Wilkinson Kate: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16620] 
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.