Tanczos Nandor: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tanczos Nandor: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16796. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has a very balanced view on this issue. We acknowledge that like many bills we oppose this bill does one good thing in that it repeals the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act 2008. That legislation was so bad that I am almost tempted to support this bill just to get rid of it. Actually maybe that was the Government’s strategy in supporting that local bill sponsored by Mr Hawkins to become law. To pass a truly terrible law and then to repeal it with something marginally better is the old “lesser of two evils” approach. It is kind of like the Labour Party’s election strategy. How else can we explain the passing of a local bill that is about to be superseded by a Government bill?  
I would not like to suggest that the Government or Mr Hawkins was deliberately wasting House time on a members’ day so there must have been some reason for doing it. My message to the Government is that it did not work; we are still opposing this legislation. For all the grandiose words of Judith Collins and other speakers who seem to think that tagging is some kind of gateway crime to murder this bill will not stop tagging. Judith Collins told us that street gangs recruit outside schools in her electorate and use stand-over tactics in the community. She complained about graffiti on the train route into town because of course grey concrete is way more attractive—right? What she and other speakers in support of this bill fail to elucidate is how this bill will actually reduce tagging never mind reduce antisocial behaviour in general.  
Even on the remote off chance that the bill does reduce tagging—and no one seems to think that it will because this is all about sending a message as Pansy Wong so clearly stated—what do we think those young people will do instead? We have to address the conditions that give rise to tagging otherwise just like kikuyu grass we will knock it back in one direction but it will come back from another. That is the issue. This bill is really about being seen to be responding to tagging rather than actually doing anything about it. That is why I call it electioneering.  
We need to spend some time looking at what is going on for young people in our country. We need to think about how we can enhance opportunities for them to express their creativity to be more connected and to participate. This bill does not even try to do that. It is a punitive symbol that tells kids to shut up and go away. As I said no one seems to be interested in spending time talking about how we can actually reduce tagging. Certainly this bill will not do that. Speakers do not feel that they need even to talk about that. They just talk about gangs and P and bag-snatching and then they talk about graffiti and hey case proven—not! Mr Paraone even suggested that tagging was a threat to life. Excuse me! I think we all need to step back and take a breath because I think this is getting a bit out of hand.  
The really funny thing is that alcohol—which actually does have a clear link to violence and crime; according to police 75 percent of violent crime is conducted under the influence of alcohol—is treated significantly less seriously than spray-cans will be under this legislation. Judith Collins would be on her high horse again railing against the nanny State’s intrusion on her civil liberties if we were to try to pass a law that said her chardonnay had to be kept under lock and key or that she needed to get a supermarket assistant if she wanted to buy a pinot noir. Once again in this House we strain at a gnat and we swallow a camel. Once again let us be clear. 
I have already said plenty of times that I do not like tagging but not liking tagging is not an argument for supporting this bill. Mind you I find a lot of tagging less offensive than the sea of trite cheesy often misogynistic selfish and grasping advertising that pollutes every public space in this country. But those advertisers can do it because they pay for it. At least tagging is just people putting their names up and I prefer that to slick advertising that encourages me to increase my contribution to global warming through the power of consumption.  
Speaker after speaker talking in favour of this bill has gone on and on about how bad tagging is and then they have almost universally said that this bill will not stop tagging. It is just too weird. We are debating a bill that is about to be passed with a huge majority but we all agree it will not change anything. So what the hell are we doing? Oh that is right I forgot; it is about sending a message. Well I prefer to spend time in this House passing legislation that actually does something. I do not believe that it is the proper role of legislation to send a message.  
Passing legislation that has no effect except to send a message to young people in this country is I think contemptuous of what this place is. This is a legislature—this is our national legislature. If people want to send a message they should go and talk to some young people. Judith Collins George Hawkins and all those people have met with police with shopkeepers and with victims of tagging but have they met with any taggers? Have they talked to any taggers? Maybe that is the root of the problem. They should try talking to some young people instead of shouting at them all the time.  
Lastly I have to comment on the Government putting up its “Minister of Funk” Darren Hughes to front the bill because Darren does not count as a young person. Talking to Darren does not count. Darren came out of his mum wanting to be Prime Minister so he does not count. Maybe the Government thought it could disarm the Opposition by having Mr Hughes the ever youthful and charming Mr Hughes front this bill or maybe it was just punishment for his scratching his name on his desk. I do not know. Anyway instead of getting the youthful Mr Hughes to front the bill the Government should have got him to write it. Then maybe we would have seen something more imaginative creative and effective than this old man’s law.