Tanczos Nandor: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14487] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Tagging is annoying like cat spray which is a stinky way for tom cats to mark their territory—and female cats. Does anyone know what we call a female cat? 
Chester Borrows 
: A queen. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Borrows. 
Like cat spray tagging is annoying and hard to wash off. Except presumably for taggers themselves not many people like it although I did read an interesting website by a guy who has based his academic career on the sociology of tagging which is quite interesting. It is interesting that even graffiti artists get annoyed with tagging because they see their work being co-opted with someone else’s scrawled signature. Just ask Otis Frizzell for his view about that. 
Unlike the New Zealand Police I am of the opinion that there is an enormous difference between graf art political graffiti and tagging both in terms of function and form. Graf art is by definition art. Anyone who has tried to get funky with a spray-can—and I do not imagine many members in this House get funky with anything never mind spray-cans—knows how enormously skilful one has to be to create world-class graf art. Like all the other creative industries New Zealand has spawned its share of world-class graf artists. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Like who? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Otis Frizzell for one. DLT is magic. Political graffiti on the other hand is activism. It might even be journalism because often one sentence in graffiti contains as much content as a whole issue of the  
Dominion Post 
 or a week of Paul Holmes. Unlike graf art I find it pretty hard to believe that no members of this House have participated. Tagging I think is different again. Some tagging is quite artistic actually but most of it is mundane and a lot of it is basically irritating. Even so I was surprised to see the announcement of a major policy initiative last week supposedly focused on tagging. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If I found somebody tagging my fence I’d kick their backside. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Tau Henare say the best way to deal with taggers is to break their fingers and pull their fingernails out. 
Anyway it was a bit amazing to see a major policy announcement around tagging last week. It was supposedly aimed at tagging but it actually targets young people in general. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry for yelling and interrupting you. I find it difficult to believe that there is not a rule in this House—and it may be a debating point but—[ 
Interruption 
]. We are supposed to be quiet during points of order. I find it very difficult to believe that there is not a Standing Order whereby a member can refute an out and out mistruth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just suggest to the member that he look at Speaker’s ruling 36/4 to do with misrepresentation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thought that there were more important things for the Government to focus on than tagging. I thought that addressing child poverty addressing housing transients truancy the lack of mental health and drug addiction services for young people— 
Heather Roy 
: The economy. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: —or the economy would be higher priorities. I thought responding to the Green-initiated report into improving the justice system for victims of crime might be a higher priority or improving police response times to crimes of theft and violence or even funding a decent ambulance service. 
More important I would have thought that a crack down on tagging would actually include some initiatives that might actually reduce tagging but that is not what we have got. Section 14A in clause 5 of this bill which was speedily introduced this week bans the sale of spray-cans to under 18-year-olds. Section 14B requires retailers to keep spray-cans under lock and key. Does the Government really think that only people under the age of 18 tag? The Minister’s peak-age theory seems a pretty tenuous basis for introducing age-discriminatory laws. In addition does the Government really believe that taggers under 18 cannot get spray-cans from other people—because of course although under-age possession of a spray-can would not be illegal under this bill selling a spray-can to an under-18-year-old would be. 
Buying a spray-can on behalf of an under-age tagger would be legal and maybe here is a whole new business opportunity for some enterprising B-boy. And in any case if under-age taggers cannot get spray-cans do we really think they will not use instead markers stickers etchers scratches scorers or stencils? What about the requirement to keep spray-cans under lock and key? Does this Parliament really think that spray-cans are so dangerous that they need to be treated on par with lethal materials such as cigarettes and guns? It is absolutely bizarre. 
The bill also creates a new offence of tagging with a maximum $2000 fine. Of course the maximum fine will not be noticed by people who do not think they are going to get caught. If they are caught they probably will not pay the fine anyway. And in any case they are more likely to receive one of the new community sentences to make them clean up their act—a sentence which as we have already heard a judge can already give them under the Sentencing Act. So what is the point? 
For all the fanfare the bill is unlikely to make any difference to tagging whatsoever. And here is the real issue. Even if it does work even if it stops people from tagging what do members think they will do instead? Urinate in peoples’ letterboxes? This is the issue. Until the underlying issues are addressed methods such as these simply shift the problem around like trying to push an air bubble out from under wallpaper. 
Let us be clear. There are no silver bullets for manifestations of anti-social attitudes. Behaviours like tagging are an expression of something much deeper and much more important and they are something that this House really should be paying attention to. Scapegoating young people as this bill does and as early announcements from both John Key and Helen Clark did do nothing to solve the problem. It just makes the problems of youth alienation even worse. 
That is why I describe this bill as a new low in dog-whistle electioneering. Usually we can expect to see the start of election year heralded by attacks on parents receiving the domestic purpose benefit. Maybe that is being saved for later in the campaign. This year we are starting with attacks on young people. That is why the Green Party says that we need to address the causes of anti-social behaviour rather than grandstanding on the symptoms with simplistic solutions. Unfortunately as I have already indicated election year is never an easy time to do that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As per Speaker’s ruling 36/4 what I said was: “If I found somebody tagging my fence I would kick his backside.” The member said that I said that I would go out there and break his fingers. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My sincere apologies to the member. I clearly misheard him and I withdraw and apologise for the remark. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member very much. It makes the House much easier.