Power Simon: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16068] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for her concluding remarks. The Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill was one of those bills on which when it went before a select committee members formed the view early on that there were some major holes surrounding the way it would be enforced. In particular our view was that the controls on the actual sale of a spray-can and the way it was secured in the shop that was selling it would not be enough to deal with the potential criminality that would flow from the sale and purchase and subsequent use of a spray-can or other tagging device. 
I was interested to hear the Minister say—and this is the first of my points—the Government intends to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to repeal the legislation George Hawkins was in charge of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act during the Committee of the whole House. I think that is appropriate in the sense that having laws that work area by area when an alternative national approach is available—and that is an important qualifier—is not a useful suggestion. I note also from memory—and I stand to be corrected by the next Government speaker if I have this wrong—that the legislation the Hon George Hawkins was in charge of did not include a possessory offence. The Minister is nodding so I will take it that is her understanding of that legislation as well. I think that would have left Manukau in a very difficult position because there would have been one law for Manukau and another for the rest of the country. Presumably if statutes that are specific rather than general take priority in an application we would have had the curious situation where a well-intentioned local bill may have been less effective than a national bill. I do not believe that the Hon George Hawkins would like to see that occur. However I would be interested to hear during the Committee of the whole House what Mr Hawkins has to say about the application of the more general bill to the specific circumstances surrounding graffiti—the application of this particular legislation—in Manukau. 
The Minister raised a really interesting point about the different enforcement roles of the police and territorial authorities and in particular about the regulatory checking function that a territorial authority would have in order to ensure that retailers were meeting their obligations as to the security of cans that were contained in the original bill. Now of course the bill refers to a lesser standard of cans simply being stored in such a way that members of the public cannot obtain possession without the help of the occupier. I want to come back to that because that particular clause was not without controversy at the Law and Order Committee. 
I just return for a second to the difference between the role of the territorial authority and that of the police. What we did not want as members of that committee was to have the police tied up in checking dairies shops and hardware stores throughout New Zealand to see whether spray-cans were being secured properly. They have far more pressing issues on their minds as this House has heard from members on both sides many times over the last 2 or 3 years. Rather the territorial authority may be in a better position to deal with what we would call first-instance compliance issues. Then the police would take an enforcement measure or an enforcement role at the point where it became clear that the smaller compliance issues were not being met. It is really important that we do not lose sight of the differing responsibilities that the bill puts in place. 
I just make this significant point. This bill is not the answer to graffiti actually. I am sure those parties that are opposed to this legislation will have the view that regardless of the intent of the policy perhaps the legislation has not been drafted in a way that will ever be regarded as comprehensively dealing with this issue. But National will support the second reading of this bill because we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are keen to look carefully at amendments and improvements that may be offered during the Committee stage and we will do that with an open mind. But at this point we are supporting the second reading. 
We are pleased to note that the select committee under the guidance of the chairperson included a clause that made it absolutely clear that the remedies available today to the police and the public under the Summary Offences Act and the Crimes Act are not to be overridden. It was always our argument with regard to the putting forward of legislation on graffiti that existing mechanisms in the law could actually be used to deal with some of these problems to a point. So this particular bill should be seen as being complementary to those existing provisions which I have to say create much harsher penalties for the more hard-end use I guess of graffiti implements. In this bill the possessory offence proposed by the committee has a fine of up to only $500. That is because the nature of the proposed offence is a wide one and that provision if used inappropriately by the authorities could capture a wide net. When the definitions are looked at closely we see the penalty suggested by the committee is appropriate. Otherwise we would get ourselves into a very difficult situation indeed. 
National does remain concerned about the practicalities of the implementation of restricted access to spray-cans in shops and we make that statement in the debate on the report back to the House today. Originally the bill provided that spray-cans had to be secured and the Minister was quite right when she said that meant retailers envisaged having to expend a considerable sum of money to run out and buy lock-secured cabinets for these particular spray-cans. We heard evidence from the Retailers Association that if that were the case the lead-in time of 3 months offered in the bill would be insufficient for retailers to react to that proposed new standard for the securing of spray-cans. So that particular issue of secured spray-cans was changed in favour of a recommended amendment to indicate that access to spray-cans in shops should be restricted. What the committee meant by that was that it was sufficient to make clear that the occupier of a shop would be required to keep spray-cans where the public could not access them without help from a staff member. That is quite different from keeping them in a locked cabinet. 
That meant the committee formed the view that the lead-in time of 3 months was appropriate. I do think that is the case because the last thing we need to do is to pass legislation that was rushed through the first reading and went to the select committee for a very short period of time and then to say that Parliament has done this in a very quick and driven manner but that we will wait 6 months until it is implemented. I do not think that would have been satisfactory in terms of the Government’s so-called Stop Tagging Our Place strategy or of common sense when it came to applying these provisions. 
Some things remain to be done during the Committee stage. I am sure that amendments will be offered around the definition of the possessory offence. Now that the Minister has indicated a Supplementary Order Paper will be put forward so that this bill overtakes Mr Hawkins’ legislation I am sure discussion around the way those two pieces of legislation are married and what that means for the Manukau City area in particular will be the subject of debate during the Committee stage. But at this point National will support the second reading of this bill. 
I close by endorsing the comments of the Minister. I thank the chairperson of the select committee Mr Ron Mark for enabling discussion to broaden in a way that enabled the committee to suggest and include the possessory offence which I think is probably the crucial difference between this bill and the one offered earlier this year to deal specifically with the graffiti issue in Manukau City.