King Annette: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Annette: Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16066] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act 1981. It creates a specific offence of graffiti vandalism prohibits the sale of spray-cans to people under 18 years of age and compels retailers to physically restrict access to spray-cans. The bill is designed to complement the wider legal framework to manage graffiti vandalism. It establishes a specific new graffiti vandalism offence—section 11A in clause 4. The bill consequently amends section 33 “Billsticking defacing etc.” of the Summary Offences Act by removing reference to defacing. The bill is thus clear that the offence relates specifically to graffiti and tagging although still including defacing. Penalties under the new offence include a community-based sentence or a fine of up to $2000 or both. 
The Law and Order Committee has recommended several changes to the bill. I commend the committee’s work which has resulted in my view in a stronger bill. Reference to damaging property has now been added to the graffiti vandalism offence to indicate that tagging should be considered damage. This makes it clearer that the bill does not limit or diminish the ability of the police to charge people with the offence of wilful damage under section 11 of the Summary Offences Act or with intentional damage under section 269 of the Crimes Act for more serious graffiti damage. The penalties for these offences are stronger than those proposed in the bill. I wish to emphasise however that I believe that the new offence option of a community-based sentence whereby the offender can be involved in cleaning up graffiti vandalism will be used most often and will be the most appropriate and effective penalty for most offenders. 
When introduced the bill did not include any offences for possessing tools that could be used for graffiti vandalism. This precluded police action prior to a graffiti offence having been committed. The bill now makes it an offence to possess implements that could be used for graffiti vandalism. A person can be charged if he or she does not have a reasonable excuse for possessing an implement in circumstances where it can be reasonably inferred that that person intended to commit a graffiti offence. This enhances the ability of the police to take action in order to prevent damage to property before it occurs. The bill gives judges discretion about whether the offender pays a fine of up to $500 or completes a sentence of community work or both for the offence of possessing tools. Thus the possessing offence appropriately has a lower penalty than the actual graffiti vandalism offence. 
Submissions on the bill noted that there was some uncertainty about what was expected by the provision that spray-cans must be secured in shops. Some people took it to mean that spray-cans must be kept in locked cabinets. That was not intended. To clarify the intention the bill now reads that access to spray-cans in shops should be restricted. This should make it clear that shopkeepers must simply physically restrict access to spray-cans so that the public cannot access them without the help of staff. I trust this change allays some concerns about retailers’ compliance costs in that they will not be compelled to provide locked cabinets. I do believe however that it is appropriate to require shopkeepers to take measures to prevent spray-cans from being readily stolen from shops. 
No specific agency has been given responsibility for enforcing the bill’s provisions and this is consistent with other provisions in the Summary Offences Act. A key feature of effectively enforcing the bill is keeping enforcement responsibility flexible. It is important that either the police or territorial local authorities can potentially enforce any part of the bill as appropriate while having primary responsibility for enforcing certain parts. This flexibility will enable local prioritisation collaboration and alignment of enforcement between the police territorial local authorities and any other Government agency that may wish to enforce provisions or to take actions under this bill. Operationally I expect the police to be the primary enforcement body for the graffiti vandalism offence. I expect that spray-can sales and restriction measures will largely be enforced by territorial local authorities with supporting police action where appropriate. This aspect of the bill fits more appropriately with territorial local authorities’ regulatory functions and provides a mechanism for them to contribute to the prevention of an offence of which they are often the most significant victim. 
I take this opportunity to signal my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. The Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act was recently passed. I commend the Manukau City Council leaders for developing that Act and the Hon George Hawkins for proactively introducing and progressing it for the benefit of the people of Manukau. The Act contains a range of provisions to address the Manukau graffiti problem that are broadly similar to those in the bill that I am currently addressing. Although the Act is certainly a good thing for Manukau I believe that it would be inappropriate to retain it should this current bill which provides consistent responses to graffiti vandalism across the whole country be passed. The existence of both pieces of law is likely to cause confusion and inconsistency in Manukau around which piece of law is to be followed and to lead to offenders in Manukau being treated differently from offenders in the rest of the country. It is logical that national law should supersede local law that addresses exactly the same problem. But we must commend the Manukau City Council for bringing in a local bill to set in course some action. I therefore believe that the legal framework would be simplified and strengthened if the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act was repealed upon the passage of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Consequently I intend to introduce in the Committee of the whole House stage a Supplementary Order Paper that repeals the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act. 
To conclude I want to make it clear that this bill forms only part of a comprehensive strategy that the Government is developing to combat graffiti vandalism. The Government has agreed that the core content of the anti-tagging strategy—the Stop Tagging Our Place (STOP) strategy—is a very important part of it. This strategy will include a range of strategic and operational responses to the graffiti problem in addition to this legislative response. The Government has also backed the STOP strategy with $6 million of funding over 3 years to support local communities and councils to establish new or additional anti-tagging activities. The Government expects the STOP strategy to be finalised by July this year. 
This bill will create a clear graffiti offence stop spray-can sales to under-18s and restrict the physical availability of spray-cans in shops in order to avoid theft. It forms an important contribution to the STOP strategy. I commend the bill to this House and thank the members of the Law and Order Committee for the very constructive work they did on improving this bill.