Tanczos Nandor: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16075] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill was a shameless piece of electioneering when it went into the Law and Order Committee and it is even worse now it has come out of it. In fact this debate has been all about the fact that we do not like tagging and there has been very little explanation of how this legislation will stop tagging effectively or stop people from simply moving on to other antisocial activity. 
I and the Green Party were criticised quite heavily in the media for opposing this legislation not because anyone thought it would be effective but because people somehow thought it was outrageous that we should think that Parliament should spend its time passing legislation that works and actually does something. We think the law should not be about sending signals to young people but should be about putting into place effective and good legislation. Just for the record I say the Green Party does not like tagging any more than anyone else does; we just do not agree with passing over-reactive law especially if it will be entirely ineffective. In fact even the most sympathetic media commentators have said this legislation would not make any difference—it is all about sending a signal. That surely should not be the business of the House. 
The bill was bad when it went into the select committee; it was even worse when it came out of it. Amazingly the select committee managed to make the bill even worse than it had been—even worse! So who are the people on the select committee I have to ask? Ron Mark is the chair of the select committee. This is what we would expect from Ron Mark but what about the others: David Benson-Pope Chester Borrows Martin Gallagher Darren Hughes Simon Power and Kate Wilkinson? Those people should be ashamed of themselves. I think it is important for the public to understand who was on the select committee because the amendments to this bill are something to be ashamed of. 
Let us look at the amendments. First of all the select committee has added a whole new dimension by saying it will now be an offence to carry things like a marker pen a can of paint a bottle of glue or even car keys if it can be inferred that the intention is to mark something. I was surprised to hear that Mr Borrows was the motivator of this amendment; that is what Ron Mark said during the debate. I was surprised at that given Mr Borrows’ usual concern about just process. We have to ask what is meant by “inferred”. How do we infer that the intention is to use something to commit an offence? There is no indication in the bill or in the commentary on it of how that is to be inferred. I guess the select committee chose the term “inferred” because it carries some vague notion of evidential support. The danger is of course that it risks turning lawyers into philosophers and some obvious ungulate analogies spring to mind—notwithstanding Mr Borrows’ multiple lives. Or perhaps given that he is now a National member of Parliament that proves the point. 
But in any case having found someone to be in possession of a felt-tipped pen how will the police infer that that person intends to use it to commit an offence? How could they tell that? What evidence will be adduced to prove that point? Judging by the comments in the debate through the various stages on this bill the person’s age will probably be a factor. Unlike other elements of this bill that amendment does not restrict possession of those items to people over 18; it says anyone will commit an offence if it can be inferred that he or she is going to use the item to commit an offence—to mark something. However being young would appear to be a predisposing factor to criminality according to some members of this House— 
Phil Heatley 
: Driving while black. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Mr Heatley says: “Driving while black.” What about clothing? Is wearing a beanie circumstantial evidence that a person is likely to commit an offence or intends to—or the wearing of provocative trousers or a predilection for unsavoury musical tastes such as a liking for hip hop? What about hanging out with friends after dark? Surely that is a deeply suspicious activity? What about transportation? If someone rides a skateboard or owns a pimped-up ride surely that is all evidence that can be used to infer that the person is trying to commit an offence with a felt-tipped pen—that he or she is going to use the felt-tipped pen for a nefarious purpose? It is a bit hard to see what else we could suggest to use as evidence. It is hard to figure out what we could use to infer that the possession of a crayon is evidence that it is intended to be used to commit an offence under the legislation. 
Of course the real issue is that the provision is actually quite a significant breach of a fundamental legal principle: it introduces a balance of probability standard of proof into the criminal law. That is really what it does and that is why I am surprised Mr Borrows put it forward. I am surprised he supports that. I say shame on the select committee amendments. It is a shame that select committee amendments do not need to be vetted under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It would be interesting to see what Crown Law had to say about this amendment especially because it is—which I think is quite a significant breach of a legal principle—in the words of the committee to be used to address “minor offending”. This amendment is about addressing “minor offending”. Well is that a good use of a legislative power? I do not think so. 
Mr Benson-Pope said in his speech that we should make a distinction between tagging and vandalism and things like graffiti art. I heard that during the debate as well—that there is a big distinction between graffiti art and tagging and that we all like graffiti art because it is kind of hip but we do not like tagging because it is kind of ugly. But this bill is not about tagging. If members look at the bill itself they will see it states every person is liable who “damages or defaces any building structure road tree property or other thing by writing drawing painting spraying or etching on to it or otherwise marking it.” The Good Water Company recently did a promotion that promoted its product by using a water blaster and a stencil to blast its company logo—it cleaned the pavement in the shape of the company logo. That would actually be in breach of this legislation because the company marked a thing. This bill is clearly not just about tagging; any kind of activity that marks anything without the consent of the owner is in breach of this legislation. I think that is serious. 
Everyone agrees that we want to stop tagging. Even though pretty much everyone seems to agree this legislation will not do that there are things that we know will help to reduce tagging. There are models all over the place. Members just need to look at Billy Graham’s boxing academy to see something that has a proven record in reducing tagging and other kinds of antisocial crime. The issue is not just about tagging. If we stop tagging without addressing its causes people will just move on to something else. The issue is about making an investment in our young people. I do not mean just an investment in terms of dollars; I am talking about an investment in terms of time and energy. 
We seem to have lots of money for anti-tagging measures and for paying for all those kinds of things and lots of time for a legislative futility such as this bill but why do we not put the same kind of effort and resources into our young people? Ron Mark talked about the $10 million that we would have available to spend on young people’s art expression if we did not have to spend it on cleaning up tagging. If we were not cleaning up tagging I somehow doubt whether we would spend that $10 million on artistic expression for young people. But in any case it is a kind of chicken-and-egg scenario. It is like the situation regarding preventive health measures. Oh we say we will not spend money on preventive health because we have to treat people for obesity-related diseases. That is a pointless argument. One has to put the money in at the beginning; it is a preventive measure. 
That is why the Green Party says that it will not support futile legislation that will have no real effect. This bill is simply about election sloganeering and sending a signal to the public that we care about tagging. We will support initiatives that will actually make a difference and that will invest in our young people.