Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Labour will be supporting the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill because I think it is a pragmatic solution to an identified issue. Let me relay just a couple of stories. First of all I remember when this started actually. When I used to live in Auckland on the corner of Pitt Street and—I cannot remember; there is a really big intersection there. It started off with one muscly guy who used to wear a bandana washed a whole lot of windows and people would sort of smile at him and give him a couple of coins. I am sure he made a whole lot of money. He did this for about a year and then it caught on and spread like wildfire.By the time I had left Auckland—I worked down at the Auckland University of Technology's south campus—window washers had become a real pest to the point where you would see everyone pull up to an intersection and put on their windscreen wipers just to make sure that they were not annoyed. So I understand what Jami-Lee Ross is saying and I understand the problem that we have got. But the interesting thing about how this bill is drafted is that it is very—how do I say this—sort of National Government in the way that it reads. First of all it talks about how the purpose of this bill is to provide for greater safety of road users. It does not talk about the guys who are running back and forth and washing the windows themselves—do not worry about them they are not important; it is the people in the Audis and the big cars.The other thing that is important is that in fact we have got to address the issues that lead to people washing windows as opposed to window washers themselves. I actually see window washing or the people—usually young kids because they are not that old often—out there washing windows as symptomatic of something that is wrong in our communities. If we took the extreme definition of innovation and entrepreneurship I suppose what they are doing—let us leave the whole gang problem aside—is they are getting out there they are earning a bit of money and they are washing windows. The problem is the way in which they are doing it has become intimidatory and it has moved away from sort of OK here's a couple of young men making some pocket money." to a number of people perceiving that this is actually antisocial this is bad and it makes them feel unsafe.When we talk about unsafe—it is interesting when Rudy Giuliani took over as the Mayor of New York it was talked about as the "ungovernable city". Crime was rife and it was in a really bad shape. The first thing that Rudy Giuliani did was he got rid of all the window washers. There was a perception that there were thousands of these window washers around New York; as it turned out there were only about 450 of them. They got rid of all the window washers and immediately—well according to Rudy Giuliani himself so this might be a little bit of massaging history—this was the first step in reclaiming New York back and the perception was that the city had become a whole lot safer.Again I am assuming that maybe the tactics used by New York window washers were a little bit more aggressive than maybe the ones used in New Zealand but the point I am making is that if people in their cars are actually feeling unsafe or if they are feeling intimidated in any way shape or form and if the police feel as if there is not a decent mechanism to deal with it then we do have an issue. I think that this bill does address this issue in a way that we will certainly support to the select committee and unless there is a compelling reason that we hear in the select committee I cannot see why we would not support it all the way through. The reason I say that this is a pragmatic solution is again that the member outlined the process that police currently have to go through in order to get a prosecution. It is enormous cost and our courts as they are are reasonably clogged so you end up spending $4000 to get $200 back which just does not seem like a good use of resource.The interesting thing is that we have another issue that is very very similar and in fact an exact same recommendation on how to deal with this was put forward but it was rejected. If you can indulge me for a minute we have a billion dollars per annum worth of retail crime. It is the same process: you get a shoplifter the police have to bring them in they have got to put them before the courts and charge them under the Crimes Act. You may get a $200 or $300 fine but it costs $2000 or $3000. The Retailers Association suggested an infringement notice with the same sort of thing: you fine them $100 or $200—just enough to make sure that it is a deterrent but not enough to make sure that these pile up and they end up in jail for non-payment of fines.The Government actually said: "No no no they are well catered for at the moment there's not an issue here—we're not going to implement these recommendations." I find that a little strange because what we need to do in this day and age of stretched police resources of clogged courts is actually look for pragmatic solutions to the issues that we find in our communities. This is a pragmatic solution that Jami-Lee Ross has brought forward working with the police. The retail crime infringement notice is exactly the same. In fact you could change the title of this bill to have it as the "Crimes Act Amendment Bill" and have also the same wording and the same outcome.So what I would just ask that Government for is please a little bit of consistency when we are looking at dealing with low levels of crime because the last thing we want to do is penalise those who really cannot afford it in a way that ensures they end up in jail. The reason I say they end up in jail is that they end up with a $200 fine or a $100 fine they cannot afford that they are out there again and they end up with another $200 or $100 fine. Onwards and onwards they end up with $2000 or $3000 and the only way they end up paying that back or paying it back to society is going into jail. Mike Williams talks about this—Mike Williams the ex-president of the New Zealand Labour Party now the herd of the Howard League for Penal Reform—Chris Bishop: Good guy.STUART NASH: Good guy. He said: "How many people in Hawke's Bay Regional Prison in Hawke's Bay have their driver's licence? None." The reason they are in jail is that it started with a small fine and it ended up in jail. What we do need to do here—Jonathan Young: But this is giving small fines.STUART NASH: Yes no I agree. I agree Mr Young. What we do need to do here is make sure that we send the right signal that it starts out as a warning: "Chap you keep doing this"—you know a young window washer—"you'll end up with a fine or maybe a second warning. You'll end up with a fine. That's the promise. Then the third time a fine." What I would not want to see here is really punitive action where as soon as someone is walking across the road with a squeegee they end up with a $200 fine then another $200 fine. From all we know that will lead to someone going into jail because they cannot afford to pay their fine.So this is a pragmatic response. We do support it but we would just ask—I guess we will hear this at the select committee—that the police are advised to take a pragmatic approach to this in a way that deals with the situation without creating another one. So as mentioned Labour will support the Land Transport (Vehicle User Safety) Amendment Bill and I thank the member for bringing this to the House."