Paraone Pita: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Paraone Pita: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14495] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I will take a brief call on this the first reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. 
Before I go any further I want to make reference to the member’s bill introduced by Mr Hawkins the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill because I have no doubt in my mind that if it had not come to this House we would not be debating this particular bill at this time. 
Some people have said in this House that this bill is a grandstanding and simplistic one. That is their view. I think it is an attempt to address a problem that is growing to epidemic proportions and it is not just confined to the streets of South Auckland. I say that as a resident of Manukau City who lives in an area continually subjected to the actions of taggers. Although people—particularly the person from Papakura referred to by the member for Waiariki—might believe that taggers are wanting to transmit a message about their frustrations their boredom and all those sorts of things that the member described that drive them to tagging my question is why they do not send the message to where it should be sent and not write it on people’s private property. That is point No. 1. 
The second point concerns the example used of a renowned Maori artist and canoe builder Matahi Brightwell. The difference between the work he did on the shores of Lake Taupo and that of taggers is that he carried out his art with the permission of the tangata whenua. Taggers do not seek that sort of permission. In a recent news item where a number of taggers were interviewed and asked whether they had respect for people’s private property the answer was no they did not. In my view this bill is timely. In fact it is overdue considering the concerns that were expressed by Manukau City. 
I am also quite surprised that the member for ACT highlighted that other parts of our legislation could possibly address this matter. I would have thought that a party that has stood up in the past and said it was the law and order party and wanted stronger laws would support this bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Zero tolerance. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Those members have been asking for zero tolerance. I am quite surprised they are not supporting this bill. 
The bill creates a specific offence and increases fines. But the question has been asked about whether the fines will be paid. The bill does not address that issue—the issue of failure to pay fines—so perhaps in the select committee process it can be addressed. 
Clause 5 makes reference to the limitation of the sale of spray-cans to those 18 years and over. How that is to be policed I am not quite sure. However spray-cans will not be the only items for sale limited to those over a particular age. I make reference to the tobacco industry and that law seems to be working. If it is working in that area I ask why it cannot work with spray-cans. It will be a similar situation with the security of spray-cans in that vendors of that item will have to ensure the general public does not have free and ready access to them. If vendors can apply restrictions to cigarette packages then why cannot they apply them to spray-cans? We have heard there was some concern about the practicalities of that; I am not sure about that concern when I consider what is in place regarding tobacco. 
I think that what needs to be highlighted is that the judge when dealing with offenders or taggers who have been apprehended has to give them a much wider option than what the bill is outlining. I am of the view that this can be discussed further in the select committee process. 
New Zealand has witnessed a sad and tragic incident with the passing away of a young tagger. Who am I to judge who was right or wrong but I wonder whether that tragic event would have occurred if this bill had been in place. That is notwithstanding the arguments for the different sides that have been expressed on the airwaves of our country on talkback. I ask myself whether that incident could have been prevented. 
People have mentioned in this House that increasing the fines may not be the answer. I suggest that as part of a practical answer to this issue parents need to be taken to task. They should be held responsible for the actions of their young people. If young people are under 18 years they are still subject to the guardianship of their parents or caregivers. It would seem logical to me that if they do not pay then the matter is to be addressed by their parents or caregivers. 
In conclusion like the member who spoke on behalf of United Future I have made contact with the Mayor of Manukau City seeking his view on this particular bill. Given that he was at the announcement of it I suspect that he and his council will support it. New Zealand First is still supportive of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I make the point that although I was not a voting member on the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with that bill New Zealand First shared a minority view with National in that we recognised the problems experienced by the Manukau City Council in its endeavours to control graffiti within its city limits. We also do not support the suggestion that if that bill were to be passed then addressing the issue of graffiti would be done on a piecemeal basis. We were of the view that it allowed other local bodies the opportunity to request something similar. 
Given the concern about a national approach to this issue we believe that this bill addresses that particular point. I reiterate that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee.