Worth Richard: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:645;Page:14497] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I commend the last speaker for the quality of his speech. I also say that in the course of this debate we have heard some amazingly bizarre statements. One of the most bizarre it seemed to me came out of the mouth of Mr Tanczos. He posed the question “If this legislation works what would be the consequence?” and he suggested the answer. The answer he suggested was that former taggers now retired taggers I guess would urinate into letterboxes in the neighbourhood. How bizarre that suggestion is. 
Then we just heard from the ACT member that there is no need for this legislation. She referred to two provisions in the Summary Offences Act. The first is not relevant. The second is the one that is being amended extended and amplified. I share the view of others that the ACT party a party strong on the rights of private property—or so it asserts—should not be supporting this legislation. 
That said I tell the House that National supports this legislation being referred to the select committee although we have some reservations about it. A good point to start at in looking at those reservations is that this bill sits alongside a Manukau City Council local bill similarly dealing with the control of graffiti. That bill is at the Committee stage. There are significant differences and similarities between the two bills. One of the things the Manukau City bill does is relate only to Manukau City a confined district whereas this bill is intended to have application right through New Zealand. 
There is nothing too new about graffiti. Historically the term refers to inscriptions figures and drawings found on the walls of ancient sepulchres or ruins in Rome and Pompeii. But we are not dealing with graffiti as an art form; we are as the heading to this bill makes clear dealing with tagging and graffiti vandalism. We are dealing with a world of jargon where words like tag throw-up piece wild style and roller are in use. This is a problem of some significance. We need only to look at the costs associated with graffiti clean-up in a number of local authority districts. In Wellington City $225000 has been spent in the last year on anti-tagging work in Porirua City $200000 in Hutt City $130000 in Wanganui District $40000 in Palmerston North $100000 and in Masterton $15000 and Auckland City tops the list with $750000. This is damage in very high order to what is substantially private property. 
That said I think it is right to enter some reservations about this legislation. I would like to pose four issues that I think are relevant and should occupy the time of the select committee. The first is the focus on spray-cans. The reality is that there are other ways of delivering graffiti. One thinks of indelible markers and other forms of devices of that type. 
The second relates to the age limitation. Others have said this but I just pick up the point that there is no necessary magic in the 18-year cut-off. In fact in New South Wales they found that 18 years is probably not the correct age limitation to establish. 
There is a third issue is there not that we are all very much aware of—that is the readiness of the police to prosecute in these cases. This world we are in is one of offence-creating provisions that require action through the courts and the police to prosecute. 
The fourth issue I raise is that by dint of provisions contained in the legislation community sentences can be imposed that may involve the clean-up of the graffiti work by the offender. But I would like to see the legislation go further and for it to give property owners an ability by civil process in the courts to recover the clean-up costs by way of compensation orders.