Collins Judith: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Collins Judith: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16627] 
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.