Paraone Pita: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Paraone Pita: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena hoki tatou. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in the third reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. I say from the outset that we will be supporting this bill. Our support is without reservation and is similar to the support we gave to the bill that the Hon George Hawkins sponsored in regard to Manukau City. I suppose that we as a Parliament should not be surprised that the Manukau City (Control of Graffiti) Bill sponsored by Mr Hawkins was a reflection of the progressiveness of that city. A former Mayor of Manukau City often described his city as being the most progressive in New Zealand. I suggest that the Manukau City (Control of Graffiti) Bill and this bill are a result of the progressiveness that Sir Barry Curtis often reminded the rest of the country about. 
Graffiti has been described by some members of this House as an art form. I say that graffiti and tagging are a nuisance and a violation of private property and people’s lives. I think the comments made by earlier speakers in this debate support that view. However there are members who have stated that the bill is an attack on an art form and on youth in particular. The truth is that the perpetrators of this crime are youths and mostly in their teens. I cannot imagine pensioners committing this crime. If there is any involvement on the part of pensioners they are invariably the victims. The art of graffiti is not a crime in itself but it is a threat to life. Recent events in South Auckland are testament to that fact. 
Although I personally feel that the bill does not go far enough in terms of penalties I certainly support the notion of going beyond just community sentencing as is provided by this bill. I know that one member of the judiciary recently had the intestinal fortitude to exercise the power that was available to him to jail a persistent tagger even if it was for only 28 days. I think the disappointing part about that whole issue was that a member of this House actually criticised that member of the judiciary for carrying out his duty. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He got told off. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Yes the member said he got told off by his mum. In other words he is blaming his mum for having to apologise knowing that he was the only one in the whole of New Zealand who had that view. He realised that it was an election year and that obviously he was alienating himself from his party support so he thought that he had better apologise. But he blamed his mum! Well my leader often says that people are tigers in the House here and lambs on the marae or is it vice versa? But never mind enough of that. 
I make the point that the whole issue of graffiti—vandalism and tagging—is a major issue for this country. If we do not do anything about it then the events that are often part of the scene in overseas countries will become the norm here in New Zealand. That is No. 1. Moving on to No. 2 Manukau City is often described as the doorway to New Zealand because of the international airport being sited in that fine city. To have visitors to our fair country witness the graffiti and vandalism that have become so evident in that community is a sad commentary on their experiences compared with what visitors wish to enjoy when they come to this country. 
I will come back to the bill. There are those who will oppose this bill and say that it does not address the real issue as to why youth are so disaffected and that youth are led to this sort of activity out of rebellion gang association attention seeking the influence of video games and other similar sentiments. Therein lies the issue: these factors obviously lead to this activity moving from a form of art to one of vandalism which is a form of attack on property—and it is usually other people’s property. As the previous speaker from National said if people want to enter into this type of exercise then they should do so on their own property. That is why I say that this bill is not an attack on this particular art form but is intended to address a growing problem associated with graffiti vandalism and tagging. Sadly this attack on property has in recent times had tragic consequences for two families in particular. 
Opponents of this bill have slammed it because they say it unfairly targets youth and that it does not address the real issue of why youth are so disaffected in the first place. Others say it is a shameless piece of electioneering and that it will not stop tagging. I think that we recognise that it will not stop tagging but this bill is intended to signal to those who want to enter into this type of activity that the system is putting in extra penalties extra barriers and extra preventive-type legislation that will slow down this particular activity amongst our young people. 
Graffiti once scored on walls in ancient Greece and Rome may have been considered art and may have historical significance but graffiti scored on a person’s garage or wall is nothing more than shall I say a dog urinating on a patch to mark its territory. I do not agree that taggers and graffiti vandals are expressing their social and political views when they mark property; rather they are doing it to cause criminal damage. We are hearing of more cases where taggers and graffiti vandals are being given custodial sentences. Although this bill will not provide that at least it will provide a reminder for them that this Parliament is certainly looking at this issue more seriously than it has done in the past. New Zealand First welcomes the stance of this bill and commends those of the judiciary who have taken a hard line for doing so so far. These cases should send a clear message to other taggers and graffiti vandals that New Zealanders will no longer tolerate this criminal behaviour. 
I conclude by reminding this House that we have a responsibility to help New Zealand citizens to protect their property. I believe that this bill is a step towards doing that and on behalf of New Zealand First I say that we will support this bill in this third reading.