King Annette: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
King Annette: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14479] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 21 April 2008 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Graffiti vandalism is not art and it is far more than just a nuisance. Tagging is a destructive crime and it represents an invasion of private and public property. Graffiti vandalism is the wilful damage of another person’s property and the costs of graffiti both financial and emotional are high. Graffiti vandalism has negative impacts that extend beyond the anger and annoyance felt by the owners of the property that has been tagged. It creates an eyesore for the wider community and it can also have links to gangs in New Zealand. It certainly leaves people feeling intimidated. 
If we want to protect the beauty of our country and create cities and towns where New Zealanders can feel proud of their communities then we must take steps to combat graffiti vandalism. In doing so we are also taking steps to protect ordinary law-abiding citizens from those who feel they have the right to damage property in the name of notoriety. 
In the discussions about graffiti vandalism and tagging that have occurred over recent weeks there have been claims of tagging being self-expression and of it having artistic value but why should one person’s need to express himself or herself outweigh other people’s right to have their property remain tag-free? There are two simple differences between graffiti vandalism and tagging and art. The first and most obvious is the issue of permission. How can a person’s scrawling his or her name on someone else’s property without permission be considered legitimate art? The second is artistic merit. The vast majority of graffiti vandalism in this country consists of the talentless scrawling of a nickname. This reminds me more of the way an animal marks its territory than it does of any real artistic talent. 
This bill builds on previous thinking including that which led to the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill a local bill introduced by the Hon George Hawkins. I thank that member for bringing that bill to this House. However this bill takes the key measures of Mr Hawkins’ bill into the national arena. I understand that the Attorney-General considers this bill to be consistent with the Government’s obligations under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 
The current legislation that relates to graffiti vandalism does not in my view go far enough to deter graffiti vandals. In the past the penalty for defacing properties was a $200 fine. This bill proposes to increase this penalty. However it does so not simply by increasing the fine; more important it does so by also giving the judiciary the opportunity to sentence convicted graffiti vandals to a community sentence. This is designed to ensure that offenders put right what they have done wrong by cleaning graffiti off walls and buildings in their communities. 
The Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill will establish a new and specific graffiti vandalism and tagging offence. Under current legislation offenders are normally charged with either defacing or wilful damage. The term “defacing” means little to ordinary New Zealanders and this proposed new graffiti offence clarifies the actual behaviour individuals are charged with. 
This bill will also replace the old defacing penalty of a $200 fine with a new tagging penalty of a fine of up to $2000. This better reflects the impact this crime has on individual victims and on the community. However as I said fines may not always present the best penalty for this kind of offence. Crucially therefore the bill will give judges the ability to sentence graffiti vandals to a community-based sentence such as community work through which offenders may be required to clean up tagging as part of their sentence. This is a significant step and reflects the need to hold offenders accountable to their communities and to have them undo at least some of the damage they have created. 
In recognition of the need to make it harder for graffiti vandals to access spray-paint cans the bill proposes that the sale of spray-paint cans to under-18-year-olds will be prohibited. Spray-paint cans are the most common implement used in graffiti vandalism and they enable vandals to do a large amount of damage in a short time. I am told that it is estimated that one can of spray-paint can do as much as $10000 worth of damage. I acknowledge that many people who take part in this crime are older than 18 but according to what we know most taggers are in their teens. I am also concerned about the number of young people who start tagging early in their lives and I believe that it is important to discourage them from doing so. 
There has already been criticism that this move will not stop tagging. It is not my expectation that restrictions on the sale of spray-paint are a panacea for this problem. That is why the restriction on the sale of spray-paint cans is not the only response that this Government and its partners at a local level will make towards this problem. But as part of a package of action being taken in restricting the sale of spray-paint cans it will make it a great deal more difficult for teenagers in the peak age for this activity to access the primary tagging implement and the measure therefore will have an impact. 
The restriction of sale provisions are expected to deter children and young people from becoming involved in graffiti vandalism and entering the tagging culture. All taggers start somewhere and if those first steps which may take place at the age of 10 or 12 are made more difficult then fewer young people will go down this path. This legislation will help to prevent today’s youth from becoming tomorrow’s vandals. 
Retailers will also have to control access to spray-paint cans in a similar way that they now do with cigarettes thus minimising the opportunities taggers have to steal the spray-paint cans they use to commit this crime. Unfortunately I am told that many do steal the cans rather than purchase them so having them under the watchful eye of the shopkeeper is I think an important part of this bill. 
The new sentence options will provide a new tool in the anti-tagging tool box and will increase the use of community-based sentences. It will enable us to better deal with adults who persist in these behaviours past their adolescence. 
As I indicated before I recognise that this legislation alone is not sufficient to deal with this problem. It requires a more holistic response. This Government has therefore delivered a significant cash injection to supplement the funding and resources provided by central and local government to strengthen the work already being done in communities around New Zealand to combat graffiti vandalism. In the coming months we will also be working in partnership with local communities to establish a national strategy Stop Tagging Our Place which will outline a broader programme of work to address this problem. I expect this strategy to be ready by July this year. 
As part of a comprehensive programme of work to tackle graffiti vandalism I commend the bill to the House.