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:16630] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on Part 2 which is restricted to spray-cans. In my earlier speech I noted that one of the submitters had informed us that 90 percent of graffiti is spray-can - related so although this part has only a couple of clauses it is certainly an important part of this bill. 
In effect Part 2 prohibits the sale of spray-cans to a person under the age of 18 unless the spray-can is sold for school or educational purposes to enable the student to undertake a course at school or to complete an assignment or project. We have no difficulty with that. The difficulty is in the next clause clause 6 which inserts new section 14B into the Summary Offences Act and that is why I have put forward an amendment for the Committee to consider. The amendment relates to the section that restricts access to spray-cans in shops. Admittedly the bill in its previous form provided that the spray-cans had to be “kept secured”. That provision has been watered down so that spray-cans are “stored in such a way” that members of the public cannot access them without the help of the occupier but it is my suggestion that we do not need that provision. Why do we need a clause that restricts access to spray-cans when it is already an offence to sell spray-cans to under-18-year-olds? 
I think that we also have to look at the over-18-year-olds who want to buy spray-cans for legitimate purposes and also at the imposition on retailers of having to secure spray-cans when we bear in mind that it is already an offence to sell spray-cans to somebody under 18. It is my suggestion that surely it is up to shop owners to take all reasonable steps to ensure that spray-cans are not sold to under-18-year-olds and if they do sell them to under-18-year-olds then they are liable to the penalty clauses and the offence that goes with that action. 
If I can draw an analogy we do not have such a provision in relation to alcohol in supermarkets. Alcohol in supermarkets cannot be sold to under-18-year-olds but we do not have a special provision as to the storage of alcohol or access to alcohol in supermarkets. It is my suggestion that this clause itself is superfluous and if we look at it objectively then we have to wonder whether we need this provision relating to storage. We trust supermarket owners to control their premises so as to avoid the sale of alcohol to those under 18. Why then if we are to be consistent in our lawmaking do we not trust retailers such as the Mitre 10 PlaceMakers and Bunnings stores to keep spray-cans in a way they choose so as to minimise and avoid sale to those under 18? If retailers breach the preceding sale offence they will be subject to the penalties. So they will be accountable and they will not be able to breach the law without having to pay the price. 
If we look at this provision we see that it is also an imposition on the innocent law-abiding shopper who just wants to be able to go and buy a spray-can for law-abiding and proper purposes without having to seek the assistance of a shop assistant. Why should a law-abiding member of the public not be able to access spray-cans without having to seek the assistance of a staff member which involves time cost and inconvenience? 
The Law and Order Committee was told by some of the submitters that firstly age monitoring is not the problem—and if that is the case then we have a solution looking for a problem—in relation to the storage of spray-cans. I am refining my discussion to the storage of spray-cans not to their sale. We were told secondly that there is a significant cost to retailers. We were given the example of a cost of about $3000 per storage cabinet. I am aware that some retailers have already gone to this expense but worse than that we were told by one submitter that sales of spray-cans were down by 70 percent. If it becomes too hard for law-abiding citizens to purchase spray-cans legitimately then what does that achieve in terms of graffiti? It is a cost to law-abiding citizens and to retailers. My comments on this part of the bill are very limited to the provision related to the storage of spray-cans. I am not condoning their sale to under-18-year-olds; I am saying that the clause in relation to storage is unnecessary.