Wong Pansy: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14498] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 What a difference an election year makes for this Labour-led Government to suddenly pretend that it will actually listen to the people especially to the local representatives of the Manukau City Council! In Botany—an electorate I will fight vigorously for the privilege to represent in the coming general election—the No. 1 concern is the rising rate of crime including graffiti. 
In 2005 after years of inaction from the Labour-led Government towards the Manukau City Council’s problem of having to spend millions over the years to clean up graffiti the council resorted to asking Parliament to pass a bill. That bill was sponsored by a Labour MP the Hon George Hawkins. 
Then what happened? That bill was rejected by his fellow Labour MPs on the Local Government and Environment Committee. Apparently those MPs recommended that the bill not proceed on four grounds. Firstly they reckoned that the existing statutory provisions under the Crimes Act 1961 were sufficient and they claimed that the introduction of further offences in an area already criminalised under the national law was unlikely to change those priorities. So I am sure my fellow National MPs are looking forward to seeing what has changed since last year. 
Secondly the Labour MPs also believed that a voluntary memorandum of understanding between the council and the retailers with regard to the display and storage of spray-cans and a possible restriction on the sale of those items to persons under 16 were more likely to give the retailers a sense of ownership of the project and they believed that that would increase the probability of the project being enforced effectively. Interestingly the Retailers Association actually supported the passage of that legislation to make it easier for all the retailers to abide by the provisions. The association supported the legislation so I wonder where the Labour MPs got their research from. 
Thirdly those members obviously agreed with the Ministry of Justice or with whatever advice they had which said that discriminating against persons under the age of 18 was in contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So it is interesting to see what a difference a year can make. Suddenly there is a change of heart and I cannot wait to see what further research has suddenly brought forward the decision in the Government’s current bill that it is acceptable to ban the sale of spray-paint to people under the age of 18. 
Fourthly apparently the Attorney-General’s report also stated that minors were perceived to be the greatest perpetrators of graffiti but there was insufficient empirical evidence available to confirm that assumption. The Attorney-General subsequently concluded that a rational and proportionate connection between the sale of spray-paint to minors and the graffiti problem had not been established. So one has to wonder why the Government is now bringing in this bill when that evidence has not been established. The conclusion of the report back of the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee including its Labour MPs was that the Government’s position was that there was no need for legislative change. 
We can only conclude very pragmatically that the only thing that has changed in 2008 is that it happens to be an election year. That is the only reason that a Labour-led Government is pretending it is listening to a very serious problem that causes a lot of frustration out there. I share the sentiments of some other MPs who have mentioned the tragedy of a tagger who lost his life because of tagging. It is not an issue that warrants any deferral or lapse in response; we have to make sure that such a tragedy does not happen again.