Dunne Peter: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14489] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly in support of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill for a couple of reasons and I want to revert to the comments from the previous speaker with which I have some sympathy. 
United Future supported the proposal by Mr Hawkins on behalf of the Manukau City Council for special legislation to outlaw tagging in that city. We indicated to both the previous mayor and the current mayor our continued support for that bill to proceed. Indeed I did so as recently as last week. So we were pleased to see a Government bill appear that effectively takes over and provides a national solution to the issue which is not peculiar to Manukau but has had a lot of focus there because of activities in that particular city over a period of time. We support the notion of creating a specific offence for graffiti vandalism tagging and defacing. We accept the community’s distaste for what is occurring at the moment and the need for there to be some considerable action. But we are concerned about the provision to limit the sale of spray-cans to those aged 18 or under not because of a civil liberties issue per se but because of the practicality of that particular decision and the consequence that it requires in terms of spray-cans being kept in secure places. 
When I look at clause 5 of the bill I see the concern about spray-cans becomes much more heightened. Clause 5 prohibits the sale of spray-cans to people under age 18 and renders a person who sells a spray-can to such a person liable for an offence with a fine of up to $1500. But then the bill introduces a couple of defences which I think make the law very difficult to enforce. They apply if the defendant is a school board the governing body of an education provider or an employee of a board or provider—well that will prove to be difficult in some situations—if the buyer was enrolled at a school or institution managed by a board or provider or if the spray-can was sold to the buyer to enable him or her to undertake the work of his or her course at the school or institution etc. I think there will be huge definitional problems associated with those particular defences and provisions and I think a lot of work will need to be done by the select committee in working through that particular provision and how it will work in practice. 
I note that there is a suggestion that we have evidence of a person’s age—documentation—being produced. The thought of young people or of any group of people having to carry around passports or other forms of identification on a routine basis does start to make one wonder about the path we are heading down. 
But having said that I have looked at graffiti legislation in other countries and particularly at that in New South Wales. When I compare the situation set out in this bill with what is contained in the Summary Offences Act in New South Wales I find the situation here is actually even with this bill far more lenient than it is there. For instance in New South Wales if people damage a fountain erected in a public place they are liable for a fine of $440. I do not know what the magic of $440 happens to be but that is the fine they are liable for. There is even a specific defence which I am just trying to find that can apply if people damage a ferry in New South Wales. If people wilfully mark by means of chalk paint or other material any premises where the markings are within view from a public place unless the consent of the occupier or person in charge of the premises is first obtained they are also subject to a penalty of $440. In other words that law is far more specific and far more Draconian in many senses that what we have here. 
The New South Wales law also sets out some very particular provisions relating to how people must keep spray-cans in secure places. That reminds me a little of our firearms legislation. In a shop the spray-cans have to be in a locked cabinet and behind a counter so that customers cannot gain access to cans without the assistance of shop staff or be kept on a shelf of a height of 2.1 metres—again the specificity surprises me—or more or in any other manner prescribed by regulations. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s discriminatory against short persons. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is certainly an anti - short person policy as my colleague Mr Mark outlines—and I have some sympathy with him on that score. 
I guess what both of those measures outline is the problem that civilised societies today face from tagging and from the desecration and defacing of public items of various types and the question of how we resolve that. I was intrigued to note that in British Columbia for instance the emphasis on resolution there is based much more on the removal of the offensive items. There is a partnership with a painting company and people can get a free paint kit for graffiti removal in Vancouver. There is a mural programme so people can actually express their talents as graffiti artists by painting public murals. There are even community paint-outs—the mind boggles—that encourage community groups businesses and residents to team up to improve the physical appearance of their neighbourhood. That is another novel approach that I do not think would work in the New Zealand context. 
The point of drawing those illustrations to the attention of the House is not to be frivolous so much as to make the observation that there have been various efforts made the world over to try to resolve what it seen as a major antisocial problem. I think the select committee that considers this bill ought to pay some attention to those international initiatives and then try to weigh the proposed New Zealand solution alongside them. I would like to think that the outcome would be one where we are not at one extreme of the response but is one where our solution is generally in the middle by international standards is workable is fair and does not impose unnecessary restrictions on the good and the honest but will help to remove the blight of tagging from our presence. 
With those observations I say United Future is happy to support the bill being referred to a select committee. We hope it does not languish there too long because the pressure from cities like Manukau and elsewhere will intensify if there is no significant progress in a reasonably short period of time. When the bill comes back from the select committee we will be looking for some of the concerns about the practicality of the measures that it would impose to be addressed. With that I am happy to pass to the next speaker. 
Debate interrupted.