Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

Given the nature of this bill, I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question so that we can have a wide-ranging debate over all provisions. I understand from the sponsor of the bill that that would be acceptable.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

I am very pleased to be able to support my fellow South Auckland electorate MP, along with our other colleague Ross Robertson, on this bill of George Hawkins, and to help the Manukau City Council take a stand against graffiti. I really thank the Committee for the ability to have a wide-ranging debate about this, because the bill as presented was a very small bill, but in lots of different parts, and we would have ended up having very long speeches on such matters as infringement notices. That would not have helped the standard of debate.

It is fascinating to me as a person who lives in South Auckland and works in South Auckland to find that there are still people today who think that graffiti or tagging on other people’s property is not a problem. I was absolutely astounded today to find out what the Children’s Commissioner thought of this. I was astounded that she thought so highly of her comments that she went and put out a press release today, where she said that tagging law does not need to change. She was actually giving a submission to the select committee in relation to the Government’s other bill on this matter, but the words were really meant for this bill, as well.

This was what she said: “I have heard from young people on the matter of tagging and graffiti and I believe their voices need to be heard and respected.” She went on to say other things like this: “I am aware that there are strong public opinions regarding the issue of graffiti and tagging”, but she then went on to say that “these public spaces are often environments that children and young people are alienated from.” Well, I suggest that she comes down to Papakura and has a look at the skating bowl. That is completely for young people and children, but almost every weekend it is completely covered in tagging. So the very space that is not meant to alienate, but in fact is meant to include and be for young people, is taken over by other young people who do not wish to have that space free for others.

She also said: “I acknowledge that graffiti and tagging can have negative connotations and outcomes”, but then she went on to say that “For some people, graffiti and tagging are seen as legitimate art forms.” And this is the bit I really thought was worthwhile saying: “There is history and social commentary behind these art forms.” Well, I suggest that she stops doing all her trips around the world—eight last year on the taxpayer—and stays at home in New Zealand Aotearoa to understand what it is for people to have their properties debased, defaced, and ruined by this sort of so-called social art and history. She can be at home with the rest of us and understand that we have to live in the real world. In South Auckland, and in Manukau in particular, we have had an absolute gutsful—I say sorry to the Committee for being so rude—of that sort of behaviour—

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) Link to this

First of all, at the outset, I acknowledge the work that my parliamentary colleagues have done in supporting the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. In particular I acknowledge my colleague of long standing George Hawkins for his 18 years working for Manukau and its people, and Judith Collins for the work that she has done. Of course, we have other Manukau members of Parliament, as well.

It is not surprising that we actually have a special part, Part 2, “Sale of spray paint”, in this bill that outlines the guidelines necessary to control the sale of taggers’ weapons of wanton destruction, especially when we consider that in Manukau City we have over 300,000 tags—yes, 300,000 tags. We have already heard from Judith Collins what that costs us as a city. The incidence of graffiti per year in our district is not good enough. In fact, it denigrates our city. Manukau is where New Zealand touches the world; it is the face of the future and we need to do something about it. I can tell the Committee how despondent I felt when I saw a tagged tree near one of our Manukau parks, our reserves. Not only does tagging damage our environment but also it plays havoc with our lives in the stress and strain felt by individuals as they wake one morning to see their fence, house, or letterbox tagged.

It is time that we got tough on, and got to grips with, graffiti—that ugly, odious expression of bravado at best, and gangland marking and ill will at worst. It is like a dog lifting its leg, marking out its territory. Graffiti perpetrators are brazenly declaring their contempt for others, and South Auckland has endured the squalid scrawls for far too long. People tell me that one of the reasons they do not travel by train is the unsightly visual vomit they are exposed to as they travel from Takanini through to Te Māhia—with the mire of Manurewa, and the wanton and woeful on goods trains at Westfield. Passengers tell me they fear that the vandals are in control. This territorial marking marks many and makes them feel vulnerable, because much of the graffiti marking is gang-related. It is marking their territory. I am at a loss to see how this self-expression can be considered to be anything but criminal damage—one group imposing itself upon another. Constituents who have come to me about this problem are utterly opposed to the ulcer of graffiti that is screaming from otherwise healthy community possessions. We regard it as the first symptom of decline, and it must be nipped in the bud. The people of Manukau have a propensity to serve others, they care about the quality of living, and they want this House to pass legislation to support their local efforts.

Graffiti also is a safety issue, and many perpetrators put themselves and others at more risk than those risks that cause us to severely restrict the sale of fireworks. This is also a problem of waste: of police and other specialist professional resources, and of the cost of withdrawing trains whilst the tagging is cleaned up. George Hawkins has brought this bill to the House, and it is born of his experience of overseeing policing, his service in the Manukau community for more than 18 years, and his service here in Parliament.

The best way to deal with graffiti, or tagging, is multi-pronged. First, we need to ensure that the offensive tag is removed within 24 hours, so that the fame and power reasons for doing graffiti are quickly removed. We need to prosecute the crime vigorously and ensure that the perpetrators are made to be publicly accountable by doing community work. There is an old saying that communities can see the writing on the wall. To me, measures taken against graffiti tagging are barely the tip of a laborious effort, because when the kids get bored with spray-cans, they will find another way of declaring their arrival as a face in our cities.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

I thought that that was an incredibly poetic speech from the previous speaker, Mr Ross Robertson. I agree with a lot of what he said and it was a wonderful commentary. But the thing that he missed was that this bill entered the House in 2005 and, bugger me, it is now 2008. What has happened? Hearing the member’s wonderful speech about people wanting this measure and that it has to be done, and about dogs lifting their legs and everything else, I would ask why Labour members voted against the Manukau City (Control of Graffiti) Bill when it came through the select committee process. The National Party supported it, but members on the other side of the Chamber voted against George Hawkins’ bill. I would suggest that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in what we are hearing here. I just cannot believe how long this bill has taken, because graffiti is a very serious problem. Graffiti is a cancer that destroys our society. It destroys our landscape, because we do not see it spreading, and it is vandalism—total vandalism. It affects how safe people feel, it affects trade, and it affects property prices. It is a very destructive cancer.

In 2004 Sir Barry Curtis wrote to the president of Local Government New Zealand and said that he had a remit to take something through the local government conference in 2003. That remit started this whole process. That was in 2003. I have to take my hat off to Sir Barry Curtis, because if he had not started this and if George Hawkins had not picked it up on his behalf, then we would not be here debating this bill today. I would say to Sir Barry that he has got his act together incredibly well, and Len Brown is following him very much so. I really do congratulate him on his attitude to attack graffiti.

I also take my hat off to Bob Harvey, because Bob and his team at Waitakere are also committed, and have been from day one, in the fight against graffiti. I had the pleasure of being taken round Waitakere with Bob’s team, and I tell members that we have to take our hats off to the energy and commitment those people put into cleaning up graffiti. They know what graffiti is doing and they know how bad it is. Bob might not be able to write good letters to MPs, but he can sure as hell do a good job on tackling graffiti—and that relates to a bill that progressed further through the House earlier tonight.

When I walk around even the streets of Wellington, I cannot believe how much graffiti is taking off and is becoming uncontrolled. I know that the Manukau City Council has spent millions of dollars on fighting graffiti. The Wellington City Council is now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on fighting graffiti, and it is just a shame. It is just a disgrace. Judith Collins talked about the skate park in Manukau. I can tell the member now that we opened Waitangi Park in Wellington—as Chairperson Hobbs knows—and it is a wonderful piece of city space with a very good facility for kids to do their skateboarding, but, blow me down, taggers whacked it with graffiti on day one. We just need to walk around the city of Wellington to see graffiti on doors, buildings, and everywhere. It has to be stopped.

I say to George Hawkins that his bill has been the catalyst for what is going through the parliamentary process as we speak. This bill needs to be bigger than Manukau. The member needed to start it at Manukau, and he has started it at Manukau. The rest of the country owes him a debt because of the fact that he has done this, but the Government also needs to be ashamed that it did not support the member. It did not support the member’s bill. Government members did not pick up this legislation in 2005, and a cynic would say that maybe they thought they should do something because someone was killed recently. Maybe they thought: “Oh my gosh! Maybe we should do something about this graffiti.”, and they have. But they have gone just halfway. The bill that is going through the other select committee is not good enough. It will not fix the problems. Members should go and talk to mayors like Kerry Prendergast and ask her what she thinks of the legislation going through the House and whether she thinks that it will make a difference to graffiti. There is something missing here; there is no country strategy. What has happened is that there has not been the input that is needed into this, because George Hawkins’ bill was not picked up. The Government has been too slow and it should be ashamed. But I thank George Hawkins for this bill.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

Can I first of all thank the colleagues who have spoken already in this debate. I acknowledge Judith Collins, because she has been very active in trying to get something done about graffiti; Ross Robertson, a fellow Manukau MP; Pita Paraone, the New Zealand First member for his work; and all the Manukau MPs. I especially mention Su’a William Sio, who is the newest member of this Parliament, but he knows just what an impact graffiti has on the Manukau area. I take on board what Mr Blumsky said about our needing a bill to cover all New Zealand. I think that that is very, very important.

I will also mention Sir Barry Curtis, because he became Mayor of Manukau in 1983, and I became the Mayor of Papakura. I can well recall going to a meeting at Manukau City in the 1980s where some graffiti artists were telling us why they graffitied. There were photographs of the inside of one of their homes, where they had graffitied the refrigerator, inside and outside. They had graffitied the television and they had graffitied the walls. So this is not a new problem; this is Manukau City being a catalyst to get legislation.

Will legislation solve the problem? No, not in itself, it will not. But it shows that a community is frustrated by graffiti. Judith Collins mentioned the skateboard rink that gets attacked, and people get very annoyed about these things. One thing that really does annoy me is when the Government introduced its legislation and the news media filmed around that area, but it also filmed some of the kids who are the taggers, bragging that they would carry on. Taggers make their tags, they say, so that they become famous. Of course, then the news media put them on television, which only encourages them. The news media have a greater responsibility than just to have the news encouraging these people. Setting them up in the eyes of their friends as heroes is something that television journalists need to think about a little more carefully. When we see these young people, some of them would do other damage if they could. It is not just the graffiti. Sometimes it is bending letterboxes over. Sometimes it will be—

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS Link to this

—doing over bus stops, as my colleague Ross Robertson mentions. He knows—having an electorate in Manukau City—and I know, just how many elderly people feel when their letterboxes are left bent over and lying flat, and their fences are graffitied. Some people may say that graffiti is art. I have heard it said in this Chamber. Well, that is absolute rubbish. If they want to create art, then they should do it on their canvas, not on property owned by someone else. Perhaps one of the solutions may be that councils look at different ways of dealing with these young people. They should stop them feeling alienated, and do something with them.

In the end, it is a problem for Manukau, but I acknowledge that it is a problem in other parts of New Zealand. My colleagues from west Auckland also said that for those who travel on the rail corridors of Auckland the graffiti is an embarrassment and it is very hard to get rid of because of the danger of locomotives coming along the tracks. These young people do not think of danger. They paint on motorway overbridges, they paint on high buildings, and thereby put their own lives at risk. The tragedy of a young tagger losing his life in my electorate of Manurewa is something I think we should bear in the back of our minds.

PANSY WONG (National) Link to this

I am delighted to be able to take a call to support the MPs from South Auckland. Last Monday I attended the first Manukau economic summit for this year. It was very heartening to hear the Mayor, Len Brown, articulating that one of the frustrating things about the tag name of South Auckland is that it is a turn-off for the business community and the people who live down there, because it gives the impression that it is a city full of problems. I want to congratulate the Manukau City Council. That is why it took up the initiative and said it wants to focus on beautifying the city. One has pride living in a city only when the physical environment can match the people who live there. I want to congratulate the council, and I also want to send my sympathy for the frustration the council has felt in terms of waiting to start work with one of the biggest problems it faces—the tagging or graffiti issue. The council sought help from central government, the Labour Government, in 2004 but without much luck. Eventually it was forced to draft a bill that is seen to be a champion.

It is just as well the council has chosen George Hawkins MP, because he has relentlessly stayed with this bill. He has taken it all the way, for the past 2 years. I would like to see the Parliament support the Manukau City Council, which has tried to build the pride of its people in the city, and support an MP who has staunchly championed this bill through the House. I hope that when the bill passes its Committee stage tonight, it does not see another setback. For far too long we have seen the Labour Government not listening to community concerns, but at long last—this is 2008, election year—the Manukau City Council may see the bill, which it started 2 years ago, come to a happy ending, to give it additional tools to tackle the problem in Manukau City. I also want to welcome our newest member to the Parliament, Su’a William Sio, the former Deputy Mayor of the Manukau City Council. I think it will be a good gift to him to see a bill that was started 2 years ago, when he was on the council, pass through the House.

One has to reflect on the ironic arguments that have been put up by Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee. They criticised the Manukau City Council legislation for breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, when it is proposes banning the sale of spray-paint to people under 18 years of age. We then find the same provision in the Government bill, and we have to see what brings about that U-turn in attitude.

I take great pleasure in taking a call tonight, mainly to send a compliment to the Manukau City Council, which is totally committed to ensuring pride in the city is started by cleaning up those acts. It is sending a very strong statement to all those budding artists—as my diligent and effective colleague Judith Collins would say—to practise on their own property, and leave other people’s property and public property alone. I think respect and collective responsibility in the communities start in a small way. That small way is about respecting other people’s rights and property. In taking this call I want also to send my respect to the MP George Hawkins who for the last 2 years has not given up championing the cause for the city that he is part of.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this

Before I call the next speaker, who will be Pita Paraone, I just make this request again. When I sit in the Chair, sometimes the conversations and the movement around the Chamber, with people standing up, just gets really loud. I think it shows a disrespect to each other. If members are going to have conversations, can they keep them really, really quiet.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o waku kōrero i roto i te Whare i te pō nei, e tika ana kia tukuna atu ngā mihi ki tēnā, tētahi o ngā kaimahi o te Whare e hia te roa. Nā reira e Tumu, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe. Ahakoa ka nui hoki o te mamae ki tō wehenga engari, mōhio ana au i a tāua ko tēnei te āhuatanga, te kaupapa o tō tātou Matua Nui i te Rangi, nāna i hōmai, nāna i tango.

Engari, ahakoa kei te pōuri hoki i rongo mātou i te hinga atu tētahi o ngā hoa rangatira o tētahi o ngā kaimahi i roto i te Whare nei, kei te mihi tonu ki a ia. Nā reira e te tuahine e Tangi, haere hoki atu. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a kourou i takahia te ara whānui a Tāne, e kawe atu i a kourua ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou mō te tangata. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā kourua, ki a koutou hoki, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā anō tātou.

Ā, tēnā hoki i a tātou engari, he mihi tonu ki a koe e te whanaunga, Su’a. Ahakoa i puta mai tō kōrero tuatahi i roto o te Whare nei i nanahi engari, tēnei te wā tuatahi i riro i a au ki te mihi hoki ki a koe. Nā reira, haere mai.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

I think it is right to say that every politician wants to leave a legacy. It is my hope that, as he completes a truly splendid career in this House and in this Chamber, Mr Hawkins be remembered for the efforts he took on behalf of the citizens of Manukau City to see this issue of graffiti properly addressed.

We are faced with a most curious irony here. As I understand it, the Government plans to support the passage of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill tonight. That is a strange and quirky outcome in the context of the deliberations that took place before a select committee that was clearly dominated by Labour members. We all know—and others have spoken eloquently about this—of the curse that is graffiti. I think we also know of the unstinting efforts by the honourable member to see this scourge addressed in a practical way. What a tragedy it was that the Labour-led Government did not find it in its cold heart to support this legislation. It instead opted for a decision based on a majority position that the bill be reported with a recommendation that it not proceed. I do not know whether it lies within the heart of the Hon George Hawkins to make some further comment on these issues, but I invite him, on behalf of the committee, to stand and explain how this bill—now apparently, but belatedly, warranting Labour support—will mesh with current proposals that the Government has to deal with graffiti.

We know there are limitations in this bill, and we know there are limitations in the Government bill. Those issues have been addressed in earlier comments made by members in another debate. But this bill represents a fine start that should be supported. I believe it is right to say that it is broadly not appropriate for criminal-creating provisions to be locally based. Where criminal offence provisions are created, they should be broad brushed and applied across the country. As those who have supported the bill and the work of the Hon George Hawkins said, this bill might have been a start to trigger a series of local bills that would eventually see the Government take up this issue with the credibility and cogency that the Hon George Hawkins has exhibited in advancing this cause.

I note the minority views of the committee, where it said: “The National Party and New Zealand First recognise the problem experienced by and support the Manukau City Council in its endeavour to control graffiti within its city limits. The National Party has no confidence that the Labour Government’s anti-graffiti proposals will achieve what is required and the suggested implementation timeline of four years is too long. The National Party and New Zealand First do not support the suggestion that if this bill were to be passed that addressing the issue of graffiti would then be on a piecemeal basis.” In the dying period of the Hon George Hawkins’ rule over his electorate, I urge that there be a strong statement of support and a strong endorsement for all the work he has done so credibly and with such commitment in the past period.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

First of all, I join previous speakers in acknowledging and paying respects to Tumu Pūtaura, who was a security officer for 21 years. Along with other members, I pay my condolences to his family. I acknowledge that Tumu Pūtaura’s 21 years of service reminds us of the people who give service to Parliament by sitting in the Chamber, but there are many others who give service to Parliament, the parliamentary precinct, and the functioning of Parliament in other ways. It is very timely that I should specifically identify and give my very deep, heartfelt thanks to our wonderful men and women who conduct the security service in particular, along with others. Our thoughts and our prayers are with Tumu Pūtaura’s family at this time.

This bill is very appropriate in terms of coming from the Manukau City Council. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of Su’a William Sio, who is now the former Deputy Mayor of the city of Manukau. I think it is very appropriate that, as a former deputy mayor, he should be participating in this particular debate. I also take the opportunity to join with the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, in paying a huge tribute to the Hon George Hawkins. Richard Worth was acknowledging the massive contribution of the Hon George Hawkins to Auckland politics and to the city of Manukau. The only difference is that Dr Richard Worth talked in the context of some sort of farewell. Well, folks, if we look at George Hawkins in the Chamber tonight, we see that there is no farewell about him. He is hot to trot, and he will continue to make a huge contribution to the people of Manukau and to Auckland.

I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee that sat through this bill, and I enjoyed National’s contribution. I saw on the video monitor Mr Mark Blumsky, himself a former Mayor of Wellington. The reality is that the National members of the committee, when they considered this bill, acknowledged some of the issues, the problems, and the challenges. With due respect, I say that I think they went back to their caucus and said: “This is the approach we are going to take.” If members look at the proceedings of the select committee, they will see that National members made a constructive contribution, but it is misguided and wrong for them to suggest that Labour members did not care about the issue.

The problem we had at the time was in terms of the fact that this was a local bill. I have shared with the Hon George Hawkins and Ross Robertson, two fine members, the point that although this was a local bill, we needed to take a parallel look at a nationwide strategy. It is just a basic thing—if people go into the Warehouse and buy a spray-can, they do not go to the Warehouse in neighbouring Auckland City or Waitakere because they cannot buy it in Manukau, but they can buy it everywhere else in greater Auckland.

Parallel with this bill is the Government legislation that is now currently before the Law and Order Committee, which I sit on. We are giving consideration to that bill, and we want to come back to the House with the bill as soon as we can. It will dovetail very, very neatly with the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.

I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the fact that Mayor Barry Curtis, the Manukau City Council and community, and certainly my own community of Hamilton City—especially with the work that we are doing in the Hamilton City Council—have been huge catalysts for the bill, and also for the Stop programme that is being developed. I also pay tribute to Len Brown for his excellent leadership.

Like other members of the Committee I have walked around Manukau at 1 o’clock in the morning with some really great security officers. I have looked at the tagging, and I have talked to the Māori wardens. [Interruption] I am talking about MPs on this side of the Chamber—I do not know about people on the other side—being on the job and talking to Māori wardens. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to those wonderful community workers in places like the city of Manukau and elsewhere in the country. These people walk the talk and make a wonderful, wonderful contribution. I will be asking for their views and input in respect of this bill. I did not just sit in a select committee and make nice speeches, like some of those National members did; I got out amongst the people. That is the example I follow from George Hawkins and Ross Robertson, who, as members, get out amongst the people. I acknowledge their role.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I have been in my office watching members on the television. This new parliamentary internal television system is a wonderful thing. It will provide great DVDs during the election, will it not? We will be able to say: “Oh, he said that today? Let me play a DVD and show what he said in the House.” I am so looking forward to that moment because the inconsistencies here tonight have been just mind-boggling. Members have been waxing on lyrically. I confess that when I was sitting in the Opposition benches I was probably one of the Hon George Hawkins’ greatest antagonists when he was the Minister of Police. But he must be feeling sick to the stomach with the some of the waxing that has been going on from some of the National MPs who have been saying how highly they regard him on the back of this bill. That is not what they used to say about him when he was the Minister of Police attempting to do the very same thing. In fact, there was no credit given to him at all for the work he did trying to maintain the fingerprinting of juvenile delinquents and offenders. The tremendous work he did there was quietly brushed under the carpet.

There are also inconsistencies in Labour’s position. This bill, and the minority report that I have just read, were destined for the rubbish bin. I am now hearing talk that it will be revived. It is interesting for me because I am the chairman of the Law and Order Committee where we are currently hearing submissions on the new Government tagging bill. Now, everybody wants the legislation. Everybody now wants it. We have a former Deputy Mayor of Manukau here. He must be a very confused man because all of his colleagues were against the bill. They were against all the great work his city did. They were against all the arguments he put up. They told George he was talking rubbish. They said he was a typical rightwing nutter in the Labour Party and told him: “Sit down and shut up. We don’t want to hear from you.” But I say to George Hawkins that he was right. He always was right.

There are inconsistencies from the Māori Party. It is wonderful. We heard from Pita Sharples about the artistic ability of taggers and how we should not deny people the opportunity to express themselves. Compare that with what happened in September 2005 when a young 16-year-old was caught defacing—of all things—Pita Sharples’ own hoarding. What was the Māori Party reaction? Its members kidnapped the tagger. They kidnapped this kid. They threw him into—[Interruption] I ask members not to believe me but to read the reports in the newspapers. Mr Sharples and his cohorts kidnapped this kid and held him hostage for hours—a 16-year-old. This is the same man who said “Don’t lower the age of criminal responsibility.” Now I get it; we just kidnap all the young offenders and lock them up. This is Dr Pita Sharples, who for years has had a wonderful photograph on the Māori Education Trust Board website of himself with a full korowai, moko, mere, and feather in the hair. That child did not accept that he could spread his artistic works over the finest buildings and memorials of this land but he must not dare graffiti Pita Sharples’ hoarding. He must not dare do that because Pita Sharples is special. Pita Sharples stands above all those things. Pita Sharples says people can express their artistic ability on other people’s homes, other people’s cars, other people’s fences, and other people’s businesses, but not on his pretty face.

Here are all the newspaper reports about that; there are dozens of them all about a 16-year-old kid who did nothing more than express his artistic ability on Dr Pita Sharples’ face and for his troubles got kidnapped, locked up, and held hostage until John Tamihere and other people negotiated. That negotiation would have been interesting. I wonder whether they were going to send in the Special Tactics Group—a group from the police—to rescue this child. I wonder whether that crossed their minds and whether Pita Sharples would have leapt up and said: “It’s an abomination. It’s terrorising us—me. It’s terrorising. It’s the big long arm of the Pākehā law coming down and psychologically raping us all.” No, he said nothing because Pita Sharples was so angry that he got graffiti on his face.

Tame Iti, who also expresses this sentiment about Pākehā law, has graffiti on his face every day. Some of us would ask what gives him the right to wear a moko; I do not see any warrior qualities in that man whatsoever. But it is his choice. He can graffiti his face, he can graffiti his car, and he can graffiti his house, and Dr Pita Sharples can support all that.

But we now know—because Dr Pita Sharples does not support this bill—that the line gets drawn on Dr Pita Sharples’ own hoarding. The message is very clear out there for people in the Northern area when the election comes around. As far as Dr Pita Sharples is concerned, people can graffiti anything except his hoardings. Thank you.

I seek leave to table a wad of press comments about the kidnapping of the 16-year-old graffiti artist.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this

Before I talk briefly about the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill I will, firstly, pay tribute to George Hawkins. If people listen to members on the other side of the Chamber they would think they were listening to a eulogy. Those members have forgotten that George Hawkins will be back again and again, and some of them could actually learn from the diligent work of a local member—I know I certainly did. What George Hawkins has done in respect of this bill, unlike the member for Monaco—I am sorry, Dr Worth—over there is that he has taken up the cudgels on an insidious issue. It is an issue that is an invasion of people’s property rights and we have all been victim of it. There is a particular property down the road from my house with a big green concrete fence. I would say that for the last 8 years that particular fence has been graffitied nearly every week or every second week. The owner goes out and paints over it again and again. What Mr Hawkins is attempting to do with this bill is drive a local issue out of his electorate, and what the Government has then done with its own bill is to take many of those ideas, add to them, and take them out nationwide with its Stop Tagging Our Place programme.

I will just draw a contrast with the work that is done. There is a collision of ideas on this side of the Chamber. There is some good enthusiasm, and members are actually thinking about local problems and local constituencies. I look over the other side and I see the hollowed-out group over there. I ask what they did during their 9 years in office—9 years—to address this issue. They did nothing, and I challenge “Barmy Bob”—old Private Jones or Captain Mainwaring—over there in his seat. In the 2½ years that he has been squawking like some sort of a male version of a bantam hen, I ask what he has done in Tauranga—

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

It is good to see that some people believe in the myths and stories that get published on the front page of the Dominion Post. I get accused of kidnapping, and I get my face on the front page—there I am in bed, sleeping, and I find out the next day that I am a kidnapper. But never mind.

I would like to explain why the Māori Party opposes the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. We oppose the bill mainly because of the reference to giving the police extra powers. I do not believe that is necessary. I believe that the police have all the powers they need to carry out their duties at this time. I feel that we always come down heavy on the youth. When there are problems we attack the youth instead of looking at the major problems in our society. We build big communities that are poor. We do not put in the resources. The teachers drive in, teach, and drive home again. There is no community spirit as there is in the country towns that are thriving. The people meet together and they are all joined up somehow or other. But in those large communities most of the people who provide the services drive in and drive out again, and it makes it very hard to have a good community spirit. The lack of resources, the lack of industry, the lack of transport facilities, the lack of after-school activities, and the lack of user-friendly clubs mean that it is a struggle for the local people in some of our communities to carry out their roles and get full support. We do our best.

It is really interesting. Everyone watches the Warriors—though not last week, of course. They watch the Pacific Islanders excelling in rugby league and in the All Blacks and all the other teams and they feel really proud, yet they look upon their very children as people who need to be policed, chased, and harassed in the community for their misbehaviour. We have a lot of things to look at in our communities, and I believe that tightening up every time something goes wrong is not the right answer. We have just let the situation get out of hand. There are the “quick rich” in our cities now. If we look at the board of governors at places like King’s College, we see that in the old days the people on the board used to be the old families and 50 percent rural people. Now it is all the “quick rich” from in town. That is the sort of thing that is happening. The people who are asking for favours now are the people who had the best advantages when they were young, and they are the old people now. They got cheap loans. They could buy houses and sections for $9,000. They had a free education—in fact, they got paid to go to university—and they are the people that many of our politicians are pandering to and looking after instead of dealing with the community as a whole and building up a strong foundation for our youth.

I feel a bit sad that a lot of the bills we have had in the last year have been about punishment. Now I hear that the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants to tie people to chains and let them hammer away at the side of a road, and put them in tent villages. That policy started in the United States. It failed. They have the worst incarceration rate. In fact, they lead the world in incarceration, and it is interesting that it is the black people, the coloured people, who are most representative of the people in prison. We have to rethink how we look at a society’s communities. If we take a freezing works out of a town, it takes years for that town to build up again. We have to reinvest in rural towns and build up their structures in order to give the communities a life. I hate graffiti—even on my own face. I hate it on walls and fences of any kind, especially tagging, which is the worst kind of graffiti. But I do not see it as the greatest sin in the world and that we need to have an Act of Parliament to deal with it.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

I rise to correct the impressions in the minds of the multitude of listeners this evening, in the unlikely event that they feel there was one redeeming element in Dr Pita Sharples’ speech. The clear line ahead is that we should support George Hawkins, and I must also acknowledge the effort of the other MPs from the Manukau area. I have on earlier occasions been possessed of the thought to refer to one of those members as a pink bat. I am now searching for how I might describe that in our Māori language. I remember that my tūpuna from Ngāpuhi fought a great battle at Ruapekapeka, which means “the nest of the bat”.

However, having said that, I note that Mr Hawkins and the other MPs of Manukau live on a regular basis with the effects of tagging. It is a crime. It diminishes status and the sense of community. It spreads fear, and it causes people to doubt whether anything can be done to arrest this type of pollution. So I salute the mahi those members are doing together to challenge the taggers. But we know that young people are prone to great flights of fancy and end up doing things that they regret in later life. If members have doubts about that, they should just look at Hone Harawira, my relation from Te Aupōuri tribe.

That aside, Mr Hawkins has brought to our attention as parliamentarians the fact that tagging and graffiti that is allowed to spread unabated wears down ordinary mums and dads, because they know that many of the people behind this anti-social behaviour are in gangs. Gangs are only a minority, but the fact is that if we do not challenge their influence, then we are undermining the spirit of communities that fear that their own children will be forced into options or decisions that arise as a consequence of our lack of diligence in allowing gangs to become normalised.

That is why I will never ever agree in this Parliament with Dr Pita Sharples that we should indulge gangs and what they represent. I salute the man for the work he has done in the revival of our culture, and for being a great supporter of urban Māori initiatives and a proud son of Kahungunu, but I will never support his desire that we should indulge or acquiesce with the spread of gang culture, which is, firstly, proliferating through the acceptance of tagging; secondly, overlooking the cancerous effect of drugs; and, thirdly, turning a blind eye to activities that are passed off as graffiti but that are in actual fact a very sinister crime against the spirit that binds a community together.

So I salute Mr Hawkins and—perish the thought—the other MPs who, although they may not belong to the illustrious party that comprises the Government, have also made efforts to arrest this attack. I accept that Mr Mark alerted the country to the fact that Dr Sharples, during the last election campaign and in a fit of anger when he saw an object poking out of his mouth that was not a cigarette—as a consequence of the efforts of a tagger—saw red. It is a pity he does not vote red, but that is another matter. I accept that he was moved to capture that young person and almost dispense some summary justice, but the reality is that we need to ensure that the message is amplified. We should have zero tolerance for tagging yet still embrace the rangatahi so that they see a better way.

But I say to Dr Sharples that there is no way we should indulge, justify, or apologise for the activities of gangs. They exist on the basis of threats, intimidation, and violence. They celebrate the fact that they can get their way because “if you stand in their way, they will do you away”. Well, I say to them “Go to hell!” Kia ora tātou.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

The taggers are generally not from gangs. They are usually two or three individuals who communicate with two or three other individuals in different parts of the town and they go throughout different communities and put their mark on the place like, as someone described it, a dog does. That is basically what they do. They are not the gangs that Shane Jones is talking about at all. Shane Jones is quite wrong, and he knows that he is wrong, to say that I indulge gangs and encourage them. I do not encourage gangs and I do not like their criminality. I have said a number of times in this Chamber that if gangs indulge in any criminal, threatening, or bullying behaviour they must be dealt with by the police or by any activity that is legal.

But what I am doing is working to defuse and change the activities of many of the gangs, and I will keep doing that. If the member wants to say that that is indulging the gangs then that is fine, but at the end of the day anyone who breaks the law has to be dealt with properly. As for Shane Jones saying that I also support the drug activities of gangs, I remind him that we brought the whole P issue to this Parliament and put it before a select committee—when I was not in Parliament—and 2 months later Parliament classified it as a class A drug. I have raised money and taken the P case up and down this country twice, from Invercargill to Kaitāia, pointing out to people, and giving demonstrations of, the evil of P. I have a team doing it now and I gave a demonstration myself at the Manukau Institute of Technology just a week ago. I am a fighter against drugs and I deplore the member associating me with supporting any kind of drug activity.

I just want to get those things straight and to say that, yes, we have to stop the tagging, and we already have powers to do that. I think that we have to move in and do it; that we have to strengthen the communities and not just leave it there and attack the kids. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) Link to this

This has been a very interesting debate and I thank those who have contributed to it. It is not often that we get parties working together at a local level. In Manukau MPs from different parties have come together because we want to solve a problem.

I acknowledge the work of my colleagues. We do not always agree. I suppose I seldom agree with Judith Collins and people like Pansy Wong who have been working on this issue. I refer to my colleague Ross Robertson in particular and to Su’a William Sio—he has been here for only a few days, but he has been working on this problem for a long, long time. It is interesting to note that Dr Sharples and I have different views on graffiti, but in some areas we come together. We have to steer youth, some of whom may be gang members, in a different direction.

I said earlier that I do not think this legislation alone will solve the problem of graffiti. It is a very complex problem that involves young people having access to alcohol. I know of one dairy in South Auckland—and I have mentioned it to the police—that sells liquor to kids in school uniform. These are the same young people that we see running around the streets at 2 o’clock in the morning. Drugs come into it too, and I think that is one of the problems.

It is a very complex situation and we need answers. Of course, what has happened is that people in Manukau City are frustrated by it. We see elderly people going to get the New Zealand Herald in the morning who see the tags of various people sprayed all over their fence, and they do not have the money to get the tags removed. A large number of people in South Auckland in particular cannot afford to buy fence stain.

I pay tribute to the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, whose volunteers paint out other people’s tags. That shows us something about the spirit of Manukau, which I think is really great, and we can also see it in this Chamber where members from different parties have come together to try to solve the problem.

I want to mention my gratitude to Dr Richard Worth—

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I rise to take another call on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I want to acknowledge that contribution by George Hawkins, and I want to acknowledge the fact that not only has he been a member of this Parliament for a number of years but he has 30 years of public service experience. He was the former mayor of Papakura and he brings a cumulative weight of knowledge and community experience to this Parliament. I know that the now former Deputy Mayor of Manukau City, our good colleague Su’a William Sio, who is with us tonight, will support that.

I spoke before about the former Mayor of Manukau City, Barry Curtis, and his very strong entreaty to us as a select committee when we went up there, and his strong lobbying. I take this opportunity to acknowledge George Hawkins, obviously, for his work in presenting the bill with the support of Ross Robertson. But if ever a mayor has had an impact in this country and in this Parliament, it is Barry Curtis; he marshalled together all of those forces to really bring this problem home to us. Certainly, although it is fair to say that Hamilton does not have the degree of graffiti and tagging problem that Manukau has, it still has a serious problem. In that sense, I acknowledge the people who say that legislation on its own is not the magic bullet, but it is part of the tool box. Its part of that tool box is obviously the community buy-in and involvement to basically clean up neighbourhoods and create a sense of community.

I acknowledge the many good schemes in Manukau, which I alluded to in a tribute I paid to the people who are out there working in the community after we have gone to bed—I talked about the Māori wardens still out at 1 o’clock in the morning and about other people who are really involved in rebuilding neighbourhoods. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the community of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my city, who, of course, as part of a nationwide community day put out in Hamilton 1,600-plus members of their church community. They went all throughout the city, particularly in the Five Crossroads area of Hamilton East but also specifically in parts of my electorate of Hamilton West, as well. I pay a huge tribute to the members of the church. The scale of their organisation was amazing, but so was what they achieved with the neighbourhoods. In particular, when they left the neighbourhood of Five Crossroads the place was spick and span; it was scrubbed up and it was kind of year zero—there was a sense of starting again. The community was really buying in, saying it was great and that they wanted to keep it like that. There was a wonderful, wonderful spirit. Now, that was not legislation, it was not law; that was just a community church organisation getting out there and working with the city council. That is the other dynamic. Certainly, I will acknowledge that Manukau has many examples of that community spirit. The law comes in and underpins that spirit and gives a legal protection—a legal oomph—and then we put that across to the Stop Tagging Our Place strategy, as well, which is a multi-agency, multi-range strategy that also comes into play.

I also take the opportunity again, in the context of this bill, to pay tribute to people like Olly Te Ua, a member of our Hamilton City Council staff, and other members of the Hamilton City Council for their excellent work. We have to say that we cannot see this in some kind of social isolation. For example, dare I say, I think that the Government’s recent major funding boost for community-based organisations will help. The extra funding and emphasis we have put into education and into schools, giving every kid the right to go to a decent neighbourhood school, will help as well. The B4 School checks will help, and the work we have done to have greater rights for victims of crime is also important in this regard. Dare I say, even stability in terms of housing helps—and, yes, we have some huge challenges around housing affordability in this country. I do not want to sound partisan, but that issue is not helped by the former National Government selling a whole stack of State houses during its tenure.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I do not think I can let tonight go without mentioning one person in particular.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare i tēnei pō. Kua oti kē i a au te kōrero mō ētahi take. Kua ara ake ki te kōrero mō te wā pōto nei mō tēnei take.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairperson, and to all of us in the Chamber tonight. I have already addressed other matters, but rise for a brief moment to talk about this one.]

I have chosen to take a short call, following on from our party’s co-leader, Pita Sharples. I will not take very long, but I will try to highlight a few issues that I have heard talked about in the debate. The debate has been good in some parts and lousy in others. In my own town of Rotorua the premier ancestral house of Te Arawa—Tama te Kapua—was tagged about a month ago. When reporters came to see me about that tagging they asked for my response, and inevitably I gave them one, which was not all that nice in the sense that I did not endorse any actions by any taggers. I do not think that very many of us are in the game of endorsing tagging. So members should take it, as mentioned by our co-leader, that it is not as though our stand with regard to this bill is about the notion of endorsing tagging in any way, shape, or form.

As I have been listening to the kōrero about the question of what a tagger is, my colleague Pita Sharples referred to the fact that taggers are not gang members, yet on the other side of the Chamber other members have said taggers are gang members. Some members have said they are of a certain age bracket. My colleague Pita Sharples, who has been associated with some projects to look at these sorts of issues, says taggers are probably young. I think the member in the chair, Mr Hawkins, mentioned the notion of many of them being involved in using drugs and alcohol. Or really are they just, as Māori would say, plain haututū—or hōhā, for some of us? Are they looking for something to do? It could be any of those issues.

We have not necessarily come to grips with where tagging sits, but the biggest question for me is whether giving the police in any way, shape, or form the opportunity to round up these—probably—young ones will really solve the problem. Is it really about that? Mr Gallagher said that many church groups and others—and Mr Mark referred to this as well—have positive initiatives that deal with the issue, after the fact. That is probably the real issue. But I do not know whether the notion of having the police deal with these sorts of issues will do very much for the notion of police relationships with people who possibly already have negative attitudes towards the police. It could become like what happened with regard to the Tūhoe nation at the end of last year. Does anyone really think that the police action over their arrival in the Tūhoe nation will develop positive relationships with Tūhoe? I do not think so.

The big thing for me is the question of whether we really think the actions we are taking tonight will stop the problem. Does this legislation really mean to say that people will not go and get spray-cans or access to those sorts of things in order to enable them to tag? For my part, I do not think so. Therefore we need to look a lot wider at the issue. Firstly, we need to deal with the issue before it happens, such that we take care of that issue and the concerns that people like Mr Mark talked about. Secondly, we need to deal with what happens to those people afterwards. Other members have talked about some initiatives with regard to that.

I note that students at one particular school in Auckland apparently decided, for one reason or another, to put each other into the world of technology through Bebo and to show the world how they are beating each other up at their school—I think it was St Paul’s College. Those images were shown to the whole wide world on television this evening. I think to myself: “Well, is it just about tagging, or do we have a bigger issue here?”. If young people at school, in a controlled environment, are able to go about doing that sort of stuff, with no teachers or staff around, and not just once or twice but on many occasions, then I suggest to the Committee that the issues we are talking about are far bigger than those that have been discussed tonight.

We need to look at the bigger picture. We are dealing with this one notion about tagging, and sure it happens in Manukau. To me, this bill is a piecemeal approach to something that is far and away a bigger problem. We should look at that picture, as opposed to looking at just this one thing in isolation.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this

I will just take a short call. I was not intending to, but I feel it is appropriate to address something that Mr Sharples said towards the conclusion of his speech. I do not think that he, or his colleague Te Ururoa Flavell who has just spoken, once mentioned the victim of this sort of insidious offence; the victim in these debates always gets sort of lost in a bunch of rhetoric. We do forget about the victim—the person who has been dealt to.

But Dr Sharples made an interesting comment. He said there is no cost to the individual. I think Mr Sharples would acknowledge he said that. He said that the cost, when people’s property is tagged or graffitied, is a sort of esoteric, mystical, community cost. Well, I invite him to have a think about that statement, because I suspect that every electorate MP and the other MPs in the Chamber who have had constituents who have been graffitied, would understand that there is not only a monetary cost—the cost of the clean up—but there is an emotional cost to graffiti. There is also the problem of property value cost in many parts of the country, such as what happened in Hampshire Street a decade ago, as mentioned by Mr Mark. A suburb or a particular part of a community becomes a magnet for this sort of stuff, and that becomes an issue of property value cost. But to stand up in the Chamber and say there is no cost to an individual—that the cost of graffiti is somehow an esoteric community cost—is something I reject.

I also reject the idea that when anybody does this offence, it is the community’s responsibility. Well, the community has not done this; individuals have perpetrated these offences, and there is a huge cost to individuals in terms of property and emotion. And I suppose there is an intangible cost to the community. I invite Dr Sharples to reflect on that, because in my part of the world, in Waimakariri, the taggers have even gone the next step now, along with spray-cans, of getting out the glass cutters. They etch graffiti into shop-front windows and then the insurance companies, after repeated claims to replace the windows, start to turn around and say: “Sorry, there is nothing structurally wrong with the glass. It’s just been scratched or etched, and therefore the policy does not cover it and we’re not paying.”

So I invite Mr Sharples, as I conclude, to reflect on his statement. It is all very well to get up and use all the rhetoric, and to say there is no cost and it is all the community’s problem, and not to mention the victim once, but I invite him to go and visit a constituent in an ordinary home in any part of New Zealand that has been dealt to, with this. There may not have been any violence; it is a crime of vandalism, often. But he should put to that person the notion that there is no cost for the person. I invite him to reflect on that.

I conclude by congratulating Mr Hawkins, who in his way, along with the Government’s legislation, is attempting to address the facts that there are victims out there, that it does impact on them, that there is a huge cost emotionally and financially, and that he intends to do, and has done—along with the Government’s bill—something to correct that. It may not solve every problem. It may not stop every young hoon from graffitiing somebody’s property, but I invite Dr Sharples to reflect on the alternative: do we simply raise the white flag and say that we will do nothing about it, because it will not stop everyone? Do we raise the white flag, surrender, and say: “Well, everybody is doing it, therefore we may not be able to stop at 100 percent, and therefore we shouldn’t do anything about it.”?

Dr Sharples’ colleague who has just spoken—who made, I think, a good contribution—said we should get on to it before it starts. He used some very eloquent phrases but did not actually propose what they meant in reality. He talked about the relationships of young people with the police as being negative. I invite him to think about and contemplate on the relationships of young people with the victims, or the victim’s relationship with his or her community after having been impacted on by this. Does anybody remember, as I conclude, the victim in this debate? I invite those members to reflect on that issue when they talk very eloquently about young people and the perpetrators of these offences. There is a cost; it is being addressed through this legislation and that of the Government.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

In response to some of the questions that Mr Cosgrove raised, I want to make two points in respect of the costs back to those who might well have been the target of tagging. I reflected for a very short space of time, and thought that in Māoridom we have a tikanga that goes back in history to the notion of utu, and that is not utu in the sense of killing people off, in any way, shape, or form; it is more the notion of payback.

I was thinking about how I might address, in my case, in Rotorua, the notion that somebody would come and tag my tupuna whare. I was thinking about those people whom Mr Cosgrove just referred to. I thought that a good idea would be to bring those people, once caught—with their families—to face the people they had transgressed, namely, in this case, all of Te Arawa, to front up to my tribe and explain why they thought it was appropriate to deface and to tag my tupuna whare, and to work it through in that way. In Te Ao Māori there is a saying that goes: “Waiho mā te whakamā e patu.”: let embarrassment be the enforcer—the enforcer of crime.

TE URUROA FLAVELL Link to this

My colleague the member from Te Tai Tokerau is right. We would hope, if one can imagine that that person came in front of all of Te Arawa on one day, that certainly ka riro mā te whakamā a ia e patu.

[embarrassment will be his downfall]

But that is not always the case for everyone, and that is acknowledged.

I suppose what I am trying to get at is, yes, there is some payback, and we tend to forget about many of the ones who are left after the damage has been done. I hope that maybe we would be thinking about, as Dr Pita Sharples has raised in a number of speeches, the notion of taking those people back to face those who have suffered at the hands of various crimes, and in this case tagging.

What would it be like if we developed the notion of taking those people who have been caught back to face those people who have unfortunately had property defaced, and letting them work with those families and with those individuals on their property—to fix it up, to tidy it up, and to make it better? Would that not be a more positive way of dealing with this sort of issue?

The second issue that I raised a little bit earlier was this notion that is caught up in Part 6, “Powers of police”. This is one of the real concerns that we in the Māori Party have. There are two clauses in this part, namely clause 15, “Police or authorised person may require certain information”, and clause 16, in respect of the notion of arrest. Clause 16 states: “Any police officer, and all persons whom he or she calls to his or her assistance, may arrest and take into custody without a warrant any person whom he or she has good cause to suspect of having committed an offence …”.

With those words, the definitions are so far and wide that one could take on many people walking down the street. I suspect that in the case of Manukau City, many of those suspects may well be brown. That is the concern. It is not to say that they all are; it is simply to say that there is an element of history here that many of those people may be suspected and may well be brown. That is where the concern is. We need to look at that issue about the arrest, and in particular about authorising police simply to pick up people, grab their names and addresses, and any other details. That, for us, is a real concern.

The last thing I will say is that, as I understand it, the Attorney-General’s report did not give much attention to this bill, at all, and said that it needed to be written. If it is talking about reflecting, as Mr Cosgrove talked about earlier, one would hope that, perhaps, the Labour Government, and, indeed, Mr Hawkins, would reflect on the Attorney-General’s report. If it is good enough for him to say that it is not up there, then maybe we need to reflect on it but nevertheless come up with some scenarios that may, in fact, address the problem across the board. Kia ora tātou.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātou.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put. It is just a debate between these guys now, to be perfectly honest.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

I would like to correct some of the things that Mr Jones said. This House is full of people who are sick of gangs; I can accept that. They are sick of the drug problem, youth gang fighting, and much of the stuff that is going on in communities. But let us be real about defining what tagging is. Taggers are not gangs—members should understand that.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

I rise to take a call in respect of this bill, because I think it is only fair for people who are listening in to know exactly what is going on here. We have heard some weaselly words coming from the other side of the Chamber, endorsing the sterling work of the member of Parliament for Manurewa, George Hawkins. And so members should endorse his work. He has taken a local initiative that came out of Manurewa and has brought it to this House in the form of this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.

What really annoys the Government is the fact that it never wanted to back the bill—it never wanted to back it at all. Government members spoke against it and did everything they could to not back it. But what happened? The bill gained some traction, so we have a situation tonight where a vast majority of people in this Parliament are supporting this legislation, and Mr Hawkins wants it to go through, but it will not go through tonight. If it does not complete the process tonight, as it had the opportunity to do earlier, it will not go through before the report back of the Government’s own graffiti bill, which was raised only to try to counter Mr Hawkins’ bill. The Government wants to put its own stamp on the issue.

So those members are perpetuating this debate—knowing that it is clear-cut, knowing where it is going, and knowing that it could have been done and dusted tonight—in order to prevent the bill passing through, purely so that this Government can shaft Mr Hawkins and create its own piece of legislation to overshadow his. As sure as eggs, what will happen is that when that report-back date—which at the moment is at the end of April, but with the leave of the Business Committee, will be allowed to go through to the Monday before we come back after the next adjournment, which is 2 days before the next members’—

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I take on board the comments of the member Chester Borrows, and I respect that member’s view. I am looking at the clock now, and I see that he has just used 5 minutes of the time when we could have been voting on the bill. We have another 15 minutes to go. We could still vote and we could progress the bill, but I cannot agree to that. I say to Mr Borrows that I am sorry, but I am not rising in order to eat up time; I am rising to comment on and debate the bill, because this is the House of Representatives. This is a democratic Committee of the whole House. Actually, this is one of the rare occasions, I say to Chester Borrows, when we have been able to engage in debate and it has not been controlled by the member’s party in collusion with the Labour Party. If the member wants to broach questions about limiting the debate, then I would draw his attention to his party’s refusal to let New Zealand First participate fully in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.