Flavell Te Ururoa: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14493] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. In the midst of Mine Bay—if you have ever been there—on Lake Taupo there is a series of rock carvings over 10 metres high which are accessible only by boat. The carvings created by Matahi Whakataka-Brightwell depict Ngatoroirangi who guided Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa through to Taupo over a thousand years ago. The carvings also include two smaller Celtic designs one depicting the south wind and the other a mermaid. The visual representation of the knowledge and skills of tangata whenua is powerfully exhibited in these precious carvings. Matahi has worked with our natural environment. He has left his mark and I think we are all the better for it. What is so different about those works of art and the tagging bombing and stencil art being debated in the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill? Is it a case of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”? Is it an issue around power and control of our environment or is this bill just about the pre-election hype designed to stamp out youth crime which my two colleagues sitting on either side of me spoke about? 
The Maori Party believes that getting tough on tagging is about all of these factors and more. We see tagging as a form of antisocial behaviour that the bill attempts to redefine as “property crime”. It is a claim to a “place in society” that will become punishable as an attack on the property rights of others. I want to make very clear that our concern throughout has been to avoid falling into the fallacy that assumes that punishment and tougher sentences are the only answer. We have also been alarmed at the way in which the fatal stabbing of a young teenager was minimised and it has made us wonder whether in focusing on tagging we are avoiding the much bigger issue—the culture of violence that exists right across society. 
I believe that one of the most outrageous acts of violence this year has been the killing of a young boy who was repeatedly tagging a property yet so much of the talkback comment has suggested that perhaps killing was a little bit extreme but beating up the kid and putting him in hospital would have been an appropriate response. The Prime Minister referred to this incident as “an unfortunate outcome” of anti-tagging rage. I doubt whether the family of young Pihema Cameron sees this incident as an unfortunate outcome. As I understand it this young boy cared for his father who is tetraplegic. He was literally his dad’s hands and legs. His mother described him as a quiet gentle family-orientated boy who liked working on cars and was one day hoping to be a mechanic. I do not generally like to bring up an individual case in the House but I have been really disturbed at the way in which the act of tagging a fence has cast this young boy and his whanau under a dark cloud and at how the personal wider consequences of the crime that has robbed this family of their son have been avoided. 
Now we have a bill before us that has provision for a fine of $2000 for an offender and a fine of up to $1500 for a shopkeeper who sells a spray-can and that makes graffiti vandalism and tagging summary offences worthy of a conviction. We in the Maori Party absolutely acknowledge that the defacing of any property is annoying it is disrespectful and it can have a major effect on feelings of community safety. Some of my own children attend Te Kura o te Koutu in Rotorua for example and it has been a frequent target for taggers. For the whanau who are pretty proud of what our kura looks like the scribbled signatures have been a real hoha he mahi whakaparanga tera. We know too that blatant tagging and defacing of properties often serve to discourage economic investment in that community but the House would be making a huge mistake if it thought that simply slapping a massive fine on an offender would make a difference. Limiting the sale of spray-cans to those aged 18 years or over to solve the problem is simply dreaming. 
We need to be brave enough to look for answers outside of a quick politically expedient knee-jerk response that targets young people as a focus of our rage. During the course of this ugly public debate I received an interesting email from Mr Pat O’Dea of Papakura. In his opinion the hatred that is being expressed against taggers is centred on two things: firstly protection of property rights which is argued by those who actually have property; and secondly the monopoly of all means of public expression by the privileged. It was a very interesting point of view that challenged politicians to examine their consciences about their need to suppress the tagger subculture. He asked us all to consider what the message was that these messy often incomprehensible taggers were wanting to share with us. The message according to Mr O’Dea was “one of alienation anger boredom societal breakdown increasing inequality and lack of resources at the bottom of society”. 
Like it or not Mr O’Dea makes a good point. Other individuals and groups perceive tagging as representing significant community and political commentary. Members of the Wellington Architectural Centre for example contend that graffiti contributes to the city’s urban life and to its branding as the “Creative Capital”. They could take us down to “graffiti alley”—a small lane I understand between Ghuznee Street and Cuba Street’s Left Bank—and point out the cut-out stencil and graffiti art as being an outlet for creativity. The difference however between art for art’s sake and tagging or defacing of property is very clearly understood. The distinguishing features of responsible art according to this group have to do with three things: permission intelligence and respect—“permission” to work on a space rather than marking out a wall as one’s territory or staking one’s claim to that site; “intelligence” in terms of having something useful to say; and “respect” in acknowledging that tagging can make people feel that they have no sense of belonging to the physical environment and in acting in ways that recognise that. Harsher laws greater emphasis on enforcement and community condemnation will do nothing to address the issues that Pat O’Dea brings to our attention. In fact there is a real likelihood they could make the situation worse. 
This bill is but symptomatic of our general attitude towards young people. We have sat in this House and listened to endless kauhau on the evils of text bullying youth crime youth gangs boy racers youth drinking and even debate about whether young people should be allowed to vote. The debate has become even more emotive even more intense because it is taking place in election year. Victoria University researcher Fiona Beals has suggested that we should not be at all surprised that youth crime debates have already surfaced. Her research reveals that young people are negatively stereotyped in youth crime debates each election year. Her research has questioned the way in which politicians the media and academics have stigmatised certain groups of young people particularly a young and poor ethnic minority. She suggests we should be finding a less stereotypical way to talk about youth crime and challenging the psychology around the placement of youth crime as the trump card in election year. 
So what are the solutions we could be exploring? The restorative justice model would encourage us to work alongside our young people providing other ways and means for them to express their social and political views. DJ Poroufessor—Hone Ngata—from Te Ohu Aka Youth Team in working with Raukura Hauora in Tainui works with tagging and taggers around seeing the problem as a cure. Hone is currently working in South Auckland lending his skills and expertise as a carver a visual artist and a graffiti artist to support young people in their quest for identity. Part of this approach may see businesses and property owners even asking young people to paint a wall to enable an alternative message to be viewed. Other projects could be more preventative focused such as anti-graffiti coatings sensor lighting and even the provision of designated spaces for young people to express their messages. 
Although the Maori Party does not condone the defacing of property we cannot support this bill in that it is so narrow in its scope and application. We believe that it is unlikely to address the real problem beyond the writing on the wall. Kia ora tatou.