Mark Ron: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16073] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. As the chairman of the Law and Order Committee I thank the committee members and congratulate them on the way in which they worked on this bill. I know that committee members the Hon David Benson-Pope and Simon Power have already expressed such thoughts but I wanted to add to them because I truly did appreciate the work of the committee and the way in which the members took on this task. 
It saddens me just a little that Kate Wilkinson was not here to take the first call for the National team. Kate and Chester Borrows were both on the committee but they have not spoken. That is a little disappointing. I see that Judith Collins who was not on the committee has taken a call and I am just wondering whether Kate is off crook or something. I know she was off crook recently with the flu. I hope that is not the case and that she will be able to make a contribution later on at the Committee stage because she does understand the bill and will be able to speak to it as opposed to the wider issues that the committee confronted. 
I know that previous speakers have canvassed all the issues and specifically the issues in respect of charges the amendments we made and the question of possession. I want to give credit where it is due so I give credit to Chester Borrows because at a very early stage he saw a deficiency in the bill in respect of possession. I guess it was the old cop within him. The committee very quickly turned its mind to that matter on that initial prompt from Chester. 
A number of submitters came to the committee. The local government sector was strongly represented by the Manukau District Council the Christchurch City Council the Auckland City Council the Papakura District Council the Waitakere City Council to name a few; other councils included those from Wanganui Upper Hutt Wellington and Hamilton and the Far North District Council. They made very very clear to the committee what the cost of cleaning up tagging was. 
The committee received a representation from Local Government New Zealand. We were surprised that the organisation did not appear to have at its fingertips a consolidated database of all the issues that the district councils and other councils were raising severally. It would have been nice to have accurate figures on precisely how much money ratepayers are spending nationwide to deal with tagging and graffiti. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Millions. 
RON MARK 
: We know that it is millions of dollars. The Wellington City Council gave us its figures; so did the Wanganui far north and Northland councils. We came away with the view that the figure is in excess of $10 million. 
So often in this House we hear members from political groups of a certain ilk rant rave and chastise the wider House for not spending more money on social initiatives in their districts and in their communities. The councils are chastised and criticised for not contributing. Let us pick an example: providing artistic opportunities for young people to display their skill. Just imagine how many artistic opportunities we could give young people in properly constructed venues and with prizes if we had $10 million to spend. Just imagine how much positive work we could do with young people helping them to express their artistic ability in the right forum in a constructive way and in a way that could be recognised with $10 million. But we cannot do that because certain people believe that young people should be allowed to do this sort of thing willy-nilly all over the street and anywhere that takes their fancy. That figure of $10 million is a conservative estimate because as I said Local Government New Zealand could not give us a consolidated figure. The councils are spending in excess of $10 million of ratepayers’ money the length and breadth of this country just to clean up tagging. 
If the cameras in the House were able to focus in on the photos I am holding which came from one submitter they would show the sort of nonsense I am talking about. This is not an example of artistic ability; this is scrawl. It is the equivalent of a dog peeing on a fence or in this case on the garage door of an elderly couple—the lady is aged 60 and the gentleman is aged 70. We need to keep our minds focused on that. 
Two submissions stood out for me as chairman. Submission No. 3 was from Judi MacKenna from Mount Maunganui. I will read out part of it: “My husband and I are both New Zealanders who have both worked from age of 15 to retirement. Between us we have raised eight children and have made a significant contribution to our country. We bought a piece of commercial land and constructed a commercial building. My husband ran a very successful business whilst I worked 5 days a week for a legal firm and Saturday with my husband. We constructed our building with Colour Steel as this was a no maintenance product. 
Over probably the last six or seven years we have had on going problems with Graffiti or Tagging. My husband is in his late 70’s and I am in my late 60’s and trust me spending our Sundays cleaning Tagging off our building has made us form some very strong opinions of how Taggers should be dealt with. I dislike the idea that we have to penalise the general public for the sake of minority groups but see no other way to deal with this other than the banning of spray-can sales to under 18’s. We would certainly like to see Taggers made to clean up their tagging and do community work.” 
That submission stuck with me. When the committee discussed the bill I sought an amendment to make community service an option for the judiciary when sentencing these offenders. Quite frankly given the $750 million - odd of outstanding fines it does not make a lot of sense either to me or to New Zealand First to be giving anyone a fine for tagging if it can be avoided. It is much more preferable to have offenders out on the streets on Saturdays—when they would like to be watching the Super 14 or doing whatever—cleaning up their tagging. That is what this bill now allows. 
Another submission stood out to me. We have heard people in this House profess to speak on behalf of young people who want to demonstrate their artistic ability all over the land. This submission was wonderful because it came from Wanganui Girls’ College students in years 9 and 10. They said: “Our submission is in support of the Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism Amendment Bill. We represent two classes—a total of 45 students. In addition we have consulted with the Wanganui District Council staff about their draft policy statement on graffiti.” We often hear our elderly folk say things like “Out of the mouths of babes oft come words of wisdom” and we would do well sometimes to listen to some of these wise young people because these girls have quickly identified some of the things that the critics of this bill have not identified. First the bill does not claim to be the be-all and end-all silver bullet that will end tagging problems; it is but one tool. The submission goes on to say that education should be encouraged—”Education on the negative effects of graffiti” on people. It also says: “Strict rules on truancy should be in place because of a possible link to tagging and graffiti.” And they emphasise the need for truancy officers to be more vigilant and for schools to be more vigilant. 
How refreshing that young people do not see the bill as a direct attack on young people. How refreshing that they should identify that the bill is but one step that needs to be taken and that other steps should be and could be taken. How refreshing that they condemn tagging that they promote graffiti under supervision at organised events and that they have the courage the wisdom and the confidence to come to this House to make their representation as young people from Wanganui Girls’ College. I pay my respects to them and thank them for helping the committee with the work it has done.