Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16620] 
Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Graffiti vandalism 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak in support of Part 1 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. In speaking in support of this bill it is easy to say that the bill is symbolic because it does not really add to the wilful damages offences that currently exist under the Summary Proceedings Act and perhaps that is right. But then perhaps this bill will send a message to those vandals out there who take great delight in defacing other people’s property that this is unacceptable behaviour that it is a cost to society and that it needs to be stopped. 
This bill is a step in the right direction although the Law and Order Committee report in the accompanying commentary on the bill states: “We do not expect this bill alone to solve the problem of tagging and graffiti”. But the public I think has had enough. We have not heard very many submissions on the bill and I would have to say that the Law and Order Committee worked in a very constructive way on it. The majority of submitters were in favour of the bill. Some of course were not in favour of the bill. 
We heard along the way that graffiti is art. Well my view is that graffiti is not art. Admittedly some of it may be quite clever but when it is done on someone else’s property without that person’s consent then it is pure and simple vandalism. If a tagger or graffiti artist wants to draw on and deface his or her own property then that may well be art but when the tag or graffiti is on someone else’s property without that person’s consent it is vandalism it is a scourge and it is simply not acceptable. 
Graffiti has a huge cost for our society. We heard amongst the submissions from Local Government New Zealand for example that the annual public cost of graffiti alone is about $10 million. That is not the private cost; that is the annual public cost to ratepayers. We heard for example that the Manukau City Council deals with about 300000 tags a year and that costs the ratepayers $1.2 million in that council district alone and it is estimated that a further $5 million is being spent by the private sector. We were advised that the cost to the Hamilton City Council was in the vicinity of $500000 and that the cost to Wellington City Council ratepayers was about $600000. The figures go on and on and they reflect the monetary cost alone of taggers and graffiti vandals. This money could be better spent on positive youth activities rather than on trying to combat negative vandalism by a few. 
The bill itself is quite simple and straightforward. When we come to Part 2 I will put forward an amendment in relation to the storage of spray-cans. Part 1 relates to the offence of graffiti vandalism and tagging and as new section 11A in clause 4 states it basically covers anybody who “damages or defaces any building structure road tree property or other thing by writing drawing painting spraying or etching on it or otherwise marking it—(a) without lawful authority; and (b) without the consent of the occupier or owner or other person in lawful control.” The penalties imposed for that offence consist of a community-based sentence or a fine not exceeding $2000. 
When the bill first came to the Law and Order Committee there was an omission that the committee felt fit to address and that was in relation to the offence of having in one’s possession graffiti implements. Accordingly new section 11B in clause 4 has been inserted at the recommendation of the select committee so that: “A person is liable to a sentence of community work or a fine … if without reasonable excuse he or she has in his or her possession a thing capable of being used to commit an offence against section 11A in circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that he or she intends to use it to commit such an offence.” That covers a wide array of implements. Part 2 is more narrowly defined to spray-cans because again we heard from submitters than an estimated 90 percent of graffiti is spray-can - related. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I am pleased to rise to support the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill and to speak to Part 1. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without seeking to question your decision at all I was wondering whether you could offer an explanation to the Committee as to why you have chosen to take two National Party calls one after the other. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. The member should look at Speaker’s ruling 25/4. Once I have called a member that is it. The member should also look at the issue of proportionality. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member is challenging my ruling he had better be careful. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order. How can you assume that I am challenging your order before I have even opened my mouth? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Mark I made a decision; you rose to question it. Please make your point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order is that you rabbited that section off so rapidly. Could you please repeat it so I might be able to read it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: 25/4. 
Ron Mark 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: In rising to speak to Part 1 “Graffiti vandalism” I say that it is with a sense of sadness that we in this Chamber are dealing with an issue like tagging and graffiti vandalism in the wake of three brutal murders in Manukau. I know that other MPs in this Chamber—the Hon George Hawkins Ross Robertson and Pansy Wong for instance—feel very deeply that— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Did you say  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or the Standing Orders? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speaker’s ruling 25/4—which relates to the fact that once I have called a member I cannot take the call away. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sorry that Mr Mark wishes to interrupt all the way through my speech. Perhaps that is an indication— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just for my clarification is it perfectly acceptable for any member to ask the Chair at any time about a reference to the Standing Orders? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member can go one too many sometimes. One has to be careful about how one raises issues in the Chamber. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I was referring to the issue of the three appalling deaths in just the last week in Manukau. Certainly I know that other MPs would join with me in saying that this is a blot on the landscape of New Zealand. People like me who live and work in South Auckland are disgusted that other people have to live with this sort of threat hanging over them. I know that there are people who will say: “Well graffiti doesn’t kill people. This isn’t killing people; this is just a little bit of resistance painting.” I do not hold to that view because the graffiti is being done to mark territory in relation to street gangs—street gangs that currently swagger around the streets thinking they control them; street gangs who have the audacity to go to a liquor shop and kill a father because that is apparently what people do when they run out of booze at a child’s birthday party. That is the sort of disgusting behaviour that we do not want to see in South Auckland or anywhere else. 
There are people in my electorate who say they do not want to be referred to as South Aucklanders any more because the words have such a bad connotation. Well I say that I rejoice in being a South Aucklander. I am one by choice because South Auckland is full of really good people. It is full of people of different ethnic backgrounds people of different incomes and people who respect other people. But there are a few others—the people who wish to tag areas the people who wish to intimidate. The reason these “graffiti artists”—and I use that term in quotation marks—wish to mark their territory is to show who runs the place. They think they run South Auckland and they think they run Manukau. Well they do not and it is about time this Parliament stood up to them. 
I know that restricting the sale of cans will not stop all these people but it does send a signal to the people of South Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand. It sends the signal that we care enough to say that it is not OK to do this to other people. It is absolutely not OK. I congratulate George Hawkins because his member’s bill was the forerunner to this bill. His Government did not back him; George backed himself—and good on him! We over here backed him and I congratulate him. I know that civil libertarians will be deeply worried about someone’s right to mark someone else’s property. Well too bad for them! They should get with it. All they need to do is let them go and mark their own property and they should be very happy. 
I suggest to people who do not understand what it is like to live and work in this area—and to fear as so many people do—that they come out of central Wellington and come to South Auckland to see the good people who live in fear on their own properties. They will see the good people who have decided to rent out their properties because they are too scared to stay there. That is what I saw yesterday. And I suggest they go to Mrs Singh and explain to her as I did what we can do—which is not an awful lot. 
I also think that they should back the police and not bag them. The police do their very best. We do not have enough police in South Auckland. The other thing we do not have enough of is people in the hierarchy of the police who are caring enough to have less political correctness. I think it is funny that Ron Mark should make all sorts of gestures across the Chamber. We know that he is known for that but I say to him that some people in this Committee care a lot more than just making silly gestures. Some of us care enough to think that Part 1 is extremely important. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For clarification and in my own defence I tell the Committee and you that the only gesture I was making was the signal that you yourself often use to indicate to a member that the debate is narrow. Part 1 is narrow so I ask you Mr Chairperson whether you would bring the member back within the range of Part 1. She has not spoken once actually on either of the clauses in Part 1. She was rambling on as if she were making an election speech and my hand gesture to her was simply to say “Please narrow your comments to Part 1.” It was not meant to make some other sort of statement as she seemed to be implying quite mischievously and quite erroneously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. The member’s time has almost expired. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I will end with the comment that the people of South Auckland and the people of New Zealand have had enough of graffiti. I congratulate the people who are voting for this bill on having the courage to do so. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I think having travelled to Auckland quite frequently and quite often into that member’s electorate that I can tell that member that what people in Auckland are sick of is piety pomposity and snobbishness. People in her electorate are saying to me that they are sick of pomposity piety and snobbishness and the higher-than-mighty attitude that she exudes all over the nation and the airways. And her comments about my hand gestures— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where’s this in Part 1 Ron? 
RON MARK 
: Well I tell Jonathan Coleman that we get what we deserve. He does not need to blow smoke in our faces over here to get away from the fact that his party’s speaker—the one who has just resumed her seat—was not even on the committee did not understand a piece of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill and did not even bother to read it. Part 1 I tell Dr Coleman is quite clear and quite specific. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Mark might think he knows a lot but he does not know the fact that I have read the bill. I do understand the issue and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am sorry the member will be seated; that is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: Perhaps in relation to National members’ speeches we could have given some recognition where it was due—that is to Chester Borrows. If Ms Collins had bothered to read Part 1 she would have seen standing out there new section 11B inserted by clause 4 “Possession of graffiti implements”. Ms Collins would have known had she read the report that her colleague Chester Borrows was the person who instigated and initiated much of the debate on this Part 1 as it resulted. The section there is quite clear for Ms Collins to read because it has a big black line underneath it and the big black line I tell Ms Collins indicates that it is a new section. I tell the member that it also indicates that Chester Borrows argued very well and very clearly. He drew upon his experience as a front-line police officer and as a lawyer who understands that simply prosecuting people and making illegal the activity of spraying someone else’s property with paint is not going to cut it. He pointed out quite clearly to the committee that we needed the powers to actually charge people who were found to be in possession of a can who were holding the can up to a wall but who had yet to press the button and begin their vandalism. It was a point that was well made and there was a lot of discussion in the committee about that. Hence we have the “Borrows clause” and it will sit there for all eternity. As the chairman of that committee I am very confident that that one clause in itself will do a lot—a great deal—to empower police officers to arrest detain and successfully prosecute graffiti vandals. 
Clause 4(1) deals with the issues of making it an offence—and it is making it a specific offence. I have to hand it to Mr Borrows again because here once more he made very clear to the officials who came before us that it was no longer acceptable just to deal with this issue under the Crimes Act but that we needed to be specific and clear that this act stands alone as an offence against property and people. The great thing about the Law and Order Committee is that it has an ability to work across parties very well and cooperatively. Again I thank the National Party team for its contribution in those two areas because it has added substance. 
The area where I tried to make some input was in dealing with the question of community-based sentencing. I have sat in this Chamber for 12 years now and time after time I have seen various members of the Opposition parties raising the question of unpaid fines. It seems ludicrous to New Zealand First to continue to impose more and more fine ceilings on people when we know full well they will not pay the fines and that simply eventually they will have those fines remitted. So taking away from young people who graffiti and vandalise walls the one thing they value more than anything—that is their time by requiring them to do community work—makes sense. I say at this point that I would hope we see them in pink vests. I would hope that the officer out in Porirua whose good work has been so severely undermined by the do-gooder critics there is able to continue doing what he has been doing—that is putting graffiti artists in pink vests and making it very very clear to the community they have vandalised that they have been caught tagging and have been sentenced to community service. We should give these people a taste of what they definitely need: a bit of humiliation. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 First of all I thank the members of the Law and Order Committee for the work they did on this bill the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. The bill has come about because at the end of the day this Parliament and the people of New Zealand have had enough of graffiti vandalism. I agree with the member Judith Collins that graffiti is not art; it is vandalism. 
There is a difference between graffiti art and graffiti vandalism. No doubt members of this House have seen some wonderful graffiti art done by artists. But what we see on the properties of New Zealanders—individuals and businesses—around this country has nothing to do with art. It is offensive and it is a violation of people’s property. There is a cost to it and it leaves people feeling very angry indeed. They do not know why someone would come along with a spray-can or a felt-tip pen and write mindless rubbish on their property. They cannot understand what it is about. 
This bill tries to address the graffiti vandalism problem we have in New Zealand. It is not peculiar to South Auckland; it is found in all parts of New Zealand. The problem is worse in some of our big cities and we see a greater cost in those places but no area is free of it. This bill builds on the work done by George Hawkins and I say to Judith Collins that he was supported. His bill came to our caucus and it was supported. But the problem with the bill was that it related only to Manukau and as I have just said graffiti vandalism is an issue for all New Zealand. A bill that dealt with only one area was not going to work. As we know people can cross the boundary of Manukau City go into another area pick up spray-cans return to Manukau and spray as much as they like. This bill however will have a nationwide effect. 
I say to Ron Mark that I agree with many of the comments he made about the work done in the Law and Order Committee. I thank Chester Borrows for his contribution in terms of adding to Part 1 and in my view making it better. I agree with imposing community sentences. We know that many young people will not and cannot pay a big fine. This bill allows for a community sentence and/or a fine to be imposed. I imagine that in many cases where young people go out and violate somebody’s property they will if they are caught be carrying out a community sentence. 
The police officer who has put a lot of effort into this issue comes from Miramar which is in my community—my constituency. I support totally what he has done in cleaning up graffiti in Miramar. We had a real problem there. He went out as a community constable—in my view a front-line officer—and helped clean up graffiti in that area. I do not apologise to anyone for the way he has gone about doing it because the people of Miramar are delighted to see that those who were committing graffiti vandalism in the area have got their just rewards for what they did. 
Part 1 as members have already heard introduces two new offences relating to tagging and graffiti vandalism. I think it is part of the solution but it is not the whole answer. It can be only a part of the strategy as I think Kate Wilkinson said in her contribution. There is more to this issue than legislation but legislation is part of the answer. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I recognise that very often when the law is being interpreted there are those who seek to defend actions by asserting what they believe was the intent of Parliament at the time the legislation was passed. I want to take this opportunity to add to the comments from New Zealand First about community service sentencing. I want it to be absolutely clear in the minds of those people who will prosecute defend and adjudicate on the crime of graffiti vandalism exactly what was in the minds of the people who are passing this legislation through the House in respect of community service sentencing. 
There is much debate out there and there was even when submissions were being taken on this bill on what denotes community service sentencing or what community service sentences can comprise. We have in the time I have been in this House discussed a range of initiatives around the country that were implemented by police officers and were part of diversion programmes. These were sometimes later pulled to pieces by people whom I would describe as hand-wringing liberals as being offensive or humiliating for the poor souls on the receiving end. I think the power and strength of Part 1 is that we in this Parliament are making it clear that judges have the ability to give a community service sentence to these people—to take from them the time they would use to go out ironically to vandalise other people’s property by graffitiing them; to take from them the time they would use to enjoy themselves with their friends and their cobbers. New Zealand First expects judges in the enforcement of this law to give people community service sentences that are quite substantial. Where the judges think of a heavy fine we would like them to think of “heavy time”—time on the streets of the offenders’ communities cleaning up the vandalism. 
We heard from various district and city councils. Auckland is a classic example. Anyone visiting Auckland who gets into a taxi drives out of Auckland airport and heads into town is struck by the amount of graffiti. Imagine how many people hours could be involved in cleaning it up; imagine how many labour hours would be needed to fulfil the task of cleaning it up. We in New Zealand First ask the judiciary who will be applying this legislation and who will be making the decisions to please focus on the man hours to please focus on community service sentencing. We see the ideal solution as being one where all those young people—or old people if they are tagging—are out there in their pink vests being seen by the ratepayers of the area as they paint over and clean up their mess. We agree with Kate Wilkinson that this bill is not the be-all and end-all. It will not solve it all but the sight of so many people who have been caught tagging out there cleaning up the mess would be an encouragement to ratepayers and citizens. We believe that it would actually send them a message giving them confidence that things are working in their favour that the House does recognise what they are being subjected to and that the judiciary and the courts are doing something about it. 
We would despair if we saw the judiciary handing out $2000 fines. We know that they are meaningless. Boy racers take it as a badge of honour and a mark of pride if they have a glove box full of tickets and are able to tell their mates “Yeah I’ve got $30000 worth of fines racked up.” At a certain point the level of the fine is meaningless to them because they have no intention of paying it. There was an example on the West Coast about 3 years ago of three young men who had $250000 of fines remitted and written off. Well we would say what an absolute waste of time that exercise was. By how much did it undermine the justice system? They should have been given community service right at the outset that community service should have been enforced and it should have been done in such a way that it was humiliating for them in such a way that they were seen by the wider public and in such a way that they themselves decided that they never ever wanted to be put in that situation again. 
This provision is very powerful and is a very useful tool in deterring people from continuing their vandalistic behaviour. We hope to see it being used to its fullest extent. We would despair if we saw taggers being reported in the paper as owing $15000 worth of fines when actually community service was the appropriate sentence. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call in respect of Part 1 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Members will realise that there are already a number of provisions within our law that deal with criminal damage—that is wilful damage or intentional damage as it is called under various pieces of legislation. There is section 33 of the Summary Offences Act which this legislation alters; there is section 11 of the Summary Offences Act which relates to “wilful damage”; and there is section 269 of the Crimes Act which relates to “intentional damage”. Obviously it is sort of a graduated scale. 
Section 11 of the Summary Offences Act as it is at the moment allows for a penalty of imprisonment and this falls short of that by providing for community work or community service. My question—and I wonder whether the Minister can help me here because we did raise it several times within the select committee process—is this: when a young person under the age of 17 appears before the Youth Court and the court wishes to impose a penalty that involves community work or community service does that young person have to agree to it? I cannot remember which section or subsection it is in but there is a provision that states that if the Youth Court wants to sentence an offender under the age of 17 to a penalty that involves community service the young offender currently has to agree to it. 
I understand that there is a clause in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6)—which I think is currently before the Social Services Committee—to remove that subsection so that they can be sentenced to a term of community service. I guess the question for the Minister is whether under this piece of legislation the young person would still have to consent at least until that legislation is transacted through the House. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Spraycans  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill which deals with spray-cans. The sale of spray-cans to people under 18 is to be prohibited except in certain circumstances. Some concern has been expressed about the extra costs this will bring and the extra trouble it will put on retailers to lock these cans away. I can tell people that in my electorate in South Auckland many people already do this—they already lock them away they already put them behind the counter and they try not to encourage spray-can usage by young people in any way. As well as trying not to encourage spray-can buying by young people who might then commit graffiti offences they are actually trying to protect their own property too. These spray-cans are often stolen—shoplifting is rife particularly by the people who do not think anything of vandalising other people’s property. Why would we be surprised that they have no respect for the property owned by shopkeepers going about their lawful business? 
The fact that graffiti has moved on to etching and other sorts of damage probably says to many of us that restricting the sale of spray-cans will not stop graffiti vandalism. Again the point can be made that we know it will not stop it but it will certainly slow it down. It will in fact send a signal that we take this offence seriously. It is important because although we in these premises at Parliament do not indulge in graffiti vandalism and are lucky enough to work in a place where we do not see it all the time the fact is that many other people do. Many other people have to live in it and they have to work in it. Many shopkeepers have to. I noted the comment from the Minister of Justice before about the cost to businesses and she is quite right. The cost to businesses is huge. It is not just the cost of the paint to paint out the graffiti it is also the fact that it has to happen every morning—it is the person time that is used when dealing with it. 
Then there is the time spent trying to make complaints to the police and taking photographs of it so that the police can add it to their catalogue of vandalism and there is the wasted police time spent having to deal with the offenders. I think the idea that was used in Wellington of putting the little graffiti artists into pink vests with “tagger” on them was excellent and I am glad that the Minister supports it. When I first became the MP in Clevedon in the Papakura area the police there put young taggers into orange outfits with “police” on them so that people knew what they were doing—cleaning up the graffiti. It was also a safety issue. They were stopped from continuing with it because a Queen’s Counsel came through town obviously on the way to something important saw this and decided it was humiliating the children who were dressed in their orange outfits. Too bad about the humiliation of the people whose property they had been defacing! We would not want the children’s little tender hearts hurt. 
Actually the parents of those young people supported the police in their actions. The parents gave permission for this to happen yet they were overruled by a namby-pamby outfit that thought we had better not upset the civil libertarians. Well I am all for civil liberties. I am all for people being allowed to live in their own homes without them being defaced. I am absolutely all for people being able to go to their local dairy without getting their handbag snatched off them and then being run over. I am absolutely all for people having the civil liberty to go about their lawful business of selling their goods from their shops and I am certainly not for people trying to stop it. That is what we are about here—we are trying to say that it is not OK for this to happen and it is not OK for people’s property to be threatened and vandalised. 
Of course it is not just about property. It is about what it does to people living in fear. The restriction of the sale of spray-cans says that people should not have to live in fear in their own homes. Although the legislation may upset some people who lawfully want to buy a spray-can and who may have to go through a slightly longer rigmarole because of it I do not think there are any good New Zealanders who will resent that. I do not think their civil liberties will be offended one bit. In fact I think they will rejoice in the fact that it will make it more difficult for people who want to buy these cans so they can deface other people’s property. 
On my way from the northern part of my electorate to the southern part I go past a fence in the country that is routinely targeted by taggers. Almost every week it is painted over. I know that a comment was made today by the Rev. Mark Beale a person for whom I have a huge amount of respect. He runs the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust. He said that businesses have to get out there and get them cleaned up. He is absolutely right. However he is not saying and I am not saying that it is the business people’s fault if someone tags their property. All they can do is try to make it less likely that the taggers will want to come back again. What he is saying is what we are trying to say with this legislation. We are trying to make it more difficult for them to get the implements. We are trying to make it something they have to put their names down for and show some ID for so that it is more unlikely that they will go ahead with it. Maybe it will restrain them from tagging every fence in the neighbourhood or in our case in Kirk’s Bush in Papakura every tree in the bush. I see my colleague thinking: “How can that be?” but that is what happens. There are also streets where the actual asphalt is covered in graffiti. That is the sort of thing we are talking about here. We are not talking about graffiti art legitimate art for people to view and have pride in; this is about vandalism. It is about tagging and marking territory. Although restricting the sale of spray-cans to people over 18 will not stop graffiti it will slow it down and it will send a message that people in New Zealand care enough to say that our civil liberties—the civil liberties of people who go about their business are law abiding do not vandalise other people’s property and do not threaten them—are worth something too actually and it is about time people recognised that. 
It is all very well always hearing about someone standing up for people who do not care about other people’s civil liberties but we deserve to have the civil liberties of good New Zealanders recognised and celebrated. People should be able to live in communities that are free of this sort of menace. I know that being a graffiti artist or a graffiti tagger will not necessarily make someone a street gang killer but show me a street gang member who has not started off as a tagger. Show me one. I do not think we will find too many. Show me one who has not at some stage in life started off that way. That is what they do to show they are part of the gang and they do so to show the gang’s territory. Well there should be only one gang in our country and that is the gang of good New Zealanders who abide by the law. It about time we said that and it is about time we supported other New Zealanders who want to live in peace and within the law. I am pleased to be able to speak on this part and I am pleased to be able to support the bill all the way through. We have supported the bill all the way through and I am proud of the fact that the National Party has put the rights of good New Zealanders first. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to make a brief comment about this admirable bill. It is a quite short bill of five pages but I think it will be very effective. I think the discussion on it has been useful and instructive and I would like to begin by thanking the Minister and Cabinet for bringing this necessary legislation before us. This is the sort of thing that we often do not address when we should because of concerns about people’s liberties because of concerns about education and because of concerns about other ways of controlling these issues. But I think that what a number of other speakers have said is correct in that we have had enough of what is only vandalism and quite offensive vandalism at that. I think the Minister’s earlier comments differentiated most appropriately between art—which some organised graffiti can be—tagging and graffiti vandalism which is really the substance of this legislation. 
I am delighted to see the National Party support the bill although not without some contradictions but we are used to that in this place and I will come back to that in a moment. During this call I want to focus on the restriction of access to spray-cans and the extensions in this part to other graffiti implements. One of the obvious things we can see when we look at how other jurisdictions have dealt with these issues is that tagging and graffiti vandalism are not restricted just to the ubiquitous spray-can. In fact during the course of the hearings and discussions at the select committee I heard that my own Anglican cathedral in the Octagon in Dunedin was vandalised by young men and women with large felt-tipped pens. Although I will not give the reference to the website just now it is not hard to find when one looks on the web that there are sites solely dedicated to bombing and the implements involved in bombing. It was quite important that we did not focus just on the spray-can because although it may be the main implement of choice in Manukau it is certainly not the main one elsewhere in the country. I think that the inclusion of the category of graffiti implements including glass-etching devices is welcome. Had we not included that extension to the bill we would have had to do so at a future date. 
The matter that was of the greatest concern to submitters on the bill is the matter I want to dwell on. It has been interesting to hear the soft human face of the National Party in terms of the previous speaker talking about the hard line the National Party will take on this but I am disappointed to see the amendment that has been put forward by a member of the select committee. The issue of how people access these cans is absolutely key to the whole debate. Young people who are about to go out tagging do not tend to buy these implements. That has been said to us repeatedly by the people who end up paying for it and the local authorities who end up doing the cleaning up. One of the concerns was about further restrictions potentially on the availability of spray-cans around building sites where they are used for road marking marking construction points and so on. A lot of those fluorescent paint spray-cans it is claimed are stolen by taggers for their later activities. So I think it is really important that we put meaningful restrictions in place around access to cans and I will focus just on cans in that respect. 
The initial bill did cause some alarm. I do not think it had problems necessarily but the wording which was that cans need to be secured did send expensive shivers about the redesign of displays shop configurations and so on around a lot of the submitters. I am sure—and I will explain why in a moment—that the rewording agreed to unanimously by the select committee is entirely desirable. I think it was agreed to unanimously; the chairman can correct me if that is not the case. In my view the wording confronts not only the shoplifting issue which is why I was so surprised to see the hard-line comments from Mrs Collins and the soft-on-shoplifting comments from Ms Wilkinson—both in the select committee and in the amendment she will subsequently put forward. In my view the wording we ended up with—possession and needing the assistance of the shopkeepers—is likely to cover all their concerns including the concern around shoplifting. 
When I have discussed this around the traps with people who have very large displays of these products they have explained to me some of their surveillance materials. In my home town the major retailer who has a very high level of trade in these products has in place in addition to quite extensive video surveillance of the spray-can area other security methods that ensure that those products cannot be removed from the current shelving in the shop without the support and assistance of the retailer. This bill was always good legislation but I think it is much better because of the submission process and I am delighted to support it at the Committee stage. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on Part 2 which is restricted to spray-cans. In my earlier speech I noted that one of the submitters had informed us that 90 percent of graffiti is spray-can - related so although this part has only a couple of clauses it is certainly an important part of this bill. 
In effect Part 2 prohibits the sale of spray-cans to a person under the age of 18 unless the spray-can is sold for school or educational purposes to enable the student to undertake a course at school or to complete an assignment or project. We have no difficulty with that. The difficulty is in the next clause clause 6 which inserts new section 14B into the Summary Offences Act and that is why I have put forward an amendment for the Committee to consider. The amendment relates to the section that restricts access to spray-cans in shops. Admittedly the bill in its previous form provided that the spray-cans had to be “kept secured”. That provision has been watered down so that spray-cans are “stored in such a way” that members of the public cannot access them without the help of the occupier but it is my suggestion that we do not need that provision. Why do we need a clause that restricts access to spray-cans when it is already an offence to sell spray-cans to under-18-year-olds? 
I think that we also have to look at the over-18-year-olds who want to buy spray-cans for legitimate purposes and also at the imposition on retailers of having to secure spray-cans when we bear in mind that it is already an offence to sell spray-cans to somebody under 18. It is my suggestion that surely it is up to shop owners to take all reasonable steps to ensure that spray-cans are not sold to under-18-year-olds and if they do sell them to under-18-year-olds then they are liable to the penalty clauses and the offence that goes with that action. 
If I can draw an analogy we do not have such a provision in relation to alcohol in supermarkets. Alcohol in supermarkets cannot be sold to under-18-year-olds but we do not have a special provision as to the storage of alcohol or access to alcohol in supermarkets. It is my suggestion that this clause itself is superfluous and if we look at it objectively then we have to wonder whether we need this provision relating to storage. We trust supermarket owners to control their premises so as to avoid the sale of alcohol to those under 18. Why then if we are to be consistent in our lawmaking do we not trust retailers such as the Mitre 10 PlaceMakers and Bunnings stores to keep spray-cans in a way they choose so as to minimise and avoid sale to those under 18? If retailers breach the preceding sale offence they will be subject to the penalties. So they will be accountable and they will not be able to breach the law without having to pay the price. 
If we look at this provision we see that it is also an imposition on the innocent law-abiding shopper who just wants to be able to go and buy a spray-can for law-abiding and proper purposes without having to seek the assistance of a shop assistant. Why should a law-abiding member of the public not be able to access spray-cans without having to seek the assistance of a staff member which involves time cost and inconvenience? 
The Law and Order Committee was told by some of the submitters that firstly age monitoring is not the problem—and if that is the case then we have a solution looking for a problem—in relation to the storage of spray-cans. I am refining my discussion to the storage of spray-cans not to their sale. We were told secondly that there is a significant cost to retailers. We were given the example of a cost of about $3000 per storage cabinet. I am aware that some retailers have already gone to this expense but worse than that we were told by one submitter that sales of spray-cans were down by 70 percent. If it becomes too hard for law-abiding citizens to purchase spray-cans legitimately then what does that achieve in terms of graffiti? It is a cost to law-abiding citizens and to retailers. My comments on this part of the bill are very limited to the provision related to the storage of spray-cans. I am not condoning their sale to under-18-year-olds; I am saying that the clause in relation to storage is unnecessary. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Kate Wilkinson for her contribution and for her amendment which she obviously believes in firmly. I believe that if we were to pass her amendment then we would actually make a mockery of the bill we have been debating. Although we have been putting in place what we believe are tougher measures around graffiti vandalism not addressing the issue of access to spray-cans would I believe dilute the bill considerably. You see what we are asking for is not onerous on shopkeepers. We are saying that spray-cans ought to be kept under the watchful eye of the shopkeeper. 
My colleague David Benson-Pope very clearly set out what our problem is. The problem is that often young folk who go out and carry out their vandalism do not bother to go to the shopkeeper to buy spray-cans; they help themselves to spray-cans. I have seen examples of shops where spray-cans are on the bottom shelf and near the door. It is easy to whip in take out a spray-can and do $10000 worth of damage—with one spray-can. So what we are asking of shopkeepers in my view is not onerous at all. The legislation does not require them to have complex security measures. It does require them to physically restrict access to spray-cans. They could have them behind the counter for example. We do not argue about the fact that we have tobacco behind the counter of a dairy. That is common in New Zealand. We say that we do not want under-18-year-olds to get their hands on tobacco. We have it on display behind the counter and it is easy to get if the shopkeeper is there to assist. So I do not believe that it is onerous. 
I also think that there is a difference between the storage of alcohol in a supermarket and the storage of spray-cans. It is pretty hard to get out of a supermarket unless one goes out through the checkout so supermarket staff do have a watchful eye over the product that goes out of a supermarket. It is much harder for staff in a dairy or a small retail outlet to have a product under a watchful eye if it is on a shelf. Spray-cans are easy to access there—one can stick a spray-can in one’s bag and leave. 
I do not want us to destroy the aims and ambitions of this bill which we have spoken about in a collective voice today. I also think that it is important for members to know that the Ministry of Justice intends to give support to local authorities and retailers in respect of this legislation. This will be in the form of advice leaflets and signage to clarify the responsibilities of retailers and their employees. We are not just leaving them on their own. There is support and back-up for them. But if we were to accept the member’s amendment—which I am in no doubt was put forward in all sincerity—I believe that we would undo much of the very good work in Part 1 which we have just passed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to put New Zealand First’s position on record. We will vote against the National Party’s Supplementary Order Paper because we believe that fundamental to the effectiveness of this bill is some form of control over the way in which these items are sold or handled and stored. 
It is interesting that Kate Wilkinson has raised a number of questions about us not treating other products in this way. She has suggested that people would be deterred from buying their spray-cans of paint for legitimate purposes simply because they would have to go and ask the shop assistant to get access to them. I will point out a couple of things. In the weekend I was in Hunting and Fishing. I went in there with my partner Chris and we were looking at a couple of rifles that we thought we might like to add to our golf bag to enable us to do the sort of hunting we do. I looked at a .22 Ruger and a .22 Marlin—both of them semi-automatics. Both of those rifles were bolted to the wall. In both instances in order to be able to put them to the shoulder to see how they felt and how the line of sight felt for me I had to ask one of the shop attendants to come down. I asked him whether he would mind unbolting them from the wall. He did not mind at all. He came down and spent some time with us. We tried out the rifles for feel for weight and for sight picture. We made a decision at that point in time and the rifles were put back on the wall. Having to ask the shop attendant for assistance will not deter me when the time is ripe from going into that shop and buying a .22 Ruger—or not. I now have a better understanding of what the weapon feels like and is capable of and I will feel confident in the purchase. I am also confident about the advice given to me by the sales assistant because he gave his assistance. 
A few weeks earlier I was in the same store. I needed a couple of knives—a skinning knife and a boning knife—because we were doing a bit of home-kill. It is interesting that all of the knives—pocket knives pen knives skinning knives and hunting knives—were behind lock and key in glass cabinets. I was not deterred from asking the shop assistant to unlock the cabinet and pull out an array of knives for me to look at and he was not deterred from doing that for me—he was quite pleased. Eventually after looking at a number of knives I selected the two that I wanted and a sheath to go with them. I was not deterred from making the purchase of a boning knife and a skinning knife because they happened to be under lock and key. 
The point is that these spray-cans will not be under lock and key. They are simply required to be placed in an environment where there is restricted access to them. I point out that there are other things that could happen in this House that will not happen but in relation to which it could be argued they pose a similar threat to the community. A while ago I was buying some building materials in PlaceMakers on Moorhouse Avenue in Christchurch when I saw a Maori chap—very scruffy long hair very unkempt—wandering through the aisles with silver aluminium paint around his lips. He was clutching in his hand a plastic bag that he was putting up to his face and sniffing. What was he doing there? He was wandering up and down the aisles of paint looking for more paint. Now I could be forgiven for suggesting here tonight that there should be restricted access to that type of paint or some form of control because it poses a health hazard. But we are not doing that; maybe we should. There are some things that in the hands of the wrong people are being used in a very antisocial manner. They are being used in a manner that is detrimental to the health and well-being of the person who purchases them because we know that person will use them for illicit purposes for wrongful purposes and for the purposes of vandalism. 
Society has a right if it sees fit to pass laws such as this to restrict access to those products—whether they be tobacco or alcohol. I say to Kate Wilkinson with all due respect that I think alcohol was a bad choice because my understanding of the sale of liquor licensing laws is that certain people under certain ages are prohibited from going into bottle stores and being in certain places. They cannot go in there. They are not allowed in there. So there are restrictions on the way in which alcohol is sold. They are specific restrictions designed to ensure that as far as possible alcohol does not get into the hands of those who are not legally entitled to purchase it. 
The big issue that we were consistently reminded of as members of that committee was not actually about the purchase; it was about the theft—the stealing. And whilst we would all assume that good business people who were mindful of the stock losses that they would be incurring and the impact on their profit line would take all reasonable steps to ensure that their items are not being shoplifted or that they are secure it is not always done. That is why they get shoplifted. We also need to recognise that many of the people who own the businesses are not staffing the counter. They rely on competent effective efficient salespersons to monitor the premises to ensure that stuff is not stolen and to ensure that customers who wander over and pick up a spray-can and start looking at it are serious in their intent of purchase and are purchasing for legal reasons. 
We discussed in this clause—taking advice from the officials—the various ramifications that this law might have on the legitimate usage of these products. We talked about schools school projects and the fact that young people are required to do art projects using these spray-cans. Those issues are well catered for in this clause. The one area where we have some controversy and disagreement is in relation to the level of security that a retailer or wholesaler must place around the storage and keeping of these products. I guess it is up to those people who want to sell these products. They know that builder George Brown or developer Bob Clarkson will buy these products which may be markers to mark building sites. In terms of quantity they know that the developer will order maybe two cartons of them in different colours for different legitimate purposes and those orders will be met in the normal way. Bob Clarkson does not have to walk in and purchase one spray-can off the shelf and ask the shop assistants for assistance to get it down from the high shelf that he cannot reach; he does not have to do that. He simply puts in an order and it arrives. And that is how most farmers—who use them for marking stock—most builders most property developers and most schools will meet those orders. This clause is designed to prevent or at least in some way deter shoplifting and stealing and the vandalism that results from such actions by the particular people who would do that. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of my colleague’s amendment in respect of this matter. The point that our colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope made was that most businesses are already taking these steps so what is the point of penalising them for not taking those steps bearing in mind that they do not want to lose stock and they are putting in place measures to make sure they do not. Why should they be penalised when somebody comes along and steals from their shop or later uses a spray-can? If a shop has sold a spray-can and if information or verification that the purchaser was over the age of 18 was not provided then the shop will be penalised for that and this legislation is relatively punitive in that respect. 
What bothers me is that time and time again we see that the actual perpetrators the offenders are being patted on the head and told that it is not their fault. In these circumstances the law seeks to penalise a legitimate business person for trying to put it beyond the capability of some young person to be able to get hold of a spray-can—not everybody just those who are under 18 years. 
What that means is that shop assistants do not have to bother securing spray-cans from people over 18 years of age. In actual fact what happens now and what will continue to happen is that they have measures in place to do that. Why do we need to have the punitive aspect of fines if they do not measure up to where a local inspector tends to think they should be? Why is it not enough of a disincentive that they would lose the value of the product they are trying to sell or that there is the threat that if they do sell to the wrong person without seeking verification they will be charged and are likely be convicted and fined in respect of that? 
I think we also need to draw a bit of a line under the comments in respect of obtaining firearms and knives and the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to be able to have a decent look at and handle a firearm in a sports shop. By the way I indicate to my friend Mr Mark that if he wants to borrow a .22 Ruger Ms Wilkinson has one available. He will have to ask for it but she will deliver it! But of course there is a lot more incentive for a shop owner to open the cabinet and go through the whole sales pitch for someone who will buy something that is worth somewhere between 750 and 1000 bucks. 
Ron Mark 
: $650! 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: OK. I did not realise that the Warehouse was selling .22 Rugers these days—it cannot be the rotating magazine version. 
Of course another side to this is the fact that skinning knives boning knives and pocket knives or anything else that one could get stuck with are weapons. There are also some other incentives apart from that especially in a sports shop for instance where there are other goods that might be attractive to people who would use a weapon they got hold of to rob the store in any event. So the point of the amendment is to say where the blame lies and the blame lies with the people who are using the spray-cans not with the hard-working shopkeepers who are seeking to sell to legitimate clientele. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kate Wilkinson to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) new section 14B. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Part 3 Repeal 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of the Hon Annette King to insert new Part 3 be agreed to. 
New Part 3 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Criminal Procedure Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into six bills and reported the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted.