Mark Ron: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mark Ron: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16631] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to put New Zealand First’s position on record. We will vote against the National Party’s Supplementary Order Paper because we believe that fundamental to the effectiveness of this bill is some form of control over the way in which these items are sold or handled and stored. 
It is interesting that Kate Wilkinson has raised a number of questions about us not treating other products in this way. She has suggested that people would be deterred from buying their spray-cans of paint for legitimate purposes simply because they would have to go and ask the shop assistant to get access to them. I will point out a couple of things. In the weekend I was in Hunting and Fishing. I went in there with my partner Chris and we were looking at a couple of rifles that we thought we might like to add to our golf bag to enable us to do the sort of hunting we do. I looked at a .22 Ruger and a .22 Marlin—both of them semi-automatics. Both of those rifles were bolted to the wall. In both instances in order to be able to put them to the shoulder to see how they felt and how the line of sight felt for me I had to ask one of the shop attendants to come down. I asked him whether he would mind unbolting them from the wall. He did not mind at all. He came down and spent some time with us. We tried out the rifles for feel for weight and for sight picture. We made a decision at that point in time and the rifles were put back on the wall. Having to ask the shop attendant for assistance will not deter me when the time is ripe from going into that shop and buying a .22 Ruger—or not. I now have a better understanding of what the weapon feels like and is capable of and I will feel confident in the purchase. I am also confident about the advice given to me by the sales assistant because he gave his assistance. 
A few weeks earlier I was in the same store. I needed a couple of knives—a skinning knife and a boning knife—because we were doing a bit of home-kill. It is interesting that all of the knives—pocket knives pen knives skinning knives and hunting knives—were behind lock and key in glass cabinets. I was not deterred from asking the shop assistant to unlock the cabinet and pull out an array of knives for me to look at and he was not deterred from doing that for me—he was quite pleased. Eventually after looking at a number of knives I selected the two that I wanted and a sheath to go with them. I was not deterred from making the purchase of a boning knife and a skinning knife because they happened to be under lock and key. 
The point is that these spray-cans will not be under lock and key. They are simply required to be placed in an environment where there is restricted access to them. I point out that there are other things that could happen in this House that will not happen but in relation to which it could be argued they pose a similar threat to the community. A while ago I was buying some building materials in PlaceMakers on Moorhouse Avenue in Christchurch when I saw a Maori chap—very scruffy long hair very unkempt—wandering through the aisles with silver aluminium paint around his lips. He was clutching in his hand a plastic bag that he was putting up to his face and sniffing. What was he doing there? He was wandering up and down the aisles of paint looking for more paint. Now I could be forgiven for suggesting here tonight that there should be restricted access to that type of paint or some form of control because it poses a health hazard. But we are not doing that; maybe we should. There are some things that in the hands of the wrong people are being used in a very antisocial manner. They are being used in a manner that is detrimental to the health and well-being of the person who purchases them because we know that person will use them for illicit purposes for wrongful purposes and for the purposes of vandalism. 
Society has a right if it sees fit to pass laws such as this to restrict access to those products—whether they be tobacco or alcohol. I say to Kate Wilkinson with all due respect that I think alcohol was a bad choice because my understanding of the sale of liquor licensing laws is that certain people under certain ages are prohibited from going into bottle stores and being in certain places. They cannot go in there. They are not allowed in there. So there are restrictions on the way in which alcohol is sold. They are specific restrictions designed to ensure that as far as possible alcohol does not get into the hands of those who are not legally entitled to purchase it. 
The big issue that we were consistently reminded of as members of that committee was not actually about the purchase; it was about the theft—the stealing. And whilst we would all assume that good business people who were mindful of the stock losses that they would be incurring and the impact on their profit line would take all reasonable steps to ensure that their items are not being shoplifted or that they are secure it is not always done. That is why they get shoplifted. We also need to recognise that many of the people who own the businesses are not staffing the counter. They rely on competent effective efficient salespersons to monitor the premises to ensure that stuff is not stolen and to ensure that customers who wander over and pick up a spray-can and start looking at it are serious in their intent of purchase and are purchasing for legal reasons. 
We discussed in this clause—taking advice from the officials—the various ramifications that this law might have on the legitimate usage of these products. We talked about schools school projects and the fact that young people are required to do art projects using these spray-cans. Those issues are well catered for in this clause. The one area where we have some controversy and disagreement is in relation to the level of security that a retailer or wholesaler must place around the storage and keeping of these products. I guess it is up to those people who want to sell these products. They know that builder George Brown or developer Bob Clarkson will buy these products which may be markers to mark building sites. In terms of quantity they know that the developer will order maybe two cartons of them in different colours for different legitimate purposes and those orders will be met in the normal way. Bob Clarkson does not have to walk in and purchase one spray-can off the shelf and ask the shop assistants for assistance to get it down from the high shelf that he cannot reach; he does not have to do that. He simply puts in an order and it arrives. And that is how most farmers—who use them for marking stock—most builders most property developers and most schools will meet those orders. This clause is designed to prevent or at least in some way deter shoplifting and stealing and the vandalism that results from such actions by the particular people who would do that.