Volume 645 Week 67 - Thursday 21 February 2008 
Volume 645 Week 67 - Thursday 21 February 2008 
[Volume:645;Page:14463] 
Thursday 21 February 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of Ireland—Dáil Éireann Working Group of Committee Chairs and the Committee of Members’ Interests 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing members that the parliamentary delegation of Deputies representing the Working Group of Committee Chairs and the Committee of Members’ Interests from the Dáil Éireann Republic of Ireland led by Mr Neil O’Flynn is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on 4 March 2008 priority will be given to the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) the Limited Partnerships Bill the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. 
Questions to Ministers 
Immigration Service—Definition of “Good Character” 
1. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What is the New Zealand Immigration Service’s definition of “good character”? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I am advised that all migrants to New Zealand must be of good character. The grounds for a person to be considered as not being of good character are set out in the Immigration Act 1987 and the Immigration New Zealand policy manual. 
Peter Brown 
: Were the 190 non-citizens currently in jail for sexual offences including the 109 who have committed sex offences against children and young people adjudged by the Immigration Service to be of good character when initially allowed into this country; if so does he still believe that they are of good character? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Obviously we are deeply concerned about anyone in prison who has committed a sexual offence. For people where the Department of Labour and the Immigration Service are considering granting residence or long-term work permits there is a rigorous character screening process. 
Peter Brown 
: Would Abdulhussein Shahid Abdulhussein an Iraqi who abducted and raped a 16-year-old schoolgirl just 2 years after his arrival and who then tried to downplay it by claiming that his cultural background made him believe a woman on the street without anyone to protect her was available for sex be regarded as of good character or is it because he is a refugee that that criterion does not count? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: In relation to the individual named by Mr Brown I obviously stand with everyone in the House in expressing a sense of revulsion that anyone should believe that his or her culture permits that person to indulge in such activity. As to his short-term prospects it would be a little early for us to speculate on that matter. But the House should rest assured we do not share the view that he should be permitted to use culture to disguise his wrongdoing. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister confirm that the 378 non - New Zealanders who are currently in jail for violent offences were judged by the Immigration Service to be of good character when initially granted the right to stay in New Zealand; if so what is the Minister going to do to improve migrant screening in order to ensure the safety of New Zealanders from immigrants who are clearly not of good character? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: In reply to the references that the member makes to the wrongdoing of those people yes they did go through a screening process. I would point out however that their criminal acts have been committed after they arrived here in New Zealand. Police checks are required. Obviously if the system needs to improved I would encourage the member to send any ideas forward. But we have a great deal of confidence in the very rigorous police checks that are used on all residency applications. 
Honorary Consul Monaco—Possible Appointment 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her response to oral question No. 1 on 20 February that Mike Williams president of the New Zealand Labour Party had talked to her about the possible appointment of Owen Glenn as New Zealand’s honorary consul to Monaco; if so what were the details of the conversation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: 
 Yes; in general conversation he indicated to the Prime Minister that he was aware that Mr Glenn had expressed an interest in such a position. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why would the appointment of a diplomatic representative of New Zealand be a matter discussed with Labour’s chief fundraiser Mike Williams unless it is connected to a donation of half a million dollars from Owen Glenn and a concealed interest-free loan of $100000; or is Mr Williams consulted on all diplomatic appointments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Williams was not consulted. Mr Glenn had said something to Mr Williams and Mr Williams mentioned something about that to the Prime Minister. One cannot be responsible for what other people say. I am sure the member does not want to be responsible for what Mr Key says. He did not mean to say that New Zealand wages should be cut; he meant to say that Australian wages should be cut. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the Prime Minister’s discussions with Mr Glenn has Mr Glenn explained to her what he was talking about when he said in March 2005 that the wrong thing had been done to his friend Bill Lloyd of Sovereign Yachts that he—Mr Glenn—had taken a huge interest and he thinks he had it resolved through the good services of Mike Williams the president of the Labour Party who has done a “mammoth job”; can she give an assurance that her Labour Government did not do any favours for its largest donor through the “mammoth job” done by Mike Williams the president of the Labour Party? 
Hon Member 
: Ooh! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sorry I excite the member so much. I did not realise I had that effect on him. I am not aware of any lengthy conversations the Prime Minister has had with Mr Glenn. She has had a couple of passing conversations with Mr Glenn. Mr Glenn also seems to recall conversations that never seem to have occurred. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mike Williams is a director of Transit which plans and funds the highway network a director of ONTRACK which owns the rail network a director of Genesis Energy one of the largest electricity generators and a member of the boards of the Auckland transport authority which plans and controls Auckland’s transport network and of the Crown research institute GNS Science; can she assure the House that he has not used these influential positions to do favours for other donors in the way that he did favours for Owen Glenn? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I hate to tell the member as he drowns that that is not a straw he is clutching at. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that the Minister of Finance has told the media Mike Williams tendered his resignation as president of the Labour Party yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No she cannot because I have not told her I said that yet. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether her coalition partner New Zealand First has advised her whether Owen Glenn is the mystery anonymous donor who placed nearly $100000 in the New Zealand First bank account last year and if not does she intend to ask New Zealand First in order to find out whether a donation may have affected Winston Peters’ consideration of who to appoint as consul to Monaco? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot advise that nor can I advise the House of any of the anonymous donors to the National Party because they were all funded through something called the Waitemata Trust—some $2.3 million—which was handled by a man whom that Government appointed to chair Government quangos and boards. What is more the National Party still will not tell us who their anonymous donors were. Let me finally add that anybody who thinks the appointment as an honorary consul is some kind of plum job does not know that most honorary consuls spend more than the amount of money—which is $5000 plus $7500 in expenses—that we give to them. Mr Glenn who is a billionaire has supposedly thought this was some plum financial reward but he has really got on hard times very fast. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the ability of her coalition partner New Zealand First to clear up the issue of the large anonymous donation that suddenly appeared in its bank account late last year when Dail Jones has said it happened Winston Peters has said that Dail Jones is completely wrong and that Owen Glenn was not the anonymous donor but Owen Glenn’s PR company will not say whether he was the donor? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for any donations that may have been given to any other political party. She would however welcome the opportunity to become responsible for that and look into the National Party’s anonymous donations. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Prime Minister think it looks to the public that she wants to take responsibility for large anonymous donations to political parties and that while she was pushing through legislation to stop that practice she was party to arrangements behind closed doors with an expatriate billionaire to give an interest-free loan that was concealed from the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly the main donation given by Mr Glenn was made public at the time. Secondly the donation of an amount of forgone interest which of course is the actual donation not the $100000 loan was going to be declared as part of the Labour Party’s annual report. Mr Williams made an honest mistake. Out of that Mr English is trying to build a great pile of something large smelly and brown and it will not wash. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that billionaire Mr Owen Glenn’s generosity is greatly assisted by his living in a tax haven and is it not a tad ironic that Labour and New Zealand First’s one fat-cat mate has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into political parties that punish hard-working Kiwis with punitive tax— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have no knowledge of this man and Rodney Hide cannot say that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well he said it but it is a matter of debate. [ 
Interruption 
] Points of order are heard in silence and that is the last time I will remind members of that rule. That was not a point of order. It is a matter of debate. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is generally the case that in speaking to the House one is not meant to mislead the House deliberately. I think it also applies in points of order. Although the member said New Zealand First had no knowledge of Owen Glenn in fact the leader of New Zealand First had breakfast with him and that is well documented. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is a matter of debate. I ask Rodney Hide to ask his question succinctly. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that billionaire Mr Owen Glenn’s generosity is greatly assisted because he lives in a tax haven and is it not a tad ironic that Labour and New Zealand First’s one fat-cat mate has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into political parties that punish hard-working Kiwis with punitive tax rates which Mr Glenn does not have to pay and on top of that he gets a gong for his trouble while hard-working Kiwis get nothing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Monaco is a very small principality which exists largely as a casino on the borders of France. If the gentleman opposite thinks a country of 4.2 million in the South-west Pacific can exist as a casino on the borders of France he is totally away with the fairies. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I struggle to see how that answer began to address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well having considered the question I would judge that yes it did actually address it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister promise the House that tonight at the opening of the Auckland business school she will sit with Owen Glenn and allow herself to be photographed with him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but I can assure him she will not be hongi-ing Tame Iti at the same time. 
Meat Industry—Restructuring 
3.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Has he received any further reports regarding the restructuring of the meat industry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I have seen a report that the National Party leader Mr Key the finance spokesperson Mr English and the agricultural spokesperson Mr Carter met over dinner last Wednesday with the chairman of the meatworks company Alliance Group Owen Poole. At this dinner Mr Poole requested or suggested that the taxpayer could provide half of the $200 million to $400 million that he says will be needed to form a megamerger meat company. The next day Mr Key announced: “National would look at a suspensory loan to provide capital for the establishment of a new company.” Before the day was out Mr Key told his finance spokesperson: “I’ve just committed you to a suspensory loan.” This was not a light-hearted throwaway comment as has been suggested; this was a real response to a real proposition. We now have a political party in this House that holds dinner meetings with private companies and dishes out $200 million subsidies that would devastate our international trade reputation. 
Lesley Soper 
: How big would a $200 million subsidy in relation to the meat industry be? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The sum of $200 million amounts to an investment of $50 for every man woman and child in New Zealand. It would be an export subsidy in 1 year of $15 per lamb—nearly half the average subsidy for a British lamb—in one single policy. It would be worth nearly $1 a kilo of export sheepmeat. The last time that National offered this kind of subsidy to sheep farmers it bankrupted New Zealand. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister believe that meat company amalgamations are a positive thing for meat producers; if so does he believe that they can be accomplished by the industry itself without outside help? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes; and yes. 
Lesley Soper 
: What reports has he seen about the potential effect of agricultural subsidies? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As a matter of fact I have seen a report on the effect of subsidies on exports and it states: “What is obscene is that … agricultural subsidies in the developed world are two-thirds of Africa’s total GDP. … The protectionist policies of so many in the developed world are a stain on the morality of the world.” The report goes on to state: “I blame politicians my own profession. Too often [politicians] abandon their historic mission. They abandon what they know to be right in favour of political expediency. The political power of protected interests too often wins the day.” The author of that report is the National Party MP Lockwood Smith. I wonder what he thinks of John Key’s proposed $200 million agricultural subsidy. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has any meat company asked the Government for a $200 million suspendiary loan? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. It is becoming impossible to hear. And any member who may make such a slip in this House should take some notice for the same treatment could happen to them. The honorary Jim Anderton. 
Hon Member 
: The honorary Jim Anderton? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It proves that the Speaker is a human being too! The answer to that question of whether the Government has been asked for a $200 million suspensory loan is no. This was a deal done entirely behind closed doors by the leader of the National Party one night and announced the next day. As far as I know it has not been through any policy review or even been approved or costed by the National Party itself. If anyone did ask Ministers for a cash handout for meat exporters the most dangerous thing a Minister could do would be to hold that meeting behind closed doors and agree to the policy without any public scrutiny. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please keep the level of noise down. 
Tim Groser 
: Given that in 1999 this Minister of Agriculture described National’s tariff and subsidy removal plan as “sheer idiocy” but yesterday in claiming erroneously that National wished to go back to tariffs and subsidies he told the House that tariffs and subsidies were “the economic ruination of this country” would the Minister like to share with the House the sequence of events that led to this happy if remarkable change of world view? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right! Members will hear this answer in silence. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: That seems in the first instance to be an acknowledgment that the National Party is going back to a policy of export subsidies and if that is true the member will have some questions to answer outside this House pretty quickly from the media I suspect. Let me remind him that I was on record and have been on record as saying that the National Party’s then policy of family benefits for sheep which is what this policy represents was a disaster for New Zealand. It was a disaster for New Zealand and so will any policy of this kind followed by any future National Government. 
Health Services—Sentinel Events 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree with Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson who said that the report on sentinel events “probably underestimated” the true number of events and why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Quality Improvement Committee figures released showed a rate of 2.2 serious and sentinel events per 10000 discharges whereas the earlier Davis study showed cases meeting the wider adverse effects definition to be 12.9 percent of all hospital admissions. Mr Paterson may have been alluding to that broader definition. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why should the public rely on the Minister’s list of sentinel events which reports failures at 0.02 percent and not rely on the case note - based research of Dr Peter Davis who says that the true level of sentinel events is in fact ten times higher than that which would mean 1800 sentinel events not the Minister’s 180? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The release made this week has been based on extensive research amongst all district health boards and on a consistent set of definitions. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of those figures. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the Minister stand by his decision to release the figures? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. Although our hearts go out to the patients and families represented in the data I am confident that every member of this House would agree that every effort should be made to avoid a repetition of such tragic incidents. Release of the data goes some way towards that by assisting clinicians to learn the lessons that need to be learnt. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is he aware that on top of the 14 sentinel or serious events that Capital and Coast District Health Board reported yesterday there were a further 1009 adverse events in that district health board alone last year that caused harm to patients; will he therefore require all district health boards to publish specific data such as their medication error rates surgical death rates and hospital-acquired infection rates rather than just sentinel events as the Health and Disability Commissioner has been calling on him to do for some years; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If the Health and Disability Commissioner had been calling on me to do that for some years he would have been extremely assiduous as I have not been in this job for very long. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am glad the member has raised that question. It is my expectation that following the work of the Quality Improvement Committee a nationwide set of reporting standards will apply to all district health boards. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he seen the comments of Dr Mary Seddon of Counties Manukau District Health Board who said that a number of sentinel and serious events are discussed at peer review meetings at that hospital that that is done under privilege in her hospital and that those events have not been included in the sentinel events information at this stage; how many other sentinel events were not included by other district health boards in yesterday’s litany of disasters? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have no briefing to hand on that matter and I am happy to follow it up for the member at a later occasion. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that he said yesterday that the time has come to ensure there are nationally consistent definitions nationally consistent data reporting and nationally consistent monitoring of systems why did the Government not implement those matters when it was recommended in the 2001 report of the Ministry of Health working-group on these very sentinel events? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is a repetition of yesterday’s question when I explained to the member that following the 2001 report a series of supports was put in place for district health boards to develop the capability to provide that reporting. Further work was done in 2003 and 2004. The Quality Improvement Committee was set up in 2006 and funded in that year’s Budget. That committee’s work is resulting in the development of guidelines that will apply to all district health boards. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that today an external review has severely criticised mental health services at the Auckland District Health Board following a series of deaths including suicides; when there has been review after review and millions of dollars of extra funding why are mental health services in Auckland still in such trouble? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is my view that in general the Auckland District Health Board is performing very well at the moment. I am aware of that report and I am also aware that the Auckland District Health Board has taken clear steps to improve the systems and has made some personnel moves in that department. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister realise that for each of the last 3 years the number of people who died preventable deaths at Waitemata District Health Board was greater than the number of people killed on the roads in North Shore City and what assurance will he give that fewer people will die needlessly at the board’s hospital in this coming year? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The whole burden of our work on this issue in the last few months and years has been to minimise the number of preventable deaths and that continues to be my overriding objective. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table severe criticism of the Auckland District Health Board mental health services released today in Auckland. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I seek leave to table figures that show that for each of the last 3 years there were more preventable deaths at Waitemata District Health Board— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Cluster Munitions—Ban 
5.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control 
: Does he stand by his statement that this week’s conference on cluster bombs will make an “important contribution to achieving an ambitious vision of a ban on cluster munitions”; if so is he confident that all Government policy supports this goal? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 Yes. The Oslo process of which New Zealand was one of the seven initiating countries has made substantial progress towards a treaty banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. This is really important because the Geneva process over the last 5 years has got exactly nowhere on that same issue. The member will be aware—as indeed will other members—from last night’s parliamentary function of the wide acknowledgment and praise that New Zealand has been accorded for the leading and positive role that it has played a view that I understand the Green Party shares. 
Keith Locke 
: At the Wellington conference—which I fully congratulate the Government on hosting—is the Government calling for a complete ban on cluster munitions without exceptions; if so what steps is it taking to counter those countries like Australia Britain and Canada that are pushing for exceptions to be listed in the Wellington declaration coming out of the conference? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand is supporting the Oslo declaration which talks about banning all cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. In that respect we are working through a process with 121 other countries to try to find common ground around the strongest possible ban that can be put in place. I welcome the fact that more than half of those countries that have or manufacture cluster munitions and a very large percentage of those countries in which cluster munitions have been used are attending the conference. The purpose of this conference is to make sufficient progress so that in Dublin in May we will get a treaty where a ban will be imposed along the line set out initially in the Oslo declaration. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister further clarify the precise position that our Government has taken on cluster munitions with specific regard to its Defence Force and foreign policy consistent with its very strong stance I understand within the Oslo process? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The New Zealand Government has stated unequivocally that New Zealand will not acquire does not possess and does not and will not use cluster munitions. That is an absolute declaration and that statement received wide support last night from other parliamentarians from around the world. In addition to that I think most New Zealanders are aware of the proud tradition of the New Zealand Defence Force in clearing munitions and landmines in countries in diverse as Laos Cambodia Angola Mozambique Afghanistan and Lebanon. In addition I acknowledge the role played by NZAID in giving very good support to those survivors of cluster munitions—particularly in Cambodia where I have seen the work it has done with children in providing prosthetic support. That is really important. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister sometimes feel his very good work on this issue is being undermined by some parts of the Government continuing to invest taxpayers’ money in corporations that manufacture cluster bombs—such as the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which invests $22 million in the cluster bomb manufacturer Lockheed Martin? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is very aware that this House passed—and I think most parties supported—legislation for the fact that the Government is not able to specifically direct the investments by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. However the board does work under a statutory mandate and that mandate is to avoid prejudicing New Zealand’s reputation. I think a really positive spin-off from the Oslo process and this Wellington conference is the announcement made by the guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund that they are following this process very closely. They are reviewing investments in companies some of which may be involved with cluster munitions. I believe that with the passage of this treaty a decision will be made in line with responsible investment and I note that the Superannuation Fund is one of the founding signatories to the UN in that area. 
Keith Locke 
: What practical steps is the Government taking to address the interoperability issue which is one of the most challenging issues being addressed at the current conference so that New Zealand troops in Afghanistan are not being defended by cluster bombs possessed by their coalition partners? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Interoperability is certainly an issue that is being discussed at the conference. It is particularly important given the very high percentage of NATO countries attending that conference. I welcome the fact that every one of the countries attending the conference is there—notwithstanding the fact that they may have a slightly different view from the countries that started off this process. In terms of interoperability it is true that the United States has cluster munitions and that it is in Afghanistan. I would certainly not in any way suggest that New Zealand’s peacekeeping forces which are doing such a fantastic job in Bamian should be withdrawn because of that fact. I will give a little bit of advertising. Governor Sarabi from the Bamian Province will be in New Zealand next week. I am sure she will speak out about the really good work the New Zealand Defence Force is doing in her province. 
Bail—Pre-trial System 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement that “The pre-trial bail system must balance two competing considerations: the defendant’s right to be considered innocent until proved guilty and the safety of the community.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. The statement reiterates two fundamental and longstanding principles of criminal justice that are recorded in sections 25(c) and 24(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 
Simon Power 
: What changed between the time that gang leader Daniel Crichton was refused bail last year and now that would make him any less dangerous and would justify his release last month or did the decision have nothing to do with public safety? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no knowledge as to what conditions changed in that particular case nor would I expect to have information about that. It was a decision made by the judge. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister seen reports that when gang members inside Mount Eden Prison found out about the stolen medals and who had taken them there was “something of a clamour to take advantage of the information” and does the fact that so many criminals had such an epiphany of civic duty mean that that the practice of trading information for leniency from the justice system will become more commonplace? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen that report and I also heard defence lawyers on the radio today saying that it is not uncommon for criminals to provide information and for their lawyers to deal with the system in that respect. I do not think we are seeing anything new in this respect. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Anything goes in this Government. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I take exception to the comments made by Nick Smith that somehow or other the Government had something to do with the judge making a decision on bail. That may be what happens under a National Government but I can assure the people of New Zealand that we will not interfere and have not interfered in decisions that judges in this country make. We respect that separation of power. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by her statement with regard to bail laws that “… judges are entitled to all information in order to make those decisions.”; if so did the judge know about the deal done between the police the Crown prosecutor and Daniel Crichton over the return of the war medals? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no knowledge of that. I was neither in the judge’s chamber nor where the judge was making those decisions. Mr Power as a lawyer knows that the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice or any member of this Parliament would not have been there either. This is really a very dangerous path to go down—to try to assume that the Minister of Justice somehow or other was able to be privy to that sort of information. Judges of this country are making decisions based on information they have received. 
Simon Power 
: Has she seen reports that since Crichton’s release on bail he has been seen in downtown Auckland with members of the Headhunters gang and can she confirm that if this is in breach of his bail conditions the changes her Government made to the Bail Act last year make it far less likely that he will be recalled to prison? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Nonsense! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not seen that report and I agree with my colleague Phil Goff: the assumptions made by that member are nothing other than nonsense. 
Simon Power 
: Can she give this House and the country as a whole an assurance that any other gang kingpin remanded in custody will not use the precedent set by this recent “bail for medals” scandal to get his associates to acquire on order other items that may be used to ransom his release? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If some day I become a judge maybe I could give that guarantee. But as a member of Parliament and the Minister of Justice I can give no such guarantee because I have no say on the decisions an individual judge makes on any bail hearing. 
Ron Mark 
: Would the Minister agree that the far more serious question that we should be asking about bail relates to the case of Fanuaea Leatigaga a young man who was charged on 29 December 2005 with sexual violation and threatening to kill was denied bail by the District Court given bail by the High Court then went on whilst on bail to sexually assault a 16-year-old then went on to violate sexually a 15-year-old girl in the Aranui High School grounds whilst at the same time fighting off her 14-year-old girlfriend then went on to rape a 21-year-old pregnant woman at knifepoint in her home and subsequently admitted three counts of sexual violation and two of rape the bulk of which were committed after the High Court had granted him bail against all police advice? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think the language that Mr Ron Mark used across the House then is at all acceptable. 
Ron Mark 
: I have just outlined a severely tragic case involving a number of women who were raped and a number of young schoolgirls who were sexually molested. For Mr Brownlee to cheapen the argument about the bail laws that were in place in 2005—well before the amendment that he took a cheap shot at—is absolutely ludicrous and pathetic and actually undermines the seriousness of the situation and the position of those women. I think he is the one who should stand up and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I did not hear because there was too much noise but exception has been taken. Would the member withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask Mr Brownlee to have the gentlemanly decency to apologise in the same manner. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what Mr Brownlee said either—I am sorry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I simply asked who voted for the laws. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I do not think that requires to be— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If that is offensive— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No it is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: —to Mr Mark I am terribly sorry. I withdraw and apologise to anyone who was offended by that question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot comment on the case that the member has just outlined. I have huge sympathy for the women who received that treatment at the hands of somebody who obviously should be locked away for a long time. What I can say to the member is that in 2007 almost 400000 bail cases were heard in New Zealand and in the overwhelming majority of those cases our judges made incredibly good decisions. Our judges do a very good job and I think to have it cheapened by somehow trying to pretend that politicians can tell judges who should and who should not get bail sets a very bad precedent. 
Simon Power 
: I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name which repeals the changes to the Bail Act made by the Government last year; and for that bill to be set down together with an inclusion in it that no bail decision should be influenced by any help a defendant has provided to a criminal investigation for a first reading ahead of private and local orders of the day on 12 March 2008. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table documents to show that these offences occurred in 2005. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to present documentation to show that the adjustments to the Bail Act of which Mr Brownlee was so cheaply speaking occurred in 2007. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the first decision made by Justice Heath after the changes to the Bail Act were made in which he said: “It does not seem to me to put the test”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Youth—Initiatives 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about ways to ensure a good start for all young people? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This morning the OECD released a review of how New Zealand supports young people in transiting from school to work.  
Jobs for Youth New Zealand 
 notes the huge progress we have made since the 1990s in getting young people into employment and rebuilding the vocational pathways from school to work. Further improvements are recommended including raising the school leaving age and improving participation in early childhood education. Those are exactly the policies that the Labour-led Government has introduced into our schools with the Schools Plus programme and our 20 free hours of early childhood entitlement for all 3 and 4-year-olds. Interestingly enough those policies are opposed by the National Party. 
Dianne Yates 
: How does the OECD report on youth employment relate to major new education initiatives announced by the Labour-led Government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: They relate exactly. Our very strong economy has lead to record levels of employment. We have higher-than-average achievement levels in science mathematics and literacy and initiatives like our Gateway programme now available in all secondary schools in New Zealand the Youth Apprenticeships scheme which will be trialled in 10 schools this year and of course our Schools Plus programme will significantly improve our educational outcomes. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why has this Government clearly failed to address the ongoing problem of student underachievement so that after 8 years of a Labour Government we are left with a “hard-core of youth who are at high risk of poor labour market outcomes and social exclusion.” as the OECD has described today; would New Zealanders not be better off with a totally focused fully funded initiative like National’s Youth Guarantee and trades training policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Cheap headline initiatives like boot camps will not work. An investment in education will work like the extra $4 billion this Government has put in the 5000 teachers above roll growth the 20 free hours for early childhood education the over 1400 new classrooms the over 36 new schools and so it goes on. This Government has invested in education; it is offering real solutions to real problems. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave of the House to table  
Jobs for Youth: New Zealand 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a document outlining 45 different initiatives this Government has taken to lift educational achievement in this country. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Ministerial Intervention 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What are the reasons why he is threatening to dismiss the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and replace it with a commissioner? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have written to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board outlining my reasons for being seriously dissatisfied with its performance. That letter is in the public domain and I am happy to table it. However until due process is completed I will not be making a decision nor making further substantive comment on that issue. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not a fact that this Minister has manufactured a list of grievances against the Hawke’s Bay District Board in an attempt to divert public attention from the hospital failures report and the Owen Glenn affair and to take out the critics of his whitewash inquiry into Annette King’s involvement with this board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister consider that the level of confrontation that has arisen in his dealings with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board is the best way to deal with the board’s difficulties; if not can he assure us that the seeming impasse will be resolved as quickly as possible and with a minimum of trial by media? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Clearly this level of confrontation is not assisting the health care delivery to the people of Hawke’s Bay and it is for exactly the reasons that the member suggests that I have asked all parties to refrain from public comment. 
Craig Foss 
: How can the Minister cite last month’s letter from the Auditor-General to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board as a reason when in that letter the Auditor-General does not give a poor grading to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for any measure and does not recommend any major improvements that need urgent attention for any aspects and when that same letter reminds the Minister that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board received an unqualified audit opinion for its 2006-07 accounts? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Given that in every category that was reviewed in the audit in question the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board received the rating “needs improvement” I ask what part of the member’s early education he can now not remember? 
Darien Fenton 
: Can the Minister elaborate on his concerns about tensions between clinicians in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not need to do so when a number of clinicians have been on Radio New Zealand National this morning outlining their concerns for themselves. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why is the Minister ignoring an unprecedented letter in support of the board from the five Hawke’s Bay mayors who represent over 150000 citizens ignoring the many senior doctors who have come forward to support the board and ignoring the Hawke’s Bay voters who elected the board just 4 short months ago; and why is it a case of the Minister versus Hawke’s Bay? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: First because I care more about the health care standards of the people of Hawke’s Bay than I do about local politics; second because I have heard the many voices of senior clinicians and others who are saying all is not well in the state of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Chris Tremain 
: How can the Minister cite the deteriorating deficit at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board as a reason to dismiss the entire board when its members were elected by the people of Hawke’s Bay only 4 short months ago when most other district health boards are facing deficits and when he did not sack the Capital and Coast District Health Board which is facing a far more serious deficit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Firstly I repeat to the House that no decision has been made and that I have given the board a week to justify its position. Secondly the position with the Capital and Coast District Health Board is not analogous. The issues there were at the clinical and management level. The issues here are quite squarely it would appear at the governance level and that is what will be sorted out. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Could the Minister explain why when Capital and Coast District Health Board was facing a huge deficit severe clinical criticism and an audit report that said it needed improvement in every category—and without any public support—he decided to keep it but when it comes to a district health board enjoying the wide support of its own community and clinicians he wants to give that one the chop? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place if I recall correctly that member accused me of being rather Draconian in the case of the Capital and Coast District Health Board. It is interesting that he has now changed his tune. In the second place much as I have not made a decision it may be possible that I have a little more information to hand than some of the residents of that beautiful province. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table the letter from the Auditor-General to the Minister of Health in which there is not one item rated “4”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Chris Tremain 
: I seek leave to table the unprecedented letter from the five regional mayors supporting the board. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table my letter of 20 February 2008 to the chairman of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Community Groups—Sustainable Funding Model 
9.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Why is the Government introducing a new funding model for community groups delivering essential social services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Our Government is completing the move away from the old market-based system put in place by the National Government in the 1990s. We have listened to the community and voluntary sector and have worked in partnership to develop a new sustainable model. As Jeff Sanders of Relationship Services said this is “the result of the Pathways to Partnership discussions with the Government … about how community organisations can be better resourced to meet the growing and complex needs in the community.” The new model will provide funding to deliver results for children young people families and communities. It will focus on outcomes not on the number of clients worked with. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How will the Government decide which organisations will be fully funded? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The focus is not on the organisation but on the service provided. One is assuming that it is an essential contracted service. Essential services are those services that are best provided by community organisations and that the Government would have to provide directly if the community did not. This will not be restricted to large or nationally based organisations. We know that many effective organisations are based at the community level—in marae in churches—and are built up from the grassroots. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has she seen of alternative funding models for the community sector? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen a model built on the philosophy that “the Government is really just a purchaser of services and the need to sustain a longer-term relationship is not an explicit part of its actions.” That is the market-based model advocated by the National Party—an approach based on competitive bidding wars. That model would not lead to certainty for the community sector and would not focus on achieving good outcomes for vulnerable New Zealanders. 
Leaky Homes—Government Policy 
10.  
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Is the taxpayer getting value for money from the Government’s initiatives to fix the leaky homes problem? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes. Of specific importance is the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act that came into force on 1 April 2007 and it provides a speedy less costly and more effective resolution because it has comprehensive assessment of properties that improves the ability to estimate repair requirements and costs. I can make its measures available to the member at a later date. 
Bob Clarkson 
: How can the Minister justify spending $650000 on administration of the loans scheme announced in Budget 2006 to help leaky home owners when only seven loans have been issued amounting to an administrative cost of $93000 a house? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The response of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service goes beyond the single loan facility that the member refers to. The loan facility is extremely highly sought after wherever there lies an opportunity not only to expand that but also to expedite people through the mediation process and to the disputes resolution process. I say to the member that within 10 to 12 weeks people are having their claims effectively and successfully dealt with. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Order! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. Another comment like that and the member will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Is it not an appalling waste of public money that the Government would spend $93000 on administration costs on each leaky home and an average of $100000 costs in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal claim area when the average cost to fix a leaky home is $120000? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: On the question of an alleged waste of money causing public angst I remind the member that it was under his party in Government that this leaky homes fiasco actually originated. The former parliamentarian league radically liberated the sector and look what we have got—a public legacy of debt and virtual suicide. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tena hoki koe e te Minita. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to you also the Minister 
.] 
Would the Minister agree that the issue of leaky buildings would never have occurred in the first place if shonky property developers and speculators had not tried to rip off investors and homeowners by using shoddy material and building practices? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I direct the member to an article in the newspaper that refers to a court case that has involved the producers and suppliers of those products stepping up to the plate to engage in a settlement—and I remind the member that Don Hunn described the failure as a systemic one including the behaviour of poorly skilled people poorly skilled counsellors and very unethical company directors. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Why in response to the building industry’s concern that the loan scheme was a sham did Clayton Cosgrove cruelly raise the hopes of desperate leaky home owners by stating that the scheme would open the way for thousands to have their homes repaired when only seven loans have been granted? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There are two main avenues that people are using with greater regularity. No. 1 is the mediation service; No. 2 is the dispute resolution service. For a sum of $500 anyone who has a complaint may approach the department and have a very professional engineering quantitative assessment of his or her problem and the likely costs. In the market that might cost $9000. The Government and the department are making that available for $500. However we do confine the providers of those reports to professional competent and trustworthy people. 
Bob Clarkson 
: How many chances should this Government have at fixing the leaky home problem when Helen Clark initially said that it was just a media beat-up when there have been four attempts by the Government to fix it when the current Minister is now the 10th Minister to have responsibility for it and when last year’s initiative to fix this problem with a loan scheme has failed? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The initiative to reduce stress and actually settle people’s concerns is not failing. People have the choice of going to the High Court and I direct Mr Clarkson’s attention to the newspaper today to show that some are making use of that option. Others—growing in number—are going down the mediation and dispute resolution route. That is taking place over a period of 10 to 12 weeks and the sums they are being allocated are not insignificant. 
Terrorism Suppression Act—Government Conduct 
11.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What is the process that the Government undertakes to respond to the inquiry from the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism an inquiry which is related to the Government’s conduct during the 15 October 2007 raids? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The process is already complete. The request was received on 3 December 2007. The Government responded on 30 January. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What complaints have been received from the United Nations about the violations of human rights arising from the conduct of the police politicians and media? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That question is so broad that I am afraid I could not possibly give an answer—it gives neither a time frame nor the nature of the inquiries. I would note in terms of requests from the special rapporteurs that in the last year for which we have information 2006 more than 1100 such requests were made of 143 countries. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: In responding to the United Nations special rapporteur will the Minister be endorsing the behaviour of police during the raids on Tuhoe families including reported actions such as holding loaded rifles to the heads of young girls? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Government will do and has done is explain the nature of police operational independence in New Zealand. This probably will come as a surprise to some of the countries represented on the United Nations Human Rights Council where no such operational independence occurs. In some of those countries the police probably issue the orders to the Government rather than the other way round. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Will the Minister be reconsidering New Zealand’s stand to oppose the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples given that the foreign affairs Minister of the new Australian Labor Government is consulting stakeholders with a view to reversing Australia’s opposition to the declaration; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have no such plans at present as I have explained to the House before. A large number of the countries that voted for that declaration have no what one might call indigenous peoples—a term of course that has no meaning in a country say like the United Kingdom. Some of those countries that voted for the declaration made it quite clear they had no intention of implementing it should any issues arise. The countries that voted against the declaration shared two features: first they have indigenous populations and second they carry out obligations when they sign up to them. 
Housing Affordability—Review of Public Land Holdings 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What progress has been made in reviewing public landholdings in Auckland to identify what new land “might be made available for significant housing developments” and what work still needs to be done? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Last week the Prime Minister announced a comprehensive package of measures to improve housing affordability. Land Information New Zealand has already commenced work on one of the measures announced—the review of public landholdings in Auckland. 
Phil Heatley 
: When asked late last year for “work done to identify public land available for affordable housing” why did the Government itself supply a list of properties including the Auckland Zoo the Auckland libraries and 16000 hectares of Department of Conservation land; does it simply indicate how poorly thought out and ill-advanced this latest idea was? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The list to which the member refers is different from the list that is being prepared now. The list last time was not comprehensive. The current list being prepared will identify all public land held in Auckland. It will consider its suitability for housing developments. This will include looking at factors such as current and proposed uses of the land its size and its location. Obviously not all public land is suitable for residential development. We have to reserve land for schools etc. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why then was the Prime Minister’s statement so bold about providing public land for affordable housing when the background work was so ill-advanced and so much in its infancy that the paperwork the Government supplied still listed the zoo libraries and 16000 hectares of Department of Conservation land? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member misrepresents the list to which he refers. There is no doubt that the stocktake of public lands will actually identify some lands that will be suitable for public housing. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the review lead to unsustainable urban sprawl? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it will not. There is no need to abandon proper urban planning and environmental protections which I would note seems to be the simplistic solution proposed by National. 
Phil Heatley 
: When does the Minister expect that this new list of suitable public land to be identified by Land Information New Zealand will be available and when does he expect that this land will be made available for housing so that first home buyers can have a sense of when this latest promise is to be fulfilled? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This promise will be fulfilled in the same reliable way that we have already assisted the 3000-plus first home buyers who have secured mortgages through the Government’s Welcome Home Loan scheme and of course more than 400000 people are in KiwiSaver many of whom will receive up to $10000 to assist them to buy their first home. I have no doubt that this stocktake of public lands will be helpful. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specially asked when the Minister expected the public land schedule which is being done now to be finished and the land to be available. I was not interested in Welcome Home Loans— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point. I listened very carefully. The Minister did address the question in the first part of his answer. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why was the Prime Minister’s promise to release public land heralded as a bold action plan when such land may not surface for years; why after all this time are all the Prime Minister’s solutions still in the pipeline? No shared-equity homes are available today; the planned homes for first home buyers in Hobsonville are not built yet and when they are built a person would have to be on $70000 a year to afford one; and now we know that the public land list is so much in its infancy that we may not see it for years. How does all this help first home buyers today? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: All of the numerous steps that are being taken will assist. The likes of the Hobsonville development will assist as will identification of other public lands. In terms of this misapprehension that we are somehow proposing to build houses on zoo land it has always been a nonsense argument. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the Government’s land schedule for affordable housing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 April 2008 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions 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 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Graffiti vandalism is not art and it is far more than just a nuisance. Tagging is a destructive crime and it represents an invasion of private and public property. Graffiti vandalism is the wilful damage of another person’s property and the costs of graffiti both financial and emotional are high. Graffiti vandalism has negative impacts that extend beyond the anger and annoyance felt by the owners of the property that has been tagged. It creates an eyesore for the wider community and it can also have links to gangs in New Zealand. It certainly leaves people feeling intimidated. 
If we want to protect the beauty of our country and create cities and towns where New Zealanders can feel proud of their communities then we must take steps to combat graffiti vandalism. In doing so we are also taking steps to protect ordinary law-abiding citizens from those who feel they have the right to damage property in the name of notoriety. 
In the discussions about graffiti vandalism and tagging that have occurred over recent weeks there have been claims of tagging being self-expression and of it having artistic value but why should one person’s need to express himself or herself outweigh other people’s right to have their property remain tag-free? There are two simple differences between graffiti vandalism and tagging and art. The first and most obvious is the issue of permission. How can a person’s scrawling his or her name on someone else’s property without permission be considered legitimate art? The second is artistic merit. The vast majority of graffiti vandalism in this country consists of the talentless scrawling of a nickname. This reminds me more of the way an animal marks its territory than it does of any real artistic talent. 
This bill builds on previous thinking including that which led to the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill a local bill introduced by the Hon George Hawkins. I thank that member for bringing that bill to this House. However this bill takes the key measures of Mr Hawkins’ bill into the national arena. I understand that the Attorney-General considers this bill to be consistent with the Government’s obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 
The current legislation that relates to graffiti vandalism does not in my view go far enough to deter graffiti vandals. In the past the penalty for defacing properties was a $200 fine. This bill proposes to increase this penalty. However it does so not simply by increasing the fine; more important it does so by also giving the judiciary the opportunity to sentence convicted graffiti vandals to a community sentence. This is designed to ensure that offenders put right what they have done wrong by cleaning graffiti off walls and buildings in their communities. 
The Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill will establish a new and specific graffiti vandalism and tagging offence. Under current legislation offenders are normally charged with either defacing or wilful damage. The term “defacing” means little to ordinary New Zealanders and this proposed new graffiti offence clarifies the actual behaviour individuals are charged with. 
This bill will also replace the old defacing penalty of a $200 fine with a new tagging penalty of a fine of up to $2000. This better reflects the impact this crime has on individual victims and on the community. However as I said fines may not always present the best penalty for this kind of offence. Crucially therefore the bill will give judges the ability to sentence graffiti vandals to a community-based sentence such as community work through which offenders may be required to clean up tagging as part of their sentence. This is a significant step and reflects the need to hold offenders accountable to their communities and to have them undo at least some of the damage they have created. 
In recognition of the need to make it harder for graffiti vandals to access spray-paint cans the bill proposes that the sale of spray-paint cans to under-18-year-olds will be prohibited. Spray-paint cans are the most common implement used in graffiti vandalism and they enable vandals to do a large amount of damage in a short time. I am told that it is estimated that one can of spray-paint can do as much as $10000 worth of damage. I acknowledge that many people who take part in this crime are older than 18 but according to what we know most taggers are in their teens. I am also concerned about the number of young people who start tagging early in their lives and I believe that it is important to discourage them from doing so. 
There has already been criticism that this move will not stop tagging. It is not my expectation that restrictions on the sale of spray-paint are a panacea for this problem. That is why the restriction on the sale of spray-paint cans is not the only response that this Government and its partners at a local level will make towards this problem. But as part of a package of action being taken in restricting the sale of spray-paint cans it will make it a great deal more difficult for teenagers in the peak age for this activity to access the primary tagging implement and the measure therefore will have an impact. 
The restriction of sale provisions are expected to deter children and young people from becoming involved in graffiti vandalism and entering the tagging culture. All taggers start somewhere and if those first steps which may take place at the age of 10 or 12 are made more difficult then fewer young people will go down this path. This legislation will help to prevent today’s youth from becoming tomorrow’s vandals. 
Retailers will also have to control access to spray-paint cans in a similar way that they now do with cigarettes thus minimising the opportunities taggers have to steal the spray-paint cans they use to commit this crime. Unfortunately I am told that many do steal the cans rather than purchase them so having them under the watchful eye of the shopkeeper is I think an important part of this bill. 
The new sentence options will provide a new tool in the anti-tagging tool box and will increase the use of community-based sentences. It will enable us to better deal with adults who persist in these behaviours past their adolescence. 
As I indicated before I recognise that this legislation alone is not sufficient to deal with this problem. It requires a more holistic response. This Government has therefore delivered a significant cash injection to supplement the funding and resources provided by central and local government to strengthen the work already being done in communities around New Zealand to combat graffiti vandalism. In the coming months we will also be working in partnership with local communities to establish a national strategy Stop Tagging Our Place which will outline a broader programme of work to address this problem. I expect this strategy to be ready by July this year. 
As part of a comprehensive programme of work to tackle graffiti vandalism I commend the bill to the House. 
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.” 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 When Simon Power was first elected to Parliament I thought he was a young man with a lot of promise. It is sad that that promise has never been fulfilled and I think the reason for that is Simon Power does not do his homework. 
I will pick up on a couple of the points he made. He said there was a promise made in the 1999 manifesto about restorative justice and cleaning up vandalism and graffiti. If he had done his homework then he would know that restorative justice is a sentence used by the Youth Court and used under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act and that right now there are young people under instructions from those two jurisdictions who are required to do that. What we would like to do—and the resourcing in this bill and the expansion of this legislation does—is to make that a more common penalty. 
Secondly Mr Power questioned why the select committee did not support Mr Hawkins’ bill going forward. The bill of course was not thrown out as he suggested; it is on the Order Paper. I say to Simon Power that he should look at the Order Paper. He said it was thrown out. Why did the select committee decide that that bill should not go forward? I know Manukau City well. The Manukau bill would have stopped the sale of spray-cans in Manukau City. But anybody who knows South Auckland knows that people from Manurewa would go a kilometre down the road to Papakura to buy spray-cans or if they lived on the other side in Mangere that they would go half a kilometre to Otahuhu to buy spray-cans. 
The obvious point made not only by the select committee but also I think by Local Government New Zealand is that if we are to have a bill like that then it is not a local bill but a national bill and we would need to cover the whole country for it to be effective. That is why the Manukau City Council bill as well intended as it was would never be an answer. I say to Mr Power that that is obvious to somebody of the lowest intelligence so why is he pretending it is not obvious to him? I am not suggesting that the member comes into the category of people of the lowest intelligence but I ask why he is suggesting that he does not know why the Manukau bill could not proceed. The member does know; he is being disingenuous with the House. 
Then Mr Power talked about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and inconsistencies. Well maybe Mr Power should have said whether he supports—as the Manukau bill does—a stronger law on police interrogation of somebody suspected of tagging than the law provides for somebody suspected of murder or rape. I ask Mr Power whether that was a good idea. I do not think he would have supported that being in the bill at all. Or would he have supported the fact that if he was going down the road with a felt-tip pen in his pocket he could have been picked up under one of the provisions in that bill for carrying a graffiti instrument? Mr Power would not have supported that and he knows it; once again he is being disingenuous with the House. 
Then he said that the penalty for graffiti has not gone up at all. Well under the Summary Offences Act the penalty of defacing which is where many of the charges were brought for graffiti was $200. That has been increased tenfold to $2000. I support that and not because I think that many of the kids out there doing graffiti will have $2000 to pay; I support it symbolically because it shows how seriously we take this offending. Where there are people who can afford to pay then they should have to pay through fine or reparation for the damage they have done. I speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the people in my electorate—and I know in your electorate Mr Assistant Speaker—who quite simply have had a gutsful of the mindless vandalism that graffiti reflects. I join the Minister of Justice in saying that graffiti is not art. It can be but what we see all around the streets is not. It can be but the stuff that is up there at the moment is not. 
There is no silver bullet answer. That is the next thing I need to say. The problem needs to be addressed by a combination of measures—strong enforcement of the law will be required intelligent policing is necessary and effective sanctions are important. Changing the attitudes of the kids out there doing this makes sense as well because we need to address the problem at its cause. We need to look also at rapid removal of tagging. Many local government authorities are doing that. We need to look at environmental design in order to make it harder to tag and we need to look at creative alternatives for some of the offenders. I know that Christchurch has a very good scheme and I have seen a very good scheme operating in Avondale. That is not the whole answer but it is part of the answer. All of those things need to be in the mix if we really want to make a difference. 
I have to say a heck of a lot is happening already. Nobody in this House should pretend that there is no response to graffiti at the moment. A lot is being done at a local level by police and others. But this legislation backed by the STOP strategy with its extra funding—$15 million extra over 5 years—will really help. 
In terms of prevention I think there is a case for banning sales to under-18-year-olds. I do not think it is the entire answer. Yes of course they can still get access to cans in some other way just as young people can access tobacco and alcohol but that is not a reason for not banning sales. We should make it harder for those of the age category of the bulk of the offenders to get access to the cans. One of the other ways we can do that is by requiring retailers to secure the cans. A lot of these kids do not have any money; they get the cans by stealing them. Already the retailers that are following best practice are securing the cans. This bill requires that it be done across the board. I hope everybody will support that. 
In terms of penalties I have talked about fines but I really want to talk about the specific community work schemes that require taggers to clean up their own work. I think that is really important. Those kids who think it is really cool to go out there under the cover of darkness and deface public commercial and private property may take a different view of their actions when in the full light of day in public and in front of others they have to get out there as part of the sentence and clean up the damage they have done. They will not think it is quite so cool when their mates see them having to do that in public. I think that is a great case of the penalty matching the crime. 
The last—but not necessarily the least important; I would say it is perhaps the most important—question is the question of enforcement of the law. This is where I congratulate my colleague Annette King who as Minister of Justice brings in this bill but who also as Minister of Police and working with the Labour-led Government with the support of New Zealand First is putting 1250 extra police staff in the police force in this term of Government. Of those police officers 250 will be community police and will play a critical role. 
I will give the House an example of what is happening in my electorate with Constable Reg Alofa. Reg works out of Avondale. He is a graffiti enforcement officer. He has had that responsibility for 10 months and in those 10 months has made 200 arrests for tagging and wilful damage. The other thing I like about what Reg is doing is that he has a mate called David Tua. Some people know him as “Tua Man”. David goes into some of the local schools with Reg and says to the kids—particularly the Pasifika kids—that it is not on to damage other people’s property. When he says that I have to say that it has a little bit more influence than when I say it or Mrs King says it or Ron Mark says it. I patted David Tua on the shoulder at the launch of the graffiti initiative and it was like hitting a solid rock. If David says “Don’t tag!” people would be pretty silly to actually go out there and do it. 
Another person I want to pay credit to is Rob Shields who works for the Auckland City Council in my area. He has built up a huge data bank of taggers. He works closely with the police. We have intelligence-led policing. That is why we are being successful. That will make a difference. 
Finally I congratulate the Manukau City Council which I know has worked really hard in this area; Barry Curtis the former mayor; and Len Brown the current mayor. I congratulate George Hawkins. I tell Mr Power that George and I have actually worked in this area for quite a long time now. I think George has worked really hard on behalf of his community and they are pleased at the difference he has made. Last—and again not least—I thank Annette King as the Minister of Justice for bringing this bill into the House. I think it is a very good bill and I commend it to the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill and its passage through to the select committee process. I have a number of concerns surrounding the way in which the bill is drafted and how it may work based on where the police are at the moment in the enforcement of the current legislation. 
I am pleased to see that local communities take—as has previously been mentioned—strong ownership in the redress of graffiti around their cities and suburbs. It is true to note as the Minister Phil Goff noted that the appearance of graffiti is one way that self-expression by one person impinges on the rights of others. It will be interesting to see how the Government responds in the next couple of weeks to a similar bill a local bill from a local initiative to do something along these lines—the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—which seeks to address exactly the same problem. 
The point made by my senior colleague Simon Power in respect of the legislation as it stands now is one that is quite important. In the publicity surrounding the promotion of this particular bill the Government seeks to make the point that it is raising the penalty for defacing from $200 to $2000. In actual fact people are very very rarely charged with the offence of defacing under section 33 of the Summary Offences Act. Just to give members some understanding of this I can tell them that if they drew on a window with a lipstick they may well be charged with defacing and that is probably more to do with the content of what they wrote or drew rather than with the cost of the damage caused. It can be easily wiped off as I understand it and that is why the penalty is so low. People who get out with spray-cans spirit markers or paint brushes and draw on the sides of buildings fences vehicles and the rest of it are generally charged with wilful damage under section 11 of the Summary Offences Act which carries a penalty of a $2000 fine or 3 months’ imprisonment. 
Another interesting point to note here is that the courts already have the ability to impose a penalty of community service under that legislation as it stands now. So under section 11 of the Summary Offences Act the court already has the ability to impose on an offender the sentence of community work. The only problem we have is that if that young offender is under 17 section 298 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act requires the offender to actually agree to do community work rather than have some other sentence. It will be interesting to see whether this bill allows for a judge in the Youth Court to impose community work on a young offender or whether it will still rely on that young offender seeing the good need for him to redress his own ways and actually agree to do community work. At the moment I do not see that it is addressed at all. But then I do not think we have seen the legislation either so this is something that is hitting us just a bit out of left field. 
I was talking to a policeman this morning and in one of our provincial cities in the last couple of weeks the police have arrested three young guys under 17 for offences totalling about $50000 worth of damage to vehicles and buildings by way of drawing on them using spray-cans. What do we do there? Do we charge them under this new legislation? No they will be charged under the criminal damage provisions of the Crimes Amendment Act 2003—section 269(2). The maximum penalty there is 7 years’ imprisonment. The trouble is that at the moment those young offenders who are appearing in the Youth Court cannot be sentenced to anything other than supervision with activity if they agree to it; or supervision with residence if they agree to it; or a fine if they do not. The law as it stands at the moment does not allow those young people to be transferred into the District Court for sentencing so that they could get a sentence that is more than that. 
It seems to me that the Government has taken a high-profile offence that is brassing everybody off and which has previously been occurring in significant Labour-voting communities in South Auckland and is really hacking them off in that that they are upset with the Government for not supporting their local initiative which was brought to the House by George Hawkins and it is trying to address the issue quickly and easily for itself when the problem is much bigger. The reason we have a problem is that there is a deficit in the law. We have the situation at the moment whereby section 298 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act allows young people to have to do community work only if they consent to it themselves—and why the hell would they? Why would they consent to giving up their Saturdays etc. and putting the damage right? 
The other problem we have is that section 283(o) of the Children Young Persons and the Their Families Act allows only for matters that are purely indictable to go to the District Court for sentencing. The problem we have there is that “purely indictable” offences is a relatively small schedule of offences and it does not include the ones such as burglary and criminal damage—the sorts of things we want to address here—and the crimes for which we are wanting to hold young people even more accountable. 
I think it is important to note too the difficulty encountered on day-to-day basis by policemen and policewomen and those wanting to assist in the diversion schemes that have young people out cleaning up the damage. This is something that was outlined to me by Senior Sergeant Lance Tebbutt of Hamilton Youth Aid. We go back a long way but he is well known around the youth justice fraternity as leading a youth offenders team in Hamilton that is very very good at getting good outcomes. What Senior Sergeant Tebbutt said to me was that when he takes a group of young people out to do their youth diversion community work he is not allowed to have them digging gardens because they have not got safety boots; he is not allowed to put them up ladders because they might fall off; and he is not allowed to get them spraying weeds or using sharp tools in case they hurt themselves or somebody else. 
This sort of jandal-slapping legislation is legislation that is supported by the other side of the House which now wants the courts to be able to enforce the ability of diversion teams to get these young people to clean up their graffiti. The problem we have there is that currently the big deal in graffiti is to put it as high up on a building as one possibly can. So if we walk down Queen St we might find some graffiti on the top of the air conditioner ten floors up off the street. Will we send them up there to clean it off? If we are going to send them up there to clean it off how does that conflict with the current rules and regulations around what we can get young people to do if they are not wearing safety boots and safety harnesses and if they have not been trained to get rid of the substances the authorities are trying to get cleaned off? 
What the Government is achieving here is Mickey Mouse legislation that no fool can disagree with because it is aimed in the right direction and it is right where people wanted to go in previous years. The Government could have very easily made some changes to section 18 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to allow the threat of imprisonment to young people over the age of 15 and to allow young people to be sentenced in the District Court. An amendment to section 283(o) of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act would allow some District Court sentences relating to community work to be given and then enforced by the social agencies. The Government could remove section 298 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act which ridiculously requires a young person to agree to the sentence of community work before the judge in all his or her wisdom is allowed to impose it. The Government also has to move within this legislation to ensure that those in charge of the youth offending teams who will run diversionary programmes are going to be allowed to get young people off their chuffs shall we say to do community work in spite of the fact they may not have safety boots or the grubbers used to clean the weeds that the paintbrushes or the paint being used may be slightly toxic or that they may have to get more than 3 feet off the ground and climb a ladder to do so. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Tagging is annoying like cat spray which is a stinky way for tom cats to mark their territory—and female cats. Does anyone know what we call a female cat? 
Chester Borrows 
: A queen. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Borrows. 
Like cat spray tagging is annoying and hard to wash off. Except presumably for taggers themselves not many people like it although I did read an interesting website by a guy who has based his academic career on the sociology of tagging which is quite interesting. It is interesting that even graffiti artists get annoyed with tagging because they see their work being co-opted with someone else’s scrawled signature. Just ask Otis Frizzell for his view about that. 
Unlike the New Zealand Police I am of the opinion that there is an enormous difference between graf art political graffiti and tagging both in terms of function and form. Graf art is by definition art. Anyone who has tried to get funky with a spray-can—and I do not imagine many members in this House get funky with anything never mind spray-cans—knows how enormously skilful one has to be to create world-class graf art. Like all the other creative industries New Zealand has spawned its share of world-class graf artists. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Like who? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Otis Frizzell for one. DLT is magic. Political graffiti on the other hand is activism. It might even be journalism because often one sentence in graffiti contains as much content as a whole issue of the  
Dominion Post 
 or a week of Paul Holmes. Unlike graf art I find it pretty hard to believe that no members of this House have participated. Tagging I think is different again. Some tagging is quite artistic actually but most of it is mundane and a lot of it is basically irritating. Even so I was surprised to see the announcement of a major policy initiative last week supposedly focused on tagging. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If I found somebody tagging my fence I’d kick their backside. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Tau Henare say the best way to deal with taggers is to break their fingers and pull their fingernails out. 
Anyway it was a bit amazing to see a major policy announcement around tagging last week. It was supposedly aimed at tagging but it actually targets young people in general. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry for yelling and interrupting you. I find it difficult to believe that there is not a rule in this House—and it may be a debating point but—[ 
Interruption 
]. We are supposed to be quiet during points of order. I find it very difficult to believe that there is not a Standing Order whereby a member can refute an out and out mistruth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just suggest to the member that he look at Speaker’s ruling 36/4 to do with misrepresentation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thought that there were more important things for the Government to focus on than tagging. I thought that addressing child poverty addressing housing transients truancy the lack of mental health and drug addiction services for young people— 
Heather Roy 
: The economy. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: —or the economy would be higher priorities. I thought responding to the Green-initiated report into improving the justice system for victims of crime might be a higher priority or improving police response times to crimes of theft and violence or even funding a decent ambulance service. 
More important I would have thought that a crack down on tagging would actually include some initiatives that might actually reduce tagging but that is not what we have got. Section 14A in clause 5 of this bill which was speedily introduced this week bans the sale of spray-cans to under 18-year-olds. Section 14B requires retailers to keep spray-cans under lock and key. Does the Government really think that only people under the age of 18 tag? The Minister’s peak-age theory seems a pretty tenuous basis for introducing age-discriminatory laws. In addition does the Government really believe that taggers under 18 cannot get spray-cans from other people—because of course although under-age possession of a spray-can would not be illegal under this bill selling a spray-can to an under-18-year-old would be. 
Buying a spray-can on behalf of an under-age tagger would be legal and maybe here is a whole new business opportunity for some enterprising B-boy. And in any case if under-age taggers cannot get spray-cans do we really think they will not use instead markers stickers etchers scratches scorers or stencils? What about the requirement to keep spray-cans under lock and key? Does this Parliament really think that spray-cans are so dangerous that they need to be treated on par with lethal materials such as cigarettes and guns? It is absolutely bizarre. 
The bill also creates a new offence of tagging with a maximum $2000 fine. Of course the maximum fine will not be noticed by people who do not think they are going to get caught. If they are caught they probably will not pay the fine anyway. And in any case they are more likely to receive one of the new community sentences to make them clean up their act—a sentence which as we have already heard a judge can already give them under the Sentencing Act. So what is the point? 
For all the fanfare the bill is unlikely to make any difference to tagging whatsoever. And here is the real issue. Even if it does work even if it stops people from tagging what do members think they will do instead? Urinate in peoples’ letterboxes? This is the issue. Until the underlying issues are addressed methods such as these simply shift the problem around like trying to push an air bubble out from under wallpaper. 
Let us be clear. There are no silver bullets for manifestations of anti-social attitudes. Behaviours like tagging are an expression of something much deeper and much more important and they are something that this House really should be paying attention to. Scapegoating young people as this bill does and as early announcements from both John Key and Helen Clark did do nothing to solve the problem. It just makes the problems of youth alienation even worse. 
That is why I describe this bill as a new low in dog-whistle electioneering. Usually we can expect to see the start of election year heralded by attacks on parents receiving the domestic purpose benefit. Maybe that is being saved for later in the campaign. This year we are starting with attacks on young people. That is why the Green Party says that we need to address the causes of anti-social behaviour rather than grandstanding on the symptoms with simplistic solutions. Unfortunately as I have already indicated election year is never an easy time to do that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As per Speaker’s ruling 36/4 what I said was: “If I found somebody tagging my fence I would kick his backside.” The member said that I said that I would go out there and break his fingers. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My sincere apologies to the member. I clearly misheard him and I withdraw and apologise for the remark. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member very much. It makes the House much easier. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly in support of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill for a couple of reasons and I want to revert to the comments from the previous speaker with which I have some sympathy. 
United Future supported the proposal by Mr Hawkins on behalf of the Manukau City Council for special legislation to outlaw tagging in that city. We indicated to both the previous mayor and the current mayor our continued support for that bill to proceed. Indeed I did so as recently as last week. So we were pleased to see a Government bill appear that effectively takes over and provides a national solution to the issue which is not peculiar to Manukau but has had a lot of focus there because of activities in that particular city over a period of time. We support the notion of creating a specific offence for graffiti vandalism tagging and defacing. We accept the community’s distaste for what is occurring at the moment and the need for there to be some considerable action. But we are concerned about the provision to limit the sale of spray-cans to those aged 18 or under not because of a civil liberties issue per se but because of the practicality of that particular decision and the consequence that it requires in terms of spray-cans being kept in secure places. 
When I look at clause 5 of the bill I see the concern about spray-cans becomes much more heightened. Clause 5 prohibits the sale of spray-cans to people under age 18 and renders a person who sells a spray-can to such a person liable for an offence with a fine of up to $1500. But then the bill introduces a couple of defences which I think make the law very difficult to enforce. They apply if the defendant is a school board the governing body of an education provider or an employee of a board or provider—well that will prove to be difficult in some situations—if the buyer was enrolled at a school or institution managed by a board or provider or if the spray-can was sold to the buyer to enable him or her to undertake the work of his or her course at the school or institution etc. I think there will be huge definitional problems associated with those particular defences and provisions and I think a lot of work will need to be done by the select committee in working through that particular provision and how it will work in practice. 
I note that there is a suggestion that we have evidence of a person’s age—documentation—being produced. The thought of young people or of any group of people having to carry around passports or other forms of identification on a routine basis does start to make one wonder about the path we are heading down. 
But having said that I have looked at graffiti legislation in other countries and particularly at that in New South Wales. When I compare the situation set out in this bill with what is contained in the Summary Offences Act in New South Wales I find the situation here is actually even with this bill far more lenient than it is there. For instance in New South Wales if people damage a fountain erected in a public place they are liable for a fine of $440. I do not know what the magic of $440 happens to be but that is the fine they are liable for. There is even a specific defence which I am just trying to find that can apply if people damage a ferry in New South Wales. If people wilfully mark by means of chalk paint or other material any premises where the markings are within view from a public place unless the consent of the occupier or person in charge of the premises is first obtained they are also subject to a penalty of $440. In other words that law is far more specific and far more Draconian in many senses that what we have here. 
The New South Wales law also sets out some very particular provisions relating to how people must keep spray-cans in secure places. That reminds me a little of our firearms legislation. In a shop the spray-cans have to be in a locked cabinet and behind a counter so that customers cannot gain access to cans without the assistance of shop staff or be kept on a shelf of a height of 2.1 metres—again the specificity surprises me—or more or in any other manner prescribed by regulations. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s discriminatory against short persons. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is certainly an anti - short person policy as my colleague Mr Mark outlines—and I have some sympathy with him on that score. 
I guess what both of those measures outline is the problem that civilised societies today face from tagging and from the desecration and defacing of public items of various types and the question of how we resolve that. I was intrigued to note that in British Columbia for instance the emphasis on resolution there is based much more on the removal of the offensive items. There is a partnership with a painting company and people can get a free paint kit for graffiti removal in Vancouver. There is a mural programme so people can actually express their talents as graffiti artists by painting public murals. There are even community paint-outs—the mind boggles—that encourage community groups businesses and residents to team up to improve the physical appearance of their neighbourhood. That is another novel approach that I do not think would work in the New Zealand context. 
The point of drawing those illustrations to the attention of the House is not to be frivolous so much as to make the observation that there have been various efforts made the world over to try to resolve what it seen as a major antisocial problem. I think the select committee that considers this bill ought to pay some attention to those international initiatives and then try to weigh the proposed New Zealand solution alongside them. I would like to think that the outcome would be one where we are not at one extreme of the response but is one where our solution is generally in the middle by international standards is workable is fair and does not impose unnecessary restrictions on the good and the honest but will help to remove the blight of tagging from our presence. 
With those observations I say United Future is happy to support the bill being referred to a select committee. We hope it does not languish there too long because the pressure from cities like Manukau and elsewhere will intensify if there is no significant progress in a reasonably short period of time. When the bill comes back from the select committee we will be looking for some of the concerns about the practicality of the measures that it would impose to be addressed. With that I am happy to pass to the next speaker. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 13 February 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 On 13 February 2008 I provided in an answer to a parliamentary question the information that in the past 3 years at Capital and Coast District Health Board there had been 10 deaths of patients on the waiting list for cardiac surgery there. At the time that answer was given the information was correct to the best of everyone’s knowledge. The district health board concerned has subsequently done a further manual analysis of its records and has shown that a total of 11 deaths for the 3-year period is correct and not 10. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Minister. 
Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this first reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. The ACT party will not be supporting this bill for a very simple reason: this legislation is not necessary. It is clearly election-year grandstanding by Labour and I am sad to see that it is supported by the National Party. 
I wonder whether any member in either of the two big parties or anybody else supporting this bill has bothered to look at the Summary Offences Act 1981 to see what the law currently is. If people have taken the opportunity to read sections 11 and 33 they will have seen that in actual fact there is no change. Section 11 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 talks about wilful damage. Subsection (1) states: “Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2000 who intentionally—(a) Damages any property; or (b)”—not applicable in this case—“Sets on fire any tree or other vegetation.” 
If we move to section 33 of the same legislation as it currently exists—entitled “Billsticking defacing etc.”—we see that it reads: “Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $200 who without the consent of the owner or occupier—(a) Affixes any placard banner poster or other material bearing any writing or pictorial representation to any structure or to or from any tree; or (b) Writes paints sprays or etches on or otherwise marks any structure.” The only change is that the legislation before the House lifts the fine for an offence created there to $2000. The new legislation in fact removes the graffiti aspect of section 33 in the current Act and introduces a new section 11A that makes it an offence to write paint spray etch or otherwise mark any structure. 
So why are we standing here in this House today for no good reason when we have economic issues to deal with—as my colleague Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party pointed out—and any number of serious issues affecting this country which are currently being ignored? For that reason I am pleased to see that the Green Party is not supporting this legislation. I understand that the Maori Party is also opposing this legislation because it is completely unnecessary. 
There are several other points that I could make around the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. I also want to spend some time talking about serious justice issues that the Government could be addressing in this time instead of this unnecessary bill. 
Why do we have a law that does not work which states that under-18-year-olds are not able to purchase alcohol? Everybody knows that it does not work. It is a farce. Here we are today putting in place the banning of spray-cans being sold to under-18-year-olds in the expectation that—like magic—that will work. Well we are not only fooling ourselves but also trying to fool every person in New Zealand and New Zealanders will not be fooled because they are not idiots. 
The second thing is the issue of fines. That is the other big part of this bill that will revolutionise what happens with tagging. Fines will move from the $200 mark to up to $2000. For selling spray-cans to under-18-year-olds there will be a fine of $1500 which I guess might have some effect. But when I look back on press releases from just before Christmas put out by the Minister of Justice Annette King I see that she talked a lot about the fact that fines did not have any impact on behaviour with reference to speeding and traffic offences. She talked about the number of young people in particular who built up fine after fine did not pay any of them because they could not afford to then—magically—further down the track had those fines completely wiped. The message that that is supposed to send to offenders is quite beyond me but everybody agrees that it is not working either. 
Today we have this legislation whereby we stand in Parliament and say what a good thing it is to be imposing fines on our young people who tag—a complete U-turn—yet by limiting the sale of spray-cans we are doing exactly the same thing that we do for alcohol. I would like somebody who supports this bill to stand up and tell me how imposing this measure on under-18-year-olds and imposing fines is going to work. It will not work. When I say these things I do not mean to suggest that we do not think tagging is a serious problem—it is. Nobody disagrees with that. But if we really want to make some impact on this problem then we need to look very carefully firstly at what causes the behaviour and secondly at what we can do about it in a positive way. 
I have quickly jotted down a few things that I think contribute to the tagging behaviour we see from some of our young people. Firstly it is often a teenage rebellion an antisocial sentiment. Frequently there is a component of gang association. It can be for some a cry for help or attention. Often it is a result of peer-group pressure. I think that movie and game media storylines and culture often contribute to these behaviours. The last thing which is a serious issue and was also noted by the Green Party speaker is truancy and poor school achievement. 
So is banning the sale of spray-cans to under-18-year-olds actually going to address any of these things? I suggest that it will not change the behaviour of a single young person. Carrots and sticks are the way that we can deal most effectively with these things. In terms of carrots particularly for our young people the Minister of Justice could have suggested—instead of putting this ridiculous bill before Parliament—supporting a wide range of youth activities and mentoring programmes. They have been shown to work—not Government-initiated ones usually but those introduced by individuals who have a passion like Project K. The Government could spend some time and effort supporting those programmes. There has been a lot of talk this year about boot camps. Some people have suggested that they are not boot camps but when we get down to it the use of badges uniforms discipline rules and codes of conduct is actually a carrot that could be used. I would be surprised if New Zealand First in particular did not agree with me on this point. 
The Government could have taken the opportunity to turn a very positive light on this whole area. Street art competitions with prizes at local regional and national levels and with automatic disqualification—this is a stick—from entry forever for those caught tagging just like we do with drug cheats at the Olympics would have been a novel idea. Junior leader programmes could have been promoted for our young people from around the age of 13 when they are very impressionable. The New Zealand Cadet Forces partially fill this role but they operate on a shoestring with cake stalls essentially funding their operations. The Government could have introduced a rejuvenated bursary scheme linked to student debt rather than something that has no hope at all of working. 
The justice system has many many problems and there are a large number of areas I could talk about this afternoon where changes could be made that would improve things for victims and for our communities and in fact offer some hope of rehabilitation for those who have committed the crimes. Rehabilitation is not possible for everybody but for a large number of people it is. One such suggestion is to have a 24/7 court system and deal with the problems as they arise instead of making people wait for days weeks months or even years sometimes to come before the courts. In some countries fines always carry alternative jail sentences: people are instructed to pay their fine at the time and if they cannot they go to jail. That sends a pretty strong message. It is not just some $2000 fine that might or might not have to be paid some time in the future. 
We could have mandatory non-association orders in the Youth Court that are enforceable by the alternative or suspended sentence given at the same time. A financial value assigned to all sentences 90 percent of which could be paid to the victim would make an impact. That would acknowledge that the victim—not the person who perpetrates the crime—is the one who suffers. The list goes on and on and the ACT party will be rolling out some of these ideas as an election approaches not making some knee-jerk reaction to a problem that the public thinks is big at the moment. 
There is no doubt that tagging is a problem but this bill will have absolutely no impact because the writing is already in the present Summary Offences Act. It is there it needs to be policed effectively and then we might see some progress on this very serious issue. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. In the midst of Mine Bay—if you have ever been there—on Lake Taupo there is a series of rock carvings over 10 metres high which are accessible only by boat. The carvings created by Matahi Whakataka-Brightwell depict Ngatoroirangi who guided Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa through to Taupo over a thousand years ago. The carvings also include two smaller Celtic designs one depicting the south wind and the other a mermaid. The visual representation of the knowledge and skills of tangata whenua is powerfully exhibited in these precious carvings. Matahi has worked with our natural environment. He has left his mark and I think we are all the better for it. What is so different about those works of art and the tagging bombing and stencil art being debated in the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill? Is it a case of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”? Is it an issue around power and control of our environment or is this bill just about the pre-election hype designed to stamp out youth crime which my two colleagues sitting on either side of me spoke about? 
The Maori Party believes that getting tough on tagging is about all of these factors and more. We see tagging as a form of antisocial behaviour that the bill attempts to redefine as “property crime”. It is a claim to a “place in society” that will become punishable as an attack on the property rights of others. I want to make very clear that our concern throughout has been to avoid falling into the fallacy that assumes that punishment and tougher sentences are the only answer. We have also been alarmed at the way in which the fatal stabbing of a young teenager was minimised and it has made us wonder whether in focusing on tagging we are avoiding the much bigger issue—the culture of violence that exists right across society. 
I believe that one of the most outrageous acts of violence this year has been the killing of a young boy who was repeatedly tagging a property yet so much of the talkback comment has suggested that perhaps killing was a little bit extreme but beating up the kid and putting him in hospital would have been an appropriate response. The Prime Minister referred to this incident as “an unfortunate outcome” of anti-tagging rage. I doubt whether the family of young Pihema Cameron sees this incident as an unfortunate outcome. As I understand it this young boy cared for his father who is tetraplegic. He was literally his dad’s hands and legs. His mother described him as a quiet gentle family-orientated boy who liked working on cars and was one day hoping to be a mechanic. I do not generally like to bring up an individual case in the House but I have been really disturbed at the way in which the act of tagging a fence has cast this young boy and his whanau under a dark cloud and at how the personal wider consequences of the crime that has robbed this family of their son have been avoided. 
Now we have a bill before us that has provision for a fine of $2000 for an offender and a fine of up to $1500 for a shopkeeper who sells a spray-can and that makes graffiti vandalism and tagging summary offences worthy of a conviction. We in the Maori Party absolutely acknowledge that the defacing of any property is annoying it is disrespectful and it can have a major effect on feelings of community safety. Some of my own children attend Te Kura o te Koutu in Rotorua for example and it has been a frequent target for taggers. For the whanau who are pretty proud of what our kura looks like the scribbled signatures have been a real hoha he mahi whakaparanga tera. We know too that blatant tagging and defacing of properties often serve to discourage economic investment in that community but the House would be making a huge mistake if it thought that simply slapping a massive fine on an offender would make a difference. Limiting the sale of spray-cans to those aged 18 years or over to solve the problem is simply dreaming. 
We need to be brave enough to look for answers outside of a quick politically expedient knee-jerk response that targets young people as a focus of our rage. During the course of this ugly public debate I received an interesting email from Mr Pat O’Dea of Papakura. In his opinion the hatred that is being expressed against taggers is centred on two things: firstly protection of property rights which is argued by those who actually have property; and secondly the monopoly of all means of public expression by the privileged. It was a very interesting point of view that challenged politicians to examine their consciences about their need to suppress the tagger subculture. He asked us all to consider what the message was that these messy often incomprehensible taggers were wanting to share with us. The message according to Mr O’Dea was “one of alienation anger boredom societal breakdown increasing inequality and lack of resources at the bottom of society”. 
Like it or not Mr O’Dea makes a good point. Other individuals and groups perceive tagging as representing significant community and political commentary. Members of the Wellington Architectural Centre for example contend that graffiti contributes to the city’s urban life and to its branding as the “Creative Capital”. They could take us down to “graffiti alley”—a small lane I understand between Ghuznee Street and Cuba Street’s Left Bank—and point out the cut-out stencil and graffiti art as being an outlet for creativity. The difference however between art for art’s sake and tagging or defacing of property is very clearly understood. The distinguishing features of responsible art according to this group have to do with three things: permission intelligence and respect—“permission” to work on a space rather than marking out a wall as one’s territory or staking one’s claim to that site; “intelligence” in terms of having something useful to say; and “respect” in acknowledging that tagging can make people feel that they have no sense of belonging to the physical environment and in acting in ways that recognise that. Harsher laws greater emphasis on enforcement and community condemnation will do nothing to address the issues that Pat O’Dea brings to our attention. In fact there is a real likelihood they could make the situation worse. 
This bill is but symptomatic of our general attitude towards young people. We have sat in this House and listened to endless kauhau on the evils of text bullying youth crime youth gangs boy racers youth drinking and even debate about whether young people should be allowed to vote. The debate has become even more emotive even more intense because it is taking place in election year. Victoria University researcher Fiona Beals has suggested that we should not be at all surprised that youth crime debates have already surfaced. Her research reveals that young people are negatively stereotyped in youth crime debates each election year. Her research has questioned the way in which politicians the media and academics have stigmatised certain groups of young people particularly a young and poor ethnic minority. She suggests we should be finding a less stereotypical way to talk about youth crime and challenging the psychology around the placement of youth crime as the trump card in election year. 
So what are the solutions we could be exploring? The restorative justice model would encourage us to work alongside our young people providing other ways and means for them to express their social and political views. DJ Poroufessor—Hone Ngata—from Te Ohu Aka Youth Team in working with Raukura Hauora in Tainui works with tagging and taggers around seeing the problem as a cure. Hone is currently working in South Auckland lending his skills and expertise as a carver a visual artist and a graffiti artist to support young people in their quest for identity. Part of this approach may see businesses and property owners even asking young people to paint a wall to enable an alternative message to be viewed. Other projects could be more preventative focused such as anti-graffiti coatings sensor lighting and even the provision of designated spaces for young people to express their messages. 
Although the Maori Party does not condone the defacing of property we cannot support this bill in that it is so narrow in its scope and application. We believe that it is unlikely to address the real problem beyond the writing on the wall. Kia ora tatou. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I will take a brief call on this the first reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. 
Before I go any further I want to make reference to the member’s bill introduced by Mr Hawkins the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill because I have no doubt in my mind that if it had not come to this House we would not be debating this particular bill at this time. 
Some people have said in this House that this bill is a grandstanding and simplistic one. That is their view. I think it is an attempt to address a problem that is growing to epidemic proportions and it is not just confined to the streets of South Auckland. I say that as a resident of Manukau City who lives in an area continually subjected to the actions of taggers. Although people—particularly the person from Papakura referred to by the member for Waiariki—might believe that taggers are wanting to transmit a message about their frustrations their boredom and all those sorts of things that the member described that drive them to tagging my question is why they do not send the message to where it should be sent and not write it on people’s private property. That is point No. 1. 
The second point concerns the example used of a renowned Maori artist and canoe builder Matahi Brightwell. The difference between the work he did on the shores of Lake Taupo and that of taggers is that he carried out his art with the permission of the tangata whenua. Taggers do not seek that sort of permission. In a recent news item where a number of taggers were interviewed and asked whether they had respect for people’s private property the answer was no they did not. In my view this bill is timely. In fact it is overdue considering the concerns that were expressed by Manukau City. 
I am also quite surprised that the member for ACT highlighted that other parts of our legislation could possibly address this matter. I would have thought that a party that has stood up in the past and said it was the law and order party and wanted stronger laws would support this bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Zero tolerance. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Those members have been asking for zero tolerance. I am quite surprised they are not supporting this bill. 
The bill creates a specific offence and increases fines. But the question has been asked about whether the fines will be paid. The bill does not address that issue—the issue of failure to pay fines—so perhaps in the select committee process it can be addressed. 
Clause 5 makes reference to the limitation of the sale of spray-cans to those 18 years and over. How that is to be policed I am not quite sure. However spray-cans will not be the only items for sale limited to those over a particular age. I make reference to the tobacco industry and that law seems to be working. If it is working in that area I ask why it cannot work with spray-cans. It will be a similar situation with the security of spray-cans in that vendors of that item will have to ensure the general public does not have free and ready access to them. If vendors can apply restrictions to cigarette packages then why cannot they apply them to spray-cans? We have heard there was some concern about the practicalities of that; I am not sure about that concern when I consider what is in place regarding tobacco. 
I think that what needs to be highlighted is that the judge when dealing with offenders or taggers who have been apprehended has to give them a much wider option than what the bill is outlining. I am of the view that this can be discussed further in the select committee process. 
New Zealand has witnessed a sad and tragic incident with the passing away of a young tagger. Who am I to judge who was right or wrong but I wonder whether that tragic event would have occurred if this bill had been in place. That is notwithstanding the arguments for the different sides that have been expressed on the airwaves of our country on talkback. I ask myself whether that incident could have been prevented. 
People have mentioned in this House that increasing the fines may not be the answer. I suggest that as part of a practical answer to this issue parents need to be taken to task. They should be held responsible for the actions of their young people. If young people are under 18 years they are still subject to the guardianship of their parents or caregivers. It would seem logical to me that if they do not pay then the matter is to be addressed by their parents or caregivers. 
In conclusion like the member who spoke on behalf of United Future I have made contact with the Mayor of Manukau City seeking his view on this particular bill. Given that he was at the announcement of it I suspect that he and his council will support it. New Zealand First is still supportive of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I make the point that although I was not a voting member on the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with that bill New Zealand First shared a minority view with National in that we recognised the problems experienced by the Manukau City Council in its endeavours to control graffiti within its city limits. We also do not support the suggestion that if that bill were to be passed then addressing the issue of graffiti would be done on a piecemeal basis. We were of the view that it allowed other local bodies the opportunity to request something similar. 
Given the concern about a national approach to this issue we believe that this bill addresses that particular point. I reiterate that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I advise the House that the National Party has split its call. There will be two 5-minute calls. For both members who are to address the House I will ring the bell when there is 1 minute of speaking time remaining. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I commend the last speaker for the quality of his speech. I also say that in the course of this debate we have heard some amazingly bizarre statements. One of the most bizarre it seemed to me came out of the mouth of Mr Tanczos. He posed the question “If this legislation works what would be the consequence?” and he suggested the answer. The answer he suggested was that former taggers now retired taggers I guess would urinate into letterboxes in the neighbourhood. How bizarre that suggestion is. 
Then we just heard from the ACT member that there is no need for this legislation. She referred to two provisions in the Summary Offences Act. The first is not relevant. The second is the one that is being amended extended and amplified. I share the view of others that the ACT party a party strong on the rights of private property—or so it asserts—should not be supporting this legislation. 
That said I tell the House that National supports this legislation being referred to the select committee although we have some reservations about it. A good point to start at in looking at those reservations is that this bill sits alongside a Manukau City Council local bill similarly dealing with the control of graffiti. That bill is at the Committee stage. There are significant differences and similarities between the two bills. One of the things the Manukau City bill does is relate only to Manukau City a confined district whereas this bill is intended to have application right through New Zealand. 
There is nothing too new about graffiti. Historically the term refers to inscriptions figures and drawings found on the walls of ancient sepulchres or ruins in Rome and Pompeii. But we are not dealing with graffiti as an art form; we are as the heading to this bill makes clear dealing with tagging and graffiti vandalism. We are dealing with a world of jargon where words like tag throw-up piece wild style and roller are in use. This is a problem of some significance. We need only to look at the costs associated with graffiti clean-up in a number of local authority districts. In Wellington City $225000 has been spent in the last year on anti-tagging work in Porirua City $200000 in Hutt City $130000 in Wanganui District $40000 in Palmerston North $100000 and in Masterton $15000 and Auckland City tops the list with $750000. This is damage in very high order to what is substantially private property. 
That said I think it is right to enter some reservations about this legislation. I would like to pose four issues that I think are relevant and should occupy the time of the select committee. The first is the focus on spray-cans. The reality is that there are other ways of delivering graffiti. One thinks of indelible markers and other forms of devices of that type. 
The second relates to the age limitation. Others have said this but I just pick up the point that there is no necessary magic in the 18-year cut-off. In fact in New South Wales they found that 18 years is probably not the correct age limitation to establish. 
There is a third issue is there not that we are all very much aware of—that is the readiness of the police to prosecute in these cases. This world we are in is one of offence-creating provisions that require action through the courts and the police to prosecute. 
The fourth issue I raise is that by dint of provisions contained in the legislation community sentences can be imposed that may involve the clean-up of the graffiti work by the offender. But I would like to see the legislation go further and for it to give property owners an ability by civil process in the courts to recover the clean-up costs by way of compensation orders. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 What a difference an election year makes for this Labour-led Government to suddenly pretend that it will actually listen to the people especially to the local representatives of the Manukau City Council! In Botany—an electorate I will fight vigorously for the privilege to represent in the coming general election—the No. 1 concern is the rising rate of crime including graffiti. 
In 2005 after years of inaction from the Labour-led Government towards the Manukau City Council’s problem of having to spend millions over the years to clean up graffiti the council resorted to asking Parliament to pass a bill. That bill was sponsored by a Labour MP the Hon George Hawkins. 
Then what happened? That bill was rejected by his fellow Labour MPs on the Local Government and Environment Committee. Apparently those MPs recommended that the bill not proceed on four grounds. Firstly they reckoned that the existing statutory provisions under the Crimes Act 1961 were sufficient and they claimed that the introduction of further offences in an area already criminalised under the national law was unlikely to change those priorities. So I am sure my fellow National MPs are looking forward to seeing what has changed since last year. 
Secondly the Labour MPs also believed that a voluntary memorandum of understanding between the council and the retailers with regard to the display and storage of spray-cans and a possible restriction on the sale of those items to persons under 16 were more likely to give the retailers a sense of ownership of the project and they believed that that would increase the probability of the project being enforced effectively. Interestingly the Retailers Association actually supported the passage of that legislation to make it easier for all the retailers to abide by the provisions. The association supported the legislation so I wonder where the Labour MPs got their research from. 
Thirdly those members obviously agreed with the Ministry of Justice or with whatever advice they had which said that discriminating against persons under the age of 18 was in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So it is interesting to see what a difference a year can make. Suddenly there is a change of heart and I cannot wait to see what further research has suddenly brought forward the decision in the Government’s current bill that it is acceptable to ban the sale of spray-paint to people under the age of 18. 
Fourthly apparently the Attorney-General’s report also stated that minors were perceived to be the greatest perpetrators of graffiti but there was insufficient empirical evidence available to confirm that assumption. The Attorney-General subsequently concluded that a rational and proportionate connection between the sale of spray-paint to minors and the graffiti problem had not been established. So one has to wonder why the Government is now bringing in this bill when that evidence has not been established. The conclusion of the report back of the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee including its Labour MPs was that the Government’s position was that there was no need for legislative change. 
We can only conclude very pragmatically that the only thing that has changed in 2008 is that it happens to be an election year. That is the only reason that a Labour-led Government is pretending it is listening to a very serious problem that causes a lot of frustration out there. I share the sentiments of some other MPs who have mentioned the tragedy of a tagger who lost his life because of tagging. It is not an issue that warrants any deferral or lapse in response; we have to make sure that such a tragedy does not happen again. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Kia ora Matua Simich tena koe. Tagging is a crime against the conscience of our nation and there should be zero tolerance for it. Commissioned graffiti art is something else and in the latter case if one was to visit the Otara markets in the Otara Town Centre then one would see artistic artwork there that people come from far and wide to look at and admire. All of us would deplore mindless vandalism and the result can have dire consequences as we have seen to our peril in Manukau City with the death of a young man. 
As a local member of Parliament I say that this is not the first time that the issue of graffiti has raised its ugly head. I can remember several meetings with the former Mayor of Manukau City Sir Barry Curtis when we sought to tackle this problem. Tagging is a disease. People almost become addicted to it and need a fix—just like a P junkie or a heroin junkie. One has just to go into a tagger’s room and see what it looks like; the walls are covered in their etchings. We know that these people leave their homes in the middle of the night to graffiti or tag wherever it takes them—whether it is over a motorway viaduct on a road safety sign on someone’s back fence or on a new housing estate. 
Graffiti and tagging are not New Zealand phenomena. I remember back in the early 1990s going on a calibration flight around the Pacific. We stopped off at Papua New Guinea. I was astounded by the similarities in tagging. It was all over the place. It reminded me of Manukau City. I drew a similarity in that respect because what I saw at that time were areas of high unemployment and low incomes. They were the areas of greatest need—deprived areas. Opportunities existed but people are a product of their environment. 
I turn now to Government policy. We have listened and learnt and have decided to act now. Congratulations must go to my colleague the Hon George Hawkins who championed the issue with Manukau City Council. Congratulations must go also to the Minister of Police and Minister of Justice Annette King who brought the issue through Cabinet and to the caucus and to my colleague the Hon Phil Goff who helped to do that. 
Research suggests that graffiti vandalism can create the perception in the public that tagged areas are unsafe and can contribute to the deterioration of the quality of life in certain neighbourhoods. The objectives of this bill are to redress graffiti vandalism and tagging by a number of means. One of them is that the bill requires that spray-cans for sale must be kept securely so that members of the public cannot gain access to them without the help of an employee. Good employers already have controls on spray-cans but I have heard tales of unethical petrol station owners who do not care to whom they sell them. This area will need policing and it is one I hope the select committee will look at. 
I believe that people have long underestimated the effects of tagging on the well-being of our nation and our people. We as a country are known worldwide as being clean and green. Yet Manukau is where New Zealand touches the world. All our visitors when they come here come first to Manukau. What greets them? Tagging and graffiti greet them. “Clean up Manukau.” has become a war cry for those who work to rub out tagging. This legislation is a start on the long road to doing something and to making Manukau and New Zealand beautiful. Tatou tatou; together together. Together we serve and together we will prosper. 
I will touch on the issue of police involvement. I hope this legislation will give police the incentive to apprehend taggers. I am sure the status quo covered by sections 11 and 33 of the Summary Offences Act and section 269 of the Crimes Act has proved inadequate in bringing offenders to justice. If we talked to police about this issue they asked what the point was in apprehending a tagger. The legislation had no teeth. It required hours and hours of mindless paperwork for no direct benefit. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: The police always say that. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: That may be so but there may well be some truth in it as well. If this legislation does anything it sends a message that enough is enough. The people have spoken and we have listened. Education is the key—educate educate educate. Be a tidy Kiwi. Keep New Zealand clean. I support this bill going to a select committee. Tihei mauri ora! Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will take a very short call. I think that my much esteemed colleague Ross Robertson who has just spoken summed up very eloquently and very well the issue about tagging and graffiti vandalism. To that I must say please add Hamilton. 
I also pay tribute to the community of Manukau particularly to the community workers there. I have been out late in the middle of the night and looked at some of the graffiti and tagging issues along with other issues with regard to South Auckland. I pay great tribute to the previous Mayor of Manukau City Barry Curtis and to the current mayor Len Brown. 
In the presence of my esteemed colleague from Hamilton Dianne Yates—and if I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta the Hon Mark Burton and Sue Moroney who represent the Waikato for the Government—I say that we want to stand in this Parliament and say that one of the other drivers for this bill was the strong pressure that we received in representations from the Hamilton and Waikato communities. The Hamilton City Council along with the Manukau City Council has been crystal clear in terms of identifying this issue as a significant social problem. It has also been clearly focused on solutions and outcomes. It has a graffiti-busting squad that is painting over graffiti. I pay particular tribute to Olly Te Ua of the Hamilton City Council and his team for all the great work they have done at a very solid grassroots level. I pay tribute to the community workers who did so much to get a focus on this issue and who tried to get some positive outcomes. I know that Councillor Daphne Bell the chair of the community service committee will be pleased to hear that and I acknowledge her work and the work of her colleagues. 
I went as the member for Hamilton West to community meetings last year in the Melville - south Hamilton area. Recently I went to a meeting in the northern area and I acknowledge the people who hosted and convened that meeting. We got very clear messages that people want to get on with their lives and they want to keep their neighbourhoods safe and clean. At one level graffiti was regarded as being at the lower end of crime but not in terms of the stress on business people dairy owners local shopkeepers neighbours and other people in that community. They said they want to keep their community. They love their community and they want to live there and just get on with their lives. 
There has been some debate about the issue of art versus tagging—from Ross Robertson my good colleague George Hawkins and other South Auckland MPs. Well anything that is done without the express consent of the owner of the property is tagging. It does not matter what it looks like; it is tagging—it is not done with permission. Things that are not done with permission are obviously not art. 
So without further ado I say that previous speakers have very eloquently and comprehensively summarised the issues and I look forward to this bill coming to the Law and Order Committee which I currently chair. I know that Ron Mark as deputy chair is looking forward to this bill. I know that all the members of that select committee will roll up our sleeves and get on with the task. I am sorry to say this to the Opposition but I have to give a big bouquet to the Government and especially to the Minister of Justice for giving us this bill. We had the Prime Minister’s announcement and now we are getting on with it and we will complete the work. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be now read first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 April 2008 and that the committee have the 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 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 19 February. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When the House was last debating this bill Martin Gallagher was speaking; he has 9 minutes and 30 seconds remaining. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 My whips would be delighted if I took that long. They asked me to take that long but I am not going to. I do not think I need to take that long in spite of the invitation from members opposite and from my own whips because I think I can summarise this very quickly. 
As the current chair of the Law and Order Committee I can say that the committee is looking forward to receiving this bill. As I was about to say when the debate was interrupted this bill will crack down on drug use eliminate the illicit use of cellphones in prisons enhance the powers of search in relation to inmates and to those working in prisons and adopt a zero tolerance towards staff who pass contraband to prisoners. I note that penalties will be increased. The prison term will be increased from 3 months to 1 year and the maximum fine will be doubled to $5000. The bill will authorise electronic detection and jamming of all cellphone use within prisons. It will extend prison powers to the screening of inmates’ mail for unlawful or harmful communications and allow mail as well as telephone communications to be subject to surveillance. It will create a penalty for publishing unauthorised communications from inmates that prejudice the interests of victims. 
I will take this time briefly to acknowledge the good men and women who work in our prison service. There are one or two problems but I think it is important that we never forget that the vast majority of people who work in the Department of Corrections are great New Zealanders who are doing a very good job on behalf of the community. 
As I think I said during the debate on the previous bill I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee. I acknowledge Chester Borrows. In the presence of the current deputy chair of the committee I undertake that again we will roll up our sleeves; we are looking forward to receiving this bill and getting on with the work. I also acknowledge Darren Hughes who has played a very active role on that committee. I acknowledge David Benson-Pope Simon Power and Kate Wilkinson. We are all ready to go. As soon as we receive this bill we will start work as soon as possible. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to indicate to the House that the National Party will be supporting the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) and that it takes great pride in the fact that a number of the issues raised through this legislation were initially brought to light by my senior colleague Simon Power. 
The bill seeks to do a number of things such as create new search detection drug testing and offence provisions to help the control of contraband; improve consistency in the monitoring of inmates’ mail; improve information sharing about high-risk offenders; and jam and disable unauthorised wireless transmissions—mainly from cellphones. It adds prejudice to a victim’s well-being as a ground for the offence of unauthorised communication with a prisoner. It also does something else that seems to be slightly out of kilter but nevertheless is very important in that it allows inmates to consume Communion wine as part of a religious sacrament. 
The legislation seeks to take account of two factors: the tenacious abuse of any right reward or opportunity to offend on behalf of the inmates; and the huge inequity of power between the prisoner and the prison officer. Sticking up for prisoners’ rights and freedoms is not a popular activity within this country. If we look at the difficulty that groups such as the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society have in raising money we see that it is very similar to the difficulties that groups seeking to provide support for young offenders within the youth justice system have in raising any sort of money other than what they can obtain through Government funding. It has been a particular hallmark of this Government that those groups seeking to make better the lot of offenders in our society are not funded for the work that they do. In fact some of them consider themselves fortunate to be funded for 70 percent of the cost of the real work that they do with young people who are offending within our country. 
As a young solicitor—well maybe not young but a fairly green solicitor—I found it quite ironic that some of the draconian measures within the Penal Institutions Act still exist when it comes to trying to exert the rights of prisoners. For instance a visiting justice of the peace who is going to hear a complaint or a charge brought against a prisoner has the right to decide whether that prisoner is legally represented in that hearing—a hearing that the justice of the peace is about to sit on—under the law as it currently stands. 
However I digress slightly. I cite the many issues raised by Simon Power over recent months that have been pooh-poohed by the Government as non-existent or as trivial and barely requiring any sort of response from the Government. One of those issues was the corruption at Rimutaka and other prisons. The comment was made that there was just a few bad apples. Well if we look across the prison service at the large staff that it has we see that there may be comparatively few but the truth is as we have found in some of our other services that a few bad apples can have an extremely detrimental effect on those around them. I guess that is why we refer to them as bad apples. 
Points raised by my colleague related to for instance Rachealle Namana the killer of “Lillybing”. She claimed that whilst in prison she had access to a range of drugs including P and she had a cellphone on which she downloaded pornography. In 2006 a prostitute was found in the grounds of Rimutaka Prison having been procured by an inmate using a cellphone. In 2006 at least two inmates in Christchurch Prison were sending obscene text messages to women. We recall the incident where Scott Watson a very high-profile prisoner in New Zealand was able to send obscene photographs of himself over the Internet. In 2006 P and KFC were being ordered and consumed in the yard of Mount Eden Prison. These matters have needed addressing for a long period of time. 
It was found on investigation that prison officers were responsible at least in some part for procuring items—and in some cases favours and services—for inmates whom they were charged with the care and custody of and over whom they had extreme inequity of power. 
It is important to note that the National Party supports this legislation because it has been calling for a strengthening of the Penal Institutions Act and the Corrections Act for some time. It looks forward to support from across the House not only to hold accountable those prison officers who let the team down but also to strengthen the rights of those people who are vulnerable within the service—that is the prison officers but also the inmates whom they are charged to care for. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Friday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 contained an interesting response from the chief executive of the Department of Corrections in response to the Patten report which inquired into systemic corruption at Rimutaka Prison. According to that newspaper the corrections boss had “conceded there had been a malign culture at the prison for some time”. “Malign” was an interesting word to use meaning harmful or evil in nature or effect. Therefore it is timely that the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) is on the Order Paper to improve the operations of the corrections system and to tweak the Corrections Act 2004 in order to address the issues that have arisen since its implementation. 
As this House knows improving the operation of the corrections system is and must be an absolute priority in order to increase public perception of and confidence in the way in which sentences and orders imposed by courts and the Parole Board are managed. If a negative institutional culture exists in any agency of the State we must do everything we can to address it. Question time has been rife with claims of bullying harassment and assaults on staff members. We have heard of reports investigating the endemic smuggling of contraband. Although the David Patten inquiry concluded there was no systemic corruption at Rimutaka there were a number of worrying outstanding factors. One was that there were allegations of corrupt activity by some staff which have been referred to the police. The other factor was that some of the most disturbing allegations could not be substantiated as the former officers who came forward with those claims refused to cooperate with the inquiry. The claims that the prison was being controlled by gangs and that inmates compiled shopping lists of contraband for guards to smuggle in although not able to be proven are indications of an environment that warrants rigorous scrutiny. 
We have before us today a range of provisions to improve the control of contraband in prison: provisions to allow a consistent approach to the monitoring of prisoners’ telephone calls and mail and provisions to allow the jamming of cellphone transmissions. Of particular concern to the Maori Party is that any search detection and offence provisions be applied fairly to all whether inmates or staff whether gang affiliates or whether Maori—whatever they may be. We cannot emphasise that too greatly. 
In the case of Rimutaka Prison the Maori Party has been aware of the allegations of corruption and serious misconduct that have been described by the Public Service Association as a cloud of suspicion hanging over the staff. We know too that a number of prison staff have been suspended. The Patten report refers to staff employment processes that needed to be improved. So what is to be done to make the changes necessary to immediately address the so-called malignant culture at that prison and others? In the case of Rimutaka Prison we have been informed by the department’s chief executive officer—the Maori Party has met with him and the Minister—of a number of steps that have been taken to address the issues. 
This bill though requires additional search detection and offence provisions to come into play to improve the control of contraband in prisons. It includes within its scope provisions that search powers will be extended to parts of the prison inhabited by people other than the prisoners—that is staff. Section 100(1) of the principal Act is to be repealed and replaced by a new section that will authorise an officer to search any place in the prison such as a staff member’s locker. Presumably these new actions have been introduced as a result of what the bill describes as an “increase in inexperienced staff members”. That is an interesting observation. I recall the thoughts of Professor John Pratt in  
Punishment in a Perfect Society: The New Zealand Penal System.  
Professor Pratt put forward three reasons as to why successive attempts at penal reform fail: there are constraints arising from a lack of funding skilled staff may be lacking and there is opposition from a public opinion that demands punishment rather than treatment. 
So the question must be asked as to why there are not measures in this bill to increase the professional development opportunities in order to upskill staff. The emphasis is clearly on new legislative measures to punish and to prosecute rather than to educate and train. We know that Governments respond rather vigorously in election year to those who demand a get-tough attitude towards crime whether real or imagined. It is always a vote winner. This bill although it supposedly has an honourable intent is along with other bills that have come before this House such as the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill part of that vote-catching election year legislative parade. 
The other key pressure that has created the need for this bill is around the concept of electronic communication. The bill responds to the technological advances that have occurred with particular relevance to cellphones. The bill will now give the department the authority to intercept monitor disable disrupt and interfere with wireless transmissions in order to prevent cellphone use. The bill states in black and white that within prison walls cellphones have been used by prisoners to organise further criminal offending to threaten and harass witnesses and to organise escapes. The bewildering thing beyond all of that of course is how on earth prisoners are able to get away with their continued success in a criminal career while inside prison walls. 
A couple of months ago in Christchurch Judge Michael Crosbie gave out a sentence to an offender who “fixed” evidence with text messages from jail. He noted at the sentencing that the courts are seeing more and more of that type of offending organised by texting in a prison environment. We therefore welcome the arrangements that have gone on between the Department of Corrections Vodafone and Telecom to put in place a blocking technology to put unauthorised cellphones out of action. I am particularly pleased with the point about harassment because a lot of prisoners have used cellphones to harass their partners or other whanau out there to do stuff for them. 
We are pleased that stiffer penalties are not the only option to address the threat of communications devices but that a more comprehensive block-out of coverage is being considered through more technical arrangements as well. As I understand it the blocking technology has been rolled out in Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison so we will be interested to hear any reports from the Minister as to how well that trial has gone. 
Finally I want to refer to the new provisions around information sharing. This bill continues the path of surveillance that we have seen in many other bills before this House. It extends the current provisions around the release of information on high-risk offenders to the police to also include other relevant social agencies. We will be keen to see whether the measures in this bill can actually assist in facilitating the rehabilitation of offenders or whether the emphasis is all on managing risk and monitoring the offender in his or her return to the community. What we know is that some 41.1 percent of all prisoners are reconvicted within 12 months of their release from prison and that that figure rises to 56.4 percent after 2 years. Given those statistics we are absolutely passionate about the need to introduce meaningful and effective reintegration and rehabilitation programmes which are not there at the moment. 
We are happy to support this bill to go through to the select committee in order to ensure that the voices of experience can be heard on that and other issues of contention in this bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill. We will be supporting its passage through to the Law and Order Committee and we look forward to the work that will confront us at the select committee. 
For years I think it is fair to say since New Zealand First was founded by the Rt Hon Winston Peters back in 1993 our party has advocated some pretty firm views and attitudes on law and order and on policies and laws such as community service and aspects of the home detention laws. We have also been vigorous and consistent in our support for the police in terms of increasing their resources increasing their numbers and increasing the legislative armoury available to them to be able to prosecute and in concert with that reduce the levels of crime on our streets to try to make them safer. In short I think we have been described as tough on law and order. We have talked about such things as the introduction of the Limited Service Volunteers scheme and expanding it to make it more available to young offenders as a form of community service or a part of their sentence or their diversion. It is interesting that the party that opposed us on those views back in 1996 now touts those views as its own. It is interesting how time moves along and things change. 
Chris Tremain 
: It’s a new century! 
RON MARK 
: It is a new century and there are new people in the caucus—that is what I note. 
What is not so often recognised is that New Zealand First has also in tandem with that been very firm on its scrutiny of police and of the Department of Corrections with regard to the way in which they have gone about their business. I say with pride that my caucus supported me very strongly in my investigations into the activities that went on in Christchurch Prison and the emergency response unit—know then as the “goon squad”. It took 4 long years of battle but finally we got the inquiry we sought and the evidence is there for everybody to read to this day. 
It is interesting in the light of this bill to go back to the report of Ailsa Duffy QC. It seems bizarre to me that we are here in 2008 dealing with a bill that seeks to attack the issue of contraband. Yet one of the issues that was raised by prison officers who were angry frustrated and annoyed at the things they were being made to do and at the inconsistencies in the operating procedures within Canterbury’s prisons—and it was highlighted by Ailsa Duffy—was that there was no reporting recording or registering of contraband confiscated from visitors or inmates and surprise surprise some of it used to go missing just into thin air. 
No one knew what happened to the marijuana that had been confiscated. No one knew what happened to the alcohol that had been confiscated—it all just disappeared. That was in 2004. Of course prison officers were bringing this to my attention and saying: “This is appalling. We shouldn’t be operating like this. Our management is slack. Our management is useless. Our management is actually contributing to the problems by not recognising that there is a problem. They are not putting in place procedures and mechanisms to prevent the problem.” Those prison officers were roundly chastised and persecuted by people. Yet here we are in 2008 talking about dealing with contraband. 
I also note with interest that people in the National caucus have been asking written questions about contraband. The Minister has been answering those questions by saying he is unable to give details of how much contraband has been confiscated because to do so would require manual—manual—compilation of all those details from all the prisons all over the country. Hello! In this day and age when we have spent hundreds of millions developing INCIS computers spent hundreds of millions giving Land Information New Zealand a flash computer and information technology when Parliament has expanded its information technology systems and when the courts have expanded and integrated an information technology system are we saying that the Department of Corrections in 2008 is incapable? 
The Department of Corrections has spent how many millions on an integrated sentencing management scheme—the Integrated Offender Management system? How many millions has it spent on that? Is it $40 million $50 million or $100 million? I do not know. Yet people there have the nerve to say that they are incapable of recalling at the touch of a button a record of how much contraband has been confiscated where it was confiscated from and what it was. I would have thought that all of that would be treated as evidence and would therefore be required to be treated according to the well-tried and prudent procedures currently in place in the courts of this land and in the police. 
It is silly it is stupid and it is nonsensical that we find ourselves in this situation. It simply reinforces the conclusion that many of us have come to—that the Department of Corrections simply does not know what it is doing and is out of date. There are people in its head office here in Wellington and managing prisons around the country who should not be there. Half the reason we have had these allegations of systemic corruption within the prisons is that managers have been so appalling at their jobs. I ask members to read the report that Dr Pita Sharples spoke about. It says that there is no systemic corruption within prisons but that there is corruption. It says the greatest failing has been that of middle and upper management. 
I suggest to this House that the greatest failing the failing that has contributed so much and so widely to the problems we have faced in the corrections system over the last 8 9 and 10 years has been the quality and the calibre of personnel in the head office—a head office that now houses well over 400 people 100 of whom are analysts. A movie came out a long time ago entitled  
Analyze This 
 and that is my answer to those people. They really need to analyse their employment contracts get the heck out of the business and do the whole country a favour because their incompetence is not just costing New Zealanders money it is costing New Zealand in the form of the quality of justice that we deliver to people. 
I will never be an apologist for criminals but I do believe that every person who is incarcerated is entitled to be treated fairly and appropriately in accordance with the human rights that every one of us enjoys. There is no room in the corrections system for incompetent management. If this bill gives us the opportunity to scrutinise the way in which some things have been done and to tighten up some areas in respect of the bringing in of contraband then it is a good thing and we will do that and get on with it. But why did it take so long? If some of those people back in 2002 when I was so vigorously attacking them on behalf of New Zealand First for their failings had been honest enough simply to put up their hands and say: “Look quite sincerely we have not got our act together and there are a whole range of things we could be doing better.” we would have been a lot better off because we would have been further down the road than we are today. 
There are many issues within the corrections system and I am not sure that we are handling the issue of corruption properly and the issue of intimidation of officers appropriately. We do not recognise it would seem—we certainly do not seem to have or if we have now it has taken too long to get there—processes to identify risks that prison officers and their families face every day. I am told that there are many more issues waiting to be brought to this House and we will do that no doubt in the course of this year. I suggest to the Department of Corrections that we should have been prosecuting prison officers a long time ago in the criminal courts for acts of corruption. If we had done that we would have sent a very loud and clear message down the line that would have prevented stopped and killed off much of what we have seen since then. 
I also suggest that if we had had a better quality of management in some areas—and I know that Rimutaka Prison has had a change in that area—we would not have suffered these problems. Had some people who had been found guilty of misdemeanours guilty of poor management practice guilty of corrupt practice and guilty of illegal practice—and these are all the words of Ailsa Duffy QC—been fired from the Department of Corrections and if their service been terminated and they had been punished we would have also sent a very loud and clear message. But that did not happen. In fact in one case that I can think of right now the man who so infamously made a staff member put his penis on the bar in the West Melton pub whilst he hit it with a beer bottle got promoted. Need I say any more? It is time for the Department of Corrections to take a jolly good look at itself before some of us do. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Let me begin by making a couple of remarks in regard to comments made by previous speakers. First I agree with Mr Ron Mark about the handling of prison corruption. I have to pay my respects to Mr Mark for working so hard and tirelessly over a long period of time to draw to the attention of this House and bring before an inquiry allegations of prison corruption and allegations of abuse. I think it is a testament to him that he managed to succeed in opening the lid on a number of those issues. I thank him for that. I agree that there is a real issue in terms of addressing the systemic problems within the Department of Corrections. That is why I worked so hard for a number of years to get an independent prison inspectorate which we finally got in the form of an Ombudsman for prisons with resourcing to do investigations. I think it is interesting that the media which pays so much attention to allegations of corruption and problems and difficulties showed absolutely no interest in the solution in terms of an independent prison inspectorate. I think it was the day that Mr Henare got biffed and that kind of forced everything else off the headlines because that is much more important news than trying to solve the serious problems in the Department of Corrections. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Don’t blame me bro. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I certainly do not blame Mr Henare for that. 
I would like to correct Mr Borrows. He quite rightly referred to real issues around contraband in prisons—and it is a serious problem—but he referred to Mr Scott Watson in regard to the allegations of him sending obscene pictures of himself to people. My understanding is that those allegations have been entirely disproved and that the pictures were shown to have not come from the prison he was detained in at the time. It appears to be one more attempt among many to smear his character—like the false rumours deliberately spread that he had an incestuous relationship with his sister; like the false rumours that he had an extensive history of violence. It seems to me that the intention of the rumours that keep cropping up is to ensure that he remains a loathed figure in the public mind and therefore his case remains less likely to be revisited. Fortunately those attempts are not working. 
I come to the bill. The Green Party opposes the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill has some necessary elements and as I have already said contraband in prisons is a serious issue. There is no doubt about that. But a number of the bill’s provisions are truly repugnant to the Green Party and on balance—and it is a balancing act—we came to the conclusion that we have to oppose the bill in order to take a stand against these unreasonable impositions. We think there are a whole heap of issues in this bill that need to be addressed. 
The first issue is the extension of search powers in regard to staff lockers and areas of prisons that are exclusively for the use of non-prisoners. That is interesting because there is already under the current legislation a search power for those areas and of course there has to be. There is no doubt that if there is any suspicion that staff are involved in smuggling contraband into prisons and making it available to prisoners there needs to be a search power to get to the bottom of those suspicions. What is interesting is that this bill brings in the power to search without even the need for reasonable grounds to believe that an unauthorised item might be present. In fact there is not even any need to have grounds to suspect that the staff member might have an unauthorised item present. In fact it goes further. There is no reason even to believe that it is remotely possible that the staff member has an unauthorised item. The bill still provides a power to search in those circumstances. No grounds are needed whatsoever. Therefore there are absolutely no safeguards for prison staff against what is a significant breach of their rights and an imposition on their privacy. That is entirely unacceptable and it is another attack on the integrity of prison staff most of whom are conscientious people and most of whom enter the profession to provide service. It is a profession within which morale is already extraordinarily low and I think that this provision will simply bury it. It is just unacceptable to provide a power to search without any grounds being required whatsoever. That is probably our biggest concern but we have others. 
The current section 108 of the Corrections Act in relation to the withholding of mail from or to a prisoner allows mail to be withheld where a manager believes on reasonable grounds that the letter is likely to threaten or intimidate a person to whom it is being sent or endanger the safety or welfare of any person or pose a threat to the security of the prison or promote or encourage the commission of an offence or involve or facilitate the commission or possible commission of an offence. That seems to me a fairly broad net and it is pretty hard to see what one would want to catch in fairness that that provision cannot catch. The bill extends the right to withhold mail where the manager believes on reasonable grounds it is likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law but that is not a definitive list. The Green Party is concerned that this provision is extraordinarily broad vague and ill defined. What on earth is meant by “prejudice the maintenance of the law”? Half the activities we see in this House prejudice the maintenance of the law in my opinion. Could that provision include a legitimate political activity? It seems to me that it could prejudice the maintenance of the law. It seems to me that law reform efforts and legitimate efforts by people incarcerated in prison to advocate for law reform would be captured and at risk under this definition. What about criticism of Government policy or legislation? It seems that if a prisoner writes a letter critical of the Government then that would be grounds for withholding mail under this bill. I do not believe that we can allow such an ill-defined extension of the right to withhold prisoner communication. 
The other area that I think needs to be touched on is the exception from liability during a state of prison emergency and epidemic emergency. New section 179E(1) in clause 27 states: “There is no cause of action against the Crown a Minister of the Crown an officer or employee of a Minister of the Crown the chief executive … to recover damages for any harm or loss that is due directly or indirectly to—(a) any act or omission by any person that occurs while carrying out his or her functions duties or powers under a provision of this Act or the regulations that has been modified by Order in Council under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 while an epidemic notice is in force;”. Subsection (1) also lists other situations. That is a stand-alone provision and again seems to me to be dangerously broad in terms of exempting the Crown from liability for any action taken while an epidemic notice is in force. 
In the few seconds remaining to me I will touch on clause 6 which is entitled “Religious and spiritual needs”. Although there are restrictions around the possession and consumption of alcohol in prison the amended section 79(3) in clause 6 states: “Section 129(a) does not apply to a prisoner who during a religious service (whether inside or outside a prison) consumes wine provided at the service by a prison chaplain or minister of religion for the purposes of the Eucharist Holy Communion Mass or Communion.” That seems to me to be a blatant case of religious discrimination. I am a member of a faith whose holy sacrament will not be allowed by this provision. In fact if an elder of the Rastafarian faith was to attempt to administer a sacrament to someone in prison the elder probably would not get out! Although I realise there is a certain level of amusement about the notion I think it highlights a real issue that a particular faith in this country is actively persecuted by the law and by the Government. 
Hon Member 
: What’s that? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: The Rastafarian faith. I think that is a matter that this House needs to direct its attention to at some stage. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to join my National colleagues in supporting the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) at its first reading and after that its being given due select committee scrutiny. 
The explanatory note of the bill states the bill makes a number of amendments “that are intended to improve the operations of the corrections system.” National says it is about time. Over 2 years ago our spokesman on corrections Mr Power wrote to the Law and Order Committee asking for an inquiry into the Department of Corrections. It was in a shambles and it still is. There was a raft of issues that needed—and still need—addressing including the huge construction budget blowout overcrowding a rash of escapes assaults on guards a big increase in the smuggling of contraband into prisons etc. That inquiry has still not been commenced. At least this bill is a start. 
I would like first to deal with the issue of contraband. I know that it has been mentioned in the House before. National has consistently highlighted the unacceptable levels of contraband within our prisons. It is a major concern in the prison system and as the explanatory note states items such as drugs alcohol money offensive weapons and mobile telephones can all pose serious problems for our prison management. The entry of contraband into and its use in prisons must be controlled; certainly it poses a threat to prisoners staff and even visitors. This bill creates new search detection drug testing and offence provisions to help to control such contraband. 
It enhances existing search powers in relation to the strip-searching of prisoners and the searching of staff lockers. I was interested to note the comments of the Green member Nandor Tanczos who spoke just before me. Over a year ago it was highlighted that the incidence of attempts to smuggle drugs and weapons into prisons was on the increase. In answers to written questions we were advised that in the first 6 months of 2005 there were 280 confiscations of drugs compared with 284 in the whole of 2004 and 224 in the whole of 2003. The number of weapons confiscated in the first 6 months of 2005 was 91 compared with 196 in the whole of 2004 and 132 in the whole of 2003. Knives swords clubs bayonets knuckledusters air rifles firearms batons axes metal bars and baseball bats were all among the armoury of the prison population. 
Although that is worrying in itself what is more worrying is the reluctance of the Minister of Corrections to update the details. In December last year this written question was asked of the Minister: “How many contraband items have been confiscated in the past year and how does this compare to previous years?”. This was of concern not only to National members; this was of national concern. The Minister replied: “The information required to answer this question would have to be manually collated. I do not consider this a good use of my department’s resources.” He may not consider it a good use of resources but I would have thought that with the alarming increase in contraband and violence it would be prudent to know the exact extent of the problem rather than to turn a blind eye and basically say that the department is too busy to worry about it. 
The explanatory note of the bill admits that “The extent of the amount of contraband being detected in prison indicates that on their own operational measures go only so far towards managing the problem …”. Yet the Minister and his department are too busy to even tell us the extent of the problem. We know that some items from visitors are being intercepted but we do not know how many are getting into the prisons. How many items are actually getting through? 
National and others have consistently highlighted the unacceptable levels of contraband within prisons. It has already been mentioned that on release Rachealle Namana the killer of 23-month-old “Lillybing” claimed that while she was in prison she had access to a range of drugs including P and had a cellphone on which she downloaded pornography. We have been told that in 2006 a prostitute was found in the grounds of Rimutaka Prison after being procured by an inmate using a cellphone. Again in 2006 at least two inmates at Christchurch Prison were caught sending obscene text messages to women on cellphones. 
There have also been instances of staff being implicated with claims in the  
Weekend Herald  
just over a year ago that prison officers in Rimutaka Prison were in the pockets of gangs and that prisoners had unlimited access to drugs. Apparently officers were given wish-lists of contraband to fill including cellphones money and any kind of drug that inmates wanted. Certainly the Patten inquiry into allegations of corruption at Rimutaka Prison did not exonerate the staff but instead found that “because of the culture that has existed at Rimutaka Prison some corrupt activity involving staff has allegedly occurred”. Until that report was made available the department continued to be confused saying in February 2006 that the figures represented “a few bad apples” as my colleague Mr Borrows has already mentioned. Then in March a month later the authorities said “We’ve got a big problem with rust at Rimutaka.” and later that same month said “It would be foolish to think it’s just a few bad apples because there’s clearly been more than one or two people involved and therefore one has to also say it has to be the culture.” 
This bill is long overdue; the inquiry into the Department of Corrections itself is long overdue. But we ask the select committee in considering this bill to take a really good look at whether it does in fact address properly the issue of contraband and staff. It is all very well to be able to search the locker of a staff member but staff members are hardly likely to keep contraband in their own lockers. 
Secondly this bill attempts to address the use of cellphones. We have heard that in August last year $1 million of methamphetamine was imported from Thailand by a prisoner using an unauthorised cellphone from inside Rimutaka Prison. This deal was conducted inside one of our seemingly toughest prisons and right under the nose of the special corruption inquiry being conducted at the time. Cellphones are being used by prisoners to organise further criminal offending to threaten witnesses and others and to arrange escapes—and also no doubt to notify the whereabouts of stolen medals. Disabling and jamming solutions appear to be the most effective method for dealing with this problem because they can eliminate cellphone coverage within the prison and monitor and prevent cellphone use. The department should be able to intercept monitor detect disable disrupt and interfere with cellphone communications within prisons—without of course affecting the use of cellphones outside the prison boundaries. I would not like the people of Rolleston who are surrounded by prisons of various sorts to have their cellphone coverage affected by this bill. 
The issue of drugs in prisons is a serious one. We know that the number of prisoners testing positive for P use has steadily increased escalating from 35 in 2001 to 139 in the 2006-07 year. A Department of Corrections report in 2006 said that its identified drug-user programme provides little scope for prisoners identified as drug users to mitigate their actual demand for drugs and that a significant amount of drug use in prisons goes undetected. There are increased powers under this bill in relation to both the search powers and the provision enabling retesting if a sample provided by a prisoner during drug and alcohol testing is diluted tainted or otherwise contaminated. We hope that these powers will make some inroads into the worrying trend of an increase of drugs in our prisons. 
This bill is a small step but it is a step in the right direction. It enhances the search provisions. It improves the monitoring of communications mail and phone calls. It allows the jamming of cellphones within the prison. It improves information sharing with other agencies and interestingly enough it now allows prisoners to consume Communion wine. National members look forward to the proper scrutiny of this bill—there are issues—in the select committee through the submission process. We support the first reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration; that the committee present its final report on or before 26 June 2008; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during an 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 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
The Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill amends the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 to update and simplify the current mechanisms for setting the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy. The primary objective of ALAC is to promote responsible drinking and strategies that will minimise alcohol misuse. ALAC’s functions include research dissemination of information educational programmes and innovative treatment programmes designed to achieve its objectives. ALAC is funded by a levy on all alcoholic beverages manufactured in and imported into New Zealand. Payments from producers and importers are made monthly to the New Zealand Customs Service at the same time as and in addition to any excise and excise-equivalent duty payable under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The total levy amount for ALAC during the 2005-06 year was close to $13 million. This is small in comparison with alcohol excise which was $712 million for the year ended June 2006. 
The bill is a technical amendment bill and it provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair up to date and simple to calculate. It is also future-proofed against the emergence of new types of beverages that would not easily fit into any liquor class in the current system—for instance some hybrid drinks that have a mixture of wine and spirits. 
Simon Power 
: What’s a hybrid drink? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: They have a mixture of wine and spirits. 
In 2004 the Ministry of Health reviewed the current levy-setting mechanisms. The review found that the way the levy was calculated and apportioned was outdated and overly complex and that there was no process for Cabinet involvement in setting the levy. This bill proposes to calculate the levy for each product according to a system using alcohol classification bands. This is similar to the approach used by the New Zealand Customs Service to collect alcohol excise and excise-equivalent duty. Under this system a dollar amount per litre will be set for each alcoholic beverage according to its alcohol content or deemed alcohol content. This means that alcohol beverages with a higher volume of alcohol will contribute a higher proportion of the levy. 
The amendment bill will permit regulations to be made for the purposes of aligning the classes of liquor under the Act with the system for classifying beverages that is used in the Customs and Excise Act 1996. The bill provides for a transitional provision to ensure that the current obligation under the Act to pay the levy determined under the principal Act before its amendment will remain in place until the first levy set under the new system is in place. 
The main concern for the industry arising from the review in 2004 was to align the notification dates of the CPI increase on excise with the ALAC levy  
Gazette 
 notice. The date it has been aligned to— 
Simon Power 
: Where’s the old Mr Hughes? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —wait for it—is 1 July. It is intended to pass the bill in order to have the calculation in place for the 2008-09 funding round. For this to be possible a short passage through the select committee will be needed and that was indicated in the referral motion at the beginning of this speech. Given that the bill introduces common-sense changes to simplify levy processes for the industry and in order to provide the opportunity to have the new calculations in place we will be asking the select committee to consider reporting back as early as possible. In line with the Standing Orders of the House I recommend that the committee present its report on or before 26 June. 
I commend this amendment bill to the House. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It is quite clear that ministerial responsibility has severely dampened that previously effervescent member’s oratorical style and enthusiasm for the job. We are only 2 weeks into the parliamentary year and I can tell members that the people of Otaki would have been listening to that speech. In the small amount of time we have left I will say that National will be supporting the first reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.