Members' Day

Today is Members' Day, and it looks like George Hawkins' Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill will receive its third reading. As noted in the Herald, the bill was originally opposed by the government (and by the Local Government and Environment Committee) for establishing local criminal law and discriminating on the basis of age. Now they're supporting it, after amendments which have brought it into line with the government's own anti-tagging bill. But the kicker is that there is a three-month delay in one of the key provisions coming into force, and that the bill will reportedly lapse when the government bill becomes law. Given that that bill is due back before the Budget, and is likely to be prioritised by the government as part of its pre-election law and order kick, then it is likely to be in force for all of two months. Talk about wasting Parliament's time...

The other important bill today is Chester Borrows' Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, which criminalises people based on the clothes they wear. I'm not sure which way this will go, and I suspect it will come down to the votes of Taito Phillip Field or ACT. Assuming that is that the government wants to oppose it; they may be unwilling to in an election year, and instead vote to send it to select committee in the hope of burying it. IMHO, this would be a mistake. It's a terrible bill, and not one we should gamble on whether Labour will still be in power next year. It would be better to defeat it now instead.

There are a couple of other local bills, and it will be interesting to see whether they are talked out, or whether they whizz through them and get on to the real business. The window is closing to get Members' Bills through by the end of the sitting, and I can't really see anything beyond the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill passing. Which means Ron Mark's pedophobia bill is hostage to his party's re-election, while Nandor's Waste Minimisation bill will have to be adopted by the government if it is to pass. As for the rest, I think the logjam will continue well into next year.

Update: I've emailed Tim Barnett, and it's likely that the government will support the Wanganui bill to select committee. This is the usual practice for local bills, and they even did it for the excreable Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill. So, Michael Laws gets his propaganda victory then; the interesting question is what happens when it comes out of committee - and whether others such as Burqa Bob decide that this is a license for them to target styles of clothing they also find "threatening"...

The war on tagging

In an election year when it is trailing in the polls, you might expect a left-wing Labour government to aim high. You might expect it to focus policy on areas that really matter, declaring a "war on poverty", a "war on inequality", or maybe a "war on low wages". Instead, we have a "war on tagging", as nonsensical as its namesake "war on drugs". Talk about scratching every boil on the bum of the body politic.

The actual policy seems to be a resurrection of George Hawkins' Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, shorn of some of its more obnoxious features such as the violation of the right to silence or the offence of "carrying graffiti implements", and with a focus on community sentencing. However, it will retain the ban on selling spraypaint to those under 18. In case anyone has forgotten, the Ministry of Justice found that this violated s19 (1) of the BORA, which bars discrimination on the basis of age:

16. The restriction on the right is not sufficiently precise to ensure that it addresses only those matters that it is intended to address. Given the extent to which spray paint can be used for lawful purposes and the negative impact that the prohibition might have on law-abiding members of the public, prohibiting the sale of spray paint to minors is disproportionate. The Bill will cause disadvantage to those minors who are not the intended targets of the Bill and who will be unfairly prevented from purchasing spray paint because of their age. The Report of the Manukau City Council on Graffiti Control, produced in 2004, acknowledges that its own legal advice suggests that such restrictions would be found to be in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.

17. Prohibiting the sale of spray paint to persons under the age of 18 is discrimination within the definition of section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act. Although it has a significant and important objective (the reduction of graffiti), on the evidence available there is no rational and proportionate connection between that objective and the discrimination. Accordingly, clause 7 of the Bill cannot be justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act and appears to be inconsistent with that Act. The Ministry recommends that you draw this inconsistency to the attention of the House of Representatives in accordance with section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act.

The new bill will face exactly the same problem, and will likely receive an adverse report (and if it doesn't, there will be serious questions to be asked about the consistency of MoJ's assessment). Not that the government will care - they seem quite happy to piss on the bORA when they think there's votes in it. But do people really think our Bill of Rights Act, which is there to safeguard us against government abuse, is something we should tear up to combat graffiti? If so, I'd suggest they seriously need some perspective.

An unexpected passage

Well, that was unexpected: yesterday afternoon, the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill passed its second reading - despite a strong message from the Attorney-General that it violated the Bill of Rights Act, and clear recommendation [PDF] from the Local Government and Environment Committee that it not be passed.

According to George Hawkins, this is because the government has changed its mind, and now realises that the council is "leading the way". But a look at the vote tells a different story: The bill passed 108 - 10, with only the Greens and Maori Party voting against (both ACT and Taito Phillip Field were absent) - which means the government couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to. So, they seem to have voted for it purely to avoid the humiliation of a defeat.

The upshot is that in addition to seeing a bad law passed for Manukau (one which will also create a precedent for a patchwork of local criminal jurisdictions with different laws for each), we may also have just seen the demise of the left's "blocking majority", at least on "law and order" issues (of which there are a fair few before the House - including Ron mark's excreable Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill). Our country may be about to become a much nastier place. And we'll all end up paying the price for it.

So much for the Manukau Graffiti Bill

The Local Government and Environment Committee has reported back [PDF] on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill and recommended that it not proceed. The bill would have restricted the sale of spraypaint to minors (those under 18), criminalised the carrying of "graffiti implements", and required those suspected of an offence to provide the police with their name and address, as well as the name and address and whereabouts of anyone connected with it. In addition to concerns about the creation of a patchwork of local jurisdictions with different laws in each, and the creation of new offences already well-covered by existing law, the committee recognised that this violated the Bill of Rights Act's bar on discrimination, as well as the right to silence. And hopefully, that will be the end of it - though in the current Parliament, anything is a possibility. Still, the Maori Party voted against at the First Reading, and their opposition should be enough to sink it.

Meanwhile, what is it with Manukau and draconian "moral panic" bills? Is it something in the water up there, or just a particularly authoritarian mayor?