Collins Judith: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Collins Judith: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16071] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The members of the House who are interested in this issue will recall that I often spoke on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill which is now an Act and which was first introduced by the Hon George Hawkins in November 2005. There is a reason for that. I am a South Aucklander by choice. I prefer to live and work in South Auckland and paying rates to the Manukau City Council makes me extremely aware of the cost of graffiti certainly in terms of money. Living in South Auckland means that I am fully aware of the effect that graffiti has on the 98 percent of people who live in the South Auckland region who are very good people but who unfortunately so often have their landscape absolutely destroyed by taggers. 
I do not subscribe to graffiti being art. I do not subscribe to the view of the Children’s Commissioner and others of that thinking that graffiti is some sort of resistance-type statement and is therefore legitimate; I think it is vandalism. It is destruction of property it is destruction of the environment and it is destruction of people’s peace of mind. In Papakura there are areas of lovely woods. Kirks Bush is lovely bush that is very close to the centre of town. If members go through there they will see that the trees have been graffitied. How could this possibly be some resistance-type art work? What rubbish! I think that most New Zealanders—most young New Zealanders most old New Zealanders and most middle-aged New Zealanders—feel threatened by the presence of graffiti. The reason is that it is actually about marking out territory; it is about saying “We don’t care about you. We expect respect from you but we’re not going to give you any back.” That is the sort of nonsense that goes on in the minds of those who commit these crimes. 
We have waited an awfully long time for this bill. The Labour Party promised in its 1999 manifesto that it would get tough on the issue of graffiti. It said that it would have a restorative justice programme in which “young offenders and their families can opt for community work e.g. cleaning up graffiti as an alternative to prosecution.” That is what Labour said. It is now 2008 and we finally have a bill before the House. What made that happen was that the Manukau City Council became tired of waiting for something to happen so that these young offenders and their families could opt for community work—for example cleaning up their graffiti—and it said it was going to do something about it and it brought forward a bill. 
The only thing that I can really see wrong with the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act is that it did not include other areas. However I thought it was a great first start and I was very pleased that my party was able to support its passage right the way through the House. I do not agree with the people who say there is no need for legislative change. The reason for that is that until this Parliament signals that it takes graffiti seriously then why should judges? I am absolutely certain that the few cases that have been very recently noted in the newspapers—I think from places like the Hawke’s Bay where graffiti artists or taggers have been dealt with in a very sensible way in the opinion of most people—reflect society’s views about what is happening to our communities. People have said that they have had enough of being told by liberal-type people that this is some sort of art. 
Metiria 
 Turei 
: Ha ha! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They have had enough of being laughed at by people who think they are too good for the ordinary Kiwi. People are sick of being laughed at by people who do not care about the people who pay the bills—in other words the taxpayers who live decent lives and who go about their business causing no harm to others but who get terrorised by these people. I find it very interesting that the Green Party member Metiria Turei finds it so funny. I do not think she would find it so funny to have graffiti all over her driveway as some of my constituents have. Would she find it so funny to have graffiti all over her letterbox then to have it smashed down as some of my constituents in Papakura have? I am sorry that she finds this so funny because I think it shows just how out of touch the Green Party is and that member in particular. It is absolutely appalling that she finds it funny. I do not think it is funny at all. In fact the people of Papakura do not think it is funny at all either. 
Not long after I became a member of Parliament the police in Papakura instigated a scheme whereby they picked up these young taggers and got them to clean up their tagging. The police put these young taggers in nice orange outfits which was of course for occupational safety and health reasons so that they did not get run over and got them cleaning it up. One day a Queen’s Counsel came through town. We do not get too many Queen’s Counsel wandering through Papakura unannounced but she came through. She lives in the city and is a very flash person. She looked at this scheme and as a human rights expert she was horrified and she made a complaint. It was all over the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 newspaper. The poor old Papakura police were told to shut the scheme down and that they were not to have it going on. I can tell members that there is no way the people of Papakura are putting up with that nonsense. We recently had a law and order march in Papakura and that was because we like the police. It is the police who are the people who help to keep Papakura safe. 
Until we pass legislation that states that we expect the police to do something about tagging and that we are going to back them over these namby-pamby types who do not have to live in the real world—who simply want to live in some sort of dreamland—we will not get any different reaction from the police because they have priorities. People can talk all they like about more police around the place but that is because we have more crime. If people want to look at the figures relating to the increase in violence they need just to come to our patch to see what is happening. It is incredibly important that we give the police the message that we will support them that we will not go all silly and namby-pamby and go and back some little tagger and his or her parents just because we cannot be bothered to support the right thing and because we are frightened of a bad headline. We actually have to say to the good people of places like Papakura Manukau City Porirua Tokoroa—all those sorts of places—that we will back them. I know that there will be a cost to some of the shopkeepers but I tell the House that many shopkeepers in Papakura already do this; they lock away these paint products. They do it because they care. They care about a good environment and they care about a good community. They will be pleased with this legislation when it goes through because they do not want to be party to the sort of vandalism that has become unfortunately almost the norm in many parts of this country. 
This is vandalism by the few and it is actually a brutality on the environment. The very people who will go around calling themselves “tree-lovers” will be very happy to see graffiti on trees as long as it is not on their trees. Well I am here to tell them that we will not put up with it and that we will back our people—the good people of the area. We will back the police and we will not stand by and say that it does not really matter. National will support this legislation because it supports the good law-abiding people who want to live in a good community.