette King just told the House. Annette King failed to mention unfortunately that a select committee dominated by the Government and its confidence and supply partners recommended that the House ditch George Hawkins’ bill. That bill according to the majority of the committee had issues of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We will be interested to know now that the Minister has advised the House that this present bill has no such inconsistencies how that particular issue has been ironed out. 
I have also taken some interest in the Government’s consistent claims that it will increase penalties from $200 to $2000. Labour Party members and the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee members themselves noted in their report: “Although there are no provisions in law that specifically refer to ‘marking graffiti’ as an offence acts of this kind are covered by sections 11 (wilful damage) and 33 (bill sticking and defacing) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 and section 269(2)(a) (intentional damage) of the Crimes Act.” But although the maximum fine under section 33 of the Summary Offences Act the wilful damage section is $200 as the Minister has told the House and the Prime Minister has told the country what the Prime Minister did not tell New Zealanders and what the Minister did not tell the House is that when it comes to bill sticking and defacing there is already an offence under section 11 of the Summary Offences Act punishable by 3 months’ imprisonment and there is already a $2000 fine under that provision. So to run around the country saying that those fines have been increased as a result of this legislation is correct on only one level because provisions relating to the size of fines available under a separate section of the Summary Offences Act already exist— 
Hon Annette King 
: No you’ll find that’s not true. 
SIMON POWER 
: —which is actually correct and is particularly interesting. I look forward to seeing how Labour members of the Law and Order Committee will put the case for supporting this legislation when their comrades on the Local Government and Environment Committee as a majority with their confidence and supply partners recommended that Mr Hawkins’ bill not proceed. It is a most curious situation and one that unfortunately reeks of the same type of background thinking that failed to exist when the Organised Crime Agency was prematurely announced in September of last year. It just so happened that that was announced in the week when the then Minister of Corrections was overseas on a rugby tour with a prison guard who was in a spot of bother but I am sure that that had nothing to do with the timing of the announcement at all. But I am interested to know whether the substance of the work in relation to this particular bill has been done. 
I say to the Minister that we will looking to move this bill along with the Government to a select committee but I can assure her and her colleagues that we will be asking officials the most detailed and close series of questions in order to get to the bottom of the policy development behind the provisions now being proposed. I agree with the Minister on one or two points. I think that her strongest point was made in her opening salvo—not the referral to the select committee or the time period in which submissions would be heard but her view that graffiti is not art. I certainly support that statement; it is just a pity that Annette King’s fellow caucus colleagues and the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee do not see it the same way that she does. 
National will be very interested to know what provisions and background work the Government has done to limit the sale of spray-cans to those over 18 years of age. The select committee will have to look at some practical issues in some detail and the Minister has signalled that that will not be as straightforward as perhaps a first glance at the legislation indicates. She has also indicated that it will require retailers to secure spray-cans so that members of the public cannot access them without help from staff. That is a helpful suggestion. And the Minister has said that the bill will provide judges with the option to use a community sentence to force offenders to clean up graffiti and tagging. Well we have been over that ground already this afternoon. 
Although I believe this is a good directional initiative much of the detail remains to be ironed out. Much of the inconsistency between the Government’s current approach and the approach of the Local Government and Environment Committee needs an explanation from the officials who will appear before that select committee. In a strange way the Hon George Hawkins will be smiling to himself for two reasons. Firstly although the Local Government and Environment Committee threw his bill out he has in a sense seen aspects of it nationalised. The second reason George Hawkins will be smiling is that we all know that he has beaten the Labour Party machinery and retained the nomination for his seat up near Auckland. On that he is to be congratulated. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s nonsense. He simply wasn’t challenged. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well we know why he was not challenged. It is because he is so good at controlling the membership—and good on him! I congratulate him on staring down the Labour Party machine. 
We look forward to going through the details of this bill in the select committee and to asking Labour members and officials why they made this statement in the conclusion of the report back on the Local Government and Environment Committee’s consideration of Mr Hawkins’ bill: “Although we do not believe that this bill is the right solution … We will see exactly what happens in the next phase.”